The New Gold Rush: Establishing Effective Online Learning Policies, Ferdi Serim, Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 12-16.
Online learning has become probably the fastest growing area of education. On one side we have the development of a learning process that allows any student, anywhere to self-pace their learning. The article also looks to the possibilities for abuse in the system. The article states there is a “…temptation to replace highly skilled professionals with scripted, mass delivered “content” as a means of reducing costs and /or maximizing profits is a contender for the worst reason.” The author talks about the promotion of, or the prevention of, online learning will depend on whether the experts approve or disapprove of its use in schools. “New policies at both district and state levels will either promote or prevent effective online learning, depending on how well they are informed by professionals who have already spent years working in this field.” From the authors point of view the best way to teach would actually be a combination or hybridization of both types of teaching. He feels that a combination of online and face-to-face is needed to best educate students. Take the quality elements of both types of education and combine them for an optimal learning experience. The teachers can provide effective facilitation of the subjects and their needed methods for being taught and the online instructors can offer a specialized instructional design and the implementation skills needed to create a top learning environment. He is not advocating the replacement of face-to-face with online learning, but is adamant that a combination of skills is needed in order to best educate students.
Finally the author has developed priority issues that need to be addressed when understanding and evaluating online learning situations. The first part he addresses are policy issues: costs and benefits, quality and equality of programs, funding, accountability, assessment, state or district planning, coordination, support, evaluation, and teacher certification and licensing. The second set of priority issues are for teaching and learning. They include: Professional development, Constructionivist teaching practice, Philosophy, best practice, quality assurance, and technology equality.
Do I agree with the priority issues the author outlines? The fist part of the authors issues concerning policy in general I think are well done and a good start for establishment of a good networked learning environment. The second set of priority issues concerning teachers themselves worries me a bit. I think the guidelines are rather esoteric and broad. Professional Development is hard to define, but necessary to the ability to run a educational program. The part that is concerning is the remaining parts of the teaching requirements. Constructionivist and philosophical, best practices need to be defined as well or the program parameters are too broad.
What kind of learning do I think is needed? Face-to-Face, Hybridization, etc… I like the idea of combining the expertise of a teacher with the expertise of a computer user. There are many subjects that I think a student could benefit from in a self paced learning environment, which still has the traditional face-to-face encouragement of a teacher for help and guidance. Students all learn differently and at different paces, by combining the methods of learning, I think education has a chance at producing well rounded students. We will still have students that are better in some areas than others, but we may also be creating an environment where they are able to learn more that they might have in a traditional teaching environment.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Journal #8
Power of the Mashup: Combining Essential Learning with New Technology Tools, Suzie Boss & Jane Krauss, Learning & Leading with Technology, August 2007, Pages 12-17.
I used to be a computer geek. Then I burned out on computing and all things digital, electronic and video related. When I first saw this article I avoided it because, after giving it a light skim, I thought that it was probably going to be on how to use these various gadgets for teaching. What I failed to notice about this article, and that I finally got when I actually read it, is that the idea is to use established learning functions and then technology to enhance these already established functions. In other words integrate technology into the, and with the classics, not necessarily use technology to just teach the classics. What the authors call the “Power of the Mashup – a hybrid application that draws from multiple sources to create something new.” In other words, use technology to teach and enhance the learning experience. Using the authors Eight Essential Learning Functions: 1. Ubiquity; 2. Deep Learning; 3. Making Things Visible and Discussible; 4.Expressing Ourselves, Sharing Ideas, Building Community; 5. Collaboration; 6. Research; 7. Project Management; 8. Reflection and Iteration. By using the basics of learning and combining them with the technology tools available, “Burg and other teachers manage to keep their focus on these essential learning functions while staying alert to the potential of new technology tools.” Burg and Fagg came to the same realization, but from different directions. Burg discovered Google Earth and began exploring. Using the learning materials he had already amassed, he applied it to Google Earth, with spectacular results. “For Burg, it wasn’t the slick new technology that caught his attention, but rather how it would allow him to extend the reach of his proven teaching strategies.” Fagg, in the other hand admits he wanted to “…subvert the use of MP3 players in my classroom.” He also had a desire to stay focused on the essential learning, but to integrate the technology available. By using the MP3 players and other assorted technologies, he hoped to make history interactive for the students. “Both Burg and Fagg are good examples of teachers willing to take a classroom experiment public, inviting feedback from colleagues to help improve on project design.”
