Category Archives: Research Topics

Predicting online learner success to prepare for success

— by on — Leave a reply

Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 90–109. doi:10.1080/08923640802039040

 

Until relatively recently, distance education research and discussion on student success largely ignored the influence of the learning environment.  As the internet increasingly came into the purview of distance education, the focus on individual learner characteristics came into question as the dominant source of insight into student success.  Roblyer, Davis, Mills, Marshall, and Pape ask the question: “Can any measured student cognitive and background characteristics be combined with learning environment characteristics to predict the success or failure of high school students in online courses” (2008, p. 96)?  This piece presents the second iteration of a model developed to predict the success of students in a virtual high school, conducted by Roblyer and Marshall in 2002.

 

The impetus for the work seems to be, first, that the drop-out rate in online education settings is significantly higher than for conventional learning environments (typical brick and mortar high schools), and, second, that there were no effective (in terms of percentage accuracy identifying a student’s likelihood to remain in school and achieve academically) models to help assess a student’s potential success in a virtual school.  This study presents a revision of the Educational Success Prediction Instrument (ESPRI), referred to as ESPRI-V2.  It has been edited to a 60-item Likert Scale measuring “technology use/self-efficacy (self-assessment of one’s ability with technology), achievement beliefs (confidence in one’s ability to learn, an aspect of locus of control), instructional risk-taking (willingness to try new things and risk failure in instructional situations, related to locus of control), and organization strategies (ways to organize for more efficient learning)” (p. 102).  These four factors originally derived from an extensive literature review of previous educational psychology and distance education studies and work on learner success in asynchronous and/or geographically distributed education situations, and they are representative of what emerged as most influential from a direct logistic regression analysis.  This output was combined with “two student background variables (age and self-reported GPA), and two environmental variables (home computer availability and school period for working on the virtual course)” to yield a highly reliable model (p. 99).  (Both of these descriptive variables where shown in the review of the literature to be incontestably significant for predicting online learner success.)

 

The study was conducted using a very large and seemingly variegated sample, comprising over 2,000 students of the Virtual High School Global Consortium (VHS).  Students were from different parts of the country and attended schools of different sizes, socioeconomic status, and settings (urban, suburban, and rural schools were represented).  The main factor missing from the sample is a diversity of access to internet at home – all students in the sample had the internet (and related devices) at home.  It would be interesting to apply ESPRI-V2 to learners whose access to the internet is more difficult and/or less reliable; these individuals would likely display less comfort overall with the platform and navigating the online world generally, which, one could reasonably assume, would impact findings.  Additionally, 80% of study participants had a period during the school day designated for their online course work; it is logical to assume that less supervision and a schedule structure requiring more student self-management would impact learner success.  This is the case in many online learning settings, particularly for remediation and credit recovery, where, often, students need credits to graduate and are not duly motivated to pace their work for quick completion (rather, if permitted, students may wait until the month of graduation to worry about their missing Geometry credit, for example).

 

ESPRI and the approach of Roblyer et al is rooted in the sociocultural tradition which values understanding “people’s everyday activities rather than focusing exclusively on formal educational contexts and academic subjects.  The emphasis is on the ways psychological processes emerge through practical activities that are mediated by culture and are part of longer histories” (Ito, Gutierrez et al, 2013, pp. 42-43).  They assessed the existing literature and discourse and observed an important under-appreciation of factors associated with the student’s learning experience and environment, including technology access and life circumstances.  Their “results indicate that environmental variables can play as important a role in a students’ success as the characteristics and background students bring to the course” (p. 105).   As a predictive tool, ESPRI-V2 is valid and robust, having predicted success (for its sample of VHS students) with 93% accuracy.

 

The important pursuit that follows from these findings is how to construct an academic program that is supportive of those predicted to succeed and as well as for those who are sure to struggle (if they choose to pursue the online option after the reflection opportunity ESPRI affords program advisors to facilitate during the pre-enrollment process).   One approach for an online high school is sketched briefly in the following.  Upon enrollment, a student will not only take a placement assessment, to help determine specific academic strengths and weaknesses, but will take a questionnaire including the measures comprising the Educational Success Prediction Instrument.  The questionnaire will be augmented with questions eliciting a range of personal details, such as hobbies, siblings, passions, aspirations for the future, concerns, and expectations in the program.  Armed with a wealth of data about each individual, including past academic performance (which schools receive on any incoming student in the form or report cards or transcripts), technology skills and access (self-reported), fears and hopes, as well as the precise output from the ESPRI-V2 element, a personal learning plan can be crafted with the student.  The plan and associated correspondence with the student’s instructors will be driven not merely by academic requirements and school budgetary concerns (online charter schools in Arizona receive funding based upon each student’s average daily minimum number of instructional minutes, relative to the average number of required minutes annually).  This working document will be unique to the individual, tailored to help the student connect his/her interests throughout their high school career, as well as to his/her potential strengths and weaknesses as an online student, as indicated by this onboarding questionnaire.

