Visualdeyana's Blog

“Blended Learning” More Effective than Face-to-Face

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2009/06/blended_learning_more_effectiv_1.html

Based on a report released by the U.S. Department of Education in 2009, Katie Ash states that blending learning, which Picciano & Seaman define in their report as a ‘course that blends online and face-to-face delivery” (2007, p. 2) is by and large more valuable for all of those involved as well as more effective “at raising student achievement than face-to-face instruction exclusively” (2009). Palloff & Pratt take the same approach and look at how blended courses “utilize both online and face-to-face components” (2007, p. 105) in order to succeed at maintaining the needs sought after by both students and facilitators of a learning community.

Kate Ash’s reference to the report also reveals that blending learning is more “cost effective in school districts and colleges nationwide” (2009) just as Palloff & Pratt had addressed in previous readings. Picciano & Seaman’s survey further backs this impression by noting that “online or blended courses would provide the district with more options if we face teacher shortages as a rural district with lower teacher salaries as compared to large urban districts” (2007, p. 16). Moreover, Picciano & Seaman’s note that blended courses allow students the chance to partake in ‘advanced and/or remedial’ courses that many places could not otherwise budget for if they had to be providing them face-to-face (Picciano & Seaman 2007, p. 12).

Subsequently, based on Kate Ash’s blog, the 2009 U.S. Department of Education report “reinforces that effective teachers need to incorporate digital content into everyday classes” (2009) in order to enhance “learning quality, student readiness, and teacher professional development” (Picciano & Seaman 2007, p. 22).

Works Cited

Ash, Katie. (2009). “Blended Learning” More Effective than Face-to-Face. Edweek.org, Education Week’s blogs: Digital Education. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2009/06/blended_learning_more_effectiv_1.html

Palloff R. & Pratt, K. (2007). Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom, (2nd ed.). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Picciano, A. G. & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 Online Learning: A Srvey of U.S. School District Administrators. Sloan-C, Hunter College, CUNY. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/K-12_Online_Learning.pdf

RSA 6

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2009/06/blended_learning_more_effectiv_1.html

What are “Synchronous” and “Asynchronous” Training?

http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art1_7.htm

Palloff & Pratt inform readers that “classes can be conducted either synchronously (real-time virtual classrooms or chats) or asynchronously, meaning that postings are staggered” (2007, p. 67). Kevin Kruse’s article, ‘What are “Synchronous” and “Asynchronous” Training?’ agrees with Palloff & Pratt’s notion that asynchronous is the more popular of the two types of e-learning and he continues further define in details the difference between synchronous and asynchronous learning, as well as the types of training that facilitators of each type must go though.

Kruse, as well as Palloff & Pratt, favor asynchronous online learning for a variety of reasons, such as how it “creates a just-in-time, on-demand student learning experience” (2002-2004) and how students can do with life as they wish since there is no predetermined time enforced upon them. Moreover, students have the opportunity to be interactive with one another, which in turn provides students with more personalized attention and guidance from their fellow classmates. Consequently, Kruse believes that asynchronous allows for complete flexibility, however, there are two forms; facilitated and self-paced, which is true of both the learning and training required for students and facilitators.

Palloff & Pratt, in addition to Kruse, see that one of the negatives of asynchronous learning and training as there is no ‘live’ interaction with the instructor which unfortunately results in low social presence as well as confusion on ‘actual’ due dates and assignments. Another issue Kruse discusses is how text is the main mode of communication, which is a media that does not meet the needs of all learners. Subsequently, despite the pros and cons that exists between synchronous and asynchronous learning, both are deemed to be appropriate forms for facilitating academic programs.

Works Cited

Kruse, Kevin (2002-2004). What are “Synchronous” and “Asynchronous” Training?  e-LearningGuru.com: Articles – Beginners Basics. Retrieved from http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art1_7.htm

Palloff R. & Pratt, K. (2007). Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom, (2nd ed.). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art1_7.htm

Social Presence: Resource Sharing Activity 4

Text Messaging to Improve Social Presence in Online Learning: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TextMessagingtoImproveSocialPr/161829

This article, taken from EDUCASE’s Quarterly Magazine, is in agreement with Palloff and Pratt, as it suggests that “the major components of [an] educational experience consist of social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence” (DuVall, Powell, Hodge, & Ellis, 2007). Considering such, the article examines the idea of implementing text messaging as a tool for improving social presence in learning communities due to the rise of classes being offered online and the sought after immediacy, in addition to the need for diminishing feelings of isolation, often reported by online students.

