NLII Bridging Communities of Research & Practice to Transform Higher
Education Teaching and Learning Focus Session June 28, 2004, Los Angeles, CA Meeting Notes
1.
Introductions & Resources At this focus session the NLII, in conjunction with the University of Southern California's Center for Scholarly Technology and in affiliation with the 6th Annual International Conference of Learning Sciences hosted by University of California, Los Angeles, will work with representatives from the research and practitioner communities to seek multiple ways of describing and explaining learning in complex settings. A diverse group of practitioners and researchers will explore together how we might develop some shared language and communication pathways, and a set of processes and mechanisms to help bridge the often parallel universes of teaching/learning with technology practices in higher education (academic technologies) and teaching/learning theory (educational research.) Readings, materials, and agenda are available on the NLII Focus Session website at http://www.educause.edu/nlii/meetings/nlii043. Note: meeting participants completed pre-meeting readings and analysis; this information and other resources are attached.
2.
Opening Remarks
2.1.
Welcome, NLII Context & Purpose – Diana Oblinger,
Vice-President, EDUCAUSE
·
Learners
·
Learning Principles &
Practices
·
Technology
·
Synergism between them
all
2.2.
Participants Included an equitable distribution of
the following roles. Many of the participants identified themselves
as participating in multiple roles of the following activities:
·
Educational and learning science researchers who
wished to build a bridge to practitioners, to make research more accessible
and useful to practitioners, and to transform practice.
·
Faculty and other educational practitioners who
wanted to inform their teaching and learning design practice with the
science of learning.
·
Instructional technology staff, and learning designers
who wanted to inform their learning design practice with the science
of learning.
·
Faculty-development specialists who wanted to employ
new strategies and approaches to engaging faculty in focusing on the
scholarship of teaching and learning and in the effective use of technology.
·
Staff and others closely associated with teaching
excellence and resource centers, involved in significant institutional
improvement of teaching and learning with technology, and interested
in creating institutional communities that employ educational and learning
science research to inform this effort.
·
Educational/instructional/learning technology departmental
staff who wanted to foster institutional communities of practice organized
around the appropriate use of technology to transform teaching and learning.
·
CIO's and other administrators who managed teaching
excellence and resource centers, instructional technology departments,
and faculty development units, and who wanted to foster shared institutional
conceptual frameworks about the relationship between institutional mission
and teaching, learning, curriculum design, assessment and use of technology,
in order to align decision-making and resource allocation.
·
Representatives from scholarly societies who are
interested in fostering attention on how the discipline may be propagated
through a scholarship of teaching and learning.
·
Representatives from funding agencies who wished
to promote institutional and disciplinary missions around research-based
and technology-enabled teaching and learning practices and a general
scholarship of teaching and learning.
·
Others who are interested in participating in the
development of the NLII's Bridging Community, a virtual community of
practice with a domain that encompasses the transformation of instructional
design and pedagogical practice through enhanced engagement with learning
science research. The Bridging VCOP focuses on the use of institutional
communities of practice as agents of change to transform this practice
in order to facilitate the most appropriate and effective use of technology
to promote learning.
2.3.
Pre-Meeting
Preparation Prior to the meeting, participants were asked
to you carry out some pre-meeting
·
Title:
·
Title:
·
Title:
·
Title: From Minsk To Pinsk: Why A Scholarship
Of Teaching And
2.4.
Presenter - Darren Cambridge, Asst. Prof., George Mason
University, filling in for Vicki Suter, Director of NLII Projects
Assumptions, Diverse perspectives, & Rules of Engagement
·
While the issue of faculty motivation may be a useful topic,
it is not one that we will be discussing today. The assumption for today
is that faculty are already motivated to care about their teaching practice;
they want to be reflective about it, and need some tools and approaches
to be productively reflective; towards this end, the day will include
o
Opportunities
focused on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
o
When discussions arise around items that we care about, but
that we are not going to get into today, they
will be captured and pursued within the Bridging Community of
Practice’s environment as an ongoing venue to continue more in-depth
exploration. Everyone present at the focus session is a Bridging VCOP
member and is welcome to continue with the ongoing exploration of such
topics.
·
Learning researchers are going to engage with identified problems
to the extent that they see them as research problems; but many learning
science researchers are motivated by problems of practice.
o
Within the Learning Sciences, some are motivated by problems
of practice, and some are not particularly so motivated –
o
Research
is not always about needing to develop theories of practice. Respecting
this balance is necessary and useful to understand.
o
Inquiry and
research are different. While both are important, research is based
on specific formalized processes and has stringent formulaics to follow.