 

Prior to the student beginning any coursework articulated in the plan, the student will engage in a program and online learning orientation.  Structured like a course itself, the orientation is an opportunity for students to get familiar with and connected to the program, peers, staff, and the technological tools the student will be expected to use.  This has been recommended by several scholars thinking about student engagement and online learner success, e.g. Beyrer (2010) who developed and studied the utility of an online orientation course for online students at a small college, and Jagannathan and Blair (2013) who echo that orientating should be integral to the all-important efforts of a school endeavoring to engage students from “day 1” for retention and achievement.  Important aspects of the orientation process would include: requiring students to communicate in multiple modalities; completing tasks by set due dates; collaborating with peers on small projects designed to build relationships and help students familiarize themselves on how asynchronous and synchronous activities and may work and the challenges therein; practicing using web-based learning resources in a safe and effective way; and engaging in lessons on online learning “tips” and digital citizenship.

 

The intent of ESPRI-V2, according to Robleyer et al, explicitly, is not for schools to use it to deter or exclude students from an online educational setting.  One of the benefits of online education is that it has the potential to enhance access to high quality education widely, given institutional capacity to support technological device and skill development needs.  However, there is value in using a tool such as ESPRI to help counsel families on the options their student is better suited for.  Online learning is not for everyone.  For those that choose to proceed, ESPRI furnishes schools with valuable data on each student’s potential for success.  Schools may implement highly personalized engagement and support plans for each student, toward retention and achievement for its student body.

 

 

Beyrer, G. M. D. (2010). Online student success: Making a difference. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/beyrer_0310.htm

Ito, Mizuko; Gutiérrez, Kris; Livingstone, Sonia; Penuel, Bill; Rhodes, Jean; Salen, Katie; Schor, Juliet; Sefton-Green, Julian; Watkins, C. S. (2013). Connected learning: an agenda for research and design (p. 99). Irvine, CA, USA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Retrieved from http://dmlhub.net/

Jagannathan, U., & Blair, R. (2013). Engage the disengaged: Strategies for addressing the expectations of today’s online millennials. Distance Learning, 10(4), 1–7. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=93996527&site=ehost-live

Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 90–109. doi:10.1080/08923640802039040

Roblyer, M. d., & Marshall, J. C. (2002). Predicting success of virtual high school students: Preliminary results from an Educational Success Prediction Instrument. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 35(2), 241. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=8948095&site=ehost-live

Does Program Length Matter?

— by on — Leave a reply

Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Niehaus, E. K. (2011). One year later: The influence of short-term study abroad experiences on students. The Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(2), 213-228.

Short-term Study Abroad Programs are on the Rise
Rowan-Kenyon and Niehaus’ 2011 study focuses on a hot topic in the field of education abroad: the effects of short-term study abroad programs on students.  As a product of short-term study abroad programs myself, and considering that I currently work on short-term, faculty-directed programs, I of course see the benefits of these programs, but as they increase in prevalence, there are a growing number of professionals who call their academic integrity into question.  I think this study is a timely and important one because as the Institute for International Education details in its latest Open Doors report (2013), 51.50% of American students studying abroad do so on a program that is 8-weeks or less in duration.  With the continued growth in this sector of the field, we need more studies to aid in ensuring that the programs our students are participating in are indeed providing the meaningful impact that we want for our students.

Summary of Methodology and Findings
The study was conducted at a single institution on a short-term program of 10 days.  A small group of 10 students, studying in the Czech Republic were invited to participate, of which only 7 students actually participated fully.  The research questions Rowan-Kenyon and Niehaus addressed were:
1.) What meaning do students make of their participation in a short-term study abroad experience, both immediately after the experience and a year later?
2.) How do the students attempt to integrate this meaning into their lives?
3.) To what extent do students follow through on new commitments or intentions developed as  a result of program participation?

The researchers used a case study approach grounded in Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning, which is a theory that “describes the ways in which students’ experiences alter their frames of reference, or the ways they make meaning of the world” (p. 215).  Methods included participant observation, document analysis, and 3 interviews: the midway point of the trip, right after the trip ended, and one year after the trip had ended.  The findings of the study suggest “students who had engaged in subsequent learning opportunities continued to find meaning in their study abroad experience. The experience had faded into a distant memory for students who did not integrate the experience into their lives in some way” (p. 213).

Strengths and Areas for Improvement
Among the study’s strengths, I found that the organization of the article was logical and made their processes and conclusions very easy to follow.  Concerning the literature review, I found it to be balanced, presenting both sides of this debate, something I have not always seen.  In particular, I was delighted to see studies such as Neppo and Chieffo (2005) and Griffiths (2004) included since these studies produced findings that confirmed benefits of short-term programs. Additionally, I think the piece does contribute to the field, providing a strong argument for requiring meaningful re-entry intervention with students participating on short-term programs.

However, the study is not without its shortcomings, and most notably to me is the small sample size.  For one, only a single program at one institution was studied.  In order to build more confidence in these findings, I think groups from a variety of institutions and short-term programs should have also been included.  Feedback from 7 students can hardly be considered a basis from which to make broad applications for the field.

Furthermore, I take issue with the study’s data collection methods because the researchers were leaders of the program in which they were assessing.  Perhaps this is a risk of action research, but I think the opportunities for bias are heightened because of the ties they have with the program, a fact that the researchers attest to in their limitations section stating, “although this was beneficial in that we participated in the same cultural immersion as the students and developed relationships with the students, there was a risk that we were too involved in the research outcomes” (p. 218).  This is an important issue for all action researchers of which to be aware when conducting research and I am reminded from recently reading Gould (1981) and Howard (2003).  Gould’s summary of Samuel Morton’s polygeny and craniometry studies is quite revealing in how easy it can be to make obvious errors in research when harboring such intense beliefs about what the outcomes should be.  Similarly, Howard makes an important point for student teachers that can be applied to action researchers as well: critical reflection of one’s own identity and biases is paramount before undertaking the activity in question.

