Archives For ownership
My boys are competitive Down Hill Mountain bike racers and they recently raced in several events at Whistler Crankworx. This meant that they had several practices, qualifiers, and final races that ran very close together and had to incorporate protein and energy bars into their nutritional plans to get them through their hectic schedule over the week of racing. High quality protein and complex carbohydrates packed into a portable bar are not just a convenience for my sons, they are a necessity if they wish to stay fully fuelled and competitive. Slipping a couple of these small energy packed bars into a jersey or shorts pocket means my boys can quickly and easily maintain their nutritional needs for the hectic training and/or racing session.
A quality protein and energy bar has little or no sugar, uses natural ingredients, and has a balance of protein and complex carbohydrate to help an athlete maintain their energy when they are unable to access whole foods. Bars that are nutritionally high quality often don’t taste the greatest because the manufacturers stay true to the purpose of helping to fuel a competitive athlete. Unfortunately, as protein and energy bars get more and more popular quality bars are getting harder and harder to find because too many manufacturers are willing to move away from the fundamental purpose of the bars and focus primarily on the taste of the bars at the expense of the nutritional quality.
When you focus on the taste and not the nutritional needs of an athlete you end up with something that sounds like it would be a good thing, but when you look at the details you find it’s not the case. The list of ingredients on the following popular protein and energy bar reveals that taste and not nutrition is their priority:
Evaporated cane juice syrup and corn maltodextrin are the first and third listed ingredients which also indicates their quantities. While neither of these ingredients are listed as sugar they are essentially the same as sugar hiding behind a more natural name. The more diligent athlete who is aware of the sugar synonyms won’t be tricked by the manufacturer and will look for a better bar, but for the average person who isn’t as informed this fake protein and energy bar is really not much better then a typical candy bar. At least in the candy bar the manufacturers don’t try to hide the actual ingredients behind more natural sounding names:
What makes this really serious is that the majority of protein and energy bars are really not much better or different then candy bars when you look at the first three ingredients:
Protein bar – Evaporated cane juice syrup oat bran, corn maltodextrin and soy protein isolate
Candy bar – Sugar, peanuts, and corn syrup
Yes the protein bar does have a few better ingredients, it does have soy isolate protein powder, but for the most part it is just a candy bar with added protein. This is very alarming and in the display pictured below there are a couple of dozen different types of bars and there were only two that were actually healthy enough to be used by a competitive athlete:
How does such a good idea, a portable highly nutritious bar that a competitive athlete can use to stay energized, go from good to bad. Simply shift the primary purpose from a portable highly nutritious bar used by competitive athletes for fuel to a good tasting convenience snack used by anyone. Most competitive athletes are willing to deal with the lack of flavour and even a chalky texture in their bars because they know that it isn’t about the taste it is about the fuel that they need to stay competitive.
This shift in purpose from fuel to taste has as a dramatic effect on an individuals results as a shift from a focus on learning to technology has on the learner.
We can run into a similar problem in education when we shift our focus from the learning to the technology. In his post How to Fake a 21st Century Classroom Terry Heick satirically posits how to:
“fake 21st century thinking and learning environment to make the right kind of impression with the right people, and give the appearance of forward-thinking.”
Useful ideas like Project-Based learning, 1 to 1, and blended learning can all too easily loose their benefit when we shift the focus from learning and just do projects, just focus on the devices, and just focus on the content delivery part of the blended learning. Heick points to ten good learning ideas that can easily go bad for the learner if we shift our focus from the learning to the technology or to what appears to be a trendy 21st Century activity. His post How to Fake a 21st Century Classroom Terry Heick is worth the read but I must caution you that you may be bothered or convicted by a few convenient or fake activities that you may have fallen into. I know I am taking a hard look at several of my activities as a result of reading his post.
As educators, our responsibility is to know better, to know that you can’t fake Project-Based learning by doing make work or fake projects. You have to give the learner the control, ownership and voice over an authentic project that will make some sort of difference in the learner’s personal life or community. You can’t just fake 1 to 1 by making students do digital worksheets on their iPads. You have to give the learner the opportunity to use their devices for creation, collaboration and communication and enable them to learn all the time and everywhere with everyone. You can’t just fake blended learning by focusing on the content. The emphasis on creation, collaboration and communication in your blended learning environment will also enable your learners to go much deeper then they would if you were to focus on the delivery of content.
As educators we should know better but just like the average person who is swayed by the appearance, convenience and taste of the fake protein bars we too often can be swayed by wanting to give the right kind of impression and the appearance of forward-thinking.
We can also be swayed by the fact that we may be faking it until we make it; meaning that we may move toward our learning goals by implementing changes incrementally and may use that worksheet on the iPad as a transition activity until we can focus on more genuine activities. This is understandable and as long as the transition happens this will be fine. But just like the fake protein bars that will work when you don’t have anything else available, temporary or transition use of technology can also work, but also like the fake protein bars long term use would not be heathy for the athlete or the learner.
It is widely accepted that eportfolios can help learners “deepen the inquiry process” by enabling them to integrate metacognition or reflection into their learning experience (Catalyst for Learning, n.d.). Eportfolios have the potential to be inviting, reflective, and engaging learning tools that stimulate deeper learning and offer many other benefits and as a result many higher education institutions promote their creation and use. Unfortunately, many educators who have been exploring the use of eportfolios over the past several decades have noticed that despite their wonderful potential as life long learning tools many students stop using their eportfolio after the completion of their program of study.
Researchers, Cynthia Cummings, Thilisa Thibodeaux and Dwayne Harapnuik recognized the need to find out which factors contribute to the continued use, or lack thereof, of the eportfolio. More specifically, these researchers have started a study to identify the factors that contribute to the continued or dis-continued use of eportfolios beyond the student’s program of study. The literature review revealed that choice, ownership, voice and authenticity (COVA) are key factors in encouraging students to go much deeper into learning so Cummings, Thibodeaux and Harapnuik sought to confirm if these factors would also influence the continued or dis-contined use of the eportfolio (Buchem, et el., 2014; Campbell, 2009; Lindgren & McDaniel, 2012; Pink, 2011; Qauglia, (n.d.); Rikard, 2015; Waters, 2015).
The initial results of the study were presented at the AAEEBL Western Regional Conference at Texas Christian University (TCU) in Fort Worth, TX in February, 2016. The study utilized a convergent mixed methods research design and the participants of this study included students from the Educational Technology Leadership master’s program at Lamar University who developed eportfolios as part of their program requirement. The 526 survey participants where first asked if they continued or dis-continued using their eportfolio beyond their program of study and then were asked to a likert scale to rate a list of twenty factors to identify to what extent those factor contributed to their continued or dis-continued use of the eportfolio.
Participants were given three opportunities to complete the online survey over a period of three weeks and 141 participants responded giving the survey just over a 26% response rate.
The survey revealed that only 18% of the participants continued to use their eportfolios while 82% stopped using their eportfolios after the completion of their program of study. These results confirmed earlier anecdotal evidence that many students stop using their eportfolios when not required to do so for a course.
The survey also revealed that use of the eportfolio as a career tool, the use of authentic projects, control over assessment of their learning and the management of the eportfolio were the most significant factors that contributed to the continued use of the eportfolio.
The primary factors for why students stopped using an eportfolio was the lack of time followed very closely by a lack of interest in eportfolios and lack of management over the eportfolio process.
Several follow up focus groups were conducted to gain additional insight into the continued or dis-continued use of the eportfolio and see if any additional factors not listed in the survey had impact the students continued or dis-continued use. One focus group participant in the research project confirmed why time is such a significant factor by stating:
“All your time is spent just keeping your head above water; there is no time to think about the benefits of an eportfolio or how to build and structure your eportfolio for use for anything more than document storage”.
For many of the students in the new Masters of Digital Learning and Leading program (DLL) at Lamar University coming out of the first course in the program EDLD 5302 Concepts of Educational Technology this frustration with a lack of time is also a reality. We have often seen students struggle with just learning how to learn to use new technology and concepts so getting the weekly assignments completed and simply dropping an evidence of learning into their eportfolio container is often the most students have been able to accomplish with limited time.
