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.
engagement
This Thing Called Engagement
Like love, the subject of Cole Porter’s famous song, any whole-hearted attempt to understand learning engagement will accept a degree of mystery, its sometimes fleeting nature, and its needs for continual reinforcement, negotiation, frequent forgiveness, mutual responsibility, and constant imagination and faith. This presentation explores useful, prevailing conceptions of learning engagement and its related qualities, but expands the concept further to include the situational qualities that meet individual qualities in bringing about engagement experiences.
Abstract:
Instructional designers (IDs) face numerous formidable tasks, including working within content areas for which they typically lack expertise, understanding often obscured learner and organizational needs, defining performance and knowledge-oriented objectives will address those needs, determining which learning and instructional theories they should use as guidance for the given instructional situation. Add to these the competing needs, goals, and constraints presented by stakeholders and learners and the situation becomes even more complex. But if IDs are willing to stare even deeper into the lion’s mouth of their practice they will face the terrifying and wonderful challenge of stimulating learning engagement. This presentation will explore what is meant by engagement and offer general conclusions about achieving engagement with instructional designs.Engagement is often identified as a critical component of learning. Active engagement, as opposed to mere attention or mechanically going through the motions of instruction, is considered prerequisite to deep learning (Bransford, Brown, Cocking, Donovan, & Pellegrino, 2000). Beyond task persistence, which can merely indicate coercion or an expectation of extrinsic reward, true engagement might be indicated when learners exhibit a developing curiosity, anticipate questions and content gaps that need filling, genuinely attempt to work out instructional problems and ponder content until understanding is achieved, generate new ideas and questions about the content, and struggle for learning coherence. No deep learning will take place until a learner both submits to what the instructional situation has to offer and also genuinely confronts it to test new ideas or try out new skills. In fact, a developing engagement can be seen not only as the best indicator of the potential for deep learning, but as the medium in which learning takes place (Dewey, 1938/1997). Engagement means more than merely the addition of interactivity to otherwise static presentation of content. Educators have recognized engagement as a complex process composed of individual cognitive, affective, and metacognitive processes (Chen & McGrath, 2003; Yang, 2002), as well as socio-cultural processes within learning environments (Case, 2008; Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998; Kuh, 2001). In the context of single learning experiences, cognitive and metacognitive engagement are the dimensions perhaps most frequently referenced (Bangert-Drowns & Pyke, 2002; Corno & Mandinach, 1983). From this perspective, engagement comes about when the learner brings to bear individual goals and intentions while personalizing the learning experience to achieve valued ends. In other words, cognitive engagement requires an active contribution the learner makes to the learning experience, and not merely passive reception of information. Engagement is sometimes conflated with interest, perhaps with interest seen as the psychological state behind engagement behaviors (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Like Dewey (e.g., 1934/1989), Reed et al. (2002) see engagement as an “activity-related process” that subsumes the psychological states of involvement and interest. At times, engagement reaches levels in which experience is infused with meaning beyond what can be pointed to as utilitarian, where connection to the situation is immediate and immersive, and in which people might describe themselves as feeling “fully alive” (Berleant, 1991). This kind of engagement is most closely associated with intrinsic motivation and strong situational interest (Schraw & Lehman, 2001). While exploring and embracing these aspects of engagement, this presentation expands the concept further to include the situational qualities that meet individual qualities in bringing about engagement experiences. It offers a conception that views engagement as an ongoing transaction between learner and instruction rather than as a one-way commitment. This concept suggests that instructional providers should concern themselves equally with the qualities of the learning environment that stimulate cognitive and affective processes—qualities that create opportunities for interaction, commitment, and contribution; that allow room for learners to own the experience rather than merely participate; that attempt to find deep connections to learner’s experiences outside the learning environment; and that strive to create not just effective, but also compelling and meaningful learning experiences. In concluding the presentation, a model of situational and individual qualities of learning experiences with the potential for deep engagement is offered (Parrish & Wilson, 2009). Situational qualities discussed include immediacy, malleability, compellingness, resonance, and coherence. Individual qualities include intent, presence, openness, and trust. Within a learning experience, these qualities meet and reinforce one another to influence the level of engagement.Taking responsibility for learning engagement can be a terrifying prospect because it means having to attend to the experience of learning, not just learning outcomes as they are often narrowly defined in educational assessments. The complex, systemic nature of experience means that designers are never fully in control of experiential outcomes. On the other hand, they can’t just abdicate control and continue working in good faith. Taking responsibility for learning engagement is also a wonderful prospect for instructional designers. It can open their eyes to new ways of viewing their practice—using technology to invite imagination and engagement and to instill wonder rather than merely delivering content (Egan, 2007; Wilson & Al Tenaiji, 2008). With a focus on engagement, IDs are encouraged to exercise creativity and look more broadly for guiding sources for their practice, as well as to broaden their concerns for learning outcomes. Like the subject of the famous song by Cole Porter in which he asks, “What is this thing called love?...Just who can solve its mystery?,” any whole-hearted attempt to understand learning engagement needs to accept a degree of mystery, its sometimes fleeting nature, and its needs for continual reinforcement, negotiation, frequent forgiveness, mutual responsibility, and constant imagination and faith.
Like love, the subject of Cole Porter’s famous song, any whole-hearted attempt to understand learning engagement will accept a degree of mystery, its sometimes fleeting nature, and its needs for continual reinforcement, negotiation, frequent forgiveness, mutual responsibility, and constant imagination and faith. This presentation explores useful, prevailing conceptions of learning engagement and its related qualities, but expands the concept further to include the situational qualities that meet individual qualities in bringing about engagement experiences.
Abstract:
Instructional designers (IDs) face numerous formidable tasks, including working within content areas for which they typically lack expertise, understanding often obscured learner and organizational needs, defining performance and knowledge-oriented objectives will address those needs, determining which learning and instructional theories they should use as guidance for the given instructional situation. Add to these the competing needs, goals, and constraints presented by stakeholders and learners and the situation becomes even more complex. But if IDs are willing to stare even deeper into the lion’s mouth of their practice they will face the terrifying and wonderful challenge of stimulating learning engagement. This presentation will explore what is meant by engagement and offer general conclusions about achieving engagement with instructional designs.Engagement is often identified as a critical component of learning. Active engagement, as opposed to mere attention or mechanically going through the motions of instruction, is considered prerequisite to deep learning (Bransford, Brown, Cocking, Donovan, & Pellegrino, 2000). Beyond task persistence, which can merely indicate coercion or an expectation of extrinsic reward, true engagement might be indicated when learners exhibit a developing curiosity, anticipate questions and content gaps that need filling, genuinely attempt to work out instructional problems and ponder content until understanding is achieved, generate new ideas and questions about the content, and struggle for learning coherence. No deep learning will take place until a learner both submits to what the instructional situation has to offer and also genuinely confronts it to test new ideas or try out new skills. In fact, a developing engagement can be seen not only as the best indicator of the potential for deep learning, but as the medium in which learning takes place (Dewey, 1938/1997). Engagement means more than merely the addition of interactivity to otherwise static presentation of content. Educators have recognized engagement as a complex process composed of individual cognitive, affective, and metacognitive processes (Chen & McGrath, 2003; Yang, 2002), as well as socio-cultural processes within learning environments (Case, 2008; Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998; Kuh, 2001). In the context of single learning experiences, cognitive and metacognitive engagement are the dimensions perhaps most frequently referenced (Bangert-Drowns & Pyke, 2002; Corno & Mandinach, 1983). From this perspective, engagement comes about when the learner brings to bear individual goals and intentions while personalizing the learning experience to achieve valued ends. In other words, cognitive engagement requires an active contribution the learner makes to the learning experience, and not merely passive reception of information. Engagement is sometimes conflated with interest, perhaps with interest seen as the psychological state behind engagement behaviors (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Like Dewey (e.g., 1934/1989), Reed et al. (2002) see engagement as an “activity-related process” that subsumes the psychological states of involvement and interest. At times, engagement reaches levels in which experience is infused with meaning beyond what can be pointed to as utilitarian, where connection to the situation is immediate and immersive, and in which people might describe themselves as feeling “fully alive” (Berleant, 1991). This kind of engagement is most closely associated with intrinsic motivation and strong situational interest (Schraw & Lehman, 2001). While exploring and embracing these aspects of engagement, this presentation expands the concept further to include the situational qualities that meet individual qualities in bringing about engagement experiences. It offers a conception that views engagement as an ongoing transaction between learner and instruction rather than as a one-way commitment. This concept suggests that instructional providers should concern themselves equally with the qualities of the learning environment that stimulate cognitive and affective processes—qualities that create opportunities for interaction, commitment, and contribution; that allow room for learners to own the experience rather than merely participate; that attempt to find deep connections to learner’s experiences outside the learning environment; and that strive to create not just effective, but also compelling and meaningful learning experiences. In concluding the presentation, a model of situational and individual qualities of learning experiences with the potential for deep engagement is offered (Parrish & Wilson, 2009). Situational qualities discussed include immediacy, malleability, compellingness, resonance, and coherence. Individual qualities include intent, presence, openness, and trust. Within a learning experience, these qualities meet and reinforce one another to influence the level of engagement.Taking responsibility for learning engagement can be a terrifying prospect because it means having to attend to the experience of learning, not just learning outcomes as they are often narrowly defined in educational assessments. The complex, systemic nature of experience means that designers are never fully in control of experiential outcomes. On the other hand, they can’t just abdicate control and continue working in good faith. Taking responsibility for learning engagement is also a wonderful prospect for instructional designers. It can open their eyes to new ways of viewing their practice—using technology to invite imagination and engagement and to instill wonder rather than merely delivering content (Egan, 2007; Wilson & Al Tenaiji, 2008). With a focus on engagement, IDs are encouraged to exercise creativity and look more broadly for guiding sources for their practice, as well as to broaden their concerns for learning outcomes. Like the subject of the famous song by Cole Porter in which he asks, “What is this thing called love?...Just who can solve its mystery?,” any whole-hearted attempt to understand learning engagement needs to accept a degree of mystery, its sometimes fleeting nature, and its needs for continual reinforcement, negotiation, frequent forgiveness, mutual responsibility, and constant imagination and faith.
