Pros and Cons of Using Second Life as a Learning Technology

          I decided I wanted to experience the Second World as an avatar ("Juleeah Lavender") in order to explore some educational areas, and other parts of the vast Second Life frontier. I decided to use the avatar so I could experience what a student would experience. I needed to do this in order to judge anything about Second Life. I was not impressed when the system crashed, or when the avatar's shoes were not functioning correctly. I especially was not impressed when I was in a public zone, and two female avatars ran around me seemingly after each other, and were using very large pistols in the process. On a positive note, when I was near other Avatars, one or two sent me an IM to let me know they were there to help; these "helpers" were from the company tech teams. After two or three hours, I could actually walk almost straight, and fly without hitting too many buildings. That was a little exhilerating, and actually created a sensation of flying. I could not get some other features to work, which were placed by other participants such as a "touch me" screen to start a hologram feature. Another person had placed some features to buy a "how to make or print" parts of a book. I "teleported" to several educational sites, which had tech tools for teaching. After a few hours, I did become quite tired of trying to learn about how to use the system.

        During the Second World experience, although I was not partaking of a lesson or in a learning situation, I kept thinking that students would have to undergo the same orientation that I did. I kept working in the system because in trying to evaluate the Second World, I did not want to give up too soon because I could be losing a valuable tool for my students. I did not want that to be the case unless I worked hard at learning the program. With just trying to evaluate the Second World in 2-3 days, I am not convinced yet that it is either valuable nor invaluable. My goal is to teach online undergraduate students, not younger students (who have already used Second World for a long time). My goal is not to impose massive frustration upon my students (not to say that our instructor did this to us…we are merely learning about new technological tools). 
         My opinion is that instead of having my students spend time designing an Avatar's many features, learning to move it, transport, buy clothes, get freebies, and so forth, so they could afterward participate in a lesson from me or someone else, I would be better off in using this tool for educating myself as a teacher, which the system provides in some ways. I would also be very skeptical of using Second World for a universally designed learning scenario for any age student: even if a physically challenged person in the real world could walk in Second Life, there are many emotional, physical, and cultural challenges which may be erased temporarily, but re-emerge after logging off Second Life. Are our children mature enough to adapt to this depth of change? I conducted some research and found some pros and cons of Second Life written by Valerie in 2008, which was posted at the Educational Development Centre Blog.
          Cons include a long learning curve, difficulty in managing student behavior and interruptions from the real world, the fact that a monetary cost frequently emerges, communications have not been perfected, increased difficulty in ensuring students take their school work seriously, impaired ability for students to reconnect to their real world, and public areas are "uncouth" or "raunchy" – it is not just a space for education, but one in which both bad and good exist.
          Pros include amazing and successful possibilities for learning through development of virtual activities, world of physical limitations – enabling a diverse and creative set of activities, greater connectivity and engagement in distance education classes, a tool used for entertainment becomes also one of education – meeting students where they are and making learning engaging and enjoyable for them, ability to have access to a virtual classroom in cases when physical teaching is not possible, highly adaptable, user created, and users retain intellectual property to their creations, utilizes experiential learning and caters to different learning methods.
         Mmmmmm….more pros than cons. This must mean there are more positives than negatives! What weight do we assign each pro and con, and who devises those weights? For example, one pro is not equal to one con; in fact, one pro may carry five times the importance than the one con.  I reviewed about 20-25 Second Life videos, and almost all were entitled "Educational". My opinion is that this technology could add some value as a supplement to the curriculum, but only as a supplement. My vote is still out on whether I would accept and implement Second Life material into any age curriculum. My instincts after seeing and experiencing first-hand the virtual environment of Second Life are to suspend using it until I can investigate it much further, and see empirical data supporting it.

Reference: 

Educational Development Centre Blog (2008, February 5). Second life in higher education: Surveying pros and cons. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://edc.carleton.ca/blog/index.php/
2008/02/05/second-life-in-higher-education-surveying-pros-and-cons/

Suggestions for Good Academic Writing

As a doctoral learner, discovering professors' expectations for submitted assignments can only be achieved by a thorough knowledge of the university's and professors' writing rudiments.  Doctoral learners' pre-assessment of these rudiments requires an in-depth review of peer-reviewed articles, using references such as the American Psychological Association's (APA) Manual, and other reliable resources.  In addition, gaining and applying such knowledge when writing affords doctoral learners opportunities for introspection as well as intellectual and academic growth as degree requirements are further achieved.   

