ICT currents trends
http://elearningbysalima.blogspot.com/2010/07/ict-current-trends.html
Digital native debate
http://ed6114charlenesblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/digital-native-debate.html
Higher Education in a Web 2.0 world
http://gersholdonblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/higher-education-in-web-20-world.html
Analysis of learning styles and ICT
http://sheenaselearning.blogspot.com/2010/07/learning-and-teaching-styles.html
Thank you for a great course. I really enjoyed the week and learnt a lot.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Review of two other blogs
The blog’s I have reviewed were developed by:
- Rebekah Wilson
- Charlene Caspersz
I am not quite sure what is required of me in reviewing a blog, but the approach I have taken is to simply outline the blog, and make some comments about any aspect of it that made an impression on me.
Rebekah’s Elearning blog
http://rebekahelearning.blogspot.com/
ICT current trends (Literature Review)
Rebekah reviewed the article “ Computers as mindtools for engaging critical thinking and representing knowledge” by David Jonassen. Rebekah made two pertinent points, firstly, that teaching students to use computer mindtools may take up too much class time, and secondly, she questioned whether there was any great benefit in completing mindmapping style activities online rather than with pen and paper (besides the ease of digital communication of the final product).
I agree with Rebekah that the need for such activities being online needs to be assessed before taking up such elearning tools. I can see that in some circumstances it would be better to use online tools eg. if a group were working collaboratively (it is difficult for students to gather together outside class due to schedule differences).
Learning Styles
Rebekah had a strong read/write preference, and was quite happy as an external student to read through reams of information. She noted that having an aversion for the auditory mode has made her a more inventive lecturer, and she has never been drawn to delivering traditional ‘talky’ lectures.
She mentioned that asking students to complete the VARK survey in their first class may raise their awareness of their learning style, and that including a range of different activities to appeal to various preferences would be beneficial for students. She noted the potential for ICT to cater to various preferences
Digital Natives Debate
Rebekah pointed out that the reading on this topic assumes a particular profile for younger and older students, and that these assumptions do not fit in Broome. She writes that teaching online collaboration is essential, as it is a skill required for employability in the 21st centrury. Rebekah uses Elluminate, but has found that some students have difficulty making it to the assigned session times, and do not have easy access to the supporting technologies. She notes that all her Broome students have access to Blackboard however, and that using blogs and wikis may help provide better access to ICT tools for some students.
Web 2.0 learning in HE
Rebekah pointed out that in the readings there were assumptions about learners being school-leavers, with access to enough bandwidth and technology to easily use ICT tools. She wrote about needing to have plans in place to overcome barriers to technology for her students if she wanted to introduce the use of ICT tools in her classes.
ED6114 Charlene’s blog
http://ed6114charlenesblog.blogspot.com
ICT current trends
Charlene read the ‘Horizon report 2010’, which predicts emerging technologies which will have an impact. ‘Near horizon’ technologies (in next 12 months) were mobile computing, and open content; ‘Second adoption horizon’ (next 2-3 years) were e-books, and simple augmented reality; and “far term horizon” (next 3-4 years) were gesture-based computing and visual data analysis.
Charlene wrote that after reading the report she was finally excited about ICT. She was especially keen on the ‘far term horizon’ technologies, which she can imagine being applied in the medical field.
Comment – I am very glad to have also now learnt of the Horizon report through reading Charlene’s blog.
Learning styles – Day 3
Before taking the VARK survey Charlene predicted she would high in Read/write and low in auditory. After taking the survey she found she was V=1, A=3, R/W=7, K=5.
Charlene wrote of incorporating various teaching styles to cater to the range of preferences that exist, but noted that we need to accept that some people prefer to work alone rather than in a group. Charlene wrote that her teaching is based on actual demonstration, and so ICT tools may not be as appropriate for her classes as for other lecturers.
Digital natives debate
Charlene wrote that she found the terms ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’ distasteful. She wrote that the people who developed the initial web technologies are now of the age usually classified as ‘digital immigrant’!! (Good point Charlene). She wrote that labelling by age was counterproductive, and makes many assumptions about socio-economic circumstances, and previous exposure to technologies.
Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World
Charlene wrote that she had an increased need to be aware of new technologies, due to all the changes afoot. She writes of the benefits of elearning, but notes that the tools must be used only when appropriate. Charlene raised the question of legal issues arising from using networking tools, also mentioned that the extra work involved in setting up an elearning program for students would add to the extra unscheduled hours she already works.
Friday, July 16, 2010
ICT current trends
The article I read was written in 2006, and predicted changes in e-assessment and use of ICT from 2006-2016
The four changing faces of e-assessment 2006 – 2016, Martin Ripley, 2006
http://www.xplora.org/ww/en/pub/insight/thematic_dossiers/articles/e_assessment/eassessment2.htm
Ripley predicts a much stronger role for e-portfolios in the near future, for tertiary but also for secondary students. He predicts that e-portfolios may be used by secondary pupils as the basis of their university application. Even more remarkably he predicts that earning from outside school will be allowed to be included in the e-portfolios, this allowing much more scope for self-directed learning! This gem of information prompted me to reflect.