wikis motivation
Increasing Learner Motivation through a Collaborative Online Experience: Working with Wikis
Today’s students have been brought up in collaborative online environment and are accustomed to a high level of interaction with material and people. The challenge for educators is to incorporate collaborative technology into the classroom without ignoring pedagogical principles. This session will discuss the relationship between online collaboration through a wiki and student engagement and motivation in a face-to-face environment and provide ideas and suggestions for using a wiki in the classroom.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Collaborative web sites, or wikis, can be a powerful tool for increasing student engagement in the classroom. The objective of this presentation is to introduce attendees to the early stages of a study investigating the relationship between wikis and student engagement and motivation. This session will also to initiate a conversation about the possibilities of using wikis to enhance student engagement and motivation in a face to face classroom setting. In many college classrooms, instructors are challenged with finding innovative methods for motivating their students and getting them to connect to the course content. In most cases, the level of motivation may determine a learner’s involvement or engagement in learning activities. It is important to consider this when developing learning activities and lesson plans. Hofer (2006) has observed that there is a direct relationship between a learner’s level of motivation and his or her engagement in the learning process. If learners do not see value in the activity they are presented, they are less likely to engage in that activity. It is important for teachers, instructors, and curriculum developers to understand what motivates learners and how that can be incorporated into learning activities. When one looks at the many different theories of motivation, there are a several key elements that affect one’s drive for achievement. Research has shown that many motivators are connected to internal personal needs rather than external factors (Schunk, 2008). These internal factors can include a need for recognition, an internal drive to succeed or meet a set of personal needs (Malone & Lepper, 1987; Schunk, 2008; Hofer, 2006). In their research, Malone and Leper developed a taxonomy of intrinsic motivation for learning. One motivator that they identified was a learner’s sense of control over the experience (Malone & Lepper, 1987). Based on their research, a learner’s perception of control over an environment increases the learner’s level of interest. This is also shown in Rotter’s Locus of Control theory (Schunk, 2008). According to Rotter’s theory, learners are more likely to engage in activities and academic tasks if they believe they have control over their personal success or failure. Knowing this, it would makes sense that giving learners some control or even the perception of control over their learning environment would have a positive effect on their interest and motivation to engage in learning. Another aspect of control is the learner’s ability to make choices about their environment. Hofer (2006) identifies choice as an index of motivation. She explains that learners who are allowed to choose their learning tasks are more likely to perform well in those tasks and are motivated to succeed. Malone and Lepper also discuss choice as a factor in increasing motivation (Malone & Lepper, 1987). They state that not only can choice in task and goals can have an effect on instruction but even the illusion of choice can have a strong effect on interest (Langer as cited in Malone & Lepper, 1987). Giving the learners some control of course content and choice in learning activities not only increases learner motivation but is also one of the central ideas behind a learner-centered classroom versus as content-centered classroom (Halonen, 2006). Today’s students have been brought up in collaborative online environment and are accustomed to a high level of interaction with material and people. Research has shown that students are comfortable and even expect collaborative technology to be present in their classes (Caverly, 2001). It is necessary for educators to meet them where they already are in terms of using technology. The challenge for educators is to incorporate collaborative technology into the classroom without ignoring pedagogical principles. It is also important to remember that our purpose for using technology is based on pedagogy; hence, pedagogy should be the driving force behind developing learning activities (Stahl & Boylan, 2003). This session will discuss research designed to evaluate new web technology within this framework. The study to be discussed is an action research investigation which is an adaptation of a completed pilot study that investigated online interaction as a tool for increasing student engagement and motivation. The original study used a mixed-method approach to data collection. In order to answer the research questions, a student opinion survey was used. The opinion survey consisted of a two-part group-administered questionnaire. Part one contained fifteen items using a Likert-type format to assess the students' perceptions of the course and connection to the material. Part two included four open-ended questions designed to assess the students' opinion of the course and course material. The current study will use a similar approach with some modification to the tool. The session will review the research and provide information that can increase an educator's knowledge of how different collaborative web-based activities affect student motivation and engagement. An understanding of what activities draw deeper connections and improve motivation can be used when designing effective instructional practices and technology integration strategies.
