Instructional Design

The Solar System

2011-06-28T13:09:00.000-07:00

RLO for IX536: Design & Development Tools

2011-04-10T07:59:00.000-07:00

This is a STEM RLO (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics Reusable Learning Object) for my IX536 course, Unit 6:

Unable to display content. Adobe Flash is required.

Star Fleet University: Improving Internal Leadership Management

2011-03-17T13:34:00.001-07:00

Introduction
The Board of Trustees has accepted my proposal to analyze the problem, and then develop a performance solution to improve internal leadership at Star Fleet University. In order to do this, I, the consultant, will follow the six steps outline by Barksdale and Lund (2001), in order to perform a rapid needs analysis. The six steps I will utilize include:

Analyzing the request to develop a performance solution.
Identifying the current situation
Analyzing the data
Determining solution specifications
Gaining commitment
Initiating development of the solution (Barksdale & Lund, 2001, pp. 1 – 2).

Analysis Request: Step 1

What is Star Fleet University's request?	Since upper administration will be retiring in a few years, and newly hired administration personnel is being lured away by competitors, Star Fleet University requests a more aggressive approach to their internal leadership management. Background about Star Fleet University: they are an international higher education facility with 177 administrative staff who are scattered throughout the United States and Japan. Although most of the administrators have stayed with the university for an average of 17 years, several will be retiring in a few years. Since the most recently-hired administrators are leaving Star Fleet to join competing universities, it is obvious they are motivated differently than the older generation of administrators. Too, the university has recently launched an online division, which consists of faculty, staff, and administers who work remotely. Since most of upper administration will be retiring in the next few years, and several of the new administrators are leaving Star Fleet to join with competitors, the Board of Trustees and the President have decided they require a more robust performance and evidence-based, decision-making process.
Who is making this request? What is their role?	The President and Board of Trustees of Star Fleet University. They are stakeholders.
Who will be contacted to gather information about the situation?	The Board of Trustees. The administrative staff—both the veterans and new hires. Too, I think it's important to contact administrators who have left Star Fleet University for positions within competing universities. Exit interviews must be incorporated as soon as possible. Faculty members need to be contacted for their point of view on the subject. Also, get involved with leadership organizations to ask their opinions. In addition, I think it would be wise to contact university students who are majoring in administrative roles, and who are going to graduate in the next year or two to get their opinions.
What is the urgency of this request?	Although the urgency is not immediate, restructuring the organization chart, changing the performance evaluation process, and incorporating an evidence-based, decision-making procedure will take time to initiate. The analysis must begin now so that there is adequate time to incorporate the changes before those in upper administration retire. By moving quickly, the University can glean experience from the veteran administrators before they go into retirement, and give newly-hired leaders incentive to stay to become involved in incorporating the changes.
What are the gains/losses for Star Fleet University from solving this problem?	It's vital to have highly-qualified and highly-motivated leaders within Star Fleet University. If they don't, then there will be a "trickle-down" effect. Quality faculty members will leave. Student enrollment will go down. State and federal funding will not be awarded. Grants will be lost. There is everything to gain by improving internal leadership management. Having strong administrators who are motivated to go after grants, to start programs that reach out to the community and public school districts will gain recognition on the state and federal levels.
What does the University expect to gain from this analysis?	Star Fleet University goals are to: Attract new, highly qualified, and motivated administrators to their school. Recognize and reward administrators for work well done. Provide the latest leadership training modules for new ideas and continued creativity. Deliver a robust performance and evidence-based, decision-making process.
What are the analyzed risks?	Possible risks include: Poor reception from veteran administrators who are set in their ways. Disagreement over methods used to promote or reward administrators. Professional jealousy. To some, the solution might be incomplete, or "wrong" and the university ends up losing administrators anyway. Training administrators on how to use the new, innovative leadership management program, only to lose them to the competition.

Situation Evaluation: Step 2

According to the body of research there are clearly identified steps that must be completed in the analysis. The steps are:

Locating the needed information.
Determining the data collection methods.
Developing the instruments to gather the information.
Testing the data-gathering instruments (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).

The following is an adaptation of Worksheet 2.1, Locating the Needed Information, p. 27, (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).

