Overview
When a teacher, at any level of learning, establishes a grading rubric – a set of guidelines for assigning points to different aspects of that which is being measured, there are two essential considerations:
1. How well was that which was supposed to have been learned mastered?
2. What part of the greater learning activity (class) does the assignment represent?
If the course is divided into four self-contained units, each taking one quarter of the term and right answer instruments may be developed, there is really nothing to consider.
Logistics
The DCTE course runs 22-weeks, meets for the first week on campus and for 21-weeks online after that. The portfolio, according to the syllabus, is worth 50% of the grade. It represents nine weeks of collaboration and journaling plus one week of reflecting and writing – roughly 50% of the course time.
So far so good – except there should have been some part of the grade reserved for full group collaboration and self-evaluation of participation there as well. Although full group discussion is noted in the assignment, it cannot be measured at this point in the term. There is always the next iteration.
Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of the teaching/learning sessions, the need for multiple new behaviors should be established. The experience is not about mastery; it is about awareness of need for continuing investigation, experimentation, and reflection. Here are some of the issues:
As a teacher,
· Use a chart similar to Gagne’s Events of Instruction for each lesson presented.
· Begin with a process for engaging students; keep the momentum going.
· Participate in the creation and maintenance of real presences across distances.
· Use the online syllabus as a course contract.
As a learner,
· Work with the instructor to maintain an online community.
· Report all technical difficulties immediately.
· Communicate in a professionally responsible manner.
· Adhere to the rules of the course.
Web 2.0 Tools
Traditions evolve rapidly in the age of information. The traditional format of the experience was that the space for experimenting with online teaching and learning was the discussion forum of an electronic classroom. After several years of reporting on how to use the new tools,bits and pieces of literature began to appear about their value in improving learning.
The time had arrived to introduce a new wrinkle to the experience. Each teacher was charged with the addition of web 2.0 tools, namely a blog, wiki or podcast, in the execution of the lesson. No specific conditions of use were provided.
The Portfolios
From the initial week on campus, it was apparent that all 14 class participants were good citizens. Therefore, it was not surprising that 100% of the assignments were submitted in a timely manner. The required parts of the portfolio were:
1. Comprehensive lesson plan using Gagne’s Events of Instruction. Include a discussion of modifications made during implementation.
2. Copy of syllabus posted in topic. Include a brief discussion of modifications made during implementation.
3. One-two page discussion of web 2.0 tool used to include choice for selection, what took place and thoughts for future work with this tool.
4. One-two page evaluation of your performance as a teacher. Include mistakes, triumphs, and plans for the future. Include a statement on each of your students.
5. Two page evaluation of your experiences as learner. Write a paragraph for each session in which you participated. Name the teacher and the subject.
To a greater or lesser extent, everyone complied with all requirements.
An issue that experience has taught me is that peers tend to be generous in evaluating one another and to excuse less-than-acceptable participation. There are always reasons why something is not done or is done poorly.
People who teach adults were not required to undergo teacher education programs. Formal structures for lesson design and implementation are alien concepts. Some of the events charts were marvelous. Others merely echoed the requirements for what kind of experience belonged in each section. Still others were just wrong. Is that some do not believe in the value of structured planning or are lax habits too hard to overcome with one short exposure? This observation, too, occurs each term.
The experiences with the web 2.0 tools were time consuming, frustrating and marvelous. We worked with free tools only and, as experienced computer users, were often dissatisfied with the way things worked out. Many feared the intrusion of outsiders and tried to protect the integrity of their products by setting up requirements for passwords that confounded the process.
A major issue – perhaps one that might be commented upon – is what interaction goes in which tool. How does the teacher organize the online learning space so that students know what to post where and how the tools might be organized so that interaction is most meaningful?
As a computing technology in education discipline, we have a great deal to learn about enhancing teaching and learning with web 2.0 tools. What we have done this term is to get started along the learning curve.
Grading the Portfolios
Many years ago an adult student walked into my office, sat down, and announced that she was going to share a major concern – and she did! It seems that her work was highly superior to that of everyone else, her solutions were more efficient, her procedures were unique, etc. and the “A” she earned was definitely superior to that of other students in the class who had earned the grade. I did not know what she wanted from me then and still do not know. It is a fact of life that very little is equal or fair or truly representative.
