Estrategias de andamiaje cognitivo en ambiente de aprendizaje colaborativo en línea y solución de problemas en una tarea auténtica: Prueba de un modelo

Síntesis

Los procesos de solución de problemas, especialmente los problemas que presentan poca o ninguna estructura (mal estructurados), es una de las áreas más desatendidas por las investigaciones relacionadas al diseño de la instrucción (Jonassen, 2004). Estas destrezas son de particular interés en el desarrollo del aprendizaje adulto y la enseñanza en el nivel graduado. Algunos teóricos han propuesto el uso de estrategias (andamios cognitivos) basados en tecnologías que sirvan para apoyar estos procesos.

El presente estudio pretendió poner a prueba las estrategias sugeridas por Lin, Hmelo, Kinzer y Secules (1999), usando cuatro tipos de andamiaje (procesos, apuntes, modelaje y foro social) para facilitar los procesos de solución de problemas mal estructurados. El estudio se desarrolló como un estudio de caso múltiple, siguiendo el enfoque formativo (Reigeluth y Frick, 1999), enmarcado en el paradigma cualitativo, pero adoptando una metodología mixta. Su intención era auscultar la efectividad de los andamios en apoyar los procesos de solución de problemas auténticos del carácter mal estructurados mientras se desarrollaba el proyecto del curso en la modalidad en línea en la plataforma MOODLE. Se hizo énfasis en la herramienta del Wiki.

Los resultados sostienen que los andamios fueron efectivos en lograr su propósito. Aquellos que se caracterizaron porapoyar al estudiante en adquirir un dominio profundo, no solamente del contenido, sino de los procesos asociados a él y aquellos que le permiten monitorear su propio proceso de solución de problemas mientras aprenden fueron los más efectivos. Además, los estudiantes estimaron otros aspectos afectivos como importantes para este logro. La herramienta Wiki no produjo los resultados esperados.

Introducción

Los procesos de solución de problemas conforman un área de interés particular en el desarrollo del aprendizaje adulto y la enseñanza en el nivel graduado. Para algunos teóricos como David Jonassen (2004) el aprender a solucionar problemas es posiblemente la destreza más importante que los estudiantes puedan desarrollar. También señala que los educadores han ignorado por años justamente el enseñar cómo aprender esta destreza tan importante.

Según Ge y Land (2003) algunas estrategias han demostrado ser efectivas como recursos de andamiaje para los procesos de solución de problemas, tales como el modelado, el uso de apuntes y las preguntas guiadas generadas por estudiantes. Sin embargo, señalan que estas investigaciones rara vez han indagado la efectividad de estas estrategias en la solución del tipo de problemas caracterizados como mal estructurados, considerados como más característicos del tipo de problemas complejos que se confrontan en la vida diaria.

Un problema se considera mal estructurado si cualquiera de sus tres componentes básicos (estado inicial, operadores y estado meta) no se especifica claramente en la situación problema. Estos problemas no cuentan con metas ni condiciones preestablecidas, poseen soluciones múltiples, o múltiples brechas de solución, o simplemente no tienen solución. Su principal característica es que presentan incertidumbre acerca de cuáles conceptos, reglas y principios son necesarios para la solución o para cómo se organizan. Estos problemas no ofrecen reglas generales o principios para describir o predecir los resultados de la mayoría de los casos y requieren que los estudiantes emitan juicios acerca del problema y que defiendan sus juicios expresando sus opiniones personales y creencias (Jonassen, 1997).

Jonassen (1999) sugiere el uso de tres estrategias para facilitar los procesos de construcción del conocimiento y la solución de problemas del carácter mal estructurados en ambientes abiertos de aprendizaje, mediados por tecnologías: el modelado de procesos, el ofrecer guía y las estrategias de andamiaje. El modelado de procesos propone ejemplificar en forma conductual o explícita la ejecutoria o conducta o ejemplificar los procesos cognitivos encubiertos que la tarea de solución de problemas requiere. El ofrecer guía implica motivar, incentivar, proveer retroalimentación, dar orientación, provocar la reflexión y la articulación de lo aprendido. De las tres estrategias, el ofrecer guía se considera como la menos precisa, siendo un concepto un poco ambiguo. Los andamios cognitivos proveen sistemas temporales para apoyar el aprendizaje del estudiante y su ejecutoria, más allá de las capacidades del aprendiz. Los andamios cognitivos se orientan a facilitar los procesos de reflexión. Desde el punto de vista de los recursos tecnológicos, la integración de andamios cognitivos a la experiencia de aprendizaje plantea un cierto grado de manipulación de la tarea por parte del sistema que componen estos recursos. Los procesos de análisis cognitivos de las tareas de aprendizaje permiten y facilitan la identificación de los procesos mentales que necesiten ser suplantados por un andamio cognitivo. El modelaje se enfoca en la ejecutoria del experto; el ofrecer guía se enfoca en la ejecutoria del estudiante; el andamiaje cognitivo se considera un acercamiento sistemático para apoyar al estudiante, enfocándose en la tarea, el ambiente, el maestro y el aprendiz.

De igual forma Lin, Hmelo, Kinzer y Secules (1999) sugieren que la tecnología puede proveer un andamiaje poderoso para facilitar la reflexión tanto individual como colaborativa, de cuatro formas: a) mediante exhibiciones de los procesos, (b) usando apuntes o pistas para los procesos, (c) proveyendo modelos de los procesos, y (d) proveyendo un foro para el diálogo social reflexivo. Argumentan que un enfoque de sistemas que combine estas técnicas diferentes de andamiaje pueden hacerlas más poderosas que cuando sean usadas en forma individual. En el estudio conducido por Ge y Land (2003) ellas indican que el uso de estrategias como el modelado y monitoreo por parte del instructor pueden proveer andamiajes adecuados a los procesos de hacer preguntas, elaborar, explicar, construir argumentos, proveer retroalimentación constructiva y el auto monitoreo del aprendizaje.

La reflexión crítica, pilar del proceso transformador en el aprendizaje adulto (Mezirow, 2000), es otro de los objetivos que persigue la formación de un estudiante del nivel graduado. El poder de la reflexión en los procesos de aprendizaje es un fenómeno ya reconocido por teóricos y practicantes de la educación (Dewey, 1933). El desarrollo de la autonomía y el aprendizaje auto dirigido en el estudiante adulto requiere de la capacidad para pensar en forma racional y reflexiva, para analizar evidencia y emitir juicios; requiere, además, de la capacidad para conocerse a sí mismo y ser libre para formar y expresar una opinión; y finalmente, para ser capaz de actuar en el mundo (Tennant y Pogson, 1995). Siendo el desarrollo de la autonomía y el aprendizaje auto dirigido una de las metas de la enseñanza de los adultos, ésta favorece el fomento de la reflexión profunda y crítica como proceso facilitador del cambio transformador en su aprendizaje (Brookfield, 1995; Cranton, 1996; Mezirow y Asociados, 1990; Mezirow y Asociados, 2000). Aunque la reflexión no es un fin en sí misma (Lin et al.,1999), ésta es considerada la clave principal para el aprendizaje como producto de la experiencia (Schon, 1983).

Mezirow (1990) establece que la mayor parte de nuestro conocimiento como adultos proviene de nuestros esfuerzos por solucionar problemas que nos permitan acomodarnos a los cambios rápidos y continuos de la vida. Por lo tanto, la manera en que nosotros definimos y solucionamos los problemas se convierte en el contexto para casi todo nuestro aprendizaje. De aquí la importancia en distinguir entre los tres niveles de reflexión, al solucionar problemas: la reflexión acerca del contenido, la reflexión acerca de los procesos y la reflexión acerca de los supuestos o premisas que sostienen nuestros entendimientos, sentimientos y acciones. La reflexión crítica es aquella que tiene que ver con la reflexión acerca de nuestras premisas, la reflexión acerca de las razones, el por qué, de las cosas que hacemos, sentimos, creemos y pensamos, así como sus consecuencias.

Tanto la reflexión crítica como los procesos de solución de problemas del carácter mal estructurados, pueden ser auxiliadas por recursos tecnológicos, cuando estos sean apoyados por recursos meta cognitivos explícitamente diseñados con esa intención. Otros factores parecen incidir en la efectividad de cualquier diseño instruccional, como lo son la motivación personal y la destreza en el manejo de las herramientas tecnológicas (Negrón, 2008).

La literatura apunta hacia la necesidad de continuar explorando los efectos del uso de estrategias de andamiaje en los procesos de solución de problemas y explorar los escenarios de problemas reales o auténticos, aquellos que se caracterizan, por lo general, por ser de carácter poco estructurados o mal estructurados. Según Jonassen (2004), la literatura relacionada al diseño instruccional para la solución de problemas es casi inexistente.

La presente investigación se condujo como un estudio de caso formativo múltiple (dos grupos de investigación independientes) en la modalidad de investigación en acción, para la prueba del modelo sugerido por la investigación de Lin et al. (1999) y siguiendo las recomendaciones de Ge y Land (2003). Se quiso explorar la efectividad de la aplicación de andamios cognitivos como facilitadores del proceso de solución de problemas en el ambiente ofrecido por el curso EDU618-Evaluación de procesos y productos educativos– del Programa Graduado en Sistemas de Instrucción y Tecnología Educativa de la Universidad del Sagrado Corazón, en San Juan, Puerto Rico. El curso propone a los estudiantes organizarse en quipos para trabajar en el desarrollo de un proyecto, vinculados a una organización de base comunitaria (estrategia de aprendizaje en servicio) y responder a las necesidades expresadas por estas organizaciones, que requieren el diseño, producción y evaluación formativa de materiales y recursos educativos. El curso demanda de los estudiantes que actúen como expertos frente a las necesidades presentadas por las organizaciones, procediendo con el análisis de la situación problema, delimitando el alcance de su intervención, diseñando y delineando un producto, sometiéndolo a evaluación formativa durante cada fase de su diseño y desarrollo, y sometiendo su producto final al escrutinio y juicio público. Al culminar su experiencia los estudiantes deben presentar por lo menos un primer prototipo del producto mejorado ante la consideración de los representantes de las organizaciones para las cuales trabajaron. El contexto que se provee para el aprendizaje a través del curso es auténtico y los estudiantes deben aproximarse a los problemas actuando como lo harían los expertos en el campo del diseño de la instrucción. Los problemas que confrontan no están definidos de antemano, por lo cual son considerados del tipo mal estructurados.

El curso se ofrece en modalidad híbrida, combinando encuentros presenciales con virtuales facilitados por la plataforma de administración de cursos conocida como MOODLE y su particular herramienta de trabajo colaborativo del Wiki. Además utiliza de otros recursos y herramientas propias de esta plataforma. La investigación se llevó a cabo mediante la observación de dos casos, la primera durante el mes de junio de la sesión de verano de 2008 y una segunda implantación de seguimiento entre enero y mayo de 2009. La sesión de verano se extiende desde inicios de mayo hasta mediados de julio, pero la autorización para desarrollar la investigación solamente se otorga para el mes de junio.

La presente investigación partió de una valoración de los procesos formativos en la proposición de teorías para la enseñanza (Reigeluth y Frick, 1999). Partió, además, de un entendimiento de que los estudiantes aprenden pensando y que las tecnologías son herramientas que pueden facilitar ese proceso en la medida en que éstas se utilicen apropiadamente con esos fines (Jonassen, 1999).

Problema de investigación

Esta investigación se propuso estudiar cómo se pueden mejorar los procesos de solución de problemas auténticos y mal estructurados de estudiantes de maestría utilizando estrategias de andamiaje que asuman las cuatro formas sugeridas por Lin et al. (1999). El ambiente de aprendizaje colaborativo fue facilitado por la herramienta de Wiki en línea de la plataforma de cursos MOODLE, mientras los estudiantes trabajaban en la solución de un problema auténtico, integrando materiales educativos a un proyecto de carácter social. Específicamente la primera parte de la investigación interesaba saber: ¿Cuáles estrategias de andamiaje (exhibiciones de procesos; apuntes de procesos; modelos de procesos; y un foro para el diálogo social reflexivo) resultan más efectivas para los estudiantes al proponer alternativas de solución a los problemas reales planteados por la situación? ¿Cuáles estrategias de andamiaje resultan más eficaces en un ambiente de aprendizaje abierto colaborativo del tipo Wiki? ¿Cuáles de las estrategias de andamiaje resultan más atractivas para los estudiantes? ¿Cuáles estrategias de andamiaje favorecen el desarrollo de destrezas de pensamiento reflexivo profundo y crítico? Para la segunda implantación de los andamios en 2009, se añadió una pregunta de investigación: ¿Cómo perciben los estudiantes la efectividad de los andamios al usarse en forma integrada?

Método general de investigación

Vista general del método usado

Reigeluth y Frick (1999) plantean que el tipo de investigación denominada investigación formativa es el método más apropiado para crear y mejorar las teorías del diseño instruccional. Este tipo de investigación es una forma de la investigación en acción que tiene como intención mejorar la teoría para el diseño de las prácticas y procesos instruccionales. Su intención es orientar la práctica de la educación y su adecuación se juzga en términos de su efectividad, su eficacia y su atractivo.

La presente investigación se condujo como una investigación formativa, siguiendo la modalidad de estudio de caso múltiple, en el cual se diseñó la experiencia siguiendo las pautas señaladas por Lin, et al. (1999) sobre cómo la tecnología puede servir a los recursos de andamiaje. La experiencia se llevó a cabo en el ambiente tecnológico virtual provisto por la plataforma de administración de cursos en línea MOODLE. En la sesión de verano 2008 participaron 11 estudiantes de un total de 14Tres estudiantes se negaron a participar de la investigación (aportar con sus datos) por diversas razones personales. La segunda etapa de implantación de los recursos de andamiaje se llevó a cabo en una sección subsiguiente del curso (enero de 2009), con nuevos estudiantes. En esta segunda implantación participaron 10 en la entrevista grupal y la apreciación de los andamios cognitivos integrados al curso. Siguiendo las recomendaciones de Reigeluth y Frick (1999), se procedió con la metodología sugerida con la intención de mejorar una teoría existente. Se hizo una aproximación a la investigación como un caso diseñado de acuerdo al modelo.

Procedimiento general de investigación

La metodología de investigación combinó diversas técnicas, asumiendo el paradigma cualitativo como el paradigma predominante, pero integrando técnicas cuantitativas en ciertas instancias del proceso. Según Hénandez-Sampieri, Fernández-Collado y Baptista-Lucio (2003), la gran ventaja del modelo de enfoque dominante es que se enriquecen tanto la recolección de los datos como su análisis. De igual manera, se presta para hacer análisis mediante la triangulación por medio de diferentes fuentes de datos. Esto aporta credibilidad a los mismos.

El presente informe recoge la investigación llevada a cabo durante ambas partes y resume los hallazgos de ambas instancias. Al comienzo de cada instancia, se procedió con la observación de los grupos para determinar el conocimiento pre representación del problema. En la primera etapa solamente se realizó el análisis de tareas para determinar los andamios cognitivos necesarios. Luego, en ambas etapas, se procedió con la implantación de los andamios cognitivos durante el desarrollo del curso y posteriormente se procedió a determinar el elemento de conocimiento post representación del problema de los equipos de trabajo y validar la efectividad general de los andamios cognitivos en apoyar la solución de problemas de los estudiantes.

Procedimientos de la primera etapa de la investigación.

Durante el desarrollo de la investigación en su primera etapa, se llevó a cabo una serie de actividades siguiendo la aplicación del método formativo adoptado. El curso había iniciado en el mes de mayo, pero las actividades apoyadas con andamios cognitivos se propusieron para la actividad de trabajo en equipo que iniciaba en junio. Para los propósitos de este informe, esta primera etapa se subdividió en tres fases que se describen a continuación.

Métodos de la primera parte

Fase 1: Análisis de tareas y propuesta de andamios cognitivos.

Como parte de los procesos del diseño de la instrucción, el diseño y desarrollo de los andamios cognitivos inició con el proceso de análisis de tareas. En los procedimientos de análisis de tareas se persigue tener una idea de cómo sucede el aprendizaje relacionado a la tarea de aprendizaje. Jonassen, Tessmer y Hannunm (1999) lo definen como “… a process of analyzing and articulating the kind of learning that you expect the learners to know how to perform (p. 3)”. El proceso de análisis de tareas siguió un formato multi métodos, combinando procesos y técnicas tanto cualitativas como cuantitativas. El acercamiento al análisis de tareas adoptado fue mucho más cónsono con los modelos de análisis de tareas sustentados por la teoría de actividad, que parte de un entendimiento del contexto como elemento esencial de este proceso (Jonassen, Tessmer & Hannunm, 1999). Esto dio curso al diseño y desarrollo de los diferentes recursos de andamiaje cognitivo sujetos a investigación.

En el caso bajo estudio, la tarea de aprendizaje requiere el diseño y desarrollo parcial del proceso de evaluación formativa para un producto educativo. Ésta es considerada como una tarea de solución de problemas auténticos en equipos de trabajo. Así que se optó por considerar, no solamente las destrezas relacionadas a la solución de problemas y los conocimientos básicos del contenido relacionado a los procesos de evaluación formativa, sino que a su vez se consideraron las destrezas cognitivas para el desempeño efectivo de los procesos de trabajo en equipo como una actividad importante en la solución de este tipo de problemas. Para el análisis de la tarea desde la perspectiva del contenido y sus procesos, se usó de los procedimientos de análisis mediante jerarquías de aprendizaje originalmente propuesto por Gagné (1985). El objetivo de instrucción primario que da base a la experiencia de trabajo en equipo se describe como: “Desarrollar un plan de evaluación formativa para el diseño y desarrollo del primer prototipo de un recurso educativo incorporando recursos electrónicos.” Del análisis jerárquico de tareas se derivaron unos andamios cognitivos para apoyar a los estudiantes en el manejo de los procedimientos y desarrollo de su experiencia educativa concerniente al objetivo del curso que orienta la experiencia del proyecto mayor.

Para el análisis de la actividad de trabajo en equipo se usaron como marco de referencia las destrezas cognitivas del funcionamiento de los equipos identificadas por Klein (2000). Estas destrezas cognitivas de los equipos son: (1) control de la atención, la comunicación y el manejo de la información; (2) conocimiento compartido de la situación o problema; (3) modelos mentales compartidos; (4) aplicación de estrategias y heurísticas para tomar decisiones, solucionar problemas y planificar; y, (5) meta cognición.

Los procedimientos de análisis de tareas jerárquicos no son aplicables a los ambientes que presentan tareas de solución de problemas auténticos, mal-estructurados. Esto es debido a que en problemas de esta naturaleza es imposible determinar de antemano cuál es el espacio del problema (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2000). La solución de este tipo de problemas requiere de los estudiantes destrezas cognitivas que le permitan enmarcar el problema en un contexto particular, partiendo de representaciones inicialmente confusas y ambiguas, hasta lograr una representación de la situación que sea manejable y conducente a la operacionalización de posibles soluciones.

A raíz de esta perspectiva, se partió de la idea de que la tarea requería acercamientos multi metódicos para descifrar los apoyos o andamios cognitivos requeridos por los grupos de estudiantes trabajando en sus proyectos del curso (posición cónsona con la teoría de actividad). Se inició por determinar el conocimiento de los equipos de trabajo. Blickensderfer et al. (2000) definen el conocimiento de un equipo como el conocimiento compartido entre los miembros de ese equipo. Este conocimiento está compuesto por dos tipos de conocimiento: el conocimiento existente antes de llevar a cabo la tarea; y el conocimiento y comprensión que se genera en forma dinámica durante la ejecución de la tarea. El conocimiento pre tarea toma en consideración los modelos mentales sostenidos por el equipo antes de iniciar la tarea, sus expectativas y las actitudes que las nutren y las posibles destrezas que como equipo poseen. Partiendo de este enfoque hacia el entendimiento de los equipos como entidades inteligentes, se procedió a diagnosticar el estado de conocimiento pre tarea de los grupos. De estas apreciaciones del funcionamiento de cada uno de los grupos y el análisis de las deficiencias en el conocimiento pre tarea, se identificaron las destrezas que habrían de apoyarse mediante el desarrollo e instalación en el curso en línea de andamios cognitivos.

La situación general de los grupos al inicio de la tarea, se percibió como confusa. No tenían claro qué se esperaba de ellos. No sabían a ciencia cierta cuál sería el resultado final de su proyecto; se percibía ansiedad. Durante las primeras dos semanas, no usaron de los espacios provistos en el curso en línea para informar de los avances de su trabajo como equipos. Prevalece el entendimiento de la profesora como autoridad y fuente de conocimiento; no se percibe como parte del equipo. Se hizo evidente que la dificultad mayor de los grupos en este momento inicial estaba relacionada a la comunicación y el manejo de la información. Señala Klein (2000) que ésta es una de las destrezas cognitivas de grupos más importantes para los equipos cuya función principal es la de planificación; el desarrollo de modelos mentales comunes y la meta cognición son las otras destrezas críticas para los equipos de planificación. Más adelante, los estudiantes hicieron su Primer Informe de Progreso en reunión presencial.

A raíz de esta presentación se analizó el estado de situación para cada grupo de trabajo. Para este análisis se usó como referencia y punto de partida la escala desarrollada por la Academia de la Fuerza Aérea de los Estados Unidos (1995) para estimar los niveles de ejecutoria individual al enmarcar y resolver problemas mal estructurados. Se desarrolló una escala usando como base estos mismos criterios, pero dirigida a grupos de trabajo en lugar de a individuos. Los criterios de la escala son: estructura del problema, perspectivas personales, conciencia del contexto del problema, estructura del problema, representación del espacio del problema, acercamiento al espacio del problema, atribución de fracasos, generación de alternativas de solución, el uso de herramientas para enmarcar el problema y las soluciones, y la confianza y compromiso con las soluciones. Se hizo un recuento narrativo de las presentaciones y las interpretaciones de la profesora respecto al estado de desarrollo de cada proyecto, el entendimiento de los participantes de los grupos respecto a la naturaleza del problema, y las destrezas cognitivas de grupos demostradas hasta este momento, siguiendo las destrezas cognitivas identificadas por Klein (2000).

En resumen del análisis del estado preliminar se determinó que los proyectos se encontraban en su etapa inicial de planificación, con algunos adelantos en la pre-producción o diseño del primer prototipo del producto. Durante esta primera etapa, aproximadamente el 70% de los grupos habían enmarcado y definido el problema y presentado opciones de solución, sin ser todavía validadas contra los recursos y limitaciones disponibles para ellos. El restante 30% aproximadamente, todavía no había capturado la esencia de la naturaleza del problema que confrontaban. También se observó que los estudiantes necesitaban apoyo en las destrezas relacionadas a la comunicación y manejo de la información, así como en desarrollar un conocimiento compartido de la situación problema y las estrategias meta cognitivas que les permitirían lograr el trabajo propuesto.

