Week 5 Readings

Re-education by Brown et al.

Judging by internal evidence, it would seem that this article is about a decade old. (After all, it said that the University of Phoenix (accredited in 1978) was now 20 years old.) Given it's age, I found that while I agreed with certain aspects of it, other aspects left me shaking my head.

First of all, I did agree with the pressures that traditional colleges and universities are facing. First, there is the decline of the "traditional" student 18 - 22 years old who finishes in four years, tuition paid courtesy of his or her parents. Instead, as the article points out, "people are taking up their degrees later and over long periods, assembling them out of one course here and a few credit hours there, snatched between jobs and bank loans as time, money, interest, and opportunity arise." (p. 208)

A second pressure exerted on colleges and universities is the pressure to think more like a business as they finds themselves facing stiffer competition from for-profit universities, such as the University of Phoenix. Even college research labs find themselves in competition with corporate research labs as they vie for the same grants and funding sources.

The third pressure being exerted on universities to change comes from new technologies that offer new ways to produce, distribute and consume academic materials.

However, I disagree with the way Brown scoffs at the way "brick-and-mortar colleges are attempting to build their place in cyberspace" (p. 211) He mentions only two major universities, Penn State, and California, that are developing online programs. However, had this article been written today, I doubt very much that Brown would be scoffing now. Almost every major university that I know of offers online courses - there are some universities where it is possible to earn Master's degrees online as well, including my own degree, that of library science.

Moreover, Brown states that there is "little prospect" (p.213) that Indiana University's library will ever be digitized. Well, perhaps that holds true for Indiana University but certainly not for the U of M! Nor for any of the other partnered schools that are working with the Google books project today. Again, this is where the true datedness of Brown's article shows through. Technology is advancing at a rapid pace - what is inconceivable ten years ago, is child's play today. He seems to have forgotten that fact.

Another area, where I believe Brown to be wrong is that he claims that the workplace does not hold academic credentials from for-profit, online colleges to the same standard that it holds "regular" degrees from "standard" colleges. Once again, I must point out that this is an older article. I would be interested to read more recent research in this area, because it seems to me that with the rising popularity of for-profit colleges and online courses their credentials would be treated more equally now by employers. I could be wrong, of course, but what can seem strange in one decade, may become common place in another - especially when it comes to the rapid strides made in internet technology.

However, I do agree with Brown that it is peer-to-peer learning that help distinguish regular universities from their online counterparts. In fact, one of the reasons that I wanted to attend the U of M's School of information was because it offered traditional classroom instruction as opposed to Wayne State that offers a quarter or so of its library science courses online. I am a person that needs the interaction of a typical classroom (interaction between professor and peers) in order to do my best.

Brown mentions two kinds of distance that universities must overcome: geographical and social. He points out that while online courses can overcome the first distance (as long as you have access to the internet you can take a course from anywhere), they are not so adept at overcoming the second. Because online courses tend to be cheaper it is mainly the economically disadvantaged that are taking them. Again, it would be interesting to see if this is still the case ten years later. I think that online courses have become so popular that there is less of a stigma attached to taking them and that even middle to upper class members of society may be taking advantage of them due to the convenience that they offer.

However, I do agree with Brown that one of the advantage that regular college and universities offer is that they play up their local community's strengths. He points out how UCLA, located by Hollywood, is strong in film studies. It is true that taking classes from a distant place may tend to cause some "centralization" (p. 228) in terms of studies. However, given the fact that there are so many universities offering online courses/distance learning courses these days, I think that maybe a person who is interested in local studies may merely just have to apply to a college that meets similar needs to his or her own.

As for Brown's solution, to have DGBs (degree granting bodies) (p. 234), I simply do not know what to make of this idea. I think that perhaps he may have spoken too soon. Clearly, ten years ago, he did not envision of slew of universities that offer online courses and degrees today, thus making it possible for people to attend "real" universities, who might otherwise not had the opportunity to do so. If anything, I believe that by branching online, universities have modernized themselves and are not in fear of becoming "gothic ruins." (p. 211)

Communities of Practice by Etienne Wenger

I had never actually heard the phrase "community of practice" until this article, although I had heard of the fact that in the medieval apprentice guides, the newer members learned from more than just the master's coaching. Wenger notes that there are three crucial characteristics that community of practices share:

1. The domain - by this he means a "shared domain of interest" (p. 1) and that "membership implies a commitment to the domain." (p.1)
2. The community - by this he means that members of the domain will engage in "joint activities" (p.1) to "help each other and share information." (p.1) In other words, they build relationships together for the mutual purposes learning together and of helping each other out.
   
3. The practice - by this he means that a community of practice are actual "practitioners" (p.2) themselves. For instance, they do not merely like movies, but are actual movie reviewers or perhaps film makers.
   

Wenger then goes one to create a table to show what communities of practice look like. He states that they "develop their practice through a variety of activities." (p.2) These activities include, but are not limited to: problem solving, requests for information, seeking experience, reusing assets, coordination and synergy, discussing developments, documentation of projects, visits, and mapping knowledge and identifying gaps. (table, p.2) He explains that communities of practice come in a variety of forms (although they all share the three characteristics of domain, community, and practice. Some are large, some small, some formal, some informal, some with a budget, etc.

Wenger also spends a bit of time explaining where the concept of a community of practice comes from, i.e., the apprenticeship model. But he notes that the concept is applied in many organizations including government, education, associations, the social sector, international development, and the web. And this brings us to the last article...

Evolution of an Online Education Community of Practice: Tapped In by Mark Schlager et al.

