Bridgit Bucher & Kim Clist
Ball State University, EDAC 635, Instructor Bo Chang
Group Member
|
Roles
|
Commented On
|
Bridgit Bucher
|
Interviewed educator, wrote scenarios, wrote introduction, editing
|
Group 1: Relationships With Others
Group 4: Brain and Mind (comment is under Carlos Guerrero's Theory Review comment section) |
Kim Clist
|
Interviewed educator, wrote scenarios, wrote conclusion, editing
|
Group 1: Relationships with Others
Group 4: Brain and Mind
|
Introduction
In this Practice Analysis, we have interviewed educators with the hopes of relating their best and worst experiences to the environment and context of the classroom setting. By illustrating how various environmental factors can impact the effectiveness of a classroom, we can see some of the ways that the facilitator has control over the learning outcomes.
Bridgit interviewed retired elementary school educator Daryl Smith. He worked in education for 37 years, first as an elementary school teacher, then as a principal for the final 20 years of his career. Kim interviewed Sarah Schlosser, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Educator and Executive Director for Leadership Wisconsin.
Worst Case Scenario #1: Kim Clist
BOOK CLUB BLUES
Context
Leadership Wisconsin is a program of the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension that is designed develop leadership skills in adults throughout the state. As part of the program’s efforts to continue to offer educational and networking opportunities for their growing alumni group, book clubs have been identified as a low cost, high impact option.
The alumni for Leadership Wisconsin are in every county across the state, thus an in-person book club design is impractical. Attempting to connect with alumni where they are, when they are available, the IT department was excited to allow the program to try out a new blog platform they were rolling out. Alumni would have access and could contribute to an on-line discussion from their own living rooms at whatever time best suited their schedule.
Out of 3 rounds of book, each with 20-25 people signed up, the participation rate was 2-3 people per book. What happened? Initially, the blog platform did not allow for non-university individuals to post. This meant that book club members needed to send their comments to staff in order for them to be posted. To correct this, comments were opened up to the public at large. Then spam comments came flooding in, drowning out any actual discussion. Finally, a username and password system was established for logging in, however members were confused about how to use the blog and where to comment. And the comments section did not allow for replying to one another. The comments became standing statements rather than a dialog. Ultimately, the frustration over the process, and the lack of dialog was enough of a barrier that people completely disengaged.
Analysis
MacKeracher states that, “Technology that works as it is supposed to work becomes invisible; technology that doesn’t work or that no one knows how to work becomes an insurmountable and highly visible barrier to both facilitating and learning” (MacKeracher, 2007, chap. 10, section Technology in the environment, para. 3). In the case of the book club, assumptions were made about the learners and the digital technology that did not end up being true. Because there was not enough research and practical testing done on the blog, the functionality of it was fundamentally flawed for how the program was trying to use it. Even as adaptations were attempted while the process was underway, they still were not researched enough to provide a solid solution to the connection issue. Inadequate training on a foreign technology platform was not provided. The post book club evaluations also revealed that not enough questions were asked of the participants prior to selecting the technology solution. Not only did they want an opportunity to discuss the book, they also wanted an opportunity to discuss their leadership ventures, successes and struggles. In addition, many were in remote rural areas without sufficient internet access.
Implications and Applications
According to Sawchuck, “Strictly speaking, the term technology should include any mediating tool of human activity, ranging from a pencil, to a computer, to a language, to any rational organization of material resources. However, in the industrialized world, ask someone to talk about technology and his or her response largely begins and ends with a discussion of computers” (Jiao & Miao, 2010, p.450). While the educational community needs to move forward and embrace technology as a tool, it should also remember that it is not the only tool. Before a technological environment should even be considered, research needs be done with the target audience – the learners. What do they want to get out of the educational opportunity? How do they want to interact with the topic, their cohort, and the educator? What do they value in an educational experience? Answering these questions will help build out the needs list for the technology.
As educators, it is important to remember that digital technology is a tool and simply because there is a new flashy tool in your toolbox, does not mean it is the right tool for the job at hand. Thoughtful planning for how learners will need to interact with the tool in order to assure that it operates in a way that meets their needs. Educators can also attempt to recreate the circumstances of the learner. Test out the technology, push the limits, see if you can “break” it.
If the tool can be tested and verified that it will do the work that is needed, then the learners must be given adequate training on the technology. No matter how perfect the technology is, if the learner does not have the knowledge to operate it, it is useless. Step by step written instructions with images or videos can be useful training options. And if the learner base is small enough or the tech support is sufficient, it might be worth offering a phone call support option.