      This paper presents an analysis of (1) how academic professionals gain insight into good academic writing, (2) common mistakes by academic writers, (3) criticisms against poor academic writing, and (4) solutions for avoiding poor academic writing.  Analyzing and critiquing sources, which elaborate upon good writing mechanics as provided by the APA and other reliable references, creates a standardized across-the-board utility when academic writing is required and produced for evaluation.  Knowledge of common writing mistakes, and how to avoid such mistakes provides writers with the basic and advanced skills required for today's doctoral learners' writing activities.  

Academic Professionals' Identification of Good Academic Writing

           Completing years of post-secondary education, and gaining practice as an academic professional, does not necessarily enable academic professionals and students to have an ability to discern good academic writing.  However, if academic professionals and students supplement reading and writing skills by reference materials such as the 6^th Edition of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Manual (2010), the web sites of The Little Brown Handbook and The Online English Grammar Guide as well as from libraries, and other reliable sources, significant reading and writing expertise is gained.  Furthermore, academic professionals and students who seek resources appraised by peers gain assurance that the material presented is reliable.  However, it is of the utmost importance that when reviewing such material that one impose critical thinking skills, and not assume that what is written and peer-reviewed is necessarily correct.

           For example, Anonymous' (2010) composition recounts examples from the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, the brain-child of the English Department at San Jose State University sponsoring the contest, which is "a whimsical literary competition that challenges entrants to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels" (para 6).  While this article is locatable in the ProQuest database, the article is not peer-reviewed nor is Kelly's (1999) or Smith's (1999) articles according to ProQuest.  However, Kelly (1999) notes that Professor Sokal, a New York University physics professor, was "published in a respected journal, Social Text, (which) was thoroughly researched and footnoted, but was essentially nonsense" (para 3).  Professor Sokal (Kelly, 1999) purposely wrote his article as a test for the staff at Social Text to see if his thesis would be challenged, and remarkably, it was not.  While peer-reviewed articles offer academic professionals a means to evaluate good academic writing, academic professionals must frequently evaluate non-peer-reviewed student compositions, which requires the use of expertise attained using other means such as from the APA (2010) as previously mentioned.     

Common Writing Mistakes of Academic Writers

            Academic writers' common writing mistakes include attributes such as dense, "obscure, often incomprehensible writing" (Kelly, 1999, para 2), "jargon-filled" rhetoric (para 11), and "incomprehensible sentence structure" (Smith, 1999, para 1).  In addition, academic writers frequently avoid authenticity while writing because it "requires more courage and more hard work than being educated since it can only be achieved by standing alone from, and by becoming independent of, those surrounding communal voices and texts" (Badley, 2008, p. 364).  Badley (2008) also wrote that "less proficient writers tend to write syntheses by simply borrowing sentences and connecting information from each source, without elaboration and integration" (p. 422).  Badley's (2008) research demonstrated that "When considering top-level (composition) structure, paragraphing, topic sentences and use of conclusion, students’ pre-test written syntheses scarcely met the structural criteria of a good exposition" (p. 434 ). 

Criticisms of Poor Academic Writers

           Smith (1999) wrote that "scholars (are) increasingly making themselves irrelevant" (para 7).  In an attempt to fit ideological agendas, academic writers change the structure of words and sentences, which distorts meaning (Smith, 1999).  Kelly (1999) indicates that a "major factor in tolerance of bad writing has been a lack of hard-nosed editing by academic journals" (para 18).  More up-to-date evaluations of academic writing provides insight about whether improvements in academic writing prevail or not since 1999.  For example, Addison and McGee (2010) wrote that "college faculty are not adequately preparing students for required writing tasks in the private or government sector" (p. 164), and recommend that "an online peer-reviewed journal (be) established that allows for more timely and detailed reports than possible with print publications" (p. 171).  A preponderance for academic writers to make writing mistakes continues as they create "incomprehensible writing and factionalism, resulting even more in their diminishment and incoherence" (Smith, 1999, para 2).

