Internet Research Class Proposal for Jefferson County Public Schools

Dane G. Hartman

Boise State University

Abstract

This document proposes the implementation of an internet-centered research class

targeting 11th and 12th grade students. The theoretical foundation of this proposal
draws on the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning model (CSCL), a
constructivist/connectivist-based approach that emphasizes group and peer
teaching. Using computers both for online research and as a means of providng a
scaffolded framework for group collaboration, this course will attempt to address
the perceived need for a curriculum whose central focus is to prepare students for
the 21st century social and educational paradigm. Despite the district’s
acknowledgement that our schools need to better prepare students for a world of
technological acceleration and rapid obsolescence of learned material, the
exploration and evaluation of the vast digital ‘infosphere’ continues to take a back
seat to traditional academic subject matter. This course reverses those priorities,
using a flexible subject matter derived from student interest and staff input.

21st century students, 20th century schools

The Jefferson County school district recognizes the need to better prepare
students for a 21st century school/work environment. The district has created a
three-year technology plan and pacing guide with various quotes from the writings
of David Warlick, a revolutionary author and educator who advocates fundamental
change within the education system. It is worth taking a moment to consider his
words:

We desperately need . . . we may not survive without . . . a generation of

young people who are imaginative, inventive, fearless learners, and
compassionate leaders. Yet, what can we say, as educators, about the
students we are producing? We can prove that they can read, do basic math
on paper, and they are able to sit for hours filling in bubble sheets. No
generation in history has ever been so thoroughly prepared for the industrial
age (Warlick, 2006a).

One of our problems has been that we have tried to shape the technology
around outdated notions of what schooling is about, rather than reshaping
our notions to reflect new world conditions. . . . In a rapidly changing world,
it becomes much less valuable to be able to memorize the answer, and
much more valuable to be able to find and even invent the answers. . . . We
 can’t keep up with making the technology the curriculum. All we can do is
prepare our students to teach themselves. It’s the only way to keep up
(Warlick, 2005).

Despite our district’s recognition of this inadequacy, actual change has been slow
or nonexistent. A traditional mindset and an inflexible definition of academic
curricula has delayed and confined the adoption of a more innovative approach to
educating students. The change that our education system requires cannot be
accomplished simply by publishing goals and taking baby-steps toward the 21 st
century. In the words of author Miguel Guhlin “No one jumps a 20 foot chasm in
two 10 foot jumps” (Guhlin, 2006). The diagram below illustrates this idea (Lewis,
2009).

Author and technologist Chris Lott puts it in another way:

The academic world is incrementalist by nature and . . . this has worked

(such as it has) because the underlying structures and assumptions for and
by educators have remained the same . . . . Things are no longer the same -
technology and students . . . are changing at rates never seen before. . . . A
revolution is happening outside of our control, in our student population, and
there will be a tipping point in this process when the academy finds itself
wholly inadequate and unsuitable to those they presume to serve . . . and no
time to patch their outmoded mechanisms (Lott, 2006).

The change we need requires a re-thinking of our entire educational philosophy, a

commitment to move away from the behaviorist paradigm of the 20 th century
toward a new 21st century constructivist/connectivist model. The traditional
academic subjects of the 20th century have merit, but there is a general failure
within our education system to recognize that the most important aspect of
education does not require a specific set of information as its basis. Education in
its truest form is the cultivation of thought and perspective, the ability to gather
information, and the capacity to collaborate, listen, create, and imagine. These
skills are fundamental to success in every sense of the world; they are
indispensable requirements for the academic, social, and psychological maturation
of a human being.

Flexible Research Focus

The question arises: How can something so abstract be taught? Where is the
subject matter? The answer is simple: There is no predetermined subject matter,
at least not in the way that we’re used to thinking of it. Instead, there is an open
field of ideas for students to choose from and a near-infinite realm of information
for them to explore. Says David Warlick:

When we can not clearly predict our children’s future, it becomes much less
important what they are learning, and much more important how they are
learning it, and what they are doing with it. Guhlin said that the practices of
innovative teachers are considered “untried and untrue because they don’t
connect with the traditional environment of school.” I think that the real
story is that our schools are not connecting to (relevant to) their own goals,
preparing children for their future (Warlick, 2006b).