Best Case Scenario #1: Kim Clist
BOOK CLUB RE-DEUX
Context
After an unsuccessful attempt at facilitating a “distance” book club for alumni as an opportunity for continued education and growth, Leadership Wisconsin Executive Director, Sarah Schlosser went back to the drawing board. Alumni were still asking for an opportunity to discuss a book and to network. However, it was clear that the approach previously used was not a good fit. The program staff began contacting those who signed up for the last book club and asking questions. The program wanted to know what went well and what didn’t. They wanted to understand what the participant wanted to get out of the experience, and what digital access they had. They also wanted to understand what time constraints were in place. Ultimately, a conference call book club was designed using a traditional call-in model. The discussions were recorded and posted to a private Google+ Community along with additional questions and areas for dialoguing about other topics. Training tools were developed that gave step by step instructions for connecting to the call, setting up a google account, joining and posting to the Google+ community. Also, individual training was offered upon request. The results of Book Club Re-Deux were quite different. The group for the first book was small, with 6 participants, however, the second book doubled participation and people were already throwing out ideas for a third book.
Analysis
The program took the time to understand the learners, what they wanted to gain from the learning, and how they wanted to engage with each other as well as the material. In this non-traditional setting, what the learners studied was not set. What they wanted to gain from the educational opportunity could be designed by them. Embracing this, Leadership Wisconsin set out create a learning experience for the learners and to find the right technological tools to meet their needs.
As it turns out, asynchronous learning was not the answer. The participants wanted the opportunity to have live conversation, and were willing to set aside specific blocks of time in their schedules. The topic of the book was not as important as the opportunity to engage in challenging conversation about the issues presented. And equally important was the opportunity to discuss things not related to the book.
Creating a curriculum plan that offered different points of entry to the content and to engage with each other became a key component of the new structure. While the group was committed to being on the calls, if they missed, they could still listen to the recording of the discussion and engage in on-line comments. The sections for discussion about other community and workplace issues quickly became another active place for participants to learn from each other, sharing resources, offering advice, and providing support.
Ultimately, Book Club Re-Deux was a dramatic success compared to the first. This is most likely because from start to finish, the purpose of the second club was focused on what the learners wanted and needed, not simply what the educators sought to design and deliver.
Implications
When developing an educational opportunity that is not part of a traditional educational model, there are different complexities to consider. As this program redesign demonstrates, understanding the audience is imperative. Important questions to ask when embarking on this kind of new educational project are:
· What does the learner want to learn/practice/engage in?
· Why does the learner want this information?
· What are the circumstances they are encountering in order to access this information?
· What do they want the end result to be?
· How would the learner describe a successful educational experience?
When evaluating and selecting the appropriate tools to facilitate the learning, and educator should remember that technology should not be a delivery system but instead support various learning strategies (MacKeracher, D., 2007). Rather than expecting the learners to adapt to the technology chosen and to cram the educational design into the technology available, intentionally select the tech that is the right fit for the learning purpose. And remember that it can require using more than one technological tool to achieve a solid learning environment.
Technology is changing faster than educators can keep up with, and just because a tool is new and flashy doesn’t mean it is the right tool. However, it is also important to keep in mind that there are new technology tools being developed all the time. As an educator, it is important to remain open and willing to try different things, even if those different things aren’t the latest and greatest. A hammer is still the best tool to bang in a nail.
And finally, evaluation is the key to better education. The feedback of learners is the ultimate tool for educators to create, recreate, and fine tune the learning.
Worst Case Scenario #2 Bridgit Bucher
Context
Daryl Smith attended a training session for the teachers in his public school corporation. It was designed to inform teachers of procedural changes within the corporation. This program was for all teachers in his corporation, but principals were encouraged to observe. Since he was not directly involved in the training, and had the luxury of witnessing it with a critical eye.
The training event was held in an auditorium, in order to accommodate all participants. As such, the space was not conducive to participation from the teachers. Information was presented via a PowerPoint presentation, and teachers were encouraged to take notes on the material. The venue was too large to allow interaction with participants.
Teachers represented each grade level, and came from schools in different areas within the county. All teachers had undergraduate degrees. Many had graduate degrees as well. The material was not tailored to groups of teachers. It makes sense that different procedures and policies would impact teacher of different grade levels differently. Also, teachers may have different concerns and challenges to new policies based on the socio-economic breakdown of the student population in their buildings. Because this was a one-size-fits-all presentation, it is likely that none of these specific needs would have been addressed.
