Many people in the educational field admit to the problems of urban education.  Typically, recurring problems include a lack of resources, low funding, inconsistent staff, fluctuating student attendance, and low test scores (Brady, Balmer, & Phenix, 2007; Ng, 2006; Ripple & Luthar, 2000).  Not listed, however, is the lack of student-centered learning.  Learning should involve a response to the needs of learners, and include various instructional strategies to create that experience.  Newer research highlights the quality of a student-centered learning experience.  Lecture-based classrooms, in contrast, let the teacher’s voice dominate class time, while students resort to passively learning content.  My research is closely connected with my teaching background.  I taught for an urban high school in Chicago Public Schools for six years.  The experiences and knowledge that I gained from my time there have been invaluable in shaping my future research endeavors.  Going forward in my research, my goal is bring student-centered, 21st century learning skills into an urban high school.  According to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009), essential classroom components include problem solving, communication, creativity, and critical thinking.  The disadvantaged schools are in need of pedagogical reform to increase the student voice. 







Interests

​
​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

Student-centered learning: I have a deep interest in shifting the teacher’s role, and allowing for greater student voice and ownership in the classroom.  If students are allowed to interact with each other, they will more likely become actively engaged in the content, and begin to make and test assumptions of their learning (Hsu, 2008).  Furthermore, I am interested in social constructivist learning environments where students are allowed to work collaboratively to create their own knowledge (Piaget, 1973).  I believe that students often do not get a chance to interact with peers, or create their own knowledge.  With increased concern over standardized test scores and completing a set of mandated benchmarks, teachers are feeling the pressure to push through the content.  Oftentimes, the content may be completed in spite of the learning.  I would be interested in organically mixing the teacher and student voices, so both parties are able to learn. 

​

​

​Personalized learning: With students becoming more diverse in their learning, differentiating instruction is becoming the most logical solution (Pham, 2012).  However, the feasibility of differentiating instruction to each learner would prove to be difficult.  I have an interest in implementing computer-based personalized learning into an environment.  However, I believe that school systems should not devote the entire child’s learning experience to be in front of a computer.  In contrast, I would like to research solutions to effectively incorporate computer-based instruction into the classroom, while still setting time aside for collaborative activities.  Computers will not be able to provide social and emotional support that is needed in a child’s development (Collinson, 2001).  Computer-based instruction can, however, be integrated with other elements of 21st century learning.  Also, the instruction can be adaptable, meaning that it can adjust to the needs of the learner.  As our technology evolves, our ideas of classroom pedagogy should change as well.  

​

​

​Urban high school settings: The intervention that I’m anticipating to enact in a classroom would most likely be in an urban school.  In order to test the effectiveness of an instructional model, I believe a strong case could be made if success came from disadvantaged communities.  Furthermore, low-income schools are reaching out for help.  While it is possible to create learner-centered classrooms in urban schools (Strahan & Layell, 2006), many studies focusing on student collaboration are not being implemented in disadvantaged areas.  This is most likely due to the anticipated struggle of implementing change.  Just like any other students, urban students deserve the right to experience a quality education, full of learner-centered experiences, adaptive computer programs, and collaboration.  

​

​

​Problem-based learning: PBL allows students to interact and collaboratively work on problems that are relevant to them (Xu & Warschauer, 2004).  The learning is active.  In fact, problem solving is important enough to have its own category of 21st century learning skills.  Teachers should be encouraged to bring in relevant and engaging material.  I’m interested in providing assistance through my research in developing and implementing PBL material in the classroom.  Students should get opportunities to put problems in context, and have engaging material incite their attention.  After all, learning should be fun.  Learning should involve curiosity.  My research will involve not only implementing these curiosity provoking ideas, but analyzing the effectiveness of these interventions.  

 

 

​



​Research Ideas


 

​Blended Station Learning Model

As a way to focus my interests, I intend to develop and implement a model to be used in an urban high school mathematics classroom.  The model would be a way to include problem-based learning, personalized learning, and student-centered learning.  According to variation theory, authentic learning involves concentrating on the learning object, and how it is experienced (Runesson, 2005).  Students learn at different times, and can benefit from a variety of instructional resources.  In fact, variation theory posits that any one dominant teaching style could stifle the learning process (Oliver & Trigwell, 2005).  In order to merge research-based instructional strategies together, I have proposed a blended stations learning model.  The primary intent of the model is to provide students with a variety of instructional strategies and opportunities to receive an authentic learning experience.  Students in a high school classroom would rotate between stations every two to three days, with each station dedicated to a unique instructional delivery.  The personalized learning station would include computer-based instruction that is tailored to a student’s needs.  The problem-based learning station, on the other hand, allows students to interact collaboratively with each other in order to develop solutions.  A third station would have students create material that reflected their learning.  Since the design is in need of development, the following figure is a rough sketch.  

​

Implementing the blended stations learning model would radically shift the teacher role into a facilitator.  The design of the model needs to be worked out, and further supported by learning theory.  In order to gather data using this design, I anticipate mixing qualitative and quantitative methods.  I would be interested in making a case from a student’s unique experience of learning through this model, using interviews to develop a grounded theory.  Also, I would collect survey results and test scores from students to note any changes in performance and opinion. 



















































​













Bring Your Own Technology Implementation Model

​My work with the Archway Partnership has piqued my interest in schools adopting a BYOT initiative.  I would consider conducting design-based research on a school-wide implementation of BYOT.  Ideally, I would prefer to work with school administration, teachers, and other stakeholders in order to create a systematic model of adopting BYOT.  Through several iterations, I would analyze the progress of the implementation.  My proposed BYOT model would include student-centered strategies that involve the use of technology.  

 





 

 

 

​

​Research Questions



The following are some preliminary research questions that I intend to examine.  While this is not an exhaustive list, it is meant to focus my general interests.

​

1.  How can technology be leveraged in secondary level classes to address the needs of learners?

2.  How can teachers incorporate student-centered, 21st century learning principles in a secondary classroom?

3.  How can personalized, computer-based instruction be blended with face-to-face classroom interaction?

4.  What models are useful in urban secondary schools that address student engagement?













References

Brady, K. P., Balmer, S., & Phenix, D. (2007). School-police partnership effectiveness in urban schools: An analysis of New York City’s impact schools initiative. Education and Urban Society, 39(4), 455–478.
 

Collinson, V. (2001). Intellectual, social, and moral development: Why technology cannot replace teachers. High School Journal, 85(1), 35.
 

Hsu, Y.-S. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of students’ conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 320–344.
 

Ng, J. C. (2006). Understanding the impact of accountability on preservice teachers’ decisions about where to teach. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 38(5), 353–372.
 

Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can blended learning be redeemed? E-learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 17–26.
 

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf.
 

Pham, H. L. (2012). Differentiated instruction and the need to integrate teaching and practice. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 9(1), 13–20.
 

Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York, NY: Grossman.
 

Ripple, C. H., & Luthar, S. S. (2000). Academic risk among inner-city adolescents: The role of personal attributes. Journal of School Psychology, 38(3), 277–298.
 

Runesson, U. (2005). Beyond discourse and interaction. Variation: A critical aspect for teaching and learning mathematics. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(1), 69–87.
 

Strahan, D. B., & Layell, K. (2006). Connecting caring and action through responsive teaching: How one team accomplished success in a struggling middle school. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79(3), 147–153.
 

Xu, F., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and curricular reform in China: A case study. Tesol Quarterly, 38(2), 301–323.