I've not posted for a while as I have been focusing my attention on writing my thesis. This takes a lot of concentration and commitment. Moreover, I feel one has to maintain a regular speed in order to keep ideas at the fore of one's mind and to keep,a holistic view. The latter is not easy; for the last two years I've been working on my research, taking one small step at a time. Never really knowing where I might end up, but feeling somehow confident that I was going in the right direction. Now I have to recall the journey and explain why I did what I did when.
So far I have nearly finished one of the main chapters presenting the results and my interpretation. My supervisor has given me her feedback, with some really useful suggestions for change.
I now realise what a major challenge thesis writing is, but I am determined to finish as soon as possible and aim to submit around end of January next year. Guess what I will be doing over christmas!
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
BERA conference presentation
I presented my research yesterday at the British Educational Research Association (BERA) annual conference in London - you can find my presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/holmebn/holmes-online-learning-communities-bera. It was a nerve-racking experience, but I survived and the reaction of the audience was positive. Phew.
The questions asked at the end were interesting. Here is what I remember (thanks to Barry and Moira for reminding me) with my answers.
o Were the teachers involved in the Learning Event (LE) participating in their own time or were they released from their teaching?
Most were learning in their own time and trying to applying what they were learning directly in their teaching practice.
o Could I comment on the quick learning we get from, for example, Google compared with the longer term learning suggested by my research?
The teachers had benefitted from being able to apply what they were learning in their everyday teaching practice, talk about it with their peers in the LE and reflect on it. However, this required time, opportunity and commitment from those involved.
o What was the age range of the pupils being taught by these teachers?
The teachers involved were teaching children from primary school level to upper secondary level. We used pupils' age as one of the criteria when splitting the participants up into small groups at the roundtables in the Staff room .
o Did the research show anything about how easy it is for pupils to learn about ICT compared with students in HE?
No, this was not part of my research.
o To what extent was critical discourse dependent on the tutors presence?
The results suggest tutor interventions provoked discussion, reflection and critical thinking. However, there were examples of them taking the initiative and of critical discourse being provoked by the teaching presence of the participants themselves.
o What are the next questions that I am trying to answer?
I have started writing up my thesis and if anything I am going through a process of reducing and distilling what I have, rather than adding to it. So the key thing for me at the moment is to confirm the research questions on which my research is based.
o What gap are you filling through your research?
Most research on online communities seems to focus specifically on one aspect - the cognitive, the social or the teaching aspects, for example. And a lot of research using the Community of Inquiry model is quantitative. My research addresses all three presences in a holistic approach and is mainly qualitative.
In talking about the future, I mentioned the potential to create an eModeration course for teachers on the basis of the LE and what we had learned.
The conference is continuing and I am enjoying listening to other researchers talking about their work, especially were it relates to teachers, their use of ICT and their professional development.
Brian
The questions asked at the end were interesting. Here is what I remember (thanks to Barry and Moira for reminding me) with my answers.
o Were the teachers involved in the Learning Event (LE) participating in their own time or were they released from their teaching?
Most were learning in their own time and trying to applying what they were learning directly in their teaching practice.
o Could I comment on the quick learning we get from, for example, Google compared with the longer term learning suggested by my research?
The teachers had benefitted from being able to apply what they were learning in their everyday teaching practice, talk about it with their peers in the LE and reflect on it. However, this required time, opportunity and commitment from those involved.
o What was the age range of the pupils being taught by these teachers?
The teachers involved were teaching children from primary school level to upper secondary level. We used pupils' age as one of the criteria when splitting the participants up into small groups at the roundtables in the Staff room .
o Did the research show anything about how easy it is for pupils to learn about ICT compared with students in HE?
No, this was not part of my research.
o To what extent was critical discourse dependent on the tutors presence?
The results suggest tutor interventions provoked discussion, reflection and critical thinking. However, there were examples of them taking the initiative and of critical discourse being provoked by the teaching presence of the participants themselves.
o What are the next questions that I am trying to answer?
I have started writing up my thesis and if anything I am going through a process of reducing and distilling what I have, rather than adding to it. So the key thing for me at the moment is to confirm the research questions on which my research is based.
o What gap are you filling through your research?
Most research on online communities seems to focus specifically on one aspect - the cognitive, the social or the teaching aspects, for example. And a lot of research using the Community of Inquiry model is quantitative. My research addresses all three presences in a holistic approach and is mainly qualitative.
In talking about the future, I mentioned the potential to create an eModeration course for teachers on the basis of the LE and what we had learned.
The conference is continuing and I am enjoying listening to other researchers talking about their work, especially were it relates to teachers, their use of ICT and their professional development.
