Emerging Technologies
Examining McLuhan's Tetrad and Thornburg's Six Forces on a school's use of an emerging technology that was obsoleted by another emerging technology, which may be on the way out . . .
For the Resources and Supporting Handouts for this project: Click Here
Friday, November 20, 2009
EDUC 8848 Module 6
-
Closing the Global Divide
The question is: What can you do to help make emerging technologies valuable to others, while maintaining gender, cultural, and socioeconomic sensitivity?
Someone, somewhere along this scholarly journey once said that sometimes the best way to argue your point is to argue the counterpoint’s perspective first. I have decided to take this approach and boldly go where few have gone (slight distortion of Star Trek reference).
Soloway, Thornburg, and many others have proposed ideas and strategies to help close the digital divide not only within the U.S. but also globally. My scholarly colleagues, John and Lisa have made some excellent remarks and have posted some great resource links on the bottom of their blog pages which address closing this digital divide.
But for me, the most interesting statement came from Thornburg (Laureate Education, 2009) and is the second part of the opening question: " . . . while maintaining gender, cultural, and socioeconomic sensitivity."
I am all for fairness. I am all for equality. I am not against equal access to help others learn, grow, and achieve their dreams. But, let’s take a step away from this issue for one moment.
My American husband and I went to an Asian man’s funeral. We were the only non-Asians (so to speak because I am Asian, but born in this country) at the post-service buffet style meal. Every male went to the buffet table first. All women stayed seated until all men had gone through the line. Even the widow of the deceased did not approach the table. My American husband and I wanted to scream, “Woman first, especially the widow, what’s the matter with you people!” Of course we didn’t because “men first” is the Korean custom.
The point is why should we put our cultural beliefs on other cultures? Maybe they do not want equity. Maybe some societies still do not want women to have knowledge. Maybe their government’s success relies on having a percentage of poor, uninformed people. Not that I am a supporter of these types of thinking, but I am a supporter of respecting others, of varying perspectives, and of differences. It is almost ironic to me that we strive to support and respect diversity and cultural differences, but we want all cultures to have what we have. Is this like me saying, “Hey, woman should go first” because that’s the way we do it? Furthermore, is advocating digital equity a form of socialism and how do anti-socialists feel about that?
Soloway says every child should have a cell phone in school. But is that pushing his beliefs even on us as Americans?
Yes, in my perfect world, we would all be like Star Trek, where everyone gets along, everyone is equal, and we spend our time learning, thriving, and exploring, instead of fighting. But even Star Trek had a prime directive that stated that the fully developed, technological advanced Star Trek fleet could not interfere with the internal development or path of a society’s course.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Diversity and globalism. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm)
Soloway, E. (n.d.). The digital divide: Leveling the playing field. [Podcast]. Laureate Education.
http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3642809&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Soloway, E. (2009). Get cell phones into schools. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2009/tc20090114_741903.htm
Closing the Global Divide
The question is: What can you do to help make emerging technologies valuable to others, while maintaining gender, cultural, and socioeconomic sensitivity?
Someone, somewhere along this scholarly journey once said that sometimes the best way to argue your point is to argue the counterpoint’s perspective first. I have decided to take this approach and boldly go where few have gone (slight distortion of Star Trek reference).
Soloway, Thornburg, and many others have proposed ideas and strategies to help close the digital divide not only within the U.S. but also globally. My scholarly colleagues, John and Lisa have made some excellent remarks and have posted some great resource links on the bottom of their blog pages which address closing this digital divide.
But for me, the most interesting statement came from Thornburg (Laureate Education, 2009) and is the second part of the opening question: " . . . while maintaining gender, cultural, and socioeconomic sensitivity."
I am all for fairness. I am all for equality. I am not against equal access to help others learn, grow, and achieve their dreams. But, let’s take a step away from this issue for one moment.
My American husband and I went to an Asian man’s funeral. We were the only non-Asians (so to speak because I am Asian, but born in this country) at the post-service buffet style meal. Every male went to the buffet table first. All women stayed seated until all men had gone through the line. Even the widow of the deceased did not approach the table. My American husband and I wanted to scream, “Woman first, especially the widow, what’s the matter with you people!” Of course we didn’t because “men first” is the Korean custom.
The point is why should we put our cultural beliefs on other cultures? Maybe they do not want equity. Maybe some societies still do not want women to have knowledge. Maybe their government’s success relies on having a percentage of poor, uninformed people. Not that I am a supporter of these types of thinking, but I am a supporter of respecting others, of varying perspectives, and of differences. It is almost ironic to me that we strive to support and respect diversity and cultural differences, but we want all cultures to have what we have. Is this like me saying, “Hey, woman should go first” because that’s the way we do it? Furthermore, is advocating digital equity a form of socialism and how do anti-socialists feel about that?
Soloway says every child should have a cell phone in school. But is that pushing his beliefs even on us as Americans?
Yes, in my perfect world, we would all be like Star Trek, where everyone gets along, everyone is equal, and we spend our time learning, thriving, and exploring, instead of fighting. But even Star Trek had a prime directive that stated that the fully developed, technological advanced Star Trek fleet could not interfere with the internal development or path of a society’s course.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Diversity and globalism. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm)
Soloway, E. (n.d.). The digital divide: Leveling the playing field. [Podcast]. Laureate Education.
http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3642809&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Soloway, E. (2009). Get cell phones into schools. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2009/tc20090114_741903.htm
Thursday, November 12, 2009
EDUC 8848 Module 5 Post - Red Queens or Black Jack?
=
In this week’s studies we are discussing if DVDs and VOD (Video on Demand) are an example of Red Queens or Increasing Returns. Red Queens, according to Thornburg (2008), are when two technologies are dominating the marketplace in a head-to-head fashion. The competition to stay ahead of the other benefits the consumer as the competitors constantly improve the product to stay in the game. (The term Red Queen was derived from the notion of Alice in Wonderland with the Red Queen in hand, running simply to stay in place.)
Increasing returns, according to Arthur(1996) in his article entitled, Increasing Returns and the World of Business is when two
two innovations also begin to compete but one clearly dominates the other into extinction.
I do not think that DVDs and VOD are Red Queens. When VOD services began, DVD rental places such as Blockbuster had to begin adding to their repertoire of services. For example, not quite yet in the VOD stage, when Netflix delivered movies to the house, Blockbuster added that feature.
Then VOD services began to gain popularity including Netflix, and Blockbuster began to offer VOD services.
I do not think DVDs can compete with VOD, and that eventually VOD will eliminate the DVD market. Currently, however, VOD has not completely modeled the increasing returns yet because, in my opinion, of the human factor of ease of use, need for a new piece of technology, need to learn new technology, and because VOD generally involves commitment to a monthly service. Beta, VHS, and DVD players were all generally the same: Insert a media device into a machine, play, FF, Rewind, Stop, eject. The concept of VOD is different. It will take more time for people to move over to the new way. Also, monthly fees may not appeal to many (like myself) who watch only 3 or 4 movies a year.
Red Queens or Black Jack?
Thornburg (2008) warns us not to extrapolate the future from the past, that changes occur in a non-linear, exponential fashion with the appearance of wild cards at any moment. (A wild card, according to Thornburg, is an innovation that seemingly appears unexpectedly from nowhere and takes over the marketplace.) Arthur (1996) discusses his model of increasing returns and the new management style needed to accommodate this new business model. In Arthur’s discussion, he uses the analogy of gambling at a casino.
Using Thornburg’s reference to cards (Red Queen) and warning about wild cards and using Arthur’s gambling analogy, I propose that perhaps VOD could even lose to Black Jack. Black Jack basically trumps all. So a Black Jack innovation could simply trump all in the video marketplace and could be easy to use, easy to learn, convenient, not requiring learning complicated technology, and appealing to all. Black Jack is like Thornburg's wild card, but in this analogy, it may not be a complete surprise out of nowhere. Also, the term "Black Jack" has the connotative meaning of "I win!"
McLuhan’s Tetrad
In the end, I do believe that currently, VOD is beginning to replace DVDs, yet both have similarities in McLuhan’s Tetrad. Below I have put the DVD into a Social Tetrad and the VOD into a technology tetrad.
References
Arthur, W. B. (1996). Increasing returns and the new world of business. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 100−109.
Thornburg, D. (2008c). Red Queens, butterflies, and strange attractors: Imperfect lenses into emergent technologies. Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.
In this week’s studies we are discussing if DVDs and VOD (Video on Demand) are an example of Red Queens or Increasing Returns. Red Queens, according to Thornburg (2008), are when two technologies are dominating the marketplace in a head-to-head fashion. The competition to stay ahead of the other benefits the consumer as the competitors constantly improve the product to stay in the game. (The term Red Queen was derived from the notion of Alice in Wonderland with the Red Queen in hand, running simply to stay in place.)
