Module 3: (EDUC - 7108 - 2) Evolutionary Technlogies

Rhymes of History Technology

Introduction

Kelly (2008) video on “Ideas Worth Spreading” awakes our subconscious thought to the wonders of technology that has changed our lives without notice. Kelly pointed out the things that have happened over the last 5000 days which made me try to fathom this time in years dividing through by 365 days. This has taken us back to the late 1990s. I believe people anticipated technology magic since the evolution of color TV.  Millennial K-12 is not concerned about the past, unless they are in history class or traditional family members are deeply religious. But it is amazing just to listen to the many changes and quality of life in all spheres that technology has touched.  The globe is described to be running as one big web machine.  The once fragmented area of business, commerce, manufacturing now connects through technology. The internet is the first enabler that was once government controlled for security reasons, but has opened to the public.

Globe as Digital Organism

 While Kelly  (2008) saw our world as one large global machine,  the CEO for Hewlett Placard (HP) described the global economy as an Organism that has brought an  economic ecosystems together (Fiorina, ASPEN SUMMIT 2000). Essentially, HP is forging ahead with three emerging technological forces in the economy from their “CoolTown” lab. These include (a) Information Appliances that all technology, domestic, business, education, religion and the arts are linked, via the internet. (b) IT – on Infrastructure that allows continuity of links keeping everyone in touch 24/7s. For this to be possible Kelly told us that the “Global Machine” uses up 5% of the world electrical power supply. (c) E-services that are digitally distributed and delivered, which entails any transaction, recording, data or virtual and multimedia. This reaches all sectors of the economy.

Kelly (2008) has indulged our attention to three ways in which the “Global Web Machine has transformed our lives. Some technologies have set the stage for others to succeed and all are simultaneously working. The categories are Embodiment, Restructuring and Codependency.

Embodiment

It is believed that machines are the extension of human senses, on the other hand with the level of accuracy and consistence of machines to include personal technology, industrial technology, and commerce technology one could say that humans are the extension of machines since humans are the operators. Communication Technology devices are used as interactive devices all linked to the World Wide Web. This conglomeration of dependency on the Web makes the chip indispensable. The ubiquitous use of the web linked to social networking sights include technology that compares to natural communication without auxiliary and storage devices.  Kelly likens the web to the perception of the “black hole” that nothing escapes. Old technology is transformed to digital information that becomes web “material” the technologies might seem to do different work but once a part of media all will obey the same rules for communication, consequently their embodiment.

Restructuring

The global economy is linked for communication, marketing and distribution. Since the renaissance period of the industrial revolution logistic enabled commercial reliability. As the internet became an open source computers began to link to send and retrieve information.  All computers were connected to a mainframe that was constantly maintained and upgraded for information traffic. Restructuring has alleviated the cumbersome use of the mainframe to cloud linking. Computers are connected wireless to other computers without any cumbersome axillary and supporting devices. Business and transactions are made smoother as there are hyperlinks and sites that all computers with compatible browsers can access. The semantic web, web 3.O   and other sensitive technology enables pages of information to be accessed. An idea can be typed in Google and a host of informational sites become available. With the design of smarter browsers, restructuring of technology access is from computer to computer, links to links, pages to pages and the advent of personalized comfort in accessing detail information.

Codependency

It is believed that humans are creatures that collaborate. If this was never so, the advent of technology is changing and transforming how and who people interact. I use social networking to disseminate my thoughts about something that I want to share. Other people uses the network to create friends, and chat to people they have never met and will probably never meet. But the common communication language, jargon, symbols and rules allows some level of acceptance for each other. Everyone would like to feel that they are individuals with privacy comfort while on the web. Kelly notes that transparency is the price we pay. We will have to pay for multimedia access to exist on the web.  This must be regulated by government, but it will mean no privacy for anyone. When this is allowed, for those who are willing to participate then the convenience that we seek for ideas, information, contacts, medical history, educational background and so on will be realized.

According to Kelly (2008), “There is only one machine; the web is its operating system; all screens look into the one; no bits will live outside the web; to share is to gain; let the one read it; the one is us.”  This is the global machine that we all share. We did not ask for it, but we took the opportunity to try it, we have proven its capability. The question is do we want to continue with it?

Rhymes of History (Resurgence of the Pocket Picture-Book)

“History doesn’t repeat itself. At best it sometimes rhymes.”—Mark Twain. This famous proverbial talk is used as a significant reference by Dr. Thornburg in introducing Rhymes of History Technology.  There are many technologies that are surfacing to take its rightful position. Every idea invention and thought for action needs a place and time to   emerge, grow, establish critical mass and move on to either flourish and grow or wither and die.  There was once in recent history when photo-books were a popular way of keeping fond memories of loved ones and friends. Visit to historical places would call for photographing artworks and historical artifacts. Some of the first pocket photo books were carried by world war veterans who would have pictures of their fond memories in their back pack or in their jacket pockets.

As computers and software came into prominence the pocket picture book disappeared. The qualities of pictures were not as well defined as those loaded on to the computer. The storage of pictures required great care and protection from weathering. Soon the pocket picture book ceases to exist and became treasured artifacts.

