Big Carrot, Invisible Stick - Think about the good will - $9 billion grants

Recently Federal Government announced that there would be a $9 billion block grant for improving 2-year colleges. With such an amount of grant, the high expectation is inevitable.

To Achieve the Dream, U.S. House of Representatives laid out a series of benchmarks that colleges and states would have to meet to receive the grants. Though still under the floor action, suggested goals such as program completion, work-force preparation, and job placement and so on are familiar anticipations to the interested parties.

I have an ambivalent perspective toward this grandiose event as an instructor at a two-year Tech college for six years. The aid can be an edu-political good will with turbulence run deep underneath this unique educational system. It can be a high time to diagnose the accumulated problems and controversies with systematic/systemic approach instead of the habitual piece-meal work.

In terms of access vs. success, 2-year colleges are not exactly FOR the under-served, OF the less-prepared, and least BY the under-privileged. As the saying goes, it is much more a unique hybrid entity of socio-politics, industrial-business compound, and rhetoric than that of the concern of what teaching and learning actually happens to improve the “human capital”.

I am still baffled by the long term “sacrosanct”(sacred cow?) state imposed on the 2-year colleges. What I am looking for is a systematic and theoretical based of this multifunctional and controversial system to be tangibly understood by the majority of stakeholders, like that of the K-12, or at least the 15+ systems.
This lost child (13-14) educational setting shall not be an edu-business-political hot potato as it used to be! I am embarking on piecing together for this missing link.

Here is my tiny step- http://cvtcscholarship.wetpaint.com - a developing wikiblog invites your input.

Truly Madly Deeply

I am teaching both face to face and online diversity classes this summer.
Bombarded by the media frenzies about Michael Jackson's death, children, debt, Neverland, properties, will, and legality, critically I found "Ben" is the only song that I 'realize’ touching my soul "truly ‘madly’ and deeply."

Ben told the stories of an inner state that relates to my own conditions sociologically.

The lyrics of Ben subtly and elegantly expresses W.E.B. Du Bois' "double consciousness", C. Cooley's "looking glass self" and Becker's labeling theory and other relating social interaction processes that we have discussed in class recently.

The lyrics of Ben: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSqo17o2a1w - listen to the song)

Ben, the two of us need look no more
We both found what we were looking for
With a friend to call my own
I'll never be alone
And you, my friend, will see
You've got a friend in me (you've got a friend in me)

Ben, you're always running here and there
You feel you're not wanted anywhere
If you ever look behind
And don't like what you find
There's one thing you should know
You've got a place to go (you've got a place to go)

I used to say "I" and "me"
Now it's "us", now it's "we"
I used to say "I" and "me"
Now it's "us", now it's "we"

Ben, most people would turn you away
I don't listen to a word they say
They don't see you as I do
I wish they would try to
I'm sure they'd think again
If they had a friend like Ben (a friend)
Like Ben (like Ben)
Like Ben

Sacred Cow vs. Multifunctional Economical Cow

A letter-to-the-editor fingerpointing (as this writer's usual tone) 2-year colleges were "Sacred Cow" of the state in terms of the funding issues shown up in the local newspaper yesterday.

Here is my point, published on June 10 (W), 2009 in the local Dunn County Newspaper. Share with you.

"Public 2-year colleges account for close to fifty percent of higher education institutions. They have been commonly portrayed with the image of a “step or foster child” of the pk-16 educational system due to the historical necessity of openness to non-traditional students, their key role in vocational training, and the democratic notion of access to higher education. Given their centrality to higher education while not yet reaching the status of the “multi-functional cow”, 2-year colleges play crucial roles for extending college opportunities in a systematic and cost-efficient way.

Teaching at a Tech College reminds me of the experience as an adjunct at 4-year colleges where a full-time teaching of 6-12 credits plus scholarship is the norm. Though 2-year colleges have not specifically emphasized scholarly endeavors, they require an “18 to 21” credit teaching load under “economic” and efficient infrastructures to produce well-reported high educational engagements among students, faculty and staff, in addition to the reputable job placement rate.

Here is a vivid example of 2-year Colleges’ playing myriad roles in the democratic capitalist society - GM’s mass laid-off of approximately 1,800 employees in Janesville that created a major social issue resulting from the downturned economy. Fortunately, it was Blackhawk Tech College strategically and effectively absorbing the displaced workers into job retraining relating educational programs.

We have not yet heard of any 4-year institutions providing that mobility and flexibility to partake in the similar unexpected consequences of societal operations. Chippewa Valley Technical College has been functioning in similar way to educate and train many locally needed professions and adapting to the fast changing society’s needs.

Engaging with a wide spectrum of students with less advantaged backgrounds in a tech college on a daily basis, if it is not for a noble calling, then it is a call of challenge as an educator.

Learning Technologies and Me

My role as an academic in the LT community

In the LT community, I am a believer that innovation and responsibility go hand in hand. Being one of the digital immigrants of this information technology revolution, I would consider myself to be an enthusiastic, caring, and conscientious teacher-researcher. Focusing on the need to be at the forefront of educational change and innovation has been an important part of my academic endeavors.

Inspired by the power of multimedia technology as an art student in1995 began my life-long journey with learning technologies. I started integrating multimedia technology into Art curriculum as a grad student and teaching assistant, and later into my Social Science teaching both at two and four year colleges. I perceive myself as a rational and zealous LT educator with an adventurous quality to cross cultures and to immerse in multiple ways of teaching and learning.

My current career goal is to be a diligent educator- researcher. I have been designing and implementing curriculum and instruction for six years at my current work setting. I am also one of those who “dare to teach-research-serve, never cease to learn”. Thus, learning and teaching become an important part of my life. For example, the curiosity and desire to learn have led me to a multi-disciplinary background through three previous Master’s degrees and the current Ph.D. program. I ended up having five majors and four minors.[1] Fortunately, Learning Technologies weave my previous multidisciplinary teaching and learning experience into a holistic tapestry. In this sense, I would also perceive myself as an artistic and versatile educator and learner, who actively participates in many scholarly activities and productions at my previous wrokplace, UW-Stout, and currently - Chippewa Valley Technical College, as well as at University of Minnesota -Twin Cities.

In connection to technologies, Marshall McLuhan once pointed out that we shaped our tools, but then our tools shaped us. The dramatic change of information technology since 1960s with the PLATO system along with today’s Web 2.0  and the evolving semantic Web 3.0 provides myriad teaching and learning possibilities for more facilitators and learners than ever before to access knowledge. With this constant advance in computer and communications technologies, research in educational technologies has undergone a paradigmatic shift toward a new horizon: enhancing the fluid mobility between theories and actions. This new horizon focuses on merging the study of learning in complete, complex, and interactive learning environments with the use of emerging technology to advance the integration of contents, pedagogy, and technology.


Those Who Can, Teach – Creatively, And Responsibly. – Crystal

My teaching philosophy

In a differentiated teaching methods seminar, I found an inspirational message - “When we identify a student who doesn’t understand, louder and slower won’t do it. We need to be more creative than ever; when we identify students who already understand, doing it again isn’t acceptable. We need to be more creative than ever”. Students learn in different ways and paces under various circumstances. This is what I consider to be the most challenging issue in the digital age. The key solution is “we need to be more creative than ever” which I emphasized at the beginning of this statement – Innovation and responsibility go hand in hand.

At the individual level, being a cross cultural learner and educator, immersed in this best and the most revolutionary period of time, teaching has always been a challenging yet highly rewarding profession. At the collective level, this sense of challenge is particularly acute for educators today. Educators have been facing increasingly diverse student population and the demands of accountabilities. At the same time, education in the digital age is endowed with an environment of unprecedented opportunities. Learning technology is a gift to practitioners with golden opportunities that open windows for the further engaging with students’ learning, communicating with parents, building learning communities, advocating the future of learning technologies, convincing policy makers, and empowering the human capital, just to name a few positive functions.

These opportunities demand all stakeholders reshape and reflect on the goals and purpose of education. The technology affordances of the Internet and the constant innovated interactivities make it feasible both in access and delivery of interactive/
differentiated methods tailored to diverse students’ needs. Thus, it is imperative for educators to be innovative, responsible, and insightful in designing, implementing, and assessing the affordances of technologies in enhancing student learning.

As a conscientious educator, I don’t take any available opportunities to engage my educational environment for granted. I value every interaction with students, colleagues, Union, administrators, and the whole edu-ecological system. I deeply believe that the well informed citizens is the currency of democracy. I envision the digital citizenship prevailing in every corner of human societies. And this democratic reality has been growing fruitfully via the omnipresent NGI super Broadband accessibility. But for learning to happen effectively, it needs seamless hardware and software interface. It needs the innovative integration of contents, pedagogies with technological affordances. It needs a conscientious educator to take on her/his catalyst role to make it happen effectively and efficiently.