In the article, a study conducted by East Carolina University (ECU) on Web-based learning, not only revealed that students rely on technologies to be socially, as well as academically connected, but also that students yearn for an alternative ‘social’ way where they, as well as their instructors, can comfortably interact with each other when face-to-face is not feasible. Based on these findings, the ECU Text2Phone Pilot Program was developed to boost levels of social presence so that students would be more satisfied and improve their performance within their online learning experiences.

The results of the ECU Text2Phone pilot program showed that both professors and students were better able to maintain a social presence within a learning community via the use of text messaging for course updates, deadline information, grades and weekly “hot” topics. The pilot program also exposed that the collaboration and communication that subsisted through the text messages is what fashioned for a social context and a greater sense of community among students. Since the text messaging was a new dynamic way for their learning to take place, the students were also generally excited and satisfied with the results and deemed it as a practical use for enhancing communication amidst their online classes.

In the end, it is this articles, in addition to the ample amounts of evidence provided by Martin-Kniep, Palloff and Pratt, that proves that “the key to success in online learning involves using strategies that facilitate communication and enhance social presence among online learners” (DuVall et al., 2007.).

Works Cited

DuVall, J. B., Powell, M. R., Hodge, E., & Ellis, M. (2007). Text Messaging to Improve Social Presence in Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly Magazine, Volume 30, Number 3. Retrieved  from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TextMessagingtoImproveSocialPr/161829

Martin-Kniep, Giselle O. (2008). Communities that Learn, Lead, and Last: Building and Sustaining Educational Expertise. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff R. & Pratt, K. (2007). Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom, (2nd ed.). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Word Document: RSA 4

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TextMessagingtoImproveSocialPr/161829

http://learningtosee.net/2010/03/16/grading-student-art-part-1-of-2/ http://learningtosee.net/2010/03/16/grading-student-art-part-2-of-2/

“Artistic Vision: Art Education. Straight Up.” at http://learningtosee.net/ is an art education blog maintained by a high school art teacher working in an urban school district. The blog addresses everyday fine art classroom teacher issues, such as student participation in sports in comparison to that of the arts, digital art versus hand drawn art, and limited art budgets. All in all, the blogger addresses a broad range of topics, all which apply to teaching art education in some way or another.

On March 16th 2010, a post was created titled ‘Grading Student Art (Part 1 of 2)’ which discusses various ways of assessing students enrolled in art courses. The post discusses using generic course rubrics versus unique rubrics for each project and the struggles with each. The art teacher dabbles into dealing with school grading systems that are on 100 point scales as well as grading the “I-don’t-care” attitude students. Just as every teacher wants, this art teacher struggles with creating rubrics which are “fair as humanly possible at all grade-point levels” (Learningtosee, 2010). Considering such, a request for comments and suggests from other art teachers was addressed, but as of now, no other art teachers or bloggers have responded.

The second post, ‘Grading Student Art (Part 2 of 2)’, also posted on March 16th 2010, goes into detail about the effort put in by writing comments on the rubrics in relation to the work of art itself. It is noted that the amount of time the teacher spends reflecting on the student work is considerably more than the amount of interest, if any at all, the students spend reading or taking to heart the feedback written by the teacher. It is this aspect of the blog which most relates to Martin-Kniep (2008) considering that Table 6.6 refers to rubrics with feedback and support. Though Martin-Kniep suggests that “providing feedback is critical to the development of quality work related to professional development work” (2008, p. 129), is it crucial for students too if they do not do anything with it?

I began to ponder whether or not students actually do read rubrics once they are returned with a grade so I searched to see if there was any research done on this topic. According to the Academy of Art University in San Francisco, a survey titled “Student Perceptions of Rubric Effectiveness” was given out to “2619 students enrolled in classes in which their instructor reported using a rubric” (2008, p.1); between 319 and 425 responses to the survey questions were received. One question in specific asked “How much of the rubric do you read after you get an assignment back?” The responses are as followed: 23% selected ‘All of it’, 27% selected ‘Most of it’, 29% selected ‘I usually read only the parts that my teacher has circled for me’ and 21% selected ‘I never look at the rubric at all after I’ve gotten my grade.’

