Multimedia Presentation

M. Neal

EDUC 7102

Multimedia Presentation

References:

Brady, K, Holcomb, L, Smith, B (2010) The Use of Alternative Social Networking Sites in Higher Educational Settings: A Case Study of the E-Learning Benefits of Ning in Education Journal of Interactive Online Learning 9(2), 151-170

This study evaluated the effectiveness of social networking sites (SNSs) in distance education, specifically Ning.  The study found that the use of SNS greatly increased student interaction, and is indeed a valuable tool to use in distance education.  Select faculty members were invited to participate in this study with their graduate Education students.  At the end of the semester students were surveyed on the effectiveness of Ning in their course.  Survey questions used both a Likert Scale and open ended format.  The study may have been more conclusive if there had been a larger student sample used.

Brown, A., Joyce, K. (2009) Enhancing Social Presence in Online Learning: Mediation Strategies Applied to Social Networking Tools Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(4) Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter124/joyce124.html

This paper identifies the difficulties that online learners currently face, and explores how the use of social networking tools can increase teacher and learner social presence, and in turn become a form of mediation for students that will help them to increase their online interactivity.  It ends with the conclusion that most learners already have established some type of online presence, and online instructors should capitalize on this and incorporate it into the fabric of their course.

Cho, H., Davidson, B., Gay, G., Ingraffea, F., Lee, J. (2003). Technology Acceptance and Social Networking in Distance Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 50-61

This study used the Technology Acceptance Model and a Social Network Analysis to gauge students acceptance of social networking as a tool, and to measure the affects that interaction via a social network had on the students.  It was found that students were affected by their interactions with each other, and their acceptance of the social media increased as student interaction increased.

Dalsgaard, C., & Paulsen, M. F. (2009). Transparency in Cooperative Online Education. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 10 (3)

This paper argues that transparency is the most important requirement needed for students to work cooperatively, and that this transparency leads students to view each other as partners and resources that they can rely on throughout the coursework.

Hoffman, E (2009) Evaluating social networking tools for distance learning.  TCC 2009   Proceedings, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

This paper evaluates the effectiveness of social networking tools as they relate to distance learning, and comes to the conclusion that social networking increased student interaction, helped instructors to employ collaborative pedagogical techniques, and aids in the creation of a community knowledge base.

Stacey, E. (2002) Social presence online: networking learners at a distance, Education and information technologies 7(4), 287-294.

This paper analyzes two studies that explore the use of small groups in online classes.  The paper concludes that using social networking tools in order to work collaboratively online is a highly effective pedagogical strategy, and emphasizes that though students are performing collaboratively, the role of the teacher in helping students establish a social presence and facilitating the interactivity in the course.

After eight years of teaching, I find that I am still on the static side of the technologies listed on my concept map.  And unfortunately, I feel like I’m on the far end of the static side, nowhere close to the middle.  Each year, or even each month, I find myself enthralled by some new technology that can enhance and streamline my teaching practice.  I always employ these new techniques, and then they peter out. I don’t think that this necessarily happens because of my lack of dedication; I think it’s more about the demographic of students that I work with.    No matter what state or school district that I teach in, I always have taught urban students.  They are my passion, because they are the students who I feel need the most help.  I see the highest need for dedicated educators in lower socioeconomic areas, and I am dedicated to sticking to that population and helping to close the achievement gap.  However, many of the technologies that I would use to move me from the static to dynamic side are just not available to my students.  With one computer lab of 25 computers to share in a school of 400, I rarely get an opportunity to expose my students to these technologies in class, and only 12% of my students have computers at home, and only 60% of those students have Internet access.  In this situation it is hard to move to the other side of the scale, but what I do is to showcase these tools in class so that when my students go to college, they won’t be completely foreign to them. I am open to any suggestions on how we can move urban students from static to dynamic, so that they will be more equipped to work with the technology that they will be expected to know in the post-secondary setting.

The blogs in my learning community that I enjoyed reading were Karen’s, and Mikes.  Karen had an awesome concept map that was just a complete pleasure to read.  She reminds me how visually appealing things can heighten student understanding and engagement.  And I enjoyed reading that after so many years Mike is still a reflective and progressive educator, and has not fallen into the complacent rut that so many veteran educators happily find themselves in.

