Friday, December 12, 2008

Communication

How often do you communicate with your students? Do you communicate differently with different students? Is your communication style different for face-to-face instruction and online instruction and blended instruction? Here are some general tips, for use in instruction. I believe these ideas could work regardless of the instructional context.
  • Communicate with your students often!
  • Send out a weekly reminder of what is expected, due dates and other relevant course information. This reminder may also serve as an organizer and planner for the student (and instructor) for the class academic requirements, readings, assignments for the week.
  • When you receive an assignment email the student and let them know it has been received. This may reduce some anxiety on the part of the student. It will also provide you with a list of who has NOT submitted their assignment.
  • Clearly communicate your policies on turn around ... for instance, emails will be responded to within 24 hours, unless it is the weekend or holiday, in which case emails will be responded to by the next school day.

A "good" course is ...

After being asked the question, "What is a good course?" and thinking about the characteristics of a good course, here are some:
  • Good courses are organized. Students know what they are doing, what they need to read, and what they are expected to know.
  • Good courses offer students opportunities to do something with their newly acquired knowledge: contribute to a discussion, write a paper.
  • Good course provide students with opportunities to grow and learn, through feedback and through challenging assignments.
  • Good courses promote and encourage discussion, between students and with faculty. Students want to ask questions, and have questions answered. Questions are used to probe for knowledge and understanding.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Visual Change Note

I received and have noticed several instances where content was blocking the right hand navigation. I have changed the template to accommodate the width of some of the content.

NOTE: If the window is viewed FULL SCREEN, everything APPEARS to be visible. If you resize the window, some elements in the right hand navigation may be obscured.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Technology for Teaching and Learning - Wiki

OK, so I'm seeing how a wiki can be used for promoting effective teaching, quality instruction and professional development. This wiki is a Google Site that will focus on new(er) media in teaching and learning. Google Sites (url http://www.google.com/sites/overview.html) is a wiki space.

Technology for Teaching and Learning

(The URL just incase is http://sites.google.com/site/techteachlearn/)

Monday, October 27, 2008

Reflections from the League for Innovation, CIT 2008 in Salt Lake City, Utah

Technology has many more potential uses for improving student success, integrating classes together, enhancing academic challenge and developing lifelong learning skills. Too often technology is merely viewed as an instructional aid than a pedagogical alternative. It is easier to view technology as a device to help the instructor present curricular materials or to limit the use of technology to a specific time and place, such as a classroom, than to begin to view the unlimited uses of technology.

Technology has potential uses for enhancing collaboration, developing learning or social networks, promoting connections or networks to the boundless array of instructional resources. It is the newer uses of technology that provide then greatest potential to ensure future as well as present success for students.

Collaborative technologies do not merely provide venues for students to work together, they provide instructors the opportunities to teach from a project-based or problem-based perspective. Curricular work that would normally be completed in a classroom can now be extended beyond the walls of the classroom.
  • Collaborative technologies, such as Google Groups, Google Documents, Google Notebooks and Google Sites, allow students to develop and explore team dynamics.
  • The technologies allow students to learn both in and outside of the traditional class and begin to emulate work teams found in business and industry.
  • Creating a history of contributions, the technologies provide evidence for both instructor and student of the development of the project, individual contributions, and the group process.
  • As students collaborate, their perspective on both their abilities and the abilities of others should increase. They will begin to develop critical thinking skills, evaluating digital information for example.

Networking technologies are not only the “physical” network connections, wireless and wired, but are also the resources available for learning. To build a network, in the physical sense, involves wiring connections, and access points. In the virtual sense, networking technologies allow students to connect to resources on an as needed basis, identify and locate others with shared or similar interests. Networking is seen from the business and industry as a necessary element for success. Students likewise must begin to network to resources for learning success, both in and outside of the classroom.
  • Networking technologies, such as Google Reader, Google Books, Google Scholar and Google Groups, allow students to make the connections to others for support, assistance, and exposure or access to resources.
  • Networking technologies allow students to develop a sense of the structure of knowledge, and a sense of a community of experts as their personal networks become more and more extended.
  • As students continue to network, the opportunities for collaboration will increase.

