Dr. Paul Leslie
Dear Students - I hope to clarify the relationship between the following two assignments and professional learning communities (PLCs).
You started working towards these modules when you identified one or more PLCs that you thought might be useful to your work or offer you the support that you are looking for with your teaching. In Module two, you posted a design (problem/solution) brief that was based on your burning questions from your concept map. Hopefully, you will be able to use some of the technologies highlighted in your montage to help you work with members of that community.
Now, you should communicating with other students, reviewing each other’s design briefs and deciding on which brief (PLC and question) you will focus your attentions. Ideally, you will select the brief that have the most clarity in terms of process and the most opportunity for engagement with the PLC.
**Please note that there is no reason why your entire group cannot work with the PLC after the group work assignment is completed to do the Module 5 individual work - noted below**
You will join a collaborative group (2-4 participants) to start the process of analyzing your burning question and taking the appropriate steps to find / propose a solution to the burning questions. . “The focus of your collaboration will be to design a proposed solution to a substantive problem or dilemma in a Professional Community of your group’s choosing.” You can use any collaborative technologies (e.g. Google Docs) that you see fit, and that you have investigated in the montage. Remember that you need to include a process account of your engagement with each other so you should use a technology that leaves a ‘paper trail’.
In your groups, you will:
- Engage in critical review of a problem and the context in which the problem exists in a community
- Propose solutions to a problem that are sensitive to the concerns of the stakeholders
- Prototype versions of the solution for review by other students in the course
- Write a Design/Problem Brief that includes
- Introduction: description of the problem/issue that is being addressed
- Literature review - scholarly connections between your burning questions and the literature
- The proposed solution - a discussion and ‘tangible version’ of the solution (prototype, process description, tools, etc.)
- "Process account" - a summary of the process of engagement between members of your group
- Reference List and citations within the body of the Design/Problem Brief
After this has been submitted, and concurrently, each of you will be expected to digitally communicate with a chosen PLC about the value of collaborative inquiry as it relates to an authentic problem of practice. This is why I have advised many of you to think about PLCs from whom you can realistically expect to receive a reply.
There is no reason why you cannot change your group as well once you have started to work on the group project.
For Module 5, you will
- Identify a Professional Community with whom to connect
- Starting with one of your burning questions, and quite possibly the burning question you worked on with your group, take the introduction and literature review from your group work and define a set of core ideas, related to Collaborative Inquiry and based on course content, to be shared as appropriate, with your chosen PLC.
- Connect virtually and/or physically with the PLC and document your interactions
- Provide evidence of a connection to the identified Professional Community
- Where virtual and/or physical connection is not possible, you will need to create a “digital foothold” where you can communicate the set of core ideas that were identified related to Collaborative Inquiry and the particular Professional Community
- This is the point where you will find the work better and more rewarding if you can actually connect with your PLC.
- Create a link between your digital foothold and the course.
Post to the D2L Discussion topic, "Our Professional Communities - Making Connections" (started in Module Two).
Readings to support study
Hello - Your first set of submissions to me, as part of Module 3 are due on February 12th. Given that the following week was designated as an 'off-week' (Feb 13 – 19), and that I can see many of you might need a few more days, I will:
- Extend the deadline for these submissions to Thursday, February 16th. If you submit before this time, I will try to complete your feedback as soon as possible.
- If you submit by this date, I will try to have your feedback to you by Monday, February 20th, which still leaves you lots of time to act on any comments.
- If you still need a bit more time, please let me know in advance.
Just remember, that the deadlines are to help everyone keep together on the same timeline and so work together.
These submissions include:
- Activity: Final Core Concepts Map
- Submit to dropbox (link to site in word document or image / pdf)
- Technologies Montage
- Submit to dropbox (Link to site or youtube etc. in Word – DO NOT submit video file)
- Activity: Professional Community Initial Proposal
- Submit to Module 2 Discussion board: Our Professional Communities
Concurrently, Module 2 ends on February 12 and so you should have posted to the “Our Professional Communities - Making Connections” Discussion board. In Module 3, you should continue to post to this SAME discussion board to make your proposal.
