July 20, 2010
Reflections on this Blog Assignment
In our final blog post we were asked to reflect on this assignment in general so that is the purpose of this post.
This was my first experience with blogs as both a reader and as an author. For that reason alone I appreciated this assignment since it forced me to learn some new technology, and it wasn’t as painful as I thought it was going to be! :-0) Although my free time is pretty limited, on different occasions I browsed other blogs to see what kinds of information people post (this in addition to reading Aloma’s blog on a regular basis) and I was surprised at the creativity and variety. I’ve learned that blogs can be used for many purposes, educational and otherwise. I’ve also thought about how I can use blogs in the classes I teach, but so far I haven’t found an effective learning purpose for them.
This activity was also valuable because it forced me to reflect on different topics outside of the class conferences. Since we can’t be expected to cover every topic in the conferences I thought the blogs were a good opportunity to reflect on topics of personal interest that weren’t addressed in the course. I also enjoyed reading Aloma’s posts, my critical friend. She generally selected different topics and because her posts were thoughtful and insightful she always gave me something to think about. Plus an unexpected benefit is the online friendship that developed between us which I hope lasts as we continue our UMUC studies.
With the exception of Tomeatha who invited me to read his blog I didn’t have the opportunity to read my other classmate’s blogs. At times I was curious about what my peers wrote about on their blogs, but then again I know I wouldn’t have had time to keep up with all of them. Therefore, I think being assigned one critical friend was the best approach for this assignment. I also thought the option of keeping either a written blog or a video blog was a good way for the instructors to offer us some choice, thus highlighting the idea of autonomy, one of the themes of the course.
I know there is a blog for UMUC’s distance education program but I have yet to check it out. Now that I understand how blogs work and what they are about I plan to do so after my classes end this term and before the next term starts. Right now it’s more a matter of time constraints rather than a lack of interest as to why I haven’t checked it out.
In conclusion, I want to say thank you to Gila and Jim for introducing me to a new technology, and a BIG THANK YOU to Aloma for all your comments and positive feedback. I always looked forward to seeing what you had to say about my posts even if you disagreed. :-)
Thanks for reading!
Eva
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
July 18, 2010
Summary of Module 3
I enjoyed this module quite a bit because although I’ve thought a lot about the differences between f2f and DE classes I never took the time until now to organize my thoughts. All in all, as I stated in my posts I think a teacher’s job is to teach/present the content and skills as required by course objectives, interact with students on a regular basis, inspire/motivate students to learn, and encourage students toward life-long learning. I think these hold true regardless of the delivery method. I know the latter hasn’t been discussed in any threads whereas the other three have been addressed so I want to say a few words about encouraging life-long learning.
I’m sure some will disagree with me, but actively working toward creating a life-long learner is every teacher’s responsibility regardless of the students’ age or grade. In f2f classes this is easier to do, I think, because a teacher’s enthusiasm can shine through and “infect” her students with the joy of learning. A DE instructor doesn’t have this advantage, however, because of the physical separation that exists. Thus, I think establishing quality interaction that is frequent is a prerequisite for any DE teacher who hopes to inspire her students to learn throughout their lives. The encouragement and motivation that instructors can provide through dialogue is indispensible. From my understanding thus far, I think teacher-student interaction has been downplayed in traditional DE programs, but the growth of online learning, even though it’s only one form of DE, is going to change that perspective, I think.
The readings in this module also focused on the role of technology in DE. It’s rather embarrassing to admit, but I’ve learned more about technology in this course in the past six weeks than I think I’ve learned in a lifetime. Before this class, my knowledge of technology was limited to the basics of knowing how to use Word and Power Point and how to access the Web. I’d never accessed Skype, Wimba, Twitter, or YouTube on my own before and I’d never heard much of the terminology that was presented in this module and the previous one. My ignorance in this area is one reason why I decided to enroll in a DE degree program because I know my lack of knowledge was limiting me as a teacher, both as a f2f instructor and certainly as an online one.
Learning how to use technology effectively for learning was a primary topic in this module and as a DE instructor I couldn’t agree more. I think one reason why I shied away from technology is because I didn’t understand or see how it could be used effectively (outside of the obvious, like Blackboard, since LMS are practically needed for online classes to run). I viewed technology as “fun and games” rather than as potential learning tools. Not all technology is relevant for learning and it’s tempting for instructors to go overboard using it, I think. I’ve learned that it’s very important to make a clear connection between a learning objective and technology before incorporating it into a class. But if this connection can be made, then technology can enhance learning in multiple ways. It can add variety, it can offer an alternative way to present information, it can provide students with more choice, and it can support synchronous interaction. I was wrong to shun it in the past and although I still have lots to learn at least now I am more knowledgeable and comfortable with considering it as a learning tool.
