Search Results For teacher role | 39 Results

Search Results For "teacher role"

Why We Are Wasting EdTech Dollars?

Dwayne Harapnuik — October 30, 2018 — Leave a comment

If you ever wondered how scarce educational dollars are all too often wasted on foolish technology purchases all you need to do is continue to not look at the research. As soon as you read above statement you immediately thought I made a mistake and should have stated that all you need to do is look at the research. You would be right from a grammatical perspective that I meant to say “look at the research” but the emphasis I am trying to make is that there is overwhelming evidence that almost 90% of educational leaders are making technology purchases without looking at the research.
Dr. Michael Kennedy, an associate professor at the University of Virginia along with a team of thirteen researchers at the Edtech Research Efficacy Symposium in 2017 asked 515 educational leaders from 17 states the following question:

When making purchasing and/or adoption decisions regarding a new technology-based product (assume for academic instruction) for your district or school, how important is the existence of peer-reviewed research to back the product?

It is important to note that the survey participants were categorized as, 24 percent district technology supervisors, 22 percent assistant superintendents, 7 percent superintendents, 27 percent teachers, and 10 percent principals. Equally important is that 75 percent of this group were directly responsible for EdTech purchases for their school or were consulted on purchase decisions.

Only 11 percent of these decision-makers listed research being in place to confirm the efficacy of the product they were planning to purchase. In contrast what was rated “extremely important” or “very important” were the prioritized factors of ‘fit’ for their school, price, functionality, and alignment with district initiatives. This should be extremely concerning to parents, most teachers, and taxpayers who are funding our educational system. If technology supervisors, superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, and select teachers are making decisions on what technology to purchase that doesn’t include support for its effectiveness in the learning environment then they should be held accountable when it doesn’t work.

Unfortunately, the research which so many of these leaders are willing to ignore shows that that technology all too often doesn’t make a difference or worse it can hinder learning:

…students who use computers very frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes, even after accounting for social background and student demographics (OECD 2015, p. 5).

This not new research. On the contrary, we have known for a very long time that just adding technology to the classroom does not have any significant impact on learning. In the early 1990’s Thomas Russell and several other researchers pointed to the results of a meta-analysis of the research into technology use in distance education and found that there is no difference between technology-based instruction or classroom instruction (1999).

I must be very clear that I am not opposed to using computers, smartphones, tablets or any other technology to enhance learning. I would challenge you to find a bigger user and proponent of the effective use of technology to enhance learning. The key is to focus on the learning first and then look to technology to further enhance and amplify the learning environment and the learning experience. We also have to be careful that we don’t just try to bolt technology onto an antiquated classroom that emphasizes the 19th-century information transfer model of standardized curriculum and testing which research as also shows doesn’t enhance learning. That OECD (2015) report I referred to earlier also suggest that:

Technology can support new pedagogies that focus on learners as active participants with tools for inquiry-based pedagogies and collaborative workspaces. For example, technology can enhance experiential learning, foster project-based and inquiry-based learning pedagogies, facilitate hands-on activities and cooperative learning (p. 6)

The OECD (2015) report also pointed to John Hattie’s research into what contributes to student achievement and confirms that:

Computers were more effective when they are used to extend study time and practice, used to give students control over the learning situation (pacing of material) and when used to support collaborative learning (p. 163).

Technology is a potentially powerful tool that should be used to enhance creation, collaboration, inquiry, investigation, communication. Ideally we want to give our learners choice ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities. Technology helps us to do this more effectively. We need to make our technology purchases based on research and the research shows that we aren’t doing this.

The fact that most of our educational leaders are making technology purchases based on price, fit, or other factors that support their confirmation bias we should not be surprised when the Ed Tech industry ignores the research. They don’t need to support their product claims with evidence or research because it is clear that they can sell their products without it. All they need to do is have a well-tuned sales pitch and a good salesperson that will give these educational leaders just what they think is important or what want.

Are you part of the 11 percent that is using research to make informed decisions about your technology purchases that will enhance learning. Or are part of 89 percent that is ignoring the research and potentially ignoring the learning?

References
Kennedy, M. (2017) Role of federal funding and research findings on adoption and implementation of technology-based products and tools. Edtech Research Efficacy Symposium. Retrieved from http://symposium.curry.virginia.edu//wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Goals-and-Roles-of-Federal-Funding-for-EdTech-Research_FINAL-1.pdf

OECD (2015), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en

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.