1) What have been some of the unexpected outcomes? Some of the unexpected results from the Mashup have been great. Students are staying interested longer and learning at their own pace. Students that learn better by hearing information are reporting an increased appeal to assignments that they can listen to learn. And, finally the authentic feedback from sources all over the world is very appealing.
2) Are teachers going to have to develop into techno geeks in the classroom? To a certain degree ‘yes’ teachers are going to have to develop strong technical skills to keep up with their students, but it also up to us to build strong learning functions as well. There is no reason why it can’t be fun for both the teachers and the students. While technology is undergoing vast changes all the time, the basic skills are established and stable.
I used to be a computer geek. Then I burned out on computing and all things digital, electronic and video related. When I first saw this article I avoided it because, after giving it a light skim, I thought that it was probably going to be on how to use these various gadgets for teaching. What I failed to notice about this article, and that I finally got when I actually read it, is that the idea is to use established learning functions and then technology to enhance these already established functions. In other words integrate technology into the, and with the classics, not necessarily use technology to just teach the classics. What the authors call the “Power of the Mashup – a hybrid application that draws from multiple sources to create something new.” In other words, use technology to teach and enhance the learning experience. Using the authors Eight Essential Learning Functions: 1. Ubiquity; 2. Deep Learning; 3. Making Things Visible and Discussible; 4.Expressing Ourselves, Sharing Ideas, Building Community; 5. Collaboration; 6. Research; 7. Project Management; 8. Reflection and Iteration. By using the basics of learning and combining them with the technology tools available, “Burg and other teachers manage to keep their focus on these essential learning functions while staying alert to the potential of new technology tools.” Burg and Fagg came to the same realization, but from different directions. Burg discovered Google Earth and began exploring. Using the learning materials he had already amassed, he applied it to Google Earth, with spectacular results. “For Burg, it wasn’t the slick new technology that caught his attention, but rather how it would allow him to extend the reach of his proven teaching strategies.” Fagg, in the other hand admits he wanted to “…subvert the use of MP3 players in my classroom.” He also had a desire to stay focused on the essential learning, but to integrate the technology available. By using the MP3 players and other assorted technologies, he hoped to make history interactive for the students. “Both Burg and Fagg are good examples of teachers willing to take a classroom experiment public, inviting feedback from colleagues to help improve on project design.”
1) What have been some of the unexpected outcomes? Some of the unexpected results from the Mashup have been great. Students are staying interested longer and learning at their own pace. Students that learn better by hearing information are reporting an increased appeal to assignments that they can listen to learn. And, finally the authentic feedback from sources all over the world is very appealing.
2) Are teachers going to have to develop into techno geeks in the classroom? To a certain degree ‘yes’ teachers are going to have to develop strong technical skills to keep up with their students, but it also up to us to build strong learning functions as well. There is no reason why it can’t be fun for both the teachers and the students. While technology is undergoing vast changes all the time, the basic skills are established and stable.
Journal #7
Point/Counterpoint: Is Chat Speak Destroying English? Linda Howard & Greg Monfils, Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 8-9.
The first author argues that chat speak is killing English. The author feels that there is no room for chat speak, because students will be unable to differentiate between chat speak and clear concise written English. She goes on to say that there is “… a time when we all have to grow and evolve into our true character and many young people will have a difficult time drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable dialogue in everyday life, especially in written communications.” By using chat speak, she feels the average student will not be able to transition effectively between chat speak and proper written English. That the students will not be able to express opinions, engage with others in academic, business and formal situations, because of this inability to transition to proper English. The author is of the opinion that chat speak has no place in larger society.
