Category Archives: Standard 3: Learning Environments

Candidates facilitate learning (p. 41) by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments. (p. 1)

April 23, 2018 · 1:12 am

Worked Example

The final assignment in my EDTECH 513 class on multimedia at Boise State University focused on creating a worked example video. A worked example is basically a How-To video that uses research-based multimedia methods to create an e-learning artifact. For my video, I chose to concentrate on a topic that comes up frequently in my interactions with students at the college at which I work: peer reviewed journal articles. Many students come to the college with a working knowledge of libraries. They know we have books they can borrow, probably some videos, and maybe some reference materials. Those same students, however, do not know much about journal literature and the special place it occupies in academia. With that in mind, I went about planning for and creating my video.

First, I thought about the face-to-face instruction I provide to students on the topic of peer reviewed journal literature. I run a series of short, drop-in style lessons during the school year called Bite Size Library Lessons. The lessons are designed to be delivered in under 30 minutes, with 15 minutes being the target. This leaves time to adequately cover the topic and leave time for conversation.

Next, I created a script based on the lesson plans and conversations that take place during a typical lesson.

Third, I created some PowerPoint slides to use in providing pretraining for students on the technical terms associated with the topic, especially the term “peer reviewed”. I also discussed the differences between databases and search engines in the pretraining portion of the video. In the pretraining section of the video, I followed best practices in multimedia development including the redundancy principle (I used limited text except for the discussion of technical terms) and the coherence principle (see the visuals displayed during the What Does Peer Reviewed mean?), and the personalization principle (I am visually present in the video and use personalized language. I also used music for the intro and outro, making sure that the music did not distract the learner from the content.).

Fourth, I recorded myself working through a search, applying filters and sorting results as I went along, and finally viewing a full text, peer reviewed journal article. I used Camtasia for the creation of the video and used some of the callout features as appropriate.

By creating this worked example artifact I have demonstrated competence in AECT Standards 3.1 – Creating and 3.2 Using.  As to standard 3.1, I created a worked example video in compliance with multimedia instruction principles and research-based best practices, including adhering to the redundancy, coherence, and personalization principles. As to standard 3.2, made sound professional decisions regarding the selection of appropriate processes and resources to use in providing conditions that optimized the learning potential of this worked example artifact. I considered the learning objectives I wanted to communicate to learners, determined the best way to deliver the lesson using an approach that was solidly grounded in current multimedia theory practices.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 3.1 Creating, 3.2 Using, Standard 3: Learning Environments, Uncategorized

April 8, 2018 · 7:49 am

The Personalization Principle

Link to video

Link to video with a lesson

Thus far in EDTECH 513 – Multimedia, the class has focused on how to create messages using multimedia that provide meaningful visual messages and leverage modalities of information acquisition, primarily sight and audition, for the creation of effective learning artifacts. The Personalization Principle, as described by Clark & Mayer, provides a means for further customizing elearning materials to the needs of specific groups of students or a single student, depending on the situation.

What is the Personalization Principle? It is a tripartite principle that seeks to bring the human into elearning environments.

conversationFirst, this personalization is achieved by promoting the use of an informal communication style and a friendly human voice in elearning. According to this tenet, instructors should strive to provide a casual communication style that is balanced with professionalism. It should be neither so casual that students fail to take the class seriously nor so formal that they feel utterly disconnected from the human instructor. Voice quality and politeness, suggesting rather than stating, for example, is also strongly supported by research. It is also important to avoid sounding monotone or robotic, as this offers a much less engaging learning environment. People prefer other people. The literature also suggests that standard accents promote learning more so than foreign accents.

robo

Avoid sounding robotic.

coachThe second tenet of personalization is the use of on-screen coaches to engage students and help facilitate learning. These coaches do not need to be human. Nor do they have to be animated. Coaches can look like people, or they can take the form of animated objects or fantastical creatures. The most important factor to keep in mind is what will work best for the learners. Once again, make sure the “voice” of the coach, either written or spoken, is authentic. The point is to offer an interaction opportunity with a genuine conversational quality.

The third and final tenet of the Personalization Principle is support for author visibility. In many cases, writers of educational material are encouraged to be invisible and stay out of the learner’s access to the content. However, research into personalization has revealed that a visible author provides a distinct benefit to student learning. Authors of elearning materials can reveal themselves by using an interview style instead of reporting information or by including themselves in examples. This is similar to using “I” statements in a physical classroom as you work through a live problem or activity. I do this regularly in my library instruction classes. “When I conduct a search and I do not see the results I expect, here is what I do…” is a very common thing for me to say.

As I worked through the assignment, I made sure to follow the other multimedia principles I have learned about this semester. For example, I adhered to the Redundancy Principle by keeping extraneous text to a minimum, opting instead to use still images and let the text already present in the images suffice.