AdoramaPix Photo Books

Pictures seem to be unrealistic images of faces when they disappear with digital closedown. Recently there is the resurgence of the picture book which utilizes web technology in design of pages and cover and the pictures. The emergence of AdoramaPix Photo Books allows for making personalized photo books online. The photo book culture has resurged to use digital technology and custom design to bring back fond memories. According to AdoramaPix Inc. (2012) “All pages are printed on real photographic silver-halide paper with a luster finish, bright saturated colors and excellent flesh tones…photo paper for vivid fade-resistant colors and brilliant whites you just can′t get in press print books. Paper choices include Kodak Luster, and Fujifilm HD paper with a fingerprint resistant glossy finish.” Multimedia technology by digital graphics and computer has made picture quality refined and better. The technology that has gone into film production improves the permanence and gloss look of pictures. These two evolutionary technologies have been combined to rekindle the pocket-picture-book. Dr. Thornburg (2009c- video) tells us that the force that impacts the Rhymes of history differs from the evolution in that the affect or impact of a new development rekindles something from the distant pass. The technology that has evolved with Kodak and Fujifilm high definition paper along with digital technology for media production and custom design by AdoramaPix has brought to life the pocket picture book which is one example of Rhymes of History technology emergence.

References:

Fiorina, C. (2000). Digital renaissance, medieval policy [Speech]. Speech delivered at the Aspen Summit 2000: Cyberspace and the American Dream VII, Aspen, CO. Retrieved from: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina/ceo_aspen_00.html

Kelly, K. (2007). Kevin Kelly on the next 5,000 days of the Web [Speech]. Speech delivered at the EG 2007 Conference, Los Angeles. Retrieved from: http://www.ted.com/talks

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009).Rhymes of History: Evolutionary technologies. Baltimore, MD: Author

Photo Books. (2012). AdoramaPix Photo Books. A gift that they'll treasure for a lifetime. Retrieved from: http://www.adoramapix.com/app/products/books/inspired#/inspired/Photography

Module 2: EDUC 7108 2 – Emerging and Future Technologies

Emerging Technology Tetrads

Kindle Fire Tablet

Reading Technology K-12

Reading Technology for K-12 is currently a requirement   for learning that embodies the Core Curriculum Standards. The learning modality for minimizing the performance gap is classified as a shift in the curriculum. This is “shift 1” and “shift 2.” The shifts are associated with level K-5 and level 6-12 respectively. Reading will be the learning processes that will be applied for making the difference in learning across the curriculum.  Reading is a national learning challenge.  The question is how this can be accomplished? Several schools have been technology proactive in enhancing learning with programs that helps student to develop reading skills. Reading can help to close the performance gap.  One stipulation will be for students to do 50 % reading in their subject areas. The challenge requires training of instructors to develop lesson units or plans that integrate extensive reading in class. This will be a challenge for teachers in engaging, motivating and accomplishing the learning objectives of each lesson. Recently I participated in Core Curriculum Standard training. The workshop was for introducing teachers to a “GRASP” model lesson plan. This acronym stands for Goal for lesson, Role of students, Activities in the lesson, Standard and Performance. It never ceases to amaze me how student’s education is wrapped in “catch phrases or words.” There was no mention for the main curriculum driver “technology.” Some schools are providing the necessary technology for encouraging required reading. Engstrom (2004) elicits “For the past few years technology educators across the United States and in many other countries have heard the call to design curriculum that will promote technological literacy for all children.”

McLuhan (1988) and (1998) respectively in Wikipedia (2012) forecast objective measures by which “media’ should be assessed for its introduction in a social system, and its relationship to survival, growth, and consequently wither and die or transforms. The reading technology will undergo these stages as it is introduced for closing the K-12 performance gap. One technology that I have identified for the reading program is both a tangible hardware and apps. Some fundamental criteria that I used were: (a) portability (b) small (c) carries mobile technology-3G/4G and so forth (d) enhance reading (e) attractive for student (f) cost of consideration (g) current (h) enables collaborative interaction and social networking (i) can transfer its apps (software upload) to other hardware. One Technology that matches suitability is the Amazon Kindle Fire Tablet. This technology carries a full color 7" multi-touch display inclusive of Wi-Fi and mobile technology. The RAM capacity for the latest brand is 8 GB. Many students in my community are feeling ecstatic about this technology. Details of the Kindle Fire Tablet are available on eBay (2012) where it can also be purchased. Some specs include USB connection, 8 hour battery life, dual core processor, touch screen of quality 1024 x 600 pixels and the ability to link with the World Wide Web and over one million books to read. This is inclusive of newspaper, Times Magazines and Journals.

 McLuhan espouses that Tetrads exhibits in chain formation or can be in cluster as reversal or retrieval takes place. It is interesting to note that the Tetrad phases of Enhance, Obsolete, Retrieve and Reverse all happens simultaneously for Media identity and initiation. The technologies that the Kindle Fire Tablet replaces were singular in their designs. These include (a) the radio that was present during World War II used for ideology and information (b) the Technicolor three strip camera of the 1950s (c) the television since the 1960s (d) the portable hand-held television set since the 1970s (e) the laptops of the 1990s (f) the mobile communication and media devices such as cellphones, digital camera, smartphones, iPods and so on for the early 21^st century.

McLuhan’s 4 Laws of Media (2006)

(1)          What does the Media Enhance?

(2)          What does the Medium make Obsolete?

(3)          What does the Medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier? &

(4)          What does the Medium flip (Reverse) into when pushed to extremes?