Personally, I benefit from rich media technology’s affordances that assist my teaching philosophy and pedagogies toward fruition. During the last ten years’ college teaching experiences, I was a recipient of the outstanding contributor to UW-System and Color of Woman Award in 2001 representing UW-Stout,  Teacher of the Year in 2007, representing my district for Chippewa Valley Technical College, as well as nominated to the 2010 Fuerstenberg Teaching Excellence Awards. Educational technology is one of the key scaffolds supporting my pedagogical endeavors.

An Integrated Research Approach

My Research Agenda

In the Educational Technologies field, many disciplines have assisted in building the knowledge foundation necessary to understand human learning and interacting with the aids of technologies. For example, Behavioral-cognitive-Psychology, Neuroscience, Computer Science, and numerous renowned learning technology scholars’ endeavors have contributed immensely to this understanding from a wide range of perspectives.

Having come originally from a Sociology/Social Psychology background, I envision sociological perspectives well integrated into the mainstream research trends. I am interested in the social forces shaping daily reality in the digital age from the micro and macro aspects. These approaches such as structure and functionalism, symbolic interactionism, social conflict perspectives and their combined methods have generated several strands of research agenda that guide my current and future studies.

The macro structural-functional perspective sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. During the last decade, research in the field of human capital management (e.g., HPI or HPT) and organizational cost-effectiveness research tinted with the flavor of this perspective. Tied to my teaching philosophy, to keep the currency of democracy up-to-date, educator-researchers have to confront the issues of empowering human capital and enhancing the quality of access and application of information technology in the digital age.[2]

One of the concrete examples of this research orientation is my interest in studying e-learning in a technical college setting. My last ten years’ teaching at a four year poly-technical university and current two-year technical college provides me rich information regarding how different structures and functions of educational ecology and potential changes affect teaching and learning pertaining to learning technologies.

Though most two year technical colleges, comprehensive community colleges, and four year colleges tend to be lumped together as the post-secondary educational system or “higher educational” institution,[3] they are fundamentally different in many aspects. These include educational missions, climates, diversity of student body, specific roles of faculty and staff, funding, infrastructure and the overall ecological configuration, just to name a few, comprise the uniqueness of two-year technical colleges that stand out as a special and controversial educational entity. These two-year colleges play a crucial role in American economic, political, and educational reality. But there is limited amount of research focusing on the complex educational ecology of two year colleges that affects the daily teaching and learning, in particular, when relating to learning technologies. This is a field that I would like to focus on.

The social conflict perspective is a framework for building theory that sees society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and change. From this aspect, I focus on social stratification[4] both in domestic and global domains tied to digital equity and quality, as well as the potential systematic/systemic change. For example, digital-divide is one of established fields of research tackling the gaps and effects of race/ethnicity, gender, social class, disabilities, as well as others relating socially constructed reality in the digital era. One of my previous studies of this approach was the last semester’s collaborative “Rural Families Speak” project (2007-8). It was a longitudinal multistate research focusing on rural low income mothers’ well being. My team narrowed down to study what the role of the Intent playing out in these low-income (intersections of geo-social class and gender) mothers’ lives.

The micro symbolic-interaction perspective sees society is the reality that people construct for themselves as they interact with one another. The cyber phenomena have been constantly created and re-created by different digital generations through their daily interactions. The formation of learning communities, TPACK integration in classrooms, and quality assurance in the online learning are the three fields that I would like to investigate in the higher education setting within this perspective. Hermeneutic phenomenology, ethnomethodology, virtual and auto-ethnography are applicable research methods for this approach. A real life case to illustrate this perspective is that I am documenting my daily interactions with my four course delivery formats within current semester – online, hybrid, Live Meeting, and face to face with web-enhanced curriculum.

Generally speaking, my research agenda is based on a framework integrating sociology and learning technologies to examine different aspects of digital reality shaped by multifaceted social forces.

Individually, We Are One Drop. Together, We Are An Ocean

My role-models within the LT field

All effective and conscientious scholars, practitioners, educators, policy makers and individuals with rational enthusiasm serve as my role model. A visionary role model, who is a resolute social change agent and leader, whose passion for learning, teaching and research envisage educational technologies as a positive transformative mechanism that democratizes human societies. A rational and enthusiastic innovator who foresees the potentials of learning technologies that can lead to an authentic democratic society guides my enthusiasm and energy to the common good.

They are many of role models in our field, exemplifying tenacity and unwaveringness, so I learn and have the courage to select the road less travelled.

If Technology Is Not Used For Enhancing Humanity, Then For What?

The future of Learning Technologies

We are witnessing the accelerated effect of cybernetics which is all about humans and technology interacting to form the foundation of human infrastructure. In this cyber-structure, the high tech and high touch can be mutually complementary. Different digital generations are constructing ways of facilitating multi-generational and global communications. The current Web 2.0 and the evolving Web 3.0 are such transformative tools reshaping the educational experience. The line between space and time is rapidly becoming blurred and may cease to exist in the foreseeable future. E-learning in both “virtual” and “real” worlds simultaneously creates “inter-reality“ phenomenon that implies more options available to effectively merge teaching and learning in a seamless way.

I envision one day the “cutting edge” and “innovative” is no longer the nick name of the business world or industrial-military compounds. Those who can, teach – creatively and responsibly, are the catalysts to the systematic and systemic change of our society. Learning technologies will be the hardest science that requires robust digital engagers to take on studies that are dynamic and contingent. In such a profession, only those stakeholders who tackle the challenge as a way of conscious living will reshape the future of our society.

I envision an omnipresent and mobile environment (facilitating the M-learning)  for all learners to create the -world-is-flat phenomenon. A new term of Blog 2.0 encapsulates the idea of the proliferation of interconnectivity and interactivity of the e-effects. It opens up sky-is-the-limit possibilities to transform learning to defy various digital divides in domestic and global domains.

The optimism and challenge are co-existent in this unprecedented epoch. Learning Technology is a gift as well as a social responsibility to the educators and relevant stakeholders. It is a golden opportunity to reach diverse learners to optimize human capitals and shorten the digital gaps. It is time to redirect such powerful capacity of learning technologies into the humanitarian change.

It is a goal, an action, a commitment, and most importantly, a responsibility!

[1] My majors are: Sociology/Social Psychology, Socio-political science, Studio Art, Art Education, Learning Technologies. The minors are Computer Science, Women’s Studies, Journalism, and Military Education.
[2] I expanded three extra current digital populations into the original categories: the “digital elite”, the digital native, the digital immigrant, and the “digital behind”, and the “digital deprived”.
[3] Technical colleges play a key role to bridge PK-12 and 15-16 educational settings. Yet, most people consider two year colleges being only a peripheral part (a step-child or child out of the educational wed-lock) of the collegiate system, or a “catch basin” for those few students unable or unwilling to enter “regular” colleges.
[4] Such as race/ethnicity, gender, social class, disability and various types of intersectional theories .

Who takes care of the "Culture Inc."?

I would like to share a posting relating to an article that I read from another Ning-group. It was about why sustainable education is an enemy to the edu-capitalism or edu-imperialism, if we are not too far away from the ed-utopia?

The article originated from a student’s question posted on May 8, 2008 Chronicle titled "Invest in People, Not Buildings.” Here it goes:

“Everywhere I hear the sound of dump trucks. It’s my fourth year at the University of Virginia, and they haven’t stopped building since I got here. A new commerce school, a new theater. If UVA is any example of the state of public education in general, we need to evaluate our priorities before another brick gets bought.”

Later in October 3, 2008 Chronicle has another article about the 375-Billion Dollar Question: Why Does College Cost So Much? In the October 20, a faculty member Mr. Orr, put it in a tangible way in his article “Meditation on Building”-

“It is estimated that the construction, maintenance, and operation of buildings in the United States consumes close to 40 percent of the country’s raw materials and energy and is responsible for about 33 percent of our CO2 emissions, 25 percent of our wood use, and 16 percent of our water use. In 1990, 70 percent of the 2.5 million metric tons of non-fuel materials that moved through the economy were used in construction.”

Fine, these inquiries were from the typical "resourceful" 4-year universities. Though the size of a textbook in our 2-year colleges can never be comparable to that of an edu-building, to what extent the open textbook project is a potential omen to the "Culture Inc."?

A couple of my recent blog postings on social networks ( The info of Dr. Kanter's nomination to the Dept of Edu was attached here)

Several Innovate-blog postings regarding the open e-university reminded my recent CCCOER (The Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources) networking. It is a joint effort by the League for Innovation in the Community College and many other community colleges and university partners to develop and use open educational resources (OER) and in particular, open textbooks for community college courses, since the demographic features of our students (tech colleges) are much different from those of the typical 4-year universities/colleges in terms of, SES in particular. Welcome to participate in this joint effort of OER movement.