Como resultado del proceso general de análisis de tareas, se desarrollaron cuatro estrategias de andamiaje cognitivo (Lin et al, 1999), con siete andamios cognitivos para facilitar tanto el dominio del contenido básico como los procesos relacionados al mismo y facilitar los procesos de los trabajos de equipo. Estas fueron integradas al curso en su forma virtual en MOODLE. Las estrategias fueron: (a) Exhibiciones de procesos (tecnologías que convierten un aprendizaje tácito en un aprendizaje explícito y evidente. incluyen la exhibición de procesos de solución de problemas y procesos de pensamiento); (b) Uso de apuntes de los procesos (se refieren a diseños en los cuales la tecnología plantea preguntas apropiadas y guía a los estudiantes a organizar, monitorear y evaluar sus propios procesos de solución de problemas mientras aprenden); (c) Modelado de procesos (donde expertos modelan los procesos para los aprendices novicios que están aprendiendo acerca de ese mismo dominio); y (d) Diálogo social reflexivo (el individuo reflexiona sobre sus propios esfuerzos y también sobre los esfuerzos relacionados a las metas de su grupo). El Anejo A presenta una tabla que hace un resumen y breve descripción de los siete andamios cognitivos desarrollados para esta investigación.

Fase 2: Aplicación de los andamios cognitivos durante el desarrollo del curso.

Los andamios se fueron desarrollando y se hicieron disponibles a los estudiantes en el momento en que la profesora los estimó como necesarios. Durante la primera sesión (junio de 2008), los andamios se desarrollaron a la par con el desarrollo del curso, en un período aproximado de cuatro semanas. Tanto en la primera sesión como en la segunda, la secuencia de presentación de los andamios se mantuvo igual.

Fase 3: Determinación del elemento de conocimiento post representación del problema de los equipos de trabajo.

A los efectos de poder determinar el grado de conocimiento generado por los estudiantes ya lograda la representación del problema, o lo que Blickensderfer et al. (2000) denominan conocimiento post representación del problema, se procedió en forma similar a la descrita para la determinación del grado de conocimiento pre tarea generado por los grupos de trabajo. Se analizaron los contenidos de las comunicaciones electrónicas y participaciones en foros, así como los informes presenciales de progreso, la efectividad de la propuesta y las destrezas cognitivas de equipo. Mediante este análisis se pretendía poder evidenciar el progreso de los estudiantes en su proceso de reflexión y si habían logrado evidenciar ser capaces de enmarcar y proponer soluciones al problema mal estructurado que la tarea del curso les presentaba, especialmente por el apoyo brindado por los andamios cognitivos integrados al curso.

En este análisis se pudo determinar que las diversas formas de comunicación electrónicas establecidas en el curso en forma directa (foros y chats) o como formas alternas (correo-e y comunicaciones sincrónicas en MSN) fueron utilizadas mayormente por los estudiantes con los siguientes propósitos: para informar las tareas rendidas, para aclarar dudas con la profesora, para solicitar ayuda a la profesora en algún procedimiento, para reportar problemas técnicos, o para la búsqueda de retroalimentación inmediata de parte de la profesora. También se usaban para darse estímulo y apoyo entre ellos mismos, creando un ambiente de camaradería entre estudiantes y profesora.

En algunas instancias se utilizaron para evidenciar sobre sus procesos del trabajo en equipo, reafirmando así las decisiones tomadas y reflejando que habían reflexionado acerca de la naturaleza del problema. Especialmente las comunicaciones sincrónicas a través de MSN sirvieron la función de auxiliar a los estudiantes en el proceso de establecer el alcance de sus expectativas para el proyecto de clase, permitiéndoles enmarcar mejor el problema, mucho mejor que las comunicaciones del tipo correo-e. Las comunicaciones vía el CHAT también facilitaron este propósito.

Según la apreciación de la profesora, en muy escasas ocasiones estas comunicaciones reflejaron procesos cognitivos profundos que identificaran avances en sus procesos de reflexión profunda y crítica. Según Cranton (1996) se identifican tres niveles de la reflexión: sobre los contenidos, sobre los procesos y sobre los supuestos. El nivel de reflexión demostrado por los grupos se limitaba a la reflexión acerca del contenido y en algunas ocasiones al nivel de reflexión meta cognitivo o de procesos, pero la reflexión crítica o reflexión acerca de los supuestos no se evidenció en estas comunicaciones.

En la entrevista grabada en vídeo existe evidencia de cómo los estudiantes reflexionaron acerca de sus propios procesos, tanto personales como de grupo. Aunque no hacen atribución a ningún recurso en particular, hablan acerca de cómo la experiencia del curso en línea con estas herramientas integradas, les permitió auto examinarse y aceptar abiertamente su responsabilidad por su propio aprendizaje. He aquí algunas muestras editadas de estas intervenciones en la entrevista grabada: “Esto de trabajar a distancia es algo novedoso… y muchas veces tendemos a resistirnos al cambio…” Otra estudiante señaló: “Al ser la primera vez que tomamos cursos en línea…nosotros tenemos que estar más en la disposición de tomar estos cursos y a la vez de orientarnos de cómo tomarlos…” Finalmente otro de los estudiantes señaló: “Tenemos que ser más proactivos en este tipo de cursos y cambiar paradigmas…Tenemos que ser más proactivos y más abiertos…romper paradigmas, ¡que no es fácil!

Es evidente que los grupos incursionaron en procesos de reflexión, llevándoles a desarrollar un conocimiento compartido acerca de la tarea. Los procesos de reflexión individual se reflejaban en los procesos de grupo.

Se tuvo evidencia del grado en que los estudiantes lograron enmarcar y proponer soluciones al problema mal estructurado y el reconocimiento de la incertidumbre y ambigüedad. La siguiente comunicación a través del correo-e evidencia el tipo de situaciones que los estudiantes confrontaban en el proceso de enmarcar el problema mal estructurado: “Reconozco que al comienzo de cualquier curso, cada arranque, tiende a ser un poquito estresante, un poquito pesado, porque en ocasiones tú no tienes claro al 100% lo que tú esperas y posiblemente lo que tú esperas no es lo que es o lo que esperas es lo que es, pero no tienes seguridad de cuál va a ser el rumbo que vas a tomar…” Aquí se evidencia cómo este estudiante ha capturado la naturaleza incierta del problema auténtico que se le presenta. Desconoce el estado inicial de las cosas, desconoce con certeza lo que se espera (estado meta) o, de tener claro la meta deseada, las operaciones que han de llevarse a cabo son desconocidas también.

En ocasiones, confrontaban dificultades en poder articular las expectativas del proyecto de clase con las expectativas manifestadas por los representantes de las Organizaciones. Se sentían ansiosos y buscaban articular la multiplicidad de expectativas con los recursos de los cuales disponían. La propuesta de evaluación, según fue presentada en el WIKI disponible para ello, fue evaluada usando una rúbrica diseñada a estos fines (Anejo B).

Cuando se combinan en triangulación las observaciones hechas durante la presentación del informe de la propuesta, las comunicaciones asincrónicas y sincrónicas, y los resultados de la evaluación usando la rúbrica, es evidente la consistencia entre estas observaciones. Los estudiantes en su mayoría lograron enmarcar adecuadamente el problema y proponer una solución adecuada, según facilitados por los andamios cognitivos desarrollados para el curso. Aún así, a pesar de sus avances, recurrían a la autoridad representada en la profesora como proceso de validación de sus posturas y acciones. Son estudiantes auto-dirigidos, pero no independientes. El curso lo toman en su segundo o tercer trimestre en el Programa y para muchos la estrategia de enseñanza adoptada en el curso entra en conflicto con el paradigma de enseñanza y aprendizaje al que están acostumbrados. También para muchos es su primera experiencia trabajando en el contexto de aprendizaje en línea.

Resultados de la determinación de la efectividad de los andamios cognitivos (junio de 2008)

La determinación de la efectividad, la eficacia, el atractivo y la profundidad de los andamios fue el foco principal de esta investigación. Además interesaba saber cómo funcionaban estos recursos en un ambiente de aprendizaje abierto colaborativo del tipo Wiki y cuáles favorecían el desarrollo de destrezas de pensamiento reflexivo profundo y crítico. Para facilitar el proceso de establecimiento de consistencia en la interpretación de los resultados obtenidos para contestar las preguntas de investigación, se procedió a triangular tres fuentes de datos. El proceso de triangulación es una de las técnicas que aumenta la credibilidad de los datos en la investigación formativa. Se usaron tanto fuentes de datos cualitativas como cuantitativas. Para llevar a cabo la triangulación se tomó la encuesta de la primera parte de la entrevista realizada en la última sesión de clases como una primera fuente de datos; la segunda parte de la entrevista consistente en preguntas de contestación libre, se convirtió en la segunda fuente de datos; y las diversas comunicaciones en línea (chats, foros, correos-e y conversaciones sincrónicas en MSN) como la tercera fuente de datos.

Efectividad, eficacia, atractivo y profundidad de los andamios.

Para la primera fuente de datos se usó una escala de siete puntos para cuatro categorías generales o atributos de los andamios cognitivos. Las cuatro categorías o atributos fueron: su efectividad (entendida como el grado en que el andamio logró la intención para la cual fue propuesto), su eficacia (entendida como el grado de esfuerzo, energía y tiempo requerido por este andamio en relación a su efectividad), su atractivo (entendido como cuán agradable resultó ser el andamio), y su profundidad (entendida como el grado en que logró estimular pensamientos reflexivos profundos y críticos). En la segunda parte de la entrevista, los participantes evaluaron libremente los andamios. Se llevaron a cabo cuatro rondas de discusión, orientando cada ronda con una pregunta guía o una combinación de preguntas simples. A continuación se presentan los resultados obtenidos de esta triangulación.

La Tabla 1 demuestra que los andamios del tipo exhibición de procesos (uno y cuatro) y los del tipo apuntes de procesos (tres y seis) fueron considerados por los estudiantes como más efectivos, eficaces, atractivos y profundos. Estos alcanzaron sobre un 90% en valor absoluto de la escala total. Muy cerca siguieron los andamios dos y siete, con un porcentaje de valor absoluto en la escala total sobre 80%. El andamio que pareció no alcanzar un porcentaje alto en la estimación de los estudiantes fue el andamio cinco, con un 75% en valor absoluto de la escala total. Esto puede haberse debido a que estos recursos se instalaron un poco tarde y los estudiantes no supieron cuál era su verdadera función. Los andamios del tipo exhibición de procesos y de apuntes de procesos resultaron ser los más efectivos.

Tabla 1

Resultados de evaluación de los andamios según cuatro criterios

Andamio

Efectividad

Eficacia

Atractivo

Profundidad Mediana % abs
#1- Enfocando el problema

72

70

65

70

70.0

91

#2- Entrevista Casanova

70

62

63

70

66.5

86

#3- Preguntas de entrevista

72

71

60

69

70.0

91

#4- Auto-evalua destrezas de equipo.

72

70

65

70

70.0

91

#5- Foro de discusión de temas

57

56

58

60

57.5

75

#6- Plan de evaluación formativa

72

70

70

72

71.0

92

#7- Chats semanales

68

63

67

57

65.0

84

Mediana

72

70

65

70

N= 11

Nota. Cada escala alcanzaba un valor máximo de 7 puntos. El valor absoluto máximo por escala es de 77 puntos. El porcentaje absoluto parte del valor absoluto máximo de 77 y toma como base el valor de la mediana.

Los análisis de correlación del tipo Pearson demuestran que los criterios de efectividad y eficacia correlacionan a un r = 0.90, siendo estos dos criterios los que alcanzaron el nivel de correlación más alto. Los estudiantes tienden a entender que el andamio logra su intención en proporción con el grado de esfuerzo, energía y tiempo que le dedican. No ocurre así con los andamios considerados como que cumplen con su propósito y los que logran estimular en ellos sus pensamientos reflexivos profundos y críticos. La correlación entre la percepción de la efectividad y la profundidad de los andamios solamente alcanzó un r = 0.70, considerada como una buena correlación, aunque moderada. De igual manera, los estudiantes estiman que si los andamios son eficaces (requiere de ellos esfuerzo intelectual), entonces hay una tendencia moderada a estimular en ellos sus pensamientos reflexivos y críticos, para un r = 0.71. La eficacia y el atractivo parecen no establecer una relación muy fuerte, asumiendo valores r = 0.48, así como las características de atractivo y profundidad, para un r = 0.26. Esto señala hacia una tendencia a no percibir el atractivo de los andamios como un factor crítico de entre sus cuatro atributos esenciales. La Tabla 2 recoge los resultados de estas correlaciones.

Tabla 2

Coeficientes de correlación Pearson entre criterios

Pearson para:

Valor coeficiente r

efectividad/eficacia 0.90
efectividad/atractivo 0.59
efectividad/profundidad 0.70
eficacia/atractivo 0.48
eficacia/profundidad 0.71
atractivo/profundidad 0.26


Tabla 3

Resultados de la prueba CHI para los andamios tomando la efectividad como lo esperado

Criterio

Valor CHI

eficacia

0.96

atractivo

0.66

profundidad

0.90

Según evidencian los resultados en la Tabla 3, al considerar la efectividad como el factor que sirva de base a lo esperado, la prueba CHI reafirma que el atractivo es poco considerado como atributo crítico para la efectividad de los andamios. Esto puede estar en contradicción con el énfasis que tradicionalmente se atribuye al atractivo de los recursos instruccionales como factor crítico de su efectividad. Sin embargo, la eficacia (el grado de esfuerzo, energía y tiempo que le dedican) y la profundidad (el grado en que logró estimular en ellos sus pensamientos reflexivos profundos y críticos) alcanzaron valores de CHI = 0.96 y CHI = 0.90 respectivamente, indicando que estas dos características contribuyen altamente a la efectividad de los andamios.

Estos resultados fueron comparados con los obtenidos en la segunda parte de la entrevista grupal para buscar la consistencia en las relaciones observadas a través de la escala de apreciación de los andamios cognitivos. Esta segunda parte de la entrevista fue grabada en vídeo y luego transcrita para efectos de facilidad de análisis. Una frase o una idea completa se establecieron como unidad de análisis del contenido. Luego de hacer la selección de frases o segmentos, éstas se clasificaron en categorías emergentes mediante la codificación abierta (Strauss y Corbin, 1990). El Anejo C presenta la tabla con el resumen de las expresiones de los estudiantes y las categorías evidenciadas en sus manifestaciones. Esta sección fue orientada por cuatro preguntas que se usan de referencia para organizar e interpretar los datos recogidos y que aparecen en este mismo anejo.

Otra vez, en la entrevista grabada, los andamios seis y uno y la combinación de los andamios dos y tres fueron considerados por los estudiantes como los más efectivos. Esta sección permitió abundar sobre las posibles razones por las cuales los consideraron así. Algunas de las categorías de razones fueron: la accesibilidad que ofrecen; que facilitan lo presencial, lo social y el intercambio; facilitan el monitoreo de parte de la profesora; permiten que la profesora y estudiantes ofrezcan retroalimentación constructiva; porque responden a necesidades de aprendizaje específicas de los estudiantes; permiten modelar procesos para los estudiantes; facilitan el conocimiento procedimental además del conocimiento declarativo; favorecen el monitoreo meta cognitivo de los estudiantes; incorporan una variedad de recursos multimedios que apelan a una variedad de sentidos; porque son atractivos; favorecen la colaboración en las tareas; y algunos permiten cierto grado de interactividad con el medio.

Del análisis de las diversas formas de comunicación en línea utilizadas (chats, foros, correo-e y comunicaciones en MSN) entre los estudiantes y la profesora, se pudo constatar la consistencia de los resultados demostrados previamente. Se analizaron estas comunicaciones para determinar las categorías presentes en ellas que fueran consistentes con la apreciación ya evidenciada en las dos fuentes de datos previos, culminando así con el proceso de triangulación para esta parte del análisis de los resultados de la investigación hasta el momento. Algunos extractos de comunicaciones editadas de los CHATS muestran la percepción sostenida por los estudiantes referentes a la efectividad de la integración del andamio de la entrevista a un experto (modelaje de procesos), seguida de unas preguntas (guía de procesos) y el trabajo en el Wiki, revalidando las impresiones presentadas anteriormente. “Tengo una mejor visión de nuestro trabajo”… “Si me encanto yo pude ver los videos y creo que es una buena forma de trasmitir conocimientos waoooo…

El contexto de aprendizaje ofrecido por el WIKI.

La herramienta del WIKI se propuso como el contexto principal donde los estudiantes desarrollarían el trabajo en forma colaborativa. Inicialmente los estudiantes usaron la herramienta como un espacio para instalar documentos terminados, no en proceso de elaboración. Ante la novedad o lo desconocido, los estudiantes procedieron “asimilando” (para usar la nomenclatura de Piaget) la experiencia sin modificar sus esquemas usuales. Por ejemplo, un estudiante comenta en la entrevista lo siguiente: “… por ejemplo, muchas de las asignaciones desde el WIKI… nos llamábamos por celular para ponernos de acuerdo y terminábamos reuniéndonos presencialmente…” Otra estudiante abunda sobre esto y dice: “… sabíamos lo del WIKI, pero no subíamos los trabajos al WIKI, nos reuníamos, nos enviábamos los trabajos por Messenger o por e-mail, pero se nos olvidaba subirlo al WIKI…” A este momento se manejaba el WIKI como una herramienta tradicional donde se suben los trabajos al sistema MOODLE como tareas en su forma final. Luego del primer informe de progreso se pudo constatar el uso más frecuente del WIKI y las modificaciones en los estilos de los grupos al manejar la herramienta. A pesar de todo, la investigadora todavía guarda la idea de que los estilos no se modificaron en su totalidad y que la herramienta del WIKI no fue usada por todos los grupos en su óptima capacidad. La resistencia al cambio se hace evidente, como fue reconocida a su vez por algunos de los propios estudiantes en la entrevista grabada. Este fenómeno se perfila a su vez como una potencial área de investigación futura.

Conclusiones de la primera etapa (junio de 2008)

En resumen, la efectividad de los andamios quedó evidenciada por los resultados obtenidos durante la primera implantación de los recursos. En el proceso de la investigación surgieron nuevos factores de gran interés para la investigadora, que aportaban a la validación del modelo sugerido por Lin et al. (1999). A continuación los hallazgos y conclusiones de la primera etapa de la investigación y algunos asuntos que quedaron pendientes para la segunda implantación del curso usando los andamios cognitivos. Aunque los procesos relacionados a la solución de problemas mal estructurados no se distinguían como preguntas de investigación aparte de las otras propuestas, este aspecto es considerado de gran importancia para el enfoque formativo adoptado en la investigación y el contexto de aprendizaje provistos mediante los recursos de andamios.

Procesos de enmarcación del problema.

Los estudiantes, como grupos de trabajo, lograron apoyarse unos a otros en el proceso de determinar la situación provista por el tipo de problema que confrontaban. También establecieron las metas del proyecto partiendo de una reconsideración de sus expectativas como grupo, considerando aquellas que estaban a su alcance. Esto evidenció la capacidad de los grupos para analizar la situación problema, apoyados por los andamios cognitivos, y determinar los alcances de la misma. Además, fueron capaces como grupos, auxiliados por los recursos de andamios, de determinar las formas como podrían dar solución al problema identificado. Los estudiantes evidenciaron haber logrado capturar la naturaleza del problema mal estructurado, enmarcarlo adecuadamente y proveer soluciones adecuadas en respuestas a las necesidades expresadas por los representantes de las Organizaciones. Se entiende que estos procesos fueron auxiliados por los recursos de andamios cognitivos.

Procesos de reflexión.

Cranton (1996) reseña los tres niveles de la reflexión y los describe como la reflexión acerca de la descripción del problema, la reflexión acerca de las estrategias usadas para resolver el problema y la reflexión acerca de la relevancia del problema mismo. Aunque la reflexión como proceso no se hace evidente en forma directa, las expresiones de los estudiantes demostraron no solamente que reflexionaron acerca de los contenidos relacionados a los problemas (tanto en su plano individual como en grupo), sino que también reflexionaron en torno a sus propios procesos cognitivos y procesos de acción. La integración de los andamios facilitó el proceso de reflexión acerca del contenido del problema y de los procesos instrumentales y meta cognitivos necesarios para solucionarlo. No obstante, solamente algunos parecieron alcanzar niveles donde se cuestionaran sus propios esquemas mentales frente a las nuevas experiencias, evidenciando lo que parece implicar los inicios de cambios profundos en sus paradigmas, favoreciendo el aprendizaje transformador. El entendimiento de la investigadora es que esta forma de reflexionar no se estimula a través de los currículos tradicionales de formación académica y los estudiantes no acostumbran ejercer este tipo de proceso reflexivo. Los andamios cognitivos usados no evidenciaron favorecerlo en esta investigación.

Efectividad de los andamios cognitivos.

Los andamios cognitivos sirvieron como herramientas altamente efectivas para los estudiantes, quienes los valoraron grandemente. La efectividad como característica de los andamios cognitivos (entendida como el grado en que el andamio logró la intención para la cual fue propuesto) correlacionó altamente con la eficacia (el grado de esfuerzo, energía y tiempo que le dedican) y la profundidad (el grado en que logró estimular en ellos sus pensamientos reflexivos profundos y críticos). El atractivo, como característica de los andamios, no correlacionó significativamente con su efectividad. Hubo diferencias marcadas en la efectividad de los andamios, según la percepción de los estudiantes. Aquellos andamios dirigidos a apoyar el entendimiento y dominio del contenido y sus procesos relacionados se percibieron como mucho más efectivos que aquellos que estaban dirigidos a facilitar los procesos de diálogo reflexivo.

Efectividad del ambiente colaborativo tipo WIKI en la solución de problemas.

El ambiente provisto por el WIKI se consideró como muy propio para el trabajo colaborativo, pero todavía la herramienta no es usada en su forma óptima como recurso de trabajo colaborativo. Algunos estudiantes parecen no acostumbrarse totalmente a ella. Amerita más atención como herramienta para los cursos en línea.

Procedimientos de la segunda etapa de la investigación (2009)

En la segunda implantación de los andamios cognitivos ya modificados propuesta para enero de 2009, se enfocó la investigación hacia validar la idea expresada por Lin, et al (1999) de que la integración de los andamios como sistemas resulta ser más efectiva que si fuesen usados individualmente. A las preguntas generales de la primera parte de la investigación se añadió la pregunta: ¿Cómo perciben los estudiantes la efectividad de los andamios al usarse en forma integrada?

Métodos de la segunda parte

Al igual que en la primera etapa, se observó inicialmente el funcionamiento de los grupos y se determinó que demostraban destrezas adecuadas en los trabajos de grupo, por lo que se procedió a hacer visibles los andamios según se estimaba pertinente. El andamio número cuatro –Auto evaluación de destrezas de equipo- no se usó, por estimarse que los grupos funcionaban adecuadamente. Al finalizar la experiencia de aplicación de los andamios como un sistema integrado en el contexto del curso en línea, se procedió con la encuesta y la entrevista para validar la efectividad general de los andamios cognitivos.

