Reply by Joan Coy on October 25, 2008 at 2:05pm

Maybe we have an idea for Fred. With the aid of technology, we are combining courses taught in a traditional setting, with our on-line PAVE program, establishing a partnership(team-teaching) between classroom and on-line teachers. Through this model of Social Constructivism, students have expanded choice and are able to control their own learning, resulting in engagement with their learning.It is just possible that using an appeal to the 21st century learner -where students and teachers have access to a wide range of technologies ( i.e.: books online, on iPod, pictures/images taken or created, creating own data and analyze, quality on-line courses, human resources that enable them to produce authentic high quality products and performances) will motivate Fred to realize his potential. An innovative application of the new DL framework...

Reply by Steven Greene on October 28, 2008 at 4:23pm

Fred knows how to use technology, he is actually extremely good at it. He even thinks he knows enough to beat our tech department in their hunt for anti-social on-line behovior. He was wrong, but he can apply very advanced techniques. It is very difficult to motivate him towards anything academic (maybe having that as a goal is a mistake in the first place).

My point with this made up character is to directly question Ab. DL community, do you have a desired target?
is there an age that would benefit the most? is there a group of learners that would beneift the most? the vignettes definitely appear to include a wide variety of students, but they do not describe many of the students that I have worked with.

Read the stories again, every student is self-motivated, driven, equipped with a good supply of success building skills. That is not every student in Alberta, not even close.
So what about them?
I agree that choice will benefit 21st c.learners.
I am definitely not negative about the approach, I just want to challenge the designers to give me something more about motivating and assisting the low achievers, the students that are content to barely make it by, or drop-out because no one seems to care.

For some students the last thing they want is to control their own learning, what now??

For some teachers the last thing they want for lunch is a tuna sandi, but what is on the buffet?

How can the DL team help us solve these complex problems.

Whats for lunch Nov. 4th in Lethbridge?

Reply by Lesli on October 30, 2008 at 11:08am

You are now part of the DL Team Steve!! These complex answers are the focus and we look to educators like yourself to see what is happening with students like Fred, in addition to the students who may have more motivation (intrinsic or with the "help" of their parent(s)). It is astounding to see what happens with some, never all, of the unmotivated learners when they have the ability to "own" their learning i.e. PAVE, Learning Stores, Project Approach, Online, regular classroom access, etc. There are so many potential variations of what DL may look like. We need to consider all students (unmotivated, special needs, gifted, driven, your "average" kid) as we move towards a provincial approach to DL in Alberta. What would Fred want?

Reply by Steven Greene on October 30, 2008 at 12:43pm

Well, it turns out what he needs is personal attention from a caring teacher. Is there a way to have teacher Mentors that personally meet and ensure that Fred is getting that, the attention that is not coming from anywhere else.
Combined with a teacher that can monitor his effort and accomplishment on a daily basis, Fred could be looking at a combination for success.
Most teacers in larger classes are not able to check on progress and work accomplished in a meaningful way every day, and Fred needs that kind of accountability, at least until some passion inside is lit.
Fred also can't function without that personal relationship, that role model that cares about him, that he cares about pleasing.

Tough combination to put together.

Reply by Brian Shields on October 31, 2008 at 7:59am

Looks to me like Fred needs a blended setting -- part of the learning would be more hands on in a face to face setting with a teacher, perhaps even in a RAPP setting and part of his day would be more flexibly supported by a teacher in an online setting. I have found, contrary to my expectation, that the DL teachers actually have more one-on-one with students than what I experienced in a classroom setting with large classes ... that came as a surprise to me. The learning could also be effectively supported from home by Fred's parents using the DL resources in a tutorial setting. I agree with your insight into the fact that "engagement" is a significant issue that is not reflected in the student scenarios on the main page. Is there a possibility to bring together a number of resources to support Fred in a way that catches his attention ... a conspiracy of support from multiple learning partners? You are correct that it will ultimately come down to Fred's level of engagement ... perhaps we could do more to connect with him. Is there a way that governance and funding could support such a model?

Reply by Leslie Snyder on October 31, 2008 at 3:38pm

This is feeling a bit like "Joe the Plumber" so I am glad his name is Fred. I haven't got any sage advice to offer here - I think that this is one of the most complex problems teachers face in any setting - engagement. Relationship is KEY but not all teachers and students are the "key and lock" match --- if I think back to my own education there were a few very very special teachers that just happened to be the perfect fit for me and now I realize how lucky I was to be mentored by them. I hope I have been able to do that for a number of students too - but I'm sure they didn't all appreciate me either. Sigh --- we're dealing with so many variables! I'm interested to hear where this will go on Tuesday!

Reply by Steven Greene on November 1, 2008 at 7:19pm

I think I stole Leslie's ideas in another post in a different thread, relationship is key, but the crazy thing is, just as Brian mentioned, a meaningful relationship that transmits care, personal + meaningful engagement, role modeling, the transmission of important life lessons, and academic guidance can all take place in a DL non-face-to-face environment. This constant messaging, on-going back + forth between teacher and student would have to be present for students that have difficulty motivating themselves.
How could governance and funding support Brian's conspiracy of support come into being?
I think I risk my standing in the union, and I know I risk revealing my ignorance when I say that paying teachers based on student success - wait a minute - just hold it right there.
I know its a terrible idea, only because it is subversive and capitalistic, but there it is.

An idea that could actually be embraced by teachers - a large beaurcracy that would assign each student to a teacher that is physically close enough for F2F interaction, and also a teacher or two that would help monitor, assess and implement the course delivery or assignment construction. Ex) some teacher, not in the room - would consult with an individual student on what objectives will be met and how understanding will be demonstrated, another teacher or perhaps the same one would connect the student with resources that are applicable to that one particular task, another "manager" that would monitor teacher/student involvement - kind of quality control, and finally some kind of outside party that could ensure standards have been met. Sounds pricey $-)

I should really edit my ideas.

Again - can any of these ideas actually work in grades lower than 10. the label ECS-12 I find a little amusing.

Teaching addition in a DL environment - is that a goal??