New Ideas on the Importance of Re-Entry
Though there are some issues with how this study was conducted, the findings do seem logical and I would be interested to see these research questions continued to be studied.  In particular, I think the finding that those students who participated in an activity that made use of those experiences in the year that followed made more meaning from their short-term program than those students who did not is particularly important for the re-entry phase of education abroad programming.  As Rowan-Kenyon and Niehaus explain, “The true test of any educational experience is the extent to which students integrate their new knowledge and understanding into their lives. As the results of this study show, “the extent to which students learn from a short-term study abroad experience may depend more on what those students do after they have returned home than on anything they did while abroad” (p. 223).  Too often, study abroad offices lack re-entry programming or coursework that could help alumni of short-term programs make meaning of their intensive experience.  Or, if something is offered, it is usually a welcome back pizza party with little academic structure designed to have students working through the reflective processes that would encourage transformative learning.  As the leader of our office’s re-entry team, however, I note, too, how difficult it is to get students to come to re-entry activities, be it a pizza party or otherwise.  Therefore, I think continuing with this line of research might be helpful  in order to to determine if an intervention, such as a required 1-credit re-entry course module, might be effective if introduced for all short-term participants.

There is More Work to be Done!
Aside from expanding the population included in this study so as to hopefully build more trust in the universal application of the findings, I think it will be important to examine the types of re-entry interventions that students participate in and what outcomes of transformative learning they lead to.  For the students in this study, three of the four students who claimed the short-term program in Prague had changed their lives went on to participate in additional international travel one year later, and the fourth student went on to complete an internship with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security where he reflected on plans to travel to a developing country in the future.  By assessing the types of activities students participate in post short-term study abroad and the meaning these students make from their short-term study abroad experiences later on, perhaps we as educators can gain new insight as to the types of resources and opportunities we should be plugging our students into upon their return.  I think this opens up opportunity to provide focused advising and recruiting efforts to help these students find more intensive, long-term study abroad programs, internships, and graduate programs that will help them more fully integrate their new-found self-confidence lessons learned on their short-term programs.

References

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of a man. (pp. 30-72). London: Norton & Company.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Institute of International Education. (2013). “Duration of U.S. Study Abroad, 2001/02-2011/12.” Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors

Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Niehaus, E. K. (2011). One year later: The influence of short-term study abroad experiences on students. The Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(2), 213-228.

The ongoing struggle of teaching kids how to read

— by on — Leave a reply

Shanahan, T., Cunningham, A., Escamilla, K. C., Fischel, J., Landry, S., Lonigan, C. J., … Strickland, D. (2008). Developing Early Literacy (pp. 1–231). Jessup, MD. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf

Summary

This research centers on best practices for parents and educators in early literacy as suggested by a panel of experts. According to Shanahan et al. (2008), “The National Assessment of Educational Progress reveals that 37 percent of U.S. fourth graders fail to achieve basic levels of reading achievement” (p. v) which is why this panel of experts was created. The panel sought to discover what are the best practices to build early literacy skills. Of particular interest to my research is “which programs, interventions, and other instructional approaches or procedures have contributed to or inhibited gains in children’s skills and abilities that are linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, or spelling?” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. vi). In order to synthesize best approaches to early literacy, a meta-analysis of research already present in this field was conducted. The goal was to provide a framework for educators and parents of young children to follow in helping this population develop in literacy.

Organization

This research was presented in the form of a report. Headings were helpful in navigating this long document. It was clear who conducted this research, why it was conducted, how and the conclusions they came to.

As the researchers divided up the study into different categories, such as early intervention and parent involvement, it was easy to follow. To improve, I think there could be a simplified synthesis at the very end of the study of next steps to follow and which stakeholders need to follow them.

Contribution to Field

Before I identify the contribution to the field, it is important to note that these findings are based on some research designs that are not completely valid, as the effectiveness of some of the analyzed literacy strategies were based on simple pre and post-test results, something that the authors acknowledged. From this panel’s research, we know that interventions overall have a positive effect on early childhood literacy acquisition. The strength of these interventions, however, had to do with what instructional techniques were used and how much time was devoted to it. The panel determined it crucial that teachers use activities and methodologies that may not be typically seen in early childhood.

Literature Used for Meta-Analysis

The study was based on what literature was out there to synthesize in order to make recommendations for early childhood literacy instruction. Through a search of major research journals, literature reviews and research recommended from people on the panel, 8,000 potential articles were screened. From this review, 500 research articles were analyzed. Overall, “correlational data showing the relationships between children’s early abilities and skills and later literacy development and experimental data that showed the impact of instructional interventions on children’s learning” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. vi).

Data Collection

The data collection was through analyzing the 500 studies that were identified during the literature review. Identifying specific search terms that were then broken down into categories did this. Once studies were found, there was a particular criterion the researchers followed in order to decide what was valid research, one of which is that it needed to be empirical research that had been published in a refereed journal.

As the study acknowledged, “the major limitation confronting any meta-analysis is the quality of the original studies that are being combined” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. x).

