Educational Technology and Change Journal

The Victorian era writer John Ruskin once observed that the fantastic creatures from Greek mythology were all created from different parts of familiar animals, with nothing in them created by the imagination. The modern era writer Woody Allen, noting the same thing, proposed his own mythical creatures, one of which had the head of a certified public accountant. The conclusion Ruskin drew was that humans are incapable of imagining something they have never actually experienced, and the best they can do is patch together new arrangements of that with which they are already familiar.

I believe this is one of the most important reasons that it is so hard for the teaching of thinking skills to take hold in education. Teachers and curriculum designers who were never asked to think in their own educations cannot imagine how to include it in their own teaching. More importantly, they have no idea how to assess it.

This was made painfully clear when I was asked to intervene in the unsatisfactory development process for an online world history course. Despite the fact that the developer had been given clear directions that thinking skills were to be a focus in the course, there was no thinking to be found so far. All assessments were fact-based multiple choice. The developer seemed not to understand what was wrong with that, and she eventually produced what she thought was wanted. For example, she had a short answer question in which students were to write out what the Phoenicians believed about something, as if putting a fact in words required more thought than identifying it on a list of multiple choice items. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

By Jan Schwartz

In January this year I participated in a webinar offered by IT Sligo (Ireland) titled, Separating Fact from Fiction in the Digital Generation. The webinar leader was Mark Bullen from the British Columbia Institute of Technology (which meant the webinar was at a reasonable hour for the west coast of the U.S.). It was an eye opener for me because I had been sucked in by the popular books, Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning (2010), by Marc Prensky and Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation Is Changing Your World (2008) by Don Tapscott.

I have a tendency to grab on to these types of books, and if everything sounds logical I go with it. I guess that would be okay if I didn’t pass the information on to others as if it were the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In my industry, career education, elearning is still very new, and in some cases nonexistent, so that’s the danger in passing on information that is, at best, suspect. Fortunately, that did not happen — but only because I watched that webinar! Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

By John Sener

My previous article described my struggle to decide whether or not we really need a core curriculum.

While writing that post, I had an interesting discussion with a colleague about how colleges and universities offering cybersecurity education are struggling to deal with the proliferation of multiple standards such as CNSS, DoD 8570, and DHS’s “IT Security Essential Body of Knowledge” among others.

This issue also illustrates some of the shortcomings of trying to define a core curriculum. Various constituencies need different knowledge “cores” which reflect their particular needs and interests. Standards become outdated and need replacing over time, but the needed changes are often slow in coming even in a vitally important field such as cybersecurity, partly because the knowledge itself is changing so fast.

Even so, we agreed that determining a knowledge core which is common to all the relevant standards in cybersecurity education would enable colleges and universities to develop programs which meet those multiple standards. They could create different specializations to meet different standards’ “core” requirements. (To our knowledge, there are efforts underway to do this, but it does not currently exist.) This won’t eliminate all problems; some standards may have conflicting requirements. But it would certainly make things easier. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

By Tom Preskett

I’ve talked previously about the principle of offering practical advice. This is referring to the level of abstraction you employ when talking about the design of the learning experience. My gut feeling is that, because researchers are often employed in Learning Technology positions, the tendency is to be too abstract. This is a completely anecdotal assertion.

Aside from this, what are the qualities I need to possess to have the maximum positive impact? By positive I mean giving people a good understanding of key issues with regard to LTs and allowing them to make informed decisions on their appropriate use. Here’s a list of qualities that I think are important:

Good communication/good teaching:
I’m realising more and more that being a good communicator and teacher is priority number one for this job. I need to be able to communicate my message in a variety of forums and a variety of contexts. I need to be able to communicate well and where possible teach well so that I make maximum advantage of each opportunity. I’ve been reading a lot recently on what it means to give practical advice on LTs, particularly with regard to designing a whole course. I think an important principle is making order out of simple but disparate concepts and ideas. It’s very common for discussion to flit around lots of different issues so if you can give order, structure and context for all of this then that’s really useful. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

By Jim Shimabukuro
Editor

Jessica Knott, in “The Open Source LMS: Look Out, Big Kids,” asks, “What trends are you seeing on your campus? Are you more likely to use a centrally supported learning management system or strike out on your own and teach from a blog?” For the first question, my answer is “More of the same LMS-based approach. Nothing new.” For the second, my answer is “A mixed approach” — combining open web social networking applications such as blogs with a few LMS applications.

