Evolution of an online graduate action research course

October 31st, 2009 by brody - Download - Discuss Read

The evolution of an online graduate action research course: Student and teacher perceptions


Linnea L. Rademaker, PhD

Assistant Professor, Educational Foundations & Inquiry

Director, Center for Practitioner Research at

National-Louis University

1000 Capitol Drive

Wheeling, IL 60090

Ph & Fax: 847-947-5043

Linnea.rademaker@nl.edu

Abstract:

In this paper I discuss my work as a teacher of an action research course for Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) students, students who are receiving teacher certification along with their Masters Degree.  Each quarter I offer students the chance to provide feedback on specific attributes, positives and negatives of the course as they perceive them through an anonymous discussion board question.  Student perceptions from three quarters, as seen through my own perceptions and reflections as the professor, provide the data which I analyzed using Holmberg’s (2003) theory of the characteristics of online learning.  I discuss how I evolved my teaching and curriculum to attempt to meet the needs of the online student, specifically in the creation of space to build relationships. I draw implications for teaching and learning that include how my modeling of effective action research practices can assist students in continuing to use action research in their own classrooms upon graduation.

Introduction

In this paper I discuss my work as a teacher of an action research course for Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) students, students who are receiving teacher certification along with their Masters Degree.  Prior to the 2008-2009 academic year, our department only offered this course in a face-to-face format.  During the 2007-2008 academic year our department decided to create an online format of the course, and I was asked to chair the committee for the development of the course, and to subsequently pilot the course format in the summer of 2008.  By participating in the creation and subsequent implementation of this new teaching format, I was able to reflect on my own pedagogical and curriculum stereotypes, and to incorporate student perception into what I term the evolution of this online “action research” course.

This work stems from my continuing interest in the “contextuality” of schooling.  The context of an online course provided me with a new frame of reference to examine my own teaching and to represent student perceptions of that teaching.  In reflecting on this context, I thought of the ways that I am dependent upon face-to-face interactions with students to help my own understanding of the classroom culture, and the ways in which I construct curriculum based upon that culture. When Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2003) described their context of online learning as “not independent learning but rather a context of collaborative, constructivist learning within a community of learners” (p. 115), I knew that this is what I want my own teaching practice to become.  My desire for context definition, however, is in itself a non-constructivist goal, as learners themselves create and define their own culture within the confines I introduce (Pine, 2009, p. 22-23).  I have long struggled to balance the confines I present and the needs and experiences that the learners bring to the classroom. Dewey (1938/1997) writes that my “planning must be flexible enough to permit free play for individuality of experience and yet firm enough to give direction towards continuous development of power” (p. 58). I want my students to be able to learn how to incorporate Action Research Methodology into their teaching practice, and I want them to learn it in such a way that they will want to incorporate it into their teaching practice.

Since development, I have taught three sections of this online course, and am currently in my fourth.  Each quarter I offer students the chance to provide feedback on specific attributes, positives and negatives of the course, as they perceive them, through the format of an anonymous discussion board question.  This forum for feedback is in addition to the university-wide student course evaluation surveys.  My own return rate on the university-wide surveys is about 20% to 30%, with most comments confined to responding to likert-type questions.  If students respond with a 2 or a 3 for a question (indicating a low to medium agreement with a comment about the success of a curriculum or pedagogical tool), I want to know “why” and to discern how I can adapt my curriculum, or to become ‘flexible,’ as Dewey suggests.  By contrast, since implementing the ‘end of course’ anonymous questions on Blackboard, I’ve received over 75% return rate on these questions, and find the answers more useful for me in my attempts to make the course accessible to an increasingly diverse student population.

Issues in Online Education

Although universities have offered online learning opportunities since the late 1970s, the medium presents continuously new contexts for inquiry and discussion, as the technology available for such learning environments is increasingly more complex and available. In writing about Open University, Granger and Bowman (2003) cite the difficulties in maintaining a goal of “successful learning” that is “accessible to and possible for each individual who desires it,” regardless of context (p. 169). Yet context, including technological capability of the individual and/or the university, was often a late consideration or variable in creating and evaluating curriculum.

