Ok, you spent many years in college earning an advanced degree in your area of expertise. For example, I could take a cocktail napkin, move the beer nuts to the side, draw the chemical structure of methadone and wax rhapsodic for HOURS and HOURS about the clinical utility of this amazing drug. You would probably be in a coma by the time I was done.

But just because I know “my” content forwards and backwards, does that make me a good teacher? That would be no. We’ve all had professors who were brilliant in their field, but should be kept locked in their lab with limited exposure to students. As Albert Einstein said “Teaching should be such that what is offered is perceived as a valuable gift and not as a hard duty.”

It’s challenging enough to develop faculty as classroom teachers – they were trained in their area of expertise after all, not in teaching methods. But the stakes are even higher in online education. I am excited all out of control about my next big career jump – developing a master’s degree in palliative care (caring for people with advanced illnesses) to be offered entirely online. I have many, many fears and misgivings about this process. One that heads the list is developing faculty to be effective online teachers.

In his whitepaper on best practices in online faculty development, Dr. Clinefelter (2012) states that institutions should provide opportunities for ongoing faculty developing including:

“Providing membership to professional associations devoted to supporting online faculty members.

Creating a center for online faculty development.

Developing an advisory board for online faculty development.

Hosting a portal or Web site where faculty members can access institutional services, such as training programs, tutorials and documents.”

Content expertise is critically important. Effective face-to-face teaching is equally important. And as we move to reducing the globe to being a simple click away, effective online teaching skills are similarly imperative.

I may not have all the answers yet, but I feel secure in the knowledge that I will insist on cutting edge faculty education and support, and I’m grateful that I have the institutional support to do just that!

 

Clinefelter, D. (2012). Best practices in online faculty development. http://www.learninghouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Best-Practices-for-Online-Faculty-Development_Web_Final.pdf

As an educator, it’s simply not enough to be outstanding in my content area. And of course if I’m teaching an online course, I must possess superb teaching skills that are suited for the online environment. With online education, we are ethically bound to support our learners, who for all intents and purposes could be sitting in the middle of a cornfield in Iowa.

Read any article on supporting learners in the online environment and you will read about well-designed, intriguing course materials and assignment, thought-provoking discussion posts, strong academic and tutorial support, superb technological support, access to an amazing online library (which really is worth its weight in gold), assistance with study skills, and so forth.

I was especially impressed by the findings of Lewis & Abdul-Hamid (2006) who summarized the most effective online teaching practices that enhanced student learning. As an online learner myself, their conclusions really rang true for me, and what has enhanced my own learning. The first is fostering interaction between students, and between students and teachers. I find that I really LIKE it when the coursemanagers are actively involved in the discussion posts; often posing questions in response to student’s posts. The second is providing feedback. I guess you’re never too old to appreciate a pat on the back from the teacher! But more importantly, I’m not pursuing this degree to make my mother happy (as a matter of fact, my mother thinks I’m insane for doing this, seriously), so honest feedback is appreciated and taken in the spirit in which it’s offered. The third is facilitating learning by setting expectations, crafting engaging learning activities (some of those in this course I actually plan to use in my own teaching), and providing access to experts. I am especially impressed with the global presence of faculty in the courses I’ve taken through UMUC.

So how has being a student made ME a better teacher? I find myself explaining learning theory to my students. Perhaps it’s because I’m such a strong disciple of the WIIFM principle (what’s in it for me?), and my very low tolerance for busy work, that I feel obligated to explain to my students why the content and techniques I’ve chosen to teach are important. I have found much greater acceptance of assignments such as discussions, reflections and journaling once I have explained constructivism! I am also a big fan of heutagogy, and I explain to my students that I (and my faculty colleagues) will not be with the student forever. They will have to fly the nest and think on their own two feet. Heutagogy (self-determined learning) can be taught and fostered – I explain it as a critical thinking process that is a very important life-long learning skill.

So, in conclusion, we must always support our learners, whether it’s in a face-to-face, blended, or completely online environment. I am humbled by the things I’ve learned as a learner, and have tried to use these experiences by in turn, supporting my learners. Maybe the Lion King was right – the circle of life (well, at least teaching and learning!).