The table below seeks to answer the above referencing for the amazon Kindle Fire Tablet Tetrad

ENHANCE:  *The ability for K-12 student to be connected in reading both inside and outside the classroom. *Partially fulfill the 50% reading required for Core Curriculum State Standards for subjects	OBSOLETE: *The need for students to physically visit library for accessing relevant reading materials *Relieve the dependency for teacher-lead in determining and accessing reading materials
RETRIEVE: *Reading fiction and non -fiction stories & epic tales *Relevant and needed subject information & content	Reverse: * Latest Nexus 7 to be released on the market in a few days. *Apps transferable to other personal Technology

Nexus 7 to be released 07/04/2012

Thornburg (2008) elicits “What makes McLuhan’s view interesting is the idea that each new invention sets the stage for its own replacement.”  The Reverse Tetrad that is believed to be surfacing and will take the place of the Kindle Fire Tablet is the Nexus 7. This is being advocated by Public Radio International (PRI) programs like The Takeaway, This American Life, The World, BBC World Service and Studio 360, can be heard on over 800 public radio stations and in New York at AM 8.20.

The critical mass of the Nexus 7 seems to be “piggy backing” on the Kindle Fire Tablet. According to Sullivan (2012) “The Nexus 7 has some fairly expensive-looking technology inside it--a high-definition display, multicore processors, and more.” A proposed Tetrad for the Nexus 7 to be released Wednesday (07/04/2012) is as follows.

Nexus 7 Tetrad

ENHANCE: Advance Mobile technology and lighter weight (mere 2 ounces)	OBSOLETE: Kindle Fire Tablet (in future)
RETRIEVE: Android Operating System	REVERSE: Probability for multiple apps. (unknown)

References:

Thornburg, D. D. (2008b). Emerging technologies and McLuhan's Laws of Media. Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration. Retrieved from:  https://class.waldenu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/USW1/201270_01/PH_EDUC/NCATE_EDUC_8848_EDUC_7108/Module%202/Resources/Resources/embedded/emerging_technologies_and_mcluhan%27s_laws_of_media.pdf

Engstrom, E. D. (2004). Assessing for Technological Literacy. Retrieved from: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5008214953:

Kindle Fire Tablet.(2012). eBay. Retrieved from: http://www.ebay.com/itm/BRAND-NEW-AMAZON-KINDLE-FIRE-MULTI-TOUCH-IPS-7-ANDROID-APPS-COLOR-TABLET-/320798229765?_trksid=p3284.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSIC%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%252BUA%252BP%252BFICS%252BUFI%252BIIUM%26otn%3D21%26pmod%3D120823736137%26ps%3D54

Dilworth, J (2006). McLuhan’s 4 Law of Media. Retrieved from: http://www.johndilworth.com/20-marshall-mcluhan-four-laws-of-media

Identifying an Emerged Technology at my Workplace

                        Module: 1    (EDUC 7108 – 2)   What is an Emerging Technology

Additional Technology at my School  

Anticipating: ACCELERATED READER™ ON MOBILE DEVICES: CONNECTING ...

doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R005391325B369CA.pdf



Imagination for technology tools in some schools are reality for others. Technology is a global issue. A new brand technology for us might not necessarily be a brand new technology in the market place. Dr. Thornburg has lifted our imagination to “one kind of technology that uses a fog cloud on which a volumetric laser scanner paints images” (2009b, p.4). The use of multimedia and hypermedia tools are becoming more of reality as we try to transcend wed 2.0 to web 3.0. The technology continuum is being stretched to an infinite limit to meet the cognitive learning theory concept of intellectual and IQ development for all students. We have seen the extraction of knowledge from the ecology of the environment. The thinking is that there is information all around that through social and academic networks active learning is assisting cognitive development. Siemens (2006) elicits, “We cannot think of new directions while we are in battles with the boundaries of existing thought and context” (p.27). The boundaries are both physical and technological. The classroom can only provide enough personal space for students and limited resources of reading material.  If we continue to rely on the overhead projector, the DVD player and the television then not only are our technology limited but also teacher centered by the available resources to the teacher. Since the development of the internet and the World Wide Web, learning has changed. Information is available at our finger tips with computers, smart phones IPod and so on. The 802.11 WiFi wireless networks have given a boost to multimedia learning but with limitation. The connections are linear within space and time. The presentation is limited without apps to being non-interactive.

Technology is being looked at as the moderator between the teacher and the students .This is true in the sense of information availability and facilitating for learning among diverse learners. Students’ interaction with content either Face to Face or online learning is a concept of widening the information window. Anderson (2010) espouses, “Content-content interaction is a new and developing mode of educational interaction wherein content is programmed to interact with other automated information sources to constantly refresh itself, and acquire new capabilities, through updates and interaction with other content sources” (p.59).

A current technology that has emerged in the last few years is being used in my school. This is a Computer Aided Technology (CAT) Model. The respective model is Computer-Managed Learning, and is provided by the Renaissance School Support Team. This technology has both Math and Reading base programs and is classified as Accelerated Reading (AR) program. The reading program is designed around reading skills for vocabulary development and is time bound. A data base for reading books at different levels is integrated and interacts with students’ performance from quizzes. The reading material essentially covers novels and fiction material. At the start of the school year students do a pretest in reading. The computer evaluates the student’s performance level and generates several data including a Zone Proximal Development (ZPD) score. The computer recommends the reading level of the student within a certain range. In this range the teacher works on improving the student’s to close the performance gap in reading.

The teacher works as the students’ mentor, coach, motivator and curator in developing reading level skills. Students develop self-efficacy and are motivated to keep reading after doing interim quizzes that shows reading level for the books they read. A recent study (May 2^nd 2011) conducted by John Hopkins University School of Education’s Center for Data-Drive Reform in Education (CDDRE) revealed that Computer-Managed Learning  showed the highest performance improvement for students and schools within the sample studied . CDDRE collected data from 85 “qualified studies” from a sample with a population of 60,000 students.  The findings revealed that eighteen schools had the highest performance of 28% improvement in reading level. Secondary schools within the sample revealed 31 % positive impact on students.

