Shared Learning Running head: Shared Learning In Mission Public School District

Shared Learning in Mission Public School District Michael Scott Alexander Assignment 1: Professor for a Day University of British Columbia June 6, 2010

Shared Learning 1. Context The setting that I will be using for this study is a Shared Learning project in the Mission

Public School District (MPSD) that involves three of its high schools; Mission Secondary School (MSS), Hatzic Secondary School (HSS) and Heritage Park Secondary School (HPSS). The three schools have a combined population of 2,788 students with 186 teachers and three sets of administrators consisting of a principal and two vide-principals. All three schools have a different clientele base as MSS is considered an inner city school (it is also the oldest school in the district) whilst HSS is considered a rural school (located on the outskirts of Mission) and HPSS is located in the new part of town and shares a campus with the University of the Fraser Valley. All three schools host students from grades 8 to 12 and the regular school days in each institution runs from 8:42 AM to 2:55 PM. The schools run on a semester system with Term 1 from September to January and Term 2 from February to June. Mission is considered a multicultural community and MPSD student body consists of 12.9 percent Aboriginal ancestry, 10.3 percent Indo-Canadian, 4.4 percent English as a Second Dialect, 2.1 percent International and 9.8 percent designated Special Education. The district is facing declining enrollment at the high school level with an estimated basement of secondary enrollment occurring in 2016. HSS student population will decrease from 686 (2010) to 600 (2016); HPSS student population will decrease from 794 (2010) to 618 (2016); MSS student population will decrease from 914 (2010) to 729 (2016). Due to this declining enrollment, some senior classes will not be offered in any of the three high schools. Most of these courses are offered through the districts distributed learning facility, Summit Learning Center, which offers 30 Grade 11 and 12 courses to students free of charge within the districts boundaries.

Shared Learning The Shared Learning project is a method of instruction that relies primarily on direct communication between students, teachers within connected classrooms throughout the three high schools using video conferencing and SMART Board technology. Shared Learning is a choice for students in each of the three high schools to enable them to take part in academic courses not offered within their school in a face-to-face setting. This will not only increase the choice for the student but also allow each school to retain students and teachers without losing them to a distributed learning center or even worse, another school district. II: Environmental Scan As Bates (2000) indicates technology is being used to address weaknesses in or to provide advantages over the current conventional system of teaching in higher education; this is true for the environment in the education system in British Columbia. With a declining secondary student population in MPSD, districts must be pro-active to address weaknesses and utilize technology to deliver the same level of service in education that it has historically done. Bates (2000) goes on to state that the use of technology requires a major reorganization or restructuring of the conventional teaching and learning environments. The move to Shared

Learning is a major restructuring for MPSD that will enable students in all parts of the district to partake in academic courses not offered via a face-to-face setting in their school. Economic Factors: Provincial education funding in British Columbia has increased; according to the Ministry of Education (2009), the Ministry will make a total of $4.551 billion available to school boards for operating grants in the 2009/10 school year, this is an increase of $84 million over 2008/09. But unfortunately for school districts although funding has increase over the past year, so have their costs. The provincial government has downloaded costs to school boards in a variety of ways; all-day kindergarten, teachers' pay raises, increased cost of

Shared Learning

pensions and medical service plans and inflation are several costs that have been downloaded on school boards in recent years. As a result school boards must be creative in how it delivers education to its students and all cost savings must be scrutinized. In this current economic setting, school districts cannot be offering courses without sufficient class size numbers; it just isnt financially feasible without putting pressure on other programs. According to Bullen & Janas (2007) introducing e-learning will improve economic expectations as not only a new source of income but also a way to reduce costs. Using Shared Learning in a high school setting in Mission will definitively reduce teacher to student costs and allow for more student choice. Physical Infrastructure Factors It was first thought that the students could be bused from school to school to take select senior courses but due to the fact of the three schools proximity with each other combined with the cost of bussing, this is not cost effective. The shortest round trip between the three schools would be 15.48 kilometers combined with a district cost of $50 per hour bussing costs, this option would cost over $2,000 per month; a semester class would cost the district $10,000 in bussing alone. The issue of students being late for other classes and having to be dismissed early because of the physical distance between the schools as time to travel would have to be considered. The Shared Learning model eliminates the need for travel and students do not need to be factored into the costs as well as time considerations. Activities of Potential Competitors Mission is located directly across the Fraser River from Abbotsford and would be seen as its main competitor for educational dollars. Abbotsford School Districts secondary population is over 2.3 times greater than Mission and it has 4 more high schools (this is not even considering the fact that Abbotsford runs a Middle School concept and Grade 8 students are not included into this figure). Five of Abbotsfords high schools have a student population of over 1,000 Grade 9 to 12 students with the largest being over 1,500. This

