STATIC VS. DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGIES

“As technology becomes integrated into the learning environment,

the instructor or instructional designer must make decisions regarding which

technology to use to achieve specific learning outcomes.  Certainly, many

criteria must be considered when selecting specific technology for a

given lesson, but the paramount decision should be the capability of

chosen technology to support knowledge building, which

indicates the need for interactivity.”

 

                                                                        ~ Leslie Moller (2008)

 

          Moller (2008) states “Technology can be conceptualized along a continuum of static to dynamic”.  Examples of static technologies include:  podcasts; video casts; Web pages, and text.  Each of these technologies are efficient at broadcasting information.  However, each does little to assist the student to build their own knowledge.  Static technologies allow learners to capture information (Moller, 2008).

 

          Moller (2008) states “With a move toward the middle of the continuum we often see technologies or learning approaches that includes, wikis, blogs, discussion boards, chats, and other similar approaches. The middle-of-the-road approaches all learners to interact with the content.”  Learners need to analyze what their classmates are contributing.  They also need “to consider and compare these ideas to an existing knowledge representation or other information, and to synthesize and present responses that reflect the initiating idea.”  In this case new knowledge is created through analysis and argumentation (Moller, 2008).

 

          Moller (2008) states “The dynamic end of the interactivity continuum includes tools that involve learners on a much deeper cognitive level.  These tools can include virtual simulations and gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools.”  Jonassen (2006, pg. 21) states “mind tools represent a constructivist approach towards using computers (or any other technology, environment, or activity) to engage learners in representing, manipulating, and reflecting on what they know, not reproducing what someone tells them.  When a mind tool is used, knowledge is constructed by the learner, not provided by the teacher.”  This being said a deeper understanding of what is being taught will be achieved (Moller, 2008).

 

          At this point in my academic journey I see myself between the middle and the dynamic end of the interactivity continuum.  I say this because I have spent two master degree programs in the middle and now see myself working into the dynamic end.  During my last two degree programs we worked with the middle-of-the-road approaches but did not really progress into areas on the dynamic end.  I now see myself progressing towards this with projects that I have been working on (i.e. video projects, etc.).  I see myself steadily moving towards the dynamic end with the more I progress through my current degree program.

References
Jonassen, D. H., (2006).  Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. (3rd ed.).
          Uppper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools.  [Unpublished Paper].

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Blogs I Posted To:

sportz75.wordpress.com

http://brandyhiett.wordpress.com/

 



ENGAGING LEARNERS WITH NEW STRATEGIES AND TOOLS

 

Durrington et al. (2006) notes in order to encourage high student interactivity in an online/distance learning forum, the learning environment must be supportive, open, and respectful.  Ways in which this can be accomplished are: 

- providing a detailed syllabus that clearly defines expectations for the course in general and specific guidelines for each assignment

 

- creating a discussion area where students post their questions and the instructor posts answers

- timeliness in responding to students questions (the tone of the responses is also important from the instructor as well as other students).

 

- instructor-mediated discussions support student interactivity and enhance individual performance and satisfaction.

 

- asking students questions directly related to their postings also encourages more in-depth participation.

- student-moderated discussions (i.e. discussion section of community blog).

 

Anderson (2008) notes the theoretical model developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer views the creation of an effective online educational community as involving three critical components.  These components are:  cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (Anderson, 2008). 

When reviewing the component of teaching presence, Anderson (2008) notes teaching presence is an important factor in order to be an effective online instructor.  Critical components needed are:  design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction.  The process of creating an effective teacher presence begins by providing students with access and motivation (Anderson, 2008).  The instructor begins this process by addressing any technical or social issues that may inhibit participation.  It is also important that students are given the opportunity (and are encouraged) to share information about themselves to create a virtual presence (i.e. introductions in the class café). 

 

Anderson (2008) notes the process continues with the second stage.  In this stage the e-moderator continues to develop online socialization.  Anderson (2008) states this is accomplished by “building bridges between cultural, social, and learning environments.”

 

Anderson (2008) states the process continues with the third stage.  This stage is the information exchange stage which “the teaching task moves to facilitating learning tasks, moderating content-based discussions, and bringing to light student misconceptions and misunderstandings” (Anderson, 2008, p. 359).

