Search Results For COVA an ePortfolio | 40 Results

Search Results For "COVA an ePortfolio"

Who Owns the ePortfolio

Dwayne Harapnuik — September 23, 2015

An initial response to this question would be the learner/student. It is their work so they would own it – wouldn’t they? However, if you look at current ePortfolio practice and the research into learner engagement, agency, choice, and voice you will find that even though the students are doing the work, more often than not they do not own the ideas and are not making meaningful connections, they are simply completing assignments and giving the instructor what they want (Barrett, 2005; Hopper & Standford, 2007; Lindren & McDaniel, 2012; Atwell, 2013; Buchem, Tur & Holterhof, 2014).

The following student statement collected as part of UBC’s ePortfolio Pilot Project confirms this unwritten instructional arrangement (Tosh, Penny Light, Flemming & Haywood, 2005):

The things we are supposed to do for it [the e-portfolio] are kind of like assignments and no offense but everybody knows, for assignments, you give them what they want – you give them what they want and they give you your mark, that’s basically the way it works.

Unfortunately, jumping through the hoops prevents deeper learning and is killing the meaningful connections that come from reflections on learning in an ePortfolio (Barrett, 2005).

Gardner Campbell (2009) proposed that we move beyond the template-driven, plug-and-play, turnkey web applications where we point students to data buckets and conduits we’ve already made. In contrast, we must enable students to create personal cyberinfrastructures where students become effective architects, narrators, curators, and inhabitants of their own digital lives. This personal cyberinfrastructure has been realized in the University of Mary Washington’s Domain of One’s Own and similar initiatives at other universities (Watters, 2015).

Even if we get the Domain of One’s Own piece right and give students the control over the selection of the ePortfolio tools and the environment we can still limit the effectiveness of the ePortfolio experience if we fail to listen to our students and address two additional key factors.

1. Ownership of ideas and learning

In the provocative student voice post Do I Own My Domain If You Grade It? Andrew Rikard points out:

Giving a student ownership over data means nothing if it doesn’t allow them to determine that data. At that point, the student once again loses agency in relation to the institution. Promoting digital ownership is different than assigning work in publicly accessible spaces (2015).

Rikard displays wisdom beyond his years by challenging us to acknowledge that:

‘Domains’ is radical not because it is a technological shift, but because it encourages a pedagogical shift… The question bigger than data ownership is how to make ownership over ideas happen (2015).

It is this ownership of ideas that leads to deeper learning. In order to make meaningful connections, one has to take ownership of those ideas and concepts in order to construct meaning. Eportfolio proponents all point to the power of reflection but unless the student is reflecting on ideas that they own rather than reflecting on artifacts and data the power of this reflection is lost. Making meaningful connections is what leads to learning.

Therefore, we have to not only give students a choice, ownership, voice, and authentic learning (COVA) over their digital domain we have to give them COVA (Thibodeaux, 2015) over their ideas. The best way to do this is through a learning environment and pedagogy that provides authentic assignments and gives the student the opportunity to solve real-world problems in their own institutions or organizations.

Educators also have to create and model this type of learning environment if they wish to help bring out a change in education.

2. Modeling – Walk the talk

Once again we need to look at what our students are saying about how well we model or walk the talk. The research into UBC’s ePortfolio Pilot Project Tosh et al (2005) revealed that students wanted to be shown good examples of ePortfolio, be given evidence of how the ePortfolio will benefit them in their studies and future work, and, most importantly, have the instructors show them one of their own portfolios. The following statement from a disillusioned student in the UBC ePortfolio Pilot Project (2005) captures the essence of not being able to walk the talk:

In terms of promotion the problem is the people trying to explain it [the eportfolio] have probably never used it so in a way they have no clue what they are talking about, basically. To put it frankly – after listening to them you would be like, Okay so you as an outsider who never even used it is telling us we should do this because it is the best thing since sliced bread but you have never used it – you can’t find someone who did use it – you don’t have enough information to tell us how to use it – and now you’re telling us use it and we’ll grade you on it – this kind of makes it hard for students to accept or appreciate it.