Information Needed	Where located and who has information	Availability of Information
Organizational information; Descriptions of current major initiatives.	President, Board of Trustees, veteran administrators such as the president and chancellors, provosts, vice president, deans and other senior-level administrators with responsibility for crisis planning, communication and external relations. Current policies/procedures handbook, and other university documents.	Written documentation available. Any clarification can be done by veteran upper administrators who should know the procedures.
Current leadership practices	President, Board of Trustees, veteran administrators, current policies/procedures handbook, and other university documents	The best way to discover current leadership practices would be Job Mapping (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001, p. 40).
Current college policies regarding leadership roles and incentives	Leadership trainers/professors.	College documents; HR documents; interviewing leadership trainers; job mapping.
Best practice information; Industry Leaders	Professional organizations such as The College Board, and ACE. Review other governing structures used throughout the world. Best practices literature search.	Join organizations. Google well-known colleges and find their policies/procedures on their website. Enroll in Harvard University's Crisis Leadership in Higher Education.
What are the attitudes regarding current leadership practices?	Recently-hired Administrators.	Online surveys with incentives.
What is the quality of the current leadership program?	University president and chancellors, provosts, vice presidents, deans and other senior-level administrators. New administrators who have recently taken the training program.	One survey for veteran senior-level administrators to ascertain whether methods are outdated, and if so, how do they compensate? Was the leadership program updated to reflect this? Another survey for those who have recently taken the training. Data from observation. Information from literature review.
Data to support current trends in leadership programs	External data from literature review, organizations. External universities Focus group	Information available via textbooks, and research-based articles. Electronic focus group via a wiki.

My Summary and Rationale for Methods of Collection.

Data Collection Method	Rational
Online Survey (closed questions).	To determine the attitudes and effectiveness of current leadership practices at Star Fleet University. Online surveys are good in that they provide the maximum amount of information from a diverse group of individuals spread throughout in various locations at one time (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).
Best Practices Literature Search	To determine what competing universities are doing to entice administrators to join them is discovered by reviewing recent publications. Review of current literature is one way to discover how other universities have solved their problems and what they currently do for leadership training (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).
Electronic Focus group	This method will assist in determining what types of best practices appeal most to the recently-hired administrators. Electronic focus groups that are carefully monitored ensure the consistency of responses and guarantees pertinent information is collected (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).
Job Mapping	By job mapping, the consultant will discover what tasks are involved in doing a job so that she can identify the knowledge, skill level, anticipated performance, and hindrances to doing the tasks (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001). This will be done with a group of administrators who perform the same tasks. At Star Fleet University, the veteran administrators might have inadvertently changed their procedures to adapt to changes—such as the incorporation of the online division—but have not updated their training and/or procedures. Too, the administrators might have altered their tasks in different ways to achieve the same goal. Some methods could be better than others.
Interviews with Yahoo Messenger 10	The consultant will conduct several face-to-face interviews with key players, such as recent administrators still employed, and administrators who have recently left to join a competing university. Per Barnsdale & Lund (2001), interview are very effective because participants can explore topics in more detail and depth than when using a survey or focus group.

References
Barnsdale, S. & Lund T. (2001). RAPID Needs Analysis. Alexandria, VA: ASTD

Case Study: Design and Development Tools

2011-03-05T17:32:00.000-08:00

IX536-Design and Development Tools: Unit 1 Case Study

“Six instructors were on a four-week professional development leave from their regular duties. During this time, the instructors participated in a workshop on creating instructional multimedia applications. In the first three weeks, the mornings were devoted to learning the principles and guidelines of creating instructional multimedia applications. During the afternoons of the first week, two instructors evaluated authoring tools, another learned a graphics package, and the other three evaluated sample courseware. In the afternoons of the second and third weeks and throughout the fourth week, the instructors put the principles and guidelines learned into practice by creating an instructional multimedia tutorial” (Fenrich, 2005, p. 21).

Respond to the Case Study questions on the discussion board:

In the current case study, do you foresee any issues of having two instructors evaluating the authoring tools? Explain your answer.
Is it possible to have an instructional multimedia designer develop all elements (graphics, audio, animation, etc.) for a course? Provide evidence to support your answer.
If you were to organize a four-week professional workshop for instructors on creating instructional multimedia applications, what would your meeting schedule look like? (Create a workshop itinerary for your participants)
Describe how you would assess the outcome of this workshop.

This discussion addresses the unit learning outcomes:

Identify factors that influence the growth of eLearning
Describe the characteristics of static and interactive digital media in an eLearning environment

Describe rapid prototyping advances in eLearning content development

My Answer:

In the current case study, do you foresee any issues of having two instructors evaluating the authoring tools? Explain your answer.

Yes, I can see redundancy and overlapping.