Analysis
Facilitators of the teacher in-service program did not appear to acknowledge that “successful Instructional designs must be, to some extent, situation-specific” (Tessmer & Richey, 1997, p.88). Teachers in the audience were not given the opportunity to offer insights or provide feedback to the facilitator. Permitting interaction between the facilitator and learners would allow the material to be presented in formats that help the learners bridge the gap between the material and its future use in the workplace. If practical application of new material is not illustrated, a learner may struggle to use the information later.
Implications and Applications
The teacher in-service program sounds like an event that may have been put together to simply fulfill a basic requirement. Material had to be presented, and the manner of presentation did not appear to be important. Since attendees’ participation was not incorporated into the program, it is likely that many attendees did not gain much from the presentation. From this scenario, we can learn about the importance of tailoring learning material to its future use. The material would have been better reinforced if the learning environment had been made of smaller, specialized groups of people who were actively engaged in the learning process, rather than one large group housed in an auditorium. Since teachers were attending from different schools, with different socioeconomic backgrounds, it would have been in the facilitator’s best interest to consider unique needs of teachers from each school. Facilitators should remember that if culture is taken into account, ”schools teach and assess students better” (Sternberg, 2004, p. 336). After all, the facilitator’s sphere of influence did not end with the teachers who participated in the in-service program. The strength of this program ultimately reaches the teachers’ students.
Best Case Scenario #2 Bridgit Bucher
Context
Daryl Smith’s best case scenario was for a Ball State University non-degree certification (Certified Training Consultant) program. As an educator, Smith was required to participate in continuing education and enrichment activities throughout his career.
The first day of class gave learners the chance to introduce themselves, share their background information, and explain what they hoped to gain from the coursework. From this information, the facilitator could determine the most effective ways to present the material. Lessons were given in a variety of formats: lecture, classroom discussion, and small group work. Adequate breaks were offered between topics.
The group work was the most memorable. Groups were given topics to discuss, and could be asked to summarize key points, solve problems using real world scenarios, and develop presentations to give to the rest of the class.
The meeting space was not a traditional classroom, but the seating was designed to foster discussion between participants. Lecture material was generally presented with PowerPoint, which was especially common at the time (over 10 years ago).
Analysis
To incorporate each learner’s background into the classroom discussion, it is important to design “lessons that help elicit students’ stories, opinions, values, and interests as a catalyst for learning” (Ginsberg, 2005, p. 220). The Certified Training Consultant program has effectively accomplished this. Students felt comfortable sharing their backgrounds, anecdotes, opinions, and suggestions in the supportive learning environment.
Use of real-world scenarios give students a chance to explore a situation that they might face in the workplace. “Such strategies account for learners’ immediate and learning or work environments and their supportive organizational structures, as well as future environments that learners will likely encounter” (Tessmer & Richey, 1997, p.88). The practice of presenting learners with situations that they might face after they leave the classroom will allow them to think about strategies and solutions before they have the stress of facing them in the workplace.
Implications and Applications
The Certified Training Consultant program is an example of how to properly foster a learning environment where each learner is valued. Learners may come from different backgrounds, but all have similar needs and expectations from the class or program. They can contribute their specific knowledge to the classroom setting to enrich each participant’s learning. While technology was utilized, the facilitator made it clear that the people were most important to the classroom setting.
This certification program was highly effective, and had little room for improvement. If anything could be suggested, it would be that the facilitator may have considered seeking background information from the participants prior to the start of classes. This may have given the facilitator an edge in designing the program around learners’ specific needs prior to the start of class. Even without that, the program was flexible enough to be effective for the duration of the program.
Reflections
BRIDGIT
Highlights
I found the interview process to be highly engaging. It was interesting to hear another learner’s stories. It reinforced my idea of a quality learning experience, which includes participation and engagement from the learner’s perspective. I have never felt that I was learning a lot during the traditional lecture-based classroom environment.
Process
I began this assignment by reviewing the syllabus and sample Practice Analysis. From there, I knew which questions to ask my interview subject. I addressed each item (context, analysis, and summary) for each of the scenarios. The two scenarios related nicely to some of the themes from the Theory Review. Once the write-up of each scenario was completed, it was easier to complete the items that belong in the table.