The disadvantage of the Computer-Managed Learning Program is that the reading material does not cover reading that is done in the content area of common core subjects. With the advent of the Common Core Instructional Shift, it is mandatory and being encouraged to have students develop reading skills across all subject areas. The common core standards (2011), consists of “shifts in ELA or Literacy.” Shift 1 focuses on PK-5, Balancing Informational & Literary Texts and this emphasizes “Students read a true balance of informational and literary texts. Elementary school classrooms are, therefore, places where students access the world – science, social studies, the arts and literature – through text. At least 50% of what students read is informational.” Shift 2 focuses on 6-12, Knowledge in the Disciplines and stipulates “Content area teachers outside of the ELA classroom emphasize literacy experiences in their planning and instruction. Students learn through domain specific texts in science and social studies classrooms – rather than referring to the text, they are expected to learn from what they read.” Consequently, Computer-Managed Learning Programs will have to be modified for “Reading in the content area” in order to have better impact on knowledge building for students rather than preparation for developing reading skills. This would me a twofold gain in reading skills and content area development.  The classroom libraries hold limitation for reading materials that are current and diverse. Students therefore reach a zenith in reading and are not able to excel.

In some States there is mature (emerged) technology where students are provided with notebooks and iPads that they are able to use with a minimum 3G broad band technology for roaming. This is important for continuity in education at the end of the school day.  My school is of a low socio- economic status and is unable to purchase the necessary technology for extended learning. Thornburg (2009a) admits “The quest to bring computers to the hands of all students’ faces a stumbling block in many schools when the cost of operating system and office suite licenses are factored in.”  The Linux operating system allows for technology at low cost and availability for all students. This can be fitted with open source software and content such as the Open Office systems. Thornburg (2009a) believes we should not be locked into “proprietary systems” that are costly to maintain simply because of our familiarity with such operations. He thinks that the Linux system “will provide a robust computing environment that supports high quality software and does so at a tremendous savings” (p.5).

The Computer-Managed learning program at my school has had national positive impact on student’s performance. Recently I post-tested a group of special needs learners who were on the AR reading program. I observed there was positive improvement in reading and vocabulary development for 85% post-test compared to pretest. I believe technology along with the class teacher’s input had done a remarkable job for our students. With a cut in the school’s budget and the common core performance standard and expectation there is much to look for in closing the performance gap at my title 1 school. I support the idea of reading across the content of the curriculum. I will have to propose the setting up of the Linux technology at low cost and seek out streaming programs such as our current AR program that is able to cover content reading material across the curriculum. This is an innovation that my change agent role will have to pursue. I will have to transform my courage and actions to that of a champion. Rogers (2003) is very much aware of the role of champions “A champion is a charismatic individual who throws his or her weight behind an innovation, thus overcoming indifference or resistance that the new idea may provoke in an organization” (p.414). 

References:

Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online learning. (2nd Ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

CDDRE. (2011). John Hopkins University School of Education’s Center for Data-Drive Reform in Education. Retrieved from: http://www.bestevidence.org/word/tech_read_May02_2011_sum.pdf

Engage New York. (2011). Common Core Shifts. Retrieved from:                                http://engageny.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/common-core-shifts.pdf

NYCDOE. (2011). Common Core Instructional Shifts. Retrieved from: http://engageny.org/resource/common-core-shifts/

Rogers E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.) Free Press, New York, NY. 10020

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Edition/Copyright: 2006.publisher: LULU ENTERPRISES        or retrieved from: www.knowingknowledge.com

Thornburg, D. D. (2009a). Current trends in educational technology. Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.

Thornburg, D. D. (2009b). When is a technology emergent? Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.

What is Emerging Technology? (2009) Author: Laureate. Publisher: Professional Sound Images Inc.




Learning in a Digital World

           
    Module:  6 Blog        Cecil Mittoo                                                Learning in a Digital 

My Experience with Face to Face Learning and Online Learning

Face to Face (Traditional Schools) from kindergarten to the university level have made their impact on the social system. I have been exposed to all types of learning theories and technology. My technical high school learning theories were separate for engineering training as for academics. The term “technical” was descriptive of “situated cognition.” But this is a development of behaviorism from a practical sense of training from a model (product) to make miniature tools and learn engineering concepts. Kirshner et al. purports “proponents of situated cognition believe that it represses a shift in thinking about learning and instruction that is at least as profound, philosophically and methodological, as with the shift to cognitivism from behaviorism” (Driscoll, p. 174). Cognitive development was an extended learning concept to develop an engineering mind from concept to design, development and productivity. Technical training carried both pedagogical learning and situated learning. The pedagogical learning was total in school. The situated learning was assigned to industries within the engineering discipline of production, manufacturing and assembling. Situated learning was being apprentice-sized to reinforce learning from experience. For cognitive apprenticeship, Brown et al. (1989) in Driscoll (2005) says “One means by which students can participate in a community of practice is through cognitive apprenticeship” (p.174). This experiential learning is a miniature model of internship that is practiced on a larger scale in institutions that are polytechnic models of engineering training. My brother who was studying “Land Surveying” was assigned to a field Service Company for two years after one year pedagogical study on campus. The field experience was typical work environment that impacts daily “start-time” typical to the work industry. There was a notable experiential learning for me which was social and emotional control” This was typical to the culture of my learning institution and students were monitored and counseled for idealism in behavior as a part and parcel of total development for integrating into society accepted norms.

