Linked here is an Educause article entitled "Engage Me or Enrage Me". Lately, I have been drawn to reading articles like this about educating the so-called "Net Generation". Like others, this article makes a case that we need to edu-tain these students. The main premise of these articles is that education (in this era of the Xbox and the iPod) needs a complete overhaul in order to engage students so that they are no longer "bored" with school. In this article, the author states that there is a group of student who are "...convinced that school is totally devoid of interest and totally irrelevant to their life. In fact, they find school much less interesting than the myriad of devices they carry in their pockets’ and backpacks. These kids are used to having anyone who asks for their attention . . . work really hard to earn it. When what is being offered isn't engaging, these students truly resent their time being wasted . . . The motto for this group? 'Engage me or enrage me'."
This morning, I sat here for an hour trying to articulate what makes me so angry about this viewpoint. I have mulled over this article (and others like it) for weeks. I have started outline after outline trying to express why this viewpoint is a cop out that lowers the bar (and our expectations) for students. This view is a threat to the basic expectation that students come to school prepared to work (yes, school is work) for their education. Student "engagement" and motivation is fascinating. This article (and others like it), place the responsibility (and blame) for student motivation solely on the shoulders of the school and the instructional design which the author notes is "boring" to this generation of students.
The author asserts that at school "it is so boring that the kids, used to this other life, just can't stand it." Further, he cites that the old school curriculum is to blame. Does this include the old school curriculum standbys of reading, writing and arithmetic that adults need in order to function in society? Unfortunately, what is missing in most articles like this is an analysis of the students' responsibility. What about the level of attention and engagement we must demand of them? The author notes, "They certainly don't have short attention spans for their games, movies, music or internet surfing." Of course not - those activities are all low effort leisure pursuits. It is not plausible to compare the level of personal involvement needed to watch a movie to the attention and engagement required of a student to actively listen and participate during lectures, to write papers and to study for exams in school. Further, it is not practical to compare the rewards. While games, movies and internet surfing all provide instant gratification, it is nothing compared to the long term benefits of a hard-earned education. It is lowering the bar to defend students who do not put forth the effort and rise to the challenge. There is no way around it. You must work (hard) for your education. We must instill in students that education is work and work has its own rewards far beyond the immediate gratification of the current leisure time pursuits.
Which brings me to the title of this post . . . Every time (and I mean every time) I leave my mother (from the time I can remember through today), she says, "Be a good girl, have a good time and learn a lot." These three little phrases sum up a wonderful approach to life - and to education. The underlying theme is that life is what YOU make it - not what someone else creates for you. It is up to YOU to be good. It is up to YOU to have a good time. It is up to YOU to learn a lot. While I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of all educators to walk out the door and prepare to educate students with this same mantra running though their heads, I return to my argument that it is a cop out if we do not expect (and demand) the same of students. While I firmly agree that it is our responsibility to make education as relevant and engaging as possible, we must instill in learners that it is their education and it is up to them to be good, have a good time and learn a lot.
The highlighted article (available via this link with an IU network ID and password) discusses the use of "communities of practice" (CoP) as a learning model for corporate training. The author refers to a CoP as a group connected by "shared competence" and "mutual interest" where experience and knowledge is shared (and created) among team members versus conveyed by an instructor. The author asserts that a CoP is an effective way to not only convey knowledge, but to also produce creative and valuable knowledge that is relevant to the employees and the company.
The report briefly discusses a CoP model used as an employee training program at Samsung Electronics in Korea and includes results of a survey of the Samsung CoP members. While the Samsung HR department facilitates participation and provides support (materials), the teams run independently with an elected leader and shared goals established by the team members. The survey results provide insight into conditions that contribute to CoP success. In order of rank, the following were listed as the top factors impacting the CoP activity:
There has been a lot of press lately about the Net Generation. Educause published a series of articles on Educating the Net Generation. I began reading the series with an article from a student's perspective.
Unfortunately, after reading the article, I do not have a clear understanding of the problem nor the author's suggestions for a solution. While I do believe that teachers have a responsibility to find every way possible to reach and engage students, I feel this article puts to much emphasis on how education needs to change in order to accommodate a student’s short attention span (a problem that is in no way the sole domain of the Net Generation).
As an example, the author notes that the Net Generation will get bored if not challenged properly. “Bored” is a word used a lot in our culture. It implies someone is not doing something to “entertain”. However, there are a few problems with the author’s argument: 1) members of all generations have been “bored” from time to time in school (the Net Generation is not the first to experience that life is not always fun and games), 2) learners often need to work very hard to stay engaged and challenged, regardless of the learning environment, and 3) education should never be confused with entertainment.
I look forward to reading the other articles in this series. However, at this point, I am still not convinced that this generation learns any differently than prior generations. While technology used in education will continue to advance (as it is in most industries), I ague that the process of learning is not different from what it was in prior generations. In addition, I am troubled that this article implies that the responsibility for student motivation falls solely on educators and the educational system. While there are many new tools available to reach and accommodate different learning styles, in the end, learning takes hard work, focus, concentration and dedication from both the teacher and the student. Whether instruction is delivered from a professor in a lecture hall or on a message board, the responsibility to learn also falls on the student. However, this is likely a lesson to be learned through experience and with increased maturity.