Educators need to realize that we if expect to maintain any level of credibility and respect with our students we can only ask our students to do things we are willing to do ourselves. John Hattie points to feedback within a trusted relationship between and teacher and a student as one of the important factors in student achievement. If we effectively model what we expect our students to do with their ePortfolio by showing them ours, then the feedback we can provide to our students will be much more valuable and more openly received.

Fortunately, there are instructors who are effectively modeling deeper learning in the Domain of One’s Own project at MWU (Groom & Lamb, 2014) and several other institutions who have adopted this model.
Image Source: https://marcabraham.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/book-review-crossing-the-chasm/
Our challenge is to move this beyond the early adopters and encourage the early and later majority of instructors to utilize and model ePortfolio. Perhaps we are closer to this becoming a reality than ever before.

References

Attwell, G. (2012, September). Who owns the e-Portfolio? Retrieved from http://www.pontydysgu.org/2012/09/who-owns-the-e-portfolio

Barrett, H. (2005) ePortfolios for learning(Blog). Retrieved September 21, 2005 from: http://electronicportfolios.org/blog/

Buchem, I., Tur, G., & Holterhof, T. (2014). Learner Control in Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Literacy and Technology Special Edition, 15(2), 14–53.

Domain of One’s Own. (2015). Retrieved from http://academics.umw.edu/dtlt/2014/06/23/domain-of-ones-own-video/

Groom, J., & Lamb, B. (2014). Reclaiming Innovation. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/visuals/shared/er/extras/2014/ReclaimingInnovation/default.html

Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.

Hopper, T., & Sanford, K. (2007). E-portfolio in teacher education: Pre-service teacher ownership of their learning and the Standards to be certified as teachers. University of Victoria. Retrieved from http://web.uvic.ca/~thopper/Site%20articles/Report%20e-portfolio.pdf

Lindren, R., & McDaniel, R. (2012). Transforming Online Learning through Narrative and Student Agency. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 344–355.

Rikard, A. (n.d.). Do I Own My Domain If You Grade It? (EdSurge News). Retrieved September 8, 2015, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2015-08-10-do-i-own-my-domain-if-you-grade-it

Thibodeaux, T. (2015) The idea for abbreviating choice, ownership, voice, and agency as COVA came out of a conversation with my Lamar University colleague.

Tosh, D., Light, T. P., Fleming, K., & Haywood, J. (2005). Engagement with electronic portfolios: Challenges from the student perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 31(3).

Watters, A. (2014, April). Beneath the Cobblestones… A Domain of One’s Own [Blog]. Retrieved September 11, 2015, from http://hackeducation.com/2014/04/25/domain-of-ones-own-incubator-emory

ePortfolio
Why: Learning to learn
What: Doing the learning
How: Showing the learning
Who: Owning the learning
ePortfolio Examples

Revised Sept 2023

Who Owns the Eportfolio?

Dwayne Harapnuik — September 17, 2015 — Leave a comment

An initial response to this question would be: the learner/student. It is their work so they would own it – wouldn’t they? However, if you look at current eportfolio practice and the research into learner engagement, agency, choice and voice you will find that even though the students are doing the work, more often than not they do not own the ideas and are not making meaningful connections, they are simply completing assignments and giving the instructor what they want (Barrett, 2005; Hopper & Standford, 2007; Lindren & McDaniel, 2012; Atwell, 2013; Buchem, Tur & Holterhof, 2014).

The following student statement collected as part of UBC’s ePortfolio Pilot Project confirms this unwritten instructional arrangement (Tosh, Penny Light, Flemming & Haywood, 2005):

The things we are supposed to do for it [the e-portfolio] are kind of like assignments and no offense but everybody knows, for assignments, you give them what they want – you give them what they want and they give you your mark, that’s basically the way it works.

Unfortunately, jumping through the hoops prevents deeper learning and is killing the meaningful connections that come from reflections on learning in an eportfolio (Barrett, 2005).

