Reaching the Last Technology Holdouts at the Front of the Classroom

"The challenge for our education system is to leverage the learning sciences and modern technology to create engaging, relevant, and personalized learning experiences for all learners that mirror students' daily lives and the reality of their futures," says the plan, which he helped write. The title of the report, "Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology," suggests that the country's teaching methods need a reboot.

http://chronicle.com/article/Reaching-the-Last-Technology/123659/

Make a Buzz!

I guess Buzz is becoming Google's new Web 2.0 WMD to kill Twitter and Facebook. It's probably making Google Wave obsolete too. Man...Don't get me started with Mcluhan's Laws of Media or Gartner's Hype Cycle.:)

Frameworks for distance education research

1. Five options for DE

Map of Distance Education Technology Options (Adapted from McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996).

2. Framework for DE research

Conceptual framework for studying distance education (Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2003)

3. Situated evaluation v quantitative approach?

Globalization & Emerging Technologies

Interrelationships between globalization & DE (p. 649)

• "Globalization implies that most people, if not all, are connected more or less contemporaneously with distant events, sometimes whether they like it or not. This 'time-space compression (Giddens, 1994, p.7) is not just limited to communications and transport, but also to economic activity. The social and cultural implications...are intimately connected." (Evans, 1997, p. 18)
• The human experience is altering fundamentally within a globalizing world because of: a. the speed and interactivity of new communications media; b. the fusion of cultural conditions

The tensions between globalization and the ways of living and learning

3 generations of DE technologies (p. 652)

1. "Correspondence Ed."
2. Aduiovisual media (radio & TV)
3. Computer-based communications technologies

Reference

Evans, T., & Nation, D. (2007). Globalization and emerging technologies. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 649-659). Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology

Jonassen, D. H. (2004). (Ed.). Handbook of research on educational communications an technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Part I. Theoretical foundations for educational communications & technology

1. Behaviorism & instructional technology (Burton, Moore, & Magliaro, pp. 3-36)

• The notion of the mind as computer has fallen into disfavor due to the mind-body separation-human as machines (Gardner v Skinner)
• DE's "any time, any place" asynchronous learning - issues of scalability, cost effectiveness, maximization of the learner's time, value added have brought to the forefront behavioral paradigms
  

2.

Part II. Hard technologies

Part III. Soft technologies

Part IV. Instructional design approaches

Part V. Instructional strategies

Part VI. Instructional message design

Part VII. Research methodologies

Choosing & using educational software: A teachers' guide

Squires, D., & McDougall, A. (1994). Choosing & using educational software: A teachers' guide. London: Falmer.

Chapter 6. Frameworks for studying educational software

1. Categorization (Classification by Application Type)

Two types

• Content-free (generic): in terms of the tasks it can perform (e.g. word, spreadsheets)
• Subject-specific: used in the teaching and learning of specific topics (e.g., science simulations, foreign language practice programs, arithmetic drill programs)

Problems

• criteria implicit, no clear rationale
• sensitive (increasing range requires constant revision & updating)
• some integrated software don't fall neatly into any one classification

2. Role (Classification by Educational Role)

Three modes

• Tutor: a surrogate teacher (e.g., drill & practice exercises, adaptive tutorial programs)
• Tool: useful capability programed into the computer (e.g., statistical analysis, word, graphics packages, data logging, info handling)
• Tutee: learners "teach" the computer through expressing their ideas and solutions to problems (e.g., Logo)

Problems

• Founded on the premise that the scope and nature of the software environment defines educational possibilities
• Focus on the software rather than the teacher and learner
• Ignoring important issues of teaching and learning

3. Rationale (Classification by Educational Rationale)

Four paradigms

• Instructional: mastery of content (sequencing, presentation, feedback reinforcement)
  
• Revelatory: learning by discovery & developing an intuitive feel for the field of study. student is the prime focus (e.g., simulation)
  
• Conjectural: the articulation and manipulation of ideas and hypothesis testing. Emphasis: development of understanding through the active construction of knowledge (e.g., Logo)
• Emancipatory: exploits the capacity of the computer to process large amounts of data dand perform many operations very quickly, to save students from spending time on laborious tasks that are necessary but incidental to their learning

Problems

• Tendency to regard software as belonging exclusively to one paradigm
• No consideration of the learning process

Chapter 7-10. A Perspectives Interactions Paradigm for studying Educational Software

The focus shall shift from attributes of the software itself (e.g., what does this package do? How does this program run?) to the use of software to enhance teaching and learning (e.g., what kinds of learning experiences might be set up or assisted by this package? What approaches to teaching fit this package?)