There is something about new ICT technologies which allows less formal interactions to be recognised as containing valid, weighty content. I’m not sure if this is a result of, or simply parallel to, similar changes in attitude in the social sciences.
With technologies, it is as though the speed of our communication technologies is catching up with the quicksilver, subtle, intuitive way in which we communicate in real life. Older technologies (eg. letter, telegraph) forced us to slow ourselves and conform our communication style to what suited the technology. Ordinary expression and technology use were separate. Now they are merging. The effect of this runs deeply.
It is as though there has long been an assumption that our ordinary, real life experiences and understandings are informally significant, but must be translated into something more formal (eg. essay, exam result, degree) before they can be recognised (and made truly formally valid).
This assumption that formality equals validity seems to be changing.
An example of this change is in the new emphasis on group collaboration skills. In this unit we focused on the use of e-learning tools to enable collaboration between group members. Ripley predicts that skills in online communication and group collaboration will soon actually be assessed at Baccalaureate level.
Ripley also predicts that simulations will be in wider use in e-assessment by 2016. Simulations have a much greater emphasis on authentic tasks, and I see in this a further blending of real life with learning.
Other predictions by Ripley include a) changes to formal exams, and also b) the use of handheld devices. Handheld devices which allow instant feedback are already changing teaching styles. The use of instant formative feedback can allow teaching to be much more responsive to student learning needs. Ripley predicts such devices will continue to change pedagogy. I see this as another example of technology ‘catching up’ with the way humans actually communicate.
The somewhat artificial weight of formal exams will be lifted to some extent, predicts Ripley, as institutions will subscribe to e-assessment providers, who will provide practice tests (on demand) to students, who will then sit their ‘formal’ test when they feel ready. This is active learning and would allow student sot really learn from their mistakes.
The four changing faces of e-assessment 2006 – 2016, Martin Ripley, 2006
http://www.xplora.org/ww/en/pub/insight/thematic_dossiers/articles/e_assessment/eassessment2.htm
Ripley predicts a much stronger role for e-portfolios in the near future, for tertiary but also for secondary students. He predicts that e-portfolios may be used by secondary pupils as the basis of their university application. Even more remarkably he predicts that earning from outside school will be allowed to be included in the e-portfolios, this allowing much more scope for self-directed learning! This gem of information prompted me to reflect.
There is something about new ICT technologies which allows less formal interactions to be recognised as containing valid, weighty content. I’m not sure if this is a result of, or simply parallel to, similar changes in attitude in the social sciences.
With technologies, it is as though the speed of our communication technologies is catching up with the quicksilver, subtle, intuitive way in which we communicate in real life. Older technologies (eg. letter, telegraph) forced us to slow ourselves and conform our communication style to what suited the technology. Ordinary expression and technology use were separate. Now they are merging. The effect of this runs deeply.
It is as though there has long been an assumption that our ordinary, real life experiences and understandings are informally significant, but must be translated into something more formal (eg. essay, exam result, degree) before they can be recognised (and made truly formally valid).
This assumption that formality equals validity seems to be changing.
An example of this change is in the new emphasis on group collaboration skills. In this unit we focused on the use of e-learning tools to enable collaboration between group members. Ripley predicts that skills in online communication and group collaboration will soon actually be assessed at Baccalaureate level.
Ripley also predicts that simulations will be in wider use in e-assessment by 2016. Simulations have a much greater emphasis on authentic tasks, and I see in this a further blending of real life with learning.
Other predictions by Ripley include a) changes to formal exams, and also b) the use of handheld devices. Handheld devices which allow instant feedback are already changing teaching styles. The use of instant formative feedback can allow teaching to be much more responsive to student learning needs. Ripley predicts such devices will continue to change pedagogy. I see this as another example of technology ‘catching up’ with the way humans actually communicate.
The somewhat artificial weight of formal exams will be lifted to some extent, predicts Ripley, as institutions will subscribe to e-assessment providers, who will provide practice tests (on demand) to students, who will then sit their ‘formal’ test when they feel ready. This is active learning and would allow student sot really learn from their mistakes.
Analysis of learning styles and ICT
VARK is mainly meant as a tool to raise students’ personal awareness of their modal preferences for learning.
The preferences are:
V= Visual = preference for graphical and symbolic information
A = Aural = preference for heard information
R= Read/Write = preference for information as printed words
K = Kinesthetic = preference for learning through experience or practice (or to somehow connect the teaching to reality, even just through the use of examples)
Research has show that teachers find it difficult (if not impossible) to cover all their students modal learning preferences in the way they teach. It was decided by the inventors of the VARK test that it was better to raise students’ awareness of their own learning styles, so they could tailor their study tactics to their preferences, no matter how the teaching was presented.