*** To be successful in the group assignment, your first post (Module 2) should highlight the community or communities you have been considering. You can then see what communities other people are considering. You will eventually choose one community to focus on for your group. To give yourself the best opportunity, the more communities that are discussed, then better the choice you will have.
In Module 3, you should be pitching your entry to let others know what you might want to do about the group project. This is your chance to attract group members. Ironically, I often counsel other academics at my university to not let students choose groups because you don’t get to do so in ‘real life’. However, in an online forum, getting a group is actually harder than having one made for you.
Hello – the focus in Module 2 is for you to use the community forum to ask your burning questions and try to get feedback and insight into your work. While doing that, you should work on your technology montage as a means of reviewing the tools you might want to use for the next sections of the course. I will give you feedback and ask questions about your montage. You could take those questions back to the knowledge forum for further discussion.
So, you should then have some ideas around your burning questions and what you might want to do with or about them. You also have some ideas about the tools you can use to manage your questions and consequent actions.
Armed with this knowledge and ideas, go to the discussion board and post about the professional community you want to explore. You will need to spend some time to look at different communities and share your thoughts. You will need to review your classmates’ posts very carefully. From this discussion, you will eventually FORM GROUPS to work on the assignment for Module 4 – jump ahead and read it carefully before you post in module 2.
This all takes time. That is why this module is longer than the others
In Module 3, you will make an initial proposal about a community that you want to work with. You will need to consider what you would want to do with that community. Although not stated, you should think about what issues might arise in working with that community.
In module 4 you will need to review the posts from modules 2 and 3, and then FORM GROUPS, select ONE of the communities among your group, and proceed with the assignment.
Please note: You will submit a final version of your concept map and montage in Module 3. These will be a significant part of your mid-course evaluation. That is why I am asking you questions about your work. Please take time to consider and answer the questions from me and from your classmates.
I would like to comment about making comments on people's posts. If you read about the community of inquiry, (https://coi.athabascau.ca/), you will discover that teaching presence is the supporting presence that makes the whole community actually function.
So, let me say that not only is it appropriate for you to ask each other questions, but it is imperative that you do. Teaching presence not only comes from the teacher (me), but comes in the form of directing questions and inquiry which is what gives the community direction and guidance for sharing our cognitive presence. Social presence is that which makes us comfortable doing so.
I have talked about this in previous posts with other cohorts of students. You can read one discussion here
In other words, to make the most of this discussion board and community, I charge you with asking pointed and direct questions of each other in the posts. This is to push each other forward in the quest for knowledge.
That is why we are here. That is why I love to teach. Students believe that they can ask the teacher questions. Well, students can also ask other students questions. In fact, students must ask other students questions. There is only one of me and many of you.
I look forward to a question-filled discussion over the next few weeks.
In this professional learning experience, assessment is ongoing, and evaluation is holistic. I view all discussion board activities and tasks as central to your learning and overall growth.
I engage in each module as a participant, course moderator, and teacher. I loosely follow the ICE (Ideas, Connections and Extensions) Model of assessment as a guide for my interactions. You will note that this model is based on Bloom’s taxonomy of learning.
I will participate in each discussion board activity as much as reasonably possible and will at times pose additional questions for you as a group, or individually. I am a strong proponent of the Community of Inquiry Model of online interactions and have integrated this model into my teaching for many years. I am also an advocate of a social constructionist approach to Education that posits, “human systems are not just living systems that can adapt to the environment, but systems that can imagine a better future and co-create it together” (Camargo-Borges, 2015).
For each task, I will provide descriptive feedback and ask questions to challenge you to further develop your ideas. These tasks will not be assigned a grade, as they are viewed as tools for development and extension. I will note your efforts to challenge yourself and to meet challenges posed to you by me or by your classmates.
