Cherrington, Janet. “Taking Learning from the Classroom to
the Community Using Online Technology,” MnSCU Collaboration of College Teaching
and Learning, “Home on the Web: Challenges and Opportunities,” Winter
conference, March 26-April 5, 2001.
Introduction
It is no secret
that many college campuses are inherently self-contained communities. Often this inadvertently stifles the need for
students to learn more about the cultural, historical, and social aspects of
the college or university’s host community (Cherrington, 2000).
To address this problem, ‘a walking tour field trip’ was developed for
an introductory urban studies course. This community-based and computer-based
instructional activity allowed students, working in groups, to complete a
‘field trip’ in both the physical and the virtual world. This paper describes
the development and use of a teaching model which incorporates the use of this
‘walking tour’ field trip as an instructional strategy to teach
community-related content in two disciplines--urban studies (IUS) and social
work (SOWK). Evaluation results related
to the effectiveness of this walking tour as an instructional strategy are
reported for students in each discipline.
One group completed the virtual walking tour and the other completed the
physical walking tour.
Students in today's colleges and universities face multiple
learning demands in a rapidly changing educational environment and educators
find themselves moving quickly into uncharted territory to find new ways to
teach these students. Educators also
face increased expectations to include computer-based technologies in their
learning activities for students. These challenges are complicated by students
from rural communities with limited skills in the use of technology and the
educational community’s questions about the effectiveness of technology as a
teaching tool.
Often
students who participate in the introductory level courses in social and
behavioral sciences disciplines are unprepared to use computer-based
technologies. In spite of America’s
current belief that students graduating from high schools are more than
adequately prepared to use all types of technology, this does not appear to be
the case for many students in rural communities. These students often describe
their high school as having only one small computer lab with antiquated
hardware and software. It is not
uncommon to hear students state that they were only able to use the computer
lab in their high school about once a week.
This story repeats itself in many rural or lower socioeconomic status
communities that struggle with access to technology and funding sources to
support it.
Roblyer, Edwards,
and Havriluk (1997) suggest that educators who lack a teaching model to support
the integration of computer-based teaching into the curriculum frequently adopt
computer-based teaching for reasons unrelated to sound teaching pedagogy. These
reasons range from a desire to match their colleagues, enjoyment of a new
activity, or because they feel
'pressured' to add some type of technology to their instructional
strategy repertoire. The lack of an
empirically supported educational technology model has led many educators to
adopt a pragmatic or 'add and stir' approach.
This often contributes to chaos, frustration and high levels of failure
when using technology in the classroom. In addition, there
is evidence to suggest that educators using computer-based instruction may not
place as much focus on the importance of teaching goals, such as critical
thinking, as do their counterparts who do not use technology in their teaching
and learning activities (Gohagan, 2000).
Thus, using
technology for instructional purposes can be difficult for the faculty and
demanding for students. Consequently, learning
activities designed to incorporate more than one level of technology use can be
doomed to failure. Therefore, educators
must carefully consider the appropriate type of technology and the expected
outcomes for the use of this particular technology when planning computer-based
instructional approaches. Such
consideration should relate specifically to the teaching goals for the course
and learning outcomes for the students.
Educators should connect the use of each type of technology to one or
more teaching outcomes for a specific learning activity. This use should match
the short-term goals and long-term goals of the learning activity and the
course content (http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec596/about_webquests.html)
February 26, 2000). Finally, educators
when planning computer-based instructional strategies should layer the use of multiple
types of technology for student learning in order to influence positively the
development of technology skills for the average student.
In addition to
questions related to the best instructional design for the integration of
technology for student learning, there is a need to train students for
interprofessional collaboration, which is fast becoming a required skill for
students (Corrigan, 2000). The challenge is to design curriculum
activities that encourage student interaction across a variety of disciplines (Knapp,
Barnard, Gehrke & Tether, 1999). Undergraduate social work students rarely
interact with students in city and county management or urban studies programs;
and yet, most baccalaureate social work graduates in rural communities quickly
find themselves interacting with these very people as they advocate for funding
and programs for their clients.
3.
Methods
The urban studies
instructor designed and published during the summer and Fall 2000 semesters the
web-based “virtual” walking tour to
facilitate a computer-based learning activity.
The virtual walking tour was patterned on a booklet that had been
compiled by the instructor and several students during the fall 1999
semester. Since that time, the physical
walking tour has been a course requirement.
The goals for this field-based walking tour activity were to allow students
to see real-world examples of important urban changes such as decentralization
and the accompanying decline of buildings in the central business district, as
well as how cities have responded to this dilemma with programs of adaptive
reuse.
As pedestrians
(rather than motorists), IUS students respond to the physical settings as well
as to the social environment as they walk through a variety of neighborhoods,
parks, and business and government districts.
Students develop an individualized appreciation of the imagery and
physical surroundings to make sense of a city.
During the tour, the students are encouraged to photograph properties or
sites of particular interest to them.
After the tour, the students write an essay, scan their photos, and
merge them into a word processing document.
Then, working in small groups, the students peer-review their essays,
explore ideas to synthesize the essays, and discuss ways to integrate their
essays into multimedia presentations that incorporate graphic and audio components. IUS students learn technology skills such as
digitizing photos and merging images into word processing and presentation
software programs. Finally, IUS students
recount their walking tour experience for an audience of peers, community
residents, and faculty through their multimedia creations. The goal of this computer-based teaching model
is to expand the “virtual” walking tour through selecting students’ “best
projects” and uploading these to the walking tour web site. http://www.intech.mnsu.edu/cherrington/Tour/TourPages/MankatoTourCover.htm
The authors were
interested in developing a teaching model that would, with a combination of
instructional strategies, provide students in different disciplines with the
opportunity to transfer learning from the classroom to the community, increase
interprofessional collaboration skills, and provide information about the
effectiveness of these instructional strategies in achieving these goals. This project explored the use of a
computer-based and community-based teaching model for students in two
disciplines to gain broader understanding of communities.
Students in one
section of a lower division, general education urban studies class, Introduction
to the City (N = 9) and in one section of a beginning level social work
course, Introduction to Social Work Practice I, (N = 10) were
provided the opportunity to study the city in which their university was
located using the ‘walking tour’ field trip as the primary instructional
strategy. Even though overall learning
goals for each course were significantly different, the learning outcomes in
one unit for each of these two courses were similar in that they introduced students
to the importance of studying communities.
This teaching model
included: 1) one lecture in which course content, related to the understanding
the importance of studying community, was presented by each instructor
in a PowerPoint format; 2) students in each group participated in at least two
learning activities: a) participation in a computer-based discussion board and,
b) participation in either a physical or virtual based walking tour; and, 3) a
student evaluation of the instructional strategy.
Students
participated in a four-week computer-based discussion board activity,
facilitated by both instructors.
Students were expected to answer two questions two weeks before the
scheduled lecture. Following the
lecture, students were expected to use the computer-based discussion board to
answer a second set of questions. After the lecture, IUS students were expected
to take the physical version of the walking tour.
4. Results
IUS students
focused on the importance of knowing the history of one’s community while SOWK
students focused on knowing the people and the resources of the community. SOWK
students said they “didn’t know a lot of the history” or “what
buildings in my own neighborhood had been and are being used for.” Another said, “The virtual tour helped me
to find places I often hear about but have no clue how to locate.” IUS students reported that the physical
walking tour “gave me a feel of where everything is in the town,” and
that their “mental image of the city before taking the walking tour was poor.”
5.
Evaluation
Students completed
evaluations of the project (n = 9, SOWK; n = 5, IUS) that were designed to
measure their perceptions of the effectiveness of the three instructional
strategies (discussion board, the lecture, and the ‘walking tour’ field trip)
in teaching the knowledge and skills needed to understand community. The
evaluation consisted of Likert-scale responses to measure student perceptions
on the effectiveness of the three instructional strategies (0 = Not Applicable,
1= Not Effective, 2 = Somewhat Effective, 3 = Effective, and 4 = Very
Effective). Fixed choice responses (<
30 minutes, 30min to 1 hour, > 1hour) measured the time students spent on
the discussion board and virtual or physical tour. Open-ended questions allowed students to
describe their perceptions of the strengths and limitations of the three
instructional approaches.
5.1 Discussion Board
Both IUS and SOWK students rated overall discussion board
activity as ‘somewhat effective’ to ‘effective’ and both groups rated the
initial set of
discussion board questions as more
effective than the other questions..
Those in both disciplines who rated it as ‘effective’ suggested the
discussion board increased their understanding of how to communicate with other
disciplines. Almost all responses
included comments that they “enjoyed reading and learning about other students
opinions.” In fact, over half of the
students of the SOWK and all of the IUS student evaluations reported this was
the first time they had used a discussion board for class activities. Both student groups recommended using this
computer-based instructional strategy for future class activities. The majority of the SOWK and IUS participants
spent less than 30 minutes on the discussion board activities for each set of
questions.
5.2 Walking Tour
SOWK students rated the virtual walking tour as ‘effective’
in helping them understand community and as ‘somewhat effective’ to ‘effective’
for increasing their skills to assess community. SOWK students did not find the virtual
walking tour useful for professional development, but almost all made positive
comments about it expanding their personal worldview about their understanding
of the community where the university is located. Comments included: “I learned many things
I did not know,”
“It put everything into
perspective,” and “It was interesting to learn the history behind the
building I see everyday.” IUS
students rated the physical walking tour as ‘effective’ to ‘very effective’ for
helping them understand community and increase their skills in assessing
community.