Is it possible to have an instructional multimedia designer develop all elements (graphics, audio, animation, etc.) for a course? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Although I have done all this myself when I've designed websites and three-day workshops for others, I think to design a whole online course would be better to do in collaboration with three to five people. Caplan (2004) argues that, "online course development is a complex endeavor, and it is not reasonable to believe that a high caliber online course of instruction can be created by just one or two people. Quality courseware production requires a highly organized, concerted effort from many players." The traditional college instructor is used to working in solitude. But online delivery challenges those notions and instead brings together teams of people each with unique skills into a course design and development team (Ellis, 2000).
However, it can be done by one person if that person knows how to use the software tools. I've used Adobe Photoshop and Daz to design my own graphics. I've also used Adobe Flash for animation. I have made my own "book trailers" using my voice and other sounds for the video that could be used in a course environment. VoiceThread can also be used as well as Jing. If you do design a whole course on your own, at the least I think it's important to have a peer review as well as input from some students.

If you were to organize a four-week professional workshop for instructors on creating instructional multimedia applications, what would your meeting schedule look like? (Create a workshop itinerary for your participants).

Instructional Multimedia Applications Workshop
Week One	Goals and Expected Outcomes
9:00 to Noon	Discuss the principles and guidelines of creating instructional multimedia applications. Demonstrate the use of various authoring tools, showing examples. Break into groups and plan/diagram various ways to implement the tools into your environment.
Noon to 1:00	Lunch on your own
1:05 to 4:00	Hands-on use of the authoring tools in the computer lab using your group plan.
Week Two	Goals and Expected Outcomes
9:00 to Noon	Recap what we learned previous week. Build on what we've learned by discussing in depth principles and guidelines. Demonstrate the use of a graphics package, showing examples. Break into groups and plan/design various ways to implement the tools into your environment.
Noon to 1:00	Lunch on your own
1:05 to 4:00	Hands-on use of the graphics package in the computer lab using ideas gleaned from your group.
Week Three	Goals and Expected Outcomes
9:00 to Noon	Review what was learned in the previous two weeks and add sample courseware. Discuss the features and how to implement authoring tools and graphics package. Break into groups to discuss creative ways to combine the three.
Noon to 1:00	Lunch on your own
1:05 to 4:00	Hands-on use of sample courseware (use Moodle if other models not available) in the computer lab using ideas gleaned from your group.
Week Four	Combine all Principles and guidelines together to make a tutorial that the participants can use in their work environment.

Describe how you would assess the outcome of this workshop.

I would give a questionnaire to the participants and ask for feedback on how to improve the workshop. In about a month, I would take a survey to see if the instructors were implementing what they had learned.

References

Caplan, D. (2004). The development of online courses. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, AB, Canada: Athabasca University. Retrieved February 24, 2004 from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/

Ellis, A., & Phelps, R. (2000). Staff development for online delivery: A collaborative, team based action learning model. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 26-44.

Pedagogical Multimedia: Caricature Agents Vs. Human Agents

2011-01-28T10:35:00.000-08:00

Note: Introduction and Purpose

Research Proposal

Pedagogical Multimedia: Caricature Agents Vs. Human Agents

Kaplan University: IX540

Gloria Harchar

January 23, 2011

Introduction

Today's adult students are active and prolific on social networking sites, blogs, and mobile devices that have access to the internet. They are on the internet a major portion of their day and are more accustomed to reading books online via eReaders and other mobile devices rather than on paper. McLuhan (1967) states that learners today are bemused when they enter the traditional classroom that characterizes an educational establishment that presents limited information in an ordered and structured manner that is disjointed, and has classified patterns, subjects and schedules. Conversely, some say that developing a personalized connection in a Web based environment is impossible, but personal narrative is one method that has been found to personalize instruction, center learning on the student and directly engaging them in the learning process (Newmaster, Lacroix & Roosenboom, 2006). However, it has already been established that online education allows for a much more personal one-on-one interaction between instructor and student and even among student groups (Ash, 2010). Vast sums of information are available at the click of a button and reading books online via eReaders and other mobile devices rather than on paper is the norm. A constructivist view epitomizes this view where people pursue new knowledge and construct it to fit existing schemas that makes sense to them (Woolfolk, 2010). This may be why distance learning has made such rapid growth and the debate between the effectiveness on online and traditional classrooms has ruled in favor of online learning. Now the issues lie in which pedagogical elements improve the online experience for students.