Thanks for reading; as always comments are welcome!
Eva
Summary of Module 3
I enjoyed this module quite a bit because although I’ve thought a lot about the differences between f2f and DE classes I never took the time until now to organize my thoughts. All in all, as I stated in my posts I think a teacher’s job is to teach/present the content and skills as required by course objectives, interact with students on a regular basis, inspire/motivate students to learn, and encourage students toward life-long learning. I think these hold true regardless of the delivery method. I know the latter hasn’t been discussed in any threads whereas the other three have been addressed so I want to say a few words about encouraging life-long learning.
I’m sure some will disagree with me, but actively working toward creating a life-long learner is every teacher’s responsibility regardless of the students’ age or grade. In f2f classes this is easier to do, I think, because a teacher’s enthusiasm can shine through and “infect” her students with the joy of learning. A DE instructor doesn’t have this advantage, however, because of the physical separation that exists. Thus, I think establishing quality interaction that is frequent is a prerequisite for any DE teacher who hopes to inspire her students to learn throughout their lives. The encouragement and motivation that instructors can provide through dialogue is indispensible. From my understanding thus far, I think teacher-student interaction has been downplayed in traditional DE programs, but the growth of online learning, even though it’s only one form of DE, is going to change that perspective, I think.
The readings in this module also focused on the role of technology in DE. It’s rather embarrassing to admit, but I’ve learned more about technology in this course in the past six weeks than I think I’ve learned in a lifetime. Before this class, my knowledge of technology was limited to the basics of knowing how to use Word and Power Point and how to access the Web. I’d never accessed Skype, Wimba, Twitter, or YouTube on my own before and I’d never heard much of the terminology that was presented in this module and the previous one. My ignorance in this area is one reason why I decided to enroll in a DE degree program because I know my lack of knowledge was limiting me as a teacher, both as a f2f instructor and certainly as an online one.
Learning how to use technology effectively for learning was a primary topic in this module and as a DE instructor I couldn’t agree more. I think one reason why I shied away from technology is because I didn’t understand or see how it could be used effectively (outside of the obvious, like Blackboard, since LMS are practically needed for online classes to run). I viewed technology as “fun and games” rather than as potential learning tools. Not all technology is relevant for learning and it’s tempting for instructors to go overboard using it, I think. I’ve learned that it’s very important to make a clear connection between a learning objective and technology before incorporating it into a class. But if this connection can be made, then technology can enhance learning in multiple ways. It can add variety, it can offer an alternative way to present information, it can provide students with more choice, and it can support synchronous interaction. I was wrong to shun it in the past and although I still have lots to learn at least now I am more knowledgeable and comfortable with considering it as a learning tool.
Thanks for reading; as always comments are welcome!
Eva
Friday, July 16, 2010
Personal Experience With Rosetta Stone
July 16, 2010
In this post I have decided to share some of my experiences as a new employee for Rosetta Stone because my training was all online and soon I will be working as an English Studio Coach in real-time. In my Technology Class I’ve learned a lot from class readings and discussions, but experiencing some of what I’ve read has allowed me to internalize the information. I just finished three weeks of training and after a couple practice teaching sessions I will teach my first studio session on July 25th.
Last night I took a 50-minute online synchronous Arabic lesson through the Rosetta Stone Studio program. Completing a unit in Rosetta Stone Course in a language of my choice and following it with a live studio session is a training requirement for me as a new Studio Coach. Rosetta Stone avoids using the word “teacher” because the company wants coaches to facilitate learning and not direct learning; i.e., the focus is on autonomous learning. The emphasis on student autonomy and my training in general reminded me of some of the course readings and discussions regarding the structure, design and role of the instructor in distance education. As a Rosetta Stone trainee I learned from a distance, but the process was incredibly smooth because the weekly unit structure was very tight and organized. Through Rosetta Stone University I completed mini lessons that varied in length from 5-25 minutes. This was perfect since I could pick and chose which lessons to complete depending on how much time I had available. Most of the lessons were in Power Point format, but with an audio component. Overall, I was very impressed with the flow of the lessons. Often with Power Point presentations I think instructors include too much information on individual slides and/or just read the information off of the slides which is boring and a waste of time. Rosetta Stone found a great mix so not only did I learn what I needed to in order to be a Studio Coach, but I also picked up some great design ideas that I can use as I develop my upcoming history class.
