Become a Member Membership Resources Events Calendar Donations Select Language

HETL Global Communities

Democratizing Higher Education Learning:A Case Study of Networked ClassroomResearchJune 29, 2015 in Volume 5

HETL Note: We are proud to present the second article on the topic of democratising higher educationcontributed by Dr Anne Jones and Dr Lee Graham. Applying a qualitative research approach the authorsinvestigate the dimensions of on­line democratized learning in the case of a community of teacher­learners. Asa result of their analysis they propose a theoretical model that is centred on critical collaboration – theinteraction between collaboration and critical thinking, driven by feelings of empowerment and facilitated by theuse of social media and other information and communication technologies. The work draws on prior researchand contributes to the understanding of teacher learning as a process that involves knowledge acquisition, skilldevelopment, and most importantly – the intellectual growth of the individual. The authors propose a new theoryof democratized on­line learning.

Author bios:

Dr. Anne Jones is Assistant Professor of Education and Co­Director of GraduateElementary Programs at the University of Alaska Southeast. Her research focuses ondeveloping pre­service teacher cultural consciousness, diversity education for socialjustice, and technology integration for student success. Dr. Jones completed herteacher preparation at Chapman University, earned a Master’s degree in educationalleadership and policy studies from California State University, Northridge and aDoctorate in education from the University of Southern California. Dr Jones be cancontacted at r.anne.jones@gmail.com.

Dr. Lee Graham is Associate Professor of Education at the University of Alaska Southeast. She gained herPh.D. in educational technology from Mississippi State University in 1999. She presents nationally and

internationally on the topic of open online environments and innovative instructionaldesign for online learning. She is engaged in consulting to assist programs in the U.S.with the adjustment of curriculum for international audiences. Dr. Graham wasawarded the Alaska Society of Technology in Education’s 2015 Technology LeadershipAward. Dr Graham can be contacted at drlee.graham1@gmail.com.

Democratizing Higher Education Learning: A Case Study of NetworkedClassroom Research

Anne Jones and Lee Graham

University of Alaska Southeast, U.S.A.

Abstract

The case study describe and discussed in this article presents the experiences of the participants in SoutheastAlaska Collaborative Classroom Research – an online open course that was the result of combining twograduate courses. Participants became the providers, as well as the consumers, of knowledge. Participantsshared learning and expertise and acted as consultants and mentors to each other thereby blurring the roles ofteacher and learner. We analyzed participants’ blogs, tweets, and other interactions to find examples of criticalthinking, information and communications technology (ICT) competencies, collaboration, and camaraderie. Asanalysis continued, we realized that empowerment continued to emerge intersected with other codes. As aresult, a new theory of democratized on­line learning was developed. It aims to explain the interactions betweenand among critical thinking, information and communication technology (ICT) competencies, collaboration, and

Search HETL PortalSearch HETL Portal

Signup to HETL Newsletter

Email Address Submit

Become a Member

2015 Utah Conference

January 20 to January 22, 2015Orem, Utah.

ABOUTHETL

ACADEMIES& Institutes

CONFERENCES& Programs

RESEARCH& Publications

SUBMISSIONS& Current Calls

camaraderie, and includes the concept of empowerment – the space from where the capacity to engage indemocratic action emerges.

Keywords: Democratized education, networked learning, empowerment, classroom research

Introduction

This case study presented in this article explores the experience of participants in Southeast Alaska’sCollaborative Classroom Research – an open on­line course bringing together two existing courses (Impact ofTechnology on Student Learning, and Classroom Research). Both are graduate level courses. The ClassroomResearch course is required for teacher candidates who are completing their Master of Art’s degrees inteaching, and for in­service teachers completing an advanced program of study in mathematics, specialeducation, or educational technology. The course Impact of Technology on Student Learning is required for in­service teachers or training professionals completing the Master of Education in educational technology andmay be taken as an elective in the Career and Technical Education Program. All our students are e­learners,located in various locations throughout Alaska and beyond.

We created the learning space in the open using WordPress and Twitter in the hope that students wouldencounter a diversity of ideas and perspectives beyond those of the class enrolees. A word or phrase precededby a hash or pound sign (#) is used in Twitter to identify messages on a specific topic. We dubbed our openlearning community #seaccr (Southeast Alaska Classroom Research). In our course (Southeast AlaskaCollaborative Classroom Research) #seaccr is used to designate conversations among students in the coursein Twitter. We refer to the course as #seaccr throughout the remainder of this paper.

To accomplish the goals of #seaccr we needed powerful and open tools that could assist students in building acollective. Blogs and tweeting became the obvious choices. Using these two tools, students collaborated aboutprocesses and products and made revisions based on peer, rather than instructor, feedback.

Review of the Literature

Current literature addressing elements necessary for a foundation for participation in a democratic society areexamined. This literature is contextualized with an eye toward developing skills necessary for work in aknowledge economy in networked environments. Participation within a collective for the purpose of ongoingskills development is posited an equalizing environment for learning in the knowledge economy. This literatureforms the conceptual basis of the research.