Shared Learning

allows far more choice for their students as a result and Abbotsford can offer many more courses that are not in jeopardy of folding due to low enrollment. If a student needs a particular course to further his/her education, they might seek out a school that offers all of their needs looking forward. As Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005) states characteristic of distance education is its attention to the needs of special clienteles that for a variety of reasons cannot attend a face-to-face gathering, a school or a conventional campus. If Mission neglectst these special clienteles (University bound students), the possibly of losing them to a neighboring district is a real possibility. Technology Factors There are technological factors that need to be addressed when considering using a Shared Learning delivery versus a distributed learning model or face-to-face. As Bullen & Janas state (2007) when we move from the full face-to-face end of the continuum, more and more technology is used to replace the face-to-face elements. In Mission, there are currently 32 secondary teachers that use a SMART Board technology and 87 which use a Tablet with shared software which are two of the three main technological components required for this project (the other being a video conferencing connection; Tandberg technology is an example). For MPSD to move to this model, the only major expense required would be to purchase and install the required video conferencing technology. On the other end of the continuum, the distributed learning model there is no longer any face-to-face teaching; which is not the goal of this project as wed like the specialized teachers to be teaching the specialized senior courses. Furthermore, this model would require that each student purchase a laptop or have access to a computer laboratory which is increasing the cost to the students.

Shared Learning III: Vision Shared Learning is a method of instruction that relies primarily on direct communication between students and teachers within connected classrooms using video conferencing and SMART board technology. A teacher in one of the three schools will provide face-to-face teacher to students at his/her school whilst his/her instructions is video conference over to the other two schools via Tandberg technology using Tablet software such as Elluminate Live, Bridgit and/or Windows Journal. Shared Learning will provide direct communication of instruction between teacher and student with an interactive learning using video conferencing which allows for a blended model of instruction. By using a mixed-mode classroom and online model, Shared Learning would be considered to be in the middle of the e-learning continuum. This will develop a community of learners in all three schools.

The rationale for using the Shared Learning method is clear, in order to meet the needs of secondary students in some academic courses in the MPSD, Shared Learning will enable them to take part in academic courses not offered at their current school in a face-to-face setting. This is due to declining enrollment in all three high schools with the MPSD. Currently the following senior courses are not offered at least two of the three schools; Geography 12, Calculus 12, Physics 12, Spanish 12, Data Management 12 and BC First Nations 12, A student enrolled in course using Shared Learning must have the ability to work independently due to the proximity of the instructor. Students must be able to work on ice breaking activities (problem solving) during times when technology becomes an issue or the instructor is setting up the technology. Students five years from now will have access to more academic courses and have access to course materials at any time while still having interaction with an instructor. Students will also become competent in using SMART Board technology and

Shared Learning hopefully have an appreciation for technology. Because the Shared Learning model is interactive, students will have an increased level of engagement which should lead to increased achievement (Greenwood, 1991). Shared Learning will change departments in the MPSD and teachers involved must be

able to adapt to change. Shared Learning incorporates many of the ideas presented by Sinclair et al (2006) the idiom of Learning Environments 1.0 to Learning Environments 2.0. The fundamental dynamic is the shift from architecture of presentation to architecture of participation. Teachers in the department must be able to increase collaboration and sharing of a variety of teaching and learning styles. Using Shared Learning, a teacher must be open to engage in sharing both learning resources and technology resource as this type of instruction is constantly evolving. A teacher must also engage constantly in supportive professional development on a constant basis; this must also be supported by the school and district as will. A teacher should engage in ongoing reflective discussion with colleagues about the Shared Learning environment as to not only follow good pedagogy but also not to repeat bad mistakes. According to Bates (2000) a formal evaluation consisting of both student and teacher feedback is essential. It is important not to only identify successful experiences but also disadvantages and negative experiences as well so that how not to do things are not lost. This might be hard for some teachers but it is essential to the projects success. Finally, the teachers must have increased accountability in Shared Learning due to a daily set up of a shared classroom.. IV: Implications A move to a Shared Learning environment must entail changes to the way the curriculum is delivered to the students in a face-to-face environment and even a distributed learning environment. Bates (2000) states whether the philosophical arguments are for or against the use