Today’s students have been brought up in collaborative online environment and are accustomed to a high level of interaction with material and people. The challenge for educators is to incorporate collaborative technology into the classroom without ignoring pedagogical principles. This session will discuss the relationship between online collaboration through a wiki and student engagement and motivation in a face-to-face environment and provide ideas and suggestions for using a wiki in the classroom.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Collaborative web sites, or wikis, can be a powerful tool for increasing student engagement in the classroom. The objective of this presentation is to introduce attendees to the early stages of a study investigating the relationship between wikis and student engagement and motivation. This session will also to initiate a conversation about the possibilities of using wikis to enhance student engagement and motivation in a face to face classroom setting. In many college classrooms, instructors are challenged with finding innovative methods for motivating their students and getting them to connect to the course content. In most cases, the level of motivation may determine a learner’s involvement or engagement in learning activities. It is important to consider this when developing learning activities and lesson plans. Hofer (2006) has observed that there is a direct relationship between a learner’s level of motivation and his or her engagement in the learning process. If learners do not see value in the activity they are presented, they are less likely to engage in that activity. It is important for teachers, instructors, and curriculum developers to understand what motivates learners and how that can be incorporated into learning activities. When one looks at the many different theories of motivation, there are a several key elements that affect one’s drive for achievement. Research has shown that many motivators are connected to internal personal needs rather than external factors (Schunk, 2008). These internal factors can include a need for recognition, an internal drive to succeed or meet a set of personal needs (Malone & Lepper, 1987; Schunk, 2008; Hofer, 2006). In their research, Malone and Leper developed a taxonomy of intrinsic motivation for learning. One motivator that they identified was a learner’s sense of control over the experience (Malone & Lepper, 1987). Based on their research, a learner’s perception of control over an environment increases the learner’s level of interest. This is also shown in Rotter’s Locus of Control theory (Schunk, 2008). According to Rotter’s theory, learners are more likely to engage in activities and academic tasks if they believe they have control over their personal success or failure. Knowing this, it would makes sense that giving learners some control or even the perception of control over their learning environment would have a positive effect on their interest and motivation to engage in learning. Another aspect of control is the learner’s ability to make choices about their environment. Hofer (2006) identifies choice as an index of motivation. She explains that learners who are allowed to choose their learning tasks are more likely to perform well in those tasks and are motivated to succeed. Malone and Lepper also discuss choice as a factor in increasing motivation (Malone & Lepper, 1987). They state that not only can choice in task and goals can have an effect on instruction but even the illusion of choice can have a strong effect on interest (Langer as cited in Malone & Lepper, 1987). Giving the learners some control of course content and choice in learning activities not only increases learner motivation but is also one of the central ideas behind a learner-centered classroom versus as content-centered classroom (Halonen, 2006). Today’s students have been brought up in collaborative online environment and are accustomed to a high level of interaction with material and people. Research has shown that students are comfortable and even expect collaborative technology to be present in their classes (Caverly, 2001). It is necessary for educators to meet them where they already are in terms of using technology. The challenge for educators is to incorporate collaborative technology into the classroom without ignoring pedagogical principles. It is also important to remember that our purpose for using technology is based on pedagogy; hence, pedagogy should be the driving force behind developing learning activities (Stahl & Boylan, 2003). This session will discuss research designed to evaluate new web technology within this framework. The study to be discussed is an action research investigation which is an adaptation of a completed pilot study that investigated online interaction as a tool for increasing student engagement and motivation. The original study used a mixed-method approach to data collection. In order to answer the research questions, a student opinion survey was used. The opinion survey consisted of a two-part group-administered questionnaire. Part one contained fifteen items using a Likert-type format to assess the students' perceptions of the course and connection to the material. Part two included four open-ended questions designed to assess the students' opinion of the course and course material. The current study will use a similar approach with some modification to the tool. The session will review the research and provide information that can increase an educator's knowledge of how different collaborative web-based activities affect student motivation and engagement. An understanding of what activities draw deeper connections and improve motivation can be used when designing effective instructional practices and technology integration strategies.
instructional design
Title:
Instructional Design Heuristics (Rules of Thumb)
Short Description:
This study was designed to explore the heuristics (rules of thumb) experienced instructional designers use when engaged in the instructional design process. Qualitative methods were used to capture and describe individual and shared heuristics. A short video will demonstrate rules of thumb as expressed by the participants themselves.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Background Solving problems is key to the practice of instructional design (Muraida & Spector, 1993; Perez & Emery, 1995; Rowland, 1991; Seel, Eichenwald, & Penterman, 1995). Johnson (1988) stated, “… no single correct procedure exists, and there is no definitive way of assessing the correctness of a rule based upon the outcome of a single case. There is no optimally correct rule… only rules which are relatively more accurate” (p. 212). This study is about expert use of heuristics in instructional design. Heuristics are “simple decision rules through which individuals make judgments” (Dudczak, 1995, p. 4). For purposes of this presentation, ‘heuristics’ and ‘rules of thumb’ will be used interchangeably (Abel, 2003). Purpose This study was designed to explore the heuristics experienced instructional designers use when engaged in the instructional design process. A phenomenological framework (Patton, 2002) was used to develop a deep understanding of instructional design heuristics from the perspective of 16 instructional designers. In order to achieve this, we interviewed people who have been directly involved in instructional design. Specifically, the research question was: What heuristics do experienced instructional designers use to solve instructional design problems? Methodology A purposeful sampling technique (Creswell, 2007) was used to select participants. A semi-structured interview was used to elicit a story about a complex or challenging instructional design problem on which the instructional designer had worked. In-depth information was obtained from each participant in the form of personal narratives (Kvale, 1996). Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, was audio/video-taped, and transcribed verbatim. Data Analysis In order to answer the research question, What rules of thumb do experienced instructional designers use when solving ID problems? transcripts were qualitatively coded, beginning with a search for evidence that related to the research question. Rules of thumb were extracted from participants’ responses and categorized according to common themes. Systematic steps (i.e., open coding, axial coding, and selective coding) were used to generate categories of rules of thumb (Creswell, 2007). Results Analyses of interview transcripts have identified ten categories of heuristics. Categories included: communication, management, learner/audience, pedagogy, solutions/deliverables/outcomes, process, team/people, problem/situation, client, and technology.. Within these categories, there are multiple heuristics identified. Due to limited space in this proposal, all results cannot be discussed. Some examples of results that emerged from the category Communication are the following: • When communicating with the client, listen more than you talk. (Go to the meeting and keep your ears open. They are going to say things there that you are going to need to know about later. [E.B.] I want the client to lead the conversation at this point, because they are the ones with the situation that they want to have resolved in some way. And the more that they get into talking about it, the more they begin to reveal things. [J.Q.] I let people describe the problem. And again, even though it can be difficult for me, I will not ask any questions, what so ever, until they are completely finished. [J.Q.] I very much stay quiet. I listen a lot more than I usually would. [M.G.] As a designer, you need to listen more than you talk. [R.B.]) • Verify things you’ve heard. (The first thing I want to do is I verify things that I’ve heard. Just literally, honestly, and completely verify the things that I’ve heard. Not to ask a leading question, but just simply for me to verify that what I think I’ve heard is what the client is trying to say. [J.Q.] I put things in writing and I say “do you agree with this? Is this accurate? Let’s change this until it’s accurate.” [S.P.] The confirmation message is worth gold. After a meeting, very soon after a meeting, same day if possible, “thank you for the meeting, I look forward to taking care of these things/items that we discussed at the meeting which were these things and here’s the action item list I am drawing from that.” 1 out of every 2 messages comes back with, “whoa… we really meant this,” and you have an exchange of email to clarify. [R.B.]) • Utilize visuals and tangible documents when communicating with the client. (It is always more successful for me to show people what I am thinking, than it is to tell them about it. [E.B.] People can almost never tell you what they want until you show them something they don’t want. [E.B.] Visually portray whatever process model you will be using and consider sharing that with the client or the primary stakeholder group early on in the process to help make sure the lines of communication are clear. [R.B.] When you actually create the task analysis diagram and use that in your meetings it tends to facilitate a quicker and deeper level of conversation. [R.B.]) Future efforts will be devoted to validating these heuristics as well as determining the best methods by which to share the resulting rules of thumb with novice designers Conclusion “Procedures for intelligently applying past knowledge to new experience often seem to require common sense and practical rules of thumb in addition to, or instead of, formal analysis” (Schank & Abelson, 1977, p. 3). This study elicited these rules of thumb from experienced instructional designers as a way of expanding our understanding of what practicing instructional designers utilize during their design process. This knowledge of instructional design heuristics should be imparted on novice instructional designers while they are learning the intricacies of becoming an instructional designer as a way of providing them some wisdom from more experienced designers. References Abel, C. F. (2003). Heuristics and problem solving. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 53-58. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dudczak, C. A. (1995). Heuristic elements of plausible reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Antonio, TX. Ingram, A. L. (1988). Instructional design for heuristic-based problem solving. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 36, 211-230. Johnson, E. J. (1988). Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 209 - 228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Muraida, D. J., & Spector, J. M. (1993). The advanced instructional design advisor. Instructional Science, 21, 239-253. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80-95. Rowland, G. (1991). Problem solving in instructional design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Seel, N. M., Eichenwald, L. D., & Penterman, N. F. N. (1995). Automating decision support in instructional system development: The case of delivery systems. In R. D. Tennyson & A. E. Barron (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools (pp. 177-216). Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Instructional Design Heuristics (Rules of Thumb)
