Author: MaryAnne Nestor

The Goal of the Course, Week One

In designing a course there are two big questions to answer. The first one is:

What is the goal of the project and how will the project meet the goals of the organization?

In other words, what really matters, and what about my course that will accomplish what matters?

The Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology recommends giving “greater emphasis to promoting IT [information technology] fluency in K-12 and in higher education” noting  “The ability to use IT  tools for learning and at work is a skill that every citizen should have.” (p.16.) In order to do that, teachers will need to use  technology in the classroom and be proficient in 21st Century Skills themselves. According to Lambert and Cuper, even though it is important to utilize technological opportunities in preparation to become teachers, this preparation “rests on how well incoming teachers are taught to leverage the technologies to help their students develop these same skills.” (p. 265). According to ISTE in NETS for Students, Preservice teachers must refine their communication skills using technology and use the appropriate pedagogy to teach students these skills as well. (National Educational Technology Standards for Students, 2007.)

Therefore, teachers need to be able to understand reflective learning, use critical analysis, explore new and tested technologies use their power as teachers for the next generation. Buy using multimedia, teachers can meet the digital natives on their turf and show their students how to use the technologies effectively in their own learning (Lambert & Cuper, 2008).

So, what is the goal of the course? The goal is to help teachers utilize and understand the pedagogies behind the technologies necessary to teach 21st Century skills in their classroom.

The organization for me would be an education or instructional department in higher education that offers courses to teachers or pre-service teachers in pursuit of a teaching certificate/degree or perhaps as professional development.

Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology. (2001). Building a workforce for the information economy. (Board on Testing and Assessment, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council).Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9830

Lambert, J. & Cuper, P. (2008). Multimedia technologies and familiar spaces: 21st-century teaching for 21st-century learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3).

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational
technology standards for students. (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: Author.

0

Thought Process, Week One

I am excited about the class this semester on developing online courses.

The course I would like to develop would be for either a college class, or with increased readings, a graduate class for preservice teachers or teachers. My idea is a little different from any of the classes taught at Kent. The class I develop will be called something like “The 21st Century Classroom.” In this course the learning goal for the student to create a presence online using the main 21st century tools: website, blog, wiki, RSS, even twitter and social bookmarking. Many of those tools are taught in courses I am taking, however, none of the courses I have taken at Kent bring them together. We would read on why these tools are useful and then we will put together a website that incorporates everything together. When the student finishes my course, the goal is for them to have their own website, linked to these other tools, useful for their first/existing class. It won’t be all tools; there will be learning outcomes as well.

The first thing I am struggling with is the website. The website needs to be easy enough to produce for non technical students and students without any website training. Also, since most teachers haven’t had any training in design, the website should have some built-in design templates.  In the other classes I’ve been in, most of the teacher/students use Blogger or wikis to create their projects. Neither of these programs have well designed templates. I wanted to use Blogger because it is completely free, but it is very limited in what it can do and the templates are, well, ugly.

I think that the look of the website is important. It’s the difference in dressing in a nice suit and dressing in a mismatched shirt and tie with shorts. People tend to take the suit more seriously.

Therefore, I have chosen WordPress as the website students will use for their project. Although in my course we will all use the same theme, WordPress has thousands of beautiful themes that students can explore and use after the class is over. This takes most of the burden of design off the students so they can focus on content.

Another reason I chose WordPress is because there are some really good (from beginner to expert) tutorial videos on WordPress, as well as support forums and online tutorials that are very helpful. Therefore, more technically challenged students will have some training if they choose to use it.

WordPress is free, but it has some drawbacks. The main drawback is that the free version will place ads on the site. (Someone has to pay for all the support and the templates.) The user can have the ads removed, but it costs almost $30 a year to do so. I, myself, pay the $30 and find the price worth it but I realize students may choose to live with the ads. I don’t think WordPress overdoes it though. WordPress also offers other “upgrades” in their store that students may use in the future. On my personal blog, I pay $12 a year to use maryannesays.com instead of maryannenestor.wordpress.com.