When our current educational model was created, the realm of human knowledge
was expanding slowly and the means of accessing it were limited. Now the realm
of human knowledge is expanding at an exponential rate, and its accessibility is
only a keystroke away. George Siemens, coiner of the connectivism learning
theory, puts it this way:

“Decision-making is learning. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of

incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While
there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in
the information climate affecting the decision” (Siemens, 2004).

Where an omnipotent resource like the internet was once merely fiction, it is now
a real open door to the exploration of everything that is important to each
individual – a near-infinite source of information, easily capable of kindling interest
and curiosity within every student. The desire to learn and grow is part of human
nature: Students want to learn, discuss, collaborate, and expose themselves to
new ideas and perspectives. We as educators must now develop a framework for
the safe, wise, and constructive use of that energy. This is where CSCL fits in.

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) is a paradigm of learning that

began emerging in the mid-1990s and has gained momentum ever since. CSCL
encompasses an enormous and constantly evolving realm of educational scenarios
such as (a) distance learning applications (web 2.0), (b) dynamic groups, (c)
Cluster Pattern Interface technology, (d) eScapes, and (e) Virtual worlds. These
scenarios represent just a few of the many ways this new learning model is
manifesting itself. Within the context of a guided, high school collaborative
internet research class, CSCL is best observed through the lens of scaffolded group
interaction.

The range of options in creating an adequate framework for student collaboration

has traditionally been very limited. Conducting a high school ‘group project’
usually consists of students divvying up the work, doing their share (hopefully),
and then reconvening to slap the pieces together. Calling such activity
‘collaboration’ seems misguided at best, yet this is the reality in our schools. The
inclination to fault teachers for a lack of ingenuity, or maybe blame students for a
lack of motivation is tempting, but ultimately unproductive. Notwithstanding a
small degree of validity to this finger pointing, the chief obstacle to achieving true
collaboration is the lack of an effective collaborative framework that students can
embrace. CSCL represents a fundamental change in the way that individuals can
share information, allowing students to take advantage of the technology that they
already enjoy using and providing teachers with the tools necessary to organize
and track student activity. Take Google Docs as an example. It is now possible for
students to work on the same document at the same time, from anywhere. A
student can create an account, create a new document, and then add his/her
group members (as well as the instructor) as collaborators on that document. The
written aspect of that project is available to everyone, at all times. Students can
edit the document from any computer, use a range of text colors to differentiate
their contributions, and track revision changes as the document progresses. If a
catastrophic mistake is made, they can restore the document to a previous state;
the potential for data loss is greatly diminished, while the degree of individual
accountability is greatly increased. Say goodbye to excuses like “my partner isn’t
here and he has our script” or “I was absent that day and didn’t get the handout”
– It’s all available online. Forget too about trying to discern who didn’t pull their
own weight – Each individual’s contributions can be easily tracked by the
instructor. Evaluating the legitimacy of internet sources is of central importance to
any research project, and the ability to make the URLs of all sources available to
the entire class for scrutiny is a great tool for this process. The collaborative
framework made possible by CSCL is fluid and adaptable, allowing the instructor to
decide exactly who shares information with whom. An educational model
incorporating a progressively scaffolded CSCL research environment coupled with
in-class dynamic group interaction has the potential to deliver the revolutionary
change that our education system needs.

Class Framework and Curriculum Specifics

This course is guided by three fundamental objectives:

1.)Enable students to effectively explore the internet and evaluate the credibility
of digital information.
2.)Cultivate collaboration and communication skills through group analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation of information.
3.)Foment an introspective questioning of preexisting assumptions, prejudgments,
purpose, and possibility.

Objective #1: Enable students to effectively explore the internet and evaluate the
credibility of digital information.

According to the 21st Century Information Fluency Project, “Digital Information

Fluency (DIF) is the ability to find, evaluate and use digital information effectively,
efficiently and ethically. DIF involves Internet search skills that start with
understanding how digital information is different from print information, knowing
how to use specialized tools for finding digital information and strengthening the
dispositions needed in the digital information environment” (Heine & O’Connor,
2009). The 21st Century Information Project articulates a detailed set of objectives
that underpin the research aspect of this class:

What information am I looking for?

