Author: Kimberly Hogg

As a child, Kim would take apart anything she could put a screwdriver in to figure out how it worked. Today, she's still interested in exploring the processes and limits of our tools, whether online or in hand. Kim enjoys exploring and learning about anything and everything. When not at a computer, she enjoys birdsong and the smell of pine needles after a rain. Kimberly holds an MEd in Information Technology and a BA in Communication Studies. You can contact Kim here or on Twitter @mskhogg.

CN: Comments on online learning v. F2F

(in reply to a classmate)
While I agree that there are some classrooms that aren’t worth the time to sit in, I have certainly learned well in most that I’ve had the opportunity to sit through, but my MI scores being high on the visual/audio + kinaesthetic (note-taking) make this of little surprise.

When it comes to the interactivity, however, sometimes it’s not what happens in class that’s important. Sometimes that interactivity comes after class, on the walk to the next session, back to the dorms, over coffee with books, or in an all-night research and paper writing blitz (those were my Saturday nights!) in someone’s living room/kitchen while we tried to synthesize and get insight from others on what we were thinking about.

I wonder, too, if some of the weaknesses of forming community and having these discussions with our online peers is that it’s less convenient – there’s a computer and Internet connection in the way – and so those extra steps are a barrier to engagement. It’s just easier to to go online for the essential posting and reading and be done with it. What doesn’t happen in that moment doesn’t happen; it’s hard to have conversations over coffee or while preparing a meal when I have to engage my hands to have that conversation.

Having a local friend who’s also studying has been helping. We’re meeting in person when possible, but then have appointments to meet via live chat when not for two hours three times a week. Our goal is to complete 4 pomodoros (work sessions of 25 minutes with 5 minute breaks, a la Pomodoro Technique), and in the breaks talk about how they went, making sure to hold each other accountable to the work, but also getting the chance to talk about what we’re learning and thinking about. For people like me who crave that Interpersonal contact, it’s been great. For people like my professors who want to see my engagement and learning, maybe not so much. 😉

Two down.

And like that, semester two of grad school comes to a close. I have some course evaluations to complete and some grades to get back, but for all intents and purposes I’m done with this semester. Then it’s time to choose a class for next semester and drop down to part time status.

Alex’s students have their recital this week, which means starting tomorrow I get to be up to my elbows in flour and sugar making baked good ~~bribes~~ rewards for the students. What I’m really looking forward to, however are making some sauerkraut and kimchi, a couple soups, some bacon and other goodies to get us through the winter months.

Then it’s time to get my workflow figured out. I’ve been all over trying out different kinds of software from DevonThink to Pages and Mendeley for document management (I think I’ll go with DevonThink and Mendeley), but I want to work out how best to integrate this all with WordPress for documenting my studies and research.

Between semesters I have to clean up my databases, get all my pdfs sorted with proper citations and tags. Then it’s time to update my LinkedIn and Academia.edu pages. Lots to do in four weeks. Best to get on it.

CN: How to fill the missing link in online instruction

Roberson, Thelma J. & Jack Klotz (2002). How Can Instructors and Administrators Fill the Missing Link in Online Instruction? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume V, Number 1V, Winter.

Abstract: As more courses in higher education move to an online format, a major concern is the lack of personal interaction between the professor and student. The literature provides evidence that online courses are often configured and delivered in a style more typically associated with independent study or correspondence work, i.e., students working independently to complete posted assignments at their own pace. While this format may work in some instances, it leaves a missing link in the learning curve for students because they lack the opportunity to benefit from the experience of structured dialogue and sense of community that can be created in a traditional on-site classroom environment. Distance education administrators and trainers should be cognizant of this gap and support faculty members in acquiring needed skills to increase the level of interactivity students experience in online courses. Although academic freedom remains with individual faculty members, assuring distance education programs have integrity is a dual responsibility shared by those who deliver and those who administer such programs. This paper supports the idea that students benefit from personal contact and access to the professor and learning is enhanced in courses with high degrees of interactivity among students. The authors suggest effective uses of e-mail, chat, and various Web-based tools to enhance interactivity and a sense of community within the online course. Sample comments are also included from students who have taken courses that employ the strategies described in this paper. (9 references)

Summary and notes:

What is happening to interaction between students and instructors with the move to online learning?
Chat rooms (synchronous communication) and message boards (asynchronous communication) can be effective in maintaining high levels of communication
Email and mailing lists can also help, but they need to be returned quickly and be of high quality.
Authors conclude that personal interaction between instructor-student and student-student is vital to the sense of community and the educational process.
Authors recommend that exposure to content AND interactivity be considered in evaluating courses regardless of whether they are developed in-house or by an outside contractor, and that interactivity be appropriate for the course and its content.
Course developers should be trained for creating community through online instructional tools

Interesting perspective. In situations where the learners are all over the globe (as in this course), it makes it very difficult to have synchronous communication, but if several time blocks were available it might be possible. In some ways it might actually be easier for me to communicate with my classmates on the east coast than my immediate family in the west, just due to time zones. There was a chat available in one of my other courses, but it was unfortunately at a time when I was teaching, so I wasn’t able to attend. I’m sure it would have been helpful for creating a sense of community with my classmates, however.

While the idea of message boards can be helpful, in a lot of my colleagues who are or have taken distance program graduate degrees, many comment on how there seems to be a concern with minimum postings and not much for communication or conversation. I don’t know if that’s just busyness and prioritization, gluts of irrelevant posts, or something else. I think if the posts were not graded/assessed I might contribute more, but then again, maybe not. I had a hard time with the organization of the threads when there were more than one topic on a board, which lead to a visual overload (Also, with all the subject lines identical or very similar, it made it hard to see who thought what, and lead to a sense of sameness across all posters. I wasn’t interested in reading minimum-requirement postings, let alone comment on them. Much as, although it’s late, I won’t expect responses to this post. 🙂

What has been nice in my courses has been the rapid and generally useful responses to email across the board. I wonder, then, if something like a list-serv might not be more appropriate.

CN: Grazing the Net

Resources: Part 1, Part 2

Assignment: Read Jamie McKenzie’s work entitled Grazing the Net: Raising a Generation of Free Range Students – Part One and Part Two. It was written in 1994 yet describes what many of us are told should be the student or teacher of the ‘future’.

Is the future here? If yes, how is that the case (site examples)? If not, why not?
What do you think about his ideas?
How far away or close to this idea are we at present?

Part one: McKenzie paints a picture of students with access to seemingly limitless information resources on the web, but warns that large volumes of this information are the mental equivalent of junk food, and gorging or regular consumption may lead to unhealthy addictions. McKenzie implores us to teach students to become infotectives. He describes infotectives thus:

a student thinker capable of asking great questions about data (with analysis) in order to convert the data into information (data organized so as to reveal patterns and relationships) and eventually into insight (information that may suggest action or strategy of some kind) (“Students as infotectives” section, para. 2)

They are puzzle-solvers who synthesize and evaluate the information they encounter. Their skills are thinking, researching and inventing.