Analysis

The article stated that the study “sought to identify the most comprehensive set of obtainable data in an unbiased way and to analyze those data in a straightforward manner with a minimum of manipulation or recalculation of the original data” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. 1). There were specific research questions that the panel followed in the analysis, which could provide a framework for future researchers to use when analyzing further studies. They also included every document they used to analyze the data. Therefore, it is possible to duplicate this research or at least use the guiding questions when coming across new literature.

Theoretical Framework/Lens

The lens here is that there are many emergent literacy theories out there that need to be synthesized.  The point of this study was to consolidate what is out there, using the minds of this informed panel to make recommendations for early literacy instruction.

Findings & Conclusions

A particularly interesting finding is that the studies on language interventions have shown to be effective overall. These interventions are particularly effective when the oral language strategies are “defined as a diverse set of outcomes, such as expressive and receptive language skills, phonemic awareness, and verbal intelligence” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. 222). What is key is that these language interventions are not exclusive to students who have limited English proficiency or who come from low-income backgrounds; rather, they are beneficial for all types of students and abilities. Most importantly, however, is that the earlier the intervention, the better. Older children had less of a boost from particular language interventions analyzed. To make these findings more valid, it would be beneficial to conduct further studies with a larger sample size, a limitation that even the authors acknowledge.

In terms of instruction, the presence of literacy focused curricula and the amount of professional development provided to teachers significantly impacted current early childhood research. Though curricula is identified, there was little discussion on what pedagogies the curricula utilized, so more investigation needs to be conducted in that area. Another big finding is in regards to parental involvement and its impact on literacy. Though the researchers studied this, they realized that this is still a very new area of research with little literature available. Therefore, currently there is not “a clear, empirically proven best way to use this involvement toward improved literacy performance for young children” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. 199), implying that we need more data on this issue.

This study is a strong foundation for formulating ideas around access and impact in education.  However, it does not necessarily answer questions to how to promote that.  In moving forward, we need to investigate pedagogy and parental involvement so reading instruction and students’ early literacy skills can be improved overall.

For more information on the NAEP, go to the website at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/.

Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education; Research Topic

— by on — Leave a reply

Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education; Research blog one

26 May 26, 2014

References

  1. Otten, M., (2003). Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education: Journal of Studies in International Education. Vol. 7 no. 1, 12-26

Accessed from: http://jsi.sagepub.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/content/7/1/12.short

 

Strengths, Contributions and Ways to Improve; Graphic Organizer

 

Organization: The article was coherent and the author did develop the argument. There was very little metalanguage used to anticipate and conclude. The headings and subheadings were useful in this article.

Contribution to Field: Contribution to the field was worthwhile and significant.

Literature Review: This article did not provide a literature review.

Theoretical Framework/Lens: The article clearly demonstrated coherence. The research focused on International intercultural pedagogy perspectives.

Data Collection: Data was collected from regions with an explicit diversity policy tradition in higher education: the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Analysis: The article had a profound impact on current education action research.

Findings: The findings of the article were not clear however the research does outline some assumptions about intercultural encounters and its meaning for intercultural learning.

Discussion/Conclusions: The article provides a strategy for setting up diversity activities and diversity plans aimed at intercultural learning.

Minor Editorial Comments: No editorial comments for the article.

Miscellaneous: No miscellaneous comments for the article at this time.

 

Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education

The article; Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education, discussed what can be understood by intercultural competence and how it relates to the quality of intercultural contacts rather than the quantity. The article also examined the concept of Internationalisation as it relates to the diversity discourse that has shaped the Anglo-American debate in the United States and Canada. The article goes on to discuss the concern for diversity and cultural pluralism in higher education in the United States. The article also goes on to discuss the need for curriculum change and teaching the influence of diversity practitioners as it relates to curriculum matters. I learned that growth of cultural pedagogy is limited because of the traditional claims of the faculties and academic departments. The author states still, more and more colleges and universities across the United States are transforming their curricula because college leaders increasingly recognize that knowledge about domestic and international diversity is essential for today’s students.

This article made me think about a component of intercultural competence I had not thought about before, international intercultural communication competence. This was a unique way of the examining the concept, as it takes the theory of intercultural communication competence and stretches beyond domestic borders. This study was significant to me as an educator and my experiences because of our ever expanding reach to foreign students. With online education being so popular, educators must know now look toward an international classroom. It is my goal to be at the forefront of academic research on intercultural communication both foreign and domestically.

I feel that the article Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education has a profound impact on current education action research. It has been cited in several other articles from various journals such as the Business and Professional Communication Quarterly article (2013); Intercultural Communication Apprehension and Emotional Intelligence in Higher Education: Preparing Business Students for Career Success. The afore mentioned article cites Otten as saying “the increasing internationalization of university campuses does not guarantee by itself that business students are receiving adequate intercultural communication instruction (Otten, 2003).” Research suggests that despite the rise internationalization, many institutions possess an achievement ethos that requires a commitment to excellence.

Review of Value Chain in Higher Education

— by on — Leave a reply

APA Citation:
Dori, M., Nadi, M.A., Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2012). A Review on Value Chain in Higher Education.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3842-3846.