Avoiding Poor Academic Writing

            The focus of good academic writing is well stated by James Cook University (2011): "Good writing is unambiguous. The reader does not have to make a choice about what the writer possibly means" (James Cook University, 2011, para 24), and ambiguousness is avoided by using concrete rather than abstract terms (Australia's James Cook University, 2011).  The James Cook University (2011) summarizes other core principles and characteristics for academic writing.  Core principles include a "reader-centred approach, outlining and drafting, a clear layout, logical presentation of material, pre-emption of reader’s questions, parallel structure, concise writing, precise details and information as well as good grammar, spelling and punctuation" (para 6).  Characteristics of academic writing include that "all statements can be supported by evidence; paragraphs have a single, but developed, theme; paragraphs begin with a theme sentence; (contain) neutral language; omit slang and jargon; avoid pronouns; (have a) judicious use of adjectives; (contain) precise information, verbs and word choice" (James Cook University, 2011, para 9). 

            Addison and McGee (2010) further indicated that college faculty identified "the five most important characteristics of good writing as…organization…analysis data/ideas/arguments, and use of supporting evidence" (p. 166).  Supporting the five characteristics is the systematic step-by-step writing process, which includes prewriting, higher order concerns, lower order concerns, and editing.  By learning and applying proven writing processes, poor academic writing is avoided.

Conclusion

            This paper presented an analysis of (1) how academic professionals gain insight into good academic writing, (2) common mistakes by academic writers, (3) criticisms against poor academic writing, and (4) solutions for avoiding poor academic writing.  Analyzing and critiquing sources, which elaborate upon good writing mechanics as provided by the APA and other reliable references, creates a standardized across-the-board utility when academic writing is required and produced for evaluation.  Knowledge of common writing mistakes, and how to avoid such mistakes provides writers with the basic and advanced skills required for today's doctoral learners' writing activities.  

References:

Addison, J., & McGee, S.J. (2010, September). Writing in high school/writing in college: Research trends and future directions. College Composition and Communication, (62)1, p. 147. Retrieved January 9, 2011, from ProQuest.
        
Anonymous (2010, April 3). Robert Rector: Bad writing gets its just reward. San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from ProQuest.

American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 6^th Ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Badley, G. (2008). Developing (authentic?) academic writers. Quality Assurance in Education, (16), 4, p. 363. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from ProQuest.

James Cook University (2011). What is effective academic writing? Retrieved January 9, 2011, from https://egrs.jcu.edu.au/workshops/

academic-writing-workshops/what-is-effective-academic-writing

 

Kelly, R. (1999, April 8). Bad blood over bad writing: Critics say US academic language has become so convoluted that it is largely incomprehensible to the point where argument is becoming impossible. The Irish Times, p. 15. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from Proquest.

 
Smith, D. (1999, March 7). Academic: When the writing is bad, ideas get lost. Winston - Salem Journal, p. 17. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from ProQuest

Teaching and Learning Paradigms for Successful Online Learning

To effectively achieve successful adult online learning, best practices based upon empirical research must continue to evolve via new paradigms.  Until such time that research is sufficiently conducted and reported, considerations about the most critical paradigms required for successful online teaching and learning for the adult student can be sourced from the opinions in recent literature as presented herein.  The prevailing paradigm includes online teaching and learning practices that places more responsibility upon the learner.

For example, today's online teaching and learning paradigms encompass skills as Dabbagh (2007) explains that include "online learners (who) must be ready to share their work, interact within small and large groups in virtual settings, and collaborate on projects online or otherwise risk isolation in a community growing increasingly dependent on connectivity and interaction" (par. 9).  Learners' preparations for online learning include a strong comfort level with writing, using Web technologies, and computer proficiency (Dabbagh, 2007).  Furthermore, online learners should have acquired “self-discipline, self-monitoring, self-initiative, and self-management, which are characteristics of self-regulated or self-directed learning" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 10), which are especially critical due to the physical absence of an instructor.  