McKenzie essentially presents the case and a basic outline of Problem-Based Learning (PBL), with students coming at the Internet and its information with a question, and finding the answer to the ill-formed problem. McKenzie doesn’t use the PBL framework but touches on the same ideas of ill-formed problems, guiding questions and students finding their own solutions. The examples provided aren’t completely PBL, but are perhaps one step removed with their defined lack of knows/need to knows, feedback, and collaboration, but they do contain a presentation element as a capstone. Like PBL, however, the focus is constructive. The section on “Eisenberg’s Big Six” remedies some of these absences.

[Part 2]

Three levels of thought must occur concurrently and recursively:

Envisioning – Top level, 50,000-foot view of things. Dreams, fantasy, imagination, visualization
Inventing – Middle level, where the visions are turned into reality. Questions about what might work, how that happens. Innovation comes from this level.
SCAMPERing/Rearranging – evaluative stage. SCAMPER comes from Osborne and modified by Eberle, refers to the mnemonic: “S=substitute. C=combine. A=adapt. M=modify, magnify, minify. P=Put to other uses. E=eliminate. R=reverse” (Osborn, cited in McKenzie).

[Tangent: Oh, hi Gopher! I had forgotten about you…]

McKenzie goes on to elaborate on the importance of an open mind, how that is manifested in purposefully seeking out opposing positions, through listening and careful consideration of others ideas, their assumptions, and how they reached their conclusions. He also discusses how source-sensitivity (bias and loading of databases with a specific view) needs to be a part of that cautioned open-mindedness about how and where information is sourced.

Answers to the questions:

Is the future here? If yes, how is that the case (site examples)? If not, why not?

I think McKenzie’s comments about info-glut and overload were prescient. Students (and everyone else with Internet access) have lead to a world where we don’t need to engage with opposing positions, and some people are concerned we are becoming less polite about it (See Eli Pariser’s TED talk on “Beware Online Filter Bubbles”). It is important to maintain an open but critical mind.

What do you think about his ideas?

I think his case for working with students to graze and be critical of sources (Internet-based or not!) is logical and correct; few academics are likely to argue with this. Additionally, his three-levels of attention paradigm work well for any treatment of information.

How far away or close to this idea are we at present?

I’m not entirely sure which idea this refers to. If it’s the concept of a glut of information of varying qualities available at any time or place, we are certainly there. I would posit, however, that the closed nature of access to peer-reviewed literature on the Internet (that is, pay walls for journals and even now the New York Times) makes them increasingly inaccessible, leaving writing and media of less authoritative quality easier to access.

References:

McKenzie, J., (1994). Grazing the Net: Raising a generation of free range students. From Now On. Retrieved from http://www.fno.org/grazing1.html (part 1) and http://www.fno.org/grazing2.html (part 2)

Game-based assessment

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about badges in learning as a result of my using Foursquare to chart some of the places I visit, and share what I do and don’t like about these places. I’m not as motivated by the badges on this particular platform as I’m really interested in the content. I can see, however, how using badges can help encourage users to check in more often and in that moment add more information to the service, increasing the service’s value to people like me. Win-win.

There are other apps that do this as well, while some apps (like SCVNGR) have challenges instead, but a similar idea of gamifying social interactions. In fact, universities are using apps like SCVNGR to add a gameplay element to their campus tours and orientation week walkabouts. In SCVNGR, users can do single challenges at one location, or as in the campus tour, they can be strung together in a “trek” that happens over a series of locations, possibly over an extended period of time (scvngr.com). The challenges also may be linked to real-world rewards like freebies or discounts.

Then there’s OpenStudy, which has gamified elements of academia, and users get badges for activities such as helping others with their homework (Young, 2012). Preetha Ram of Emory University started the company in an effort to give a better idea of what soft skills students are learning while studying. She says, “We all know that teaching someone is the best way to deepen your understanding of the concept” (as cited in Young, 2012). This begs the question, however, of how to document these achievements when they occur in the analog world.

The value of this gamification of learning seems to come in the incremental feedback and sense of achievement vs grading what hasn’t been mastered as in traditional grading (Gerstein, J., 2012). Khan Academy’s Sal Khan (2010) focuses in on this difference between positive and negative feedback in his editorial “YouTube U. Beats YouSnooze U.” in The Chronicle of Higher Education. He says:

Perhaps the worst artifact of this system is that most students end up mastering nothing. What is the 5 percent that even the A student, with a 95 percent, doesn’t know? The question becomes scarier when considering the B or C student. How can they even hope to understand 100 percent of a more advanced class? Is there any point in studying differential equations if you don’t have an intuitive understanding of basic calculus? Is there any point to taking biochemistry when you have less than perfect understanding of first-year biology and chemistry? (¶ 5).

In a pointed summary of his argument, Khan states, “The current system does not allow for addressing [comprehension] gaps, so both professor and students settle for superficial coverage of the material. Students don’t retain anything because they didn’t intuitively understand it to begin with” (¶ 7).

Education and games might have more in common than at first sight. James Gee relays his experiences of trying to learn how to play a game from the manual, saying that he couldn’t understand the game from the rulebook. But, after playing (poorly) a couple of time, and then coming back to the manual after attempting the game he had a better idea of what the contents, in particular the new vocabulary, were referring to. He compares textbooks to the game manual:

Now if you’d played the game, what you’d do with the manual is use it as a reference to look up stuff that you need to know to get better or to understand something in the game that you don’t think you fully understand. And that’s the same way a textbook ought to be used. You ought to be using your chemistry textbook when you’ve already understood there’s something you need to know about chemistry, and you go use it, then, proactively. (3:19-3:39)

He argues that games and education are actually quite similar, and how they’re different:

All a video game is is problem solving. It’s just a series- and if you think about it, in some weird way, a video game is just an assessment. All you do is get assessed every moment as you try to solve a problem, and if you don’t solve it, the game says, “You fail; try again.” and then you solve it, and then you have a boss, which is a test, and you pass the test. I mean, games essentially are a form of assessment. The thing that is probably the most painful, ludicrous part of schooling, but in a game it’s fun, right, because it’s handled in a very different way. One thing games don’t really do is separate learning and assessment. They don’t say, “Learn some stuff, and then later we’ll take a test.” They’re giving you feedback all the time about the learning curve that you’re on. (1:14-1:53)

Application to the Classroom

Judy Willis (2011) recognizes that the differentiation required to create “individualized instruction, assignments, and feedback, that allow students to consistently work at their individualized achievable challenge levels, are time-consuming processes not possible for teachers to consistently provide all students” (¶ 16), but this does not mean that the idea cannot be applied to the classroom. Rather, she argues, “keep achievable challenge and incremental progress feedback in mind when planning units of instruction” (¶ 16). To do this she recommends shifting the responsibility for monitoring progress to students themselves via independent progress recording. Using charts or graphs, students can tangibly see their own incremental progress toward a larger goal. Individual consultation and goal-setting can set the parameters for these increments.

Badges could potentially be used here, where students have set targets on their way to the larger goal. At each target, students receive a badge demonstrating achievement and giving a waypoint, much as how in a game when a player loses a “life” they don’t start back at the beginning of a level, but at the checkpoint closest to the most recent failure. This also creates a reference point for future teachers/educators working with the student to understand exactly what they do and do not know and to what degree. In combination with Problem-based learning, this could allow for more confidence in the legitimacy of the certification/badge the student has received.