Increasing returns, according to Arthur(1996) in his article entitled, Increasing Returns and the World of Business is when two
two innovations also begin to compete but one clearly dominates the other into extinction.
I do not think that DVDs and VOD are Red Queens. When VOD services began, DVD rental places such as Blockbuster had to begin adding to their repertoire of services. For example, not quite yet in the VOD stage, when Netflix delivered movies to the house, Blockbuster added that feature.
Then VOD services began to gain popularity including Netflix, and Blockbuster began to offer VOD services.
I do not think DVDs can compete with VOD, and that eventually VOD will eliminate the DVD market. Currently, however, VOD has not completely modeled the increasing returns yet because, in my opinion, of the human factor of ease of use, need for a new piece of technology, need to learn new technology, and because VOD generally involves commitment to a monthly service. Beta, VHS, and DVD players were all generally the same: Insert a media device into a machine, play, FF, Rewind, Stop, eject. The concept of VOD is different. It will take more time for people to move over to the new way. Also, monthly fees may not appeal to many (like myself) who watch only 3 or 4 movies a year.
Red Queens or Black Jack?
Thornburg (2008) warns us not to extrapolate the future from the past, that changes occur in a non-linear, exponential fashion with the appearance of wild cards at any moment. (A wild card, according to Thornburg, is an innovation that seemingly appears unexpectedly from nowhere and takes over the marketplace.) Arthur (1996) discusses his model of increasing returns and the new management style needed to accommodate this new business model. In Arthur’s discussion, he uses the analogy of gambling at a casino.
Using Thornburg’s reference to cards (Red Queen) and warning about wild cards and using Arthur’s gambling analogy, I propose that perhaps VOD could even lose to Black Jack. Black Jack basically trumps all. So a Black Jack innovation could simply trump all in the video marketplace and could be easy to use, easy to learn, convenient, not requiring learning complicated technology, and appealing to all. Black Jack is like Thornburg's wild card, but in this analogy, it may not be a complete surprise out of nowhere. Also, the term "Black Jack" has the connotative meaning of "I win!"
McLuhan’s Tetrad
In the end, I do believe that currently, VOD is beginning to replace DVDs, yet both have similarities in McLuhan’s Tetrad. Below I have put the DVD into a Social Tetrad and the VOD into a technology tetrad.
References
Arthur, W. B. (1996). Increasing returns and the new world of business. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 100−109.
Thornburg, D. (2008c). Red Queens, butterflies, and strange attractors: Imperfect lenses into emergent technologies. Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
8848 Module 4 Second Life as a Disruptive Technology
Disruptive technologies, according to Thornburg in Laureate Education, 2009) is one of the six forces that drive emerging technologies. Thornburg references Clayton Christensen’s term of disruptive innovation as the groundwork of the notion of disruptive technology. In brief, a disruptive technology is an innovation along the evolutionary path of technology that takes the industry by storm in creating a more efficient, lower cost solution with increased benefits and makes it more possible for more consumers to access, afford, or utilize the innovation. At the same time, it obsoletes its predecessors.
Thornburg (in Laureate Education, 2009) uses the transistor as an example of disrupting the success of the vacuum tube. Other examples include the digital cameras replacing film or CDs replacing the phonograph.
For this module, we will discuss Second Life as a disruptive technology.
1. How is Second Life a disruptive technology?
2. What technology does it replace?
3. How long before it is replaced?
I am not 100% sure that Second Life is yet a disruptive technology, but perhaps on the verge of it. As the inventor Philip Rosedale states in his Second Life video talk, "We are more like the Wild West than like Rome." Furthermore, in an interview with Rosedale, (Lamont, 2009) he states that Second Life is in the first stage of at least three stages. Perhaps he is merely being humble, as Second Life could have begun to be a disruptive technology.
Second Life could be replacing games (Nintendo, GameBoy), virtual reality platforms, educational and training classrooms, office meeting and work collaboration areas, a streaming server (allows for streaming audio without a streaming server), and even Skype is mentioned as being replaced with equal or better sound but in a 3D meeting space.
Rosedale (2008) discusses how feedback from current users are consistently helping him to improve upon the concept by identifying the areas of lack and need. His futuristic mindset and drive to push this technology forward in time makes one speculate that he may even obsolete his own creation or come up with the second generation of Second Life. I would say it is too difficult to guestimate when another innovation may make Second Life obsolete. I think the next innovation may pop up as the next stage of processing, speed, power, and storage become faster and more efficient probably by jumping into a whole new realm that we don’t see today. Technological advances can sometimes seem to pop up at a drop of a hat or as Thornburg (in Laureate Education, 2009) said, like a wildcard, not knowing when it is coming, but when it does, "Look out."
4. What are the social benefits of Second Life and what might be the social implications of virtual worlds in my industry?
I hesitate to discuss the social benefits of Second Life. I think the negatives (too much make believe, hiding behind an identity, change of ethical/moral fiber, sitting at a computer too long, etc.) might outweigh the positives on a social level. But that would be a completely separate discussion. I am not saying Second Life is not beneficial for some areas. I often compare technology to a knife. Knives have a lot of great benefits (cooking, cutting, etc.), but if not used properly, they can be very detrimental. From my industry’s perspective, I can see how Second Life could be a helpful tool for training and simulation. Second Life could be a very inexpensive tool for learning, teaching, collaboration, and brainstorming in both the business and educational worlds.
Koh
Resources
Annotated bibliography of Second Life, http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mpepper/slbib
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Science Fiction. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm).
Lamont, I. (2009). Interview with Second Life creator Philip Rosedale. http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/01/30/interview-second-life-creator-philip-rosedale
Rosedale, P. (2008). Philip Rosedale on Second Life. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/the_inspiration_of_second_life.html
Thornburg (in Laureate Education, 2009) uses the transistor as an example of disrupting the success of the vacuum tube. Other examples include the digital cameras replacing film or CDs replacing the phonograph.
For this module, we will discuss Second Life as a disruptive technology.
1. How is Second Life a disruptive technology?
2. What technology does it replace?
3. How long before it is replaced?
I am not 100% sure that Second Life is yet a disruptive technology, but perhaps on the verge of it. As the inventor Philip Rosedale states in his Second Life video talk, "We are more like the Wild West than like Rome." Furthermore, in an interview with Rosedale, (Lamont, 2009) he states that Second Life is in the first stage of at least three stages. Perhaps he is merely being humble, as Second Life could have begun to be a disruptive technology.
Second Life could be replacing games (Nintendo, GameBoy), virtual reality platforms, educational and training classrooms, office meeting and work collaboration areas, a streaming server (allows for streaming audio without a streaming server), and even Skype is mentioned as being replaced with equal or better sound but in a 3D meeting space.
Rosedale (2008) discusses how feedback from current users are consistently helping him to improve upon the concept by identifying the areas of lack and need. His futuristic mindset and drive to push this technology forward in time makes one speculate that he may even obsolete his own creation or come up with the second generation of Second Life. I would say it is too difficult to guestimate when another innovation may make Second Life obsolete. I think the next innovation may pop up as the next stage of processing, speed, power, and storage become faster and more efficient probably by jumping into a whole new realm that we don’t see today. Technological advances can sometimes seem to pop up at a drop of a hat or as Thornburg (in Laureate Education, 2009) said, like a wildcard, not knowing when it is coming, but when it does, "Look out."
4. What are the social benefits of Second Life and what might be the social implications of virtual worlds in my industry?
I hesitate to discuss the social benefits of Second Life. I think the negatives (too much make believe, hiding behind an identity, change of ethical/moral fiber, sitting at a computer too long, etc.) might outweigh the positives on a social level. But that would be a completely separate discussion. I am not saying Second Life is not beneficial for some areas. I often compare technology to a knife. Knives have a lot of great benefits (cooking, cutting, etc.), but if not used properly, they can be very detrimental. From my industry’s perspective, I can see how Second Life could be a helpful tool for training and simulation. Second Life could be a very inexpensive tool for learning, teaching, collaboration, and brainstorming in both the business and educational worlds.
Koh
Resources
Annotated bibliography of Second Life, http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mpepper/slbib
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Science Fiction. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm).
Lamont, I. (2009). Interview with Second Life creator Philip Rosedale. http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/01/30/interview-second-life-creator-philip-rosedale
Rosedale, P. (2008). Philip Rosedale on Second Life. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/the_inspiration_of_second_life.html
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
EDUC 8848 Module 3 Post
May I dare to "go where no man has gone before"? How can I resist a Star Trek reference in light of Science Fiction being one of the six forces that drive emergence of new technologies (Laureate Education, 2009a)? Well maybe someone has challenged the Rhymes of History, but not so far that I have read.