A Community of Practice (COP) is a "pedagogical model grounded in a theory of learning as a social process and implemented in an online context through knowledge networks, asynchronous learning networks, and other Internet and Web-based collaborative and communication technologies" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 10).  An online learner's "need for affiliation manifests itself in online learning environments" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 10), which is an example of a COP.  Knowledge-sharing is recognized as intellectual capital.  Although online learning typically includes skills that enable learners to "(a) act competently on their own; (b) have confidence in their knowledge, skills, and performance; and (c) learn how to create and manage a personal presence" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 13), learners' needs for affiliation are paramount to achieving  success in an online learning environment.  The collaborative skills required for online learning include "social learning skills, discursive or dialogical skills, self and group evaluation skills, and reflection skills" (Dabbagh, 2007, par. 15). 

The Illinois Online Network and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (2010) wrote that successful online teaching and learning provides an accessibility to technology, and online instructors who promote a comfortable learning atmosphere.  A powerful element in today's online learning paradigms ensures that curriculums are developed or converted according to online learning needs.

Castro (2012) mirrors Dabbagh's (2007) comments above in that teachers and students no longer exist in the online learning environment as individuals but instead as "participants in a dynamic and collective system of meaning" (p. 165).  Furthermore, the parameters of how learners and administration view online teachers should also include teachers as "images, objects, events, encounters, and so on" (Castro, 2012, p. 165).  "If learning exists at multiple scales, from cellular to cultural, then so does teaching" (Castro, 2012, p. 165).

Further support of the paradigm that addresses learners' increased participation in their learning is noted by Tu, Sujo-montes, Yen, Chan, & Blocher (2012) who wrote that "learners have freedom to access, create, and recreate their learning content; and they have opportunities to interact outside of a learning system" (p. 13).  Educators focusing on “social, open, and network aspects have integrated various Web 2.0 technologies to support their existing online instruction in a learning management system (LMS)" (Tu et al., 2012, p. 13).  Tu et al. (2012) remarked that "integrating multiple tools simultaneously is the best strategy for infusing teaching and learning paradigms" (p. 13). 

Consequently, Tu et al. (2012) noted that social networking tools represent new teaching and learning potentialities, and have resulted in a "fundamental shift in the way students learn, consume, and produce new artifacts" (p. 13).  Web 2.0 integration has required a modification  from a "more teacher and institution-centered mindset to more distributed, personalized effort and collaboration" (Tu et al., 2012, p. 13).  Tu et al. (2012) also recommended that to avoid the  potential for any disconcerting impact on learning using Web 2.0 integration, teachers can use Open Network Learning Environments (ONLE), and ask students to construct their own Personal Learning Environments (PLE), which can support an effective open network for communicating, interacting, and collaborating.  Learning Management Systems that include a PLE and ONLE  enable learners and educational institutions to successfully "prepare competent global digital citizens (who can) create, share, and collaborate digital learning content and resources in global communities regardless of their socioeconomic status and geographic locations" (Tu et al., 2012, p. 18).

Reflecting perspectives as noted above, Shovein, Huston, Fox, & Damazo (2005) wrote that teachers can influence "an awakening awareness" (par. 10) in others when the learning environment possesses a "milieu of freedom and gives greater than usual prominence to educational experiences in which personal involvement is magnified and intensified" (par. 10).  In continuing support of the above successful teaching and learning theories, Shovin et al. (2005)  wrote that current paradigms include elements wherein "students and teachers are responsible together for education, students are responsible for critically considering reality, the teacher relinquish(es) control and exchanges the role of narrator for one of student among students" (par. 11).  Teachers can experience new freedoms by "consulting with and by engaging students in meaningful dialogue" (Shovein et al., 2005, par. 13). 

New teaching and learning paradigms using technology have transferred teachers into the role as mediator and coach using encouragement to aid learners in developing knowledge more actively.  Shovein, Huston, Fox, & Damazo (2005) indicated that teachers are increasingly challenged due to a heavier responsibility for engaging and encouraging "authentic, meaningful dialogue that promotes caring in all learning situations, regardless of the activities or technology used to support the pedagogy" (par. 22).  In fact, a prominent challenge for teachers is to not find the "best" e-tool but finding the highest quality answers to the many "learning challenges inherent in a global, information-based society" (par. 23).  Answering challenges associated with today's online teaching and learning technologies that have affected the increased proliferation of learners wanting to be more responsible and participatory in their own learning achievements have impacted the degree of success in yesterday's paradigms, which are evolving into today's and tomorrow's teaching and learning paradigms.

