Summer 2018 - EDUC 730 G031

Field Study in Imaginative Education (IE): Conducting Action Research (3)

Class Number: 6974

Delivery Method: Distance Education

Overview

  • Course Times + Location:

    Location: TBA

  • Prerequisites:

    Course only available to students in the Graduate Certificate in Imaginative Education Program; EDUC 729.

Description

CALENDAR DESCRIPTION:

Following an introduction to Action Research (AR) and the development of an inquiry question in EDUC 729, this course requires students to engage in research. Students will Integrate their ongoing learning about imaginative Education (IE) with their lived understanding of their educational practice.

COURSE DETAILS:

Course Overview:
Students will integrate ongoing learning about Imaginative Education (IE) with the lived experience of teaching in their respective circumstances. Following an introduction to Action Research (AR) and the development of an initial inquiry question in EDUC 729, this course requires students to implement their action plans, conduct research in the field and write up an action research project. Students will conduct research in an educational setting of their choosing and share their research findings with other Imaginative Educators in their cohort and more broadly within the Imaginative Education Research Group and its worldwide membership.

Rationale:
To maximize understanding of IE it is essential that in-service teachers actively engage in "researching" IE practices in their individual teaching contexts. This course provides the time, resources and support to conduct research and produce a comprehensive action research project.

COURSE-LEVEL EDUCATIONAL GOALS:

  • Develop a disposition of inquiry and critical reflection to examine educational practices.
  • Participate in a “critical friend group” to provide/recieve thoughtful feedback to/from peers.
  • Continue reviewing relevant literature, conduct research in the field, and write up report.
  • Share findings with cohort and research possibilities for sharing data with the field.
  • Integrate imaginative pedagogical practices to maximize student learning.

Grading

  • Critical Friend Group / Discussion & Participation 40%
  • Action Reseach Project Enactment / Fieldwork / Data Collection 20%
  • Action Research Project Final Report / Communication of Findings 40%

NOTES:

Grades for EDUC 730 will be based primarily on your active participation in a critical friend group, your research process and data collection "in the field," and your final action research report.

REQUIREMENTS:


Details on Assignments:

  • Critical Friend Group // Discussion & Participation -- Participating in a Critical Friend Group (CFG) – providing and receiving constructive feedback on research projects – is an essential component of AR and a requirement for completing EDUC 730. Active, consistent and respectful participation in your CFG as well as thoughtful contributions to weekly activities thus comprise a large percentage of your final grade in order to emphasize its significance. This does NOT mean that you have to comment on EVERY thread “for the sake of commenting,” but note the importance of sharing, questioning and co-creating an environment in which such activities are encouraged.
  • Action Research Project Enactment / Fieldwork -- Conducting research in the field always comes with surprises and unforeseeable challenges. Your fieldwork mark will not be based on the data you gather per se or whether or not your project was objectively “successful,” but on the validity of your research process, the amount of planning and care you put into gathering data with appropriate methods, and the ethical considerations you make working with participants. Remember, data collection methods can always be reworked, abandoned for more appropriate methods, or supplemented by additional methods. It is not uncommon to try one method, reevaluate, and try again. Your fieldwork mark will be based on the rigour, validity and care you put into this process. Students will be required to write a short self-evaluation of the research process by the end of the course.
  • Action Research Project Final Report / Communication of Findings -- Your final report will include all key components of an action research project including: a title page, an abstract, a table of contents, an introduction or vignette, situating the research in your own teaching context and/or epistemological approach, a literature review, the story of your data collection and research process, some analysis and interpretation of the data, and any relevant appendices (examples of student work, copies of interview questions, focus group transcriptions, etc.). Technically there is no word/page limit but reports tend to be between 30-80 pages, please space papers 1.5 and submit as a pdf.
On-line Learning Community Expectations:
It is my hope that this program will support your growth as a thinker, writer and teacher-researcher. To this end, the course is designed to develop what Scardamalia (2002) calls a “knowledge-building community.” Within a community one feels a sense of belonging. One feels safe and is therefore comfortable to take risks, make mistakes, and share feelings, hopes and concerns openly. All students are expected to interact and participate in ways that support this kind of supportive, caring, knowledge-focused, learning community.
Golden Rule: Respect -- All students are expected to demonstrate respect for:
  • Learning Time: (e.g. “arriving” on time to scheduled meetings, being prepared for class, using shared time effectively, completing collaborative work according to established due dates etc.)
  • Learning From Difference: (e.g. approaching new ideas with an open mind, embracing epistemological diversity, recognizing different ways we make sense of and express understanding)
  • Each Other: Always be aware of the risk in on-line communications that your comment or question may be misunderstood or your “tone” interpreted differently than intended—we all know that text never fully replaces face-to-face communication. Tone and attitude can be easily mistaken. To avoid misunderstandings and to support each other’s growth, please ensure your interactions with your peers tend to include something positive about shared ideas or demonstrate appreciation for discourse. After providing some positive feedback we encourage all students to respectfully ask questions or challenge the thinking. You may offer an alternative view and, when possible, tie that view to some kind of textual support. It is very important that we provide each other support and critique as both are required for growth.
  Here is a link to some basic rules of “netiquette”—rules that are good to keep in mind.
  The Core Rules of Netiquette by Virginia Shea (http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html)
  • Course Design: (e.g. understand that activities have purposefully been created to expand your understanding or demonstrate a concept. Keep up to date with your assignments so we can move forward together as a class.)