My online learning experience is relatively new. This began one year ago when I began the Ed. S. Educational Technology Program. To date I believe the Anagogical learning theory is under construction. I have seen and experience construct of knowledge through networking that George Siemens refers to as Connectivism learning theory for the digital age. According to Siemens (2004) in Anderson (2010) “connectivist theory is for the digital age where individuals learn and work in a network environment” (p.34). The instructor creates the syllabus and sets the parameter for doing the work. This is inclusive of Web sites, information, reflection, students researching and selecting content and so on. But unlike the Face to Face learning, the instructor is not available in most collaborative setting to add his/her intellectual contribution to active group learning. In-spite of how technology oriented online learning is purported to be, where there is technology interaction and the belief that learning community exist. The instructor is an indispensable cog and is the director, coordinator and inspiratory for knowledge coordination. The instructor remains the legend of partial knowledge within a context. I have observed discussion that is mediocrity in quality. Some community members do not respond to areas that need critical thinking and clarification. This might be due to lack of personal and social comfort or efficacious feeling or just being unprepared. The instructor is not able to attend to all needs of the forum. Face to Face learning problems are comprehensively addressed as active participation is formal and informal. I believe there is a sense of discipline and commitment that is lacking in online learning. One has to be dedicated, and the quality of learning is very personal to one’s discipline. This is true for the Face to Face challenge. A social resolve is easier accomplished for Face to Face learning. I find that I absolutely own my knowledge from my dedication and participation. Currently, the core belief of learning community building is in need of improvement. Most of this is left to social independence. Because of the responsibilities that engulf participants, they are finding it difficult to fit in synchronous settings that are being dictated as a course requirement. Community building is not a short term creation and online learning suffers this dilemma.

Better participation is needed for online learning groups. Rules and routines have to be established from the perspective of the host institution. While my online class is comprised of adults, the assumption or responsibility and sacrifice for networking in knowledge construct is a myth. There are benefits that are in research, eJournal use, asynchronous group participation and technology interaction but the synchronous meetings and agenda formulation with respect to availability of members and dedication through social influence continues to be a challenge. There is a problem that exists within a social context for online learning that is acknowledged by concerned educational technologist. Campbell and five other professors at Kennesaw State Coles College of Business are cognizant of the problem. Diamond (2010) postulates that Campbell notes “researchers are now looking at the students' personality traits and experiences in online courses to determine how to motivate students and what types of students are most likely to succeed.”

References:

Anderson, T. (2010). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. (2nd Edition) .AU Press, Athabasca University at aupress@athabascau.ca

Diamond, L (2010). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Professors study how to improve online learning. Retrieved from: http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/professors-study-how-to-646153.html

Driscoll, M.  (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.)  Pearson Publisher, New York   

My responses to URLs are planning for:

(a) Jennifer Joseph @ http://jenanp.blogspot.com/

(b) Valenta Wade @ http://raivynsmom.wordpress.com/   (No posting since 12: mid-night-05/23/12)

(c) http://snowkween.blogspot.com/2012/05/module-6-learning-in-digital-world-as.html#comment-form          (Tracy Snow)

                                                                                                                 

 

New Technologies

Module 5 Blog                                                             

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Motivation Aligned Model

Self-Efficacy in Experimenting with New Technologies

Feeling efficacious about one’s self might not be related to technology. We’ve been getting along fine at our jobs, and our productivity was never questioned. How can anyone be affected with not knowing new technology and its application on the job? The social profession of teaching is being transformed to access and use technology in all areas of learning. I am not able to know how a teacher feels if they are naive towards technology use on the job. This is because I am technology literate and it becomes a part of me too simple to understand other's challenge. I’m called upon for satisfying all technology needs. And, what I have never done before I am still able to solve it, because I can’t allow my efficacious technology feeling to be marred. But I have come across teachers who are not worried about technology because I’m in their reach. If they begin to feel guilty of technology efficacy it might be as a result of students, request, administrator’s decision or if I intervene in their classroom requirements.

Three years ago I was working at one middle school that teachers were not exceptionally desirous to work with technology. At the beginning of the school year in September, the principal asked me to check to see that all computers (PCs) in all classrooms were in working condition and connected to the internet. One class room that I checked had only one PC which I checked and put in working condition. The homeroom teacher taught two subjects, Music and Mathematics. The classroom was neatly organized with charts and a back table that had space for two PCs. I asked the teacher (Ms. "P" for this blog) if she would like to have two additional computers as there was enough space for layout and installation. Ms. P in a very nice way refused the offer. I was perplexed and could not understand why any teacher would refuse such offer.

About two weeks later one of Ms. P’s student came to the technology lab. The student asked if she could use a computer in the lab to research a popular lyric and the original composer. I asked the student why this was not done in Ms. P’s class. The student told me that Ms. P’s computer was not working. I questioned some more and found out that Ms. P not only did not allow her student to use the computer, but she (Ms. P) was not using her computer. Revelation of this information caused me to check in with Ms. P. There was not a problem with her computer. Ms. P’s attitude changed. She began to use her charts to block her classroom window and also locked her door.

I asked the principal to allow me to run a professional development program over a one month period every Tuesday afternoon afterschool for two hours for beginners. Ten teachers registered including Ms. P. The focus of that technology training was to bridge the appreciative domain for technology. The process was to get teachers to become motivated so that any frustration and misconception about technology integration in the classroom would be flipped with positive thinking of personal development (efficacy). My training plan was not developed in specific to the adapting of John Keller’s ARCS Model. But in parts and parcel as a reflection on the success of the training, saw a fit with Keller’s ARCS Model. The behavior of the learned faculty had improved, and this was as a result of how the group functioned during training. Their performance was as a result of their motivation, participation and effort.