There are some open questions that remain concerning personalization, but we do know that personalization helps students engage more deeply with elearning courses.

As far as this particular assignment, we were tasked with creating a digital storytelling artifact. However, since the assignment was rather flexible, I chose to create two digital stories: one lesson and one personal. The lesson teaches the Personalization Principle explicitly while following the tenets established in the principle itself and the personal story is the story of how I came to be an academic librarian. The story is mostly complete, but that is understandable given the three minute duration limit for the assignment. I will continue to develop my digital storytelling skills and incorporate this powerful tool for elearning into my role as an academic librarian.

By completing this activity I have demonstrated an understanding of and have met AECT Standards 3.1- Creating and 3.2-Using.  As for Standard 3.1 – I created a digital story wherein I presented content that was presented in a personalize (informal/casual) manner in alignment with Meyer’s description of the Personalization Principle.

As for Standard 3.2 – I created a script, researched and selected images, and learned how to use software that provided the optimal conditions for learning based on principles, theories and effective practices.

Reference:
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning.

Leave a comment

Filed under 3.1 Creating, 3.2 Using, Standard 3: Learning Environments, Uncategorized

March 11, 2018 · 8:01 pm

Narrated Presentation

VoiceThread

Follow this link to visit the VoiceThread presentation:
https://voicethread.com/app/player/?threadId=10508084

The past two weeks in EDTECH 513 we have been learning about more multimedia principles. Our class broke up into groups for some collaborative work. Each group was tasked with creating a Google Slides presentation, converting it to a PDF, uploading it to VoiceThread, and narrating the presentation. The final product is a multimedia presentation that adheres to the Modality Principle and the Redundancy Principles. Let’s unpack these terms a bit.

The creation of multimedia artifacts that are both visually appealing and pedagogically sound takes time and study. The ability to craft a compelling presentation is not something that happens magically or intuitively. Research-based multimedia principles offer substantial assistance in the development of expertly crafted multimedia content. Two such principles are the Modality Principle and the Redundancy Principles. The Modality Principle states that, when graphics are present, it is best to provide audio explanation rather than printed text. The Redundancy Principles take modality one step further and discourage the use of redundant information in the form of graphics/text/narration. This redundancy causes an overload of the learner’s cognitive channels. This understanding of cognition runs counter to the old wisdom grounded in “learning styles” which, in the case of a presentation, could lead to a potpourri of information with something for everyone: graphics/text/narration. Of course, there are exceptions to these rules, as there are with any stated regulations. In this case, the exceptions are known as boundary conditions.  These exceptions come into play when there are no graphics, when the materials are slower or learner-paced, where there are technical terms, or when the on-screen text is genuinely shorter than the narration.

When I was in high school and college as an undergraduate student, learning styles provided the basis for many sound pedagogical practices. I was presented with many lectures that included lots of text (gotta deliver that content!), an abundance of graphics (because – Hey! – the kids like pretty pictures!), and narration (I’m the teacher. I have to do something). Far from helping me learn better, these practices served to create a lot of psychological noise for me. I would get lost between the graphics, on-screen (overhead) text, and the teacher’s voice. Sometimes the teacher would go off on tangents, thus making it especially hard to know what to attend to.

In the past, I have been guilty of trying to do too much with PowerPoints and other lecture material. I would fade graphics and use smaller fonts in order to cram as much onto a slide as I possibly could. More is better, right? It gives students the option to learn the way that works for them. The ol’ shotgun approach to information delivery. Oh, how wrong I was! Now that I have learned about the Modality Principle and the Redundancy Principles, I can appreciate the value having less on a slide brings to my students, pedagogically speaking. I have begun using less text and, with the text I do provide, I strive to reduce the text to the very essence of what the students need. The adoption of multimedia practices that adhere to these research-based and proven principles will greatly benefit my students.

The creation of this artifact meets AECT standards 1.2 – Message Design, 1.3 – Instructional Strategies, 2.2 – Audiovisual Strategies, and 2.3 – Computer-based Technologies. First, this artifact meets AECT Standard 1.2. As with the multimedia tutorial I created using HaikuDeck, we followed a systematic method in the creation of this presentation. My group collaborated on the draft of the presentation in a Google Doc and used email and commenting to work out the details. We selected images from stock files in order to communicate our message about the Modality and Redundancy Principles.  We also relied on narration instead of text, instead using on-screen text in carefully controlled amounts. The result was a well-designed message that is aligned with research-based multimedia design principles.  Second, regarding Standard 1.3, we utilized the instructional multimedia design principles of the Modality Principle and the Redundancy Principles, making sure to only violate these rules when appropriate based on a thorough evaluation of the relevant boundary conditions. Images were thoughtfully selected and used as the primary means of communication along with narration.  Text on slides was kept to a minimum, except in the case of example slides. Third, Standard 2.2 was supported because of the use of audio and graphics to present a message that is based in solid multimedia research. Fourth, in support of Standard 2.3, we used Google Docs, Google Slides, and VoiceThread, all web-based software applications, to create the presentation. Finally, I distributed it by embedding it on my WordPress blog.