Democracy and Education

According to Dewey (1916), education should have both a purpose for the individual student as well as asocietal purpose. Therefore, educators are responsible for providing students with personally relevant learningopportunities that are immediately valuable and which ultimately enable students to contribute to society. Deweymight argue that to accomplish these goals, students ought to have same power and responsibility for theirlearning as their educators. In addition, a democratic experience with learning in school provides thebackground needed for later effective participation in a democratic society. For Dewey, students should practicecommunication, collaboration, and critical reflection in order to develop effective citizenship skills for ademocracy (Dewey, 1916).

Cohen (2006) argues that the goals of education need to be re­framed to prioritize not only academic learning,but also social, emotional, and ethical competencies. Cohen suggests that social­emotional skills, knowledge,and dispositions are necessary for high quality of life as well as participation in a democracy. The social­emotional skills, knowledge, and dispositions for democratic participation are:

The ability to listen to ourselves and others and the responsibility, or the inclination, to respond to others

in appropriate ways.

The ability to be critical and reflective and the appreciation of our existence as social creatures that need

others to survive and thrive.

The ability to be flexible problem­solvers and decision makers, including the ability to resolve conflict in

creative, nonviolent ways and an appreciation of and inclination toward involvement with social justice.

Communicative abilities, e.g., being able to participate in discussions and argue thoughtfully and the

inclination to serve others and participate in acts of good will.

Collaborative capacities, e.g., learning to compromise and work together toward a common goal.

21st Century Skills

Vooght and Roblin (2012) conducted a meta­analysis of 21st century skill frameworks and found that commoncomponents of these frameworks were communication, collaboration, information and communicationtechnology (ICT) related competences, and social and/or cultural awareness. Also included on most lists arecreativity, critical thinking, and problem solving, as well as generating relevant high quality products. Teachers

must master these 21st century skills if they are expected to prepare their students for success in the knowledgeeconomy. Participation in a knowledge economy requires new skills and an advanced level of autonomy anddecision­making capability in order to adapt quickly to changing knowledge resulting from technological

advances and rapid obsolescence (Powell & Snellman, 2004). These societal and economic factors challenge

teacher preparation programs to recreate themselves and better prepare teachers to meet the needs of the 21st

century (Wideen, 2013). Open learning environments are recognized as one representation of learningstructures appropriate to the knowledge economy (Peters, 2010). Chris Dede (2010) delineated a

categorization of 21st century tools and related skills based the comparison of several frameworks. Thecategories include: sharing (communal bookmarking, photo/video sharing, social networking, writers’workshops/fanfiction), thinking (blogs, podcasts, online discussion forums), and co­creating (wikis/collaborativefile creation, mashups/collective media creation, collaborative social change communities).

These tools enable users to participate in open and networked courses (Evans, 2015; Graham, 2015). Connectivism proposes a convincing framework for the open and networked course which relies explicitly “onthe ubiquity of networked connections between people, digital artefacts, and content, which would have beeninconceivable as forms of distance learning were the World Wide Web not available to mediate the process”(Anderson & Dron, 2010, n.p.).

The concept of Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) emerged from a consultancy project sponsored by theCanadian Government, which suggested that that there was a need to capitalize not only on the digitalinfrastructure but also on the combined human and digital networks, which emerge from it (McAuley, Stewart,Siemens, & Cormier, 2010). Consequently cMOOC (Connectivist Massive Open Online Course) proposed aninstructional design structure that attempted to harness and build upon these networks. Learning in thecollective (Thomas & Brown, 2011) presents a way of understanding the activity of students within an open andnetworked learning environment. Learning in the collective requires that students become active members ofthe network – both drawing from the network’s resources and adding to them. One is a member of thecollective only to the extent that one contributes to and participates within the collective (Brown & Thomas,2013). The activity of a collective diminishes the authoritative viewpoint of any individual member. Arguably,more than in any other learning configuration, the collective lends itself to a community of equals with commongoals and interests, in which all members contribute equally.

Method

We base the analysis of this case study on Dewey’s (1916) ideas about democracy and education, the skills and

dispositions for democratic participation set out by Cohen (2006), and a framework for 21st century skills(Vooght & Roblin, 2012). Yin (1984) defines case study as “empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporaryphenomenon within its real­life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearlyevident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (p. 23). This research intends to examine, basedon tweets, blog postings, and course products, the experience of students in the #seaccr group, howparticipation in the #seaccr network influenced students’ experiences, and why participants’ experiences differedin this context from the context of courses without a focus on the learning community. Analysis of data fromstudents’ tweets and blogs will potentially lend support for our development of a theory of democratized on­linelearning.

Participants

Our students are in­service and pre­service teachers as well as educational technology professionals. In total,26 students participated in the course – 20 women and 6 men. All participants gave consent for the use of theirdata (blogs, tweets, email etc.). The eighteen students in the Classroom Research course consisted of sixElementary Master of Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.) students, two M.Ed. Reading students, seven M.Ed. Mathsstudents, one Early Childhood Education student, and five M.Ed. Technology students. The eight students inthe Impact of Technology on Student Learning course included two Career and Technical Educatorprofessionals taking the course as an elective, and three M.Ed. Technology students. While participants in theEducational Technology course were seasoned in­service teachers or training professionals, many in the M.A.T.course only recently earned their teacher certification and completed this course during their first year ofteaching. Most of these students had never before engaged in a formalized research process. In general,M.A.T. students are in a transitional space in which they evolve from teacher candidate to novice teacher. In ourexperience, being in this space creates a state of disequilibrium (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) for M.A.T. students onboth a professional and academic level. By contrast, most of the Educational Technology students havecompleted at least one action research project and are entering a more sophisticated level of research asdistrict, university, or not for profit technology leaders.