In my own work teaching face-to-face courses, the idea of including context in curriculum planning meant creating a syllabus after the first week of class in which I tailored the readings to the needs and interests of my students with whom I was just becoming acquainted. With my new format of an online course, however, I have found that students ask for (sometimes demanding) the textbook and the syllabus weeks before the class begins, so that they can, as one student wrote, “plan my assignments and my vacations” around the classwork.  While the lessons learned from the Open University included an understanding of learning as experiential, and that ‘preformed’ curriculum neglected the individuality of the learner (Granger & Bowman, p. 170), I found my students insisting on my early guidance and direction, and balking at the idea of non-specific assignments or due dates.

Holmberg (2003, p. 81) offers a theory of the characteristics of distance education that includes three points. I summarize them here, situating them within my own work, and using them to reflect on how the theory guides my own practice. I also will revisit these points later as I analyze and discuss student responses and offer my own reflection on those responses.

  1. I serve learners who for a variety of reasons are not served by the same course in a face-to-face setting.
  2. I pre-plan course materials, but have the ability to be flexible throughout the course; I am anonymous, but can offer to mediate that anonymity.
  3. I foster the creation of personal relationships amongst the students and between myself and students, through discussions, chat-rooms, and reflexive writing assignments. (Holmberg’s words and my words combined)

Use of this theory to understand my own teaching and my reflections on that teaching has helped me negotiate changes necessary to welcome and encourage student diversity.  Holmberg illustrates this theory with suggestions of how it might be applied within coursework.  When I am grading student papers I used to use the abbreviated ‘English teacher code’ (as a former English teacher), due in part to the volume of work I am grading.  This English teacher code includes use of single words as criticism for grammatical errors and other writing issues (i.e., awk. for “awkward sentence structure—needs revision;” or ros for “run-on sentence.”).  Now, however, I find myself writing in what Holmberg calls “conversational style,” important to that relationship building to which the theory alludes (p. 83).  Equally important, but not addressed by Holmberg’s theory, are the aspects of the learning context that the learner brings to this context, including the acknowledgement that all learners are unique.  In this study I offer a small glimpse into the individual needs of my learners, as represented through their anonymous responses.

Data collection and method

True to what I believe is the purpose of action research, this study was undertaken by me (the practitioner) in order to understand, reflect upon (in a systematic manner), and develop my curriculum for the improvement of student learning (See, for example Burnaford, 2001; Carter & Doyle, 1996; Cochran-Smith & Donnell, 2006; Day, 1999, p. 216; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; Mertler, 2009; and, Rademaker, Gardiner, Levanon, DePinto, Ravid, 2008).  Over the course of one academic year, I surveyed the students in my online action research classes (Summer, 2008; Fall, 2008; Winter, 2009) in order to determine how best to “re-create” the course to enable student understanding.

Students (approximately 15-20 in each) completed the course in 10 weeks (six weeks in the summer quarter) by working through 10 learning modules (each included small writing paragraph assignments, or discussion questions), as well as five MAJOR assignments (article analysis, reflection, literature review, methodology, and a power point of results) outside of each module.  Each learning module included discussion questions completed and shared with the class, with their discussion groups (self-created), or privately (some questions were anonymous, or seen only by me). The last learning module included two questions:

1) What were the most helpful aspects of the course, and why were they helpful?

2) What were the least helpful aspects of the course, and how might I improve them? Because the questions were anonymous (I can create the questions so that even I do not know who answered), most students answered these questions, providing detailed feedback as to their “likes” and “dislikes” about the course.

I discussed the feedback with my department chair, who was also teaching sections of the course online, and we decided that comments relating to the need for face-to-face contact were outside the purposes for this project, and were therefore not analyzed for this project.  Based upon an initial content analysis, coding for similar and varying issues, I created themes under which I organized the remaining responses:

  • communication
  • course materials
  • assignments
  • navigation of the technology

Themes from student comments

In this section I want to discuss each of the categories I outlined previously: communication, course materials, assignments and navigation of technology, offering discussion of each within Holmberg’s (2003) theory of distance education discussed earlier. I chose Holmberg’s theory because of the emphasis on “empathy” (indeed, empathy is in the title of the chapter).  Dictionary.com defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another” (www.dictionary.com). Therefore, my goal in analyzing the words of my students is to attempt to bring my experiences to bear in developing an understanding of their experience of the online action research class.  By attempting to ‘walk in their shoes,’ I am searching for a way to increase their understanding and access to the course format and materials.