Expectations for Student Participation --What does participation look like in this course? How often must you contribute to discussion? What kind of contributions should you make?

The beauty of an online discussion forum is that it offers everyone time to reflect and contribute to a discussion—this is not something that always happens in a traditional classroom. On-line everyone has a voice. You will have ample opportunity to work individually, but also frequently with partners, peers and “critical friend groups.” You will have many opportunities to participate and you are each expected to do so consistently throughout the course.

General guidelines for participation:
  1. Participate in every discussion by a) providing their own perspective, answer, or idea and b) commenting and responding to others—just as you would in a “live” conversation.
  2. Quality trumps quantity. A brief contribution that is insightful and thought-provoking is better than a much longer, rambling contribution that is unfocused or goes off topic.
  3. Your primary or “main” post/contribution to a discussion topic or prompt should be 1-2 paragraphs in length (somewhere between 100-300 words). Maximum: Your main post should not exceed 500 words.
  4. Stay focused on the question or topic in your post. If applicable, incorporate quotations from assigned readings (including reference and page numbers).
  5. Remember that your post continues a conversation—that is what the “discussion thread” is. Link to what has been said before, if applicable.
  6. Your responses to others should not be limited to “I agree” or “Great”—instead, elaborate upon why you agree/disagree. Link to readings or others’ ideas.
  7. Strive to keep your contributions to discussion forums on topic—Link to excerpts from readings/text or link to others’ ideas.
  8. Think about your posts as “written conversation”—an equivalent to the discussion we might have in a face-to-face learning environment. There is no need, therefore, to worry too much about sounding formal or “academic.”
Markers of Quality Participation -- A large portion of your ongoing participation will involve written contributions—or posts—to discussion boards/forums. It also involves your interactions with peers and critical friend groups. As a member of our knowledge-building community, you should strive to have written and oral contributions that consistently demonstrate the following 3 principles:
  1. Learning is always a process; all ideas are “improvable”. Learning involves continuously working to improve the quality, coherence, and utility of ideas. Reflection and revision are part of learning.
  2. Epistemological diversity is required for a healthy learning ecosystem. Understanding one idea means understanding all of the ideas that relate to it, including opposing ideas. Depth of knowledge comes from understanding how one’s ideas are situated within a larger epistemological context. Members of a knowledge-building community have agency, they continually seek to understand the relationships between their own ideas and those of others. As agents, they acknowledge that points of epistemological harmony and discordance are opportunities for growth and change.
  3. Collaborative knowledge creation is as important as individual knowledge formation. Members of a knowledge-building community are actively involved in working with others, building on others’ ideas, disseminating ideas, and revealing interrelationships in knowledge and understanding.