Social technologies may provide the greatest opportunity for students to connect with other students, friends, acquaintances, faculty and others. These technologies may at first be dismissed as having little value or impact on student learning. However, these technologies provide the greatest opportunity to explore, develop and maintain many of the ad hoc communities so essential for student engagement.
  • Social technologies, such as Google Groups and Google Chat, allow students to develop social groups, or communities centered around a variety of interests. It is the development of these social groups that promote continued engagement for students.
  • Social technologies will allow students to belong to a community, a virtual neighborhood, and provide them with a venue for interaction.
  • As students grow in their social communities, the opportunities for networking increase as well as the opportunities for collaboration.

The specific uses of technology, whether social, collaborative, or network, should not be viewed as discrete uses. The technologies may blur depending on instructor use, student use or instructor and student use. It is not the technology alone that impacts learning, but the use and application of technology.

The uses of technology should focus, whether directly or indirectly, on improving or enhancing the quality of the instructional experience. We do not use technology ‘just because’ it is available, we should use technology to improve the quality of instruction, to enhance student success, to foster greater academic challenge and to prepare students for the workforce. Technology is fast becoming an expectation of students, whether in the classroom or the institution.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Collaborative Technologies

To increase student collaboration, it is important to describe the four main focuses of collaboration. First, collaboration will focus on the group or team. Second, collaboration allows individuals to develop and explore skills and knowledge. Third, time on task is heightened in collaboration. Finally, high expectations are an integral part of collaboration.

Collaborations allow students to benefit from their contributions. Not only are the collaborators able to grow individually, but they also grow from the contributions of others. This is a social event, where the contributions add to the greater social knowledge.

It is important to remember that collaboration, when used as a teaching strategy, will give the participants opportunities to craft and define group roles, group expectations, and negotiate group conflict resolution processes. Group members will have the opportunity to develop project rubrics.

Some examples of software that promotes collaboration include Google Documents, Google Groups, Google Sites and Google Notebooks.



Learning Technologies and Web 2.0

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Thoughts on technology, teaching and learning

It is important to remember that the newer technologies are and should be used to improve teaching and learning, not to replace the teacher or teachers. It is important to remember that technology is only a tool. We are expected to use technology. Students want and demand that we use technology. Their expectations are the ones that guide us, or should guide us. Often we are expected to adapt to the technology, rather than adopt technology that will help us teach better, or learn more efficiently.

It is even more important to think of why we use technology in the classroom. First, I believe that we should use technology not only in the physical context of the classroom, but also in the extended classroom. To only use technology in the classroom may limit and exclude the potential for learning, and we want students to learn for their lifetime.

If students are more apt to try things out and explore new and emerging technologies, is it equally probably that faculty will try and explore things … if they have the support to try and fail.

These new technologies are becoming more and more commonplace … for the students. It’s easier to imagine that students know HOW to use the technology. But, how do students USE the technologies? Do we need to RETEACH them how to use the technology to learn? It’s often easier to assume and presume that the students need to learn OUR way than for us to learn other ways to use technology. So, what are we to do?

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Role of Technology in Teaching and Learning

Role Of Technology In Teaching And Learning
(NOTE: You may want to click the FULL SCREEN link for optimal viewing)

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: web2 technology)

CIT S-152 Frontline Faculty Development Technology Tools: Reading List

CIT S-152 Frontline Faculty Development Technology Tools

Presentation Type: Forum Session

Session Stream: Emerging and Future Educational Technology - Each year, Track One focuses on emerging technology believed to be of particular interest to educators. For the 2008 CIT, the special focus of Track One is Web 2.0 and Its Implication for Community Colleges. The constellation of web applications referred to as Web 2.0 (e.g. semantic web, collaborative document sharing, social bookmarking, blogs, podcasts, RSS, aggregators, wikis, social tagging, personal portals, and virtual communities) influences the way many of our students live and work. However, the use of these technologies also creates new challenges and raises many questions about their impact on student learning and institutional management. Do these tools provide more meaningful experiences and better educational outcomes than traditional methods? Have faculty and staff found these technologies useful for collaborating with colleagues? Does Web 2.0 create new security vulnerabilities or require new safeguards? Proposals targeted toward these or other questions related to Web 2.0 are strongly encouraged. Although Web 2.0 and Its Implication for Community Colleges is the special focus of the 2008 CIT, other proposal topics are also strongly encouraged.