Short Description:
This study was designed to explore the heuristics (rules of thumb) experienced instructional designers use when engaged in the instructional design process. Qualitative methods were used to capture and describe individual and shared heuristics. A short video will demonstrate rules of thumb as expressed by the participants themselves.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Background Solving problems is key to the practice of instructional design (Muraida & Spector, 1993; Perez & Emery, 1995; Rowland, 1991; Seel, Eichenwald, & Penterman, 1995). Johnson (1988) stated, “… no single correct procedure exists, and there is no definitive way of assessing the correctness of a rule based upon the outcome of a single case. There is no optimally correct rule… only rules which are relatively more accurate” (p. 212). This study is about expert use of heuristics in instructional design. Heuristics are “simple decision rules through which individuals make judgments” (Dudczak, 1995, p. 4). For purposes of this presentation, ‘heuristics’ and ‘rules of thumb’ will be used interchangeably (Abel, 2003). Purpose This study was designed to explore the heuristics experienced instructional designers use when engaged in the instructional design process. A phenomenological framework (Patton, 2002) was used to develop a deep understanding of instructional design heuristics from the perspective of 16 instructional designers. In order to achieve this, we interviewed people who have been directly involved in instructional design. Specifically, the research question was: What heuristics do experienced instructional designers use to solve instructional design problems? Methodology A purposeful sampling technique (Creswell, 2007) was used to select participants. A semi-structured interview was used to elicit a story about a complex or challenging instructional design problem on which the instructional designer had worked. In-depth information was obtained from each participant in the form of personal narratives (Kvale, 1996). Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, was audio/video-taped, and transcribed verbatim. Data Analysis In order to answer the research question, What rules of thumb do experienced instructional designers use when solving ID problems? transcripts were qualitatively coded, beginning with a search for evidence that related to the research question. Rules of thumb were extracted from participants’ responses and categorized according to common themes. Systematic steps (i.e., open coding, axial coding, and selective coding) were used to generate categories of rules of thumb (Creswell, 2007). Results Analyses of interview transcripts have identified ten categories of heuristics. Categories included: communication, management, learner/audience, pedagogy, solutions/deliverables/outcomes, process, team/people, problem/situation, client, and technology.. Within these categories, there are multiple heuristics identified. Due to limited space in this proposal, all results cannot be discussed. Some examples of results that emerged from the category Communication are the following: • When communicating with the client, listen more than you talk. (Go to the meeting and keep your ears open. They are going to say things there that you are going to need to know about later. [E.B.] I want the client to lead the conversation at this point, because they are the ones with the situation that they want to have resolved in some way. And the more that they get into talking about it, the more they begin to reveal things. [J.Q.] I let people describe the problem. And again, even though it can be difficult for me, I will not ask any questions, what so ever, until they are completely finished. [J.Q.] I very much stay quiet. I listen a lot more than I usually would. [M.G.] As a designer, you need to listen more than you talk. [R.B.]) • Verify things you’ve heard. (The first thing I want to do is I verify things that I’ve heard. Just literally, honestly, and completely verify the things that I’ve heard. Not to ask a leading question, but just simply for me to verify that what I think I’ve heard is what the client is trying to say. [J.Q.] I put things in writing and I say “do you agree with this? Is this accurate? Let’s change this until it’s accurate.” [S.P.] The confirmation message is worth gold. After a meeting, very soon after a meeting, same day if possible, “thank you for the meeting, I look forward to taking care of these things/items that we discussed at the meeting which were these things and here’s the action item list I am drawing from that.” 1 out of every 2 messages comes back with, “whoa… we really meant this,” and you have an exchange of email to clarify. [R.B.]) • Utilize visuals and tangible documents when communicating with the client. (It is always more successful for me to show people what I am thinking, than it is to tell them about it. [E.B.] People can almost never tell you what they want until you show them something they don’t want. [E.B.] Visually portray whatever process model you will be using and consider sharing that with the client or the primary stakeholder group early on in the process to help make sure the lines of communication are clear. [R.B.] When you actually create the task analysis diagram and use that in your meetings it tends to facilitate a quicker and deeper level of conversation. [R.B.]) Future efforts will be devoted to validating these heuristics as well as determining the best methods by which to share the resulting rules of thumb with novice designers Conclusion “Procedures for intelligently applying past knowledge to new experience often seem to require common sense and practical rules of thumb in addition to, or instead of, formal analysis” (Schank & Abelson, 1977, p. 3). This study elicited these rules of thumb from experienced instructional designers as a way of expanding our understanding of what practicing instructional designers utilize during their design process. This knowledge of instructional design heuristics should be imparted on novice instructional designers while they are learning the intricacies of becoming an instructional designer as a way of providing them some wisdom from more experienced designers. References Abel, C. F. (2003). Heuristics and problem solving. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 53-58. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dudczak, C. A. (1995). Heuristic elements of plausible reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Antonio, TX. Ingram, A. L. (1988). Instructional design for heuristic-based problem solving. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 36, 211-230. Johnson, E. J. (1988). Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 209 - 228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Muraida, D. J., & Spector, J. M. (1993). The advanced instructional design advisor. Instructional Science, 21, 239-253. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80-95. Rowland, G. (1991). Problem solving in instructional design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Seel, N. M., Eichenwald, L. D., & Penterman, N. F. N. (1995). Automating decision support in instructional system development: The case of delivery systems. In R. D. Tennyson & A. E. Barron (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools (pp. 177-216). Germany: Springer-Verlag.
wikis blogs podcasting
Title:
How and why professors use wikis, blogs and podcasting
Short Description:
Podcasting, wikis and blogs are becoming increasingly popular in teaching and learning in higher education. We conducted extensive interviews with five professors from three universities about the use of these tools, specifically focusing on 1) why they chose to use these tools in their courses, 2) how the tools were used in their teaching, and 3) what role the tools had on student achievement. We will discuss the results, common themes, and future directions.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
In this roundtable session we will discuss the results of our qualitative study on instructors’ use of current Web 2.0 tools, namely podcasting, wikis and blogs, in teaching and learning. This session is designed for instructors who are interested in using these tools, instructors who are currently integrating these tools into their courses, and instructional designers that support instructors integrating these tools into the curriculum.
The purpose of this study was to determine 1) why professors would decide to incorporate these tools into their courses, and 2) the effect using these tools has on student learning outcomes.
Background
As these technologies become more popular, their use in higher education continues to rise. Yet as adoption of these tools increases, we contend that the pedagogical potential of the tools is still evolving. The significance of using tools such as podcasting, wikis and blogs in higher education is the potential to incorporate a collaborative approach to teaching and learning. A learning environment designed for collaboration carries the potential for student learning to be socially constructed through conversations and interaction (Brown & Adler, 2008). This design can support self-regulated learning that occurs when students are able to reflect on what they know and construct meaning from information (Akbulut, 2007). The tools provide the potential for students to function as both learners and teachers, (Rogers, Chan, & Isom, 2007) sharing their knowledge with others while creating a deeper understanding for themselves. The collaborative nature of these tools allows for the harnessing of “collective intelligence” (Sreebny, 2007) of learners, where learners collaboratively achieve understanding of the content via discussion and reflection. The use of wikis, blogs and podcasts in a learning environment encourages learners to create new knowledge and continue to refine what they know over time (Richardson, 2006). Because these tools are relatively easy to use and require minimal formal training to learn, students can engage and share ideas with classmates and teachers quickly. Students are empowered to share their ideas, reflections, and understanding of the content (Brown & Bussert, 2007). These student artifacts can be published online to disseminate the constructed knowledge to a wider audience of peers and potentially the entire Internet community. Methodology
Professors from three Tennessee Board of Regent universities were interviewed about their use of blogs, wikis, and podcasting. These five professors represented four disciplines--science, business, English literature and education. The research questions focused on a) why they chose to use these tools in their courses, b) how these tools were used in their teaching and c) the role these tools had on student learning outcomes. Professors were interviewed at length, either face to face or through audio conference tool about the selection of the tools they used and the implementation of the selected tools. The transcribed interviews were analyzed for relevant themes as they supported the purpose of the study.