 

Anderson (2008 p. 359) states the process continues with the fourth stage.  This stage is knowledge construction “students focus on creating knowledge artefacts and projects that collaboratively and individually illustrate their understanding of course content and approaches.”

 

Anderson (2008, p. 359-360) states the last stage is considered to be the development stage.  In this stage “learners become responsible for their own and their group’s learning by creating final projects, working on summative assignments, and demonstrating the achievement of learning outcomes.”

 

Personally, I see a connection between my own successful experiences with online classes and what the research has shown.  All the tools listed in the graphic organizer above have played a key role in my own successful experiences.  I am now working on my fourth degree in an online/distance learning format.  I have had many more positive experiences versus negative experiences during these degree programs. The positive experiences have the same elements in common (i.e. detailed syllabus, class café, ask the instructor section, discussion boards, group activities, etc.).  The negative experiences are missing the elements of the positive experiences.  Also, because this is my fourth degree in an online/distance learning format, I have also seen the process evolve over the years (approximately between seven and eight years).

 

Johnson & Aragon (2003) states “There seems to be an assumed separation between knowing and doing in education, whereby knowing is valued over doing, and mental activity is valued over physical activity.  However, cognitive theorists have challenged this perspective because the activities through which learning occurs are inseparable from cognition.  In order for online instruction to be successful, some form of learner activity must be included.”

 

References

 

Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

 

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment.

 

          College Teaching, 54(1), 190−193.

 

Johnson, S. D., & Aragon, S. R. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions for

 

          Adult & Continuing Education, (100), 31-43.

 

Siemens, G. (2008, January). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. ITForum.

 _________________________________________________________________________________________

Blogs I posted to:

http://brandyhiett.wordpress.com/

http://sportz75.wordpress.com/

ASSESSING COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS

Palloff and Pratt (2005) note it is challenging when evaluating students in an online course.  They also note that it can be more challenging to explain to the students how the process of evaluation works.  Angelo and Cross (1993) note that it is important for assessment to be embedded in and aligned with the design of the course in order to be effective. 

Palloff and Pratt (2005) note that there are some precautionary measures at the start of the course that is going to involve collaborative work.

- Set the stage for collaboration

- Do not encourage over-or-under-participation

- Intervene in order to minimize frustration and conflict when needed

- Address technical difficulties swiftly

- Provide instruction and information about conflict management and conflict resolution

- Maximize participation through group composition

- Be supportive

When I was making the decision whether or not to transfer my credits from a face-to-face learning environment to an online degree program, I had some concerns.  My concerns mainly revolved around how I would fit in with the online learning community.  What if the other students did not want to work with me?  What if I was put into a group where members did not want to participate?  Let’s face facts – the concern when working in groups is the same whether or not the class is face-to-face or online.  We each hope everyone in the group will do their work and participate.  However, in an online environment there are other factors to consider.  In some instances there are time zone issues and communication may break down.  There are also other instances when there may be participation issues (i.e. computer crashes, family obligations, differences in expectations, etc.).

If communication does break down and a student does not want to network or collaborate in a learning community for an online course, what should the other members of the learning community do? 

First I would hope that the group or at least one member of the group would reach out to the group members to get more information about what is happening and if he/she needs any assistance.  Once this line of communication is open, hopefully, as a group, everything will get back on track.  If reaching out and communicating does not work, then it may be time for the instructor to be contacted.  Palloff and Pratt (2005) state “that students often have far more information about the workings of a small group than does the instructor.  If encouraged and guided, students will share that information so that appropriate grading can occur”.  Above all if each member of the group uses the available guidelines there will not be too many issues (i.e. rubrics). 

References

Angelo, T., and Cross, K. P. (1993).  Classroom assessment techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Palloff, R. M., and Pratt, K. (2005). Chapter 4: Assessment and evaluation of collaborative work.  

          In collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Blogs I Posted To

http://brandyhiett.wordpress.com

http://clgrisby.edublogs.org
 



VIDEO PRESENTATION - STORYBOARD

If everything is working correctly, this link should bring you to the PDF file of my storyboard.  If anyone has any questions, please let me know.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B72khcbcAhVOZ29qTzRTcUVSVE0/edit?usp=sharing


Blogs I Posted To

http://brandyhiett.wordpress.com

http://clgrisby.edublogs.org