The ninth session focused on K-12 distance, online and/or blended learning of SITE 2019 that I am blogging is:
ID: 54556Type: Roundtable
- Jered Borup, George Mason University, United States
- Charles R. Graham, Brigham Young University, United States
- Leanna Archambault, Arizona State University, United States
Tuesday, March 19 3:00 PM-4:00 PM
No presider for this session.
K-12 online learning research has grown but the field still lacks widely accepted frameworks that can help to focus the field on those factors most likely to promote student success. Using existing K-12 online learning research, frameworks created for online learning in higher education, and frameworks for parental involvement in brick-and-mortar settings, Authors (2014) developed the Adolescent Community of Engagement (ACE) framework to describe ways that teachers, parents, and students’ peers support and foster online students’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement. The authors then began applying the framework to case studies at a charter cyber school, independent study online program, and a supplemental online program that provided students with an online teacher and on-site facilitator. Those case studies helped to better understand the engagement indicators originally included in the framework and identify indicators that were originally overlooked. Furthermore, some of the indicators originally included in the framework did not appear to actually make meaningful impacts on student engagement. As a result, we are now in the process of revising the framework and will share and discuss the revisions with those who attend the round table.
Topic
This was a roundtable session focused on the Adolescent Community of Engagement (ACE) framework – see https://sites.google.com/site/jeredborup/research-statement for how Jered describes the framework and the specific studies that have helped develop it. Jered began the session by asking the participants around the table about what is a framework and how we use it or use it with our students.
Jered then used a couple of examples (e.g., Moore’s 1989 framework for interaction or the Communities of Inquiry framework) as a way to provoke discussion around the role of frameworks, their strengths, and their limitations; as well as to provide some contextual background as to how the ACE framework came about (see Borup, West, Graham, & Davies, 2014). He then transitioned to describing some of the studies that help outline and refine the framework (and these studies are listed in his research statement that I linked above).
Jered did provide a hand-out about the new or revised framework (see images below).
The remainder of the session was discussing the revised framework. Some of the issues that came up included defining the actors who or actions that fell under the “course community” and the “personal community” – including some that even the presenters conflicted on (e.g., peers, facilitators, several school-based personal in fact). There were also discussions around around the independent engagement variable, and defining it as development or autonomy (i.e., self-regulation and self-efficacy were also terms used).
The next important step, beyond refining the framework through qualitative work, would be the development of an instrument to measure some of these variables.
References
Borup, J., West, R. E., Graham, C. R., & Davies, R. (2014). The adolescent community of engagement framework: A lens for research on K-12 online learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22, 107-129.
Learn More
About United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA)
Subscribe: Feedly
12 Unique Blogs Are Written By Professors
