Category Archives: 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.

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 , , , , , , , , , ,

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