0

Replying Individually to Students Using the One-Minute-Paper

Initiating Student-Teacher Contact Via Personalized Responses to One-Minute Papers

Although the author did not design the concept of one-minute-papers, Gale Lucas uses the one-minute-paper to personalize the relationship with her students as well as to discover what the students bring away from her classes. This is how the one minute paper works. After a class or lecture, students take a couple of minutes to answer questions from the professor such as, “What did your learn?” and “What remains unanswered?” While some professors only comment on answers and answer questions to the class as a whole, Lucas proposes in this article to e-mail each student individually and answer or comment on the what the student had to say.

By e-mailing the students individually, Lucas found that one-minute-papers were helpful to initiate contact with her students. She begins her e-mail by explaining that she wants to personally respond and then does so. Many students like getting responses and feel that Lucas cares about their “own personal learning and greatly appreciate such concern.” (p.40). This direct contact with her students additionally benefits students who speak up less in class.

Students reported that getting these responses from their professor helped their learning. It also helps the teacher monitor what they have taught to see if it is effective.

Lucas, G. M. (2010). Initiating student-teacher contact via personalized responses to one-minute papers College Teaching, 58(2), 39-42. doi:10.1080/87567550903245631

0

Some Problems with Online Courses

As of Fall 2010, 6.1 million students in the United States were enrolled in at least one online course; this translates into 31% of all higher education students taking at least one course online. Of the 2,500 college and universities surveyed, 65% stated that online learning is critical to their long-term strategy (Allen & Seaman, 2011). However, a survey published by Pew Internet shows that students are not satisfied with their online learning. According to the survey, students taking online classes were asked if the educational value for an online course was the same as a face-to-face (f2f) class. Sadly, 57% of those taking online classes did not feel the online class provided the same educational value as F2F classes (Parker, Lenhart, & Moore, 2011). In addition one-third of all academic institutional leaders believe that the learning outcomes for online education are inferior to those of face-to-face instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2011). According to Zemsky and Massy (2004), students want to connect but with each other; they want to be entertained, but with movies, games, and music. “E-learning at its best is seen as a convenience and at its worst as a distraction” (Zemsky & Massy, 2004, p. iii).

With this concern about the quality of online learning, why are online classes a growing trend in education? Online students have been found to value convenience and flexibility over classroom instruction. Some students are likely to think (mistakingly) that online classes are self-paced and are low in interaction (Peterson & Bond, 2004). Online students, especially in the graduate programs, often have jobs and families which, except for online instruction, would otherwise prevent them from gaining the additional education.

Studies show that online learning can meet course objectives (Peterson & Bond, 2004).  A professor can provide students with activities that encourage more critical thinking and student engagement (Ingram, 2005). So why are most online courses considered sub-standard? Part of the answer is that most online classes mimic the classroom (Norton & Hathaway, 2005). According to Boettcher and Conrad, as online tools are becoming easier to use, getting assistance with teaching online is getting more difficult . “These expectations reflect a belief that teaching online is not much different from teaching in a face-to-face environment. This is not the case. Teachers who are effective in the face-to-face environment will be effective as online teachers, but it is not automatic and it will not happen overnight” (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010).

Part of the problem with online instruction may be in the learning management systems (LMS) themselves. Learning management systems often foster linear learning by encouraging instructors to populate the LMS with static resources and content within weekly blocks or modules (Herrington, Reeves, & Oliver, 2005). The result is that these types of online courses rely heavily on PowerPoint, computerized assessments, and online readings, all which focus on the content rather than education. Utilized in this way, the LMS emphasizes the passing of information rather than fostered learning (Norton & Hathaway, 2005).

Most instructors appear to have little interest in technology even though they know their students would prefer it. Studies have shown that students believe that technology improves their efficiency, helps with motivation and confidence, and helps prepare them for their future. However, many instructors are still reluctant to consider the idea of engaging students in computer supported activities (Li, 2007). Teachers often use tools that are teacher-centered rather than student-centered because that is how they were taught. Although software such as word processing and PowerPoint can be student-centered, they are mostly used for low level skills and to distribute knowledge. This is true even in online environments (Park & Ertmer, 2007; Zemsky & Massy, 2004).