Three major "actors": the student(s), the teacher, and the designer

• Teacher-student link: direct 2-way physical and social interactions initiated or sponsored by the software; students more actively engaged in thinking and learning; teacher roles - Resource provider, manager, coach, researcher, facilitator
  
• Designer-student link: how student relate to and use software (cognitive development and human-computer interaction); learning theories: behaviorism (stimulus-response mechanism, e.g., Skinner, 1938) vs constructivism (learning as a process of accommodation and assimilation in which learners modify their internal cognitive structures through experience, e.g., Piaget); Three aspects of software design: learner control, complexity, challenge
  
  • What are the levels of learner control, task complexity, and challenge offered by the package?
  • How effective is the design in affording learners the intended level of control/
  • How are learners helped to cope with the complexity of the software?
  • What methods and approaches are used to provide learners with a challenge?
    
• Designer-teacher link: curriculum and associated pedagogies (curriculum development and approaches to teaching); relationship of the software to the curriculum (implicit, explicit, absent)
  
  • Identify implicit curriculum aims
  • Match explicit and implicit curriculum aims to perceived specific curriculum requirements
  • Realize the possibilities of 'subverting' explicit and implicit curriculum aims to specific curriculum requirements
  • Realize the educational possibilities of the use of software which initially has no explicit or implicit curriculum aims (e.g., The Geometric Supposer shifts from seeking answers to encouraging inquiry and investigation)

Chapter 11. Choosing and Using Educational Software

• Teacher/student
  
  • Selection
    
    • Implied role(s) of the teacher in the classroom
    • Expectations of the nature of classroom interactions
    • Customization: pedagogy
  • Evaluation
    
    • Actual role(s) of the teacher in the classroom
    • Observed nature of classroom interactions
    • Customization: pedagogy
      
• Designer/student
  
  • Selection
    
    • Implicit/explicit/absent theories of learning
    • User (student) access features
      
  • Evaluation
    
    • Appropriateness and effectiveness of theories of learning
    • Ease and extent of user (student) access
      
• Designer/teacher
  
  • Selection
    
    • Implicit/explicit/absent curriculum aims: content and process
    • Customization: content
      
  • Evaluation
    
    • Customization: content

Intercultural competence and the role of technology in teacher education

Davis, N., Cho, M. O., & Hagenson, L. (2005). Intercultural competence and the role of technology in teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (4), 384-394.

This article "focuses on intercultural education and the role of technology to facilitate such education in formal courses of teacher ed and in the lifelong reflective practices of educators. The role that information and communication technologies have in increasing the need for education related to globalization and to the increasing digital divide is also recognized. Intercultural ed is a general term pertaining to the ability to understand, empathize with, and respect all ethnicities. Multicultural ed, inclusive ed, ed for social justice, and international ed are terms often associated with intercultural ed. " Three theorectical perspectives and various challenges of applying technology to intercultural education are introduced.

Integrating intercultural online learning experiences into the computer classroom

St. Amant, K. (2002). Integrating intercultural online learning experiences into the computer classroom. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11 (3), 289-315.

"Technical communicators of the new millennium will need to develop certain skills to succeed in international online interactions (IOIs), and computer classrooms with online access can help students to develop these skills through direct interaction with materials and individuals from other cultures. This article presents exercises instructors can use to help students develop these particular skills."

Reflection on Computers as Mindtools

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32.

I remember I had a hard time drawing flow charts for my Instructional Design class last year. At first I tried to draw the charts with Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, or Photoshop. They didn't work so well. Then I started using Inspiration. I felt so happy that Inspiration had provided me with a handy tool that allowed me to visualize and connect all the ideas for the project. In addition, it also allowed me to hyperlink those ideas with related resources.

Another example is the use of MSN and Skype to communicate with my family and friends back in my home country. Making international phonecall is so expensive and inconvenient. Online chatting (text, voice, and video) saved me a lot of money and made the communication simple and effective.

According to Jonassen, technologies should not simply become tools that the learners learn from. Rather, they should engage the learners in a process of knowledge construction. The concept of "Computers as Mindtools" provides me an in-depth understanding of meaningful learning and critical thinking supported by computerized technologies that occurs in our daily life.

When drawing a flow chart with Inspiration for my Instructional Design class, the software helped me to analyze and organize what I know and what I was learning. Accompanying the use of technology were the high-order thinking skills, as my work was to develop a concept map that connected a large number of ideas to each other via links. This process is what Jonassen called "Semantic Networking." And the Inspiration software I used belongs to the semantic organization tool category, one important member of the Mindtool family.

When chatting with my friends and family online through MSN or Skype, I was engaged in a meaningful conversation with one or a group of people. Those conversation tools helped me to interpret or visualize the message (e.g., a smiley face icon, webcam) and sometimes provided me a community-like environment(multi-user chatting, NetMeeting) which promoted socially co-constructed learning and communication. And best of all, they are totally free and user-friendly!

Highlights from the article:

I. Technologies should not support learning by attempting to instruct the learners, but rather should be used as knowledge construction tools that students learn with, not from (p. 24).