Communication: In this category I place student comments related to the sharing of information with each other, and the sharing of information with me, and the value they place on this experience.  I offer this category first, because in terms of the number of student responses, this was a low-response category. A recurring issue of “communication” is students’ ability or willingness to navigate the amount of course readings, where to find them, and the density of the material provided.

  • “I had difficulty with coordinating scheduled and learning modules—they seemed a bit disjointed to me…”
  • “Sharing information with students [in the online discussion format] was helpful. Sometimes in a classroom the discussion can be dominated by a few students.  Online group discussion allows everyone that wants to share their thoughts.”
  • “I really enjoyed the discussions online. And it was so helpful to be able to e-mail people questions…”
  • “overall, I would be interested to see more interaction among students…”
  • “I would have liked to gain more from group discussion….I think…some type of structure to the discussion would have helped….”

While some of these comments may seem to be related to “Course Materials,” upon deeper reflection I surmise that the comments are connected to the way I have “communicated” the requirements.  As an example, for the Summer, 2008 pilot of the course, I created the format to include ten learning modules, to coordinate with our normal quarters that are ten weeks in length (although the summer quarter is only six weeks).  I have created a detailed syllabus (leaving room for flexibility in some areas of course materials, assignments, or due dates). I also created detailed assignment rubrics.  However, I was assuming that students would be able to navigate the new technology of the online format (for some, this was their first online class), find the syllabus, and find the learning modules, and coordinate the two, thereby creating their own calendar.

My reflective response to student comments about “Communication”

Although communication may seem to be a minor issue, as noted by the smaller response rate, my not addressing ‘communication’ issues can (and did) result in students dropping the course or harboring bad feelings about the university as a whole.  I had a student in the Winter, 2009 quarter who dropped the course in the 6th week, citing my unresponsiveness to her issues.  I scurried through my e-mails searching for glimpses of where she had indicated her discontent, only to find mono-syllabic responses to my feedback or my e-mails requesting more information from her.  Although she didn’t communicate her unhappiness to me in a way that I could understand, she was able to tell my department chair much more in e-mails.  I was saddened by my failure to meet her needs, and reminded of the anonymity of the online teacher, and the seeming desire of some students to assign a personality to me, despite the lack of face-to-face contact. She conveyed to my department chair that she could no longer learn in the “negative environment” I had created.  Holmberg (2003) refers to the centrality of “personal relations” in this environment, and how these relations are fostered by “lucid, problem-oriented, conversation-like presentations of learning matter….” (p. 82).  Without the facial expressions, tone of voice, body language and other aspects of communication that help us create impressions of people, how are students creating a perception of me in the first few weeks of the course?  Additionally, how can I incorporate “conversation-like presentations of learning matter” into an environment that is not conducive to conversations?

My first attempts to remedy communication issues were to create written introductions to each learning module, in which I covered ‘housekeeping’ issues, such as major assignments coming due, reminders to complete tutorials, and reminders to refer to the syllabus and assignment rubrics.  I also encouraged students to e-mail me if they wished to set up a phone or face-to-face conference time.  I thought more students would respond to the latter, but in the Fall and Winter quarters only two or three students in each requested a conference. [1] I have noticed that the written introductions have served to help students incorporate due dates, and the multiple assignments for the course, as well as to help them to understand the format of each learning module, which remains similar throughout the course.

Course Materials: In this category I place student comments related to the textbook and supplementary materials I provide in the course.  I provide journal articles that are required reading, as well as examples of action research articles that are not required reading. I also provide a list of web-based resources for writing, for research, for question development, and for understanding centers of practitioner research.  I also create power points with most lessons, providing visuals where I am able. Most of the comments from students were to tell me how great the textbook was.  I’ve used Mertler’s (2009) book for all three (now four) quarters that I’ve taught this class. I find Mertler’s text to be extremely linear, but also find that he provides many concept maps that also appeal to a broader-base of learning styles. Students also have commented on the flow of the course, appreciating (sometimes after-the-fact) the “completing the puzzle” format to the course.

  • “The class flowed in a logical and cohesive manner and that helped me stay on track.”
  • “I liked how each lesson was a piece of a puzzle that fit together to help me complete the final paper.”
  • “I really thought the structure to this class was fantastic.  Each assignment, reading, and learning module helped the continuing process of future ones and the overall lessons of this class.”

Still, some continued to be surprised at the amount of reading required.