The linked article, Discovering the Meaning of Community in an Online Master's Degree Program, examines an online learning community from the perspective of adult learners in an online master's degree program in instructional design and technology (sound familiar?) at California State University - Fullerton. The paper was prepared by several instructors in the program and summarizes a survey of students conducted by the university. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate online learning community development within the program.
The authors conclude that an online learning community creates "foundations for transformative learning." Further, they cite prior findings that, "strong feelings of community increase the flow of information among all learners, the availability of support, commitment to group goals, cooperation among members and satisfaction with group efforts". The authors report that the following program characteristics assist in online learning community development:
- Positive peer interactions: The survey supported prior findings that student satisfaction "is strongly related to the amount of active interaction with other learners" and that "small group activities can enhance learning motivation". However, it is important to note that while peer interactions contributed to satisfaction, only 26% felt that the most meaningful learning in the program came through interactions with others (!!!) which supports other cited research.
- Positive instructor interactions: The survey also supported prior research that positive teacher / student interactions positively influence 1) motivation, 2) course engagement and 3) learning achievement. The lack of teacher involvement had the opposite effect. Noted important instructional factors included teacher:
- Adopting constructivists approaches to teaching and learning: The authors highlight the distinction between a "teaching" curriculum and a "learning" curriculum (their objective) in which "knowledge is co-created by members of the learning community, with each person contributing his or her additional resources to the curriculum of the course." Say it together now, "social constructivists"! The results of the survey indicate that 86% felt they engaged in constructivist learning activities and that the interactions were beneficial to their learning.
- Cognitive growth through effectively facilitated critical discourse: 80% agreed that online discussions challenged them to think critically and provided a "safe" venue to express ideas.
- Accessibility and reliability of web-based technologies: Not real surprisingly, the study validated that technical difficulties diminished the "sense of community". However, the variety and selection of the appropriate online tools (discussion boards, e-mail, etc) were shown to be important to students' success.
- Institutional collaboration: This section of the survey addressed how the university "support" functions viewed the online learning community. While all agreed they "contributed to the development of the online learning community", only 54 strongly agreed or agreed that the online community as an extension of the campus community! Coincidentally, I just received an "invitation" to an interesting on campus seminar some hundreds of miles away that would not be made available to distance students :(
- Members' prior technological proficiency: Students in the program "recognized and valued" each member's experience and contribution within the community.
My response as a student: As a student in a similar program, I agree with the major findings of this student survey. I agree with the importance of creating a sense of community within an online learning setting. The community (peer, teacher, institution) provides invaluable steering, insight, motivation and new ideas for me to ponder. Online learning can be a very lonely place . . . hello, hello . . . is anyone out there and the learning community can help you feel connected. Working for hours on the computer, I often think of the old "if a tree falls" story . . . I'm working away, but is anyone out there to hear me (validate?) my work . . . However, as I have been reminded elsewhere this semester, does it matter to my education if they are or not?
Yet, as the students in the survey noted, collaboration does not provide my primary source of "meaningful learning". While I truly benefit from the constructive feedback of my peers and I learn a tremendous amount from reading their work, collaboration has a downside, too. Beyond the headache of dealing with schedule coordination, collaboration on some projects leaves me feeling educationally short-changed. I sometimes feel I miss pieces of the puzzle when I am in a jointly collaborating on assignments. While teamwork and project management skills can be gained in a collaborative environment (don't adults get enough of that practice at work?), I feel that attaining such experience can stand in the way of learning. I learn the most when I think things through (construct) on my own. Granted, in life most "projects" are usually best done when tasks are shared and delegated. However, I don't view learning in the same way as completing a "project". Unlike a project, my education is not something that needs to "get done" in a speedy and efficient manner.
Finally, I found the the comments on the connection with the "institution" and the accessibility of the web-based technologies to ring true, as well. While the technology does not make the "education", it certainly is a primary facilitator. If the system is down, you can't get to your learning community or most of your resources or materials. If the system is poorly designed, you can't find things and time and opportunities are wasted. In an online setting, you must not only rely on technology to facilitate your education, but to also provide a connection to the institution. It is amazing how many things you take for granted in a f2f learning setting, such as using the library, getting a student ID card and attending ad hoc seminars with fellow students and professions. Also, when your only interaction with the institution is mediated by a piece of technology, you must work within the confines of the system's capabilities to get and stay connected with information gatekeepers and the resources they control.
In a 2004 Sloan-C report created by Karen Swan, Kent State University and the Sloan-C Editor for Effective Practices in Learning Effectiveness, Relationships Between Interactions and Learning In Online Environments provides an overview of research "about interaction online and its implications for practitioners". The report (effectively a job aid for those who teach or design in an online learning environment), highlights research findings regarding learner interaction in an online learning environment and the corresponding implications for those responsible for creating and managing it. Some examples include:
Interaction with Content:
Interaction with Instructors:
Interaction with Classmates:
Interaction with Course Interfaces:
The linked paper is authored by members of the Florida State University Instructional Systems Program and published in Educational Technology & Society. It is an excellent evaluation of the effectiveness of computers in an online learning environment to "function as cognitive tools . . . that extend student's capacity to learn and create knowledge." Their observation is that current course management systems largely fall short of this goal. They propose improved design to address (1) social structure (shared context) and (2) collaboration (knowledge construction) in an online learning environment.
Design support to create a shared social context: The authors propose that a shared social context is needed for "online learners to socialize, learn and create knowledge." They note that it can be established by providing: