Use of Wikibooks for collective knowledge generation in a graduate level qualitative research course
In the present study we focus on the use of a Wikibook at a graduate level course: EDCI 690 Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods, offered in a Research-I Southern US Institution. The purposes of this study are to explore students’ developing perception and emerging conceptualization of the use of Wikibooks in the given context and find out which of the instructional design decisions enable students to complete the course objectives.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Wikibooks are online public spaces where people participate in writing, editing, and revising the content in a variety of subjects. Wikibooks provide an innovative and non-conventional learning environment for college courses where students collaboratively author a text and also use the generated text as a resource. This innovative way of content generation and its use provide both opportunities and challenges for college courses. In the present study we focus on the use of a Wikibook at a graduate level course: EDCI 690 Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods, offered in a Research-I Southern US Institution. In the course offering, the instructor introduces the Wikibook website to the students in the beginning of the semester and asks them about their ideas of collaboratively authoring a book on the course content. After couple weeks of contemplation, students determine the topics they are interested in writing about. Each student is responsible for being the primary author of one chapter, hence deciding on its topic and drafting its content. In addition, students are asked to provide (a) editorial help and their review of their peers’ chapters and (b) technical and organizational help. Students not only collaborate in writing, editing, and revising the content of the course, but they also work as a group to organize and provide technical and other logistic support to one another as needed. Purposes The purposes of this study are to explore students’ developing perception and emerging conceptualization of the use of Wikibooks in the given context and find out which of the instructional design decisions enable students to complete the course objectives. Study findings will contribute to the literature by providing insights to the use of collective knowledge generation tools in education and constituting a road map for instructors and instructional designers who are planning on incorporating Wikibooks in their teaching practices, particularly in higher education. Research Questions The main research question guiding this investigation is: “How is a collective knowledge generation tool practiced in a graduate level course?” There are 3 sub-questions posed under the main research question: (1) “What roles the design decisions play in constructing the collective knowledge generation environment?” (2) “What are the students’ experiences with the Wikibook generation projects in their courses?” (3) “What are the instructors’ experiences with the Wikibook generation project in the courses?” and (4) “What are the students and the instructors’ views on the impact of the use of Wikibooks in education on the status quo of academic knowledge and its validity?” Methods This study is based on grounded theory. Over a semester, the students and the instructor will work together to collaboratively generate a Wikibook. The action this study focuses on exploring is the processes the students and the instructor will go through. By investigating this process, we aim at developing a theory that explains the complex and unstructured relations among students’ epistemological and pedagogical views in general and their views on the construction, practice, and evaluation of a collective knowledge generation tool; the Wikibook Project. Data Collection Study data will be collected using multiple resources. Below is a list of measures that will be used. 1) A perception and attitude survey: A survey including questions about the students’ existing knowledge, past experience, and perceptions about collective knowledge generation environments, such as Wikibooks and other Wiki tools, is given at the beginning of the semester. 2) Wikibooks pages: Students’ original writings, their reviews of their peers’ chapters, and the feedback they have provided to one another are recorded and used for evaluation. 3) Reflection papers: Students will be asked to write two reflection papers, one in the middle and one at the end of the semester, where they reflect on their developing perceptions and emerging conceptualizations of the use of Wikibooks in a given course. 4) Interviews: Open ended and semi-structured interview protocols will be developed and used to explore the students’ and the instructor’s experiences with the Wikibook Project. Volunteered students will be interviewed at the end of the semester. Group interviewing will take place to further elaborate the participants’ experiences. 5) In class observations: The classroom interactions will be observed, and the field notes will be taken. Students’ collaborations, their organizational and technical support to each other, their interactions with their peers will be recorded to help explicate the hidden and complex relation among students with one another.
Friday, February 20, 2009
empower research skills
Empower College Students' Research Skills Via Digital Media
This presentation focuses on demonstrating an ongoing project designed to utilize digital media for learning, instruction, and performance. By producing YouTube videos and Flash-based tutorials, the multimedia project team at a Midwest university library was able to provide virtual services for students who don’t usually come to library for research help. The design and development process for producing low-cost projects will be shared. An example of each type of digital media project will be provided.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
This presentation focuses on demonstrating an ongoing project designed to utilize digital media for learning, instruction, and performance. By producing YouTube videos and Flash-based tutorials, the multimedia project team at a Midwest university library was able to provide virtual services for digital natives who don’t usually come to library for research help. The design and development process for producing low-cost projects will be shared. An example of each type of digital media project will be provided. As the face of education and the idea of the university library are changing, getting students to ask for research help is a higher education challenge. Today's learners are known as digital natives, some of the characteristics of digital natives have been described as: they are multimedia oriented, web based, impatient, surface-oriented, nonlinear, multitasker, risk taker, creative, social, instant gratification, expressive, active involvement, constant engagement, prefer electronic environments, have electronic friends, less textural, less structures, and information overload (McLester, 2007). In particular, some characteristics give us an idea about how digital natives are accessing information. For example, digital natives are not looking for the right answer, they see all information equally whether the information is retrieved from Google, Wikipedia, and the sources to which those sites point them, and the gaps to access information are widening. Obviously, digital natives learn differently as their parents did. Palfrey and Gasser (2008, p. 241) argues that “there is no evidence to suggest that they are learning less..”. Therefore, rather than letting digital natives lose their way of learning; the challenge for universities and libraries is to help them make sense of the information and the surrounded context. What is digital media? Heinich et al. (2002) articulate medium as "a channel of communication" that "carries information between a source and a receiver" (p. 9, p.10). Over the years, new media has been elaborated to a broad definition as "digital, often having characteristics of being manipulability, networkable, dense, compressible, and impartial" (Wikipedia, 2008). According to Briggs (2007), digital media is content and services delivered over digital channels such as the Internet. While watched, the content and services can be connected (streaming/live) or unconnected (downloads/DVD). From YouTube to YouNiversity Since October 2008, several universities have been setting up channels on YouTube. The video collection is not only distributed educational content, but also "selling" the university to outer world. For example, being the first to launch YouTube, University of California-Berkeley offers a series of university courses for free; UChannel by Princeton University provides a collection of international and political affairs videos, or MIT's new collection of classroom lectures. Other universities include Vanderbilt, University of Southern California, Duke University, Purdue University, Oxford University, and Auburn University. Some university professors also use YouTube to extend their classroom, a well-known example is Dr. Michael L. Wesch, an assistant professor of cultural anthropology at Kansas State University, who made the video "Web 2.0: The Machine is Us/ing Us" and drew more than 400,000 views. Unquestionably, "Web video offers a new way for scholars to communicate" (Young, 2008). Begin in spring 2007, a multimedia production team was established at the University of Northern Iowa Library. The team’s primary goal is to produce a series of ongoing podcasts, YouTube videos, and Flash-based tutorials for virtual service. This team consists of a librarian and an instructional designer; in addition, some student assistants are hired to work with the team. The student assistants' roles vary based on the project need. Some of the main roles include: (1) brainstorm ideas to capture college students’ attention; (2) help polish scripts using their common language; (3) act in the videos; and (4) help edit and produce the final products. While the ultimate goal for these videos is to empower college students' research skills, these digital media projects are designed into small modules with clear purposes to meet the diverse students' needs. For example, for college freshmen, a series of "quick tips" such as how to use online databases, electronic newspaper resources, and how to schedule a research consultation were developed. For international students, tips for how to check out books, study rooms, DVDs, laptops, and lockers were developed. For specific research tools such as how to use print-based Social Science Citation Index and the library's meta-search engine, a series of Flash-based tutorials created by Adobe Captivate were developed. After the production, the videos were then announced on the University's online newspaper, the library’s news blog, and the library's print newsletter. This presentation focuses on demonstrating an ongoing project designed to utilize digital media for learning, instruction, and performance. By producing YouTube videos and Flash-based tutorials, the multimedia project team at a Midwest university library was able to provide virtual services for digital natives who don’t usually come to library for research help. The design and development process for producing low-cost projects will be shared. An example of each type of digital media project will be provided. In this session, the presenter will demonstrate this on going project that utilized digital media. The design and development process for producing low-cost projects will be shared. An example of each type of digital media project will be provided. Everyone who is interested in using digital media for learning, instruction, and performance will benefit from the participation. McLester, S. (2007, March 15). Technology Literacy and the MySpace Generation. Technology & Learning. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.techlearning.com/article/7074. Young, J. (2008, January 25). YouTube Professors: Scholars as Online Video Stars. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(20), A19-A19. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Professional Development Collection database. Jenkins, H. (2007). From YouTube to YouNiversity. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Rolls, A. (2006). New media (The reference shelf, v.78, n.2). New York: H.W. Wilson. Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books. Buckingham, D. & Willett, R. (2006). Digital generations: Children, young people, and new media. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Marselas, K. (2006). College lectures go digital. In A. Rolls. (Ed.), New media (The reference shelf, v.78, n.2) (pp. 117-119). New York: H. W. Wilson.
This presentation focuses on demonstrating an ongoing project designed to utilize digital media for learning, instruction, and performance. By producing YouTube videos and Flash-based tutorials, the multimedia project team at a Midwest university library was able to provide virtual services for students who don’t usually come to library for research help. The design and development process for producing low-cost projects will be shared. An example of each type of digital media project will be provided.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
This presentation focuses on demonstrating an ongoing project designed to utilize digital media for learning, instruction, and performance. By producing YouTube videos and Flash-based tutorials, the multimedia project team at a Midwest university library was able to provide virtual services for digital natives who don’t usually come to library for research help. The design and development process for producing low-cost projects will be shared. An example of each type of digital media project will be provided. As the face of education and the idea of the university library are changing, getting students to ask for research help is a higher education challenge. Today's learners are known as digital natives, some of the characteristics of digital natives have been described as: they are multimedia oriented, web based, impatient, surface-oriented, nonlinear, multitasker, risk taker, creative, social, instant gratification, expressive, active involvement, constant engagement, prefer electronic environments, have electronic friends, less textural, less structures, and information overload (McLester, 2007). In particular, some characteristics give us an idea about how digital natives are accessing information. For example, digital natives are not looking for the right answer, they see all information equally whether the information is retrieved from Google, Wikipedia, and the sources to which those sites point them, and the gaps to access information are widening. Obviously, digital natives learn differently as their parents did. Palfrey and Gasser (2008, p. 241) argues that “there is no evidence to suggest that they are learning less..”. Therefore, rather than letting digital natives lose their way of learning; the challenge for universities and libraries is to help them make sense of the information and the surrounded context. What is digital media? Heinich et al. (2002) articulate medium as "a channel of communication" that "carries information between a source and a receiver" (p. 9, p.10). Over the years, new media has been elaborated to a broad definition as "digital, often having characteristics of being manipulability, networkable, dense, compressible, and impartial" (Wikipedia, 2008). According to Briggs (2007), digital media is content and services delivered over digital channels such as the Internet. While watched, the content and services can be connected (streaming/live) or unconnected (downloads/DVD). From YouTube to YouNiversity Since October 2008, several universities have been setting up channels on YouTube. The video collection is not only distributed educational content, but also "selling" the university to outer world. For example, being the first to launch YouTube, University of California-Berkeley offers a series of university courses for free; UChannel by Princeton University provides a collection of international and political affairs videos, or MIT's new collection of classroom lectures. Other universities include Vanderbilt, University of Southern California, Duke University, Purdue University, Oxford University, and Auburn University. Some university professors also use YouTube to extend their classroom, a well-known example is Dr. Michael L. Wesch, an assistant professor of cultural anthropology at Kansas State University, who made the video "Web 2.0: The Machine is Us/ing Us" and drew more than 400,000 views. Unquestionably, "Web video offers a new way for scholars to communicate" (Young, 2008). Begin in spring 2007, a multimedia production team was established at the University of Northern Iowa Library. The team’s primary goal is to produce a series of ongoing podcasts, YouTube videos, and Flash-based tutorials for virtual service. This team consists of a librarian and an instructional designer; in addition, some student assistants are hired to work with the team. The student assistants' roles vary based on the project need. Some of the main roles include: (1) brainstorm ideas to capture college students’ attention; (2) help polish scripts using their common language; (3) act in the videos; and (4) help edit and produce the final products. While the ultimate goal for these videos is to empower college students' research skills, these digital media projects are designed into small modules with clear purposes to meet the diverse students' needs. For example, for college freshmen, a series of "quick tips" such as how to use online databases, electronic newspaper resources, and how to schedule a research consultation were developed. For international students, tips for how to check out books, study rooms, DVDs, laptops, and lockers were developed. For specific research tools such as how to use print-based Social Science Citation Index and the library's meta-search engine, a series of Flash-based tutorials created by Adobe Captivate were developed. After the production, the videos were then announced on the University's online newspaper, the library’s news blog, and the library's print newsletter. This presentation focuses on demonstrating an ongoing project designed to utilize digital media for learning, instruction, and performance. By producing YouTube videos and Flash-based tutorials, the multimedia project team at a Midwest university library was able to provide virtual services for digital natives who don’t usually come to library for research help. The design and development process for producing low-cost projects will be shared. An example of each type of digital media project will be provided. In this session, the presenter will demonstrate this on going project that utilized digital media. The design and development process for producing low-cost projects will be shared. An example of each type of digital media project will be provided. Everyone who is interested in using digital media for learning, instruction, and performance will benefit from the participation. McLester, S. (2007, March 15). Technology Literacy and the MySpace Generation. Technology & Learning. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.techlearning.com/article/7074. Young, J. (2008, January 25). YouTube Professors: Scholars as Online Video Stars. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(20), A19-A19. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from Professional Development Collection database. Jenkins, H. (2007). From YouTube to YouNiversity. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Rolls, A. (2006). New media (The reference shelf, v.78, n.2). New York: H.W. Wilson. Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books. Buckingham, D. & Willett, R. (2006). Digital generations: Children, young people, and new media. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Marselas, K. (2006). College lectures go digital. In A. Rolls. (Ed.), New media (The reference shelf, v.78, n.2) (pp. 117-119). New York: H. W. Wilson.
online course evaluation
Online Student Course Evaluation Systems: Effective Strategies and Best Practices
The study evaluates online course evaluation systems and explores faculty and student experiences, perceptions, and preferences for evaluation. In addition, traditional constructs such as response rates, quality of responses, and access are also evaluated. Results of the study provide an effective basis for institutional decision-making, and provide practical evidence for assuring the best course evaluation data possible. Experiences and best practices for implementation of online student course evaluations in higher education will be also highlighted.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Introduction Student course evaluations of teaching are a time-honored tradition within most higher education institutions. For administrators, they are important indicators of course and curriculum quality, and often weigh heavily in tenure and promotion decisions. In addition, they can be used on an individual basis for teaching and course improvement (Brown et al. 1997; Brockbank & McGill 1998). Because of their importance in instructional and institutional decision-making student evaluations of teaching have become a deep-rooted institutional fixture. Early investigations of course evaluation methods (paper-based vs. online) have yielded some interesting and distressing results. Perhaps the most universal difference reported is a lower response rate (Baum et. al. 2001; Hardy 2003; Carini et. al. 2003; Sax et. al. 2002) which faculty fear can contribute to non-response negative bias, however fears are often over exaggerated. Other studies, however, report that the differences in response rate have narrowed over time (Johnson 2002; Thorpe 2002). Another difference noted by a number of studies is a higher quality of written responses in online student course evaluations (Johnson 2002; Kasiar et al. 2001; Layne et al. 1999; Ravelli 2000). From a pedagogical perspective, one example illustrates how online course evaluation systems can help facilitate improvements in teaching and learning practices by providing more timely access to evaluation results (Tucker et al. 2003). From an administrative perspective there are demonstrated benefits as well, such as significant cost savings in time and materials. For example, one study found that staff workload decreased from approximately 30 hours spent on paper-based evaluations down to just 1 hour spent with online evaluations (Kasiar et al. 2001). Still it is not clear that the best practices and practical evidence from this body of research has benefited institutional adoption and implementation of online course evaluation systems, given the slow adoption of these systems compared to other educational technologies in higher education. The study intends to understand faculty and student experiences, perceptions, and preferences in regard to course evaluations, while also providing an updated evaluation of traditional constructs collected in earlier studies such as, response time, response quality, and response rate. Theoretical Framework In order to grasp this complex nature of any organization, the current study utilizes a socio-technical approach as the primary theoretical perspective. This approach suggests that both the social and technical aspects are equally important when implementing, using, or evaluating information technology (Kling et al. 2003). The conceptualization of educational technology systems as a socio-technical system is further supported by Moore & Kearsley (1996), who suggest that educational technologies are complex systems that involve a wide variety of technological, organizational, social, and instructional components. In an effort to conceptualize an online student course evaluation system as socio-technical system (STS) it is useful to note the important social and technological aspects that define it. An STS is comprised of identifiable populations, groups, incentives, actors, undesired interactions, flows, and choice points (Kling et al. 2003). It is our belief that the socio-technical approach will provide a framework to more thoroughly determine the advantages and disadvantages of online course evaluations, and will enable better procedures and best practices within our results by accounting for all aspects of the system. Importance of Study As recent as five years ago, few colleges and universities were using online student course evaluations of teaching. In fact, a recent report on higher education indicates that only 1% of the nation’s most “wired” universities reported institution-wide uses of online course evaluations systems (Hmieleski 2000) even though most of their other systems are highly technological including: the extensive use of learning management systems, email communication, podcasting, blogs, wikis and wireless technologies (Carlson 2005; Hoffman 2003). Along with the overall increase in the use of technology in all aspects of higher education, many recognize there are significant advantages to using online student course evaluations systems including: ease and economy of administration, more detailed and thoughtful student responses, more accurate data collection and reporting, more class time, and more timely instructor access to results (Johnson 2002; Hardy 2003; Kasiar et al. 2001; Layne et al. 1999; Ravelli 2000). This change is driven not only by the administration, in effort to save costs and boost staff productivity, but also by the students themselves who increasingly demand the latest technologies (Carlson 2005). The study utilizes a mixed methods approach and provides a combination of data gathered via survey, as well as student evaluation data from both paper-based and online evaluations in order to uncover advantages and disadvantages regarding the use of online course evaluations. Data has been collected from a purposeful sample of in-class, paper-based, course evaluations (N=45), and from a random sample of online course evaluations (N=95). All courses and participants are from a School of Education at a large midwestern state university. Survey and qualitative data have been collected from instructors and students, and data has been mined from the universities learning management system to provide triangulation on several of the studies constructs. A series of qualitative interviews have also been conducted with a small subset of student and faculty participants. Preliminary results indicate positive outcomes with the schools pilot implementation of online course evaluations using the STS approach in regard to faculty and student experiences and preferences, and are in-line with that of other campus educational technologies. Response rates, response time and response quality also indicate overall positive trends and yield some interesting findings. Completed results will help instructional technologists, and educational organizations apply best practices for implementing online course evaluation systems as socio-technical systems, as well as provide strategies for those that would like to improve upon current course evaluation practices. Conclusion There is a need for current research on this topic given the changing technology climate and apparent lag of online course evaluation system implementation by higher education institutions. The current study will step beyond previous comparison studies to evaluate online course evaluation system use while also exploring the reality of faculty and student experiences, perceptions, and preferences. The results of this study will provide best practices for implementation of online student course evaluations in higher education. References Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education. Bristol, England: Open University Press. Brown, S., Race, P., and Smith, B. 500 Tips for Quality Enhancement in Universities and Colleges. London, England: Kogan Page, 1997 Baum, P., Chapman, K. S., Dommeyer, C.J. & Hanna, R. W. (2001) Online versus in-class student evaluations of faculty, paper presented at the Hawaii Conference on Business, Honolulu. Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C., Kuh, G. D., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College student responses to web and paper surveys: does mode matter? Research in Higher Education, 44(1), 1–19. Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Information Technology. Retrieved December 4, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i07/07a03401.htm Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W., & Chapman, K. S. (2002). Attitudes of business faculty toward two methods of collecting teaching evaluations: paper vs. online. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 611-624. Hmieleski, K. (2000). Barriers to online evaluation: Surveying the nation’s top 200 most wired colleges. Interactive and Distance Education Assessment Laboratory, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Unpublished Report): Troy, N.Y. Hoffman, K. M. (2003). Online course evaluation and reporting in higher education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 96, 25-30. Hardy, N. (2003) Online ratings: Fact and fiction. In D. L. Sorenson and T.D. Johnson (Eds.), New directions for Teaching and Learning, 96 (4) 31-38. Johnson, R. (2002) “Online Student Ratings: Will Students Respond?” In D. L. Sorenson and T.D. Johnson (Eds.), New directions for Teaching and Learning, 96 (4), 49-59. Kling, R., McKim, G., & King, A. (2003). A bit more to IT: Scholarly communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 47-67. Kasiar, J. B., Schroeder, S. L., & Holstad, S. G. (2001). Comparison of traditional and web-based course evaluation processes in a required, team-taught pharmacotherapy course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 63(2), 68-70. Layne, B. H., DeCristofor, J. R., & McGinty, D. (1999). Electronic versus traditional student ratings of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 221-32. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Sax, L., Gilmartin, S., Keup, J., Bryant, A. and Plecha, M. (2002). Findings from the 2001 pilot administration of Your First College Year: National norms. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/yfcy/yfcy_report_02.pdf Ravelli, B. (2000). Anonymous online teaching assessments: Preliminary findings. Paper presented at: Annual National Conference of the American Association for Higher Education, June 14-18, 2000, Charlotte, North Carolina. Tucker, B., Jones, S., Straker, L., & Cole, J. (2003). Course evaluation on the web: Facilitating student and teacher reflection to improve learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 96(Winter), 81-94.
The study evaluates online course evaluation systems and explores faculty and student experiences, perceptions, and preferences for evaluation. In addition, traditional constructs such as response rates, quality of responses, and access are also evaluated. Results of the study provide an effective basis for institutional decision-making, and provide practical evidence for assuring the best course evaluation data possible. Experiences and best practices for implementation of online student course evaluations in higher education will be also highlighted.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Introduction Student course evaluations of teaching are a time-honored tradition within most higher education institutions. For administrators, they are important indicators of course and curriculum quality, and often weigh heavily in tenure and promotion decisions. In addition, they can be used on an individual basis for teaching and course improvement (Brown et al. 1997; Brockbank & McGill 1998). Because of their importance in instructional and institutional decision-making student evaluations of teaching have become a deep-rooted institutional fixture. Early investigations of course evaluation methods (paper-based vs. online) have yielded some interesting and distressing results. Perhaps the most universal difference reported is a lower response rate (Baum et. al. 2001; Hardy 2003; Carini et. al. 2003; Sax et. al. 2002) which faculty fear can contribute to non-response negative bias, however fears are often over exaggerated. Other studies, however, report that the differences in response rate have narrowed over time (Johnson 2002; Thorpe 2002). Another difference noted by a number of studies is a higher quality of written responses in online student course evaluations (Johnson 2002; Kasiar et al. 2001; Layne et al. 1999; Ravelli 2000). From a pedagogical perspective, one example illustrates how online course evaluation systems can help facilitate improvements in teaching and learning practices by providing more timely access to evaluation results (Tucker et al. 2003). From an administrative perspective there are demonstrated benefits as well, such as significant cost savings in time and materials. For example, one study found that staff workload decreased from approximately 30 hours spent on paper-based evaluations down to just 1 hour spent with online evaluations (Kasiar et al. 2001). Still it is not clear that the best practices and practical evidence from this body of research has benefited institutional adoption and implementation of online course evaluation systems, given the slow adoption of these systems compared to other educational technologies in higher education. The study intends to understand faculty and student experiences, perceptions, and preferences in regard to course evaluations, while also providing an updated evaluation of traditional constructs collected in earlier studies such as, response time, response quality, and response rate. Theoretical Framework In order to grasp this complex nature of any organization, the current study utilizes a socio-technical approach as the primary theoretical perspective. This approach suggests that both the social and technical aspects are equally important when implementing, using, or evaluating information technology (Kling et al. 2003). The conceptualization of educational technology systems as a socio-technical system is further supported by Moore & Kearsley (1996), who suggest that educational technologies are complex systems that involve a wide variety of technological, organizational, social, and instructional components. In an effort to conceptualize an online student course evaluation system as socio-technical system (STS) it is useful to note the important social and technological aspects that define it. An STS is comprised of identifiable populations, groups, incentives, actors, undesired interactions, flows, and choice points (Kling et al. 2003). It is our belief that the socio-technical approach will provide a framework to more thoroughly determine the advantages and disadvantages of online course evaluations, and will enable better procedures and best practices within our results by accounting for all aspects of the system. Importance of Study As recent as five years ago, few colleges and universities were using online student course evaluations of teaching. In fact, a recent report on higher education indicates that only 1% of the nation’s most “wired” universities reported institution-wide uses of online course evaluations systems (Hmieleski 2000) even though most of their other systems are highly technological including: the extensive use of learning management systems, email communication, podcasting, blogs, wikis and wireless technologies (Carlson 2005; Hoffman 2003). Along with the overall increase in the use of technology in all aspects of higher education, many recognize there are significant advantages to using online student course evaluations systems including: ease and economy of administration, more detailed and thoughtful student responses, more accurate data collection and reporting, more class time, and more timely instructor access to results (Johnson 2002; Hardy 2003; Kasiar et al. 2001; Layne et al. 1999; Ravelli 2000). This change is driven not only by the administration, in effort to save costs and boost staff productivity, but also by the students themselves who increasingly demand the latest technologies (Carlson 2005). The study utilizes a mixed methods approach and provides a combination of data gathered via survey, as well as student evaluation data from both paper-based and online evaluations in order to uncover advantages and disadvantages regarding the use of online course evaluations. Data has been collected from a purposeful sample of in-class, paper-based, course evaluations (N=45), and from a random sample of online course evaluations (N=95). All courses and participants are from a School of Education at a large midwestern state university. Survey and qualitative data have been collected from instructors and students, and data has been mined from the universities learning management system to provide triangulation on several of the studies constructs. A series of qualitative interviews have also been conducted with a small subset of student and faculty participants. Preliminary results indicate positive outcomes with the schools pilot implementation of online course evaluations using the STS approach in regard to faculty and student experiences and preferences, and are in-line with that of other campus educational technologies. Response rates, response time and response quality also indicate overall positive trends and yield some interesting findings. Completed results will help instructional technologists, and educational organizations apply best practices for implementing online course evaluation systems as socio-technical systems, as well as provide strategies for those that would like to improve upon current course evaluation practices. Conclusion There is a need for current research on this topic given the changing technology climate and apparent lag of online course evaluation system implementation by higher education institutions. The current study will step beyond previous comparison studies to evaluate online course evaluation system use while also exploring the reality of faculty and student experiences, perceptions, and preferences. The results of this study will provide best practices for implementation of online student course evaluations in higher education. References Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education. Bristol, England: Open University Press. Brown, S., Race, P., and Smith, B. 500 Tips for Quality Enhancement in Universities and Colleges. London, England: Kogan Page, 1997 Baum, P., Chapman, K. S., Dommeyer, C.J. & Hanna, R. W. (2001) Online versus in-class student evaluations of faculty, paper presented at the Hawaii Conference on Business, Honolulu. Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C., Kuh, G. D., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College student responses to web and paper surveys: does mode matter? Research in Higher Education, 44(1), 1–19. Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Information Technology. Retrieved December 4, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i07/07a03401.htm Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W., & Chapman, K. S. (2002). Attitudes of business faculty toward two methods of collecting teaching evaluations: paper vs. online. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 611-624. Hmieleski, K. (2000). Barriers to online evaluation: Surveying the nation’s top 200 most wired colleges. Interactive and Distance Education Assessment Laboratory, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Unpublished Report): Troy, N.Y. Hoffman, K. M. (2003). Online course evaluation and reporting in higher education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 96, 25-30. Hardy, N. (2003) Online ratings: Fact and fiction. In D. L. Sorenson and T.D. Johnson (Eds.), New directions for Teaching and Learning, 96 (4) 31-38. Johnson, R. (2002) “Online Student Ratings: Will Students Respond?” In D. L. Sorenson and T.D. Johnson (Eds.), New directions for Teaching and Learning, 96 (4), 49-59. Kling, R., McKim, G., & King, A. (2003). A bit more to IT: Scholarly communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 47-67. Kasiar, J. B., Schroeder, S. L., & Holstad, S. G. (2001). Comparison of traditional and web-based course evaluation processes in a required, team-taught pharmacotherapy course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 63(2), 68-70. Layne, B. H., DeCristofor, J. R., & McGinty, D. (1999). Electronic versus traditional student ratings of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 221-32. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Sax, L., Gilmartin, S., Keup, J., Bryant, A. and Plecha, M. (2002). Findings from the 2001 pilot administration of Your First College Year: National norms. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/yfcy/yfcy_report_02.pdf Ravelli, B. (2000). Anonymous online teaching assessments: Preliminary findings. Paper presented at: Annual National Conference of the American Association for Higher Education, June 14-18, 2000, Charlotte, North Carolina. Tucker, B., Jones, S., Straker, L., & Cole, J. (2003). Course evaluation on the web: Facilitating student and teacher reflection to improve learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 96(Winter), 81-94.
working across multiple disciplines
An Odd Assortment of People: Benefits of Working and Learning Across Multiple Disciplines
This presentation includes a discussion of how university researchers and instructors were recruited from multiple disciplines in order to implement an integrative and interdisciplinary learning environment for high school students. The high school students learned several science and technology topics related to hurricanes and produced a multimedia documentary of personal experiences with Hurricane Katrina. A discussion of the results and benefits to all participants is also included.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
PURPOSE The purpose of this presentation is to discuss how to recruit interdisciplinary researchers and instructors and design and manage an interdisciplinary learning environment that is grounded on relevant research and theory. The project for discussion included instructional design and development faculty, instructional design and development graduate students, teacher education and media specialist graduate students, and counselor educators from a College of Education; faculty from meteorology from a College of Arts and Sciences; graduate assistants from a College of Engineering; a high school principal; and professionals in the community (television newscasters, videographers, and an area water system administrator). The learning environment involved a high school/university collaboration where students learned several science and information technology topics related to hurricanes and produced a multimedia documentary of personal experiences with Hurricane Katrina. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The design of the learning environment was grounded on relevant research and theory that included Keller’s (1987) ARCS Model of Motivation, analysis of critical incidents requiring contribution from several different disciplines (Carter, Kang, & Taggart, 1999), links between informal and school-based learning (La Velle, McFarlane, & Brawn, 2003; Reynolds, Treharne, & Tripp, 2003), and constructive activities related to the disaster that are helpful to people who experienced the disaster (Lazarus, Jimerson, & Brock, 2002; Vernberg & Vogel, 1993). The learning environment was designed so that students participated in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) experiences that were relevant to what happened in their lives as a result of the hurricane. METHODS Strategies for designing the learning environment were developed before the project was conceived. For example, seeking out knowledge of potential interdisciplinary collaborators must be at the forefront of the plan. With knowledge of the work of others in mind, the next step is to initiate a discussion. This begins the collaboration process and one discussion leads to other contacts and discussions. In addition to the university faculty involved in the project, most of the graduate assistants working on the project were teachers and/or media specialists enrolled in a graduate educational research class. The graduate assistants’ participation was associated with an optional assignment for the class. The project provided an opportunity for the graduate assistants to collaborate and conduct research with the university faculty and high school students in a technology-enhanced learning environment. The graduate students also had the opportunity to gather information about student motivation in science and information technology, the use of digital technologies, the design of learner-centered activities, and the management of a technology-enhanced learning environment. DATA SOURCES In this particular instance, knowledge of interdisciplinary collaborators came from colleagues within the Instructional Design and Development program and Counselor Education program in the College of Education. Knowledge of other interdisciplinary collaborators from other colleges came from paying attention to sources of information such as internal university news reports of special projects undertaken by faculty throughout the university, announcements at organization-wide meetings, and articles of special interest in local newspapers. For the purposes of studying the effectiveness of the project, several instruments were used that included the Attitude Toward Science and Mathematics Scale (Teshome, Maushak, & Athreya, 2001), the Computer Attitude Questionnaire (Knezek, Christensen, & Miyashita, 2000, the Impact of Event Scale - Revised (Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez, 1979; Sundin & Horowitz, 2003; Weiss & Marmar, 1997), the Hostility-SCL-90, the Modified Depression Scale, reports of interviews with students who participated in the project, reports of interviews conducted by the students themselves within the community, and students’ written reports of their experiences in the class. Evaluation instruments such as those just described are often used in design and development research studies (Richey & Klein, 2007). RESULTS The results of the interdisciplinary recruitment led to the inclusion of instructional design and development faculty, instructional design and development graduate students, teacher education and media specialist graduate students, and counselor educators from a College of Education; faculty from meteorology from a College of Arts and Sciences; graduate assistants from a College of Engineering; a high school principal; and professionals in the community (television newscasters, videographers, and an area water system administrator). Just as important, the students participating in the project worked in a highly collaborative environment. The development of the final hurricane documentary was a collaborative effort of the high school students, the graduate students, and the university faculty. In addition, the digital photos and videos taken during learning activities serve as a chronicle and evidence of the integrative science and technology standards met with this project. IMPLICATIONS FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION This project required the use of information technology within applications of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The high school students received guidance and instruction from university faculty and professional role models from a variety of disciplines. The students fulfilled actual work requirements that included critical thinking and problem solving, gathering and analyzing information, communicating orally and in writing, collaborating with culturally diverse members of a team, and organizing and presenting information with the use of information technology. IMPLICATIONS FOR GRADUATE TEACHER EDUCATION Most of the graduate assistants working on this project were teachers and/or media specialists enrolled in a graduate educational research class. The graduate assistants’ participation was associated with an optional assignment for the class. This project provided an opportunity for the graduate assistants to collaborate and conduct research with the university faculty and high school students in a technology-enhanced learning environment. The graduate students also had the opportunity to gather information about student motivation in science and information technology, the use of digital technologies, the design of learner-centered activities, and the management of a technology-enhanced learning environment. REFERENCES Carter, S., Kang, M., & Taggart, R. (1999). An interdisciplinary approach to a critical incident course. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 54(2) 4 – 14. Horowitz, M., Wilner, N., & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact of Event Scale: A measure of subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41(3), 209 – 218. Keller, J. M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1 – 7. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Miyashita, K. (2000). Instruments for assessing attitudes toward information technology (2nd ed.). Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning, University of North Texas. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.iittl.unt.edu/IITTL/newiittl/iittl_instruments/caq/iittl_caq_main.html La Velle, L. B., McFarlane, A., & Brawn, R. (2003). Knowledge transformation through ICT in science education: A case study in teacher-driven curriculum development – case-study 1. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 183 – 199. Lazarus, P. J., Jimerson, S. R., & Brock, S. E. (2002). Best practices in school crisis prevention and intervention. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Reynolds, D., Treharne, D., & Tripp, H. (2003). ICT – the hopes and the reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 151 – 167. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sundin, E. C., & Horowitz, M. J. (2003). Horowitz’s Impact of Event Scale evaluation of 20 years of use. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(8), 870 – 876. Teshome, Y., Maushak, N., & Athreya, K. (2001). Attitude toward informal science and math: A survey of boys and girls participating in hands-on science and math (FUNTIVITIES). Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(1), 59 – 74. Vernberg, E. M., & Vogel, J. M. (1993). Part 2: Interventions with children after disasters. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(4), 485-498. Weiss, D. S., & Marmar, C. R. (1997). The Impact of Event Scale – Revised. In J. P. Wilson & T. M. Keane (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD (pp. 399 – 411). New York: Guilford.
This presentation includes a discussion of how university researchers and instructors were recruited from multiple disciplines in order to implement an integrative and interdisciplinary learning environment for high school students. The high school students learned several science and technology topics related to hurricanes and produced a multimedia documentary of personal experiences with Hurricane Katrina. A discussion of the results and benefits to all participants is also included.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
PURPOSE The purpose of this presentation is to discuss how to recruit interdisciplinary researchers and instructors and design and manage an interdisciplinary learning environment that is grounded on relevant research and theory. The project for discussion included instructional design and development faculty, instructional design and development graduate students, teacher education and media specialist graduate students, and counselor educators from a College of Education; faculty from meteorology from a College of Arts and Sciences; graduate assistants from a College of Engineering; a high school principal; and professionals in the community (television newscasters, videographers, and an area water system administrator). The learning environment involved a high school/university collaboration where students learned several science and information technology topics related to hurricanes and produced a multimedia documentary of personal experiences with Hurricane Katrina. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The design of the learning environment was grounded on relevant research and theory that included Keller’s (1987) ARCS Model of Motivation, analysis of critical incidents requiring contribution from several different disciplines (Carter, Kang, & Taggart, 1999), links between informal and school-based learning (La Velle, McFarlane, & Brawn, 2003; Reynolds, Treharne, & Tripp, 2003), and constructive activities related to the disaster that are helpful to people who experienced the disaster (Lazarus, Jimerson, & Brock, 2002; Vernberg & Vogel, 1993). The learning environment was designed so that students participated in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) experiences that were relevant to what happened in their lives as a result of the hurricane. METHODS Strategies for designing the learning environment were developed before the project was conceived. For example, seeking out knowledge of potential interdisciplinary collaborators must be at the forefront of the plan. With knowledge of the work of others in mind, the next step is to initiate a discussion. This begins the collaboration process and one discussion leads to other contacts and discussions. In addition to the university faculty involved in the project, most of the graduate assistants working on the project were teachers and/or media specialists enrolled in a graduate educational research class. The graduate assistants’ participation was associated with an optional assignment for the class. The project provided an opportunity for the graduate assistants to collaborate and conduct research with the university faculty and high school students in a technology-enhanced learning environment. The graduate students also had the opportunity to gather information about student motivation in science and information technology, the use of digital technologies, the design of learner-centered activities, and the management of a technology-enhanced learning environment. DATA SOURCES In this particular instance, knowledge of interdisciplinary collaborators came from colleagues within the Instructional Design and Development program and Counselor Education program in the College of Education. Knowledge of other interdisciplinary collaborators from other colleges came from paying attention to sources of information such as internal university news reports of special projects undertaken by faculty throughout the university, announcements at organization-wide meetings, and articles of special interest in local newspapers. For the purposes of studying the effectiveness of the project, several instruments were used that included the Attitude Toward Science and Mathematics Scale (Teshome, Maushak, & Athreya, 2001), the Computer Attitude Questionnaire (Knezek, Christensen, & Miyashita, 2000, the Impact of Event Scale - Revised (Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez, 1979; Sundin & Horowitz, 2003; Weiss & Marmar, 1997), the Hostility-SCL-90, the Modified Depression Scale, reports of interviews with students who participated in the project, reports of interviews conducted by the students themselves within the community, and students’ written reports of their experiences in the class. Evaluation instruments such as those just described are often used in design and development research studies (Richey & Klein, 2007). RESULTS The results of the interdisciplinary recruitment led to the inclusion of instructional design and development faculty, instructional design and development graduate students, teacher education and media specialist graduate students, and counselor educators from a College of Education; faculty from meteorology from a College of Arts and Sciences; graduate assistants from a College of Engineering; a high school principal; and professionals in the community (television newscasters, videographers, and an area water system administrator). Just as important, the students participating in the project worked in a highly collaborative environment. The development of the final hurricane documentary was a collaborative effort of the high school students, the graduate students, and the university faculty. In addition, the digital photos and videos taken during learning activities serve as a chronicle and evidence of the integrative science and technology standards met with this project. IMPLICATIONS FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION This project required the use of information technology within applications of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The high school students received guidance and instruction from university faculty and professional role models from a variety of disciplines. The students fulfilled actual work requirements that included critical thinking and problem solving, gathering and analyzing information, communicating orally and in writing, collaborating with culturally diverse members of a team, and organizing and presenting information with the use of information technology. IMPLICATIONS FOR GRADUATE TEACHER EDUCATION Most of the graduate assistants working on this project were teachers and/or media specialists enrolled in a graduate educational research class. The graduate assistants’ participation was associated with an optional assignment for the class. This project provided an opportunity for the graduate assistants to collaborate and conduct research with the university faculty and high school students in a technology-enhanced learning environment. The graduate students also had the opportunity to gather information about student motivation in science and information technology, the use of digital technologies, the design of learner-centered activities, and the management of a technology-enhanced learning environment. REFERENCES Carter, S., Kang, M., & Taggart, R. (1999). An interdisciplinary approach to a critical incident course. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 54(2) 4 – 14. Horowitz, M., Wilner, N., & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact of Event Scale: A measure of subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41(3), 209 – 218. Keller, J. M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1 – 7. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Miyashita, K. (2000). Instruments for assessing attitudes toward information technology (2nd ed.). Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning, University of North Texas. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.iittl.unt.edu/IITTL/newiittl/iittl_instruments/caq/iittl_caq_main.html La Velle, L. B., McFarlane, A., & Brawn, R. (2003). Knowledge transformation through ICT in science education: A case study in teacher-driven curriculum development – case-study 1. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 183 – 199. Lazarus, P. J., Jimerson, S. R., & Brock, S. E. (2002). Best practices in school crisis prevention and intervention. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Reynolds, D., Treharne, D., & Tripp, H. (2003). ICT – the hopes and the reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 151 – 167. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sundin, E. C., & Horowitz, M. J. (2003). Horowitz’s Impact of Event Scale evaluation of 20 years of use. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(8), 870 – 876. Teshome, Y., Maushak, N., & Athreya, K. (2001). Attitude toward informal science and math: A survey of boys and girls participating in hands-on science and math (FUNTIVITIES). Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(1), 59 – 74. Vernberg, E. M., & Vogel, J. M. (1993). Part 2: Interventions with children after disasters. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(4), 485-498. Weiss, D. S., & Marmar, C. R. (1997). The Impact of Event Scale – Revised. In J. P. Wilson & T. M. Keane (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD (pp. 399 – 411). New York: Guilford.
online blogging and voting
Transforming Learning and Instruction through an Online Blogging and Voting Environment
Using blogs in higher education is becoming commonplace. Many educators are using blogs to increase student interaction with their peers. However, is there a right way to design and implement an online blogging environment? This presentation introduces a blogging environment that allows students to comment and vote on their peers’ entries, thus enabling them to dictate the classroom discussion based on their votes. The environment is created using Pligg: an Open Source Content Sharing and Rating System.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
INTRODUCTION Blogging (i.e. web logging) as an educational tool is a hot topic. Many researchers have commented and provided research on how we blog and the uses of blogs as learning spaces in higher education (Nardi et. al., 2004; Williams and Jacobs, 2004). In their article, Williams and Jacobs state that “blogs have the potential, at least, to be a truly transformational technology in that they provide students with a high level of autonomy while simultaneously providing opportunity for greater interaction with peers” (2004). The benefits for using blogs and commenting on blogs in higher education are apparent. There is evidence that the blogging world and educational uses of blogging are continuing to expand (Williams and Jacobs, 2004). All educators, not only higher education, must respond to this evidence by becoming familiar with the design and implementation of online blogging environments. However, what does the design of a blogging system for use in higher education look like? There are several similar questions that must be answered. How do we design a blog system that provides an "opportunity for greater interaction with peers" (2004)? How do we enhance the class discussion utilizing topics that are discussed and commented on in the blogging environment? How do we provide students with the resources and skills needed to easily acclimate with a blogging system and buy-in to the use of a blogging system as part of the classroom environment? This presentation will provide the answers to these questions through the demonstration of the design and implementation of a blogging system used during the spring 2009 semester in an educational technology course. The course entitled Instructional Technology for Educators was comprised of twenty-five undergraduate education majors. In a pre-use survey, twenty of the students had never heard of or never used blogs before. There were three goals in the design of the online blogging system. The first goal of the blogging system was to create an environment where students could login, view, and comment on every blog entry from class on one site, eliminating the need to enter multiple URL addresses to comment on their peers’ entries. The second goal was to create an environment where students could vote on entries that they would like to discuss in class, thus leading to student participation in the class discussions. Finally, the third goal was to provide students with the resources and skills needed to easily access and gain familiarity with the blogging environment. The design of the system relied on the use and knowledge of open source content management systems. Two open source systems were selected for use. First, Movable Type was used as part of the university blogging system to allow students to submit blog entries on their own personal university space. Second, Pligg was used to aggregate student blog entries to one website and provide the tools to vote and comment on the entries. Each week during the semester, students were required to submit a blog summary and critique in response to a reading on a topic in instructional technology. Student entries were aggregated using the Pligg site. Once aggregated, students were able to go into the open source system and vote on and comment on blog entries from other students. The voting system was then used to lead and guide class discussions during the in-class portion of course. In other words, each week the instructor would highlight posts that had multiple votes and use them as conversation starters in class. METHOD In-use, and post-use surveys will be completed by the students about their experiences with and perceptions of using the blogging system by the end of April. This presentation will include the results from the survey data. The student responses will provide valuable information on students’ perceptions and uses of an online blogging environment. Attendees will gain valuable information on how to design, set up and implement an online blogging environment that enables commenting and voting on student blog entries. In addition, attendees will be given the knowledge and tools to stay current with the use of blogging in education and will leave knowing how to design a blogging system that provides an opportunity for "greater interaction with peers", enhances the class discussion utilizing topics that were voted on in the blogging environment, and provides students with the resources and skills needed to easily acclimate with a blogging system and buy-in to the use of a blogging system as part of the classroom environment. SOURCES Nardi, B.A., Schiano, D.J., Gumbrecht, M., and Swartz, L. (2004). Why We Blog. Communications of the ACM. 47 (12), 41-46. Williams, J.B. and Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher educator sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20 (2), 232-247.
Using blogs in higher education is becoming commonplace. Many educators are using blogs to increase student interaction with their peers. However, is there a right way to design and implement an online blogging environment? This presentation introduces a blogging environment that allows students to comment and vote on their peers’ entries, thus enabling them to dictate the classroom discussion based on their votes. The environment is created using Pligg: an Open Source Content Sharing and Rating System.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
INTRODUCTION Blogging (i.e. web logging) as an educational tool is a hot topic. Many researchers have commented and provided research on how we blog and the uses of blogs as learning spaces in higher education (Nardi et. al., 2004; Williams and Jacobs, 2004). In their article, Williams and Jacobs state that “blogs have the potential, at least, to be a truly transformational technology in that they provide students with a high level of autonomy while simultaneously providing opportunity for greater interaction with peers” (2004). The benefits for using blogs and commenting on blogs in higher education are apparent. There is evidence that the blogging world and educational uses of blogging are continuing to expand (Williams and Jacobs, 2004). All educators, not only higher education, must respond to this evidence by becoming familiar with the design and implementation of online blogging environments. However, what does the design of a blogging system for use in higher education look like? There are several similar questions that must be answered. How do we design a blog system that provides an "opportunity for greater interaction with peers" (2004)? How do we enhance the class discussion utilizing topics that are discussed and commented on in the blogging environment? How do we provide students with the resources and skills needed to easily acclimate with a blogging system and buy-in to the use of a blogging system as part of the classroom environment? This presentation will provide the answers to these questions through the demonstration of the design and implementation of a blogging system used during the spring 2009 semester in an educational technology course. The course entitled Instructional Technology for Educators was comprised of twenty-five undergraduate education majors. In a pre-use survey, twenty of the students had never heard of or never used blogs before. There were three goals in the design of the online blogging system. The first goal of the blogging system was to create an environment where students could login, view, and comment on every blog entry from class on one site, eliminating the need to enter multiple URL addresses to comment on their peers’ entries. The second goal was to create an environment where students could vote on entries that they would like to discuss in class, thus leading to student participation in the class discussions. Finally, the third goal was to provide students with the resources and skills needed to easily access and gain familiarity with the blogging environment. The design of the system relied on the use and knowledge of open source content management systems. Two open source systems were selected for use. First, Movable Type was used as part of the university blogging system to allow students to submit blog entries on their own personal university space. Second, Pligg was used to aggregate student blog entries to one website and provide the tools to vote and comment on the entries. Each week during the semester, students were required to submit a blog summary and critique in response to a reading on a topic in instructional technology. Student entries were aggregated using the Pligg site. Once aggregated, students were able to go into the open source system and vote on and comment on blog entries from other students. The voting system was then used to lead and guide class discussions during the in-class portion of course. In other words, each week the instructor would highlight posts that had multiple votes and use them as conversation starters in class. METHOD In-use, and post-use surveys will be completed by the students about their experiences with and perceptions of using the blogging system by the end of April. This presentation will include the results from the survey data. The student responses will provide valuable information on students’ perceptions and uses of an online blogging environment. Attendees will gain valuable information on how to design, set up and implement an online blogging environment that enables commenting and voting on student blog entries. In addition, attendees will be given the knowledge and tools to stay current with the use of blogging in education and will leave knowing how to design a blogging system that provides an opportunity for "greater interaction with peers", enhances the class discussion utilizing topics that were voted on in the blogging environment, and provides students with the resources and skills needed to easily acclimate with a blogging system and buy-in to the use of a blogging system as part of the classroom environment. SOURCES Nardi, B.A., Schiano, D.J., Gumbrecht, M., and Swartz, L. (2004). Why We Blog. Communications of the ACM. 47 (12), 41-46. Williams, J.B. and Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher educator sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20 (2), 232-247.
web 2.0 international experiences
SHOWCASE: Using Web 2.0 Applications to Engage Students in International Experiences
In an attempt to increase students’ information and communication technology (ICT) skills, as well as promote collaboration across cultures, a collaborative wiki development project was implemented. As part of an introductory technology course, students (n=244) worked collaboratively with their classmates as well as with individuals from various countries to create a shared wikibook that explored Web 2.0 technologies. We report on the efficacy of using this approach to engage students in international collaborations, including the impact on students’ motivation and confidence, as well as changes in their perceptions of cultural and technological competency.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
PROJECT SUMMARYA Web 2.0 project was created to promote information and communication technologies (ICT) literacy as well as student collaboration within a globalized era. Students worked collaboratively with peers within the course as well as with individuals from various countries to explore Web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 is described as “a more socially connected Web in which people can contribute as much as they can consume”(Anderson, 2007, p. 4). Rowbotham (2008) noted that universities have begun using Web 2.0 applications to reach out to and engage today’s students. More specifically, Parker and Chao (2007) noted that wikis are particularly well suited for collaborative learning, as they encourage reflective thinking in a social environment. This project aimed to determine the efficacy of using a shared wiki to engage students in international collaborations, specifically related to new and emerging Web 2.0 technologies. We aimed to determine the impact of this approach on student motivation and confidence, as well as changes in their cultural and technological competencies.BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCEPATHWAYS TO GLOBAL EDUCATIONWe live in a world characterized by globalization, emerging new technologies, and a knowledge-based economy. Together, these characteristics impact every aspect of our society including education, communication channels, legal systems, and socio-cultural trends (Christensen, 1997, Finholt & Olson, 1997; Olson & Olson, 2000; Teasley & Wolinsky, 2001). Without a doubt, the success of our future graduates depends on their abilities to be both culturally and technologically competent as they work and interact with diverse, geographically dispersed people, using a variety of technology tools. As early as 1969, educators have suggested that pre-service teachers should engage in cross-cultural experiences to enrich and expand their understandings of “a culture different from the one in which they were born and raised” (Taylor, p. ix). More recently, Causey, Thomas, and Armento (2000) recommended “extensive field experiences in diverse settings” to enhance greater cultural awareness (p. 43). Similarly, a number of professional organizations (e.g., Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2008; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2008) have stressed the importance of producing globally competent teachers (Maleski & Phillion, 2009).PATHWAYS TO INFORMATION LITERACYAs noted earlier, to be productive citizens in a global, knowledge-driven society, students must be both culturally and information literate (Herman, 2000). Individuals who are information literate know how to analyze data from a variety of formats, and then synthesize it into something manageable and useful. They also are capable of using technology to create and communicate new ideas – skills employers are demanding of the 21st century workforce (Eisenberg, Lowe, & Spitzer, 2004).Current research indicates that students are entering higher education lacking basic ICT skills and, because these skills are not being taught or reinforced in the classroom, they are also entering the workforce with a deficit of critical ICT abilities (Breivik, 1998, 2005). The Educational Testing Service (ETS, 2008) noted: “Today’s students are part of a technology-savvy generation, but they are often still at a loss when it comes to using their critical thinking and problem-solving skills in a digital environment; a skill set identified as Information and Communication Technology Literacy” (online). CONTEXT OF STUDYThis project was conducted at a large public Midwestern university consisting of approximately 30,000 undergraduate students with 1,000 declared as education majors. EDCI 270 (Introduction to Educational Technology and Computing) is a large required lecture course that helps pre-service teachers from six colleges learn to 1) use technology to develop instructional materials and 2) integrate technology tools within their future classrooms. For this project, students in the class (244 students; 67% female, primarily freshmen and sophomores) were divided into small teams (32 teams). Each team used an emerging Web 2.0 technology (social software) to collaboratively create a repository (interactive wiki book) of Web 2.0 technologies. Each team developed a wiki chapter about a specific Web 2.0 application that included information about the application itself, how it is used, and how it could be integrated within K-16 formal and informal educational environments (see http://wiki.itap.purdue.edu/display/INSITE/INSITE+Main). A major section of the EDCI 270 course is devoted to distance education, including the use of video conferencing and online discussions, to meet the needs of individuals who are outside of the normal classroom setting. These individuals are brought “into” the course via video conferencing and/or asynchronous electronic discussions. International Partners (IPs) were incorporated as team members who worked collaboratively with approximately half the teams to design and develop instructional materials and demonstrations for the various Web 2.0 applications. In this way, EDCI 270 students learned about the Web 2.0 applications, practiced using them, and perhaps even more importantly, learned to work collectively with other individuals in and outside the class, including those from universities around the world. Individuals then evaluated the experience and reflected upon what they gained through the collaboration. Local educators and stake holders were invited to an end-of-semester showcase to highlight the projects and the end products created by the teams.INITIAL FINDINGSBased on students’ final course reflections, there was a positive indication that they had achieved specific ICT literacy goals. 51% of students commented that they met the NETS/ISTE standard to design and develop digital-age learning experiences and assessments. 39% of students believed that they could now facilitate and inspire students learning and creativity. Our initial findings showed that this method was quite enlightening for the students in meeting these goals:“This updated technology can be so easily incorporated into the classroom, which I was highly unaware of before I began the project.” - Teacher Tube team memberIn addition to the interactivity of peers within the course, many students had the opportunity to work with students from either Korea or Turkey. Many students in the pilot study found this to be motivating. 37% of students who did not have international partners and 59% of students who did have international partners believed they have a greater realization of an international perspective. They found that the differences in educational experiences were not as different as they had originally thought:“It helped out a lot and it kind of opened our eyes to make us see that people half way across the world are in the same boat that we are, doing, doing the same things.”- Google Docs team member, worked with Turkish students THANK YOUThis project would not be nearly as successful if it weren’t for our partners within the university; Director and Staff of the Instructional Media and Emerging Technologies unit of Information Technologies at Purdue Nor our international partners;Glen Coulthard, Professor, Faculty of Business, Okanagan Collegem British Columbia, CanadaM. Yasar Ozden, Professor and Department Head, Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TurkeySung Hee Park, Instructor, Ewah Woman’s University, Seoul, KoreaFundingLess than $100,000ReferencesAnderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, Technologies and Implications for Education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch Retrieved January 30, 2009, fromhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdfAssociation of State Colleges and Universities (2008). Public policy agenda. Washington, D.C.: AASCU. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.aascu.org/media/pdf/08_ppa.pdfBreivik, P. S. (1998). Student learning in the information age. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Breivik, P. S. (2005). 21st century learning and information literacy. Change, 37(2), 20-28.Causey, V. E., Thomas, C. D., & Armento, B. J. (2000). Cultural diversity is basically a foreign term to me: The challenges of diversity for preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 33-45.Christensen, C.M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms tofail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Educational Testing Service (2008). iSkills overview. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from www.ets.org/iskills/Eisenberg, M. B., Lowe, C. A., & Spitzer, K.L. (2004). Information literacy: Essential skills for the Information Age (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Finholt, T. A., & Olson, G. M. (1997) From laboratories to collaboratories: A new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science 8(1), 28–35.Herman, A. M. (2000, April 11). A skills shortage, not a worker shortage. Remarks at the National Skills Summit. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from http://www.dol.gov/_sec/skills_summit/p1s1.htmNational Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008). NCATE professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions.Washington, D.C.: NCATE. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdfMaleski, E., & Phillion, J. (2009). International field experiences: The impact of class, gender, and race on the perceptions and experiences of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 52-60.Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 139-179.Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57-72.Rowbotham, J. (August 20, 2008). Learning Web 2.0, or Gen-Y Speak. The Australian Higher Education. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24208226-12332,00.htmlTaylor, H. (1969). The world as teacher. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Teasley, S., & Wolinsky, S. (2001). Scientific collaborations at a distance. Science, 292, 2254-2255.Zurkowski, P. G. (1974). The information service environment relationships and priorities. Washington, D. C.: National Commission on Librarians and Information Science.
In an attempt to increase students’ information and communication technology (ICT) skills, as well as promote collaboration across cultures, a collaborative wiki development project was implemented. As part of an introductory technology course, students (n=244) worked collaboratively with their classmates as well as with individuals from various countries to create a shared wikibook that explored Web 2.0 technologies. We report on the efficacy of using this approach to engage students in international collaborations, including the impact on students’ motivation and confidence, as well as changes in their perceptions of cultural and technological competency.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
PROJECT SUMMARYA Web 2.0 project was created to promote information and communication technologies (ICT) literacy as well as student collaboration within a globalized era. Students worked collaboratively with peers within the course as well as with individuals from various countries to explore Web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 is described as “a more socially connected Web in which people can contribute as much as they can consume”(Anderson, 2007, p. 4). Rowbotham (2008) noted that universities have begun using Web 2.0 applications to reach out to and engage today’s students. More specifically, Parker and Chao (2007) noted that wikis are particularly well suited for collaborative learning, as they encourage reflective thinking in a social environment. This project aimed to determine the efficacy of using a shared wiki to engage students in international collaborations, specifically related to new and emerging Web 2.0 technologies. We aimed to determine the impact of this approach on student motivation and confidence, as well as changes in their cultural and technological competencies.BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCEPATHWAYS TO GLOBAL EDUCATIONWe live in a world characterized by globalization, emerging new technologies, and a knowledge-based economy. Together, these characteristics impact every aspect of our society including education, communication channels, legal systems, and socio-cultural trends (Christensen, 1997, Finholt & Olson, 1997; Olson & Olson, 2000; Teasley & Wolinsky, 2001). Without a doubt, the success of our future graduates depends on their abilities to be both culturally and technologically competent as they work and interact with diverse, geographically dispersed people, using a variety of technology tools. As early as 1969, educators have suggested that pre-service teachers should engage in cross-cultural experiences to enrich and expand their understandings of “a culture different from the one in which they were born and raised” (Taylor, p. ix). More recently, Causey, Thomas, and Armento (2000) recommended “extensive field experiences in diverse settings” to enhance greater cultural awareness (p. 43). Similarly, a number of professional organizations (e.g., Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2008; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2008) have stressed the importance of producing globally competent teachers (Maleski & Phillion, 2009).PATHWAYS TO INFORMATION LITERACYAs noted earlier, to be productive citizens in a global, knowledge-driven society, students must be both culturally and information literate (Herman, 2000). Individuals who are information literate know how to analyze data from a variety of formats, and then synthesize it into something manageable and useful. They also are capable of using technology to create and communicate new ideas – skills employers are demanding of the 21st century workforce (Eisenberg, Lowe, & Spitzer, 2004).Current research indicates that students are entering higher education lacking basic ICT skills and, because these skills are not being taught or reinforced in the classroom, they are also entering the workforce with a deficit of critical ICT abilities (Breivik, 1998, 2005). The Educational Testing Service (ETS, 2008) noted: “Today’s students are part of a technology-savvy generation, but they are often still at a loss when it comes to using their critical thinking and problem-solving skills in a digital environment; a skill set identified as Information and Communication Technology Literacy” (online). CONTEXT OF STUDYThis project was conducted at a large public Midwestern university consisting of approximately 30,000 undergraduate students with 1,000 declared as education majors. EDCI 270 (Introduction to Educational Technology and Computing) is a large required lecture course that helps pre-service teachers from six colleges learn to 1) use technology to develop instructional materials and 2) integrate technology tools within their future classrooms. For this project, students in the class (244 students; 67% female, primarily freshmen and sophomores) were divided into small teams (32 teams). Each team used an emerging Web 2.0 technology (social software) to collaboratively create a repository (interactive wiki book) of Web 2.0 technologies. Each team developed a wiki chapter about a specific Web 2.0 application that included information about the application itself, how it is used, and how it could be integrated within K-16 formal and informal educational environments (see http://wiki.itap.purdue.edu/display/INSITE/INSITE+Main). A major section of the EDCI 270 course is devoted to distance education, including the use of video conferencing and online discussions, to meet the needs of individuals who are outside of the normal classroom setting. These individuals are brought “into” the course via video conferencing and/or asynchronous electronic discussions. International Partners (IPs) were incorporated as team members who worked collaboratively with approximately half the teams to design and develop instructional materials and demonstrations for the various Web 2.0 applications. In this way, EDCI 270 students learned about the Web 2.0 applications, practiced using them, and perhaps even more importantly, learned to work collectively with other individuals in and outside the class, including those from universities around the world. Individuals then evaluated the experience and reflected upon what they gained through the collaboration. Local educators and stake holders were invited to an end-of-semester showcase to highlight the projects and the end products created by the teams.INITIAL FINDINGSBased on students’ final course reflections, there was a positive indication that they had achieved specific ICT literacy goals. 51% of students commented that they met the NETS/ISTE standard to design and develop digital-age learning experiences and assessments. 39% of students believed that they could now facilitate and inspire students learning and creativity. Our initial findings showed that this method was quite enlightening for the students in meeting these goals:“This updated technology can be so easily incorporated into the classroom, which I was highly unaware of before I began the project.” - Teacher Tube team memberIn addition to the interactivity of peers within the course, many students had the opportunity to work with students from either Korea or Turkey. Many students in the pilot study found this to be motivating. 37% of students who did not have international partners and 59% of students who did have international partners believed they have a greater realization of an international perspective. They found that the differences in educational experiences were not as different as they had originally thought:“It helped out a lot and it kind of opened our eyes to make us see that people half way across the world are in the same boat that we are, doing, doing the same things.”- Google Docs team member, worked with Turkish students THANK YOUThis project would not be nearly as successful if it weren’t for our partners within the university; Director and Staff of the Instructional Media and Emerging Technologies unit of Information Technologies at Purdue Nor our international partners;Glen Coulthard, Professor, Faculty of Business, Okanagan Collegem British Columbia, CanadaM. Yasar Ozden, Professor and Department Head, Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TurkeySung Hee Park, Instructor, Ewah Woman’s University, Seoul, KoreaFundingLess than $100,000ReferencesAnderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, Technologies and Implications for Education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch Retrieved January 30, 2009, fromhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdfAssociation of State Colleges and Universities (2008). Public policy agenda. Washington, D.C.: AASCU. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.aascu.org/media/pdf/08_ppa.pdfBreivik, P. S. (1998). Student learning in the information age. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Breivik, P. S. (2005). 21st century learning and information literacy. Change, 37(2), 20-28.Causey, V. E., Thomas, C. D., & Armento, B. J. (2000). Cultural diversity is basically a foreign term to me: The challenges of diversity for preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 33-45.Christensen, C.M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms tofail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Educational Testing Service (2008). iSkills overview. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from www.ets.org/iskills/Eisenberg, M. B., Lowe, C. A., & Spitzer, K.L. (2004). Information literacy: Essential skills for the Information Age (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Finholt, T. A., & Olson, G. M. (1997) From laboratories to collaboratories: A new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science 8(1), 28–35.Herman, A. M. (2000, April 11). A skills shortage, not a worker shortage. Remarks at the National Skills Summit. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from http://www.dol.gov/_sec/skills_summit/p1s1.htmNational Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008). NCATE professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions.Washington, D.C.: NCATE. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdfMaleski, E., & Phillion, J. (2009). International field experiences: The impact of class, gender, and race on the perceptions and experiences of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 52-60.Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 139-179.Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57-72.Rowbotham, J. (August 20, 2008). Learning Web 2.0, or Gen-Y Speak. The Australian Higher Education. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24208226-12332,00.htmlTaylor, H. (1969). The world as teacher. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Teasley, S., & Wolinsky, S. (2001). Scientific collaborations at a distance. Science, 292, 2254-2255.Zurkowski, P. G. (1974). The information service environment relationships and priorities. Washington, D. C.: National Commission on Librarians and Information Science.