The following is the open textbook site.
http://oerconsortium.org/discipline-specific

The CCCOER is a grand scale of collaborative work-in-progress project. There are still many issues opened up for input, such as the models of collaborations, time, energy, usage criteria, altruism/compensation, intellectual property right, as well as other emerging issues.

Hope you can help provide information, experience and advice.

(For more details, see the It Takes a Consortium to Support Open Textbooks article in the January/February 2009 issue of Educause Review magazine).

A couple of open journal sites were posted here as well
http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=130
Open Journals
http://innovateonline.info/


The other one is about technology resistence:

One of my network groups opened a forum for discussing the technology resistence. There are many real life experiences and observations from relevant stakeholders.
I also added a piece of info to the discussion:

Pajo and Wallace (2001) categorized barriers to info tech resistence from personal barrier, attitudinal barriers, and organizational perspectives. Berge Muilenberg, and van Hangegh (2001) also indentify 64 barriers to the adoption of technology.

According to Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation, the various adopter categories form the shape a of bell curve. Innovators who readily adopt, are making up 2.5 %; early adopters, about 13%; early majority, 34%; later majority, 34%; and laggards 16%. He identified attributes to the resistance as: the relative advantage to adopters, compatibility to the adopters’ values, offering better ways to do things, the degree of complexity of the technology, triability before adoption; and the observable benefits.

If Roger’s theory is not too far away from reality, then we look at current 3.2 million educational employees scattering in the differently edu-systems: 2.5 % of innovators who are ready to adopt are about 80,000 individuals spreading over numerous PK to 16+ educational institutions, and the later adopters as well as laggards will be 1.6 million.



The following exciting message was excerpted from Inside Higher Ed, April 2.

As a faculty member of the 2-year college communities, I see the significance of this event if Dr. Kanter is nominated and take on this important role in the Dept of Edu at Washington D.C.

"President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan will nominate Chancellor Martha J. Kanter of Foothill-De Anza Community College District , as U.S. under secretary of education, which is the second- or third-highest ranking position in the Education Department. The nomination was made official Wednesday evening, hours after Duncan, apparently prematurely, let slip news of the nomination during a speech to a meeting of Ohio college presidents convened by U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown.

If confirmed, Kanter would be the first community college official to reach such a high rank within the U.S. Education Department. Community college officials have headed the agency's vocational education branch, and Diane Auer Jones, assistant secretary for postsecondary education in 2007, had been a two-year college faculty member and administrator. But the idea of having a community college leader in such a high profile position elated officials in the sector. The under secretary oversees policies, programs, and activities related to postsecondary education, vocational and adult education, and federal student aid.Colleagues describe Kanter as a hard worker and an inclusive leader, and particularly cite her interest in and passion for using technology to make educational resources freely available, spearheading the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources and the Community College Open Textbook Project. "
Share

My understanding and stance toward the three debates in the learning technologies field

My understanding and stance toward the three debates in the learning technologies field were summarized as follows:
1.The Media vs. Message (methods)
2. Learning sciences (LS) vs. Instructional sciences (IS): (Instruction systems, Instructional Design, Instructional Systems and Design)
3. Constructivism vs. Instructivism

1. For the first debate, Richard Clark published his controversial paper in 1983, titled “Reconsidering Media research on learning” which he cited numerous research from last 70 years (e.g., in particular, from Lumsdaine, Mielke) to assert that media do not have influence on learning and coined the well-known "truck and groceries' metaphor. He propounded that media function as delivery vehicle conveying the methods (instructional strategies). Later in 1991, Robert Kozma, “ 7” years (it does “need “ the time) responded with an article of learning with Media , and revisited in 1994 “Will media influence learning “ to open up the heated debate. Kozma posited the media and methods should not be separated. He proclaimed that via the activities provided by media’s symbol systems, nature/characteristics of media, and the cognitive structures where learners constructed their knowledge in the specific contexts. He used two media-based examples as illustrations, one was developed by White’s computer mediated Thinkertools and the other one was Cognition and Technology group of Vanderbilt University’s Japer Woodbury video series to strengthen his arguments.

There are mediator (Steve Ross) and reviewers (Ullmer, Reiser, Morrison, Shrock, Jonassen, Campbell and Davison (deceased) provided various valuable comments on this debate. Later Barney Dalgarno revisited this Media Effects debate in 1996 - at a time technology has dramatically changing the educational technology landscape. Hence the themes of the debate moved from "media to message", to "contents", "contexts" up to current “Interactivity” as the central concern.

My position on this debate:
To reflect on this debate, I would like to refer to a small episode in James Ellsworth’s Surviving Change- a Survey on Educational Change Models. In his book, there was a short passage about the field of human inquiry which is somewhat like the fabled blind men examining an elephant. After the probing the elephant, one of the pioneers excitedly exclaimed - the elephant is “over there”, and pointed the right directions for others to follow. Not until others stumbled with something else, did they find something fishy. Then they paused and compared one another’s “touching” notes. They found they all had different ideas and descriptions about what elephant was, and suspected others’ were wrong because they knew what they exactly felt ( for example, emic perspective) from the elephant. “The other” (for example, etic perspective) got to be wrong in their “methodology”. Not until another groups of new comers added to the extra info in new contexts, and analyzed why they were quarrelling, did they start the reconciliation and understand why and how conflicting thoughts happened and tried to get the whole picture of what the elephant looks like.Through all the predecessors’ diligence, endeavors, and articulation, I gradually find the image of the elephant. Thank to all of them.

Now coming back to the topic, I understand where Richard Clark and Robert Kozma are coming from- their academic background, and scholarly endeavors. In addition to the surfaced debate, there are ideological and intellectual struggle, territorial concerns, emotional charge, politics, as well as, if not the worse, the ambiguity of the buzzwords (just look at the journals referring to IT, ET, ID, IST, IDT, and IS used in our field) that subconsciously and unconsciously play out behind the academic screen. I respect both of them, in particular Clark’s constantly sharpening issues and problems in the field of education. The fast changing faces of information technology is reshaping many aspects of human life which makes Clark stance in this debate standing out. Nevertheless, Clark's emphasis on the importance of instruction and instructional strategies in contributing to the learning outcomes is significant.

As a matter of fact, the powerful modern media capacity and affordances (just think about the 400 gbs speed in network grids and web 2.0 as well as all the successful endeavors of GoNorth, Jason Project, BlueZone, 2nd Life interreality… and so on) are obvious achievements that have tremendous impact on business, industry, military, education and other important social institutions.

I hold the eclectic view on this issue similar to scholars such as Jonassen et al, Ross, and Reiser who claimed that instructional methods need to employ “powerful vehicles” to enhance the “nutrition of the groceries”. Media with its potent capacities and affordance as carriers can transform human learning capacity to reach the human improvement performance (HIP). Both “are adding two wings” for a tiger to run through the educational technology landscape.

2. As to the second debate between the LS and IS, it was much about the concerns of philosophy, ontology, and epistemology regarding the nature of knowledge and understanding that lay out the foundations of beliefs, values, assumptions, and practices of education and research in our field. Instructional sciences (as Merrill defined), has its long and old history in developing instructional strategies and educational artifacts through our early 20 century (Museum movement, audio-visual movement, programmed learning movement by the artifices of filmstrips, Lantern projectors, radio, records, television, video to 1991 the invention of Internet, and to current NGI-next generation Internet with the power of 400 Gbs speed of transistors on network grid).

LS emerged when multimedia was sweeping the educational technology landscape and the constructivism was on the rise. Under the constructivism as an epistemology, various pedagogical models prevail, such as discovery learning, situated learning, problem solving learning, inquiry learning, experiential learning, adventure learning, teaching community, community of practices gained much momentum. Both fields are all concerned the best ways to apply media’s affordances to yield quality learning. However, due to historical trajectory, epistemological emphasis, and research focus, these two fields seldom contact each other.

There are commonality and differences, described as follows:
In 2004, Educational technology journal presented a series of dialogue from both camps: Carr-Chellmem, Hoadley, B. Smith, Kolonder, Duffy and Merrill participated in this dialogue/debate. The commonality as well differences were articulated, the future of more dialogues and working together was expected. Brent Wilson points out (2006) his observations from the LS camp to Merrill (two both had a dialogue in Reiser and Dempsey’s 2006 book).

The emphasis of the LS camp are:
a. more focus on cognitive science;
b. pay attention to basis theory and research; and
c. more focus on developing prototype tools and on online environment.

Whereas, IDT tends to focus on
a. principles and practices;
b. research on non-psychological domain theory; and
c. focus more on practitioner, utilitarian, functional and product, goal driven research.

