Oblinger, D.G. and Hawkins, B. (2006). The myth about student competency. Educause Review, vol. 41, no.2.
Technology is pervasive in our society. For young people especially, technology as a tool is more basic to life than other forms of information gathering. In a world where technology is becoming even more essential for jobs and basic communication skills, it is a good thing that students feel so comfortable using technology. Indeed, students see technology not as something to fear, as many older people do. Instead, if students do not know immediately how to use a piece of technology, they do not back away from it, they simply play around until they understand how to use it.
While technology has become a part of everyday life, students still need to be taught certian skills to find information. As Hawkins and Oblinger argue, it is often assumed that today’s students just know how to find information and do not see the need to use valid sources for research. Instead, some students simply search the web for information, valid or not.
While there may be some truth to this argument, there is still a lot of teaching about research happening both in secondary schools as well as college. In may lower level college classes, the professor goes through the process of using the library and how to find valid sources. The time honored process of going to the source is not dead, it has just changed shape. Instead of looking through a card catalogue and then walking over to a stack of journals, many sources are now online. This allows students to fine good information easily and from virtually anywhere.
Overall, Hawkins and Oblinger, make some interesting points and stress the need to remember that information literacy is the most important skill we can teach our students, not just how to use technology.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
MISESS: Web-Based Examination, Evaluation, and Guidance-Unit 6
Tanrikulu, Z. (2006). MISESS: Web-Based examination, evaluation, and guidance. Educause Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1.
Tanrikulu discusses the web-based tool MISESS. This is a tool designed to allow students and instructors to cover content, testing, and communication online. Much like the BlackBoard site that Western uses, MISESS is designed to allow for easy access and use. Professors can post class notes, schedule online examinations and provide students feedback on assignments or answer questions. Students have the convince of accessing information from any computer at any time. This type of tool is especially helpful for online classes and distance education.
While the designers tried to allow for any types of problems such as connection failures or possible cheating, overall the site works well for both student and professors. As technology becomes more and more common place in the classroom, sites such as MISESS and BlackBoard will likely not be unusual for all students to use.
Tanrikulu discusses the web-based tool MISESS. This is a tool designed to allow students and instructors to cover content, testing, and communication online. Much like the BlackBoard site that Western uses, MISESS is designed to allow for easy access and use. Professors can post class notes, schedule online examinations and provide students feedback on assignments or answer questions. Students have the convince of accessing information from any computer at any time. This type of tool is especially helpful for online classes and distance education.
While the designers tried to allow for any types of problems such as connection failures or possible cheating, overall the site works well for both student and professors. As technology becomes more and more common place in the classroom, sites such as MISESS and BlackBoard will likely not be unusual for all students to use.
On the Right Track-Unit 2
Smith, S.J., & Smith, S.B. (2002). On the right track: Technology for organizing and presenting digital information. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 304-311.
In an increasingly technology dependent culture, teachers need to be up to speed with current web resources. Smith and Smith recognize the lack of training and time given to teachers to develop their technology skills and offer up a couple of very beneficial resources. Highlighting one resource in particular, TrackStar, Smith and Smith walk the reader through the ins and out of this web resource.
TrackStar is an educational site developed to help make searching the web easier for both students and teachers. Users can either search the site for relevant information, using “Tracks,” or they can create their own Track. Tracks are a list of websites organized and developed under a specific topic or category. The Tracks are annotated to ensure the user knows what sites are listed and available under each Track. Additionally, these Tracks can with help teachers and students search for lesson plans, presentations, assignments, or instructional resources.
Tracks can only be edited by the author or the Track and are reviewed by a third party to ensure quality and appropriate material. No inappropriate material is allowed because these resources are meant for educational use.
Overall, TrackStar seems like a great resource for teachers and students. As this article was written in 2002, the program is likely even better and more up to date as to the NCLB standards for each state. I would recommend this site to colleges and students.
In an increasingly technology dependent culture, teachers need to be up to speed with current web resources. Smith and Smith recognize the lack of training and time given to teachers to develop their technology skills and offer up a couple of very beneficial resources. Highlighting one resource in particular, TrackStar, Smith and Smith walk the reader through the ins and out of this web resource.
TrackStar is an educational site developed to help make searching the web easier for both students and teachers. Users can either search the site for relevant information, using “Tracks,” or they can create their own Track. Tracks are a list of websites organized and developed under a specific topic or category. The Tracks are annotated to ensure the user knows what sites are listed and available under each Track. Additionally, these Tracks can with help teachers and students search for lesson plans, presentations, assignments, or instructional resources.
Tracks can only be edited by the author or the Track and are reviewed by a third party to ensure quality and appropriate material. No inappropriate material is allowed because these resources are meant for educational use.
