Difference between revisions of "Kahn-etal2016"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Gabrielle Kahn; Christian M. Calienes; Tara A. Thompson |Title=A Dynamic Program Assessment Framework for Learning Communities |Tag(s)=...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Gabrielle Kahn; Christian M. Calienes; Tara A. Thompson | |Author(s)=Gabrielle Kahn; Christian M. Calienes; Tara A. Thompson | ||
| − | |Title=A Dynamic Program Assessment Framework for | + | |Title=A Dynamic Program Assessment Framework for Learning Communities |
| − | Learning Communities | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Learning; |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Learning; | ||
|Key=Kahn-etal2016 | |Key=Kahn-etal2016 | ||
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|URL=http://washingtoncenter.evergreen.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=lcrpjournal | |URL=http://washingtoncenter.evergreen.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=lcrpjournal | ||
| − | |Abstract=This research builds upon Malnarich, Pettitt, and Mino’s (2014) investigation of students’ reflections on their | + | |Abstract=This research builds upon Malnarich, Pettitt, and Mino’s (2014) investigation of students’ reflections on their learning community (LC) experiences. Adapting their Peer-to-Peer Reflection Protocol for use at Kingsborough Community College, CUNY, we present a framework for dynamic LC program assessment. To obtain feedback about theory-practice connections in our English as a Second Language (ESL) LCs, students were asked to consider whether their experiences reflected the sociocultural tenets underlying the program (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Students provided individual responses in writing and engaged in a communal conversation facilitated by a professor, program director, and campus administrator based on these writings. Using conversation analysis, our examination of responses to one program principle in the discussion context uncovered two related phenomena: students talked about what collaboration meant to them in their LC (collaboration-in-content), and also engaged in the act of collaboration in the conversation itself (collaboration-in-process). The exploratory nature of these interactions as part of a growing community support and extend the findings of Malnarich et al. (2014). We conclude by arguing for the continued investigation of ways to bridge theory and practice in our LC program work by bringing assessment activity and classroom activity together, and inviting various campus stakeholders to this dynamic process. |
| − | learning community (LC) experiences. Adapting their Peer-to-Peer Reflection Protocol for use at | ||
| − | Kingsborough Community College, CUNY, we present a framework for dynamic LC program assessment. To | ||
| − | obtain feedback about theory-practice connections in our English as a Second Language (ESL) LCs, students | ||
| − | were asked to consider whether their experiences reflected the sociocultural tenets underlying the program | ||
| − | (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Students provided individual responses in writing and engaged in a communal | ||
| − | conversation facilitated by a professor, program director, and campus administrator based on these writings. | ||
| − | Using conversation analysis, our examination of responses to one program principle in the discussion context | ||
| − | uncovered two related phenomena: students talked about what collaboration meant to them in their LC | ||
| − | (collaboration-in-content), and also engaged in the act of collaboration in the conversation itself | ||
| − | (collaboration-in-process). The exploratory nature of these interactions as part of a growing community | ||
| − | support and extend the findings of Malnarich et al. (2014). We conclude by arguing for the continued | ||
| − | investigation of ways to bridge theory and practice in our LC program work by bringing assessment activity | ||
| − | and classroom activity together, and inviting various campus stakeholders to this dynamic process. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 01:55, 4 November 2018
| Kahn-etal2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kahn-etal2016 |
| Author(s) | Gabrielle Kahn, Christian M. Calienes, Tara A. Thompson |
| Title | A Dynamic Program Assessment Framework for Learning Communities |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Learning |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Learning Communities Research and Practice |
| Volume | 4 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This research builds upon Malnarich, Pettitt, and Mino’s (2014) investigation of students’ reflections on their learning community (LC) experiences. Adapting their Peer-to-Peer Reflection Protocol for use at Kingsborough Community College, CUNY, we present a framework for dynamic LC program assessment. To obtain feedback about theory-practice connections in our English as a Second Language (ESL) LCs, students were asked to consider whether their experiences reflected the sociocultural tenets underlying the program (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Students provided individual responses in writing and engaged in a communal conversation facilitated by a professor, program director, and campus administrator based on these writings. Using conversation analysis, our examination of responses to one program principle in the discussion context uncovered two related phenomena: students talked about what collaboration meant to them in their LC (collaboration-in-content), and also engaged in the act of collaboration in the conversation itself (collaboration-in-process). The exploratory nature of these interactions as part of a growing community support and extend the findings of Malnarich et al. (2014). We conclude by arguing for the continued investigation of ways to bridge theory and practice in our LC program work by bringing assessment activity and classroom activity together, and inviting various campus stakeholders to this dynamic process.
Notes
