RSA#5 Building Community in an Online Learning Environment: Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration

By Chris Bohula

February 23, 2011

Online source: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/19.html

The overriding theme in this reading in Palloff & Pratt (2007, pp157-206) is the importance of collaboration in the online learning environment and strategies to facilitate it.  They go as far to say “Collaborative effort helps the learners achieve a deeper level of knowledge generation…” (p.157).  At the collegiate level, I believe that this “deeper understanding” would be difficult to duplicate in the traditional face to face course without having an on-line component to move the student to the interdependence and discussion created with this collaboration.  As I was reading through this text I was also identifying experiences we have been exposited to already in our coursework at Concordia. Several of these include negotiating guidelines (p159), forming teams (p.165) and collaborative writing (p. 181) to name just a few.  Having experienced these, I see their value and look for ways to incorporate them into my own teaching.

The online resource (Misanchuk & Anderson, 2001) provides strategies to move a group of students from being a “cohort” to a “community.”  They provide definition for a cohort as a general group of students going though a series of classes together but rarely have a strong bond or interdependent working relationship.  However they also define a community as being “one of the ultimate goals” (p. 6) and comprised of close to 9 characteristics including participation and integration.  To make this shift Misanchuk & Anderson suggest interaction at three levels: communication, cooperation, and collaboration. (p. 5)

These reading are very similar in many ways.  In fact, Misanchuk & Anderson cite and earlier work of Palloff & Pratt from 1999 for their basic strategies in creating community.  However the slight difference between the two is in the text collaboration is more widely defined to include communication and cooperation whereas Misanchuk & Anderson have distinct characteristics for each of the three. In Misanchuk & Anderson collaboration is the highest level of “community” preceded by the steps or sublevels, communication and cooperation.  Even with this difference, the ultimate goal and strategies provided by both sources of collaboration within the community are virtually the same.  Just a few of the similar strategies include posting open ended discussion questions, breaking class into groups for assignments, and requiring students to provide constructive responses to classmates assignments and posts.

Resources

Misanchuk, M., & Anderson, T. (2001). Building Community in an Online Learning Environment: Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration. Retrieved from http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/19.html

Palloff, Rena M. and Pratt, Keith. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (pp. 67-155). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

RSA#4 The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning and Chicago virtual school: We ignite your child’s mind.

RSA#4 The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning  and Chicago virtual school: We ignite your child’s mind.

By Chris Bohula

Online Source 1: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/607/1182

Online Source 2: http://www.k12.com/cvcs/

This week’s reading in Palloff & Pratt (2007, p67-155) the discussion moves from student considerations of online learning to steps to consider in making the transition from face to face to online learning.  One of the first and largest concerns one should consider is time.  Time and time constraints affect both the teacher and student.  In fact, according to Pallof & Pratt (2007, p 74), a teacher can expect to dedicate 3 times the amount time compared to a regular face to face class. Another major point I believe Pallof & Pratt make is you can’t take a course taught face to face and simply put it online.(2007, p129)  But rather, start from scratch and develop objectives and then use the pedagogy of the online class model to create strategies/activities to reach those objectives.

In K-12 Online Learning: A survey of U.S. School District Administrators Anthony Picciano and Jeff Seaman (Picciano, & Seaman, 2007) explore current examples of online learning.  They present data comparing the statistical occurrences of different types of online learning and the results of a survey administered to school personal regarding online learning.  Although this survey provides information on the types, reasons for use, and beliefs about online learning, it does not provide any empirical data showing its effectiveness.

This week I looked at two online resources.  One, Research and Practice in K-12 Online Learning: A Review of Open Access Literature (C. Cavanaugh, M. , & T. Clark, 2009) was a review of studies from the past two decades on the topic of distance and online learning. It described a shift in literature for comparing distance learning to traditional learning in the 1990’s to more recently defining on-line learning and explaining the benefits.  It also states there is a very limited amount of empirical data and identifies areas for future studies (p. 7). In this respect, it very closely echoes what Picciano & Seaman (2007) presented two years earlier.  The second online resource was the Chicago Virtual Charter School website. This online resource is an actual blended format charter school available free to Chicago Public School children.  This website provides a great deal of information about their online charter school format, experience and expectations.