Procedure

We had several goals as we designed the open online course. Because of the vast distances between ourstudents and us, the need for authentic engagement was vital. According to Moore (1991) in distance learning,as physical distance increases, the need for intentional strategies to create intentional structure for instructionaldialogue also increases: this is termed transactional distance. We wished to design a community thatproliferated to the extent that transactional distance was reduced or eliminated through multiple paths toengagement and feedback. Further, we sought to encourage a more authentic conversation that could perhapsendure beyond the bounded course environment. We also wanted teachers to think like scholars, using dataand research to make decisions, rather than relying only on experience and possibly spurious information.

As we had already experienced a siloed e­learning environment, we attempted to bridge the transactionaldistance by building a learning environment that would endure beyond the start and end dates of the course.

We created a structure for a professional learning network that invited students to communicate, collaborate,think critically, and apply ICT skills, using popular social media tools. Rather than requesting to meet a “walledgarden” requirement (e.g., “you have to respond to two discussion board posts,” or “go into this working roomand talk about methods for 30 minutes”) (England, 2010), we attempted to make dependency on others and theneed for peer support part of the course design. Students would be required to make choices about how, when,where and with whom they collaborated based on their learning needs and interests.

There were risks involved in this design. We knew the students would find themselves at the center of thelearning space, responsible for their own learning and the learning of others. From experience, we were awarethis would be disconcerting to many learners. Moreover, while the general process and expectations of thecourse were clearly delineated, individual students would choose the way they engaged in the process in termsof choosing resources and technology tools, and levels of interaction with their personal learning network(PLN). We realized this would put many students in a state of disequilibrium (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) that couldbe uncomfortable and challenging for them. Finally, students would be required to develop and maintain alearning community on their own. We knew that technology would be an obstacle for some students, thereforewe attempted to keep the design quite straightforward – mandating the use of blogs and of Twitter, but allowingall other tools in an optional manner.

Another equally important goal was for students to develop a foundational understanding of classroom researchand the way that one creates, manages, and completes one cycle of action research to benefit their practice. We provided source documents and models to students to facilitate this understanding. In addition, weencouraged students to share their own writing with each other. Finally, through the blogs, students wererequired to locate supplementary resources and share with others to build the foundational understanding of thepractice, intent, and outcomes inherent in action research.

We dubbed our open learning community #seaccr (Southeast Alaska Classroom Research). We created thelearning space in the open in the hope that students would encounter a diversity of ideas and perspectivesbeyond those of the class enrolees. We hoped that all students would find entry points for connection withothers because of the number of potential interactions that presented themselves. We hoped to continue ourown development as facilitators and contributors in an online environment different from what either of us hadexperienced in the past.

We began the class with a synchronous WebEx video conference. During the first week of the class, we werecareful to insure that students gained the basic skills necessary for success in their study. We scheduled aWebEx meeting during which we went over the syllabus and demonstrated how to use WordPress to set up ablog, and how to use Twitter to communicate synchronously. During the WordPress demonstration, manystudents set up their blogs, and learned how to make a posting. They made their first blog postings and askedquestions. During the Twitter session, we demonstrated the use of Tweet Deck for organizing and followingTwitter feeds, and shared some hints for reducing spam and for further organization. The group discussed thepurpose of Twitter in the course, and practiced tweeting while the demonstration was going on. The mood ofthe group ranged from slight panic, to cautious optimism when the session ended. We invited students to tweetand practice prior to the scheduled Twitter session. We designated Week 1’s Twitter Topic “Play Week,” andinvited students to a Twitter “play date” in which we asked students about our favourite television shows,favourite web sites, recipes, and hobbies. We also invited students to ask any questions they wished to haveanswered. As the course proceeded, we provided students with additional guided reflection questions, watchedfor misunderstandings, and encouraged interaction. Students engaged in the processes of classroomresearch. Starting in Week 3, we emphasized the importance of students answering questions asked by otherstudents on Twitter, and we tried to move to the background a bit. Week Seven wrapped up the course. Weheld a focus group through WebEx and students shared their project presentations.

Data Sources

Data sources included student created blogs, student and faculty tweets, audio data from focus groups, archivesof WebEx video conferences, and course related emails. We discussed our impressions and interpretations asresearcher participants during the course, after the course ended, and during the analysis of participant data. These discussions formed the basis of reflexivity. Reflexivity is an awareness of the researchers’ contribution tothe construction of meanings throughout the research process and an acknowledgment of the impossibility ofremaining “outside of” one’s subject matter while conducting research (Patton, 2001).

The bulk of participant data came from student blogs and responses to the blogs of others. We harvested theblogs of all the students participating in the class, and comments made to those blogs for each of the sevenweeks of blogs required for the course. We collected participant tweets from our twice­weekly Twitter sessionsand organized them by participant and week. Groups of blog postings, tweets, and other input organized weekby week became our primary documents for analysis.

At the end of the course, we invited students to participate in a focus group. We asked the following questions:

What do you think collaboration looks like in a professional learning network?

How easy was it to communicate with others as you engage in this course structure? Were your

colleagues accessible? Were they responsive?

Was this class easy or hard? Why or why not?