In Education EdTech, efficacy, Research, waste

How to cut through the hype of educational promises

Dwayne Harapnuik — May 2, 2018 — 2 Comments

When educational issues hit the evening news it is very important that you understand how to move past the hype to see what is really happening. The announcement of Chicago Public Schools and nonprofit Leap Innovations receiving a $14 million grant from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to expand personalized learning to 100 schools is definitely worth investigating. Without fully understanding what personalized learning means within the educational context, on its own merits, it sounds like a great idea. If we look to the recent confession from Larry Berger, CEO of Amplify about what personalized learning actually is. Berger’s company Amplify creates products and curriculum that are supposed to “truly personalize learning” (https://www.amplify.com/curriculum) and since he and his company has spent over a decade using big data algorithms to promote this model, his insider knowledge is useful.

Berger argues that when most people refer to personalized learning they are referring to the engineering model of personalized learning. His explanation of the model is worth repeating verbatim (link to the full confession):

You start with a map of all the things that kids need to learn.

Then you measure the kids so that you can place each kid on the map in just the spot where they know everything behind them, and in front of them is what they should learn next.

Then you assemble a vast library of learning objects and ask an algorithm to sort through it to find the optimal learning object for each kid at that particular moment.

Then you make each kid use the learning object.

Then you measure the kids again. If they have learned what you wanted them to learn, you move them to the next place on the map. If they didn’t learn it, you try something simpler.

If the map, the assessments, and the library were used by millions of kids, then the algorithms would get smarter and smarter, and make better, more personalized choices about which things to put in front of which kids.

I spent a decade believing in this model—the map, the measure, and the library, all powered by big data algorithms.

Here’s the problem: The map doesn’t exist, the measurement is impossible, and we have, collectively, built only 5% of the library.

To be more precise: The map exists for early reading and the quantitative parts of K-8 mathematics, and much promising work on personalized learning has been done in these areas; but the map doesn’t exist for reading comprehension, or writing, or for the more complex areas of mathematical reasoning, or for any area of science or social studies.

If the CEO of one of the leading personalized learning companies is willing to confess that – The map doesn’t exist, the measurement is impossible, and we have, collectively, built only 5% of the library – then perhaps we should listen to him. Especially when he points to the fact that if we really want our kids to learn how to learn then we need to take a look at what “your best teachers and coaches do for you—without the benefit of maps, algorithms, or data—to personalize your learning?”

Chances are these great teachers and coaches created significant learning environments in which they gave you choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities. Learning has always been personal because until you take ownership of your own learning by making meaningful connections you do not learn. Effective teachers have always known that learning is the responsibility of the learner and their role was to create the environment in which this could happen.

These types of teachers have always used the latest technology to enhance the learning environment and recognized that technology, big data, and algorithms as simply tools that can be used to help make this happen. Unfortunately, we have the tendency to look to the tools to solve our problems. We need to head the warning or confession of the foremost tool maker and remember that: The map doesn’t exist, the measurement is impossible, and we have, collectively, built only 5% of the library

Instead of looking to technology to solve the personal component of personalized learning we need to look to the great teachers who have been doing personalized learning all along by giving their learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities. These people have also been using technology in those authentic learning opportunities to help their learner explore, create, collaborate and communicate.

Personalized learning is one of the many educational technology quick fixes that we have a tendency to hope will solve our learning challenges. There are many more ideas, issues, and topics that need clarification and we are looking to you and our Digital Learning and Leading students to join us in exploring these significant issues.

Consider the following list as a starting point and let us know if you would like to write an article, post or other publication that will bring real clarity to the learning environment:
Never been a better time to be a learner and/or teacher
Growth mindset & Grit criticism
STEM instruction is mostly delivered via lecture
The much-needed shift to mastery learning
Personalized learning problems & benefits
Individualized instruction
Differentiated instruction
Additional names for competency-based education
Why technology isn’t a Quick fix
Silicon Valley’s failed promises with edtech
Problems with SAMR and related quick fix methodologies
Learning styles and related educational Zombie myths (bad ideas that just won’t die)
Problem-based instruction that isn’t
Shift from passive to active learning
Choice
Ownership
Voice
Authentic learning opportunities
Why all elements of COVA must co-exist
COVA from a student perspective
The issue with taking ownership and agency – why folks don’t do this
Creating significant learning environments
Future of education
Connecting the dots – making meaningful connections
Why – go & show rather than sit & get
Digital leader vs digital manager
Design thinking for designed learning
Confronting the Myth of the ‘Digital Native’
Decades of evidence…but where is the change? Translating educational research to practice
18 years into the 21st century – how are we doing with 21st Century learning
Communities of Practice (CoP’s) and their impact
Problems with STEM/STEAM initiatives
Importance of Learning How to Learn
Importance of asking good questions vs finding right answers
Reality of Thorndyke vs. Rhetoric of Dewey – more to be said
Failing forward
Feedback to Feedforward
How to Avoid the Hype/Getting Caught in the whirlwind of day-to-day processes