Gardner Campbell (2009) proposed that we move beyond the template-driven, plug-and-play, turnkey web applications where we point students to data buckets and conduits we’ve already made. In contrast, we must enable students to create personal cyberinfrastructures where students become effective architects, narrators, curators, and inhabitants of their own digital lives. This personal cyberinfrastructure has been realized in University of Mary Washington’s Domain of One’s Own and similar initiatives at other universities (Watters, 2015).

Even if we get the Domain of One’s Own piece right and give students the control over the selection of the eportfolio tools and environment we can still limit the effectiveness of the eportfolio experience if we fail listen to our students and address two additional key factors.

1. Ownership of ideas and learning

In the provocative student voice post Do I Own My Domain If You Grade It? Andrew Rikard points out:

Giving a student ownership over data means nothing if it doesn’t allow them to determine that data. At that point the student once again loses agency in relation to the institution. Promoting digital ownership is different than assigning work in publicly accessible spaces (2015).

Rikard displays wisdom beyond his years by challenging us to acknowledge that:

‘Domains’ is radical not because it is a technological shift, but because it encourages a pedagogical shift… The question bigger than data ownership is how to make ownership over ideas happen (2015).

It is this ownership of ideas that leads to deeper learning. In order to make meaningful connections one has to take ownership of those ideas and concepts in order to construct meaning. Eportfolio proponents all point to the power of reflection but unless the student is reflecting on ideas that they own rather than reflecting on artifacts and data the power of this reflection is lost. Making meaningful connections is what leads to learning.

Therefore, we have to not only give students a choice, ownership, voice and agency (COVA) over their digital domain we have to give them COVA (Thibodeaux, 2015) over their ideas. The best way to do this is through a learning environment and pedagogy that provides authentic assignments and gives the student the opportunity to solve real world problems in their own institutions or organizations.

Educators also have to create and model this type of learning environment if they wish to help bring out change in education.

2. Modeling – Walk the talk

Once again we need to look to what our students are saying about how well we model or walk the talk. The research into UBC’s ePortfolio Pilot Project Tosh et al (2005) revealed that students wanted to be shown good examples of eportfolios, be given evidence of how the eportfolio will benefit them in their studies and future work and, most importantly, have the instructors show them one of their own portfolios. The following statement from a disillusioned students in the UBC ePortfolio Pilot Project (2005) captures the essence of not being able to walk the talk:

In terms of promotion the problem is the people trying to explain it [the eportfolio] have probably never used it so in a way they have no clue what they are talking about, basically. To put it frankly – after listening to them you would be like, Okay so you as an outsider who never even used it is telling us we should do this because it is the best thing since sliced bread but you have never used it – you can’t find someone who did use it – you don’t have enough information to tell us how to use it – and now you’re telling us use it and we’ll grade you on it – this kind of makes it hard for students to accept or appreciate it.

Educators need to realize that we if expect to maintain any level of credibility and respect with our students we can only ask our students to do things we are willing to do ourselves. John Hattie points to feedback within a trusted relationship between and teacher and a student as one of the important factors in student achievement. If we effectively model what we expect our student to do with their eportfolios by showing them ours, then the feedback we can provide to our students will be much more valuable and more openly received.

Fortunately, there are instructors who are effectively modeling deeper learning in the Domain of One’s Own project at MWU (Groom & Lamb, 2014) and several other institutions who have adopted this model.
Image Source: https://marcabraham.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/book-review-crossing-the-chasm/
Our challenge is to move this beyond the early adopters and encourage the early and later majority of instructors to utilize and model eportfolios. Perhaps we are closer to this becoming a reality than ever before.

References

Attwell, G. (2012, September). Who owns the e-Portfolio? Retrieved from http://www.pontydysgu.org/2012/09/who-owns-the-e-portfolio

Barrett, H. (2005) ePortfolios for learning(Blog). Retrieved September 21, 2005 from: http://electronicportfolios.org/blog/

Buchem, I., Tur, G., & Holterhof, T. (2014). Learner Control in Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Literacy and Technology Special Edition, 15(2), 14–53.