Brian
Saturday, 3 September 2011
Being 'competent' in applying Web 2.0 tools in teaching practice
In analysing the response of the teachers to the final questionnaire after the Learning Event (LE) on web 2.0 tools and collaboration, I realised that I was asking their opinion about whether or not they felt more competent without asking them what they meant by being competent. To remedy this omission, I recently asked those who had answered the questionnaire and had kindly given their email addresses to answer a few additional questions. I had a terrific response with 25 teachers replying.
My first question was 'In your opinion, how would you describe being 'competent' in applying Web 2.0 tools in your teaching practice? I coded the replies, grouping them around several keywords. The following table summarises the responses (note that the answer from a teacher may have several keywords associated with it, but a keyword may be used only once per teacher):
Attribute of competence (keyword) Occurrences
Knowledge of teaching practice 20
Knowledge of web 2.0 7
Confidence 5
Aptitude and attitude 5
Skills 3
Experience 2
Autonomy 1
So when the teachers talk about feeling competent in the use of web 2.0 tools, these results suggest that they are mainly referring to having the necessary knowledge about the pedagogical use of the tools in their teaching practice. They also think that knowledge of the tools themselves is important, as is feeling confident and having the right aptitude and attitude for their use. Being skilled in the use of the tools, whilst mentioned, seems less important.
I find this result to be interesting as it reflects the focus of the LE on teaching practice rather than the tools, per se; though one could argue that being skilled in the latter is a prerequisite for being good at the former.
In subsequent questions I asked the teachers to say what skills, knowledge, aptitude and attitude are associated with using web 2.0 tools in teaching practice. I linked aptitude and attitude together as I find the difference between the two to be too subtle to warrant separate answers.
The coding of the answers for skills yielded the following keywords:
Skills needed for use of web 2.0 Occurrences
in teaching practice (keyword)
Design, plan, organise and teach 12
ICT and technical 10
Language and communication 5
Learning, researching, creativity 5
and innovation
Critical thinking and metacognition 1
The answers confirm that whereas technical skills in the use of web 2.0 are important, equally important is having the pedagogical skills to use them effectively in one's teaching practice.
The coding of the answers for knowledge yielded the following keywords:
Knowledge needed for use of web 2.0 Occurrences
in teaching practice (keyword)
Teach, collaborate, use tools in practice 11
Web 2.0 and ICT 9
Languages 2
Own capabilities 1
Here again we see that knowledge of web 2.0 tools and ICT in general is important, but equally (or perhaps more) important is knowledge of how to use them to teach and collaborate.
Finally, the coding of the answers for aptitude and attitude yielded quite a variety of answers as the following keywords show:
Aptitude and attitude needed for use Occurrences
of web 2.0 in teaching practice (keyword)
Collaborate, cooperate, share, teamwork 6
Open to change, flexible 6
Creative, innovative, desire to improve 5
Desire to be competent, to learn 4
Believe in ICT 3
Listen, communicate 2
Serious, dedicated, committed, responsible 2
Patient 2
Help and support pupils 2
Leadership 1
Global perspective 1
Safety conscious 1
Culturally sensitive 1
Courageous and self-confident 1
There are some overlaps between these keywords and it was not easy to allocate them. Nevertheless, they reflect the importance for the teachers of having the aptitude and attitude to collaborate, share and work with other teachers; to be open to change in their teaching practice; to be creative, innovative and have a desire to continually improve; to have the motivation to continually learn; and to believe in the benefits of using technology.
In their final comments, the teachers reflected on the importance of competence in the wider context of lifelong learning and the forever changing world in which we live. They recognised that it is a never ending challenge to be competent and that it is very time consuming. They mentioned the importance of having institutional support for their professional development and how such Learning Events are invaluable.
Last but not least, the teachers expressed interest in knowing the results of my questions and that is why I am being so open about them here. I hope this analysis will provoke further thought and discussion, and I wish to thank everyone who replied.
I leave you with this final thought, is having competence in something the same as being competent? As one teacher indicated: 'Is nice to have a competence but is more important to be competent'.
Brian.
My first question was 'In your opinion, how would you describe being 'competent' in applying Web 2.0 tools in your teaching practice? I coded the replies, grouping them around several keywords. The following table summarises the responses (note that the answer from a teacher may have several keywords associated with it, but a keyword may be used only once per teacher):
Attribute of competence (keyword) Occurrences
Knowledge of teaching practice 20
Knowledge of web 2.0 7
Confidence 5
Aptitude and attitude 5
Skills 3
Experience 2
Autonomy 1
So when the teachers talk about feeling competent in the use of web 2.0 tools, these results suggest that they are mainly referring to having the necessary knowledge about the pedagogical use of the tools in their teaching practice. They also think that knowledge of the tools themselves is important, as is feeling confident and having the right aptitude and attitude for their use. Being skilled in the use of the tools, whilst mentioned, seems less important.
