Online textbooks: the future of Learning? – by Chris Moran
San Diego Union-Tribune, Sunday October 7, 2007, Pages B1 & B5.
Online textbooks: the future of learning?
This article looks at a Montgomery High School teacher Gerald French who gave his Biology students a choice – book or online. Mr. French’s hope was that he could entice hesitant learners into learning. He hoped to prepare his students for the technological future. By teaching with an online book the students would be honing their technology skills, and improving their learning skills in a non-traditional method. A method that will in all likelihood will become the method of the future. Permission was given for one class to be taught in this method, but he engaged all four of his classes. Upon review, The Office of Education inspectors, not seeing evidence that all the students with passwords had access requested that he issue books. He feels that by “Having to issue books to students who have computers takes away his leverage to coax this students into the 21st-century-style learning.” The article goes on to describe the issues around online learning and the shortage of textbooks for schools. Many publishers have drifted towards the online market. This issue is going to become more important in the future. Some students may still favor the physical comfort of a book. The Lemon Grove School District has issued laptops and online books to their entire middle school science and social studies classes through a Microsoft program, but they are still bundled with a physical book. The end of the article points out that if you can’t be sure a student will open a physical book, how can you be sure they will use an online book?
1. How do you show evidence that the students with passwords also have computers and Internet access? This issue has been bothering me for two weeks. The Lemon Grove middle school project where all the students were given a computer and an online account is great, but unreachable for most schools. Is there a real way to grant computer and access to all students? Even now I know students that have no access to computers or to the web. Unless there is a way to grant every student in a school district access and then provide them with a computer to access those accounts, you can’t. But you can start slowly, grade by grade. This would lessen the initial output a school district might face and eventually bring all students to an equitable level of access to online learning. Eventually, all learning will migrate toward the inclusion of technology in school.
2. How do you ensure that a student is receiving an equal level of learning online or by book? In the global environment that exists today all people will have to have some level of computational expertise, but unless there is a social revolution I am not sure that education will ever be equal. A school may use a physical book for class, with a student having to independently having to do research to learn more, or online with the same text, but access to instantaneous additional information. Given that both could be identical, it really comes down to the teacher and the learning environment.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Journal # 3
Threat of Security – by LeAnne K. Robinson, Abbie Brown, and Tim Green
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 19 - 23.
The article “Threat of Security”, discusses the use of security by educational institutions may actually be creating an atmosphere of apprehension for students and teachers. “Could our concern over security be generating a fear that is now hindering the integration of technology?” The article discusses various areas of usage (Networks, Web Sites, and Filters). It also point out the subsequent regulation that has had implemented by educational institutions in an effort to protect children’s safety.
1. & 2. Has there been a loss of perspective regarding security? Are we in the process developing a punitive environment that does not allow for creativity and inspiration for educators and students? Many schools allow for little of no interaction with the web. Limited access is granted for classes to explore sites for school projects. Have we undermined the worthiness of technology in education? Are we becoming paranoid to the point of inactivity by perceived “threats to security”? The article ponders whether to avoid the use of computers in classrooms due to this environment of distrust. It has been shown that the use of technology helps develop more constructive and authentic learning environments. When explored by the authors they found that of security is actually not the chief impediment to technology use in education, (“…lack of appropriate hardware and software, training, administrative support, and collegial jealousy.”). This surprisingly was not a lack of access to computers and peripherals, but access to needed resources that would have allowed for more technology interaction in the classroom. The protocols or Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) that many schools have adopted can greatly limit both a teachers’ ability to teach as well as a student’s ability to learn. How do we balance security and AUPs with access to the many technological tools available for learning? We must have a level of trust in education. Levels of personal responsibility need to be established that increase with age and maturity. Schools need to trust educators to teach appropriately, and administration needs to be clear as to what is allowed. AUPs need to be clear, but not so binding that a teacher or student is unable to utilize the worth of technology. Give teachers more trust to check the sights they use and teach children what is appropriate for their environment. The article mentions that students usually worry more about losing their work, rather than security. If a balance is taught and that balance is respected then for the most part it will be followed. We need to assume that most teachers and students want to be learning, rather than assume that they are out to be nefarious. Perspective needs to be retained by the schools. Mainly, “We must empower teachers to fully integrate these tools and technologies into their classroom settings in ways that are both safe for the individual and satisfying for the learner.”
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 19 - 23.
The article “Threat of Security”, discusses the use of security by educational institutions may actually be creating an atmosphere of apprehension for students and teachers. “Could our concern over security be generating a fear that is now hindering the integration of technology?” The article discusses various areas of usage (Networks, Web Sites, and Filters). It also point out the subsequent regulation that has had implemented by educational institutions in an effort to protect children’s safety.