Rhymes of History is one of the forces that drive the emergence of technology. "A new technology is a fresh emergence of the impact felt many years before from another technology." (Thornburg in Laureate Education, 2009a). This goes along with McLuhan's rekindling section of his technology tetrad(Laureate Education, 2009b). For example the Kindle is a handheld library of books, which rekindles the basic book as well as having a place (library) to store many resources.
Here is where I am taking my Star Trek venture. I certainly do not have the years of expertise of McLuhan. My grasp of educational technology must be a fraction of a percent of one percent of Thornburg's knowledge. So I feel rather naive in posing this question. But here goes: Could every piece of technology be tied to rekindling something from the past? Man has had basic needs to survive (which could be eating, making money, hunting, fighting, learning, etc.), be sheltered, provide, communicate, etc. For example, cell phones and all variations of them could be tied to the need to communicate. New, high-tech ovens can be a retrieval of fire. Any transportation vehicle can be a retrieval of man's need to get from one place to another. Cameras could be traced back to drawings on cave walls, to capture or remember. I might be stretching my point too far here, or perhaps I am just totally missing the boat of understanding of McLuhan's rekindling or Thornburg's Rhyme of History. If indeed every technology is tied to something from the past, is Rhyme of History a force?
Lisa Rodriguez made an interesting comment about McLuhan's tetrad, asking if another factor should be added concerning "the downside" or "the dangers" of the technology. I will now expand on her comment and ask if there is any value of having the unintended consequences as discussed by Rogers (2003) reside in the quadrant in place of the rekindle quadrant?
Any clarification or comments are extremely welcome!
References
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009a). Six forces that drive emergence of new technologies. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm)
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009b). McLuhan’s tetrad. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm)
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rhymes of History is one of the forces that drive the emergence of technology. "A new technology is a fresh emergence of the impact felt many years before from another technology." (Thornburg in Laureate Education, 2009a). This goes along with McLuhan's rekindling section of his technology tetrad(Laureate Education, 2009b). For example the Kindle is a handheld library of books, which rekindles the basic book as well as having a place (library) to store many resources.
Here is where I am taking my Star Trek venture. I certainly do not have the years of expertise of McLuhan. My grasp of educational technology must be a fraction of a percent of one percent of Thornburg's knowledge. So I feel rather naive in posing this question. But here goes: Could every piece of technology be tied to rekindling something from the past? Man has had basic needs to survive (which could be eating, making money, hunting, fighting, learning, etc.), be sheltered, provide, communicate, etc. For example, cell phones and all variations of them could be tied to the need to communicate. New, high-tech ovens can be a retrieval of fire. Any transportation vehicle can be a retrieval of man's need to get from one place to another. Cameras could be traced back to drawings on cave walls, to capture or remember. I might be stretching my point too far here, or perhaps I am just totally missing the boat of understanding of McLuhan's rekindling or Thornburg's Rhyme of History. If indeed every technology is tied to something from the past, is Rhyme of History a force?
Lisa Rodriguez made an interesting comment about McLuhan's tetrad, asking if another factor should be added concerning "the downside" or "the dangers" of the technology. I will now expand on her comment and ask if there is any value of having the unintended consequences as discussed by Rogers (2003) reside in the quadrant in place of the rekindle quadrant?
Any clarification or comments are extremely welcome!
References
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009a). Six forces that drive emergence of new technologies. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm)
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009b). McLuhan’s tetrad. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm)
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
EDUC 8848 - Module 2 Post
==
McLuhan, an educator, philosopher, and scholar is well known for The Medium is the Message. But he also has contributed to the technology with his Laws of Media.
Thornburg's video (Laureate Education, 2009) describes McLuhan's tetrads in two different categories: social implications and technological implications. I have, therefore, created two tetrads for the cell phone. The first one based on social and the second one based on technology.
Social:
Enhances: The ability to communicate anytime, anywhere. This may be a benefit to doctors, business owners, and others who can benefit from being available anytime and not just "when in the office." It may be a benefit in some social situations such as when a woman is going to have a baby. She can contact people immediately. On the other hand, I am uncertain if it is truly a benefit to everyone.
Obsoletes: The words, "I couldn't reach you." This is almost the opposite of the social enhancement.
Rekindles: The desire to communicate. Long ago, the telegraph and the delivery of mail was generated from the desire to communicate.
Reverses: 24/7 contact. Eventually, people may be in constant 24/7 contact with anyone, anywhere. It may be normal to be having several conversations simultaneously.
Technology:
Enhances: Original "mobile" car phone. At one time, you could only chat while in your automobile.
Obsoletes: Landlines. Many people do not have a "home" phone number or a landline in their house.
Rekindles: Portable home phones. At one time, the state-of-the art technology was a portable phone, one you could carry around in your house (but it was wirelessly dependent on a wired base phone).
Reverses: The next generation of Smart Phones. Cell phones have merged with other handheld technologies to be much more than just a method of talking to a person. One cannot also speculate if something like the Star Trek "communicator" could be coming up next - or is that the reversal of the walkie talkie?
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). McLuhan’s tetrad. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm)found on our
McLuhan, an educator, philosopher, and scholar is well known for The Medium is the Message. But he also has contributed to the technology with his Laws of Media.
Thornburg's video (Laureate Education, 2009) describes McLuhan's tetrads in two different categories: social implications and technological implications. I have, therefore, created two tetrads for the cell phone. The first one based on social and the second one based on technology.
Enhances: The ability to communicate anytime, anywhere. This may be a benefit to doctors, business owners, and others who can benefit from being available anytime and not just "when in the office." It may be a benefit in some social situations such as when a woman is going to have a baby. She can contact people immediately. On the other hand, I am uncertain if it is truly a benefit to everyone.
Obsoletes: The words, "I couldn't reach you." This is almost the opposite of the social enhancement.
Rekindles: The desire to communicate. Long ago, the telegraph and the delivery of mail was generated from the desire to communicate.
Reverses: 24/7 contact. Eventually, people may be in constant 24/7 contact with anyone, anywhere. It may be normal to be having several conversations simultaneously.
Enhances: Original "mobile" car phone. At one time, you could only chat while in your automobile.
Obsoletes: Landlines. Many people do not have a "home" phone number or a landline in their house.
Rekindles: Portable home phones. At one time, the state-of-the art technology was a portable phone, one you could carry around in your house (but it was wirelessly dependent on a wired base phone).
Reverses: The next generation of Smart Phones. Cell phones have merged with other handheld technologies to be much more than just a method of talking to a person. One cannot also speculate if something like the Star Trek "communicator" could be coming up next - or is that the reversal of the walkie talkie?
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). McLuhan’s tetrad. [DVD]. In emerging and future technology. (Available from MBS Direct Virtual Bookstore, http://www.mbsdirect.net/Index.htm)found on our
Thursday, September 17, 2009
EDUC 8848 Module 1 Post
.
From Parties to Facebook
Gathering with your friends used to take place at parties, and meetings with people in your industry used to occur at conferences. They still do convene in these face-to-face environments, but now online social networking has added a new dimension to meeting places. Thornburg (2009) discusses transformations in society that are occurring due to technology, and this blog post is an extension of his paper.
The concept of online social networking begun in the late 90's but really began to emerge in the mainstream in 2006. Perhaps one might speculate that the early majority (Rogers, 2003) may have begun using online social networking in 2007-2008.
The upside to this technology is the increased amount of business networking that can take place through such general sites as Linked In or industry specific sites such as The Hospitality Club. Such sites as Facebook bring friends together, and today students are beginning to use their Facebook page as their primary means of communication even above email.
The advantages are quite obvious, but the disadvantages still lurk both children and adults. The news, 60 minutes, and various similar shows have aired specials on predators, pedophiles, and identity thieves who use social networking pages as their playground. (Sample article.)
In the same vein, others are saying that the danger of online predators is not as prevalent as we had once thought. (Article) On a personal note, that article, to me, is unfounded because it says that the number of arrests has only slightly increased. I do not believe number of arrests is necessarily an indicator of number of crimes. Many people do not report the crime due to embarrassment and humiliation. Yet in the same article it discusses how there is a "significant number of sting operation arrests" (Magid, 2008).
The question for this week is: What would make the technology even better, avoiding the pitfalls? Honestly, I do not have an answer and welcome anyone's perspective on that question.
References:
Magid, L. (2009). Online predator study dispels hysteria. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/scitech/pcanswer/main4908379.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Thornburg, D. (2009). Current trends in educational technology. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/Courses/14936/crs-wueduc8812-3526271/when_is_a_technology_emergent.pdf
From Parties to Facebook
Gathering with your friends used to take place at parties, and meetings with people in your industry used to occur at conferences. They still do convene in these face-to-face environments, but now online social networking has added a new dimension to meeting places. Thornburg (2009) discusses transformations in society that are occurring due to technology, and this blog post is an extension of his paper.