Holding on to that notion, I decided to assign full credit for each portfolio submitted. Everyone, to some degree, performed each required part of the assignment, and everyone was more or less pleased with his peers. In personal communications, I will address specific issues. As to fairness, there remains 50% of the grade to be allocated to two formal papers; here is where the stars will shine and the course grades will reflect a somewhat normal curve.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Post-Experimentation Part I
As per the syllabus, I did not expect anyone to participate in the blog or in the full-class discussions in WebCT during the small group experimental activities. The nine weeks have passed as has the week devoted to portfolio-polishing and submission. As a group, the class continues to impress its professor. Every one of the anticipated assignments is on my desk. The queue has a virtual “high priority” stamp upon it; reading shall begin later today. It is important to make some observations and to pose some questions in advance of reviewing the submissions.
I will pick up where I left off at the end of January. During these weeks, I observed some of the interactions on WebCT and others on the various web 2.0 tools, taking great care not to be intrusive. There was not enough time for serious interaction or enough people per group for a dynamic to be built. Both factors were deterrents to the value of the learning experience but considerable learning has occurred in any event. Nevertheless, two-way communication must be learned as a two-way process and the amount of time devoted to an activity should mirror the percentage of the points allotted to it in grading.
Here is a question open for discussion:
Given the need for interaction, an inability to determine enrollment, and the awareness that the small group activity with all its components represents less that half the final grade, how would you structure the teaching/learning activity?
Unstructured activities in the past degenerated into popularity contests. Ungraded activities go ignored by the very people who need the experience the most. Open-ended syllabi contradict the fact that a syllabus is a contract. Is it possible that someone addressed the issue in his reflections and lessons learned? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage here because students are reluctant to appear to be criticizing a professor. Perhaps one of our guests will provide reassurance that the focus is on the subject, not upon me.
Here is a second discussion question:
Should a course, whether totally or partially online, have more than one online tool for interactive discussion? Observing participants as students and as instructors struggle with appropriate placement of different remarks, I formulated my answer which I will share at another time. Here comes the hard part: Assuming you, the instructor, have a range of option, how do you decide which one(s) to use? Please discuss the subject matter of the course in mind when responding to the question. [Yes! The subject matter makes a great deal of difference in the answer. Everything one thinks about needs a frame of reference into which to place one’s thoughts. Same need applies when considering someone else’s thoughts.]
Questions three and four for discussion are carry-over-with-modifications from January 28, 2008. Perhaps, given our limited experience, some answers may be forthcoming. These are important questions. If left unanswered, they may be raised again.
How might thinking skills be developed or extended through collaboration/interaction with any of the web 2.0 tools?
How might a specific learning environment be transformed with a blog, a wiki or another web 2.0 tool?
I will pick up where I left off at the end of January. During these weeks, I observed some of the interactions on WebCT and others on the various web 2.0 tools, taking great care not to be intrusive. There was not enough time for serious interaction or enough people per group for a dynamic to be built. Both factors were deterrents to the value of the learning experience but considerable learning has occurred in any event. Nevertheless, two-way communication must be learned as a two-way process and the amount of time devoted to an activity should mirror the percentage of the points allotted to it in grading.
Here is a question open for discussion:
Given the need for interaction, an inability to determine enrollment, and the awareness that the small group activity with all its components represents less that half the final grade, how would you structure the teaching/learning activity?
Unstructured activities in the past degenerated into popularity contests. Ungraded activities go ignored by the very people who need the experience the most. Open-ended syllabi contradict the fact that a syllabus is a contract. Is it possible that someone addressed the issue in his reflections and lessons learned? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage here because students are reluctant to appear to be criticizing a professor. Perhaps one of our guests will provide reassurance that the focus is on the subject, not upon me.
Here is a second discussion question:
Should a course, whether totally or partially online, have more than one online tool for interactive discussion? Observing participants as students and as instructors struggle with appropriate placement of different remarks, I formulated my answer which I will share at another time. Here comes the hard part: Assuming you, the instructor, have a range of option, how do you decide which one(s) to use? Please discuss the subject matter of the course in mind when responding to the question. [Yes! The subject matter makes a great deal of difference in the answer. Everything one thinks about needs a frame of reference into which to place one’s thoughts. Same need applies when considering someone else’s thoughts.]