1. & 2. Has there been a loss of perspective regarding security? Are we in the process developing a punitive environment that does not allow for creativity and inspiration for educators and students? Many schools allow for little of no interaction with the web. Limited access is granted for classes to explore sites for school projects. Have we undermined the worthiness of technology in education? Are we becoming paranoid to the point of inactivity by perceived “threats to security”? The article ponders whether to avoid the use of computers in classrooms due to this environment of distrust. It has been shown that the use of technology helps develop more constructive and authentic learning environments. When explored by the authors they found that of security is actually not the chief impediment to technology use in education, (“…lack of appropriate hardware and software, training, administrative support, and collegial jealousy.”). This surprisingly was not a lack of access to computers and peripherals, but access to needed resources that would have allowed for more technology interaction in the classroom. The protocols or Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) that many schools have adopted can greatly limit both a teachers’ ability to teach as well as a student’s ability to learn. How do we balance security and AUPs with access to the many technological tools available for learning? We must have a level of trust in education. Levels of personal responsibility need to be established that increase with age and maturity. Schools need to trust educators to teach appropriately, and administration needs to be clear as to what is allowed. AUPs need to be clear, but not so binding that a teacher or student is unable to utilize the worth of technology. Give teachers more trust to check the sights they use and teach children what is appropriate for their environment. The article mentions that students usually worry more about losing their work, rather than security. If a balance is taught and that balance is respected then for the most part it will be followed. We need to assume that most teachers and students want to be learning, rather than assume that they are out to be nefarious. Perspective needs to be retained by the schools. Mainly, “We must empower teachers to fully integrate these tools and technologies into their classroom settings in ways that are both safe for the individual and satisfying for the learner.”
Journal #2
Turning Lurkers into Learners – by Jason Alley & Karen Greenhaus
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, August 2007, Pages 18-21.
This article talks about the ways to engage users in net learning. Particularly, because ISTE’s NETS is focused on integrating the use of technology tools in education the importance of engaging students and educators in online learning has become a paramount issue. When I first looked at this article for class, I laughed. I fit the description of someone who normally would not engage in online discussions, I lurk. A lurker is someone “…who rarely or never contribute to the online discussion.” The few times I have conversed online in the past, I have felt constrained and hesitant about adding to the traffic already streaming around me.
1. The very first question that came to mind for me had to do with the sheer effort of getting someone like me engaged in a discussion, much less a class online. How do you keep them drawn into the class? The first two items the authors suggested made a great deal of sense to me. Introducing a student into the online class and asking what they hope to learn in the class are excellent first steps. But, I have been drawn into discussions before and have taken one-on-one classes online before, but soon they become too much or lose my interest. But the authors acknowledge these are only the first steps. They state that you have to maintain or sustain those first steps. How?
Having the student answer what they want and what they expect out of the class is a good way to get them started and focused. “Hooking” them into the class is a whole different issue. By acknowledging everyone’s intentions and expectations you begin to develop a sense of community. Making the environment safe and non-threatening is imperative, and can be difficult to achieve. Not impossible, but difficult to maintain in the computer environment these days. The best and most functional idea for keeping students drawn into the online environment is enticing them. Literally, draw the student into the learning environment online. In the authors case they use fish analogies to pull the students into the environment. The student defines their expectations and goals, and the instructor places the onus on them to achieve. The facilitation of ongoing discussions and role playing are excellent ways to keep the student focused and active. Debate is another good tool. The authors actually describe what should be a fairly non-confrontational debate environment.
2. My second question would really have to do with the author’s comments that “Communication and discussion are keys to student learning and understanding in online environments.” I find that both of those are crucial to learning, but also the hands on use of a site or concept is also crucial to developing abilities. I think people need to use something to become familiar and comfortable. By using the technology and reviewing the technology a user becomes more comfortable with the discussions, and is more likely to participate in the discussion of the subjects at hand.
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, August 2007, Pages 18-21.
This article talks about the ways to engage users in net learning. Particularly, because ISTE’s NETS is focused on integrating the use of technology tools in education the importance of engaging students and educators in online learning has become a paramount issue. When I first looked at this article for class, I laughed. I fit the description of someone who normally would not engage in online discussions, I lurk. A lurker is someone “…who rarely or never contribute to the online discussion.” The few times I have conversed online in the past, I have felt constrained and hesitant about adding to the traffic already streaming around me.
1. The very first question that came to mind for me had to do with the sheer effort of getting someone like me engaged in a discussion, much less a class online. How do you keep them drawn into the class? The first two items the authors suggested made a great deal of sense to me. Introducing a student into the online class and asking what they hope to learn in the class are excellent first steps. But, I have been drawn into discussions before and have taken one-on-one classes online before, but soon they become too much or lose my interest. But the authors acknowledge these are only the first steps. They state that you have to maintain or sustain those first steps. How?