Conclusions Several themes emerged from this qualitative study. These themes included a) the overall shared experiences that learners had with each other and the instructor b) the experiences with the use of these tools in learning, c) student as teacher and technology mentor, d) the ability for technology to transcend the classroom and time, e) the interaction learners had with the content, f) technology safety, g) technology difficulties, and, h) selecting the appropriate technology. The participants also attempted to describe characteristics of instructors who choose to use these tools in their instructional design as well as why they would take the initiative to continue experimenting with these tools. We will discuss specifics about the wide range of instructors using these tools, and about how they use the tools. Interestingly, each of our five participants used the tools in markedly different ways. We will also discuss ideas for future research related to instructor variables and instructional strategies connected with these tools.
References
Akbulut, Y. (2007). Instructional use of weblogs. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8 (3), 6-14.
Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16-32.
Brown, N.E. & Bussert, K. (2007). Information literacy 2.0: Empowering students through personal engagement. Paper presented at the International Educational Technology (IETC) Conference, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Rogers, P.C., Liddle, S.W., Chan, P. & Isom, B. (2007). Web 2.0 learning platform: Harnessing collective intelligence. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 1, 16-33.
Sreebny, O. (2007). Digital rendezvous: Social software in higher education.Educause Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin, 2.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
How and why professors use wikis, blogs and podcasting
Short Description:
Podcasting, wikis and blogs are becoming increasingly popular in teaching and learning in higher education. We conducted extensive interviews with five professors from three universities about the use of these tools, specifically focusing on 1) why they chose to use these tools in their courses, 2) how the tools were used in their teaching, and 3) what role the tools had on student achievement. We will discuss the results, common themes, and future directions.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
In this roundtable session we will discuss the results of our qualitative study on instructors’ use of current Web 2.0 tools, namely podcasting, wikis and blogs, in teaching and learning. This session is designed for instructors who are interested in using these tools, instructors who are currently integrating these tools into their courses, and instructional designers that support instructors integrating these tools into the curriculum.
The purpose of this study was to determine 1) why professors would decide to incorporate these tools into their courses, and 2) the effect using these tools has on student learning outcomes.
Background
As these technologies become more popular, their use in higher education continues to rise. Yet as adoption of these tools increases, we contend that the pedagogical potential of the tools is still evolving. The significance of using tools such as podcasting, wikis and blogs in higher education is the potential to incorporate a collaborative approach to teaching and learning. A learning environment designed for collaboration carries the potential for student learning to be socially constructed through conversations and interaction (Brown & Adler, 2008). This design can support self-regulated learning that occurs when students are able to reflect on what they know and construct meaning from information (Akbulut, 2007). The tools provide the potential for students to function as both learners and teachers, (Rogers, Chan, & Isom, 2007) sharing their knowledge with others while creating a deeper understanding for themselves. The collaborative nature of these tools allows for the harnessing of “collective intelligence” (Sreebny, 2007) of learners, where learners collaboratively achieve understanding of the content via discussion and reflection. The use of wikis, blogs and podcasts in a learning environment encourages learners to create new knowledge and continue to refine what they know over time (Richardson, 2006). Because these tools are relatively easy to use and require minimal formal training to learn, students can engage and share ideas with classmates and teachers quickly. Students are empowered to share their ideas, reflections, and understanding of the content (Brown & Bussert, 2007). These student artifacts can be published online to disseminate the constructed knowledge to a wider audience of peers and potentially the entire Internet community. Methodology
Professors from three Tennessee Board of Regent universities were interviewed about their use of blogs, wikis, and podcasting. These five professors represented four disciplines--science, business, English literature and education. The research questions focused on a) why they chose to use these tools in their courses, b) how these tools were used in their teaching and c) the role these tools had on student learning outcomes. Professors were interviewed at length, either face to face or through audio conference tool about the selection of the tools they used and the implementation of the selected tools. The transcribed interviews were analyzed for relevant themes as they supported the purpose of the study.
Conclusions Several themes emerged from this qualitative study. These themes included a) the overall shared experiences that learners had with each other and the instructor b) the experiences with the use of these tools in learning, c) student as teacher and technology mentor, d) the ability for technology to transcend the classroom and time, e) the interaction learners had with the content, f) technology safety, g) technology difficulties, and, h) selecting the appropriate technology. The participants also attempted to describe characteristics of instructors who choose to use these tools in their instructional design as well as why they would take the initiative to continue experimenting with these tools. We will discuss specifics about the wide range of instructors using these tools, and about how they use the tools. Interestingly, each of our five participants used the tools in markedly different ways. We will also discuss ideas for future research related to instructor variables and instructional strategies connected with these tools.
References
Akbulut, Y. (2007). Instructional use of weblogs. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8 (3), 6-14.
Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16-32.
Brown, N.E. & Bussert, K. (2007). Information literacy 2.0: Empowering students through personal engagement. Paper presented at the International Educational Technology (IETC) Conference, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Rogers, P.C., Liddle, S.W., Chan, P. & Isom, B. (2007). Web 2.0 learning platform: Harnessing collective intelligence. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 1, 16-33.
Sreebny, O. (2007). Digital rendezvous: Social software in higher education.Educause Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin, 2.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
aect-effective online course
Developing Effective Online Courses
Short Description:
This session will discuss the variety of elements and skills needed in the development of an effective online course at every level. Assessment and measurement techniques will be covered as well as multiple ways to utilize technology to allow for use of higher order thinking skills in the online environment. Effective ways to develop and encourage interaction in a remote environment will also be highlighted.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
In today’s internet based environment, more and more schools at every level are working towards providing students with online learning opportunities. In some cases there seems to be a movement to take a traditional class and place it online with little or no modification. Often times this is seen as the responsibility of an individual teacher who is familiar with the course. This is a serious mistake that can lead to ineffective classroom learning and frustration on the part of the students and teachers alike.Development of online classes needs to be a team effort. There are 4 sets of skills needed to develop an effective learning environment online. The team needs a subject matter expert (SME) usually the teacher, an instructional designer, an expert in the field of assessment and measurement, and a technology expert to build the online environment.Online classes need to be developed with specific goals in mind. The particular audience that is being anticipated for a class will guide the development of those goals. Once the audience and goals are identified, a team is needed to work through the steps of an instructional design process to choose the curriculum content to be covered, the best methods of presentation, the best methods of interaction, what student assignments should be and how to assess the learning that has taken place. An additional factor to be considered is how to meet all of the student’s needs when they are located far from campus.Each of these elements will be discussed in detail. Starting with the choice of courses to be offered online and the degree of remoteness anticipated. Is this course best suited to the hybrid classroom, the blended program, or a completely remote situation? What audience will you be seeking with your program: traditional students, non-traditional students, military personnel, international students, a combination?Once the audience and degree of remoteness has been identified, we need to identify the content to be taught, the skills to be developed, and the long term goals to be achieved. This should include not just content, skills and goals for the subject matter but should also consider technological ones as well.After developing a comprehensive list of content, skills and goals the development team needs to move into identifying specific behavioral objectives and the means of assessing the mastery of these objectives. The objectives must be set for each unit to be covered and must lead to the achievement of the goals set for the class.Then the instructional design specialist goes to work with the SME to design the presentations, activities, and assignments of the class. The assessment and measurement specialist can also work with this team to design effective assessment techniques for the assignments and the learning that is taking place. A team discussion of the background needed for this virtual class is of utmost importance. Depending on the level of remoteness, more or less student help will be needed. For a student taking an online class in a completely remote environment, many important elements of a learning community must be incorporated into the class background or virtual campus to allow for the emotional and social needs of the students to be met. Also since the student has no access to a campus, services and support materials must also be provided in an extended online environment. Since few instructors are likely to have the skills needed to develop a highly interactive virtual campus to meet these needs, a technology expert will need to work with the team to develop an appropriate virtual campus. Here again we need to go back and consider the intended audience. If we are expecting to work with traditional students straight out of secondary school, we can assume they have basic computer skills and internet familiarity. However if we are looking for the nontraditional, older learner we may need to provide additional instructional assistance in software use and internet searching.Finally, the team needs to work on an evaluation plan to identify weaknesses in the program and develop revisions to improve the courses. This is pretty much a never ending cycle. As the job skills needed in the field change, and as new technologies emerge, we need to constantly update our online courses, as well as our traditional courses to prepare our students for a career in the real world of work.This presentation will cover all of these elements and discuss specifics of each: What to look for, How to evaluate their importance and their effectiveness, and how to improve what you have.