Inquiry is a less formalized set of processes that anyone can participate
in and should be familiar with. Inquiry is a reflective habit, while
research is within a disciplinary (or within multiple disciplinary)
studies. We are not here today to convince teaching practitioners that
they need to become disciplined educational researchers; we do believe
teaching practitioners benefit from reflective inquiry and seek ways
to build bridges with these practices and learning researchers.
o
Through inquiry
we see the effect of learning (time-efficient access to relevant theoretical
information about how to structure
an inquiry process that tracks the effects of innovation and interventions
in their own teaching practice. Today there will be multiple projects
presented that have begun to develop this type of structure to give
you an opportunity to consider how this might be accomplished and generate
further possibilities.
o
Since we are at the initial stages of this topic, we will also
look at all definitions and begin to structure them. You’ve hopefully
read the pre-meeting readings such as Sabelli’s article; plus Carnegie
Foundation’s definitions;
·
We are confounding roles identified traditionally as “practitioner”
and “researcher”, not by asking practitioners to be researchers or researchers
to be practitioners, but in the following ways:
o
There is
a multiplicity of roles (breaking up the dyad)
o
Instructional
designers are also “practitioners”
§
Note – instructional design is a role as well as a discipline
and a profession; individuals with this role, or in this discipline,
or practicing this profession have a wide range of background, experience,
and knowledge of learning science.
They have something to offer not only in terms of support, but
also in terms of improving practice.
o
Different disciplines approach research differently in learning
–
§
Idea of learning written large; learning in particular. Difference
between different kinds of research as exactly mirrored in practice,
and very strong preferences in teaching practice for particular disciplines.
For example, Composition Theory has a well-developed body of research
for the ways students learn to write, the ways to teach writing, and
the processes to research those events in higher education. These theorists
and processes are published outside of the learning sciences publications
in education and within the body of publications within rhetoric, composition
studies. This practice of research particulars in learning is duplicated
in other fields as well. So our assumption for today is that “researcher”
can encompass more than the education and educational psychology fields,
to include research studies of learning in particular disciplines.
o
There are multiple parts of the teaching process (methods or
approaches – e.g., strategies, knowledge, evaluation/assessment);
§
in the method area, instructional design is one piece of the
processes. Academics many times
focus on specific parts, for study and then are labeled by a role of
focus on that part. This role-focus begins to interfere. For example,
“assessment specialist”. We will conflate these roles into practitioners
or accept the identification that the person chooses for themselves.
2.5.
Presenter - Jean Kreis, NLII 2004 Fellow, Senior Program Coordinator, University
of Arizona
Goals, purposes of the session, intended results for the day – “Exploratory Phase”
·
There are different phases
of any initiative. For example, at the 2004 NLII Annual Meeting, there
was a Featured presentation on the Next Generation Course Management
System work-products. It was the completion of three years of work with
many people and many focus sessions’ results from Learning Principles
to Learning Objects and, of course, Course Management Systems. It was
followed up with a years’ worth of volunteers’ working in teams taking
the prevous suggestions from focus sessions and continuing to develop
the suggested work products. In those workshops then, the assumptions
were begun with a conceptual framework that arose from the previous
work done by other participants such as yourselves.
·
In this work of Bridging
Research & Practice, we are at the exploratory phase or the discovery
phase. There is not a conceptual framework already developed, and so
we begin by identifying what is necessary for inclusion into the topic.
We don’t expect work-products to result by the end of the day, but we
hope that we will have a “roadmap” of where we might go. The speakers
we have brought together and the interactive activities that draw upon
all of the participants’ experiences and knowledges will gather a set
of knowledges and strategic vision for what may be possible in the inclusion
of this initiative - institutionally, inter-institituionally, and strategicially.
3.
General Session
3.1.
Presenter – Cyprien Lomas, NLII 2004 Fellow,
Research Assoc, Skylight: Science Centre Learning & Teaching,
University of British Columbia
A
Conceptual Framework for Bridging Research and Practice: What’s the
Story Here?- Stories were shared from various perspectives (some personal, some about
colleagues, some partially fictitious) to show different openings for
possibilities of research and practice meeting.
·
Danilo Baylen, Florida
Gulf Coast University, small college faculty perspective
·
Bill Sandoval, USC, learning
research scientist perspective
·
Toru Iiyoshi, Carnegie
SoTL, faculty & research role perspective
·
Cyprien Lomas, University of British Columbia, an ideal
relationship individually limited by researcher/practitioner
·
Barbara Olds, NSF, an
externally funded project
·
Penny Swenson, an institutionally
funded project
·
Joan Canfield, a multi-institutionally
funded project
4.
Small Group Session
4.1.
Cooperation, diversity
and partnership between researchers and practitioners - pairs The participants began working in a paired activity, by inquiring
into experiences that highlight the positive outcomes of cooperation,
diversity and partnership. This activity became the foundational experience
for sharing a conceptual understanding of the elements necessary in
experiences in which cooperation, diversity and partnership are highlighted,
no matter who are involved. Additionally, by beginning with this activity,
the widely diverse set of participants was able to share experiences
of success with each other where each had experienced positive outcomes.