 Learners identify key concepts in a research question

 Learners create effective and efficient search queries
o Translate a natural language question into a search query
o Develop and apply vocabulary building strategies to effectively conduct
a digital information search
o Effectively act on informed decisions to revise their search queries
based on search results/feedback

Where will I find the information?

 Learners understand the organization of digital information

 Learners effectively and efficiently select digital collections based on their
characteristics
o Select visible Web collections (and sub-collections) based on their
characteristics
o Select invisible Web collections (and sub-collections) based on their
characteristics
o Select other digital collections (and sub-collections) based on their
characteristics

How will I get there?

 Learners select digital search tools based on their effectiveness and

efficiency
 o Select features of a variety of digital tools based on the probability of
effectiveness and efficiency
 Learners select appropriate search strategies to effectively and efficiently
locate reliable digital information related to their academic learning goal(s)
o Navigate hyperlink, i.e. browsing strategies
o Use subject directory strategies
o Use search engine strategies
 Learners apply appropriate search strategies in order to efficiently locate
reliable digital information related to their academic learning goal(s)
o Navigate hyperlink, i.e. browsing strategies
o Use a directory (subject index)
o Use a search engine

How good is the information?

 Learners evaluate the quality of a search result to determine its usefulness

in the search process
o Determine whether or not the digital information addresses the natural
language question
o Decide whether or not the digital information suggests revisions to
search queries (revision decision)
 Learners evaluate the quality of a search result to determine the reliability of
its content
o Investigate internal content reliability
o Investigate external validation of information
 Learners evaluate the quality of a search result to determine the reliability of
its source
o Investigate author/publisher reliability
o Investigate external validation of author/publisher

How will I ethically use the information?

 Learners ethically use digital information

o Learners decide whether or not to integrate digital information related
to a specific information task
o Learners give credit to the source and/or author for the selected digital
information

Overall competencies (Applicable in all phases of the digital

information fluency process):

 Learners acquire the dispositions necessary for successful digital information

fluency:
o Demonstrate confidence in finding a solution when engaged in the
digital information fluency process
 o Demonstrate persistence to continually engage in the digital
information fluency process
o Demonstrate focus to avoid distractions when engaged in the digital
information fluency process
o Demonstrate open-mindedness to a variety of strategies and tools
when engaged in the digital information fluency process
o Demonstrate curiosity for exploring ideas when engaged in the digital
information fluency process
 Learners acquire self-regulation necessary for successful digital information
fluency:
o Demonstrate meta-cognitive thinking to adjust their strategies and
tools when engaged in the digital information fluency process
o Demonstrate attitude of adaptability to respond to inconclusive or
ineffective results when engaged in the digital information fluency
process (Heine & O’Connor, 2009).

Objective #2: Cultivate collaboration and communication skills through group

analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information.

The collaborative framework of this class is largely based on the model put forth
by Pettenati and Cigognini in their 2007 article “Social Networking Theories and
Tools to Support Connectivist Learning Activities.” The following is basic overview
of connectivist learning theory.

The term “connectivism” was coined by George Siemens in his 2004 paper
“Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age”. Siemens argued that the
previous mainstream learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and even
constructivism (which is largely seen as most compatible with e-learning) provide
inadequate theoretical support to the new technology-based learning
environments. He introduced connectivism theory to fill this gap. According to
Siemens, “The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe”, meaning
that the network itself is the foundation of the learning process and that knowing a
piece of information is of less importance than knowing where and how to retrieve
it. He asserts that “Research in traditional learning theories comes from an era
when networking technologies were not yet prominent. How does learning change
when knowledge growth is overwhelming and technology replaces many basic
tasks we have previously performed? Knowing and learning are today defined by
connections... Connectivism is a theory describing how learning happens in a
digital age. Connectivism is the assertion that learning is primarily a network
forming process.” (Siemens, 2006).

According to Pettenati and Cigognini, the connectivist learning environments are

defined by the following ideas:

 Goal: Relation based on individual interests, debate, confront on specific

topics; multiplicity and heterogeneity of joining interests and motivations.
  Belonging: Spontaneous and autonomous motivation.

 Cohesion and enabling factors: High level of trust (relevance of

reputation), sense of responsibility, high technological skills, distributed
reflexivity and evaluation (Pettenati & Cigognini, 2007).