Considering that according to this survey, 50% of students read most, if not all of the graded rubric, I deem that comments, regardless of how much time they take, impact students since they directly relate to the student’s effort thus they should be written. As with anything you do for your students, you will have some which do not fulfill their obligations, i.e. determining the reason behind their grade, but that is to be expected. As a teacher of mine once told me that “No matter how hard you try to transform all your students, you need to remember that someone has to grow up to be the garbage man.”

Works Cited

Haugnes, Natasha, & Russell, Jennifer. (2008, November). “What do Students Think of Rubrics? Summary of survey results: Student Perceptions of Rubric Effectiveness.” Retrieved from http://faculty.academyart.edu/export/sites/faculty/assets/faculty/SPORE_webreportwithsummary.pdf

Learningtosee. (2010, March 16). Grading Student Art (Part 1 of 2). Message posted to http://learningtosee.net/

Learningtosee. (2010, March 16). Grading Student Art (Part 2 of 2). Message posted to http://learningtosee.net/

Martin-Kniep, Giselle O. (2008). Communities that Learn, Lead, and Last: Building and Sustaining Educational Expertise. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

http://learningtosee.net/2010/03/16/grading-student-art-part-1-of-2/

“Artistic Vision: Art Education. Straight Up.” - Post: Grading Student Art (Part 1 of 2)

VodCast: Resource Sharing Activity ~ Deyana Matt

The YouTube video podcast titled “Professional Learning Communities”, which can also be referred to as a vodcast, is fourth in the ‘School Improvement Unstuffed’ vodcast series from Dr. Barbara Long Bishop, who classifies herself as ‘Dr. of School Improvement and Second Life resident’. This vodcast, which mimics much of McRel “Sustaining School Improvement” PDF download, is an enlightening and creative combination of audio and video through the use ‘Screen Toaster’ and the popular online game ‘Second Life’.

In this vodcast, Dr. Barbara Long Bishop uses an avatar named Verity Piek to describe the basics, as well as the levels, of Professional Learning Communities. The visual entertainment for this vodcast is Verity giving her own overview on Professional Learning Communities in a variety of schools found within the Second Life game, such as Hardknock Elementary and the University of Kentucky. Verity references DuFour, R. & Eaker, R.’s book,Professional Learning Communities at Work: ASCD (1998) which she in turn focuses her discourse on.

Verity instructs listeners that they should approach Professional Learning Communities by “considering to what degree” (Bishop, 2009) they have Professional Learning Communities. In other words, to think of Professional Learning Communities as a ‘continual’ as opposed to past or present happening. Based on that and the thought of school having a transparent purpose and working towards that, much like Martin-Kniep’s emphasis on the “defining the community’s purpose and focus” (2008, p. 78),  Verity debriefs three ‘extremes’ on the continuum of Professional Learning Communities; the ‘idea’ phase, the ‘mid-range’ stage, and ‘fully functional’ community. The idea period is one in which practices of a Professional Learning Community are not implemented and/or are said to be emergent thus the individuals work mainly independently without much collaboration. At the mid range level, individuals are organized into a group and have meaningful rich discussions however nothing results from theses conversations. However at the fully functional plane, she explains that decisions that change the school are made solely based on the work of the Professional Learning Community for individuals of the group are organized and have come upon findings and plans which are data driven and research based, similar to the tables and exhibits presented by Martin-Kniep (2008, p. 94-96). Verity then sums up that a Professional Learning Community cannot be successful without the implantation of strategy and devote individuals which are enthusiastic and recalibrate their purpose when necessary. She concludes by thanking individuals for their support, organization and modeling of school based Professional Learning Communities.

Works Cited

Bishop, Barbara Long, Dr. (2009, April 15). Professional Learning Communities [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTB1ljks-qs

Martin-Kniep, Giselle O. (2008). Communities that Learn, Lead, and Last:Building and Sustaining Educational Expertise. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

McRel. (2006). “Sustaining School Improvement: Professional Learning Community.” PDF download.  Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/LeadershipOrganizationDevelopment/5031TG_proflrncommfolio.pdf