The participants were given the following instructions:
·
Pair up and take turns responding to the two sets of questions.
·
Person A interviews Person B first set of questions (10 minutes)
·
Person B interviews Person A first set of questions (10 minutes)
·
Respond to the questions that seem most relevant to your own
experience and perspective.
·
The activity worksheet was divided into two parts. The first
gave the guided questions for the interviews. The second provided the
summary sheets for capturing the most profound parts of the stories,
the most quotable quotes, and then for organizing the topmost themes
of each story told by each partner.
http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~jeank/043_fs/Activity_1_final.htm
4.2.
Cooperation, diversity
and partnership between researchers and practitioners - tables of six Three pairs working together – each table was given 15 minutes
to share the quotable quote from their partner’s story and then synergistically decide upon the best 3 themes
that their table would propose to the larger group as most important
for encouraging Cooperation, Diversity, and Partnership in Bridging Research & Practice
in Teaching & Learning
and present them on poster paper for the delivery
to the larger focus session group.
5.
General Session Cooperation, diversity and partnership between researchers and practitioners -Each table posted their prioritized three themes up on the wall. In less
then three minutes per table, a representative from each then shared with the participants
what the three themes were and why they were chosen. Each participant was given
3 “sticker dots” to place on the top three themes that appeared around
the room. Some choices, though written in different phrases, where duplicated
as became apparent by the verbal sharing. The results of that tabulation
were then collated and made available in a worksheet for use in Activity
3 later in the afternoon. http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~jeank/043_fs/Activity_1_3themes.htm
6.
Small Group Session
6.1.
Bridging Research to Practice – Making a Body of Work
Accessible – triads The activity was meant to identify the potential interests of different
audience(s) in the content of learning science research; to develop
processes for making the content of the research accessible to general
practitioners and other stakeholders; and to identify roles and partnerships
that might result in this effort. This small group session was again
set up in a two-phase process. The first phase was a concrete activity
to give the focus session participants experience in working with a
survey article and identifying the original audience, the larger possible
audiences who might benefit from the material, the barriers to those
broader audiences, and what gateways would be necessary to make that
work available to them. However, for the activity to be useful in getting
to a strategic level, the participants needed to then go beyond the
concrete activity to examine the larger scope involved. This led to
the second phase. Each group worked as a triad, with a planning team
member as the facilitator and rappateur, taking notes. These notes were
then collected and collated into a graph over the lunch hour by Bridging
Community core team staff, Joan Getman and Danilo Baylen, for use in
Activity 3 later in the afternoon.
http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~jeank/043_fs/Activity_2_final.htm
7.
General Session
7.1.
Presenter - Barbara
Olds, Division Director, Division
of Research, Evaluation & Communication, EHR/REC, NSF, bolds@nsf.gov
The Funding BridgeDr. Olds was invited to speak to provide the participants with
the opportunity to gain an understanding of the funding agency’s perspective
and to gather insight into funding agency as to our concerns and interests.
The questions that she was asked to tackle in her presentation were:
·
What role might funding
(whether institutional or from external agencies) play in making these
connections between research and practice?
·
How might we create
sustained and rich connections between communities of researchers, communities
of practitioners, and the learning software and services market community?
·
In addition to the scholarship
of teaching and learning, are there other approaches, practices or methodologies
that can bridge research and practice?
Dr. Olds handed out two papers for examination:
·
The first was about the Externally-Funded,
Multi-Institution Project: VaNTH http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~jeank/043_fs/Olds_VANTH.htm
·
The second was a resource-rich document for funding opportunities
for education research in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources
at the NSF http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~jeank/043_fs/NSF_Funding_Olds.pdf
·
Barbara’s ppt is available with rest of the presenters'
8.
Project Parlor
After lunch faculty, staff, and researchers
presented to specific projects that represented various practical bridges
between research and practice in teaching and learning. Participants
had the opportunity to engage with the projects and the developers.
·
MOATS poster session http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~jeank
Jean Kreis, , NLII 2004 Fellow, Senior Program Coordinator, University
of Arizona, jkreis@educause.edu
·
VALAnator poster session Jenny Franklin, Instructional
Development & Assessment Specialist - The University of Arizona, jennyfra@email.arizona.edu)
·
KEEP system http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/KML/KEEP/index.htm Gary
Otake, Web Administrator otake@carnegiefoundation.org Toru Iyoshi, Senior Scholar/Director,
Knowledge Media Lab,
·
LON-CAPA
poster session http://www.lon-capa.org
Gerd Kortemeyer, Principal
Investigator, LON-CAPA ITR Project, Director, LITE Lab, Michigan State
University korte@lite.msu.edu
·
"Interaction of Student and Learning Environment Characteristics
on Perceived Learning Outcomes in a Blended Marketing Course" Sue Gautsch - Director, Teaching
and Learning Services Center for Scholarly Technology, University Southern
California Andrew Thomas – Program Coordinator,
Teaching and Learning Services Center for Scholarly Technology, University
Southern California
9.