I find this result to be interesting as it reflects the focus of the LE on teaching practice rather than the tools, per se; though one could argue that being skilled in the latter is a prerequisite for being good at the former.
In subsequent questions I asked the teachers to say what skills, knowledge, aptitude and attitude are associated with using web 2.0 tools in teaching practice. I linked aptitude and attitude together as I find the difference between the two to be too subtle to warrant separate answers.
The coding of the answers for skills yielded the following keywords:
Skills needed for use of web 2.0 Occurrences
in teaching practice (keyword)
Design, plan, organise and teach 12
ICT and technical 10
Language and communication 5
Learning, researching, creativity 5
and innovation
Critical thinking and metacognition 1
The answers confirm that whereas technical skills in the use of web 2.0 are important, equally important is having the pedagogical skills to use them effectively in one's teaching practice.
The coding of the answers for knowledge yielded the following keywords:
Knowledge needed for use of web 2.0 Occurrences
in teaching practice (keyword)
Teach, collaborate, use tools in practice 11
Web 2.0 and ICT 9
Languages 2
Own capabilities 1
Here again we see that knowledge of web 2.0 tools and ICT in general is important, but equally (or perhaps more) important is knowledge of how to use them to teach and collaborate.
Finally, the coding of the answers for aptitude and attitude yielded quite a variety of answers as the following keywords show:
Aptitude and attitude needed for use Occurrences
of web 2.0 in teaching practice (keyword)
Collaborate, cooperate, share, teamwork 6
Open to change, flexible 6
Creative, innovative, desire to improve 5
Desire to be competent, to learn 4
Believe in ICT 3
Listen, communicate 2
Serious, dedicated, committed, responsible 2
Patient 2
Help and support pupils 2
Leadership 1
Global perspective 1
Safety conscious 1
Culturally sensitive 1
Courageous and self-confident 1
There are some overlaps between these keywords and it was not easy to allocate them. Nevertheless, they reflect the importance for the teachers of having the aptitude and attitude to collaborate, share and work with other teachers; to be open to change in their teaching practice; to be creative, innovative and have a desire to continually improve; to have the motivation to continually learn; and to believe in the benefits of using technology.
In their final comments, the teachers reflected on the importance of competence in the wider context of lifelong learning and the forever changing world in which we live. They recognised that it is a never ending challenge to be competent and that it is very time consuming. They mentioned the importance of having institutional support for their professional development and how such Learning Events are invaluable.
Last but not least, the teachers expressed interest in knowing the results of my questions and that is why I am being so open about them here. I hope this analysis will provoke further thought and discussion, and I wish to thank everyone who replied.
I leave you with this final thought, is having competence in something the same as being competent? As one teacher indicated: 'Is nice to have a competence but is more important to be competent'.
Brian.
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Professional competence
My research looks at the influence of online communities on learning and I have been investigating in particular the case of an eTwinning Learning Event for teachers. One of the aspects that I have been investigating is competence development and I have been reading work by Eraut (1994; 1998) to understand better how the meaning of the term has changed over the years.
Eraut suggests there is a difference in perception as to what competence means, depending on the context and who is using the term. He suggests that if a member of the public were to use the term competent to describe someone who had offered a service, it would imply that the quality of what they had received was good and that the statement, used in this context, relates to a high level of performance. He suggests, however, that the scope of the competence is very specific. For example, if we heard that a solicitor is competent in handling divorce cases we would make no assumptions about her ability to handle fraud cases.
On the other hand, if an employer were to describe a member of staff as competent, this would perhaps suggest that they were good at their job, but not necessarily excellent. Eraut cites Pearson:
If we can think of a continuum ranging from just knowing how to do something at the one end to knowing how to do something very well at the other, knowing how to do something competently would fall somewhere along this continuum (Pearson, 1984, p.32, cited in Eraut, 1994, p. 167)
Eraut goes further, 'Where there is need for extra quality or expertise the description 'competent' is tantamount to damning with faint praise' (Eraut, 1994, p.166). So according to the context, competent can have the positive meaning of 'getting the job done' or the negative one of 'adequate but not excellent', he suggests.