References:

Castro, J.C. (2012, Winter). Learning and teaching art: Through social media. Studies in Art Education, 53(2), 152. Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library.

Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Retrieved from  http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss3/general/article1.cfm

Illinois Online Network and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. (2010). Weaknesses of online learning. Retrieved from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/tutorials/overview/weaknesses.asp

Shovein, J., Huston, C., Fox, S., & Damazo, B. (2005, November-December). Challenging traditional teaching and learning paradigms: Online learning and emancipatory teaching. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3317/is_6_26/ai_n29227982/pg_3/?tag=content;col1

Tu, C., Sujo-montes, L., Yen, C., Chan, J., & Blocher, M. (2012, May-June). The integration of

personal learning environments & open network learning environments. TechTrends,

56(3), 13-19. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Musings from a Christian...paying it forward

The Lord paid the ultimate sacrifice after pain and suffering that no person will ever know the depth of. He never asked for anything for himself because His Father gave Him everything He needed. What has humankind given Jesus but mostly sadness and heartache…whenever we disobey, whenever we break one of His laws, and whenever our will supercedes the Lord’s, these things make Him sad. Is sadness the gift we have paid forward from the gift the Lord gave humankind?

After the milleniums since the Lord gave up His spirit to His Father, paying forward His gift becomes more and more silent. Becoming more silent arises from disobedience because the Lord wants us to love and protect each other. What happens instead? Instead of praising the Lord, and paying forward His gift–dying so our sins were forever forgiven–people praise celebrities, athletes, musicians, and many, many others, and spend most of their time instant messaging, texting, electronic socializing, emailing, watching TV, playing videogames, and doing so many other things of the electronic age. Why has humankind gotten so far away from loving each other, and instead seek ways to hurt each other? Paying the Lord’s gift forward starts with just one person’s effort. Let me know how you’re paying the Lord’s gift forward, if you can.

Andragogical and Pedagogical Teaching Theories

Carlson (1989) presented a notable passage by Knowles, which stated that "teaching is a process of guided interaction between the teacher, the student, and the materials of instruction... Teaching, like medical practice, is mostly a matter of cooperation with nature. The function of the teacher is to guide the student into the kind of experiences that will enable him (sic) to develop his own natural potentialities" (pars. 17).

Choosing which theory to use or mix of theories should depend upon the student's needs.

Reference:

Carlson, R. (1989, Spring). Malcolm Knowles: Apostle of andragogy. Vitae Scholasticae, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.nl.edu/academics/cas/
ace/resources/malcolmknowles.cfm

Best Practices Designing Research Purpose & Questions

Best Practices for Devising a Research Purpose Statement and Questions

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how Research Purpose Statements and Research Questions can be improved using suggestions provided by Creswell (2008), Aveyard (2007), and others. Synthesizing the many sections of a dissertation by novice researchers requires the ability to identify a research problem. Learning "how to properly construct and develop logical argumentation for a problem statement" (Ellis and Levy, 2008, p. 19) provides the doctoral student with additional skills over time.

Background of Nardone's Dissertation

Nardone (2009) submitted a dissertation entitled "Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs”. The purpose of the study was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs). The respondents represented two unique stakeholder groups for Graduate Schools of Education: GSOE deans and school superintendents" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

Research Purpose Statement Revised

Appropriately critiquing a doctoral-level paper requires an understanding of what defines a Research Purpose Statement (RPS). Creswell (2008) provides such a definition by writing that the RPS "advances the overall direction or focus for the study" albeit quantitative and/or qualitative studies, and consists of one or two well formed sentences. The RPS quite often lies within the Statement of the Problem section, and is frequently placed at the Introduction's end.

Nardone's (2009) dissertation stated that the RPS was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (p. 6). Although Nardone's (2009) RPS was stated in two sentences, a more profound problem exists with the beginning of her RPS sentence because she had previously indicated that her paper would address qualitative and quantitative research. To accommodate both types, Creswell (2008) pointed out that a quantitative study's RPS states that "the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship…" (p. 121) while a qualitative RPS states that "the purpose of the study is to explore…" (p. 121).

