Module Three Responses

I responded to:
Michael Kirsch
Lou Morris
Joe Dupree

A Vision of Students Today

I found this on Free Technology for Teachers blog.  It really reinforces what we are talking about in Module 3.

.

Module Three Blog

Christensen, Horn and Johnson (2011) noted that education must move away from times, student-centric testing for assessment to a place where “we can compare students not by what percentage of the material they have mastered, but by comparing how far they have moved through a body of material” (p. 111).  In order to assess individual students, we have to figure out how to measure and value their learning for a set time.  This is similar in the collaborative learning environment.  In the collaborative learning environment, we have to have a measure that shows the value of the group’s production for a set time.  At the same time, we have to have penalties for those that are not helping with the group’s production.   

Siemens noted that authentic assessment had to include fair and direct assessment, assessment based on standard outcomes, and equitable assessment (Laureate Education, 2008).  How does the instructor base a collaborative learning exercise on these standards?  I think there are a couple of approaches.  First, the goals have to be clearly communicated.  If the team is creating a video, it must be clearly communicated that each member will have a job that leads to the outcome of making the video.  Second, the standards of assessment must be articulated.  What exactly will the team have to produce?  What are the points?  Third, the learning team itself must have the ability to assess the team’s performance.  This can be a blind assessment (Survey Monkey) or a signed assessment.  Finally, the instructor must look at a few variables: the final product, the division of labor, and the peer assessments.  Siemens also noted that when there is self, peer, community, and instructor assessment, the assessment has moved from learner based to collaborative based (Laureate Education, 2008). 

Paloff and Pratt (2005) found that when each learner in a collaborative learning environment is responsible for reflecting on not only their own contributions but also the contributions of the other learners, a more complete picture of assessment emerges (p. 213).  Reflection is a vital part of learning.  If a learner can take a step back and see their own progress and their own needs for improvement, they are more able to move forward in their learning journey.  Likewise, when learners are able to reflect on their collaborative partners, they are able to see the role of collaboration as well as the role of assessment.  Both are important tools to carry into the business world.

WHAT IF?!  I teach one on ground course that requires 30% learning team assessment.  Technically, each team member should receive the same grade.  I have had classes, though, where one student has done all the work to maintain their A average.  In the same class, I have had students with no technical literacy to contribute to the assignment.  How do I assess these learners?  I look at a number of things.  One of the outcomes in the class is a group presentation.  Each member has to present an aspect of the presentation.  If someone doesn’t present, that negates the presentation grade.  I also have students do blind assessments where they assess the group members individually.  Because it is anonymous, students generally are honest.  This presents another problem.  What if only one student complains about the group member that does not participate?  One of the strategies I have used to be fair is I give class time for groups to work on their projects.  I can observe the interactions and see who is and is not contributing.  This helps me determine lost points.  I have to be very careful and document any lost points.  Students will complain if they find out their points are different from another group members.  Documenting how I am assessing and why I am assessing helps to support my reasoning for the points.

WHAT IF a student is not participating?  I ask that my students let me know when they  have two failed attempts with a learning team member.  I then contact the student.  I let the student explain to me what their side of not participating is.  Depending on the situation, I will either move the student to another group or leave them in the original group.  I always caution the student that as an adult, it is their choice to participate.  If they choose not to participate, they are choosing for a lower grade.  I document all communication when reaching out to a non-participating student. 

Because I work with adult learners, I am able to tell them that it is their choice to participate collaboratively.  I also explain WHY we use collaboration.  All of the programs I teach for expect students to leave the program knowing how to work collaboratively in addition to the specific goals of the program (criminal justice, general education, etc.).  Most adult learners come to the classroom with some experience working collaboratively.  They also come with the knowledge that whatever industry they will return to or will make a new career in will expect that they know how to collaborate.

In a global world/marketplace, we have to be prepared to collaborate in real time and synchronously.  The beauty of distance education is that we teach students these skills as a means of delivering their classes.  When we place them in collaborative situations, we are reinforcing the need to know how to work asynchronously and synchronously.  We are also reinforcing the idea that they have to collaborate to move forward.

Unfortunately, there is not a 100% equitable or standard means of assessing collaboration.  As we continue to innovate in distance education, we must find ways to innovate assessment.  Report cards are not used in business models or in “the real world.”  Education needs to reflect real world, authentic assessments.  We have to include reflection and we have to show students how to assess themselves and how to goal set to improve their learning.

References

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M.B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011).  Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns.  New York: McGraw Hill.

Laureate Education, Inc. (2008). Principles of Distance Education. Baltimore: Author.

Paloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Storyboards Responded To

I responded to the following storyboards:
Kimberly Dean
Sabrina McDow
Sara Becker

Storyboard

Here is the first attempt at a storyboard.  I am still debating a couple of things (like Pink) and would love any feedback!

Thanks,
Erica

Erica Ellsworth

Storyboard for Final Project

**This is not a complete nor finished storyboard.  These are my initial ideas at this point.**

Scene	Notes
Scene 1 Introduction; show picture of Sharan Merriam; Welcome attendees; introduce keynote Sharan B. Merriam; give her vitae and key books.  Relate that her keynote will discussion motivating adults in online distance education	The introduction will lead into the first real part of the presentation, placing Dr. Merriam with Dr. Knowles’ theory of andragogy.
Scene 2: Show me on video.	I will define andragogy and why Dr. Knowles’ theory is used in adult learning.
Scene 3: graphic giving the main points of Knowles	Merriam uses Knowles as a starting point but moves into focus on online and distance learning.  Understanding the basics of Knowles is needed
Scene 4 show me on video	Discussion on Merriam’s theories (** information from Learning in Adulthood is needed here)
Scene 5 graphic summarizing Merriam’s points
	I need to compare Knowles and Merriam.  I also have articles from Conrad (2002), Anderson (2011), Aragon, et al (2002), Clarke, et al (2002), McKeathen, et al (2011). I am also still toying with the idea of Daniel Pink (Drive).

References

Andersen, M. H. (2011). The World Is My School: Welcome to the Era of Personalized Learning. Futurist, 45(1), 12-17. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Aragon, S. R., Johnson, S. D., & Shaik, N. (2002). The Influence of Learning Style Preferences on Student Success in Online Versus Face-to-Face Environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 227. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Clarke, J., Harrison, R., Reeve, F., & Edwards, R. (2002). Assembling Spaces: the question of 'place' in further education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 23(3), 285-297. doi:10.1080/0159630022000029786

Conrad, D. L. (2002).  Engagement, Excitement, Anxiety, and Fear: Learners' Experiences of Starting an Online Course.  American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 205-227.  Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005).  The Adult Learner, Sixth Edition: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development.  Maryland Heights: Butterworth-Heinemann.

McKethan, R., Rabinowitz, E., & Kernodle, M. W. (2010). Multiple Intelligences in Virtual and Traditional Skill Instructional Learning Environments. Physical Educator, 67(3), 156-168. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2006).  Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide.  Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Responded To

Blogs Responded To

Module 1:
Kimberly Dean
Lou Morris
Taryn Hailstock

Module 2:
Kimberly Dean
Sabrina McDow