When people learn by constructing new knowledge they often learn more when linked to instructors on a personal basis. Research has found that learner motivation increases when a personalized connection between the learner and the instructor is present (Wlodkowski, 1999). Therefore, the relationship between the narrative approach and student motivation is an essential component when fostering interactive online learning experiences. It would stand to reason that if the student views the instruction of a multimedia presentation in a very personal way, the learner will be able to identify with the instructor and feel greater satisfaction from the presentation. Course designers need to know which multimedia presentations are more effective and for which audiences in order to maximize learning and adult student satisfaction. Do adult students learn more from caricature or human agents? Which type of agent appeals to the adult learner? Does previous exposure to technology have an impact on which agent is more satisfying? Do other issues, such as age or gender, have an impact on which agent is more satisfying? Is the adult learner more satisfied with the agent depending on the implied age or gender of the pedagogical agent?

In presenting information some online course designers use a caricature agent, while others use a more realistic or human agent. The research on the effects of various kinds of online agents is limited. For example, one research on pedagogical agents revealed a caricature, Adele, who was designed to present information, provide feedback, questions, hints, and explanations to medical students (Johnson, 1998). Adele provided eye contact and various facial expressions. Another study promoted human-like media, including web based learning programs that can promote social presence because it uses conversational narration that promotes immediacy, and work toward deeper understanding (Mayer, Fennell, Farmer, & Campbell, 2004). However, none have probed the effectiveness of caricature agents versus human agents. This paper examines each of these online agents, subsequent learning and the opinions of adult students’ reactions to them.

Purpose

The purpose of this phenomenological method of inquiry is to discover whether a pedagogical agent or a human agent has a greater impact on learning in relationship to students at both University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL), and at Kaplan University. At this stage in the research, the pedagogical agent will be defined as an animated cartoon figure, and a human agent will be defined as a real, live human being.

References

Ash, K. (2010). Making the move to the virtual world. Education Week, 30(4), S6-S7. Beck, I., McKeown, M.G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A year-long classroom implementation to engage students in text. Elementary School Journal, 96, 385-414.

Beck, I., McKeown, M.G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A year-long classroom implementation to engage students in text. Elementary School Journal, 96, 385-414.

Johnson L., Shaw E., & Ganeshan, R. (1998). Pedagogical agents on the web. Center for Advanced Research in Technology for Education. USC / Information Sciences Institute. Retrieved from http://www.isi.edu/isd/ADE/papers/its98/ITS98-WW.htm.

McLuhan, M. (1967). The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects with Quentin Fiore, produced by Jerome Agel; 1st Ed.: Random House; reissued by Gingko Press, 2001.

Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389-395.

Newmaster, S., Lacroix, C. A., & Roosenboom, C. (2006). Authentic learning as a mechanism for learner centredness. International Journal of Learning, 13(6), 103-112.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (2002). The media equation: How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Thissen, F. (2003). Screen design manual: Communicating effectively through multimedia. New York: Springer.

Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology. Pearson Education.

Web 2.0 Tools

2011-01-28T10:25:00.000-08:00

Note: This is a term project that took 10 weeks to develop for my IX510 course at Kaplan University:

Instructional Design Document for Team Brilliant – Web 2.0 Tools

Scott Benton

Gloria Harchar

Joshua Hester

Tanya Napoli

Kaplan University

IX510 – Instructional Design

November 23, 2010
Instructor: Sue Hutchinson

Abstract

This is an instructional design document that addresses Web 2.0 tool instruction of Kaplan University professors. Rather than utilize emerging Web 2.0 communication technologies, many professors choose only to employ the standard communication tools provided and required by the online college. Because Web 2.0 tools such as Dipity, Jing and Prezi have become integral to the online learning environment, the solution to this problem is to provide instruction in these tools to increase efficacy in online communication between professors and students.
Instructional Design Document for Team Brilliant – Web 2.0 Tools

Adult learners over age 24 currently comprise about 44 percent of U.S. post-secondary students, but many millions more need post-secondary credentials to succeed economically. As a growing numbers of adults are participating in post-secondary and work-related courses; as many as 37 million adults are interested but unable to participate. The vast majority of adult learners are financially independent, work part or full-time, have dependents and must juggle many responsibilities. (Kazis, Callahan, Davidson, McLeod, Bosworth, & Choitz , 2007) Understanding the unique needs of adult learners is critical to designing higher education systems and policies that support this population and promote their success (Department of Education, 2007).