Presentation Title: Frontline Faculty Development Technology Tools

Presentation Description: What impact do Web 2.0 technologies have on faculty development? From the perspective of the Center for Teaching and Learning, the uses of blogs, wikis, podcasts and social bookmarking has the potential to radically transform the landscape of professional development. Harnessing these technologies may be one challenge. Those involved in teaching and learning and faculty development will leave with real-world examples of these technologies and see their uses in teaching, learning and faculty development.

Presentation Plan: This interactive presentation and discussion will encourage audience participation. Through a demonstration, participants will be introduced to the technologies. With presentation handouts, best practices will be presented and demonstrated.

REFERENCES:

Addison, C. (2006). Web 2.0: A new chapter in development in practice? Development in Practice 16(6), 623-627.

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE Review 41(2), 32-44.

Bates, A., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, D. (1999). Always in touch: A practical guide to ubiquitous computing. Winston-Salem, NC: Wake Forest University Press.

Brown, D., McCray, G., Runde, C., & Schweizer, H. (2002). Using technology in learner-centered instruction: Proven strategies for teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brown, D. (2003). Philosophy: Faculty as eager adopters. In D. Brown, (Ed.), Developing faculty to use technology: Programs and strategies to enhance teaching, 2-3. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, Company.

Chism, N. (2004). Using a framework to engage faculty in instructional technologies. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 27(2), 38-45.

Epper, R. (2001). The new economy meets the ivory tower. In R. Epper and A. Bates, (Eds.), Teaching faculty how to use technology: Best practices from leading institutions, pp. 1-18. Westport, CT: American Council on Education, Oryx Press.

Fullan, M. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development. In T. Guskey and M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices, pp. 253-267. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gentry, C. (1995). Educational technology: A question of meaning. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd Ed.), pp. 1-10. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Gerniger, J. (2003). Reflections on professional development: Toward high-quality teaching and learning. Phi Delta Kappan 84(5), 373-375.

Guskey, T. (1991). Enhancing the effectiveness of professional development programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 2(3), 239-247.

Guskey, T. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. Guskey and M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices, pp. 114-131. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hoadley, M., Engelking, J., & Bright, L. (1995). A model for technology infusion in higher education. In D. Willis (Ed.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1995: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, pp. 410-413. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.: ED381148).

Laughner, T. (2003). Program philosophy: Keeping sight of what’s important. In D. Brown, (Ed.), Developing faculty to use technology: Programs and strategies to enhance teaching, 6-8. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, Company.

Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Nantz, K., & Lundgren, T. (1998). Lecturing with technology. College Teaching 46(2), 53-56.

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

New Media Consortium. (2007). The horizon report: 2007 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report.pdf.

New Media Consortium. (2008). The horizon report: 2008 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf.

Oblinger, D. (1996). Creating a learning culture. In L. Johnson & S. Lobello (Eds.), The 21st century community college: Technology and the new learning paradigm (pp. 27-38). White Plains, NY: International Business Machines Corporation.

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-exers and millennials: Understanding the new students. EDUCAUSE Review 38(4), 36-47.

Schlosser, L., & Simonson, M. (2006). Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms. (2nd Ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Spence, C. (1996). Leading the technology agenda on campus. In L. Johnson & S. Lobello (Eds.), The 21st century community college: Technology and the new learning paradigm (pp. 19-26). White Plains, NY: International Business Machines Corporation.

Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. London, UK: Network Continium Education.

Wiske, M., Franz, K., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

CIT S-141 Technology, Teaching and Learning: From the Frontline: Reading List

CIT S-141 Technology, Teaching and Learning: From the Frontline

Presentation Type: Forum Session

Session Stream: Teaching and Learning - This track focuses on innovative technology applications for teaching and learning.

Presentation Title: Technology, Teaching and Learning: From the Frontline

Presentation Description: How does technology change the way we teach? The way students learn? Can technology really make a difference? These questions will be used to start our exploration of the research and best practices. If you are involved in teaching and learning, and are curious about integrating technology effectively, this session will equip you with sound strategies you can implement now.

