During this blogging journey I commented on:
http://ejournalbyroselynn.blogspot.com/2010/06/digital-natives-debate.html
http://universityteachingblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-does-changing-environment-of.html
http://annesictblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/higher-education-in-web-20-world.html
Blog Review: Roselyn
In reading Roselyn's blog I was privileged to share in a reflective journey. Over the course of her entries Roselyn drew on the assigned and additional reading, but also incorporated her own experience into the concepts and paradigms put forward in the research. The personal impact that this journey as having for Roselyn was obvious from her comments on how this learning experience would change her teaching or add to her teaching activities.
In her entry of 28 June, she reflected on the Web 2.0 and resolved to become more aware of the 'online life' of her students. The goal of knowing more about the backgrounds of students was further emphasised when Ros indicated that she intended to survey her students next semester. She re-emphasised the importance of knowing about (rather than making assumptions about) her students in the following post on digital natives. Again Ros' sensitivity to her student's needs was reflected in her analysis of the VARK questionnaire. She was keenly aware that her students will have a variety of learning styles and the ICT can be a useful tool in catering to those styles.
Ros also raised some really interesting points about the reasons why people go to university. It's not just about the learning but about the social and interactive aspects too. I think this is a really important point. The emphasis on learning being mobile and flexible is taking away from our understanding of the university experience as a social one. We learn more than just what is taught in class at university. For many students, it is the first adult environment we enter and remain in for a significant period, and is a fertile learning ground for social interaction, building friendships and future professional connections and learning to interact in adults environments.
Blog Review: Sheena
Sheena's blog was reflective of an interest in how technology is changing the way our students interact with information and what we should be doing about it. She showed a deep concern that 'deep learning' would be lost due to the way students skim of over materials without any engagement. She wants to ensure that technology is harnessed to 'encourage lifelong learning'. This is reflected in all of her reflective topics.
In her first blog, Sheena highlighted the need to use ICT with a learning purpose in mind. The value of the technology only lies in the use we put it to. I couldn't agree more. Sheena has also complemented her blog reflections with her own teaching and personal learning experiences. In her blog on learning styles, she used her own experience to reflect on learning activities that appeal to her preferred learning styles. She also reflected on her own experience with collaborative tools in her reflection on current trends in ICT. This experience clearly gave her a context through which she could better understand the issues. this was an valuable contribution.
Concluding Remarks
The advantage of having so many blogs is reflected in this review - it gives an opportunity for each student's personal focus to develop. The main theme of each person's blog became apparent as the writing activity went on. Seeing this development in action and the theme's drawn out in that manner really emphasises the value of journal writing and blogging for crystallising and organising thoughts.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
ICT Current Trends
A reflection on an academic article about ICT in tertiary education
The purpose of this post is to reflect on an academic article of my choice. I have recently read the executive summary and key sections of the report "The impact of web-based lecture technologies (WBLT) on current and future practice" (available at http://www.cpd.mq.edu.au/teaching/wblt/overview.htm)
The report arose out of a collaborative project between several universities, is sponsored by the Australian Teaching and Learning Council and covers a number of pieces of research.
The research focussed on the use of WBLTs by both students and lecturers and unsurprisingly found that while students were generally enthusiastic about the technology and the flexibility it gave them to hear lectures on their own terms, lecturers themselves were divided about their use, mostly because of the perception that student use of WBLTs was negatively affecting lecture attendance.
The research found that most students found WBLTs helpful (even those who also attended face-to-face lectures). It also had the advantage of acting as a revision tool and allowing students to absorb information at a slower pace than in the lecture.
The way I see it, the biggest problem here is lecture attendance. On the one hand, there are students who love not having to attend lectures and feel that they are getting the same outcome from using WBLTs and on the other there are lecturers who feel that lack of attendance is preventing them from interacting with the class and gauging understanding. Some lecturers are also not convinced that students do get the same outcome from WBLTs as from live lectures.
As I see it, there are two possible responses to this dilemma. Either we find ways to use technology to create online learning that allays lecturers fears of the inadequacy of online resources, or we make lecture time irreplaceable by online learning, by showing that lecture time is an interactive and collaborative experience that you need to be physically present to experience.
In the first model, WBLTs can be supplemented with other technologies that create liaisons and interaction between lecturers and students online (such as discussion boards etc). To make online materials more effective lecturers may have to move away from their traditional speech plus powerpoint style of presenting information.
In the second model, we need to make lecture time more interactive than simply watching a video or listening to audio. There needs to be some real value for students in attendance if we want them to attend.