My position in this debate is that I realized both sides of the disciplines having their own historical and situational forces that shaped the ways they believe and practice . They share the common goals to enrich the learning environment to enhance human learning capacities via rich media technology. They both are based on cognitive science, though LS is more socio-cultural cognitively emphasized. The comments from Chris, Hoadley, Tom Duffy, Kolonder, Brian Smith, Sasha Barab and David Merrill are valid who pointed out that LS is more interdisciplinary by nature. It is more explorative, emphasizing mind in context, paying attention to big ideas (Kolonder)- theory construction and hypothesis generation and testing yet messier and scruffy motifs (Smith), as well as more in tune with computer science based artifacts developing. LS is more constructivistically oriented, and the research methods tend to be more qualitative; while IS more goal driven, prescriptive and confirmative by nature (cleaner, or “neats” by Smith). It focuses more on the utility and implementation, practices derived from theory.

There are several scholars cross the both fields, such as Jonassen, Hannifin and Hannifin, Duffy, and Land to relate and reshape the relationship between constructivism with instructivism. Some feel that each one of them add more tools to their toolbox (such as Winn), while other feel they are based on different core values about the nature of knowledge and understanding. Some scholars challenge the legitimacy of LS’s research and practice in the Instructional design field (such as Merrill).

I agree with several scholars such as Smith, Barab, Hoadley, that design-based research has the potential to bridge these two fields. From the Pasteur’s Quadrant perspective, I do feel these two disciplines could be complementary to each other for “applied and research’ sake" to enhance human improvement performance.

But I fully understand that it takes a huge academic pride, territorial issues, ideological and intellectual understanding, as welll as compromise to make it possible in the compartmentalized academia world.

3. To the third debate-
The effects of Constructivism vs. Instructivism issues relating to since Kuhn’s the Structure of Scientific Revolution, the paradigm shift, which has a great impact on many aspects of human world to rethink and reframe the taken for granted theories and practices.

Constructivism as a philosophy challenges people’s understanding of the nature of knowledge, belief and assumptions. Knowledge is contextualized, is situated, is negotiated, is experienced, and is understood via consensus or agreement. Mainly there is no absolute of truth existing, but constructed by human being’s engagements and interacting with their environments.

Compared to the aged Instructivism, Constructivism is still "young", yet has gained great momentum in the educational enterprise. Kischner, Sweller and Clark posited that the “intuitive” appealing of minimal guidance instructions was not efficient and effective. On one side of scholars who support the minimal guidance instruction are Bruner and Anthony from discovery learning model; Jonessan, Steffe, and Gale from the constructivism approach; Barrows and Tamblyn, Schimdt from the PBL model; Bout, Keogh, Kolb and Fry from the experiential learning theory; and Papert and Rutherford from the Inquiry learning. They proclaim that learners should be left to learn and construct their own understanding within the socio-cultural contexts that they were in.

Scholars from the direct guidance Instruction are Cronbach, Snow, Mayer, Lee Schulman, Klahr and Nigam who posited that direct guidance instruction prove to be more effective and efficiency evidenced from last half century’ s research and practices. In their recent studies Kirscher et al. explained why the minimal guidance instructions failed to enhance the learning effectiveness and efficiency. The failures tended to come from the problem-based, discovery learning, inquiry learning, and experiential learning under the constructivism banner. They argued that last half century research showed the direct guidance instruction proved to be superior in terms of effectiveness and efficiency to the minimal guidance learning. They critiqued the minimal guidance instruction ignoring the human knowledge of cognitive architectures, novice versus expert difference issues, and cognitive load theories.

Kirschner at al. (2006) also referred to Lee Schulman’s content expert, pedagogical expert and curriculum expert provided well grounded theories in curriculum and instruction development that guided many generational of practitioners, educators, researchers and many stakeholders in their respective fields of endeavors. They also pointed out the direct guidance instruction recede only when learners acquired sufficient prior knowledge to engage “internal” learning.

My position on this issue:
I appreciate “change is on the way”. Constructivism is sort of humanitarianism, which champions individual learner’s self efficacy and the potential of self-actualization when the appropriate learning environments ( such as theories based instructional methods and design/pedagogy, rich media technology, learning community and larger learning organization and institution, as well as other relevant contexts are in right time and right place). Individual learners as active participants can construct their own knowledge in an authentic context or community via available constructivist pedagogical models and practices.

I identify myself as an educator who is involving in learning, teaching, research and services to explore the possible media technology that enhances students’ learning in a holistic, effective and efficient ways. I also perceive myself as a potential change agent who can analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate the teaching and learning enterprise from the systematic/ecological and systemic perspectives.

From my last several year’s experiences as an educator, I prefer instructivism to echo Gagne’s statement. Gagne believed in human activities, as he said that some people did not need instructions to accomplish learning some activities, and some learning could be done with self-instructions. But with most purposeful and significant activities, such as vocational and technical learning that were accomplished under the thoughtful instructional setting.

Reflecting on Gagne’s theory and practice, contrasting with Jonassen et al’s propounding the constructivsm, my life long learning experiences as a student illuminate me to have the preference in the constructivism. Learning is intentional activities with intense endeavors interweaving mind, body, interaction in the socio-cultural contexts for thinking, feeling and behaving changes or potential changes.

Duffy and Ullmer once critiqued on research and researchers focusing on manageable projects tend to be insignificant (as Duffy said “Who cares” or the “boutique” projects for vita – Kolonder). Ullmer’s commented on that it was the messy, ambiguity big ideas that challenge the practitioner and researchers’ endeavors in the educational technological knowledge claims. There are wide spectrums for teaching, learning and research. The either-or motifs (such as will or will not; do or do not in the Clark vs. Kozam debate) as well the both-and (risky fee) subjects have been providing insight to our educational technology understanding. Design-research approach has the potential to differentiate and integrate various types of methods to generate grounded theory, testing hypothesis, and refine the learning environment from micro, meso, macro, exo and chrono systematic perspectives (Brenfennbrenner). For example, in Clark and Kozam’s debate from today’s research methodology capacities (quan vs. qual: various types of experiments, ethnography, authethnography, virtual ethnography, ethnomethodology, hermeneutic phenomenology, and other types of mixed methods) and technology affordances, it has the potential to identify myriad variables interact with the environment to combine the individual factors within the social context for better understanding how teaching and learning occur.

As to why I said that I prefer the instructivism as an educator and constructivism as a student, I explained as follows.

I taught at 4-year polytech university for 4 years, and now is going through my 6th years' teaching at a 2-year tech college. My teaching experiences remind me the powerful observations of Gagne (mentioned above). My current teaching setting is so called the pure non-elite schools. I taught an elite high school before and understand the concepts of prior knowledge, learning motivations scaffolded by the social class and the life chances supported by the cultural, social, and psychological capitals to comprise an academic success.

Just to tap the tip of the iceverg- my current learners’ profiles, 85-90% of our students are from low income households (the diverse student backgrouds ranging from university tranfers, high school drop-outs, first generation attending colleges, some having criminal records, displaced workers, single parents, returned grandparents seeking 2nd or 3rd careers, tot the disability students….etc) with Perkins or Pell financial aids. Life has been much harsher for them, and hopefully academic life could ease some of them. If comparing Kischner et al.’s medical school students’ minimal guidance instructions with my current students’ characteristics (motivation, gender, social class, past experiences which comprised their prior knowledge), I have to say the direct guided instruction not just only necessary, but in many cases, is a must. Mainly, Laissez Faire approach (as people called it) won’t “guarantee effective learning outcomes".

Poster Presentation-Beauty vs. Artistic Beauty

Click the arrow key to view the presentation.

#18 Learning Science vs. Learning Technology

“Learning Science(s)” vs. “Learning Technolog(ies)” (the latter replaced Instructional Systems and Technologies in 2005)

When I reviewed Dabbagh et al’s Online Learning-Concepts, Strategies, and Application, the concept of “Learning Technologies” in the book reminds me a curiosity that has been lingering in my mind for a while.

As we understand, to define a term in the era of a burgeon science or a differentiation of knowledge is a challenging if not a daunting endeavor. In the book, they refer "learning technologies" as the various types of interactive technologies, such as hypertext, hypermedia, asynchronous and synchronous communication tools (email, listservs, desktop conferencing, virtual chat, groupware, digital and streaming audio-video/rich media, FTP, web developmental tools and LMS, CMA…and so on. Seemingly, in their “operational” definition, “learning” is designated as an adjective and “technologies” is a noun (instead of treating the phrase as a unit -like a discipline), which refer the physically applicable objects and devices ("pedagogical tools") run on a LAN or a WAN?Generally speaking, they propound via these "learning technologies", open or flexible learning, distributed learning, learning communities, communities practice, and knowledge-building communities that are all becoming possible.

One of my questions is -"Is there potential nuance differentiating “learning technolog(ies)” vs. “Learning Technolog(ies)” where the latter might broaden and enrich the educational technologies beyond the confinements of the “systematic and instructional” concepts and embrace the constructivist epistemology, learning theories and pedagogy/andragogy?"