The area of inquiry I would like to examine is the application of Supply Chain principles to graduate business education within universities. Supply Chain, or Value Chain as it is now more commonly called, has primarily been focused on manufacturing environments in which a set product is being produced through a series of processes. Examples of this could be within the auto industry and the production of a vehicle. In recent years, the application of Value Chain principles has begun evolving its application to other industries that are not producing a tangible product such as car but may be impacting a service or the development of some specific outcome. Value Chain has begun its application to areas such as digital services, customer service supply chains and other areas. With this idea in mind, there are application possibilities within the educational Value Chain in the series of processes and actions that lead from the admission of a graduate business student through graduation of that same student. Along this progressive chain, there are a series of activities and interactions that a student will go through. Actions could be everything from enrollment in courses to purchase of materials to course completion to filing for graduation.

Much of the processes along this chain are often disconnected from each other due to silos within departments and administrative units, mismanaged for various reasons or are impacted based on different factors, perhaps even the student themselves. Much like any industry, universities must examine their process chains to ensure that the continued progress of the learner is not impacted by the processes themselves.

The article by Dori, M., Nadi, M.A., Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2012) examines the application of Value Chain, within the higher education context. Dori et al (2012) examine the competitive factors within higher education that require new ideas to creative competitive advantage (p. 3842). Factors impacting education can be competition with other universities, decreased funding from Government sources and even management challenges within the institution itself (p. 3842). Much of the research examines the different scholars who are completing research in these areas and the different application models that can be applied. Primarily, the article focused on the Porter Value Chain Model which looks at the process from a primary activity and support activity model while considering the factors associated with those activities. Factors in this model include infrastructure, internal and external influences, financial composition and the production piece (Dori, et al., 2012, p. 3843). The Porter Model primarily looks at the business enterprise and less of the social service enterprise such as an institution so the research also look to those scholars who posit a value chain model designed specifically for higher education.

One model examined is that of researchers van der Merwe and Cronje (2004) that looks at the process chain from a higher level perspective as it relates to desired outcomes (p. 3844). Less focused on the micro level, this model is represented by a 4 step process that includes: defining the outcome or scope on which the value chain will focus, identify a requirements elicitation methodology that focuses on the identification of the high-level processes within the application domain, identify the high-level processes within the application domain and use the high-level process model developed to derive the sequence of processes needed, to achieve a predefined outcome (Dori et al, 2012, p. 3845).

Overall, the article was well put together and provided a good analytical consideration of the arguments around the application of value chain for higher education but did lack some deeper insights. Great from an analysis perspective of the examination of the research landscape but little suggestion in the way of what other ways this methodology could be applied or what model made more sense (Porter versus the Educational model). This would have added some value to the piece that I felt was missing. In some ways, though, that was valuable as I had to draw more of my own conclusions about the value of the different models. The various perspectives were valuable but I found myself leaning more towards the Porter Model due to a bit more inclusion of the micro factors that inhibit success within the chain.

From a critical perspective around organization and other key areas, the article was well organized but did suffer from a few minor grammatical errors. The lack of argument did somewhat inhibit the flow although the article as more of a review, per the title, may have been the authors intentions. Perhaps a follow up piece could include examination of the models to draw some of their own conclusions and add value to the field of research.
Despite the authors’ lack of argument or suggested model, the reading did give me ideas to assist in my own analysis, specifically around some of the factors mentioned in the Porter Model (Dori et al, 2012, p. 3843). What stood out for me was some of the business enterprise ideas that could apply, particularly the financial structure and the organizational infrastructure. Although business focused, much of business school is often designed like an enterprise yet lacks some of the organizational infrastructure needed to make that successful. Organizational infrastructure is significant in that success cannot happen until the structure is in place to support the efforts and ideas being developed and used. Individuals supporting those structures will continue to suffer. The model is relevant but the human factor has to be considered in how they can make the model successful.

Further research studies here would be relevant around application in a real-world model. Using a graduate business program as an example, a further study could develop more key insights on not only how the model could be applied but in what way improvements or enhancements could be added taking into account a forum of individuals (students, professors, administrators) who contribute to some of those processes and outcomes.
This has further implications also for taking on a more humanizing approach to application of the model. In my personal opinion, I feel some of the supply chain models may take on too much of a process oriented approach, forgetting the individuals who may make up that process both at the process driver level and the process outcome level. By adding some of those perspectives more readily into the research, I feel it offers up a more humanizing approach that may be more effective in the end for consideration of the stakeholders involved. Further research on my part will need to be done to see what other researchers are examining in this area.

Placement Tests Matter – High Stakes for Community College Students

— by on — Leave a reply

Maggie P. Fay, Susan Bickerstaff,  and Hodara, Michelle (2013).  Why Students Do Not Prepare for Math Placement Exams: Student Perspectives. (CCRC Working Paper No. 57).  New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

As I continue to explore Developmental Education, I keep wanting to learn more about the placement process.  Higher education is struggling with accurately placing students. And, this placement is ca critical factor the a student’s likelihood for degree and/or certificate attainment.  Many factors contribute to this inaccurate placement, and this article tackles one of the issues – lack of student preparation.

Article Summary

The purpose of this article was to explore community college students’ experiences and attitudes toward placement tests.  The study includes survey responses from 122 students at four community colleges as well as 34 students who participated in four focus groups at those same colleges.  The community colleges are part of a community college system on the East Coast, and at the time of the study, this system decided to undertake new placement testing procedures and instruments.  The students who participated in the study all tested into and were enrolled in developmental math in the fall 2012 semester.