The Studio session last night was a great lesson for me not just because I got to practice my Arabic with a native speaker, but also because I witnessed the strengths and weaknesses of synchronous technology. Although my Internet connection was good, my instructor’s was not and thus five times during the lesson she “disappeared”. This was quite disruptive and disappointing since it meant a loss of instructional time. She also had a difficult time pacing the lesson because of this and thus she wasn’t able to cover all of the material. Although she did her best to remain positive, I sensed her frustration. However, despite the dropped connections the advantages of the technology outweighed the disruptions. After all, how many opportunities does one get to see and learn from a native Arabic speaker? The only other way I could do this would be to enroll in a college class somewhere and given my current schedule there’s no way this could happen. I also benefitted because my lesson was one-on-one (Studio sessions can have up to four learners) which meant that I got her undivided attention. My instructor also did a great job motivating me even though I know my pronunciation was horrible. She encouraged me not to give up and didn’t just give me the answers when I couldn’t remember. Instead she used hints and repetition to guide and help me. She was very proactive and the technology, despite its periodic failure, reminded me of a f2f class. The instructor could use these effective teaching strategies because the lesson was synchronous.
Although I think there are some minor flaws in the lessons I’ve taken, Rosetta Stone has successfully created a program for adult learners that is structured, flexible and creative. There are three parts to their language learning programs. Rosetta Course consists of the online units, which are divided into lessons. Each unit (there are 4-5 units depending on the language) consists of 4 Core Lessons, which are broken up further into mini lessons, such as vocabulary, reading, pronunciation and writing. A learner can progress through the units at her own pace and can repeat lessons as many times as she chooses. While working through a unit, a learner “unlocks” access to Rosetta World, which houses online language learning games. There are multiple games to choose from depending on one’s level of achievement. One can choose between solo games; duo games, in which a student is matched with another learner who is learning the same language and is at the same level; or simbio games in which the student plays against a native speaker. Part of my job will be to log on and play simbio games with students learning English. The third part of the Rosetta Stone program are the Studio sessions, which are always taught in real-time with an coach who is a native speaker. Learners can sign up for Studio sessions after completing a unit and they can repeat studio sessions too.
Pedagogically, Rosetta Stone follows an immersion only approach and thus all studio sessions are conducted ONLY in the language being learned. Coaches and students are not “allowed” to speak any other language, which of course is quite challenging. It actually won’t be that hard for me to do this as a Coach since I only know English, but last night there were many times when I wanted to ask a question in English.
The experience of going through a studio session was invaluable as a future Coach because I now have an appreciation for how my students are going to feel when they don’t understand. I’m just a new part time employee for Rosetta Stone, but perhaps in the future, after I earn my MDE, I will have an opportunity to work for them in another position.
Thanks for reading!
Eva
In this post I have decided to share some of my experiences as a new employee for Rosetta Stone because my training was all online and soon I will be working as an English Studio Coach in real-time. In my Technology Class I’ve learned a lot from class readings and discussions, but experiencing some of what I’ve read has allowed me to internalize the information. I just finished three weeks of training and after a couple practice teaching sessions I will teach my first studio session on July 25th.
Last night I took a 50-minute online synchronous Arabic lesson through the Rosetta Stone Studio program. Completing a unit in Rosetta Stone Course in a language of my choice and following it with a live studio session is a training requirement for me as a new Studio Coach. Rosetta Stone avoids using the word “teacher” because the company wants coaches to facilitate learning and not direct learning; i.e., the focus is on autonomous learning. The emphasis on student autonomy and my training in general reminded me of some of the course readings and discussions regarding the structure, design and role of the instructor in distance education. As a Rosetta Stone trainee I learned from a distance, but the process was incredibly smooth because the weekly unit structure was very tight and organized. Through Rosetta Stone University I completed mini lessons that varied in length from 5-25 minutes. This was perfect since I could pick and chose which lessons to complete depending on how much time I had available. Most of the lessons were in Power Point format, but with an audio component. Overall, I was very impressed with the flow of the lessons. Often with Power Point presentations I think instructors include too much information on individual slides and/or just read the information off of the slides which is boring and a waste of time. Rosetta Stone found a great mix so not only did I learn what I needed to in order to be a Studio Coach, but I also picked up some great design ideas that I can use as I develop my upcoming history class.
The Studio session last night was a great lesson for me not just because I got to practice my Arabic with a native speaker, but also because I witnessed the strengths and weaknesses of synchronous technology. Although my Internet connection was good, my instructor’s was not and thus five times during the lesson she “disappeared”. This was quite disruptive and disappointing since it meant a loss of instructional time. She also had a difficult time pacing the lesson because of this and thus she wasn’t able to cover all of the material. Although she did her best to remain positive, I sensed her frustration. However, despite the dropped connections the advantages of the technology outweighed the disruptions. After all, how many opportunities does one get to see and learn from a native Arabic speaker? The only other way I could do this would be to enroll in a college class somewhere and given my current schedule there’s no way this could happen. I also benefitted because my lesson was one-on-one (Studio sessions can have up to four learners) which meant that I got her undivided attention. My instructor also did a great job motivating me even though I know my pronunciation was horrible. She encouraged me not to give up and didn’t just give me the answers when I couldn’t remember. Instead she used hints and repetition to guide and help me. She was very proactive and the technology, despite its periodic failure, reminded me of a f2f class. The instructor could use these effective teaching strategies because the lesson was synchronous.