Below Pettenati and Cigognini present a simplified schema of the stages in a

connectivist learning experience:

1. Awareness & receptivity: as (Siemens, 2006) points out, in this stage,

individuals get used to "handling knowledge abundance", and are firstly
confronted with resources and tools of the new learning habitat. If this
stage is not sustained by a proper motivational context as well as the
acquisition of basic skills… [it] can become a frustrating experience and
often cause the drop out of the learner from the learning environment.

2. Connection forming and selection filtering: in this stage "individuals

begin to use tools and understanding acquired during the previous stage
to create and form a "personal network" of resources (people and
contents). At this point the learners start to be active in the learning
space in terms of "consuming or acquiring new resources and tools"
(Siemens, 2006). Affective and emotive factors such as fun, pleasure,
positive interaction and increasing sense of meaning are crucial to
building the roots of an effective "personal learning network" (ibidem).

3. Contribution & Involvement: "In this stage the learner begins to

actively contribute to the learning network — essentially, becoming a
“visible node”. The learner’s active contribution and involvement allows
other nodes on the network to acknowledge his resources, contributions,
and ideas — creating reciprocal relationships and shared understandings
(or, if social technology is used, collaboratively-created understanding)"
(ibidem). In this stage group culture and social climate are key factors to
enable the individual participation and involvement.

4. Reflection & metacognition: Reflection on the knowledge processes

and products, self-reflexivity and self-evaluation as well as metacognition
(thinking about thinking) play a prominent role in this stage. Individuals
are actively involved in modifying and rebuilding their own learning
network, acting as "network aware and competent" subjects (ibidem).
The experience acquired at this stage within the learning network has
resulted in an understanding the nuances of the space and the knowledge
inputs, allowing the subject to act both as a provider of valuable support
and help to other networked learners as well as being capable of
accessing just in time and personalized knowledge to himself (Pettenati &
Cigognini, 2007).
An outline of the curriculum and sequencing of the high school internet research
class addressed in this proposal is as follows:

1. Course introduction: Establish a set of attitude and ownership expectations

and arrive at an understanding of how this course differs from traditional high
school classes. Initial group cohesion exercises will involve whole-class dialog
and debate surrounding ‘big questions’ that have no definitive answer.

2. Establish basic CSCL infrastructure: Students create Gmail accounts and

learn the basic principles of collaborative editing with Google Docs (note: This
syllabus is subject to constant revision – the class will adopt whatever
document-sharing and learning management software best meets its needs at
any given time). Computer labs and/or mobile laptop carts will be used in this
process.

3. Identify possible research topics: A list of possible research topics will be

generated via student and school-wide teacher input. The student input process
will consist of an in-class brainstorming session(s) during which a list of student
suggestions is compiled. The second source of topic possibilities will come from
other teachers. The instructor will send an email to teachers from each
discipline requesting responses to one or more of the following questions: “To
you, what is the most fascinating aspect of your field? If you had infinite free
time and limitless resources, which facet of your subject matter would you
choose to learn more about? What discoveries are being made at the forefront
of your field, and what are the implications for the human race and/or the
average citizen?” Once all data is compiled, the final list will be subject to an
administrative vetting process where any themes considered inappropriate are
removed.

4. Create groups: Once a list of possible topics has been generated, the class will
be divided into groups of 3-5 based on common interest.

5. Develop search engine skills: Class will receive detailed instructions on the
use of search engines. This includes making use of advanced search syntax,
directories, meta search engines, tag cloud search engines, and other data
gathering techniques.

6. Authenticity evaluation practice: Class will receive specific instruction for

determining the validity of information sources and the authenticity of data.
This will begin with students visiting a predetermined list of websites that all
appear to contain legitimate information but some of which are actually bogus.
Students will be charged with the task of identifying which sites contain
misinformation and then explaining how they arrived at that conclusion.
Authenticity-evaluation techniques covered will include locating
antitheses/counter-arguments/counter-proof data, analyzing specific points of
discrepancy between conflicting information, and then narrowing the research
 focus to ‘dig deeper’ into the areas of contention.

