September 3, 2017 · 7:46 pm

EDTECH 522 Reading Reflection: Agency and Persistence in Online Education

Persistence
Image credit: Flickr user bdunnette. Creative Commons license.

Agency and Persistence in Online Education

The following post addresses to topics from my EDTECH 522: Online Teaching for Adult Learners class. The interconnected topics are:

  1. Where are you on the Grow’s Staged Self-Directed Learning Model described in Ch. 2 of Stavredes? What is the implication of this model for you as an online teacher?
  2. Discuss challenges that affect learners’ persistence in online course and relate these challenges to your own online teaching or learning experiences.

Persistence. As a resident of the Intermountain West, this term conjures up images of rugged mountain men, pioneers in wagon trains, and roughnecked railroad workers. These are the men and women who built the cities in which we currently live. As a parent, persistence reminds me of my children and the time they spend learning new skills. Whether it is getting that coloring page just right, or stacking the block tower just a tad bit higher, or playing that video game level one more time in order to beat the boss at the end, these all exemplify persistence. Persistence is also found in schools, where students are presented with professionally crafted learning opportunities designed to stimulate the brain and foster academic growth. These opportunities can present very real challenges for students as they grapple with the material, especially if they are more authentic in nature. In a face to face classroom, when the going gets tough, the student can seek help from the teacher or aide, who can, by their physical presence provide an immediate sense of support and encourage the student to persist. In an online environment, the challenge to persist can be much more difficult. In a 2016 report for the American Society for Engineering Education, Ferdousi references persistence and retention statistics between undergraduates in traditional classes versus those in online classes. According to the research, the “student dropout rate for online undergraduates ranges from 20% to 50%, which is 10% to 20% higher than traditional classroom environments” (2). How can we understand student behavior and support them? It will help to reflect on my own personal development as a learner as I consider my role as an instructor in online learning.

One factor that affects student persistence in online learning environments is a student’s development along Grow’s Staged Self-Directed Learning Model (SSDL). Grow’s proposed model presents four levels of self-direction which can be influenced by instructors in order help students develop through the stages and become more self-directed learners. Stavredes provides a detailed explanation of the SSDL model in the book Effective Online Teaching: Foundations and Strategies for Student Success. The stages of SSDL are 1) Dependent learner; 2) Interested learner; 3) Involved learner; 4) Self-directed learner. Each stage represents the amount of instructor support required by the learner. As the learner develops more agency, the need for instructor diminishes. At the Dependent learner stage, for example, the learner “has little prior knowledge in the subject, is unsure of the focus of his or her learning, and has low self-confidence and motivation” (15). At this stage, the instructor is regarded with high authority. As the learner moves to the second stage, the interest in learning increases even though prior knowledge remains relatively low. The instructor assumes a role as more of a motivator through the learning process. As the learner moves to the third stage, the instructor’s influence lessens further, while student autonomy grows. In the fourth stage, the student has developed skill and knowledge in the content area, and is confident, motivated, and capable. The instructor role evolves into one of consultant or course guide (16-17).

So where am I on along Grow’s SSDL model? In the area of online teaching and learning, I rank myself solidly in the fourth stage of development. I am a self-directed learner. I have been taking online classes off and on since 2003. I successfully completed a fully online master of science degree in library science in 2006. In 2005, when I started my first job as an academic librarian, I began supporting students in fully online programs across multiple disciplines (MSW, MBA, Religion, and Education, to start). I received mentoring from a skilled Instructional Designer and Educational Technology Director. In time, I was invited to a seat on the E-learning Committee, where we evaluated programs and initiatives. I worked my way up the higher education ranks and was granted tenure at my current institution, where I hold the rank of associate professor. The MET program at BSU is my second masters level program. I am a highly motivated and self-directed student. I persisted through life, work, and educational challenges. Good for me! However, I realize that not everyone is like me. I need to be aware of where the learners I work with are at on Grow’s SSDL model so that I can appropriately support them and make the educational process accessible to them. This means designing classes in ways that provide the maximum opportunity for students to develop and grow. I need to constantly evaluate my work as an online instructor and take student feedback seriously so I can revise courses or assignments accordingly. My willingness and ability to provide rich learning environments that are thoughtfully and appropriately crafted with the student in mind will provide the support they need to help them persist.

Stavredes and others also write about challenges that affect the persistence of students through their programs of study. It is important to note a distinction between retention, which measures an institution’s ability to retain students from entrance to degree completion and graduation. Persistence is internal to the student. According to Stavredes, “(p)ersistence refers to learners’ actions as they relate to continuing their education from the first year until completing their degrees” (22). For example, a student could transfer to another institution and complete their degree. This would adversely affect the university’s retention rate while positively impacting the student’s persistence rate. A student’s inability to persist, and by extension, remain with the institution (retention) has many costs. Tinto (2006) observed that the costs to the learner extend to lost time, financial expense, and a loss of self-confidence. The impact is not isolated to the learner; the institution is also adversely affected by students who fall into this category.