Then the idea of “Learning Science(s)” in Reiser and Dempsey’s book popping into my mind that might answer part of my aforementioned perplex. From D. Jonasson at als' ideas -“Over the last decade of the 20th century, constructivist epistemologies ushered in the learning science as an alternative to the instructional sciences. The learning sciences examine from a substantively different set of assumptions and scientific perspectives than do instructional sciences, such as instructional design. Learning from a learning sciences perspective, is activity or practice based, rather than communicative. Learning sciences are the convergence of design of activity systems, cognition, and socio-cultural context. The learning sciences apply theories to design of technology-enriched learning environments that engage and support learners in accomplishing more complex, authentic (contextual mediated), and meaningful learning activities with the goal of meaningful learning and conceptual change.”

“From the perspective of learning sciences, the learner is an intentional, active, and reflective agent who is responsible for construction personal mental models, the Learning sciences also rely heavily on social theories of learning and meaning making, such as social cognition, activity theory, motivation, and case-based reasoning that examine the social, organizational, and cultural dynamics of learning processes. The learning sciences also ascribe agency to groups who collaboratively con-construct group mental models. Finally, the learning sciences draw from computer sciences, especially computational modeling an artificial intelligence, as a means for designing technology-enhanced learning environments. Because of different theoretical emphases, learning outcomes from a learning sciences perspective are often of a different nature than the type of learning outcomes often specified in the instructional sciences. The instructional sciences usually emphasize the acquisition of behaviors and discrete skills. In contrast, learning outcome in the learning sciences tend to focus on knowledge building, conceptual change, reflection, self-regulation, and socially co-constructed meaning making.”

In short, there are distinctive themes reflecting the term “Learning Science” which is less ambiguous yet broad (enough for many debates to come) than the term “Learning Technologies” – just from my personal narrow point of view:

1. The learning sciences are theoretically and pragmatically based and research oriented.
2. Reify the basic constructivist epistemology (as long as people or learning cummunities embrace or endorse it!) via its derivative learning theories, pedagogies/andragogies, instructional design theories and practices.Saying this, the “Learning Sciences” versus “Learning Technologies” does remind me the critiques between Merrill and Wilson’s vision (straight vs. broad – on the road wildly vs. less travelled??) on the identity and future development of ID (IDT) at the end of the book.

#17 Reflection on “Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools:

#17 Reflection on “Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective” published in American Educational Research Journal Winter 2003, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 807–840 by Yong Zhao and Kenneth A. Frank

Here are the summary and my reflection Summary: The interesting idea in this paper came from the understanding Zebra Mussels that rapidly invaded the Great Lakes ecosystem. Simulating themselves as ecologists, the authors adopted the concepts of the interaction of ecological conditions, including characteristics of the invading species, characteristics of the existing species, temperatures, and other geographical characteristics. They then applied their understanding into computer uses in schools. In short, they intended to correct the traditional ways of studying discrete factors in isolation. The authors used the ecosystem as a metaphor to construct an interconnected framework and tested their model by selecting schools that had made significant investments in technology between 1996 and 2001. Their criteria for selecting districts for participation in the study included (a) recent passage (between 1996 and 2001) of a bond referendum or receipt of a community foundation grant for implementation of technology;(b) willingness on the part of the superintendent of schools to participate in the study; and (c) a district size that would allow us to include all of the elementary schools in the district. Metaphors they created are: (a) Schools are ecosystems; (b) computer uses are living species; (c) teachers are members of a keystone species; and (d) external educational innovations are invasions of exotic species. These metaphorical bridges are intended to help them apply what they learn from ecological examples to their current task of understanding technology uses in schools (p.811). As we know that an ecosystem has the tendency or ability to maintain internal equilibrium. The introduction of new species, whether intentional or unintentional, affects the equilibrium to varying degrees. When a new species, such as the zebra mussel, enters an existing ecosystem, it essentially is an invader from outside. The invading species may interact with one or more existing species. Depending on the properties of the invader and of the existing species, as well as on the types of interactions, several consequences may result: (a) The invader wins and wipes out the existing species; (b) both win and survive, in which case some other species may perish or the ecosystem may eventually become dysfunctional because of its limited capacity; (c) the invader loses and perishes; and (d) both the invader and the existing species go through a process of variation and selection and acquire new properties.

In this case, the techno-enthusiasts are viewed as invading species. Whether they are successfully adopted and become permanently established depends on their compatibility with the teaching environment.

The variables they constructed and employed were (1) the ecosystem, (2) the teacher’s niche in the ecosystem, (3) teacher–ecosystem interaction, (4) teacher–computer predisposition for compatibility, and (5) opportunities for mutual adaptation. For the implications for policy and practice the authors provided the following suggestions: teacher-level change; recruitment/selection; training/socialization; providing opportunities to explore and learn; leveraging change through the social context and programmatic possibilities (p.831) In part of their research, they used real life example to illustrate 3 phrases of interaction between a focal teacher and the new technology. Initially, the technology has certain capabilities, represented by its shape as depicted. The teacher’s perception of the value of the technology may reflect his or her history, pedagogical practices, and so forth, and may include an assessment of the costs associated with use. In the second phase, the teacher and the technology change shapes as they co-evolve. Note that the teacher’s modifications are influenced by the help received and by perceived pressure from others (shown by the dotted lines).The other teachers may, themselves, be reacting to institutions or other forces exogenous to the school. This process is analogous to the settlement process of an invading species as it interacts with native species, which in relation to the invader may become food sources, competitors, or predators. The compatibility between the invading species and the native species influences their ability to survive. When new computer uses “invade” a school, the forces of the larger ecosystem are conveyed by relationships within the subsystem of the school. In the last phase, the technology begins to conform to the teacher, as teachers develop the capacity to modify software and hard-ware to suit their needs. At the same time, the teacher can also change her ways of interacting with the computer, which may demand different teaching practices. This is the stage of co-evolution, in which the invading species and the native species adapt to each other by changing themselves. In other words, the teacher may change her role to become more of a facilitator than an instructor, while the computer becomes a tool to support that. Or the teacher may find the intended uses of the computer completely incompatible and stop using it. In a very unlikely scenario, the computer uses could become so pervasive that the teacher’s role in the school is transformed and her old role becomes extinct. The authors identified the factors influencing on computer use in schools are: location of exposure; teacher–computer predisposition to compatibility; playfulness, perceived complexity; perceived relative advantage; opportunities for mutual adaptation (Teacher Professional Development) and others.

They concluded that their ecological model took them beyond simply identifying and correlating factors and focused our attention on interactions, activities, processes, and practices. They suggested that by accepting ecological metaphor make the concept of innovations more clear by taking a holistic view. That is innovation cannot be implemented without regard to both internal structures of schools and/or external social forces that challenges the schools. Finally they concluded that an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to change in school computer use would be more appropriate. Reflection: One thing that echoed my thought from this paper is the issue concerning the nature of school teachers. Dan Lorti has detailed dissection on this issue in his classic Schoolteachers- A Sociological Study. Where do these teachers come from, why they want to be teachers, what are the criteria to recruit the teachers, how are they idiosyncratically and conservatively socializied, what does the school ecology and policy foster their development and so on, all were scrutinized in his book. In this article, the authors also mentioned researchers who pointed out the root of the above concerns from various angles such as from case studies (Cuban, 2001; Schofield, 1995; Zhao et al., 2002), to historical analysis (Cuban, 1986), to large surveys (Becker,2000a, 2001). They offer various accounts of why teachers do not frequently use technology to its full potential or in revolutionary ways that could truly lead to qualitatively different teaching and learning experiences (p.808). Some researchers believe that education is one of the most conservative social institutions that are directly at odds with new technologies. The authors quoted that the goal of schools as organizations, according to Hodas (1993), is “not to solve a defined problem but to relieve stress on the organization caused by pressure operating outside of or overwhelming the capacity of normal channels” (p. 2). In other words, schools naturally and necessarily resist changes that will put pressure on existing practices (Cohen, 1987; Cuban, 1986).

Look at the reality, it is the business world, or industrial-military complex that spearheads the revolutionary phenomena. It was astonishing to me when the first time encountering this statement “Those who can – do; those who cannot-----teach---- and “please teach well”! Hopefully, this is a finger pointing moment. If we want both quantity and quality, democratization and capitalization, believing in everyone can teach and learn, as well as teach and learn well, then more and more research like this will continuously reminds of the fundamental uniqueness of the structure and functions embedded in the education systems The other minor observation from this paper can be a bias of mine- I notice some research or disciplines inherited from European tradition or certain regions in Asia have a tendency to employ holistic or eclectic approaches in the studies. Both micro and macro views are important to gain insight into human complexity. Multi-level analysis and bio-ecological/system approach point out the interconnectedness of human conditions, while discrete ( isolated conditions) approach provides certain degree of causal or relational explanation.

#16 A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments (OELEs)

A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments (OELEs) -by Susan M. Land and Michael J. Hannafin ERT&D. Vol.44, No.3, 1996, p.37-53 ISSN 1042-1629

Land et al’s “ conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environment (OELE)” (1996), though written 12 years ago, is still an important framework added to currently available learning environments. This paper provided unique perspective for pondering. The following are my reading summary and reflection/questions.

