Peer Review

Some of the feedback didn’t make sense to me. I think that the purpose of the assignment is not the same for all students in the class. So, some of the feedback had me wondering how that was related to the assignment. This also makes me think the assignment purpose is not clear to me as well. It’s like coaching a hockey team when you only know the rules for soccer. There is some cross over but generally there a sense of confusion between the two parties. For example, I said multiple times that I wanted to know if the current definitions of social presence are the same for students today. Then I had feedback saying there was no clear research topic. That is literally what I am researching. There was someone else that said they wanted to see more of the Lit Review, but I thought that was the next stage of this. I was under the impression that we were just really focusing on our learning theory and how that informs or shapes the research and where we are headed. So, it isn’t a matter of agree or disagree for me; this is just confusion.
My opinion really hasn’t changed on my theory. I don’t have any enhancements to fix since I haven’t completed the work. What has changed is that I thought I understood the assignment and where we are going with it, but now I know that I don’t know what the purpose of this work is. Is this a Lit Review or an understanding of how we view learning and the theory that is out there to support it? I don’t understand how this paper is any different from a proposal. What is a lit review? Is it an actual paper or more like an annotated bibliography?  I don’t know how this all goes together. Surely these are not separate assignments that are unrelated. The terminology we are using is unclear. I come from a different academic background, and so I am still confused it seems on what all of these terms mean which leads me to a lot of doubt on what I am doing.

 

There were some good questions to think about when planning my research methods. That was super useful.

Advertisements

#LearningIsSocial

Generally, my personal theory of learning is that learning is social. Learning is a complex process that requires both knowledge and social interaction to help break it down, evaluate the pieces, then put it back together. At the heart of it, we need social interactions to emotionally support what is shaping in our mind. If we limit ourselves to content only, we actually close ourselves off to other perspectives and different interpretations. Without outside contact, we are sometimes left uncertain of achievement, disconnected from course goals, and ultimately self-reliant to a fault.

 

This perception of learning is definitely connected to the current research in distance learning. According to Kang and Im (2013), “learners who felt they had a higher degree of interaction with their instructors and other peer learners had higher satisfaction and higher perceived learning outcomes than learners to felt they experienced a lower degree of interaction.” While this isn’t speaking directly to actual course outcomes, the perceptions of students regarding their success in class matters as a selling point at minimum for online learning. If students get an ‘A’ but are not happy about how they earned it or are dissatisfied by the experience, then it is less likely they will continue with online classes. Similarly, Gutman (2001) lists as her number five barrier of “Six Barriers Causing Educators to Resist Teaching Online,” as “Interpersonal Relations” (pg. 54).  Gutman states that “for some [teachers], the lack of direct interpersonal contact with both students and faculty is an issue” (pg. 54). The role of social interaction is not just important for the student experience; it is important for instructors as well.

 

The idea that the social interaction/interpersonal connection is the missing piece for online learning is a repeated idea, article after article. Not only is this a topic of ongoing research, but it resonates with my own experience as an online student as well as an online instructor. The combination of these things provides a solid foundation for my own personal theory of learning (PLT). As I continue to research, I expect that my PLT will evolve into a more strongly founded and articulated representation of both theory and practice.

 

As I move forward with research, I will continue to refine my search terms. I have already adjusted my focus from “social learning” to “social presence” in the online classroom. My next steps are to finish compiling relevant studies on the influence of social presence in online learning and to follow that with peer reviewed articles defining  how to incorporate or build social presence in online classes. I intend on using the references from class assignments to help guide my choices. So far, many of the class readings have been relevant to this topic, namely: Stodel, Thompson, and MacDonald’s (2006) article,  “Learners’ Perspectives on What is Missing from Online Learning: Interpretations through the Community of Inquiry Framework;” Lowenthal and Snelson’s (2017) article, “In search of a better understanding of social presence: an investigation into how researchers define social presence;” and Gutman’s (2001) article, “Six Barriers Causing Educators to Resist Teaching Online, and How Institutions Can Break them.” I have created a new folder in Mendeley for this research.

 

References

Gutman, D. (2001). Six Barriers Causing Teaching Online, Can Break Them. Distance      Learning, 9(3).

 

Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learner-instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 292–301.

 

Lowenthal, P. R., & Snelson, C. (2017). In search of a better understanding of social presence: an investigation into how researchers define social presence. Distance Education, 38(2), 141–159.

 

Stodel, E. J., & Thompson, T. L. (2006). Interpretations through the Community of Inquiry Framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 7(3), 1–15.

 

To Be or Not To Be?

Since I feel that generally I am an open person, I think I would be willing to try to accept different theoretical models used for instructional design, especially ones that have similarities to my own model. I know I have a lot to learn about teaching and learning, so I think that would help me at least be willing to try.

 

But I also know that I often think that I am right about most things. I have been trained to think independently of others and one side effect is the secret knowledge that I’m always right lingers regardless of the outcome of decisions made. This ultimately might sabotage whatever research I would be analyzing.

 

So, I guess my way to approach is to talk about it. If I am the support person, then I would be willing to have continual conversations to sort of, recalibrate my way of thinking to the theoretical model we are using. While I tend to think I am often right, I also feel like I am willing to change my mind given logical reasons or new information to reshape what I already know. So, while I typically think on the day to day that I have it figured out, I am still willing to grow and change based on new knowledge.

 

It’s because of this that I would be willing to figure out new paradigms to work under. If I really think about it, I am pretty good at playing the devil’s advocate in other environments. I could use those compartmentalization skills combined with my imagination to wear the hat of a different theoretical model.