The concept of online social networking begun in the late 90's but really began to emerge in the mainstream in 2006. Perhaps one might speculate that the early majority (Rogers, 2003) may have begun using online social networking in 2007-2008.
The upside to this technology is the increased amount of business networking that can take place through such general sites as Linked In or industry specific sites such as The Hospitality Club. Such sites as Facebook bring friends together, and today students are beginning to use their Facebook page as their primary means of communication even above email.
The advantages are quite obvious, but the disadvantages still lurk both children and adults. The news, 60 minutes, and various similar shows have aired specials on predators, pedophiles, and identity thieves who use social networking pages as their playground. (Sample article.)
In the same vein, others are saying that the danger of online predators is not as prevalent as we had once thought. (Article) On a personal note, that article, to me, is unfounded because it says that the number of arrests has only slightly increased. I do not believe number of arrests is necessarily an indicator of number of crimes. Many people do not report the crime due to embarrassment and humiliation. Yet in the same article it discusses how there is a "significant number of sting operation arrests" (Magid, 2008).
The question for this week is: What would make the technology even better, avoiding the pitfalls? Honestly, I do not have an answer and welcome anyone's perspective on that question.
References:
Magid, L. (2009). Online predator study dispels hysteria. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/scitech/pcanswer/main4908379.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Thornburg, D. (2009). Current trends in educational technology. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/Courses/14936/crs-wueduc8812-3526271/when_is_a_technology_emergent.pdf
Sunday, August 2, 2009
MOD 5 - Why Must I Learn This? (Educ 8845)
In my muscle sculpting class at the gym, while doing side-lying leg lifts on the resist-a-ball, I say, “Keep your hips stacked and at a 45 degree angle and keep your leg parallel to the floor . . . and this is why, ladies and gentleman, you took geometry in school – so that you could one day, take a fitness class and know what to do.”
One cannot help but wonder if Keller, while in school, often asked Driscoll’s (2005) reference to the age-old question, “Why must I learn this?” (p. 334) and hence created the ARCS model.
Application of ARCS in the workplace:
In my current corporate job, everyone is basically Digitally Native (30-years-old or younger), so we do not have technology resistance. But in 2003, when I worked in a private K-12 school, all teachers were asked to use the school’s technology platforms (email, intranet, posting homework, etc.) Most were slow to begin, if at all. To motivate them to begin using the tools, the school had to require a technology test in order for them to keep their jobs.
Using Keller’s ARCS Model:
Attention: While we tried to encourage them and show them how technology will help get their jobs done faster and provide more resources, that approach was not successful. The attention getter in this case was the test requirement.
Relevance: Everything on the test was designed to ensure they knew how to use the school’s email, the school’s intranet, the school’s gradebook system, and other such school-related tasks. The test items were very relevant to the success of their jobs and not just miscellaneous technology questions.
Confidence: We provided free courses to all teachers to come to the lab and learn and experiment. We did what we think a real test should be: We gave them the test ahead of time, so they could practice as much as they wanted with help of one of the technology instructors present.
Satisfaction: Teachers definitely had natural consequences (Driscoll, 2005) in that they learned real-world, real-job applications. They also received positive consequences of being able to keep their jobs!
This method did not employ a joke, curiosity, or an internal peak of interest to gain heir attention. It did not use a natural thirst or desire approach. However, it still followed Keller’s ACRS Model, and it was successful. Now, years later, they are grateful for being pushed and everyone uses all the systems as a natural part of their day.
And the people in my fitness class are grateful they took geometry so they can really tone their legs and glutes! But the problem with this ARCS model was the relevance and satisfaction stages came much later than they should have.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
One cannot help but wonder if Keller, while in school, often asked Driscoll’s (2005) reference to the age-old question, “Why must I learn this?” (p. 334) and hence created the ARCS model.
Application of ARCS in the workplace:
In my current corporate job, everyone is basically Digitally Native (30-years-old or younger), so we do not have technology resistance. But in 2003, when I worked in a private K-12 school, all teachers were asked to use the school’s technology platforms (email, intranet, posting homework, etc.) Most were slow to begin, if at all. To motivate them to begin using the tools, the school had to require a technology test in order for them to keep their jobs.
Using Keller’s ARCS Model:
Attention: While we tried to encourage them and show them how technology will help get their jobs done faster and provide more resources, that approach was not successful. The attention getter in this case was the test requirement.
Relevance: Everything on the test was designed to ensure they knew how to use the school’s email, the school’s intranet, the school’s gradebook system, and other such school-related tasks. The test items were very relevant to the success of their jobs and not just miscellaneous technology questions.
Confidence: We provided free courses to all teachers to come to the lab and learn and experiment. We did what we think a real test should be: We gave them the test ahead of time, so they could practice as much as they wanted with help of one of the technology instructors present.
Satisfaction: Teachers definitely had natural consequences (Driscoll, 2005) in that they learned real-world, real-job applications. They also received positive consequences of being able to keep their jobs!
This method did not employ a joke, curiosity, or an internal peak of interest to gain heir attention. It did not use a natural thirst or desire approach. However, it still followed Keller’s ACRS Model, and it was successful. Now, years later, they are grateful for being pushed and everyone uses all the systems as a natural part of their day.
And the people in my fitness class are grateful they took geometry so they can really tone their legs and glutes! But the problem with this ARCS model was the relevance and satisfaction stages came much later than they should have.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Friday, July 24, 2009
MOD 4 - THE MINIMALIST (EDUC 8845)
Have you heard of the show, The Mentalist? Well, when it comes to this assignment, I am the Minimalist.
It may well be ironic that I am in this Educational Technology doctoral program. Perhaps I should be in an "ancient history" program instead. What do I mean by all of this. Let's begin with this:
1. I do not have a social networking page. Despite invitations to join hundreds of my friends on Facebook, I decline them all. The reason? For me at this time, the risks do not outweigh the benefits. There are numerous stories about the dangers of social networking pages. This is not to say that they are "bad." It is just to say that at the current time, I do not allow technology to dictate my life. Also, as an educator, I believe I have to be a role model for our children. The dangers for children, in my opinion, are not worth it, at this time.
2. I do not text message. I called my carrier and disabled it from my phone. I am on the executive staff for the company for which I work, and all the executives text message each other constantly. I do not, and yet I am very successful at my job. Again, for me the dangers outweigh the benefits. I wonder if any studies been done on the addictive nature of text messaging? Is it ok? Is it healthy? Is it dangerous?
3. I do not have a blackberry or iPhone or any type of handheld device that allows me to connect to anyone or anywhere, except for a basic cell phone.
4. Cell phone: Only family members and perhaps ten friends have my phone number. My cell phone does not take pictures. It does not bake bread or clean the oven. It simply makes and receives phone calls.
I could go on, but I think maybe my point has been made. I am not anti-technology, and I am not technology illiterate. I grew up with the industry in that I started during DOS days before Windows. I learn and use items as needed, but the key phrase is "as needed." I enjoy the quality of my life outside of technology and only use technologies that I need.
That all said, now the assignment:
In the map, my online life is very simple. There are 3 areas: work, school, and personal. I spend most of my personal time face-to-face with my friends, not online. My professional life requires me to stand in front of large audiences and "perform." Therefore my presentation and social skills are critically important for me as an adult.
I only use the minimal technologies needed to learn and "get by." Yes, Walden's program forced me go learn about blogs, wikipages, and how to shoot and upload video. Yes, I have learned a lot through blogging with classmates and collaborating on wikipages. Podcasts of lectures certainly have increased and facilitated my learning. The amount of information and peer reviewed articles available online has certainly increased the amount of learning possible.
On the other hand, as Siemens (2009) states, the world of the internet and learning today can be "overwhelming" and "complex." He proposed that learning networks should be formed to manage the amount of information. Perhaps I am over-managing and limiting my networks.
Siemens, G. (2009). Connectivism Learning Theory. [Vodcast]. Retrieved from http://media.waldenu.edu/media/Media1/EDUC8845/html/educ8845_cc.html
It may well be ironic that I am in this Educational Technology doctoral program. Perhaps I should be in an "ancient history" program instead. What do I mean by all of this. Let's begin with this:
1. I do not have a social networking page. Despite invitations to join hundreds of my friends on Facebook, I decline them all. The reason? For me at this time, the risks do not outweigh the benefits. There are numerous stories about the dangers of social networking pages. This is not to say that they are "bad." It is just to say that at the current time, I do not allow technology to dictate my life. Also, as an educator, I believe I have to be a role model for our children. The dangers for children, in my opinion, are not worth it, at this time.
2. I do not text message. I called my carrier and disabled it from my phone. I am on the executive staff for the company for which I work, and all the executives text message each other constantly. I do not, and yet I am very successful at my job. Again, for me the dangers outweigh the benefits. I wonder if any studies been done on the addictive nature of text messaging? Is it ok? Is it healthy? Is it dangerous?