Although I think there are some minor flaws in the lessons I’ve taken, Rosetta Stone has successfully created a program for adult learners that is structured, flexible and creative. There are three parts to their language learning programs. Rosetta Course consists of the online units, which are divided into lessons. Each unit (there are 4-5 units depending on the language) consists of 4 Core Lessons, which are broken up further into mini lessons, such as vocabulary, reading, pronunciation and writing. A learner can progress through the units at her own pace and can repeat lessons as many times as she chooses. While working through a unit, a learner “unlocks” access to Rosetta World, which houses online language learning games. There are multiple games to choose from depending on one’s level of achievement. One can choose between solo games; duo games, in which a student is matched with another learner who is learning the same language and is at the same level; or simbio games in which the student plays against a native speaker. Part of my job will be to log on and play simbio games with students learning English. The third part of the Rosetta Stone program are the Studio sessions, which are always taught in real-time with an coach who is a native speaker. Learners can sign up for Studio sessions after completing a unit and they can repeat studio sessions too.
Pedagogically, Rosetta Stone follows an immersion only approach and thus all studio sessions are conducted ONLY in the language being learned. Coaches and students are not “allowed” to speak any other language, which of course is quite challenging. It actually won’t be that hard for me to do this as a Coach since I only know English, but last night there were many times when I wanted to ask a question in English.
The experience of going through a studio session was invaluable as a future Coach because I now have an appreciation for how my students are going to feel when they don’t understand. I’m just a new part time employee for Rosetta Stone, but perhaps in the future, after I earn my MDE, I will have an opportunity to work for them in another position.
Thanks for reading!
Eva
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Final Thoughts on Module 2
July 11, 2010
Thoughts on Module 2
Our latest courses readings and discussions about Web 2.0 technologies has led me to think a lot about the effect technology is having and will continue to have on education and on society in general. Clearly changes have already occurred, especially among young people who, as the Web 2.0 generation, have grown up using web technologies. For many, if not most of them, texting, chatting, surfing, etc., are naturally part of their daily lives. I really feel my age when I watch them not just because they are so comfortable with the technology but also because they are so competent. At least this is how it often appears on the surface. However, Oblinger (2008) makes a number of valid points regarding this issue, and three of them stand out to me.
First, although the Net Generation often state that they have lots of relationships, the depth of those relationships may be questionable. This reminds me of some people I know who have hundreds of “friends” on Facebook, even though it would be impossible for them to have developed friendships with such a large number of people.
Secondly, like Oblinger, I am concerned about how much deep thinking is occurring in the Net Generation’s learning process since they have become used to instantaneous access and responses. This reminded me of an article by Carr (2008) that I read for a different class. Carr claims that instantaneous and constant connection to the Internet has led to a dumbing-down of the way we read and think. He stated that he has noticed a significant change in how he reads and his informal survey of other professionals returned similar results, especially compared to ten years ago when the Internet was still in its infancy. As a reader my entire life, I haven’t noticed any changes in my reading habits when reading hard copies of documents, but like Carr I do have a lot of difficulty staying focused when reading from the Web. These days, the Internet’s impact reaches beyond the computer with the advent of Smartphones. My husband has an I-Phone and I’ve often been amazed, and sometimes frustrated, with how quickly he’s distracted by an incoming message. He loves being constantly “connected” and although there are benefits to this, the trade-off is the time that he loses by jumping from one task to another. This so-called multi-tasking is very popular these days and although I know some people claim that they accomplish more by multi-tasking, I disagree because too much time is lost in the transition from one job to another. Having multiple windows open on a computer, phone, or other technological device is counterproductive, in my opinion, although I will admit that at times, I also allow myself to be drawn into this manner of working as well.
Thirdly, I liked Oblinger’s list of misconceptions/assumptions. Just because there is tons of information on the Web doesn’t mean that students know how to access it or weed through it to find information that’s valid. At the same time, some students don’t have an understanding or appreciation for intellectual property since they often view the posted information as being “free” for the taking. These are all issues that educators need to address.