Resultados, hallazgos y conclusiones de la segunda parte de la investigación

Los resultados de las encuestas sobre los andamios cognitivos en la segunda implantación de los recursos en enero de 2009 fueron consistentes con los resultados de la primera implantación. La tabla 4 presenta los resultados de la evaluación de los andamios por los estudiantes durante la segunda implantación.

Tabla 4

Resultados de la evaluación de los andamios según los cuatro criterios (2009)

Andamio

Efectividad Eficacia Atractivo Profundidad Promedio Mediana % abs
 

#1- Enfocando el problema

65

65

63

64

64.25

64.5

0.92

#2- Entrevista Prof. Casanova

56

52

45

55

52

53.5

0.76

#3- Preguntas de entrevista

63

64

58

69

63.50

63.5

0.91

#5- Foro de discusión de temas

58

60

62

59

59.75

59.5

0.85

#6- Plan de evaluación formativa

66

63

63

64

64.00

63.5

0.91

#7- Chats semanales

56

51

53

51

52.75

52.0

0.74

Mediana

60.5

61.5

60

61.5

N= 10

Nota. Cada escala alcanzaba un valor máximo de 7 puntos. El valor absoluto máximo por escala es de 70 puntos. El porcentaje absoluto parte del valor absoluto máximo de 70 y toma como base el valor de la mediana.

Otra vez, los andamios del tipo exhibición de procesos y apuntes de procesos fueron considerados por los estudiantes como los más eficaces, profundos, efectivos y atractivos. Los resultados atribuibles al andamio dos fueron sorprendentes, reflejando una percepción diferente al primero de los grupos expuestos a este andamio. Otra vez el andamio siete volvió a ocupar el lugar de menor preferencia entre los estudiantes.

Tabla 5

Coeficientes de correlación Pearson entre criterios 2009 en comparación con el 2008

Pearson para:

Valor coeficiente r 2008/2009

efectividad/eficacia

0.90

0.90

efectividad/atractivo 0.59 0.75
efectividad/profundidad 0.70 0.85
eficacia/atractivo 0.48 0.84
eficacia/profundidad 0.71 0.93
atractivo/profundidad 0.26 0.62

Nota. Los resultados del 2009 aparecen ennegrecidos

Ya instalados como un sistema y funcionando en un contexto más natural en el curso, la apreciación de los estudiantes parece reflejar un cambio, relacionando la eficacia y el atractivo. En la Tabla 5 se puede observar que los atributos efectividad y eficacia se sostienen como los dos criterios críticos de los andamios. Sin embargo, al aplicar la prueba CHI cuadrado estipulando la efectividad como lo esperado, los resultados se asemejan a los del primer grupo, como se ilustra en la Tabla 6. Es evidente que la efectividad de los andamios es más dependiente de la eficacia y profundidad que de su atractivo.

Tabla 6

Resultados comparativos de la prueba CHI en el 2008 y 2009 para los andamios tomando la efectividad como lo esperado

Criterio

Valor CHI

2008

2009

eficacia

0.96

0.97

atractivo

0.66

0.67

profundidad

0.90

0.95

En la entrevista grabada, los estudiantes valoraron otra vez la efectividad de aquellos andamios dirigidos a reforzar el dominio del contenido y el desarrollo de destrezas procedimentales. Se favorecen los andamios que tienden a desarrollar el conocimiento procedimental en combinación con el conocimiento declarativo. De igual manera se expresaron a favor de la integración de estos como un sistema total, en forma articulada a la experiencia. Como grupo, tomaron iniciativas y recurrieron a herramientas disponibles en la Web (Google Sites, SKYPE y otras) adelantándose a la presentación de los andamios de foros sociales, a los chats y a los trabajos en el Wiki. Esto marcó un cambio en la manera como los andamios se usaron en esta segunda implantación.

Resumen y conclusiones de la investigación

En general se puede concluir que los procesos de solución de problemas auténticos y mal estructurados fueron facilitados por los andamios cognitivos cuando estos se usaron en manera integrada a las experiencias del curso en su modalidad en línea. La propuesta del modelo de Lin et al. (1999) y las sugerencias hechas por Ge y Land (2003) se sostienen como el resultado de este estudio de caso múltiple. El uso integrado de la diversidad de tipos de andamios y la diversidad de tareas, resulta ser altamente efectivo. Los andamios integrados facilitaron el desarrollo de las destrezas de solución de problemas mal estructurados, apoyando a los estudiantes en desarrollar una representación mental del problema que confrontaban y proveyéndole espacios para manipular los modelos mentales creados (conocimientos acerca del problema) y probar sus modelos en forma colaborativa en los espacios y escenarios provistos en el curso. Los andamios facilitan el apoyo de estas destrezas. Los andamios cumplieron al proveer para la meta cognición, la solución de problemas y la construcción de conocimientos. Esta integración fue el resultado de un proceso profundo de análisis de tareas que precedió al desarrollo de los andamios cognitivos. Estos procesos adoptaron acercamientos tanto tradicionales de elaboración de jerarquías de aprendizaje al estilo de Gagné, como acercamientos más constructivos y cónsonos con las formas cualitativas de la investigación, como el análisis de los procesos de grupos y las tareas cognitivas de equipos que se fundamentó en la teoría de la actividad (Jonassen, 1999). Estos procesos fueron claves en el éxito alcanzado a través de estos recursos de aprendizaje.

Los procesos de reflexión se estimularon parcialmente a través de las estrategias de andamiaje. Solamente se evidenciaron procesos de reflexión acerca de los contenidos y los procesos, pero no así la reflexión crítica. La falta de exposición a este tipo de reflexión a través de sus años de preparación académica previa parece ser el factor más influyente en este resultado. Este es un factor a considerar en la adaptación de los andamios para futuros grupos o en el desarrollo de nuevos andamios cognitivos dirigidos a capacitar a los estudiantes en estos procesos de reflexión crítica.

Es evidente que los andamios logran su intención en proporción con el grado de esfuerzo, energía y tiempo que demandan al estudiante (eficacia) y el grado en que estimulan en ellos sus pensamientos reflexivos profundos y críticos (profundidad). Los andamios más efectivos en apoyar los procesos de solución de problemas mal estructurados son aquellos que apoyan al estudiante en adquirir un dominio profundo, no solamente del contenido, sino de los procesos asociados a él. De esta forma, de los tipos de andamios sugeridos por Lin et al. (1999), los estudiantes percibieron como más efectivos aquellos que les permitían hacer evidente un aprendizaje tácito (andamios de exhibición de procesos) y aquellos que le permiten monitorear su propio proceso de solución de problemas mientras aprenden (andamios de apuntes de procesos). Además, los estudiantes consideran que estos facilitaron la presencia social, que alivian el aislamiento y permiten el desarrollo de un sentido de comunidad, aspectos afectivos importantes para los procesos de solución de problemas en equipos de trabajo. De esta forma se facilitan los esfuerzos de los estudiantes por construir su conocimiento.

La herramienta de Wiki en línea de la plataforma de cursos MOODLE no funcionó como era esperado. Los estudiantes no utilizaron la herramienta como una que facilita el trabajo colaborativo, sino que la usaron más bien como una herramienta tradicional de someter tareas finales para evaluación. Hubo gran resistencia al uso de la herramienta del Wiki, al tiempo que adoptaban otras maneras alternas de trabajo en equipo. Las herramientas y recursos de la Web 2.0 pueden jugar un papel altamente significativo en facilitar los procesos mentales de los estudiantes, sirviendo de puentes entre sus capacidades y las tareas de aprendizaje. Los recursos alternos informales que provee la Web 2.0 parecen señalar una tendencia que, para la fecha de publicación de este informe, se hace cada vez más evidente y delinea una brecha para nuevas investigaciones.

Finalmente, es evidente que el uso de los recursos de andamios cognitivos es un proceso dinámico y constante que requiere grandes esfuerzos de parte del diseñador de la instrucción y el docente. Cada individuo, cada grupo, cada sesión de cursos, es diferente y demanda recursos diferentes. El constante cambio tecnológico impone reconsideraciones de los escenarios de aprendizaje y sus recursos. Esto constituye un reto para los diseñadores instruccionales y los docentes, muy especialmente cuando se diseña para facilitar la solución de problemas del carácter mal estructurados. El espacio sigue abierto a la investigación futura. La integración de andamios cognitivos basados en las nuevas tecnologías de las redes de información y los entornos de la Web son escenarios vírgenes para este tipo de investigación.

 

Referencias

Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. & Baker, D.P. (2000). Analyzing Knowledge Requirements in Team Tasks. En J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman y V. L. Shalin (EDs.), Cognitive Task Analysis (p.431-447). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (2000). Transformative Learning as Ideology Critique. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Transformative Learning: Challenges of Practice: Transformative Learning in Action, October 26-28, 2000 Teachers College Columbia University, Nueva York.

Cranton, P. (1996). Professional Development as Transformative Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we Think. Boston: Heath.

Gagné, R. M. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Ge, X. & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding Students’ Problem-Solving Processes in an Ill-Structured Task Using Question Prompts and Peer Interactions, ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 21-38.

Hernández Sampieri,R., Fernández Collado, C. & Baptista Lucio, P. (2003). Metodología de la investigación. México: McGraw Hill.

Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing Constructivists Learning Environments. En Charles M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, (Vol. 2, pp. 217-239). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D. (2004). Learning to Solve Problems: An Instructional Design Guide. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Jonassen, D., Tessmer, M. & Hannum, W. (1999). Task Analysis Methods for Instructional Desing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Asociados.

Klein, Gary (2000). Cognitive Task Analysis of Teams. En J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman & V. L. Shalin (EDs.), Cognitive Task Analysis (pp.417-429). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lin, X., Hmelo, C , Kinzer, C.K. & Secules, T.J. (1999). Designing Technology to Support Reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47, 3, 43-62.

Mezirow, J. & Asociados (1990). Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. & Asociados (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Negrón, L. (2008). “La presencia social en un Seminario virtual a nivel graduado”. (Tesis de maestría sin publicar). Universidad del Sagrado Corazón, San Juan, PR.

Reigeluth, C. M. & F., T.W. (1999). Formative Research: A Methodology for Creating and Improving Design Theories. En C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, (Vol. 2, pp. 633-651). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Seitamaa-Hakkarainen., P. (2000). “Weaving Design Process as a Dual space Search”, Adapted from P. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Department of Home Economics and Craft Science Research Reports 6. University of Helsinki, 2000.Recuperado de http://mlab.taik.fi/polut/Yhteiskunnalliset/teoria_ill_defined_complex.html.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. California: Sage Publications.

Tennant, M. & Pogson, P. (1995). Learning and Change in the Adult Years: A developmental Perspective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

United States Air Force Academy (1995). “Outcomes Assessment Working Group-Ill-defined Problems Rubric”. Colorado Springs, CO Recuperado de http://www.theospi.org/files/USAF%20ill%20defined%20problems%20rubric.pdf

 

By: Rosa Ojeda, Ph. D.

University of the Sacred Heart

Integrated Learning and the Value of VALUE Rubrics

Background

 

We are engaged in nothing less than an effort to change the focus of the national conversation from artificial, shorthand indicators of learning to something that reflects the shared work and understanding of faculty members and academic professionals across campuses”

 –Terrel L. Rhodes

The Association of American Colleges & Universities focuses its approach on student learning outcomes through its LEAP (Liberal Education America’s Promise) VALUE (Valid Assessment of Undergraduate Education) Rubrics, a set of general education rubrics developed by faculty groups across the country looking internally at common general education outcomes. The process for developing the rubrics emerged from “Principles of Excellence” developed by a leadership council of educators, which include:  “giving students a compass (focus each student’s plan of study on achieving the essential learning outcomes–and assess progress), teach the arts of inquiry and innovation, connect knowledge with choice and action, assess students’ ability to apply learning to complex problems” (AAC&U).  The internal yet cross-national look at refined student outcomes through the VALUE rubrics has the potential to measure student outcomes across campuses, across classrooms and longitudinally through multiple iterations.

As one of 12 community colleges named by the AAC & U and MetLife as Giving a Roadmap: Enrollment to Engagement in Educational Achievement and Success Campuses, Queensborough Community College was invited to apply to the Collaborative on Authentic Assessment of Learning (CAAL):pilot, and  was accepted to participate.”  CAAL is currently being developed to provide a virtual community where institutions can upload, share, and discuss their campus assessment results using the VALUE rubrics. This collaboration among e-portfolio vendors and campuses is intended to expand communication across campuses regarding common instruments, compelling findings, potential benchmarks for student success, and best practices of assessment using rubrics and e-portfolios. Queensborough was tasked to score the Integrative Learning Value Rubric on 100 student work samples. The scores and samples will be placed in a repository.Queensborough’s “Roadmap” activities, made possible by the Freshman Academy structure launched in 2009, will therefore be deepened and better supported, as the current student learning outcome work is currently being implemented as a teaching and learning tool as much as an assessment tool in small interdisciplinary faculty cohorts on campus approaching high impact strategies . The detailed attention to naming principles of excellence and general education outcome rubrics as in the LEAP VALUE project offer the opportunity for a culture of evidence that allows for a reflection process that focuses on student learning, as well as partnerships with business groups and state officials to ensure not only greater access but greater success in United States higher education and the workplace.Through the use of rubrics, students, notably historically underserved and first generation college students, are given a clear outline of expectations, assisting them in the achievement of the learning outcomes which will enable them to complete their educational goals.

Organizing a First Year Experience:

Queensborough Community College’s goal is to provide an academic environment that strengthens students’ commitment and makes it possible for them to graduate or complete their goals in a timely manner. In the fall of 2009, after 8 years of preparation Queensborough launched the Freshman Academies. All first-time, full-time students are enrolled in one of six Freshman Academies based upon his/her chosen field of study. The six Freshman Academies are Science, Technology, Engineering and Math; Liberal Arts; Visual and Performing Arts; Education; Health Related Sciences; and Business.  What is different about Queensborough’s Freshman Academies is that it is a scaled-up and institutionalized effort for activities which rarely move beyond the pilot stage and rarely reach the least prepared student, and concentrate all services into six academies for all first-time, full-time freshmen.    The Freshman Academies are mandatory for all 3241 first-time, full-time freshman who enrolled at this open access community college of the City University of New York during the fall 2009.

Academic Enhancement: High Impact Strategies & Integrated Learning:

The academic enhancement initiative centers on the directed focus of high impact classroom strategies in the first 30 credits. George Kuh, who first identified high impact practices through a study of the National Survey of Student Engagement (2008) writes. “The results of participating in these high-impact practices are especially striking for students who are further behind in terms of their entering academic test scores.  The benefits are similarly positive for students from communities that historically have been underserved in higher education.”

 

At Queensborough, the high impact strategies for freshman include cornerstone courses, e-portfolio, learning communities, service learning, and writing intensive courses.

  1. 1.      Cornerstone Courses are introductory courses that teach general education skills of communication, critical thinking, organization and development of values.
  2. 2.      e-Portfolio is a personalized, electronic archiving system which allows students to express their educational goals and see their own progress as a student as they move through college. It can also incorporate social networking.
  3. 3.      Learning Communities are two courses taught by two different professors which are linked by a theme.  The same students are in each of the classes.  These classes assist students in seeing connections between disciplines, and help them get to know their fellow students and professors.
  4. 4.      Service Learning employ class assignments that take students’ work out into the community.  Students learn more about the subject they are studying while making an impact outside the classroom, encouraging civic engagement.
  5. 5.      Writing Intensive Courses are specifically designed to improve students’ writing ability through all the academic disciplines.  Two writing intensive courses are required to graduate.

All five of the high impact strategies had been adopted by faculty members before the launching of the academies.  The academies initiative has served to target, promote and scale up the high impact strategies, as well as to examine best practices and general education objectives in relation to those strategies.  As students began to hone an academic identity by virtue of membership in one of six academies based on field of major interest, the role of participating faculty expanded beyond individual discipline identifications into the multidisciplinary academies.  Greater faculty consciousness of general education and the students’ complete academic paths has been achieved through efforts to implement and assess high impact strategies on a larger scale.

 

To support and promote the high impact strategies and co-curricular activities, as well as to serve as a communicative bridge to the Freshman Coordinators (Student Affairs personnel described as “relationship guides” who provide enhanced advisement and referral to freshman), a group of faculty leaders have emerged who serve as Faculty Coordinators, Learning Outcomes Facilitators and Basic Education/Developmental Mathematics.  The faculty leaders meet regularly with freshman coordinators and participate in Freshman Orientation and other Academy gatherings with students. They also facilitate interdisciplinary faculty cohort groups which meet throughout the semester to discuss best practices as well as to support the development and implementation of cross cutting general education rubrics.  The General Education Objective rubrics, which focus on speech, reading, writing and quantitative illiteracies served not only as assessment tools, but as a method of communication of expectation and goal setting for students in the classroom.

 

By Fall 2010, the Learning Communities Initiative began to implement the Integrated Learning VALUE rubric as a tool to demonstrate student integration of the two disciplines that comprised each Learning Community. 

 

The interdisciplinary conversations that ensued among the faculty have created a greater consciousness of the general education objectives that had been voted on by the faculty as well as led to examinations of the  true ‘impact’ of the high impact activities in dialogue with the principal investigator of the Freshman Academies Assessment Protocol and the Office of Academic Affairs.

 

The feedback loop from faculty to student and among faculty have initiated greater articulation of integrative strategies in the classroom, such as the institution of supplemental education assignments in Freshman Composition, a cornerstone course in cooperation with the Kupferberg Holocaust Archive and the QCC Art Gallery.  Academy specific cornerstone courses have been created which feature readings which relate to students’ field of major interest and assist with making connections to student aspiration.  Additional academy specific courses address areas in which certain groups of students traditionally encounter roadblocks, for instance a remedial math class has been formed dedicated to visual and performing arts students which employ the arts to teach basic mathematics.  The Student Interdisciplinary Wiki Project incorporates groups of three classes which all participate in a virtual learning community through ePortfolio and shared interdisciplinary wiki assignments, which also layers service learning.  The Academies therefore are not only ensuring that students receive two high impact practices, but are attempting to ensure that the quality of these experiences are relevant and memorable. The Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Group began using the Integrated Learning Rubric in Spring 2011, attempting to demonstrate the active reflection on interdisciplinary connections that was inherent in that practice. In Summer 2011, the initiative “Moving Ahead with ePortfolio” incorporated a longitudinal exploration of the Integrated Learning VALUE rubric in classes using ePortfolio integrative learning assignments.

 

 As a result of the constant evolution of the high impact practices in their emphasis on interdisciplinarity, experiences beyond the five named high impact strategies occur through the vehicle of the Freshman Academies, such as diversity/global learning, common intellectual experiences and collaborative project based learning, which have also been named as high impact practices by George Kuh (2008).

 

The VALUE Rubric and Integrated Learning

The VALUE Rubrics reflect the emphasis the academy places on the ability to analyze and integrate knowledge in a variety of ways–                                                                                                       Terrel L. Rhodes

 

Alongside the Principles of Excellence, the LEAP campaign identified a series of Essential Learning Outcomes which include: knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, intellectual and practical skills, personal and social responsibility, and integrated and applied learning. In the case of integrated and applied learning, demonstration is to take place through the application of knowledge, skills and responsibilities to new settings and problems. Teams of faculty and other academic professionals developed fifteen institutional level VALUE rubrics corresponding to elements of the Essential Learning Outcomes using existing campus rubrics, other organizational statements on outcomes, disciplinary expertise and an iterative process which included faculty feedback (AAC & U).

The definition of integrated learning on the VALUE rubric is: “An understanding and a disposition that a student builds across the curriculum and co-curriculum, from making simple connections among ideas and experiences to synthesizing and transferring learning to new, complex situations within and beyond the campus.” Integrated learning can take place when assignments develop students’ ability to synthesize knowledge and make connections, increasing the potential for personal success, social responsibility and civic engagement. Structures, assignments and environments where the exchange of experience and understanding is encouraged cultivates the opportunity for integrative learning, and is embodied in Queensborough’s practices of Service Learning, Learning Communities and the Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Group.

 

The rubric holds five dimensions:      

  1. 1.       Connections to Experience, in which student connects relevant experience and academic knowledge
  2. 2.       Connections to Discipline, in which student sees (makes) connections across disciplines and perspectives
  3. 3.       Transfer in which student adapts and applies skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies

      gained in one situation to new situation

  1. 4.       Integrated Communication
  2. 5.       Reflections and Self-Assessment in which student demonstrates a developing sense of self as a learner, building on prior experiences to respond to new and challenging contexts (may be evident in self-assessment, reflection, or creative work).

 

Performance gradients begin at zero, in which there is no demonstration of a dimension, and then are staged on level 1 as benchmark, the learning skills and abilities among beginning students, levels 2 and 3 as milestones, which suggest key characteristics of progressive learning, and level 4 as capstone, which reflect achievement for the specific criterion for a student who graduates with a BA.

 

The Collaborative for Authentic Assessment of Learning Pilot Process at Queensborough

 

The purpose of the Collaborative for Authentic Assessment of Learning pilot was to gather information on how the process of gathering student work samples and scoring the rubric would interact with the life of the colleges which participated. 

Queensborough initiated a call for faculty participant / student permission forms collected along with their work samples –de-identified through an anonymous numbering system. The permission template provided by the pilot facilitator did not ask demographic information and first generation college status, and it was discovered that there was no database which collected first generation status, so a second round of student work was collected and a more extensive permission form was used.  Student work in the Honors Program and students in the Student Interdisciplinary Group from Basic Educational Skills in Reading and Writing, Freshman Composition and content courses in Chemistry, Math, Art History, Business and the Health Sciences comprised the first group of samples collected.   In addition, a second round of samples were collected from a homogenous group of students all  participating in the University Summer Immersion Program which the City University of New York provides for incoming students, all of whom were asked a series of reflective questions. 

Two separate scoring sessions were held, the first by a group of paid faculty which scored work samples from the honors students and Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Group, the second by tutors from the Basic Educational Skills learning center which scored the reflective essays.  The brief training and norming session was met with enthusiasm and vigorous discussion which led to consensus as the understanding and dialogue around the Integrated Learning rubric grew.

Preliminary Observations

Work samples had been gathered based on proximity—both the honors program and the Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Group had called for artifacts for demonstration of student learning, so it was an efficient form of collection for the purposes of the study.  It was clear from the results that the integrative nature of the Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Group assignments held prompts which led to higher levels of evidence of integrative learning, particularly in the dimensions of Connections to Experience and Reflection and Self-Assessment.  Some students in that group had also been introduced to the rubric in the classroom, and the higher scores suggest that inviting students to consider the learning outcomes of the class and providing articulation of what constitutes the ultimate goals in the assignment increases their ability to demonstrate the outcomes sought. The summer immersion pre-college students predictably scored at zero or benchmark levels. 