teacher for 21 century
Invisible Differences: Educating Teachers for 21st Century Contexts
This paper details a multimedia assignment designed to address the problem of preparing apparently homogeneous cohorts of pre-service teachers to teach in highly diverse schools. Drawing from more than 300 pre-service teachers’ digital family history projects, I discuss the power of multimedia to extend dialogic interaction on human diversity. In the presentation, I offer a theoretical foundation using this pedagogical approach to move teacher education students to personalize issues of diversity by examining their own differences.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
Invisible Differences: Educating Teachers for 21st Century ContextsInvisible Differences is an online archive of pre-service teachers’ family history projects, initially designed by graduate students in an advanced instructional design course (http://www.uky.edu/~casenet/InvisibleDifferences/index.html). As a diversity signature assignment for elementary social studies, the family history project requires a class presentation delivered in a digital medium as a multimedia story and a final reflective paper on the ways such an assignment can be adapted for elementary students. The assignment is inquiry-based, requiring students to gather, analyze, and interpret data from various sources. Students combine information from interviews, family artifacts and photographs with historical texts, archives, hyperlinks to Internet sites, geographic tools, and other resources. It involves hearing and interpreting family stories, exploring historical resources and perspectives, selecting artifacts and original documents, and employing a variety of multimedia technologies to compose digital family histories. Gathering family history information, analyzing and interpreting it in a cohesive multimedia story enacts self-narrative in interactive ways that situate historical research in familiar contexts.Personalizing DifferenceKnowing who you are and where you come from is one of the most important pieces of information that one can have. This project opened my eyes to a lot of differences that existed among my classmates. As similar as we look on the outside, I have found that we are actually a very diverse group… who all have unique histories. Establishing a concept of diversity and understanding that we are all immigrants [is the] purpose of this family history project. For analysis of the Invisible Differences Project and interpretation of learning outcomes, I rely on narrative inquiry, broadly defined as the examination of stories lived and told (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996). A tension that often exists in these social studies methods courses revolves around students’ limited exposure to cultural diversity, the extent to which they have assimilated to the culture of the university, and the need to prepare them for effectively teaching children from a wide range of cultures and socioeconomic conditions. Many are reluctant to discuss human differences and voice frustration in course evaluations with what they say is undue emphasis on issues of diversity. However, without materializing what they understand about diversity or how they view different others, it is difficult to assure these teacher education students are adequately prepared for the diversity that now exists in the public schools. The family history assignment provides an opportunity to examine and discuss human differences in a manner that both personalizes and politicizes issues of privilege and power. While the process of collecting information, analyzing and interpreting it, and composing a multimedia presentation are important learning activities in this assignment, making it public in presentation sessions is the most essential activity for reconstructing schemas on human differences. Both presenting and being audience for the family history presentations are key learning activities for the dialogic interaction that changes the way students think and talk about human differences. As one student said, “This project opened my eyes to a lot of differences that existed among my classmates. As similar as we look on the outside, I have found that we are actually a very diverse group of young women who all have unique histories.” Intersections for Situated DiscourseImagine a class of 30 pre-service teachers presenting multimedia family histories one after the other over four or five class sessions. One begins with a photograph of the last slave in her family. She shows a map of Mississippi delineating segregated communities and talks about the abandoned school where freed slaves built their own community. She tells a family story about how difficult it was to leave the plantation and that many slaves chose to remain rather than endure the abject poverty of free Blacks living in the old school building. Another student begins her family history with a photograph of her parents, her mother who is White and her father who is Black. She tells a story about recently meeting her White grandparents for the first time and how little she knew of them because they had disowned her mother for marrying a Black man. Several classes later, another student presents her family history by showing the plantation in Mississippi, once owned and operated by her ancestors and now a tourist attraction. Connections are made between descendents of slaves and slave owners and the history of slavery in the United States becomes personally relevant in ways it had not for the students who are privileged by being White. Questions are asked and conversations on race unfold in deeply personal ways that otherwise might have been more polite than authentic. As one student said, “This project was possibly one of the most interesting projects I have completed in my college career.” Proposed PresentationIn this session, I present a digital collage of selected family stories and discuss some ways multimedia extends and enhances the aesthetic power of narrative. I also provide an analysis of the dialectical struggle between student, historical artifacts, and medium in the ongoing process of constructing identity as teachers. I conclude by discussing findings from the investigation of students’ multimedia family history projects in relation to gains in awareness, appreciation, and understanding of human diversity, as well as indicators of increased potential for effectively teaching widely diverse public school students. ReferencesClandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories—Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30.
This paper details a multimedia assignment designed to address the problem of preparing apparently homogeneous cohorts of pre-service teachers to teach in highly diverse schools. Drawing from more than 300 pre-service teachers’ digital family history projects, I discuss the power of multimedia to extend dialogic interaction on human diversity. In the presentation, I offer a theoretical foundation using this pedagogical approach to move teacher education students to personalize issues of diversity by examining their own differences.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
Invisible Differences: Educating Teachers for 21st Century ContextsInvisible Differences is an online archive of pre-service teachers’ family history projects, initially designed by graduate students in an advanced instructional design course (http://www.uky.edu/~casenet/InvisibleDifferences/index.html). As a diversity signature assignment for elementary social studies, the family history project requires a class presentation delivered in a digital medium as a multimedia story and a final reflective paper on the ways such an assignment can be adapted for elementary students. The assignment is inquiry-based, requiring students to gather, analyze, and interpret data from various sources. Students combine information from interviews, family artifacts and photographs with historical texts, archives, hyperlinks to Internet sites, geographic tools, and other resources. It involves hearing and interpreting family stories, exploring historical resources and perspectives, selecting artifacts and original documents, and employing a variety of multimedia technologies to compose digital family histories. Gathering family history information, analyzing and interpreting it in a cohesive multimedia story enacts self-narrative in interactive ways that situate historical research in familiar contexts.Personalizing DifferenceKnowing who you are and where you come from is one of the most important pieces of information that one can have. This project opened my eyes to a lot of differences that existed among my classmates. As similar as we look on the outside, I have found that we are actually a very diverse group… who all have unique histories. Establishing a concept of diversity and understanding that we are all immigrants [is the] purpose of this family history project. For analysis of the Invisible Differences Project and interpretation of learning outcomes, I rely on narrative inquiry, broadly defined as the examination of stories lived and told (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996). A tension that often exists in these social studies methods courses revolves around students’ limited exposure to cultural diversity, the extent to which they have assimilated to the culture of the university, and the need to prepare them for effectively teaching children from a wide range of cultures and socioeconomic conditions. Many are reluctant to discuss human differences and voice frustration in course evaluations with what they say is undue emphasis on issues of diversity. However, without materializing what they understand about diversity or how they view different others, it is difficult to assure these teacher education students are adequately prepared for the diversity that now exists in the public schools. The family history assignment provides an opportunity to examine and discuss human differences in a manner that both personalizes and politicizes issues of privilege and power. While the process of collecting information, analyzing and interpreting it, and composing a multimedia presentation are important learning activities in this assignment, making it public in presentation sessions is the most essential activity for reconstructing schemas on human differences. Both presenting and being audience for the family history presentations are key learning activities for the dialogic interaction that changes the way students think and talk about human differences. As one student said, “This project opened my eyes to a lot of differences that existed among my classmates. As similar as we look on the outside, I have found that we are actually a very diverse group of young women who all have unique histories.” Intersections for Situated DiscourseImagine a class of 30 pre-service teachers presenting multimedia family histories one after the other over four or five class sessions. One begins with a photograph of the last slave in her family. She shows a map of Mississippi delineating segregated communities and talks about the abandoned school where freed slaves built their own community. She tells a family story about how difficult it was to leave the plantation and that many slaves chose to remain rather than endure the abject poverty of free Blacks living in the old school building. Another student begins her family history with a photograph of her parents, her mother who is White and her father who is Black. She tells a story about recently meeting her White grandparents for the first time and how little she knew of them because they had disowned her mother for marrying a Black man. Several classes later, another student presents her family history by showing the plantation in Mississippi, once owned and operated by her ancestors and now a tourist attraction. Connections are made between descendents of slaves and slave owners and the history of slavery in the United States becomes personally relevant in ways it had not for the students who are privileged by being White. Questions are asked and conversations on race unfold in deeply personal ways that otherwise might have been more polite than authentic. As one student said, “This project was possibly one of the most interesting projects I have completed in my college career.” Proposed PresentationIn this session, I present a digital collage of selected family stories and discuss some ways multimedia extends and enhances the aesthetic power of narrative. I also provide an analysis of the dialectical struggle between student, historical artifacts, and medium in the ongoing process of constructing identity as teachers. I conclude by discussing findings from the investigation of students’ multimedia family history projects in relation to gains in awareness, appreciation, and understanding of human diversity, as well as indicators of increased potential for effectively teaching widely diverse public school students. ReferencesClandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories—Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)