What does it look like to fail or to succeed in this class?

We also invited students to ask any questions they wished to have answered. Some students choose to giveunsolicited feedback to us about the course and their experience in emails and tweets. We use these quotes fortheir value as exemplar statements to support other data.

Analysis

After an initial review of Dewey’s (1916), Cohen’s (2006), and Vooght and Roblin’s (2012) criteria, we groupedsimilar ideas from their criteria into categories that we used for content analysis coding. Figure 1 represents theskills for democratic learning derived from Dewey’s, Cohen’s , Vooght and Roblin’s criteria, and how their relateto our coding categories.

The codes we developed as criteria for content analysis of quotes are: communication, collaboration, criticalthinking, ICT competencies, and camaraderie. More specifically we measured communication by the presenceof appropriate, effective student interactions on Blogs and Twitter. ICT competencies were represented bystudents’ successful use of technology and tools.

Figure 1. Criteria categories for on­line democratic learning

We did not collect quotes for the code high quality products represented by students’ Classroom ResearchProjects. While we did not initially code for empowerment, when we discovered a large number of quotes that fitinto this category, we re­ran the analysis including this code.

ATLAS.ti is a workbench of qualitative tools that provide a systematic approach to unstructured data that mightnot be appropriate for formal statistical approaches. It offers a variety of tools for accomplishing the tasksassociated with any systematic approach to qualitative data. Using the qualitative data analysis tool ATLAS.ti wewere able to code the data, view different possibilities for relationships among codes, and examine options formeaning making through several semantic lenses.

To prepare data for ATLAS.ti analysis, we developed codes based on criteria for democratic learning we woulduse to organize the tweet and blog quotes. Following an initial reading and using the concepts of collaboration,critical thinking, ICT competencies, camaraderie, and communication, we created broad categories for contentanalysis of project papers using ATLAS.ti (for the purposes of the ATLAS.ti analysis, these large categories arecalled ‘code­families’). Using the same concepts we then created ATLAS.ti ‘codes’ used for searching forspecific words or ideas within the text of each project paper.

From a methodological standpoint, using ATLAS.ti codes serve a variety of purposes. Codes capture meaningin the data and are classification devices at different levels of abstraction that can applied to create sets ofrelated information units for the purpose of comparison. Coding of text quotes in ATLAS.ti can occur in severalways. We first read tweets, blogs, and emails and then ‘free coded’ quotes by dragging the determined codesonto the documents. ATLAS.ti collects these codes for later analysis. As a check on our work, we also ran the‘auto­coding’ tool. This tool looks for specific instances of words and synonyms for these words from the codesand code­families we determined. When the program finds an example of the code, the user must accept orreject the quote chosen by the ATLAS.ti program.

Codes

Collaboration

Quotes coded as collaboration are comprised of interactions that indicated students were working with eachother to find an answer, solve a problem, complete a task, or meet a shared goal. According to Thomas andBrown (2011), a unique opportunity for networked learning occurs in the “collective,” an organic community towhich we choose to belong in order to capitalize on, “people skills and talent that produces a result greater thanthe sum of its parts” (The Emergence of the Collective, para. 4). Participation in the collective is vital in order forbelonging to be established. Those who wish to be a part of a collective are members only in proportion to theirparticipation in the organic community. There are several ways one might establish belonging as a part of acollective. Blogs create a unique opportunity to begin to contribute and participate in the collective, and studiesdemonstrate that within classes blogging can lead to feelings of belonging and participation (Garcia et al., 2013;Reeves & Gomm, 2012). In addition, learning communities based in Twitter have been recognized as organic,naturally satisfying and authentic in terms of professional development potential (Ross, 2013). Educators notedthat back channeling during Twitter could be highly effective for professional development (Toledo & Peters,2013). Even younger students and their teachers report tweeting as effective for gaining answers to questions,and receiving academic support (Cohen & Duchan, 2012).

Critical Thinking

Ennis (1991) provides perhaps the best­known definition of critical thinking, “reasonable reflective thinking that isfocused on deciding what to believe or do” (pp. 1–2).

We define critical thinking as disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open­minded, and informed by evidence.In critical pedagogy the concept of critical thinking includes the ability to recognize and overcome social injustice(McLaren, 1994). Therefore, we include evidence of sociocultural/multicultural awareness or examples of asocial justice perspective as critical thinking. We also include independent problem solving and examples ofcreativity in this code. tem Dam and Volman (2004) describe characteristics of instruction that facilitate criticalthinking, the development of students’ epistemological beliefs, active learning, a problem­based curriculum, andpurposeful interaction between students. Critical thinking quotes were a subset of the broader category ofcommunication.

Camaraderie

Professional learning communities are not about building camaraderie for camaraderie’s sake. In this case,camaraderie evolved from collaboration on the processes and products of the course and enhanced theempowerment individuals reported. We see evidence of professional (educators), situational (the course) andintellectual (research focused) camaraderie. Participants in #seaccr worked as a PLN engaging in a cycle ofquestioning and product sharing that promoted the different facets of camaraderie. These interactions,conducted with a spirit of support, loyalty, and friendship, we believe, contributed to higher quality products. Quotes that demonstrated a spirit of support, loyalty, and friendship we coded as camaraderie.