As noted above, Nardone (2009) only used "explore" to signify her study's intention (quantitative) when she should have used words to reference both qualitative and quantitative. Not adjusting her RPS to accommodate both types is confusing to readers. An improved RPS would address that the purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between, and explore "the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6).

Research Questions Revised

The research questions presented in a dissertation by Nardone (2009) included "three major research questions, and related sub-questions. One objective of the research is to identify, and quantify, the actual role that the reputational survey plays (based on respondents’ scores) in the USNWR GSOE rankings" (p. 8). Consequently, "prior research of the undergraduate rankings indicates that the reputational aspect significantly drives the overall ranking of the institutions" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8).

Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8). Exploring the behaviors and perceptions of the survey respondents—the GSOE deans and school superintendents—is another objective of the research. Nardone (2009) explains that:

Research explores the respondents' perceptions about the GSOE rankings themselves, in terms of what purpose the rankings might serve, and their perceptions about the reputational survey component of these rankings. More specifically, the study aims to understand their level of awareness of the reputational survey, their understanding of their impact on the rankings, their level of responsiveness to the survey, and their methods and approach to responding to the survey. Why do they, or do they not, respond to the survey? Do they personally respond to the survey? Do they consult with other colleagues? An important emphasis of the research will be on exploring the differences in perceptions and behaviors between these two stakeholder groups. These objectives are captured in the second research question. (p. 8).

Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9). Nardone (2009) states:

Finally, this research will explore the concept of reputation with these survey respondents. The literature indicates that reputation is generally conceptualized as either prominence or as perceived quality. This research asks the two stakeholder groups what forms the basis of their rating of institutions when responding to the USNWR survey. Do they consider the quality of the program graduates? Do they consider the quality and production (output) of faculty research? Do they consider the glossy promotional materials that cross their desk? Do they consider the level of sponsored research? Do they consider student selectivity? Do they consider the published rankings themselves? This will explore whether this important ranking category captures reputation as either prominence, or perceived quality. Again, an important emphasis is the examination of the differences between the two stakeholder groups. Thus, the third research question. (p. 9).

Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

This study does not join the active debate over the best indicators or measures of quality, but instead accepts “reputation” as an asset of value for the university and explores the perceptions and behaviors of two stakeholder groups involved in the rating of academic reputation. (p. 9).

After reviewing Nardone's (2009) research questions several times, and comparing the questions against Nardone's (2009) Research Problem Statement, which was to "explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (p. 6), my general impression is that the RPS is not broadly stated enough to encompass all of the research questions. Since one of the goals of the RPS is to be precise, and then suggesting that the RPS is not broad enough, my opinion is that Nardone (2009) is attempting to integrate too many research questions.

To reiterate, the three research questions are: Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8); Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9); and, Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9). As mentioned, my impression is that there is some duplication between Q2 and Q3, and this is because both questions ask, "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ?".

The list of topics Nardone (2009) has chosen to cover in the research questions is overwhelming. The Research Problem Statement revised as previously discussed is to examine the relationship between, and explore "the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)" (Nardone, 2009, p. 6). The associated unrevised research questions are: Q1. "What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 8); Q2. "How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of GSOEs?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9); and, Q3. "How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation—reputation as prominence, or reputation as perceived quality?" (Nardone, 2009, p. 9).

After revising the above, the Problem Statement and Research Questions are:
Problem Statement: Explore the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S. News and World Report’s (USNWR) annual reputational survey for Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs). Questions: 1. What is the significance of the reputational survey? 2. How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey. 2. How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs, in their conceptual definition of reputation? To provide a revision of the Research Questions so that consistencies and differences are identified (via meta-ethnography and meta-synthesis) (Aveyard, 2007, p. 108) with the Problem Statement, the final suggested revision is: Q1. How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptions about, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the reputational survey?

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was two-fold: revising the research purpose statement and revising research questions presented by Nardone's (2009) dissertation entitled, Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs". Coincidentally, the subject of Nardone's (2009) dissertation mirrors one of the dissertation subjects chosen for my doctorate program, which is to research why the ranking of America's institutes of learning continues to fall when compared with global learning institutes. Working on assignments for EDU7002 serves two purposes: submitting the required work for EDU7002 (and other future courses), and assessing literature, which provides excellent opportunities to develop skills in preparing dissertation-level papers in the future.