Summary:

The authors proposed five elements of OELEs to represent the theory-in-action development process. They are:

1. Learner and system context

2. System affordance

3. Intention-action cycle

4. System response/feedback; and

5. Learning processing.

They also detailed the conceptual framework with a real life example -ErgoMotion to illustrate the processes of theory-building via their model. The authors concluded that open-ended learning involves learning process that was mediated by the “unique” intentions and purposes of individuals.

Reflection:

The word “unique” in the article caught my attention. These groups of individuals with unique intentions and purposes of individuals, from my observation of learners that I have encountered with, tend to be at the high end of individual characteristic spectrum. For example, they tend to possess non-normality of motivations, endeavors, preferred learning styles, specific interests, self-efficacy, problem solving strategies and skills, prior experience and knowledge, goal-orientation and so on personal characteristics. These non-mediocrities are what Cervone & Wood refer to – the background context that influences the choices learners make in the environment, and the extent to which they persevere on a task and the types of goals they set (1995). This is what I meant – Land and Hannafin’s framework is a unique one.

Observations/questions:

Contemporary theoretical constructs such as constructivism (Jonassen, 1991), situated cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989), and cognitive flexibility (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991) emphasize learners’ active learning processes. The ideas of microworlds (Papert, 1993a; 1993b; Rieber, 1992), anchored instruction (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992) were linked to contemporary pedagogical approaches initiated by Vygotsky and Piaget. In their views, the learner is perceived as AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCTOR of KNOWLEDGE. Thus, the whole tout of self-directed learning, experiential learning, situated/anchored learning comprise a range of empowering learning theories and frameworks to provide learners with the optimal learning environments.

I did not pose an inquiry on such a theory or assumption relating to constructivism or OELEs model that whether all the learners, majority of learners, some of the learners, or just a small group of learners are viewed as active constructors of knowledge (sounds like an anti-democratic -elitism obscurant?!) Furthermore, to what extent of activeness and constructiveness the knowledge is generated or claimed is my another question. For in the era of Piaget and Vygotsky, the elements of systematic contexts , system affordance, intention-action cycle , and system response/feedback might not have been added into the scenario. Not until Bronfenbrenner did bio-ecological system approach appear in the larger picture of human processing learning.

Personally, I see the merits of constructivism, particularly in the cyber knowledge explosive era. Constructivism and its sister theoretical pedagogies open the venues for the cyber knowledge aggregation (such as networking and learning communities) and knowledge generating. In our Joomla assignments, we adopted much of adult learning theories into our project reflecting such a preferred approach. Nevertheless, even within our mini higher education learning community, the ideals of collaborative and self-directed learning essence is still facing many challenges in terms of different levels of prior knowledge (or individual experience), self-regulations and endeavors, and different perception, interpretation, evaluation, and extrapolation in the intention-action cycle (i.e., levels of process in theory-in-action).

I understand and appreciate OELEs model’s richness and uniqueness. Diversity or variability, like collaboration, cooperation, group work, even as well as team work, is a double edged sword. It brings up kaleidoscopic points of views and challenges the homogenous monotony, as well as stimulates deeper understanding and problem solving capacity, but it also accompanies with some cumbersome or undesirable effects that tolls time and energy.

Comparing our mini Joomla collaborative adult learning group to my experiencing in engaging with my much diverse student body, ranging from having reading and writing challenges to the mature, authentically self-directed learners; from the young high school drop-out to the silvery 60+ grandparents; from the once wearing jump suit guys to the single mom/dad all gathering in the same online or f2f classrooms , the OELEs model indeed, is a unique one if it is applied into my teaching and learning environment with great caution and endeavors.

#15 Reflection and question on experiential learnign with working adults

Continuous, Interactive, and Online: A Framework for Experiential Learning with Working Adults by Eric Riedel, Leilani Endicott, Anna Wasescha, and Brandy Goldston published Volume 3 issue 6, August/Septermber/2007

When I was studying some quality assurance issues on adult learning, this article showed up during my browsing. It is like a case report. I gleaned over it and picked some good points for reference.

Summary: The article started with retrospection on the response to the criticism that universities were either dangerously aloof from the practicalities of the workplace or aligned with the military-industry complex. Later the higher education picked their new roles in facilitating students’ internships, field experiences, and service-learning to demonstrate some functionalities in preparing citizens for meaningful work and participation in the larger society.

The central theme of this article focuses on Walden University’s practice as a showcase. Walden is a distance learning alternative to traditional graduate schools, enrolling over 22,000 masters and doctoral students seeking several of degrees. The programs at Walden are administered through online courses, faculty-guided independent study projects called Knowledge Area Modules (KAMs), or a mix of the two approaches:

A. Lead faculty develop courses and are administered by full and part-time faculty who guide discussion, provide feedback on assignments, and supplement standard course materials. B. Faculty mentors guide student work on KAMs through e-mail, telephone, and an online forum providing continuous support to all of a mentor's students. Doctoral students are also required to attend 20 days of in-person residencies with faculty and other students held at temporary meeting spaces each year.

The school applies the intersection between experiential and online learning relies on those professional and social experience the students bring to the learning environment from their lives beyond the classroom. This scholar-practitioner approach contrasts with the traditional university model whereby a young adult with little work experience withdraws from the wider society to focus primarily on learning. The opportunity costs for older adults already engaged in professional, community, and family life often preclude such a withdrawal.

Reflection:

A significant point in Walden’s practice is that their admissions policy requires doctoral students having 3 years of practice within the field in which they seek a degree. Master's students are not required to have experience in their field at the time of admission, although these students typically do have such experience above and beyond the requirements they otherwise must meet. The average age of the Walden student is 37.6 years old, and nearly all of them are employed full-time during the period in which they are enrolled.

I can see the functions of the admission standards that obtain a certain degree of homogeneity in terms of age, educational level and occupational elements among those online students. From my observation, they comprise several aspects of adult learning theory: self-directed, transformative, experiential and contextualized learning within and beyond their learning communities. And like most of the busy adult life style, they juggle against time constraints in engaging in the multitasks among family, career, or communities.

Questions:

One of my puzzles in engaging in online teaching and learning is that there are population under various circumstances, seemingly having or seeking the possibility to do more with less resources (both the quantifiable and unquantifiable resources, in particular, time and money, and others, such as the emotions and relations etc.- the cost and effectiveness consideration). Time constraint is a typical factor in many people’s teaching and learning experiences. In Bransford et al’s (1999) “How people learn: mind, brain, experience and school”, pointing out an important component for learning to be transferred to new problems and situations is the time element. The same point was also presented in Lindsey Godwin and Soren Kaplan’s “Designing ee-Learning Environment” as posted in my previous reflection. They honestly addressed an important challenge that confronted the ee-learning: the time commitment from both participants and facilitators. Time spending is a measurable factor. Some research and experienced on liners claim that online teaching and learning are time consuming. According to this line of understanding, then it presents a contradictory scenario that people seek to save time and other resources by selecting a time consuming mechanism to fulfill that goal. I am not referring to the issue of short change of the educational quality. My question is about under what kind of conditions that people can do more with less, in particular, in term of the time constraints – the quantifiable equalizer – because we all have the same 24 hours a day!

Here is a vivid example to illustrate my question- some of my students – such as parents and single parent with young kids, dealing with many other family affairs (sick child, old relatives, personal illness and so on physical and emotional issues), juggling a couple of paid jobs, taking full time loads, busy with other communities issues, and expect to be an “A” student! Sometimes, I am thinking that most of them are supermen and superwomen!! In my case, as a slow bloomer, I have to sacrifice so many things and time in order to get one thing to be done a time!

April 3 (Th,) , 2008 #14 on AI (Appreciative Inquiry) +ee learning

Via our XtremeJoomla discussion, I decided to make a synopsis on Lendsey Godwin and Soren Kaplan’s Designing ee-Learning Environment-Lessons from an Online Workshop, published on Innovate Online Journal (http://innovateonline.info/?view=issue) Volume 4, Issue 4, April/May 2008. I suggested to our team to well document the processes and make it a potentially publishable work.

Here is my summary and reflection: The whole concept of ee-learning came from some program offered in the field of organizational development. The program innovated a term-the appreciative inquiry which is an approach in the OD learning. Cocreated by David Cooperrider, appreciative inquiry is a strength-based management philosophy and whole-system change methodology (Cooperrider and Whitney 2005) that is said to be "revolutionizing the field of organizational development” (Quinn 2000, 220) through its application of guiding principles that focus an organization's energy on success and possibility.