Communication

Quotes coded as communication include one­way and two­way communications that directly relate to theprocesses or products required for the course that are appropriate, effective student interactions in blogs andon Twitter. Communication might include any of the other code sets.

Analysis and Results

Collaboration, Critical Thinking, Camaraderie

We collected student tweets and blogs, categorized these quotes conceptually, and created codes for analysis. The resulting analysis required an explanation for the appearance of Empowerment and what part thisphenomenon played in the #seaccr experience. Ideas about empowerment were not present in other modelsand its prominence required an explanation. Figure 2 represents the #seaccr experience based on the analysisof codes in ATLAS.ti.

Figure 2. The #seaccr experience based on the analysis of codes in ATLAS.ti

At the center of the #seaccr experience is critical thinking. From the relationships revealed through the ATLAS.tianalysis, it is seen that communication has a direct effect on critical thinking. This makes sense becausetweeting, blogging, responding to blogs, submitting work to a portfolio system, joining Web­Ex sessions, anddesigning and writing an APA style research project all required critical thinking by students. Also contributing tocritical thinking are ICT competencies and collaboration. Collaboration is part of a larger, iterative processwhere collaboration is a cause of both camaraderie and empowerment, which are associated with each other. The power of this iterative process feeds back into critical thinking and together with ICT competencies andcommunication, contributes to the high quality products we see in this case. Table 1 shows the number of codesfound across all seven weeks of participant blogging.

Table 1. Number of codes found across all seven weeks of participant blogging

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Totals:Collaboration 47 84 99 53 71 61 78 493Camaraderie 22 18 32 20 31 25 26 174Critical Thinking 19 20 28 30 45 35 40 217Empowerment 30 18 12 8 17 11 13 109Total 118 140 171 111 164 132 157 993

Quotes coded collaboration occurred 493 times; quotes coded camaraderie occurred 174 times, critical thinking– 217 times, and quotes coded empowerment – 109 times. The chart below is a representation of the courseexperience based on the occurrences quotes for each code. Quotes for collaboration peak in Week 3 asstudents completed their literature reviews, then taper off as they engaged in data collection and analysis. Camaraderie ebbs and flows closely following empowerment. Critical thinking peaks in Week 5 as studentspresented their research proposals to the PLN for feedback. Quotes for empowerment peak in Week 1 and arelikely because of ‘Play Week’ and students developing efficacy around Twitter, blogs, and LiveText.

Learning processes, which we capture as quotes and in codes, do not occur in isolation. When developing ourmodel of democratized on­line learning, we also wanted to examine the co­occurrence of codes (Table 2) andquotes to better capture the integrated learning processes.

Table 2. Code co­occurrences

Collaboration Camaraderie Communication CriticalThinking Empowerment

Collaboration 40 250 47 26Camaraderie 59 7 12Communication 115 44Critical Thinking 7Empowerment

Communication and collaboration are strongly associated, and this makes sense. The act of collaborating alsorequires the act of communication. Also strongly associated are communication and critical thinking. In thecontext on an on­line, networked course, this is essential and we were pleased to see it played out in the data. Next, in terms of strength of association are communication and camaraderie, and an association betweencritical thinking and collaboration. Then we see the interplay of collaboration and camaraderie andcommunication and empowerment. Finally, we see the association between collaboration and empowermentand critical Thinking and camaraderie. Figure 3 visualizes the ebb and flow of codes week to week and theassociation of codes to each other.

Figure 3. Code occurrences in student blogs by week

Once again, you see the learning processes working together and the strength of those interactions. This chartalso presents a visual of how learning processes and the interactions of those processes changes over time andin relation to the focus of the course that week. It was striking to note the dip in all coded comments in Week 4. While expectations were the same from this week to all others, apparently some difference occurred. This wasthe week that students submitted annotated bibliographies to us, and we provided feedback. With the exceptionof the final project, this was the only project that was assessed solely by the instructors of the course. Thesignificant dip in occurrence of all codes this week seems to indicate the way that students shifted from astudent­centered environment back into a teacher­centered environment. Then, in Week 5, activity resumedand increased as students reviewed each other’s proposals and provided feedback.

To provide some depth of understanding of the meaning behind our codes, we present some exemplar quotesfor codes Collaboration, Critical Thinking, and Camaraderie in Table 3.

Table 3. Quotes exemplifying codes

Collaboration

“Thank you for the time to review my paper.I lovethe feedback.”

“In the end, when the paper is complete it willrepresent more than just a completed actionresearch paper it will also represent theimportance of collaboration.”

“Within the process, we collect data and thinkabout what patterns emerge. We confer withthose in our PLN to see if our thinking makessense.”

“Most importantly, I gained a partner to help mewith this project. She was as excited as I am…and has sights on making this project usefulenough to warrant presenting at ASTE thiswinter!”

Critical Thinking“After reading everybody’s comments I realized Ihad some tweaking to do on my question. (nameredacted) pointed out that my verbage of ‘digdeeper’ was too vague and open­ended and thatit needed something a little more Bloom’s­esque.”

“What I have begun thinking about is the amountof literacy I am actually using in classroom, andmy answer is, “Not enough.” I need to bereading and writing more frequently with mystudents than I currently am.”

“I am thinking, how do we maintain excellence aswe innovate?”

“My thoughts have changed a lot since I took thetime to read and try to understand the literacystandards.”