Please contact either Dr. Thibodeax or myself (Dr. Harapnuik) if you would like to research, write, and publish on one or more of these topics. This list is also just a starting point so if you have other ideas with which you would like to collaborate write, just let us know.

In 21st century learning, Learning authentic learning opportunities, choice, COVA, ownership, Voice

EDLD 5313 Perspectives

Dwayne Harapnuik — November 16, 2017

How to Succeed in the DLL
If you haven’t already reviewed this page and the related links you owe it to yourself to spend the 30 minutes that it will take to see how to really do well in the DLL.

New Culture of Learning
Creating Learning Significant Environment – EDLD 5313 Week 1 Assign Tips

Significant Learning Environments – exploring the power of an authentic learning environment.

Organic Learning – we need to create the environment in which the learner can do the learning, grow and flourish.

Opening Up Spaces for Answers – Why we run EDLD 5305 the course on innovation planning before we run EDLD 5313, the course on creating significant learning environments

The Power of Constraints – When combined with choice, constraints can be very powerful tools.

Learning Philosophy
Learning Philosophy – EDLD 5313 Week 2 Assign Tips

Four keys to understanding learning theories – Regardless of where you land in your thinking about learning the fact that you are thinking about learning and how learning works means that your learners will benefit.

Are you preparing them for real life or just the test – the power of authentic learning opportunities

Piaget’s Key Implications for Learning – Excerpts from one of the original constructivists that support the CSLE+COVA approach

Foster Inquisitiveness Rather than Rebuild It – When we focus on the right answers instead of starting with questions we not only extinguish our learner’s ability to question, inquire and innovate we create an environment of rewards and punishment that fosters fear in the learner when they aren’t able to regurgitate the right answer.

What are the best ways to study for the test? Read this review from Scientific American to see which techniques accelerate information retention and which techniques are just a waste of time. While the introduction to the article suggests that the focus is on learning the reality is this article focuses on how to improve information transfer and test achievement. Unfortunately, some folks equate this with learning–but it is not.

This Will Make You Rethink Learning Styles Research shows that learning styles DO NOT exist yet many too educators are wrongly inclined to believe that they do.

CSLE & UbD
Aligning Outcomes Activities & Assessment – EDLD 5313 Week 3 Assign Tips

EDLD 5313 Week 4 UbD Assignment Tips Mar 2019

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.

DLL Program Map – How we have created a significant learning environment in the DLL program and in your courses.

Review the CLSE+COVA Resources on this site:
CSLE+COVA
CSLE

Mindset

How to Grow a Growth Mindset – You need more than just belief and action you need to change the environment

COVA+CSLE Mindset vs Traditional – Comparison of the COVA+CSLE Mindset and Motivation with the Traditional Teacher-Centered Approach

Mindset – Overview of Dweck book, site, and related videos and resources

Fixed Vs Growth Mindset = Print Vs Digital Information Age – This notion of adapting to a constantly changing environment is also important when we consider our move from a static print information age to the dynamic digital information age.

Piaget’s Key Implications for Learning

Dwayne Harapnuik — November 14, 2017 — Leave a comment

In the video 4 Keys to CSLE+COVA and in the upcoming CSLE+COVA book my colleagues and I are just about to release we argue that we need to take a positive approach to exploring how we improve or enhance the learning environment and we propose the following four keys or presuppositions to creating significant learning environments by giving learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning:

Anything we do for the learner will improve achievement.
There has never been a better time to be a learner.
There really are no new fundamental approaches to learning; just new ways of combining well-established ideas.
There is no quick fix to learning, the classroom or education.