  • “Well, the truth is that I thought that this class would be really easy since it was online.  It required so much more of my time than I really thought it would.”

My reflective response to student comments about “Course Materials”

While students often do not have sufficient frame-of-reference to understand or rate course materials, I still believe that students must be able to connect what they are reading with their own practice.  While I struggle with using the Mertler text, which is structured in a way that I find to be contrary to my own “learning style” and philosophical paradigm, I have to balance my issues with the needs of my students, as they present them to me in these comments, and in the course evaluations.  I find comments such as one student’s: “…all she did was give us a syllabus and assignments” (meaning, perhaps that the course could have taught itself…?) to be actually positive, if you think about the “smoothness” this represents.  That a student cannot detect the labor necessary to create the syllabus and assignments seems to me to be a worthy goal, as I don’t want them to be distracted by this complexity.

Additionally, students’ reasons for taking an online course may be at odds with their natural ability to navigate the differences in online course materials, versus those chosen for a face-to-face class.  Currently, in the Spring, 2009 quarter, I am teaching a face-to-face section of the same course, as well as the online section.  The course materials are decidedly different, and I find myself exceedingly conscious of the amount of verbal explanation I give in the face-to-face version, wondering how I can offer this to my online students, and if they even need this. This reflective stance echoes Holmberg’s (2003) assertion that “distance education is open to behaviorist, cognitive, constructivist, and other modes of learning” (p. 81), even my own learning about how to navigate this teaching environment.

Assignments: Student comments in this category evidence the most transformation over the time frame of three quarters. Student confusion about which assignments were due on what date predominated the student course evaluations of the Summer, 2008 pilot quarter.  I was somewhat surprised to see these comments on the course evaluations, as my correspondence with the class did not reveal these difficulties during the quarter. This indicates to me that in an online environment I need to be extremely sensitive to potential complexities and confusing situations. For instance, my decision to not interrupt discussion board assignments, as I believed this to be a good time for students to interact without a teacher watching over them, turned into a tirade against me, and my lack of responsiveness to students, extending to an accusation that I never responded to any of their assignments.

  • “The learning experience could have been strengthened if the professor had communicated more with the students.  Almost no feedback was given to online discussions.  Very, very little feedback was given on assignments.  The instructions for assignments were very confusing.”

My reflective response to student comments about “Assignments”

Refuting this student’s belief about my lack of feedback is not the point. Rather, the point is that this student’s and others’ actual and potential perceptions can interfere with how they complete the course and understand practitioner research.  How will this experience negatively impact their incorporation of practitioner research into their own practice? How were they distracted by my seeming lack of communication about assignments? How can I enable students to truly collaborate, yet meet their need to have teacher approval? Holmberg’s second point in the theory of distance education is that distance learning is “guided and supported by noncontiguous means” (p. 81), means which include my use of language that is at times privileged and at odds with students’ language and understandings.

Changes made in the Fall, 2008 and Winter, 2009 quarters include a reminder about which assignments in the Learning Module will be graded, which discussion postings will elicit comments from me, and an e-mail acknowledging receipt of every assignment (this is an easy thing for me to do, as I am online most of the day, yet it has had extraordinarily positive results).  I also contact students several weeks before the quarter begins in order to offer tips for successfully navigating an online course, textbook, and syllabus materials, and encourage them to enter the online environment well before the start of class to become familiar with the format.

Additionally, I treat each assignment as a communication, relationship-building tool between the student and myself.  I call them by their first name, and encourage them to call me by my first name as well, fostering what Holmberg (2003) refers to as a “personal relationship” between myself and the student (p. 81-82). I refer to their research question when they write to ask me a question about the literature review, or the problem statement, so that students will know they are a unique individual to me, and not just a name on a page.  While for major assignments I allow a week or more to grade, I offer immediate (within 24 hours) feedback on research question development, data collection tools, or literature search suggestions.

Navigation of Technology: In this category I place student comments that discuss the difficulties with the technology aspects of the course, even if these aspects a part of the course delivery software, and are not of my design.  For example, a recurring problem at our university (and at others, I’m guessing) is the need for continuous server and technology updates, in order to stay current, and be alert to security threats, and other issues related to technology.  Our university conducts updates on Friday evenings, from 10 pm to 7 am on Saturday.  This may seem like a convenient time to university administrators, and to technology people.  However, I know that many of my students are already in classrooms during the week, as aides, or as full-time teachers.  Many of my students have indicated that they begin to work on assignments at the end of the work week—late on Friday evenings, often staying up late to complete assignments.  Their frustration at not being able to post discussion questions, to slow server response, or lack of e-mail capabilities is reflected in their comments.

