Title: The New Gold Rush, Establishing Effective Online Strategies Author: Ferdi Serim
Learning & Leading with Technology, September 2007
This article discusses the current concerns surrounding the ever growing online learning industry. On the one hand the author remind us of online learning’s potential to deliver on the age-old promise of student centered education and in the case of online learning, student paced also. On the other hand, he warns of the glut of profiteers lying in wait hoping to clean-up, financially, in the push to attain the goal of student centered learning through this medium. With this in mind he warns educators of the pitfalls that can present in online learning. He shares a rubric which can be used to evaluate and categorize methods in an effort to predict a successful implementation.
The article is brief in its treatment of the subject but he does have some useful examples. The most valuable section of the article is the rubric. The fear the author brings to the text is intuitive and because of that it rings true. In his forewarning, he states the obvious but the often unspoken; how quick and cheap can we educate our students? He clearly communicates to us that online learning, as wonderful as it is, is no panacea for all the woes in education. He reiterates that it is a miraculous tool but not as an unrestrained application in a capitalist society.
Question #1
In an online course, is the teacher a teacher, or a facilitator? The article alludes to a potential for teachers to get lost in the maze of online education. After all, online learning is self-teaching. So if online courses are successful the student is engaging in self-taught education and the teacher therefore takes-on the role of facilitator. This is further shown by the goal and intent of online education. It is to provide a medium for students to teach themselves. Therefore, if the teacher were to interact as teacher, it logically follows that the online format was a failure. Therefore, in an online education format the teacher must be a facilitator.
Question #2
Does online learning really decrease the cost of education delivery to the student? I say no. After reading this article, it appears that a room full of students with one teacher and a teacher’s aide is too costly for our society. This model is costly in monetary terms and in the failure to achieve the expected results. Because of this we embark on more cost effective avenues such as online learning models. But what is the overall cost of going this course? The facility, the hardware, the software, the power, the endless software updates and revisions, the limitless supply of yearly security updates, the repairs, the viruses, the replacements, the technical experts, etc… However, looking at the cost of a decision without balancing it against the value it can bring is shortsighted. Therefore, I will keep an open mind but my inclination is still that it is not a cost effective approach to educating students.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Journal #4
Title: Serious Gaming: ‘Learn Math or Die Trying’. Author: Linda Briggs
T-H-E Journal, September 2007 issue
This article is a case study on the math software product Dimenxian that is being used as an algebra learning tool in an eight grade class. The author writes enthusiastically about the success her students have when using the learning software. She describes her teaching experience as being historically problematic with middle schoolers when they reach the point where algebra is taught. The software Dimenxian is heralded as an active game where algebraic concepts are taught and practiced in a competitive format. The students can play the game as an individual or they can compete against peers. The author males claim that the software product has sparked student enthusiasm for algebra and this has lead to their greater success.
This article attempts to illustrate a product that can be useful in teaching algebra in middle school. However, the illustration itself seems to be superficial to the extreme. Because of this the article takes on the theme of an advertisement. There is no data presented to convince the reader that the product has been measured against specific criteria and found to be a success. The claims of success are general and unsupported which cause the article to lose credibility as a reliable source. The whole approach rings too closely to that of advertisement. It is detailed in the history of the product and the awards it has won and even on the newest offering from the developer. Therefore, I felt it was more akin to a commercial.
Question #1
Do gaming software products belong in the classroom? I think they do. Although this article is scant of any details that would convince the reader that their claims of success are a result of including math gaming in the classroom, the premise seems logical. If there is a way to excite middle schoolers about algebra and software games such as Dimenxian can increase the math comfort zone then why not include them in the curriculum? Learning comes from many sources and learning from games is usually a fun activity. Therefore, I think they have a place in the classroom.
Question #2
What is the cost probability of getting math gaming in a classroom? This case study was from a high achieving school district in Georgia. The students had updated computer systems in a computerized math lab. The district also had been accredited as a leader in technology on the classroom. The cost of the necessary infrastructure for many other districts would probably be prohibitive. If a school or a district was already technologically advanced the chances of getting math gaming would be better than for that of schools in poorer districts and still technologically lagging. This makes the probability of having math gaming in a broad array of schools minimal.