After reviewing the multiple FAQ pages on Chicago Virtual School website it was easy to see how some of the issues/characteristics of online learning are addressed.  First is the issue of time commitment.  According to the website  a student should expect to spend the same amount of time in the “virtual school” as a regular school and is expected to “attend” at least the state required 180 days per school year.  However, it also states on its general FAQ page, (http://www.k12.com/cvcs/faqs_general/), that a student in the early grades will spend no more than 30% of the time on the computer.  According to C. Cavanaugh, M. Barbour & T. Clark (2009) this would be defined more as distance learning rather than online learning.  In the earlier grades, most of the material seems to be delivered using textbooks and the online component seems to be for practice and assessment.  However, this doesn’t seem to entirely the case because the website references interactions between students online when addressing socialization concerns for this school.  Again, according to the General FAQ webpage, Chicago Virtual School also provides socialization through required weekly meetings in a brick and mortar school building, field trips, and parent relationships that develop among students within close physical locations.  Chicago Virtual School looks to be a good example of how technology can be integrated to create a blended format online education.  Not only does it appear to be blended format by Palloff & Pratt (2007) terms of face to face and online but also a blended format in Cavanaugh, Barbour & Clark (2009) terms of both online and distance learning.

Resources

Cavanaugh, C. S., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in k-12 online learning: a review of open access literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/607/1182 doi: 1492-3821

Chicago Virtual Charter School. (2010). Chicago virtual school: We ignite your child’s mind. Retrieved from: http://www.k12.com/cvcs/

Palloff, Rena M. and Pratt, Keith. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (pp. 67-155). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of u.s. school district administrators. United States of America: Sloan-C. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/K-12_Online_Learning.pdf 

RSA#3 Engaging and Motivating Students

By Chris Bohula

Online Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvJuzE-g7OM

In the assigned reading text by R. Palloff & K. Pratt (2007) it is very thoroughly discussed the importance in creating a social environment in an online course.  This is done because “The key to the learning process is the interactions among the students themselves…” (R. Palloff & K. Pratt, 2007, p.4).  One of the key elements in creating this social environment is for each individual to create a social presence.  In addition to making the point that social presence should be established, the text also adds strategies and considerations for establishing social presences within the online PLC.

The online resource (COFAonlineUNSW, 2011) I have chosen was provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council.  This video and supporting material is designed to explore ways to actively engage and motivate students in an online learning environment.  The video is broken into several different topics focusing on importance of teacher presence, creating a learning community, strategies for motivating students and sustaining participation and engagement.

Both resources (R. Palloff & K. Pratt, 2007 and  COFAonlineUNSW, 2011) share similar views of needing the students and instructor to create a social presence within the online community.  In fact they both agree on the first two weeks to be critical for the instructor to establish their own social presence for the within the group.  They also share the idea the role of the teacher to be a “guide on the side” (COFAonlineUNSW, 2011) rather than the dominating force driving the discussions/community.  The responsiblity of the instructor is also to draw in participants that aren’t contributing as much as expected by both reinforcing positive behavior publicly within the forum and private messages encouraging individuals to participate more through offers of some sort of assistance.  The two differ in that Palloff and Pratt (2007) discuss in further detail concerns of such a group such as psychological and spiritual issues.

References

COFAonlineUNSW. (2011, January 19). Engaging and motivating students [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvJuzE-g7OM

Palloff, Rena M. and Pratt, Keith. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (pp. 3-65). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

RSA#2 Solution Tree: Leadership in Professional Learning Communities at Work™ Learning by Doing

By Chris Bohula

Online Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9QD6xMnshA

The remainder of the text by Martin-Kniep (2008) focuses on not the theory, design and creation of a Professional Learning Community (PLC) as the early charters cover, but move on to discuss methods of examining analyzing and assessing the outcomes of a PLC and student achievement.