3. I do not have a blackberry or iPhone or any type of handheld device that allows me to connect to anyone or anywhere, except for a basic cell phone.
4. Cell phone: Only family members and perhaps ten friends have my phone number. My cell phone does not take pictures. It does not bake bread or clean the oven. It simply makes and receives phone calls.
I could go on, but I think maybe my point has been made. I am not anti-technology, and I am not technology illiterate. I grew up with the industry in that I started during DOS days before Windows. I learn and use items as needed, but the key phrase is "as needed." I enjoy the quality of my life outside of technology and only use technologies that I need.
That all said, now the assignment:
In the map, my online life is very simple. There are 3 areas: work, school, and personal. I spend most of my personal time face-to-face with my friends, not online. My professional life requires me to stand in front of large audiences and "perform." Therefore my presentation and social skills are critically important for me as an adult.
I only use the minimal technologies needed to learn and "get by." Yes, Walden's program forced me go learn about blogs, wikipages, and how to shoot and upload video. Yes, I have learned a lot through blogging with classmates and collaborating on wikipages. Podcasts of lectures certainly have increased and facilitated my learning. The amount of information and peer reviewed articles available online has certainly increased the amount of learning possible.
On the other hand, as Siemens (2009) states, the world of the internet and learning today can be "overwhelming" and "complex." He proposed that learning networks should be formed to manage the amount of information. Perhaps I am over-managing and limiting my networks.
Siemens, G. (2009). Connectivism Learning Theory. [Vodcast]. Retrieved from http://media.waldenu.edu/media/Media1/EDUC8845/html/educ8845_cc.html
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
EDUC 8845 Module 3 Post
Question 1: Do you believe that humans have a basic instinct to interact or work as a group, as Rheingold proposed in his discussion . . .
Rheingold’s (2005) web video is very fascinating and opens interesting doors to a new way of thinking. I followed his logic, and I do believe he is “on to” something here. However, I am a little bit confused.
Rheingold (2005) seems to be stating that man is now emerging toward working more collaboratively rather than the old way of survival of the fittest where one man wins. He mentioned that the collaborative spirit has been around even in the earlier days of the hunters. I agree that technology has enabled man to work more collectively as seen in such platforms as Google, Wikipedia, and Open Source software. But I am not convinced that it is because of man’s “basic instinct” to work as a group. I am not a sociologist and may be speaking blindly here, but I think that man’s basic instinct is still selfishness and self-survival.
I see Rheingold, Ted Talks, and all of us educational technology scholars as only a small part of our world. Put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard, and take a look at what is occurring outside our laptop world (beyond just us geeky technology types.) Countries are generally still led by one top person (President, Dictator, Queen, etc.) Catholics are led by one primary leader (the Pope). Companies still have one leader, a president or CEO. To me, a single leader does not symbolize collaborative action. We are still at war. Terrorists still exist. Leaders of large countries (e.g. Hugo Chavez) do not seem to fall in line with a collaborative spirit. Finally, I don’t think Roger Federer collaborated with Andy Roddick before this past weekend’s Wimbeldon finals. Granted, Rheingold did say we are only at the tip of the iceberg. I am uncertain if the iceberg can or ever will melt, if man is not really of a collaborative spirit but of a selfish nature.
I think that man (as in Rheingold’s description of the hunter) realizes the efficiency and effectiveness of collaborative action, but collaborates for selfish reasons not for the community good. Even Rheingold says that these collective actions are not done for altruistic reasons but for self interest. So I’m not quite sure if Rheingold is saying that man wants to work together to make a better world or if man’s self interest is realizing that collaborative efforts can serve him better and, oh by the way, technology has enabled those collaborative efforts. My opinion is the latter. So I don’t think man has a “basic instinct” to collaborate.
Question 2: How can technology facilitate collaboration among learners based on constructivist principles?
In just recent years, there have been a number of technology advancements in such things as bandwidth and video that have allowed for increased communication capabilities (webcasts, podcasts, etc.) Such things as wiki’s, twitter, and blogs have increased the opportunity to unite, construct, and collaborate.
A perfect example is Rheingold’s (2005) mention of the platform that posts problems in underdeveloped countries to be solved by design students around the world. With the ability to tap into multiple minds around the world, technology has enabled collaboration across time and space. The synchronous or asynchronous communication capabilities among any number of users provide an environment for discovery, discussion, and debate on real topics, topics that give and have meaning to the learner through engagement, participation, and socialization. All of that follows a collaborative constructivist approach
Rheingold, H. (2005). Howard Rheingold: Way-New Collaboration. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
Rheingold’s (2005) web video is very fascinating and opens interesting doors to a new way of thinking. I followed his logic, and I do believe he is “on to” something here. However, I am a little bit confused.
Rheingold (2005) seems to be stating that man is now emerging toward working more collaboratively rather than the old way of survival of the fittest where one man wins. He mentioned that the collaborative spirit has been around even in the earlier days of the hunters. I agree that technology has enabled man to work more collectively as seen in such platforms as Google, Wikipedia, and Open Source software. But I am not convinced that it is because of man’s “basic instinct” to work as a group. I am not a sociologist and may be speaking blindly here, but I think that man’s basic instinct is still selfishness and self-survival.
I see Rheingold, Ted Talks, and all of us educational technology scholars as only a small part of our world. Put down the mouse and step away from the keyboard, and take a look at what is occurring outside our laptop world (beyond just us geeky technology types.) Countries are generally still led by one top person (President, Dictator, Queen, etc.) Catholics are led by one primary leader (the Pope). Companies still have one leader, a president or CEO. To me, a single leader does not symbolize collaborative action. We are still at war. Terrorists still exist. Leaders of large countries (e.g. Hugo Chavez) do not seem to fall in line with a collaborative spirit. Finally, I don’t think Roger Federer collaborated with Andy Roddick before this past weekend’s Wimbeldon finals. Granted, Rheingold did say we are only at the tip of the iceberg. I am uncertain if the iceberg can or ever will melt, if man is not really of a collaborative spirit but of a selfish nature.
I think that man (as in Rheingold’s description of the hunter) realizes the efficiency and effectiveness of collaborative action, but collaborates for selfish reasons not for the community good. Even Rheingold says that these collective actions are not done for altruistic reasons but for self interest. So I’m not quite sure if Rheingold is saying that man wants to work together to make a better world or if man’s self interest is realizing that collaborative efforts can serve him better and, oh by the way, technology has enabled those collaborative efforts. My opinion is the latter. So I don’t think man has a “basic instinct” to collaborate.
Question 2: How can technology facilitate collaboration among learners based on constructivist principles?
In just recent years, there have been a number of technology advancements in such things as bandwidth and video that have allowed for increased communication capabilities (webcasts, podcasts, etc.) Such things as wiki’s, twitter, and blogs have increased the opportunity to unite, construct, and collaborate.
A perfect example is Rheingold’s (2005) mention of the platform that posts problems in underdeveloped countries to be solved by design students around the world. With the ability to tap into multiple minds around the world, technology has enabled collaboration across time and space. The synchronous or asynchronous communication capabilities among any number of users provide an environment for discovery, discussion, and debate on real topics, topics that give and have meaning to the learner through engagement, participation, and socialization. All of that follows a collaborative constructivist approach
Rheingold, H. (2005). Howard Rheingold: Way-New Collaboration. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Forest Gump on Learning Theory
Education is like a box of chocolates . . . oh wait, wrong channel . . . but maybe not.
Bill Kerr’s post regarding the isms of the educational world is indeed a lively and informative discussion. As Brad Boute stated, it is interesting to note that the debate over the isms is not new and may continue indefinitely, or perhaps, I’ll throw in, until some theorists discovers the be-all, end-all, all-inclusive learning theory. Though, one has to wonder if that will ever occur. It is not so much that an all-inclusive theory may not exist, but rather, no two minds may be alike and therefore it may be impossible for all minds to agree on one definitive answer.
At the end of Bill Kerr and Karl Kapp’s posts, they both chime in that each theory has its merits and that there is not a one size fits all. I agree with them. I think both behaviorism and cognitivism are both applicable to learning. In our classroom discussion for EDUC 8845, Module 2, Dr. Moller questioned how both parties can play together nicely in the sandbox when they have such opposite views. But I wonder if they really are opposite views. Who made them appear to be such opposite views? Was it the strong proponents on each side? Aren’t the right side and left side (creativity versus logic) of the brain sometimes considered opposites and yet they play together in the sandbox. Could those two cerebral hemispheres have some parallelism with cognitivism and behaviorism?