Additional qualitative information emerged from a faculty reflection on the process, in which themes of faculty’s deeper understanding of integrative and applied learning emerged from the process of calibrating the rubric and discussing the dimensions with each other. Said one faculty scorer, “Professor L.’s comment made me understand the difference between ‘connection to experience’ and ‘reflection,’” Another faculty member wrote, “I appreciated the time spent in groups collaborating on the scoring process—I now have a better understanding of integrative learning.”  A theme emerged in the reflections that faculty would welcome more such opportunities to dialogue on pedagogy. Based on this small sample, it may be suggested that faculty participating in interdisciplinary faculty development may uncover evidence of integrative and applied learning when implementing the rubric in their classrooms, as well as approach those competencies in their classroom informed by their development activities.

 

 

Reference List

Association of American Colleges & Universities.  VALUE: Valid assessment of learning in

undergraduate education. Retrieved on April 12, 2011 from

 http://www.aacu.org/value/index.cfm.

Association of American Colleges & Universities. Collaborative for authentic assessment of

learning. Retrieved on June 18, 2011 from: http://www.aacu.org/caal/index.cfm

Kuh. George D. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What they are, who has

access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved on July 18, 2010 from www.aacu.org.

Rhodes, T.L.  (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using

            rubrics. Washington D.C:  Association of American Colleges and Universities.

 

 By: Geralyn Marchisello, MSOL and Michele Cuomo, MFA

Queensborough Community College

Minority Student Access in the Online Environment

Abstract

Using registration and transcript data, the authors explored differences in online course enrollment across different student groups.  This study revealed that minority students do not enroll in online courses to the same extent as their White student peers, but the effect size for the difference in participation rates was small.  However, the actual difference between minority students online vs. face-to-face enrollment was five percentage points, a difference equivalent to about 150 minority students per year, given the College’s current enrollment rates, so the impact of this small difference is not insignificant.  An even greater issue is that Black and Hispanic students, regardless of the course delivery medium, continue to have lower G.P.A. s than their White and Asian/Pacific Islander (PI) student peers.  This finding reinforces prior research that suggests Black and Hispanic student groups need additional support in order to be successful in college, and that greater recruitment efforts for online courses are needed for all minority groups. 

Prior research has also shown that students who enroll in online courses at the college have higher G.P.A.’s than students who enroll in face-to-face courses; however, this study reveals a notable exception to this pattern.  Black, Hispanic and White students who select online courses are better prepared (as denoted by G.P.A.)  than students who select face-to-face courses, suggesting that the weaker students in these groups are influenced by academic experience in their decision not to enroll in online classes.  Among Asian/PI students, however, there is no significant difference between students who select face to face versus online courses, suggesting that there are differences in the factors that determine online enrollment in this group compared to others.  This leaves open some important questions about online enrollment and its relationship to student G.P.A. among different ethnic groups.  In this case, why are Asian/PI students with higher G.P.A.’s choosing not to register for online courses at the same rate as students from other ethnic groups? 

 

Introduction

With recent social and economic changes in the United States, higher education has never been in greater demand.  College enrollments in the fall of 2008 increased at rates not seen in the past 40 years, led by growth in community colleges, increased enrollment of minority students and the rise of online classes.   Overall enrollment in community colleges in 2008 grew 11%, continuing their mission to provide access for minorities, students of lower socio-economic status and those students not served by traditional four year colleges and universities (Shannon & Smith, 2006).  Minority student enrollments in higher education that year, particularly Hispanic and Black students, increased 15% and 8% respectively, continuing a trend of higher high school graduation rates and college enrollments for these populations (Fry, 2010).  

Faced with unprecedented demand, yet also constrained by economics and space, colleges are responding by offering more courses online. Unlike in the past, when colleges added to their existing bricks and mortar to meet demand and a mature community college system was described as one in which 90-95% of the population resided within 25 miles of the campus, today’s community colleges no longer define themselves by geographic limitations, and facing fiscal constraints, look to technology to expand course offerings (Cohen and Brawer, 1996; Jones, 2003).    The result is an explosion in online course enrollments, surging more than 20% in the last school year alone and outpacing higher education enrollments overall for the past seven years (Allen & Seaman, 2011).

Providing another pathway to higher education, online learning courses have become a core feature of services offered at most colleges and universities (Downes, 2005).  Leading the way in this method of instructional delivery are public community colleges, with nearly all community colleges currently offering some form of online education (Parsad, Lewis & Tice, 2008).  Community colleges as early adopters is not surprising, as online learning has been touted as a potential agent of social change, offering minorities an opportunity to attain previously inaccessible education while addressing the unique needs of underrepresented, isolated and frequently marginalized cultures (Langier, 2003).  Students from minority cultures have been shown to exhibit feelings of isolation from the majority culture found on most campuses (Enger, 2006; Langier, 2003) and online learning may offer a social process that can allow students and faculty to transcend cultural barriers. 

However, the promise of online learning for traditionally underrepresented groups is under-researched and perhaps not being realized.  Buzzetto-More & Sweat-Guy (2006) conducted an extensive review of the literature that revealed that there is a substantial lack of research focusing specifically on Black college students with respect to online learning.  Additionally, there is relatively little research on Hispanic college students in the distance learning environment, and what is available suggests that community college online learners are typically not of Hispanic origin (Halsne & Gatta, 2002).   And at least one study found that ethnicity was not a factor in online course completion (Aragon & Johnson, 2008), however, these results have not been substantiated with further research. Overall, despite the rapid growth in online course offerings and the large numbers of community college students coming from traditionally underrepresented groups, there is very little knowledge about enrollment patterns in online courses in general (Frankola, 2001; Maxwell, 2003), and of minorities at community colleges in particular.  It seems clear from the gap in the literature that not enough is known about inclusiveness in online learning and that research is needed to guide potential interventions. 

 

Purpose of the Study

Instruction which relies heavily on technology may appear to be culturally neutral but in fact may make assumptions based on the dominant culture.  The internet is dominated by both English language and Western ideologies, and can also emphasize learning autonomy, all of which might disadvantage students whose identity is with a non-western culture or a culture which encourages cooperative learning or relies on external referents (Chen, et al., 1999; Joo, 1999).  African American and Hispanic cultures are more field dependent (reliant on external referents) for example than Anglo-Americans, even though all three groups may have been raised in close geographic proximity to one another (Duroyde and Hildreth, 1995).  Given the rise of online learning at the community college level, combined with high minority populations as enrollees, it is important  to address differences in student demographics in order to determine if the rise of online courses offers the intended goal of equity and inclusion. This study seeks to assess if students from traditionally underrepresented groups are accessing online courses, specifically:

  • ·         Do Black and Hispanic students have lower enrollment rates in online courses, once G.P.A., course and instructor are controlled?
  • ·         To what extent does prior college success, as measured by G.P.A., interact with ethnicity to predict online enrollment?

If there are differences in access for minority groups in online learning, it lends support to the argument that the digital divide is still a valid educational concern in higher education and that online learning may not yet be meeting the unique learning needs of minority students. Such a finding could have great impact on directing attention to culturally-sensitive online course design, the need for targeting recruitment efforts and the need for providing additional support services for traditionally underrepresented students who enroll in online courses.

Review of the Literature

The Digital Divide

For many years, interest has focused on the digital divide, which is “patterns of unequal access to information technology, based on income, race, ethnicity, gender, age and geography” (Mossberger, Tolbert & Stansbury, 2003, p.27).  During the last two decades, research has supported the existence of a digital divide in schools within the United States, with higher-needs schools typically having less access to technology than their lower needs counterparts (Chapman, Masters & Pedulla, 2010).  Within schools, data indicate disparities with traditionally underrepresented students, particularly African-American and Hispanic populations. In addition to access, ethnic differences in online interactions have been noted as a factor (Shachaf & Horowitz, 2006; Raymond & Blomeyer, 2007).

There are, however, a number of researchers who suggest that the digital divide is “disappearing on its own” (Compaine, 2001, p.334).  They point to data that poor families are adopting the internet at a faster rate than rich families as support for minimizing government and educational intervention or data which shows internet use in the U.S. growing faster among Blacks and Hispanics than among Whites and Asians (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002). Yet, this contention may not be accurate.  Recent U.S. statistics indicate that ethnic background and other demographic characteristics still have substantial impact on the availability and use of computers by students outside of the school classroom (Morgan & VanLengen, 2005).  Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have computers in the home than either Whites or Asians, a disparity which is even greater among children than adults. The leading causes for this disparity are education and income (Fairlie, 2007).

Regardless of the debate on the digital divide, there is no debate that minority students, particularly Hispanic and African American students, attend college at a lower rate, and graduate at a lower rate, than their White peers. Among students who began at a two-year college, Black and Hispanic students had the lowest rate of degree attainment after six years, at 28% and 34%, compared to an overall degree attainment rate of 41% (NCES, 2003).  Given this disparity in graduation rates, the increase in community college enrollments led by minority students, and the growth of online enrollments, more data on minority student enrollment in the online environment is crucial in order to better understand, and meet, the needs of different student populations.

Black and Hispanic Students in Higher Education

During the last three decades, college enrollments among Black and Hispanic students rose significantly.  The biggest gainers were Hispanic students, who accounted for 4% of college students in 1976, and 11% in 2007.  Black student enrollment also grew, from 9% to 13% during the same time period (U.S. Department of Education, 2009a).  Yet despite gains in access, graduation rates for these student groups lags behind that of their White student peers.  For students who began college between 1996 and 2004, degree completion rates among Black and Hispanic students at both two-year and four-year colleges were lower in every cohort.  Graduation rates were measured at 150% of the time required to complete the degree, or in the case of community colleges at 3 years versus 2 years.   The lowest graduation rates were at public two-year institutions, much like the one in this study.  For the most recent cohort, only 20% of students nationally received either a degree or certificate in three years, with Black and Hispanic students faring much worse at 11.5% and 15% respectively (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b). 

Grade Point Average as a Predictor of Student Success

Several researchers (see Rovai, 2003 for a review) have noted a significant relationship between previous academic performance (as denoted by G.P.A.) and completion of online learning courses.  Some studies point to a lingering effect of poor first-year college performance, with a very high risk of drop out if students have a first-year G.P.A. below 2.0 (Nora, Barlow and Crisp (2005).  This is supported by research by Diaz (2002), who found that successful students in an online course had a higher average G.P.A. prior to enrollment (avg. G.P.A. = 3.02) than unsuccessful students (avg. G.P.A. = 2.25) and Muse (2003), who cites G.P.A. as one of several significant factors affecting online retention at the community college level.  

Background

A preliminary investigation of data taken from 2007-2008, which prompted this study, revealed that both the percentages of students of each racial/ethnic group enrolled in online courses and the rates of completion for online courses by race/ethnicity show statistically significant variation among the different groups.  For example, online courses contain a higher percentage of White students and a lower percentage of all other ethnic groups than is present in the college’s population at large, and this difference is statistically significant for all groups (see Table 1). 

These preliminary data suggest that further research is necessary in order to determine if students in certain minority groups truly are enrolling in online courses at different rates.  Without a more controlled study, it is impossible for us to know if the trends in the preliminary data will hold once we control for G.P.A., instructor and course type. 

 

Table 1. Percentage Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, Spring 2008

  White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander
Online Classes (N=1024) 24.0 34.0 29.0 12.0
Student Body (N=19,611) 16.0 37.0 32.0 14.0
z-statistic 5.99 -2.03 -2.12 -1.97
P-value <0.0001** 0.0212* 0.0170* 0.0244*

p < .05, **p < .01

 

Methodology

The Institution

The college which is the focus of this study is a large urban community college, classified as both a Minority Serving Institution and a Hispanic Serving Institution.  The Higher Education Act of 1965 gave special recognition as Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) to postsecondary schools whose enrollment of a single minority or a combination of minorities exceeds 50 percent of the total enrollment. The term ‘‘minority’’ is defined as American Indian, Alaskan Native, Black (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic (including persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central or South American origin), Pacific Islander or other ethnic group (Higher Education Act, 1965).  The college studied is also classified as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI).  HSI’s enroll the majority of Hispanic students in the United States (Santiago, 2006) and are defined as “institutions that have at least a 25% Hispanic undergraduate (FTE) enrollment, with at least 50% of its Hispanic students coming from a low-income background and being first generation in their family to attend college and an additional 25% being low income or first generation” (Poley, 2008, p.76).  Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), although they account for less than 3% of colleges and universities, educate approximately 35% of the U.S. minority population.  MSIs often have low graduation rates because their students share many of the risk factors that result in high attrition: part-time attendance, full-time employment, lack of parental support and a gap in enrollment after high school (Cook & Cordova, 2006; O’Brien & Zudak, 1998).

The community college in this study enrolls approximately 23,500 students from more than 150 countries, with 85% of students self-identifying as minority.  Black students comprise one-third of the enrollment, Hispanic students constitute 37%, Asian and White students each represent 15%.  The size of the institution studied is also noteworthy.  Large institutions, those with greater than 15,000 total enrollments, constitute 14% of all institutions with online offerings, but educate nearly two-thirds (64%) of all online students (Allen & Seaman, 2010).  The college’s mission to “extend higher educational opportunity to a diversified urban population…and to sustaining full access” speaks directly to the reasons cited by two-thirds of all colleges for offering online courses: to meet student demand for flexible schedules and to provide access to those who might not otherwise be able to attend college (BMCC, n.d.; Parsad, Lewis & Tice, 2008).

Data for this research was provided by the College’s Office of Institutional Research.  Online courses are those in which at least 80% of the course content is delivered online. Traditional courses are those which deliver the primary content orally or in writing, though these courses may have some online component (the instructor may post a copy of the syllabus online or accept assignments electronically) (Allen & Seaman, 2011).

Specifically, data was requested for 122 course sections, half of which were taught online and the other half of which were taught face-to-face.  The online course sections in this data set were chosen from a larger pool in the following way:  First all online courses taught at the college from 2004-2010 in either the fall or spring semester were identified.  Next, the list of courses were reduced to include only those course sections for which the same instructor taught the same course both face-to-face and online in the same semester.  Then the selection was further limited to only those courses for which there were at least three semesters during which pairs of online and face-to-face course sections were taught by the same instructor.  A wide distribution of courses that covered both upper and lower level courses in career, liberal arts, STEM and non-STEM disciplines across a distribution of course subjects were identified.  Then, from this selection of courses, a random number generator reduced the number of courses until for each course there were exactly three pairs of online and face-to-face sections, so that each pair was taught by the same instructor in the same semester.  Additionally, the sample was reviewed and reduced such that no one course by discipline, level of difficulty or instructor was disproportionately represented in the sample, and to ensure that the sample was representative of the breadth of the college’s online (and insofar as possible, face-to-face) course offerings.

For every student enrolled in the courses on this list, information was collected  on the student’s ethnicity and G.P.A. at the beginning of the semester in which the course was taken.  Ethnicity is self-reported by students on their admission forms.  In instances where ethnicity is not reported, the variable is imputed by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) at the University of which this College is a part.   OIRA uses a statistical procedure called Discriminant Analysis[1] to assign a race/ethnicity value to students who did not report their race/ethnicity. 

Student data was provided without identifiers and with unique identification numbers. This resulted in a total data set with 2330 participants; an overview of the dataset can be seen in Table 2. For some students, G.P.A. was missing, so the actual N for many analyses was reduced (see individual analyses for specific N).  Certain categories were reduced to a smaller number of levels so that the subsample sizes could be large enough for reasonable analysis.  In particular:

  • For ethnicity, there were four categories: Asian or Pacific Islander (often abbreviated as Asian/PI), Black, Hispanic, and White.  The college also has one additional category of classification, “American Indian or Native Alaskan,” but there were only three students total in this category in the sample, so this category was removed.
  • G.P.A. was treated as a categorical variable for some analyses in order for the statistical methods to be more tractable; in these cases, the following groups are used: <2.5, 2.5–3.49, 3.5-4.0. 


[1]Discriminant Analysis “classifies cases into one of several mutually exclusive groups based on their values for  a set of predictor variables” (SPSS For Windows, 1999) which for ethnicity imputation, includes college attendance, gender, full-time/part-time status, class standing, degree status, residency, last name and zip code.  Information for students whose race/ethnicity is known is used in the classification phase of Discriminant Analysis.  Then based on the classification data, probabilities are assigned to each unknown case .

 


 

Table 2. Dataset Overview

Categories N %
face-to-face 1329 57.0
online 1001 43.0
Asian/PI 311 13.4
Black 835 35.9
Hispanic 768 33.0
White 413 17.7
G.P.A. <2.5 638 31.7
2.5-3.49 982 38.8
3.5-4.0 394 19.6

Results and Discussion

Analyzing Enrollment Patterns

The differences in enrollment based on ethnicity which were present in the preliminary analysis above still appear when instructor and course taken are controlled, although the effect size is smaller.  We began by looking at enrollment percentages by ethnicity for both online and face-to-face courses and assess whether the percentage of each ethnicity enrolled in online courses is statistically significantly different from the percentage enrolled in face-to-face courses.  The results are shown in Figure 1 and Table 3. 

 

Figure 1. Student Enrollment Percentages in Face to Face and Online Classes

The differences between online and face-to-face percentages for each group are not large enough to be statistically significant, and we can see that the effect sizes are fairly small.  Because a similar pattern was observed in other samples of online students at the college (White students have an increased percentage of online enrollment at the expense of all other ethnic groups), we suspect that the differences would be statistically different with a large enough sample size (probably at least double the size of the current sample).  

Table 3. Student Enrollment by Ethnicity in Face to Face and Online Courses Showing Significance and Effect Size

Ethnicity Face-to-face %  

N

Online %  

N

 

z

 

p

 

d

Black 36.9 489 34.6 346 0.69 ns 0.05
Asian or Pacific Islander 14.0 185 12.6 126 0.35 ns 0.04
White 15.6 207 20.6 206 -1.31 ns -0.13
Hispanic 33.6 445 32.3 323 0.38 ns 0.03

Because these patterns may be non-significant simply because sample sizes in each subgroup are too low to reach the threshold of significance, we compare White face-to-face vs. online enrollments and pool all other ethnicities together to compare face-to-face vs. online enrollments.  When Asian, Black and Hispanic students are pooled together, there is a highly statistically significant (α=0.01) result, with a p-value of 0.0025 (see Table 4). 

 

Table 4.  Pooled Student Enrollment by Ethnicity in Face-to-face and Online courses.

Ethnicity Face-to-face %  

N

Online %  

N

 

z

 

p

 

d

White 15.6 207 20.6 206 -1.31 ns -0.13
NonWhite1 84.4 1119 79.4 795 2.81 0.0025** 0.13

** p < .01

1 Black, Hispanic and Asian Pacific Islander

This suggests that the proportion of non-White ethnic groups is in fact smaller in online courses than face-to-face courses, although the effect size is small, indicating that these differences are relatively minor (much smaller, for example, than the differences in G.P.A.’s among different ethnic groups), which is why the sample size was not sufficiently large to detect differences for the individual Black, Hispanic and Asian ethnic groups individually.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there probably is a small difference in enrollments among different ethnic groups (but that this difference is relatively minor in comparison to other areas in which minorities are often underrepresented, such as many STEM fields).   However, even a small effect can be significant in its impact; for example, in this study, the difference in minority enrollment online vs. face-to-face is five percentage points.  Because the college’s online courses enroll several thousand students each year, which amounts to approximately 150 minority students each year who are missing the opportunity to engage in online learning. 

 

Analyzing Ethnicity and G.P.A. Patterns

The next goal of this study was to see to what extent G.P.A. varies by ethnicity, so as to determine to what extent any differences in enrollment among different ethnic groups online and face-to-face might be due to underlying G.P.A. differences rather than ethnicity directly.  We began by analyzing whether students in different ethnic groups have different G.P.A. distributions at the college, both overall and when looking at subgroups of online and face-to-face students.  The distribution of G.P.A. is displayed in Table 5 and Figure 2, and the results of the ANOVA in Table 6 below. 

Table 5.  Mean G.P.A. Distribution by Student Ethnicity

 

Ethnicity

 Mean G.P.A. of Students Selecting Face to Face Courses  

 

 

N

Mean G.P.A. of Students Selecting Online Courses  

 

 

N

Black 2.54 469 2.84 331
Hispanic 2.51 424 2.85 306
Asian/Pacific 2.99 181 3.01 123
White 2.98 196 3.26 201

By looking at Figure 2 several interesting trends are observed.  Overall, Asian/PI and White students have much higher G.P.A.’s than Black and Hispanic students.  Among students who elect to enroll in online courses, Black and Hispanic students have much lower G.P.A.’s than White students, and Asian students are somewhere in the middle.  In addition, for most ethnic groups, there is a clear G.P.A. gap between students who elect to enroll in online  courses  versus face-to-face courses; students choosing to take courses online tend to have higher G.P.A.’s. 

 

 

This result is not surprising, since it repeats results encountered in previous research (Hachey, Wladis & Conway, in press).  However, there is one interesting exception to this trend: Asian/PI students do not seem to have this gap; while their G.P.A.’s in face-to-face courses are relatively high compared to other groups, their G.P.A.’s online are more towards the total group average for all ethnicities while the G.P.A.’s of Asian/PI students who selected  face-to-face courses are relatively high compared to other groups, the  G.P.A.’s of Asian/PI online students are close to the total group average for all ethnicities.  To determine whether any of these patterns were statistically significant, we ran a two-factor ANOVA with G.P.A. as the dependent variable and online/face-to-face status and ethnicity as the two independent variables. 

 

It is clear that the overall model is significant, since the p-value of the F statistic returned by the ANOVA is <0.0001 (see Table 6).  Details about which factors were significant are shown in Table 7, where it is evident that both course delivery type and ethnicity were highly statistically significant (α=0.01), with p-values of <0.0001, and that the course type by ethnicity interaction was statistically significant (α=0.05) with a p-value of 0.026. 

 

Table 6. Two-Factor ANOVA with G.P.A. as Dependent Variable

F

Pr>F

25.95

<0.0001**

**p < .001

 

This suggests that not only do the course delivery type and ethnicity individually correspond to marked differences in G.P.A., but that the differences in G.P.A. in each ethnic group when comparing online to face-to-face students are also different in both magnitude and possibly direction (this corresponds to different slopes for different ethnic groups in Figure 3 below). 

 

Table 7. Type III Sums of Squares Analysis For Two Factor ANOVA with G.P.A. as the Independent Variable

Source

DF

Sum of squares

Mean squares

F

Pr > F

course type

1

23.977

23.977

41.070

< 0.0001**

ethnicity

4

66.620

16.655

28.528

< 0.0001**

course type*ethnicity

3

5.413

1.804

3.091

0.026*

p < .05, **p < .01

 

 Figure 3. G.P.A. by Course Delivery Method Selected and by Ethnicity

 

As shown in Table 8, the differences among most of the ethnic groups are highly statistically significant (α=0.01); in fact, there seems to be a clear divide between Asian/PI/White students and Black/Hispanic students based on these results.

