Summary:
This article begins by reviewing with the readers the meaning of “well-structured”. If something is well-structured it is well organized in a clear and logical sequence. With so many technological resources available, it is important to structure learning outcomes and content so that the learning may occur as easily as possible. Multi-media delivery encourages “student input and increases sensory involvement” in learning. This digitalization of content helps students build upon their knowledge of content with all senses, increasing their understanding of a complex topic gradually to reach full understanding. Equally as important as including multi-media delivery of material is the hierarchy of content types 1) core concepts and principles 2) well-structured problems with known solutions 3) less-structured, complex problems without known solutions. This hierarchy will help educators structure content so that a solid foundation of key components in the content-area are mastered and built upon gradually until the student can use their knowledge to solve abstract problems in the content area.
Response:
This article was vague and used far too many metaphors to keep me engaged as a reader. The writing style was so difficult for me to follow, as someone who appreciates concrete conclusions and suggestions, that I found myself getting lost in a small two-page article! The authors compared a learner’s brain to a tundra and a jungle, which was fun, but distracting. Overall the piece reinforced what I already know as a teacher, that it is important to gradually build upon previous knowledge to create a solid foundation of learning. The new piece was that the integration of technology can help learners experience learning via most of their senses and increase the depth of the learning.
Boettcher, J.V. (2003). Designing for learning: The pursuit of well-structured content. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (22-24). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Probing for Plagiarism in the Virtual Classroom
Summary:
With more and more students opting to take courses online, detecting plagiarism can be quite a challenge. With more resources available via technology and the Internet for students to have papers written or to cheat in general, teachers must be knowledgeable about the resources potential cheats have available to them and also the countermeasures available to educators attempting to preserve intellectual integrity. One interesting point made by the authors is that with much discussion in online courses happening through written discussion, instructors have many examples of a student’s writing style to compare written assignments with which can be useful in determining if a student has plagiarized. Term-paper mills are websites that allow students to purchase or take parts of whole papers and copy and paste directly into their own assignment (some paper mill websites include Schoolsucks.com and cheater.com). There are over 250 known term-paper/essay websites. There are, however, plagiarism-detecting websites available to educators. By obtaining papers from these paper-mill websites the plagiarism-detecting sites create “fingerprints” for each paper. When an instructor uploads a paper to this website, it cross-references the uploaded paper with the “fingerprints” of the archived papers while Web crawlers search the internet for possible matches. This tool must be used with caution though as many of these websites are run by the very same companies who sell the term papers to students. Plagiarism-detecting software is another example of a resource for educators. This software can, for example, delete every 5th word of a paper suspected of being plagiarized and the instructor may ask the writer to insert the missing words. Overall, the suggestion of the author includes making students aware of the use of these tools, collecting writing samples through required discussion board sessions and using occasional pop-quizzes should deter many potential cheaters.
Response:
I found this article to be my favorite in this text so far. It was written in very teacher-friendly language and the suggestions were short and useful. I had no idea that all of this plagiarizing and anti-plagiarizing technology was available. I feel like I’ve really learned something after reading this article. Though I will likely not need to use plagiarism-detecting software in the elementary setting, I’m glad that I’m aware of some of the issues and concerns of my fellow educators.
Hamlin, L.S. & Ryan, W.T. (2003). Probing for plagiarism in the virtual classroom. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (163-165). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
With more and more students opting to take courses online, detecting plagiarism can be quite a challenge. With more resources available via technology and the Internet for students to have papers written or to cheat in general, teachers must be knowledgeable about the resources potential cheats have available to them and also the countermeasures available to educators attempting to preserve intellectual integrity. One interesting point made by the authors is that with much discussion in online courses happening through written discussion, instructors have many examples of a student’s writing style to compare written assignments with which can be useful in determining if a student has plagiarized. Term-paper mills are websites that allow students to purchase or take parts of whole papers and copy and paste directly into their own assignment (some paper mill websites include Schoolsucks.com and cheater.com). There are over 250 known term-paper/essay websites. There are, however, plagiarism-detecting websites available to educators. By obtaining papers from these paper-mill websites the plagiarism-detecting sites create “fingerprints” for each paper. When an instructor uploads a paper to this website, it cross-references the uploaded paper with the “fingerprints” of the archived papers while Web crawlers search the internet for possible matches. This tool must be used with caution though as many of these websites are run by the very same companies who sell the term papers to students. Plagiarism-detecting software is another example of a resource for educators. This software can, for example, delete every 5th word of a paper suspected of being plagiarized and the instructor may ask the writer to insert the missing words. Overall, the suggestion of the author includes making students aware of the use of these tools, collecting writing samples through required discussion board sessions and using occasional pop-quizzes should deter many potential cheaters.