Or, better yet, I enjoyed reading Karl Kapp's response (to Tony Forster’s post) about education versus training. Kapp equated training to behaviorism, where there are objectives with measurable outcomes. He then states that education should not have specific nor necessarily measurable outcomes. Kapp takes on the perspective that education is an opportunity for learners to explore. It shouldn’t and can’t be pre-planned, but rather, going back to the Forest Gump reference that started this entry, “It happens.”
P.S. Forest Gump's simplistic, black and white view of life carried him very far in life. Granted it was a fictional piece, but was his resulting learning outcomes do to behaviorism or cognitivism?
Boute, B. (2009). Matters of perspective. Retrieved from http://r-elearning.blogspot.com/2009/06/matters-of-perspective.html#comments
Kapp, K. (2007). Out and About: Discussion on Educational Schools of Thought.
Retrieved from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-
educational.html
Kapp, K. (2006). Definitions: abcd objectives. Retrieved from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2006/12/definitions-abcd-objectives.html
Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filters, not blinkers. Retrieved from
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Bill Kerr’s post regarding the isms of the educational world is indeed a lively and informative discussion. As Brad Boute stated, it is interesting to note that the debate over the isms is not new and may continue indefinitely, or perhaps, I’ll throw in, until some theorists discovers the be-all, end-all, all-inclusive learning theory. Though, one has to wonder if that will ever occur. It is not so much that an all-inclusive theory may not exist, but rather, no two minds may be alike and therefore it may be impossible for all minds to agree on one definitive answer.
At the end of Bill Kerr and Karl Kapp’s posts, they both chime in that each theory has its merits and that there is not a one size fits all. I agree with them. I think both behaviorism and cognitivism are both applicable to learning. In our classroom discussion for EDUC 8845, Module 2, Dr. Moller questioned how both parties can play together nicely in the sandbox when they have such opposite views. But I wonder if they really are opposite views. Who made them appear to be such opposite views? Was it the strong proponents on each side? Aren’t the right side and left side (creativity versus logic) of the brain sometimes considered opposites and yet they play together in the sandbox. Could those two cerebral hemispheres have some parallelism with cognitivism and behaviorism?
Or, better yet, I enjoyed reading Karl Kapp's response (to Tony Forster’s post) about education versus training. Kapp equated training to behaviorism, where there are objectives with measurable outcomes. He then states that education should not have specific nor necessarily measurable outcomes. Kapp takes on the perspective that education is an opportunity for learners to explore. It shouldn’t and can’t be pre-planned, but rather, going back to the Forest Gump reference that started this entry, “It
P.S. Forest Gump's simplistic, black and white view of life carried him very far in life. Granted it was a fictional piece, but was his resulting learning outcomes do to behaviorism or cognitivism?
Boute, B. (2009). Matters of perspective. Retrieved from http://r-elearning.blogspot.com/2009/06/matters-of-perspective.html#comments
Kapp, K. (2007). Out and About: Discussion on Educational Schools of Thought.
Retrieved from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-
educational.html
Kapp, K. (2006). Definitions: abcd objectives. Retrieved from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2006/12/definitions-abcd-objectives.html
Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filters, not blinkers. Retrieved from
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Friday, June 12, 2009
EDUC 8845 - Module 1
Metaphors of the Educator in the Digital Age
Siemens (2008) stated that the digital age has opened completely new doors to learning opportunities with participative tools and greater and easier access to information by learners. A new environment calls for a new role for the educator in the digital age. Describing possible roles, Siemens provided four metaphors of educators, all which include and lean more toward the constructivism perspective (versus instructivism).
The four metaphors as listed seem to fall on a spectrum of high to low in the amount of constructivism. The first metaphor, the Master Artist (atelier model) places the emphasis on the learner creating in an open space. The description put the image in my mind of a blank sheet that is created from the learners mind without direction or interference of the Master. Yet the fourth metaphor of the curator is a balance of using the curator’s expertise and fostering learner discovery. This metaphor “understands the frustration of exploring unknown territory without a map” (p. 17). In other words, it does not start with a blank page.
For me, the key to Siemens (2008) metaphors is in his introduction when he stated, “each approach may have value in different contexts” (p. 15). If I had to choose a metaphor, I would use Siemens suggestion of considering the context. I think younger, elementary learners may benefit more from a curator while university level learners may glean more from the Master Artist. As well, learning basic factual information may be more efficient and effective in a curator led environment.
If I were to come up with a metaphor, I would use a banker metaphor that would perhaps cover the spectrum of Master Artist through Curator. A banker allows simple deposits and withdrawals, which is equivalent to questions and answers, back and forth interaction, and direct instruction as needed. The deposits and withdrawals are the baseline level of learning (and banking). But building on that are CDs, Money Markets, and other ways for a learner to implement creative use of their money (what they have learned) and to learn the results of their choices. Then the next level is investment in the stock market. Much like the concierge metaphor, the banker provides the learner with possibilities, and the learner explores, invests, orchestrates, and creates his portfolio of learning. From here, much like the Master Artist, once a portfolio of learning is established (good investments, growth, earnings), the possibilities are endless. Lastly in this metaphor, the stock market depends on the global economy and learning in the digital age is a global activity.
Here is an interesting metaphor of the teacher as the skipper of a yacht, where the students visit new places, learn new skills, and learn new processes. The journey is the curriculum and the skipper sets the course. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaTjeJEiO74&NR=1
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networds: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemaens.pdf
Siemens (2008) stated that the digital age has opened completely new doors to learning opportunities with participative tools and greater and easier access to information by learners. A new environment calls for a new role for the educator in the digital age. Describing possible roles, Siemens provided four metaphors of educators, all which include and lean more toward the constructivism perspective (versus instructivism).
The four metaphors as listed seem to fall on a spectrum of high to low in the amount of constructivism. The first metaphor, the Master Artist (atelier model) places the emphasis on the learner creating in an open space. The description put the image in my mind of a blank sheet that is created from the learners mind without direction or interference of the Master. Yet the fourth metaphor of the curator is a balance of using the curator’s expertise and fostering learner discovery. This metaphor “understands the frustration of exploring unknown territory without a map” (p. 17). In other words, it does not start with a blank page.
For me, the key to Siemens (2008) metaphors is in his introduction when he stated, “each approach may have value in different contexts” (p. 15). If I had to choose a metaphor, I would use Siemens suggestion of considering the context. I think younger, elementary learners may benefit more from a curator while university level learners may glean more from the Master Artist. As well, learning basic factual information may be more efficient and effective in a curator led environment.
If I were to come up with a metaphor, I would use a banker metaphor that would perhaps cover the spectrum of Master Artist through Curator. A banker allows simple deposits and withdrawals, which is equivalent to questions and answers, back and forth interaction, and direct instruction as needed. The deposits and withdrawals are the baseline level of learning (and banking). But building on that are CDs, Money Markets, and other ways for a learner to implement creative use of their money (what they have learned) and to learn the results of their choices. Then the next level is investment in the stock market. Much like the concierge metaphor, the banker provides the learner with possibilities, and the learner explores, invests, orchestrates, and creates his portfolio of learning. From here, much like the Master Artist, once a portfolio of learning is established (good investments, growth, earnings), the possibilities are endless. Lastly in this metaphor, the stock market depends on the global economy and learning in the digital age is a global activity.
Here is an interesting metaphor of the teacher as the skipper of a yacht, where the students visit new places, learn new skills, and learn new processes. The journey is the curriculum and the skipper sets the course. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaTjeJEiO74&NR=1
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networds: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemaens.pdf
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
8840 Part II of Project
There is a few second pause before the sound begins.
The main chart is difficult to read. Use a Word version of the chart to view a better copy of the chart. The Word version can be found here:
Get "3 decades" chart
Resources
America 1900. (1999). PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/1900/tguide/tguideindex.html
Dede, C. (2008). The Next Wave, Part 2. [Audio Recording]. Laureate Education, Inc. Educational Technology Timeline. (1999). http://cter.ed.uiuc.edu/cter2/ci335/timeline.html
eMints National Center. (2004). http://www.emints.org/ethemes/resources/by-title.shtml#D Koop, M. (1998).
Aviation Resource Center. http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4294/history/ Life in the 1950’s. (2008).
Rewind the Fifties.
http://www.loti.com/fifties_history/life_in_the_1950s.htm
Management, History of and Timeline. (n.d.) http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/hfrr/Stevenson/Management%20Timeline.pdf
Management Technique Timeline. (2009). http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pgG8Enw7a_0Xb5nysFClfQw Presidents. (n.d).
The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ Rider, M. (2009).
Instructional Design Models. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html Rozycki, E.G. (2000).
Using the Gallery of Educational Theorists. http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Gallery.html Saettler, P. (2004).
The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Space Age Timeline. (2008).