Overall, TrackStar seems like a great resource for teachers and students. As this article was written in 2002, the program is likely even better and more up to date as to the NCLB standards for each state. I would recommend this site to colleges and students.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Type II Technology Applications in Teacher Education: Using Instant Messengers to Implement Structured Online Class Discussion - Unit 3
Chen Wang, L. and Beasley, W. (2005). Type II technology applications in teacher education: using instant messengers to implement structured online class discussion. Computers in the Schools, vol. 22, no. 1.
IM otherwise known as instant messaging is considered a type II technology and is becoming more and more integrated into the classroom experience. Often associated with casual chatting online, IM is now being used by both fully online classes and non-online classes alike.
Wang and Beasley assess the use of IM through an online class in the form of regular mandatory class discussions. They suggest that IM is a beneficial tool to get students to have a well informed, technology based discussion through a non-traditional forum. Although there are many benefits to using IM as a tool for online classes, there are also many downfalls.
While discussions can easily take place through online forums, there is not the same personal interaction that a face to face discussion would provide. Emotions can easily be misinterpreted when only using written words and can lead to poor communication. Although students can use symbols to convey emotions such as ;-), body language and tone of voice are much more clear and do not get as confusing as written communication. Talk to anyone who has been misinterpreted on an email and they will likely confirm this notion.
Perhaps the use of IM has its place, yet the implementation of IM in a classroom should be deeply scrutinized and not be the sole form of communication. IM is a great way for individuals to chat and exchange ideas, though there lacks in real human contact and can easily lead to problems.
IM otherwise known as instant messaging is considered a type II technology and is becoming more and more integrated into the classroom experience. Often associated with casual chatting online, IM is now being used by both fully online classes and non-online classes alike.
Wang and Beasley assess the use of IM through an online class in the form of regular mandatory class discussions. They suggest that IM is a beneficial tool to get students to have a well informed, technology based discussion through a non-traditional forum. Although there are many benefits to using IM as a tool for online classes, there are also many downfalls.
While discussions can easily take place through online forums, there is not the same personal interaction that a face to face discussion would provide. Emotions can easily be misinterpreted when only using written words and can lead to poor communication. Although students can use symbols to convey emotions such as ;-), body language and tone of voice are much more clear and do not get as confusing as written communication. Talk to anyone who has been misinterpreted on an email and they will likely confirm this notion.
Perhaps the use of IM has its place, yet the implementation of IM in a classroom should be deeply scrutinized and not be the sole form of communication. IM is a great way for individuals to chat and exchange ideas, though there lacks in real human contact and can easily lead to problems.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Assessing and Monitoring Student Progress in E-Learning Personnel Preparation Environment -Unit 4
Meyem, E.L., Aust, R. J., and Isaacson, R. (2006). Assessing and monitoring student progress ine-learning personnel preparation environment. Teacher Education and Special Education, vol. 25, no. 3.
Meyen, Aust, and Isaacson discuss the pros and cons of on line classes in their article, “Assessing and Monitoring Student Progress in E-Learning Personal Preparation Environment.” Their article takes an in-depth look at the role of e-learning as a teaching tool as well as a means of education. By examining how students use such e-learning as online classes, the authors reveal the current state of e-learning.
In one of the examples provided, students in teacher ed. programs were required to participate in an online class. Through taking the course, students were able monitor their own work, have regular feedback from the professor and participate in group discussions online. Although there was a range of abilities with regard to technology, the majority of the students reported their enthusiasm for such courses.
While I believe that online classes can often be very beneficial, allowing for different schedules and alternative learning modes, a teacher ed. program seems a particularly odd match. The intense need to meet face to face with others in such a program would be eliminated, or at least minimal with online classes. This further brings to light online universities and how they lead to questionable practices. Not to downplay the many benefits of online classes, there does however seem to be a fuzzy line where online classes are truly the best match.
Meyen, Aust, and Isaacson discuss the pros and cons of on line classes in their article, “Assessing and Monitoring Student Progress in E-Learning Personal Preparation Environment.” Their article takes an in-depth look at the role of e-learning as a teaching tool as well as a means of education. By examining how students use such e-learning as online classes, the authors reveal the current state of e-learning.
In one of the examples provided, students in teacher ed. programs were required to participate in an online class. Through taking the course, students were able monitor their own work, have regular feedback from the professor and participate in group discussions online. Although there was a range of abilities with regard to technology, the majority of the students reported their enthusiasm for such courses.