For professional development, which is the subject of my research, Eraut explains that competence has two dimensions, scope and quality. A professional's competence will change over time, as they become more specialist in new areas according to the needs of their work. In some cases, they may become proficient or even an expert. Often, however, a professional strives to be simply competent in an area which is necessary for their work, but not core – an example would be becoming competent in the use of ICT without expecting to become an expert in it. Again the level of quality associated with being competent will depend on the context. For example, a school teacher who is competent is likely to be held in high regard as his work involves little supervision and a degree of autonomy.
Eraut takes us through the development of the term competence, from the days of behaviourism when competency-based training (CBT) was in vogue, especially in the US, through to contemporary use for cognitive psychology. With the former, there was a focus on normative behaviour and it was important to have a clear definition of what was expected of the professional. Indeed, CBT was criticised for the tendency to break down the professional role into small, well defined tasks. One example is teacher training, where Eraut describes the mistake that was made of trying to atomise the teaching process into micro activities with autonomous objectives. Thankful, such approaches are now less popular as a more holistic and flexible approach is taken to teaching.
The focus on ability to perform specified tasks to an agreed level of performance reinforced the importance of qualifications as a means of recognising competence. Moreover, for certain skills and professions, the professional associations played a leading role in certifying whether a person was qualified and competent, eg certified account.
Eraut describes the move towards general competence, changing the emphasis from training professionals to do what is required of them, towards educating them to be capable of doing it. Often the latter is associated with personal qualities and hence the trend towards assessment centres and other tools to help with the recruitment of competent staff. Here we see also the link with the EU's definition of eight key competences that need to be taught to all school children (EU, 2004), where competence is referred to as ' a combination of skills, knowledge, aptitudes and attitudes, and to include the disposition to learn in addition to know-how' (2004, p.3).
Cognitive psychology seeks to distinguish competence from performance, according to Eraut. Citing Messick (1984) he explains how performance relates to how someone acts under specific conditions in a particular setting, for example when one undertakes an exam. Here one is subject to a particular environment, the exam room, and may be motivated, stressed, distracted, etc depending on how one feels at that instant in time. Whereas competence refers to what one is able to do under ideal circumstances. In otherwords, competence reflects one's potential. So competence can only be inferred from performance.
Eraut goes onto explain the difference between competence and competency. However, I am still left wondering what the difference is in reality. From what I understand, competence reflects a general capability of a person. Whereas competency reflects specific capabilities in a particular vocational context. At least that is what Eraut argues. The situation becomes less clear when one uses the plural; is the plural of competence competences or competencies? I have seen both used interchangeably, sometimes within the same document.
Returning to my research, in my questionnaire to all participants of the Learning Event, I asked them whether they felt more confident and competent as a result of having followed the session. The answers were generally positive and whereas there seems to be little doubt that competence has developed, what this means in practice is open to interpretation. For I failed to ask the participants how they would define competent – is it a level of quality and performance that reflects a high level of teaching practice, or is it middling someone between not capable and proficient. Perhaps it is not too late to return to the respondents to ask them to clarify their perception and to check it with my own.
Brian
------
Eraut, M. (1994) Developing professional knowledge and competence, Routledge.
Eraut, M. (1998) 'Concepts of competence'. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 12 (2), pp.127-139
EU (2004) Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning, a European Reference Framework Brussels, European Commission. (ONLINE - http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/basicframe.pdf - accessed 13.06.2009)
Eraut suggests there is a difference in perception as to what competence means, depending on the context and who is using the term. He suggests that if a member of the public were to use the term competent to describe someone who had offered a service, it would imply that the quality of what they had received was good and that the statement, used in this context, relates to a high level of performance. He suggests, however, that the scope of the competence is very specific. For example, if we heard that a solicitor is competent in handling divorce cases we would make no assumptions about her ability to handle fraud cases.
On the other hand, if an employer were to describe a member of staff as competent, this would perhaps suggest that they were good at their job, but not necessarily excellent. Eraut cites Pearson:
If we can think of a continuum ranging from just knowing how to do something at the one end to knowing how to do something very well at the other, knowing how to do something competently would fall somewhere along this continuum (Pearson, 1984, p.32, cited in Eraut, 1994, p. 167)
Eraut goes further, 'Where there is need for extra quality or expertise the description 'competent' is tantamount to damning with faint praise' (Eraut, 1994, p.166). So according to the context, competent can have the positive meaning of 'getting the job done' or the negative one of 'adequate but not excellent', he suggests.
For professional development, which is the subject of my research, Eraut explains that competence has two dimensions, scope and quality. A professional's competence will change over time, as they become more specialist in new areas according to the needs of their work. In some cases, they may become proficient or even an expert. Often, however, a professional strives to be simply competent in an area which is necessary for their work, but not core – an example would be becoming competent in the use of ICT without expecting to become an expert in it. Again the level of quality associated with being competent will depend on the context. For example, a school teacher who is competent is likely to be held in high regard as his work involves little supervision and a degree of autonomy.