Response:
I found this article to be my favorite in this text so far. It was written in very teacher-friendly language and the suggestions were short and useful. I had no idea that all of this plagiarizing and anti-plagiarizing technology was available. I feel like I’ve really learned something after reading this article. Though I will likely not need to use plagiarism-detecting software in the elementary setting, I’m glad that I’m aware of some of the issues and concerns of my fellow educators.
Hamlin, L.S. & Ryan, W.T. (2003). Probing for plagiarism in the virtual classroom. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (163-165). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Classroom Assessment in Web-Based Instructional Environment: Instructors’ Experience
Summary:
The online setting of many of today’s classes presents a unique challenge to educators to accurately assess the learning of their online students. The purpose of many assessments is to monitor progress and inform further teaching, a task that online educators must undertake but in a much different way than traditional teachers in a face-to-face setting. Online classes are often place and time independent. Both asynchronous and synchronous communication allows for a variety of ways to communicate with classmates and teachers. This unique style of holding a class allows online teachers to do many of the same things as traditional teachers and assess by observation, discussion, group collaboration and analysis of student work. These forms of assessment help teachers direct learning. A few recommendations about online assessment include:
• Enable students to self-monitor progress
• Give regular feedback to students
• Support peer learning and assessment
• Design self-assessment practice
The self-monitoring and self-reflection are important because studies show that students who have opportunities to reflect “show greater improvement than those who do not” (141). As instructors of online classes cannot “monitor and react to comments, asides, body language and facial expressions they must employ other techniques to acquire the same information” (141). The flexibility in the forms of communication (include multimedia responses) allows for more thoughtful reflection on the part of the students and more interactive assessments. Online classes tend to assess the student’s ability to solve a real world problem or perform a task (performance based assessment). The one major roadblock to accurate assessment of a student’s ability via the Internet could be the student’s writing skills. Poor writers may be at a disadvantage in an online classroom because they are unable to clearly communicate their learnings. Participating is also more heavily graded in the online classroom because the time is allotted for thoughtful reflection. The traditional role between the teacher and learner is shifted in online settings, paper and pencil tests are becoming less common, and learning is more student-centered and interactive. More study is needed to explore the effects of writing skill in online teaching and assessment.
Response:
This article was my favorite so far in this text because it has clearly articulated all of the things I’ve often thought while taking online courses. As a fairly strong writer myself (and as someone who can type with relative speed) I’ve never struggled to communicate online. I can only imagine the extra effort a struggling writer or typist would have to put into online classes. And, as a teacher, I know that when prerequisite skills are not strong, they often detract from other learning. This is a unique challenge for online educators to ponder and address. I also found it interesting that many online course no longer give paper and pencil tests, or that they time their assessments online. As I reflected while reading this, I realized that some of my first online courses had proctored assessments or timed online exams. Now, it is rare to have an online assessment or “test” of any kind in an online setting. Learning is more often assessed through projects and discussion, as the article reiterated. I could see what a struggle it would be to accurately assess learning in an online classroom. This article served as a good first step for me to being thinking about these challenges and reflecting upon my own experiences.