References

Aveyard, H. (2007). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. Great Britain, UK: Open University Press. Retrieved from Northcentral University E-brary.

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ellis, T.J., & Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, (11), p. 17. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol11/ISJv11p017-033Ellis486.pdf

Nardone, M.S. (2009). Reputation in America’s graduate schools of education: A study of the perceptions and influences of graduate school of education deans and school superintendents regarding U.S. News & World Report’s Ranking of “Top Education Programs”. Dissertation retrieved from Northcentral University's Library's ProQuest.

Assessment Criteria for Learning Events, Assisting Learning, and Rich Online Attributes

This article presents examples of, and the assessment criteria for a training event, the factors that assist learning, the attributes of a previous successful training event, and an evaluation of the characteristics of a rich online learning event. Many of the following comments are sourced from past experiences of training provided by employers. However, the more valuable learning experiences were gained from traditional classrooms, and e-learning occurring during the pursuit of two completed online degrees, which have now supplanted the length of time in face-to-face instruction. E-tools can maintain engagement, but should not be used to the extent that it wastes learners' time. Whether online or offline, the criterion of a rich learning event depends upon how well learning is accomplished, and not how well learning is transmitted.

Assessment Criteria of a Training Event

The criteria used to assess whether an educational or training event was good or bad has over time changed as experiences and expertise during three and one-half decades of work experience grew. Personal and professional experiences as well as professional expertise affected the assessment criteria for a training event as these three aforementioned factors impacted the multi-layered depths of gained wisdom, personal and professional needs, and expected accomplishment anticipated based upon self-efficacy. For example, in the early period of my professional career, a sense of naivety resulted in accepting all information as truth, and of the highest possible quality. However, my assessment criteria modified, and demanded more benefits for the time and expense devoted to the training event. Consequently, understanding grew that gaining knowledge is primarily the learner's responsibility whether in a training event or not.

Palloff and Pratt (2001) indicated that staff who are well trained, know their material, and provide up-to-the-minute information on the topics presented encourages learning. Instructors who show that they have been successful in their profession, recognized by their peers, and credentialed and possibly published, provide a sense of reliability to learners. Being provided an appropriate tool to self-evaluate one's learning, and being able to realize knowledge transferability are critical for learning. Whether training is online or not, when an employer or future employer accepts that completed training is of value, the instructional event provided value.

Factors that Assist Learning

The factors that help me to learn include several features. For example, an instructor who does not reflect a sense of being rushed appeals to an ability for a learner to focus. Motivators for learning include when training aids people to change job types, retrain, or are provided training for getting or retaining jobs (Maeroff, 2003). Learners are additionally motivated when employers demonstrate that the new learning is of value, that the training adds applicability to the job, and to career development. Palloff and Pratt (2001) promoted using e-learning tools for synchronous and asynchronous discussion boards, e-mailing, group work, providing beneficial links, an ability to upload or download graphics and audiovisual elements, and a tracking ability for the learner to have quick access to earlier work. Using technology increases students' learning of the course content, the ability to achieve learning outcomes, and promoting the interactive needs of the student. Learning is assisted when flexibility exists in course authoring, assessment tools are appropriately chosen based on the desired learning outcomes rather than the available technology, there is well based planning by the institution's stakeholders, and accessibility exists for all learners despite cultural, linguistic, physical, or financial differences (Palloff and Pratt, 2001).

Attributes of a Previously Successful Training Event

A previous rich learning experience was successful because the benefits achieved from the trainer and learning materials immediately impacted an improvement of a work skill. For example, when placed in orientation side-by-side with a supervisor, and immediately practicing the information gained using a computer, learning was extremely accelerated. Other attributes from learning events included feeling respected by the instructor and other participants when contributing during training, an ability for speakers to answer questions immediately or shortly thereafter, gaining heightened confidence after speaking in public, having quality technical equipment and learning materials, and learning in a comfortable environment that promoted interaction with colleagues. Palloff and Pratt (2001) recognized that e-learning materials improved learning when applicable for all "learning styles" (p. 50).