Lewis, C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary Faculty.  Innovative Higher Education.

So why DO birds of a feather flock together? What’s with that? Well, I’m no ornithologist, but I think the birds are on to something. It’s not a reach to call them a community is it? If we apply this “of a feather” analogy to professionals who are “engaged in a common practice, who communicate, negotiate and share their best practice with one another directly” (Harasim, 2012, p. 142) we could call it a community of practice (CoP).

Professionals in a CoP can come together to push a research agenda forward, wrestle with a problem together, deepen their collective and individual knowledge of a topic all through interactions in the group. This could be done in person, or even in an online CoP.

Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (Smith, 2009) argue that CoP’s aren’t just found in the workplace; additional venues include school, home, civic and leisure pleasures. Etienne Wenger defines a CoP as follows:

“Communities of practice are formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor: a tribe learning to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of expression, a group of engineers working on similar problems, a clique of pupils defining their identity in the school, a network of surgeons exploring novel techniques, a gathering of first-time managers helping each other cope. In a nutshell: Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.”

Using this definition, I am involved in MULTIPLE CoP’s – my like-minded palliative care pharmacist colleagues, my knitting buddies, my church community, and so forth. I think a CoP could be formal (assigned by your employer) or informal (group is self-selected). If it’s an assigned CoP, then you get into all the group dynamics, trust issues, workload, etc. I have experienced personally the power and synergism from a CoP where all participants WANT to be there – it’s a magical thing! My conclusion is that we need to purposefully seek like-minded individuals who have a common goal, plant the seeds, feed and water regularly, and enjoy the results! What a ride!


Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Smith, M. K. (2003, 2009) ‘Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and communities of practice’, the encyclopedia of informal education,www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm.

Recipe for learning: Discourse, Reflect, Rinse, Repeat.

Notice: Discoursing will begin immediately!

Harasim defines knowledge communities as “forums or processes of discourse and debate, whereby scholars advance the state of the art in that discipline” (2012, p. 6). Merriam-Webster defines discourse as “the use of words to exchange thoughts and ideas” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discourse). Perhaps the practice of discoursing is the underpinning of a “think tank.” While I am quite fond of my own company, I have witnessed the synergy of idea development while working with others. I routinely work with 3-5 similarly-minded clinicians on multiple projects simultaneously (where we each are primarily responsible for one, but we all contribute to all projects). We each end up with five national presentations and publications, but only have primary responsibility for one project.

How many times have you gone to a national meeting in your field of expertise and come away thinking the best part was networking with colleagues? That’s discoursing!

Perhaps if Rodin’s “Thinker” (above) had a few buddies with him, he would have made a little more progress.

Salvation through rumination!

But wait – perhaps Rodin’s “Thinker” above is reflecting or ruminating! Which surely can be a solitary activity! As a matter of fact, I do my VERY best reflecting in the shower or when I’m driving. Probably because I’m not doing anything else like talking on the phone, playing Candy Crush on my cell, teaching, reading, or checking email. At my University there is an amazing, complex rubric for categorizing and quantifying faculty effort for everything we do. Teaching, teaching preparation, precepting students, research, preparing manuscripts, service to the School, University or profession, and practice. But there is NO time allocated for thinking or reflecting. Does this mean time spent reflecting on the aforementioned efforts is not valued or worthwhile? Surely that’s not the case, but it is a bit disheartening! I guess the only answer is longer showers!

Recipe for learning: Discourse, Reflect, Rinse, Repeat.

Ref: Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY: Routledge. 

Are grading rubrics worth and time and effort to put them together? Are we micromanaging our students? Are we getting a little obsessive-compulsive about this? Or are rubrics of great values to our learners?

I vote yes to all of the above. As defined by Brookhart (2013, para 4), “A rubric is a coherent set of criteria for students’ work that includes descriptions of levels of performance quality on the criteria.” The rubric should clearly spell out choices and consequences, and expectations. Brookhart further describes two critical elements to a rubric (para 4): “coherent sets of criteria and descriptions of levels of performance.”