Having the student answer what they want and what they expect out of the class is a good way to get them started and focused. “Hooking” them into the class is a whole different issue. By acknowledging everyone’s intentions and expectations you begin to develop a sense of community. Making the environment safe and non-threatening is imperative, and can be difficult to achieve. Not impossible, but difficult to maintain in the computer environment these days. The best and most functional idea for keeping students drawn into the online environment is enticing them. Literally, draw the student into the learning environment online. In the authors case they use fish analogies to pull the students into the environment. The student defines their expectations and goals, and the instructor places the onus on them to achieve. The facilitation of ongoing discussions and role playing are excellent ways to keep the student focused and active. Debate is another good tool. The authors actually describe what should be a fairly non-confrontational debate environment.
2. My second question would really have to do with the author’s comments that “Communication and discussion are keys to student learning and understanding in online environments.” I find that both of those are crucial to learning, but also the hands on use of a site or concept is also crucial to developing abilities. I think people need to use something to become familiar and comfortable. By using the technology and reviewing the technology a user becomes more comfortable with the discussions, and is more likely to participate in the discussion of the subjects at hand.
Journal #1
The Software Report: Digging Deeper – by Robert Kadel
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 38 & 39.
This article looks at the recent report given to Congress by the U. S. Department of Education on “Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort.” The article was interesting in that on the surface it seems to say there is little effect of technology in the classroom, but as the reader enters into the article the indications are that this in not the case. Much like the title of this article there is a need to ‘dig deeper’ into the actual guts of this report. The author has pointed out many good points to examine. Two questions in particular occurred to me as I was reading this article.
1. Were the control groups actually control groups? When this study was undertaken it appears that little or no effort was made to create a ‘clean’ test control group. I think this is perfectly reasonable, in that no two classrooms are going to be identical. Classrooms are live environments, and as such it is very difficult to control. Anytime you involve people in a study, you have to expect skews based on personal details. As the author states “To be a ‘true’ control group, the study authors would have had to force all control classrooms not to use any technology products at all.” Since this would defeat the purpose of introducing technology into classroom environments and as stated, generally impossible to enforce, I cannot see a true “clean” test group ever being a possibility. I do think that the report should have stated, as the author of the article does, “…this isn’t so much a comparison of ed tech versus no ed tech. It’s a comparison of the use of certain software programs in classrooms to classrooms where other software may or may not have been used.”
2. How was usage gauged during the test? The grade levels were clearly defined in the study, but how was the usage monitored? Two things the author stated were very telling about this study. The first point was that the student used the software less that was intended. This would indicate that there was some form of monitoring occurring during the study. But, not knowing the instructions given by the developers is a problem, because we don’t know if it was an excessive amount of time or perhaps a reasonable amount of training time. If one were to assume that the training time was a reasonable amount of time, it is disturbing that the software was not utilized as recommended. Was it proportionally the same across the grades studied? The other point dealing with usage I found was the decline in usage after initial training by the teachers. I find this very ironic. I have seen numerous occurrences where we train individuals on the software, but without follow up training or Q & A sessions, the software is relegated to the closet. This author had concerns about the same issues. At the time that the product is actually used is when training needs to be available to the educators. If they don’t understand the software, it follows that they will not utilize the software correctly in the classroom.
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 38 & 39.
This article looks at the recent report given to Congress by the U. S. Department of Education on “Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort.” The article was interesting in that on the surface it seems to say there is little effect of technology in the classroom, but as the reader enters into the article the indications are that this in not the case. Much like the title of this article there is a need to ‘dig deeper’ into the actual guts of this report. The author has pointed out many good points to examine. Two questions in particular occurred to me as I was reading this article.
1. Were the control groups actually control groups? When this study was undertaken it appears that little or no effort was made to create a ‘clean’ test control group. I think this is perfectly reasonable, in that no two classrooms are going to be identical. Classrooms are live environments, and as such it is very difficult to control. Anytime you involve people in a study, you have to expect skews based on personal details. As the author states “To be a ‘true’ control group, the study authors would have had to force all control classrooms not to use any technology products at all.” Since this would defeat the purpose of introducing technology into classroom environments and as stated, generally impossible to enforce, I cannot see a true “clean” test group ever being a possibility. I do think that the report should have stated, as the author of the article does, “…this isn’t so much a comparison of ed tech versus no ed tech. It’s a comparison of the use of certain software programs in classrooms to classrooms where other software may or may not have been used.”
2. How was usage gauged during the test? The grade levels were clearly defined in the study, but how was the usage monitored? Two things the author stated were very telling about this study. The first point was that the student used the software less that was intended. This would indicate that there was some form of monitoring occurring during the study. But, not knowing the instructions given by the developers is a problem, because we don’t know if it was an excessive amount of time or perhaps a reasonable amount of training time. If one were to assume that the training time was a reasonable amount of time, it is disturbing that the software was not utilized as recommended. Was it proportionally the same across the grades studied? The other point dealing with usage I found was the decline in usage after initial training by the teachers. I find this very ironic. I have seen numerous occurrences where we train individuals on the software, but without follow up training or Q & A sessions, the software is relegated to the closet. This author had concerns about the same issues. At the time that the product is actually used is when training needs to be available to the educators. If they don’t understand the software, it follows that they will not utilize the software correctly in the classroom.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)