Liang, X. & Creasy, K. (2004). Classroom assessment in web-based instructional environment: Instructors’ experience. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (140-147). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
The online setting of many of today’s classes presents a unique challenge to educators to accurately assess the learning of their online students. The purpose of many assessments is to monitor progress and inform further teaching, a task that online educators must undertake but in a much different way than traditional teachers in a face-to-face setting. Online classes are often place and time independent. Both asynchronous and synchronous communication allows for a variety of ways to communicate with classmates and teachers. This unique style of holding a class allows online teachers to do many of the same things as traditional teachers and assess by observation, discussion, group collaboration and analysis of student work. These forms of assessment help teachers direct learning. A few recommendations about online assessment include:
• Enable students to self-monitor progress
• Give regular feedback to students
• Support peer learning and assessment
• Design self-assessment practice
The self-monitoring and self-reflection are important because studies show that students who have opportunities to reflect “show greater improvement than those who do not” (141). As instructors of online classes cannot “monitor and react to comments, asides, body language and facial expressions they must employ other techniques to acquire the same information” (141). The flexibility in the forms of communication (include multimedia responses) allows for more thoughtful reflection on the part of the students and more interactive assessments. Online classes tend to assess the student’s ability to solve a real world problem or perform a task (performance based assessment). The one major roadblock to accurate assessment of a student’s ability via the Internet could be the student’s writing skills. Poor writers may be at a disadvantage in an online classroom because they are unable to clearly communicate their learnings. Participating is also more heavily graded in the online classroom because the time is allotted for thoughtful reflection. The traditional role between the teacher and learner is shifted in online settings, paper and pencil tests are becoming less common, and learning is more student-centered and interactive. More study is needed to explore the effects of writing skill in online teaching and assessment.
Response:
This article was my favorite so far in this text because it has clearly articulated all of the things I’ve often thought while taking online courses. As a fairly strong writer myself (and as someone who can type with relative speed) I’ve never struggled to communicate online. I can only imagine the extra effort a struggling writer or typist would have to put into online classes. And, as a teacher, I know that when prerequisite skills are not strong, they often detract from other learning. This is a unique challenge for online educators to ponder and address. I also found it interesting that many online course no longer give paper and pencil tests, or that they time their assessments online. As I reflected while reading this, I realized that some of my first online courses had proctored assessments or timed online exams. Now, it is rare to have an online assessment or “test” of any kind in an online setting. Learning is more often assessed through projects and discussion, as the article reiterated. I could see what a struggle it would be to accurately assess learning in an online classroom. This article served as a good first step for me to being thinking about these challenges and reflecting upon my own experiences.
Liang, X. & Creasy, K. (2004). Classroom assessment in web-based instructional environment: Instructors’ experience. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (140-147). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Boomers and Gen-Xers Millennials: Understanding New Students
Summary:
The authors of this article stress the differences in learning styles and life experiences of students from three different generations. Most interestingly noted is the difference in the Generation Xers and the “millennials”. Gen Xers are students who experienced the fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of AIDS and the World Wide Web, the Challenger shuttle explosion and the Exxon Valdez oil spill. These students who are often thought of as the college generation of today are slowing exiting the college community as they age and entering today is a new generation : the Millennials. Millennials are students born after 1982. These students “exhibit different characteristics from those of siblings just a few years older”. This includes some of the flowing (116):
• Gravitate toward group activity
• Identify with their parents values and feel close to their parents
• Spend more time doing homework and house work, less time watching TV
• Believe it’s “cool to be smart”
• Are fascinated by new technologies
• Are racially and ethnically diverse
• Often have at least one immigrant parent (one in five)
Today’s college experience is vastly different than the college experiences of the current generation of professors in the university setting. Some trends in colleges today include an increase in part-time enrollment, more female students and more student over the age of twenty-five. To help meet the learning needs of these new, nontraditional students who have grown up immersed in technology, colleges need to learn to use technology to improve their customer service. Students today grow frustrated if there is a lack of information available or slow responses to requests. Technology can help alleviate some of these frustrations by providing online access to financial aid resources, 24 real time assistance, etc. This efficient customer service, the authors say, is “a prerequisite to retention and effective learning” (118).
Response:
I found this article to be interesting to me, but not useful in my current place of employment. However, as a college student myself and a member of the Millennial generation, I found what the authors said about the differences between my generation and the Gen-Xers to be validating. I’ve never identified with that generation when it’s being characterized in other articles or in the media. It’s comforting to know that there is a reason for that…I don’t belong with the Gen Xers! In general, I find their characterizations of my generation to be accurate; we do identify more with Baby Boomer values. However, our main difference as students will definitely be our level of comfort and expectation about technology. Technology has always been a resource and tool for my generation and as students we do expect a level of efficiency and availability of technological resources. The will be an important point to the success of universities in the future as Millenials enter the college world.