What instructors believe about technology also effects their decisions on whether they use it or not. The teachers which have more student-centered beliefs tend to use online learning in more meaningful ways, utilizing the technology with more inquiry-based activities.  On the other hand, if the instructor doesn’t believe that the technology aligns with the curriculum, if the instructor doesn’t feel that he is prepared, or is not confident with using the technology, then he tends not to use the technology. Personal development does help with this problem. Instructors very comfortable with their subject matter are more likely to take risks using technology (Penuel, 2006).

So we have established that online courses can be very ineffective with content that is no more interesting online than it was in the classroom. Instructors need to change how they believe in order to be stellar instructors in the classroom, whether it is a F2F classroom or an online classroom. Either way, content needs to be engaging, student-centered, and with effective pedagogy. “Unless you get instructional design right, technology can only increase the speed and certainty of failure” (Horton, 2012).

Reference

Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2011) Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011 (ninth annual report on the state of online learning in U.S. higher education.) Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011

Boettcher, J.V. & Conrad, R.M. (2010) The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2005). Online learning as information delivery: Digital myopia. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 353-367.

Horton, W. (2012) E-learning by design. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Ingram, A.L. (2005) Engagement in online learning communities. Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities, 6, 55-67. [Sloan Center for OnLine Education].

Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377-397.

Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2005). Exploring two teacher education online learning designs: A classroom of one or many? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 475–495.

Park. S.H. & Ertmer, P. A. (2007). Impact of problem-based learning ( PBL ) on teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 247–267.

Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The Digital revolution and higher education: College presidents, public differ on value of online learning. Pew Internet. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/College-presidents.aspx

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–349.

Peterson, C. L. & Bond, N. (2004). Online compared to face-to-face teacher preparation for learning standards-based planning skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 345–360.

Zemsky, R. & Massy, W. (2004). Thwarted innovation: What happened to e-learning and why? (A Final Report for the Weatherstation Project of the Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania.) Retrieved from http://www.thelearningalliance.info/WeatherStation.html

0

Study of Student-Generated Podcasts

The Educational Value of Student Generated Podcasts

Nie, M., Cashmore, A., & Cane, C. (2008) The educational value of student generated podcasts. Paper, ALT-C 2008 Research Proceedings pp. 15-26.

This article reports on a study of using student-created podcasts developed by a group of medical students. The study showed that “podcasting can empower learners and help them become more active and independent learners, and how student-developed podcasts can promote engagement and motivation for learning, improve cognitive learning and develop transferable team-working skills among student producers.” (p.15)

Student-generated podcasts help students learn through reflection and analyzing ideas and expressing these ideas in a professional oral presentation. If worked in teams, podcasting offers the potential for collaborative learning, and shared ownership of ideas and reflection.

Students in this study found that student-generated podcasts as a means to disseminate and generate knowledge. Podcasts enhanced their understanding of the topic. Because the students needed to research their topic in order to produce the podcast, their knowledge was expanded on the chosen topic and new information linked to their previous knowledge. As the podcast would be published, students felt pushed to do more research, especially current research. The research required them to link more of their knowledge and to disseminate the information so that non specialists would understand the content. Students also found podcast creation, motivating, interesting, and were appreciative of learning a new technical skill.

In addition, the learners who listened to the podcasts, were interested in the podcasts generated by their peers, found the podcasts engaging and motivating, and expressed interest in listening to peer instruction for more of their coursework.

0

A Review of Research on Podcasting in the Classroom

Use of Audio Podcast in K-12 and Higher Education: A Review of Research Topics and Methodologies

Hew, K.F. (2009) Use of audio podcast in K-12 and higher education: A review of research topics and methodologies. Educational Technology Research and Development. 333–357 doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9108-3

Article reviews other articles on the use of audio podcasts as it relates to student usage, outcome of learning, and institutional aspects. The article found that most of the use of podcasts were by instructors to distribute lectures or supplemental material to lectures.