Short Description:
This session will discuss the variety of elements and skills needed in the development of an effective online course at every level. Assessment and measurement techniques will be covered as well as multiple ways to utilize technology to allow for use of higher order thinking skills in the online environment. Effective ways to develop and encourage interaction in a remote environment will also be highlighted.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
In today’s internet based environment, more and more schools at every level are working towards providing students with online learning opportunities. In some cases there seems to be a movement to take a traditional class and place it online with little or no modification. Often times this is seen as the responsibility of an individual teacher who is familiar with the course. This is a serious mistake that can lead to ineffective classroom learning and frustration on the part of the students and teachers alike.Development of online classes needs to be a team effort. There are 4 sets of skills needed to develop an effective learning environment online. The team needs a subject matter expert (SME) usually the teacher, an instructional designer, an expert in the field of assessment and measurement, and a technology expert to build the online environment.Online classes need to be developed with specific goals in mind. The particular audience that is being anticipated for a class will guide the development of those goals. Once the audience and goals are identified, a team is needed to work through the steps of an instructional design process to choose the curriculum content to be covered, the best methods of presentation, the best methods of interaction, what student assignments should be and how to assess the learning that has taken place. An additional factor to be considered is how to meet all of the student’s needs when they are located far from campus.Each of these elements will be discussed in detail. Starting with the choice of courses to be offered online and the degree of remoteness anticipated. Is this course best suited to the hybrid classroom, the blended program, or a completely remote situation? What audience will you be seeking with your program: traditional students, non-traditional students, military personnel, international students, a combination?Once the audience and degree of remoteness has been identified, we need to identify the content to be taught, the skills to be developed, and the long term goals to be achieved. This should include not just content, skills and goals for the subject matter but should also consider technological ones as well.After developing a comprehensive list of content, skills and goals the development team needs to move into identifying specific behavioral objectives and the means of assessing the mastery of these objectives. The objectives must be set for each unit to be covered and must lead to the achievement of the goals set for the class.Then the instructional design specialist goes to work with the SME to design the presentations, activities, and assignments of the class. The assessment and measurement specialist can also work with this team to design effective assessment techniques for the assignments and the learning that is taking place. A team discussion of the background needed for this virtual class is of utmost importance. Depending on the level of remoteness, more or less student help will be needed. For a student taking an online class in a completely remote environment, many important elements of a learning community must be incorporated into the class background or virtual campus to allow for the emotional and social needs of the students to be met. Also since the student has no access to a campus, services and support materials must also be provided in an extended online environment. Since few instructors are likely to have the skills needed to develop a highly interactive virtual campus to meet these needs, a technology expert will need to work with the team to develop an appropriate virtual campus. Here again we need to go back and consider the intended audience. If we are expecting to work with traditional students straight out of secondary school, we can assume they have basic computer skills and internet familiarity. However if we are looking for the nontraditional, older learner we may need to provide additional instructional assistance in software use and internet searching.Finally, the team needs to work on an evaluation plan to identify weaknesses in the program and develop revisions to improve the courses. This is pretty much a never ending cycle. As the job skills needed in the field change, and as new technologies emerge, we need to constantly update our online courses, as well as our traditional courses to prepare our students for a career in the real world of work.This presentation will cover all of these elements and discuss specifics of each: What to look for, How to evaluate their importance and their effectiveness, and how to improve what you have.
aect-hybrid instruction
What is the Lived Experience of Designing and Teaching Multiple Delivery Methods -Live Meeting, Hybrid, Online, and Face To Face (f2f) within a Semester at a Technical College Setting?
Short Description:
The author documented the experiential teaching in designing and implementing four delivery methods for her Sociology, Diversity, Developmental Psychology, and Contemporary American Society via Live Meeting, hybrid, online, and f2f started in the spring semester of 2009. The dynamics of coordinating and adjusting structures and functions of each learning environment among the author, students, the IT department, and the administration illustrates the challenges of instructional and non-instructional issues situated in a highly contextualized setting.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
Technical colleges play a key role to bridge PK-12 and 15 to 16 for many higher educational institutions. The paper is intended for stakeholders who are interested in obtaining information regarding how learning technologies are implemented in the significant yet controversial educational institution – the technical college, both in instructional and non-instructional dimensions.My research question is: What is the lived experienced of a social study instructor teaching four delivery formats within a semester? Three cycles of a small scale of design research method has been integrated with an autoethnographical phenomenology case study. Each cycle lasts for five weeks.The purpose of this research has two levels of significance:At the individual level-1. To obtain the first hand experience of exploring different combination of teaching methods and resources to assist multiple delivery formats within a semester. 2. To observe Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory in action. 3. To illustrate differences and challenges between constructivism and the instructionism (instructional aspect) in online, Live Meeting, hybrid and f2f with web-enhanced methods in a technical educational setting.At the college level-1. To experience the dynamics among the instructor, students, IT Department, and administration in a contextualized setting (non-instructional aspect).2. To pay attention to the research potentiality of learning technologies practiced in the technical college contexts.Research BackgroundIn the research domain, some researchers have been interested in studying 2-year colleges’ online teaching and learning issues. But there is limited amount of research focusing on the complex educational ecology of the college setting that affects the daily teaching and learning, in particular, when relating to learning technologies. Though most two year technical colleges, comprehensive community colleges, and four year colleges tend to be lumped together as the post-secondary educational system or “higher educational” institution, they are fundamentally different in many aspects. Such as educational missions, climate, diversity of student body, specific roles of faculty and staff, funding, infrastructure and the overall ecological configuration, just to name a few, comprise the uniqueness of 2-year technical colleges that stand out as a special and controversial educational entity. Recently, learning-centered approach has been evincing with successful learning outcomes (Conti, 1985b; National Center for Education Statistics 2001; Allen et al. 2002; Migliete and Strange 1998; Post et al. 1998; Parisot, 1997). In online learning environment, researchers and scholars have been touting the potential to transition higher education from a teacher-centered orientation to the constructivist student-centered approach (Sherron and Boettcher 1997; Beaudoin 1990; Dillon and Walsh 1992; Chanchaem 2001; Berge 1997; Kearsley 2000). But researchers indicate that there is a discrepancy between the promoted learner-centered style and what is happening in the online learning environment. Online facilitation is different from the face to face instruction in terms of pedagogical approaches and learning technologies application (Zhao, 2003). However, online instructors tend to carry face to face pedagogies into the online environment (Connolly, Jones, & Jones, 2007). Parisot (1997, 5) stated “little has been done to understand the changing role of faculty in adapting to technology and the changes in the psychological and physical environment promised by distance learning”. A decade later, Barrett et al’s research echoes such observation, “….each new technological advancement engenders great expectations regarding its impact on instruction. Regardless of the changes in technology, teaching style has not changed and remains teacher-centered”(Barrett, Bower, & Donovan, 2007). In order to implement quality online course, Kochtanek and Hein (2000) contend that transformation of the instructor’s role from instructor to facilitator was an important initial step. They argued that a successful student-centered learning environment requires that the instructor’s role to changed from a knowledge transmitter to a knowledge facilitator. Research Procedures:To gain better understanding of the above research results and suggestions, the author situates herself beyond the dichotomy of online vs. on-ground by adding the hybrid and the currently piloting Live Meeting (to replace the high cost ITV and increase the accessibility to students) into the repertoire. Through a year’s endeavor and preparation, the author obtained the opportunity to gather four major delivery formats within current semester (started on January 12, 2009)– online, hybrid, Live Meeting (similar to Adobe Connect/Breeze), and traditional face to face with web-enhanced methods for her six social studies courses. As an antoethnographical study, the author documented the ADDIE process with design research components. The dynamics of coordinating and adjusting structures and functions of contents, pedagogies, and technological affordances in each learning environment among the author, students, IT department, and administration policy has been recorded for further study. Instrumentations: Two instruments are using in this study. One is student basic information survey (age, gender, GPA, income, employment conditions, level of technology familiarity, delivery format preference), designed by the author. The other one is “The Principle of Adult Learning Scale” (PALS, developed by Gary Conti in 1978) to be my self-report to discern the teaching style. Student learning outcomes have been collected during a five week's duration.As aforementioned, there are multiple purposes of this exploratory study. At the first cycle, this paper mainly concentrates on the instructional or pedagogical aspect of this case study. The subjectivity and inter-subjectivity between the author and her four delivery formats to experience the concepts of knowledge transmitter and knowledge facilitator, or student-centered versus direct guidance learning is the focal point.ConclusionThe challenge of constructivism versus instructivism (i.e., the instructional aspect) is intensively involved with the contextual forces (i.e., the non-instructional aspect) affecting the daily teaching and learning process. These forces identified so far are the social class of students(typically from low-income households),learning readiness (prior knowledge),the author's teaching style, school policy changing dynamics, and vicissitude of funding sources (e.g., decreasing the IT support). Currently, this study is moving toward the second cycle. There will be thicker information available for this work-in-progress study. Different levels of analyses will be continued.
