A Progressive Pedagogy for Online Learning With High-Ability Secondary School Students: A Case Study

Abstract

This article describes a case study of a group of ten 14-year-old students who engaged with an online extended-learning project as an extracurricular activity for about 6 months. The students were physically located in Australia, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom. The facilitation and online learning made use of a progressive pedagogy that moved from structured, whole group online participation to a more individual, open approach to learning. The study investigated students’ motivation to participate in the online learning and explored the nature of the interactions in an online learning environment. The findings show that students interacted differently online, depending on the task at hand. Seven of the 10 students completed the final task of creating learning products. The implications of the study for online learning with high-ability school students are discussed.

Putting the Research to Use

This research demonstrates that online support for high ability students is both possible and practical. Implementing this approach requires a structured approach to move the students progressively to more open-ended enquiry. This incremental approach reduces the extent of student drop-out and increases task completion when compared to more challenging open-ended tasks. Teachers or schools seeking to provide this kind of support to overcome geographic isolation of high ability students need to (a) plan carefully for the structured engagement with topics and with other students (b) remain closely involved in the initial stages of engagement and (c) only gradually remove their scaffolding as students demonstrate capacity to sustain independent interactions. Having a public purpose for the activity is also important.

Keywords

online pedagogy online technologies international case study high-ability students

References

Anderson, T. ( 2004). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 33-60). Edmonton , Alberta, Canada: Athabasca University Press.

Bakhtin, M. ( 1986). The problem of speech genres (V. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bruner, J. ( 1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fung, Y.H. ( 2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 54-72.

Garrison, D.R. , Anderson, T. , & Archer, W. ( 2000). Critical thinking in text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105.

Godwin, S.J. , Thorpe, M.S. , & Richardson, J.T.E. (2008). The impact of computer-mediated interaction on distance learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 52-70.

Hicks, D. ( 1996). Contextual inquiries: A discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 104-141). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kulik, J.A. , & Kulik, C.C. ( 1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.

Lipman, M. ( 1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Liu, W.C. , Wang, C.K.J. , & Parkins, E. ( 2005). A longitudinal study of students’ academic self-concept in a streamed setting: The Singapore’s context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 567-586.

11.

Mayes, J.T. ( 1995). Learning technology and Groundhog Day. In W. Strang , V. Simpson , & D. Slater (Eds.), Hypermedia at work: Practice and theory in higher education, (pp. 28-37). Canterbury , UK: University of Kent Press.

12.

McConnell, D. ( 2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page

13.

Ng, W. ( 2008). Virtual teamwork: Students learning about ethics in an online environment. Journal of Research in Science & Technological Education, 2(1), 13-29.

14.

Ng, W. , & Nicholas, H. ( 2007). Conceptualising the use of online technologies for gifted secondary students. Roeper Review, 29, 190-196.

15.

Nicholas, H. , & Ng, W. ( 2009). Engaging secondary school students with extended and open learning that are supported by online technologies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 305-328.

16.

Page, E.B. , & Keith, T.Z. ( 1996). The elephant in the classroom: Ability grouping and the gifted. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 192-210). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

17.

Palloff, R.M. , & Pratt, K. ( 1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Papert, S. ( 1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985-1990 (pp. 1-12). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

19.

Papert, S. ( 1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.

20.

Piaget, J. ( 1955). The construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge Keegan Paul.

21.

Piaget, J. ( 1972). Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge . London: Penguin University Books .

22.

Rice, K. ( 2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 425-448.

23.

Rice, P.L. , & Ezzy, D. ( 1999) Qualitative research methods: A health focus. South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press.

24.

Rogers, K.B. ( 1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

25.

Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee Report, Commonwealth of Australia. ( 2001). The Education of Gifted Children.

26.

Shields, C. ( 2002). A comparison study of student attitudes and perceptions in homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Review , 24, 115-119.

27.

Stacey, E. ( 1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14-33.

28.

Stahl, G. , Koschmann, T. , & Suthers, D. ( 2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Stone, A. ( 2008). The holistic model for blended learning: A new model for K-12 district-level cyber schools. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology education, 4(1), 56-71.

30.

Swan, K. ( 2003). Developing social presence in online course discussions . In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 147-164). London: Kogan Page.

31.

Vygotsky, L. ( 1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

32.

Watson, J.F. , Winograd, K. , & Kalmon, S. ( 2004). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A snapshot of state-level policy and practice. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory at Learning Point Associates .