General Session
A panel comprised of faculty, researchers,
developers, designers, and multiplicity of roles presented an
Overview of research
and assessment, from broad to specific, as a lead in to further discussion
for the participants.
Research Methodologies & Assessment Frameworks for the Practitioner
– Questions
that the panel addressed were:
· Different disciplines have different research methodologies and standards of evidence for research. What are some accessible and rigorous research and assessment methodologies that would facilitate a scholarly approach to our teaching practice, connect theory and practice, and provide an assessment framework that would give us feedback over time to inform our own practice?
·
How can we make it possible
to put faculty in the center of a problem learning based model where
faculty are the learners, reflective practitioners, and researchers
contributing to a community for shared scholarship of teaching and learning? · How can we promote reflective practice in teaching and course development in e-learning contexts by enabling inquiry ranging from formative evaluation to informal or formal research concerning how to arrange teaching events and measure learning outcomes?
Panel members presented in the following order:
·
Wayne
Brent, Computer Manager, Instructional
Applications Support - The University of Arizona, wbrent@u.arizona.edu Mr.
Brent presented on the elements on practice and reflective practice.
He contextualized how this can take place with assessment and introduced
MOATS & VALAnator’s context within the reflective practitioner’s
work.
·
Gerd Kortemeyer,
Principal Investigator,
LON-CAPA ITR Project, Director, LITE Lab, Michigan State University,
korte@lite.msu.edu Dr.
Kortemeyer introduced the context for the development of the CMS, LON-CAPA,
and the analytical data elements built into the instrument. He shared
the institutional support for the development of it and the NSF funding
that permitted the expansion of the instrument beyond the initial science
courses and institution.
·
William Sandoval, Asst.
Professor, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, UCLA,
sandoval@gseis.ucla.edu Dr.
Sandoval gave a brief overview of design-based research and then contextualized
it in a practical manner by sharing screen shots of a short-term use
of it within a research-practioner use in his experience. A design team
was able to build a small instrument that was built on learning science
for the way students understood the use of a middle-school science topic.
The research paid for the building of the tool and at the same time,
the students benefited from the use of the tool afterwards, since the
process for amending the tool (iterative) is a built-in process of design-based
research.
·
Penny
Swenson, Associate Professor
of Education - California State University, Bakersfield, Penny_Swenson@firstclass1.csubak.edu
Dr.
Swenson then wrapped up much of what had taken place within the focus
session to this point in time with humor and conciseness.
10.
Small Group Session
Moving from themes and strategies to potential action – tables of sixThese were the questions that assisted
the planning committee in designing the small group session activity
so that they participants could find strategies to help move from themes
around Cooperation, Diversity, and Partnership in Bridging Research
& Practice in Teaching:
·
How can we go deeper
into the intersection between research and everyday practice so that
we can absorb the findings of educational research and at the same time
contribute to the findings of educational research?
·
How can research findings
be made accessible to practitioners just-in-time?
·
How can we derive learning
and instructional principles from research findings? How do we articulate
them with a clarity and simplicity that make them memorable and useful
to faculty in their teaching practice?
·
How can we ensure that
research informs the design of next generation academic software (systems
and tools that support teaching, learning and research)?
·
How might we create
sustained and rich connections between communities of researchers, communities
of practitioners, and the learning software and services market community
(e.g., through virtual communities of practice generally and the Bridging
Community specifically, through disciplinary societies, etc.)?
Participants were free to remain
working in the same groups of six from the morning or to form new groups.
Both choices manifested themselves. The instructions were as followed:
·
Select from the ten sets of 3 themes (total of 30) generated in Activity 1 (Cooperation, Diversity
and Partnership) about past experiences and ideal scenarios of researchers
and practitioners working well together. http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~jeank/043_fs/Activity_1_3themes.htm
·
Select from the strategies generated in Activity 2 (The work of translation) for making learning
science research more accessible to a variety of different audiences
with different interests. http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~jeank/043_fs/Activity_2_consolidated.htm
· Take those themes around partnership and the strategies that address the interests of different audiences in research and use them to brainstorm and create a list of potential projects, work products, roles and partnerships.
with an initial effort to consolidate and organize the events at
11.
General Session
11.1.1.
Presenter - Toru Iiyoshi,
Senior Scholar/Director, Knowledge Media Lab,
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching iiyoshi@carnegiefoundation.org
Pantomime in the Dark: Does the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning Make Light?
Dr. Iiyoshi spoke of examples of cross-institutional community support
for the scholarship of teaching and learning.
12. Next steps and future products <link to survey instrument> for connecting researchers/practitioners
|