The study concluded that there are four related reasons why students do not prepare for the math placement test.  The reasons were explained as follows: Students’ misperceptions about the stakes of the placement exam, a lack of knowledge about test preparation materials, an unawareness of why and how to prepare for the placement exam, and a very low-level of confidence with their math abilities (Fay, Bickersaff, & Hodara, 2013).

The study provided recommendations for colleges regarding placement testing.  It is recommended to create more student awareness about the importance of the exam, increase awareness of test preparation materials, and design materials that teach both what and how to study (Fay et. al., 2013).

Strengths and Critiques

Overall, the article is well-organized and is written at a very understandable level as it is trying to reach a wide audience of readers.   The authors provided a coherent study as the research consistently focuses on the premise that lack of student preparation contributes to low placement test scores.  But, the findings of the research do not necessarily contribute anything original to the field of developmental education.  Furthermore, the study is limited as it only addresses math placement testing, not reading and English which are utilized nationwide as well.  I was also disappointed that the article did not include a literature review.

Regarding their data collection methods,  the researchers utilized student surveys and student focus groups.  One way to improve and enhance this research would be to consider the timing of the surveys and focus groups.  Students were surveyed after taking the placement test and receiving their scores.  Results may be different if students were surveyed prior to taking the placement exam.  I would also be interested in responses from students who did not test into developmental coursework.  Did those students prepare?  Did those students receive the same information and had the same level of awareness as students who tested into developmental education?  Finally, greater attention could be paid to those students who testing right out of high school versus those students who had been away from school for two or more years.

The findings are logical, but not necessarily significant.  The finding regarding the correlation between self-confidence and placement tests was one I had not read before.  I am not aware though if these findings were revealed during the survey itself, or during the focus group responses.  Also, I am unable to determine how many students indicated this lack of self-confidence.  The conclusion was logical, although it is difficult to determine the frequency of responses that indicated a lack 0f self-confidence with math prior to testing.  I would recommend including more specificity as to how this conclusion came to be.

My Take

I found this research did provide me with greater insight into the placement test process.  I am aware from my experiences at Glendale Community College that students do not prepare for the placement exam.  GCC , and many of the Maricopa colleges, are similar to the colleges discussed in the study as materials are prepared and offered to students.  But, test preparation materials are not necessarily promoted.  They are available on our web site, but a student would have to seek them out to prepare in advance for the exam.  This research confirms that it is imperative that community colleges put forth much more effort to create and to disseminate test preparation materials for incoming students.

This article also reinforced for me the need to communicate the ‘high-stakes’ of the placement exam to incoming students.  The authors state that, “staff members’ attempts to allay students’ anxiety about placement testing (i.e., by telling students not to worry about the exam) contributed to students’ tendency not to prepare and may have served to understate the stakes of the exam” (Fay et. al., 2013). My experiences also confirm this finding.  GCC staff members, nor our print materials, communicate the importance of the placement exam.  Students need to have a greater understanding of the consequences – a strong understanding that their placement matters.  Most students surveyed indicated they did not realize there was even a concept of developmental courses, and they were not aware the results of this exam could place them into below college-level course work.

The survey did reveal a finding that was one I had not considered.  Most articles and research I have read focus on the anxiety students have regarding math, and that anxiety impacts performance in college coursework.  However, I have not considered the effect of low self-confidence with math skills on the placement exam.  The study revealed findings that students “were worried about placing into a course that would be too difficult” (Fay et al., 2013).  And, students reported being satisfied with their placement in below 100-level courses.  The implications for this finding are two-fold in my opinion.  First, much of the communication leading up to the placement exam does not address student fears, anxiety, or low self-confidence.  Furthermore, the test preparation materials are primarily delivered on-line, and again, do not address a lack of confidence for the student.  As community colleges develop test preparation materials and as some embark on the test preparation workshop, it is critical that these materials and courses in some manner address the students’ lack of confidence.

To build on this research, I believe you could expand the study to include attitudes and perceptions of students regarding the English and reading placement exams.  Are student perceptions about those tests the same?  Do students have the same lack of confidence as displayed in the math results?  Another way to build on the research is to explore this lack of confidence further.  Specifically, students completed this survey after having taking the placement exam, and after having already enrolled and started their developmental coursework.  I would want to explore whether students had the lack of confidence prior to the placement exam, or was this lack of confidence fueled or reinforced by a poor placement test score and subsequent placement into a developmental course.

Research Topic Post – Online Learning Readiness Assessments

— by on — Leave a reply

Dray, B. J., Lowenthal, P. K., Miskiewicz, M. J., Ruiz-Primo, M., & Marczynski, K. (2011). Developing and instrament to assess student readiness for online learning: A validation study. Distance Education, 32(1), 29-47.

With the dramatic increase in online learning deliverables seen within K-20 environment, researchers have begun to examine not only the validity of this mode of education, but also the student’s preparedness for web-based learning, and success for the online learning environment. Using Kerr, Kerr, and Rynearson’s (2006) framework for assessing online learning readiness, the author’s found that students felt they were indeed ready for online learning, but, that their self-assessment was based on their own experiences with technology leaving room for additional variables to be examined.

The authors of this article were familiar with previously conducted survey findings presenting information on student readiness for web-based learning; however, the results of those surveys provided limited information and translating that information into tangible data was challenging as stated by the researcher. Therefore, the authors of this article conducted a study to develop a more detailed tool to determine student readiness for online learning through a three-phase study: the survey development phase in which faculty/experts reviewed questions for clarity, the item analysis phase where the content of the tool and research questions were refined through focus groups and interviews, and finally, the survey validation phase in which questions from previous surveys were combined with new questions to cover topics relating to student demographic, learner characteristics, and technological ability (Dray, Lowenthal, Miskiewicz, Ruiz-Primo, & Marczynski, 2011).

The participants in their study were comprised of 26 graduate students pursuing a degree in educational computing. The results of the study showed that many of the students were scored as ”ready” for online learning, yet, the implications of study were direly impacted by the lack of sub-groups based on age, sex, or socioeconomic influences on their preparedness. This has importance because results may show that certain ages, genders, or socioeconomic factors play a role in determining whether the student is prepared for web-based learning. For example, if a student is under the age of thirty, they may rank as being prepared for online learning because it is reasonably assumed that students in this age group use online communication daily through social networking. Researchers also determined that the term “readiness” needed further clarification for the study’s purpose, as oddities were discovered as to whether readiness was determined by one’s technical ability or by their use and engagement of web-based tools, equipment, and material (Dray, Lowenthal, Miskiewicz, Ruiz-Primo, & Marczynski, 2011).

This article proves beneficial to my study in that the literature review coherently presented previous research done on the topic along with critiques of the strengths and weaknesses of each article reviewed.  The authors found  literature gave information on general learner characteristics, interpersonal communication abilities,  and technological skils(word processing, using spread sheets, use of search engines, etc.). However, noticeably absent was information on the student’s work schedules, access to technology, and the expectations for being successful in an online course. I found it interesting that the authors found an unexplored angle of questioning based on self- concept, esteem, and efficacy which could lead to quite different results of surveys proving to be an excellent contribution to the field. The authors of this article likened their study to that of Kerr, Kerr and Rynearson (2006) whose article, “Student Characteristics for Online Learning Success” also discussed student esteem, efficacy, and self-confidence as a means to determine success in online learning.

The authors create a stimulating argument, showing that readiness is a complex term, and must be defined as more than general characteristics. I found the first phase of their survey to have the strongest argument where skills regarded as being part of traditional learning can be easily carried over into online learning. Such skills include writing and expression, time management, and responsibility. Additionally, the authors were diligent enough to alter questionnaires where inconsistencies were present. For example, during the first phase of their study, it was found that students were answering questions based on their personal experience with web-based tools, rather than within the education context as expected. Therefore, the authors revised the prompts to require the students to answer the questions from their educational experience.

The article presented the questionnaire through its various stages of reconstruction showing how questions were revised during each phase of the study. However, the article lacked a clear definition of how the surveys were administered. Was the survey an in-person sheet where students entered answers long-hand? Was the survey administered online through a course management software program, or was the survey collected in focus group setting in a qualitative manner? These are questions that presented areas of concern as the setting in which the survey was administered could possibility present differing data results. While the authors presented information the ages, ethnicities, and major of study for the participants, the study failed to present information on the whether participants were taking an online course for the first time, and what distance learning model was used for this specific course in which the survey was given (completely online, hybrid, etc.). Additional areas of study could examine  the comparison between undergraduate student online learning preparedness, and graduate student preparedness in online learning environments to see if results of the study vary between the two populations. Another area of exploration could be centered on how the level of social media experience of the participants  impacts online learning success. Finally, the study could be extended to present data on minority student success in online learning environment, including information on whether one’s socioeconomic status has an impact on online learning. The further study, as suggested, would prove to as an effective analysis for researchers and teacher-educators to examine underrepresented populations.

This article can be compared to Lau and Shaikh’s (2012) article, “The Impacts of Personal Qualities on Online Learning Readiness at Curtin Sarawak Malaysi” in which the authors of the article developed a questionnaire to gather information on student’s personality characteristics as diagnostic tool for both faculty and instructional designers (Lau & Shaikh, 2012). Where Lau and Shaikh’s study shows a higher level of evidence is that they surveyed over 350 participants in their study as compared to Dray, Lowenthal, Miskiewicz, Ruiz-Primo, and Marczynski’s study in which only 26 graduate students were surveyed. The findings of Lau and Shaikh’s (2012) study were that students were less satisfied with online learning in comparison to traditional learning environments and felt less prepared for the objectives of the course. Both articles support my research in different by equally necessary ways: Lau and Shaikh’s (2012) article presents compelling statistical data on online learning readiness, while Dray et al (2011) article provides information on how to compose efficient survey questionnaires.

References

Dray, B. J., Lowenthal, P. K., Miskiewicz, M. J., Ruiz-Primo, M., & Marczynski, K. (2011). Developing and instrament to assess student readiness for online learning: A validation study. Distance Education, 32(1), 29-47. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2ae58e61-960f-4907-be25-93dcd5ba5c38%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=120

Kerr, M., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. (2006). Student characteristics for online learning success. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 91-105.

Lau, C. Y., & Shaikh, J. M. (2012, July). The impacts of personal qualities on online learning readiness at Curtin Sarawak Malaysia. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(20), 430-444.