T-H-E Journal, September 2007 issue
This article is a case study on the math software product Dimenxian that is being used as an algebra learning tool in an eight grade class. The author writes enthusiastically about the success her students have when using the learning software. She describes her teaching experience as being historically problematic with middle schoolers when they reach the point where algebra is taught. The software Dimenxian is heralded as an active game where algebraic concepts are taught and practiced in a competitive format. The students can play the game as an individual or they can compete against peers. The author males claim that the software product has sparked student enthusiasm for algebra and this has lead to their greater success.
This article attempts to illustrate a product that can be useful in teaching algebra in middle school. However, the illustration itself seems to be superficial to the extreme. Because of this the article takes on the theme of an advertisement. There is no data presented to convince the reader that the product has been measured against specific criteria and found to be a success. The claims of success are general and unsupported which cause the article to lose credibility as a reliable source. The whole approach rings too closely to that of advertisement. It is detailed in the history of the product and the awards it has won and even on the newest offering from the developer. Therefore, I felt it was more akin to a commercial.
Question #1
Do gaming software products belong in the classroom? I think they do. Although this article is scant of any details that would convince the reader that their claims of success are a result of including math gaming in the classroom, the premise seems logical. If there is a way to excite middle schoolers about algebra and software games such as Dimenxian can increase the math comfort zone then why not include them in the curriculum? Learning comes from many sources and learning from games is usually a fun activity. Therefore, I think they have a place in the classroom.
Question #2
What is the cost probability of getting math gaming in a classroom? This case study was from a high achieving school district in Georgia. The students had updated computer systems in a computerized math lab. The district also had been accredited as a leader in technology on the classroom. The cost of the necessary infrastructure for many other districts would probably be prohibitive. If a school or a district was already technologically advanced the chances of getting math gaming would be better than for that of schools in poorer districts and still technologically lagging. This makes the probability of having math gaming in a broad array of schools minimal.
Journal #3
Title: A War of Words. Author: Jim Patterson.
T-H-E Journal, Sept 2007.
This article is an examination of the increased problem of student plagiarism since the advent of easy access to the Internet as an infinite source of text. The author cleanly describes the existence of a current riff between teachers and software developers.
Teachers seem to be opposed to software tools that are designed to simply scan a student work for similarities to other work in a large data base. This technique, they claim, is ineffective because it does nothing to prevent plagiarism; it only polices plagiarism after the fact. If a student work failed to pass software detection muster the student is presumed to have plagiarized. Students and teachers alike claim this approach is less than optimal because at the very least it is not a constructive aid to discouraging plagiarism. They also hint that it may be a violation of a student’s civil rights and/or intellectual property rights to assume guilt based on a determination by the detection software.
Software developers defend the use of anti plagiarism software by stating that its sole purpose is not as a policing tool. They claim it is best utilized when teachers warn students that their work will be subject to anti plagiarism software scrutiny once submitted. The developers liken this approach to that of an umpire on a field or a proctor overseeing a test. These are not utilized because everyone would cheat but to deter potential cheating.
The article also examines the teaching trend to adopt a more proactive, constructive approach to the problem. Here, the article first describes the use of a alternative type of software design that emphasizes preventing plagiarism before it takes root. These products are geared to teach students the proper way to research, take notes, paraphrase, and site sources while developing a research strategy. Also described is a more basic approach utilizing role-playing to illustrate the effects of plagiarism in hopes of deterence.
The author does a very good job showing all sides of the problem without bias or conclusion towards any one solution. He instructs on the current issues and leaves the question of the solution to each to ponder. He also clearly reminds us that we will have to find some method of our own to address this problem.
Question #1 Will I use plagiarism detection software? No I would not. This article persuaded me that it is ineffective. By the time a student has resorted to plagiarism, it is too late. A teacher’s better effort is to help students learn that plagiarism is unecessary. Good work habits and clear instructions will help keep students from straying.
Question #2 Is it fair to students to assume plagiarism based on software determination? No. It seems too destructive a method. It could easily result in accusing an innocent student. Granted the software can detect the similarity of the student’s text to that of thousands of others in a data base but what level of proof is that. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, preponderance or what? Since its one piece of non scientific evidence it seems its level of proof would be of the lowest order. We’re not talking about DNA here. The randomness of how students write on a similar topic is unknown and therefore there is nothing to compare the software’s findings to. So why assume guilt?