How will VARK change how I learn or teach:
§ In general?
Reading about VARK at first made me feel anxious that I needed to take a multimodal approach to each point I needed to convey, or to every learning activity I devised. Then I read that this was not expected of teachers (Mills as quoted in Fleming and Mills, 1992 – ‘Not another inventory’) and felt very relieved.
However, I think that reading about VARK has made me more aware that there are very different preferences for learning, and has inspired me to think about how I could alter my teaching to cater to various modal preferences. It has also made me more aware that my own preference (Read/Write) may bias the way I am teaching.
Of course, another approach would be to conform to the approach of VARK, and ask students to take the test and become more aware of their own learning preferences.
§ And in ICT environments in particular?
In ‘Learning styles again’ (Fleming and Baume, 2006) it is stated that most education is mono or bi-modal. The authors warn that e-learning may just replicate this, but include a shift from Aural to Read/write. I think it is important not to use the computer screen just as the page of a book, ie. to be filled up with text. There are more possibilities with new e-learning tools for multimodal experiences to be offered, than ever before.
VARK has made me more curious to see how I could produce multimodal teaching/learning activities use e-learning tools.
Do I agree with my profile?
My profile was:
V= 9
A= 10
R= 14
K= 7
I agree that I am predominantly Read/Write, though I think I tap into other modes in non-academic settings. It is as though I have been trained to use Read/Write mode for study, and the other modes for when I am being creative in a non-academic way.
In the study notes for Kinesthetic (?) a reference was made to lectures being times during which the teacher moves around a lot and makes dramatic gestures. I found this comment gave me insight into my own preferences, as I hardly notice how the lecturer moves (or at least I attach no relevance to it), and mainly notice what they have written on their PowerPoints, followed by what they say. If they jumped up and down to emphasise a point, this would be like ‘white noise’ to me, I would not perceive it as effective an emphasis as merely highlighting some text.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Digital natives debate
How the characteristics of your students might affect how they learn and what an ideal environment might look like for them.
I teach Information Literacy to first year Education students. They are mostly school-leavers (digital natives), with some mature students (digital immigrants) (terminology from Prensky, 2001). According to the ‘Investigating the Net Generation’ survey, neither group can be pigeonholed in terms of their technology use, except that students under 25 (in 2006) were more likely to be advanced users of mobile phones and media sharing.
From my own observation I have noticed that most of the school-leavers are very comfortable with using a computer, but still need some assistance navigating Blackboard. Generally they have a low awareness of how to critically evaluate web content, and are not familiar with the base knowledge that database search interfaces assume (eg. what peer reviewed means). The mature age students also have a low level of awareness in these areas, but can be more hesitant in their approach to using online interfaces/tools.
Bennet, Maton and Kervin (2008) point out that one learning style cannot be generalised across a whole generation. The digital natives ease with interfaces may allow them to navigate faster, and therefore learn faster. However, it is really an understanding of the base knowledge underlying database and internet use that allows students to understand and use the tools well.
The main likely difference that I can see is ease of use of online learning tools. Older students may take longer using these tools, but will be as able to use them as a NetGen student. However, depending on their familiarity with online technologies, there may be no differenc in speed of use at all. What this means in reality is that students from both groups will need support and guidance in using new tools. Though there may be a difference in speed when working with elearning tools, I assume that individual learning differences will have a greater impact, as posited by Bennet, Maton and Kervin (2008).
The ideal learning environment for both NetGen’ers and older students would be a safe, respectful, constructively aligned environment. I would concentrate on person to person interaction activities during class (while there is the chance) and online activities at home to reinforce what was learnt in class. Allowing students a way to peer mentor would be wonderful. Online discussion forums may assist with this. Constructing aligned teaching/learning activities will also create a good learning environment, as will formative feedback from students to me, and from me to the students. I see a role for Survey Monkey in both giving and receiving feedback.
I teach Information Literacy to first year Education students. They are mostly school-leavers (digital natives), with some mature students (digital immigrants) (terminology from Prensky, 2001). According to the ‘Investigating the Net Generation’ survey, neither group can be pigeonholed in terms of their technology use, except that students under 25 (in 2006) were more likely to be advanced users of mobile phones and media sharing.
From my own observation I have noticed that most of the school-leavers are very comfortable with using a computer, but still need some assistance navigating Blackboard. Generally they have a low awareness of how to critically evaluate web content, and are not familiar with the base knowledge that database search interfaces assume (eg. what peer reviewed means). The mature age students also have a low level of awareness in these areas, but can be more hesitant in their approach to using online interfaces/tools.
Bennet, Maton and Kervin (2008) point out that one learning style cannot be generalised across a whole generation. The digital natives ease with interfaces may allow them to navigate faster, and therefore learn faster. However, it is really an understanding of the base knowledge underlying database and internet use that allows students to understand and use the tools well.
The main likely difference that I can see is ease of use of online learning tools. Older students may take longer using these tools, but will be as able to use them as a NetGen student. However, depending on their familiarity with online technologies, there may be no differenc in speed of use at all. What this means in reality is that students from both groups will need support and guidance in using new tools. Though there may be a difference in speed when working with elearning tools, I assume that individual learning differences will have a greater impact, as posited by Bennet, Maton and Kervin (2008).
The ideal learning environment for both NetGen’ers and older students would be a safe, respectful, constructively aligned environment. I would concentrate on person to person interaction activities during class (while there is the chance) and online activities at home to reinforce what was learnt in class. Allowing students a way to peer mentor would be wonderful. Online discussion forums may assist with this. Constructing aligned teaching/learning activities will also create a good learning environment, as will formative feedback from students to me, and from me to the students. I see a role for Survey Monkey in both giving and receiving feedback.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World
What does the changing environment of higher education in a Web 2.0 world mean to you?
To me, this changing environment means three things i) anxiety about expectation to adapt ii) new opportunities for interaction, and iii) awareness of greater need for information literacy.
I feel that there is an expectation that I understand Web 2.0 technologies from the perspective of a Gen Y or Z student, that I am able to critique their engagement with Web 2.0, then change my own practice in response to it. At my most anxious I feel required to develop an oracle-like awareness of each new Web 2.0 tool as it is developed, and become proficient in it before breakfast the next day. At my calmest I remind myself that Web 2.0 tools are designed to be used intuitively, so that the greatest hurdle is overcoming anxiety about using them.
The 'Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World' report makes recommendations that higher education institutions (HEIs) support staff to become "proficient users of an appropriate range of technologies and skilled practitioners of e-pedagogy, incorporating both into initial staff training and CPD programmes" (p. 10). I am very grateful to be given the chance to study this unit, and see the need for ongoing support to staff, since technologies will change rapidly. Finding the time to stay up to date is very difficult, so supportive HEIs can reduce staff anxiety, and ensure that students have a meaningful learning experience.
The cornerstone of new Web 2.0 tools is interactivity. Students can interact with each other online, with the lecturer, or with learning tools. Online interactions are not necessarily better in quality than traditional interactions, but they do extend the range of interactions available. Learning how to use new technologies appropriately is part of todays changing environment. I see this challenge as ongoing, as new tools are developed.
Expectations on the way students work with information have been set by HEIs. Students also need to be supported in how they work with information. Increasingly, for ease of access and cost saving, more and more research will take place online. There is easy access to a great quantity of information, and students need to be armed with the skills to find what they need amongst the bulk. Sophisticated searching skills will need to be taught, and students will need to know how to recognise high quality information. The 'Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World' report recommends that HEIs prioritise the teaching of information literacy.
To me, this changing environment means three things i) anxiety about expectation to adapt ii) new opportunities for interaction, and iii) awareness of greater need for information literacy.
I feel that there is an expectation that I understand Web 2.0 technologies from the perspective of a Gen Y or Z student, that I am able to critique their engagement with Web 2.0, then change my own practice in response to it. At my most anxious I feel required to develop an oracle-like awareness of each new Web 2.0 tool as it is developed, and become proficient in it before breakfast the next day. At my calmest I remind myself that Web 2.0 tools are designed to be used intuitively, so that the greatest hurdle is overcoming anxiety about using them.
The 'Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World' report makes recommendations that higher education institutions (HEIs) support staff to become "proficient users of an appropriate range of technologies and skilled practitioners of e-pedagogy, incorporating both into initial staff training and CPD programmes" (p. 10). I am very grateful to be given the chance to study this unit, and see the need for ongoing support to staff, since technologies will change rapidly. Finding the time to stay up to date is very difficult, so supportive HEIs can reduce staff anxiety, and ensure that students have a meaningful learning experience.
The cornerstone of new Web 2.0 tools is interactivity. Students can interact with each other online, with the lecturer, or with learning tools. Online interactions are not necessarily better in quality than traditional interactions, but they do extend the range of interactions available. Learning how to use new technologies appropriately is part of todays changing environment. I see this challenge as ongoing, as new tools are developed.
Expectations on the way students work with information have been set by HEIs. Students also need to be supported in how they work with information. Increasingly, for ease of access and cost saving, more and more research will take place online. There is easy access to a great quantity of information, and students need to be armed with the skills to find what they need amongst the bulk. Sophisticated searching skills will need to be taught, and students will need to know how to recognise high quality information. The 'Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World' report recommends that HEIs prioritise the teaching of information literacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)