College Teaching

The research paper was a survey of statistics aggregated over the last two years of academic records from students who took traditional classes and their distance counterparts. I was not particularly fond of this paper, but the reason I chose it for a journal is because I feel it highlights (as a negative exemplar) many of the misconceptions that administrators, faculty, and students have regarding distance education as a reliable alternative to traditional settings.

The article leads off boasting that students in distance settings “outperformed their traditional counterparts” in 70% of cases. To boil down all of the variables to a single pass/fail percentage as a comparison between the two is extremely narrow-sighted. Through our discourse in class and just from personal experience I’m fully aware of the benefits math and statistics can have in revealing trends and validation. While the numbers themselves may be neutral and unbiased, the person choosing the statistical parallels is not. I felt this article stripped away the peripheral qualities between traditional and distance education in order to create a direct comparison. The problem with this method though is the peripheral qualities are so vast in quantity and magnitude that they are truly the core of the issue and not outlying factors.

One standpoint that people often overlook is the fact that as an organization, it is in the university’s best interests to create a successful program so that it produces growth. Now, what is considered a successful distance education program? The answer to this, especially over the previous 20 years, was an ability to provide ALTERNATE learning opportunities for those unable to participate in the traditional methods. Moreover, the allure of “school at home” and “learn at your own pace” created an atmosphere where academic excellence was not the forerunner in priorities. Therefore, comparing pass/fail records between the two methods of education would be as the cliche goes, comparing apples and oranges.

The other aspect of distance education that is often left at the wayside is the relative youth of the field. Distance education has taken on many incantations over the years as we went over in class, but the advent of online technologies and the proliferation of the Internet has truly redefined the field of distance education. The angle I speak towards though is that as a teacher I know that my goal is to teach my students as much as I have to offer but in a balanced approach where they are pushed hopefully to exceed their limits but not beyond the point of their capabilities. Walking this line is not a skill that is learned from a book or a video, it comes with time and experience.

Having taught both at GMU and also a martial arts school, I can personally attest to the difference transmission medium, subject matter, and setting make. At my martial arts school I truly feel like master of my domain. I know the ins and outs of the school, the curriculum, my co-workers, and I have a plethora of experience to draw upon when handling new students who are in a foreign environment. On the contrary, teaching at GMU I know my subject matter equally well; however, the setting and transmission medium are quite different and thus my statute of limitations, so to speak, are not as clearly defined. Until these limits become more clearly defined for individual teachers, the scholastic excellence that true teachers strive for cannot be met in a planned and carefully orchestrated manner. We have to venture through the jungle of unknown, and while we will undoubtedly have successes, we probably will not know they were such until after the fact.

Shachar, Mickey. Twenty Years of Research on the Academic Performance Differences Between Traditional and Distance Learning: Summative Meta-Analysis and Trend Examination. 2010 June. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/shachar_0610.pdf

This article worked to build a case surrounding the usage of cellphones in an educational setting. The two primary avenues the research paper discussed were how the implementation would affect the Community of Inquiry (COI) framework and also the feedback from students who partook in the trial.

For me I found it refreshing that the article took steps to account for the soft impact of stigma and perception. All technology has a rate of adoption that is integral to its ultimate success or failure; using new technologies in education is no different. In fact, it is my belief that the metric for the rate of adoption is magnified in importance specifically in the education field. There are many practices that are becoming more and more antiquated, and behind these antiquated practices are deprecated professionals who are resisting the tides of change. The very nature of teacher-student interactions mandates that the teacher be proficient in all subject matter that flow through the course and technological competence should be no different. Couple this with the public expansive nature of education while sprinkling in issues such as accessibility and the problem space continues to grow.

A large part of the excitement behind using cellphones as an educational tool is many of the aforementioned problems are alleviated. As the article notes, almost all people have a cellphone and more importantly students have a firm understanding of how to use the devices. However, there arise new problems concerning cellphones. Primarily, when cellphones in school are brought up, the initial gut reaction by the majority of educators is “Oh they can use them to cheat!” This lone stigma has the potential to derail or at the very least severely impede the adoption of cellphones into the classroom as a tool rather than a liability. I feel that this will not change until assessment trends evolve and texting your friend “1C,2D,3A” will be sufficient for cheating. The very nature of the COI is to move away from these types of assessment and knowledge acquisition anyways.

The second portion of the research paper focused on the experiment conducted with students who were enrolled in online courses and received text messages throughout the semester. On their exit surveys the response was very encouraging; students could receive information about classes and feedback immediately without having to go through extra steps to access it. They reported an increased feeling of connectedness in the class and felt that the instructor was more in tuned with their students. These are all very important aspects to keep in mind when designing online learning content. The necessity to feel connected and part of a whole will continue to gain prominence with course designers as students in those conditions are more motivated and excel over archaic ports of lecture methods into a digital medium.

Kovalik, Cindy. Text Messaging and the Community of Inquiry in Online Courses, 2010 June. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/kovalik_0610.pdf

An area of great interest to me has always been world religions. I would like to be able one day to teach classes on religion, especially comparative religion. So this article was of particular interest to me. Also, one of the things I do during the summer (usually) in my church is do a preaching or teaching series. This summer I have planned a series on Christianity and world religions, and have been gathering resources to help me with this. Now this is another resource added.