Maeroff (2003) indicated that "institutions have tailored courses to the specifications of individual business' needs" (p. 125). Businesses and colleges who are aiding minds to work need to work together in establishing strategies for learner outcomes. Businesses, after all, are more "aggressive innovators" (Maeroff, 2003, p. 124). Learning programs and courses' designs must be developed based upon the needs of employers and their goals, which create customized learning experiences and employability.

Broadbent (2002) presented six levels of learning reminiscent of the types of training incurred in the past: "knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation" (p. 113). These levels present successful training because new knowledge is promoted along the six levels during training beginning with new knowledge, and provides learning applicable to using that learning elsewhere at a near or far time. Instructors should accommodate different learning types in order for all to progress through the six learning levels (Broadbent, 2002).

Rich Online Learning Characteristics

The characteristics of learning experiences necessary to provide rich online learning based upon over a decade of online instruction include several attributes. For example, the similarity of instructors to assess work using the same American Psychological Association's (APA), and other academically-designated writing standards provides non-conflicting learning. Learners gain valuable online learning experiences when there is a perceived value for the invested time and money as long as tuition is not increased after a program is begun when learning values remain as assessed before beginning. Rich online learning includes technical aspects that are user-friendly, server stable, easily available for signing-in, and have a provision for posting and retrieving work. In addition, universities with online programs should provide an online directory of major staff and contact information instead of just one person per department. The availability of e-learning class materials and online resources such as a library, learning tools, forms, forums, and so forth enhance online learning. Accreditation must be in order, and availability to credentialing agencies provided. The similarity of required technical software and hardware from class to class promotes user-friendliness, and progressively availing improved e-tools to learning is essential. Responses from instructors and university staff should be within twenty-four hours.

Learning outcomes must be challenging for all students whether a GPA is high or low, and not one-size-fits-all. Classmates' writing needs to be at a level where all can understand the context. Assignments should be aligned with students' situations so when a student has never practiced as a teacher the assignment is not based upon a practicing teacher's experiences. End-of-class assessments need to be responded to when requested. Mentors should provide feedback every time work is submitted due to the expertise provided by them. A rich online experience provides a program's requirements to fit the need of students such as enabling students to take courses needed to learn job goals, or should provide enough flexibility to do so.

Palloff and Pratt (2001) indicated that the development of policies and procedures enables a curriculum to provide increasing skill in critical thinking and analysis as well as peer collaboration. Strategies should be identified cooperatively between administration and faculty addressing the "changing cultural, organizational, economic, and survival issues of the institution" (Palloff and Pratt, 2001, p. 38), and implemented. An obvious "investment in the technical infrastructure needed to support" (Palloff, et al., 2001, p. 42) the implemented strategies is essential. Pedagogical methods should supersede technological attributes, and learning content linked to e-tools that best support them (e.g., provide interactive simulations versus static traditional books). Obvious development of e-learning courses and programs should be provided by the faculty senate and administrators, and a university's departments should use the same quality measurements (Palloff and Pratt, 2001). An effort to retain online students must be exhibited by the university's support systems via a "learner-centered focus" (Palloff and Pratt, 2001, p. 47).

The work completed by students must be appraised by instructors and plagiarism tools to ensure legitimacy to the greatest extent possible (Maeroff, 2003). Broadbent (2002) suggested that online instructors should assimilate effective learning models such as Gagne's or Salmon's who identified five stages in successful e-learning. When e-learning courses are thoughtfully planned, designed, and provided based upon the needs and culture of the provider and learners, a rich online learning event is possible.

Conclusion

This paper presented examples of, and the assessment criteria for a training event, the factors that assist learning, the attributes of a previously successful training event, and an evaluation of the characteristics of a rich online learning event. Keeping in mind the details of the above sections, the most important factor of e-learning is that "interactive learning keeps students energized, and helps participants absorb information and remember it" (Broadbent, 2002, p. 120). Successful online instructors who enable learners to interact can be assured that when the moment of interaction occurs is the moment of when learning occurs.


References

Broadbent, B. (2002). ABCs of e-learning: Reaping the benefits and avoiding the pitfalls. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Maeroff, G.I. (2003). A classroom of one: How online learning is changing our schools and colleges. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.