There are 2 self-reflections and consultations (as outlined on the work map document), which provide you an opportunity to reflect on specific areas of your performance in the course. These consultations also provide me the opportunity to provide a wider range of comments and feedback to you:
Mid-course consultation: you will complete a rubric of professional inquiry highlighting the criteria associated with your performance in the course. This includes a reflection on your learning to date. I will respond with my own comments and reflection and provide a written assessment of your performance to date in the course. (Please post your completed self-assessment of the Professional Inquiry Rubric to the course Dropbox no later than Feb 12th.)
Final Course Consultation: This follows the same process as detailed above. Once your self-assessment is submitted, I will provide my comments and feedback about your course participation and provide a final letter grade. You will have a chance to respond to your grade before it is formally submitted. (Please post your completed self-assessment of the Professional Inquiry Rubric to the course Dropbox no later than March 19th.)
Given this approach, you will not receive a breakdown of specific course tasks and associated marks. Instead, you are encouraged to commit to excellence in your learning and in supporting the learning of others. I am happy to discuss any of this at any time should you have concerns about your assessment.
Sincerely, Dr. Paul Leslie
Camargo-Borges, C. (2015). Designing for Learning: Rethinking Education as Applied in the Master in Imagineering. World Futures, Vol. 71 (1-2)., p 26-39.
Winter 2017 – GDPI–PME 801 Collaborative Inquiry
Instructor: Dr. Paul Leslie
Office: Virtual office hours by appointment
Jan 9 – March 20, 2017
*This is a 7-week course spread over a 10-week term. There will be 3 “off” weeks: Jan 30-Feb 5, Feb 13-19, and Feb 27-Mar 5. These off weeks help to balance the workload.
- There is overlap in the timing of the modules and they are of varying lengths.
- Module 4 is perhaps the most intensive as it requires group work, an extensive literature review and engagement with external communities (the name of the course is Collaborative Inquiry).
- As you will note in the course Gantt chart (following the weekly syllabus), you should start thinking about potential group members and associated work in Module 2.
- I urge you to review the entire course structure in order to be clear on the progression of ideas and content and to be able to make connections between the various elements of the course.
- I am happy to negotiate deadlines and due dates as needed. However, please consider your classmates when doing so.
This course will enable the student to understand the foundational principles of collaborative learning and to enact those principles in professional practice. This, in turn, will lead to the creation of a collaborative learning community within the context of the course where the knowledge and skills of professional inquiry will be explored and demonstrated.
- Develop a general understanding of collaborative inquiry
- Develop an understanding of core concepts related to collaborative inquiry including collaboration, inquiry, problem solving, and design.
- Develop an appreciation that collaborative inquiry can take different forms in different professional communities
- Build awareness of the role technology can play in supporting collaborative inquiry
- Develop an understanding of key concepts beyond the core concepts related to collaborative inquiry, including (but not exclusively): contextual constraints, problem framing, inductive/deductive and abductive reasoning, and knowledge building
- Engage in critical review of a problem and the context in which the problem exists in a community
- Propose solutions to a problem that are sensitive to the concerns of the stakeholders
There are five (main) modules in GDPI/PME 801 - Collaborative Inquiry. Some of the modules overlap throughout the duration of the course. There are also un-numbered modules that mark the beginning (Course & Personal Introductions module), the middle (Mid-course Consultation module) and the end of the course (Course Closure module). The main modular structure is as follows:
- Module 1: Collaborative Inquiry about Core Concepts
- Module 2: Knowledge Building
- Module 3: Develop and Share Artifacts
- Module 4: Engage in Collaborative Design with Course Peers
- Module 5: Connect with a Professional Community: Communicating about Collaborative Inquiry
Feedback and reflection are integral to successful professional inquiry. Across the GDPI/PME courses, participants are provided with various ways to reflect on their progress (e.g. blogging, portfolio development) and to receive on-going feedback about the progress of their ideas, actions and concerns (e.g. group discussion, collaboration, written comments). The instructor, along with other participants in the course, will provide feedback as part of the day-to-day course functioning, however at two points in this course a formal interaction between the instructor and each participant will take place.