While I believe that online classes can often be very beneficial, allowing for different schedules and alternative learning modes, a teacher ed. program seems a particularly odd match. The intense need to meet face to face with others in such a program would be eliminated, or at least minimal with online classes. This further brings to light online universities and how they lead to questionable practices. Not to downplay the many benefits of online classes, there does however seem to be a fuzzy line where online classes are truly the best match.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Digital Natives Digital Immigrants - Unit 1
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, vol. 9 no.5.
Mark Prensky’s article, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” is on the disconnect between how “today’s” students learn and how they are being taught. Prensky argues that if today’s students are to succeed, teachers will need to completely revamp their teaching style and gear it towards a multi-tasking, hyper sensory, easily board student body. Although Prensky addresses some interesting points, his entire thesis seems very misguided and biased toward an older, less tech savvy generation. Although today’s students are indeed more technologically advanced, Prensky’s argument seems a bit rash and overly dramatic.
It may be true that most students today are very familiar with technology and easily adapt to new forms, yet Prensky’s assertion that “students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors,” assumes this based on the difficulty of an older generation at adapting to new technology. Learning new technology is not the same as learning a new language. Learning new technology is about acquiring new skills. Young people just happen to be faster at acquiring new skills. This does not mean that their brains have change because of technology, they just are more familiar with the digital age. Additionally, Prensky calls today’s students Digital Natives and older people Digital Immigrants. While these names are fitting to an extent, all people today are at an ever increasing demand to understand and use technology in the work force. Young people may be at an advantage for understanding technology and using it, yet older people are not excluded from having to know and use these new skills.
Prensky suggests that today’s students on average have spent 5,000 hours of their lives reading yet over 10,000 of their live playing video games and 20,000 years watching TV. However shocking and overwhelming those numbers are, he offers no reference to studies which confirm these facts and makes huge generalizations about young people. Although it may be true that some of today’s students may well spend more time watching TV or playing video games, these numbers assume a certain economic level, education level, and interest level. While not all students enjoy reading, not all students enjoy video games, thus Prensky uses these numbers more to shock the reader into believing his argument than to actually proving his argument.
Perhaps the most shocking and outrageous argument of Pensky’s, is where he states, “It’s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdate language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.” While there may be some truth to how difficult it is to teach to an ever advancing technologically savvy generation, it would be a far cry to say that this is the biggest problem facing education. There are so many bigger social justice issues facing education today, such as funding, it is hard to stomach Prensky’s statement.
While this article did not speak to the real challenges of adapting education to technology in a rapidly changing digital age, it did offer a new perspective and issues to ponder, perhaps asking the reader how they will adjust in the coming years.
Mark Prensky’s article, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” is on the disconnect between how “today’s” students learn and how they are being taught. Prensky argues that if today’s students are to succeed, teachers will need to completely revamp their teaching style and gear it towards a multi-tasking, hyper sensory, easily board student body. Although Prensky addresses some interesting points, his entire thesis seems very misguided and biased toward an older, less tech savvy generation. Although today’s students are indeed more technologically advanced, Prensky’s argument seems a bit rash and overly dramatic.
It may be true that most students today are very familiar with technology and easily adapt to new forms, yet Prensky’s assertion that “students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors,” assumes this based on the difficulty of an older generation at adapting to new technology. Learning new technology is not the same as learning a new language. Learning new technology is about acquiring new skills. Young people just happen to be faster at acquiring new skills. This does not mean that their brains have change because of technology, they just are more familiar with the digital age. Additionally, Prensky calls today’s students Digital Natives and older people Digital Immigrants. While these names are fitting to an extent, all people today are at an ever increasing demand to understand and use technology in the work force. Young people may be at an advantage for understanding technology and using it, yet older people are not excluded from having to know and use these new skills.
Prensky suggests that today’s students on average have spent 5,000 hours of their lives reading yet over 10,000 of their live playing video games and 20,000 years watching TV. However shocking and overwhelming those numbers are, he offers no reference to studies which confirm these facts and makes huge generalizations about young people. Although it may be true that some of today’s students may well spend more time watching TV or playing video games, these numbers assume a certain economic level, education level, and interest level. While not all students enjoy reading, not all students enjoy video games, thus Prensky uses these numbers more to shock the reader into believing his argument than to actually proving his argument.
Perhaps the most shocking and outrageous argument of Pensky’s, is where he states, “It’s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdate language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.” While there may be some truth to how difficult it is to teach to an ever advancing technologically savvy generation, it would be a far cry to say that this is the biggest problem facing education. There are so many bigger social justice issues facing education today, such as funding, it is hard to stomach Prensky’s statement.
While this article did not speak to the real challenges of adapting education to technology in a rapidly changing digital age, it did offer a new perspective and issues to ponder, perhaps asking the reader how they will adjust in the coming years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