The purpose of this post is to reflect on an academic article of my choice. I have recently read the executive summary and key sections of the report "The impact of web-based lecture technologies (WBLT) on current and future practice" (available at http://www.cpd.mq.edu.au/teaching/wblt/overview.htm)
The report arose out of a collaborative project between several universities, is sponsored by the Australian Teaching and Learning Council and covers a number of pieces of research.
The research focussed on the use of WBLTs by both students and lecturers and unsurprisingly found that while students were generally enthusiastic about the technology and the flexibility it gave them to hear lectures on their own terms, lecturers themselves were divided about their use, mostly because of the perception that student use of WBLTs was negatively affecting lecture attendance.
The research found that most students found WBLTs helpful (even those who also attended face-to-face lectures). It also had the advantage of acting as a revision tool and allowing students to absorb information at a slower pace than in the lecture.
The way I see it, the biggest problem here is lecture attendance. On the one hand, there are students who love not having to attend lectures and feel that they are getting the same outcome from using WBLTs and on the other there are lecturers who feel that lack of attendance is preventing them from interacting with the class and gauging understanding. Some lecturers are also not convinced that students do get the same outcome from WBLTs as from live lectures.
As I see it, there are two possible responses to this dilemma. Either we find ways to use technology to create online learning that allays lecturers fears of the inadequacy of online resources, or we make lecture time irreplaceable by online learning, by showing that lecture time is an interactive and collaborative experience that you need to be physically present to experience.
In the first model, WBLTs can be supplemented with other technologies that create liaisons and interaction between lecturers and students online (such as discussion boards etc). To make online materials more effective lecturers may have to move away from their traditional speech plus powerpoint style of presenting information.
In the second model, we need to make lecture time more interactive than simply watching a video or listening to audio. There needs to be some real value for students in attendance if we want them to attend.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
A vision of students today
We watched the following video as part of the ED6114 course:
It was very interesting and powerfully presented, but I found upon reading the blog of the professor behind the project (http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/?p=119) that the data used to come up with the statistics that are so powerful to the film was not necessarily accurate. For example, on the blog it is stated that the question asked in relation to getting the statistic "I will write 42 pages for class this semsester" was "On average, how many pages do you write for your classes each semester?"
From this question, it is unclear whether the question was referring to pages per class during a semester or pages total for all classes in the semester.
Again, in reference to the "I will read 8 books this year" statistic, the question that was asked was "how many books have you read this year?" There was confusion as to whether this meant this semester, the year from january on, or the academic year from teh previous July.
It was very interesting and powerfully presented, but I found upon reading the blog of the professor behind the project (http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/?p=119) that the data used to come up with the statistics that are so powerful to the film was not necessarily accurate. For example, on the blog it is stated that the question asked in relation to getting the statistic "I will write 42 pages for class this semsester" was "On average, how many pages do you write for your classes each semester?"
From this question, it is unclear whether the question was referring to pages per class during a semester or pages total for all classes in the semester.
Again, in reference to the "I will read 8 books this year" statistic, the question that was asked was "how many books have you read this year?" There was confusion as to whether this meant this semester, the year from january on, or the academic year from teh previous July.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Analysis of learning styles and ICT
Analysis of learning styles questionnaire and how it might affect how you learn or teach generally and in an ICT learning environment in particular. Do you agree with your profile?
After taking the VARK learning styles questionnaire (http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire), I got the following results:
On reflection, my stronger preference for visual and kinsethetic learning is evident in the way that I teach. I prefer conversation, oral explanation, the occasional diagram/scribble and, when, I can, physical activity.
It is perhaps a good thing that my style is multi-modal because I am naturally inclined to use more than one teaching style. This also for the moment works well because read/write learners are also being catered to outside of the classroom (as the classroom is not their preferred place for learning anyway). Perhaps the reason I am attracted to teaching in the first place is my preference for these learning styles.
I am inclined to be enthusiastic about ICT because it seems to address the deficiency in tertiary teaching which is currently read/write and aural based. ICT allows for more visual and kinesthetic learning tools to be available - video and the creation and publication of video, tools like mindmeister that allow visual representation of ideas, even the act of blogging, which makes reflection a visual (colours, schemes design etc) as well as written exercise. Interactive websites that require students to move things around etc will also address kinesthetic learners to some extent (when they cannot be involved in physical space, they can be involved in virtual space).