Based on both personal accounts and an informal review of instructor evaluations, students enrolled in online courses noted that delivery communication with their professors seemed outmoded and ineffectual. Rather than utilize emerging Web 2.0 communication technologies, many professors choose only to employ the standard communication tools provided and required by the online college. Rather than using Dipity and Prezi to generate creative and engaging presentations, there is an insistence to cling to Microsoft PowerPoint. Rather than using Jing to share desktop videos instantly, text-based seminars with limited audio and chatting capabilities is preferred. The result is a dry and unimaginative online experience for the student.

From the educator perspective, based upon professor feedback, the learning curve associated with keeping abreast of trends in online technologies is too steep and the results of this effort are uncertain. Although emerging technologies promise streamlined work flows and new features, once these technologies are learned and adopted, their relevance can soon become obsolete and retrograde. Professors find it virtually impossible to determine whether a current online trend will become foundational or will simply fall to the wayside. Many feel that their only alternative is to cling onto older, more established communication tools as technological fads come and go. Professors should see change as necessary to survive in this evolving society. Such change will not only be beneficial to the college, but will help with job security.

Web 2.0 tools can be used to resolve one of the “missing links” in online education: collaborative communication. According to Hastings (2009), “One of the benefits of collaborating using Web 2.0 services is that it does not matter where in the world a collaborator is working - everyone can access and contribute equally.” (p. 16). This increased communication can work to lessen the “virtual gap” between instructor and student in the online environment. Web 2.0 tools such as Dipity, Jing and Prezi have become integral to the online learning environment. The solution to this problem is to provide instruction in these tools, so that professors no longer feel intimidated by the technology and online communication between professors and students will have increased efficacy.

Web 2.0 Tools

Dipity. Dipity (http ://www .dipity .com /) is an online timeline tool that supports text, hyperlinks, YouTube videos and Flickr photos. The Dipity platform provides easy-to-create and easy-to-share interactive timelines that provide both collaboration and discussion board capabilities.

Jing. Jing (http ://www .techsmith .com /jing /) is an online conversation tool for both synchronous and asynchronous communication that can enhance online seminars, presentations and feedback with students on tests and projects. With Jing, you can take a screenshot of the desktop or create a simple step-by-step tutorial video. You can share these videos via Web link, e-mail, instant message, Twitter or through a blog.

Prezi. Prezi (http ://prezi .com /) is an online presentation tool to organize ideas using graphics, videos and text across a virtually infinite canvas . Content can include geometric organizers like arrows and frames, hyperlinks, YouTube videos and uploaded photos. Camera animation is also easy to implement. Presentations can be embedded or shared via Web link, Facebook, Twitter or e-mail.

Target Audience

Adult Learners in Higher Education. According to a questionnaire survey, over 90 percent of the adult students surveyed preferred combining lecture and discussion together in instruction. Of these students, 80 percent wanted the instructor to provide a syllabus, while 60 percent preferred an outline for each lecture. Over 50 percent preferred the instructor to determine the actual course content and learning goals (Check, 1984).

Women have constituted the fastest growing segment of adult students (Solmon and Gordon 1981). Adult students are likely to be from a working class background and are likely to be first generation college students whose parents did not attend college. The largest group of adult students are professional and technical workers. Clerical workers are next and managers and administrators are third in the number of courses for which they enrolled (Eurich, 1985).

Learner Characteristics and Assumptions. To understand college professors in an online environment, the instruction must address adult learning theory and its relationship to distance or learning online. Most adults were taught in traditional and passive classrooms (Cercone, K. 2008). One of the most well-known theories is Malcolm S. Knowles’ learning theory of andragogy, the art and science of helping adults learn (Cercone, K. 2008). It is grounded by the humanistic learning theory that contains a model with five assumptions:

1. The first assumption – Underlying andragogy refers to adult learners’ independent self-concept and ability to direct their own learning (Knowles, 1984). Adult learners are independent and self-directed. Adults prefer autonomy; younger students prefer dependence (Schwartz, 1985).

2. The second assumption – “An adult accumulates a growing reservoir of experience, which is a rich resource for learning” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1992). Adults want to learn new skills or new information which can be put to use immediately in their personal lives or in their jobs (Preston, Burnham, Wendell, 1986).

3. The third assumption – “The readiness of an adult to learn is closely related to the developmental tasks of his or her social role” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999)

4. The fourth assumption – “There is a change in time perspective as people mature- from future application of knowledge to immediacy of application. Thus an adult is adult is more problem centered than subject centered in learning” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1992). Adults view education as a means to an end, not as an end in itself (Zemke & Zemke, 1981). Adults are motivated by knowing that some need will be met by learning and material.