Domain of One’s Own. (2015). Retrieved from http://academics.umw.edu/dtlt/2014/06/23/domain-of-ones-own-video/

Groom, J., & Lamb, B. (2014). Reclaiming Innovation. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/visuals/shared/er/extras/2014/ReclaimingInnovation/default.html

Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.

Lindren, R., & McDaniel, R. (2012). Transforming Online Learning through Narrative and Student Agency. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 344–355.

Rikard, A. (n.d.). Do I Own My Domain If You Grade It? (EdSurge News). Retrieved September 8, 2015, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2015-08-10-do-i-own-my-domain-if-you-grade-it

Thibodeaux, T. (2015) The idea for abbreviating choice, ownership, voice and agency as COVA came out of a conversation with my Lamar University colleague.

Watters, A. (2014, April). Beneath the Cobblestones… A Domain of One’s Own [Blog]. Retrieved September 11, 2015, from http://hackeducation.com/2014/04/25/domain-of-ones-own-incubator-emory

In Eportfolio agency, choice, learner, ownership, Voice

Writing Doesn’t Have So Be So Hard

Dwayne Harapnuik — May 29, 2023 — Leave a comment

Getting Back to Regular Writing
In the past 6 months, my family and I have experienced 3 major traumatic events that have consumed our lives. During this time, I have not been able to do much more than keep up with my workload and the new challenges that I am dealing with. While I have managed to keep up with my instruction and other responsibilities I have in running the Applied Digital Learning Masters, unfortunately, my writing, publication, content creation, and other development tasks have been severely limited. Even though the impacts of these challenges are still present I have learned to live with the changes and am moving forward. I have also gotten to the point where I am able to share the lessons I have learned and over the past few weeks have started writing again. As I move forward I hope that the new stories I am about to share will help others. The following are some of the key points that I will be focusing on as I move forward.

It’s About the Story/Purpose
In the post Sharing Stuff That Sticks and Want to Change the World: Tell a Good Story I make the argument that good stories or a good narrative can have a huge impact. Unfortunately, academics, teachers, and students often forget this simple fact and get caught up in the mechanics of writing, and lose sight of the purpose of the writing.

I am not alone in my thinking about writing. In Why Academics Stink at Writing – Steven Pinker’s article Why Academics Stink at Writing is a must-read – https://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/duncan.hasell/engl1302/academic-writing/Why%20Academics%20Writing%20Stinks%20-%20The%20Chronicle%20of%20Higher%20Education.pdf

Eliminate Passive Voice and Us Active Voice
Consider how difficult the following statement is to understand:

It has been observed in a frequency all too significant that students upon submission of their written assignments have been inclined to have chosen a manner of composition that is too often far from one that is direct enough to be understood as conveying meaning in a fashion that is most expedient.

You will find the interpretation of this statement as well as an assortment of resources and links on how to avoid using passive voice in the post How to Use Zombies to Kill Passive Voice.

Primary Sources
In the post To Get the Real Story You Need to Go to Primary Sources I point to the fact that YOU have the responsibility to verify what you read by reading critically and thinking analytically while looking at the evidence. I have also argued that the notion of trusted sources is something that we cannot rely on anymore, at least not completely. I will go as far as to suggest that there are some sources that I may be more inclined to initially trust but I would still verify.

Whom can you trust? Trust yourself. You need to do your due diligence and look at all the facts and make an informed decision. There is no quick fix. The most efficient way is to go back to the primary sources and see what is really being claimed. Please keep this in mind as you do your research for your writing.

Literature Review – What Does the Data Say Tips
Even if you have to write for a very specific academic purpose like a literature review remember that purpose or story behind what you are looking to the literature for support. Make sure you take some time to review the Literature Review tips on the ADL/EDLD 5305 Tips & Perspectives page –

Going Deeper
Please remember that the following sections of my website/ePortfolio will have a wealth of information that will help you Change the World One Learner at a Time by adopting a Learner’s Mindset and sharing that journey.