References
Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools. [Unpublished Paper]. Retrieved from: http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/courses/14936/CRS-WUEDUC8812-3730064/8842_M5_Paper.pdf

 

M. Neal

Module 5 Blog Posting

Blogs Posted To: Karen Connell, Mike Smart

Strategies for Engaging Online Learners

M. Neal
Module 4
EDUC 7102

Common technological tools that can be used in order to involve learners in building content knowledge, engaging in communication with peers and instructors, and working on authentic tasks in the online environment include Web 2.0 powered tools used in conjunction with the power of the Internet. This means that students will use Web 2.0 technologies such as social networking, Skype, Wikis, and discussion boards in order to collaborate with one another as they use the Internet to access the information that they need to fuel their collaborative discussion for the course. This information may come straight from the online classroom, but may also have a myriad of other sources such as iTunes U, online research databases such as ERIC, and other professional’s blogs on the subject that they are studying.

Web 2.0 tools work well in an online learning environment, because they naturally lend themselves to the nature of online coursework, while allowing learners to work collaboratively, and have interactions with their peers, and the instructors as they would in a physical classroom. This social presence is essential to online learners in creating a learning community. According to Anderson, (2010) “The absence of social presence leads to student’s inability to express disagreements, share viewpoints, explore differences, and accept support and confirmation from peers and teachers.”

The Internet provides a wide variety of content in several different formats. This is key for learners because this provides them with almost instant content remediation. Something that they may not understand in print is very possibly available via the Internet in an audio, visual, or combined version that will provide them with the level of understanding that they need for that content area.

References:
Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-193. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Siemens, G. (2007, September). Podcast. Curatorial Teaching. Retrieved from http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/10-minute-lecture-george-siemens-curatorial-teaching/

Blogs Posted To:
1. Milton Francis
2. Karen Connell

Collaborative Efforts!

Ms. M. Neal
EDUC – 7102
Walden University

Participation in a collaborative learning community should be assessed based on a predetermined rubric that specifies parameters for content and participation. Although students come with varying levels of skill and knowledge, students should all be expected to perform at the collegiate level. There should be a basic set of base competencies that all students should perform by and students should be assessed based upon this performance level. By creating the same basic expectations for each student, assessment in this sense becomes fair and equitable vs. another form of grading such as using a curve.

If a student does not want to network or collaborate in a learning community for an online course, the others members of the learning community should try to prompt the student to cooperate, or perhaps send a friendly reminder of prescribed due dates, however, it should not be up to their student to mediate the course, that it still the instructor’s job. The instructor is the one who should ultimately make a formal communication with the student reminding them of their responsibilities to the group, and also reminding them of how their lack of performance is not only hurting the group, but is affecting their academic grade. Sometimes students may not be concerned with the dynamics of the group, but they will be concerned with their own individual academic progress, hence the aforementioned rubrics and grading scale. The instructor’s assessment plan should encourage group activities, but should grade students individually. Each student’s grade is contingent upon how much they provide input to and help the group, but the group’s grade should not be contingent upon one individual student.

Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of collaborative learning. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc., Baltimore.

Siemens, G. (2008). Learning communities. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc., Baltimore.

Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning environments. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from

Click to access interactions.pdf

Storyboard for Multimedia Presentation

M. Neal
Storyboard (draft)

Communication Innovations in Distance Education

M. Neal
Module 2 Blog Post

George Seimens (2010) discussed the reasons for an increase in the acceptance of Distance Education (DE). One of the main reasons that he mentioned was the fact that people have the ability to communicate with diverse and global groups in order to enhance the online experience from both the teacher and the student perspective.

Communication has indeed evolved from it’s status quo ten years ago, when it had just become the norm for most people to have cellular phones. Ten years later, even elementary school children have access to cell phones, and DE learners have access to more communication than ever before. Not only can they communicate via the “traditional” DE route by using email, class cafes, and discussion forums. They can also use social networking formats such as Twitter, Facebook, Schoology, and EduBlogs to communicate with the people in their learning community, and expand their learning community beyond the scope of the DE classroom. DE student can also tap into global resources such as iTunes U, where anyone can go to get a customized lesson from a myriad of professors and educators on several subjects, just by entering information into the search bar. This technology connects learners and educators across campuses and countries.

Dave Hopkins presents the following question in his blog http://www.dontwasteyourtime.co.uk “If the invention of the telephone led us to the Internet and video conferencing, where could the Internet possibly lead us?” This question has unlimited answers and presents the possibility of more communication innovations that can be used in DE.

Steve Wheeler http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com states in his blog, and in his Web 3.0 and Onwards presentation that “Multimedia brought the world into the classroom, Smart Technologies will take the classroom into the world.” This statement is true, especially in the use of Smart Technologies as they pertain to communication and the possibilities of communication in a digitally connected environment.

Though there are several forms of communication that DE learners currently use, as referenced in the aforementioned paragraphs, this technology has a long way to go, and the possibilities for learners to connect to one another are endless.

Hopkins, Dave (2010) Distance Learning / Distance Education retrieved from: http://www.dontwasteyourtime.co.uk/elearning/distance-learning-distance-education

Siemens, G. (n.d.). The Future of Distance Education [vodcast]. Laureate Education. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4692780&Survey=1&47=6562140&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Wheeler, Steve (2010) http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com

Blogs Posted To:
1. Karen Connell
2. Charity Moran

Best Practices in Distance Education?

As distance education becomes more and more prevalent, it also becomes the subject of much research, scrutiny, public opinion, and misinformation.  There have been a myriad of arguments about the effectiveness of distance education, and how or if it should be offered to students.  What is the most effective way to offer distance education?  What is true distance education?  Can a distance education program ever truly provide a viable substitute for traditional schooling?  In this modern age, will employing the use of distance education lead to revolutionary learning experiences for students, and enable them to have access to content that they would not regularly have access to?  All of these questions and more surround the distance education field.  Because the field is relatively new, best practices are yet to be defined, and the ultimate distance education model is yet to be defined.  What is true, is that the subject is definitely up for debate.

Simonson (2000) argues that distance education should be distinctly different from the classroom experience, but should offer experiences that are equivalent to what traditional students receive.  Equivalent does not mean that the instruction is necessarily the same, but it does mean that the instruction that is given leads to the same learning outcomes that students gain in a traditional classroom.

Moller, Huet, Foshay and Coleman (2008) argue that the distance education status quo needs to be revamped to incorporate best practices in order to enhance learner experiences and maximize student success.  They argue that at times, instructional quality is sacrificed for the use of technology.  They argue that there must be a cohesive “marriage” between instructional best practices, and the delivery of instruction through technology.  Only with the combination of these two factors, will distance education be truly successful and recognizable as a viable form of education.

I agree with both of the aforementioned viewpoints.  Distance education cannot and should not mimic the classroom experience because that is an ineffective approach at best.  If the sole purpose of distance education was to mimic the classroom experience, it would never be a viable stand-alone educational system, but would only be a shoddy substitute for face to face instruction.  If the learning activities were different, but were still meaningful and led to the students reaching the desired learning outcomes, it would become a viable alternative to face to face instruction.  While differentiated learning activities are one large part of the distance education equation, these learning activities must be rigorous, meaningful, and reflective of high quality instruction, so that the rigor of this type of instruction matches the rigor of classroom instruction.  The combination of the ideas of Moller, et al and Simonson should be combined in order to develop a highly powerful model of distance education that can be used for years to come.

Simonson, M. (2000). Making decisions: The use of electronic technology in online classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 29–34.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 1: Training and Development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70–75

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, July/August). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 2: Higher Education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66–70

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5), 63–67

Welcome!

Welcome group members to my 7102 blog!  Please excuse the delay in my 1st post – I was having connectivity issues yesterday, but my post will be up by COB today.  I look forward to working with you all in this Winter Quarter.  I hope that we have productive exchanges that enhance our learning, and our potential to help our students.  Be back soon!