The second author approaches the infiltrations of chat speak as a challenge. Chat speak is a students way of maintaining privacy and personality. He feels that the students know the difference between chat speak and proper English. He feels that they know when to use each type of English that is necessary for a given situation. Given that he teaches in a virtual environment, he is used to communicating in chat speak, but expects his students to complete their assignments in proper English. He compares the uses of chat speak to that a student using a foreign language, not as a threat to a student’s ability to use English. He comments that English has been standardized, but students live to challenge standards.
Though I find myself agreeing with the argument that chat speak is not going to mark the end of the use of proper English, I do have two questions about the authors standpoints.
Do the authors treat chat as a language? The first author seems to feel that students are incapable of switching from chat speak to proper English and therefore should not use chat speak at all. She does not consider chat as even an informal language. She appears to consider chat as an intrusion or abomination of English. The second author treats chat as though it was a foreign language. A language like any other a student might know, and be able to speak along with English.
This leads me to my second question. Do we find that teaching a foreign language is a threat? Some teachers seem to think that just knowing English is enough in today’s world. I have traveled extensively, and constantly amazed at how many times I have heard “What do you mean you don’t know English?”. We are one of the few countries in the world that do not require additional language comprehension as a basic rule. Instead, here we argue about what little language is taught, and expect all of our students to be at an equal level of English language comprehension. Teaching and speaking in other languages should not be viewed as a threat, but rather as a learning opportunity. For a country that wants to have the world be as one, we are very egocentric about the language that is used to do so.
The first author argues that chat speak is killing English. The author feels that there is no room for chat speak, because students will be unable to differentiate between chat speak and clear concise written English. She goes on to say that there is “… a time when we all have to grow and evolve into our true character and many young people will have a difficult time drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable dialogue in everyday life, especially in written communications.” By using chat speak, she feels the average student will not be able to transition effectively between chat speak and proper written English. That the students will not be able to express opinions, engage with others in academic, business and formal situations, because of this inability to transition to proper English. The author is of the opinion that chat speak has no place in larger society.
The second author approaches the infiltrations of chat speak as a challenge. Chat speak is a students way of maintaining privacy and personality. He feels that the students know the difference between chat speak and proper English. He feels that they know when to use each type of English that is necessary for a given situation. Given that he teaches in a virtual environment, he is used to communicating in chat speak, but expects his students to complete their assignments in proper English. He compares the uses of chat speak to that a student using a foreign language, not as a threat to a student’s ability to use English. He comments that English has been standardized, but students live to challenge standards.
Though I find myself agreeing with the argument that chat speak is not going to mark the end of the use of proper English, I do have two questions about the authors standpoints.
Do the authors treat chat as a language? The first author seems to feel that students are incapable of switching from chat speak to proper English and therefore should not use chat speak at all. She does not consider chat as even an informal language. She appears to consider chat as an intrusion or abomination of English. The second author treats chat as though it was a foreign language. A language like any other a student might know, and be able to speak along with English.
This leads me to my second question. Do we find that teaching a foreign language is a threat? Some teachers seem to think that just knowing English is enough in today’s world. I have traveled extensively, and constantly amazed at how many times I have heard “What do you mean you don’t know English?”. We are one of the few countries in the world that do not require additional language comprehension as a basic rule. Instead, here we argue about what little language is taught, and expect all of our students to be at an equal level of English language comprehension. Teaching and speaking in other languages should not be viewed as a threat, but rather as a learning opportunity. For a country that wants to have the world be as one, we are very egocentric about the language that is used to do so.
Journal #6
More Than Money Matters: Establishing Effective School-Corporate Partnerships – Nancy Flynn, Learning and Leading with Technology, November 2007, Pages 18-21.
This article focuses on the points that need to be considered for good relationships between schools and corporations, beyond the monetary aspects. These relationships are becoming more critical as school funding overall has dropped. As schools have become more and more under funded, and technology pricing has gone up. In order for students to be ready for the future we need to try and provide them with the skills needed to achieve in high technology environments. This in itself has determined the need for partnerships with corporations. Once you get past the gains/losses on both sides of the issue, i.e.: corporate financial gain, advertising, marketing and promotion, latest hardware and software, etc. What should principals be looking for in these partnerships? What cautions and concerns should be passed onto other principals? The author, after interviewing nine principals across the U.S., determined the following Ten Guidelines.