Today, when we think of completely online college classes, we think LMS (learning management system). Period. End of discussion.

Then we wonder why there’s so little innovation occurring in these classes, why so many innovative college teachers have tried and abandoned online classes and returned to blended, and why online offerings are growing at such a slow rate.

The reason is simple – at least from my perspective. Compared to the blended classroom, the LMS-based online classroom is stale and sterile. Like little boxes on the hillside, they all look just the same. Boring. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

By John Sener

I am struggling to settle on an answer, to be honest – you might say I’m lacking a certain “esprit de core” in terms of being an advocate for a core curriculum.

It’s pretty clear that I am not the only one struggling with this issue. In
“Eight Ways to Get Higher Education into Shape” (Washington Post, 20 Feb. 2011), higher education correspondent Daniel de Vise identified “reviving the core curriculum” as one of “eight ways to get higher education into shape.”

But de Vise’s rationale for the value of this “big idea” is pretty muddled. For instance, he seems to be confusing “core” with “required,” as in this comment: “The core may be making a modest comeback. A growing number of colleges are building required courses and texts into new first-year experience programs, senior “capstone” projects, honors colleges and other school-within-a-school initiatives.” Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

By Bonnie Bracey Sutton
Editor, Policy Issues

Introduction: Parry Aftab, J.D., is the executive director of WiredSafety, a site where victims can receive one-on-one assistance when they have been bullied online. She is the author of a number of books on Internet safety, including A Parent’s Guide to the Internet (1997) and The Parent’s Guide to Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace (2000).

ETCJ: What is cyberbullying? How is it different from traditional bullying?

Parry Aftab: Cyberbullying is “any cyber-communication or publication posted or sent by a minor online, by instant message, e-mail, website, diary site, online profile, interactive game, handheld device, cellphone, game device, digital camera or video, webcam or use of any interactive digital device that is intended to frighten, embarrass, harass, hurt, set up, cause harm to, extort, or otherwise target another minor” (WiredSafety).

My short definition of “cyberbullying” is: “When a minor uses technology as a weapon to intentionally target and hurt another minor, it’s ‘cyberbullying’” (WiredSafety).

With one exception, all cyberbullying must be intentional. It requires that the cyberbully intends to do harm to or annoy their target. (In the one exception to this rule, the student is careless and hurts another’s feelings by accident. This is called “inadvertent cyberbullying” because the target feels victimized even if it is not the other student’s intention. Since it often leads to retaliation and traditional cyberbullying, it is considered one of the four main types of cyberbullying.) Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

By Jessica Knott
Editor, Twitter

As a supporter of the “edupunk” movement and a former learning management system (LMS) administrator, I am interested in LMS development, support, and use. In the past month, two blog posts in particular (the first consisting of two parts) have caught my attention, and I wanted to share them, for others who find themselves in the same boat as I, with an eye toward the future of online teaching tools and philosophy.

The first blog post, “The Evolving LMS Market, Parts I and II,” was written by Michael Feldstein and looks closely at the shifting market shares in the LMS space, based upon data from the Campus Computing Project’s annual survey. Feldstein delves into several interesting paradigm shifts, especially the market share gains that we’re seeing in open source learning management systems. Perhaps the biggest takeaway I find in this post is this gain, especially the ANGEL plateau following the Blackboard acquisition announcement. What are customers, educators and the learning community speaking out against? Is it the corporation or the product? Is it the support or their dwindling voice in the development process? Is open source simply seen as being more affordable? This blog post offers much to think about, from the teaching and learning perspective as well as the administration and IT perspective. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

By Lynn Zimmerman
Editor, Teacher Education

Science fiction has often used human interaction with the all-knowing computer as a plot device. Generally, computers have been portrayed in the genre as either evil masters of the world or the benevolent caretakers of the human race. These stories immediately came to mind when I read the NY Times story that Academic Earth linked to on its Facebook page. It examines the notion of the thinking computer that completely takes the place of the human teacher.