Eraut takes us through the development of the term competence, from the days of behaviourism when competency-based training (CBT) was in vogue, especially in the US, through to contemporary use for cognitive psychology. With the former, there was a focus on normative behaviour and it was important to have a clear definition of what was expected of the professional. Indeed, CBT was criticised for the tendency to break down the professional role into small, well defined tasks. One example is teacher training, where Eraut describes the mistake that was made of trying to atomise the teaching process into micro activities with autonomous objectives. Thankful, such approaches are now less popular as a more holistic and flexible approach is taken to teaching.
The focus on ability to perform specified tasks to an agreed level of performance reinforced the importance of qualifications as a means of recognising competence. Moreover, for certain skills and professions, the professional associations played a leading role in certifying whether a person was qualified and competent, eg certified account.
Eraut describes the move towards general competence, changing the emphasis from training professionals to do what is required of them, towards educating them to be capable of doing it. Often the latter is associated with personal qualities and hence the trend towards assessment centres and other tools to help with the recruitment of competent staff. Here we see also the link with the EU's definition of eight key competences that need to be taught to all school children (EU, 2004), where competence is referred to as ' a combination of skills, knowledge, aptitudes and attitudes, and to include the disposition to learn in addition to know-how' (2004, p.3).
Cognitive psychology seeks to distinguish competence from performance, according to Eraut. Citing Messick (1984) he explains how performance relates to how someone acts under specific conditions in a particular setting, for example when one undertakes an exam. Here one is subject to a particular environment, the exam room, and may be motivated, stressed, distracted, etc depending on how one feels at that instant in time. Whereas competence refers to what one is able to do under ideal circumstances. In otherwords, competence reflects one's potential. So competence can only be inferred from performance.
Eraut goes onto explain the difference between competence and competency. However, I am still left wondering what the difference is in reality. From what I understand, competence reflects a general capability of a person. Whereas competency reflects specific capabilities in a particular vocational context. At least that is what Eraut argues. The situation becomes less clear when one uses the plural; is the plural of competence competences or competencies? I have seen both used interchangeably, sometimes within the same document.
Returning to my research, in my questionnaire to all participants of the Learning Event, I asked them whether they felt more confident and competent as a result of having followed the session. The answers were generally positive and whereas there seems to be little doubt that competence has developed, what this means in practice is open to interpretation. For I failed to ask the participants how they would define competent – is it a level of quality and performance that reflects a high level of teaching practice, or is it middling someone between not capable and proficient. Perhaps it is not too late to return to the respondents to ask them to clarify their perception and to check it with my own.
Brian
------
Eraut, M. (1994) Developing professional knowledge and competence, Routledge.
Eraut, M. (1998) 'Concepts of competence'. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 12 (2), pp.127-139
EU (2004) Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning, a European Reference Framework Brussels, European Commission. (ONLINE - http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/basicframe.pdf - accessed 13.06.2009)
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Know thyself
A recent paper by Akyol and Garrison (2011) has helped me to understand better the differences between critical thinking and metacognition. Whereas definitions are never black and white, and several authors have offered their views as to what they mean, I have come to the conclusion that I have been using the terms interchangeably and without really understanding the subtle differences.
Put simply, critical thinking is about effective learning. It is about ‘thinking about thinking’ (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.183) and sensemaking; ‘critical thinking is evaluating ideas for their quality, especially judging whether or not they make sense’ (Martinez, 2006, p.697).
Metacognition, on the other hand, is something more. It is about understanding learning in the wider context, about developing strategies for learning and changing direction when learning doesn’t work. ‘Metacognition must, therefore, go beyond simply thinking about thinking and awareness. Inquiry-based metacognition must include self-corrective strategies which make it an essential element of critical thinking and higher learning’ (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.184).
Clearly the two are closely related. In realising the difference between the two, I myself have experienced critical thinking. In deciding that I need to learn more about the topic and change some of my research thinking, I have experienced metacognition. Moreover, Akyol and Garrison’s paper argues that metacognition is not an individual activity, but is achieved in a social context in which one is able to check and adjust one’s interpretations:
‘metacognition is seen to mediate between internal knowledge construction and collaborative learning activities. Discourse is necessary to reveal knowledge, misconceptions and learning strategies. Discourse critically reveals and collaboratively supports the development of metacognitive knowledge and strategies’ (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.185)
So by presenting my thoughts here, in my public blog, and inviting reactions, I am facilitating my own metacognition.
The authors go on to propose a construct for analysing metacognition in an online community that builds upon the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000). This has three dimensions:
° knowledge of cognition – referring to awareness of yourself as a learner, for example knowing what you know and what you don’t know, and knowing under what conditions you learn best
° monitoring of cognition – being aware of thinking and the learning process, and taking responsibility for your learning and that of others
° regulation of cognition – taking action to change the course of learning and achieve meaningful learning
Interestingly, the paper proposes that learners who ask questions of others, who check progress of the group and facilitate collaborative learning are demonstrating monitoring of cognition and regulation of cognition. In other words, metacognition is associated with learners exhibiting teaching presence according to the CoI framework.
So how does this impact my research? Well the scheme that I have used for coding cognition in the online discussion forums was proposed by Garrison et al (2001). It posits that the two upper levels of cognition, integration and resolution, are evidence of critical thinking. I have tended to think of this as metacognition and whereas it is an important element for metacognition, it is not the same. I would need to look further at the messages to look for evidence of a change in learning strategy or for reflection on what the learning means in the wider context. This certainly exists in some cases where critical thinking is in evidence, but not in all. Moreover, Akyol and Garrison’s paper suggests that in looking for metacognition, I should also consider the combination of cognitive presence and teaching presence. In other words, a learner who exhibits critical thinking and is facilitating collaboration and the learning of the group is more likely to be undergoing metacognition.
The question for me now is what is the relationship between critical thinking, metacognition and competence development, as it is the latter that I am trying to demonstrate? But that is perhaps for another day …
Brian
-------
Akyol, Z. & Garrison, D. R. (2011) 'Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry'. The Internet and Higher Education, 14 (3), pp.183-190
Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105
Martinez, M. E. (2006) 'What is metacognition?', Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (9), p.696. (ONLINE - http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/martinez_m/docs/mmartinez_metacognition.pdf - accessed 10.08.2011)
Put simply, critical thinking is about effective learning. It is about ‘thinking about thinking’ (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.183) and sensemaking; ‘critical thinking is evaluating ideas for their quality, especially judging whether or not they make sense’ (Martinez, 2006, p.697).
Metacognition, on the other hand, is something more. It is about understanding learning in the wider context, about developing strategies for learning and changing direction when learning doesn’t work. ‘Metacognition must, therefore, go beyond simply thinking about thinking and awareness. Inquiry-based metacognition must include self-corrective strategies which make it an essential element of critical thinking and higher learning’ (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.184).
Clearly the two are closely related. In realising the difference between the two, I myself have experienced critical thinking. In deciding that I need to learn more about the topic and change some of my research thinking, I have experienced metacognition. Moreover, Akyol and Garrison’s paper argues that metacognition is not an individual activity, but is achieved in a social context in which one is able to check and adjust one’s interpretations:
‘metacognition is seen to mediate between internal knowledge construction and collaborative learning activities. Discourse is necessary to reveal knowledge, misconceptions and learning strategies. Discourse critically reveals and collaboratively supports the development of metacognitive knowledge and strategies’ (Akyol and Garrison, 2011, p.185)
So by presenting my thoughts here, in my public blog, and inviting reactions, I am facilitating my own metacognition.
The authors go on to propose a construct for analysing metacognition in an online community that builds upon the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000). This has three dimensions:
° knowledge of cognition – referring to awareness of yourself as a learner, for example knowing what you know and what you don’t know, and knowing under what conditions you learn best
° monitoring of cognition – being aware of thinking and the learning process, and taking responsibility for your learning and that of others
° regulation of cognition – taking action to change the course of learning and achieve meaningful learning
Interestingly, the paper proposes that learners who ask questions of others, who check progress of the group and facilitate collaborative learning are demonstrating monitoring of cognition and regulation of cognition. In other words, metacognition is associated with learners exhibiting teaching presence according to the CoI framework.
So how does this impact my research? Well the scheme that I have used for coding cognition in the online discussion forums was proposed by Garrison et al (2001). It posits that the two upper levels of cognition, integration and resolution, are evidence of critical thinking. I have tended to think of this as metacognition and whereas it is an important element for metacognition, it is not the same. I would need to look further at the messages to look for evidence of a change in learning strategy or for reflection on what the learning means in the wider context. This certainly exists in some cases where critical thinking is in evidence, but not in all. Moreover, Akyol and Garrison’s paper suggests that in looking for metacognition, I should also consider the combination of cognitive presence and teaching presence. In other words, a learner who exhibits critical thinking and is facilitating collaboration and the learning of the group is more likely to be undergoing metacognition.