KIM
Highlights
It was interesting to see how the planning for using technology in education made such a massive impact on the outcome. I understand how long it can take to develop curriculum for a learning skill, however incorporating technology as the vehicle for learning makes the process far more complicated. I was impressed by Leadership Wisconsin’s commitment to getting it right, rather than dismissing the idea as invalid.
Process
I started this assignment by reading the sample provided in the syllabus and then walking through the pieces of the syllabus. After understanding the premise, I interviewed two educators and chose one that had a best and worst case scenario that not only fit well with our topic but also showed significant learning lessons for educators, particularly when both were considered together. Then I laid out the sections of the paper as required by the syllabus so we made sure all the components were included. As I wrote the scenarios, I made notes of the points to include in the tables.
CONCLUSION
By interviewing educators and exploring real case studies of context and environment in learning, we discovered applicable practices that are universal for educators to consider. We also recognized our own learning environments as we worked together as a group. We chose to utilize various technologies to facilitate our collaboration which included: The Blackboard Classroom, email, Google Documents, and phone calls. We also discussed and remained mindful of the context of our home lives that would impact our timelines for completing the assignment. Ultimately, we found ways to work with our context and environment in completing this project.
Worst Case Scenario #1:
Kim Clist
|
Best Case Scenario #1:
Kim Clist
|
Best Case Scenario #2:
Bridgit Bucher
|
Worst Case Scenario #2: Bridgit Bucher
| |
Name of the case
|
BOOK CLUB BLUES
|
BOOK CLUB
RE-DEUX
|
CERTIFIED TRAINING CONSULTANT
|
TEACHER IN-SERVICE DAY
|
Why best/worst
|
The technology platform was suggested because it was new, not because it was a good fit. The learners needs and access were not considered. And proper training was not provided.
|
The learners defined what they wanted to get out of the opportunity, how they wanted to engage with the topic, and with each other. The technology was then chosen to make that happen. Different technologies were used to create more opportunities for connection to the learning. Program Evaluation was used to make the learning better.
|
A variety of learning activities were used. Material was customized to benefit the individual learners. Learners were broken into small discussion groups. Real-world use of the information was addressed.
|
This program relied solely on a lecture format. Attendees did not have the opportunity to participate.
|
Main theoretical ideas that we can learn from the cases
|
Technology can be more of a barrier than a bridge if it is not utilized properly.
|
When considering learners first, technology can be used to meet their needs. Different forms of technology may be needed to meet ALL the needs of the various learners.
|
Each learner has different needs and contributions. Presenting different teaching methods and activities can reach different learners.
|
Participant backgrounds were not taken into account. Classroom setting contributed to the symbolic distance between learners and the presenters.
|
Main tools we can learn
|
Educators must plan and the first step in the planning is to understand their audience, the learner. Then, research and select technology that fits the needs of the learning, not force the learning into the technology that presents itself.
|
Educators should be open to using more than one form of technology, some digital, some perhaps even more old school. Educators can create meaningful learning when they invite the learners to collaborate in designing what that looks like.
|
Educators must be mindful of the entire classroom. Material should fit the learners’ needs. Discussion should encourage active participation.
|
Presentations that rely on information dump can create a divide between learners and facilitators. Learners should be encouraged to be active participants.
|
How to improve this case
|
This case could have been improved by taking more time to think about what the learners needed and to test out the applications before trying them.
|
This case can be improved to continuous evaluation and a willingness to continue to adapt the program to meet the needs of the learners as those change. Even though it is working now, that doesn’t mean it won’t need to evolve.
|
The facilitator could attempt to learn about the students’ backgrounds prior to the start of class. Activities could be established based on classroom needs before the first day.
|
Larger sessions should ideally be somehow broken into smaller groups so that individual needs can be met and participant contributions can be utilized.
|
References
Ginsberg, M. (2005).
Cultural diversity, motivation, and differentiation. Theory
Into Practice, 44(3), 218-225. Retrieved
January 31, 2017 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3497001
Jiao, X., & Miao, L.
(2010). Application of information technology in adult education. Paper
presented at the 2010 International Conference on Optics, Photonics and Energy
Engineering (OPEE), 2010, 449-452.
MacKeracher, D.
(2007). Making sense of adult learning (2nd). Toronto:
University of Toronto Press. [Kindle Digital Reader version]
Sternberg, R. (2004).
Culture and intelligence. American Psychological Association,
59(5), 325-338. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.5.325
Tessmer, M. & Richey, R.
(1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85-115. Retrieved January 31,
2017 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30221388