When determining how to set up these increments and levels of achievement, educators can learn from the gaming world. Ingrid Lunden at Techcrunch reports on how app-makers will fail without proper planning and understanding of game psychology; mere gamification is insufficient. It all comes down to meaningful motivations and objectives (Lunden, 2012). Lunden also warns that the gamification of apps is reaching its peak in the Gartner hype cycle and interest in the style may soon wane (Lunden).

To make it work, game designer Tadgh Kelly (2012) offers some insights on what works:

Validation: the feedback from others that what the user has done was valuable, which gets construed as personal value.
Completion: progress bars and a clear set of requirements for completion help users reach their goals and feel good about it. Legitimate goals only, though, not backdoor ways to get the user (or student) to do your work for you.
Prizes: Extrinsic reinforcement. Caution: removal of prizes can backfire, so be committed or stay away.

When looking at how this may work, in coordination with PBL there is space for success. Validation could come from students in the feedback and presentation stages, Completion is realized in finding the answer to the problem. Prizes do no seem to be necessary as the model for motivation in PBL is intrinsic. Stages in the PBL process could be marked by badges, or another appropriate, meaningful objectives and outcomes.

To do:

Look at one or two outcomes from my courses and identify how these could be put into a PBL lesson.

How can the outcomes be badge-ified?
What are the checkpoints at each stage?
Why should these stages and outcomes be meaningful for my students?
Run an experiment and see how it goes. Report back.

Ah, my own little project. Perfect.

Teaching Perspectives Inventory – Then and Now

Original Post: 2012.11.30

A quick review of my TPI indicates that what I believe and what I do are two different things. I don’t feel much conflict or hypocrisy about this, however, as I can very easily identify the reason behind this discrepancy: I teach English in Korea. That’s not meant to be dismissive or antagonistic toward Korea, it’s a statement of the culture I teach in, its expectations of how I should teach, and the content that is not much under my control. Korea still expects – and follows – a direct instruction paradigm, and within that there is a strong reliance on the Grammar Translation method of language instruction; two pedagogies that found their way to the archives of popular opinion in other countries years ago. Strother (2003) argues in East Asia teacher-centered pedagogies are culturally reinforced in China, Japan and Korea, but differ only in matter of degree. My experience here certainly echoes his findings.

Kim Hogg's TPI Results — I don’t do what I think I should do, but I know that.

Dominant: Nurturing

Back-up: Transmission, Apprenticeship, (Developmental)

Recessive: (Developmental), Social Reform

These results indicate that I am more concerned with my students’ self-confidence, and that’s true; that’s what I’m instructed to concern myself with. The primary purpose of my existence as a “native speaking instructor” in the classroom has little to do with any (perceived) expertise and more to do with making my students comfortable talking to a non-Korean in English without getting so embarrassed and shy that they collapse into a black hole of themselves. I wish I were exaggerating, but on most accounts this is true. Any opportunity I have to assist them in making gains in their abilities (which really are mostly under-practiced; any Korean students of English probably know more grammar rules than their native-speaking teachers), their social views, or other areas of their lives is pure icing on the teaching cake.

So if my job is merely to being a comforting figure that boosts her students’ confidence and helps them with a few errors along the way, why do I stay? What drives me into a graduate program that demands resources both financial and temporal when it’s not going to make a difference to my job requirements? Looking at my score, my stronger beliefs around Apprenticeship, or what Pratt and Collins (2001) refer to as the teacher-as-highly-skilled-practitioner role, I see my own desires to improve and become a better teacher.

My higher score in Transmission likely also assists in driving me forward. While it is not high on my Beliefs score, it is higher enough in Intentions and Actions to push it to second position in my results. The Transmission perspective also relies on an expert teacher, and that is also an expectation of my students. I have oft been told that in Korea, the teacher knows everything, the students are empty vessels and come to be filled. While I have my own personal disagreements with this philosophy of teaching, I need to find balance between how I view teaching should be, and how my students expect me to act. As such, the Nurturing perspective, which balances care and expectations, is a natural fit.

I also notice that my scores are not strongly opinionated; that is to say, I don’t display a strong set of convictions according to this profile. This may reflect the natural evolution of my teaching philosophy, one that has grown out of trials-by-fire, time in the classroom, and conversations with others navigating their way through the mire of possibly pedagogies without the aid, advantage or influence of formal, professional training. Indeed; I did not go to university planning to be a teacher, but it is what I do, and at the end of the day, I want to be good in my practice. And while I’m certainly after the credentials, it makes sense to me to develop my craft and work toward becoming better, to the best of my ability.

Retake: 2013.5.15

Dominant: Apprenticeship and Nurturing (38).

Backup: Development (32)

Borderline: Social Reform (31)

Recessive: Transmission (27)

Well, a few things have certainly changed, and probably reflects my changes in instruction methods and thoughts about how I’m going to teach vs. what is expected. In short, I’ve thrown a fair number of expectations to the wind and have gone with what feels right in my heart.

From left to right on the scale, my Transmission score has dropped from second to last place (-6 points), Apprenticeship (+8) is now tied with Nurturing (+3) for first place at 38, followed by Developmental (+5) and Social Reform (+7).

Looking again at the descriptions, I can see that the drop in Transmission is likely related to a shift from a teacher-centered model to an increasingly student-centered, constructivist model based (where possible) on problem-based activities. This is all while continuing to work in classes segregated by language skills (speaking, reading, listening, writing); an old set of divisions being replaced by the ACTFL delineations (interpretive, communicative, presentational). This drop in Transmission isn’t to suggest that mastery and careful pacing have become less of a concern. Quite the opposite, in fact.

A large part of what I’m doing (and learning), however, is reflected in the massive jump in Apprenticeship. This is highlighted as “socializing students into new behavioral norms and ways of working” (Summary of Five Perspectives, “Apprenticeship” section). The students, through both student-centered learning activities with a problem-based learning focus is absolutely a shift in behaviour and ways of working. Students and instructor are learning how to make this work. Another new implementation has been standards-based grading. In combination with rubrics now shared with the students, they are learning how to master language in stages, what it looks like, and exactly what they need to be working on to reach the next stage.

This is also reflected in the Nurturing score, where I want my students to understand success is possible, by the students themselves, and that we are all in the learning process together. Standards-based grading allows me to be sensitive to effort, nurturing students in exactly the right ways to bring them closer to achieving the goals for the program. My students know that it’s not about when they learn, but that they learn. We each learn differently and at different speeds, and as long as they show progress over the semester I’m happy.

Finally, for the backup, if Developmental is a measure of student-centeredness, this jump is obvious. I’ve switched from being primarily teacher-focused to intensely, intentionally focusing on how to make my classes more about my students (because I certainly know the material!). An upside of this shift has not only been for my students, but I think also for me as a person. The less I focus on me, what I want and how best to get there, and instead focus on empathy, I’m happier, and so is everyone else.

Re-test 2: 2013.12.3

Here are the results; I’ll have to post an analysis and commentary later.