Our initial research findings and original assumptions suggest that if we gave our DLL students enough time and the appropriate environment to experiment with their eportfolio then we should see continued use of the eportfolio. Since the DLL program is new we won’t have our first graduates for the next 18 months, we have some time to wait to officially confirm our assumptions.
The eportfolio is a fundamental component of the DLL program and each course has been designed to utilize authentic projects and the eportfolio to showcase student’s work. EDLD 5303 Applying Educational Technology: Eportfolio is the second course in the DLL which is structured specifically to give students the time to focus completely on and experiment with the eportfolio. The evidence of learning accumulated in EDLD 5302 or through Microsoft Teaching with Technology, Google Educator, or the Apple Distinguished Educator programs can now be shaped and moulded into a well organized and cohesive format to genuinely convey a message beyond basic technology skills competence. In EDLD 5303 students are given the opportunity to move beyond dropping assignments into a digital container and are encouraged to start to consider and show how they plan to use technology to enhance their own learning and their learning environments.
To help shape student’s thinking on eportfolios and to start them on the journey of continuous reflection and revision of their work in EDLD 5303 we ask students to explore the following:
- Getting Started Tips
- The Minimalist Fundamentals of Eportfolios
- What is an Eportfolio
- Who Owns the Eportfolio
- Why Use an Eportfolio
- Example of Eportfolios
- How to Create an Eportfolio
Though this process of working through these ideas in their own eportfolios students will gain an appreciation for the value of the eportfolio as a deeper learning tool.
Next to a lack of time the lack of an appreciation of the value of the eportfolio was another major contributing factor for students who stopped using eportfolios beyond the course of study. Through the use of authentic assessment in all DLL courses and the ability to work on projects that will have a direct impact in the students own learning environment the DLL program gives students choice, ownership, voice and authenticity (COVA) that our research findings have initially confirmed are the key factors in encouraging students to continue using their eportfolios beyond their programs of study.
We are confident that this eportfolio experience started in EDLD 5303 and continued throughout all other DLL courses will provide a solid learning foundation for the DLL M.Ed and for the continued use of the eportfolio beyond this program. If you really want to students to learn deeply and build a foundation for learning how to learn then you need to give students:
- The freedom to choose how they wish to organize, structure and present their experiences and evidences of learning
- Ownership over the entire eportfolio process – including selection of projects and their portfolio tools
- The opportunity to use their own voice to revise and restructure their work and ideas.
- The opportunity to prepare their eportfolio platform for all the authentic learning assignments that they will experience in the remainder of the DLL program.
We are also confident that the DLL program will prepare students for the challenges of the future and shape them into the digital leaders that we need to move our educational systems forward.
Our research into this area is really just beginning while we are continuing to examine the data and will be publishing the full results shortly, we are also exploring relationships with other institutions who have used eportfolios in their programs to replicate our research in different settings to further confirm our findings.
References
Buchem, I., Tur, G., Hoelterhof, T., Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., Veen, W., … & Aresta, M. (2014). Learner control in Personal Learning Environments: A cross-cultural study. Learning and Diversity in the Cities of the Future, 13.
Campbell, G. (2009). A Personal Cyberinfrastructure. EDUCAUSE Review, 44(5), 58–59.
Catalyst for Learning Eportfolio Resources and Research (n.d.). Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://c2l.mcnrc.org/pedagogy/
Lindgren, R., & McDaniel, R. (2012). Transforming Online Learning through Narrative and Student Agency. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), 344–355.
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
Chicago
Qauglia, R. (n.d.). Quaglia Institute Framework. Retrieved September 8, 2015, from http://www.qisa.org/framework/
Rikard, A. (2015). 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
Watters, A. (2015, July 15). The Web We Need to Give Students. Retrieved September 10, 2015, from https://medium.com/bright/the-web-we-need-to-give-students-311d97713713
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.
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
