ETEC

530

Self-assessment for the Research Cafes

Submitted by: Shayla Mangat

Date: July 19, 2018

The purposes of the research cafes are to explore personal teaching contexts and the
application of effective constructive strategies. In addition, it is a platform for
developing your research skills further and gaining first-hand experience with e-
learning strategies of personal interest.

The questions below are designed to prompt an analysis and reflection of your
ongoing inquiry into knowledge and constructivist e-learning strategies. It is
expected that the long answer questions contain at least a paragraph (about 4-5
sentence) response. Please use this form to complete the self-reflection.

1. When did I facilitate a research café?

I facilitated my café during week 9 of the course (July 12 – July 18).

2. What was the topic on constructivism I chose to explore?

I chose to explore constructivist strategies and English language learners.

3. What research did I select to study and why?

I chose to select three different articles and assign each participate to a particular
reading. Each reading had associated reflection questions to prompt each
participant. The reason for this was to have a wide range of discussions. For
instance, we had threads that appeared about the effective support (or lack thereof)
for ELL students, another about using inquiry-based methods to support our ELL
students, and another on the socio-cultural constructivist approaches. I also found
that although each individual had not read the same article, it provided the
opportunity for more personal-experiences with ELL.

4. What 5 things did I learn about constructivist strategies from the body
of research I studied, including the Fosnot chapter I read?

Fosnot (2013) – Chapter 7
a. Maxine Greene suggests that there is a process of interpretation when
viewing forms of art that is only undertaken by a person with a particular
perspective. It is only through our interpretation and perspective, that we
are able to construct meaning of a give text, picture, etc. This ultimately
means that the more differences there are among interpretations, there is a
ETEC 530
2018
SK, Policy #81


higher probability of more opposing meanings. This is particularly intriguing

when considering our ELL students and their interpretations of the forms of
art (whether visual, textual, etc.) that are often presented with a Western
view. From a constructivist view, it would seem appropriate to state that it is
nearly impossible to present a piece of art with an intended meaning or
purpose because the educator can never be sure that each student will accept
the intended meaning.
b. Greene also suggests that the construction of meaning can also be as much
social as it is individual. This communal construction of knowledge or
community of interpretation is based in particular symbol systems or
semiotic systems that have developed in different cultures. This once again
is interesting when considering our ELL students who may have not grown
up understanding or being exposed to the same systems.

Proctor, C., Dalton, B. & Grisham, D. (2007)
c. In this article, the ULE multimedia digital reading environment was tested to
see the effects on ELL students and struggling readers. This approach
introduced the ways in which introducing technology can be used to support
our ELL students. The program embedded comprehension support,
vocabulary and reading strategy support, had interacting components with
vocabulary, and was self-paced for each student. It also once again provided
the opportunity for students to work not only in English, but also in their
native language.

Amaral, O., Garrison, L. & Klentschy, M. (2002)
d. The researches further explored the benefits of utilizing constructivist
approaches in inquiry-based learning. The importance hindered on the idea
that ELL students are forced to focus on reading, writing and math; however,
by allowing them to participate fully in science activities they are able to
apply their understanding. The constructivist benefits were: less reliance on
unfamiliar texts, is able to use past experiences and use both languages, time
to work hands-on with materials, cooperative learning in small groups or
pairs, and they are active learners and are responsible for their own learning.

Mvududu, N. & Thiel-Burgess, J. (2012)
e. Research has indicated that the retention scores of students who were taught
using constructivist approaches increased dramatically. For ELL students, it
is imperative that they feel connected to what they are learning and it is
suggested that scaffolding is one of the effective approaches. The example is
presented of a first grade class where students with low English-language
skills were pulled aside and given small group direction through the story
before joining the large class discussion. This increased the confidence of the
learners and they were more willing to participate in dialogue with their
peers.