SOWK students reported spending between 30 minutes and an 1
hour completing the virtual walking tour and slightly more than half of the
students indicated they would recommend the use of this type of web-based
teaching activity in future classes. They did suggest that if this web-based
instructional strategy were to be used for social work education and practice
that it should include “fun stuff,’ “links to other web-sites,” “demographic
information,” “a history of the social service delivery system in the
community,” and “more virtual walking tours to help those unfamiliar
with the area.”
IUS students
reported spending more than one hour on the physical walking tour and all
students recommended the use of this type of out-of-class activity for future
teaching activities. They did suggest
including “meeting with city personnel.”
Insofar as a future web-based activity for educating those interested in
working as public sector professionals, IUS students felt “it was important
to have discussion boards as well as maybe email or a chat room thing available
so people can submit ideas and discuss things at the same time if they are on” [sic]. Last, one student suggested setting up an “information
booth for students to find … funky places around town, especially for new
students.”
5.4
Lecture
SOWK students rated
the lecture as “somewhat effective” to “effective” in building their knowledge
and skills about communities while IUS students rated lecture as ‘somewhat
effective’ to ‘very effective.’ IUS
students rated the lecture as ‘effective’ for helping them increase their
knowledge about assessing the quality of life in cities and communities but
reported that it was ‘somewhat effective’ to ‘very effective’ in helping them
increase their knowledge about sustainable communities. Insofar as the lecture
helping IUS students increase their knowledge about the roles and
responsibilities of urban planning, four out of five IUS students rated it
‘effective’ and one ‘somewhat effective.’
6.
Discussion
The use of multiple types of computer-based
technologies to teach students about community in two disciplines had several
positive outcomes. First, SOWK and IUS
students with minimal exposure to technology developed skills in the use of
web-based discussion boards. Students
also enjoyed reading the opinions and stories of their classmates and peers in
the other discipline. Second, content
learning appeared to be reinforced by the three computer-based activities for
most students. Third, while the use of a
web-based ‘walking tour’ and other technology-based instructional activities
did not specifically address professional development skills for either group,
it certainly did expand their worldview. Since these are undergraduate
students, any activity that challenges and expands their worldview is a useful
teaching tool that can have long-term positive outcomes for their professional
development. For example, even though no clear mandate for interdisciplinary
use of such tools was achieved (nor was it expected), the students did provide
suggestions for ways to expand the walking tour to make the product more useful
for social work or urban studies education and practice.
Fourth, the potential exists for this
type of interdisciplinary instructional strategy to contribute to the
interprofessional activities of professionals-to-be whose fields of practice
have not historically crossed in the academic environment. Even though there did not appear to be any
immediate gains in the development of interprofessional relationships between
the IUS and SOWK students, both groups did express positive messages about the
importance of engaging in conversation with students outside their traditional professional
arena. For example, SOWK students who
participated in this project have now interacted with urban studies students
who may one day become the city manager or county administrator with whom they
will have to interact as advocates for particular clients and social programs.
7. Summary
As an interdisciplinary
teaching strategy, this model serves to stimulate students to learn more about
the cultural, historical, social, and entertainment venues that comprise their
university’s host community and to personalize their involvement in it.
There were several important outcomes for
using multiple types of technology that focused on a dual approach (physical
and virtual) of a ‘walking tour’ field trip.
It provided a way to address a variety of course-related outcomes across
disciplines while encouraging the development of future interprofessional
relationships. For the IUS students, there was a changed mental image of the
host city of their university and a gain in knowledge about communities. For SOWK students this teaching model
expanded their personal worldview about the importance of communities.
This project also exposed students to a variety of
technology skills that can be generalized to their future professions. For
example, an expanded version of the walking tour could become the basis for
meeting needs of students in a variety of disciplines. This teaching model also builds understanding
across disciplines that encourage the development of stronger professional ties
as students from multiple fields of practice learn to talk with each other
through the common language and understanding of online learning communities.
References
Cherrington-Cucore, J., (2000). An
introductory narrative that describes how a walking tour can breakdown the
‘town-gown’ syndrome. [Available Online]
http://www.intech.mnsu.edu/cherrington/Tour/TourPages/MankatoTourIntro.htm.
Corrigan, D., (2000). The changing
role of schools and higher education institutions with respect to
community-based interagency collaboration and interprofessional
partnerships. Peabody Journal of
Education 75(3) 176-95.
Dodge, B., (May 5, 1997). Some
thoughts about WebQuests. [Available Online] http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec596/about_webquests.html. Accessed February 26, 2000.
Gohagan, D. (2000). An examination
of teaching pedagogy and computer-facilitated instructions in social work
education. Unpublished Dissertation: University of South Carolina.
Knapp, M., Barnard, K.
E., Gehrke, N. J., and Teather,
E. J. (Fall, 1999). The design of an
interprofessional, community-responsive curriculum. Teacher Education
Quarterly 26(4) 31-52.
Roblyer,
M. D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk,
M. A.
(1997). Integrating
educational technology into teaching.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.