A&E Television Networks. http://www.history.com/content/space/interactive-space-timeline
Timeline of Computer History. (2006). Computer History Museum. http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/ Timeline of the Dust Bowl. (2008)
PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/dustbowl/timeline/index.html
Thornburg, D. (2008). The Next Wave, Part 1. [Audio Recording]. Laureate Education, Inc. Toffler, A. (1980).
The Third Wave. Bantam Books, Inc., Random House Inc. New York.
The main chart is difficult to read. Use a Word version of the chart to view a better copy of the chart. The Word version can be found here:
Get "3 decades" chart
Resources
America 1900. (1999). PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/1900/tguide/tguideindex.html
Dede, C. (2008). The Next Wave, Part 2. [Audio Recording]. Laureate Education, Inc. Educational Technology Timeline. (1999). http://cter.ed.uiuc.edu/cter2/ci335/timeline.html
eMints National Center. (2004). http://www.emints.org/ethemes/resources/by-title.shtml#D Koop, M. (1998).
Aviation Resource Center. http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4294/history/ Life in the 1950’s. (2008).
Rewind the Fifties.
http://www.loti.com/fifties_history/life_in_the_1950s.htm
Management, History of and Timeline. (n.d.) http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/hfrr/Stevenson/Management%20Timeline.pdf
Management Technique Timeline. (2009). http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pgG8Enw7a_0Xb5nysFClfQw Presidents. (n.d).
The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ Rider, M. (2009).
Instructional Design Models. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html Rozycki, E.G. (2000).
Using the Gallery of Educational Theorists. http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Gallery.html Saettler, P. (2004).
The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Space Age Timeline. (2008).
A&E Television Networks. http://www.history.com/content/space/interactive-space-timeline
Timeline of Computer History. (2006). Computer History Museum. http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/ Timeline of the Dust Bowl. (2008)
PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/dustbowl/timeline/index.html
Thornburg, D. (2008). The Next Wave, Part 1. [Audio Recording]. Laureate Education, Inc. Toffler, A. (1980).
The Third Wave. Bantam Books, Inc., Random House Inc. New York.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
8442 Project
Here is a link that will lead you to the annotated bibliography for this project: Click here to go to the page where the annotated bibliography is uploaded.
This is the class project for EDUC 8442. The project was to create an introduction to a Keynote speaker for a Distance Education Conference, choosing any related topic. The conference name and keynote speaker are fictional.
Reference list for the 8442 Multimedia Project
Adamsick, C. (2008). “Warex” the copyright violation? Digital Copyright Infringement: Legal loopholes and decentralization. TechTrends, 52(6), 10-12.
Chanock, K. (2008). When students reference plagiarized material – what can we learn (and what can we do) about their understanding of attribution? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4(1), 3-16.
Nemire, R. (2007). Intellectual property development and use for distance education courses: A review of law, organizations, and resources for faculty. College Teaching, 55(1), 26-30.
Recording Industry Association of America, (n.d.). Piracy online and on the street. Retrieved January 15, 2009 from: http://www.riaa.com
Rosen, B. (2007). Copyright law and the distance education classroom. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 71-76.
Stephens, J., Young, M., Calabrese, T. (2007). Does moral judgment go offline when students are online? A comparative analysis of undergraduates’ beliefs and behaviors related to conventional and digital cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 233-254.
Talab, R. (2008). Copyright and you: Using digital materials in online courses: A cautionary tale of the Georgia State University. TechTrends, 52(4), 30-32.
Talab, R. (2007). Copyright and you: Faculty distance courseware ownership and the “Wal-Mart” approach to higher education. TechTrends, 51(4), 9-12.
Wallace, L. (2007). Online teaching and university policy: Investigating the disconnect. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 87-100.
Wang, Y. (2008). University Student Online Plagiarism. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 743-757.
This is the class project for EDUC 8442. The project was to create an introduction to a Keynote speaker for a Distance Education Conference, choosing any related topic. The conference name and keynote speaker are fictional.
Reference list for the 8442 Multimedia Project
Adamsick, C. (2008). “Warex” the copyright violation? Digital Copyright Infringement: Legal loopholes and decentralization. TechTrends, 52(6), 10-12.
Chanock, K. (2008). When students reference plagiarized material – what can we learn (and what can we do) about their understanding of attribution? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4(1), 3-16.
Nemire, R. (2007). Intellectual property development and use for distance education courses: A review of law, organizations, and resources for faculty. College Teaching, 55(1), 26-30.
Recording Industry Association of America, (n.d.). Piracy online and on the street. Retrieved January 15, 2009 from: http://www.riaa.com
Rosen, B. (2007). Copyright law and the distance education classroom. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 71-76.
Stephens, J., Young, M., Calabrese, T. (2007). Does moral judgment go offline when students are online? A comparative analysis of undergraduates’ beliefs and behaviors related to conventional and digital cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 233-254.
Talab, R. (2008). Copyright and you: Using digital materials in online courses: A cautionary tale of the Georgia State University. TechTrends, 52(4), 30-32.
Talab, R. (2007). Copyright and you: Faculty distance courseware ownership and the “Wal-Mart” approach to higher education. TechTrends, 51(4), 9-12.
Wallace, L. (2007). Online teaching and university policy: Investigating the disconnect. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 87-100.
Wang, Y. (2008). University Student Online Plagiarism. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 743-757.
Friday, February 6, 2009
8442 Project
Here is my introduction to the Keynote Speaker project. I didn't want to pay a person to do this professionally for me since it is a school project and not a real intro. If it were for a real conference, I would have perhaps hired a professional to make the sound more smooth and perhaps the graphics more clear. The Conference name (LHK) and the speaker (Dr. Smith) are "made up" for this project.
The annotated bibliography will be posted shortly.
The annotated bibliography will be posted shortly.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Module 5
Please click on the photo to see a larger picture.
=
I am currently relatively new to this whole dynamic and DE environment. This quarter at Walden was my first exposure to a Blog page (in EDUC 8442) and my first exposure to a Wikipage (in EDUC 8441). It is also my first exposure to creating a video (for 8442's project) and a Power Point with voice (8441 project). So I believe I started this course on the static end of the continuum but have gradually worked my way a little bit up the scale.
I do believe the best way to learn and to continue heading east on this graphic organizer (toward the dynamic end) is by just doing it. In the 1980's, people took courses to learn word processing, database management, etc. But today with the rapid speed of technological developments, it seems the best way to learn is OJT (on the job training) or by just doing it.
References
McGreal, R., & Elliott, M. (2008). Technologies of Online Learning (E-learning). In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 144-165). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Moller, L. (2008). Static and Dynamic Technologies. [Study notes]. Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
=
I am currently relatively new to this whole dynamic and DE environment. This quarter at Walden was my first exposure to a Blog page (in EDUC 8442) and my first exposure to a Wikipage (in EDUC 8441). It is also my first exposure to creating a video (for 8442's project) and a Power Point with voice (8441 project). So I believe I started this course on the static end of the continuum but have gradually worked my way a little bit up the scale.
I do believe the best way to learn and to continue heading east on this graphic organizer (toward the dynamic end) is by just doing it. In the 1980's, people took courses to learn word processing, database management, etc. But today with the rapid speed of technological developments, it seems the best way to learn is OJT (on the job training) or by just doing it.
References
McGreal, R., & Elliott, M. (2008). Technologies of Online Learning (E-learning). In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 144-165). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Moller, L. (2008). Static and Dynamic Technologies. [Study notes]. Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Module 4
CLICK ON PICTURE TO SEE BIGGER IMAGE.
This Structured Online Learning Environment depicts a combination of methods and theories as offered by Anderson (2008), Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, and McCausland. (n.d.), and Durrington, Beryhill, and Swafford (2006).
Structure:
The main structure shows that the student is the center of the structure but sits upon a strong foundation that has been built by the university, the community, and the facilitator (teacher).
Facilitator:
The role of the facilitator is as offered by Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, and McCausland. (n.d.), that of a “guide, mentor, catalyst, coach, assessment-giver, and resource-provider” (p. 20).
Medium:
Once given guidance and a starting structure by the facilitator, the student utilizes current technological tools to achieve the outcomes of learning. The list of tools reads: Multimedia, blogs, wikipages, webpages, social networking sites, discussion boards, email, chat forums, synchronous methods, and ___________
The blank line denotes that even by the time this discussion is posted, a new technological advancement might appear and should be used in lieu of blogs or wikipages. The purpose of the “Medium” box is to demonstrate that technology offers many means to reach learning outcomes that were never before available and that educational outcomes should not be limited by platforms of the past.
Activities:
The activities represent the areas as outlined by Durrington, Beryhill, and Swafford (2006) and Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, and McCausland. (n.d.). They include interaction and discussion with both peers and facilitators in various modes including guided discussions, generated discussions, and informal discussions/inquiry. As well, the activities include content knowledge building as discussed by Moller, et al. (n.d.) Finally the last piece of problem solving together with all the activities culminate in an application of learning project.