Hispanic students and higher ed – a followable path reveals itself

— by on — Leave a reply

Reference

Hall, R. E., & Rowan, G. T. (2001). Hispanic-American males in higher education: A

descriptive/qualitative analysis. Education, 121(3), 565-574. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/196438890?accountid=41434

Summary

Hall and Rowan’s (2001) article “Hispanic-American Males in Higher Education: A Descriptive/Qualitative Analysis” describes the initial oppression that Hispanic-American encounter with regards to education in America. Some of these forms of oppression include: unemployment, imprisonment, and poverty (Hall and Rowan, 2001, p. 565). Due to this, Hall and Rowan (2001) call for this in their article, “In an effort to reverse dropout rates programs and policies must accommodate Hispanic-American males who are less academically prepared but who have the potential for success in higher education” (p. 565). The authors describe trends in the education of Hispanic students in detail. Hall and Rowan use data to illuminate graduation rates of Hispanics versus non-Hispanics, but also the authors sub-divide and compare different portions of students deemed Hispanic like Puerto Ricans versus Mexican-Americans. Ultimately, the authors put the onus onto Higher Education in general as not doing enough to support Hispanic-American students. Talented Hispanic-American students should not be dropping out of college, and the policy process should be further counter-balanced towards enabling Hispanic-American students to graduate.

Hall and Rowan’s (2001) article, as mentioned, focuses on a myriad of different data sets when describing the problems related to Hispanics in high education. The authors also offer philosophic arguments as reasons to support change: “Consummate societies require human perfection which is beyond the possibilities of human endeavor and thus is an ideal. As a viable alternative, higher education can maximize the benefits of human development by designing/redesigning policies to accommodate Hispanic-American males” (p. 573). This strongly-worded article has numerous implications for the issues of retaining intelligent and talented Hispanic students in higher education institutions. The greatest being its focus on higher ed institutions’ role in all of this. No longer should drop-out rates be looked at solely as failures of the young Hispanic individual. There is more to it – college and universities must realize their role in all of this and redouble their efforts to support their Hispanic learners.

Organization

This report was clearly organized and easy to follow. The authors stated the problem at the onset of the text and worked from there.

Contribution to Field

This article contributed to the field as it first offered a comprehensive review of literature on the predecessors in the field of study. The authors created, in their words, a non-exhaustive analysis of focused-grouped questions given to groups of Hispanic college students. The authors utilized these groups for collection of their data, using “eight to twelve Hispanic American male college students and lasted 60 to 90 minutes” (Hall and Rowan, 2001, p. 570).

Literature Review

This article’s strength just might be its Literature Review. As mentioned, it builds nicely on what came previously, interweaving the research and analysis of some of the older texts and articles that exist on this subject. Because of this, it serves as a foundational piece and starting point from which to proceed when looking at Hispanic students in higher education.

Data Collection

The methods for data collection and the data itself are not what make this article interesting. The data is taken from surveys given to Hispanic students on college campuses. It asks the students to define and expound upon issues that they’ve faced in their time at college. For instance, one survey question is: “3 What problems did/do you have enrolling and staying in school?” (Hall and Rowan, 2001, p. 571). Another example of a survey question is: “5 What ideas do you have for successfully educating Hispanic-American males?” (Hall and Rowan, 2001, p. 571). These questions – purposely open-ended – might be a challenge for young Hispanic students in the sense that asking questions like this to students pursuing an undergrad degree, young men in their early twenties, would not allow for the depth of reflection as, for instance, a student seeking a Masters or Doctoral degree.

Analysis

To me, this is where this process became interesting in this article. The data collectors organized keywords that were repeated in these surveys and interviews. It almost felt as if they were collecting and organizing keywords as a Wordle does, but it was deeper than that. It, again, was interesting to me when the authors described the time-consuming process which now can be done in seconds using some of the algorithm software that is out there today for data organization. Still, the gesture was noble (not to mention it seemed novel for its time), and its results continue to be useful and valid in their field of study. The authors did utilize a computer program which they did mention, but this was technology circa 2001, not what is used today. Ultimately, the data was organized alphabetically and a color-coded system was used as well.

Theoretical Framework/Lens

I saw the hermeneutic for this article as one of outsiders looking in as a means of gaining knowledge. This knowledge, once illuminated, could potentially aid the next group of Hispanic scholars seeking higher education. I see this as a data collection for the purpose of gaining wisdom, a wisdom that could be passed down – almost as if the authors sought to create a document of “things I wish I knew before I started college” for Hispanic students. They went about this in innovative ways. Instead of creating a detailed list of student responses, the authors accumulated survey data and took it to original and new places.

Findings & Conclusions

The authors findings were not dismaying at all, but I noticed the types of Hispanic students who succeed in college, as listed in this article, are ones who are highly motivated and self-starters who transcended their peer groups. These students did not seem to be part of the norm or involved in groups of students who all went on to college. They were the exceptions, not the rules. And so, in one sense, not much can be gleaned from the findings – “special students will do special things” comes to mind. But that’s not the success of this article. We know now that, in spite of great challenges, special Hispanic students do make it to college, and they do find success. How does one become special? Well, that’s the challenge, but at least now a template or precedent has been set which those who seek this path and come after can follow.

Welcome

— by on — Leave a reply

Welcome to our site!

This blog is a collaboration between graduate students enrolled in Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College and their two Postdoctoral Fellow facilitators. For six weeks, students will explore how action research can be used to address issues of access, excellence, and impact in educational research settings and share their meaning-making here. We encourage you to come back and join the conversation from May 22 – June 30.