II. Classification of Mindtools

1. Semantic Organization Tools (analyzing & organizing; represent semantic relationships among ideas)
1.1 Databases: computerized record keeping systems; analyzing and organizing subject matter (e.g., MS Access, Filemaker, dBase, MySQL)
1.2 Semantic Networking (concept mapping): represent the structural relationships of knowledge; reflect the process of knowledge construction (e.g., SemNet, Learning Tool, Inspiration, Mind Mapper)

2. Dynamic Modeling Tools (describe the dynamic relationships among ideas)
2.1 Spreadsheets: computerized, numerical record keeping system, amplifying mental functioning; requires abstract reasoning, supports problem-solving activities, higher order reasoning (e.g., Excel. Representing, reflecting on, and calculating quantitative information)
2.2 Expert Systems: program that simulates the way human experts solve problems; an artificial decision maker; problem-solving: (e.g., PyKe, MQL 4, CLIPS)
2.3 Systems Modeling Tools: building simulations of dynamic systems and processes (e.g., Stella, Model-It)
2.4 Microworlds: exploratory learning environments or discovery spaces in which learners can navigate, manipulate or create objects, and test their effects on one another; ultimate example of active learning environments, because the users can exercise so much control over the environment (e.g., Sims, Math Worlds, SimCalc)

3. Information Interpretation Tools (access and process the info; e.g., search engines scanning info resources like WWW, and locating relevant resources for learners)
3.1 Visualization Tools: represent and convey mental images (e.g. MacSpartan)

4. Knowledge Construction Tools: When learners function as designers of objects they learn more about them than they would from studying about them (e.g., Logo; Papert's constructionism)

5. Hypermedia: designing multimedia presentations requires project manage skills, research skills, organization and representation skills, presentation skills, and reflection skills (e.g., Flash, DreamWeaver, HTML)

6. Conversation Tools (socially co-constructed learning)
6.1 Online Telecommunications (sychronous: Chats, MOOs, MUDs, videoconferencing; asychronous: email, Listservs, bulletin boards, computer conferences)

III. Rationales for using technology as mindtools

• Learners as designers
  
  • the quickest way to learn about sth. is to have to teach it; learners are teaching the computer;
    
  • Mindtools require learner to think harder about the subject matter, constructing their own realities by designing their own knowledge base
• Knowledge construction, not reproduction (a constructivist use of tech)
  
  • Mindtools function as formalisms for guiding learners in organization and representation of what they know
    
  • Learners are actively engaged in interpreting the external world and reflecting on their interpretations (participate and interact with the environments - mindtools)
    
• Learning with technology
  
  • The effects of technology vs. the effect with technology
  • Learning w/ tech: the learner enters an intellectual partnership with the tech
  • Qualitatively upgrading the performance of the joint system of learner plus tech (mutual enhancement between the computer capabilities and the learner's thinking and learning); The whole of learning becomes greater than the sum of its parts
    
• (Un)intelligent tools
  
  • The appropriate role for a computer system is not that of a teacher/expert, but rather, that of a mind-extension cognitive tool
  • Planning, decision-making, and self-regulation of learning are the responsibility of the learner, not the computer
  • Computer system can serve as powerful catalysts for facilitating these skills
    
• Distributing cognitive processing
  
  • The learner and the computer should do the part they do best
    
  • Learners should be responsible for recognizing and judging patterns of information and then organizing it
  • The computer system should perform calculations, store, and retrieve information
    
• Cost and effort beneficial
  
  • software readily available & affordable
  • easy to learn
    
  
  

Journal Review #3: Post/Outcome Evaluation Model

Kovalik, C. L., & Dalton, D. W. (1999). The process/outcome evaluation model: A conceptual framework for assessment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27, 183-194.

The adoption of alternative pedagogical philosophies in the classroom had led to an increased use of technology to expand and enhance authentic, contextual learning environments. Correspondingly these new approaches had also led to a growing dissatisfaction with existing evaluation methodologies to evaluate knowledge. Based on the premise that evaluation strategies should reflect the full range of the experiences of learning, the authors proposed the Process/Outcome Evaluation Model (POEM) to guide in the development of more holistic evaluations of both the learning process and the resultant outcomes of that process.

The POEM framework comprised an evaluation matrix that contained four categories of measurements: hard-outcome, hard-process, soft-outcome, and soft-process. These four components employed multiple evaluation techniques and strategies resulting in a composite assessment of the totality of a learning experience by examining both the learning process and the learning outcome. The POEM expanded and integrated existing evaluation models by providing tools that could help decode, interpret, and assess not only what was learned, but also how the learning occurred.

The authors suggested that the POEM should be viewed as a continuum, reliability and predictive validity increase as evaluation strategies moved from “soft” to “hard” categories. The POEM stressed equilibrium between objective/quantifiable and subjective/qualitative evaluation approaches. The value of the model was its depiction of a holistic framework for evaluation.