In the classroom, the podcast has four functions

  1. duplicate the lecture
  2. add relevant information to what was covered in class
  3. become a precursor to class, providing new material before the lecture, so it can help students prepare for class
  4. represent student learning through student-generated podcasts

We listen by instinct and audio can help with cognition. Podcasts can be listened to at any time anywhere and for short clips at a time. The theory is that podcasts can be listened to to and students will gain bits of information at a time. However, research shows that most students listen to podcasts on their computer rather on mp3 players and that learners are usually focused on the podcast and are not multitasking while they are listening to classroom podcasts.

Students reported that podcasts do improve learning, allowing learners to review information they missed or did not understand. However, reports which did not use the interview as a means of finding data, found a podcast which is not student generated, improves the student’s satisfaction, but does not improve their learning.

Part of the reason for the popularity of podcasts lectures is that students may listen to the podcast when it is convenient to them.

0

Podcasts: Students Interview Experts

Interviewing the Experts: Student Produced Podcast

Armstrong, G.R., Tucker, J.M., & Massad, V.J. (2009). Interviewing the experts: student produced podcast. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 8.

This paper described a podcast project that required students to work in teams and interview “experts.” Students analyze information and communicate ideas using technology to showcase their work. Working as a group, students, select and research a topic, identify the objectives and brainstorm ideas that support the topic, organize the ideas using concept mapping, set up an interview, prepare a script, and produce the podcast without instructor involvement.

When a group is producing the podcast, they become digital storytellers as they work on literacy and communication skills, planning, organization, critical thinking, and teamwork.

Because knowledge is more important than the technology (the actual podcast), it is the planning stage that is most important because that is where the students use their critical thinking and analytical skills and where they are working as a team.

The learning objectives

  • integrate communication and knowledge
  • use the technology to effectively relay the message
  • critically analyze information and produce relevant content
  • demonstrate literacy skills in the script and research
  • learn the mechanics of technology without help from instructor
  • use creativity

The students found the project to be productive and helped them learn.

 

 

0

Student-Created Podcasting

Second Year Students’ Experiences as Podcasters of Content for First Year Undergraduates

Lee, M. J.W., Chan, A., & McLoughlin, C. (2008). Students as Producers: Second Year Students’ Experiences as Podcasters of Content for First Year Undergraduates. 7th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training.

At Charles Sturt University in Australia, Lee, Chan, and McLoughlin conducted a study where they used second year students to produce podcasts to “teach” first year students. In this particular study, the podcasts were not a reiteration of the lecture but a supplement to the lecture.

By having students from earlier classes teach the new students, the earlier students learn by teaching. Peer tutoring requires students to revisit and use cognitive skills to clarify and explain prior knowledge. Although the mentors are passing their learning on to new students, the outcome is that it is the student-producers gain the most from the experience.

in the design and development of instructional materials, it is the designers who learn the most, since the process of articulating their domain knowledge compels them to reflect on their knowledge in a new and meaningful way.

By producing podcasts, students increase their meta-cognitive skills as well as their cognitive skills. The process of creating podcasts affords the students the ability to revisit the material, reorganize what they have learned, to process the information in a new and meaningful way.

Students volunteers were those who had already successfully completed the class the prior year and were interested in “reinforcing and extending their learning.” The volunteers met and discussed topics, wrote their own scripts, cast roles for the presenters, learned the technology, practiced the script and revised as necessary. They worked with the strengths and weaknesses of the team members.

The results showed that the students found the experience a positive one with the student-producers expressing that the task increased their learning while providing them technical skills.

0

RSS

A web feed, sometimes called news feed or a syndicated feed, is data that is used to collect frequently updated content. A popular web feed is RSS, which means Really Simple Syndication. (Atom is another web feed.) Web feeds, or RSS, works like this. Content distributors, like blogs, wikis, magazines, news sources, podcasts, etc. syndicate a web feed, thereby allowing users to subscribe to it. Web feeds that are of interest to the end user are collected in one spot, using an aggregator, sometimes called an RSS reader or feed reader. The reader can be web-based, mail based, desktop based, or mobile based. A popular aggregator is Google Reader, although there are many others. Aggregator typed in a search engine will reveal many choices of readers.