5. The fifth assumption – Adults are motivated to learn by internal factors rather than external ones” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1992). Factors like job satisfaction and self-esteem are important.

Design Implications. Implications for adult learners related to social and psychological differences are: differences in age, gender, socio-economic group, previous education, work and family responsibilities, and motivations and barriers to attending college (Kelly, D. 1986).

Three major types of barriers, which may prevent adults from attending college, are situational, institutional, and dispositional (Cross, 1981). Sewall's study (1986) shows that those three factors account for 59 percent of the most pressing reasons for delaying entry to college. Situational barriers are those which arise out of a particular time and may include the costs of attending college, hours spent working, and family responsibilities. Institutional barriers may include the course offerings, marketing of programs, the times at which courses are offered, the length of the semester, the methods of registration, and the academic standards for enrollment. Poor attitudes of faculty and administration can also pose institutional barriers for adult college students. Dispositional barriers are those imposed on the student by the student: poor time management, poor study skills, low self-esteem, boredom, lack of curiosity, lack of energy, and fear of going to college.

Survey. To evaluate previous assumptions of the target audience, Team Brilliant surveyed 15 Kaplan University professors within the Education program using a Survey Monkey (http://www.surveymonkey) questionnaire. The results of the questionnaire confirmed most assumptions, but also provided additional insights into preferred learning styles and prior knowledge.

Of the technological prerequisites, all professors expressed high proficiency with only discussion boards, while approximately half of respondents had only familiarity with blogs and HTML. In regards to JavaScript and object embedding, most professors had no experience whatsoever. By a large margin, professors do not maintain their own Web sites, although a little more than half expressed some familiarity with Web 2.0 tools. Most professors had used Jing (though half of those indicated only rare usage), but a much smaller minority have used Prezi and over 80% had never used Dipity.

Slightly more than half of the professors were kinesthetic learners that work individually, while all but one professor preferred visual aids to accompany instruction. Because the margin was surprisingly close, the instructional approach must consider detailed scaffolding to accompany hands-on activities, and include both individual and group assessment components.

Learning Outcomes

● Learners will be able to perform basic tasks with the Web 2.0 tools Dipity, Jing and Prezi.

● Learners will be able to integrate existing Web 2.0 tools into their virtual classroom experience.

● Learners will be able to collaborate with other learners to share best practices and strategies when using Web 2.0 tools.

Objectives

1. Learners will be able to perform basic tasks with the Web 2.0 tools Dipity, Jing and Prezi.

1. Given specific event dates and access to other online media resources, learners can create, contribute and share a timeline using Dipity that includes hyperlinks and other online multimedia.

2. Given a procedural task, learners can create and share a Jing screencast that includes screenshots and limited collaborative capabilities.

3. Given an existing PowerPoint presentation script, learners can create and share a Prezi presentation that includes grouping, animation and media elements.

2. Learners will be able to integrate existing Web 2.0 tools into their virtual classroom experience.

1. Given a Web 2.0 tool, learners can determine at least three different scenarios in which to apply the tool effectively. Each application rubric will consist of creativity and effectiveness for generative and collaborative classroom environments.

2. Given an assignment and hypothetical scenario for a specified Web 2.0 tool, learners will create a project that meets 70% of the stated assignment rubric. Each assignment rubric will consist of creativity, organization and incorporation of media elements.

3. Learners will be able to collaborate with other learners to share best practices and strategies when using Web 2.0 tools.

1. Given a group assignment, learners will brainstorm with other faculty members to determine the best topic for their projects.

2. The learner will suggest at least three possible applications in the classroom for how to combine Prezi, Dipity and Jing into one presentation and share these suggestions with other learners.

3. Given community sites and forums for Web 2.0 tools, learners will find at least three suggestions to share with other learners and contribute at least two posts to each community site or forum.

Analysis. According to the instructional analysis domains provided by Smith and Ragan (2005) and the Bloom's taxonomy model updated by Cochran and Conklin (2007), the objectives can be classified as follows:

1. The first objective is primarily concerned with the procedural learning domain, because all tasks are based upon a systematic process. Smith and Ragan (2005) point out that instructional strategies for the procedural learning domain may include those utilized for declarative knowledge and principle learning domains. Within the sub-objectives (1.1, 1.2 and 1.3), using the actual Web 2.0 applications to generate productions will also involve to a lesser degree problem-solving and cognitive learning domains. Although the first objective clearly relates to the Bloom Level 3 because it requires learners to apply their knowledge to create productions, the creative act itself approaches Bloom Levels 5 and 6. In order to create a production on a unique topic, learners must both synthesize learned procedures and evaluate the best procedure to yield the desired result.

2. The second objective is primarily concerned with the principle and problem-solving learning domains. Within the sub-objectives (2.1 and 2.2), learners will need to determine when to use and the most effective application of Web 2.0 tools. The objective falls under Bloom Levels 5 and 6. Both sub-objectives require users to synthesize learned principles and evaluate their most affective applications.

3. The third objective is primarily concerned with the cognitive learning domain. Each of the three sub-objectives encourages learners to incorporated collaboration into their learning process. This inclusion is intended to foster increased group participation and additional networking among learners beyond the instruction. The objective falls under Bloom Levels 5 and 6. All three sub-objectives require users to synthesize learned principles, evaluate their most affective applications, and share findings among their peers.

Instructional Strategies

General Approaches. Our instructional goals will include the following aspects (Lebow, 1993):

● Context for learning that supports autonomy and information-relatedness

● Structures and strategies for self-regulated learning

● Engagement with intentional and meaningful learning processes

Specifically, we will utilize the C-4 model and instructional scaffolding as strategies to achieve these goals.

The C-4 model is a collaborative project strategy comprised of four components: challenge, choice, collaboration and creation (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Our Web 2.0 projects will offer learners choices, challenges their knowledge of using these tools, and provides an opportunity for creative output. By sharing their projects and knowledge with other learners, we are facilitating collaboration as well. By providing an existing PowerPoint presentation and other resources as learners begin using these Web 2.0 tools, we are providing a high degree of scaffolding initially. This scaffolding supports higher-level learning, so that students can elaborate further on complex ideas that would be otherwise beyond their grasp if they depended solely on their own cognitive resource (Greenfield, 1984).

Computer assisted instruction (CAI) and computer based training will be utilized to help learners integrate Dipity, Jing and Prezi into the classroom. Computer assisted instruction is when students learn at their own pace with interactive computer programs. Three didactic questions will be utilized to help create three scenarios. A rubric containing a point system for four categories; creativity, organization, media and tools, will be implemented for performance and achievement.

Whether under a traditional or recent rubric, contextualized, relevant problems are central to motivated, meaningful, and transferable learning. Computer-based training can provide good tools for practice, because automated programs can constantly interact with learners, asking them to respond and then checking the accuracy of responses (Smith & Ragan, 2005).

Learners will use group-based instruction, to implement mastery learning of best practices with Web 2.0 tools during the documentation phase on a blog. Web logging, or blogging, is a form of online reporting and journaling that gives anyone an opportunity to publish on the Internet. Blogs can be excellent tools for student reflections about course content or reporting activities in a student teaching experience (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright and Zvacek, 2009).

Media Recommendations. Most of the instructional implementation will depend upon the existing KU system, so all existing technologies such as course wikis, blogs and discussion boards will be utilized fully. In addition to the delivery system, we will also use quick reference guides, production examples, training recording and replay features, and community-related references to support instruction.

Quick reference guides will be developed and provided for all three Web 2.0 technologies. These guides will serve to help the students after the training if they get overwhelmed with the technologies and as easy resources for hard-to-remember features.

A PowerPoint deck for the first Prezi project will be given to the learner so as to emphasize the transfer of knowledge and decrease technology intimidation. The learner will use the PowerPoint deck to create a Prezi presentation that contains at least four graphics and one video, keeping in mind the redundancy, visual and modality principles of (Clark, 2008).

Online training sessions will be recorded and archived for future reference. Sussex (2008) reported, “A combination of media, involving maximum immediacy and personal interaction combined with recording for later review, has been shown in practice to yield the richest and most flexible supervision.” (p. 121).

Students will also be directed to tutorials that are already available online, such as user and product help sites for Jing, Dipity, and Prezi. Educator communities are also available for many of these technologies. These forums serve not only to help with learning the technologies, but they also encourage collaboration among educators and additional ideas for using the tools.

Objective Strategies. In the first objective, students will be introduced to existing productions and detailed task-by-task tutorials of each Web 2.0 technology. For the Dipity tool, students will be provided an existing Dipity timeline and given simple tasks to add and modify events. After describing how to create and share a Dipity timeline, students will be given a group assignment in which to demonstrate their understanding. For the Jing tool, learners will participate in a seminar using Jing and participate in its collaborative features from their student’s perspective. After describing how to create a Jing screencast and use other relevant features, students will create their own Jing screencasts and share these productions with other students. For the Prezi tool, learners will be provided an existing Prezi presentation introducing them to its features. After describing how to create, share and implement grouping, animation and media elements in a Prezi presentation, students will convert an existing PowerPoint presentation as a group assignment.