Before going to next section, I quoted the definition of appreciative inquiry (AI) from this paper as follows:“Appreciative Inquiry is about the coevolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them. In its broadest focus, it involves systematic discovery of what gives “life” to a living system when it is most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI involves, in a central way, the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential. It centrally involves the mobilization of inquiry through the crafting of the “unconditional positive question” often-involving hundreds or sometimes thousands of people. In AI the arduous task of intervention gives way to the speed of imagination and innovation; instead of negation, criticism, and spiraling diagnosis, there is discovery, dream, and design. AI seeks, fundamentally, to build a constructive union between a whole people and the massive entirety of what people talk about as past and present capacities: achievements, assets, unexplored potentials, innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, high point moments, lived values, traditions, strategic competencies, stories, expressions of wisdom, insights into the deeper corporate spirit or soul-- and visions of valued and possible futures. Taking all of these together as a gestalt, AI deliberately, in everything it does, seeks to work from accounts of this “positive change core”—and it assumes that every living system has many untapped and rich and inspiring accounts of the positive. Link the energy of this core directly to any change agenda and changes never thought possible are suddenly and democratically mobilized.” (Excerpted from - A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry by David L. Cooperrider and Diana Whitney).

The AI ee-learning, in this article connects to several theories, such as Klob’s experientical learning (as we read in the early of this semester) and Gardner’s multiple intelligent learners as well as a little bit from Tapscott (1998) and Dede’s (2005) technology impact on the current generations. The following section provides the details of the main theme.

The concept of ee-Learning is defined by Steve Eskow (Trevitte and Eskow 2007), describing a hybrid approach to pedagogy that combines online learning with experiential, offline, hands-on learning. The electronic component was influenced by the learning platform provided by iCohere (see the note at the end of this section), the overarching design of the learning was informed by the experiential learning theory outlined by David Kolb, and a colleague of Cooperrider. Kolb's experiential learning theory proposes that "knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb 1984, 41). While many discussions on experiential learning focus only on the experience portion of the theory, Kolb's model suggests that learning actually takes place through a four-step process called the experiential learning cycle in creating an experiential learning in online environment. I transferred it to our current on-going project- Xtremejoomla.(Note: iCohere, it is an organization that provides web collaboration software tools for association, governmental organizations, and communities.)

The steps in the experiential learning cycle include

1. having a concrete experience- such as we are going through the Joomla learning process with real minds on and hands on concrete experience.

2. reflecting on that experience- we reflect on our blogging on the way through each step in our Joomla learning

3. conceptualizing abstractly about the experience- during the Joomla journey, we meta-cognitively construct concepts and the hands-on experience about our learning, such as reifying each step according to the 7 AL learning principles by adding theoretical foundation, pedagogical practice aligning with curriculum design with outlined lesson plans, using Internet, and media enhancement in the pedagogy and curriculum via collaborative processes in synched manner and so on.

4. actively experimenting with a new behavior- we are actively playing out various collaborative roles and learning different kinds of behavior in our learning process.

This workshop provides the following weekly learning agenda, some of which relate to our project:

1. A weekly "live meeting". We did a couple of times. But we did not set up a weekly agenda.

2. Learning activities. These offline activities required students to apply the concepts of AI to their organizational experiences and gain hands-on learning of AI as a philosophy and a methodology, either with other students or on their own. We do have our learning activities, but are in a semi-structured way – I think

3. Readings. Articles on the theory and application of appreciative inquiry, in conjunction with case studies and tools created by OD practitioners, illustrated how AI has been applied in various organizational contexts. We are focusing on AL principles. But AI is appropriate to blend into our current project. We could add a reading list for all of us to engage with.

4. Learning presentations. Prerecorded lectures from Cooperrider, along with video case studies from organizations, were available on demand to help students gain a deeper understanding of the concepts and applications of AI. In this case, we all can make a mini breeze presentation to showcase what and how we understand AL+AI in the XtremeJoomla project

5. Reflective prompts. These questions encouraged students to make links between the theory and their own experiences and invited them to share their reflections. I think our blog supposed to function in this way.

Blending Technology and Content to Support ee-Learning

In their designing the workshop, they realized that technology and content needed to work together to facilitate the range of learning experiences in the experiential learning cycle. The online iCohere environment, which includes discussion boards, live-chat tools, file-sharing options, and an expandable reference library, was designed specifically to support ee-learning. Participants began the workshop by reviewing a narrated presentation that introduced the workshop site's various features, including specific screenshots of the environment.

Bridging Online and Offline Environments

In addition to creating a virtual environment that supported a range of experiential activities, they also wanted to complement participants' online learning with offline applications. Each week students were required to engage in an offline, job-specific application project based on the weekly topic. In our case, we did it in a more less structured way of when online and when offline.

The Learning Cycle Transcends Virtual Boundaries

The question of how people learn in online environments has prompted energetic debate. Like Kolb's experiential learning theory, Gardner's (1993) multiple intelligences theory suggests that individuals have different preferences and aptitudes for different types of learning. Further, Tapscott (1998) and Dede (2005) have outlined the impact of increasingly ubiquitous technology on the current generation's learning styles and abilities. They have seen that age, cultural background, and geography (since some of our participants come from regions of the world where Internet connections are still rare or inconsistent) can all impact a student's confidence level with online tools and thus the learning experience itself.

It's Not Really About the Technology

They have found that successful ee-learning does not necessarily require the most sophisticated technologies available. Rather, the key factor in designing ee-learning environments is intention. Trainers and educators who use online pedagogies must create curricula purposely designed to include the various elements of experiential learning: reflection opportunities, active projects, and conceptual resources. Without such intention, technology features—rather than educational outcomes—can begin to drive content.

Virtual Connections are Real Connections

To help students make meaningful connections with each other, they began each workshop with a paired interview activity. This is similar to our peers to peers collaborative genre in our project.

Conclusion

Their workshop translated appreciative inquiry, an experiential approach to organizational change, into an online workshop, they see the potential for other theories and approaches that are typically delivered in a traditional face-to-face setting to be delivered effectively online. As long as theories and concepts are applied to specific real-life issues, there is potential for creating a vibrant ee-learning environment where participants engage in applied work offline and share their reflections online.

This article also concluded an important challenging confronting the ee-learning: the time commitment from both participants and facilitators. That is very true in our case too. Like in our XtremeJoomla project, we all have various roles to play and works to be done which sometimes make a gathering either synchronously or asynchronously both online and F2F very challenging, not to mention a group of 94 participants across 17 countries in their workshop!!!

Reflection:

The ee+AI learning as I call it, is another innovation added to the online learning environment. I appreciate the creative and pragmatic idea of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) searching for the best in people, organizations, and the relevant world around our daily lives. It involves systematic discovery of what gives “life” to a living system when it is most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential. In this sense, I consider that AI tend to facilitate the high end of population and condition, because I have a tendency to look at an innovation that has the potential to narrow the disparity among human being's developmental possibility.

The AI concept also reminds of my reading through Reiser and Dempsey’s “Trends and Issues in Instructional design and Technology, 2nd ed.). One of the chapter details the framework of HPI/HPT tying to Shultz and Becker’s (the Nobel Economics winners) concept of Human Capitals. They proclaim that it is human or non-instructional factors that need to be well addressed, investigated as well improved in the performance. They explicate that knowledge and performance capabilities of population (more than the natural resources) correlate to the economic success of a country. I perceive the relevant idea in Cooperrider et al’s AI.

The Al and AL do focus on the zone of optimal performance of human capacity, but AI seems gearing toward one end of the spectrum.

I also observe some similarity to what we learned in class across AI and AL, such as learner-centered (i.e., based on Gardner’s multiple intelligence and learning style/preference in AI), collaborative and interactive learning, experiential leraning (Kolb), online synched environment (more in AL's GoNorth), pedagogy aligned with constructed curriculum with detailed outline lessen plan, media enhancement, which are also more articulated in the AL. AI also has adventure ingredient with online and offline features, depending on the aspect of adventuring. The other minor difference is that AI tends to focus on adult learning experience, for the reflective and inquiry components are more emphasized in the meta-cognitive or abstract/conceptual level.