After taking the VARK learning styles questionnaire (http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire), I got the following results:
- Visual: 6
- Aural: 8
- Read/write: 3
- Kinesthetic: 9
On reflection, my stronger preference for visual and kinsethetic learning is evident in the way that I teach. I prefer conversation, oral explanation, the occasional diagram/scribble and, when, I can, physical activity.
It is perhaps a good thing that my style is multi-modal because I am naturally inclined to use more than one teaching style. This also for the moment works well because read/write learners are also being catered to outside of the classroom (as the classroom is not their preferred place for learning anyway). Perhaps the reason I am attracted to teaching in the first place is my preference for these learning styles.
I am inclined to be enthusiastic about ICT because it seems to address the deficiency in tertiary teaching which is currently read/write and aural based. ICT allows for more visual and kinesthetic learning tools to be available - video and the creation and publication of video, tools like mindmeister that allow visual representation of ideas, even the act of blogging, which makes reflection a visual (colours, schemes design etc) as well as written exercise. Interactive websites that require students to move things around etc will also address kinesthetic learners to some extent (when they cannot be involved in physical space, they can be involved in virtual space).
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
ramblings/ideas on the course
So many ideas - have to get them out somewhere
1. Wikis -
(a) use them for students to create notes collaboratively (see this video)
(b) use them in contract law for students to create a contract online - each week they have to add elements to the contract as they learn more about contracts nad the risks they are written to avoid.
(c) get students to create a page on a wiki on contract law - contribution to the global commons! (http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/Main_Page)
2. Webquests
(a) use them for contract students to read and analyse an online contract (http://questgarden.com/60/05/2/090325050420/index.htm)
3. Blogs
(a) advertise them as resources for students (if there are any good ones out there)
4. Blackboard
(a) have chat open during consultation hours
(b) more active moderation of discussion boards
(c)create learning units with sets of tasks for students to complete
(d) think about the set up of course folders
1. Wikis -
(a) use them for students to create notes collaboratively (see this video)
(b) use them in contract law for students to create a contract online - each week they have to add elements to the contract as they learn more about contracts nad the risks they are written to avoid.
(c) get students to create a page on a wiki on contract law - contribution to the global commons! (http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/Main_Page)
2. Webquests
(a) use them for contract students to read and analyse an online contract (http://questgarden.com/60/05/2/090325050420/index.htm)
3. Blogs
(a) advertise them as resources for students (if there are any good ones out there)
4. Blackboard
(a) have chat open during consultation hours
(b) more active moderation of discussion boards
(c)create learning units with sets of tasks for students to complete
(d) think about the set up of course folders
Monday, June 28, 2010
Entry 2: Digital Natives Debate
The material for today on "digital natives" (Bennett, Maton, Kervin 2008) has caused me be to reflect on the different levels of technological literacy that must exist in my students. While Bennett et al criticise the 'moral panic' associated with the tech-savvy of the 'net generation', I am not convinced that the phenomenon of digital natives is not real. I agree with the authors that the generation gap is not as severe as some others (eg Prensky) suggest, but I think there can be large differences in the levels of familiarity and competency that different students have in regards to particular technologies. However, I think these differences can probably (as Bennett et al suggest) be more often attributed to socio-economic and cultural factors rather than age.
On the other hand, there appears to be some research suggesting that those belonging to the tech-savvy group may actually be changing the information processing habits by the level of their interactions with technology and multiple tasks (see the NY Times article in the previous post and also http://gazzaleylab.ucsf.edu/). Adam Gazzaley, a neuroscientist at the University of California certainly seems to think so. It will be interesting to see how this research develops and informs the way we think about education as reforming the pathways of the brain to process deep learning.
In the meantime, today’s class has shown that while this unit is directed towards how to integrate recent technology into our teaching, we need to reflect on whether there is an additional value to our students (who have different levels of technological engagement) in using such technologies over traditional teaching methods and avoid using technology "because we can".
On the other hand, there appears to be some research suggesting that those belonging to the tech-savvy group may actually be changing the information processing habits by the level of their interactions with technology and multiple tasks (see the NY Times article in the previous post and also http://gazzaleylab.ucsf.edu/). Adam Gazzaley, a neuroscientist at the University of California certainly seems to think so. It will be interesting to see how this research develops and informs the way we think about education as reforming the pathways of the brain to process deep learning.
In the meantime, today’s class has shown that while this unit is directed towards how to integrate recent technology into our teaching, we need to reflect on whether there is an additional value to our students (who have different levels of technological engagement) in using such technologies over traditional teaching methods and avoid using technology "because we can".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)