Presentation Plan: This interactive discussion will encourage audience participation. Using a combination of a PowerPoint presentation, handouts, and multimedia participants will see the uses of technology demonstrated and be encouraged to ask questions focused on the classroom uses of technology.

REFERENCES:

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27(6), 12-25.

Bates, A., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Brown, D. (1999). Always in touch: A practical guide to ubiquitous computing. Winston-Salem, NC: Wake Forest University Press.

Brown, D. (2003). The ubiquitous computing movement. In D. Brown, (Ed.), Ubiquitous computing: The universal use of computers on college campuses, pp. 1-13 , Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.

Brown, D. (2005, Spring). Concluding comments: Laptop learning communities. In M. D. Svinicki & R. E. Rice (Series Eds.), & L. Nilson & B. Weaver (Vol. Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning: Number 101. Enhancing learning with laptops in the classroom (pp. 89-94). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research 53(4), 445-459.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin 39(7), 3-7.

Friedman, T. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Gentry, C. (1995). Educational technology: A question of meaning. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd Ed.), pp. 1-10. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, Back Bay Books.

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York, NY: Little Brown and Company, Back Bay Books.

Grasha, A., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching 48(1), 2-10.

Green, K. (1999). When wishes come true. Change, 31(2),10-15.

Hoadley, M., Engelking, J., & Bright, L. (1995). A model for technology infusion in higher education. In D. Willis (Ed.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1995: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, pp. 410-413. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.: ED381148).

Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research 61(2), 179-211.

Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Meyers, C., & Jones, T. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Nantz, K., & Lundgren, T. (1998). Lecturing with technology. College Teaching 46(2), 53-56.

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

New Media Consortium. (2004). The horizon report: 2004 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2004_Horizon_Report.pdf.

New Media Consortium. (2006). The horizon report: 2006 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2006_Horizon_Report.pdf.

New Media Consortium. (2008). The horizon report: 2008 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf.

O’Banion, T. (December/January 1995-1996). A learning college for the 21st century. Community College Journal 66(3), 18-23.

O'Banion, T. (1997). Creating more learning-centered community colleges. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College.

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-exers and millennials: Understanding the new students. EDUCAUSE Review 38(4), 36-47.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5), 1-6. Available online at http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. London, UK: Network Continium Education.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Critical thinking

Promoting critical thinking is the result of deliberate curriculum design. Critical thinking should be an integral part of instructional strategies. Students are presented with problems and must solve them, or arrive at a solution. They must discern accurate information and identify ways that the information provided will help them arrive at a solution. Students must “think logically … analyze and compare … question and evaluate” information presented within a course or unit or assignment (Carr, 1988, p. 69).

Critical thinking activities focus on the acquisition of skills that:

  • Encourage students to identify relevant information (Mahaffy, 2006), and learn how to “detect and avoid fallacious reasoning and … analyze deductive and inductive arguments” (Kurfiss, 1988, p. iii);
  • Encourage students to develop information literacy skills and technological literacy skills (Center for Critical Thinking, 1998);
  • Encourage students to research effectively and efficiently (Mahaffy, 2006) by supporting arguments or conclusions with research (Kurfiss, 1988) and
  • Encourage students to communicate effectively their conclusions (Mahaffy, 2006) by reading and writing (Kurfiss, 1988), speaking and listening (Center for Critical Thinking, 1998).

Critical thinking, as a curricular element, focuses on assignments, rather than content (Kurfiss, 1988). This is not a discipline specific pedagogical process, but an instructional methodology.

Carr. K. (1988). How can we teach critical thinking? Childhood Education, 65(2), 69-73.

Center for Critical Thinking. (1998). Critical thinking: Basic theory and instructional structures. Wye Mills, MD: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Kurfiss, J. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Mahaffy, M. (2006). Encouraging critical thinking in student library research. College Teaching, 54(4), 324-327.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Feedback

"Gives prompt feedback" (Chickering and Gamson, 1987, p. 3).

Providing feedback to students. Receiving feedback from students. Providing corrective feedback. What is the instructional purpose of feedback? Does feedback have more than one purpose? These questions and more often surface when talking about assignments. It's easy to envision feedback on assignments as a grade. We will grade things and return them to students. Is the grade considered feedback? Some students will want MORE than a grade. They will want to know HOW their work could be improved, WHAT was wrong (or incorrect), WHY a particular grade was assigned.

People, students, faculty and others, want to know how they are progressing. Are they "measuring up" to the standard? If they are meeting or exceeding the standard, they are TYPICALLY content with their performance. If, however, they are NOT meeting the standard or not doing as well as they believe/perceive they are, then feedback is critical. Detailed, comprehensive feedback.

The timing of feedback can also impact the effect of the feedback. Feedback provided "in situ" can be used to correct the performance as it occurs. 'Ex post facto' feedback, after the event, can provide an evaluation of past performance, and depending on the depth and breadth of the feedback, may prove useful for subsequent assessments.

Without feedback, assessments loose their power to shape learning. With feedback, the potential to improve learning, and teaching, is strengthened.

See Angelo and Cross (1993) for suggestions on assessment activities and feedback related to the activities.

Angelo, T.A. & Cross, P.K. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.” American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3-6.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Team-Based, Collaborative Learning

Is learning an individual effort? A group effort? A team effort? Or should learning be individualized or collaborative? We know that Chickering and Gamson (1987) stated that learning “is collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated” (p. 4). Are we, as educators, supportive of collaborative, social learning? The art, or practice, or vocation of learning, if it is truly representative of the “real” world, focuses on developing the group skills, the team-based approach to problem solving rather than the lone worker.

We do “feel” better when we have the opportunity to share our learning efforts with others. Imagine the perspectives that we can experience when we work (or learn) with others. “Learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort than a solo race” (Chickering and Gamson, 1987, p. 4).

The globalization mentioned by Friedman (2006) may be the reason that education needs to focus on collaborative learning. The world is changing, right before our eyes. People are working on a problem from multiple perspectives, various locations, and with different resources. This “team” is tasked with solving a problem. The team is assembled. Members with different skills, backgrounds, perspectives, and expectations are selected based on the task, or problem. The team then sets their rules … who does what, coordinates activities.

Isn’t this paradigm similar to a learning community? Isn’t this an example of collaboration? Of team-based learning?



Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin 39(7), 3-7.

Friedman, T. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Friday, August 01, 2008

More on learning communities

A learning community can be formed either formally, or informally. Formal learning communities may have a specific focus, direction, objectives and goals. There is some finite or discrete answer to a problem that the members seek. The members may find "the answer" or may only find "an answer" to their focus. Does this mean the community has failed? Have they grown to understand things from different or differing perspectives? Do they now approach things in a more reflective, circumspect manner? If these questions are asked and answered, and the answer is in the affirmative, then the community has grown as a COMMUNITY. They have achieved something ... they are a community of scholars, of learners.

Informal learning communities are more difficult, I believe, to understand (in comparison to formal learning communities). If a community can be made up of a small number of members, and they are brought about by common interests, shared vision, shared goals, shared teaching philosophies, then a community can be formed. Informal communities can focus on immediate, or perceived immediate, issues and concerns. These groups are short-term, normally, and the roles of members may shift, evolve, and reform as time goes on. Is an informal community less impactful than a formal community? If they can communicate, coordinate, and collaborate to help each other, then they have been succcessful

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

What is a learning organization?

I've been doing some reading on learning communities, learning organizations, and learning systems. So, if a learning community is FORMED, either directly or indirectly, how is the community governed? Are there unwritten rules? Are there acceptable methods of conduct? If the focus of the community is to LEARN, who decides if the learning is complete, or even correct?

If Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization is correct, then there are rules for the community, and the community has the ability to continue, evolve or dissolve ...

So, questions to think about:
1. Is there a difference between a community, organization, and system? If so, what is the SIGNIFICANT difference?
2. Is there an optimal size for the "GROUP" to be effective? Is this based on the focus, purpose, scope, or goals?
3. If ORGANIZATION implies implicit (or explicit structure) and a sense of formality, COMMUNITY impliess casual structure and a sense of belonging or identify ... can they both be thought of as SYSTEMS?

Monday, April 14, 2008

Effective Teaching and Quality Instruction Matrix

Selected Readings on Effective Teaching and Quality Instruction

  • American Association for Higher Education, American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning: A joint report. Retrieved February 1, 2005 from http://www.aahe.org/teaching/tsk_frce.htm.
  • Angelo, T. (1993). "A teacher's dozen: Fourteen general, research-based principles for improving higher learning in our classrooms." American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 45(8), 3-7, 13.
  • Barron, A. (1998). "Designing web-based training." British Journal of Educational Technology 29(4), 355-370.
  • Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate: A special report. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  • Caverly, D., & MacDonald, L. (2002, Spring). "Online learning communities." Journal of Developmental Education 25(3), 36-37. Retrieved February 24, 2004 from ProQuest database. (Accession No.: 115177189).
  • Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). "Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education." American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), p. 3-7.
  • Dwyer, F. (1999, December). "Distance education: An evolving instructional technology application." Educational Media International 36(4), 248-257.
  • Education Commission of the States. (1995). Making quality count in undergraduate education: A report for the ECS chairman's 'quality counts' agenda in higher education. Denver, CO: ECS Distribution Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED388208).
  • Gillespie, F. (Winter 1998). “Instructional design for the new technologies”. In R. Menges & M. Svinicki (Series Eds.), K. Gillespie (Vol. Ed.), The Impact of Technology on Faculty Development, Life, and Work (pp. 39-52). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Number 76, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Glassick, C., Huber, M., & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate: A special report. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
  • Grasha, A., & Yangarber–Hicks, N. (2000, Winter). “Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology”. College Teaching, 48(1), 2–10. Retrieved September 15, 2004 from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 50577656).
  • Grunert, J. (1997). The course syllabus: A learning–centered approach. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, Company, Incorporated.
  • Howell, D. (2001, Summer). “Elements of effective e–learning: Three design methods to minimize side effects of online courses”. College Teaching, 49(3), 87–90. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from Wilson Education Abstracts database. (Document ID: 82834518).
  • MacDonald, L., & Caverly, D. (2001, Fall). "Engendering online discussion." Journal of Developmental Education 25(1), 38-39. Retrieved February 24, 2004 from ProQuest database (Accession No.: 85406679).
  • McClenney, K. (2004). "Redefining quality in community colleges." Change, 36(6), 16-21. Retrieved October 6, 2006 from ProQuest database (Accession No.: 756263741).
  • McKeachie, W. (1994). “Peer learning, collaborative learning, cooperative learning”. In W. McKeachie (Ed.), Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. (9th Ed.), (pp. 143-151). Lexington, MA: DC Heath and Company.
  • Moore. M. (1989). "Editorial: Three types of interaction." The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  • Newlin, M. H., & Wang, A. Y. (November 2, 2002). “Integrating technology and pedagogy: web instruction and seven principles of undergraduate education”. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 325–330. Retrieved June 4, 2003 from EBSCO Journals, http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=A5D31JHHHJQH9Y7K2U9B.
  • Oakes, J. (1989). "What educational indicators? The case for assessing the school context". Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 181-199.
  • Parkes, J., & Harris, M. (2002). “The purposes of a syllabus”. College Teaching, 50(2), 55. Retrieved December 2, 2004, from Wilson Education Abstracts database. (Document ID: 134519661).
  • Porter, A. (1989). "External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling teachers what to do". Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343-356.
  • Porter, A. (1991). "Creating a system of school process indicators." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(1), 13-29.
  • Twigg, C. (2003). "Improving quality and reducing cost: Designs for effective learning." Change, 35(4), pp. 23-29.
  • Yoon, S. (Winter 2003). “In search of meaningful online learning experiences”. In S. Imel & J. Ross-Gordon (Series Eds.), S. Aragon (Vol. Ed.), Facilitating Learning in Online Environments (pp. 19–30). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Number 100, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Why technology? Why NOT?

Technology:
  • is a natural extension of teaching,
  • that promotes greater student engagement,
  • collaboration,
  • exposure to multiple media formats,
  • and acknowledges different teaching and learning styles, preferences and strategies by
  • focusing on content and
  • interaction and
  • active learning
  • to enhance both teaching and learning.

Does the mere presence of technology contribute to active learning, developing communities of practice, and enhancing engagement? Or is it the integration? Or the use and modelling? How can technology create a more active learning environment? How can technology help everyone, faculty, staff and student, create and grow as a community of practice? How can technology increase engagement with the content, with other students, and with the instructor?

