Job Talk: Teaching - North Carolina State University (2016)
•
1 like•427 views
These are the slides from my teaching-focused job talk at North Carolina State University in May 2016.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Job Talk: Teaching - North Carolina State University (2016)
Similar to Job Talk: Teaching - North Carolina State University (2016) (20)
More from Michael Barbour
More from Michael Barbour (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Job Talk: Teaching - North Carolina State University (2016)
- 1. Michael K. Barbour Director of Doctoral Studies Sacred Heart University
- 2. Teaching
- 3. Teaching Philosophy 1. Social construc<vism postulates knowledge is defined as meaning that is nego<ated through social interac<on within a community of learners (Vygotsky, 1978) 2. Papert (1980) felt students learn by building or construc<ng their knowledge through trial-‐and-‐ error towards a meaningful product 3. Bloom (1968) argued mastery learning was where students were provided with addi<onal <me and resources if they required it, and where students had mul<ple opportuni<es to show their understanding of the content
- 26. Passion/Enthusiasm • “No doubt he is passionate about research!” (EDL689 – Spring 15) • “He was enthusias<c about the material.” (EDL689 – Spring 15) • “Michael is passionate about ed. research. His enthusiasm rubs off on even the most reluctant students.” (EDL690 – Summer 15) • “Michael is very enthusias<c about the materials that he is conveying, and wants all students to understand the process and the outcomes.” (EDL690 – Summer 15) • “He displayed a genuine interest and concern for student work and student success in the project.” (EDL698 – Fall 15)
- 27. Feedback/Interac<on • “The feedback the instructor gave on assignments prior to submission. That is always beneficial and greatly appreciated.” (EDL689 – Spring 15) • “My instructor has been very helpful in providing feedback whenever I have send him my work for review.” (EDL689 – Spring 15) • “The feedback provided on each assignment was instrumental in learning and understanding the course content.” (EDL690 – Summer 15) • “He was also accessible and responded immediately to ques<ons and issues. His feedback was nearly instant, which was encouraging.” (EDL690 – Summer 15) • “Dr. Barbour was quick to respond and provided quick and relevant feedback.” (EDL698 – Fall 15)
- 28. Special Topics • Design-‐based research • Educa<onal research • Low-‐tech gaming • K-‐12 online learning • K-‐12 blended learning • Social media in the classroom • Blogging in the classroom
- 29. Research
- 30. Keeping Pace with K-‐12 Digital Learning
- 31. Keeping Pace with K-‐12 Digital Learning
- 32. Davis (2007) Teacher Roles
- 33. Borup (2015)
- 35. Virtual School Teachers • Virtual School Designer: Course Development – design instructional materials – works in team with teachers and a virtual school to construct the online course, etc. • Virtual School Teacher: Pedagogy & Class Management – presents activities, manages pacing, rigor, etc. – interacts with students and their facilitators – undertakes assessment, grading, etc. • Virtual School Site Facilitator: Mentoring & Advocating – local mentor and advocate for student(s) – proctors & records grades, etc. Davis (2007)
- 36. Researching K-‐12 Online Learning • Design – Effec<ve web-‐based design for adolescents – Suppor<ng the course design process • Deliver – Models of interac<on to support online teaching – Social media tools for online teacher – Online teachers professional development needs – Teacher prepara<on for online learning • Support – Du<es and <me commitment of mentor teachers
- 38. Keeping Pace with K-‐12 Digital Learning
- 39. Keeping Pace with K-‐12 Digital Learning
- 40. Literature Finding CO (2006) “Online student scores in math, reading, and writing have been lower than scores for students statewide over the last three years.” OH (2009) …online charter school students experienced significantly lower achievement gains compared to brick-and-mortar charter schools in the state. OH (2009) Online charter schools “rank higher when looking at their ‘value- added’ progress over one year rather than simply measuring their one-time testing performance.” WI (2010) “Virtual charter school pupils’ median scores on the mathematics section of the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination were almost always lower than statewide medians during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years.” CO (2011) “Half of the online students wind up leaving within a year. When they do, they’re often further behind academically then when they started.” MN (2011) “Compared with all students statewide, full-time online students had significantly lower proficiency rates on the math MCA-II but similar proficiency rates in reading.”
- 41. Literature Finding AZ (2011) “[N]early nine of every 10 students enrolled in at least one statewide online course, all had graduation rates and AIMS math passing rates below the state average” OH (2011) “[N]early 97 percent of Ohio's traditional school districts have a higher score than the average score of the seven statewide” online charter schools. Those schools in Ohio also underperformed brick-and-mortar schools in graduation rates. PA (2011) 100% of these online charter schools performed significantly worse than feeder schools in both reading and math. AR (2012) …online students performed at levels comparable to their face-to-face counterparts in six out of eight measures, and on the remaining two measures online students outperformed their face-to-face counterparts at a 0.10 statistically significant level. National (2012) “…students at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual school company, are falling further behind in reading and math scores than students in brick- and-mortar schools.” KS (2015) “Virtual school students perform similarly to traditional school students in reading before and after controlling for student demographics. After controlling for demographic differences, virtual school students’ performance in math was similar to that of traditional school students.”
- 46. Re-‐framing the Ques<on Whether online learning can be suitable for all K-‐12 students? (Mulcahy, 2002) How do we create environments where all K-‐12 students can be successful when they learn online?
- 47. Service
- 48. • Departmental / college / university • Con<nue involvement with: – Canadian eLearning Network – Virtual Learning Network (New Zealand) – Society of Informa<on Technology & Teacher Educa<on – Online Learning Consor<um (formerly Sloan-‐C) • Re-‐engaged with AECT
- 49. Your Ques<ons and Comments
- 51. Director of Doctoral Studies Sacred Heart University mkbarbour@gmail.com hjp://www.michaelbarbour.com hjp://virtualschooling.wordpress.com