The question for me now is what is the relationship between critical thinking, metacognition and competence development, as it is the latter that I am trying to demonstrate? But that is perhaps for another day …
Brian
-------
Akyol, Z. & Garrison, D. R. (2011) 'Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry'. The Internet and Higher Education, 14 (3), pp.183-190
Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) 'Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education'. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), pp.7-23
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105
Martinez, M. E. (2006) 'What is metacognition?', Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (9), p.696. (ONLINE - http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/martinez_m/docs/mmartinez_metacognition.pdf - accessed 10.08.2011)
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Tell me again what you did?
A book by Murray (2006) provides some useful guidance on how to start the sometimes painful process of writing one’s final thesis. I found one particular set of questions, original proposed by Brown (1994), to be quite useful for me in trying to express in a concise way what I have done and what I have achieved.
Here goes:
1. Who are the intended readers? (list 3-5 names)
Academic panel and external examiner
Supervisor
Research community
Teachers
eTwinning organisers
2. What did you do? (50 words)
I observed a group of teachers undertaking non-formal learning in an online community. Based upon my analysis, in a re-run of the event, we added a staff room, increased facilitation at key points, provided a period to try out ideas in practice and then held a final reflection.
3. Why did you do it? (50 words)
Applying the Community of Inquiry model (Garrison et al., 2000), I noted that informal social interaction was low and the community did not really develop. The teachers learned about web 2.0 tools but not necessarily how to apply them in their teaching practice.
4. What happened? (50 words)
Working closely with the tutor (action research), we saw the level of interaction increase, the teachers exchanged examples of using tools in their practice and I observed evidence of critical thinking and competence development. Ties developed between teachers, however the community quickly died when the learning activities stopped.
5. What do the results mean in theory? (50 words)
Results suggest that increased teaching presence (facilitation, peer support) and social presence (interaction in staff room) had a positive impact on cognitive presence (meta-cognition). Applying ideas in teaching practice and reflection with peers improved competence development. Social ties were strong but the community was ephemeral.
6. What do the results mean in practice? (50 words)
Teachers need time to try out what they are learning in practice. It is beneficial for learning to have more active facilitation at key points, backing-off as peer support takes over, and a final period of reflection. Learning communities exists for as long as they serve the purpose of learning.
7. What is the key benefit for readers? (25 words)
My research shows what can be done practically to help competence development in online learning. It is only an example and certainly not a panacea.
8. What remains unresolved? (No word limit)
° Are the results specific to the context in which they were analysed, or are some lessons applicable in other, similar situations?
° Where is the appropriate balance for facilitation? In the right situation, as I believe we have shown, increased facilitation can stimulate critical thinking and reflection. However, too much facilitation can stifle creativity and possibly make learners passive.
° Are communities specifically aimed at learning different than those for knowledge sharing or practice (eg Communities of Practice)? Is it the focus on purposeful learning that makes them ephemeral?
Answering these questions in fewer than 50 words was a real challenge, but useful.
Brian
------
Brown, R. (1994) 'Write right first time'. Literati Club, Articles on Writing and Publishing, Special Issue for Authors and Editors, 1995, pp.1-8
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105
Murray, R. (2006) How to Write a Thesis, Open University Press.
Here goes:
1. Who are the intended readers? (list 3-5 names)
Academic panel and external examiner
Supervisor
Research community
Teachers
eTwinning organisers
2. What did you do? (50 words)
I observed a group of teachers undertaking non-formal learning in an online community. Based upon my analysis, in a re-run of the event, we added a staff room, increased facilitation at key points, provided a period to try out ideas in practice and then held a final reflection.
3. Why did you do it? (50 words)
Applying the Community of Inquiry model (Garrison et al., 2000), I noted that informal social interaction was low and the community did not really develop. The teachers learned about web 2.0 tools but not necessarily how to apply them in their teaching practice.
4. What happened? (50 words)
Working closely with the tutor (action research), we saw the level of interaction increase, the teachers exchanged examples of using tools in their practice and I observed evidence of critical thinking and competence development. Ties developed between teachers, however the community quickly died when the learning activities stopped.
5. What do the results mean in theory? (50 words)
Results suggest that increased teaching presence (facilitation, peer support) and social presence (interaction in staff room) had a positive impact on cognitive presence (meta-cognition). Applying ideas in teaching practice and reflection with peers improved competence development. Social ties were strong but the community was ephemeral.
6. What do the results mean in practice? (50 words)
Teachers need time to try out what they are learning in practice. It is beneficial for learning to have more active facilitation at key points, backing-off as peer support takes over, and a final period of reflection. Learning communities exists for as long as they serve the purpose of learning.