There are several advantages to grading rubrics for both instructors and students (Carnegie Mellon University, para 2). First, grading by publicized explicit, descriptive criteria assures (as much as possible) consistency in grading, and reflects weighted importance of objectives. A grading rubric is also very beneficial when more than one grader is grading assignments. Students also value a detailed rubric; this helps them to prepare accordingly for any assessment activity.

If we use solid principles of instructional systems development (e.g., an ADDIE model), the development of learning objectives should actually drive the development of the grading rubric. This stuff really does work, and comes full circle!

Brookhart, S. (2013). Retrieved June 20, 2015, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/112001/chapters/What-Are-Rubrics-and-Why-Are-They-Important¢.aspx

Rubrics - Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation - Carnegie Mellon University. (n.d.). Retrieved June 20, 2015, from http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/teach/rubrics.html

Would it be overstating the obvious to say that the behaviorist learning theory blows my mind? Behaviorism lies in black or white, right or wrong. Self-reports have no room at the table with behaviorism; all data must be absolutely observable. This is starting to sound like Data from Star Trek!

Behaviorism can be classical conditioning, as demonstrated by Pavlov’s dog experiment (Harasim, 2012, p. 32). Here you thought when you heard a bell an angle just got their wings; nope, Rover just got dinner. Operant conditioning (Skinner’s work; Harasim, 2012, p. 32) describes “reinforcement of a behavior by a reward or punishment.” Under the behavioral theory the stimulus results in a response, and there is nothing in between. The mind is a big black box that is pretty much vacant.

I have two observations about behaviorism. First, students LOVE it. They LOVE having one right answer. This pretty much is new information they have learned by rote memorization and successfully spit back out. Recall test questions are the easiest to write, and the easiest to take. Check out this link:

http://www.vignetteslearning.com/vignettes/i-choose-c-video.php

Second, LIFE is not behaviorist. Look at any patient with an addiction (food, drugs, playing the ponies, smoking) and there is SO much angst between the stimulus (“oh that pizza looks good, but I’m really trying to lose that last 10 pounds”) and the response. Something’s cooking between those ears! So, I find it hard to believe anyone really embraced the behaviorist learning theory – move over for the cognitivist (and constructivist!).

Ref: Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY: Routledge.

The readings this week focused on defining learning theory, in particular how learning theories developed in the 20th century inform online learning theory in the 21st century. I must say, I love to discover new words or terms in the courses in this program, and then casually throw them out at work. “Oh yes, I’d be delighted to create a knowledge community on palliative care on our campus.”

I enjoyed reading about the three primary learning theories: behaviorist, cognitivist and constructivist as described by Harasim (2012, p. 9). I do strongly believe that all three theories inform online, face-to-face and blended learning as pointed out by Ally (2008, p. 20). Students would rather roll with the behaviorist theory (fact-based, right-or-wrong information, one correct answer, memorization and recall questions), and they don’t realize this is not in their best interests at the end of the day (with the end of the day actually being their board exam, or being a highly functioning pharmacist). Sadly, many faculty also simply embrace behaviorism as well, and never expect more from students. I think constructivism is an example of developing critical thinking skills, and learners need to understand how to do this, and why it’s important. You can only coast so long and so far using “Because Dr. McPherson said so” as your rational for therapeutic drug decision making!

The last paper I read this week was Saba’s article which included a discussion on the chaos of learning (2003). First, I read a LOT of technical papers, and I think this is the most ten dollar words I’ve seen in one article! Sadly, I also found this article difficult to read – both literally and figuratively! I did get pretty excited when we were forced to dive a little deeper and explore the “cusp of chaos” idea Saba discusses (p. 15). I can visualize all the possible neuronal connections that exist in the learning process – pretty much a million factorial! I think part of the responsibility of being an educator is anticipating their chaos, doing a temperature check, and getting learners back on track! However, I think Saba needs to practice being a little more pragmatic himself!

Looking forward to next week!

 
Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. From The Theory and       Practice of Online Learning, pp. 45-74.

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies (p. 10). New York, NY: Routledge.

Saba, F. (2003). Distance education theory, methodology, and epistemology: A pragmatic paradigm. In M. G. Moore (Ed.,), Handbook of Distance Education (2nd ed.). pp. 3-19.