Tag: Assignment 1a – EDCI 515

Where’s my Knowledge at?

I used the film, “Kitchen Stories” as an assessment of my understanding with research methodologies to date; focusing on Researched & Research.

Also, this might be a fun way to teach/assess units in Sciences; point out related concepts or in films / movies (connections to abstract ideas).

Regarding Researched:

  • The film did not mention why Norwegians volunteers were chosen (poor quality research! not explaining sampling rationale), but it’s clear they did not understand how their work might be perceived by the participants (resentment to Swedish observers). When applied to modern study on say, Indigenous Knowledge Systems, a “settler” researcher may face or present an uncomfortable presence when observing Indigenous healers at work. I feel researchers may need to their awareness of different contexts and perspectives when conducting social research, recognizing how their methodologies may not as neutral as it appears.
  • The researched (observed) in the film can also be a metaphor advocating for Indigenous pedagogy; how learning occurs as an collaborative effort between the learner and teacher.  The defining phrase for me was when Isak said “How can we understand each other without communicating?” In traditional “factory process” content-driven pedagogy (traced back to industrialization & mandatory education), this would never occur as the teacher disseminates knowledge to the student vessels. Issues with this model has prompted the paradigm to shift to Inquiry-based approach, of are already present in Indigenous pedagogy. I believe a learner-focused approach would benefit both members. Students can self-advocate concerns and learning intentions, while being open to suggestions in the form of conversations. Teachers no longer worry over engagement or management, and may gain knowledge from the students as well. This applies to research as well: researchers could gain a lot more information in asking participants compared to simple observations (seeing Isak not answer the phone vs asking about it and understanding it’s due to costs).

Changes regarding Research

  • Coming from a Western science background, I agree I was believer in positivism because of it’s detailed observations, interpretation, replicability, and use in prediction modeling. After reading Onwu & Mosimege (2004), that has changed a bit, that is I’ve recognized my bias in viewing Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) poorly because it has not been empirically studied and validated. Traditional medicine being passed down in oral history (ethnography) and in practice makes it no less rigorous than documenting the same process in print (if it didn’t work, won’t be passed down). A personal example would be my unfavorable view of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). I held Western Medicine to be more ‘valid’ because the language used is clear, uses trial & error in controlled studies, and provides cause & effect. Where as TCM says things like you have too much ‘fire’ in your body? What the heck? However, TCM is an accepted as a practice today and parts of it have been tested and explained in detail using Western Science. This goes to prove Onwu & Mosimege’s point that a combination of both system would be ideal. I believe it’s possible that traditional or IKS can help guide Western Science in a novel direction, while the latter can help explain specific interactions or improve the former’s practices. Going forward, I feel more comfortable with the inclusion of IKS into courses (specifically in sciences) because I have an authentic understanding of how it connects to the content; as opposed to it being a checklist item. Specifically, that methods of assessment and validations may look different, but one is not more rigorous than the other; and that a combination of the two would provide a more holistic picture. Consider two students: one consistently scores 90% by themselves,  whereas the other worked intensively with the teacher to understand their misconceptions whilst overcoming crippling anxiety to reach 86%. Reporting solely on Proficiency (percentage / letter grade) would encapsulate the dedication and resilience of the latter, while reporting for Progress (anecdote / comments) would disregard the former’s understanding of themselves and how they learn best. Teachers generally include both when reporting out, so why couldn’t social researchers do the same? Bringing it to my own focus for a potential research direction: using a mixed method model to provide a more meaningful summary of student learning achievement and experiences in distance-education courses.

Where’s the Lit. Review?

This week, I decided to focus on reviewing literature reviews using Boote and Beile’s scoring rubric (pg.8) as a means to familiarize myself with what quality literature review should encompass. I chose George Veletsianos’ article simply because it clearly states the section for literature review.

  1. Coverage
    • Justification of reviews: 1/4
      • No statements regarding the exclusion (or inclusion) for selection of article reviews, and instead mentions “little is known about faculty harassment online” (Veletsianos et al, 2018). I interpreted that as he’s aware there’s probably some research on it, but didn’t try very hard to look for it. For instance, he notes several other studies looking at women’s experience online, and even Duggan (2014) finding “women who are in the public eye or who use technology to promote their work—such as scholars—are placed at even greater risk”. Now examining Duggan’s in detail, I noticed it examined people between 18-24 years old; probably lacking faculty members. But wait, wasn’t George focused on scholars? Wouldn’t this age group not include some novice scholars who are in their post-secondary studies? This further makes me question what he defines as “scholar”, which he doesn’t explain until later. I strongly believe he should have clarified his terminology sooner, which helps support his claims of having few existing research on them. This was why I gave him a mark of 1 out of 4.
      • On a side note, it’s hilarious reading his assumptions of the online world being egalitarian. It makes one worry about how out-of-touch researchers are with the rest of the world (to all tenured profs teaching first-year undergraduate courses: we have no idea what language you’re speaking).
  2. Synthesis
    • What has been/needs-to-be done: 3/4
      • Critically examined how existing research found women experiencing more online harassment than men, but his target group (“scholars”) have yet to been studied. He does not introduce new methodology, just a need to apply same methods to different group.
    • Topic in broad scholarly literature: 3/4
      • Raised issue of online harassment curtailing women’s participation, leading lack of diversity in future literature. Doesn’t offer any methods such as examining publication ratios based on gender to assess whether it has occurred.
    • History of topic: 1/4
      • Does not discuss history of online harassment or history of coping strategies. For instance, has this issue been persistent or increased since the introduction of the internet? Is there a favored coping strategy or is it changing?
      • Honorable mentions to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is epitomizing the coping strategy of “clapback“.
    • Acquired & enhanced jargon: 2/4
      • Defined harassment, scholars, and categories of coping strategies employed by female scholars. Scholars definition perhaps differs from general usage (perhaps my bias in extending scholars to graduate students; given that Bootes & Beile found dissertations that were akin to high school essays). Did not discuss or resolve ambiguities in definitions.
    • Important variables relevant to topic:  2/4
      • Suggested that internet anonymity helps foster toxic behavior, as well as lack or inefficient moderation. In addition, the different strategies to cope with harassment.
    • Gained new perspective: 1/4
      • Generally accepted current literature on the prevalence of disproportionate harassment faced by women online. Which is rather welcoming compared to his 2013 article viewing the world(wide web) with rosy glasses.
  3. Methodology
    • Pros/cons of methodologies: 2/4
      • Mainly describes findings from other literature, sometimes provides method employed in those studies (ie. survey).
      • (Regarding his own study) Does not elaborate why methodologies were acceptable, such as iterative interviews (merely common standard) or sample size of 14 (because they “felt” answer was found).
    • Connecting ideas to methodology: 2/4
      • Described research methods, but not critiqued their strengths or weaknesses.
  4. Significance
    • Practical benefit: 2/4
      • Adds to existing knowledge – suggest methods to prepare for or cope with online abuse.
    • Theoretical benefit: 2/4
      • Research would add to existing knowledge – show evidence of online harassment and perhaps development of new coping strategies or policies.
  5. Rhetoric
    • Eloquence: 3/4
      • Article was fairly well written and used language that, for the most part, would be understood by the general population.

~Quick assessment of the overall article quality~

Researcher: Covered by George introducing himself to our class.
Researched: Covered by literature review, assessed above.
Readers: I’m honestly have trouble with the significance of the research itself as it focuses on Experiences and Coping Strategies of female scholars, as opposed to practical solutions to deal with harassment in general. From past research about online harassment in general, one could safely assume that it would extend/include scholars as well. George’s finding suggest institutions provide training to help navigate social media; seems very un-intuitive. Why not create safeguards to prevent harassment instead of just preparing for harassment? A more useful study would have been implementation of safeguards to prevent or reduce harassment and it’s effectiveness.
Research: we’ve all read the article… right? 🙂

Where did Guidance go?

As a surviving Online / Distance Learning (DL) teacher of the 2018/2019 school year, I am ready and eager to burn through the collective garbage from the past year and hopefully plant some meaningful scaffolds to build my future courses upon it’s charred ashes.
Gone will be 30-page “learning guides” that students must complete (I’m glad you figured out there’s an answer key attached at the back)
Gone will be irrelevant “projects” that are absent of logic and purpose (make a powerpoint of your progress through an interactive game? really?)
Gone will be “unit tests” of 30 multiple choice questions (your answer isn’t listed? Gee, I wonder why?)
The reigning paradigm of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) stands tall and all shall follow suit.

“Book Burning” by Jason Verwey is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
“Superficial Learning Engagement” by ransomtech is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Teaching for Meaningful Learning: A Review of Research on Inquiry-Based and Cooperative Learning.

