Digital repositories: “digital content, assets, are stored can be researched and retrieved for later use….they may include journal articles, e-learning objects and teaching materials.” (JISC, 2005)
Digital repositories can be explored in further detail by following this link:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/HE_repositories_briefing_paper_2005.pdf
Something which I took from John’s presentation is how essential it is to allow the learner to take control of their own learning. It is important to understand that a teacher’s presence in the facilitation of a learning sequence is depending on the age and independence of the learner. It can be seen from our online course with Moodle, that as adults, we are taking control of our learning strategies by selecting the resources (repositories) then making decisions and asking questions based on the information provided.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
F2F Instruction vs Online Learning
In the article The Imponderable Bloom, Sanders notes:
" ... my students are apprehensive of technologically mediated interaction, arguing that communication and collaboration in an online learning environment is simply not the same as in a F2F environment. While they do not necessarily expect the experience to be the same, they are frustrated by the disconnect they sense between themselves and the other students. My students realize that what they see and hear in an online world is something like a real classroom, but it is not the same as a physical classroom space. Virtually being there is not the same as physically being there. As a result, these students sense a void in what could otherwise be a rich learning environment."
Sanders address’s many of the issues that we as educators should always be questioning. Is the latest new gizmo the best? How can technology promote or enhance the goals of my class? It is and can be a great teaching and learning tool, but as Sanders points out it must have a purpose higher than just because it's available.
The paper is also a good summary of what we have recently been discussing. The notion that just because a technology is new, bright and incorporates all the ‘bells and whistles’’ then it must be of benefit to the student and the learning task, is now being seen as a tool which may in fact only inhibit the learning experience.
Sanders shares the idea that studying online / off campus means that students miss the subtle F2F (face to face) human interactions which are more natural and conducive to different understandings. Software designers and educators ‘need to continue to design and build tools that make online learning more like F2F physical realities’ (p.9).
The article by Sanders points out the importance of educators establishing the learning experiences and objectives first hand and then deciding on what technologies will best support the objectives.
As educators we need to stop, reflect and assess and decide whether a particular learning tool (F2F instruction or learning technologies) is aiding the students understanding of a topic or having a negative effect.
" ... my students are apprehensive of technologically mediated interaction, arguing that communication and collaboration in an online learning environment is simply not the same as in a F2F environment. While they do not necessarily expect the experience to be the same, they are frustrated by the disconnect they sense between themselves and the other students. My students realize that what they see and hear in an online world is something like a real classroom, but it is not the same as a physical classroom space. Virtually being there is not the same as physically being there. As a result, these students sense a void in what could otherwise be a rich learning environment."
Sanders address’s many of the issues that we as educators should always be questioning. Is the latest new gizmo the best? How can technology promote or enhance the goals of my class? It is and can be a great teaching and learning tool, but as Sanders points out it must have a purpose higher than just because it's available.
The paper is also a good summary of what we have recently been discussing. The notion that just because a technology is new, bright and incorporates all the ‘bells and whistles’’ then it must be of benefit to the student and the learning task, is now being seen as a tool which may in fact only inhibit the learning experience.
Sanders shares the idea that studying online / off campus means that students miss the subtle F2F (face to face) human interactions which are more natural and conducive to different understandings. Software designers and educators ‘need to continue to design and build tools that make online learning more like F2F physical realities’ (p.9).
The article by Sanders points out the importance of educators establishing the learning experiences and objectives first hand and then deciding on what technologies will best support the objectives.
As educators we need to stop, reflect and assess and decide whether a particular learning tool (F2F instruction or learning technologies) is aiding the students understanding of a topic or having a negative effect.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Globalization and the Age of Multiliteracies
Due to globalization and the diversity of communication technologies we need to rethink the way we currently teach literacy. We need to look closely at an evolving era of multimodality in which multiple modes of meaning can now be expressed and obtained through mass media, multimedia and in electronic hypermedia.
This evolution of Multiliteracies requires new decoding skills from our students to enable them to navigate and decode a variety of media. For example, a simple task of reading and interpreting information from a web page can require complex literacies and numeracies.
The New London group discusses the idea of Design, where teachers are the designers of learning processes and they should engage students by tapping into the student’s own experiences. Children of the electronic generation need to be taught to “think, assess, react, decide and act” (Spender 1995 – Prestige pg 8), when learning and interacting with information.
How do we put these ideas into practice when the schools’ current curriculum is already overcrowded? How can we incorporate new technologies into the traditional methods of teaching? What professional development can we allocate to teachers on Multiliteracies when their students are more multi-literate than they are?
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
This evolution of Multiliteracies requires new decoding skills from our students to enable them to navigate and decode a variety of media. For example, a simple task of reading and interpreting information from a web page can require complex literacies and numeracies.
The New London group discusses the idea of Design, where teachers are the designers of learning processes and they should engage students by tapping into the student’s own experiences. Children of the electronic generation need to be taught to “think, assess, react, decide and act” (Spender 1995 – Prestige pg 8), when learning and interacting with information.
How do we put these ideas into practice when the schools’ current curriculum is already overcrowded? How can we incorporate new technologies into the traditional methods of teaching? What professional development can we allocate to teachers on Multiliteracies when their students are more multi-literate than they are?
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
The hype on e-learning in education. Was it all smoke and mirrors?
“Why Did the Boom Go Bust?”
E-learning failed to deliver on its earlier promises as there was very little research done into how best to use the new technologies. “E-learning took off before people really knew how to use it.” (Zemsky & Massy, 2004 p.3). After the smoke had settled from the hype about the benefits of information technology in education, research showed that it had not raised academic achievement as first claimed.
Previously, we were over zealous with the rush to get new technologies into the classroom and according to Carol Twig (as cited in Zemsky, R., & Massey, W.F. 2003) we adopted the “hope for the best strategy”.
According to Cuban “after and steady and perhaps excessive promotion of technology, computer use in the classroom was uneven and intermittent…access to machines was maximal, change was minimal.” (Cuban, L 2001)
Some recent studies have shown a number of reasons why e-learning technologies were not maximised in education:
1. Most educators are still teaching the way they were taught (Zemsky & Massy).
2. Educators and students are not ‘digitally literate’.
3. Very little research from e-learning designers was done into what students and educational facilities expect from e-learning software and technologies.
Cuban’s critical examination of how computers are currently being used is very relevant and valid. Even at my school, we are continually changing the way our students use ICT. Activities we once thought were beneficial are now seen as having very little educational value.
* Cuban, L. ( 2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
* Zemsky, R., & Massey, W.F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, B6.
E-learning failed to deliver on its earlier promises as there was very little research done into how best to use the new technologies. “E-learning took off before people really knew how to use it.” (Zemsky & Massy, 2004 p.3). After the smoke had settled from the hype about the benefits of information technology in education, research showed that it had not raised academic achievement as first claimed.
Previously, we were over zealous with the rush to get new technologies into the classroom and according to Carol Twig (as cited in Zemsky, R., & Massey, W.F. 2003) we adopted the “hope for the best strategy”.
According to Cuban “after and steady and perhaps excessive promotion of technology, computer use in the classroom was uneven and intermittent…access to machines was maximal, change was minimal.” (Cuban, L 2001)
Some recent studies have shown a number of reasons why e-learning technologies were not maximised in education:
1. Most educators are still teaching the way they were taught (Zemsky & Massy).
2. Educators and students are not ‘digitally literate’.
3. Very little research from e-learning designers was done into what students and educational facilities expect from e-learning software and technologies.
Cuban’s critical examination of how computers are currently being used is very relevant and valid. Even at my school, we are continually changing the way our students use ICT. Activities we once thought were beneficial are now seen as having very little educational value.
* Cuban, L. ( 2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
* Zemsky, R., & Massey, W.F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, B6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