Research has been conducted on the persistence of both traditional and nontraditional/distance education learners. In seeking to understand distance or online education learners, Stavredes focuses on two models: The Bean and Metzner Persistence Model; and the Rovai Composite Persistence Model. Bean and Metzner’s model, developed in 1985, is a bit dated. Rovai’s model is nearly twenty years newer and is much more applicable to understanding learners who take online classes. Both, however, provide valuable insight into the challenges faced by online learners. First, students have stressors outside of the control of the institution. These include finances, family, and work, among others. Rovai further breaks down barriers to persistence into pre- and post-admission categories. Pre-admission variables include student demographic information and the skills they posses. Post-admission variables include external factors such as finances and life crises, and internal factors such as study habits and learning style (26). Willging and Johnson (2009) summarized that the reasons why students choose not to continue in online education environments are “complex, multiple, and inter-related” (4).

I face the many of the challenges that confront other online learners. I have substantial work pressure. We are building a new library and I am supervising the move to the new building in January, 2108. I also have regular work duties to attend to and have to assume new tasks since one of our employees retired suddenly this summer and another staff member is on maternity leave. Plus, the start of a new academic year is stressful. Fortunately, my family life is quite stable. That is not to say there is not stress. My wife is enrolled in a doctoral program, my eldest son is a college freshman, and our grade-school age daughter has some developmental challenges. I also have aging parents. I am also active in my church and community. While I enjoy participating in community life, the activities do require an investment of time and that cuts into the amount of time I have for school work. I am fortunate that I have solid computer skills and that my demographic profile bodes well for me as far as higher education pursuits go. That said, I am very empathetic to the needs of other learners. The awareness of the potential persistence barriers that others face will help me to be a compassionate and mindful instructor in online learning environments.

References:

Ferdousi, B. (2016). Addressing student persistence and retention issue in online classes. Proceedings of the 2016 ASEE North Central Section Conference. Retrieved at http://people.cst.cmich.edu/yelam1k/asee/proceedings/2016/faculty_regular_papers/2016_ASEE_NCS_paper_49.pdf

Stavredes, T. (2011). Effective Online Teaching: Foundations and Strategies for Student Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next?. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-19.

Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 115-127.

1 Comment

Filed under 4.3 Reflection on Practice, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 18, 2013 · 9:22 pm

Access Granted

A barricade in the Paris Commune, March 18, 1871.

Do you ever walk into a business and feel unwelcome? Like you don’t belong? Like the people behind the front door or service counter don’t even want to serve you? That is how persons with vision and hearing impairments feel all to often in online environments. Our institutions, as good and well-intentioned as they may be, oftentimes come laden with legacy barricades that would put the barricade shown above to shame. Fortunately, there are steps that can be taken to help provide accessibility to online resources. Read on to learn more.

Our EDTECH 502 class took on the daunting task of discussing accessibility on the Internet this past week. As an academic librarian whose main job is to provide assistance to online programs – and the students taking those classes – I spend a lot of time thinking about how to make the materials I provide more accessible to persons with vision and hearing assistance needs. By breaking down barricades to access, we can ensure that we are making our best effort to provide equitable access to web resources.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (see an accessibility checklist here) and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (commonly referred to as WCAG) are two excellent resources on web accessibility. As accessibility can be achieved through a number of means.

I created the following web page to demonstrate that I understand the practices and principles behind accessible web design. I effectively used CSS, metadata, and color to provide a web page that meets approved industry standards. You may view the page here: http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/lancemcgrath/502/accessibility.html#readability

My completion of this activity demonstrates that I have competency in AECT Standard 3.6 – Diversity of Learners, in that I utilize practices in online materials design that are widely accessible to learners, and Standard 4.5- Ethics, in that I have demonstrated ethical treatment of learners with varying accessibility needs, thereby creating an environment that is intended to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

February 11, 2013 · 10:08 pm

Minding your manners

File:Table Manners in the Nursery.jpg

Image title: “Table manners in the nursery” (circa 1916). Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Table_Manners_in_the_Nursery.jpg

This week in EDTECH 502 we contemplated the nature of etiquette and protocol on the Internet. The common term applied to this intersection of humanity and technology is “netiquette.” Since I work primarily with college age students who have spent a great portion of their lives, presumably, on the Internet or connected to other humans via advanced networked technology, looked forward to working on this project. Generally, the students with whom I interact are decent human beings. But that does not mean that they are always on their best behavior or that they will not not likely encounter another person who is having a bad day and lashing out at others. I set out to devise a list that students could use to guide their interactions with each other in the online world, whether it be in a formal online class, email, or on social media. I considered the manners I was taught as a child, the lessons I learned in Sunday School and in Boy Scouts, and from a few netiquette resources for online courses. In the end, I generated a solid list of best practices for online interactions. Here is a link to the page I created as a resource for my students.

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/lancemcgrath/502/netiquette.html

Thanks for reading! And remember: Be good to each other. A little niceness goes a long way.

This activity meets AECT Standard 4.5: Professional Knowledge and Skills – Ethics. By completing this activity I have demonstrated competence in this content area.