Chart of TPI results. Details below. — Reverting to the first results

References:

Pratt, D., and Collins, J., (2001). Teaching Perspectives Inventory. Retrieved from http://www.teachingperspectives.com/html/tpi_frames.htm

Strother, J.B., (2003). Shaping blended learning pedagogy for East Asian learning styles. Professional Communication Conference, 2003. IPCC 2003. Proceedings. IEEE International, 21-24. doi: 10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245513 Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org./stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1245513&isnumber=27908

CN: Mindfulness, Distraction and Success

Student being productive — photo by Kyle Baker: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kylebaker/

Teachers often complain that their students are distracted by technology that finds its way to school in pockets and backpacks. From smart phones to tablets and portable games, students are always on – but not always on task, it seems to some. The Kaiser Family Foundation studied Millennials and found they were consuming 10.75 hours of media in little over 7.5 hours daily (slide 7) in a remarkable feat of multitasking.

Students are confident in their abilities to handle more than one thing at the same time. In Wallis’ (2006) story in Time magazine, she relates an oft-heard battle between parents and children about their study habits, from the teen’s perspective: “My parents always tell me I can’t do homework while listening to music, but they don’t understand that it helps me concentrate” (para. 5). Anna Liotta, a business consultant specializing in cross-generational workplace relations, notes that “Millennial feels strongly that they need to—and are effective at—using multiple modes of communication simultaneously” (para. 1).

Multitasking is a Myth

In The New Atlantis, Christine Rosen (2008) discusses how multitasking is not only a false concept as far as human brains are concerned (2008), and calls multitasking “a poor long-term strategy for learning” (107). According to Rosen, some neurologists believe the brain can be trained to multitask for some purposes, while others caution the side effects of adrenaline and stress hormones while this rapid attention-switching is occurring.

Research also indicates it actually takes us longer to complete tasks that require similar types of cognitive processing, not less, when we are forced to multitask (Tugend, 2008; Wallis, 2006). Edward M. Hallowell, psychologist, comments, “It gives the illusion that we’re simultaneously tasking, but we’re really not. It’s like playing tennis with three balls” (in Tugend). What your students say about listening to music, however, may be true as it uses different cognitive processing skills than many other tasks (Tugend).

Distraction and Focus

Is all this distraction for naught? While we may be quick to dismiss distraction as the bane of success, a longitudinal study that started in the 1960s may indicate otherwise. Many may be familiar with “The Marshmallow Study,” by Walter Mischel:

And just how did these children manage to avoid the temptation? Peter Bregman (2009) at Harvard Business Review argues that it wasn’t just willpower, it was technique, and that technique was deliberate distraction:

So what’s the secret of the ones who held out? Did they have more willpower? Better discipline? Maybe they didn’t like candy as much? Perhaps they were afraid of authority?

It turns out it was none of these things. It was a technique. The same technique I used with Isabelle.

Distraction.

Rather than focusing on not eating the marshmallow, they covered their eyes, sat under the table, or sang a song. They didn’t resist the urge. They simply avoided it.

….

Distraction is, in fact, the same thing as focus. To distract yourself from X you need to focus on Y.

Bregman (2012) writes later that this resistance to impulse “determines our success in learning a new behavior or changing an old habit. It’s probably the single most important skill for our growth and development” (para. 6).

Two sides of the same coin, distraction and focus in proper contexts can lead to better outcomes in our personal and professional lives. Bregman, recommends meditation for better focus, as do others in the productivity world.

Teaching Students Mindfulness and Focus

Dr. Hallowell believes that we can change our habits and return to (or learn) how to control the amount of stimulus and interruption we are receiving (Tugend, 2008). How can we go about teaching students mindfulness, with intentional focus and distraction? One way is through guided practice. Pam (last name unknown) gives a few ideas at her blog, The Mindful Classroom, including teaching mindfulness through breathing techniques even in kindergarden.

For older students (and overwhelmed teachers and grad students!), consider teaching the Pomodoro Technique. This technique breaks work into blocks of 25 minutes with breaks of 5. After 4 sessions (or “pomodoros”), a longer break is given. Times can be adjusted for particular work situations, but the idea is to push out distractions and focus on a single task for a set amount of time. The reward is 5 minutes to do whatever you want. And of course, once your work is done, that time is yours as well. Plugins for major web browsers that will block “fun” sites and support the Pomodoro Technique are widely available. In addition, phone apps are available for users to track their work on their smartphones.

TL;DR

While teachers and parents are concerned about digital distractions in the lives of their students and children, distraction plays an important role in goal achievement, as does focus. Multitasking, however, is not a realistic expectation of our brains, as we can’t actually focus on more than one idea at a time, but rather make rapid shifts from one area of focus to another. Distraction and focus are two parts of the puzzle that lead to success by learning which areas of attention to avoid and which to focus on.

As teachers, we can work with all ages to help students develop mindfulness and focus through breathing exercises or other focus training techniques such as the Pomodoro Technique.

References:

Bregman, P. (2009, June 10). How to teach yourself restraint. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2009/06/how-to-teach-yourself-restrain.html

Bregman, P. (2012, October 12). If you’re too busy to meditate, read this. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2012/10/if-youre-too-busy-to-meditate.html

Liotta, A. (2012, November 12). Generational Savvy Solutions. Resultance Incorporated. Retrieved from http://resultance.com/multi-tasking-rude-or-efficient/

Rosen, C., (2008). The Myth of Multitasking. The New Atlantis, 20. 105-110. Retrieved from http://faculty.winthrop.edu/hinera/CRTW-Spring_2011/TheMythofMultitasking_Rosen.pdf

Tugend, A., (2008, October 24). Multitasking can make you lose… um… focus. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/yourmoney/25shortcuts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Wallis, C. (2006, March 27). The Multitasking Generation. Time. Retrieved from http://www.balcells.com/blog/images/articles/entry558_2465_multitasking.pdf

CN: Computer-Mediated Problem Based Learning – Lit Review

Computer-Mediated Problem-Based Learning

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the theme of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in computer-mediated environments. Problem-based learning refers to the “constructivist teaching method in which students learn content knowledge and problem-solving skills through investigating and solving ill-structured problems” (Park and Ertmer, 2008, p. 632). These problems are presented to students, who must then solve them through research and developing an appropriate process (Samsnov, Pedersen & Hill, 2006). This personal development of the solution and research appropriate to the group or individual creates meaning for the student (Samsnov et al.). It is important to examine PBL in computer-mediated situations because as Samsnov et al., and Park and Ertmer stated, using computer technology can enhance and increase the efficacy of PBL activities. The studies included in this review indicate that while computer-mediated environments can be used for problem-based learning activities, changes in pedagogy and delivery systems are not without complications, obstacles, and some degree of success.

Organization of the paper

This paper begins with a methods’ section that describes how the analysis was conducted. The findings’ section examines the results of each study to determine how PBL is being taught through computer-mediated technologies and what the barriers to learning are in these situations. The discussion section looks at common themes in the studies surrounding scaffolding. Finally, the conclusion section looks at what can be learned from the studies, the implications for application and the limitations of this literature review.

METHODS

The 10 sources were selected from seven peer-reviewed educational technology journals. Because all sources were selected from educational technology journals, all included an electronic medium. The analysis only included sources with the words “problem-based learning” and a type of computer-mediation (technology-enhanced, web-driven, software, online, electronic learning environment, CSCL, blended, computer-mediated, social media and web-enabled) as part of the title. To figure as part of the analysis, the journal sources had to include research participants. This means that meta-analyses, book reviews, etc. were excluded. The studies selected ranged from 2002 to 2012.

The studies were largely qualitative (six studies), with some quantitative (three) and a mixed-methods study. The six qualitative studies (Buus, 2012; Lu, Lajoie, & Wiseman, 2010; Mayer, Musser & Remidez, 2002; Park & Ertmer, 2008; Ronteltap & Eurelings, 2002; Samsnov et al., 2006) used a variety of methods to gather data, including informal conversations, using Grounded theory and triangulation to code and verify “questionnaires, interviews, informal meetings, demonstrations, online chat sessions, e-mail communications, user tracking scripts, learner artifacts, and message boards” (Mayer et al., p. 261); content analysis of dialogue to form thick descriptions, observations, reflective journal analysis, surveys, analysis and coding of work produced in an online learning environment. The three quantitative studies, Dalsgaard and Godsk (2007), McLinden, McCall, Hinton and Weston (2006), and Shen, Lee, Tsai, & Chuan (2007), used questionnaires, student performance measures in the form of grades, and quasi-experimentation. Finally, Zumbach & Spraul (2007) used a mixed-methods design in which students were administered knowledge tests which were scored, providing quantitative data, while for qualitative data the students were surveyed.

The purpose of the analysis was to identify similarities and differences, to identify patterns and to reach some basic understanding of the history and current use of computers in the delivery and implementation of problem-based learning activities across disciplines and age groups. By examining the place of study, participants, method(s) used, research questions, hypotheses, and findings, the ten studies were grouped for common theme, purpose or finding. Due to the limitations in the quantity of source material to draw from and the limited results, studies could not be eliminated for quality, biases, assumptions or other problems. As such, it is impossible to assert that the studies included in this literature review represent anything beyond the list of journals they were pulled from and that they contain certain key terms in the titles.

FINDINGS

The findings of this review will be focused under the following categories:

How have PBL activities been implemented in computer-mediated environments?
What barriers have been found when implementing computer-mediated PBL?

How have PBL activities been implemented in computer-mediated environments?

When considering computer-mediated PBL for learners of different ages and needs, there were likewise corresponding differences in implementation. For younger students in middle school, a computer game was the mode of delivery. In the game, students had to research information to solve a problem and successfully complete the game (Samsnov et al., 2006).

In university and vocational school settings, the approaches were not game-based. In Shen et al. (2007), web-enabled PBL was used to simulate on-the-job activities for vocational students they would encounter in the workplace. They found students benefitted from problem-based learning and self-regulated learning treatments equally over no treatment at, but that both treatments in combination had no statistically significant effect over one or the other. Zumbach and Spraul (2007) looked at university settings where they found that tutors played an important role in both face-to-face and computer-mediated discussion about PBL problems, and that differences by setting were negligible. From this, they determined that with adequate tutoring, PBL sessions could be transferred to synchronous computer-mediated environments without “drastic restrictions” (Zumbach & Spraul, p. 183). Dalsgaard and Godsk (2007) also concluded that linear, lecture-based instruction could be moved to a web-based PBL format with adequate reconceptualization and redevelopment. Buus (2012) also highlighted this need for re-design of university curricula, but instead focused on instructor needs for implementing web 2.0 technologies. She found that even when web-based technologies are available to instructors, they are not quick to employ the full range of activities possible and require scaffolding on “learning design, development and implementation” (p. 21).

McLinden et al. (2006) found that for post-degree learners in a professional development situation, online PBL can be successful, but as in Zumbach and Spraul (2007), appropriate learner support is necessary. This ability to support learners turned from technology to content in the study by Lu et al. (2010). When dealing with interns in a physicians’ training program, the use of interactive white boards allowed for instructors in the program to move away from managing the rules of the PBL scenarios and instead differentiate the level of the activity based on learners’ needs.

What barriers have been found when implementing computer-mediated PBL?

Lack of comfort using technology was a key theme in the barriers to learning. McLinden et al. (2006) found the barriers in their study had little to do with the PBL, but rather were related to the online delivery. The six areas identified were student expectations, the availability and accessibility of technology, the student’s experience using ICT and their (dis)comfort with it, student time management, non-participation and technical issues. For each problem, a set of potential solutions or preventative measures was given. Likewise, Mayer et al. (2002) found that “both instructors and students must attain a level of comfort with technology and proficiency with using a Web browser that will facilitate effective use of the [online learning] software” (p. 262). Rontletap and Eurelings (2002) echoed this finding. Their study found that while students can be comfortable with the offline version of collaboration required in PBL, they need time and experience using forums and other online methods before they can make it work for them.

Another barrier that can cause difficulties with computer-mediated PBL is commitment to the delivery format. Mayer et al. (2002) found a lack of orientation toward the online delivery and the change in roles for instructor and learner caused difficulties. Once participants oriented themselves toward the new format, it was sufficiently flexible and comprehensive to be used outside of the particular program for which it had been developed.

Park and Ertmer (2008) examined a series of barriers from the perspectives of all stakeholders to determine which were the most relevant to the planning and implementation processes as they pertained to the middle school classroom. Generally, they found that a lack of vision sharing was the greatest barrier, with teachers not understanding the purposes of the administrators in initiating technology-enhanced PBL. While the administration focused on the technology aspect of the project, the teachers focused on the pedagogical change. This disparity caused the greatest confusion for teachers as to the goals of the project. Another barrier was lack of feedback for the teachers on whether their implementation was meeting expectations. Lack of qualification or confidence implementing PBL restrained approximately one quarter of the teachers in the study. Some teachers lacked motivation to implement technology-enhanced PBL, and there was disagreement between administrators and teachers in the perceived value of the rewards and incentives for participating the program. While administrators saw student response, access to technology, and grants as incentives, not all teachers agreed with this assessment. Finally, while there was general consensus that the tools and environment were adequate for implementation, a couple of teachers still felt underprepared to implement the technology-enhanced PBL.

DISCUSSION

Examining how PBL has been combined with some form of computer-based technology, the studies showed that moving PBL from face-to-face classrooms to computer-mediated environments was a viable option (Buus, 2012; Dalsgaard & Godsk, 2007; Park & Ertmer, 2008; Shen et al., 2007), but that it required a shift in the pedagogy to match the new delivery medium (Buus; Dalsgaard & Godsk; Zumbach & Spraul, 2007). This shift from face-to-face instruction to computer-mediated instruction created obstacles for learner and instructor as indicated in the findings around barriers and obstacles listed above. To bring about success transferring PBL to a computer-mediated environment, the studies suggest scaffolding for both students and instructors (Buss; Dalsgaard & Godsk; Mayer et al., 2002; McLinden et al., 2006; Ronteltap & Eurelings, 2002; Samsonov et al., 2006). This scaffolding for instructors and students approaches solutions for the lack of comfort with new technology, and commitment or orientation to the new technology. The final barrier of communication between administration and instructors is not directly addressed within the scaffolding requirement, although it is not completely disparate. These will be discussed in more detail below.

Scaffolding the instructors

For instructors, three areas mentioned above served as barriers to successful deployment of computer-mediated PBL. These were unfamiliarity with the technology, unfamiliarity with PBL, and unfamiliarity with the purposes of using them in combination. Scaffolding instructors appropriately can serve to address each of these issues.