I want to focus on the 3rd point where I argue that there really are no new fundamental approaches to learning; just new ways of combining well-established ideas. I am not alone in the assertion; Piaget made a similar claim over fifty years ago. Ginsburg and Opper (1969) point out in the summary of their book Piaget’s theology of intellectual development: An introduction:

It should be clear that these ideas are not particularly new. The “Progressive” education movement has proposed similar principles for many years. Piaget’s contribution is not in developing new educational ideas, but in providing a vast body of data and theory which provide a sound basis for a “progressive” approach to the schools. A long time ago, John Dewey, in rejecting traditional approaches to education called for and attempted to provide a “philosophy of experience”; that is a thorough explication of the ways in which children make use of experience in genuine learning. Piaget has gone a long way toward meeting this need (p. 231)

Piaget spent most of his career, over fifty years, observing and interviewing children of all ages as he gathered the data to support his theories. It is extremely important that we recognize that “none of the investigators whose theories have been used to explain the development of children—Freud, Lewin, Hull, Miller and Dollard, Skinner, Werner—has studied children as extensively as Piaget (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. x).

We should be shocked and concerned to learn that Skinner who is one of the originators of the Behaviourist approach that still dominates our educational system “hardly studied children at all” (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. x).

Despite writing over 30 full-length books and over 100 articles, being the first theorist to provide an effective empirical argument against behaviorism, and being viewed as one of the founding fathers of constructivism, Piaget full body of work is all too often ignored. Piaget’s writing may be viewed as difficult to read for a contemporary audience that may lack the necessary philosophical background. Even though many hold Piaget to be one of the foremost authorities on child development he did not intend to focus on the field of child developmental psychology but was more interested in dealing with the problems in the philosophical study of epistemology which is concerned with how we come to know and how we attain knowledge—how we learn. Piaget’s writing may be difficult to access because he is first a philosopher and only used the science of psychology to help him deal with the philosophical issues of knowledge. He also felt that many epistemological problems were essentially psychological and scientific method would help him to move from the speculation of philosophy and move more of an objective explanation.

This notion of how we come to know or make meaningful connection and essentially learn is a fundamental aspect of the CLSE+COVA approach and as we have stated earlier we owe much of our foundational thinking to Dewey, Piaget, Brunner, Papert and more contemporary authors who provide current interpretations on these foundational works. Ginsburg and Opper (1969) chapter Genetic epistemology and the implications of Piaget’s finding for education offers some the most accessible and concise summaries of Piaget’s ideas that we have incorporated into CSLE+COVA. The chapter deals with much more than what I will share below but my intention is to make Piaget’s work accessible rather than expand on his blending of philosophy and psychology. Since this particular issue of Ginsburg and Opper (1969) book Piaget’s theology of intellectual development: An introduction is out of print and only used copies are available I will share as much of the final chapter of the book that I can. Newer editions of the book are also out of print but used copies are available online. Where ever expedient I will paraphrase the writing and where it is more appropriate I will use direct quotes.

Active learning – Authentic Learning Opportunities

Perhaps the most important single proposition that an educator can derive from Piaget’s work and thus use in the classroom, is that children, especially young ones, learn best from concrete activities. (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. 220).

The concrete activities that Piaget refer to can easily be mapped to the authentic learning opportunities that we recommend in COVA. Our use of the notion of authentic correlates to concrete in the sense that the activities have a “real-world” component and are activities that the learner can fully engage. Ginsburg and Opper (1969) expand on how a teacher would create this type of a Piagetian classroom or learning environment.

For these reasons a good school encourage the child’s activity and their manipulation and exploration of objects. When the teacher tries to bypass this process by imparting knowledge in a verbal manner, the result is superficial learning. But by promoting activity in the classroom the teacher exploits the child’s potential for learning and permits them to evolve an understanding of the world around them. This principle (that occurs through the child’s activity) suggests that the teacher’s major task is to provide for the child a wide variety of potentially interesting materials on which them may act. The teacher should not teach, but should encourage the child to learn by manipulating things (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. 221).

This notion of active learning means that an educator must reorient traditional their beliefs about education and focus the fact that:

Teachers can, in fact, impart or teach very little. It is true that they can get the child to say certain things, but these verbalizations often indicate little in the way of real understanding. Second, it is seldom legitimate to conceive of knowledge as a thing which can be transmitted. Certainly, the child needs to learn some facts, and these may be considered things; the child must discover them for themselves. Also, facts are but a small portion of real knowledge. True understanding involves action, on both the motoric and intellectual level…The teacher’s job then is not so much to transmit facts or concepts to the child but to get them to act on both the physical and mental levels. These actions—far more than imposed facts or concepts— constitute real knowledge. (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. 222).