Shared Learning of technology for teaching improves cost-effectiveness, it will also require radical changes in teaching methods and organization. This is not a project that is directed at teachers who like the individualization and cherish the autonomy of teaching in a face-to-face setting. As I indicated before, increased collaboration and sharing a variety of teaching and learning styles is a key to the project being successful. That being said, this is not a project aimed at every teacher in the school. Some modifications are essential in the classroom by the teacher and students in order for this to be successful. The first is the ability to change and become familiar with new

software. The initial software that will be used is Elluminate Live, Bridgit and Windows Journal for using a Tablet, the SMART board technology and Tanberg for Video Conferencing. But this is not set in stone. Teachers must be able to have the ability (and time) to adapt to new and improved software and even, venture out and seek out new software. Moodle, WebPages and WebCT are all types of software that could easily be incorporated into this project. Also, due to the high use of technology and a daily set up of the classroom, teachers must be able to perform technical troubleshooting on a regular basis. In the lag of classroom set up, students must be given and have the ability to work on problem solving Ice Breakers to start the class. Also, the teacher must be agree to teach a separate class when technology becomes an issue; on days when the internet is down or the hardware is malfunctioning. A teacher in this project must be able to think on the fly and have the ability to change a lesson in the event of technology failure. Organization skills are required not only by the teacher but also the students; there must always be a backup plan to overt such a crisis. Teachers and students must also have the ability to respond to ongoing formative assessments due to the fact that there are reduced connections and review with students. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) have re-interpreted research on formative assessment and feedback

Shared Learning

and shown how these processes can help students take control of their own learning. Students in this project must have the ability to engage in self-regulated learning due to the proximity from the teacher. Although there will be two-way communication between teacher and student, formal assessment will not be on a daily basis due to proximity. Students must also feel comfortable in using technology, especially SMART board technology. Students in this project must be able to work not only independently but also work in groups; classroom management might become an issue at the beginning and their might be some initial apprehension by both the teacher and the students in this regard. Group work is an essential component of developing a community of learners and increased student engagement (both independently and in groups) should lead to increased student achievement. Students should see themselves as others view them. Because distributed learning is a method of instruction that relies primarily on indirect communication between students and teachers via internet, teleconferencing or correspondence, the structure provided by the Shared Learning environment is an easier adjustment for students coming from the traditional face-to-face setting. Unlike distributed learning students, Shared Learning does not start at any time through the school year and less learning at an individual pace. And unlike distributed learning where language becomes the sole method of communication with no body language to impart meaning or soften the impact; Shared Learning adds these components to the lessons. MPSD and the schools have seen the need for changing the way that the curriculum is delivered to overcome deficiencies in their current model. Bates (2000) indicates that there are three forces that are required institutions to change; the need to do more with less, the changing learning needs of society and the impact of new technologies on teaching and learning. The first force has required that MPSD look at offering a choice for students to enable them to take part in

Shared Learning

10

academic courses not offered within their school via a face-to-face setting. Having the foresight to predict demographic changes within the school is paramount in determining whether a district is serving their clientele to the fullest. The easy way is to just ignore it and run status quo while some students will lose out on a full education. Being pro-active is essential for an institution as a project like this takes time to implement; trying to accomplish this project in present time would be not only difficult but disastrous. MPSD must also change the way it offers courses to keep up with the changing learning needs of its students. Good communication skills, the ability to learn independently, teamwork skills, thinking skills are all essential skills that will be required of the 21st century workforce. Having the vision to develop and implement new strategies and technology must be forefront on the agenda of any institution set on prepared the learners for the future. Standing still is not an option. And finally, allowing teachers and learners to utilize the impact of technology in a positive way is essential. Institutions must properly fund and support their stakeholders new technologies. Email, presentation software, videoconferencing, the World Wide Web (to name a few) exist in everyday life in our society. An institution must seek out the technologies that support teachers and learners and offer support. This may be costly in the initial stages but the dividend they will reap in the end, will far outweigh the expenditures.

Shared Learning

11

References

Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp 9, 34, 35, 62. Bullen, M. & Janes, D.P. (2007). Preface. In M. Bullen & D.P. Janes (Eds.) Making the Transition to E-Learning: Strategies and Issues, pp. vii-xvi, Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, pp x, 287. Greenwood, Charels R; Exceptional Children, Vol. 57, 1991 Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Distance education and e-learning (pay particular attention pp. 478-486 which deal with erroneous assumptions about e-learning) p 472 Nicol, D.J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, Vol 31(2), pp.199-218 Sinclair, G., McClaren, M., & Griffin, M. (2006). E-Learning & Beyond.

Shared Learning V: Images Video Screen

12

Video Screen (Three-Way)

Shared Learning Smart Board

13

Tablet

Shared Learning Projectors

14

Video Camera and Speakers