As indicated in the findings section of this review, several studies indicated that where instructors did not have adequate knowledge of how to employ the technology for PBL, there were a variety of reactions and needs. Buus (2012) found that the availability constructivist technology alone was not enough to encourage instructors to offer constructivist learning activities with the technology. The instructors in this study were given access to web-based learning tools that had both web 1.0 (information dissemination) and web 2.0 (interactive, multi-directional) properties, but the instructors did not use the constructivist-style web 2.0 features available to them. Rather, they merely shifted their instructor-focused teaching style to a new medium. Buus points out that using web 2.0 technologies alone does not create interactivity; that instructors will not automatically move to student-focused, constructivist styles of teachings merely by shifting the medium. Rather, it is necessary to scaffold the instructor as they design, develop and implement changes to their curricula to ensure they are shifting not only media but also pedagogy. Likewise, Dalsgaard and Godsk (2007) agreed that computer-mediated PBL is possible provided the instructors are appropriately scaffolded through the process. In their study they highlight the need for attention on both the medium and the pedagogy, scaffolding instructors on the rethinking of their curricula in terms of problems and the need for instructors to relinquish control of the learning process toward self-governed work by the students, eventually becoming a guide rather than an instructor.

The issue of instructor and student orientation occurred only in Mayer et al. (2002), but in combination with Park and Ertmer’s (2008) findings with instructor/administration miscommunication, it is an important consideration. While PBL first started being used in the 1960s (Zumbach & Sproul, 2007), McLinden et al. (2006) report based on sources primarily in the 1990s and 2000s on its move outside of medicine into other fields. This may indicate that PBL has a young history in non-medical education and as such familiarity with the pedagogy and the reasons for it may not be widespread outside of the medicine discipline. A key element of PBL is described as a “shift in focus from teaching to learning” (p. 333), which is correlated with a shift from instructor-centered to student-centered pedagogy (McLindent et al., 2006; Park & Ertmer, 2008; Samsnov et al., 2006). As such, the general newness of PBL and its implementation may have lead to the confusion between the instructors and administration in Park and Ertmer’s study, and the resistance of the instructors (and students) in Mayer et al. These findings reinforce the importance of clear communication of goals and outcomes along in concert with explanations of the PBL pedagogy for a unified vision, understanding, and implementation of this constructivist, student-centered methodology.

Scaffolding the Learners

Like the instructors, student needs are also technical and pedagogical. A lack of familiarity with particulars of web browsing, using common online communication tools such as forums, and Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) each posed their own unique challenges for learners. In Rontletap and Eurelings (2002), students were comfortable PBL activities and conversations provided they were offline, but needed time and experience to become comfortable with technical aspects of the online system, citing the forums as an example. Mayer et al. (2002) found that student and teacher alike needed to become comfortable with using a web browser to use the online educational software effectively. In McLinden et al.’s 2006 study, most participants were unfamiliar with Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and/or online communication, and that there were high (76%) levels of apprehension initially. This apprehension remained for 40% of participants even after completing induction activities. McLinden et al. concluded from these findings that a form of scaffolding should be available to students, especially in early stages of access to online resources. Samsnov et al. (2006) focused on at-risk learners who had difficulties with computer-based collaborative PBL, and concluded that at-risk students may require more scaffolding for successful collaboration in student-centered activities than their non-at-risk classmates. They did not draw conclusions as to the cause being technical, curricular or otherwise.

The scaffolding for pedagogy and content was more successful. Lu et al. (2010) looked directly at changes in how instructors scaffolded learners when different technologies (traditional whiteboard and interactive whiteboard) were used as learner collaboration tools. Briefly, the instructor spent more time scaffolding in traditional whiteboard treatment than with the interactive whiteboard simply because the technology of the interactive whiteboard required less cognitive assistance. In this instance, the technology allowed the administration of activities to take a backseat to the content, allowing for greater differentiation. Zumbach and Spraul (2007) examined the degree of content scaffolding required, and found that beginning learners may benefit from having more expert tutors, but as students developed in their understanding, less expertise may assist greater development of self-regulated learning. Shen et al. (2007) found that appropriate scaffolding in PBL and self-regulated learning helped students with traditionally high levels of Internet addiction achieve academic success in web-based environments. In Park and Ertmer (2008), when exploring the differences between how expert and typical PBL teachers worked, two of the three major differences included an element of scaffolding; providing students with self-monitoring guidelines and engaging them in reflective and self-evaluation on the problem-solving process. These studies indicate that scaffolding for both the content and the PBL pedagogy bring positive outcomes for students, and that sometimes newer technologies can allow for greater differentiation and more precise tutoring.

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusions

Based on this review, we can see that while the specific concerns of technology have changed from how to use a web browser (Mayer et al. 2002) to incorporating web 2.0 technologies (Buus, 2012), comfort and familiarity with new technologies is an ongoing challenge to new users. In addition, while the shift from teacher-centered to student-centered learning in PBL is not a new phenomenon, it is still uncommon enough that it is unfamiliar to some students (Samsnov et al. 2006) and teachers (Park & Ertmer, 2008). Teachers as well as students need to have an understanding of how both PBL and the computer-mediated technology function to use them to their full extent and educational benefit; merely having access is insufficient (Buus, 2012; Mayer et al. 2002). To this end, both students and teachers require scaffolding in the pedagogy and the associated technology to avoid the barriers to and challenges associated with computer-mediated problem-based learning (Dalsgaard & Godsk, 2007). In addition, when the decision is made by administration to employ computer-mediated PBL in the pedagogy, clear communication needs to exist between administrators and faculty to eliminate confusion around the desired outcomes resulting from the shift (Park & Ertmer). This scaffolding of learners and instructors, along with clear lines of communication about goals and outcomes, may assist in overcoming some of the technological, pedagogical and administrative obstacles to implementation.

Implications

The studies imply that for successful transference of existing curricula into a computer-mediated environment, particularly web-based, careful thought and consideration needs to be taken before engaging with students. At the early stages, instructors need to understand why the shift is occurring and what the desired outcomes are (Park & Ertmer, 2008). Before implementation, instructors need to be made familiar with the capabilities of the technology and have links between the pedagogy and technology clearly drawn, along with expectations of use, so as to avoid merely transferring old pedagogy to a new delivery medium (Buus, 2012). When implementing the technology in a learning environment, students should receive scaffolding to be comfortable using the technology (McLinden et al., 2006; Ronteltap & Eurlings, 2002). Some students, such as at-risk students, are likely to require extra scaffolding and special considerations will need to be taken with these populations (Samsnov et al. 2006). Likewise, in populations with high levels of Internet addiction, additional scaffolding for self-regulated learning approaches may benefit these students and assist in the shift to student-centered learning (Shen et al., 2007). As Zumbach and Spraul (2007) and Dalsgaard and Godsk (2007) found, it is possible to have success moving from a traditional classroom setting to computer-mediated PBL provided planning, reconceptualization and reworking of the lessons is adequate.

Limitations

This review was limited to articles from a set list of journals within the educational technology field with specific key words in the titles. Had the scope of available materials been broader, and included content-specific journals, conference proceedings and other sources, it is probable that this review could have included a wider understanding of the literature on computer-mediated PBL. A simple search on Google Scholar for “problem based learning” and “technology” yields 119,000 results, indicating the scope of this area of study likely extends far beyond the ten articles included in this study. A broader search base may also allow for greater specialization within computer mediation to examine specifically the use of PBL in entirely online or blended programs, or any other specific context from the articles in this review. This would allow for greater thematic continuity within the selected articles. Without this greater contextualization and inclusion of other research, the implications above may have been discredited or otherwise found unsuitable in another study. Likewise the content of other studies may hold implications not considered based on the results of the articles reviewed. In the future, researchers seeking to understand how PBL can be implemented in a computer-mediated environment should consider a wider range of sources and evidence.

