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