Barron and Darling-Hammond summarizes how the shift from traditional transmission of knowledge towards obtaining knowledge through experience, namely problem-solving. Much of their reasoning will be familiar to those who have gone through teacher education or teacher training in the last decade or two.

  • Current / future demands for employment are more complex, requires problem solving & collaboration skills.
  • Traditional instructions do not prepare students for those challenges.
  • Various research showing benefits of PBL methodology.
    • Higher (Boaler, 1997, 1998) or comparable standardized test scores (Penuel, Means, & Simkins, 2000).
    • Better mastery of transferable skills, ie. defining problem, hypothesizing, (re)testing, support & argue with rational logic
      (Gallaghers, Stepien, & Rosenthal, 1992; Gallaghers, Stepien, & Workman, 1993; Lundeberg, Levin, & Harrington, 1999; Savery & Duffy, 1996; Williams, 1992).
    • Improve social interactions & collaboration (Cohen et al., 1982; Cook et al., 1985; Hartley, 1977; Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck, & Fantuzzo, 2006; Johnson & Johnson, 1989).

The mounting evidence of against guidance-centered learning should be enough for most educators to re-think delivery approach, and consider trading in for the new vehicle of learning. Hush nagging doubts, numerous researchers on this topic cannot be wrong when they all reach the same consensus.

Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.

Mistakes were made.

“The major fallacy of this [minimal guidance] is that it makes no distinction between the behaviors and methods of a researcher who is an expert practicing a profession and those students who are new to the discipline and who are, thus, essentially novices.” (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006).

I’ve often butted heads against my Faculty Associate during my teaching Professional Development Program / Post-Degree Program (PDP). While I’m happy to acquiesce to the current PBL trend, something always felt off about disregarding prescribed knowledge and content in favor of students making their own learning. After reading the article, now I know why.

  • If I were a researcher with no experience as an educator, I would obviously use standardized exams as a benchmark for scoring improvements in students’ learning based on the method of instruction. After all, these are the marks should be free of an educators’ individual bias to appear more competent, and should be more applicable across the board. Herein lies my first concern: what exactly do the standardized exams assess, and how does it relate to the teaching style?
    Past Provincials and AP Exams had more questions analogous to worked-examples and fewer problem-based varieties, where as the current Numeracy Assessment exam is the opposite. If PBL students scored comparably or higher in the former scenario, then one can conclude it to being more effectively. Conversely, if traditional guidance students scored more favorably on the latter type, then one can argue that the PBL approach may not be as beneficial as it appears. What would potentially invalidate a research would be students scoring favorably on the exams that reflect the type of learning they received.  Readers, especially educators, need to examine findings from research on learning styles more clearly to see whether the appropriate experiment and analysis has been carried out.
  • Students being researched would provide valuable feedback to help support the findings for the research of their learning from experiencing different teaching styles. However, we know the teenage brain is not fully mature until mid twenties (for some guys, even later). Therefore, student reporting contains the issue of Do they know what they know?
    Clark (1982) noted that “less able learners who choose less guided approaches tend to like the experience even though they learn less from it”(Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). It’s not surprising that students who dislike traditional guidance would view PBL to be more favorable, it’s designed to be more engaging. This is not to ignore all students’ input, but what they perceive as success may not be the same to teachers, to parents, to administrators, or to researchers. It would be noteworthy to find more recent data that correctly analyzes students’ measure of success in comparison to academic standings.
  • More about the brain (B.Sci with a Bio major here): I absolutely love how this article goes into detail about how problem solving cannot occur effectively without a large pool of resource from experience.  As a senior science teacher in high school, I’ve had to extensively grapple with the issue of content-heavy instruction to provide students the tools to solve problem (worked-examples), versus a scaffolded problem scenario for them to slowly work their ways toward the answer. As evidenced in today’s MEd orientation / information overload, the working memory can process less than a handful of novel information as once, and that information is quickly lost if not re-visited promptly. If grown, working adults are struggling to accomplish this, how do we expect our students to do the same in a limited 60-80 minute instruction time? This is why I’ve begun leaning back towards more instruction-centered designs where students need to shown at least one method or example, demonstrate their mastery of it, before being allowed to challenge the higher difficulty, open-ended scenarios; the same conclusion Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) came to.
  • Most educators would agree, expecting a class to hold a meaningful debate is nigh-impossible without participants having some background knowledge to anchor their logic or reasoning and provide supporting arguments from. Here is where the guidance comes shines, and where minimal guidance waits it’s turn.
Scroll to top