5. What 3 new research skills did I develop or hone with this assignment?
ETEC 530
2018
SK, Policy #81


What I found both interesting and challenging about facilitating a café was finding
research that was both informative and engaging for others. In past experiences I
may have chosen an article by simply typing the key terms and choosing one of the
top results. In this instance however, I chose to narrow it down by date (ensuring
that the research was conducted within the past fifteen years). Additionally, I read
the initial summary of many articles and searched for key terms (educators,
students, constructivism, ELL, etc.). Furthermore, I explored numerous research
data bases including the UBC library and Google Scholar. Finally, I chose to research
articles beyond the content in the article, but also developed my reflective skills by
producing reflective questions for myself and my peers for each article.

6. What e-learning strategies did I try out with my peers? How did I decide
to try these particular e-learning strategies out (eg. research, other
sources, personal experience, etc)?

As this was my first time hosting a research café, I wanted to try out numerous
different approaches to see what would be most effective in an e-learning
environment. I began by researching articles that were online and that I could
download into PDF files for my peers in different locations to read. Then, I
embedded three discussion forums that would be a central location for each
participant to view and reflect on the perceptions and thoughts of others. I also
chose to embed a hyperlink to an outside website that presented a case review; as
well, a hyperlink to an external Google doc that would be used as another forum for
discussion. The goal was to test out numerous discussion forums to see which
would be most effective. Finally, I utilized email communication between my peers
and myself to answer questions and send general reminders.

7. How did my peers help me?

From a co-learner perspective, my peers were able to provide their own
interpretation, personal experiences and perspective to the discussions. From a
constructivist view this further allowed me to assimilate or accommodate my
understandings with theirs and produce more reflective questions to continue to
explore their interpretations of the readings. As a leader, my peers’ participation
helped me reflect on ways of improving student attendance on the site and how to
further engage my future students. Their responses also provided feedback for
articles and resources that they found effective and others that may need to be
altered (allowed me to reflect on some alterations that would need to be made for
future classes or groups).

8. What are one- two memorable examples of dialogue from the café?
(Share the transcript portion) Why are they memorable?

Feed #1:
ETEC 530
2018
SK, Policy #81


Bryan Thompson:

“Although both criteria are true and yoke both socio-cultural and cognitive constructivism, it doesn't help
to better narrow the theory. This allows Mvududu and Thiel-Burgess to make a statement that a teacher
can adopt any practice and call it constructivist.

However, without trying to yoke cognitive and socio-cultural constructivism, I think it's possible to avoid
that pitfall by focusing on the constructing process. For example, an activity without a sense of
disequilibrium cannot be considered cognitive constructivist. Likewise, without teacher mediation and
scaffolding as part of the process, we couldn't claim something as socio-culturally constructivist. By
defining processes, rather than vague criteria or notions, I think it helps to narrow down what we mean by
constructivism(s).”

Ismail Patel:
“The question of language getting in the way of conceptual understanding is always a major issue when it
comes to language immersion programs. I know in Southeast Asia Malaysia has gone back and forth with
teaching the core subjects in both English and Malay on a number of occasions. In Brunei, all of the core
subjects are taught in English, but the students' first language is Malay. Incidentally the math and science
outcomes in the country are atrocious. However, is this a problem with the actual math and science
instruction, or is the problem due to language?”

Shayla Mangat”

“Hi Bryn, Justin & Ismail.

Bryn I really enjoyed your idea of "By defining processes, rather than vague criteria or notions, I think it
helps to narrow down what we mean by constructivism(s)". As educators, constructivism would suggest
that we use processes such as scaffolding, question prompting, etc. The unique part about our ELL learns
(which each have you have discussed) is that we not only need to consider how we present the scaffold for
example, but how do we ensure that each student is going to understand it in the same way (consider for
example, if we have multiple ELL students who spoke different languages).”

This feed stood out to me in particular as it was a different way of viewing
constructivism. Through the readings of Fosnot (2013) and Pritchad (2014), it felt
as though there were a lot of criteria concerning the constructivist criteria for what
is considered learning and knowledge. In this feed however, we consider if looking
at the constructivist process of teaching our students and what may help or hinder
that.