In Authentic Learning, Learning, Writing challenges, learners mindset, Learning, LM, Stories, writing

EdTech Tips

Dwayne Harapnuik — March 21, 2022

In the Applied Digital Learning (ADL) program students develop an innovation project that they work on throughout their time in the program. In contrast EdTech students only have 4 courses in the ADL. To help you with the adjustment to the ADL program and to deal with the authentic learning opportunity/project focus of the ADL we have put together the following resources specifically for EdTech students.

EdTech and Educational Leadership students will need an innovation project to work on for the 4 courses you are taking in the ADL program. The Leadership Project that is part of your practicum log can/should be used as the project in the ADL courses. It will add 20 hours to the overall Internship/Practicum Log so you need to pick a project/topic that fits under the Leadership umbrella and that you can then build on in each of the ADL courses. You have control over the choice of the project/topic and we encourage you to use the Choosing your Innovation Project section below to help you decide on what you can do. If you have spent any time at all in an instructional environment you can easily see many things that may need to be fixed. Focusing on fixing one of these problems is a good start for your innovation plan project. The ADL Why & Principles page provides the theoretical background for why authentic projects are so important for what we ask you to do in the program.

The ePortfolio (eP) is another very important component of ALL ADL courses. You will need an ePortfolio to complete all of the assignments in each of the courses. We suggest creating one with a simple tool such as Wix or WordPress. Both applications have lots of video help. You must include a blog page on your site, so Google Sites is not typically recommended because there is no built-in blog page. The Minimalist Fundamentals of ePortfolios section below will point you to the same resources that ADL students use to create ePortfolios.

Hopefully, the following information we have put together will give you a better idea of the how, the why, and the what you are heading into. In every course from the ADL program, there are facets that you will be able to include in the practicum report.

What to Expect from the ADL

The Applied Digital Learning (ADL) at Lamar University is designed with and uses constructivist principles that make it different from traditional programs. We believe that it is important to more than talk the constructivist talk and actually walk the constructivist walk have moved beyond the rhetoric by a creating significant learning environment (CSLE) in which we give learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (COVA).

To better understand the CSLE+COVA vs Traditional table comparisons in the video please take a few moments to review the full tables and explanations found at:

CSLE vs Traditional
COVA vs Traditional
CSLE+COVA Mindset vs Traditional

How the ADL is Different and What That Means to You

You will NOT find checklists, progress bars, completion status checks, competency or activity-focused rubrics, quizzes, and other related lower-order thinking or behaviorist tools or methods that will help you to check a completed activity off a list in the ADL program. The post Why I Don’t Use Checklists, Progress Bars & Other Activity Monitors will help you to understand and work through the constructivist and outcome-based education foundation that we use in the ADL.

Change in Focus

Shifting your focus from traditional information and content-focused instruction to using authentic learning opportunities, summed up as projects, will help you to make the adjustment to the ADL program. You can view Part B of this video series and explore additional resources that will help you with your Change in Focus.

Minimalist Fundamentals of ePortfolios:

I make the argument that ePortfolios can and should be simple to understand and, more importantly, simple to create and maintain. Especially if we keep the academic and scholarly jargon down to a minimum and focus on what we need to know and do to effectively use ePortfolios to enhance learning.
Dwayne’s Minimalist ePortfolio Fundamentals

Why Do You Need to Have an Innovation Project?

In EDLD 5315 you will be asked to create an action research plan to measure the impact of your innovation project. Being able to effectively measure the impact of a learning innovation project is a key responsibility of all educational technology leaders.

In EDLD 5317 you will be asked to create a podcast or long-form video and a publication about some aspect of your innovation project. As educational technology leaders, we need to be able to share how others can bring out an effective change in the learning environment. Being able to promote these enhancements to learning is an essential part of our professional responsibility.

In EDLD 5318 you will be asked to create an online or online blended course that will be related to your Innovation Project. If you consider the above example moving your Professional Learning online would be a great option that will benefit you and your learners.

In EDLD 5389 you will be asked to create a Professional Learning Plan/Strategy that will be based on your Innovation Project. Once again we encourage you to look to your organization and consider what needs to be improved or enhanced. The remote teaching that most people have resorted to because of the pandemic doesn’t work that well and you may want to look at how you can move from remote teaching to blended learning; this would be a great innovation project that will require considerable professional learning.