Questions three and four for discussion are carry-over-with-modifications from January 28, 2008. Perhaps, given our limited experience, some answers may be forthcoming. These are important questions. If left unanswered, they may be raised again.
How might thinking skills be developed or extended through collaboration/interaction with any of the web 2.0 tools?
How might a specific learning environment be transformed with a blog, a wiki or another web 2.0 tool?
There are no right or wrong answers. Quickly, before literature on web 2.0 tools becomes established, share your opinions.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Blogs and Learning
As professor, a major question with which I must deal is whether and in what ways the software technology called blogging is a worthwhile addition to the distance learning toolkit. Having doctoral students with whom to explore, experiment and question makes the investigation real and manageable. The contents of the comments received to the first three postings and the way the blog handles them provide data for tool evaluation.
Much of the anecdotal reporting sees a blog as a means of self-expression with opportunities for social interaction, a kind of public diary with peer feedback. An ongoing problem with writing is the “blank page” syndrome in which the writer stares at a blank page or a blank screen and nothing comes to mind. If the social networking value of the blog encourages non-writers to write, the blog must be given some value points.
Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/) bears testimony to the attraction of bearing one’s soul in public has for young people. Here are some of the phrases found on the homepage: “… a social utility that connects you with the people around you”, “…upload photos”, “…get the latest news from your friends”, “…post videos on your profile”, “… join a network to see people who live, study, or work around you.”
Gary Stager (http://www.stager.org/blog/) is a Logo advocate who, in 1987, visited a graduate course in Logo for Learning that I taught in NJ. Refer to his September 4, 2007 post called “Why Teachers Don’t Use Web 2.0”. Here is an example of what you will find: “No matter how cool, powerful or revolutionary Web 2.0 tools happen to be, there are few if any mature objects-to-think-with embedded in them and certainly no explicit statement that their use is designed to transform the learning environment.”
Comments to this post should be limited to
- How might thinking skills be developed or extended through blogging?
- How might the learning environment be transformed with blogging?
Respond only if you have come up with a new idea or have read something relevant.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Digital Toys and Learning Tools Part II
Learning as we move along, today's entry is considerably shorter than the first two (that were posted before responses were forthcoming). Having read all the comments, I decided to summarize them below for further group input. Notice the tendency to post the same unspecific statements that are commonly used to promote the tools. Do not become mesmerized by the technologies or the promises. Concentrate on the questions:
- What is the benefit to be gained by use?
- How much teaching time will be spent on learning to use the technology?
Robin wrote about podcasting student messages to increase social presence. The process is difficult to envision.
Avril envisions using wikis for team products.
Rick agrees that toys masquerade as learning tools.
Jen set herself the very difficult task of making all learning engaging or challenging.
Yvette sees the ability to supplement discussion boards with wikis in order to extract the best of the discussions and to encourage peer support during study.
Jeremy interprets multi-tasking as multi-sensory inputs.
Zac portrays a scary future for teachers whose students could call upon them at anytime through their cell phones.
Pressy writes about usability and accommodation of technology interfaces. Why here?
Jessie agrees that not all learning can be fun but suggests that the teacher can do his best to minimize the repetitive processes that cause boredom.
Addy suggests making the non-fun aspects of learning happen quickly.
Suki concurs with Brenda and Avril about the potentials of wikis as collaborative learning and production tools.
Sandra wrote about using podcasts to have students create their own content. Students have always created content: compositions, drawings, dioramas, collages, etc.?
Dr. Trudy observes: No one chose to use a blog. Wikis were selected for collaborative development of a printed product. Podcasts were selected for unexplained social value. Cell phones are technology not technology (think software) tools. Multi-tasking is not the same as multi-sensory, concurrent or parallel experiences. Two activities that require thinking or memorizing or computing cannot be done at the same time. Activities that require similar processing done simultaneously are not done well.
Comments, clarifications, and/or observations are welcome.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Digital Toys and Learning Tools
The editorial reproduced below is current. It was written with the winter 2008 course in mind. Read it and post a response to one of the questions that follow the editorial.