Reference:

University of Florida (2012). Netiquette guide for online courses. Retrieved from http://teach.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NetiquetteGuideforOnlineCourses.pdf

Leave a comment

Filed under 4.5 Ethics, Uncategorized

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 , , , , , ,

September 27, 2012 · 12:29 am

RSS for Education

Librarians live off of information and helping people access and use information.  It is our currency, our purpose, our reason to push the power button in the morning.  That being the case, it only makes sense that RSS (Rich Site Summary or Really Simple Syndication), a web technology that allows users to subscribe to content from RSS enabled web sites, would be part and parcel of our everyday lives in Libraryland.  And so it is.  At least for me.

“How do you use RSS?” you ask.  Integration with existing tools is a great way to use a complementary technology such as RSS.

One of the tools that we use in the Riley Library at Northwest Nazarene University is LibGuides.  LibGuides are a web product from SpringShare that allow librarians to create microsites that are targeted to specific library user needs.  In an academic library a guide can be created for an academic program, department, course, or even a specific assignment.  It’s pretty neat!  One of the features in LibGuides is the ability to add a box with an RSS feed.  So, for a course on Business Law I added a box to the Websites page with an RSS feed from FindLaw.  Students get updated information from the world of law without even leaving the guide they are using.  This is a big deal because of all the distractions on the ‘net that eat away at valuable homework time if one isn’t careful.  RSS is one way I provide excellent service to the students I serve.

RSS is quietly efficient and effective at delivering content.  This makes it a good candidate for bundling and sharing on the main library site and on the social networking tools the library uses.  I will also be placing more RSS feeds on the LibGuides.  One opportunity I see involves departmental or discipline specific LibGuides.  The librarians serve as liaisons to the various academic departments within the university and time is a resource there is never enough of.  RSS could help our librarians with their liaison duties by streamlining the sharing of information from targeted databases and other RSS-enabled resources.  I am sure the teaching faculty would appreciate the service!

The use of a librarian (or teacher) created RSS instrument (feed, bundle, etc.) in instruction meets AECT Standard 4: Management, subsection 4.4 – Information Management, by allowing for the controlled dissemination of information from a specified source.  An RSS feed from a trusted, reliable and appropriate source provides some safeguards in the information-seeking phase of research.

RSS has been good to me so far and I look forward to continuing the relationship into the future. Below is an RSS bundle I find useful in my role as an academic librarian working with undergraduate and graduate (both master and doctoral) students, faculty and community members.  I hope you find the bundle useful, too!

RSS Feed link

As always – Read on!
Lance

Leave a comment

Filed under 1.2 Using

Tagged as , , ,

September 22, 2012 · 11:15 pm

Learning Log Assignment

Image credit: http://st-john-rc12.lancsngfl.ac.uk

The second major assignment in the EDTECH 501 course was to begin the process of creating a learning log.  Learning logs come in many shapes and sizes.  They can take the form of a book, or a series of audio or video recordings, or, in this case, a blog.  McIntosh and Draper (2001) stated “learning logs take neither a great deal of teacher time nor much class time, but they have tremendous value for teachers and students” (p. 554).  I have found that a learning log can take as much time as I will give it.  But it is certainly worth the effort.

Much of the time I have spent with my learning log has been spent climbing the WordPress learning curve.  I have not used WordPress much.  I tried it a few years ago and was not enamored with it.  I found Blogger and, later, Google Sites, much easier to use.  This time around, however, I decided to stick it through. I am pleased with the results.

This assignment was not only interesting and engaging, it also allowed me the opportunity to actively demonstrate the utilization of two AECT Standards: Standard 2 – Development; and Standard 4.4 – Information Management.  The assignment shows that, in support of Standard 2, I have the ability and inclination to create instructional materials using computer-based technology.  The learning log assignment also demonstrates support for the information management stipulations of Standard 4.4 by planning, organizing and storing of information used for educational purposes.

Reference:
McIntosh, M.E., & Draper, R.J. (2001). Using learning logs in mathematics: Writing to learn. Mathematics Teacher, 94, 554-557.

1 Comment

Filed under 1.2 Using

Tagged as , , , ,

September 11, 2012 · 6:03 am

Introduction video

Hello!  Welcome to my graduate program homestead on the web.  I am Lance McGrath, an academic librarian and faculty member at Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, Idaho.  I am also a student in the Master of Educational Technology program at Boise State University.

For my first class, EDTECH 501, I created the following introduction video using a mash-up of PowerPoint, SnagIt, CyberLink YouCam and VideoPad video editor.  PowerPoint was used to create the slides.  I then used SnagIt to capture and narrate the PowerPoint in presentation mode.  Next I used the CyberLink YouCam software with the integrated camera and microphone on an HP Pavilion dv6-6c13cl laptop to record live audio and video of myself.  I used VideoPad to edit the various records into a seamless video and then laid in a soundtrack to provide some texture to the audio profile.

This video not only serves to introduce me.  It also demonstrates that I have produced an artifact which aligns with AECT Development Standard 2.4: Integrated Technologies.  Specifically, the high level of integration achieved in this video supports AECT Development indicators 2.0.1, 2.0.2 and 2.0.3 (for details see Standard 2: Development in the AECT Standards).

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of assistance.

Peace,
Lance

Leave a comment

Filed under 1.1 Creating

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