References

Buus, L. (2012). Scaffolding teachers integrate social media into a problem-based learning approach? The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 13–22. Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/issue/download.html?idArticle=175

Dalsgaard, C. & Godsk, M. (2007). Transforming traditional lectures into problem‐based blended learning: challenges and experiences. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 22:1, 29-42. doi:10.1080/02680510601100143

Lu, J., Lajoie, S. P., & Wiseman, J. (2010). Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 283–298. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6

Mayer, C., Musser, D., & Remidez, H. (2002). Description of a web-driven, problem-based learning environment and study of the efficacy of implementation in educational leader preparation. Computers in the Schools, 18(1), 249–265.

McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D., & Weston, A. (2006). Participation in online problem‐based learning: Insights from postgraduate teachers studying through open and distance education. Distance Education, 27(3), 331–353. doi:10.1080/01587910600940422

Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 631–643. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00858.x

Ronteltap, F., & Eurelings, A. (2002). Activity and interaction of students in an electronic learning environment for problem-based learning. Distance Education, 23(1), 11–22. doi:10.1080/0158791

Samsonov, P., Pedersen, S., & Christine, L. (2006). Using problem-based learning software with at-risk students. Computers in the Schools, 23(1-2), 111–124.

Shen, P., Lee, T., & Tsai, C. (2007). Applying web-enabled problem-based learning and self-regulated learning to enhance computing skills of Taiwan’s vocational students : A quasi-experimental study of a short-term module. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 5(2), 147–156. Retrieved from: http://www.ejel.org/issue/download.html?idArticle=46

Zumbach, J., & Spraul, P. (2007). The role of expert and novice tutors in computer mediated and face-to-face problem-based learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 02(02), 161–187. doi:10.1142/S1793206807000336

CN: Computer-Mediated PBL Annotated Bibliography

Buus, L. (2012). Scaffolding teachers integrate social media into a problem-based learning approach? The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 13–22. Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/issue/download.html?idArticle=175

The purpose of this study was to investigate how teachers could integrate web 2.0 activities into a PBL approach to learning, and what scaffolding instructors required to successfully accomplish this goal. The study followed seven instructors from the Aalborg University Social Sciences department participated in a workshop designed to promote awareness of web 2.0 activities and facilitate the adoption of these activities into their PBL projects. Findings demonstrated that instructors needed a significant amount of technical assistance to complete the setup of their activities. Additionally, while a lot of time was required to set up the activities, instructors considered the educational payoff for students worthwhile. The study also found that instructors required additional guidance on how to stimulate discussion among their students in the activities developed. Implications identified that teachers are unaware of the possibilities for activities available through web 2.0 activities and the technological difficulties associated with integrating these activities into their current practice. Teachers required scaffolding at the design, development and implementation phases of integration and a follow-up to the workshop indicating the results of the implementation.

Dalsgaard, C. & Godsk, M. (2007). Transforming traditional lectures into problem‐based blended learning: challenges and experiences. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 22:1, 29-42. doi:10.1080/02680510601100143

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a learning module transferred from a lecture format to a blended-learning model using problem-based learning. Twenty-one university students at a Danish university participated in the 2006 study. Findings revealed that students were equally if not more successful using the blended learning module than the traditional lecture model. Of note, students used content from the blended-learning module more often in final examination answers than in previous semesters under traditional instruction. Results indicated that rethinking and reworking the content delivery to use the social constructivist framework of the blended environment allowed for a compressed lecture and greater understanding of the content through personal engagement than through the previous long lecture. In addition, providing access to materials used in the lecture and others in addition resulted in self-directed repetition of the material, demonstrating access to resources was an integral part of the problem-solving process. Blended learning also provided opportunity for differentiation, where students used the available resources to solve the problem in different ways and to different ends. In the future, teachers will need to refine and expand the materials available to students dependent on the course and its goals.

Lu, J., Lajoie, S. P., & Wiseman, J. (2010). Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 283–298. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6. Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11412-010-9092-6?LI=true

The purpose of this study was to determine how the use of interactive whiteboards affected instructor scaffolding in collaborative problem solving activities versus the traditional whiteboard in a medical PBL activity. The participants were two groups of volunteer third-year medical students during their Internal Medicine rotation in a large urban teaching hospital. The study found that students using the interactive white board required less teacher assistance as the technology allowed them to collaborate on the dynamic problem as it emerged. In the group with the interactive whiteboard, the teacher spent less time administering the parameters of the activity, and more time modifying the complexity of the problem. Finally, the students using the interactive whiteboard had a greater tendency to use more adaptive problem-solving behaviour than those with the traditional whiteboard. Three implications rise from the results of this study. First, scaffolding is most effective when teachers are competent in both the content and good pedagogy. Second, the context of the activity is authentic and scaffolding accounts for students’ cognitive needs. Third, technology design should use the basic principles of learning.

Mayer, C., Musser, D., & Remidez, H. (2002). Description of a web-driven, problem-based learning environment and study of the efficacy of implementation in educational leader preparation. Computers in the Schools, 18(1), 249–265.

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect moving PBL to a web-based delivery format had on the efficiency and efficacy of higher education instruction. Ten instructors and 100 students participated in this study. The study found that moving to a web-based platform for delivery of the problem-based curriculum required a shift in how instructors and students thought the education process. The roles for both instructor and learner changed significantly with this new medium, requiring a conscious buy-in by both instructors and students for success. The study also found familiarity with the technology was a key to success. The web-based delivery was sufficiently flexible and comprehensive for the delivery of both university courses and professional development programs. This success was also true for the delivery of stand-alone sub-disciplinary instruction and programs integrating these sub-disciplines. The researchers believe this web-based delivery may suit to serve both content-centered delivery and more cooperative, learner-driven models of problem solving. Moving to a web-based PBL environment can benefit not only educational leaders, but also anyone who solves problems in their line of work. This safe environment allows for professionals to practice authentically working with real problems and finding solutions before entering the workforce.

McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D., & Weston, A. (2006). Participation in online problem‐based learning: Insights from postgraduate teachers studying through open and distance education. Distance Education, 27(3), 331–353. doi:10.1080/01587910600940422

This study is was the second phase of a pilot study to design, develop and evaluate online PBL resources for a post-graduate program for teachers of children with visual impairment. Thirty-four students at the University of Birmingham in the 2004-6-distance education program in Mandatory Qualification for Teachers of Children with Visual Impairment participated. The study found evidence for the use of PBL for professional development through open and distance education provided the design and use of learning technologies is appropriate. Additionally, the findings supported previous studies that determined that PBL can provide the appropriate context for technology to support collaboration, authentic tasks, reflection and dialogue among learners. The study also revealed some potential barriers to online PBL, including student awareness of the requirements and how participation would be determined, learner misunderstanding of the technological requirements, unfamiliarity with the ICT interface causing students to feel overwhelmed, student difficulties in self-managing their time, student non-participation, and technical difficulties. Implications of these findings are to be cautious when approaching new design and delivery of content to ensure they are based on sound pedagogy and include adequate support to maximize learner engagement.

Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 631–643. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00858.x

This study examined the attitudes of stakeholders toward the barriers to planning and implementing PBL in middle school classrooms using a human performance systems approach. Twenty-one teachers and seven non-teaching participants took part in the study. The study had two research questions. The first examined the differences in performance for expert and typical PBL teachers. The study found that there were significant differences in adoption of best practices for the implementation of PBL. The second question examined how stakeholders perceived the barriers to PBL implementation in their classrooms, and how important each barrier was. The results in descending order of importance were: vision-sharing, feedback and expectations, knowledge and skills, motivation, rewards and incentives, and tools and environment, although there was some dissent on this order. While teachers emphasized pedagogical changes by using PBL, administrators focused on the technology use, which caused confusion for teachers as to their goals and weak support for technology-enhanced PBL. A lack of feedback and expectations also created a barrier to the design and implementation of PBL units. The implications of these results are that when implementing technology-enhanced PBL, development of a shared vision, detailed expectations and feedback to support teachers during implementation may be effective.

Ronteltap, F., & Eurelings, A. (2002). Activity and interaction of students in an electronic learning environment for problem-based learning. Distance Education, 23(1), 11–22. doi:10.1080/0158791

The purpose of this study was to determine which types of learning issues would generate the greatest interactions between students in an asynchronous environment, and which would generate the highest level of information processing. Sixteen students, nine from the Medical School and seven from the Law School, participated in separate experiments in the study. Findings indicated that practical learning issues were better than theoretical learning issues for generating in-depth information processing. In addition, student reports on these practical issues resulted in a greater number of follow-up responses in the virtual learning environment (VLE). The combination of the VLE with the existing face-to-face meeting structure had a significant impact on the students’ collaborative learning, with the writing aspect of the information processing potentially playing a role in the deeper information processing over conventional tutorial groups. The students saw the writing process itself as more than a personal representation of what was studied, but they also served as the input for deeper learning. The VLE also allowed for a greater number of interactions and feedback than in face-to-face meetings only. The findings imply that practical activities are advisable where cognitive activity and interaction are desired learning outcomes.

Samsonov, P., Pedersen, S., & Christine, L. (2006). Using problem-based learning software with at-risk students. Computers in the Schools, 23(1-2), 111–124.

This study sought to determine how at-risk students would perform in PBL activities. Four research questions guided the study, examining student behaviour during the computer-based PBL activity, which at-risk factors are most related to student performance, how well does the PBL activity work with the group of students studied, and what recommendations can be made for using PBL with at-risk students. Twenty-nine students from grades 5-11 at a charter school in Texas participated. The study found that one third of students found difficulty with the activity, while several saw it as a mere series of tasks. Several obstacles to collaboration between students appeared, although there were indications that where collaboration did occur it was beneficial. The greatest predictor of success in the PBL activity was prior academic performance, while behaviour was neutral. Findings also revealed that while PBL activities may be most appropriate for students with above-average academics, they could still assist at-risk students paired appropriately with higher-achieving students. The results implied that students with poor academic histories, who were largely passive in the study, could benefit from greater active involvement in the PBL activities. At-risk students may also need additional scaffolding toward effective collaboration with other students.

Shen, P., Lee, T., & Tsai, C. (2007). Applying web-enabled problem-based learning and self-regulated learning to enhance computing skills of Taiwan’s vocational students : A quasi-experimental study of a short-term module. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 5(2), 147–156. Retrieved from: http://www.ejel.org/issue/download.html?idArticle=46

This study explored how the redesign of a module for web-based deployment using PBL and self-regulated learning (SRL) affected the development of vocational students’ computing skills. The participants were 106 first-year students at a science and technology university in Taiwan. The findings revealed 1) how teachers can ask students to regulate their learning through PBL and SRL methodologies in a web-based learning environment; 2) that a short-term module can have a positive effect on vocational students’ computing skills; 3) that learning based on combining PBL, SRL and web-based learning can have a positive effect even in a short module. The results showed a strong correlation between improvements in students’ computing skills and PBL. SRL also significantly and positively impacted learners in the web-based environment. In combination, PBL and SRL were more effective than no treatment, but not significantly better than either PBL or SRL alone. The quasi-experimental nature of the study design limits its broader applicability and does not rule out other factors that may have influenced educational outcomes of individual students. At a minimum, however, design of web-based delivery of instruction should consider the use of PBL and/or SRL to encourage the best possible outcomes.

Zumbach, J., & Spraul, P. (2007). The role of expert and novice tutors in computer mediated and face-to-face problem-based learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 02(02), 161–187. doi:10.1142/S1793206807000336

The study examined whether tutors should use their expertise to facilitate small group discussions of a problem in face-to-face and synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC). Forty-eight students at the University of Heidelberg participated in the study; 34 psychology students and 14 from other majors. The study found tutor facilitation to be important for both the face-to-face and CMC. The findings did not support the hypothesis that CMC would have disadvantages around turn taking. Tutors adjusted their mediation styles to the medium for similar levels of success. In support of earlier, controlled experiments, the findings supported the claim that students with expert tutors had greater educational gains than those with non-expert tutors as a result of restructuring information and giving feedback rather than adding any additional content over the individual learning resources. Students without expert tutors, however, had greater confidence in their knowledge over those with expert tutors, for reasons not revealed in this study. Students with expert tutors, however, had greater satisfaction. Overall, the findings indicate that a change in medium from face-to-face to CMC learning can be achieved without detriment provided adequate tutoring is provided. Beginning learners may have a greater benefit from an expert tutor than more advanced learners.

CN: Open Source

I’m quite surprised there haven’t been any comments here yet on open source, so let me get it started with a few ideas. Open Source has its roots in academics and has the idea that, if we all have access to the source, we can fix the problems together and progress more quickly than if we had to rely on one person or a small group to make updates and changes. This open concept is related to a lot of other areas, and is used commonly in our day-to-day lives.

Here are some random but connected tidbits related to open source and associated movements as they relate to technology and our lives as teachers:

Some of the websites and platforms we rely on every day are, or are based in, open source. Wikipedia, WordPress and others all rely on open-source development and are often protected by the GNU General Public License. Another name for this is sometimes called “Copyleft,” a response to copyright.
A lot of basic websites and servers run on open source. These include the Apache web server, PHP for dynamic-content websites and MySQL for databases in which website information is stored are also open.
If you need a free photo that you can use on your website, look at Flickr.com’s advanced search functions and search with the creative commons for copyleft photos that simply require attribution to use.
Apple’s OS X operating system is based on Unix (well, it is Unix), which is synonymous with open platforms, although Apple’s version is certainly proprietary.
Android is open source.
The Internet wouldn’t exist without open standards.
In this vein, some academics, particularly scientists it seems, are pushing for “Open Academia,” which doesn’t have anything to do with MOOCs, although it may sound like that at first. These academics are pushing for open access to research; that is, not behind the pay walls of big journals.

In sum, Open Source and its related cousins of openness have been and remain crucial to our growth and development as technological beings. But enough fawning. What do you all think?