In Solution Tree: Leadership in Professional Learning Communities at Work™ Learning by Doing (Solutiontree, 2009).  The idea of “tight” and “loose” are developed.  “Tight” refers attributes of a Professional Leading Community which are required and have little must be embraced by the community.  The “what” of teaching, or what we are going to teach, or what the PLC will do to improve teaching and student achievement.  Examples of these “tight” characteristics include meeting times, common assessments, PLC goals, subject matter, teacher accountability and mission of the PLC.  The principal interviewed emphasized that one of the “tightest” areas is the accountability of the teachers to use the assessment data to identify and implement interventions for students as early as possible. Whereas the “loose” refers to characteristics of teaching which refer to the art or “how” to teach a particular subject matter. These loose characteristics include how a teacher might present a concept and order of presentation. 

Both of these pieces of work emphasize the necessity for assessment.  They both agree it is very important have a common goal/objective for the students and the measure of success is determined by data collected from the assessment. Martin-Kniep (2008) additionally implies the success of the community should also be measured in not only other growth of the students but also in the community members as well.  Increased measures of interest, commitment, growth, dispositions, commitment of reflection of community members should also be evaluated when assessing the productivity and success of a PLC.

References

Martin-Kniep, G. (2008). Communities that learn, lead, and last: Building and sustaining

educational expertise (pp. 77-110). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Solutiontree. (2009, October 9). Solution Tree: Leadership in Professional Learning Communities at Work™ Learning by Doing [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9QD6xMnshA

RSA#1 Continuous Inquiry Meets Continued Critique: The Professional Learning Community in Practice and the Resistance of (Un)Willing Participants

By Chris Bohula

Online Source: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED510036.pdf

This week’s reading focused on setting up and organization of professional learning communities concluding with a self assessment for participants of a learning community (Martin-Kniep, 2010)  Martin-Kniep (2003) first suggest a purpose for the PLC be established and provides examples.   These goals should not only include learning objectives, but also expectations and opportunities for group members (Martin-Kniep, 2003).   The text gets into quite detailed suggestions for setting up, creating and assigning roles, and assessment of the community. 

Elbousty and Bratt (2010) almost provide a case study documenting the process of a Professional Learning Community from inception through the start or the following school year. They describe their PLC group as “[The PLC] quickly burgeoned into a fairly productive group, not limiting their community to their own confines but also expanding to provide assistance to middle school teachers and other high school colleagues.” (Elbousty & Bratt, 2010)  This article documented quite extensively the results from a survey gathering the teacher’s attitudes regarding collaboration similar to that found in PLCs.  The publication concludes the with the significance of having a productive and successfully established PLC.

The first and most obvious similarity between Martin-Kniep (2003) and Elbousty & Bratt (2010) was their theoretical framework regarding the implementation and rational for having a Professional Learning Community.  At time I thought I was reading the same publication.  As it turns out I was.  Both pieces citied 7 of the same sources including works from DuFour, Talbert, McLaughlin and Eaker.  Although both sources start out very similar, differences do emerge.  Most noticeably, Elbousty and Bratt (2010) move from theory to practice.  As a student hopping to apply these theories to practice, it is quite beneficial to analyze the results from a “real life” application.  For example, Martin-Kniep (2003) state “…those in a community should always want to be in it.” That would be great, but in the real world not everyone in a community will not be a member by choice.  In the Elbousty and Bratt (2010) case study it is noted that although there was not a requirement to be member, however many participants had a certain amount of peer pressure to join the community.  Seeing the results of applying PLC principles/strategies to a real world scenario provides a perspective the text doesn’t.  Another major difference between these works was the assessments uses in each.  Although both used a questionnaire/survey, the types of questions differed.  Many survey questions in the text (Martin, 2003) begin with “I am” whereas the case study questions ask for “your feelings.” (Elbousty & Bratt, 2010) This subtle difference in wording takes a survey where an individual is asked to judge oneself to share their feelings and beliefs.  I believe this shift will greatly increase the accuracy of the assessment itself. Ultimately Elbousty & Bratt (2010) provide an example where all participants in the community didn’t demonstrate the readiness suggested by the text and still created a very successful PLC.

References

Martin-Kniep, G. (2008). Communities that learn, lead, and last: Building and sustaining

educational expertise (pp. 77-110). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Elbousty, Y.; Bratt, K. (2010). Continuous inquiry meets continued critique: the professional learning community in practice and the resistance of (un)willing participants.  Academic Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED510036.pdf

Welcome to my blog!

Welcome to my blog!