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers and gen-xers millennials: Understanding the new students. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (115-120). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
The authors of this article stress the differences in learning styles and life experiences of students from three different generations. Most interestingly noted is the difference in the Generation Xers and the “millennials”. Gen Xers are students who experienced the fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of AIDS and the World Wide Web, the Challenger shuttle explosion and the Exxon Valdez oil spill. These students who are often thought of as the college generation of today are slowing exiting the college community as they age and entering today is a new generation : the Millennials. Millennials are students born after 1982. These students “exhibit different characteristics from those of siblings just a few years older”. This includes some of the flowing (116):
• Gravitate toward group activity
• Identify with their parents values and feel close to their parents
• Spend more time doing homework and house work, less time watching TV
• Believe it’s “cool to be smart”
• Are fascinated by new technologies
• Are racially and ethnically diverse
• Often have at least one immigrant parent (one in five)
Today’s college experience is vastly different than the college experiences of the current generation of professors in the university setting. Some trends in colleges today include an increase in part-time enrollment, more female students and more student over the age of twenty-five. To help meet the learning needs of these new, nontraditional students who have grown up immersed in technology, colleges need to learn to use technology to improve their customer service. Students today grow frustrated if there is a lack of information available or slow responses to requests. Technology can help alleviate some of these frustrations by providing online access to financial aid resources, 24 real time assistance, etc. This efficient customer service, the authors say, is “a prerequisite to retention and effective learning” (118).
Response:
I found this article to be interesting to me, but not useful in my current place of employment. However, as a college student myself and a member of the Millennial generation, I found what the authors said about the differences between my generation and the Gen-Xers to be validating. I’ve never identified with that generation when it’s being characterized in other articles or in the media. It’s comforting to know that there is a reason for that…I don’t belong with the Gen Xers! In general, I find their characterizations of my generation to be accurate; we do identify more with Baby Boomer values. However, our main difference as students will definitely be our level of comfort and expectation about technology. Technology has always been a resource and tool for my generation and as students we do expect a level of efficiency and availability of technological resources. The will be an important point to the success of universities in the future as Millenials enter the college world.
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers and gen-xers millennials: Understanding the new students. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (115-120). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Assessing the Technology Training Needs of Elementary School Teachers
Summary:
Current in-service teaches must rely on staff development opportunities to help keep them updated and knowledgeable about technology and its use in the classroom. This study found that teachers are largely using technology for administrative purposes such as grading and organization, not so much as a tool for teaching and learning. Also they found that staff development often served to reinforce these uses as the majority of classes offered involved word processing. The authors/researchers suggest that districts offer their teachers courses in curriculum integration, presentation software, research, using the WWW and CD-ROMs. According to the authors, “one of the largest factors which determines computer integration in elementary schools is the mount of computer knowledge a teacher possesses” (95). One interesting side note is that upper elementary grade level teachers tend to integrate technology into their classrooms more often than primary teachers. The findings of this article show that teachers need to be more knowledgeable about how to integrate technology into the existing curriculum would be hugely beneficial in helping teachers use computers as teaching tools and resources. Barriers noted to this type of staff development included limited resources and no financial incentive for the extra effort involved in attempting this type of learning and planning. Some suggestions made based on their research include that administration needs to reward teachers who participate in this type of staff development monetarily or by offering more of these types of courses.
Response:
I whole-heartedly agree with the findings of this article! There is not nearly enough staff development in the areas of technology that we know the least about. We do not need more courses of Word Processing or Excel spreadsheets. I’d love to learn more about Goggle, PowerPoint and WebQuests! Perhaps the problems is that many districts use teachers from their own district to teach their staff development and no one knows enough about these things yet to teach others. Hiring a professional is expensive. I see and acknowledge the barriers yet hope that we can find a way to help our fellow teachers learn more about the many amazing ways to integrate technology and the existing curriculum.
McCannon, M. & Crews, T.B. (2000). Assessing the technology training needs of elementary school teachers. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (95-99). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Current in-service teaches must rely on staff development opportunities to help keep them updated and knowledgeable about technology and its use in the classroom. This study found that teachers are largely using technology for administrative purposes such as grading and organization, not so much as a tool for teaching and learning. Also they found that staff development often served to reinforce these uses as the majority of classes offered involved word processing. The authors/researchers suggest that districts offer their teachers courses in curriculum integration, presentation software, research, using the WWW and CD-ROMs. According to the authors, “one of the largest factors which determines computer integration in elementary schools is the mount of computer knowledge a teacher possesses” (95). One interesting side note is that upper elementary grade level teachers tend to integrate technology into their classrooms more often than primary teachers. The findings of this article show that teachers need to be more knowledgeable about how to integrate technology into the existing curriculum would be hugely beneficial in helping teachers use computers as teaching tools and resources. Barriers noted to this type of staff development included limited resources and no financial incentive for the extra effort involved in attempting this type of learning and planning. Some suggestions made based on their research include that administration needs to reward teachers who participate in this type of staff development monetarily or by offering more of these types of courses.