I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue that the Internet isn’t one of the world’s greatest inventions since it has made life easier in numerous ways. Twenty years ago when I was writing my graduate thesis I spent hours in the library looking at microfilm and microfiche and even traveling to other university libraries to access materials. Today, microfilm is obsolete and most documents can be acquired practically instantaneously via the World Wide Web. The fact remains that the Internet is a tool and any tool can be abused, but it’s also true that it has permeated many facets of life and clearly it’s not going away. The challenge for educators will be to stay abreast of new technology while creating activities and learning environments that keep the Net Generation’s attention.
Our project comparing synchronous and asynchronous technologies was a lot more challenging and time-consuming than I expected (I’m soooo glad I started on it early!), but I enjoyed it because I learned a lot. I am familiar with Blackboard because I’ve used it in the past, but there are a lot of new changes with the newest release. Since I’m going to teach an online history class this fall using Blackboard, I am grateful I learned about the changes now, especially the addition of some synchronous tools. This just reinforces how important it is to stay on top of new technology, especially if it’s something that I haven’t accessed in a while. Learning about Adobe Pro Connect was also enlightening and I wish I could actually use it for a class to get a better feel for it. It appears to have a lot of educational advantages because of its synchronous nature.
Another highlight of this module for me was the discussion that evolved about using Facebook or Twitter as a communicative tool in an online class. I learned a lot about both programs and the dialogue with my classmates and instructors has helped me weigh the pros and cons of using Facebook or Twitter in my upcoming class. I won’t reiterate here what I stated in a previous post; I can only say that I still haven’t made my final decision.
I regret that I wasn’t “free” to take part in a Wimba conference and missing it gave me a new appreciation for the learning opportunities that come with Distance Education. Although I know I missed a great opportunity, I am glad that it was optional and that our coursework is organized/structured around asynchronous technology.
References
Carr, N. (2008, July/August). Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/
Oblinger, D. (2008). Growing up with Google: What it means to education. Emerging Technologies for Learning 3. Retrieved from http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies08_chapter1.pdf
Thoughts on Module 2
Our latest courses readings and discussions about Web 2.0 technologies has led me to think a lot about the effect technology is having and will continue to have on education and on society in general. Clearly changes have already occurred, especially among young people who, as the Web 2.0 generation, have grown up using web technologies. For many, if not most of them, texting, chatting, surfing, etc., are naturally part of their daily lives. I really feel my age when I watch them not just because they are so comfortable with the technology but also because they are so competent. At least this is how it often appears on the surface. However, Oblinger (2008) makes a number of valid points regarding this issue, and three of them stand out to me.
First, although the Net Generation often state that they have lots of relationships, the depth of those relationships may be questionable. This reminds me of some people I know who have hundreds of “friends” on Facebook, even though it would be impossible for them to have developed friendships with such a large number of people.
Secondly, like Oblinger, I am concerned about how much deep thinking is occurring in the Net Generation’s learning process since they have become used to instantaneous access and responses. This reminded me of an article by Carr (2008) that I read for a different class. Carr claims that instantaneous and constant connection to the Internet has led to a dumbing-down of the way we read and think. He stated that he has noticed a significant change in how he reads and his informal survey of other professionals returned similar results, especially compared to ten years ago when the Internet was still in its infancy. As a reader my entire life, I haven’t noticed any changes in my reading habits when reading hard copies of documents, but like Carr I do have a lot of difficulty staying focused when reading from the Web. These days, the Internet’s impact reaches beyond the computer with the advent of Smartphones. My husband has an I-Phone and I’ve often been amazed, and sometimes frustrated, with how quickly he’s distracted by an incoming message. He loves being constantly “connected” and although there are benefits to this, the trade-off is the time that he loses by jumping from one task to another. This so-called multi-tasking is very popular these days and although I know some people claim that they accomplish more by multi-tasking, I disagree because too much time is lost in the transition from one job to another. Having multiple windows open on a computer, phone, or other technological device is counterproductive, in my opinion, although I will admit that at times, I also allow myself to be drawn into this manner of working as well.
Thirdly, I liked Oblinger’s list of misconceptions/assumptions. Just because there is tons of information on the Web doesn’t mean that students know how to access it or weed through it to find information that’s valid. At the same time, some students don’t have an understanding or appreciation for intellectual property since they often view the posted information as being “free” for the taking. These are all issues that educators need to address.
I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue that the Internet isn’t one of the world’s greatest inventions since it has made life easier in numerous ways. Twenty years ago when I was writing my graduate thesis I spent hours in the library looking at microfilm and microfiche and even traveling to other university libraries to access materials. Today, microfilm is obsolete and most documents can be acquired practically instantaneously via the World Wide Web. The fact remains that the Internet is a tool and any tool can be abused, but it’s also true that it has permeated many facets of life and clearly it’s not going away. The challenge for educators will be to stay abreast of new technology while creating activities and learning environments that keep the Net Generation’s attention.