  • “I learned overall that the on line format was difficult for me.”
  • “While the flexible schedule was convenient, it was time consuming to work backwards through comments” (this comment is interesting, because when the server was working well, this was an easy, quick process.  It is only when the server was down that this became time-consuming)
  • “Responding to [discussion] posts became tedious”
  • “Online forums were ongoing and it took too much time to constantly back-click to catch up comments on late, late comers”

My reflective response to student comments about “Navigation of Technology”

I find it difficult to reflect on this issue, because of my own difficulties in navigating technology. I’ve learned that much like my own use of the ‘language of research’ marginalizes my students; the ‘language of technology’ often marginalizes me offering me a unique opportunity to empathize with my students.  I don’t enjoy feeling marginalized, as I’m sure my students do not, as well.  While I cannot change the university schedule for technology updates (although I have raised the issue to my department chair, and to our office of information technology), I can offer repeated explanations to students, and a flexible time-frame for students to complete assignments when technology fails. Again, I am reminded of the “flexibility” aspect inherent in a constructivist teaching environment, returning to my initial umbrella theme of the contextuality of schooling.

Implications

Significantly, the unsolicited comment from students in Winter, 2009, about their intent to incorporate Action Research into their future teaching practice reinforces my belief that this process has changed me.  Several students wrote e-mails to me after the Winter, 2009 class, one of which I offer here:

[Dear Professor]:

First of all thank you for giving such an important class and making it the most challenging I have ever had.  At first and throughout the quarter I kept saying to myself “Why did I take this class Online? Why did I decide to go back to school?” …But now that we have come to an end and I understand a lot more about Action Research and after I spoke with you I feel more at ease…the answer to “Why” has really come to mind.  …This class challenged me like I have never been challenged and it expanded my knowledge skills, so thank you for that.  Thank you for lighting up the spark in me, and making me realize how important I am to my students and they to me.

(Unsolicited student e-mail, March, 2009)

In our university we strongly support action research, through field-based programs thematically centered within the practice of action research; and, through the cross-departmental collaborative effort of our Center for Practitioner Research.  We believe that action research can significantly professionalize and improve teaching through specific, contextually-based examination of teaching practices, students, classrooms and pedagogies.  Pine (2009) concurs, stating: “Sustained action research is our best hope to integrate research and professional development in order to significantly advance the quality of teaching and student learning and development” (p. 108).  My own work to model a reflective and empathetic stance through action research continues to help me to improve my own teaching, subsequently improving my students’ learning, continuing the cycle of action research in their classrooms of the future.

References

Burnaford, G. (2001). School and university teacher action research: Maintaining the personal in the public context. In G. Burnaford, Fischer, J. & D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 193-219.

Carter, K. & Doyle, W. (1996). Personal narratives and life history in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, Buttery, T. J. & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 120-142.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Donnell, K. (2006). Practitioner inquiry: Blurring the boundaries of research and practice. In J. L. Green, Camilli, G. & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates for the American Educational Research Association, 503-518.

Day, C. (1999). Researching teaching through reflective practice. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy. London: Falmer Press, 215-232.

Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Granger, D. & Bowman, M. (2003). Constructing knowledge at a distance: The learner in context. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Holmberg, B. (2003). A theory of distance education based on empathy. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage, 559-603.

Mertler, C. A. (2009). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Pine, G. J. (2009). Teacher action research: Building knowledge democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Rademaker, L. L., Gardiner, W., Levanon, M. DePinto, V., Ravid, R. (2008, unpublished). Foundational statement of the Center for Practitioner Research (CFPR) at _________University.

[1] Although my data for this paper only covers quarters through Winter, 2009, I am currently teaching a class for the Spring, 2009 quarter.  My changes for this quarter include an audio introduction (along with a printed script of the audio included).  My chair and I both incorporated the audio component. I noticed already that more students have requested phone conferences.  My hypothesis is that with the vocal component I may provide more information from which students can create their perception of me, than in previous classes.

You must be logged in to post a comment.