Table 8. Pairwise Comparison Test for Single Factors

Contrast

Difference

Standardized difference

Critical value

Pr > Diff

Hispanic vs White

-0.439

-8.832

2.569

< 0.0001**

Hispanic vs Asian/PI

-0.322

-5.895

2.569

< 0.0001**

Hispanic vs Black

-0.011

-0.267

2.569

0.993

Black vs White

-0.428

-8.734

2.569

< 0.0001**

Black vs Asian/PI

-0.311

-5.762

2.569

< 0.0001**

Asian/PI vs White

-0.117

-1.919

2.569

0.220

*p < .05, ** p < .001

  In Tables 9 and 10,  the results of pairwise comparison tests (Tukey HSD tests performed post hoc on selected interaction terms) are shown.  Table 9 shows that the difference in G.P.A. between students selecting online and face-to-face classes holds for Black and Hispanic (highly statistically significant with α=0.01) and White (statistically significant with α=0.05) students, but not Asian/Pacific Islander students, for whom the difference in G.P.A. is nonsignificant.   

Table 9. Pairwise Comparison Tests for Interactions: Comparing Ethnicity in Different Course Environments

Contrast

Difference

Standardized difference

Critical value

Pr > Diff

F2F*Hispanic vs online*Hispanic

-0.34

-5.82

3.10

< 0.0001**

F2F*Black vs online*Black

-0.30

-5.36

3.10

< 0.0001**

F2F*White vs online*White

-0.28

-3.45

3.10

0.016*

F2F*Asian/PI vs online*Asian/PI

-0.02

-0.21

3.10

1.000

*p < .05, ** p < .001

Given the trends in other ethnic groups, we would expect the G.P.A.’s of Asian/PI students taking courses online to be about three-tenths of a point, or about one-third of a letter grade higher than they actually are. 

 Table 10. Pairwise Comparison Tests for Interactions: Comparing Ethnicities in the Same Course Environment

Contrast

Difference

Standardized difference

Critical value

Pr > Diff

F2F*Hispanic vs F2F*Black

-0.03

-0.57

3.10

1.000

F2F*Hispanic vs F2F*Asian/PI

-0.48

-6.83

3.10

< 0.0001**

F2F*Hispanic vs F2F*White

-0.472

-6.758

3.102

< 0.0001**

F2F*Black vs F2F*Asian/PI

-0.453

-6.504

3.102

< 0.0001**

F2F*Black vs F2F*White

-0.441

-6.428

3.102

< 0.0001**

F2F*White vs F2F*Asian/PI

-0.012

-0.142

3.102

1.000

online*Black vs online*Hispanic

-0.01

-0.15

3.10

1.000

online*Hispanic vs online*Asian/PI

-0.160

-1.928

3.102

0.594

online*Hispanic vs online*White

-0.406

-5.739

3.102

< 0.0001**

online*Black vs online*White

-0.415

-5.929

3.102

< 0.0001**

online*Black vs online*Asian/PI

-0.169

-2.052

3.102

0.507

online*Asian/PI vs online*White

-0.246

-2.736

3.102

0.135

*p < .05, ** p < .001

In addition, as shown in Table 10, for students selecting face-to-face courses, there is a highly statistically significant difference (α=0.01) between G.P.A.’s for Black/Hispanic students vs. Asian/PI/White students; for students selecting online courses, there is a highly statistically significant difference (α=0.01) between G.P.A.’s for Black/Hispanic students vs. White students (Asian/PI online students have G.P.A.’s that are closer to Black and Hispanic students compared to White students, but which are not statistically significantly different from any of the other ethnic groups).

 

Implications

For Practice

This research suggests that increased effort is needed in recruiting non-White ethnicities into online courses if we are to achieve completely representative participation in the online environment for all ethnic groups. 

In addition, the overall lower G.P.A. in both the face-to-face and online environment for Black and Hispanic students suggest that more resources may need to be allocated to the support of these groups specifically.  By contrast Asian/Pacific Islander students tend to have higher G.P.A’s overall, but in the online environment have lower G.P.A.’s than might be expected given the pattern evidenced by other student groups.  This suggests that for Asian/PI students their underrepresentation in online courses may be due to factors other than G.P.A.

For Future Research

The differences in enrollment by ethnicity in online courses which were observed in this study were only detected when non-White ethnicities were pooled together to create a larger sample size.  An obvious next step would be to obtain a larger sample size and to see if the same statistically significant differences could be observed in individual ethnic groups, and to see if the resulting effect sizes are still small.  Ideally, a sample would be large enough to delve further into the differences among ethnic groups, because labels, such as Asian, Hispanic and Black, span a multitude of ethnic groups, and do a disservice to all ethnicities.  Additionally, racial and ethnic differences should also be considered in the context of English language skills and differences of economics and family education.

In addition to enrollment patterns, future research should explore both success as measured by grades in the online environment and retention for these student groups.   Given the controls for both instructor and course in this study, results that indicate higher overall G.P.A. in the online versus the face to face environment also warrant further investigation.

Limitations

This research was conducted on a specific sample of courses at the college which is the focus of this study, which could limit the applicability of these findings, since not all courses at the college were included.  In addition, the college which is the focus of this study has a particular environment that is extremely diverse.  The student population is overwhelmingly composed of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in higher education, and a number of faculty, staff, and senior administrators at the college come from these groups as well.  As a result, differences in G.P.A., among different ethnic groups may be less (or more) pronounced than at other institutions, and therefore the applicability of these results to other online learning programs has some limitations. 

Several of the results of this paper involved pooling two or more ethnic groups in order to obtain the number of entries needed in each cell to have suitable statistical power; however, this may have blunted some important distinctions between ethnic groups that were pooled together: for example, if there are any important distinctions between success rates for Black and Hispanic students in online courses with the same G.P.A., this study did not contain enough detail to pick up on these differences. 

Conclusion

At the college in this study, minorities enroll in online courses at rates that are lower than White students by a small but statistically significant amount.  The proportion of non-White ethnic groups enrolled in online courses is significantly smaller than in face-to-face courses, although the effect size for this difference is small, indicating that these differences are relatively minor.  However, even minor differences contribute to inequity (especially when the College’s online enrollments are in the thousands each year).  As a result, the five percentage point difference found in this sample between minority online and face-to-face enrollments amounts to approximately 150 minority students each year who are losing the opportunity to take courses online.  This suggests that recruitment efforts to enroll students from all minority groups in online courses should be an important part of any e-learning program. 

G.P.A.  is also significantly different across ethnic groups, in both online and face-to-face courses, and there are some notable patterns when looking at the changes in G.P.A. when different ethnicities select to particpate in the online environment.  Asian/PI and White students have significantly higher G.P.A.’s than Black and Hispanic students overall, and prior research has also shown that students who enroll in online courses at the college have higher G.P.A.’s than students who enroll in face-to-face courses. 

However, this study reveals a notable exception to this pattern once we look at ethnicity in detail.  While Black, Hispanic and White students have comparable gaps in G.P.A. online vs. face-to-face (with significantly higher G.P.A.’s for students selecting online courses), Asian/PI students actually have the same G.P.A. whether they choose take a course online or face-to-face.  It seems that for some reason, Asian/PI students with the highest G.P.A. s are choosing not to take courses online at the same rates as students with equivalent G.P.A. s from other ethnic groups.      

This discrepancy raises a host of important questions.  Is the gap in G.P.A. between students who take courses online and students who take courses face-to-face a good thing, because online courses often require a higher level of discipline and organizational skills, which are more likely to be prevalent among students with higher G.P.A. s?  In other words, is this a sign that students are doing a good job of accurately assessing ahead of time whether or not the online environment might be right for them?  Or is it something we should try to change, because with the ever-increasing importance of technology and the internet today, all students, regardless of G.P.A., should perhaps have online as well as face-to-face academic experiences?  Does the fact that Asian/PI students who choose to register for online courses have the same G.P.A. s as face-to-face students mean that we should try to create structures which incentivize students from all ethnic groups to choose online courses in the same way?  Or is it a sign of something out of balance – does it indicate something holding back certain higher G.P.A. students in this group from taking courses online?

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Kimberly A. Gargiulo, Coordinator of Institutional Research and Assessment at Borough of Manhattan Community College for her support.

Financial support for this study was provided by a Borough of Manhattan Community College E-Learning Grant.

 REFERENCES

Allen, I.E. and Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States, 2010. Sloane Foundation Publication.  Retrieved April 25, 2011 from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/class_differences.pdf

Aragon, S.R. and Johnson, E.S. (2008). Factors influencing completion and noncompletion of community college online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 22, 146-148.

BMCC, (n.d.). Borough of Manhattan Community College, web page. Retrieved April 20, 2011 from http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu.

Buzzetto-More, N.A. & Sweat-Guy, R. (2006).  Incorporating the Hybrid Learning Model into Minority Education at a Historically Black University. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 153-164.              

Chapman, L., Masters, J., & Pedulla, J. (2010) Do digital divisions still persist in schools? Access to technology and technical skills of teachers in high needs schools in the United States of America.  Journal of Education for Teaching, 36 (2), pp. 239-249.  

Chen, A., Mashadi, A., Ang, D. and Harkrider, N. (1999). Cultural issues in the design of technology-enhanced learning systems.  British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), pp. 217-230.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Compaine, B. (2001) Declare the War Won. In B. Compaine (Ed.), The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? (p. 334). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cook, Bryan J., and Diana I. Córdova. 2006. Minorities in Higher Education: Twenty-Second Annual Status Report.Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Diaz, D.P. (2002). Online drop rates revisited. The Technology SourceMay/June.http://technologysource.org/article/online_drop_rates_revisited/) Retrieved: October 4, 2009.

Downes, S. (2005). E-Learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?article=29-1&section=articles. Ret.: Oct.4, 2009. 

Enger, K.B. (2006). Minorities and Online Higher Education. Educause Quarterly 4 (November) pp.7-8. 

Fairlie, R. (2007) Explaining Differences in Access to Home Computers and the Internet: A Comparison of Latino Groups to Other Ethnic and Racial Groups,” Electronic Commerce Research, 7, pp.265-291 retrieved May 20, 2011 at http://people.ucsc.edu/~rfairlie/papers/published/ecr%202007%20-%20latino%20technology.pdf

Fast Facts 2011, (2011). American Association of Community Colleges, Retrieved April 24, 2011 fromhttp://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/FactSheet2011.pdf

Frankola, K. (2001). The e-learning taboo: High drop-out rates in online courses. Syllabus 14 pp14-16.

Fry, R. (2010). Minorities and the recession-era college enrollment boom.  Pew Social and Demographic Trends, Pew Research Center, retrieved April 25, 2011 at http://pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/16/minorities-and-the-recession-era-college-enrollment-boom/2/.

Hachey, A.C., Wladis, C.W. and Conway, K.M. (In Press).  Balancing Retention and Access in Online Courses: Restricting Enrollment… Is It Worth the Cost? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice.

Halsne, A.M. & Gatta, M.A. (2002).  Online Versus Traditionally-delivered Instruction: A Descriptive Study of Learner Characteristics in a Community College Setting. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 5(1), Spring.        

Higher Education Act, 1965 SEC. 365. [20 U.S.C. 1067k] Definitions. Accessed April 25, 2011 at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/iduesmsi/mseiplegislation.pdf.

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (n.d.)  Membership: Hispanic serving institutions definitions. Accessed April 24, 2011 at http://pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/16/minorities-and-the-recession-era-college-enrollment-boom/2/

Joo, J. (1999). Cultural issues of the internet in classrooms.  British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), pp. 261-276.

Jones, R. (2003). A recommendation for managing the predicted growth in college enrollment at a time of adverse economic conditions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration (6)1. Retrieved May 20, 2011:http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/spring61/jones61.htm .

Langier, J. (2003). Distance learning and the minority student: special needs and opportunities. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 179–184.

Maxwell, W., Hagedorn, L.S, Cypers, S.,Moon, H.S., Brocato, P.,Wahl, K. & Prather, G. (2003). Community and Diversity in Urban Community Colleges: Course Taking among Entering Students.  Community College Review 30 (4) pp.1-21.  

Morgan, J. & VanLengen, C. (2005) The digital divide and K-12 student computer usage. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 2, 705-724.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Muse, H.E. (2003). The web-based community college student: An examination of factors that lead to success and risk.  The Internet and Higher Education, 6(3), 241-261.

Nora, A., Barlow, E. and Crisp, G. (2005) Student persistence and degree attainment beyond the first year of college.  In A. Seidmen (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 129-310). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

O’Brien, E.M., & Zudak, C. (1998). Minority-Serving Institutions: An Overview. Minority Serving Institutions: Distinct Purposes, Common Goals. Jamie P. Merisotis and Colleen T. O’Brien. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Parsad, B., Lewis, L. & Tice, P. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-07.  No. NCES 2009-044, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Poley, J. (2008).  Asynchronous Learning Networks: Policy Implications For Minority Serving Institutions And For Leaders Addressing Needs Of Minority Learners. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 12: Issue 2

Rovai, A. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, volume 6, issue 1, pp. 1-16. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00158-6  Retrieved April 25, 2011 at http://dx.doi.org/

Santiago, D.A. (2006). Inventing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): The Basics. Excelencia in Education and the Institute for Higher Education Policy: Washington, D.C.

Shachaf, P., & Horowitz, S. (2006). Are Virtual Reference Services Color Blind? Library and Information Science Research, 28(4), 501-520.

Shannon, H. D., & Smith, R. C. (2006). A case for the community college’s open access admission. In B. K. Townsend & K. J. Dougherty (Eds.). Community college missions in the 21st century (pp. 15-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Washington: U.S.G.P.O.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009a). Digest of Education Statistics, 2008 (NCES 2009-020), Chapter 3.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2009b), 2001-02 to 2007-08 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Fall 2001, and Spring 2002 through Spring 2008. June 2009.

U.S. Department of Education (2003). National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

By:  Dr. Katherine Conway, Dr. Claire Wladis and Dr. Alyse Hachey

Borough of Manhattan Community College

 

Reconstructing Spaces for Writing at an HIS: How Blackboard Transforms Student’s Writing Behavior

Abstract

            This discussion will examine how the introduction of the online hybrid environment of the Blackboard Learning System into the traditional classroom learning site impacts the writing processes of students at a mid-sized Hispanic Serving Institution on the U.S.-Mexico border. Rather than relying on Blackboard to enrich or supplement traditional writing practices, within Blackboard, HSI students construct a new writing and learning space that is at once real and imagined.  In the HSI environment, Blackboard exists as an alternative thirdspace located (nestled) among the spaces of students’ lifeworlds. Using examples drawn from Blackboard-based writing of over 100 students, I show that within Blackboard as an alternative space for writing, students’ and instructors’ goals come into alignment creating a learning environment that allows HSI students to successfully negotiate their home, work, and educational spaces. Students’ writing behavior within Blackboard allows a substantive view into how students at a large HSI campus, which is also a commuter campus, reconstruct themselves as writers, moving toward higher levels of writing achievement in the context of this hybrid learning environment.

 

Reconstructing Spaces for Writing at an HSI:

How Blackboard Transforms Students’ Writing Behavior

Introduction: Writing in the Era of Cyberspace

            The proliferating integration of electronic technologies into the production of writing has changed the college writing class landscape and the delivery of college writing instruction. Where once upon a time, the delivery of writing instruction depended on handwritten drafts and literal cut-and-paste activities, electronic venues have revolutionized the way students perceive and use spaces where writing happens.  Today, it is impossible to conceive of writing instruction in spaces that do not include cyberspace “writing tablets.”

            In a quantum leap that has left the traditional classroom behind, an increasing number of writing courses are being taught completely online with student-teacher interactions occurring completely in cyberspace. It is not likely that we will ever backtrack toward the traditional (now antiquated) method of delivering college writing where students wrote dutifully at their desks and submitted handwritten essays at the end of the period. Today, when we are not in a totally cyberspace environment, we operate in hybrid spaces that retain some of the aspects of the traditional writing classroom while introducing new pedagogies and reconfiguring student-teacher interactions within the alternative space of web-enhanced teaching, such as that provided via the Blackboard Learning System.

            However fluid and innovative writing instruction becomes as new technologies reconfigure the production of writing, there are several constants:

(1) For a multiplicity of reasons, many students do not feel comfortable with writing; many overtly admit that they hate writing.

(2) A great deal of time and effort is required to produce effective writing.

(3) Students’ perception of the writing classroom as an unsupportive environment impacts their attitude and achievement in writing.

(4) For students from non-mainstream backgrounds, the traditional writing process is necessarily disrupted—and in many cases truncated—because of the forces that pull students away from full attention to writing demands.

            This discussion will examine how the introduction of the Blackboard Learning System into the traditional classroom environment impacts the writing processes of students at a mid-sized Hispanic Serving Institution on the U.S.-Mexico border.  Drawing on theories of spatiality (Soja, 1996; Reynolds, 2004), theories of writing pedagogy (Elbow, 1973; Trimbur, 2000; Matsuda, 2006), and theories of learning (Wesch, 2007; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Ambrose, Bridges, Lovett, DiPietro, & Norman, 2010), I suggest that rather than relying on Blackboard to enrich or supplement traditional writing venues, HSI students, within Blackboard, construct a new writing and learning space that is at once real and imagined.  As the cornerstone of my hypothesis, I use E.A. Soja’s theory of “thirdspace,” which he defines as “an-Other way of understanding and acting to change the spatiality of human life, a distinct mode of critical spatial awareness that is appropriate to the new scope and significance being brought about in the rebalanced trialectics of spatiality-historicality-sociality,” (Soja, 1996, p. 10). Soja’s term invites us to envision important spaces metaphorically, seeing those spaces not only as physical space that is occupied but also as sites constructed by “occupiers” to perfectly fit exigencies created by that particular place/space.  By extension, there is the possibility that for spaces occupied by multiple users, there will be areas of common reconstruction but distinctly individual reconstructions for each user. This thirdspace construct seems suited to exploring the ways our multiple student users have appropriated the space of Blackboard to reconstruct a new learning site for the production of writing. I suggest that in the HSI environment, the Blackboard Learning System exists as an alternative thirdspace located (nestled) among the spaces of students’ lifeworlds where the writing process is reconstructed as students “make adjustments and compromises . . . in the process of accommodating to [this hybrid learning] place” (Reynolds, 2004, p. 14). Within this alt-space for writing, students’ and instructors’ goals come into alignment creating a learning environment that allows HSI students to successfully negotiate their home, work, and educational spaces.

The HSI Environment

            Students at Hispanic Serving Institutions defy easy categorization. Historically, HSIs evolve because they are located in regions with large Hispanic populations; however, HSI mission and/or vision statements rarely make direct reference to an institution’s Hispanic enrollment (Laden, 2001, p. 74) which means that if accommodations are to be made for this special population of students, they are made at the instructor level only if the instructor is willing and able to make adjustments. For institutions with a predominantly Hispanic population, such as my institution, the HSI designation becomes the most salient aspect of the institution’s ambiance.  My south Texas institution has an 89% Hispanic student population, well in excess of the U.S. Department of Education 25% Hispanic full-time FTE requirement (UTPA Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Additionally, as a regional institution, my institution draws 93% of its students from the four-county area of deep South Texas known as the Rio Grande Valley—and the majority of these students live at home and commute to campus. The conflation of the commuter campus environment (where students come and go to campus around home and work exigencies) and the HSI environment (where students feel the inexorable pull of familia) creates an educational landscape that pragmatically and pedagogically embraces Blackboard as a thirdspace for teaching and learning, allowing students to triangulate the spaces of family, work, and education.

            Commuter students many times appear to be indifferent students, but they aren’t; they are “just-in-time” students, driving into campus from home or work only minutes before class starts and frequently still arriving late to class. Unlike the on-campus residents, commuter students interrupt other activities (work and family) to drive to campus, sometimes for a single class. Because their real work and home lives are off campus, as soon as the last class is over, they exit; no time is allotted for studying in the library, working in computer labs, or conferencing with professors during office hours not because they do not want to participate in such traditional academic activities but because they must attend to family and work demands. Admittedly, the commuter issues apply to any institution that draws the majority of its student body from the local community or contiguous larger region.  However, when that local community is predominantly Hispanic and predominantly working class, the learning ambiance of the HSI/commuter campus is significantly influenced by these two factors. In other words, HSI/commuter students must not only uphold cultural expectations that sometimes interfere with institutional, educational demands, but they must also negotiate the realities of coming and going to campus while sustaining normalcy in their “real” world lifespaces.

            The real world work demands faced by HSI students are a direct consequence of the way Hispanic students finance their education.  National statistics reveal disturbing details about how Hispanic students pay for college: (1) they receive the lowest cumulative financial aid awards of any racial/ethnic group; (2) they receive the lowest federal aid awards; (3) they are less likely than all other students to take out loans (30% vs. 35% of all other students) (Santiago, 2008, p. 34). Laudably, the strong Latino work ethic propels Hispanic students into the work force early so as to contribute to the family coffers and to finance their education.  My institution has no published statistics on the number of students who work while attending the university despite the fact that mandatory student evaluations of teaching ask students to fill in the number of hours they work each week; anecdotally, however, we know from the explanations and excuses offered for late submissions, for absences, and for non-submissions that well over half the students in any given class have full or part-time jobs. Many students leave the university each day to go straight to work for an eight-hour shift which puts them back home late at night, and that’s when they start their school work.  Other students work night shifts.  Others work full time jobs and secure permission from employers to leave work for a class here and there.  Others work all day and then come to campus for back-to-back evening classes starting at 4:30pm and ending at 10:00pm. Many stagger work hours around class time, frequently driving to campus for a single class and then immediately leaving to return to work.

            In addition to the work issues, there are the issues related to family obligations. Because of their strong ties to la familia, Hispanic students sometimes appear to be distracted by family issues (and they frequently are). At my South Texas university, it is not at all unusual to have absences attributed to having no babysitter, to having to take a parent or grandparent to the doctor, to having to sit with a hospitalized family member, to having to collect a younger sibling from school—the list goes on and on.  And because Hispanic familias are closely knit, a tragedy in even a distant part of the family resonates among all members; so the metaphorical and material immediacy of family considerably changes the learning landscape.  One of my first-year writing students missed two weeks of class recently because his grandmother was dying in Mexico and the whole family went to be with her. During his protracted absence, he missed so much instruction and so many assignments that he was on the verge of failing the class.  A female student missed one of our once-a-week classes, but she walked in tearfully at the end of the period: her child had been left at daycare past the closing time because the person she had entrusted to pick up her four-year-old son had failed to show up.  Child protective services had called my student as she was on her way to class. In tears, she told me, “I can just see my little boy waiting there, thinking no one was ever going to come pick him up.” Another student missed many classes because her cousins were in a horrific automobile accident. The examples are endless. While these examples are drawn from an HSI student population, clearly these problems are not unique to Hispanic students.  My point is that at a campus where the population is 89% Hispanic and almost 100% commuter, these examples are not once-in-a-while situations, but are instead the norm, calling for teaching and learning adjustments that seem to be perfected in the thirdspace of Blackboard.