Camaraderie“It was really nice to introduce ourselves and findout just how far apart, yet close together we allare.”

“Sometimes just having another person say,‘yeah, that sounds like a great idea! run with it!’ isall we need.”

“We are all educators in some way andconnected by our willingness to teach ourstudents.”

“I felt quite a bit of camaraderie from my peers aswe fumble at the beginning of this classtogether.”

ICT Competencies

While some students had learned to use a wide variety of ICT tools prior to #seaccr, as they developed PLNs

outside of the program, only a few of the class participants had used these tools for graduate level coursework. Other students, depending on when they had taken their foundational courses and in which program theystudied, had not learned to tweet, blog or make a screencast prior to their #seaccr experience. They learnedthese skills for the first time in the context of classroom research.

Students gained new ICT competencies such as the ability to manage multiple logins and communication paths. They learned to manage their online identities, to curate information for use by others, and to influence thelearning of others through their PLN strategically. Finally, students demonstrated dispositions related tocollegiality and support for their expanding network, and social awareness of their responsibility to assist theircolleagues as they navigated the learning experience. Comments from students illustrate their learning: “I thinkthe Twitter sessions are good, I do find it a fun way to communicate, collaborate and learn.” and “After six weeksof Tweeting and blogging, I’m converted.” Many students reported that Twitter sessions, while offered asoptional, were essential for their learning exemplified by these comments: “I must repeat what I wrote last week! I know the Twitter sessions say, ‘Optional’ but they are the bulk of my learning in this class.” and “Interesting tohear about the Twitter sessions – I agree as well they’re where a lot of new learning happens for me and alsothe interaction gives me a lot of impetus to ‘do more’. These responses further support the necessity fordevelopment of ICT competencies as part of the experience and the importance of these competencies forempowerment, the development of content knowledge, and ultimately the necessity of this element in thedemocratic on­line learning model. We also noted that competitiveness arose as students gave feedback toothers. Much of this occurred because of participation in the Twitter sessions. Some students set highexpectations for themselves, and these expectations became public; other students then challenged themselvesto meet or exceed their colleagues’ performance. We also noted that as students blogged their work andthoughts in this very public way, some students did more self­assessment and reflection, and demonstratedmore motivation than was evidenced in postings for the relatively more closed environment of the discussionboard.

High Quality Products

A high quality product in this case was a classroom research project that met the criteria for the ‘Exceeds’elements, as detailed in the rubric provided to students: “The final paper is complete and is in APA format. Thepaper is relevant and insightful. The research supports the improvement of professional teaching practice andcan be applied to other teaching and learning situations”.

Student products focused on improving their professional practice and enhancing learning among theirstudents. Projects included topics such as how to integrate technology as a differentiation tool; implementingthe new core literacy standards with Alaska Native students; classroom environments for English­languageLearner (ELL) students; and multi­level math instruction in multi­grade classrooms. These productsdemonstrated that students examined and analyzed problems with a critical eye, then addressed them inrelevant and creative ways. Moreover, student products were of a high quality: much higher than in previoussections of the course that we presented through our university’s content management system. We believestudent performance was enhanced because students had to make an intentional effort to engage with the PLN:there was no lecture and no text to rely on. Importantly, the professional learning network in this case wasauthentic. Students made choices about how, when, where and with whom they collaborated based on theirlearning needs and interests.

Empowerment

As we reviewed quotes, created codes, and re­read quotes for coding, we discovered a particular set of quotesthat did not quite fit into our established categories. These quotes made special reference to a new skill theindividual had learned, new knowledge they had gained, or an idea that they could apply their new skills andlearning. These quotes also demonstrate the individual is in the process of increasing their efficacy andcapacity to make choices and take positive action.

A student shared, “Pretty exciting to enter the new world. Interacting with a host of teachers and educators, mynew PLN (rather than a PLC [professional learning community]) is proving to be eye opening. I am excited tolearn from and to share my knowledge with my PLN.” Others added, “I have learned to be open to learnsomething new.” “This class pushed me to learn new things!” and “Steep learning curve, but still climbing!” Also, “I found the entire process so enlightening but the end result was even more eye opening. To see it allwritten out and direct quotes to back it up. Wow, very cool class Anne!”

We also received feedback about feelings of empowerment beyond the parameters of the course, “I’m also notas afraid of the social media tech as I once was, and though my students may not use it now they will in thefuture” and “I am feeling more confident in my ability to differentiate instruction.”

The data analysis also revealed a high number of shared quotes between camaraderie and empowerment. Wecall this intersection of codes between camaraderie and empowerment, ‘cheer­leading’. In an attempt tounderstand this relationship, and how it manifested among participants, we selected quotes from the Twittersessions that we coded as both camaraderie and empowerment. Examples of these are:

“Feeling very passionate about being a teacher tonight. Thanks everyone for a great discussion.”

“Friends working together get things done!”

“When you need some motivation check out: http ://( redacted).”

“It seems like our projects are off to a great start!”

“That’s awesome! Way to think outside the box.”

“I would just like to say I am really looking forward to some of the projects, as they will be wonderful!”