The user subscribes to a feed by entering into the reader the feed’s URI or by clicking a feed icon, (which is usually an orange box with sound waves) in a web browser. This action initiates the subscription process, the user need only follow the directions. After the user has subscribed to the feed, the RSS reader will check the user’s subscribed feeds regularly for new feeds and will download any updates. The reader also provides an interface in which the user can monitor and read the feeds.
The advantages to a RSS feeds are many. A RSS feed allows users subscribe to websites that the user has an interest, thereby avoiding the manual process of logging into each site and finding out if there is something of interest to read. The RSS feed allows more content from more sources to be read in a shorter period of time, thereby streamlining research and learning. According to the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), literacy in the 21st Century states that a literate student must be able to “manage, analyze, and synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous information.” (NCTE, 2008) RSS helps with this skill.

Another advantage of the RSS feed is that RSS is not sent via e-mail (unless sent to an e-mail aggregrator, of course.) This means that it is free of email problems such as spam, viruses, and phishing. Also should the user decide not to continue with the feed, the user simply unsubscribes to the feed and does not have the problems associated with trying to unsubscribe to e-mail lists. (Mason & Rennie, 2008).

The educational learning theory, connectivism, theorizes central learning is accomplished through ideas that are supported by social and personal networks and is interconnected through engagement in experiential tasks. Connectivism synthesizes salient features and elements of several educational, social and technological theories and concepts. Connectivism views the teacher as having the role of a mediator and learning is the process of creating connections between nodes to form a network. “A key idea is that learning starts with the connections that students make with one another, as opposed to with a fixed body of content. RSS, and more broadly, the concept of content syndication, have the potential to support complex, many-to-many connections in line with this philosophy.” (Lee, Miler, & Newnham, 2008, p. 316).

Possible uses of RSS include personal learning environments in which students manage their own learning. Instead of using learning management systems which are controlled by the institutions, students select content based on their needs. Rather than being packaged for them, content is created and distributed, remixed and reused by syndication or RSS feeds. This allows more student control whereas the learner aggregates a diverse range of content for their own learning and encourages the student to follow new trends and developments, a skill students will need in their professional lives. This key benefit fosters learning from sources other than the university, encouraging learning from a wider range of experts. (Lee et. al).

Other possible uses of RSS is for cooperative and social learning. RSS helps build social networks and communities. (Learners also may reduce the complexity of materials by using the aggregators to organize the content.) RSS affords students the technology to move and mix information, encouraging learners to view information from a new perspective, fostering critical thinking skills.

Reference
Lee, M. J. W., Miller, C. & Newnham, L. (2008) RSS and content syndication in higher education: Subscribing to a new model of teaching and learning. Educational Media International, 45(4). doi: 10.1080/09523980802573255

Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and Social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge.

NCTE Position Statement (2008) 21st century curriculum and assessment framework.
Retrieved from: http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentframework

0

Learning to use RSS Feeds

I have been using RSS feeds on a limited basis for a couple of years now. I forgot to even mention it in my thread but I have about two years worth of French words from “French Word of the Day.” And I am a big Apple fan so I keep up all things Apple. Plus, Higher Ed jobs is a feed I watch pretty closely.

Even though feeds weren’t very new to me, before this class I always sent the feed to my email or to Firefox. But now I also upload to Google reader. It depends on where I am physically as to which feed I read.

Anyway,I did subscribe to several more feeds to align more with instructional technology. If I find a feed is a waste of time, I just delete it. But most of the time, I find something here or there in the feed that justifies the full mailbox. I probably delete 90% of the articles, but the 10% is worth the trouble.

I especially liked this discussion because most of my classmates gave links to their feeds and some of them seem really neat. Some of the feeds I checked out already and other feeds I have on my list to try. Most feeds are light reading. If I don’t have a journal article handy, I read a feed before bed. Seems crazy. But it is much more fun to read the information if I am doing it without a grade.

0

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