Choosing Your Innovation Project

Links to pages highlighted in the video:

Applied Digital Learning
ADL Why & Principles
ADL Program Map
ADL/EDLD 5305 Assignment Examples

Blended Learning Resource we use in the ADL:
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. John Wiley & Sons.

Course Design & Fink’s 3 Column Table

The online course you will be asked to create in EDLD 5318 will require the development of a course map that will take the form of Fink’s 3-Column Table. Consider the following video to help you develop the course map for the course you will be putting online. Even though I refer to EDLD 5313 where ADL students have the opportunity to develop their course maps this applies to the course map you will be asked to develop for EDLD 5318. Also note that the development of the course map was one of six activities students addressed in EDLD 5313 and this task can be accomplished in over a few hours. Once you are familiar with the process you can develop a course map for an existing course in very short order so this is a very useful tool to learn how to use.

4 Keys to aligning outcomes activities & assessment – There is an easy way and a difficult way to work through Fink’s taxonomy and the 3 column table – please take my advice and use this post and use the easy way.

Mapping Your Learner’s Journey – It is our responsibility to guide our learners through their personal development journey and help them take ownership of their learning.

Why Create Significant Learning Environments – Are you looking at the bigger picture or have you intellectually stepped far enough back to see the full learning environment?

Why you need a BHAG to design learning environments – Use a Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG) to help define a visionary type goal that is more strategic and emotionally compelling rather than being simply tactical.

Why You Need to Rethink Your Role as an Educator – If you really don’t want to be replaced by an inspirational robot then you need to not only talk the talk of Dewey but walk the walk.

Difference Between “Doing Projects” and “Project-Based Learning” – Project-based learning is very powerful but we tend to limit its impact by focusing on just doing projects.

Revised August, 2024

To Own Your Learning You MUST Use Higher-Order or Deeper Thinking (Part 1)

Dwayne Harapnuik — December 5, 2021 — 3 Comments

One of the advantages of posting your ideas to your own journal, blog, or ePortfolio on an ongoing and long-term basis is that you can go back and evaluate and analyze your thinking and then continue to refine and synthesize your ideas. As new data or information comes to light or your research confirms or contradicts your hypothesis you can update your synthesis. The following is a synthesis from the post How to Change the World One Learner at a Time from January 2021 which is an update to a 2015 post Changing the world, one learner at a time as well as many other ideas that I have posted over the years. The higher-order thinking that I referred to in the Owning Your Learning Process video above is also a key function of the Learner’s Mindset which is achieved by a change in thinking about learning, a change in the approach to learning, and a change in the learning environment.

The change in thinking that I refer to requires a move away from lower-order thinking that dominates our society and results in the desire for a quick fix to all our challenges. I often refer to this quick-fix thinking in education because I spend most of my time in this discipline. For example, the educational technology (Edtech) literature for the past several decades is filled with examples of how the application of technology in a learning setting makes no significant difference and has little impact on learning outcomes and that the focus needs to be the learning, not the technology if we want to make a difference (Reich, 2020; Cuban, 2001; Russel, 1999; Wenglinsky, 1998). The research is clear. Edtech is not a quick fix or silver bullet (Thibodeaux, Harapnuik, Cummings, & Wooten, 2017) and the naive notion that one can implement it better than the last group that failed is continually repeated in all levels of classrooms across the nation (Harapnuik, 2021). This is why worksheets and fill-in-the-blank questions even when they are digitized in things like the SAMR model or other quick fixes do not result in deeper learning (Harapnuik, 2017).

When I originally explored why this reliance on lower-order thinking continually persists I naively assumed that we could simply move up to higher thinking to high-order thinking because it incorporates the lower levels and it also has the potential to offer so much more. Unfortunately, the move to higher-order thinking involves more than just the desire to operate at that level. Besides being much easier than higher-order or deeper thinking, lower-order thinking offers a sense of security because it is what our educational system has prepared most people to do. Standardized testing and the competency-based system of education that uses this form of summative assessment exist primarily in the realm of applying, understanding, and remembering which fall into the lower-order thinking in Bloom’s Taxonomy.

While we do have pockets of outcome-based instruction where students are given choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities or project-based learning, for the most part, our system relies on information transfer and competency-based instruction which resides in the realm of lower-ordered thinking which can be easily measured. The philosopher, Steven Hicks (2021) argues that our current education system is one that teaches compliance, and rather than learning that life is about solving problems our students are instructed that authorities have all the answers. We use the rhetoric of Dewey and say we want children to grow to be self-reliant, creative problem-solving adults but we have the reality of Thorndike that promotes the information transfer standardized model of education that can be easily measured and allows us to sort our students into the fixed norms of the industrial age (Labaee, 2005). I have listed several obstacles to higher-order thinking but I think the biggest challenge is that most people don’t really understand the difference between the two levels. Furthermore, many don’t realize that learners are seldom asked to move beyond showing they can remember information, can understand how information is used, and how that information is applied in a different yet similar situation.

Bloom’s Taxonomy
According to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy when people are attempting to carry out a procedure or implement a process or apply an existing model to a new but similar situation they are using lower-ordering thinking in their hopes of applying existing information to their situation (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The category of Applying is at the top of the lower-order thinking within Bloom’s taxonomy but it is still considered lower-order thinking and only facilitates information transfer because there is no analysis, evaluation, or creation which are at the higher order and are essential to deeper learning. Drawing a diagram, making a chart, applying an existing process, and solving a formula are all lower-level skills that do not require higher-order thinking and this is typically as far as our education system goes.

I prefer to use the inverted Bloom’s taxonomy because it combines higher-order thinking into a continuum and reveals that analyzing, evaluating, and creating must be conducted in conjunction. The notion of using the information in a new but similar situation detailed in the Applying section seems to match the level of thinking that many students are comfortable with. But, don’t take my word for this. In the following 3 Learner’s Stories podcast Applied Digital Learning (ADL) students reflect on their learning journey and discuss what they have learned and what they would do differently if there were able to start the ADL program now. One of the most consistent laments is that ADL students wished they would have trusted the ADL process sooner and moved away from expecting to be told what to do and simply giving the instructors what they wanted.

COVA Podcast LM Stories EP08
View on Youtube – https://youtu.be/95PpBnkBAxk
Listen on Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/5M5YnqRzG98l3nSHCCc5LY?si=33d092e4d0c04f9d

COVA Reflection LM Stories Ep 09
View on Youtube – https://youtu.be/t4PTGr1WjLI
Listen on Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/2uumYGwgQkUSnsZc1dTYUu?si=61fdbf1a2bde4ecf

COVA Capstone LM Stories Ep 10
View on Youtube – https://youtu.be/ctaKftOOye8
Listen on Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/39c65g9KB4H1DFL5eofico?si=e9c5fba740b84f97

This desire and comfort level of being told what to do and being given a checklist prescription of what is required to complete an assignment falls directly into the lower-order thinking that most of our learners are accustomed to. The original definition from Anderson, Krathwohl, and Bloom’s (2001) of Bloom’s taxonomy aligns with what I have seen with many students:

Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing or implementing. Applying is related and refers to situations where learned material is used through products like models, presentation, interviews, and simulations.

Many just want to be told what procedure or model they need to execute or implement and believe that all they have to present an existing model to their colleagues or simulate the applied approach, and their innovation process is complete. To be fair to many of these students, this is what they know and simply what their administrators, schools, districts, or other organizations ask them to do. Applying an existing model, presenting a summary, and even creating a simulation or a model is the norm. This ongoing process of identifying a standard to be met, finding the approved or accepted procedure or process being used in the organization to meet this standard, and finally applying a standardized test or other information transfer confirmation tools to confirm that the standard has been met by the students is what most educators are engaged in on a daily basis. For rudimentary knowledge, simple situations, and information transfer this application process does work well and our education system has been relying on this model for over a century. As we move further into the digital information age we are realizing that our challenges are much more complex and require much more than doing what we have done in the past. To address these more significant challenges we need to move beyond applying existing information or processes in a new but similar fashion.

