PME 801
Collaborative
Inquiry
"The most important challenges we face as a society are riddled with complex ill-structuredness"
Spiro and DeSchryver
Ideas...require...Time
Me as a collaborator
Where do I see it fitting?
In relation to the core concepts (collaborative inquiry-CI, well-structured problems, ill-structured problems, and CI as problem solving and design), I felt that the case study was well rooted in the idea of clumsy collaboration to begin with. There seemed to be a hierarchical roll out that was obviously embraced by leaders, there was a certain sense of solidarity and individualism that had just enough tension between all three to ultimately lead to a sustained problem solving model for the Ontario teachers to embrace. (Taylor, M. (2013)
In regards to solving problems, the CI used by the Ontario teachers recognized that in practice they dealt more often with ill-structured domains/problems that had a certain absence of structuredness where solutions could really only come from accumulation of experiences, exposure to examples, and an appreciation of the multiplicity of interacting contextual features (Spiro, R.J., DeSchryver, M (2009).
Interesting how the way in which problem solving was handled immediately was with the use of well-structured components. Only when they added teachers and problems to the structure did the process become ill-structured because of variance and real world application. Essentially, the direct instruction of the 4 phases and how to proceed through them gave the teachers some essential information that fully explained concepts required to move through the CI.
The document was likely created with a greater intent to problem find (to seek innovative solutions) over problem solving (closed purpose). Although, the phases would likely reveal a balance of both given the unstructured-ness of the CI group.
When you look at the design theory of problem solving, the Ontario group, through the use of purposeful instructional design created a well-structured space (with the use of the 4 phase tool) in which teachers could come together to construct that problem space and through a complex, ill-structured problem solving experience…come to have an answer that was worth knowing for their learning community at large.
Do I like the process that is outlined?
I do like how the process that is outlined because there is just enough structure through direct instruction of the phases, which allows the professionals a “jumping off” point where they can all begin. Once that has been initiated, I can see how this would lead to a variety of ill-structured and well- structured problems that the teachers could naturally come up with some possible solutions (or further problems for deeper exploration at another time).
The model also provides an appropriate space for open patterns of discourse where professionals can effectively come to solutions.
I also like the design in that is provides a start and finish for collaboration when we are working with ill-structured problems. The expectations and the route remain clear and I think that this serves teachers when we under a constant of time.
How might I use it?
I think any time teachers get together with the purpose of solving a problem or finding a problem, this type of process could be used. To begin with, I would try to use it for our department goal setting for the year. We have something similar in place, although it is based on numbers data that comes directly from our test results from Alberta Education. However, I can see myself using the stage 4 process to support the goals. Our department could go through the stages and see what outcomes we see.
I can also see us using this on a larger scale at the Internal Leaders Group table. Here, I feel that we are faced with more ill-structured problems that require “problem finding” vs. the “problem solving” tools.
I also see us trying it with the teachers in a professional development setting that deals with problems that exist with our self-directed learners: pacing, motivation, test-anxiety, planning.
Do I see issues with it (e.g. applicability to different situations)?
I see more possibilities than issues with this type of CI problem solving process.
One issue I do see is using it to solve problems that are more well-structured than ill-structured. It obviously lends itself more to the ill-structured domain problems.
Another likely issue could be the CI group itself. If you don’t have the whole group commitment to the process then that “tension” that we know is necessary in collaboration is not going to be enough the run the process.
The collection of evidence could be problematic. Who collects the data? Will there be a strong enough data set? Do people have the knowledge to effectively collect the data? Is the data being collected the appropriate data to address our problem?
Sources:
Taylor, M. (2013, September 5). Collaboration: Oiling the system. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/thersa/collaboration-oiling-the-system/
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. (2009). Constructivism: When it’s the wrong idea and when it’s the only idea. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure (pp. 106-123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Learning Forward Ontario. (2011). Collaborative Inquiry: A Facilitator’s Guide. Retrieved from http://misalondon.ca/PDF/collabpdfs/Collaborative_Inquiry_Guide_2011.pdf
Thinking about my thinking AKA- Metacognition
When asked to put together my reflections of the scholarly readings thus far, the mind map seemed like a great way to feature all of the concepts in one place. I have utlilized concept maps before but chose to use a different form of technology to stretch my limits. This concept map will be added to as the concepts come up. Check it out...
The prompt: Jonassen (2000) asserts that students are rarely, if ever, required to solve meaningful problems as part of their curricula. Do you agree with his claim? What strategies can we use to create spaces that allow for this inclusion?
Meaningful problems within instructional design requires hard work on the part of teachers. I think that is why we rarely see meaningful problems as part of design because teachers feel obligated to curriculum, time constraints and Alberta Government Diploma Exams (still worth 30% of a student's mark in a summative test!) that go along with it.
To what extent do teachers see time constraints/summative standardized assessment as a reason to design curriculum that is based on "well structured problems" as opposed to "ill structured problems". (is this just an Alberta problem? we continue to have standardized provincial tests at grade 6,9 and 12)
As an advocate of the ill-structured domains and problem solving approaches, I think there may be several strategies that we could use to create the right space to design instruction with them. I think that we should start small (one ill-structured problem per unit/course?, use an everyday problem that exists in communities (use the current events/news items) and bring it to the students to approach the problem however they choose- scaffold with support where necessary but allow them the free flow of ideas, allow the students to use their knowledge to bring a potential solution or new direction to the problem, PD staff using appropriate tools (like the 4 stage Ontario problem solving) to have them see how an ill-structured process could unfold?
I can see the use of cross-curricular partnerships/projects between ill-structured and well-structured domains being the right mix to design a ill-structured problem. It's also smart teaching as students could achieve many outcomes in one problem.
I know it's more of a high school take but elementary generalists are in the best environment to offer this type of possibility... how much do the elementary generalists in our class work the cross-curricular component?
​
Heather E.
Problem Solving
Inquiry...let's do it!
Spiro & DeSchryver (2009) make a case in favour of constructivist approaches in learning and instruction for ill-structured domains. How do you approach constructivist pedagogies in your teaching and learning? Do you choose to incorporate digital media into your instructional approaches?
​
I approach my practice embracing constructivist pedagogies. Of course teaching in a model that is designed for self-directed learning, it's a very natural fit. I have to structure the learning guides to offer a "way" with multiple choices to get to the understandings. More choice is key to moving the students towards the knowledge that they will deem necessary for them to know the content. I give control over to them and lead them with questions that may assist them. With the skills that are necessary ( how to structure a position essay or a source interpretation) to demonstrate their understandings, I do have to almost go more for that direct approach to teaching, but once they get that, how they use the content is up to them. As Alberta Education still has diploma exams, it's necessary for us to teach the skills used to demonstrate the knowledge. (it remains a sticking point for a lot of teachers who still use it as a logic to not let their practice be more constructivist)
​
Question: I wonder how this might look if diploma exams didn't exist at all?
​
Digital media is in constant partnership with my instructional practices. As a lot of teaching and learning occurs face to face and in digital space it's a necessary component of practice at my school. I happen to think that without it, we are not creating the right type of environment for our learners to embrace their own learning. I view it as a tool that extends beyond the curriculum and creates a bridge and relationship between the students/me/home/an real world crossover. When a kid can see how relevant a digital tool could be for practical use in their own lives- they get motivated to tinker and to really get competent in using it. Use of good digital tools are not a extra to curriculum but rather an addition to the skills that the students are coming to understand.
​
Question: How much choice in digital media is too much for emerging self-regulated learners?
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