This activity also meets the revised AECT Standards 3.1 Creating, 3.2 Using, and 4.1 Collaborating. 3.1 Creating: Candidates create instructional design products based on learning principles and research-based best practices. I created a multimedia presentation that adhered to the Modality and Redundancy Principles. 3.2 Using: Candidates make professionally sound decisions in selecting appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning based on principles, theories, and effective practices. I used a draft process with my group that involved Google Docs and Slides. Once the drafts were finished, I created a PDF and uploaded it to VoiceThread so my group could add narration and finish the presentation.  4.1 Collaborative Practice: Candidates collaborate with their peers and subject matter experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners. I collaborated effectively with my group members to analyze the needs of our anticipated learners, developed the instructional presentation that met multimedia design requirements. We also considered the impact our instructional materials, both content and design, would have on potential learners.

Until next time, keep reading!

-Lance

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 3.1 Creating, 3.2 Using, 4.1 Collaborative Practice, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

February 24, 2018 · 7:22 am

HaikuDeck Artifact

Screenshot of the title page for a Haiku Deck presentation for Cruzen Murray Library

Haiku Deck presentation for the Cruzen-Murray Library at The College of Idaho

Follow the link below to view the Haiku Deck:

This week in EDTECH 513 we explored Haiku Deck. For those unfamiliar, Haiku Deck is a browser-based presentation tool similar to PowerPoint or Google Slides. The upside to Haiku Deck is that the amount of text that can be placed on a slide is limited. “Madness!” you say, “I want to be overwhelmed by volumes of text and placed in a PowerPoint coma!” Yes, I understand. Some might consider this a downside, but there is a definite positive effect inherent in this method. The power of visual communication is allowed to exercise its strength. This is the multimedia principle in very lean form. The images are allowed to communicate the core message. Text is given a space on the side bar. Words are still present, but they are not granted the prime real estate normally reserved them on the printed page.

It was a real pleasure to work on this particular class activity. I was provided with an opportunity to share information about an absolutely incredible new building on the campus of The College of Idaho: The Cruzen-Murray Library. (My new work home!) After a year of construction, the library just opened a few weeks ago at the beginning of February. The Haiku Deck platform provided a perfect digital platform to showcase both the library itself and the ideas behind its form and function. The alignment of class application and need for an expressive outlet could not have come together more seamlessly for me.

The project provided more evidence to me, as an educator and communicator, of the power of multimedia to deliver a message. Images, in collaboration with appropriately placed text, are incredibly powerful communication devices. I am excited to continue to learn more ways of applying the multimedia principle in all of the materials I develop – from handouts to presentations.

The creation of this artifact meets AECT standards 1.2 – Message Design, 1.3 – Instructional Strategies, and 2.3 – Computer-based Technologies. First, this artifact meets AECT Standard 1.2. As with the static multimedia tutorial I created using the (almost) defunct Clarify-it I followed a systematic method in the creation of this presentation. The images were carefully curated from personal and stock images in order to tell the story of the Cruzen-Murray Library and deliver a well-designed message that is aligned with the research-based multimedia design principle.  Second, regarding Standard 1.3, I utilized the instructional multimedia design principles of the contiguity principle and the chunking principle. Images were placed in positions of primary focus and words which conveyed core ideas were superimposed on the images in legible fonts in a contrasting color. Supporting text was placed in the appropriate section for speaker notes. Text on slides was kept to a minimum. Third, in support of Standard 2.3, I used HaikuDeck, a web-based software application to create the presentation and distributed it by embedding it on my WordPress blog. The presentation is ready for sharing with others in a formal presentation or at the viewers leisure via the Internet.

Thanks for reading!

-Lance

Leave a comment

Filed under 3.1 Creating, 3.2 Using, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 18, 2018 · 5:19 am

Static Multimedia Tutorial

This week in EDTECH 513 – Multimedia, we were tasked with creating a static multimedia tutorial on the topic of our choosing. What is a static multimedia tutorial? Doesn’t multimedia mean sound and movement? I am glad you asked! A static multimedia tutorial is a tutorial that incorporates multimedia principles such as the use of images along with text designed in compliance with research-based design standards such as the contiguity principle. The contiguity principle states that words should be aligned with corresponding graphics. Legends that sit off to the side, away from associated graphics, for example, should not be used. Here is a great article from Moreno and Mayer about the contiguity principle (PDF).

I am an academic librarian, so the static multimedia tutorial I chose to create was library related. We receive lots of questions from new students on how to use the library. Many students come to college having used a high school library that was not supported by a modern library management system (LMS) or a public library system that was both organized using the Dewey Decimal System (we use Library of Congress) and a different LMS geared more towards public libraries. In the interest of serving the students better, I decided a basic, introductory tutorial of just seven steps would be useful. The learning objective for the tutorial is straightforward: “After following the steps in this tutorial, learners will be able to construct a search for book records in the library catalog and analyze the search results to determine a book’s owning library, format, location, availability, and call number.“

I used Clarify-it to grab the screenshots and create the step-by-step instructions. The process I followed was the same one I have used to create static tutorials in the past. First, I determined the learning outcome for the tutorial. Second, I worked through the steps and documented each one. Third, I wrote down instructions for each step. Then I opened Clarify-it, formatted the pages, and started harvesting and adding screenshots. After adding the screenshots, I added strategically placed call-out boxes and arrows to draw attention to important sections of the screen. I kept instructional text close to the images (within the call-out boxes and near or connected to arrows pointing to targeted text and webpage icons).  Due to page layout, I had to place call-out boxes further from the targeted sections than I would have liked, but the design made sense given the constraints of the source material. The process was similar to using the screenshot function in Jing, SnagIt, or other screengrabbing software. I have used static tutorials in the past for library instruction, but moved away from them in favor of screencasts. I can understand the appeal of a static multimedia tutorial (no need to pause a video and continue, for example) and think I will make more of them to place on our library’s libguides for students and faculty.

Clarify-it was easy to use and had a decent set of features. I would use it again. Unfortunately, the developers of Clarify-it have decided to sunset the product in favor of pursuing other opportunities. I will need to find another application to use for creating static tutorials. I really do not want to go back to using Word or PowerPoint.

The creation of this artifact meets AECT standards 1.2 – Message Design, 1.3 – Instructional Strategies, and 2.3 – Computer-based Technologies. First, as to Standard 1.2, I followed a systematized method for creating a static multimedia tutorial artifact that can and will be used by students in learning how to successfully use the library catalog. The message was designed in accordance with the contiguity principle, which is a research-based multimedia design principle. Second, as to Standard 1.3, I utilized appropriate instructional multimedia design principles, most notably the contiguity principle and chunking principle. Third, as to Standard 2.3, I used Clarify-it, a web-based software application to create the tutorial and convert it to a PDF. I then uploaded the PDF to a shared Google Drive, set the sharing option to “Anyone with link can view”, and grabbed the embed code to make it accessible via my WordPress blog. The tutorial is ready for incorporation on the library libguides and for formal instruction with students.

Thanks for reading!

Best,
Lance

 

2 Comments

Filed under 3.1 Creating, 3.2 Using, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 11, 2018 · 7:24 am

Sketchnoting in EDTECH 513

McGrath_sketchnote

Click HERE for a larger PNG version of the sketchnote pictured above

This week in EDTECH 513, Multimedia, we were tasked with creating a sketchnote of a portion of our course text, e-Learning and the science of instruction, by Clark and Mayer. Sketchnoting, for those not in the know, is basically note-taking with doodles. It is enhanced note-taking that leverages the multimedia principle, which posits that words and graphics are more effective in communicating a message rather than plain text. Some sketchnotes are incredibly detailed works of comic-style art. These are often hand drawn in gorgeous notebooks with rich paper and an arsenal of writing instruments. Others are computer-generated and take the form of infographics. These sketchnotes might utilize clip-art and computer-generated fonts. Since I am in an educational technology class, I decided to stretch myself outside of my comfort zone (it takes me a while to draw) and draw my sketchnote freehand on my touchscreen Dell Inspiron 15 7000. The process went remarkably well. More about that later.

What did I sketchnote about? I chose to sketchnote about two concepts discussed by Clark and Mayer in Chapter 4 of their text. The first was the psychological reasons for the multimedia principle and the second was the evidence for using words and pictures to enhance learning.  The sketchnote provides a guide to the sections using both text and images. The first thing to note, by beginning at the big red START, is that the authors observed that language is quite possibly the greatest human invention, followed by written language. It is effective and efficient. The addition of graphics makes communication multimedia in nature and increases the connections to the message and the content. Delivery is key. Format is not as important. There is evidence that using multimedia leads to deeper learning. This is backed up by the findings of eleven research studies. The concept of the multimedia effect, that words and pictures are better at helping humans learn than just words, holds overarches the entire section.

How did the whole process go? As I mentioned above, it went well. I decided to take the plunge and draw my entire sketchnote freehand on my computer. I have never done this before. I have some issues with fine motor control and much prefer to use clip-art for images and typed letters for textual communication, if only in the interest of legibility and time.  I will probably use an infographic application to generate other sketchnotes in the future. I can concentrate more on delivering content instead of having to redraw images that do not turn out right. Alternately, I might create sketchnotes using pen and paper and then digitize the final result. The task was enjoyable, but time-consuming for me given my novice status in drawing on a touchscreen. I rendered the sketchnote on a Dell Inspiron 15 7000 in Plumbago, a Microsoft application. I used a Dimples Excel stylus with the silicone end, not the larger fabric stylus tip. The screen was responsive to the stylus and the screen did not pick up much palm activity and register it as input. The image was drawn without zooming in for detail work. I need to spend more time exploring the Plumbago app and the full suite of settings and features. The process of sketchnoting my notes really helped me to forge strong connections to the material. My brain had to work both the verbal and spatial areas in order to plan out and create the sketchnote artifact.

There are many examples of sketchnoting on the Internet. I hope that seeing what I have done encourages you to give sketchnoting a try, either for yourself or with your students.

By completing this activity, I demonstrated competence of AECT standards 1.2. Message Design, 1.3 Instructional Strategies, and 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies. The activity meets the requirements of AECT 1.2 because I planned and designed the creation of a message in the form of a sketchnote, which leverages the multimedia effect to deliver a message in a manner that benefits the learner. The activity also supports AECT 1.3 because the creation of the sketchnote is a purposeful instructional strategy that will contribute to student learning. Finally, the activity supports AECT 2.3 because the artifact, a digital sketchnote, was generated and delivered using computer-based technology exclusively.

Best,
Lance

Reference:

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

 

 

5 Comments

Filed under 3.1 Creating, 3.2 Using

Tagged as , ,

December 9, 2012 · 5:34 pm

School Evaluation Summary

shutterstock_53700325

I thoroughly enjoyed working on this artifact for EDTECH 501. It was definitely a detailed and involved assignment that really grabbed my interest. The Maturity Model Index is an evaluation tool for use in analyzing the technological maturity of an organization. The five primary filters help the user analyze an organization based on the following functions: 1) Administrative; 2) Curricular; 3) Support; 4) Connectivity; and 5) Innovation. I found that my organization, a university, ranked very strongly on many levels. I was not surprised to learn that the school ranked very well in the Support category. The policies, procedures and people in technology support at my school provide fantastic support for our staff. The combination of these three components provide the basis for a strong use of technology on my campus. See the embedded Scribd document and the linked Google spreadsheet for the full analysis.

By completing this exercise I demonstrated competence of AECT Standards 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4. My evaluation of the institution and its various resources exemplified the Resource Management component of Standard 4.2. The analysis of those areas which were a bit weak and ranked at Integrated demonstrated Problem Analysis of Standard 5.1. My use of the Maturity Model represented Criterion-Referenced Measurement as indicated in Standard 5.2. The construction of the spreadsheet and the report provided Formative and Summative Evaluation as per Standard 5.3. And, finally, the depth of knowledge acquired during the process and the production of this report provide evidence of Long-Range Planning as per Standard 5.4.

Google Spreadsheet_School Survey

2 Comments

Filed under 3.4 Managing, 4.2 Leadership, 5.3 Assessing/Evaluating, Standard 3: Learning Environments, Standard 4: Professional Knowledge & Skills, Standard 5: Research

Tagged as

November 18, 2012 · 5:31 pm

Technology Use Planning Overview

Benjamin Franklin

“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
-Benjamin Franklin

Image and quote credit: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/planning

Wise words regarding planning, or the lack thereof, have been a part of the human story for generations – perhaps since our ancestors first began to communicate.  Benjamin Franklin, turner of many an adroit phrase, had these words to say about preparation or planning: “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”  Educators are masters of preparation.  The success or failure of many a lesson can be traced back to an inadequate or ill-conceived lesson plan.  We either prepare (plan) for failure or we plan for success.  The same goes for technology planning in education.  Technology use planning is as essential to a successful learning environment in a school or district as is a well-designed classroom lesson plan.

So what exactly is “technology use planning?”  The Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan describes states that “(t)he idea of technology planning should be an attempt to be proactive instead of reactive to the situations created by technology” (1996, p. 2).   Technology Use Planning is the attempt to successfully navigate the educational and technological landscapes in order to maximize the educational benefit of technology.  It is, in a manner of speaking, the pathway we propose to blaze through the educational landscape and the ever-changing world of technology.  Successful technology use planning is an informational process which helps all stakeholders in the educational environment understand where we are, where we believe we should be headed and how we should go about reaching our destination.  The Guidebook is an excellent resource for use in understanding why technology use planning is essential for educators and how to go about actually doing the planning work and formulating a successful plan.

The impact of technology is pervasive in the United States.    So extensive and important is the influence of technology that the United States Department of Education formulated a National Education Technology Plan (NETP) in 2010.  This essential document for educators at all levels (state, regional, district, etc.), especially technology influencers and decision-makers, serves as a vital benchmark for technology use planning.  An educator with a thorough understanding and appreciation of the core concepts of the NETP – Learning, Assessment, Teaching, Infrastructure, and Productivity – is a vital and powerful asset for achieving an effective and empowering technology use plan and turning that plan into action.  As the NETP states “(t)o transform education in America, we must turn ideas into action” (p. xvi).  Technology use and implementation that is properly planned – that takes into consideration all the factors involved: people, technology, financial resources – is essential to a transformed American educational system.

How do we realize a truly transformed educational system and not just overlay new technology on an old system?  First, educational goals must be primary and technology use secondary.  We must not fall for every technological novelty.  This concept of “technology for technology’s sake” often takes place with little understanding of where technology fits in the overall educational environment and at the expense of people and the educational process.  It becomes obstructive rather than constructive.  A study conducted by Maltby and Mackie highlights a situation where technology is not an educational cure all.  A study of the effects of a virtual learning environment (VLE) involving 1,414 undergraduate students found that VLEs do not work well for all students and can even decrease student success (2009).  A well-conceived Technology Use Plan provides guidance for the appropriate place of technology in meeting educational goals.

Second, a good technology use plan has a long view perspective with a focus on short-term goals.  Thus, short-term goals should all support the long-range “big picture” educational goals.  Writing in 1992, eons ago in information technology time, See emphasized short term technology plans focused on applications and outcomes instead of on hardware.  These holistic plans, integrated into the very fabric of the school and tied to staff professional development plans, required that technology expand on the instructional benefits of the curriculum.  In this way, See sought to keep technology in its place in educational settings while squeezing as much value as possible from it for teachers, students and other stakeholders.  See’s initial point drew a line in the sand regarding long term technology plans.  Technology plans, according to See, are only of much use if they are for a maximum period of one year (1992). Consider this: See was writing in the days before wide availability of the Internet, laptop computers, broadband and wireless access, Windows 95 or even inexpensive cellular phone service.  I agree with See.  I used to work for a Tier 2 computer company and we could barely project 3 months out, let alone a year or five years.  The whole Windows-based computer industry almost missed the application of tablet computing in the early 2000s.  I remember when Microsoft introduced incredibly expensive tablet PCs in 2001.  No one seemed to care much at the time and educational institutions balked at purchasing them.  The market dwindled to a few niche markets.  My how things have changed!  Microsoft is back with a new tablet, the Surface, in an attempt to compete with the iPad, and, perhaps, to give the PC industry “a wake-up call” (Vance, 2012). Granted, this cycle was longer than 5 years, but the rise of tablet computing was a surprise to the computer industry.  Short-term technology plans with a strong long range view allow schools of any shape or size to seize on moments of opportunity in a manner that is both nimble and proactive while avoiding the pitfalls of reactionary technology moves.

Third, a technology use plan must be grounded in reality.  This applies to budgetary as well as curricular concerns. See recommends connecting the technology plan to a district’s or institution’s budget cycle (1992).  Forging a connection between financial concerns and technology planning affirms both the importance of technology and its wisely planned use.  Having solid financial metrics tied to technology planning also encourages administrators to provide essential support to teachers, who are the ones who will actually use the technology as part of their teaching.  It is incredibly important to have proper training for teachers.  This allows for the greatest opportunity of technology adoption by those who will use it the most.  Without good training and teacher “buy in” of a technology plan there is great risk that the shiny new hardware will not meet its educational potential or, worse, just sit and gather dust.  A final reality check comes from having a plan that is grounded in solid research.  A technology use plan that includes research-backed elements such as good on-site technical support and sustained professional development stands a good chance of success (1992).

My personal experience with technology in an educational environment confirms the ideas of the material I read as part of my research on technology use planning.  The school I work at, a private liberal arts university, invests a substantial amount of both human and financial resources on information technology planning.  I serve on a committee that focuses on the application side of educational technology and our input is taken very seriously by our Information Technology Director when computing purchases are considered.  We strive to not become enamored with a technology just because it is new and shiny.  Our committee includes the following questions in any technology deliberation: “What educational value does the technology provide?”  and “What does it add to what we already have?”  Sometimes it seems like the decision-making process is excruciatingly slow but the decisions we make are grounded in solid research with an eye to educational outcomes, staff support and budgetary cycles.  Based on what I learned in this assignment I believe the institution at which I work implements technology use planning that is supported by best practices in the field.  I am better prepared to explain how and why we do what we do on the educational technology committee on which I serve.

References:

Graduate Students at Mississippi State University. (2002). Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan. Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/downloads/Guidebook35.pdf

Maltby, A., & Mackie, S. (2009). Virtual learning environments – help or hindrance for the ‘disengaged’ student?  ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology 17(1), 49-62. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ831099.pdf

See, J. (1992). Developing effective technology plans. The Computing Teacher, 19(8). Retrieved from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National Education Technology Plan. Alexandria, VA: Education Publications Center. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

Vance, A. (2012, July 9).  Why Microsoft’s Surface tablet shames the PC industry.  Bloomberg Businessweek: Technology. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-19/why-microsofts-surface-tablet-should-shame-the-pc-industry

This post addresses Standard 3.4 of the AECT: Policies and Regulations, which reads:  “Policies and regulations are the rules and actions of society (or it surrogates) that affect the diffusion and use of Instructional Technology.”   The completion of this activity demonstrates that I have studied and been influenced by policies devised by the U.S. Department of Education as I consider how to construct an effective Technology Use Plan.

3 Comments

Filed under 3.2 Using, Standard 3: Learning Environments

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

November 11, 2012 · 5:24 pm

Digital Inequality Assignment

The most recent assignment for EDTECH 501 involved a collaborative project with my core group.  We were assigned a scenario with the task of consulting with a superintendent of public instruction on how best to invest a special allocation of funds to address digital inequality issues the imagined state.  Specifically, we were asked to evaluate seven possible solutions to digital inequality, rank them and provide an accompanying rationale. In addition, we were asked to provide an overview of the terms “digital divide” and “digital inequality” and to provide any additional solutions our group came up with.  Our group chose to focus our attention on Tennessee as one of our group members resides there. We wanted to focus our project and create a realistic final product.

During the course of our project we used a variety of online tools to collaborate.  Our group members were spread across the United States from Idaho to Tennessee and as fa north as Canada so a face to face meeting was out of the question. Tools available from Google were our preferred method of collaboration.  We used Google docs to create a document defining the rankings for the various options and to create a spreadsheet to track member roles and responsibilities.   A Google form helped to assess the opinions of the group members regarding the ranking of options and their feasibility.  Google Hangout allowed for our group members to meet in a synchronous environment to discuss progress and development of the project and to edit the document on the fly.  Google Presentation served as the primary vehicle for the project.  This presentation tool allowed for synchronous communication via chat, simultaneous editing by multiple users and asynchronous communication via comments that could be easily placed on individual slides.  Email was a good standby for asynchronous communication.  It was exciting to see a whole presentation come together with team members spread over a wide geographic area!

But this also led me to reflect on the concept of digital inequality.  As a librarian, I have had some experience with the terms “digital divide” and “digital inequality” in my graduate studies.  The term digital divide basically means people who have technology and those who do not.  It is a binary understanding of an issue that is actually quite complex.  When I was matriculating through graduate school the digital divide was still very much alive.  A decent computer was fairly expensive, a couple thousand dollars, and broadband internet access was a significant monthly cost.  Since computers were so expensive many people did not have them and, if they did, they probably were not connected to the internet or were on dial-up access.  (How well I remember the days of “dinner-time downloads.”  These were files that took so long to download that I would start a download before making dinner and hope that it would be completed by the end of dinner.)  The term “digital inequality” takes into account the complexities associated with the digital divide.  Digital inequality recognizes that there are many factors that come into play: age, race, gender, education level, socio-economic status and geographic location, among others.  The writings of DiMaggio and Hargittai provided some excellent background on both of these key terms.  I also came across very good resources with an international perspective that, while not especially relevant to the state of Tennessee, allowed me to gain an understanding of digital inequalities with a global scope.

I work at a private liberal arts university and the assumption is that students will have all of the technology that they need.  I have found this to not be the case.  Many students require assistance with basic computer applications, some do not have their own computers and others have limited information literacy skills.  It is important to provide remedial computer skills workshops, maintain student computer labs with accommodating operating hours and training in order to develop skills associated with the successful and appropriate processing of information in a digital age.  We provide many of these services already, but keeping the needs of students in mind will help me to see and be able to address issues of digital inequality.

It is important to consider the impact of any decisions involving technology on the people involved.  The ethical use of technology requires that any decision be carefully considered and that all aspects (social, economic, educational, etc.) be included in the understanding of the issue at hand.  Issues involving people rarely have simple origins.  For example, it is pointless to give computers to people who do not have enough education to know how to use a computer to enhance their lives.  Both the technological and educational needs must be met to a satisfactory degree.  Also, spending large amounts of money to upgrade telecommunication infrastructure and consolidating the resources in an area that serves an area that is primarily wealthy with little chance of access by those of a substantially lower socio-economic status would be a technology solution fraught with ethical concerns.  Only through a thorough knowledge of the technical issues and a strong measure of compassion can issues of social inequality, digital or otherwise, hope to be resolved.

This assignment addressed multiple AECT standards. The use of multiple technologies such as email, chat, cloud documents for collaboration, and Google Hangout for synchronous communication support Standard 2.4 – Integrated Technologies.  The creation of a collaboratively planned presentation to encourage and promote the innovative use of instructional technology by a state agency to address issues of digital inequality support both Standard 3.2 – Diffusion of Innovations and Standard 3.4 – Policies and Regulations.  The evaluating and ranking process for the options demonstrates support for Standard 4.2 – Resource Management.

Overall, this was a challenging and rewarding project that stretched my project management skills.  I am used to collaborating with others using email, Adobe Connect, Skype and other technologies, but I do not usually work under such short timelines.

Onward!

Sources:

3 Comments

Filed under 2.5 Ethics, 3.2 Using, 4.1 Collaborative Practice, Standard 2: Content Pedagogy, Standard 3: Learning Environments, Standard 4: Professional Knowledge & Skills

Tagged as

October 27, 2012 · 11:27 pm

Tech Trends Assignment

(Image credit: www.hotbloodedgaming.com)

The NMC Horizon Report, an annual joint publication of the New Media Consortium and the Educause Learning Initiative, highlights emerging trends in educational technology.  The latest report that has been published is the 2012 Higher Education Edition.  This edition of the report examines the possible (and probable) development of technology in education over the next 1-5 years.  The language used by Johnson, Adams and Cummins of the NMC Horizon Report for this edtechvolution is the “time-to-adoption horizon.”  The Report is meant to “indicate likely timeframes for their entrance into mainstream use for teaching, learning, and creative inquiry” (p. 6).  Three time-to-adoption horizons (One Year or Less; Two to Three Years; and Four to Five Years) were identified in the report.  Two technologies were associated with each horizon: Mobile Apps and Tablet Computing – One year or less; Game-Based Learning and Learning Analytics – Two to three years; and Gesture-Based Computing and The Internet of Things – Four to five years.

I chose to focus on the emerging educational technology of game-based learning.  As the father of two boys (ages 13 and 10) and as an academic librarian working with traditional undergraduate students, I am very aware of the impact of video games in our culture.  I have often wondered about the educational opportunities to be found in “fun” games (not just games marketed as being educational).  What, for example, are my sons learning when they play Lego Star Wars?  What are the college students learning when they play late night sessions of the massively multiplayer online (MMO) game Halo?  Is there “educational” value to be had or are these just the cerebral version of junk food?

What I read in the Horizon Report encouraged me.  The authors of the Report (2012) note “this type of game brings many players together to work on activities that require collaborative problem solving” (p. 19).  Collins & Halverson (2010) observed, “gaming may help young people learn a variety of leadership skills, such as resource allocation, negotiating with friends and adversaries, manipulating situations and environments, actively pursuing their goals andrecovering from failure” (p. 22).

Armed with this information and material from other researchers I decided to pursue a lesson involving the integration of the emerging technology of game-based learning and the Idaho history curriculum for the fourth grade.  I often help with Idaho History Day and volunteer at the school my children attend.   My boys have recently discovered the game Minecraft and I saw some potential there for educational application.  They have shared with me that other kids at their school, boys and girls alike, enjoy playing Minecraft.

What I developed was an initial lesson plan using Minecraft to integrate the teaching of Idaho history and math.  Students use the simulated world of Minecraft to create their own early Idaho settlement and build their own house. Along the way, the math concepts of perimeter and area are reinforced.   Minecraft allows for a game-based learning experience that is physically safe (no one is injured while building a house) and brings math and history to life thus providing strong elements of fun and motivation.

This particular assignment for EDTECH 501 supports several AECT standards including Standard 1.1 Instructional Systems Design, Standard 3.1 Media Utilization and Standard 3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization.  The act of creating material for instruction meets the requirements of Standard 1.1.  The intentional (“systematic”) use of the technology resources of computers, video and a gaming environment for this assignment support Standard 3.1 Media Utilization.  The fact that this lesson plan exists and can be used in a rudimentary sense in a classroom (there is no Minecraft Idaho seed but any Minecraft seed would allow for this activity) supports the implementation and institutionalization components in Standard 3.3.

During the course of the assignment I was reminded of how challenging it is for me to think in the micro world of lesson plans.  I am much more of an abstract-random, big idea, creative, macro-focused thinker.  It’s not to say that I cannot do lesson plans.  They just do not come naturally for me.  I am so glad that I work with many talented and available educators who were willing to let me bounce my ideas off of them.  It also took a while to create the additional collateral materials.  This is one of the banes of creating original content.  This was a very stimulating and rewarding project.  My boys are quite excited about the possibility of exploring the Minecraft Idaho seed (created worlds).  Perhaps I will enlist them in helping me create the seed world for use in their school.

References:
Collins, A. A., & Halverson, R. R. (2010). The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 18-27. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x

Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

2 Comments

Filed under 1.1 Creating, 3.1 Creating, 3.3 Assessing/Evaluating, Standard 1: Content Knowledge, Standard 3: Learning Environments

Tagged as , , , , , ,