Response:
I whole-heartedly agree with the findings of this article! There is not nearly enough staff development in the areas of technology that we know the least about. We do not need more courses of Word Processing or Excel spreadsheets. I’d love to learn more about Goggle, PowerPoint and WebQuests! Perhaps the problems is that many districts use teachers from their own district to teach their staff development and no one knows enough about these things yet to teach others. Hiring a professional is expensive. I see and acknowledge the barriers yet hope that we can find a way to help our fellow teachers learn more about the many amazing ways to integrate technology and the existing curriculum.
McCannon, M. & Crews, T.B. (2000). Assessing the technology training needs of elementary school teachers. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (95-99). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Changes in Brain Function in Children with Dyslexia After Training
Summary:
The article begins by discussing what dyslexia is and how it is affecting today’s students. Dyslexia is characterized as a difficulty reading for reasons other than intellectual, environmental, education and motivation. Dyslexia may be found in between 5-17% of the general population. Phonological awareness, the ability to manipulate the sound structure of a word (sounding out made-up words for example), is “thought to be a required foundation for both normal-reading and dyslexic children to benefit from phonics instruction. Dyslexic children tend to lack phonological awareness as well as auditory processing. Studies have been performed that show that children with dyslexia have less brain functioning in the temporo-partietal cortex region. The article looked at the effects of a particular technological training program on the brain function of dyslexic children. The computer program focused on “auditory processing and oral language through an intense and adaptive computer program” (48). Though the study did find improved functioning in that particular region of the brain after administering the treatment, functioning did not reach normal levels. This study concluded that the particular intervention, Fast ForWord Language did change brain function and increase reading abilities of dyslexic children.
Response:
I knew practically nothing about dyslexia before reading this article, so I’m thankful that I had a chance to read it! It’s interesting that a computer program could change the way that the dyslexic students’ brains functioned. A sad reality for children who fall behind is that they rarely “catch up” or reach normal levels of achievement, but a program like this could help dyslexic children feel more successful and develop the tools they need to read better.
Temple, E. (2003). Changes in brain function in children with dyslexia after training. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (47-49). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
The article begins by discussing what dyslexia is and how it is affecting today’s students. Dyslexia is characterized as a difficulty reading for reasons other than intellectual, environmental, education and motivation. Dyslexia may be found in between 5-17% of the general population. Phonological awareness, the ability to manipulate the sound structure of a word (sounding out made-up words for example), is “thought to be a required foundation for both normal-reading and dyslexic children to benefit from phonics instruction. Dyslexic children tend to lack phonological awareness as well as auditory processing. Studies have been performed that show that children with dyslexia have less brain functioning in the temporo-partietal cortex region. The article looked at the effects of a particular technological training program on the brain function of dyslexic children. The computer program focused on “auditory processing and oral language through an intense and adaptive computer program” (48). Though the study did find improved functioning in that particular region of the brain after administering the treatment, functioning did not reach normal levels. This study concluded that the particular intervention, Fast ForWord Language did change brain function and increase reading abilities of dyslexic children.
Response:
I knew practically nothing about dyslexia before reading this article, so I’m thankful that I had a chance to read it! It’s interesting that a computer program could change the way that the dyslexic students’ brains functioned. A sad reality for children who fall behind is that they rarely “catch up” or reach normal levels of achievement, but a program like this could help dyslexic children feel more successful and develop the tools they need to read better.