Abramson, T. (2007). Digital toys and learning tools. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 21(2), 3-4.
Society evolved from the industrial to the computer and then to the communications/information age in less than half a century while education, which should be grounded in society, continues to lag behind. Probably the best definition for technology is that which did not exist in one’s youth. Accepting that thinking, children should use in school the computer tools they use outside of school. But wait! Are all the home-based computer tools suitable for learning or are some just digital toys?
We have consistently opposed the perspectives that the teacher must accommodate all learning styles and that the school day should be a series of pleasurable experiences. Both may sound good but are virtually impossible to implement. A classroom teacher cannot accommodate 24-30 unique learning styles and still get the subject matter taught, reinforced and tested, not even with the support of technology. Some things are difficult to learn, others are tedious; the fun part comes with the relief of mastery, not the struggle to get there.
Technology in society during this decade has been moving at an unprecedented pace. A recently-published paper described how the net generation requires collaboration to maximize learning. The net generation, also called the Millennials, is made up of the people who were born after 1981, for whom communication technologies are natural artifacts of their society. It turned out that collaboration, a process in which people work together to achieve a goal, was not the term intended by the author. A more accurate requirement might be communication or interaction.
Our crystal ball had not anticipated social networking tools such as IM (instant messaging), texting, wikis, blogs, podcast and vidcasts, and sites such as MySpace and SecondLife. Many of the tools work through computers, tablets, Blackberries and cell phones. These technologies and applications enable two conditions that serve the emotional needs of school-age children. First, one never needs to be alone. Second, one may be anyone he wishes; truth and fiction become one in cyberspace.
Beyond the needs of children, these technologies have created an economic windfall. The devices are small and fragile. They fall out of pockets and backpacks and into toilets and washbasins; they get lost and stepped on and need to be replaced immediately if not sooner. Who, among our readers, has not wondered, “What is there to talk about so much all the time?” The answer, of course, is “You would not understand”. We do not even try. One of our colleagues observed that her nephew’s fingers move as he speaks even when there is no device in hand for texting. Another reported that highschoolers who text or IM are “talking with their fingers”, not writing.
We asked several high school students how they cope in class when (we assumed) they were detached from their technology. It was explained that phones were to be turned off and put away during class but few really complied. Phones were put on vibrate and texting could be done surreptitiously on one’s lap. If caught, the phone was confiscated but could be redeemed in the school office by making a charitable contribution, usually $5. We were about to ask whether it was worth the risk but decided not to sound additionally ignorant.
We read about multi-tasking and how brains are developing differently based upon the variety of digital experiences during the formative years. Even computers do not multi-task; they perform so quickly that, to the human eye, it appears that more than one action is taking place concurrently. There is a difference between one-way and two-way communication. The car radio broadcasts music or news but it makes no demand upon the listener; a cell-phone, even if not hand-held, is a device for speaking and listening. Driving and conversing is multi-tasking with the probability of bad consequences. A stereo or an I-Pod that plays favorite music during study times does not create a multi-tasking situation. The music helps the individual relax and be receptive to the task at hand.
A widely syndicated cartoon, Cathy, by Cathy Guiswite, on September 9, 2007, featured a mother with a daughter about to start third grade shopping for supplies. They bought a notebook computer, a printer, an electronic planner, a calculator, a cell phone and a wireless router. Cartoons are largely political statements; this one was a statement about the state of education. Reading it brings forth concern about the growing digital divide. Is education in wealthy neighborhoods to be totally different from that in areas where parents cannot provide comparable equipment? So far, according to independent assessment reports, there is not much to worry about. All the electronics on the market and in the schools have yet to raise the level of achievement as measured by state and local standards.
Returning to the title of the editorial, Is it possible to make two distinct technology piles – one for digital toys and another for learning tools? How does a technology migrate from one pile to the other? Will web-publishing tools such as weblogs and wikis become useful artifacts for learning? Will the ability to create online content including text, photos, audio and video become valuable assets in the skill set of an educated person? Will teachers at all levels devise learning experiences that capitalize upon the digital toys of today? Many answers are on the drawing boards as we write. Migration from toy to tool occurs when innovative teachers devise, use, and evaluate applications to improve learning.
The Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems has been networking in search of solutions. We hope to present many to our readers starting with this very issue. [End of editorial.]
All responses/comments should be 200 words or fewer.
1. Looking at the subject you teach, explain how is it possible for all learning to be fun and not boring.
2. Which of the new tools mentioned above appears to hold the greatest potential for improving learning within the population you teach. Expand upon your choice.
3. Looking beyond your own situation, what will the new technologies mean for the digital divide or the generation divide?
4. What is your perspective on multi-tasking and learning?
Abramson, T. (2007). Digital toys and learning tools. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 21(2), 3-4.
Society evolved from the industrial to the computer and then to the communications/information age in less than half a century while education, which should be grounded in society, continues to lag behind. Probably the best definition for technology is that which did not exist in one’s youth. Accepting that thinking, children should use in school the computer tools they use outside of school. But wait! Are all the home-based computer tools suitable for learning or are some just digital toys?
We have consistently opposed the perspectives that the teacher must accommodate all learning styles and that the school day should be a series of pleasurable experiences. Both may sound good but are virtually impossible to implement. A classroom teacher cannot accommodate 24-30 unique learning styles and still get the subject matter taught, reinforced and tested, not even with the support of technology. Some things are difficult to learn, others are tedious; the fun part comes with the relief of mastery, not the struggle to get there.
Technology in society during this decade has been moving at an unprecedented pace. A recently-published paper described how the net generation requires collaboration to maximize learning. The net generation, also called the Millennials, is made up of the people who were born after 1981, for whom communication technologies are natural artifacts of their society. It turned out that collaboration, a process in which people work together to achieve a goal, was not the term intended by the author. A more accurate requirement might be communication or interaction.
Our crystal ball had not anticipated social networking tools such as IM (instant messaging), texting, wikis, blogs, podcast and vidcasts, and sites such as MySpace and SecondLife. Many of the tools work through computers, tablets, Blackberries and cell phones. These technologies and applications enable two conditions that serve the emotional needs of school-age children. First, one never needs to be alone. Second, one may be anyone he wishes; truth and fiction become one in cyberspace.
Beyond the needs of children, these technologies have created an economic windfall. The devices are small and fragile. They fall out of pockets and backpacks and into toilets and washbasins; they get lost and stepped on and need to be replaced immediately if not sooner. Who, among our readers, has not wondered, “What is there to talk about so much all the time?” The answer, of course, is “You would not understand”. We do not even try. One of our colleagues observed that her nephew’s fingers move as he speaks even when there is no device in hand for texting. Another reported that highschoolers who text or IM are “talking with their fingers”, not writing.
We asked several high school students how they cope in class when (we assumed) they were detached from their technology. It was explained that phones were to be turned off and put away during class but few really complied. Phones were put on vibrate and texting could be done surreptitiously on one’s lap. If caught, the phone was confiscated but could be redeemed in the school office by making a charitable contribution, usually $5. We were about to ask whether it was worth the risk but decided not to sound additionally ignorant.
We read about multi-tasking and how brains are developing differently based upon the variety of digital experiences during the formative years. Even computers do not multi-task; they perform so quickly that, to the human eye, it appears that more than one action is taking place concurrently. There is a difference between one-way and two-way communication. The car radio broadcasts music or news but it makes no demand upon the listener; a cell-phone, even if not hand-held, is a device for speaking and listening. Driving and conversing is multi-tasking with the probability of bad consequences. A stereo or an I-Pod that plays favorite music during study times does not create a multi-tasking situation. The music helps the individual relax and be receptive to the task at hand.
A widely syndicated cartoon, Cathy, by Cathy Guiswite, on September 9, 2007, featured a mother with a daughter about to start third grade shopping for supplies. They bought a notebook computer, a printer, an electronic planner, a calculator, a cell phone and a wireless router. Cartoons are largely political statements; this one was a statement about the state of education. Reading it brings forth concern about the growing digital divide. Is education in wealthy neighborhoods to be totally different from that in areas where parents cannot provide comparable equipment? So far, according to independent assessment reports, there is not much to worry about. All the electronics on the market and in the schools have yet to raise the level of achievement as measured by state and local standards.
Returning to the title of the editorial, Is it possible to make two distinct technology piles – one for digital toys and another for learning tools? How does a technology migrate from one pile to the other? Will web-publishing tools such as weblogs and wikis become useful artifacts for learning? Will the ability to create online content including text, photos, audio and video become valuable assets in the skill set of an educated person? Will teachers at all levels devise learning experiences that capitalize upon the digital toys of today? Many answers are on the drawing boards as we write. Migration from toy to tool occurs when innovative teachers devise, use, and evaluate applications to improve learning.
The Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems has been networking in search of solutions. We hope to present many to our readers starting with this very issue. [End of editorial.]
All responses/comments should be 200 words or fewer.
1. Looking at the subject you teach, explain how is it possible for all learning to be fun and not boring.
2. Which of the new tools mentioned above appears to hold the greatest potential for improving learning within the population you teach. Expand upon your choice.
3. Looking beyond your own situation, what will the new technologies mean for the digital divide or the generation divide?
4. What is your perspective on multi-tasking and learning?
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
A Decade of Online Learning Technologies
Welcome to Dr. Trudy Abramson's class blog for DCTE 760, winter 2008. I have been monitoring the evolution of Web 2.0 technologies - blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, and to a lesser extent, podcasting - waiting for a respectable foundation of scholarly literature to be published appropriate to higher education teaching and learning. Whereas much has appeared, it is largely how-to, anecdotal, K-12 or training related. It remains for us, and others who are undertaking similar experiments and investigations of the new technologies in higher education, to bring Web 2.0 applications into the mainstream.
To initiate our foray into the read/write web, below is an editorial written about a decade ago for a now defunct journal, HyperNexus, the Journal of Hypermedia and Multimedia Studies, published by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) for HyperSig, a special interest group.
Abramson, T. (1998). The editor's pulpit: Adapting instruction to the medium. HyperNexus: Journal of Hypermedia and Multimedia Studies, 8(3), 2-3.
Adaptive Instruction Circa 1998
The word "adaptive" as an adjective describing instruction or assessment typically refers to a process that adapts to an individual learner. Recently, adaptive instruction has taken on a new meaning: Adapting presentation of instruction to available technology.
Today’s Internet has three menu offerings: plain vanilla or all-text with hyperlinks, vanilla and chocolate or text with still images and hyperlinks, and best of all, any three flavors or text, still and moving images, sound and hyperlinks. Given freedom of choice and the assurance that all orders will be filled equally fast, most people would opt for full hypermedia/multimedia. However, sometimes the best of all possible worlds is simply not available. Computers that access the Internet at a speed lower than 56 kilobytes per second (kbs) or that are equipped with last year’s browsers, can do little more than present text at people-acceptable rate. The choice, then, is take what is available or do without. We advocate choosing to use Internet resources in the learning process.
Adapting learning to media is an instructional design (ID) issue whose solution is nowhere as cumbersome as it first appears to be. There are five steps to the ID process. First is analysis where a thorough needs assessment is conducted to determine the needs of the target audience. Second is design in which the subject matter expert provides the subject expertise to the designer who sculpts the lesson plan. Third is development where prototypes of the lesson take shape. Through these time-consuming, labor-intensive processes, tentative decisions are made regarding which media to use for product development. At the fourth step, implementation, the lesson is given a physical life of its own and becomes a product. The final ID step, evaluation, assesses the value of the product as an instructional vehicle.
Internet Technologies
Increasingly, education and training applications are being delivered across the Internet in order to reach as many learners as possible in as many different settings as possible. As defined above, the Internet is not a single technology so it then becomes necessary to ADAPT THE INSTRUCTION TO THE MEDIUM. In other words, the same content may be delivered using all text, text and graphics, and full multimedia. Will these option present equal learning opportunities? Of course, they do not. However, the alternatives are to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator or to exclude those who do not have state-of-the-art online systems. Supporters of adaptive instruction say, in effect, "Here is the instruction. Avail yourself of the most sophisticated version possible."
How much additional development time is required to develop the three options? Refer back to the ID description above. Only implementation must be done in three versions to accommodate different browsers and modem speeds. Given the choice between text only or no access at all, almost everyone would choose text only. Similarly, given the choice between fast-access text and watching images come across one line at a time or watching images build at some unfathomable fashion, most people would choose text only.
Educators have long ago agreed that the involvement of the greater number of senses and the use of more sophisticated media enrich the delivery and accommodate the largest number of learning styles. Until the day when we all have the best possible technology, let us adapt instruction to available media.
[End of editorial]
All responses/comments should be 200 words or fewer.
1. Write a brief history of how far we have come in a decade in terms of evolution of online learning technologies. Include URLs if appropriate.
2. Write a brief, state of the art description of the availability of online learning tools. Include URLs if appropriate.
3. Describe an online lesson that capitalizes upon implementation with today's media.
4. Comment on the applicability of the instructional design process described above to today's learning media.
5. What can we do with today's technologies that could not be done a decade ago?
To initiate our foray into the read/write web, below is an editorial written about a decade ago for a now defunct journal, HyperNexus, the Journal of Hypermedia and Multimedia Studies, published by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) for HyperSig, a special interest group.
Abramson, T. (1998). The editor's pulpit: Adapting instruction to the medium. HyperNexus: Journal of Hypermedia and Multimedia Studies, 8(3), 2-3.
Adaptive Instruction Circa 1998
The word "adaptive" as an adjective describing instruction or assessment typically refers to a process that adapts to an individual learner. Recently, adaptive instruction has taken on a new meaning: Adapting presentation of instruction to available technology.
Today’s Internet has three menu offerings: plain vanilla or all-text with hyperlinks, vanilla and chocolate or text with still images and hyperlinks, and best of all, any three flavors or text, still and moving images, sound and hyperlinks. Given freedom of choice and the assurance that all orders will be filled equally fast, most people would opt for full hypermedia/multimedia. However, sometimes the best of all possible worlds is simply not available. Computers that access the Internet at a speed lower than 56 kilobytes per second (kbs) or that are equipped with last year’s browsers, can do little more than present text at people-acceptable rate. The choice, then, is take what is available or do without. We advocate choosing to use Internet resources in the learning process.
Adapting learning to media is an instructional design (ID) issue whose solution is nowhere as cumbersome as it first appears to be. There are five steps to the ID process. First is analysis where a thorough needs assessment is conducted to determine the needs of the target audience. Second is design in which the subject matter expert provides the subject expertise to the designer who sculpts the lesson plan. Third is development where prototypes of the lesson take shape. Through these time-consuming, labor-intensive processes, tentative decisions are made regarding which media to use for product development. At the fourth step, implementation, the lesson is given a physical life of its own and becomes a product. The final ID step, evaluation, assesses the value of the product as an instructional vehicle.
Internet Technologies
Increasingly, education and training applications are being delivered across the Internet in order to reach as many learners as possible in as many different settings as possible. As defined above, the Internet is not a single technology so it then becomes necessary to ADAPT THE INSTRUCTION TO THE MEDIUM. In other words, the same content may be delivered using all text, text and graphics, and full multimedia. Will these option present equal learning opportunities? Of course, they do not. However, the alternatives are to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator or to exclude those who do not have state-of-the-art online systems. Supporters of adaptive instruction say, in effect, "Here is the instruction. Avail yourself of the most sophisticated version possible."
How much additional development time is required to develop the three options? Refer back to the ID description above. Only implementation must be done in three versions to accommodate different browsers and modem speeds. Given the choice between text only or no access at all, almost everyone would choose text only. Similarly, given the choice between fast-access text and watching images come across one line at a time or watching images build at some unfathomable fashion, most people would choose text only.
Educators have long ago agreed that the involvement of the greater number of senses and the use of more sophisticated media enrich the delivery and accommodate the largest number of learning styles. Until the day when we all have the best possible technology, let us adapt instruction to available media.
[End of editorial]
All responses/comments should be 200 words or fewer.
1. Write a brief history of how far we have come in a decade in terms of evolution of online learning technologies. Include URLs if appropriate.
2. Write a brief, state of the art description of the availability of online learning tools. Include URLs if appropriate.
3. Describe an online lesson that capitalizes upon implementation with today's media.
4. Comment on the applicability of the instructional design process described above to today's learning media.
5. What can we do with today's technologies that could not be done a decade ago?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