Since information transfer isn’t the role of the teacher creating a significant learning environment in which the learner is able to discover things for themselves is the key. We would argue that this guided discover happens by giving the learner choice, ownership and voice through authentic learning opportunities.

Ownership of Learning

Equilibration theory emphasizes that the self-regulatory process are the basis for genuine learning. The child is more apt to modify their cognitive structure in a constructive way when they control their own learning than when methods of social transmission (in this case teaching) are employed. Do recall Smedslund’s experiments on the acquisition of conservation. If one tries to teach this concept to a child who does not yet have available the mental structure necessary for its assimilation, then the resulting learning is superficial. On the other hand, when children are allowed to progress at their pace through the normal sequence of development, they regulate their own learning so as to construct the cognitive structures necessary for the genuine understanding of conservation (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. 224).

Ginsburg and Opper (1969) indicate that Piaget would then argue that to take these principles seriously then one must extensive change classroom practice. Teachers should:

Be aware and assess the learners current level of understanding/functioning.
Orient the classroom toward the individual rather than the group.
Give the learner considerable control over their learning.

The following section summary captures what this type of learning would look like. Piaget argues that the classroom unit should be disbanded and that learners work on individual projects that they are interested in and given considerable freedom in their learning. To deal with the most common objectives to this learning arrangement Piaget suggests learners shouldn’t all be learning the same thing at the same time and that we should have more faith in the intellectual life of the learner. He stresses the importance of tailoring the learning to the individual and points out how important it is to allow the child and the adolescent to follow their interests and control how they acquire knowledge through their own directed activities apart from instruction in school and formal instruction.

Perhaps the most poignant example of how foolish it is for us to attempt to rigidly control all aspects of learning with traditional teaching methods is to consider how an infant is interested in the world around them is able to learn so much without formal instruction.

One need only watch an infant for a short period of time to know that they are curious, interested in the world around them, and eager to learn. It is quite evident, too, that these are characteristics of older children as well. If left to themselves the normal child does not remain immobile; they are eager to learn. Consequently, it is quite safe to permit the child to structure their own learning. The danger arises precisely when the schools attempt to perform the stalk for them. To understand this point consider, the absurd situations that would result if traditional schools were entrusted with teaching the infant what they spontaneously learn during the first few years. The schools would develop organized curricula, in secondary curricular reactions; they would develop lesson plans for object permanence; they would construct audio-visual aids on causality; they would reinforce “correct” speech; and they would set “goals” for the child to reach each week. One can speculate as to the outcome of such a program for early training. What the student needs then is not formal teaching, but an opportunity to learn. They need to be given a rich environment, containing many things potentially of interest. They need a teacher who is sensitive to their needs, who can judge what materials will challenge them at a given point in time, who can help when they need help and who has faith in their capacity to learn (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. 224-225).

Social interaction

Piaget suggests that in addition to physical experience and concrete manipulations the learner needs social experience and interactions with a wide assortment of people. He points out that younger children learn to relinquish their egocentrism through social interaction and adjust to others at the emotional level. In addition, the social interaction helps the learner to become more coherent and logical and use language to discover reality and internalize the experience into a compact category of experience. Piaget argues:

…social interaction should play a significant role in the classroom. Children should talk with one another. They should converse, share experience, and argue. It is hard to see why schools force the child to be quiet when the results seem to be only an authoritarian situation and extreme boredom. Let us restrict the vow of silence to selected orders of monks and nuns (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. 228).

Traditional Methods of Instruction

Piaget’s theory implies that there are grave deficiencies in “traditional” methods of instruction, especially in the early years of school. By “traditional” methods we mean cases in which the teacher uses a lesson plan to direct the students through a given sequence of material; attempts to transmit the material to the students by means of lectures and other verbal explanations; forces all students to cover essentially the same lessons; and employs a textbook as the basic medium for instruction. Under such an arrangement students take fixed positions in a classroom; talk to one another only at the risk of punishment; are required to listen to the teacher; must study the material which the teacher feels is necessary to study; and must try to learn from books. It is, of course, the case that teachers differ in degree to which they employ traditional methods. No two classrooms are identical, and it would be difficult to find one which is traditional in all respects and at all times. Nevertheless, traditional methods are still highly influential in education today, as even casual observations of the school reveal (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. 229).

This traditional environment is based on four assumptions that have some aspect of merit but are acted upon in the traditional school in an excessive manner.