No Better, No Worse

According to the U.S. Department of Education’s findings from the “Evaluation of Evidence Based Practices,” there is no real difference between the online learning success rate and the traditional face-to-face success rate. The article specifically says that K-12 students “in online conditions performed modestly better, on average, than those learning the same material through traditional face-to-face instruction” (pg. xiv). Initial response? WHHHHAAAATTTTT??? Surely this cannot be! If this is true, then why is there a big push to move online in K-12?

 

As a high school teacher and a bit of a technophile, I am shocked and concerned by this data. The key findings from this article stated over and over that online learning provided either no better or only moderately better results than face to face learning (pgs. xiv-xvii). The only positive was that blended environments seems to produce the best outcomes than strictly face to face or online (xiv). While Erick Fredericksen echoes this idea when he says, “converting a traditional classroom course to an online course doesn’t necessarily make it better or worse” in his blog “Is Online Education Good or Bad? And Is This Really the Right Question?” Fredericksen’s tone implies that online is ultimately better than face-to-face. He emphasizes that discussion forums enable better quality discussion and that online courses are “developed through the systematic design of instruction with emphasis on the achievement of course learning objectives.” Both of these aspects, according to Frederickson, make online education a better choice. But, honestly do they? Are not face-to-face classroom lessons based on a “systematic design” as well?

 

In K-12, curriculum is designed by professionals then sent to teachers. Teachers do have a say in how and when to implement the curriculum to students. However, as a college instructor, very little design was required for my courses. I was told to pick a textbook and given course outcomes. The rest was up to me. So, maybe Fredericksen is speaking about college and university professors when he implies that “systematic design” isn’t happening for face to face classes.

 

I also challenge the idea that discussion forums provide an “increased interaction, both in quantity and quality, with and among students”. I am interested in the evidence that backs that up. Having the time to formulate and write out a response to a discussion question does not necessarily mean that this leads to increased interaction. The element that provides better quality is more likely the time students are given to create a response. But, I doubt that posting it online increases interaction. Discussion forums are often hard to navigate once the threads really build. Over time, it sometimes it is not much time, discussion forums become a pool of ideas that is very difficult to wade through much less assess as an instructor. Also, in face to face classrooms, it is possible and often the standard to have students formulate their ideas to prepare for a discussion. This has become an anecdotal best practice shared by many teachers.

 

Fredericksen’s acknowledgement that online is no better or worse reiterates the Department of Education’s findings, but it seems strange to me that he still shows some bias toward online learning.  He most likely represents the mentality of many to read the research but to still go with the gut even when it doesn’t represent the research. This isn’t a question of good or bad, though. I think he’s right about that. The question in is why is there no real notable difference between online learning and face-to-face learning? I think it might have something to do with our methods. If we are simply using Learning Management Systems as a substitute for a face-to-face classroom, then it makes total sense that there isn’t much difference in learning outcomes even if there is more convenience and flexible time. If we look to Ruben Puentedura’s SAMR model, we might be able to find another way to utilize tools and online access to increase learning effectiveness in online classrooms. In Puentedura’s theory, ultimately the goal with online access and tools is to move away from simply substituting an online environment for the face to face and grow towards redefining education as we know it. If online learning is currently no better or worse than face to face classes, then we aren’t doing it right.

 

The SAMR model is not the end all be all of theories to follow. There are many to choose from. The point is maybe it is time to research the effectiveness of these models so that we stop limiting the power of technology on our online classes.

 

Fredericksen, Erik. “Is online education good or bad? And is this really the right question?” Retrieved February 03, 2018, from https://theconversation.com/is-online-education-good-or-bad-and-is-this-really-the-right-question-35949

Puendetura, Ruben R. Learning, Technology, and the SAMR Model: Goals … – Hippasus. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2018, from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/LearningTechnologySAMRModel.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. “Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning.” (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

 

 

Work

I spent two days this week in diversity training. It seems so commonplace and insignificant calling it “diversity training” when what I experienced was so much more. In fact, it seems almost disrespectful of the issues offered to me to attempt to sum it up here. So, I won’t. Instead, I will focus on one revelation of the seminar that stood out: what seems to be normal life to me, could also be oppressive to my students. While this is a loaded topic, the topic of race and racism, it has been one that clearly demonstrates for me what can happen when we do research on humans without really thinking through all the consequences, positive and negative, of the research on those humans.

The seminar got me thinking, how many times have I expected my students to meet inequitable standards to be successful? Further, for those who don’t meet the standards what damage have I done? And for those who have found success, what damage have I done?  This has kept me up a few nights this week. Despite ten years of teaching, when it comes to teaching minorities, I feel like a kid, playing with a light-saber, who does not have the Force for guidance.

The existential crisis I find myself in magnifies, in 3-D, how good intentions (or just a good idea) in research is not enough. Our own ignorance, our limited world view, our own arrogance can lead us into irreversible damage, potentially psychological, rather than provide solutions to real world problems similarly to the psychological damage caused by systemic racism. So, what can we do?  What can I do?

I think evaluating my expectations for the work ahead is the starting point for combating the dangerous minefield of both social science research as well as the subtle racism that is still embedded in our culture. Specifically, what I mean by “evaluating my expectations” is to turn my eyes first to the purpose of the research: to discover knowledge then to share it. Then challenge my intentions of the work I am doing. If we start research (for education) with any other purpose, ethical conflicts will arise. Those conflicts will blind me to all the possibilities of what I do, especially the negative.

However, I cannot do it alone. There are so many considerations before doing research that I am definitely going to need help. Building a thought community around the research is needed but a difficult task for me. I am a teacher. I get to create my own world for a living. With that control, comes the teacher version of a God complex. I think when we were kids, we were called know-it-alls, but the result is that we are not and I am not always the easiest to work with.

So, what’s it going to take to do the work? More work. More thinking. More talking. More listening. I’m still at the beginning.