In addition to completing basic requirements for each week’s activities (individual/small and larger group work), you will be evaluated on your participation based on how well you demonstrate these principles in your class contributions. So, as you participate in this course, you might ask yourself the following kinds of questions:

Is my contribution timely? Is it readable? Does my contribution indicate a detailed understanding of the assigned text? Does it reveal that I have heard and understand my colleagues’ ideas? Is my contribution insightful and concise? Does it add something to the dialogue? Is it provocative? Does it indicate my willingness to re-evaluate and expand my thinking? Does it show that I am actively working to make sense of the “web of ideas” being explored? Am I productively contributing to the team of learners of which I am part?

From: Boettcher, J. & Conrad, R. (2010). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

On Being Prepared For Each Class -- There is nothing worse than discussions that fall flat or activities that are stagnant because people have not properly prepared to discuss assigned readings. It is NOT enough to skim through a reading before class. Rather, the topics of the articles need to be fresh in your mind. You need to have closely read and have a vivid awareness of readings for the start of each week of class.

My Role -- Within our knowledge-building community I will be a “guide on the side” not a “sage on the stage” I look forward to mentoring and challenging you. I look forward to learning from you. I will facilitate different activities and monitor interactions, providing support as needed. Sometimes I will explicitly teach. Other times I will only debrief or clarify concepts after you have done some exploration.

Getting Support -- We recognize that being part of an online program might make you feel like you are doing this program “alone”— this could not be farther from the truth. Whether you need technical help, want clarification, need feedback on your ideas or what to be more intellectually challenged, a whole team of people are available to support you. You should send all technical questions relating to how to engage in the online space or how to use the technology required for the course contact to the experts at SFU’s Center for Online and Distance Education (CODE). Please try to be patient—and not too hard on yourself if you struggle to get acquainted with new online technologies. You can get support from the library in multiple forms off the SFU library website.

You each have a mentor that has both theoretical and practical expertise and experience with Imaginative Education—your mentor will work with you throughout the term as you work through ideas and develop practical experience. Your “mentorship group” is composed of all the students who have the same mentor—this is another source of support.

You have each other—never underestimate the support you can gain from others in this cohort. We have set up a general open student forum for you to post any and all request for help/guidance from each other. Use this space as the first place to get help from each other. You might imagine it to be your “virtual” café where you can collaborate, brainstorm and generally help one another.

And, of course, you can also contact me. I will make every effort to respond within 24 hours on weekdays. Contact hours: Given the complexity of time zones, I do not have “fixed” contact hours—I will arrange to communicate with you according to what works best with your schedule should you need to talk with me.

Assessment/Evaluation -- You will receive ongoing assessment and feedback in the course— from your peers, from myself, and/or from your mentors. My formal evaluation philosophy is based on the belief that learning is a process of growth and that often the greatest lessons come when we take “risks”—take on new ideas, play with concepts, explore new ways of being and knowing. To encourage each and every one of you to take risks in your learning you can expect ongoing “informal” formative feedback designed to provoke your thinking, deepen, and broaden your understanding. In addition, I believe in the recursive and reflective nature of all learning so, within the time constraints of the course and the university grading policies, all students have the opportunity to revise and resubmit their assignments should they choose to do so without penalty. Now that you know this is an option—reworking, rethinking, redoing—I hope every student can feel less burdened—threatened, concerned—with the “grades” and enjoy the process! I will provide anecdotal feedback on the written assignments that you submit individually, in pairs or groups. While I will be monitoring the discussion forum threads/conversations, expect comments/feedback in discussions to come from the course mentors and your peers mostly. At the end of the course and in consultation with the mentors you will be evaluated on your participation in online discussion forums/groups according to the principles outlined below.

Assessment Rubric for Participation -- (A Range) Student’s oral and written contributions consistently demonstrate openness to learning and transformation. Student’s work frequently indicates their dedication to improving the quality, coherence, and utility of ideas. Student often engages in self-reflection and critique. Student’s contributions consistently include connections to other ideas expressed in assigned readings or expressed by fellow students. It is clear that the student has a deep and nuanced understanding of course themes. Student acknowledges points of epistemological harmony and discordance between their ideas and others’ ideas. Student demonstrates consistently high level of respect and commitment to group activities.