            Perhaps the most distinct difference between HSI students at my South Texas institution and traditional students at predominantly white institutions is the number of Spanish dominant speakers who populate our classrooms.  The English Language Learner label is not applied to college-level students because the untested and to date undocumented assumption is that if an ELL is able to get into college, he/she has attained a level of competency in L2 to succeed in university-level work. The reality at HSI campuses located in borderland areas is that many of our students are immigrants, many of them having been in America for only a few years.  They have remarkable stories of achievement, not just in mastering English, but in succeeding in other curricular areas.  One of my recent first year writing students had been in the U.S. only since his sophomore year in high school—and he ended the course with an A!  Another student, a dual enrollment student in another FYW class, had been in the U.S. only two years; if he were an elementary school student, he would have still been considered a newcomer (Hodge, 2001).

            Most poignant are the stories of immigrant students from Mexico for whom the classroom space is promoted as a place of hope but then is transformed into a hostile environment.  One of my advanced composition students described her experience of moving from Mexico to the U.S.:

When I was seven years old, I left Veracruz, México, with my mother, big sister, and my brothers. Arriving to Texas, I knew my journey would be difficult, twice as difficult, to find a voice in a language and a land not mine.  I was no longer living in my mágico world. I was now invisible; at least that is how I felt for a few years. Mother, always told me that just . . . living in the United States was a privilege and knowing el ingles would give me power, it would put me in the race for competitiveness, and progress.

            Another advanced comp student wrote about the trauma and “otherness” of being an immigrant student, with vivid details about the way the classroom space becomes a hostile space when teachers punish non-native English speakers:

Writing for me has been very challenging especially because I am an immigrant from Mexico. Back in 1984 when I first started school . . . at “S.” Elementary, Spanish was not acceptable in class. The way the teacher would ground me was during class by either facing the wall during recess or be put in a corner in class for speaking Spanish. Learning to read, write and speak English was very difficult mainly because the teacher was always getting after me, since I did not understand or spoke any English. I do not remember having any good experiences when I did writing in elementary school. The thing that I disliked most in school was when the teacher would ask for my journal and made me read it in front of the class, which I did, but sometimes I was too embarrassed to share with the class. I went home and cried alone without telling anybody. One day I even asked my parents to get me out of school but they told me that schools in the United States will give me an excellent education.

            Certainly, not all HSI students, even at a borderlands campus, are actual ESL students (Newman, pp. 23-24). Anecdotal evidence from my campus indicates that up sometimes, up to one-fourth of our students in any given class are true ESL students, having acquired L1 literacy in Spanish by living in Mexico and attending at least a few years of school there before immigrating to the U.S. Such evidence comes to light in classes where literacy development is a salient component of the classroom discussion, such as in English, rhetoric, linguistics, language, sociology, and education courses, admittedly small classes of approximately 30 students, where conversations about literacy matter and ultimately inform the learning experience.  No institutional data is formally collected on the provenance of the students’ English language acquisition at this campus; however, professors for whom such information matters are keenly aware of the rich literacy stories that students bring to their classes and their education in general.

            Other students were born in the U.S. to immigrant parents, raised in homes with non-traditional literacy practices where the child becomes the literacy coach for the parent, and where even after several generations of U.S. residency, the family preserves Spanish as the home language.  Though born in the U.S., children from these families are raised in Spanish-only homes, so entering the school system is a traumatic experience—so scarring that years later they remember it vividly and painfully.  In a talk at my institution, South Texas writer Viola Canales, born in the U.S. but raised in a Spanish-dominant home, recounted the trauma of her first days in school: “I used to cry every morning before going to first grade. . . . School didn’t reflect my world. There was no mirror in first grade” (Newman, 2009, p. 67).

            Hispanic students, especially those with backgrounds and life circumstances (such as low socioeconomic backgrounds, literacy histories shaped by having little English language support at home, and persistent memories of the traditional writing classroom as a hostile learning environment) must become experts at negotiating the academic spaces they inhabit.  Unfortunately, in higher education, we do not readily make adjustments for students whose language, cultural background, and lived experiences do not match the hypothetical educational hegemony; instead, we assume a linguistic homogeneity that fails to take into account the linguistic diversity of our students (Matsuda, 2006, pp. 637-638). In the absence of instructor-generated pedagogical practices that recognize cultural, linguistic, and experiential diversity, HSI students must autonomously make adjustments if they are to successfully triangulate home-work-education spaces. In the context of writing in the university environment, HSI students have demonstrated remarkable abilities of adaptation as learners in replacing the traditional classroom and its traditional blackboard with the success-oriented cyber Blackboard as a preferred site for writing.

The Traditional Blackboard:  “The information is up here”

            The Blackboard Learning System appropriates the label for what used to be one of the most recognizable sites in a classroom: the old-fashioned slate blackboard (now widely replaced by the laminate whiteboard and the screen for projecting media-based lessons). If we consider the way blackboards have been used literally and metaphorically in the delivery of instruction, we can begin to move toward conceptualizing the cyberspace Blackboard as a liminal thirdspace for writing and learning for HSI students.

            In “A Vision of Students Today,” a video produced by Michael Wesch and his introductory cultural anthropology students at Kansas State University (2007), several frames focus on a teacher at the bottom of a large, tiered lecture hall, writing on the blackboard, “the information is up here.” This short, declarative statement captures the pedagogical contradictories represented by the traditional blackboard: without the blackboard, there would be no vehicle for delivering the information that students need; however, to get the information, students must be actually looking at the blackboard.  In an extension of the statement, we could almost say that the information exists only if and when it is written on the blackboard.  The traditional blackboard, thus, is not just a classroom instructional site; it is also a symbol of knowledge and learning. Additionally, it functions simultaneously as an exclusionary as well as inclusionary device, depending on whether students’ eyes are trained on it or have strayed from the focal learning site in the classroom.  Furthermore, when the teacher assumes students have prior knowledge and mastery of a concept and therefore does not put that information on the board, the students who do not have adequate or appropriate prior knowledge are excluded.

            Within the spaces of historicality, sociality, and spatiality (Soja, 1996, p. 6), the blackboard metaphorically and realistically represents the dynamics of distribution and allocation of power in the classroom.  Historically, instructors’ use of the blackboard exists on a continuum, at one extreme as a site for punctuating a formal lecture or extended lesson with occasional words and phrases that the instructor wants to emphasize to the other extreme as a site for writing an entire lecture or extensive notes for students to copy, in some cases with the blackboard completely and overwhelmingly covered with teacher writing.  (Today, in the age of ubiquitous PowerPoints, the blackboard has been more or displaced by PPT lessons, but, like the blackboard, PPT exists on a continuum from well-planned effectuality to unconsidered overkill.)

            Socially, the blackboard has offered an opportunity for students to communicate random messages, usually surreptitiously, usually anonymously, before the teacher walks in, or as a site for reminders of all sorts, always with the appended “Do Not Erase,” or as a disciplinary venue when, in lower grades, students’ names are written on the board as a result of inappropriate behavior.

            Geographically, the blackboard moves the teacher from behind the desk when he/she approaches the board to illustrate a lesson, thereby actually, physically delivering the lesson.  The blackboard moves students to the front of the room as active learners when they are asked to demonstrate learning by working out a math problem on the board or writing a sentence.  However, the traditional blackboard site is also fraught with possibilities for failure in situations when a teacher writes something on the board and asks for volunteers to answer; a public incorrect response can trigger embarrassment for the learner.  In short, the blackboard as a classroom staple has existed in multiple dimensions, with these various configurations simultaneously existing and being perceived by students and teachers in a sort of “triple dialectic” (Soja, 1996, p. 6) but always with the teacher and students positioned in real time and real space in this environment and always as a symbol of teacher authority.

            The blackboard persists as an iconic representation of classroom dynamics. Consider the students who must be moved closer to the board so they can see; this movement marks them as deficient and different from the learners who can see the blackboard perfectly well from the back of the room.  Consider the students who sit at their desks with no pencil or paper in defiance of the tacit teacherly expectation that things written on the blackboard should be copied down and saved as learning resources. Consider the students who choose to sit at the back of the room distancing themselves from the teacher—and concomitantly from the blackboard.  Historically, a student’s choice to sit at the back of the room signals resistance to the usual power dynamics of the classroom.  However, choosing to sit at the back endows the student with a certain amount of power.  The teacher, noticing the resistance, is compelled to “win over” the student, to try extra hard with this learner—or in an unfortunate turn of events, in disciplinary action; regardless, the resistance results in attention. Consider the students who copy everything the teacher writes on the board in unconsidered allegiance to the usual power structure symbolized by the blackboard; after all, if it’s on the blackboard, it must be important and must be copied.

            Consider the teacher who, in deft and powerful appropriation of the blackboard dynamics, uses the board as a way of wrenching the students’ attention away from each other and toward the teacher at the front of the room.  A scene from the movie Dangerous Minds (Simpson & Bruckheimer, 1996) offers a perfect example of blackboard as attention-getter (and power-establisher).  New teacher Louanne Johnson, standing helplessly and ineffectually in front of a class of students indifferent to her presence, quiets her rowdy class by writing on the board, “I am a U.S. Marine. Does anyone know karate?”  Later, in a verb conjugation lesson she writes, “We _____ green beans for supper,” but the noisy students go on about their business talking so loudly to each other that her voice can’t be heard over theirs.  She pulls their attention toward her by erasing the first sentence and writing, “We choose to die.” The blackboard, then, represents teacher power and student submissiveness: writing on the blackboard forces students to look toward the teacher and, at least for a moment, to pay attention to what is on the blackboard. In the case of Louanne Johnson (a white female teacher), she wielded the authority of the blackboard to reconfigure the power dynamics of the classroom: until she wrote her attention-getting sentences on the board, the students (Latino and African American), noisy, disruptive, cohesive as a group, had ownership of the class and they had no intention of letting her teach them anything or even of acknowledging that she was in the classroom.

            The distribution of classroom power traditionally represented by the blackboard is particularly relevant for Hispanic students who have to negotiate language barriers raised and maintained by the teacher.  Such barriers keep the learner silent and excluded from classroom activities and transform the classroom into an unfriendly, frightening place, as illustrated in this passage written by the student whose comments about moving to the U.S. were cited earlier:

I am seven years old, in Mission, Texas in Mrs. P’s first grade classroom.  Mrs. P. writes an arithmetic problem on the board. I raise my hand, in hopes that she would pick me. Mrs. P., unsentimentally smiles and says, “M., Do you know the answer?” I do not answer.  I stand with a phony bravado and I feel the gringo children looking at me. “M., do you know the answer?” I stand there silent, wanting the earth to swallow me slowly. My heart wants to scream, “La respuesta es ocho!!…la respuesta es ocho!! (The answer is eight!! The answer is eight)! Beginning to wish the teacher understands my sign language, I start drawing a big circle in the air. Giggling, laughing, pointing, they cannot seem to keep their eyes off of me. Are they laughing at something I did, or something I am? I return to my desk, feeling degraded, humiliated, and overwhelmed with a longing for my native tongue. Defeated, I retreat into silence for the rest of the long, lonely school year.

            The student-teacher dynamics described in this story are emblematic of the worst type of student-teacher interactions, with the learner feeling powerless, voiceless. In this story, the traditional blackboard is the trigger for the experience, reminding us that the traditional blackboard can transform private achievement or failure (for example, writing or quizzes that students produce individually at the privacy of their desks) into public achievement or failure, with potentially disastrous consequences for Hispanic students trying to position themselves in the space of the American classroom.

            The traditional blackboard, then, functions symbolically as a fulcrum for shifting long-established (frequently negative) attitudes about the classroom toward reconceived notions about learning when a new system, such as the Blackboard Learning System, is introduced.  In the context of the HSI, Blackboard positions students in an imagined-and-real space where the traditional classroom (and its blackboard) is replaced with a far more student-friendly cyberspace site in which students reconstruct themselves as learners and writers.

Blackboard as a Thirdspace for HSI Writers

            The trialectics of historicality, sociality, and spatiality of the traditional blackboard transfer easily in reconceived form to the electronic dimension of Blackboard.  In many ways, the tensions of power dynamics represented by the traditional, physical blackboard are reconfigured and elided by the cyberspace Blackboard. In the traditional writing classroom, the teacher, associated with distribution and control of knowledge, is too often perceived as a critic bent on finding fault with student writing or as a presumed expert unwilling to guide students to satisfying and successful writing experiences as the following student comments show:

The words of a first year writing student: I do not like writing because I have never excelled in it.  When I was in 4th grade, I got a 2 on my writing composition and in 7th grade, a 3 (I have always wanted to get a 4 but the stories I write are never good enough). Grammar—that’s one of the things I don’t like about writing because if you mess up on part of a sentence, every single little thing in the sentence is messed up. When I was in 8th grade, my English teacher tried to make the whole class like writing, but, with me, she failed.

The words of a junior in an advanced composition class: When I was in Middle School I had an English teacher named Ms. M. who was severely demanding and hard headed with the way she wanted us to write our essays.  It was her way or the highway; she wouldn’t let us use our past experiences when writing essays in her class.  She pretty much said “forget about what you learned in middle school and elementary in regards to writing.”  I can remember learning as a young writer in middle school to always try and write in detail and add more to the story, but Ms. M. would always put me down by saying “You’re just blabbing on and on about useless nonsense, it doesn’t make sense.”  But in my opinion that was very crucial and useful nonsense because it shows more character to the point I was trying to get across.

The words of a senior in an advanced composition class: Throughout my elementary, middle school, and high school education, I’ve carried the trauma of my writing assignments being stamped on with red, circle pen marks and never positively commented on.   Discouragement was the end result of my fourth grade year.   Frequently being told “you’re not doing this right” or “you’re not doing it the way I showed you” and having my TEACHER writing all these red marks everywhere and to top it off in front of my classmates made me a discouraged writer.  As soon as I would turn in my assignments, there she was marking my paper with all these red scribbles. Dreading to walk up to her desk!

            These students’ comments point to the long-lasting negativity associated with the traditional school writing environment, an environment in which the teacher manages the distribution and control of knowledge and students associate the writing classroom with failure.  Stories like these are, unfortunately, not uncommon in the HSI environment.  Hispanic students are taught to respect authority, especially their teachers, and to accept the judgment (grades) unquestioningly (Newman, 2007, p. 20), a situation that promotes the adversarial relationship between learner and teacher that can occur in the traditional classroom when learners’ needs clash with teacher dictates.  In the writing classroom, particularly after years of enduring “arbitrary authority” wielded by the teacher, and particularly when that authority figure is a member of the dominant white culture and the student a member of a minority group, students come to see the writing teacher as someone who is preventing them from achievement and from access to power (Gale, 1996, pp. 8-9). Adjusting this unequal distribution of power is vital to promoting students’ writing achievement.

            In the realm of writing instruction, the reconstruction of pedagogical positions endows the learner with a powerful tool for controlling manifestations of the writing process. Blackboard space functions liminally as a “real-and-imagined” thirdspace that creates “another mode of thinking about space that draws upon the material and mental spaces of the traditional dualism but extends well beyond them in scope, substance, and meaning” (Soja, 1996, p. 11). In other words, understanding of the real blackboard with its long-standing representation of the power dynamics of the classroom makes the cyber Blackboard the preferred learning space. Consider the way we position the traditional blackboard: we talk about the blackboard, with the definite article giving it a realness and a fixed spatiality in the classroom.  But, cyberspace Blackboard is referred to sans article, positioning it everywhere and nowhere; each user constructs the real-and-imagined thirdspace by bringing together exigencies of space-historicality-sociality into this new learning venue.

            Something that is missing in Blackboard is a representation of the teacher: there is no teacher “visible” when the student opens up the Blackboard site, as shown in Figure 1 (the homepage for my first year writing class):

Figure 1. Blackboard Page

Even if I included an actual photograph of myself, it would operate as an avatar, for it would be a cyber representation: I’m not really there; my “presence” is manifested by my name, course information, and assignments.  In the traditional classroom space, the teacher presence can easily dominate the space, as evidenced by my analysis of the symbolic and real pedagogical implications of the old-fashioned blackboard noted above.  But in the Blackboard cyberspace, the teacher is a disembodied presence, and that creates a new learning environment for students, albeit an environment to which they easily adjust   Blackboard, the teaching/learning space remains figuratively a “teacherless” writing class such as the ones described by Peter Elbow in his classicWriting Without Teachers (1973) in which he argued for shifting focus away from teacherly didacticism toward self-motivated writing behavior:

The teacherless writing class is a place where there is learning but no teaching. It is possible to learn something and not be taught.  It is possible to be a student and not have a teacher.  If the student’s function is to learn and the teacher’s to teach, then the student can function without a teacher, but the teacher cannot function without a student. (p. ix)

Elbow’s metatext is that the traditional, spatially fixed classroom can be an antagonistic space that interferes with the real process of writing; he suggests that based on the years of school experience which teaches students to suspect that everything they write is error-laden, student writers erect a sort of filter and this filter interferes with the “natural way of producing words . . . voice—which is the main source of power in . . . writing” (p. 6).

            Clearly, there is a teacher in Blackboard, but he/she exists only as the student chooses to conceive of that individual.  In the absence of the spatiality of the real classroom—with its traditional blackboard (or white board) at the front of the room, students desks, teacher desk at the front, teacher with the red pen—the student writer is free to create an imagined writing space. In Blackboard, students reconstruct the traditional writing process in ways that give HSI students remarkable control over achievement, accomplishment, and self-satisfaction.  The cyberspace Blackboard easily usurps the real classroom space as a traditional learning site, as a social site, and as a site in which teacher-student interactions are carried out; now all of this is productively reconstructed in the thirdspace of Blackboard.  While much of this reconstruction may reflect the “migrating” of effective classroom interactions into the online environment (Warnock, p. ix), ultimately, when the walls and limitation of the traditional classroom fall away in Blackboard, students consistently seem to reconstruct themselves as empowered, diligent, successful learners, regardless of how they may have conducted themselves in the traditional classroom site.

How Students Write in Blackboard

            Writing in the thirdspace of Blackboard pivots on three fundamental reconstructions of classroom dynamics: (1) reassignment of the space where real learning happens; (2) revised manifestations of student effort and motivation; (3) reconfigured student-teacher dynamics.

Blackboard: Where Real Learning Happens

            Since I’ve begun using Blackboard as my vehicle for writing instruction, I observed how students relocate themselves in this academic thirdspace. Two student stories, one from a colleague and one of my own, shed light on how students reassign the space of real learning Blackboard.

My colleague’s story: A student in my sophomore literature class sent me a writing question on Blackboard, but I didn’t have time to write a response before class.  I expected she would approach me in class to ask the question, but she didn’t.  Previously, she had sent me a question about one of her Blackboard discussion question grades, again a question she could have asked in class. Instead, she chose to continue her questions about this grade over several Blackboard queries. In class, she acted as if we weren’t having this exchange over Blackboard, but I still left it up to her to bring it up in class—she never did.

My story: A student in my FYW class brought to our in-class conference a writing segment I found deficient, mostly because as demonstrated by the product he showed me, he had not done his assignment.  He didn’t say anything; he walked silently back to his desk—and I went on to my next in-class conference.  Late that night, I got a Blackboard message from him:

I did put forth plenty of effort in my paper. I included a strong topic sentence and thesis, but did not expand to the 500 words. I did, however, struggle with finding solid material on which to base my essay, starting and restarting my essay several times. What I mean to say is that I in fact spent quite some time in developing what I believe to be a very strong beginning to my essay.

            These stories suggest that for both of these students the space of real engagement has been deferred to Blackboard; the traditional classroom space, perhaps because of the historical associations, seems an inhospitable place where student goals clash with the instructor’s goals, so students choose silence rather than assertiveness.  For example, my colleague’s story suggests a mismatch between instructors’ and students’ views of raising questions in class. For the instructor, questions from students signal engagement and provide an opportunity to clarify points. As instructors, we welcome questions, but probably because of past classroom experiences in which a question became an opportunity for public humiliation (and my students offer endless stories of such classroom interactions), students seem reluctant, perhaps even afraid, to ask questions. For many HSI students, in part because of the power dynamics represented by the traditional classroom, asking a question in class involves risk-taking: the instructor might label the questioner as deficient or inattentive, or, worse, the instructor might humiliate the questioner (“you should already know that” or “If you were listening . . . “).  While the instructor might not respond this harshly, an insecure student prefers not to take the risk.  My story reveals a similar situation: by rejecting my student’s incomplete submission, I created a non-supportive classroom environment; but instead of defending his effort in the classroom site, during our face-to-face conference, he chose silence, and probably felt powerless, voiceless, and angry.  Both of these writers, however, relocated themselves in the thirdspace of Blackboard as serious, diligent students, and created a cyber instructor, faceless and presence-less in Blackboard, but more caring, less intimidating, more receptive to their needs.

            When Blackboard is an option for learning and writing, the real classroom is no longer seen as the primary learning site, so much so that students avoid classroom learning interactions and defer their engagement to the Blackboard site. I come back to the need for this “deferment”—at an HSI that is also a commuter campus, the time investment of getting to class is intrusive; in many cases, students have far more important things to do than to show up for class. This reality requires adjustment on the instructor’s part: on one hand, this reconstruction appears to be a rejection of traditional delivery of instruction (and concomitant resistance to the subject matter of the course).  However, I believe this reconstruction more accurately signals evidence of students’ interest in learning and achievement.  In short, when students prefer the Blackboard site as the place where their learning takes place, it is a pedagogical plus—as long as we recognize and adjust to the change.

Blackboard: The New Writing Community

            In pre-Blackboard times, conferencing with a student on a written draft involved one-on-one class time; he/she went back to his desk to tinker with the draft and exchange drafts with classmates while I worked with other students individually. In the traditional classroom writers’ community, the conferencing and peer review contributes vitally to the sociality of the writing process: so much so, that for years, this approach has been the staple of most compositionists’ pedagogy (Yancey, 2006, p. 5). That scenario has changed dramatically with Blackboard. Although I continue to conduct in-class one-on-one conferences, students resist working actively on their drafts in class following our conferences.  Despite my repeatedly entreaties that they use our class time to refine their writing and ask me questions, they choose instead to chat with each other.

            What has happened is that Blackboard has become a thirdspace in which the writing process has been reconfigured. While as a professor I value class time as valuable for revision and on-site conferences, my commuter students see this class time as an interruption, an unnecessary wrinkle in the triangulation of their work-home-education spaces. In the context of thirdspace, the sociality and spatiality of the writing classroom is no longer a time for improving writing in the presence of and with the assistance of the professor/coach and with feedback from peers, but instead for prepping for writing by sharing stories with other writers and by incubating rather than working directly.  From my perspective, it seems that they are wasting classroom time; however, I believe what they are really doing is deferring the real work of writing for Blackboard at the time and hour and physical space when they choose to inhabit that space. In the context of the production of writing, this act of deferment is a manifestation of the student writer’s need to withdraw from the immediate situation, to close his/her eyes so as to concentrate intently on the writing task at hand and to block out influences that might inhibit successful completion of the task (Ong, 1975, p. 10; Elbow, 1987, p. 50-52). At this point, I have considerable anecdotal evidence that this deferment of true learning activity to Blackboard is resulting in increased achievement in student writing: the 100 plus students on whose writing this current study is based have shown sustained improvement in depth of thought, quality of expression, development of ideas, critical thinking, and overall engagement with their writing tasks, the sort of improvement and growth that marks the progression of student writer from novice to expert (Sommers and Saltz, 2004). (I am currently working on a study that examines the quantitative and qualitative improvements in writing evidenced in the Blackboard environment.)

            Blackboard expands writing time and space metaphorically and realistically.  For one thing, deadlines, which I now allow my students to set as a class, are no longer anxiety-inducing for them. In allowing students to set the deadline (albeit within some parameters), teacher authority is relinquished somewhat, but the trade-off is writers who are more participatory. In Blackboard, drafts and final copies and other assignments are not due at absolute times as they are in the traditional classroom.  While there is a Blackboard dropbox due time and date, the liminal space of Blackboard makes all deadlines fluid. The traditional turning-in-your-paper-at-the-beginning-of-class in the real classroom creates a fixed, rigid deadline controlled by the teacher and resisted by the student (consider all the times students skip class because they were unable to complete the assignment by the deadline). The fluidity of the Blackboard deadlines stems from the freedom students feel to work within the writing spaces they have created—sometimes at 10pm, sometimes at 2am, sometimes at 5am.  They routinely vote for a midnight deadlines, explaining that they work until late evening hours. And the glitches possible because of Blackboard in many ways ease the submission anxiety: in cyberspace, there’s always an acceptable, viable excuse (“I had technical problems; I know my paper is three minutes late [or x number of hours late], but I hope you still accept it”). Somehow, a comment like this one pulls the instructor into the thirdspace of Blackboard and the “excuse” is not a feeble request for more time but instead evidence of student diligence.  Rhetorically, the student is posing as a serious, committed student whose work is there somewhere in cyberspace but just not in the dropbox; he/she is constructing me (the cyberspace instructor in the thirdspace of Blackboard) as an understanding professor who is more interested in the process of completing the writing assignment than in having the assignment in the dropbox by the cutoff time.  If we juxtapose this with the resistance to on-time submissions that students demonstrate in traditional classrooms, the thirdspace of Blackboard is a decidedly friendlier pedagogical space.

Blackboard: Where Every Student Is a Real Writer

            Blackboard also has transformed my role as reader of student writing. Perhaps not all Blackboard instructors read drafts and papers as they come in, but I do.  Students have on-demand feedback—and they expect it. One student wrote in his end-of-class essay that, on the day he submitted a writing assignment he found particularly challenging, he was checking Blackboard every 20 minutes to see if I had posted his grade—an assumption of my instantaneous availability. While no instructor can be available on demand, this student’s comment points to his interest in reader feedback, a mark of a writer who has moved beyond the novice stage and is progressing toward the maturity of a writer who recognizes the connection between the instructor/reader/expert’s commentary and the potential for writing improvement.  Another student grew nervous when her friends from class had already received their feedback for a major draft and she hadn’t; she sent me her draft again, just in case.  What I see in such student behavior is assumption of ownership not just of the submission but of the writing process.  In the thirdspace of Blackboard, students seem much more focused on succeeding on the assignment—and on being rewarded for that diligence—than they do in the traditional classroom setting.  When Blackboard becomes a major venue for instruction and learning, the power dynamics of the traditional classroom are reconfigured significantly.  Students take a far more active role in their learning and they seem far more interested in having their accomplishments acknowledged.

            Working in the Blackboard thirdspace, empowers learners to see themselves as serious participants in the writing community. I offer the story of “Sammy”, a first year writing student. For his first major writing conference, he had written only one sentence (he was supposed to have a 350-word segment), and he had no explanation, no questions, and unfortunately, we couldn’t have a productive conference if all he had written was a single sentence. He just shrugged his shoulders. Back at his desk, he pulled out his phone and spent the rest of the period texting and chatting with the kids in his group.  It is difficult not to think of such students as disinterested underachievers.  Sammy surprised me, however.  At 2:30am that night, he sent his Blackboard submission with a comment: “I’m still working on this but I have 500 words now.  I can’t work anymore; my brain is pooped.”  Sammy’s comment points to the way student writers locate themselves in the thirdspace of Blackboard. In class that day, his behavior, his lack of preparation, his apparent disinterest in his own success had given me reason to think of him as a potential failure.  In the classroom, because he was unprepared, he was unable to participate meaningfully in our class interactions; however, at home, in the space of Blackboard, he was a writer, proud of what he’d accomplished and he moved into my own writing world (I know what a “pooped” brain feels like after a long writing stint).

            A student in my advanced composition class included reflections about her completion of the assignment each time she submitted a draft or a final version, such as this one submitted with a short childhood experience narrative:

I enjoyed writing this narrative more so than the expository essay. I was able to expand a little more because I had details I could include but then again, I couldn’t keep it at one page. I tried to re-read it to see where I could cut out information but I found that everything I included was relevant to the story. I tried, but the length was a disappointment I guess since it should have been one page. It was fun though. I’m sharing it with my cousin as soon as I can. Thank you!

            Another student, who had to work until midnight, submitted his draft at 1:29am with a note: “I know its late and i apologize. Thank you for accepting it.” The notable thing about this message is that the student somehow envisioned me at the other end of his message—why else would he be apologizing for the late hour.  He crafted an image of his professor as someone eagerly awaiting (and receptive to) his submission: he didn’t say “please accept this.”  No, he pre-empted the acceptance by thanking me for it, not giving me a chance to refuse the submission (perhaps not even considering that I might refuse the submission).  While this may be evidence of the student trusting the instructor to want the assignment regardless of the time of submission, it is a trust that seems to be enhanced by Blackboard where time and space—and submission—boundaries are relaxed.  In contrast, the fixed beginning and ending time of the traditional classroom meeting can create a distrust in the student: if he/she doesn’t have the assignment on time, there is no submission and, while the instructor may accept a late submission, in the immediate temporality of the classroom, the student is marked as non-participatory, unprepared, disinterested.  Blackboard eliminates those markings.

            These students have found in Blackboard an entré into the community of writers.  Telling me about the experience of writing is a self-selected option. In the old, pre-Blackboard days, when I collected drafts in class, no one said anything about the process of producing the drafts (unless I asked them for a short reflective piece); they just added their submission to my pile of essays. And, if they didn’t have a submission, that was that. Perhaps, this absence of the visual pile of essays is significant in Blackboard.  Students see their submission in isolation; they envision me receiving only their submission. Where once upon a time in the world of the brick-and-mortar classroom, just getting the work in was the primary goal, now, the processes of producing and delivering the writing seem to be as important as the actual writing, eliminating a perceived problem in composition instruction: the isolation of writing from the actual conditions of production and delivery of writing (Trimbur, 2000, p. 189).

            The Blackboard submission format seems to have created an exigency non-existent in classroom submissions. In Blackboard, when students deliver/submit their writing, they are communicating: the dropbox exists in letter format (to: instructor, from: student), and the comment box perhaps compels students to talk, albeit in cyberspace, explaining their submission and their process. When they write comments about the process of producing their writing, they clearly are positioning themselves as a writer writing to another writer.  I see this as a reconfiguration of the student-teacher dynamic facilitated within the thirdspace of Blackboard where time and space boundaries are elided and student-teacher transactions become writer-to-writer communication informed by mutual trust born in a new pedagogical thirdspace, where the student projects the best teacher qualities onto the fictional/imagined cyberspace instructor.  In Blackboard and other cyberspace writing venues, the student’s professor is always a fiction, an extension of the writerly task of creating an imagined audience for every writing task (Ong, 1975, pp. 9-11). In Blackboard, students assume the task of creating an imagined teacher in a way not required by the immediacy and reality of the traditional classroom where the teacher is there, present in real form before the students. Clearly, a student who has had actual classroom interaction with an instructor will be better able to construct a cyber instructor fashioned from the best teacher qualities the student has observed; interestingly, however, operating in the blended environment of face-to-face instruction and online learning, students seem to ignore the teacher qualities that might jeopardize student success, instead, constructing an imagined instructor tailor-made to meet the student’s pedagogical needs.

            This creation of the fictionalized but ideal instructor enables students to erase and reconstruct the dynamics of traditional classroom interactions which frequently lead to opposition between instructor and student goals. Students have learned through years of reinforced experience how to navigate the traditional classroom space. When students enter a classroom, they are entering not just that particular classroom, but, in the context of Soja’s spatiality-historicality-sociality trialectic, every other classroom they have ever entered. The real-and-imagined space of the traditional writing classroom activates pre-existing negative perceptions of writing classrooms and writing instructors, triggering students to demonstrate work avoidance by submitting substandard work (Ambrose, Bridges, Lovett, DiPietro, & Norman, 2010, pp. 68-72): they admit to dashing off their work 10 minutes before class; they arrive late because they have been working in the computer lab up to the last minute; they wave their flashdrive before me and tell me, “my essay is in here”; they had to study for a test and “didn’t get” to the essay. Unfortunately, perhaps in an effort to avoid confrontations or perhaps in an effort to reward students even for a little effort, instructors frequently accept such excuses, thereby reinforcing avoidance behavior. Work avoidance creates feelings of failure all around: instructors chide themselves for accepting substandard work and perhaps see students as lazy or disengaged while students submit substandard work just to get the work done, knowing they could have done a better job if circumstances and motivation had permitted it (Ambrose, Bridges, Lovett, DiPietro, & Norman, 2010, pp. 67-68).

            In the year that I’ve been using Blackboard, these work avoidance issues have diminished significantly. Blackboard seems to have created a space where student and instructor goals are idealized and synchronized. Students seem to reconstruct themselves as learners and writers: in Blackboard, drafts are almost always longer than the minimum required wordcount.  Non-submissions are almost non-existent; and when someone does fail to submit an assignment, I immediately contact the student and almost always, the submission shows up.

            Admittedly, I am surprised—and quite pleased—with the higher level of student participation that I’ve seen in Blackboard. My explanation is that Blackboard has allowed students to create an unboundaried thirdspace for writing.  In the HSI environment, the home-work-school spaces grind against each other resulting in students’ resistance to writing because they have to interrupt activities in work and home spaces to comply with deadlines and productivity expectations. So, the classroom (and by extension the instructor) becomes intrusive and hostile.  In the thirdspace of Blackboard, however, students reconfigure the writing process and reconstruct themselves as motivated writers within that triangulation. In the unboundaried space of Blackboard, student achievement rises: the writer replaces his/her reduced expectations for success (quite common among student writers) with heightened expectations for success (Ambrose, Bridges, Lovett, DiPietro, & Norman, 2010, pp. 69-72).

            It could be that what I am seeing as a reconstruction of the writing process in this thirdspace is actually a manifestation of the larger shift toward learning contextualized in technology, a necessary shift given the way students variously labeled Net Gen or Generation Y have been immersed in technology from the time they were born, students who feel more comfortable producing and discussing their writing online than in the traditional classroom (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005,  p. 1.2; Warnock, p. xxii). Evidence from my study and observation of the approximately 100 college writing students on which I’ve based my comments here suggests that Blackboard is much more than an extension of NetGen students’ technological savvy. Blackboard does indeed position students in a thirdspace where the old realities of their frequently negative experiences with writing instruction in writing classrooms give way to a new reality of student-centered, learner-managed writing.  My study of these college writers as they have repositioned themselves in the world of writing via Blackboard resonates with the findings of the U.S. Department of Education’s analysis of online learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2010): student writers feel more control over their writing efforts and accomplishments in the online environment; additionally, the opportunities for reflection about their writing—their comments about completing the writing task when they submit the assignment—move the writer toward a self-consciousness about writing that is vital to growth toward “expertise” (Sommers and Saltz, 2004).

Conclusion: Writing and Teaching in the Thirdspace of Blackboard

            My analysis of how Blackboard impacts students’ participation in writing is firmly grounded in my observations of the way students at my HSI commuter campus have adeptly located themselves in the thirdspace of Blackboard. Blackboard encourages learners and teachers to reposition themselves within reconstructed dynamics of classroom power.  Ironically, while the traditional slate blackboard represents the historically authoritarian means of distributing knowledge, the cyberspace Blackboard offers a means of democratizing the pedagogical field.

            This democratization is particularly important for Hispanic students whose achievements are frequently tentative and whose completion rates at institutions of higher learning lag significantly behind their white counterparts: in 2010, college completion rates ranged from 39% for whites to 19% for African Americans to 13% for Hispanics (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Given the interruptions and interferences experienced by many Hispanic students as they navigate their way through college, it seems appropriate to take note of Blackboard’s potential for helping HSI students succeed.  For students whose lifeworlds (family, cultural expectations, work) function as constraints in traditional learning environments, Blackboard expands learning time, space, and opportunity.

            Without question, the evidence I have provided in this discussion is anecdotal rather than psychometric, but it is a starting point in considering how online instruction, even if it is simply blended into traditional instruction, can enhance the learning experiences of the vast numbers of Hispanic students at HSIs. And at HSIs such as my institution, where other issues (commuter status, limited financial resources, and literacy background, for example) significantly impact the general institutional ambiance, Blackboard and other online learning venues hold the promise of higher levels of student achievement and positive reconstructions of student-learner dynamics.

            As I have reconstructed my professor persona in the thirdspace of Blackboard, I have watched my students emerge as more confident writers within that liminal space that they control and that gives them ownership of their writing. Consider the way one student described his thoughts about our FYW classroom before he even entered the physical space: “My first thought [was that this] English 1301.03 class was a dreadful and condensed room with harsh teaching and un-wanted attention. This very thought was due to past experiences and teachers’ negative influences.” This comment encapsulates the trialectics of spatiality (the writing classroom as uncomfortable space)-historicality (the writing teacher as antagonist)-sociality (the learner’s adversarial relationship with writing instructors). Happily, at the end of our Blackboard-enhanced course, this student replaced his disturbing description with an image of a confident writer: “This semester may be over but I am going to continue to use my new outstanding skills in writing to help better myself for the future. I’m leaving this English class with a better attitude because the rhythm of writing is at the tip of my fingertips now and my confidence has risen from what it once was and will forever stay that way.”

            Clearly, numerous variables figure into transforming a reluctant writer into a confident writer.  While my discussion is focused on writing, my analysis of HSI students’ facile adaptation to the online learning environment of Blackboard suggests that we should look critically at online learning venues as routes to higher levels of achievement for Hispanic students: why do HSI students so readily position themselves in the thirdspace of Blackboard?  How do HSI students make the necessary pedagogical adjustments that lead to success in this cyber thirdspace?  What can we learn from these adjustments and adaptations that will enable us to promote achievement among Hispanic students? HSI students are by no means unique, but they do bring to the forefront of our national discussions on access and equity the need to create and sustain learning environments that promote achievement for historically underrepresented groups. As transition from traditional classroom spaces into cyberspace classrooms and cyberspace blackboards, we need to pay critical attention to how this repositioning can improve teaching and change learning. Blackboard, I believe, is a powerful tool for reconstructing teaching so that students’ writing goals are met and writing becomes a vehicle for academic and personal growth rather than an occasion for failure. In the context of an HSI, where many students’ literacy histories are tinged with unpleasant memories of classroom spaces, it seems appropriate to embrace the cyber thirdspace of Blackboard as a venue for successful teaching and learning.  In such an environment, student writers position themselves in the newly constructed dynamics of Blackboard as a real-and-imagined cyber thirdspace in which writing happens successfully and meaningfully.

 

 

References

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., Lovett, M. C., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Elbow, P. (1987).  Closing my eyes as a I speak: An argument for ignoring audience.  College English, 49(1), 50-69.

Gale, X. L. (1996).  Teachers, discourses, and authority in the postmodern composition classroom.  Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hodge, M. (2010). A case study of the impact of newcomer centers on serving the needs of English language learners in a south Texas school district. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX.

Laden, B.V. (2001). Hispanic serving institutions: Myths and realities. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(1), 73-92.

Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition.  College English, 68(6), 637-651.

National Center for Education Statistics.  (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics.  U.S. Department of Education.

Newman, B. M. (2007). Teaching writing at Hispanic Serving Institutions.  In C. Kirklighter, D. Cardenas, & S. W. Murphy (Eds.), Teaching writing with Latino/a students: Lessons learned at Hispanic Serving Institutions (pp. 17-35). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Newman, B. M. (2009). Living authors, living stories: Integrating local authors into our curriculum. English Journal,98(3), 66-72.

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the net generation. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation  (pp. 2.1-2.20). Washington, D.C.: Educause.

Ong, W. J. (1975).  A writer’s audience is always a fiction. PMLA, 90(1), 9-21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/461344

Reynolds, N. (2004). Geographies of writing: Inhabiting places and encountering difference. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Santiago, D. A. (2008).  The condition of Latinos in education: 2008 factbook.  Excelencia in Education. Retrieved from http://www.edexcelencia.org/research/conditions-latinos-education-2008-factbook

Simpson, D. & Bruckheimer, J. (Producers), & J. N. Smith. (Director). (1995).  Dangerous Minds. U.S.: Hollywood Pictures.

Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Sommers, N., & Saltz, L. (2004).  The novice as expert: Writing the freshman year.  College Composition and Communication, 56(1), 124-149.

Trimbur, J. (2000). Composition and the circulation of writing.  College Composition and Communication, 52(2), 188-219.

U.S. Department of Education.  (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.  Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions program—Title V. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/definition.html

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. (2011). The Condition of education 2011. Table A-24-1. Percentage of 25-29-year-olds who attained selected levels of education by race/ethnicity and sex: Selected years, March 1975-2010. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-eda-1.asp

University of Texas-Pan American. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness. (2010). UTPA Statistics at a glance fall 2010. Retrieved from http://oire.utpa.edu/publications/ minifactbook2010.pdf

Warnock, S. (2009). Teaching writing online: How and why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Wesch, M. (2007). A vision of students today. Video produced by Kansas State University students. Retrieved from youtube.com.

Yancey, K. B. (2006).  Delivering college composition: A vocabulary for discussion.  In K. B. Yancey (Ed.),Delivering college composition: The fifth canon (pp. 1-16). Portsmouth, N.H.: Boynton/Cook.

By: Dr. Beatrice Mendez Newman

Author Note:

            Beatrice Mendez Newman is Professor of English at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, TX.

            Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Beatrice Mendez Newman, Department of English, The University of Texas-Pan American, Edinburg, TX   78541.  Email: bmendez@utpa.edu

Summer Faculty Immersion: A Program with the Potential to Transform Engineering Education

Juan C. Morales, Ph.D., P.E.

Universidad del Turabo, Gurabo, Puerto Rico

 

 

Summer Faculty Immersion: A Program with the Potential to Transform Engineering Education

 

Abstract

This paper describes a faculty development program that was recently funded by the U.S. Department of Education as part of a $4.34 million Title V, Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) -STEM grant to Universidad del Turabo in Puerto Rico.  The overarching goal of the grant is to increase the graduation rates of Hispanic engineering students.  The specific objective of the faculty development program is to ignite innovative teaching in engineering and physics courses to assist students in achieving deep learning of fundamental engineering concepts.  The summer program was proposed as a solution to recent research findings that show that, although innovative teaching methodologies are available and well researched, adoption by faculty is rare because it exceeds substantially the normal course preparation.  The summer session will start with a two-day workshop on inductive learning methodologies by a highly esteemed researcher and innovator in engineering education.  It will be followed by a one-month immersion to continue studying additional learning methodologies, and to prepare the innovations for two courses per faculty member.  The effects of the innovations will be assessed to determine the efficacy of the proposed methodology.  Details of the summer faculty immersion program, as well as the assessment plan, are presented in the paper.  Additional features of the grant, which complement the summer immersion program, are also presented.

Reflection and Metacognition in First Year Experience at Queensborough Community College

Dr. Jean Darcy

Queensborough Community College

 

 

 

 

 

Reflection and Metacognition in First Year Experience at Queensborough Community College

 

In data provided by Victor Fichera, Principal Investigator of Academy Assessment Protocol at Queensborough Community College, it is reported that students enrolled in courses in which reflection and metacognition are used in projects that engage active learners, students are retained at higher levels of passing grades.  In these projects technology is used in collaboration with scaffolded tasks that result in the student production of a “web object,” in this case a digital story.  It is our thesis that the use of technology in parallel relation to reflection amplifies and makes visible the metacognitive work.  In our project, The Student Wiki Interdisciplinary Group, students use ePortfolio learning spaces to build an   identity in terms of both personal goals and  the roles they assume within the academic community in the classroom.

La retención y la deserción en línea: fenómeno de un modelo educativo virtual

Dra. Diana Rivera Montalvo

Inter American University of Puerto Rico

Ponce Campus

 

 

 

 

 

La retención y la deserción en línea: fenómeno de un modelo educativo virtual

 

 

Abstracto

 

Para las instituciones postsecundarias, conocer e identificar los factores que actualmente contribuyen a fomentar que sus estudiantes en línea culminen satisfactoriamente sus cursos,  es una prioridad para evitar el efecto contrario y adverso de la deserción. 

Inequities in Public Education Sustainability Threatened

Janet Michello

LaGuardia Community College

The City University of New York

Still Separate and Unequal

Abstract

The societal goals of the institution of education are to transmit knowledge, to teach all students skills and values that will enable them to live fulfilling lives, participate in the labor force, and contribute to the functioning of society. Currently, however, the institution of education in the United States is in crisis. This article addresses the status of public education and raises questions about its capacity to meet the educational and social requirements of future generations for all its members. Since every society’s future is tied to its educational system, it is essential that we respond critically to the segregation and discrimination that still exist in American society and especially in our public schools. We need to seriously consider the consequences of continuing to inadequately educate minority children when, in the not too distant future, the minority population will be the majority. Changes in educational outcomes are still possible but it will take considerable effort from many different segments of society to make a significant impact. This article addresses one technique with far-reaching potential: Bring lessons from the field into the college classroom.

 

Inequities in Public Education

Sustainability Threatened

 

It is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

Brown v. Board of Education, Supreme Court of the US

 

Unless we adequately educate all segments of American society, our individual and collective abilities to sustain ourselves economically will be severely compromised. This article addresses the status of public education in the United States and raises questions about its capacity to meet the educational requirements of future generations. Since every society’s future is tied to its educational system, it is essential that we respond critically to the segregation and discrimination that still exist in many American public schools. As a sociologist, I make that critical evaluation a part of my Introduction to Sociology (SSS100) classes at LaGuardia Community College. Two recent volunteer experiences have fueled assignments which I developed for this course.

Over the years that I have taught sociology at LaGuardia, I have volunteered in a number of educational settings. In August 2007, I volunteered for two weeks with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in St. Louis, Missouri, in an impoverished, struggling school district whose students were largely African American. I worked directly with teachers, providing emotional support and hands-on help as they prepared classrooms for the approaching school year with very limited resources. In 2009, I volunteered closer to home, as a judge at the annual New York City Science and Engineering Fair (NYCSEF).  My experience in St Louis sharpened my awareness of how the term “failing schools” is often tied to schools serving people of color.  I subsequently brought that heightened awareness to the Science Fair, where I was sensitive to which groups were contenders at the Science Fair and which groups were not. This paper describes in further detail the nature of my volunteer experiences in St. Louis public schools and at the New York City Science and Engineering Fair, what I learned from them about public education, and how I incorporated these lessons in my Introduction to Sociology classes at LaGuardia Community College. 

     In St. Louis, I joined educators from around the country, recruited by the AFT, to assist in their “back-to-school” efforts, which focused on failing schools located in low-income neighborhoods and in need of practical and moral support. Upon arrival in St. Louis, we became aware that the predominately African American St. Louis public schools had recently lost accreditation because of low test scores, and had two school boards – one elected and one appointed by the mayor. We also learned that high school students, parents, and teachers had protested the state takeover of their schools in the spring of 2007, just two short months before graduation, and had conducted five days of sit-ins at the mayor’s office. Many graduating students feared that, as graduates of now non accredited high schools, they would lose their places in the colleges where they had been accepted. We discovered that students had been arrested for their protest actions, sprayed with mace by the police, subjected to insults and demeaning behavior, and lied to by public officials.

     One of the ways we assisted the St. Louis schools in their back-to school efforts was by helping first-year teachers set up their classrooms.  In some cases, the enterprise turned out to be more than challenging since the teachers were issued very limited supplies. In some classrooms, we hung colorful borders, cut out pictures, and helped arrange educational material, but in one school, we made the display borders ourselves out of hand-me-down construction paper since there were no funds to purchase anything. In another classroom, we assisted a teacher with great supplies but quickly discovered that she had purchased them with her own money: A brand new teacher who had not even received her first paycheck had already spent $250 on materials that should have been provided by the school district. In another school, although teachers appreciated our decorating skills, we found that some of them had a different request – for help with various computer tasks. One problem we could not solve was that not enough computers had been issued to the teachers, yet they were expected to access lesson plans online via the school’s intranet. One teacher we assisted told us that he computer she was working on at school was a personal computer she brought from home.

     In 2009, I joined other City University of New York professors invited to be judges at that year’s New York City Science and Engineering Fair (NYCSEF). The fair is the “largest high school research competition in NYC [and] is sponsored by the New York City Department of Education and the City University of New York.” In the words of Jeanette Kim, director of the 2009 fair, it showcased work based on research in “categories including the biological sciences, behavioral and social sciences, physical sciences, computer sciences, engineering, and mathematics.”

     This highly organized event featured inviting displays by 500 students and made me wish to jump into my assignment to evaluate projects that related to the social sciences. However, I decided, before starting to look at individual projects, to get an overview of the entire fair. I walked up and down the aisles, scanning the projects and the young scientists. That was when I noticed that something was missing.  To make sure that I was not seeing something that could not be substantiated, I started taking pictures. As evidenced by my observations and photos, here were few Hispanics or blacks competing in the fair.  Blacks were the very group that populated the troubledSt. Louis [13] public schools and both Hispanics and blacks were well represented in my LaGuardia classes.  According to the “Fall 2009 Ethnicity Breakdown” in LaGuardia’s 2010 Institutional Profile, 41% of LaGuardia students in that semester were Hispanic and 17% were black (5).

Lessons from the Field

Segregation and Discrimination in Public Schools

Initially surprised by the absence of groups prominent in my classes, I remembered that the New York City Science and Engineering Fair traditionally represents the most academically prepared students, often coming from New York City’s elite public schools. It is well known that the populations in these schools do not reflect the diversity of New York City school students. A 2008 New York Times article, “Racial Imbalance Persists at Elite Public Schools,” reports these statistics:

     In this city [New York] of 1.1 million public school students, about 40 percent are Hispanic,       32 percent are black, 14 percent are Asian and 14 percent white. More than two-thirds of Stuyvesant High School’s 3,247 students are Asian (up from 48 percent in 1999). At Brooklyn Technical High School, 365 of the 4,669 students, or 8 percent, are Hispanic; at the Bronx High School of Science, there are 114 blacks, 4 percent of the 2,809-student body.   (Hernandez) 

    

    Thus, my observations in St. Louis and at the Science Fair reminded me of the segregation that exists in public education despite the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Jonathan Kozol wrote in 2006 that “[s]egregation has returned to public education with a vengeance;” he backed his claim by noting that the “percentage of black children who now go to integrated schools has dropped to its lowest level since 1968.” Pointing a finger at New York State and New York City, Kozol wrote:

     New York State is the most segregated state for black and Latino children in America: seven      out of eight black and Latino kids here go to segregated schools. The majority of them go to     schools where no more than two to four percent of the children are white….The level of       segregation statewide is due largely to New York City, which is probably the country’s most segregated city.

 

   In a 2009 report entitled Reviving the Goal of an Integrated Society: A 21st Century Challenge, Gary Orfield, Professor of Education and co-director of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, writes about the implications of the resegregation of American education: “Segregated black and Latino schools have less prepared teachers and classmates, and lower achievement and graduation. Segregated nonwhite schools usually are segregated by poverty as well as race” (6).

     Recently, a new twist has been added to an already highly inequitable institution:  More local school districts require visas and passports to register children. Twenty-eight years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all children have a right to public education regardless of whether they are in the country legally (Plyler), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) “surveyed New York State’s 694 school districts . . . and discovered that at least 139 are asking, either directly or indirectly, for proof of a parent or child’s immigration status before a student may be enrolled in school” (“NYCLU”). Requiring documentation such as social security numbers, visas, passports, and citizenship status to register students is clearly against the law, yet apparently common practice in many school districts, adding another layer to the level of inequity in public education.

     Statistics pointing to New York City’s failure to prepare large groups of students to enter competitive arenas are part of a wider national failure signaled by high school dropout rates in the United States. In remarks made to a joint session of Congress on February 24, 2009, President Barack Obama cited the statistics and emphasized the potentially dire consequences of the United States high school dropout rate:

          In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity– it is a pre-requisite. Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation.  And half of the students who begin college never finish.

          This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this administration     to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education – from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.

 

In my Introduction to Sociology classes, my students’ accounts of their own experiences in public education, combined with my experiences in St. Louis and at the New York City Science and Engineering Fair, have intensified my concern that public education, increasingly characterized by racial segregation and other inequities, is failing to prepare large segments of the population to enter and excel in competitive arenas.  Ultimately, that failure poses a threat to the livelihood of individuals.  According to Kaleem Caire, President and CEO of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, “[c]hildren who do not graduate with a high school diploma stand little chance of sustaining themselves or a family in today’s economy” (i). On a larger scale, as articulated by President Obama and noted above, the failure threatens the ability of the United States to sustain itself in the global marketplace.

Lessons in the Classroom

At LaGuardia Community College, students in Introduction to Sociology (SSS100) are mostly Liberal Arts majors, fulfilling a requirement of their major. They frequently take the course during their first year at the college, often entering the course with a great deal of personal experience in and very little academic knowledge about a subject central to sociology – the impact of societal institutions on groups and individuals.

     One of my goals in teaching Introduction to Sociology is to provide students with an understanding of the roles of institutions. I also wish to heighten student awareness of the role of activism in ensuring that American institutions fulfill their roles equitably. In order to fulfill these goals, I ground my lessons in difficult-to-teach sociological theory. In introductory sociology classes, the syllabus covers dominant theoretical viewpoints, both macro (the social structure or organization of society) and micro (how social organization impacts the individual). Generally, I attempt to present opposing viewpoints – one side focusing on the expected order of things and how equilibrium needs to be maintained, especially when change is occurring, and the other side focusing on issues of power, control, domination, and how change may occur to benefit a few at the expense of the many.

     Understanding theory – what constitutes a theory and theoretical assumptions, how theories are formulated and applied, how theories change – is often new and difficult for students. They generally have difficulty comprehending that differing points of view can be applied to the same situation and that neither is “right” or “wrong.” Usually students want to think that one position is the correct one and the other incorrect. In Introduction to Sociology, students are encouraged to see theories, different sociological viewpoints, as tools for understanding behavior or phenomena.

     For example, students are introduced to structural functionalism, sometimes referred to as functionalism, a major sociological theory popularized at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim. Durkheim asserted that society was like an organism and “much the way each organ in the body contributes to the survival of the organism, each part of a society contributes to the successful functioning of society” (Pampel 74). This paradigm also suggests that societal institutions, analogous to spokes on a wheel, provide the necessary structure and support needed by society.  And just as a wheel becomes unbalanced if a spoke breaks, so does society suffer if its institutions do not function properly. By applying functionalism to a real-life situation such as public education that is not fulfilling its societal obligations, students can come to appreciate the necessity of remedying educational problems and the need to implement reform quickly in order for America to keep up with the rapid technological and economic advances taking place in other countries.

     On the other hand, conflict theory helps students appreciate how disregard for the inequities in public schools, especially as they affect lower-income and minority students, relates to the power structure of American institutions. Conflict theory, originating in the ideas of Karl Marx, stresses imbalance of power within a society, struggle over resources, and control by people in positions enabling them to exercise it. From a conflict viewpoint, institutions are structured to benefit those in positions of power at the expense of those on the opposite side of the spectrum. Students therefore learn the significance of the frequently applied sociological adage that, in order for significant social change to occur, it must occur at the institutional level. Thus, with regard to civil rights, for example, individuals did not change racist ways; the government had to pass legislation. Similarly, with regard to the economy, government involvement is needed to foster hoped-for recovery.

From Theory to Application

Classroom discussion and research assignments are important to my application of sociological theory to the problem of failing schools. I often try to use the students’ first-hand experiences with societal institutions as a starting point for the academic study of those institutions. Reviewing the structure and functions of the institution of education provides for lively discussions in Introduction to Sociology classes. As we approach assignments focusing on educational institutions, students tell their stories. Prominent in the stories of students who went to public schools in New York City are accounts of violence and attempts on the part of school personnel to prevent violence. Students sometimes comment on how some of their classmates obtained good grades and were promoted merely by not being disruptive in school.

For students at LaGuardia Community College who attended schools in other countries before coming to the United States, the topics of searches, metal detectors, weapons, and violence are surprising. In their countries of origin, such searches and violations of privacy are unheard of.

     A very important point regarding the structure of institutions, including the institution of education, is that institutions typically reproduce ideas of the privileged while disadvantaged groups frequently remain passive (Margolis et al. 7). As a means of helping students understand this point and to illustrate what happens when people take action rather than remain passive, I give the students information about the St. Louis school system. I provide a verbal account of my 2007 experiences.  I assign a New York Times article, “State Takes Control of Troubled Public Schools in St. Louis,” (Gay) in addition to the chapter about the institution of education in the Introduction to Sociology text, Society: The Basics (Macionis). Students also read a paper I wrote and presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the New York State Sociological Association, “A Case Study of Advocacy at St. Louis Public Schools.” Finally, students view a live YouTube video clip about the 2007 five-day sit-in at the office of St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay (Exclusive). The St. Louis experience specifically shows the failure of an educational institution to promote a fair and equal society and to address adequately issues that concern primarily people of color. The St. Louis experience also illustrates advocacy that was successful in addressing that failure. Having set the stage, I go on to place students’ experiences with public education and the experience in St. Louis in a broader context, one that requires an understanding of sociological theories.

Research Assignment

In addition to grounding the students in basic sociological theory, the Introduction to Sociology course seeks also to train students in skills essential to sociological research. As part of a research assignment, I have students apply sociological theory after assessing educational data on the website of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). By reviewing the NCES’s Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the United States: 2008–09 (Sable, Plotts, and Mitchell) and their locations on maps available through the School District Demographics System of the National Center for Education Statistics, they must determine the following:

•   Locations of the country’s largest school districts and student enrollment in each

•   Overall ethnicity of students in the largest school districts

•   Number of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals (as an indication of students’ family income)

• High school graduation rates by states identified

• How graduation rates are calculated

After they find answers to the above questions, I ask students to reflect on what they have learned by applying some of the assumptions of conflict theory mentioned above and to include their reactions to the discovery of the composition of school districts across the United States and national graduation statistics.

     The second part of the research assignment asks students to review national and international data on the NCES website (“Fast Facts”; US NCES. Condition 86, 210). Here they review and compare the following:

•   America’s mathematics and reading literacy rankings with those of other world nations

•   How the number of scientists in the United States compares internationally

Again, after the students find answers to these questions, I ask them to reflect on what they have learned, this time by applying some of the aforementioned assumptions of functionalist theory. I also ask them to write about their reactions to the international rankings and the number of scientists worldwide. This assignment encourages students to research socioeconomic, residential, and international data and to reflect on quality of education and the consequences of educational inequities. The assignment also encourages them to think critically about educational outcomes, including some of the consequences of inequities in public education, and to apply sociological theories by engaging in abstract thinking. And, not unintentionally, the assignment also engages students in quantitative reasoning with the goal of increased quantitative literacy.

     Such an assignment contributes not only to the development of basic academic skills and important life skills but also to the empowerment of students who, often, have been the victims of inequities in their education.  In a report on the requirements of 21st century education, the Center for Public Education (CPE) stresses the importance of acquiring traditional academic skills, including science, social studies, and strong math and English skills, in order to succeed in work and life (Jerald).  In addition, based on employer surveys and other evidence, the CPE identified four kinds of “broader competencies” that are essential today:

•   The ability to solve new problems and think critically;

•   Strong interpersonal skills necessary for communication and collaboration;

•   Creativity and intellectual flexibility; and

•   Self sufficiency, including the ability to learn new things when necessary (Jerald).

     Students who have attended failing schools often internalize the failure of those schools. It is especially important for these students to see the sociological reasons for their poor preparation for college and to see where American public education stands in relation to education in other societies. Conducting the research makes vivid and clear to students sociological concepts and how they can be viewed from different perspectives. Thus, from a functionalist viewpoint, the education system should be doing a better job. From a conflict perspective, the institution of education is there to enhance the role of people in power and not necessarily designed to benefit students from all walks of life.  My Introduction to Sociology course is designed not only to teach students the skills associated with the discipline, but also the outlooks and theories that will help them understand critical information in order to make sound decisions and empower them to take action in the face of inequities.

Conclusion

In the fall of 2008, according to the 2009 Digest of Education Statistics compiled by the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 50 million students (Table 2) headed off to approximately 99,000 public elementary and secondary schools (Table 5), and before the school year was over, an estimated $596 billion would be spent on their education (Table 27).

The societal goal of the institution of education is to transmit knowledge, to teach all students skills and values that will enable them to live fulfilling lives, participate in the labor force, and contribute to the functioning of society. As a nation, we may wish to ponder what the consequences will be of not adequately educating minority children when, in the not too distant future, the minority population will be the majority. The United States Census Bureau recently released revised projections for the composition of the population over the next three decades. By the 2040s, minorities will make up more than one-half of the United States population, up from the present 34%. The largest gains will be in the Latino, Asian, and African American sectors (“U.S. Minorities”).

     Although public education in the United States remains discriminatory and segregated, and fails to meet the needs of countless numbers of low-income students, mainly students of color, changes in educational outcomes are still possible. It will take considerable effort from many different segments of society to make a significant impact; one technique with far-reaching potential is to bring lessons from the field into the sociology classroom.

 

 

 

 

Works Consulted

 

Brown v. Board of Educ. 347 US 483–96. Supreme Court of the US. 1954. Supreme Court   

     Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U Law School, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

Caire, Kaleem. Foreword. High School Graduate Rates in the United States.  By Jay P. Green,

Rev. New York: Black Alliance for Educ. Options, Apr. 2002. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

<http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_baeo.pdf>.

 

Exclusive: Students Meet with Mayor. Pubdef.net, 17 Mar. 2007. YouTube. Web. 3 Jan. 2011.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55eXF14teKY>.

 

“Fast Facts.” National Center for Education Statistics. Natl. Center for Educ. Statistics, 2010.

Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

Gay, Malcolm. “State Takes Control of Troubled Public Schools in St. Louis.” New York Times,

23 Mar. 2007. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

Hernandez, Javier C. “Racial Imbalance Persists at Elite Public Schools.” New York Times, 7

Nov. 2008. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

Jerald, Craig D. “Executive Summary: Defining a 21st Century Education.” 21st Century

     Education. Center for Public Educ. 2009. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

Kim, Jeanette. Letter to the author. 11 Mar. 2009. TS.

 

Kozol, Jonathan. “Segregated Schools: Shame of the City.” Gotham Gazette.  Citizens Union

Foundation, 16 Jan. 2006. Web. 21 Jan. 2011.

 

LaGuardia Community College. Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. 2010

     Institutional Profile. LaGuardia Community Coll., Sept. 2010. Web. 21 Jan. 2011.

<http://www.lagcc.cuny.edu/facts/2010factbook.pdf>.

 

Macionis, John J. Society: The Basics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2009.Print.

 

Margolis, Eric, et al. “Peekaboo: Hiding and Outing.” The Hidden Curriculum in Higher

     Education. Ed. Eric Margolis. New York: Routledge, 2001. 1–20. Print.

 

Michello, Janet. “A Case Study of Advocacy at St. Louis Public Schools.”  Paper Presented at

the New York State Sociological Association (NYSSA) 55th Annual Meeting, October 5–6,

2007, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY.

 

New York City Science and Engineering Fair (NYCSEF). Home page. New York City Science

and Engineering Fair, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

“NYCLU Analysis: 1 in 5 New York State School Districts Puts Up Illegal Barriers for

Immigrant Children.” Immigrants’ Rights. New York Civil Liberties Union, 23 July 2010.

Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

Obama, Barack. “Remarks of President Barack Obama, as Prepared for Delivery, Address to

Joint Session of Congress, Tuesday, February 24th, 2009.” Briefing Room: Speeches &

     Addresses. White House, 24 Feb. 2009. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

Orfield, Gary. Reviving the Goal of an Integrated Society: A 21st Century Challenge. Civil

Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, Jan. 2009. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

Pampel, Fred C. Sociological Lives and Ideas: An Introduction to the Classical Theorists. New

York: Worth, 2000. Print.

 

Plyler v. Doe 457 US 202. Supreme Court of the US. 1982. Supreme Court Collection. Legal

Information Inst., Cornell U Law School, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

Sable, Jennifer, Chris Plotts, and Lindsey Mitchell. Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public

     Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the United States, 2008–09: Statistical

     Analysis Report. Washington: Natl. Center for Educ. Statistics, Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

<http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011301.pdf>.

 

United States. National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 2007.

Washington, DC: US Govt. Printing Office, 2007. National Center for Education Statistics

     (NCES). Web. 6 Mar. 2011. <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007064.pdf>.

 

—. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Natl. Center for Educ. Statistics, 2010.

Web. 6 Mar. 2011. <http://nces.ed.gov>.

 

—. “Table 2: Enrollment in Educational Institutions, by Level and Control of Institution:

Selected Years, Fall 1980 through Fall 2009.” Digest of Education Statistics, 2009. Natl.

Center for Educ. Statistics, Apr. 2010. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

—. “Table 5: Number of Educational Institutions, by Level and Control of Institution: Selected

Years, 1980–81 through 2007–08.” Digest of Education Statistics, 2009. Natl. Center for

Educ. Statistics, Apr. 2010. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

—. “Table 27: Expenditures of Educational Institutions, by Level and Control of Institution:

Selected Years, 1899–1900 through 2008–09.” Digest of Education Statistics, 2009. Natl.

Center for Educ. Statistics, Apr. 2010. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

 

 

United States. National Center for Education Statistics. School District Demographics System.

School District Demographics System (SDDS).  Natl. Center for Educ. Statistics, n.d. Web. 6

Mar. 2011. <http://nces. ed.gov/surveys/sdds/index.aspx>.

 

“U.S. Minorities Will Be the Majority by 2042, Census Bureau Says.” America.gov. Bureau of

Intl. Information Programs, US Dept. of State, 15 Aug. 2008. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.

Community Colleges Growing Importance in STEM Education Benefits Hispanics

Marilyn Gilroy

 


Community Colleges Growing Importance in STEM Education Benefits Hispanics

 

 

Community colleges have become key players in the effort to train a highly skilled and diverse workforce in STEM fields. Organizations such as the National Science Foundation (NFS), have acknowledged the importance of the two-year sector by awarding millions of dollars to community colleges to fund scholarships in STEM areas, especially for underrepresented students. In addition, the NFS plans to give $100 million to Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) for Stem and Articulation Grants to support transfer between two- and four- year colleges and to enhance STEM education at these institutions.

Best Practices in Professional Distance Education: A Hybrid Social Work Distance Education Program in South Texas

By: Denise A. Longoria, Ph. D., LCSW, Héctor Luis Díaz, Ph. D. — The University of Texas – Pan American

Abstract

The operation of distance education programs can be quite challenging especially when offering professional programs that require internships, practica and teaching courses that focus on skill development.  It is difficult for instance to teach counseling and other skills through the internet.  Nevertheless, the department of social work at The University of Texas – Pan American has developed a hybrid distance education program that enables it to effectively deliver a bachelor’s and a master’s in social work in the two remote locations of Laredo and Brownsville, Texas with the assistance of modern educational technology.  This program provides access to accredited social work programs in a geographic area covering approximately 300 miles in the state of Texas.  The programs are delivered through a combination of Blackboard, teleconference, Wimba, Skype, cellular phones, reduced seating courses, and Face to Face courses taught on at remote sites by adjuncts or full time faculty members.   UTPA is uniquely positioned to respond to this educational need given that we currently represent the only viable CSWE accredited social work department offering both bachelor’s and master’s degrees in social work south of Austin and Houston, Texas. 

El perfil de los estudiantes a distancia en la educación superior de Puerto Rico: Aspectos psicosociológicos, académicos, éticos y legales

By: Myrna E. Rodríguez, Ph.D., Israel Ramos Perea, Ph.D. and Juan J. Meléndez, Ed. D.

Abstract

El estudio persigue proveer datos sobre las características de los estudiantes a distancia en Puerto Rico. Se formularon las siguientes preguntas: (1) ¿Cuáles son las características de los estudiantes a distancia en Puerto Rico? Y (2) ¿cuáles son los estilos de aprendizaje predominantes entre los estudiantes matriculados en programas de educación a distancia? La primera pregunta era fue dictada por el Consejo de Educación de Puerto Rico que comisionó el estudio. La segunda pregunta fue añadida por los investigadores porque se entendía que era de suma importancia para los educadores de estudiantes hispanos. En la revisión de literatura se presentan varias investigaciones que han demostrado la importancia de considerar los estilos de aprendizaje de los estudiantes cuando éstos participan en educación a distancia. Los hallazgos del estudio demuestran la variedad de características de los estudiantes y confirman la necesidad de personalizar las experiencias educativas para asegurar su éxito académico.