1) Vision – What do you expect? A plan needs to be developed by both parties, so that there is no miscommunication of goals.
2) Support for technology – Ensure support of software/hardware by both parties.
3) School curriculum – Does the software/hardware fit the school curriculum? An honest assessment of needs has to be determined so no time, energy or resource is wasted.
4) Collaboration and Communication – Identify key contact people on both sides of the collaboration.
5) Internal Capacity – Is the internal support available to mind the software/ hardware.
6) Commitment – Ensure that the level of commitment is available by both parties.
7) Obligations – Make sure expectations are clear for both sides of the partnership. Perhaps getting expectations in writing to insure no misunderstandings.
8) Product Promotion – Determine the levels that qualify in the partnership, so as not to slide into commercialism.
9) Assessment – Determine strengths and weaknesses and the longevity of the partnership.
10) Longevity – Is it working or has the partnership or software run its course? Evaluate the worth on an annual basis.
The author feels there will be a continual need for technology partnerships if we are to keep our students trained for the future.
1) Are the outlined criteria enough? I think the authors criteria are well rounded and well thought out. I would also stress that a user needs to always keep and eye open for hidden agendas, but all in all the criteria are sound steps for considering a technology partnership.
2) How do you determine line between presentation and product promotion? There is a very fine line between presentation and product promotion. This issue is one that will have to be determined on a case by case analysis. I think the authors’ example of students giving a presentation at a conference with a company’s software is cutting the issue very closely, but it is a great opportunity for the students involved. Experiences like this are hard to call, but there should be a way for the students to gain experience from this event, without compromising them.
This article focuses on the points that need to be considered for good relationships between schools and corporations, beyond the monetary aspects. These relationships are becoming more critical as school funding overall has dropped. As schools have become more and more under funded, and technology pricing has gone up. In order for students to be ready for the future we need to try and provide them with the skills needed to achieve in high technology environments. This in itself has determined the need for partnerships with corporations. Once you get past the gains/losses on both sides of the issue, i.e.: corporate financial gain, advertising, marketing and promotion, latest hardware and software, etc. What should principals be looking for in these partnerships? What cautions and concerns should be passed onto other principals? The author, after interviewing nine principals across the U.S., determined the following Ten Guidelines.
1) Vision – What do you expect? A plan needs to be developed by both parties, so that there is no miscommunication of goals.
2) Support for technology – Ensure support of software/hardware by both parties.
3) School curriculum – Does the software/hardware fit the school curriculum? An honest assessment of needs has to be determined so no time, energy or resource is wasted.
4) Collaboration and Communication – Identify key contact people on both sides of the collaboration.
5) Internal Capacity – Is the internal support available to mind the software/ hardware.
6) Commitment – Ensure that the level of commitment is available by both parties.
7) Obligations – Make sure expectations are clear for both sides of the partnership. Perhaps getting expectations in writing to insure no misunderstandings.
8) Product Promotion – Determine the levels that qualify in the partnership, so as not to slide into commercialism.
9) Assessment – Determine strengths and weaknesses and the longevity of the partnership.
10) Longevity – Is it working or has the partnership or software run its course? Evaluate the worth on an annual basis.
The author feels there will be a continual need for technology partnerships if we are to keep our students trained for the future.
1) Are the outlined criteria enough? I think the authors criteria are well rounded and well thought out. I would also stress that a user needs to always keep and eye open for hidden agendas, but all in all the criteria are sound steps for considering a technology partnership.
2) How do you determine line between presentation and product promotion? There is a very fine line between presentation and product promotion. This issue is one that will have to be determined on a case by case analysis. I think the authors’ example of students giving a presentation at a conference with a company’s software is cutting the issue very closely, but it is a great opportunity for the students involved. Experiences like this are hard to call, but there should be a way for the students to gain experience from this event, without compromising them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)