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

The pedagogy of podcasting

I've been thinking lately, about podcasting. I listen to several podcasts each day as I'm driving. It's a good way to stay on top of things and extend my thinking. The podcasts are around fifteen minutes or so in length, and on topics that I find interesting. (Here's where I get reflective) For me podcasting is extended learning. I CHOOSE to listen to the particular podcasts. I am ACTIVELY listening.

So, how can I get students to listen, to LEARN with a podcast? I'm aware of the discussions on the net-generation students, the digital native/digital immigrant debate and the wired student. It (podcasting) could address some of the issues ... but how would you assess the impact or effectiveness of the technology? Would some students listen to the podcasts to refresh their memory? to remind them of the content?

How would faculty create a podcast that was more INSTRUCTIONAL than INFORMATIONAL? The technology is becoming much easier to use ... that shouldn't be a concern. A podcast is still a form of curriculum ... the spoken word. How does a podcast "FIT" into traditionally held beliefs about teaching and learning?

More questions than answers, but this is a start.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Communities of practice and learning communities

What is a community of practice? How does it differ from a learning community?

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Liberal Education Reading List

  • Arcilla, R. (2007). The questions of liberal education. Liberal Education 93(2), 14-19.
  • Arnold, D. (2006). Moving from general education to liberal education. Change 48(3), 48-49.
  • Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2004). Our students’ best work: A framework for accountability worthy of our mission. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2004). Taking responsibility for the quality of the baccalaureate degree. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2006). Communicating commitment to liberal education: A self-study guide for institutions. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Association for General and Liberal Studies. (2007). Improving learning in general education: An AGLS guide to assessment and program review. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.
  • Berkowitz, P. (2006/2007). Liberal education: Then and now. Policy Review 140, 47-67.
  • Boswell, K., & Wilson, C. (Eds.). (2004). Keeping America’s promise: A report on the future of the community college: A joint project of the education commission of the states and the league for innovation in the community college. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
  • Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U. S. higher education: A report of the commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Jessup, MD: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center.
  • Dressel, P. (1979). Liberal education: Developing the characteristics. Liberal Education 65(3), 313-322.
  • Huber, M., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Huber, M., Hutchings P., & Gale, R. (2005). Integrative learning for liberal education. Peer Review 7(4), 4-7.
  • Huber, M., Hutchings, P., Gale, R., Miller, R., & Breen, M. (2007). Leading initiatives for integrative learning. Liberal Education 93(2), 46-51.
  • Klein, J. (2005). Integrative learning interdisciplinary studies. Peer Review 7(4), 8-10.
  • National Leadership Council. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • National Leadership Council. (2007). College learning for the new global century: Executive summary with findings from employer survey. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Newell, W. (1999). The promise of integrative learning. About Campus 4(2), 17-23.
  • O’Connor, N. (2006). Harnessing technology to improve liberal learning. Peer Review 8(4), 12-15.
  • Priddy, L. (2007). The view across: Patterns of success in assessing and improving student learning. On the Horizon 15(2), 58-79.
  • Rothblatt, S. (2003). The living arts: Comparative and historical reflections on liberal education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Schneider, C., & Schoenberg, R. (1998). Contemporary understandings of liberal education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Schneider, C. (2003). Practicing liberal education: Formative themes in the re-invention of liberal learning. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Shi, D. (2006). Technology and integrative learning: Enabling serendipitous connectivity across courses. Peer Review 8(4), 4-7.
  • Shulman, L. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change 31(4), 10-17.
  • Shulman, L. (2002). Making differences. Change 34(6), 36-44.
  • Weingartner, R. (2007). On the practicality of a liberal education. Liberal Education 93(3), 28-31.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Is it the media? the medium? or the message?

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Clark, R. (1985). Confounding in educational computing research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 137-148.

Clark, R. (1994a). Media and method. The media influence debate: Read the fine print, but don't lose sight of the big picture. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 42(2), 7-10.

Clark, R. (1994b). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.

Kozma, R. (1994a). A reply: Media and methods. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 42(2), 11-14.

Kozma, R. (1994b). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...