The article, “Online Courses, Still Lacking That Third Dimension,”* written by Randall Stross, was published on February 5, 2011. He states, “WHEN colleges and universities finally decide to make full use of the Internet, most professors will lose their jobs… A genuine online course would be nothing but the software and would handle all the grading, too. No living, breathing instructor would be needed for oversight.” He then goes on to explain how at this point in time this type of totally computer-run course is not generally feasible in most programs. He also goes on to explain how certain types of courses may lend themselves to such a model, while others do not. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

By Harry Keller
Editor, Science Education

As a scientist, you’d think I’d really be in favor of science fairs. A recent article by Amy Harmon in the New York Times (“It May Be a Sputnik Moment, but Science Fairs Are Lagging,”* 4 Feb. 2011), among others, laments the decline of science fair competitors. The Los Angeles County science fair, it says, has dropped to 185 participating schools, down from 244 a decade ago.

Teachers who support these event, who organize them, find venues, recruit judges, and so on do so without pay and may spend hundreds of hours preparing them. I should know because I did the same thing for the Department of Energy’s New England Regional Science Bowl. So I definitely intend no disrespect to these motivated and hard-working teachers when I say that the value of these events is marginal. Too many science fair projects are done partly or mostly by parents. Too many show a lack of understanding of what science is. A few remarkable projects demonstrate incredible dedication and creativity for the young people who do them. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

By Guy Inaba
Educational Support Specialist
Kapi’olani Community College Library

[Editor’s note: One of the drawbacks of teaching completely online is that I seldom have an opportunity to drop in on Guy Inaba at our college library. He’s one of those who’s always at least three steps ahead of everyone else when it comes to advances in technology. I never leave our informal sessions without learning something new. In his first ETCJ article, Guy shares an email exchange that we had recently. -js]

On Jan. 11, 2011, at 12:31 PM, I emailed Jim Shimabukuro about a workshop presentation that we had worked on. I signed off with “Power of digital media – Nice!”

On Jan. 14 at 10:19 AM, Jim replied: Speaking of tech — I remember your introducing me to flash drives years ago. Yesterday, I picked up an 8GB flash drive for under $20 at Don Quijote.

On Jan. 19 at 6:11 PM, I replied: Hi Jimmy. Just got some interesting info from CES  (2011 International Consumer Electronics Show) — Victorinox Swiss Army will put it out in a few months. Click on the pictures for the various styles. Don’t have a price on these but nice design for the tech person. Tech is really moving forward. -Guy Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Eric Gorski, in “Students Not Learning a Lot in College, Tracking Study Finds” (denverpost.com, 1.19.11), reviews Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s study, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (University of Chicago Press, 1.15.11). From the perspective of a K-12 educator who has done some work at the post secondary level, this study brings to mind a number of scattered thoughts that I will hopefully bring together at the end of this article.

Let’s start with a key quote from the review:

The research of more than 2,300 undergraduates found 45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.

One problem is that students just aren’t asked to do much, according to findings in a new book, “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses.” Half of students did not take a single course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester, and one-third did not take a single course requiring even 40 pages of reading per week.

I don’t see anything in this review that I would not have predicted based on my experiences decades ago while working as graduate teaching assistant in a major competitive university. While I was there, the chancellor emphasized that the faculty was to focus our time on research, not teaching. Teaching was something to do in one’s spare time. The required reading lists for courses generally focused the research area of the teacher and often had little to do with the title of the course.

Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

By Jim Shimabukuro
Editor

This is the start of the second week of instruction, and already the online classroom trolls are spreading their fear and panic among unsuspecting classmates. As a group, educators tend to think of trolls as infectious agents that prowl professional discussion forums. We seldom think of them as a problem in the completely online class. But they’re there, and all we need to do is look for the symptoms.

The most common e-student troll is one who posts misinformation about class activities and policies. The perpetrator can be male or female, but in this example, let’s say it’s a male. He posts an emotional message in a forum, claiming that the directions for completing learning activities are confusing and misleading and cites misinformation to support his claim. Before the instructor can respond or even after s/he does, a large number of students react with panicky posts and comments as well as email to the instructor. In short order, the class is in chaos with fear and panic spreading like wildfire.

Ironically, before the panicky post, all the students were in the process of completing the activity without any problems. They understood what needed to be done and were doing it. All it took was the one flaming message to create instant pandemonium. The fact that this can happen says something about the online learning environment. It’s vulnerable to trolling.

Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

By Harry Keller
Editor, Science Education

T.H.E. Journal has an article by David Nagel, “California Schools Pilot iPad Algebra Curriculum” (8 Sep. 2010), about a textbook publisher running an experimental effort using 400 iPads in four California school districts .

The publisher’s CEO trumpets that this “signals the beginning of a new era in curriculum development, where the goal is not just providing world-class content, but also delivering it in a variety of ways so that students and teachers can individualize the learning experience. We believe this pilot will provide the nation with a glimpse into the future of education.”

Maybe. Delving a bit more deeply into the article, you find that the iPad apps “provide feedback on practice questions, allow students to take notes and save them for later use, give students access to video-based lessons, and provide guided instruction. It also offers tracking tools focused on student comprehension, as well as real-time reporting tools for teachers.” Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

By Harry Keller
Editor, Science Education

An article in the New York Times (Sharon Otterman’s “60 First Graders, 4 Teachers, One Loud New Way to Learn,” 10 Jan. 2011), explains how a school in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, has changed how learning takes place.

I specialize in science education, not in general learning theory. Yet, I’ve been advocating something like this for years. It’s nice to see someone actually doing it instead of just giving it lip service.

The concept is simple but not so easy to do well. It has two parts. I’ve often wondered why today’s teachers aren’t more like apprentices who work under the tutelege of a master in an actual work setting. That’s why putting three novice teachers in a classroom with a master teacher sounds like such a great idea to me. The master teacher splits time between teaching students and teaching teachers. I believe it’s much better than the usual “sink or swim” approach to learning to teach. I’d expect that you’ll have better teacher retention under this system too. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

At the 2011 International CES, January 6-9, Las Vegas Convention Center, don’t miss Kids@Play and MommyTech, Saturday, January 08, 2011. Here’s a blurb that describes the event:

Play with the new toys and new tech designed to address the specific needs of kids and their families. Kids@Play explores the world of gear-toting digital kids who will become tomorrow’s digital citizens. We’ll reveal the latest games, toys and educational products certain to engage the most discriminating kids: from toddler to teen. MommyTech looks at how digital technology helps Moms do what they do every day: the impossible!

They’ve scheduled an awesome list of speakers.

Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

By Tom Preskett

I was struck by this header in Sarah Kessler’s “The Case for the Virtual Classroom” (Mashable, 1.3.11): “The Internet Empowers Self-Motivated Learners.” This is a good way of putting something that is blindingly obvious. But is it therefore not good for learners who are not so self-motivated?

The internet is well suited to learners who are completely self-regulated, aggregating learning resources from a variety of sources, seeking out their own channels of support and collaboration. There has never been a better time to manage your own learning experience. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 16 Comments »

By Lynn Zimmerman
Editor, Teacher Education

Tom Preskett’s article, There’s Blended Learning and There’s Blended Learning!, made two points in particular that started me thinking about group dynamics and how this plays out in face-to-face, hybrid, and online classes. First he said that in one model of hybrid courses “The course is explained, participants get to know each other, and bonds are formed.” Then later he commented: “Give a student in 2010 the alternative and F2F wins most of the time.”

I think that forming bonds is one of the necessary elements for success in hybrid and online courses, and this ability to form bonds is related to students’ preference, or not, for face-to-face. In some cases, the course’s success does not depend on whether the students form bonds – an introductory chemistry course of 300 students being lectured to in an auditorium comes to mind.  However, for a course that is conducted seminar-style or in which the goal is for students to work collaboratively, creating bonds can be critical to success. Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 18 Comments »

By Claude Almansi
Editor, Accessibility Issues

On Oct 29, 2010, the White House launched the http://expertnet.wikispaces.com wiki and announced it publicly on its blog on December 8:

One vexing challenge to engaging Americans in governance has been finding new models and tools for the next generation of citizen consultation.  We want to take advantage of the latest technology to: 1) enable government officials to circulate notice of opportunities to participate in public consultations to members of the public with expertise on a topic; and 2) provide those citizen experts with a mechanism to provide useful, relevant, and manageable feedback to government officials.

That is why the White House Open Government Initiative and the General Services Administration, working closely with the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Performance and Personnel Management, are today launching a public consultation (through January 7, 2011) to obtain input on a design concept for a government-wide software tool and process to elicit expert public participation. In addition to making government more open

Continue reading →

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »