On critiquing

This blog fulfills a number of purposes.  I aim to use the blog tool to communicate some of my thoughts on aspects of teaching and learning using Web 2.0 social media.  I also want to emphasis the importance of critical thinking.


Web 2.0 has the potential to provide authentic, engaging learning tasks that can take individual needs into account.  However as An and Williams (2010) argue, many teachers are not using Web 2.0 technologies to their potential. They argue that educators are often doing the same thing they have always done, just with a new tool. They stress the point that Web 2.0 itself does not guarantee more effective learning and that “Effective use of new technologies requires innovation in teaching methods”. (p.6)

Students also require scaffolding to learn effectively with Web 2.0 technologies.  Teachers need to provide appropriate support and this needs to be integrated into the design of the learning activities and can range from step-by-step procedural guidance to helping students find appropriate resources to teach themselves.  We should not assume that students in their teen years are all computer literate.  They may be avid facebook users but not e.g. be able to use word processing or do productive Google searches.

 Although I do agree with a lot of Marc Prensky’s theories I do not support  his digital natives/ digital immigrants idea. I think it was useful when first introduced but that now we have moved beyond it.   I advocate knowing about individual differences and learning styles theory so that while many teenagers may be very adept at using technology not all of them are.  I am not alone in this as, Prensky's views have attracted a lot of criticism in the last few years. These have focused primarily on the generalisations that Prensky adopts. Likewise with teachers, some of us may be experts at using one kind of technology yet not other types etc.  In this way we can be both what Prensky terms digital natives in one area and digital immigrants in another.

 To hear and view an interview with Prensky go to:

http://www.viddler.com/v/f4f35454


Also of interest is Prensky on teachers knowing how to use technology.The following comes from an interview in 2011.

LL: Do we need “digital teachers”?

MP: It will help greatly if our human “digital” teachers understand and respect what today’s digital tools can bring to education. To do that, though, these teachers do not have to necessarily learn to use all the tools themselves (unless they want to) becuase the students can use them---and they do want to. Teachers can model using technology for students, when appropriate, but they should never use digital tools (electronic white boards, or computers or anything else) for the students---students should use them by themselves, with their teachers’ guidance and quality-control of the output.


For the full interview go to 
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-l'Unita-Interview-6-11-english.pdf


The marking guide for Assignment 3 is asking you to provide evidence of evaluation and critical thinking. When you decide on a Web 2.0 tool for ALLN, search for references that support your use of it but also for problems in using it.  An example of this is e.g. you might choose to design a learning activity on the Web through a Smartboard.  However using Smartboards, as with other technology, comes with its own philosophy.  Smartboards have been criticized as being what An and Williams (2010) describe as doing the same thing but with a new tool! I have linked you to two sites that critique Smartboards.

http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.co.nz/2010/05/why-smartboards-are-dumb-initiative.html

http://sites.google.com/site/team4edtc6433/time-tracker


I wil post this blog in this draft stage and continue reworking it and add referencing at a later stage.

The role of the teacher in e-Learning

Our paper is called Online Learning and Teaching. I am really pleased that we get to examine e-Learning but also that we look at e-Teaching. In fact your fourth assessment task is to create a teaching and learning activity using Web 2.0 technology for an adult Literacy, Language or Numeracy class. An opportunity to put your philosophy into practice.

The role of the teacher in an online learning context is an interesting one to examine. Presently I am involved in teaching four papers. The first one is our fully online paper. The second one is a blend of fortnightly 2 hour workshops with online input through web links, documents and communication predominantly through discussion boards. The third and fourth papers are predominantly face to face with a weekly 3 hour lecture but has additional online activities through documents, podcasts ,video as well as communication via discussion boards and PowerPoints.

My other three papers are blends of face-to-face and online teaching and learning and already have a social presence. I make a conscience decision to ensure that for your paper there are sufficient levels of what Anderson (2008) calls cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence. Cognitive presence is where critical thinking is encouraged. A social presence is created when a supportive environment is created. The ideal is to provide an online space that is a comfortable and safe place of study where students can express disagreement, share points of view and accept support from peers and teachers. Teaching presence is considered critical in the process of creating effective teaching. In a traditional face-to-face classroom, the teacher is usually at the front of the class and the focus of the students. In an online paper, the teacher’s role can alter to suit a teacher’s philosophy in this teaching medium. The terms ‘facilitator’ and ‘guide on the side’ are often used to describe this change. I see my role as being more than a ‘guide on the side’.

The role of the teacher is to design and organize the learning both before the paper starts and during it. The teacher also creates and implements activities to encourage communication, and may add expertise through direct instruction or through delegating to students as they contribute their own skills (particularly at Post Graduate level). To encourage and acknowledge cognitive and social presence I also have the paper design open for student input through the use of the Learning Space wikis. Student needs can be met (or opportunity for student needs to be met) by using the flexibility advantages that the Online medium creates.

The teacher also has the role of assessment. Most of this paper is assessed by the teacher. However the marking criteria is given to students so you are partners in the process. Scaffolding to give you practice in using the criteria is provided through the blogs. The blogs enable teacher and peer feedback as well as opportunities for students to query terms etc. through forms of information exchange and knowledge construction which are critical components of Salmon’s model (Salmon, 2000). This paper also utilizes self-reflective assessments through contributions to the paper and evidence of learning through writing reflections. The paper uses 10% weightings for two assessments, which is in line with Anderson’s review of courses that assessed participation in online activities. Salmon (2000) also places learners in her final development stage where they become responsible for their own (and group’s) learning by completing activities, work on assessment and achieve learning outcomes. Your making comments on student blogs is an example of this development stage.

Beyond these e-Teaching skills is a set of technical skills. They can keep for another blog!

References

Anderson, T. (2008) Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed., pp.343-364). Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch2.html

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London:Kogan Page.

On blogging

E-learning incorporating Web 2.0 is being increasingly used in tertiary institutions by students and teachers. Students are authoring using blogs, wikis, podcasting and social networking and utilizing the affordances brought about through Web 2.0 is becoming a legitimate academic activity at graduate and post graduate levels. Melville et al., 2009, argues that where the process (and not only content) is considered important then students can become self-directed and independent learners and that active learning is facilitated through student engagement in Web 2.0.

However the challenge for me is to assess your use of blogging as a formal part of this paper. Using social networking sites such as google and bloggs has the potential to alter the rules and standards of academic writing in higher education. So what may be acceptable in a blog may not be acceptable in an academic essay. The writing genre is different in each context. My challenge as the facilitator of the paper to write the marking rubric to reflect this. If you examine the marking criteria for Assessment 2 you will see I have included engagement with other member's blogs as well as referencing in APA 6th. In this way I aim to incorporate Web 2.0 affordances as well as academic writing genre rigour. If you are having difficulty making comments 'stay' on a student's blog then you can if you wish also publish them in the Learning Space so that your fellow student will benefit from your comments.

For some interesting questions on blogging the following link is to a utube on blogging by Ike Shibley associate Professor of Chemistry at Penn State Watch a brief clip of the seminar »

Melville, D., Allan, C., Crampton, J., Fothergill, J., Godfrey, A., & Harloe, M. (2009). Higher
Education in a Web 2.0 world: Report of an independent committee of inquiry into the impact
on higher education of students' widespread use of Web.20 technologies. Retrieved March
15, 2012, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/generalpublications/2009/heweb2.aspx