Feed #2:
Justin Wu:
“They talked about how ELL learners are being shafted because the primary focus is on core subjects:
Reading, Writing, and Math. Amaral et. al. explains that it is vital that ELL students are being exposed to
inquiry-based subjects because they become highly motivated to learn whatever it is they are interested in,
and as a result, motivation directly links to more overall success in learning the language.”

Ismail Patel:
“From my perspective language is an active exercise and to try and learn language in a static manner is
almost self defeating, especially for emerging language learners. I always find that I can get students using
English when they are playing games and actively participating in an exercises that they enjoy. This is
particularly true for my struggling learners as they are not very motivated when sitting and listening to a
teacher speak. What drives me crazy about teaching in Asia is that the exam based systems require teachers
to get students to sit and do exam prep. which is just counter-productive for emerging language learners.”

Shayla Mangat:
ETEC 530
2018
SK, Policy #81


“Ismail, I can only imagine your frustration about the exam based systems. I had a question, are the
students able to write the exam in their native language (I am thinking of ELL students who are new to the
language)?”

Ismail Patel:
“Shockingly no. The student exams in the core subjects are all in English throughout their school career.
This culminates in exams that are written and marked through Cambridge University in the UK. Needless
to say that there are a lot of bright, motivated students that get lost in this system.”

I chose this feed because it was a shocking eye-opener for me. Ismail shared his
experience with the exam based system in Asia and how regardless of students
understanding of the English language, they are forced to write the exams in English.
This really had me reflecting on my practice and the tests, projects and discussions
that I present in my classroom and how frustrated my ELL students may feel.

9. What 3-5 aspects of the research and the e-learning strategies will I
now apply to my personal teaching context?

My four main outcomes for my teaching practice from this experience are the use of
multiple platforms, collaboration and dialogue, embedded research and timing. I
feel that the use of multiple platforms (canvas, websites and google docs) presents a
more engaging experience and more opportunities to embed outside resources. As
well, I am once again reaffirmed that the use of collaboration and dialogue amongst
peers and educators is imperative in the learning journey for my students
(incorporating different interpretations and perspectives towards meaning
making). Additionally, I enjoyed utilizing research articles as the foundation for
further exploration. I plan to incorporate search engines such as Kiddle to have
students explore the research behind our topics. Lastly, through my reflection I do
believe that having my peers complete four tasks (reading the article, discussing,
exploring the case study, adding to the Google doc) in one week may have been too
much. I therefore want to work on finding an appropriate number of tasks for my
students in a particular amount of time.

10. What other questions am I curious about? How will I plan to explore
these?

As I move on from this exercise I would like to continue to explore appropriate
teacher feedback. I plan to continue to research and particulate in discussions with
peers and colleagues about finding the fine line between providing feedback but also
allowing the students to build their own discussion feeds. Additionally, I would like
to continue to explore ways to motivate my student to particulate in a timely fashion
without deducting marks for late replies.

References:
Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, *2nd
Ed. Teachers College Press. Available from: Teachers College Press and
Amazon Kindle.
ETEC 530
2018
SK, Policy #81


Proctor, C., Dalton, B. & Grisham, D. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners
and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with
embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of
Literacy Research, 39(1), 71-93. Retrieved
from: http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/abs/10.10
80/10862960709336758
Amaral, O., Garrison, L. & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English language learners
increase achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. The
Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 26(2), 213-
239. Retrieved from: https://www-tandfonline-
com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/abs/10.1080/15235882.2002.10668709
Mvududu, N. & Thiel-Burgess, J. (2012). Constructivism in practice: the case for
English language learners. International Journal of Education, 4(3), 108-
188. Retrieved
from: http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ije/article/viewFi
le/2223/2044 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.


Please submit the reflection in Canvas using the Assignment Dropbox.

ETEC 530
2018
SK, Policy #81