At roughly the mid-point of the course, participants will conduct a self-assessment. This process has 2 parts. First, participants will complete the Participant’s reflection section of the GDPI-PME Rubric of Professional Inquiry. In addition, participants will consider the 5 elements of inquiry represented on the rubric and construct a profile of the quality of their own learning to date. Once both sections are completed, participants will submit the rubric to the instructor via the Dropbox.
The instructor will then respond with his/her own assessment of the learning on both the rubric and through the Instructor’s Remarks. No grade is to be assigned as this mid-course use of the Rubric of Professional Inquiry is for formative purposes only. At the end of the course, again using the Rubric of Professional Inquiry and following the same pattern of interaction, a summative assessment will be completed by the instructor.
|Course & Personal Introductions||Jan 9-13||
Collaborative Inquiry about Core Concepts
|Jan 20 -Feb 12||
Develop & Share Artifacts
Mid-Course Consultation Feb 12
Submit to dropbox
GDPI-PME 801 Course Readings by Module
Introductory Module: Course and Personal Introductions
Johnson, S. [Riverhead Books]. (2010, September 17). Where good ideas come from [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU
Taylor, M. (2013, September 5). Collaboration: Oiling the system. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/collaboration-oiling-the-system/
Module 1 - Collaborative Inquiry (CI) core concepts (ill-structured, discourse-based, CI as problem solving, CI as design)
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. (2009). Constructivism: When it’s the wrong idea and when it’s the only idea. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure (pp. 106-123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Required Case Study to Review & Discuss in D2L
Learning Forward Ontario. (2011). Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator’s Guide. Retrieved from http://misalondon.ca/PDF/collabpdfs/Collaborative_Inquiry_Guide_2011.pdf
Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K–6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 751-772.
Allen, S. J., & Graden, J. L. (2002). Best practices in collaborative problem solving for intervention design. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1) (pp. 565-582). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Eris, O. (2003). Asking generative design questions: a fundamental cognitive mechanism in design thinking. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm. Retrieved from http://www.designsociety.org/publication/24150/asking_generative_design_questions_a_fundamental_cognitive_mechanism_in_design_thinking
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp.135-144). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in engineering design, 3(3), 131-147.
Module 2 - Knowledge Building (Deeper exploration of discourse to support Collaborative Inquiry)
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of learning sciences (pp. 97-115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Turbin, E., Liang, T., & Wu, S. (2011). A Framework for adopting collaboration 2.0 tools for virtual group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation. 20(2), 137-154.
Bernoff J., Li C. (2008) Harnessing the power of the Oh-So-Social web. MIT Sloan Management Review 49(3), 36–42.
Dillenbourg, P. & Traum D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1). 121-151.
Lai L. S., Turban E. (2008). Groups formation and operations in Web 2.0 environment and social networks. Group decision and negotiation 17(5), 387-402.
Mason, W. & Watts, D. (2012). Collaborative learning in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109(3).764-769.
Rochelle, J., & Teasley S. D. (1995). The Construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago, IL: Carus Publishing Company.
Stoyanova, N. & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of interactive learning research, 13(1), 111-133.
Module 3 - Develop and share artifacts and providing feedback
Valkenburg, R. & Kees, D. (1998). The Reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies 19(3), 249-271. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00011-8
EduGains – Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010) Feedback – The most powerful tool [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.edugains.ca/newsite/aer2/aervideo/descriptivefeedback.html
Schon, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design studies 13(2), 135-156.
Module 4 - Engage in collaborative design with course peers
Dorst, K., (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design studies 32(6), 521-532.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design studies, 22(5), 425-437.
Gassmann, O., & Zeschky, M. (2008). Opening up the solution space: The Role of analogical thinking for breakthrough product innovation. Creativity and innovation management. 17(2), 97-106.
