EDUC 8845 Mod 6

Mod 6 Blog

Having had both online and in person classes, and have taught blended classes, there is an impact on the process of learning, but the learning still has to be done by me and my brain limitations.  The advantage, however, comes in the opportunity for presentation options and being more able to reach students where they are.  It would be inaccurate to compare my face to face classes with online as the teaching method is completely different.  The weekly writing assignment in PhD classes does not match up with how my undergrad or prior grad school conducted themselves.    

Is that due to the level of instruction or the change in methodology?  In great measure I would guess both, but mostly due to the level I would suggest.  The approach here is getting to use the information that can be developed into knowledge (Siemens, 2006) and by working with it in papers in a constructivist manner, undergrad and last graduate degree would have been more along cognitive lines (Siemens, 2009).  I am looking forward to playing with the connectivism model in my next teaching engagement. 

Technology has changed the delivery, brief lecture are shown on video, more writing and response in asynchronous environments and the potential to access far more information if connectivity is available.  The speed of new developments in technology is making education play catch up for the current students but may not be able to prepare our students for what is yet to be invented for the workplace.   What we must learn to do is to teach critical thinking skills to evaluate the information overload (Siemens, 2006) and develop ways that get the curriculum goals met through alternate means(Simonson, n.d.).

 

References

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Lulu.com. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&path=ASIN/1430302305

Simonson, M. (n.d.). Equivalency Theory. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5260644&Survey=1&47=6207849&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

EDUC 8845 Mod 5

ARCS Blog Post for Module 5

In my last teaching post we had an inordinate number of students in the in-house suspension program.  These students had to serve while maintaining the work load in classes.  The normal routine was to send a student around to classes to get assignments for the in-house students.  This process was disruptive as well as irritating for staff as a source of interruption and the specialization of a lesson for those who were not in class.

My solution was to use the existing system of posting homework on the teacher web page that was applicable.  I also added resource materials similar to, if not the same, as in class.  This allowed access for the in-house suspension supervisor and at his convenience without an interruption to classes.  While this was a good idea, the need to have the information posted and retrieved was too much for the program.  When items were posted, they were not retrieved and given to students as well as the work not getting returned for review and grading.

The attitude of the supervisor was embracing the concept, with no follow through.  The action that was required was minimal, but it was still not insurmountable from a technological standpoint or implementation.  Using the ARCS model (Keller, 2006) I might have taken more time to look at the teacher and audience motivation; looking to see what would motivate the supervisor – what interested the supervisor while dealing with the children under his charge; altering tactics on the technology use; evaluating the process and application of these assignments.  Perhaps going over my overall goals and the like would have been a help guide for the supervisor and his motivation for getting students to complete the work.

References

Keller, J. (2006). ARCS Design Process. ARCS Model. Retrieved from http://arcsmodel.com/Mot%20dsgn%20A%20prcss.htm

EDUC 8845 Mod 4

 

The Map:

 

 

The Discussion:

Building networks and becoming more tech savvy has changed my role from a traditional student to an online student.  With the evolution of the web, I now have access to much more information (Wiley, 2006) that I would have had at any single library I was associated with in my educational pursuits.  Further, some weaknesses are shored up by the software applications like MS Word and Zotero in making the ideas in my mind more acceptable in form to others in the scholarly community (Palloff & Pratt, 2005).  Having access to this resource makes it more difficult for one to know all, but allows many more to get what they need as they need it (Drexler, 2008; Moller, 2008; Siemens, 2008).

The digital tools that best fit me are those that simplify the educational process.  As a visual learner, I like to be able to see things and creating videos and power point presentations is a special treat that was not part of the mix in my secondary and undergraduate years.  I have also become more adept at cooperative learning, having this style (Resta & Laferrière, 2007) more available through technology and the reduced cost of technology (example in this course of simply calling and texting to coordinate collaborative work, the lack of long distance charges makes that possible).

Searching out the answers I seek can be fun or overwhelming.  When I have a question I can access resources through searches in the Walden library for articles, look on the web for answers or even click on the question mark in MS Word that spawns a search window with access to stored resources on my laptop or online if connected to the internet (Moller, 2008). When working with other students on the same project, collaboratively or not, discussing the options through chats and emails oft times helps me locate a source that I can use like the example below by Drexler (2008).

References

Drexler, W. (Writer), & Drexler, W. (Director). (2008). The Networked Student [Motion Picture].

Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools. Unpublished Paper.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in Support of Collaborative Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65–83. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7

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

Wiley, D. (2006). Open source , openess, and higher education. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(1).