This article is essential about "Tapped In" and online community of practice for teacher professional development. It was originally started as a research experiment because the people involved felt that there were not any successful models of online professional development and online communities. (p.130) (Note: this article is also about 10 years old and predates Second Life.)

The article explains how it set up Tapped In to become a virtual community of practice to help support not only teachers, but other people involved in the learning field, such as school media specialists and school staff.

Schlager first defends the worthy idea of establishing an online community of practice by stating how they are "hothouses" (p. 131) where:

• new ideas germinate
• new methods and tools are developed
• new communities are rooted

Schlager then spends the majority of his article giving the history of Tapped In for the past three years since its inception. He lauds its success rate based on the number of members it has and toots his own horn over the many wonderful emails they have received that also indicates its success.

He points out the interesting phenomenon of how members will participate for a while and then go through periods of inactivity. He then mentions how Tapped In founded a newsletter keeping its members informed of events as a way of still keeping inactive members connected with what was happening at Tapped In. That way, they could still participate if they found something of interest scheduled.

He notes with pride that meeting conducted through Tapped In now evidence a similar ratio of business talk occurring that would occur in a regular face-to-face meeting. Although it didn't start like this, it developed over time as people began to learn the online engagement behaviors expected of them.

Schlager points out that one of the reasons behind Tapped In's success is that all new members are routed to a reception area/Help Desk where experienced members take them under their wing and show them how the online community works. I could definitely see the value in this as it would help take away some of the nervousness that novice members might experience in joining this online community - particularly if they had never before participated in an online community of any sort.

Finally, the article ends with advice for building future communities of practice for educators. It favors "state education agencies" (p.155) as the role of organizer and host of online gathering places as well as planners of online activities and events. While this is a nice thought, I think it might be an expensive one for the state agency involved. It would have to hire web developers to develop the online community of practice as well as purchase a domain and do all the over various expensive thing involved in maintaining and upgrading websites. And, honestly, as long as there is Tapped In, I don't really see the need for other teacher professional development community of practice websites. However, that may because I am not a teacher.

The Jasper Adventures

My initial feeling upon reading about the "Jasper" problem-solving mathematical videos was excitement. I have always considered myself to be mathematically-challenged. I find word problems to be difficult and the endless drilling of the basic problem sets to be too tedious for words.

I think I would have been a child who benefited from Jasper's anchored instructional approach - one that colorfully camouflages classroom instruction in a carefully crafted enviroment that allows active engagement in complex problem solving skills by groups of students with the teacher providing guidance rather than monopolizing the central teaching arena. Instead of mere rote instruction, Jasper's anchored approach exposes more complicated problems requiring subdvision into smaller parts as well as teaching the base units.

I can see many advantages of utilizing the Jasper Woodbury Adventures as a teaching device. To begin with, these mathematical adventures are based on audio-visual technology rather than paper and ink. While, I excelled at reading in grade school, I think that watching a math problem on video would have been much more fun than simply reading it in a textbook. (From person experience, for instance, I remember being shown the video "Donald Duck in Mathematical Land" when I was in third grade. For me, seeing was believing and for the first time certain geometric mathematical concepts made sense.) Moreover, presenting these math problems in an audio-visual format not only allows children to actually physically visualize them, but it also, as Chapter Four states, removes the "reading barrier" (p. 70) that might separate poor performers from the academically more advanced.

I further applaud how the best teaching approach of Jasper materials, the "Guided Generation Model," (Ch. 4 , p. 61 & Jasper Experiement, p. 76) encourages placing children in groups. This way they are not competing against each other as they solve problems, but rather colaborating amongst themselves so an attitude of encouragement is fostered. Chapter Four also made note of how the overall complexity of the Jasper problems meant that nonmathematically inclined students also had important facts to contribute as well. (p. 70)

I also liked how the Jasper creators learned from their so-called "SMART Challenges" (Ch. 4, p. 72) to implement their Jasper "analogs" and "extensions" since they realized students were still exhibiting some degree of "functional fixedness" (Ch. 4, p. 74) instead of being able to adequately transfer their learned problem-solving techniques and formulas. (In other words, they were somewhat context dependent upon the original Jasper episode in solving problems.)

However, the addition of the analogs and extensions seemed like an excellent idea to me. Through use of analog, the teacher could propose variations upon the original Jasper theme, thus helping to students to practice and drill and new concept in a way that is fun and interesting. Moreover, the use of extensions is an invaluable tool in helping teachers to show their students how the subject of mathematics crosses over into other genres, particularly "historica and current events." (Jasper Experiment, p. 71)

The entire time I was reading these two pieces on Jasper, I was struck by its seeming similiarity to an old computer game called "The Oregon Trail" by The Learning Company. It provides a way of teaching history through practical experience. The player is head of a wagon company. Complex decisions of how to budget money, how much food to take, etc. must be all be factored in. The Oregon Trail teaches about history while drawing upon other scholastic disciplines as well such as social studies, math, geography, etc. While The Oregon Trail is now considered old-time stuff, the popularity of sim games now abound, such as Sim City which allows the player to plan his or her own city. There are also the "Tycoon" games, which are much the same. The concept of such games remind me of Jasper.

However, I must puzzlement regarding the Jasper Woodbury adventures. If the videos proved so helpful to fifth graders and garnered such a positive response, while were only 12 episodes ever made? Moreover, when I checked the U-M library system to see if we owned them, I discovered to my dismay that we did not. To my astonishment, when I checked with WorldCat, I saw that only 19 libraries worldwide owned the Jasper series. I do not understand how something that seems so positive could have seemingly fizzled out?