Students at a given age level should learn the same material. While it is true that there are levels of development and age-appropriate instruction the traditional school forces students to cover the same material each day the traditional method ignores the fact that there are individual differences in the pace of learning.
Students learn through verbal explanation from the teacher or through written exposition in books. While this has some element of truth Piaget’s research shows that students verbal explanations are only useful after a basis of concrete activity.
If given greater control over their learning students would waste their time and learn little. If students aren’t given guidance then they would waste their time but this doesn’t mean they should have no control. Piaget points to research that a major part of learning depends on the self-regulatory process. In addition, we can’t ignore just how much students learn outside of school.
Uncontrolled taking in class is disruptive to the educational process. Piaget points out that while excessive noise may prevent learning he also points to the fact that teachers are more distracted by noise then students. The noise is worthwhile because the clash of opinions and the intelligent and spontaneous conversations is beneficial for mental growth.

The following quote from Piaget offers a helpful summary of his educational goals:

The principle goal of education is to create [people] who are capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done—[people] who are creative, inventive and discoverers. The second goal of education is to form minds which can be critical, can verify, and not accept everything they are offered. The great danger today is of slogans, collective opinions, ready-made trends of thought. We have to be able to resist individually, to criticize, to distinguish between what is proven and what is not. So we need pupils where active, who learn early to find out by themselves, partly by their own spontaneous activity and partly through material we set up for them; who learn early to tell what is verifiable and what is simply the first idea to come to them (Duckworth, 1964 p. 175).

References

Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). Piaget’s theology of intellectual development: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Duckworth, E. (1964). Piaget rediscovered. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 172–175.

In EDLD 5313, Learning 5313, active learning, authentic learning, constructivism, CSLE+COVA, DLL, Education, Piaget

Research

Dwayne Harapnuik — August 21, 2017

CSLE+COVA Research

Peer Reviewed eBooks

Harapnuik, D. K., & Thibodeaux, T. N. (2023). COVA: Inspire Learning Through Choice, Ownership, Voice, and Authentic Experiences 2nd Ed. Learner’s Mindset Publishing.
COVA eBook is available in Kindle format from Amazon,

Harapnuik, D. K., & Thibodeaux, T. N. (2023). Learner’s Mindset: A Catalyst for Innovation. Learner’s Mindset Publishing. KIndle format from Amazon

Published peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters that point to research that supports the COVA+CSLE approach:

Thibodeaux, T. N., & Harapnuik, D. K. (2021). Exploring students’ use of feedback to take ownership and deepen learning. International Journal of e-Learning. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/j/IJEL/

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., Cummings, C. D., & Dolce, J. (2021). Graduate students’ perceptions of factors that contribute to ePortfolio Persistence beyond the program of study. International Journal of ePortfolio.

Harapnuik, D. K., & Thibodeaux, T. N. (2020). Exploring students’ use of feedback to take ownership and deepen learning. International Journal of e-Learning. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/j/IJEL/

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2019). ePortfolio Persistence. Manuscript in progress.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2019). Feedback to Feedforward. Manuscript in progress.

Thibodeaux, T. N., & Harapnuik, D. K. (2019). Exploring students’ use of feedback to take ownership and deepen learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K, & Cummings, C. D. (2019). Student perceptions of the influence of the COVA learning approach on authentic projects and the learning environment. International Journal of e-Learning, 18(1), 79-101. Retrieved from http://www.learntechlib.org/c/IJEL/

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2019). Student perceptions of the influence of choice, ownership, and voice in learning and the learning environment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 33(1), 50-62. Retrieved from
http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/current.cfm

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K, & Cummings, C. D. (2018). Graduate student perceptions of the impact of the COVA learning approach on authentic projects and ePortfolios. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2018). Perceptions of the influence of learner choice, ownership in learning, and voice in learning and the learning environment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K, & Cummings, C. D. (2017). Graduate student perceptions of the impact of the COVA learning approach on authentic projects and ePortfolios. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2017, May). Learners as critical thinkers for the workplace of the future: Introducing the COVA learning approach. Texas Computer Education Association TCEA Techedge, 2(2), 13. Retrieved from http://www.tcea.org/about/publications/

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.

Harapnuik, D. K., Thibodeaux, T. N., & Cummings, C. D. (2017, March). Student perceptions of the impact of the COVA approach on the ePortfolios and authentic projects in the digital learning and leading program. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE), Austin, TX.

Harapnuik, D. K., Thibodeaux, T. N., & Cummings, C. D. (2017). Using the COVA learning approach to create active and significant learning environments. In Keengwe, J. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on digital content, mobile learning, and technology integration models in teacher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K, & Cummings, C. D. (2017). Factors that contribute to ePortfolio persistence. International Journal of ePortfolio, 7(1), p. 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.theijep.com/pdf/IJEP257.pdf

Harapnuik, D., Thibodeaux, T. & Poda, I. (2017) New Technologies. In Martin, G.E., Danzig, A.B., Wright, W.F., Flanary, R.A., & Orr, M.T. School leader internship: Developing, monitoring, and evaluating your leadership experience (4th Ed.). New York: Routledge, pp. 91-94.

The research that informs the CSLE+COVA

The CSLE+COVA approach is based on a considerable amount of research that has been conducted over the past two decades about what works and does not work when it comes to creating significant learning environments where learners are given choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities. While based on all the research listed in the references, in particular, it emphasizes…

Constructivism – With roots stemming from progressive education, the combination of Labaree (2005) and Hattie’s (2008) definition of constructivism builds upon student-centered learning, guided discovery learning, and visible learning where students construct new knowledge and show others how they learn (Piaget, 1964; Ginsberg & Oppers, 1969, Papert, 1993, 1997). Jonassen and Reeves (1996) assert that learning with technology or using technology tools to support the learning process, should be the focus in the learning environment rather than learning from technology. This line of thinking allows authentic projects to become the “object of activity” as opposed to technology functioning as the primary focus of instruction.

Student/learner-centered – It all has to start with the learner. Mayer (2009) characterized learner-centered approaches where instructional technology was used as an enhancement to human cognition. Essentially, student-centered learning is when students “own” their own learning (Dewey, 1916; Lee & Hannafin, 2016).

Teaching roles – An instructor has many different roles which at minimum include presenter, facilitator, coach, and mentor (Harapnuik, 2015a; Priest, 2016). We need to shift to more coaching and mentoring because formative evaluation and feedback given within a trusted relationship yields the highest levels of student achievement (Hattie 2008, 2011).

Ubiquitous Access & Social Networking – We live in an age where we can access all the world’s information and almost anyone from the palms of our hands. Because we are socially networked and connected learners look to their peers and crowd-sourcing for information and solutions to problems (Edelman, 2017).

Instructional Design — If we start with the end in mind or a purposeful backward design, we can look at how a course or program will change learners’ lives, how it can make them a better member of society, and how they can contribute to solving particular problems (Fink, 2003; Harapnuik, 2004, 2015a).

Assessment & Evaluation — We should be incorporating formative tools like feed forward (Goldsmith, 2009) or educative assessments that help the learner to align outcomes with activities and assessment (Fink, 2003).

Support & Infrastructure — When people talk about learning technology, they think of tablets and laptops being used in the classroom or learning management systems. But this is the wrong focus; we should not focus on the technology itself but viewed simply as a tool that provides information and supports teaching and learning (November, 2013; Amory, 2014).

Choice – Learners are given the freedom to choose how they wish to organize, structure, and present their learning experiences (Dewey, 1916, Ginsberg & Opper, 1969). Choice also extends to the authentic project or learning experience promotes personalized learning (Bolliger & Sheperd, 2010) which includes adapting or developing learning goals and choosing learning tools that support the learning process (Buchem, Tur, & Hölterhof, 2014).

Guided discovery – It is crucial to acknowledge that the learner’s choice is guided by the context of the learning opportunity and by the instructor who aides the learner in making effective choices. The research over the past 40 years confirms guided discovery provides the appropriate freedom to engage in authentic learning opportunities while at the same time providing the necessary guidance, modeling, and direction to lessen the cognitive overload (Bruner, 1961, 1960; Ginsberg & Opper, 1969: Mayer, 2004).

Ownership – Constructivists, like Jonassen (1999), argue that ownership of the problem is key to learning because it increases learner engagement and motivation to seek out solutions. Ownership of learning is also directly tied to agency when learners make choices and “impose those choices on the world” (Buchem et al., 2014, p. 20; Buchem, Attwell, & Torres, 2011). Clark (2001) points to a learner’s own personal agency and ownership of belief systems as one major factor contributing to the willingness and persistence in sharing their learning.