I like the approach the writers/teachers take. They introduce religion and then present various topics like creation, end of time, sacrifice, prayer, etc and then lead the students in an interactive interpretation of the actual texts and/or teachings of various religions. They focus on Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity. This is a very neat and effective way, I think, to cover a great deal of information from a wide variety of religions. I mean, you could teach a whole course or more on any of these religions alone. But being able to give a significant introduction and comparison to all of these is quite a challenge. But I think their approach works. Students not only come to see similarities and differences, they also are encouraged to set forth and explore new questions and topics based on their comparisons. This class also requires students to do on-site visits with these religious traditions, something that I think is very important. One of the things that I didn’t see them cover is something I would do – have someone from each of the traditions come in and make a presentation and then having the students engage in a question and answer and discussion session. This whole course excites me because I think that, whether we like it or not, religion has been here a long time and influences our world in many ways. The more we can know and about understand all religions, perhaps the better we can learn to respect and get along with one another, and work together to address the very serious challenges we face as human beings.

ABSTRACT: In this article we argue for an introductory course in the study of religion that proceeds through interactive interpretation as a responsible form of comparison. Interactive interpretation proceeds provisionally, and encourages students to formulate new questions of the materials instead of making final categories about the materials. We use examples from a typical classroom to show how we work with three pedagogical principles: (1) critical reading; (2) pluralism within religious traditions as well as between religious traditions; and (3) the use of the working hypothesis as a tool in analyzing religious texts. We also make an argument for textual reading as a form of living intellectual practice, which can work alongside of, and not in opposition to, other approaches to the study of religion, such as ethnographic or historical approaches.

If you would like to read the article, it’s in Teaching Theology and Religion, at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.mutex.gmu.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9647.2008.00479.x/full

My article this week focuses on the lost “face-to-face” contact in a distance education setting and its affects on the retention of students. The article states that while the retention rates of students in brick-and-mortar establishments has risen, the retention rate of distance students is significantly lower. The authors postulate that there is a correlation between the retention rate and communication between instructor and student. Specifically, the article argues that reaching out to students will help foster a community setting as opposed to the individualized “classroom at home by yourself” atmosphere many distance learners take on. As the authors write, “Distance education is more convenient, but that does not mean that it takes less effort.” They outline measures to systematically reach out to students and keep them involved in the course while establishing personal relationships with each student to emulate the type of cohesiveness a physical classroom setting would have.

The article contains many valid observations and consequential actions; however, I must make clear that 1) I am critical of some of their implementations 2) their research is in its infancy and does not account for many factors that may have an influence 3) the study only focuses on the retention rate of students, not their success rate. The first observation is that it in a physical classroom session it is much easier to identify disengaged students. By evaluating their attention, effort, and body language you can go far in differentiating between a disengaged and reserved student; in an online environment the two seem identical. The reactive protocol is for the instructor to proactively contact the student(s) and pull them into the class instead of waiting for the student to take the first step. I firmly agree with this position. Especially in the context of a new class, the instructor knows what the students are getting in to, but it is rarely the opposite way with the students fully understanding what they are getting in to. Thus it is the instructor’s responsibility (not only as a professional but as the more knowledgeable) to take the first step.

This leads into the first phase of the reach out process that takes place in the first weeks of the course. If a student has not been active within the first days of the class an email should be set attempting to establish communication with the student. Here, while I agree with the idea, I am critical both of their timeline and their sample email. The timeline they offer is extremely tight, contact by day 3, if they do not respond within one day, phone contact should be made. To me it seems like borderline harassment and also a not giving the student the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps an email to the entire course reminding them that you are available on an individual basis and welcoming them would be more appropriate. As for the sample email, it sounds extremely formulaic and in my opinion while the attempt at communication is commendable the tone of the email hurts the effort. In fact this is a criticism I have across the board with this study.

The rest of the paper focuses on four categories of students to whom the instructor should be reaching out to: students not participating, students participating but not understanding the material, students who are passing but performed poorly on the most recent assignment, and students who are high achievers and are succeeding in the class. Again I am in favor of reaching out to students and establishing communication with them; however, I feel that this structure fails to treat students as adults and also shifts too much of the burden on the instructor and not enough on the student. Granted the paper comes from the position of each student being an opportunity cost for the University and thus a lost student is a lost investment, a certain amount of responsibility must be placed on the student because if they are not reciprocating the effort than it is in vain and a fruitless time sink.

Lastly, the paper suggests actively involving a student’s advisor in all email conversations. Attacking a problem from multiple angles can be advantageous and using the advisor as a resource can be helpful, but I feel like this is over doing the communication and putting myself in the position of an academic advisor I would not appreciate constant emails from instructors about my disengaged students. Updates are important, when the advisor needs to step in it is important to be on the same page, but that can be accomplished in a manner that is not as frequent as weekly communication.

The guidelines in the article I think could be revised; however, that does not detract from the merit of the authors’ argument. Instructors need to be invested in the well-being of their students and students are the lifeblood of any University. Having the administration take the first step to form learning communities rather than individual study through communication is necessary and something I will keep in mind as I teach in the future.

Achilles, Wendy, Kimberly Byrd, Jaclyn Felder-Strauss, Paul Franklin, and Joan Janowich. “Engaging Students through Communication and Contact: Outreach Can Positively Impact Your Students and You!.” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 7.1 (2011): 128-133. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no1/byrd_0311.pdf