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The Structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive science, 16(3), 395-429.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the learning sciences. 9(4). 403-436. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2
Deketelaere, A., & Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Collaborative curriculum development: An encounter of different professional knowledge systems. Teachers and Teaching, 2(1), 71-85. doi:10.1080/1354060960020106.
Svihla, V. (2010). Collaboration as a dimension of design innovation. CoDesign, 6(4), 245-262.
Module 5 - Students plan and carry-out connecting with broader professional community (Various professional communities and their approaches to collaborative inquiry)
Ontario Leadership Strategy (2010). Exploring five core leadership capacities: Promoting collaborative learning cultures: Putting the promise into practice. Ontario leadership strategy bulletin, 3, 1-23. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/ideasintoactionspring.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Education (2010). Collaborative teacher inquiry: New directions in professional practice. Capacity building series, Secretariat Special Edition #16, 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/CBS_Collaborative_Teacher_Inquiry.pdf
Hsu, P. (2013). What can PLCs do for you? Research brief: are you a true PLC? 1-8. Retrieved from http://qualityschools.lausd.net/sites/qualityschools.lausd.net/files/Are%20You%20a%20True%20PLC.pdf
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S. & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International journal of science education, 32(3), 349-377. doi:10.1080/09500690802582241
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A Review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of science teacher education, 23(3), 291-318.
Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.) Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp.41-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co‐constructing inquiry‐based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in science teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers' pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers & Education, 45(3), 337-356.
Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 24-28.
The School of Business recently sponsored a writing workshop for full and sessional academic staff. I worked closely with two other colleagues to prepare the agenda for the day. As the lead facilitator, I was responsible for the final agenda, speakers, and the actual facilitation and success of the workshop.
Supporting documents for the workshop can be found here.
The agenda was as follows:
- Mr. Mark Smith:
- How to make your story relevant.
- Professor Lynette Sheridan Burns
- Write for your audience
- Keith Parry
- Uses for writing - The Conversation
- Mr. Mark Smith:
- Short sessions on G-Doc
- Review of available data sets
- Writing topics and current expertise
- Matching topics to targets
- Short writing and review sessions
- “Shut up and Write” (not our title!!)
- Report to whole group
I presented at the 2016 Designing for Learning Workshop held at Western Sydney University (Parramatta Campus) on Tuesday, November 29th, with two of my colleagues. You can view my workshop notes here.
Our abstract for the workshop:
Engaging students through active learning
Active learning is "anything that involves students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing", which can include discussing, collaborating, critical thinking, problem solving etc. In this 50-minute hands-on session, participants have an opportunity to participate in active learning activities that can be implemented in classroom environments and adapted to a range of scenarios.
Participants will be required to bring a learning and teaching activity schedule / lesson plan, in which, they wish to incorporate active learning strategies. During the session, we will have three activity stations where participants will discuss the key principles of active learning, as well as, participate and explore active learning strategies.
I have recently had another paper on portfolios accepted for publication in the The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. While I am waiting for the paper to be published, you can access it here.
This paper will explore how a portfolio approach to teaching and learning can help the educator incorporate unique forms of reflective practice into his or her daily work. By being able to express ideas more clearly to himself, the educator can better promote the relational construction of knowledge in his educational communities. This paper, as part of a larger body of research asks, how can a portfolio approach to teaching and learning help the educator develop unique forms of reflective practice that will help him express his ideas more clearly first to himself and then secondly to his educational communities? Research methodology is primarily participatory action research and includes an autoethnographic review of the author’s work, reviews, interviews, observations and focus groups with student teachers and professional teachers in the United Arab Emirates. The research concludes that in consideration of McLuhan’s (1964) notion that the ‘medium is the message’, the interactions that arise through the use of new media tools can lead us to relational, co-constructed ideas that are not those simply passed on from other texts. By making our thinking visible, the portfolio approach allows the educator to capture the contextual relationship between the author, the audience or community, and the knowledge being created.
Keywords: portfolio, relational construction, education, scholarship, reflection