Note:
1. The arrows attempt to connect all phases and the flow runs both ways.
2. The diagram is meant to look a bit 3-D, lifted off of the page. This is a subtle representation of the idea of seeing “outside of the box” or in this case “off the page.”
References
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Durington, V.A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-192.
Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, McCausland. (n.d). Creating an Organic Knowledge-Building Environment within an Asynchronous Distributed Learning Context. [Study notes]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1 on January 21, 2009.
This Structured Online Learning Environment depicts a combination of methods and theories as offered by Anderson (2008), Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, and McCausland. (n.d.), and Durrington, Beryhill, and Swafford (2006).
Structure:
The main structure shows that the student is the center of the structure but sits upon a strong foundation that has been built by the university, the community, and the facilitator (teacher).
Facilitator:
The role of the facilitator is as offered by Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, and McCausland. (n.d.), that of a “guide, mentor, catalyst, coach, assessment-giver, and resource-provider” (p. 20).
Medium:
Once given guidance and a starting structure by the facilitator, the student utilizes current technological tools to achieve the outcomes of learning. The list of tools reads: Multimedia, blogs, wikipages, webpages, social networking sites, discussion boards, email, chat forums, synchronous methods, and ___________
The blank line denotes that even by the time this discussion is posted, a new technological advancement might appear and should be used in lieu of blogs or wikipages. The purpose of the “Medium” box is to demonstrate that technology offers many means to reach learning outcomes that were never before available and that educational outcomes should not be limited by platforms of the past.
Activities:
The activities represent the areas as outlined by Durrington, Beryhill, and Swafford (2006) and Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, and McCausland. (n.d.). They include interaction and discussion with both peers and facilitators in various modes including guided discussions, generated discussions, and informal discussions/inquiry. As well, the activities include content knowledge building as discussed by Moller, et al. (n.d.) Finally the last piece of problem solving together with all the activities culminate in an application of learning project.
Note:
1. The arrows attempt to connect all phases and the flow runs both ways.
2. The diagram is meant to look a bit 3-D, lifted off of the page. This is a subtle representation of the idea of seeing “outside of the box” or in this case “off the page.”
References
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Durington, V.A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-192.
Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, McCausland. (n.d). Creating an Organic Knowledge-Building Environment within an Asynchronous Distributed Learning Context. [Study notes]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1 on January 21, 2009.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Response to Jean's Blog
Some how Jean's blog on FLOW will not let me upload this comment. I tried several times, so I am uploading it to my own blog. See comments to this post.
Video Outline
Outline for
Project for EDUC 8442
The 5 minute introduction to a guest speaker
The 5 minute introduction to a guest speaker
Copyright – Who’s gonna’ know?
I. Introductory Slides
Title Page: Copyright - Who’s gonna’ know?
Page 2: Keynote speaker: John Smith, PhD
Page 3: Introduced by: Koh Herlong
II. Video begins
Welcome
To conference, title of presentation, name of speaker.
A few sample cases of copyright infringement.
What is copyright? Why is it important? Why important in DE?
Areas to consider
Who:
a. Institution
b. Faculty
c. Students
a. Institution
b. Faculty
c. Students
Intention:
a. Ignorant copyright
b. Blatant copyright
c. Confused copyright
a. Ignorant copyright
b. Blatant copyright
c. Confused copyright
Types:
a. Hard-copy text
b. Photocopying
c. Online text
d. Music, video, pictures
e. Other
a. Hard-copy text
b. Photocopying
c. Online text
d. Music, video, pictures
e. Other
Copyright and DE
In the foundational structure of a DE program
Non-revenue budget line
Rogers’s (2003) “unanticipated, far-reaching, and disruptive” (p. 100) consequences.
In the foundational structure of a DE program
Non-revenue budget line
Rogers’s (2003) “unanticipated, far-reaching, and disruptive” (p. 100) consequences.
III. Conclusion
Summary statement
a. Summarize
b. Not a matter of getting caught - matter of ethics and honor – another can of worms
c. Introduction of guest speaker
IV. Closing screen with references
Reference for this outline
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Reference for this outline
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Module 3: Assessing a Collaborative Community
Part I
Ms. Eder in her Module 3 blog posting http://eder8842.blogspot.com/ provides a concise summary of an excellent model for assessing a collaborative community such as is done in the Walden University courses. But indeed assessing a collaborative community is brand new challenge because the concept of a collaborative community in itself is a new platform and environment.
Some instructional design theories begin with the assessment stage. So perhaps when a collaborative community course is being designed, it should begin with identifying the learning or behavioral outcomes followed by a storyboard of the delivery method while simultaneously developing the assessment rubric. In other words, a DE designer should not ask, “How will we asses this?” after it’s been designed but rather before and during the design process. So “how to assess” a program will depend on the design and method of the course.
Siemens (2008) suggests the community of learners as assessors. He does state that it is a new concept which will require a new pedagogy in assessing, and it will take time for us to break out of the old traditional mold. But he seems to be a strong advocate of this peer review model. For me personally, this presents some challenges for several reasons:
Siemens (2008) used the “Did you find this answer useful?” (p. 1) analogy. Students come from all different backgrounds and knowledge levels. Information that is useful for one student may be completely useless for another student. As the learner being assessed, my goal is to learn, not to try to appeal to all knowledge levels of my peers.
As a learner who has to review and grade my peers, that pressure places undue stress on me. My goal, let’s say as an aerospace engineer student, is to learn about aerospace engineering, not to learn how to be an assessor of others. Yes, learning and living in a collaborative community is bound to have benefits as we all diffuse ourselves in to this online world, but the pressure and idea of assessing and learning simultaneously may be a deterrent.
Closely aligned with #2 above, students would have to not only learn how to properly participate in a community but also learn how to be a fair assessor. Is that the goal of this aerospace engineering course?
Part II
How do you handle those who do not participate in the community? I am believer in prevention rather than reaction, when possible. If a program requires a collaborative community, this should be clearly defined before a student is allowed to enroll in that program. Therefore the “lone learner” will know of the collaboration requirement in advance. Once enrolled, then as Palloff and Pratt (2005) suggest, some sort of clear agreement or team charter should be created by all members of the community. The team charter would then define the action steps and consequences. All members of the community should sign off on the final product. The contents of the agreement would depend on the learners, the course, and the community structure.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of collaborative learning. [Study video transcript]. Retrieved January 3, 2008 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1 Only available to Walden students enrolled in EDUC 8442.
Ms. Eder in her Module 3 blog posting http://eder8842.blogspot.com/ provides a concise summary of an excellent model for assessing a collaborative community such as is done in the Walden University courses. But indeed assessing a collaborative community is brand new challenge because the concept of a collaborative community in itself is a new platform and environment.
Some instructional design theories begin with the assessment stage. So perhaps when a collaborative community course is being designed, it should begin with identifying the learning or behavioral outcomes followed by a storyboard of the delivery method while simultaneously developing the assessment rubric. In other words, a DE designer should not ask, “How will we asses this?” after it’s been designed but rather before and during the design process. So “how to assess” a program will depend on the design and method of the course.
Siemens (2008) suggests the community of learners as assessors. He does state that it is a new concept which will require a new pedagogy in assessing, and it will take time for us to break out of the old traditional mold. But he seems to be a strong advocate of this peer review model. For me personally, this presents some challenges for several reasons:
Siemens (2008) used the “Did you find this answer useful?” (p. 1) analogy. Students come from all different backgrounds and knowledge levels. Information that is useful for one student may be completely useless for another student. As the learner being assessed, my goal is to learn, not to try to appeal to all knowledge levels of my peers.
As a learner who has to review and grade my peers, that pressure places undue stress on me. My goal, let’s say as an aerospace engineer student, is to learn about aerospace engineering, not to learn how to be an assessor of others. Yes, learning and living in a collaborative community is bound to have benefits as we all diffuse ourselves in to this online world, but the pressure and idea of assessing and learning simultaneously may be a deterrent.
Closely aligned with #2 above, students would have to not only learn how to properly participate in a community but also learn how to be a fair assessor. Is that the goal of this aerospace engineering course?
Part II
How do you handle those who do not participate in the community? I am believer in prevention rather than reaction, when possible. If a program requires a collaborative community, this should be clearly defined before a student is allowed to enroll in that program. Therefore the “lone learner” will know of the collaboration requirement in advance. Once enrolled, then as Palloff and Pratt (2005) suggest, some sort of clear agreement or team charter should be created by all members of the community. The team charter would then define the action steps and consequences. All members of the community should sign off on the final product. The contents of the agreement would depend on the learners, the course, and the community structure.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of collaborative learning. [Study video transcript]. Retrieved January 3, 2008 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1 Only available to Walden students enrolled in EDUC 8442.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)