Moving to Higher Order Thinking
We need to move into analyzing, evaluating, and creating new solutions to ever-increasing challenges that we and our learners will face in the future. We also need to look beyond convenient summaries, quick fixes, or “Coles Notes” solutions and go back to primary sources to get the full picture. If we want to address the ever-increasing complexities of the challenges we face in the 21st Century then we must use higher-order thinking. We must continually investigate, explore, analyze and evaluate what we are doing as we begin creating innovations that will enhance learning. Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) explanation of the following three higher thinking levels offers the best starting point for our own analysis, evaluation, and creation of a novel way of integrating these ideas.

Analyzing: Breaking material or concepts into parts, determining how the parts relate or interrelate to one another or to an overall structure or purpose. Mental actions include differentiating, organizing, and attributing as well as being able to distinguish between components.

Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing.

Creating – Putting elements together to form a novel coherent whole or make an original product.

Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating Leads to Deeper Learning and Learner’s Mindset
While the inverted Bloom’s taxonomy is useful for helping us to see the linear relationship between analyzing, evaluating, and creating and also see how higher-order thinking is separated from lower-order thinking, it doesn’t convey the interrelatedness between analyzing, evaluating, and creating. It also doesn’t show how the interrelation between analyzing, evaluating, and creating contributes to deeper learning.

The Venn diagram (Harapnuik, 2021) reveals how analyzing, evaluating, and creating come together and at that convergence point is where the learner engages in deeper learning and has then moved into the Learner’s Mindset.

This deeper learning and the adoption of a Learner’s Mindset is realized when you create a significant learning environment in which you give your learner choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (CSLE+COVA). I have been applying this approach in all the learning environments that I have created and most recently have applied this to the DLL and ADL programs, the Provincial Instructor Diploma Program (PIDP), and all other aspects of my professional and personal life.

In my original post that I referenced at the beginning of this post, I made the grandiose goal of changing the world one learner at a time. A year later, I am still sharing this approach with as many people as I can. It is my hope that you too will begin the ongoing process of analysis, evaluation, and creation. Through a continual and iterative process of analysis of your learning environment, the new concepts, theories, and ideas you are exploring combined with your goal of bringing learning innovation to your organization, you too can begin to explore and evaluate how best to synthesize your findings and ideas into an innovation plan which will create the changes you desire and prepare your learners for life.

Please remember that this is only one part of a bigger picture and this synthesis will be continually evaluated and analyzed so explore the following and provide your feedback to help this ongoing process:

Applied Learning
Assessment Of/For/As Learning
Connecting the Dots Vs Collecting, the Dots
Change of Focus
CLSE
COVA
Feedforward
Learner’s Mindset

Continue to Part 2 – The challenges of owning your learning and higher-order thinking (Part 2)

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Abridge Edition). Addison.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press.

Harapnuik, D.K. (2021). Analyze-evaluate-create-deeper-learning-cropped.png. [Image] https://www.harapnuik.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Analyze-Evaluate-Create-Deeper-Learning-cropped.png

Harapnuik, D.K. (2021). How to change the world, one learner, at a time. [Blog] Retrieved from https://www.harapnuik.org/?p=5555

Harapnuik, D.K. (2017). Reconsider the use of the SAMR model. [Blog]. Retrieved from https://www.harapnuik.org/?p=7235

Reich, J. (2020). Failure to disrupt: Why technology alone can’t transform education. Harvard University Press.

Labaree, D. F. (2005). Progressivism, schools and schools of education: An American romance. Paedagogica Historica, 41(1–2), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/0030923042000335583

Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355 research reports, summaries, and papers. North Carolina State University.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., Cummings, C. D., & Wooten, R. (2017). Learning all the time and everywhere: Moving beyond the hype of the mobile learning quick fix. In Keengwe, J. S. (Eds.). Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. ETS Policy Information Center. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTECHNOLOG.pdf

In Learning COVA, CSLE, deeper learning, deeper thinking, higher-order, learners mindset