Discussion and Conclusion

We accept the premise that teachers must master 21st century skills (Vooght & Roblin, 2012) if they areexpected in turn to prepare their students for success in a global knowledge economy. Educators whocompleted the #seaccr experience have improved ICT skills, developed a PLN, and improved their generalknowledge about teaching and learning through the classroom research process. We often think of communitybuilding and its result, collaboration, as separate or parallel to academic learning. In this case, they two wereinterwoven. Open learning environments like #seaccr, are recognized as one representation of learningstructures appropriate to the global knowledge economy (Peters, 2010). These societal and economic factorschallenge teacher preparation programs to recreate themselves and better prepare teachers to meet the needs

of the 21st century students (Wideen, 2013). However, these 21st century skills may not be enough.

Glaser (1985) notes that U.S. students lack higher­order thinking abilities even though a democratic societyrequires people to think critically and Cohen (2006) argues the goals of education need to balance academiclearning with the competencies necessary for democratic participation and good quality of life.

In today’s classroom, political and economic forces often drive teaching and learning. Generally, teachers arenot taught to recognize or combat these forces. The current climate of inflexible curricula and evaluations forstudents and teachers sometimes forces teachers to neglect the types of school experiences that support thedevelopment of democratic perspectives in their students. This will likely contradict teacher philosophies abouteducation; however, teachers may feel they have no choice but to comply.

Participation in a global knowledge economy requires new competencies, a high level of autonomy anddecision­making skill, and the ability to adapt to changing rapidly changing knowledge and technologicaladvances (Powell & Snellman, 2004). Further, a democratic experience with learning in schools (community,collaboration, and critical reflection) provides the experiences needed for later effective participation in ademocratic society (Dewey, 1916). Dewey (1916) would argue that to accomplish these goals, students oughtto have same power and responsibility for their learning as their educators. Educators are responsible, then, forproviding students with relevant learning opportunities that ultimately enable students to contribute to ademocratic society.

Teachers in #seaccr became the providers, as well as consumers, of knowledge: sharing learning and expertise,and blurring the roles of teacher and learner and as a result, democratized the learning experience. In ageneralized way, comments provided by the participants suggest that when teachers learn in democratizedenvironments they are better prepared to create and facilitate democratized learning environments in theirclassrooms, helping their students to gain the knowledge and skills to participate in a democracy.

In the 1980s, on the assumption that this increased decision­making power would improve instruction andlearning, teachers were given the authority to make decisions in the classroom (Lichtenstein, et al., 1991). Similar efforts occurred during the same time, to imbue students with self­esteem, rather than provide themopportunities to develop self­efficacy. These attempts at “empowering” were mostly ineffective (Lichtenstein, etal., 1991). Real empowerment must come from the individual and must have a strong foundation in knowledgeof their broader professional community, knowledge of education policy, and knowledge of their subject area(Lichtenstein, et al., 1991). The #seaccr experience provided the opportunity for participants to increaseknowledge in all these areas. Further, by including students in decisions about learning, inquiry, and action,participants in #seaccr co­constructed and identified with the means and messages of the classroom, leading toa feeling of empowerment (Cammarota & Fine, 2008).

As we reflected on previous research about democratic learning, we realized that empowerment was a missingelement. Our research indicates, however, that it is a very important aspect of democratization. Our frameworkfor democratic learning (Figure 2) includes Empowerment as important element in creating learning spaces

where democratic learning can occur. It is apparent that 21st century skills and the ability to use, gain, andapply knowledge are essential in today’s world. However, if a teacher is not empowered to use these skills and

knowledge to effect change in their classrooms, 21st century skills remain unused.

The resulting theory of on­line democratized learning (Figure 4) explains not only the interactions betweenand among critical thinking, ICT competencies, collaboration, and camaraderie, but also includes the concept ofempowerment, as a space from which the capacity to engage in democratic action emerges. Critical thinking,as we know, cannot occur or be sustained in isolation, it must be shared, evaluated, reflected upon, and re­shared, and this requires communication. Communication, in our model, must include critical interactions thatgenerate and foster collaboration resulting in an iterative process. The crux of our theory is this nexus of criticalthinking and collaboration that results in what we call critical collaboration. This critical collaboration amongstpeers results in a strong camaraderie that empowers the members of the group. The outcome camaraderie,with the addition of ICT skills, produced behaviours in students we describe as empowerment. It is thisindividual empowerment, absent from other models, demonstrated through the sharing of critical ideas, thatcreates an on­line democratic learning space where all voices are heard and consensus can be reached.

Figure 4. A theory of on­line democratized learning

This democratized learning space is the kind of space where Dewey (1916) believes students ought to havesame power and responsibility for their learning as their educators that ultimately enables students to contributeeffectively to a democratic society. It stands to reason that when a teacher becomes individually empoweredaround their practice they are likely to participate more directly in school­based decision further democratizingthese institutions as well. Empowerment of an individual or group can result in a change in the distribution ofpower. Power structures in schools and other educational institutions were not an explicit focus for us asfacilitators or for the students in the course. However, in the context of teaching, change in power structure hasimplications for children, classrooms, schools, and the broader institution of education.

Finally how important ICT skills are to this model cannot be determined. We wonder if a similar space fordemocratic learning through empowerment would occur without the learning and practice of ICT skills, in a face­to face or a course with a blended format for example.

References

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2010). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. TheInternational Review ofResearch in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80­97. Retrievedfrom: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1663/ on March 22, 2015.

Brown, J. S., & Thomas, D. (2013). Learning in the Collective. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from:http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/journal/learning­in­the­collective/ on March 22, 2015.

Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cohen, A., & Duchan, G. (2012). The usage characteristics of Twitter in the learning process. InterdisciplinaryJournal of E­Learning and Learning Objects, 8(1), 149­163.

Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for learning,participation in democracy, and well­being. Harvard Educational Review, 76 (2), 201­237.

ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: Teaching strategies. Learningand Instruction, 14, 359­379.

Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. 21st century skills: Rethinking how studentslearn, 20, 51­76.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.

England, A. (2010). Open content: From walled gardens to collaborative learning. Incite, 31 (1/2), 10.

Ennis, C. (1991). Discrete thinking skills in two teachers’ physical education classes. The Elementary Journal,91, 473–486.

Evans, P. P. (2015). Open online spaces of professional learning: Context, personalisation and facilitation. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 59(1), 31­36.

Garcia, E., Brown, M., & Elbeltagi, I. (2013). Learning within a connectivist educational collective blog model: Acase study of UK higher education. Electronic Journal of e­Learning, 11(3).

Glaser, E. M. (1985). Critical thinking: educating for responsible citizenship in a democracy. National Forum, 65,24–27.

Graham, L. & Fredenberg, V. (2015). Impact of an Open Online Course on the Connectivist Behaviors of AlaskaTeachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. Retrievedfrom: http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/1476/1254

Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence. (A. Parsons &S. Milgram, Trans.) New York: Basic Books.

Lichtenstein, G., McLaughlin, M., & Knudsen, J. (1991). Teacher empowerment and professional knowledge. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, CPRE Research Report Series RR­020.

McAuley A., Stewart B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digitalpractice. Retrievedfrom: https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final_0.pdf on July 1, 2013.

McLaren, P. (1994). Foreword: critical thinking as a political project. In S. Walters (Ed.), Re­thinking reason:New perspectives in critical thinking (pp. 9–15). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Moore, M. G. (1993). 2 Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical principles of distance education, 22

Patton, M.Q. (2001) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peters, M. (2010). Three forms of the knowledge economy: Learning, creativity and openness. British Journalof Educational Studies, 58 (1), 67­88.

Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 199­220.

Reeves, T., & Gomm, P. (2012). Blogging all over the world: Can blogs enhance student engagement bycreating a community of practice around a course? Cutting­edge Technologies in Higher Education, 6, 47­72.

Ross, C. R. (2013). The use of Twitter in the creation of Educational Professional Learning Opportunities. (Doctoral dissertation). Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network­creation. Retrievedfrom http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm on January 27, 2014.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrievedfrom http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm on January 27, 2014.

Thomas, D. & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constantchange. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Toledo, C., & Peters, S. (2013). Educators’ perceptions of uses, constraints, and successful practices of backchanneling. in education, 16(1).

Vooght, J., & Roblin, N.P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st centurycompetencies: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44 (3), 299­321.

Wilbur, G., & Scott, R. (2013). Inside out, Outside in: Power and culture in a learning community. MulticulturalPerspectives, 15(3), 158­164.

Wideen, M. F. (Ed.). (2013). Changing Times in Teacher Education: Restructuring Or Reconceptualising? NewYork: Routledge.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

This academic article was accepted for publication in the International HETL Review (IHR) after a double­blindpeer review involving three independent members of the IHR Board of Reviewers and two revision cycles. Accepting editor: Krassie Petrova (Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand), Editor­in­ChiefEmerita, International HETL Review.

Suggested citation:

Jones, A. & Graham, L. (2015). Democratizing higher education learning: A case study of networked classroomresearch. International HETL Review, Volume 5, Article 6, URL: https://www.hetl.org/democratizing­higher­education­learning­a­case­study­of­networked­classroom­research

Copyright [2015] Anne Jones & Lee Graham

The author(s) assert their right to be named as the sole author(s) of this article and to be granted copyrightprivileges related to the article without infringing on any third party’s rights including copyright. The author(s)assign to HETL Portal and to educational non­profit institutions a non­exclusive license to use this article forpersonal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement isreproduced. The author(s) also grant a non­exclusive license to HETL Portal to publish this article in full on the

World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the HETL Review. Anyother usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s).

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent theposition(s) of other professionals or any institution. By publishing this article, the author(s) affirms that anyoriginal research involving human participants conducted by the author(s) and described in the article wascarried out in accordance with all relevant and appropriate ethical guidelines, policies and regulationsconcerning human research subjects and that where applicable a formal ethical approval was obtained.

Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2010­2014. TheInternational HETL Association. Nocontent on this site may be copiedor reproduced in any form withoutthe written permission of thepublisher. © HETL. © HETL Review.© HETL Portal. © Advancing Higher.© International Higher EducationTeaching and Learning Conference.

Contact Details

We love out of town guests thatdon’t tell us they’re coming.

+1 (917) 745 7078

support@hetl.org

+1 (917) 300 2127 (Fax)

118­35 Metropolitan Avenue,Unit C3, Kew Gardens,NY 11415

Technology Partnership

HETL is proud to be partnered withThe Faculty Academy. The missionof the Faculty Academy is to providefaculty and educators with state ofthe art web­based technologysolutions. The vision of the FacultyAcademy is to transform facultyprofessional development in highereducation.

Technology Partners: Dot Solutions & Technologies and Faculty Academy