Temple, E. (2003). Changes in brain function in children with dyslexia after training. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (47-49). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Type II Technology Applications in Teacher Education: Using Instant Messenger to Implement Structured Online Class Discussions
Summary: This article discusses the use of AOL Instant Messenger in a graduate level distance-learning course. The authors begin by discussing distance learning as a challenge to help students become active participants in their learning. Instant messenger is synchronous meaning that all participants must be online at the same time participating in discussion in real time. In the case of this study, all students were taught how to download and install the free AIM software, taught a basic set of instant messaging skills. After the second week of class, all contact took place via IM. Weekly discussions took place where one student served as the “leader” of the discussion, ensuring all participants were heard, had a set of questions to lead discussion and recorded the transcript for the others. The instructor served as an “assistant” to the leader during these discussions.
Some of the observations that were noted included that “less-knowledgeable students in the group continued to expand and enhance the complexity of their IM skills throughout the semester” (73). Instant messenger is considered Type II technology because it allows the instructor/students to simulate relatively active intellectual involvement, places the learner rather than the teacher in charge of the learning environment, provides the learner with control between user and machine, has the accomplishment of creative tasks as the goal and also requires many hours of interaction to discover the full potential of the software and software based activity. Type II software allows students to provide more detailed and thoughtful responses to discussion prompts because of the interaction with other software programs and delay that typing requires. However, this delay in typing and lack of body language may also be a detriment to some students with deficient typing or writing skills.
Response:
I had never thought about instant messenger as any special kind of technology as I’ve grown up with this “Type II” technology. I’ve taken many online courses but none have used this resource. Most of our online classes use the Discussion board, which is a form of asynchronous communication, for convenience purposes I would guess. Many students take online courses for their flexibility of scheduling. Therefore, it would be difficult to use instant messaging often in a distance learning setting because of the nature of the students who take these course. Many have odd schedules and it would be difficult to get many to commit to a day and time to be online for a chat. Though I do see the benefits of this and definitely think instant messenger should be integrated into distance learning at least once a quarter, I believe more than that would be difficult.
Chen Wang, L &Beasley, W. (2005). Type II technology applications in technology education: Using instant messenger to implement structured online class discussions. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (71-77). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Some of the observations that were noted included that “less-knowledgeable students in the group continued to expand and enhance the complexity of their IM skills throughout the semester” (73). Instant messenger is considered Type II technology because it allows the instructor/students to simulate relatively active intellectual involvement, places the learner rather than the teacher in charge of the learning environment, provides the learner with control between user and machine, has the accomplishment of creative tasks as the goal and also requires many hours of interaction to discover the full potential of the software and software based activity. Type II software allows students to provide more detailed and thoughtful responses to discussion prompts because of the interaction with other software programs and delay that typing requires. However, this delay in typing and lack of body language may also be a detriment to some students with deficient typing or writing skills.
Response:
I had never thought about instant messenger as any special kind of technology as I’ve grown up with this “Type II” technology. I’ve taken many online courses but none have used this resource. Most of our online classes use the Discussion board, which is a form of asynchronous communication, for convenience purposes I would guess. Many students take online courses for their flexibility of scheduling. Therefore, it would be difficult to use instant messaging often in a distance learning setting because of the nature of the students who take these course. Many have odd schedules and it would be difficult to get many to commit to a day and time to be online for a chat. Though I do see the benefits of this and definitely think instant messenger should be integrated into distance learning at least once a quarter, I believe more than that would be difficult.
Chen Wang, L &Beasley, W. (2005). Type II technology applications in technology education: Using instant messenger to implement structured online class discussions. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (71-77). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
The Myth about Online Course Development: “A Faculty Member Can Individually Develop and Deliver an Effective Online Course”
Summary:
This article discusses the challenges that faulty members face in designing online courses. Online courses are vastly different than traditional courses. Faculty members should be paired up with an “instructional designer” who has knowledge of pedagogy and technology. As many online courses best achieve their objectives when asking students to construct knowledge through discussion and application of knowledge, the designer of the course must consider the roles of the student and the notion that faculty who are subject-matter experts should not be the ones to design the course alone. With so many concerns and questions to address in the development of an online course, it is best to not take the “Lone Ranger” approach but to have teamwork to build the best possible online course. Some essential questions to consider include:
• What is the best use of the faculty member, an expensive institutional resource?
• Do we have a process for strategically investing in course development?
• Do we confuse providing content with creating a learning environment or delivering a course?
• What is the return we hope to see from our investment in course development?