Our project comparing synchronous and asynchronous technologies was a lot more challenging and time-consuming than I expected (I’m soooo glad I started on it early!), but I enjoyed it because I learned a lot. I am familiar with Blackboard because I’ve used it in the past, but there are a lot of new changes with the newest release. Since I’m going to teach an online history class this fall using Blackboard, I am grateful I learned about the changes now, especially the addition of some synchronous tools. This just reinforces how important it is to stay on top of new technology, especially if it’s something that I haven’t accessed in a while. Learning about Adobe Pro Connect was also enlightening and I wish I could actually use it for a class to get a better feel for it. It appears to have a lot of educational advantages because of its synchronous nature.
Another highlight of this module for me was the discussion that evolved about using Facebook or Twitter as a communicative tool in an online class. I learned a lot about both programs and the dialogue with my classmates and instructors has helped me weigh the pros and cons of using Facebook or Twitter in my upcoming class. I won’t reiterate here what I stated in a previous post; I can only say that I still haven’t made my final decision.
I regret that I wasn’t “free” to take part in a Wimba conference and missing it gave me a new appreciation for the learning opportunities that come with Distance Education. Although I know I missed a great opportunity, I am glad that it was optional and that our coursework is organized/structured around asynchronous technology.
References
Carr, N. (2008, July/August). Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/
Oblinger, D. (2008). Growing up with Google: What it means to education. Emerging Technologies for Learning 3. Retrieved from http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies08_chapter1.pdf
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Using Facebook in Distance Education
July 4, 2010
After completing the assigned readings on Facebook and Twitter and participating in the class dialogue this past week I have been thinking a lot about whether I should incorporate an optional Facebook page into the online western civilization course I’ll be teaching this fall. I definitely have decided against using Twitter for few reasons. First, I am not that comfortable with the technology and I really don’t want to be tweeted constantly. I’m afraid this might happen since I almost always have my phone on me and thus a tweet would immediately get my attention and probably distract me. Secondly, I don’t foresee how messages of a maximum of 140 characters would be that beneficial. I would rather receive an email message or a post in Blackboard (the platform I’ll be using for the class) or Facebook that theoretically should have more substance.
Facebook is a more appealing option because I have to actually log on to access the page, which means getting into the right mindset to concentrate on the students’ posts or to make a post myself. With Facebook I will have much more choice as to when and where to access the account. On the other hand, this is also a drawback for me because unlike many young people I don’t automatically check my Facebook account every time I log onto the Web. It is not natural for me and thus I would have to make it a habit to check the page daily. Would this new habit just become an annoyance for me? I’m afraid that it might, which is one reason why I am not 100% sold on establishing a Facebook page. Another reason I am unsure whether or not to start a Facebook page is because I’m not sure it will serve a different purpose than what I can get using Blackboard. Scroeder and Greenbowe (2008) reported success when incorporating an optional Facebook page into their chemistry lab, but their circumstances were different than what I will face. My class will not have any f2f interaction and thus students will be required to use Blackboard or else they won’t be able to complete the course. In contrast, the Facebook page that Scroeder and Greenbowe (2008) established was supplementary thus their students’ grades were in no way determined by their Facebook participation. I think I have to decide whether or not I can achieve the same objectives using the conference threads on Blackboard as on Facebook. If the answer is affirmative, then there’s no reason to use Facebook. In fact, forcing the issue is exactly the kind of thing I think Moore (2007) was referring to in his statement that was for one the Web 2.0 class discussion. Moore wrote, “Indeed, the overall effect of the new technology will be negative and counterproductive, if interest in the technology draws attention further from the need for reform in the way we design our courses …” (p. 188). Will the time I spend creating and participating in a Facebook page take away from aspects of the course, especially, again, if Blackboard can serve the same purpose? Or will giving the students a different, nonacademic platform create more interaction? These are the questions I’m going to have to think long and hard about to ensure that I am being as effective as possible.
References
Moore, M. (2007). Web 2.0: Does it really matter? The American Journal of Distance Education 21(4), 177–183 doi: 10.1080/08923640701595183
Schroeder, J. & Greenbowe, T. (2008). The chemistry of Facebook: Using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry laboratory. Innovate 5 (4) Retrieved June 19, 2010, from http://www.innovateonline.info/*
After completing the assigned readings on Facebook and Twitter and participating in the class dialogue this past week I have been thinking a lot about whether I should incorporate an optional Facebook page into the online western civilization course I’ll be teaching this fall. I definitely have decided against using Twitter for few reasons. First, I am not that comfortable with the technology and I really don’t want to be tweeted constantly. I’m afraid this might happen since I almost always have my phone on me and thus a tweet would immediately get my attention and probably distract me. Secondly, I don’t foresee how messages of a maximum of 140 characters would be that beneficial. I would rather receive an email message or a post in Blackboard (the platform I’ll be using for the class) or Facebook that theoretically should have more substance.