Voice – Learners are given the opportunity to use their own voice to structure their work and ideas and share those insights and knowledge with their colleagues within their organizations. The opportunity to share this new knowledge publicly with people other than the instructors helps the learner to deepen their understanding, demonstrate flexibility of knowledge, find their unique voice, establish a sense of purpose, and develop a greater sense of personal significance (Bass, 2014).

Authentic learning – The selection and engagement in real-world problems that are relevant to the learner further their ability to make meaningful connections (Donovan et al., 2000) and provide them with career preparedness not available in more traditional didactic forms of education (Windham, 2007). Research confirms that authenticity is only developed through engagement with these sorts of real-world tasks or as Kolb (1974 & 2014) would suggest through experiential learning and that this type of authentic learning can deepen knowledge creation and ultimately help the learner transfer this knowledge beyond the classroom (Driscoll, 2005; Nikitina, 2011). It is also important to recognize that authenticity is not an independent or isolated feature of the learning environment but it is the result of the continual interaction between the learner, the real-world activity, and the learning environment (Barab, Squire, & Dueber, 2000). This is also why we stress that in the COVA model choice, ownership, and voice are realized through authentic learning, and without this dynamic and interactive authenticity, there would be no genuine choice, ownership, and voice (Harapnuik, Thibodeaux, & Cummings, 2017).

References

Amory, A. (2014). Tool-mediated authentic learning in an educational technology course: A designed-based innovation. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 497-513. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.682584

Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.

Bass, R. (2014). Social pedagogies in ePortfolio practices: Principles for design and impact. Retrieved from http://c2l.mcnrc.org/pedagogy/ped-analysis/

Bolliger, D. U., & Sheperd, C. E. (2010). Student perceptions of ePortfolio integration in Online courses. Distance Education, 31(3), 295-314.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing: essays for the left hand. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given. New York, New York: Norton.

Buchem, I., Attwell, G., & Torres, R. (2011). Understanding personal learning environments: Literature review and synthesis through the activity theory lens. Proceedings of the PLE Conference, 1-33. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/658/

Buchem, I., Tur, G., & Hölterhof, T. (2014). Learner control in personal learning environments: cross-cultural study. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 15(2), 14-53. Retrieved from http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume-15-number-2-june-2014.html

Clark, R. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York, New York: D. C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005) Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Edelman, R. (2017). 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer. Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com/trust2017/

Fink, D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). Piaget’s theology of intellectual development: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goldsmith, M. (2009). Take it to the next level: What got you here, won’t get you there. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Harapnuik, D. (2004). Development and evaluation of inquisitivism as a foundational approach for web-based instruction (Doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Harapnuik, D. (2015, May 8b). Creating significant learning environments (CSLE). [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/eZ-c7rz7eT4

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hattie, J. (2011, November 28). Visible learning Pt1. Disasters and below average methods [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/sng4p3Vsu7Y

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215-240). New York, NY: Routledge.

Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on education communications and technology (pp. 6930719). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Labaree, D. F. (2005). Progressivism, schools, and schools of education: An American romance. Paedagogica Historica, 41(1&2), 275-288. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ748632

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, Instructional-design theories, and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kolb, David A. 2014. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Kolb, David Allen, and Ronald Eugene Fry. 1974. Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning. MIT Alfred P. Sloan School of Management.

Lee, E. & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research Development, 64, 707-734. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lamar.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14

Nikitina, L. (2011). Creating an authentic learning environment in the foreign language classroom. International Journal of Instruction, (4)1, 33-36. Retrieved from http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2011_1_3.pdf

November, A. (2013, February 13). Why schools must move beyond one-to-one computing [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://novemberlearning.com/educational-resources-for-educators/teaching-and-learning-articles/why-schools-must-move-beyond-one-to-one-computing/

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1997). Why school reform is impossible (with commentary on O’Shea’s and Koschmann’s reviews of “The children’s machine”). The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 417–427.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R.E. Ripple & V.N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget Rediscovered: A Report on the Conference of Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development (pp. 7–20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Priest, S. (2016). Learning & teaching [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://simonpriest.altervista.org/LT.html#ES

Simonson, S., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Windham, C. (2007). Why today’s students value authentic learning. Educause Learning ELI Paper 9. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3017.pdf

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

Links to all the components of the CSLE+COVA framework:

Change in Focus
Why CSLE+COVA
CSLE
COVA
CSLE+COVA vs Traditional
Digital Learning & Leading
Research

Revised August, 2024