Short Description:
The author documented the experiential teaching in designing and implementing four delivery methods for her Sociology, Diversity, Developmental Psychology, and Contemporary American Society via Live Meeting, hybrid, online, and f2f started in the spring semester of 2009. The dynamics of coordinating and adjusting structures and functions of each learning environment among the author, students, the IT department, and the administration illustrates the challenges of instructional and non-instructional issues situated in a highly contextualized setting.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
Technical colleges play a key role to bridge PK-12 and 15 to 16 for many higher educational institutions. The paper is intended for stakeholders who are interested in obtaining information regarding how learning technologies are implemented in the significant yet controversial educational institution – the technical college, both in instructional and non-instructional dimensions.My research question is: What is the lived experienced of a social study instructor teaching four delivery formats within a semester? Three cycles of a small scale of design research method has been integrated with an autoethnographical phenomenology case study. Each cycle lasts for five weeks.The purpose of this research has two levels of significance:At the individual level-1. To obtain the first hand experience of exploring different combination of teaching methods and resources to assist multiple delivery formats within a semester. 2. To observe Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory in action. 3. To illustrate differences and challenges between constructivism and the instructionism (instructional aspect) in online, Live Meeting, hybrid and f2f with web-enhanced methods in a technical educational setting.At the college level-1. To experience the dynamics among the instructor, students, IT Department, and administration in a contextualized setting (non-instructional aspect).2. To pay attention to the research potentiality of learning technologies practiced in the technical college contexts.Research BackgroundIn the research domain, some researchers have been interested in studying 2-year colleges’ online teaching and learning issues. But there is limited amount of research focusing on the complex educational ecology of the college setting that affects the daily teaching and learning, in particular, when relating to learning technologies. Though most two year technical colleges, comprehensive community colleges, and four year colleges tend to be lumped together as the post-secondary educational system or “higher educational” institution, they are fundamentally different in many aspects. Such as educational missions, climate, diversity of student body, specific roles of faculty and staff, funding, infrastructure and the overall ecological configuration, just to name a few, comprise the uniqueness of 2-year technical colleges that stand out as a special and controversial educational entity. Recently, learning-centered approach has been evincing with successful learning outcomes (Conti, 1985b; National Center for Education Statistics 2001; Allen et al. 2002; Migliete and Strange 1998; Post et al. 1998; Parisot, 1997). In online learning environment, researchers and scholars have been touting the potential to transition higher education from a teacher-centered orientation to the constructivist student-centered approach (Sherron and Boettcher 1997; Beaudoin 1990; Dillon and Walsh 1992; Chanchaem 2001; Berge 1997; Kearsley 2000). But researchers indicate that there is a discrepancy between the promoted learner-centered style and what is happening in the online learning environment. Online facilitation is different from the face to face instruction in terms of pedagogical approaches and learning technologies application (Zhao, 2003). However, online instructors tend to carry face to face pedagogies into the online environment (Connolly, Jones, & Jones, 2007). Parisot (1997, 5) stated “little has been done to understand the changing role of faculty in adapting to technology and the changes in the psychological and physical environment promised by distance learning”. A decade later, Barrett et al’s research echoes such observation, “….each new technological advancement engenders great expectations regarding its impact on instruction. Regardless of the changes in technology, teaching style has not changed and remains teacher-centered”(Barrett, Bower, & Donovan, 2007). In order to implement quality online course, Kochtanek and Hein (2000) contend that transformation of the instructor’s role from instructor to facilitator was an important initial step. They argued that a successful student-centered learning environment requires that the instructor’s role to changed from a knowledge transmitter to a knowledge facilitator. Research Procedures:To gain better understanding of the above research results and suggestions, the author situates herself beyond the dichotomy of online vs. on-ground by adding the hybrid and the currently piloting Live Meeting (to replace the high cost ITV and increase the accessibility to students) into the repertoire. Through a year’s endeavor and preparation, the author obtained the opportunity to gather four major delivery formats within current semester (started on January 12, 2009)– online, hybrid, Live Meeting (similar to Adobe Connect/Breeze), and traditional face to face with web-enhanced methods for her six social studies courses. As an antoethnographical study, the author documented the ADDIE process with design research components. The dynamics of coordinating and adjusting structures and functions of contents, pedagogies, and technological affordances in each learning environment among the author, students, IT department, and administration policy has been recorded for further study. Instrumentations: Two instruments are using in this study. One is student basic information survey (age, gender, GPA, income, employment conditions, level of technology familiarity, delivery format preference), designed by the author. The other one is “The Principle of Adult Learning Scale” (PALS, developed by Gary Conti in 1978) to be my self-report to discern the teaching style. Student learning outcomes have been collected during a five week's duration.As aforementioned, there are multiple purposes of this exploratory study. At the first cycle, this paper mainly concentrates on the instructional or pedagogical aspect of this case study. The subjectivity and inter-subjectivity between the author and her four delivery formats to experience the concepts of knowledge transmitter and knowledge facilitator, or student-centered versus direct guidance learning is the focal point.ConclusionThe challenge of constructivism versus instructivism (i.e., the instructional aspect) is intensively involved with the contextual forces (i.e., the non-instructional aspect) affecting the daily teaching and learning process. These forces identified so far are the social class of students(typically from low-income households),learning readiness (prior knowledge),the author's teaching style, school policy changing dynamics, and vicissitude of funding sources (e.g., decreasing the IT support). Currently, this study is moving toward the second cycle. There will be thicker information available for this work-in-progress study. Different levels of analyses will be continued.