Facebook is a more appealing option because I have to actually log on to access the page, which means getting into the right mindset to concentrate on the students’ posts or to make a post myself. With Facebook I will have much more choice as to when and where to access the account. On the other hand, this is also a drawback for me because unlike many young people I don’t automatically check my Facebook account every time I log onto the Web. It is not natural for me and thus I would have to make it a habit to check the page daily. Would this new habit just become an annoyance for me? I’m afraid that it might, which is one reason why I am not 100% sold on establishing a Facebook page. Another reason I am unsure whether or not to start a Facebook page is because I’m not sure it will serve a different purpose than what I can get using Blackboard. Scroeder and Greenbowe (2008) reported success when incorporating an optional Facebook page into their chemistry lab, but their circumstances were different than what I will face. My class will not have any f2f interaction and thus students will be required to use Blackboard or else they won’t be able to complete the course. In contrast, the Facebook page that Scroeder and Greenbowe (2008) established was supplementary thus their students’ grades were in no way determined by their Facebook participation. I think I have to decide whether or not I can achieve the same objectives using the conference threads on Blackboard as on Facebook. If the answer is affirmative, then there’s no reason to use Facebook. In fact, forcing the issue is exactly the kind of thing I think Moore (2007) was referring to in his statement that was for one the Web 2.0 class discussion. Moore wrote, “Indeed, the overall effect of the new technology will be negative and counterproductive, if interest in the technology draws attention further from the need for reform in the way we design our courses …” (p. 188). Will the time I spend creating and participating in a Facebook page take away from aspects of the course, especially, again, if Blackboard can serve the same purpose? Or will giving the students a different, nonacademic platform create more interaction? These are the questions I’m going to have to think long and hard about to ensure that I am being as effective as possible.
References
Moore, M. (2007). Web 2.0: Does it really matter? The American Journal of Distance Education 21(4), 177–183 doi: 10.1080/08923640701595183
Schroeder, J. & Greenbowe, T. (2008). The chemistry of Facebook: Using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry laboratory. Innovate 5 (4) Retrieved June 19, 2010, from http://www.innovateonline.info/*
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Thoughts on Module 2a
June 22, 2010
Summary of Module 2a
It’s embarrassing to admit, but before enrolling in UMUC’s program I wasn’t familiar with synchronous or asynchronous technology. In fact, I don’t think I’d ever even heard the terms before, or if I had they didn’t mean anything to me. Therefore, almost everything I read and learned in Module 2a was new to me. I appreciated the McGreal and Elliot reading because the authors broke down much of the technology terminology into small chunks so it was easy for me to follow and re-read when necessary. I really liked the format they used, which mostly consisted of three parts: defining/explain the term; noting educational benefits and giving suggestions on how to effectively incorporate the technology for educational use; and recommended links. I clicked on some of the links that I thought would be helpful for my own personal use as an online instructor and my reading and searches eventually led me to the BBC website. On it, I found some great links to online games, some of which I am going to try to incorporate into the class I am teaching this fall. I also found another valuable website, http://www.edtechteacher.org/index.html created specifically by history teachers that I know I am going to reference a lot as I continue my studies and work to incorporate technology into the classes I teach.
I’ve always been interested in hybrid or blended classes so I particularly enjoyed the article by Pullen and Snow. In it, they detailed their experiences with teaching hybrid classes, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of using synchronous and asynchronous technology. One of their findings, that there was no significant difference in grades between in-class students and on-line students, surprised me. Until recently I held the opinion that online courses weren’t as effective as f2f classes, but the more I read and learn the more I realize how wrong I was. A quality online course can be just as effective, and perhaps even more so, than a traditional seated class. I do like the concepts behind the hybrid courses since they seem to combine the best of both worlds, however. But, their biggest drawback, and it’s a big one in my opinion, is the loss of student flexibility to complete the course work at a time that is most convenient for him. Even if the f2f meetings are just a couple times during the semester they are still scheduled meetings and at least to some extent they “defeat” the principle of flexibility.
This module ended with a voluntary Skype conference. I’d heard of Skype, but had never used it until I practiced with my husband the night before the class conference. When I called my husband we could see each other so I was surprised when this wasn’t the case during the class call. Gila or Jim said that video is only available on Skype when there are only two callers, but that with Wimba we would be able to see each other. I’ve never used Wimba before so I didn’t know this, but now I’m anxious to give it a shot so I can compare it to Skype. I enjoyed the conversation I had with Gila, Jim and Jodi. It was nice to put a voice (a face would have been better!) with each person’s name since I’ve been communicating with each of them for two weeks now. We did experience one of the inherent flaws of using technology during the conference, which was that Gila’s voice faded in and out during much of the call. Since it seems like I am constantly comparing my online experiences to my experiences in a traditional classroom I noted another difference during our call. With four of us online, we also talked over each another a couple of times because it was impossible to know when someone was going to start talking. There are certainly interruptions in f2f conversations, but I don’t think they are as common since one can read body language and thus know if someone is getting ready to speak. As long as all of the participants in a Skype call are willing to wait their turn to talk I don’t see this is a major problem, but it can be annoying.
Summary of Module 2a
It’s embarrassing to admit, but before enrolling in UMUC’s program I wasn’t familiar with synchronous or asynchronous technology. In fact, I don’t think I’d ever even heard the terms before, or if I had they didn’t mean anything to me. Therefore, almost everything I read and learned in Module 2a was new to me. I appreciated the McGreal and Elliot reading because the authors broke down much of the technology terminology into small chunks so it was easy for me to follow and re-read when necessary. I really liked the format they used, which mostly consisted of three parts: defining/explain the term; noting educational benefits and giving suggestions on how to effectively incorporate the technology for educational use; and recommended links. I clicked on some of the links that I thought would be helpful for my own personal use as an online instructor and my reading and searches eventually led me to the BBC website. On it, I found some great links to online games, some of which I am going to try to incorporate into the class I am teaching this fall. I also found another valuable website, http://www.edtechteacher.org/index.html created specifically by history teachers that I know I am going to reference a lot as I continue my studies and work to incorporate technology into the classes I teach.
I’ve always been interested in hybrid or blended classes so I particularly enjoyed the article by Pullen and Snow. In it, they detailed their experiences with teaching hybrid classes, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of using synchronous and asynchronous technology. One of their findings, that there was no significant difference in grades between in-class students and on-line students, surprised me. Until recently I held the opinion that online courses weren’t as effective as f2f classes, but the more I read and learn the more I realize how wrong I was. A quality online course can be just as effective, and perhaps even more so, than a traditional seated class. I do like the concepts behind the hybrid courses since they seem to combine the best of both worlds, however. But, their biggest drawback, and it’s a big one in my opinion, is the loss of student flexibility to complete the course work at a time that is most convenient for him. Even if the f2f meetings are just a couple times during the semester they are still scheduled meetings and at least to some extent they “defeat” the principle of flexibility.
This module ended with a voluntary Skype conference. I’d heard of Skype, but had never used it until I practiced with my husband the night before the class conference. When I called my husband we could see each other so I was surprised when this wasn’t the case during the class call. Gila or Jim said that video is only available on Skype when there are only two callers, but that with Wimba we would be able to see each other. I’ve never used Wimba before so I didn’t know this, but now I’m anxious to give it a shot so I can compare it to Skype. I enjoyed the conversation I had with Gila, Jim and Jodi. It was nice to put a voice (a face would have been better!) with each person’s name since I’ve been communicating with each of them for two weeks now. We did experience one of the inherent flaws of using technology during the conference, which was that Gila’s voice faded in and out during much of the call. Since it seems like I am constantly comparing my online experiences to my experiences in a traditional classroom I noted another difference during our call. With four of us online, we also talked over each another a couple of times because it was impossible to know when someone was going to start talking. There are certainly interruptions in f2f conversations, but I don’t think they are as common since one can read body language and thus know if someone is getting ready to speak. As long as all of the participants in a Skype call are willing to wait their turn to talk I don’t see this is a major problem, but it can be annoying.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Introduction
After resisting technology for years, I've finally come to realize that it is something I not only need to learn about but also embrace. Technology is changing society almost daily and the impact it’s having on education is no different especially given the rise of online courses via the WWW. Thus, in the winter of 2010, after careful research and consideration, I decided to enroll in University of Maryland University College's Master of Distance Education program. I started my studies in April with the required research class, which was very valuable and helped prepare me for leaning online. Currently I am enrolled in two courses, OMDE 601 (Foundations of Distance Education) and OMDE 603 (Technology in Distance Education). One of the requirements in 603 is to establish and maintain a blog, which is why I am here. I've never blogged before so all of this is new to me but I’m anxious to use my new site and actually enter the 21st century!
Best regards,
Eva
Best regards,
Eva
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)