Reaction:
I found this article to be interesting, though not very useful to me as an elementary school teacher. As a student in online courses, it’s interesting to think about what goes into building an online course. I’ve had many, many online courses and some I found to be well structured and useful while others were a lot of reading, posting to the discussion board and paper and pencil testing. The first type of course I described were some of my favorites because I felt I learned the most. I think that the authors had a good point when they stated that subject-matter expert faculty should not plan an online course alone but rather with a team to provide the best possible learning experience for the students involved.
Oblinger D.G. & Hawkins, B.L. (2006). The myth about online course development. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (5-6). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
This article discusses the challenges that faulty members face in designing online courses. Online courses are vastly different than traditional courses. Faculty members should be paired up with an “instructional designer” who has knowledge of pedagogy and technology. As many online courses best achieve their objectives when asking students to construct knowledge through discussion and application of knowledge, the designer of the course must consider the roles of the student and the notion that faculty who are subject-matter experts should not be the ones to design the course alone. With so many concerns and questions to address in the development of an online course, it is best to not take the “Lone Ranger” approach but to have teamwork to build the best possible online course. Some essential questions to consider include:
• What is the best use of the faculty member, an expensive institutional resource?
• Do we have a process for strategically investing in course development?
• Do we confuse providing content with creating a learning environment or delivering a course?
• What is the return we hope to see from our investment in course development?
Reaction:
I found this article to be interesting, though not very useful to me as an elementary school teacher. As a student in online courses, it’s interesting to think about what goes into building an online course. I’ve had many, many online courses and some I found to be well structured and useful while others were a lot of reading, posting to the discussion board and paper and pencil testing. The first type of course I described were some of my favorites because I felt I learned the most. I think that the authors had a good point when they stated that subject-matter expert faculty should not plan an online course alone but rather with a team to provide the best possible learning experience for the students involved.
Oblinger D.G. & Hawkins, B.L. (2006). The myth about online course development. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (5-6). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Integrating Technology into the Instructional Process: Good Practice Guides the Way
Summary:
This article points out that many teachers have many concerns and discomforts about integrating technology into their teaching and thus do not do so. Though technology is known to expand and enhance the learning happening in the classroom, change is not easy. The authors point out that school administrators must, “provide the time and support necessary for teachers to explore and experiment with the range of ways the technologies can be woven into the school environment and curriculum” (25). Teachers must learn to use technology to support the learning that is already taking place rather than thinking about computers as a subject in itself. Some possible uses of technology include teaching the student, as a tool with which the student can learn, as a tool to assist the learning process and to develop open-ended exploratory experiences for the students. The curriculum must drive the decision making process about technology, not the other way around. Technology can help to develop the five lifelong learning outcomes we hope for today’s students (the ability to be a self-directed learner, a collaborative worker, a complex thinker, a quality producers and a community contributor). Some useful pieces of technology to use in the classroom include graphic organizers such as Inspiration, creating charts and graphs using Word or Excel, and simulation programs such as Sim City. As the authors state, “each classroom has different needs based on the students in that classroom” and teachers must be aware of those needs and willing to take risks to integrate technology into the classroom to support learning.
Reaction:
I thought that this article was a comforting piece that many teachers would benefit from reading. It often acknowledges the discomfort that many teachers face with technology in general and also integrating it into the classroom. It offers many useful suggestions about when to integrate technology and a few programs that are simple and good for beginners to start with such as Excel and Inspiration. The authors make it clear that technology should be used to enhance learning already taking place and to use that framework to evaluate the types of technology used in your classroom. I plan to do this myself and be sure that I’m using technology as a tool and resource rather than teaching it as a stand-alone subject.
Handler, M. (2005). Integrating technology into the instructional process: Good practice guides the way. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (25-29). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
This article points out that many teachers have many concerns and discomforts about integrating technology into their teaching and thus do not do so. Though technology is known to expand and enhance the learning happening in the classroom, change is not easy. The authors point out that school administrators must, “provide the time and support necessary for teachers to explore and experiment with the range of ways the technologies can be woven into the school environment and curriculum” (25). Teachers must learn to use technology to support the learning that is already taking place rather than thinking about computers as a subject in itself. Some possible uses of technology include teaching the student, as a tool with which the student can learn, as a tool to assist the learning process and to develop open-ended exploratory experiences for the students. The curriculum must drive the decision making process about technology, not the other way around. Technology can help to develop the five lifelong learning outcomes we hope for today’s students (the ability to be a self-directed learner, a collaborative worker, a complex thinker, a quality producers and a community contributor). Some useful pieces of technology to use in the classroom include graphic organizers such as Inspiration, creating charts and graphs using Word or Excel, and simulation programs such as Sim City. As the authors state, “each classroom has different needs based on the students in that classroom” and teachers must be aware of those needs and willing to take risks to integrate technology into the classroom to support learning.