#13 on design-based/experiment research readings

Summary Design-based research (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992) has been emerging for the studying of learning in context through the systematic design and study of instructional strategies and tools. This research paradigm shifting brought in many vision, revision and arguments. My current reading includes a series of monographs and papers surrounding around this theme- call it experiment design research, design-based research, or teaching experiment - in the CI8395 list. These eight articles provide an array of advocate and critique of its structures, functions, limitations as well as potential solutions. Most of these articles either champion or espouse the new possibilities and contribution to improve and innovate the educational theories and practice. One of them, Shavelson et al’s “On the Science of Education Design Studies”, on the other hand, argues that design studies must comport with guiding scientific principles and provide adequate warrants for their knowledge claims. They acknowledge the nature of the messiness of the educational ecology study. For design studies are complex, multivariate, multilevel, and interventionist, making warrants particularly difficult to establish. They critique on the typically heavy usage of design studies on narrative accounts to communicate and justify the findings. They argue that narratives often purport to be true, but there is nothing in narrative form that guaranteed veracity. The solution they propose is to provide a framework that links design-study research questions as they evolve over time with corresponding research methods. In this way, integration can be seen of research methods focused on discovery with methods focused on validation of claims. That is what I agree upon- the tough task that a well designed design-based research needs to envision and to employ the fittest methods and documentations from an array of available research methods and methodologies into the ongoing research processes. It, by nature, also tests the heuristics and wisdom of researchers and teams to deploy appropriate multiple methods and triangulation to provide warrants and knowledge claims. The above article is the major critique from the eight on design-based/experiment research. The rest of papers are mainly supporting or implementing (such as model building or framework constructing based on the tenet of design-based research) this methodology. In the article, “Design-based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry”, the Baumgartner et al remark that design-based research blends empirical educational research with the theory-driven design of learning environment, is an important methodology of understanding how , when, and why educational innovations work in practice. Design based researchers’ innovations embody specific theoretical claims about teaching and learning, and help us understand the relationships among educational theories, designed artifact, and practice. Design is central in efforts to foster learning, create usable knowledge, and advance theories of learning and teaching in complex settings. Design-based research also many contribute o the growth of human capacity for subsequent education reform. I think I might have an opportunity to carry out a small scale of design research in my coming semester if I choose to teach the brand new LiveMeeting with Sociology. The following sections are my study notes to reinforce such a temptation from these articles: Prospects for design-based research in education: the promise the design-based research can provide: a exploring possibilities for creating novel learning and teaching environment b. developing theories of learning and instruction that are contextually based c. advancing and consolidating design knowledge, and d. increasing or capacity for educational innovation.

Be careful! Challenges faced by design-based research methods: the issues of reliability and validity of data collection and interpretation are different from the controlled experiment. Design based research relies on techniques used in other paradigms which I am familiar with are case study, ethnography, hermeneutic phenomenology, historiography, ethnomethodology, which depend on thick description datasets, systematic analysis of date with carefully defined measures and consensus in building within the field around interpretation of the data. When trying to promote the objectivity, while attempting to facilitating the interpretation, design-based researchers regularly find themselves in t he dual roles of advocate and critic. It is possible to employ specific research methods to question the designer-researcher’s tacitly held assumptions. The methods of documenting process of enactment with triangulation of multiple sources to provide critical evidence to establish warrants for claimed outcomes. In “Design Experiments in Educational Research” , Cobb et al Cobb et al (2003) propound that design-based research can help create and extend knowledge about developing, enacting, and sustaining innovative environments. A good design-based research has the following characteristics, according to Cobb et al’s suggestions:

1.The central goals of designing learning environments and developing theories or “prototheories” of learning are intertwined. 2. Development and research take place through continuous cycles of design, enactment, analysis and redesign (Cobb, 2001; Collins 1992). 3. Research on designs must lead to sharable theories that help communicate relevant implications to practitioners and other educational designers (cf. Brophy, 2002). 4. Research must account for how design function in authentic settings. It must not just document success or failure but also focus on interactions that refine our understanding of the learning issues involved. The development of such accounts relies on methods that can document and connect processes of enactment to outcomes of interests. 5. Design experiments are pragmatic as well as theoretical in orientation – both of the design and of the resulting ecology of learning- is at the heart of this methodology.

The range and settings vary in both research type and scope: 1. One on one (teacher-experimenter and student)design experiments in which a research team conducts a series of teaching sessions with a small number of students. The aim is to create a small scale version of a learning ecology so that it can be studied in depth and detail (Cobb & Steffe, 1983; Steffe & Thompson, 2000). I think I might try this one if things come together for me to do it! 2. Classroom experiments in which a research team collaborates with a teacher (who might be a research team in which a research team collaborates with a teacher (who might be a research team member) to assume responsibility for instruction (Cobb, 2000; Confrey & Lachance, 2000; Gravemeijer, 1994). 3. Preservice teacher development experiments in which a research team helps organize and study the education of prospective teachers (Simon, 2000). In-service teacher development studies in which researchers collaborate with teachers to support the development of a professional community (Lehrer & Schaulble, 2000; Stein, Silver, & Smith, 1998). 4. School and school district restructuring experiments in which a research team collaborates with teachers, school administrators, and other stakeholders to support organizational change (Confrey, Bell, & Carrejo, 2001). They also identified 5 crosscutting features of design study: 1. The purposes of design experimentation is to develop a class of theories about both the process of learning and the means that are designed to support that learning. It can be the learning of individual students, a classroom community, a professional teaching community, a school or school district as an organization. The means for supporting learning encompass the affordances and constraints of material artifacts, teaching and learning practices, and policy levers etc.

2. It is necessary to document learning ecologies at multiple levels (Kelly & Lesh, 2000). Example: A research team focuses on the norms and practices of a professional teaching community, the participating teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and instructional practices, and their students’ reasoning in a particular content domain.

3. The highly interventionist nature of the methodology- design studies are typically test-beds for innovation. The design developed while preparing for an experiment draws on prior research and attempts to cash in the empirical and theoretical results of that research. The process of engineering the forms of leaning being studies provided the research team with a measure of control when compared with purely naturalistic investigation. Design experiments have two faces: prospective and reflective. On the prospective side, designs are implemented with a hypothesized learning process and the means of supporting it in mind in order to expose the details of the process to scrutiny. On the reflective side, design experiments re conjecture-driven tests, often at several levels of analysis.

4. The above two aspects result in the iterative design.

5. The pragmatic nature-theories developed during t he process of experiment are humble in terms of domain specific learning processes, and also are accountable to the activity of design. The theories do real work. General philosophical orientations to educational matters- such as constructivism – are important to educational practice, but they tend to fail to provide detailed guidance in organizing instruction. The question is Does theory informs prospective design and in what way? Design experiment also tend to emphasize and intermediate theoretical scope (diSessa, 1991) that is located between a narrow account of a specific system.

Preparing for design experiment, according to Cobb et al’s perspective: 1. Clarifying the theoretical intent: What is the point of the study? Example: the relationship between classroom norms of a discipline and student learning, or diversity of students’ prior experiences can be capitalized upon as a resource to ensure that all student have access to significant disciplinary ideas. 2. Specify the significant disciplinary ideas and forms of reasoning that constitute the prospective goals or endpoints for student learning. This usually involves drawing on the synthesizing the prior research literature to identify central organizing ideas for s domain. 3. Specifies the assumptions about the intellectual and social starting points of the envisioned forms of learning. These works include current student capabilities, practices, their initial interpretation and understanding as part of the pilot work. 4. Formulate a design that embodies testable conjectures about both significant shifts in student reasoning and the specific means of supporting these shifts.

Conducting a Design experiment A primary goal for the study is to improve the initial design by testing and revising conjectures as informed by ongoing analysis of both the students’ reasoning and the learning environment. There are 4 functions they require ongoing direct engagement in the research setting and the associated planning and interpretive activates: 1. A clear view of the anticipated learning pathways and the potential of support must be maintained and communicated within the research team, 2. Cultivation of ongoing relationships with practitioners 3. Seek to develop a deep understanding of the ecology of learning – a theoretical target for the research 4. Regular debriefing. One of the characteristics of the design experiment methodology is that the research team deepens its understanding of the phenomenon under investigation while the experiment is in progress. It is standard procedure in most engineering disciplines to keep records to support the retrospective analysis of the experiment (Edelson, 2002). Accordingly, the research team may employ audio record f meeting and logs to document the evolving conjectures, together with the observations that re views as either supporting or questioning a conjecture. This is an interesting article! For research across disciplines and across methods and methodologies, McCandliss et al’s article propose that design-experiments might be productively combined with methods of inquiry common in more traditional elaborative science and considers the potential benefits of such a dialectic. The authors hope to promote a constructive dialogue to help formulate an infrastructure for the science of education that synthesized theoretical insights supported by a wide array of investigational methodologies (Posner & McCandliss, 1993). The article retrospected to the recent Congressional and U.S. Department of Education policy statements mark a radical shift in the shaping of future educational research methodology, calling for randomized controlled trials as the primary source of “scientific evidence” relevant to improve practice (Shavelson, Phillips, Towne, & Feuer, 2003). There is a basic tension between the types of methods and frameworks advanced in these recent calls for evidence-based practice and those that have proven to be useful in the leading models for design experiments. Ann Brown’s (1992) research provided vision to this tension.She envisioned dynamic relationships between classroom-based and elaborative-based research. Her work provided specific examples of observations, conjectures, and artifacts that might be transported across these two research contexts. She perceived such exchange as bi-directional supporting a mutually beneficial cross-fertilization of tow very different research contexts. Unfortunately many of the dominant design experiment approaches have provide little or no provision for intellectual exchange with laboratory science methods. After perusing these articles, the potentiality, functionalities, limitations and challenges of the design-based/experiments research come alive in front of me.