Attention: Teachers participation was drawn with understanding and sharing in discussion, the use and function of the parts of the computer. Teachers were able to express among themselves with humor how they escaped their computer savvy students. They did this by pretending that their computer was too slow or needed fixing. Teachers participation in classroom activities, denial and truth, and expectations sparked debates. There was knowledge sharing and understanding of how they have wished to be able to use the computer to make their lesson plans more interesting, current and relevant. In essence teachers began to appreciate the affective domain of opportunity to learn. The training did not start without teachers throwing metaphors of blame against me. I was setting up computers in their classrooms without even knowing their low technology efficacy. I did not allow that to mar my purpose and posed a question of inquiry on how technology can assist individual instruction. Teachers were now having differences of opinion, and their conflict allowed me to rise as the mediator for variability in choices.

Relevance: Teachers began to appreciate the way technology was able to transform their class. This happened with accessing and expanding current information. I allowed teachers to explore choices that include application of technology for lesson inclusive of streaming video, software, academic learning programs, and videos from community educational resources. I gave several URL sites relevant to their subject areas to which they could match their needs. Teachers were anxious to model their choice of program that they believed would relate to objectives, content and context. The essential features of alignment of technology and unit titles were concrete evidence of technology adaptation to their classroom needs. Teachers sought to see how low end technology of the past are parallel to present development and what might satisfy future needs. Enhanced features of presentations included the use of hyperlinks to access information during presentation. The mode of inquiry was expanded in teacher groups by subjects and was overlapped by multi-subjects being taught.

Confidence: On covering two of the four planned classes, (1 each week) teachers began to express their views of how their lessons had begun to impact their students’ performance. Teachers in training had more than 10 years’ experience in the classroom. This told me that they had a passion for teaching, and if they were to keep their knowledge current and relevant then technology was not a choice but an essential tool. I threw out the question of what will be the prerequisite for teachers entering the system. All 10 teachers agreed that new teachers will have to be qualified with technology on two or three levels of application. This included satisfying personal needs, content discovery, and criteria for helping students to interact with technology. Required information that presented difficulty in finding for content development within a context was no longer a challenge. Accessing information via universal resource locators (URL) was opening a new frontier of information. Teachers were collaborating sharing lessons through their social network with each other. I was able to set up a Wiki page for the school and teachers began to create their homework page that students would access. My role expanded into teaching students how to set up and access their class Wiki. Success was the major result for teachers and their class using technology to enhance learning for all.

Satisfaction: By the end of the fourth class the participating faculty had begun to interact in formulating an inquiry plan. This was for working with the lowest 1/3 performers. this was to improve their writing skills using the computer. Teachers’ expectations were raised above the norm, and they saw positive outcomes of their efforts in the student’s performance. In consultation with the school administrators, I suggested that teachers should be recognized for their participation in training and also to motivate their expectations for classroom application. This lead to presenting teachers with a technology participating certification from the school’s principal. Ms. P had changed her attitude technology and endorsed an open door access. This allowed teachers to see how she was integrating technology, also using an interactive smart board with her class. I was now able to give Ms. P two Personal Computers that were set used a mini research center for math and music. Teachers had stop alienated me and were now willing to share their concerns. I was able to reach out to not just 10 but all faculty in introducing new technology resources. Additionally I taught teachers how to fix common technology glitches during presentations and setups.

I have seen where the ARCS model is a reflection of social Emotional and motivational Theories. Behavioral performance of hands on training can accelerate cognitive development. Motivation from the trainer’s perspective is a worthwhile gesture to spark performance of insight and creativity. Teachers’ possess an internal pride to hide their uncertainty regarding technology. This might be due to unfamiliarity with the school technology person or due to uncertainty of how low technology efficacy will affect their performance on the job. Cherry (2012) espouses Albert Bandura self-efficacy is “The belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (1995, p. 2). Erlbaum (1992) elicits "Efficacy beliefs influence how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave” (p.118). Bandura (1986) asserts” Motivation, performance, and feelings of frustration associated with repeated failures determine affect and behavior relations." The reality is for educational technologists to interact with their faculty and seek to prevent the “recurring decimal” of low esteem and demised self-efficacy brought on by frustration with technology uncertainties.

References:

 Bonnie J. Shellnut, B. J. (1998). John Keller A Motivating Influence in the Field of Instructional Systems Design. Retrieved from: http://www.arcsmodel.com/pdf/Biographical%20Information.pdf

Cherry, K. (2012). About.com Psychology. What Is Self-Efficacy? Retrieved from: http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/self_efficacy.htm

Erlbaum, L. associates Inc. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Development and Function. Educational Psychologists 28(2), 117-148. (Albert Bandura, Stanford University). Retrieved from: http://www.centerforefficacyandresiliency.org/assets/docs/Perceived%20Self-Efficacy%20in%20Cognitive%20Development%20and%20Functioning.pdf

Learning-Theories.com (2012). ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Keller). Retrieved from: http://www.learning-theories.com/kellers-arcs-model-of-motivational-design.html

Pending two URLs response are:

(a)    http://michellenotes.blogspot.com/
(b) http://ed4teachers.blgspot.com//     (Having problems initating)

(c) http://rashidabrown.wordpress.com/    (Alternative responding URL)

Connectivism Mindmap

Connectivism Mind-map               EDUC 7105 – 1                           Module 4                  Cecil Mittoo

* My network has changed the way I learn as I begin to see the accessing of information and the formulation of knowledge as an integral contribution to “connectivism.” I do not support statements because of popularity or because it was said by an academician. But where I have doubt my network enables me to seek out knowledge in the ecology of the environment. From my computer via the internet to the World Wide Web I am able to check and verify information credibility. Information becomes knowledge (processed information within a context) easily accessed for situational purposes. Digital libraries and galleries are not the only source of information. We take for granted the living artifacts that constantly updates in- formation through cognitive awareness of changes in technology and trends. Karen Stephenson in Siemens (2006) espouses: “Experience has long been considered the best teacher of knowledge. Since we cannot experience everything, other people’s experiences, and hence other people, become the surrogate for knowledge. ‘I store my knowledge in my friends’ is an axiom for collecting knowledge through collecting people.”

Knowledge is distributed, and I am more intent on knowing where to get it, how to assess it for fit, and how to apply it for best results. Kop et al. (2008) acknowledges “Learners may traverse networks through multiple knowledge domains” (p.2). My knowledge network connects with blogs, instant messaging service inclusive of RSS feed for asynchronous collaboration in developing projects and completing assignments. Currently, I have discovered a new addition to my network. http://vital.thirteen.org/vital2td.html is an educational website that enables streaming videos for New York Metropolitan schools. Video presentation can be used as a helpful resource for class motivation, attention and knowledge building in most subjects across the curriculum. Kop et al. (2008) elicits “Nearly all students prefer the help and support of the local or online tutor to guide them through resources and activities, to validate information, and to engage them in the course content which would indicate the need for a localized tutor presence” (p.10).

* My learning is a composite of defragmented information, partial construct of knowledge and experience of my learning community. This knowledge building material I access by several digital tools. I rely mainly on the wiki for developing my course construction and collaborative interaction with my learning community. Siemens (2008) in Kop et al. (2008) notes “Developers of e-learning propose that the increasing influence on the internet and online connectedness of people will have implications for educational practices”(p.9). A digital learning community does not enjoy the connection of all its members at the same time because of members’ professional duty, family responsibilities and social commitment. However, the community learning spirit is still engaged and focused for collaboration asynchronously at best convenient times. The wiki therefore allows for digital collaboration where reflection, questions, comments and critique can be made. Wikis are finding its way across global online class, and as students in their community group become acquainted with its use I believe my knowledge base will be expanded. According to Kolesnikov-Jessopk (2011) “Although wikis, with their collaborative approach and vast reach online, have been around for at least 15 years, their use as a general teaching tool in higher education is still relatively recent. But an increasing number of universities are now adopting them as a teaching tool.”

A Blog is a digital learning tool that I find useful for reflection, defending an argument or critique a work. Within the context of reviews and research, new knowledge is created. The intellectual community and social network can share their views from new co-construct of knowledge. Blogs responses are capable of authentic learning. This allows constructive critique to lend better understanding to issues of concern. Gulati et al. reveals “In contrast to more traditional forums for online discussion, blogs are open to the world to see. This provides visibility for students to share their ideas with the larger world.” Another digital learning tool that has become useful to my learning community is the Google Docs. The digital learning tool allows for live chat conversation with community members. This Google tool is relatively simple to use and allows for synchronous collaboration. It enables the use of folders to organize and present work. It also carries documents and spread sheets. It has digital conversion for all hypertext files to PDF for printing. A great feature of this tool is for users to share working on the same document at the same time. Recently I was able to participate in live chat with my learning community and active learning was experienced with collaborative writing. Hargis et al. declares “Google Docs allows the creation and editing from around the world as long as internet access is available” (p.13).

* Questions are drivers for new knowledge. For my questions, I research content and selected material. This gives me information and data that usually supply possible solutions towards the answer that might be appropriate. Essentially, I feed this information to my social network. My network helps me to define problems. Connectivism enables discussion for questions and answers. There are thousands of network users who invariable can respond to questions and offer workable solutions. Siemens (2004) thinks "Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations” (p.4). Having a question stretches my role to reach out to the knowledge environment. Collaborative interaction makes finding answers easier. A library of information from people's experience and literature enable selective answers. I also make use of archives for questions and answers these website include:

(a) www.allexperts.com/ (b) http://answers.yahoo.com/ (c) www.ask.com/ (d) www.justanswer.com/      (e) www.wolframalpha.com/

To obtain answers within a specified parameter questions must be intelligently constructed. Driscoll tells us “…schema-based processing occurs as people solve problems…experts in a domain structure their knowledge in ways different from novices” (p.134). Experts in all areas of education and technology are knowledge base professional people who I keep in mind when I need help with answers.

References:

Kolesnikov-Jessopk, S. (2011). The New York Times: For More Students, Working on Wikis Is Part of Making the Grade. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/education/02iht-educSide.html

Gulati, G. J., Frydenberg, M., Angelique Davi, D. (2007). Blogging across the Disciplines: Integrating Technology to Enhance Liberal Learning: Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no3/frydenberg.htm

Hargis, J., Wilcox, s. M. (2008).Turkish online learning of Distance Education: Ubiquitous, Free, and Efficient Online Collaboration Tools for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Why do we want Knowledge and what do we want to do with it? Hard copy retrieved from: http://www.knowingknowledge.com

Kop, R., Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–13. Retrieved from the Walden Library using the Education Research Complete database.

Siemens, G. (2004). elearnspace. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from: http://elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instructions (3^rd ed.) Pearson Press, New York

The URLs for blogs that I intend to respond are:

(a) http://ylyonstechnology.blogspot.com/

(b) http://marthathibodeau.wordpress.com/

Collaboration - Human Natural Instinct?

Cecil Mittoo EDUC 7105 – 1 Module 3
Collaboration
My reflection of Rheingold’s (Video 2008) proposal of humans having a basic instinct to “interact and work as a group” depends on the perspective that I will take to give an answer. I will say no from a biological standpoint. I was once told by a minister of religion that the first law of human preservation is selfishness. I believe that humans make use of the environmental offering to ensure their sustenance and selfish ways. Keltner (2012) postulates “Since Plato, we have portrayed the emotions as the fount of irrationality, baseness, and sin. What would the seven deadly sins be without destructive passions? Or the Ten Commandments for that matter?” Man’s possession is linked to his family, and there is selfishness for survival and existence. Discussions and debates do not take away the stain of biology and selfishness. Human actions are believed to satisfy desires. Rheingold’s presentation concluding phrase is “Selfish interest that adding up to more.” Discussion in the Physics Forum (2004) on philosophy espouses “Everything we do is a selfish act. Every decision we make is one we want to make for ourselves. An example of helping an old lady to cross the street notes as an act of having a good feeling about yourself rather than feeling bad not to do it. Many times students tell me that they don’t care when I try to get them focus on doing work. My response is “I care.” But how much impact will my care have when students don't care? Rheingold laments that trust are important for collaboration. If you make me trust you, even by telling me that you care and demonstrating that you care I can adapt to the demands of ecology to work with you. The fact is humans do not think together. You think, I think. There is no mental merging of the psychological and the sociological. In my mind if my intimate belonging must be preserved, even from epistemological ecology, I will give selfishness the first choice of assurance.

Rheingold’s presentation was intriguing informative with emerging technology. How can educational technologist revamp an old education system? To date it is structured on the industrial revolution year planner. We are at a crossroad where cyber technology is shaping our economic growth, and the foundation for support (K-12) is still undecided. Rheingold poised that new forms of wealth is the result of collaboration around enabling technology. I believe technology has imposed its crude capability on humans to cause them to see the need to merge or wither and die. I believe the internet and the World Wide Web have forced humans to collude businesses and commerce in order to maintain a share of the marketplace. Rheingold has used the “Prisoners Dilemma” as an analogy to show that collaboration among individuals or corporation has its foundation on trust. Our concept of fairness in business is influenced by our social institution, but most cultures are about 50/50 in their ideology of fairness. But how do we transfer collaborative effort into learning. I believe learning differences in collaboration will dictate individual’s potential but with trust productivity at best can be realized. The evolution of technology is the driver for collaborative interaction in business and education.

• Responsibility for group learning in constructivism demands experiential building and awareness by the instructor. constructivist learning theory is founded on collaboration and active learning. This ensures co-construct of knowledge from shared experience, knowledge and redefining problems. Davis (2002) believes "students learn best when they are actively involved in the process." Group task must ensure build on learning which also collaborative writing is. Group work must be relevant. This is usually achieved when students participate in study topic design and resource selection. Students’ skills and ability is important to build confidence and background knowledge. This enables cognitive development for difficult, complex and creative thinking. Labor division is a traditional group setting for cooperative group work. Collaborative interaction will allow for shared knowledge in all areas of learning. Group size is consistent with presentation time and difficulty level of lesson. Competitiveness among groups is encouraged with learning challenges in parallel and presentation technology available to all groups. Group dissolving due to group member’s issues should not be encouraged. The constructivist learning pattern is based on both social and academic skill development. The Problem Base Learning (PBL) Plan is ideal for constructivist learning. This adapts learning technology in all areas of planning, research, analysis, develop and presenting.

• The study titled Collaboration Tools, by Lomas et al. (2008) elicits current and future use and development of collaborative learning tools. They note “creating affinity groups on social networking sites like face-book exchanging links over IM conversations, or building group projects in Google Docs. “Millennials” have seamlessly integrated the social tools they use for communication with friends into their academic toolkit…” (p.2). A tool kit is an important resource for apprentices who will later leave the guiding hands of their master craftsman to go out on their own. The competence of using the tools will prove rewarding in their trade. Many students are using Wikis and blogs to extend their learning and share information. Students are being classified as “practitioners” They learn to use technology tools for class work in school. Lomas et al. (2008) espouses collaboration as “The action with one or more people to produce something.” The production of knowledge is their major goals for K-12 learners. Effective collaboration pools collective intelligence that transcends distance and geographical boundaries. Technology tools enable communication from remote places. According to Lomas et al. (2008) the quality of good collaboration tools will (a) promote communication; (b) share a diagram, photograph, paper or similar objects; (c) allows natural interactions; and (d) be easy to use and learn.

References:

Keltner, D. (2012). The Evolution of Compassion. University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from: http://www.altruists.org/static/files/The%20Evolution%20of%20Compassion%20%28Dacher%20Keltner%29.pdf

Physics Forum. (2004). All acts are selfish in nature. General Discussion › Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=16855

Lomas, C., Burke, M., Page, L. C. (2008). Collaboration Tools. Educase Learning Initiative. Retrieved from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3020.pdf

Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold on collaboration [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Davis, B. G.(2002). Tools for Teaching. Collaborative Learning:Group Work and Study Teams. University of California, Berkely. Retrieved from: http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html

Anticipating Module # 3 Response for URLs


(a) http://lauralee7105.blogspot.com/

(b) http://vidamartin7105.blogspot.com/