T-H-E Journal, Sept 2007.
This article is an examination of the increased problem of student plagiarism since the advent of easy access to the Internet as an infinite source of text. The author cleanly describes the existence of a current riff between teachers and software developers.
Teachers seem to be opposed to software tools that are designed to simply scan a student work for similarities to other work in a large data base. This technique, they claim, is ineffective because it does nothing to prevent plagiarism; it only polices plagiarism after the fact. If a student work failed to pass software detection muster the student is presumed to have plagiarized. Students and teachers alike claim this approach is less than optimal because at the very least it is not a constructive aid to discouraging plagiarism. They also hint that it may be a violation of a student’s civil rights and/or intellectual property rights to assume guilt based on a determination by the detection software.
Software developers defend the use of anti plagiarism software by stating that its sole purpose is not as a policing tool. They claim it is best utilized when teachers warn students that their work will be subject to anti plagiarism software scrutiny once submitted. The developers liken this approach to that of an umpire on a field or a proctor overseeing a test. These are not utilized because everyone would cheat but to deter potential cheating.
The article also examines the teaching trend to adopt a more proactive, constructive approach to the problem. Here, the article first describes the use of a alternative type of software design that emphasizes preventing plagiarism before it takes root. These products are geared to teach students the proper way to research, take notes, paraphrase, and site sources while developing a research strategy. Also described is a more basic approach utilizing role-playing to illustrate the effects of plagiarism in hopes of deterence.
The author does a very good job showing all sides of the problem without bias or conclusion towards any one solution. He instructs on the current issues and leaves the question of the solution to each to ponder. He also clearly reminds us that we will have to find some method of our own to address this problem.
Question #1 Will I use plagiarism detection software? No I would not. This article persuaded me that it is ineffective. By the time a student has resorted to plagiarism, it is too late. A teacher’s better effort is to help students learn that plagiarism is unecessary. Good work habits and clear instructions will help keep students from straying.
Question #2 Is it fair to students to assume plagiarism based on software determination? No. It seems too destructive a method. It could easily result in accusing an innocent student. Granted the software can detect the similarity of the student’s text to that of thousands of others in a data base but what level of proof is that. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, preponderance or what? Since its one piece of non scientific evidence it seems its level of proof would be of the lowest order. We’re not talking about DNA here. The randomness of how students write on a similar topic is unknown and therefore there is nothing to compare the software’s findings to. So why assume guilt?
Journal #2
Title: “Turning Lurkers into Learners”, Authors: Jason Kelly and Karen Greenhaus
Published in Learning & Leading with Technology: August, 2007
In this article the authors discuss key elements necessary for student learning in online learning environments. For various reasons they forewarn that when teachers adopt these learning formats there is a potential for some students to ‘lurk’ in the shadows of the discussion medium. This can cause the student to participate less than desired and compromise the learning process. After all, not all learners will thrive in an online discussion format. Therefore, they suggest a method to address this potential to minimize its potential.
The first method is for the teacher to develop a ‘hook’ at the start of the on-line discussion. A hook is a conversation starter that is designed to facilitate the student’s comfort in joining in the discussion. The authors state a hook is essential when first introducing online discussion in order to ‘spark’ the student’s interest and to make responding easy to accomplish without much initial knowledge.
Next, after hooking the students the authors suggest a method to sustain the student’s interest and participation. They call this ‘reeling them in.’ In describing the necessity for this method the authors forewarn of the potential for student’s interest to wane as the school term progresses. To sustain interest and keep the students ‘reeled in’ the authors suggest adopting a sampling of methods such as role-playing exercises, and/or debate style forums. These, they proclaim, will foster continued student interest and associated learning.
Also mentioned is the associated requirement of the National Education Technology Standards, (NETS) for students and how this medium helps meet the standard. The authors casually remind the reader that these online discussion tools can serve as a mechanism for incorporating technology in the learning environment. This helps remind the teacher and the reader why these formats are necessary and how they function to meet the standard.