aect-flexible design for online course
Flexible Design Model for Online Course Development
Short Description:
This presentation will describe how the instructional design and development the World Campus at Penn State has evolved over the past years in order to develop effective and efficient online courses. Also, the presenter will discuss the flexible design models to meet different faculty needs.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
The Pennsylvania State University has been involved in distance education since 1892 and has produced courses that have been delivered via a variety of media. In 1997 Penn State launched the World Campus as the primary delivery unit for courses offered to students at a distance. This year also marked the beginning of development of online courses for our distance education students. While courses in the past had integrated listserves and gophers, 1997 marked the beginning of the design and development of wholly online courses delivered through WebCT. Now Penn State’s World Campus offers more than three hundred online courses and enrolls students from around the world. When an instructional designer of the World Campus works with the subject matter, Penn State faculty to design and develop an online course, two semester model and two weeks model are usually adopted. Two-Semester Model Two-semester model allowed for an eight to twelve month development cycle where faculty authors first met with the designers to review their existing face-to-face course and examine existing print based course. At the end of the initial meetings the faculty left with a course design guide in hand and constructed in writing their course content. This process took six to eight months. For the first semester, faculty write the syllabus, lesson content and lesson activities. Designers did not begin work on the courses until all content had arrived for the second semester. However, delayed course content from the faculty can lead missed deadlines, which again lead to delayed launches or courses starting when they were not complete. This added a great deal of pressure to the faculty authors, designers, and instructors. Two-Week Cycle Model The Two-Week Cycle model allows designers to develop and get each lesson or unit of a course ready for review in two weeks. During the first week of each two-week cycle, designers work closely with faculty in order to get lesson content on time. Then during the second week the design staff mocks up the lesson online and prepares it for review by the faculty. If a Web-based course has twelve lessons, ideally, twenty-four weeks (six months) later, the course should be ready for final review and editing prior to opening. One of the key benefits of the Two Week Cycle model is designers receive content every other week, which keeps things moving. Another benefit is constant communication with faculty, it allows faculty to get each of the lessons in on time, which is the desired goal of the designer. When the designers work with the faculty, the guiding documents to help the faculty get started are provided by the World Campus. The Flexible Design Models In the Two-semester model and Two-week Cycle model, the designers play important role to develop online courses. As new technologies are rapidly developed, more and more departments and students from Penn State express their interests in having online courses. At the same time, more and more faculty expresses their needs to control the course content without through the designers during their online development. To meet the faculty needs, some flexible design models are created to allow the faculty to control the course content. Because during online development, the instructors feel what was current information for students may not be the latest information any more. Thus, they need to update the lesson content through the development. If some flexible design models can be provided for the faculty so that the development can be more effective and efficient, that would make everybody happy. Simple Editor Faculty is an unique group in terms of using technology. After faculty works with an instructional designer for a repeat online course for one semester, he or she should very familiar with the World Campus online course templates. If the same faculty teaches the same course for the second time, he or she may request some minor changes, for example, add more explanation to the lesson content, assignment instructions and assignment rubrics. Most of the lesson content for the World Campus courses is in our server. Before the simple editor is added, the minor changes from the faculty request need to be done by the designers. Some of the faculty don’t want to touch ftp access, but are willing to make minor changes by themselves. If there is a way to allow faculty make minor changes easily and quickly, it will save the time for the faculty to wait for the designers to get back to him or her. Based on the faculty needs, the World Campus adds simple editor to the course in order to meet the faculty needs. The interface of the simple editor is like Word file. After the changes have been made, click on the submission button. The whole process to make minor changes is so easy and quick. Flexible Design Template As more and more faculty express their needs to control the online course by themselves rather than through the designers, the World Campus created Flexible Design template for those faculty who would like to control their online courses by themselves. For this flexible design template, we don’t need to put anything in our server. Instead, we use the Course Management Systems only. The whole course content will be uploaded as one folder. Within that folder, there are following components: • Lesson folders with page files • Flash file to show the interface of table content • Excel sheet file to change the table of content • Images folders for the interface of table content • CSS folder During this session, the presenter will show an example template using Flash and Excel file. When the Flexible Design models are adopted, some issues may raise as well. Thus these issues will be discussed during the presentation. Also the presenter will share the best practice to the audience for the Flexible Design Models.
Short Description:
This presentation will describe how the instructional design and development the World Campus at Penn State has evolved over the past years in order to develop effective and efficient online courses. Also, the presenter will discuss the flexible design models to meet different faculty needs.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
The Pennsylvania State University has been involved in distance education since 1892 and has produced courses that have been delivered via a variety of media. In 1997 Penn State launched the World Campus as the primary delivery unit for courses offered to students at a distance. This year also marked the beginning of development of online courses for our distance education students. While courses in the past had integrated listserves and gophers, 1997 marked the beginning of the design and development of wholly online courses delivered through WebCT. Now Penn State’s World Campus offers more than three hundred online courses and enrolls students from around the world. When an instructional designer of the World Campus works with the subject matter, Penn State faculty to design and develop an online course, two semester model and two weeks model are usually adopted. Two-Semester Model Two-semester model allowed for an eight to twelve month development cycle where faculty authors first met with the designers to review their existing face-to-face course and examine existing print based course. At the end of the initial meetings the faculty left with a course design guide in hand and constructed in writing their course content. This process took six to eight months. For the first semester, faculty write the syllabus, lesson content and lesson activities. Designers did not begin work on the courses until all content had arrived for the second semester. However, delayed course content from the faculty can lead missed deadlines, which again lead to delayed launches or courses starting when they were not complete. This added a great deal of pressure to the faculty authors, designers, and instructors. Two-Week Cycle Model The Two-Week Cycle model allows designers to develop and get each lesson or unit of a course ready for review in two weeks. During the first week of each two-week cycle, designers work closely with faculty in order to get lesson content on time. Then during the second week the design staff mocks up the lesson online and prepares it for review by the faculty. If a Web-based course has twelve lessons, ideally, twenty-four weeks (six months) later, the course should be ready for final review and editing prior to opening. One of the key benefits of the Two Week Cycle model is designers receive content every other week, which keeps things moving. Another benefit is constant communication with faculty, it allows faculty to get each of the lessons in on time, which is the desired goal of the designer. When the designers work with the faculty, the guiding documents to help the faculty get started are provided by the World Campus. The Flexible Design Models In the Two-semester model and Two-week Cycle model, the designers play important role to develop online courses. As new technologies are rapidly developed, more and more departments and students from Penn State express their interests in having online courses. At the same time, more and more faculty expresses their needs to control the course content without through the designers during their online development. To meet the faculty needs, some flexible design models are created to allow the faculty to control the course content. Because during online development, the instructors feel what was current information for students may not be the latest information any more. Thus, they need to update the lesson content through the development. If some flexible design models can be provided for the faculty so that the development can be more effective and efficient, that would make everybody happy. Simple Editor Faculty is an unique group in terms of using technology. After faculty works with an instructional designer for a repeat online course for one semester, he or she should very familiar with the World Campus online course templates. If the same faculty teaches the same course for the second time, he or she may request some minor changes, for example, add more explanation to the lesson content, assignment instructions and assignment rubrics. Most of the lesson content for the World Campus courses is in our server. Before the simple editor is added, the minor changes from the faculty request need to be done by the designers. Some of the faculty don’t want to touch ftp access, but are willing to make minor changes by themselves. If there is a way to allow faculty make minor changes easily and quickly, it will save the time for the faculty to wait for the designers to get back to him or her. Based on the faculty needs, the World Campus adds simple editor to the course in order to meet the faculty needs. The interface of the simple editor is like Word file. After the changes have been made, click on the submission button. The whole process to make minor changes is so easy and quick. Flexible Design Template As more and more faculty express their needs to control the online course by themselves rather than through the designers, the World Campus created Flexible Design template for those faculty who would like to control their online courses by themselves. For this flexible design template, we don’t need to put anything in our server. Instead, we use the Course Management Systems only. The whole course content will be uploaded as one folder. Within that folder, there are following components: • Lesson folders with page files • Flash file to show the interface of table content • Excel sheet file to change the table of content • Images folders for the interface of table content • CSS folder During this session, the presenter will show an example template using Flash and Excel file. When the Flexible Design models are adopted, some issues may raise as well. Thus these issues will be discussed during the presentation. Also the presenter will share the best practice to the audience for the Flexible Design Models.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)