7. Begin research: Groups will begin the research process. Each student will
perform online research both from school and at home, and each student will
compile his/her findings into his/her own individual annotated bibliography
document within Google Docs. The point of the annotated bibliography will be
to summarize data and record information sources (precise formatting of
references will not be emphasized, although students will be encouraged to use
the Firefox referencing plug-in utility ‘Zotero’ whenever possible). Each student
will grant viewing privileges to his/her group members and to the instructor.

8. Reconvene and create presentations: Groups will reconvene to discuss,

compare, and consolidate their findings into a presentation for the rest of the
class. Images, video clips, and audio recordings can be incorporated for
presentation via computer, LCD projector and Smartboard.

9. Share presentations: Each group will present its findings to the class, and
then lead a whole-class discussion/debate on that topic. The instructor will
mediate the discussion by providing feedback, asking questions, highlighting
important aspects of the topic, and making sure that everyone has a chance to
speak. An audio recording of the debate will be placed online as a Podcast or
via the learning management system.

10. Publish findings: Each group will conclude the unit by collaboratively
generating a Wiki-based “newspaper article” on its topic. The instructor will
provide written feedback directly within the document. Finished articles will be
published via Google Docs for easy access by the other students and staff.

Objective #3: Foment the introspective questioning of preexisting assumptions,

prejudgments, purpose, and possibility.

Throughout the course of this class the instructor will occasionally pose questions
that are unanswerable in definitive terms. The goal is to provoke metacognitive
thought and reflection. This can be considered a continuation of the initial group-
cohesion building discussions that take place during the course introduction. Some
possible themes include (but are certainly not limited to) the relationship between
mind and matter, control of one’s own consciousness, the significance of modern
astrophysical discoveries, and quantum physics.

If a given topic generates discussion, then that conversation will be mediated by

the instructor and allowed to run its course. If not, then it will be dropped. The
overall goal is to help students snap out of their everyday frames of thought and
consider things from a new perspective.

Conclusion
Incrementally modifying our teaching methods worked fine when the notions of
literacy and education were not changing rapidly, but that is no longer the case. If
we are to meet the challenge of preparing students for a world in which rapid
transformation is the only constant, then we must dispense with our certainty and
reevaluate our assumptions. If we insist on clinging to the familiar and fail to
revolutionize our thinking, we will be left behind, dismissed as irrelevant while
students move on to shape the world without us.

I, Dane Hartman, Spanish teacher at Wheat Ridge High School, formally request
district approval for the implementation of the aforementioned elective class in the
2010-2011 school year. I ask that you please contact me upon receipt of this
proposal.

Dane Hartman
Spanish Teacher - Wheat Ridge High School
Email: dhartman@jeffco.k12.co.us
Voicemail: 303-982-7713

References

Chris Lott. (June 20, 2006). Dead teachers and tipping points. In Ruminate.
Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.chrislott.org/2006/06/20/dead-
teachers-and-tipping-points/.

David Warlick. (December 16, 2005). So what's different - some answers. In 2

Cents Worth. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/2005/12/16/so-whats-different-some-answers/.

David Warlick. (February 16, 2006a). Happy birthday jude. In 2 Cents Worth.
Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p=298.

David Warlick. (March 19, 2006b). Reactions to podcast 40: Redefining & Telling
the New Story. In 2 Cents Worth. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?m=200603&paged=2.

George Siemens. (December 12, 2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the
digital age. In elearnspace. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

George Siemens. (March 6, 2006). It doesn’t come pre-packaged anymore. In

Connectivism.ca: Networked Learning. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from
http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=54.

Heine, C. & O’Connor, D. (April 18, 2009). Digital information fluency model. In
21st Century Information Fluency Project. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://21cif.com/resources/difcore/index.html.
Miguel Guhlin. (June 19, 2006). Blog post. In Literacy as Battleground. Retrieved
April 22, 2009, from
http://remoteaccess.typepad.com/remote_access/2006/06/literacy_as_bat.html.

Mike Lewis. (March 24, 2009). Incremental vs. revolutionary improvements. In

Pescatello's Photostream. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikelewis/3383628254/.

Pettenati, M.C, & Cigognini, M.E. (2007). Social networking theories and tools to
support connectivist learning activities. International Journal of Web - Based
Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(3), 42.