Analysis of the article seems to focus on the author’s methods as a way to ensure that students are participating in online discussions in a way that fosters learning. They warn of the potential for students to ‘lurk’ in these environments and suggest techniques for teachers to adopt to forestall this potential. Their message is clear and easily put in very simple terms. Whether teachers will view these methods as helpful or not remains questionable. However, the author’s are clear that there is a technology standard that must be met. They correlate their methods with the standards and offer specific examples.
Question #1
Would I use online discussion sites in my classroom? I think it would be difficult to maintain student interest throughout the semester but I think I would try it. I think it is a nice way of blending student’s computer time with class time. Also, if students want to discuss and chat online they may as well do it in an environment where the teacher can participate. Also, in lower grades this can be used as an indoctrination tool to help students foster safe and solid electronic writing skills.
Question #2
Who teaches the students how to use the software in online discussion groups? I realized when reading this article that in order to have online discussion groups someone has to teach students how to use the software. My suspicion is this job falls to the teacher. It seems a bit unfair that the teacher has to not only incorporate technology in the classroom by creating a spectacular online lesson plan but then must also field all the problems associated with teaching use of all the types of software necessary to accomplish this to the 30 or so students in the class. I can’t see how this type of teaching format can be successful without the teacher being proficient in the use of the software and teaching it to the students but it seems like a heavy burden for the teacher.
Published in Learning & Leading with Technology: August, 2007
In this article the authors discuss key elements necessary for student learning in online learning environments. For various reasons they forewarn that when teachers adopt these learning formats there is a potential for some students to ‘lurk’ in the shadows of the discussion medium. This can cause the student to participate less than desired and compromise the learning process. After all, not all learners will thrive in an online discussion format. Therefore, they suggest a method to address this potential to minimize its potential.
The first method is for the teacher to develop a ‘hook’ at the start of the on-line discussion. A hook is a conversation starter that is designed to facilitate the student’s comfort in joining in the discussion. The authors state a hook is essential when first introducing online discussion in order to ‘spark’ the student’s interest and to make responding easy to accomplish without much initial knowledge.
Next, after hooking the students the authors suggest a method to sustain the student’s interest and participation. They call this ‘reeling them in.’ In describing the necessity for this method the authors forewarn of the potential for student’s interest to wane as the school term progresses. To sustain interest and keep the students ‘reeled in’ the authors suggest adopting a sampling of methods such as role-playing exercises, and/or debate style forums. These, they proclaim, will foster continued student interest and associated learning.
Also mentioned is the associated requirement of the National Education Technology Standards, (NETS) for students and how this medium helps meet the standard. The authors casually remind the reader that these online discussion tools can serve as a mechanism for incorporating technology in the learning environment. This helps remind the teacher and the reader why these formats are necessary and how they function to meet the standard.
Analysis of the article seems to focus on the author’s methods as a way to ensure that students are participating in online discussions in a way that fosters learning. They warn of the potential for students to ‘lurk’ in these environments and suggest techniques for teachers to adopt to forestall this potential. Their message is clear and easily put in very simple terms. Whether teachers will view these methods as helpful or not remains questionable. However, the author’s are clear that there is a technology standard that must be met. They correlate their methods with the standards and offer specific examples.
Question #1
Would I use online discussion sites in my classroom? I think it would be difficult to maintain student interest throughout the semester but I think I would try it. I think it is a nice way of blending student’s computer time with class time. Also, if students want to discuss and chat online they may as well do it in an environment where the teacher can participate. Also, in lower grades this can be used as an indoctrination tool to help students foster safe and solid electronic writing skills.
Question #2
Who teaches the students how to use the software in online discussion groups? I realized when reading this article that in order to have online discussion groups someone has to teach students how to use the software. My suspicion is this job falls to the teacher. It seems a bit unfair that the teacher has to not only incorporate technology in the classroom by creating a spectacular online lesson plan but then must also field all the problems associated with teaching use of all the types of software necessary to accomplish this to the 30 or so students in the class. I can’t see how this type of teaching format can be successful without the teacher being proficient in the use of the software and teaching it to the students but it seems like a heavy burden for the teacher.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)