7. What is the key benefit for readers? (25 words)
My research shows what can be done practically to help competence development in online learning. It is only an example and certainly not a panacea.
8. What remains unresolved? (No word limit)
° Are the results specific to the context in which they were analysed, or are some lessons applicable in other, similar situations?
° Where is the appropriate balance for facilitation? In the right situation, as I believe we have shown, increased facilitation can stimulate critical thinking and reflection. However, too much facilitation can stifle creativity and possibly make learners passive.
° Are communities specifically aimed at learning different than those for knowledge sharing or practice (eg Communities of Practice)? Is it the focus on purposeful learning that makes them ephemeral?
Answering these questions in fewer than 50 words was a real challenge, but useful.
Brian
------
Brown, R. (1994) 'Write right first time'. Literati Club, Articles on Writing and Publishing, Special Issue for Authors and Editors, 1995, pp.1-8
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) 'Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education'. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), pp.87-105
Murray, R. (2006) How to Write a Thesis, Open University Press.
Saturday, 9 July 2011
The case in question
It has been a while since I last posted due to travelling and a period of ill health. I feel I need to get back into the habit of writing but its not easy; its rather like having had no exercise for a while, with the muscles complaining when I start jogging again. Its also alarming how much one forgets so quickly. Maybe its my advancing years, but I feel I need to speed up if I am ever going to finish my PhD.
I have been reading about case studies and I've come to the conclusion that they useful for my work. Yin (2009) suggests that case studies are appropriate when you are principally answering how and why questions, rather than than who, what and where; the former being more exploratory in nature. He also suggests that case studies are suitable for examining contemporary events when relevant behaviours cannot be manipulated and the researcher has little or no control. He adds that case studies are usually associated with in-depth investigations of a real-life situation where the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not obvious. Such situations call for multiple methods in order to collect sufficient data and to be able to verify one's analysis through triangulation. This view of case studies concurs with that of Denscombe (2007) who suggests that case studies encourage mixed methods that allow relationships and processes to be analysed, rather than just outcomes. Denscombe adds that case studies are suitable for natural settings which are likely to exist before the research takes place and continue afterwards. Whereas the Learning Events (LEs) that I studied where of fixed durations, they were part of an ongoing programme and my research was looking at only two examples, albeit related.
Both Denscombe and Yin recognise the typical criticism often levelled at case studies, namely that they provide little opportunity for generalisation. Yin notes that critiques claim that they lack rigour, take too long and produce very long unreadable documents. Though he adds that this is usually due to the inexperience of the researcher rather than the approach itself: 'in doing a case study, your goal will be to expand and generalize theories (analytic generalization) and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalizations)' (Yin, 2009, p.15).
VanWynsberghe and Khan suggest that case studies are neither research methods, methodologies or design. Rather they define them as 'transparadigmatic and transdisciplinary heuristic that involves the careful de-lineation of the phenomena for which evidence is being collected (event, concept, program, process, etc.)' (2007, p.2). By transparadigmatic they mean that they may be relevant regardless of one's research paradigm. They use heuristic to mean that case studies encourage a focused, in-depth approach to researching a phenomenon. They go on to suggest seven key features of case studies (p.4):
1) Small N: they address a small sample, with the researcher being careful to clearly define the boundaries of the case
2) Contextual detail: with sufficient information as to give the impression of actually being there
3) Natural settings: where there is little control over the context, 'Case study is uniquely suitable for research in complex settings ... because it advances the concept that complex settings cannot be reduced to single cause and effect relationships'
4) Boundedness: case studies address a clearly defined situation, bounded in space and time
5) Working hypotheses and lessons learned: the researchers uses her/his past experience and skills to generate a working hypothesis that helps to surface the phenomenon as the study progresses
6) Multiple data sources: referring to the work of Yin, they also suggest that case studies encourage the use of mixed methods and triangulation
7) Extendability: 'Case studies can enrich and potentially transform a reader’s understanding of a phenomenon by extending the reader’s experience'
All of this would appear to apply well to my research of the LEs. Moreover, Koshy (2010) suggests that case studies are an appropriate way of writing up and disseminating the results of action research.
I rest my case, at least for now :)
Brian
------
Denscombe, M. (2007) The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects, Open University Press.
Koshy, V. (2010) Action research for improving educational practice, 2nd ed., London, Sage publications Ltd.
VanWynsberghe, R. & Khan, S. (2007) 'Redefining case study'. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6 (2)
Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research: Design and methods, 4th ed, Sage Publications, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)