(B Range) Student’s oral and written contributions mostly demonstrate openness to learning and transformation. Student’s work usually indicates their dedication to improving the quality, coherence, and utility of ideas. Student sometimes engages in self-reflection and critique but not consistently. Student’s contributions sometimes include connections to other ideas expressed in assigned readings or expressed by fellow students but typically they do not. Student demonstrates understanding of course themes but does not indicate depth of knowledge or nuanced understanding of other ideas. Student occasionally acknowledges points of epistemological harmony and discordance between their ideas and others’ ideas but fails to elaborate upon these. Student is usually committed to group activities.

(C Range) Student’s oral and written contributions only occasionally demonstrate openness to learning and transformation. Student’s work more often reveals rigidity in thinking rather than a disposition to improving the quality, coherence, and utility of ideas. Based on oral and written contributions, there is little evidence that the student engages in self-reflection and critique. Student’s contributions rarely include connections to other ideas expressed in assigned readings or expressed by fellow students. Student work does not reveal depth of understanding of course ideas, peers’ contributions, or a close reading of text. Student rarely acknowledges or recognizes points of epistemological harmony and discordance between their ideas and others’ ideas. Student demonstrates inconsistent and unsatisfactory participation in group activities.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNMENTS

A/A+: Outstanding grasp of concepts and issues; evidence of careful and precise reading of required texts and of other related texts; ability to accurately relate theoretical discussions to practice; critical evaluation of readings and discussions and lectures giving evidence of independent and consistent judgment; fluent and appropriate use of relevant concepts; careful attention to the ideas of others, and courtesy in addressing them; imaginative organization and presentation of written work.

A-: As above but at a somewhat lower level of acuteness.

B+: Clear use of relevant literature and background reading; appropriate use of relevant concepts; sound structure and good organization; sound critical evaluation; linkages with wider issues made clearly; courtesy in dealing with others’ ideas and opinions.

B: Reasonably accurate grasp of key concepts and issues; analyses and discussions relevant and appropriate; adequately clear structure to written work; readings sensibly incorporated into arguments; evaluative discussions made accurately and sensibly; courtesy in dealing with others’ ideas and opinions.

B-: As above, but at a somewhat lower level of acuteness.

C/C-: Little evidence of required reading or little evidence that it has been adequately understood; limited grasp of the concepts being discussed; divergence from the main point to only peripherally or superficially related items; largely dealing with anecdotal or concrete instances rather than with the level of principles and theories; largely descriptive writing with little analysis, though showing some grasp of the main issues. 

F: Solely descriptive and only peripheral points engaged; lack of evidence of reading or limited understanding of what read; conceptual confusion, irrelevant and muddled material poorly organized.

Materials

REQUIRED READING:

Parsons, J., Hewson, K., Adrian, L., & Day, N. (2013). Engaging in action research: A practical guide to teacher-conducted research for educators and school leaders. Calgary: Brush Education Inc.
www.brusheducation.ca/catalog/arts-education-social-sciences/books/engaging-in-action-research


ISBN: 978-1-550-59449-2

Required Articles: Articles are available through the SFU Library unless otherwise noted.

Pelias, R. (2008). Writing into position: Strategies for composition and evaluation. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, (London: Sage) pp. 547-568.

Clarke, J., Dudley, P., Edwards, A., Rowland, S., Ryan, C., & Winter, R. (1993). Ways of presenting and critiquing action research reports.  Educational Action Research, 1(3), 490-492.

Graduate Studies Notes:

Important dates and deadlines for graduate students are found here: http://www.sfu.ca/dean-gradstudies/current/important_dates/guidelines.html. The deadline to drop a course with a 100% refund is the end of week 2. The deadline to drop with no notation on your transcript is the end of week 3.

Registrar Notes:

SFU’s Academic Integrity web site http://students.sfu.ca/academicintegrity.html is filled with information on what is meant by academic dishonesty, where you can find resources to help with your studies and the consequences of cheating.  Check out the site for more information and videos that help explain the issues in plain English.

Each student is responsible for his or her conduct as it affects the University community.  Academic dishonesty, in whatever form, is ultimately destructive of the values of the University. Furthermore, it is unfair and discouraging to the majority of students who pursue their studies honestly. Scholarly integrity is required of all members of the University. http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/student/s10-01.html

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: YOUR WORK, YOUR SUCCESS