Reaction:
I thought that this article was a comforting piece that many teachers would benefit from reading. It often acknowledges the discomfort that many teachers face with technology in general and also integrating it into the classroom. It offers many useful suggestions about when to integrate technology and a few programs that are simple and good for beginners to start with such as Excel and Inspiration. The authors make it clear that technology should be used to enhance learning already taking place and to use that framework to evaluate the types of technology used in your classroom. I plan to do this myself and be sure that I’m using technology as a tool and resource rather than teaching it as a stand-alone subject.
Handler, M. (2005). Integrating technology into the instructional process: Good practice guides the way. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (25-29). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants
Summary:
Students growing up in today’s society with fast paced, high tech gadgetry to entertain and educate are known as Digital Natives. Those who did not grow up surrounded by the technology and lingo of today are known as Digital Immigrants. Digital Natives learn and respond much differently to traditional methods of teaching than Digital Immigrants do and to successfully educate Digital Natives, educators must adapt their teaching style to meet the needs of this new type of learner. Some of the ways to adapt to teaching Digital Native includes teachers “communicating in the language and style of their students”. (Prensky, 4, 2001), teaching both “legacy” content such as reading, wiring, math, etc. and “future” content like technology. The challenge here is asking Digital Immigrants to teach this to Digital Native. They wonder how can this best be done. One suggestion is to invent video games to teach new technologies. The author argues that we need to invent these Digital Native methodologies for all subject areas and that it’s time that Digital Immigrants must make changes with the support of their administrators.
Reaction:
I thought that this was a well-written and highly useful article about how to become more effective at reaching all learners. The suggestions made by the author about learning to use the technology to teach technology or other “legacy” subjects was a great suggestion that I easily integrated into my own teaching. I did wonder as I was reading this article, however, if perhaps the content resonated with me because I myself am a Digital Native. If I were a Digital Immigrant, would I feel differently? Would I have more difficulty imagining myself integrating technologies into my teaching? Most likely. However, for me this article makes a great point that it’s time to be more creative and to utilize the abilities of our students to multi-task, navigate technologies and understand technological concepts in order to help them achieve a greater level of understanding in all subject areas.
Prensky, M. (2007). Digital natives, digital immigrants. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (2-4). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Students growing up in today’s society with fast paced, high tech gadgetry to entertain and educate are known as Digital Natives. Those who did not grow up surrounded by the technology and lingo of today are known as Digital Immigrants. Digital Natives learn and respond much differently to traditional methods of teaching than Digital Immigrants do and to successfully educate Digital Natives, educators must adapt their teaching style to meet the needs of this new type of learner. Some of the ways to adapt to teaching Digital Native includes teachers “communicating in the language and style of their students”. (Prensky, 4, 2001), teaching both “legacy” content such as reading, wiring, math, etc. and “future” content like technology. The challenge here is asking Digital Immigrants to teach this to Digital Native. They wonder how can this best be done. One suggestion is to invent video games to teach new technologies. The author argues that we need to invent these Digital Native methodologies for all subject areas and that it’s time that Digital Immigrants must make changes with the support of their administrators.
Reaction:
I thought that this was a well-written and highly useful article about how to become more effective at reaching all learners. The suggestions made by the author about learning to use the technology to teach technology or other “legacy” subjects was a great suggestion that I easily integrated into my own teaching. I did wonder as I was reading this article, however, if perhaps the content resonated with me because I myself am a Digital Native. If I were a Digital Immigrant, would I feel differently? Would I have more difficulty imagining myself integrating technologies into my teaching? Most likely. However, for me this article makes a great point that it’s time to be more creative and to utilize the abilities of our students to multi-task, navigate technologies and understand technological concepts in order to help them achieve a greater level of understanding in all subject areas.
Prensky, M. (2007). Digital natives, digital immigrants. In J. Hirschbuhl & J. Kelley (Eds.), Computers in education (2-4). Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