The second objective focuses on the applicability of learned Web 2.0 skills, rather than task performance. In this objective, students will share their observations with each other using the discussion board and wiki and blog posts. As a final assessment, students will work in a group assignment that will consist of a common hypothetical scenario for a Web 2.0 tool. The group members will be assigned based on their chosen Web 2.0 tool. The groups will share their project assignment and solicit feedback on their designs. A portion of the rubric will contain a peer evaluation.

The third objective expands learned Web 2.0 skills with shared collaboration. Besides sharing further observations with the virtual classroom, students will be presented standard communities and forums in which to participate and grow their experience in using Web 2.0 tools. Classroom assignments will include group assignments divided by faculty department to foster increased exchange between professors after the course has concluded.

Evaluation Plan

Evaluation serves two purposes in instructional design: to assess individual learner performance and to assess the overall effectiveness of the instructional design and implementation (Smith & Ragan, 2005).

The main purpose of our evaluation will be to ensure that learners can meet the stated learning outcomes. The first learning outcome is procedural in nature and can be best evaluated using a project-based approach in the instruction itself. Multiple unit pre-tests and post-tests can confirm that these steps have been internalized and remembered, but a project will demonstrate actual usage. The last two learning outcomes will need to be assessed at the conclusion of the instruction. Although discussion board assignments will encourage the third learning outcome, the last two learning outcomes will require a voluntary reporting and survey mechanism in the field. These mechanisms will also provide the basis for our summative evaluation.

Because our design team includes two Kaplan University members who are both familiar with the KU system and online delivery, a former corporate instructor who has trained university faculty and current Kaplan graduate students and Web 2.0 tool users, our design document is constantly reviewed, discussed and revised in each of our meetings. These meetings perform the role of design and expert reviews in the formative evaluation process (Smith & Ragan, 2005). As each component of the design document is developed, we submit them for a one-on-one review with our IX510 professor, Sue Hutchinson.

One goal is that professors will become comfortable in using Web tools 2.0 on a regular basis to enhance student learning, which is difficult to measure since an attitudinal adjustment is subjective in nature. However, it can be observed. Thus, the designers must have access to the professors' future online classrooms and monitor future implementation of the tools. To think in terms of using available tools, learners must continually research the most current tools available and network with each other to see what other professors are using, or have discovered. Therefore, the designers wish to encourage the learners to maintain either a discussion board, blog, or wiki and regularly access it to brainstorm or network. Since we will be observing the learners in their own environment at the conclusion of the course, we will not be in danger of conducting the evaluation too early in the implementation of the instructional program (Smith and Ragan, 2005).

Related to the first goal, professors should also correctly apply the continuity, modality and redundancy principles to their application of Web 2.0 tools. Continuity has to do with placement of the graphic close to the corresponding text that explains the graphic so the student does not have to search for which parts of a graphic correspond to which words, which wastes limited cognitive resources to understanding the materials. When words and pictures are separated from one another on the screen, people must use their scarce cognitive resources just to match them up. Continuity also has to do with using relevant graphics, that is, pictures that pertain to the learning objective. When it is feasible to use audio, there is considerable evidence that presenting words in audio, rather than on-screen text, results in significant learning gains, which has to do with modality (Clark & Mayer, 2008). Using audio allows the learner to focus on the visual while listening to the explanation. The redundancy principle contends that people learn better from concurrent graphics and audio than from concurrent graphics, audio, and on-screen text. Thus, do not add printed text to a narrated graphic, unless the subject is very complex and students are unfamiliar with the terminology. In this case, just have the printed word on a screen and have the presenter to say the word to emphasize the pronunciation.

Issues in Evaluation. Formative evaluation involves the designer evaluating the material of the instruction, looking for weaknesses, making revisions to make the instruction more effective an efficient. If weaknesses are found in the materials or instruction, it can prohibit the learner from successfully reaching the objectives of the instruction. Formative evaluation would not be appropriate for those materials that were not designed to foster achievement of specified learning goals. Such materials include the traditional textbook that is written as an aid to learning a variety of objectives (Smith and Ragan, 2005).

During the design review if the instructional goals do not reflect a satisfactory response to the problems identified in the needs assessment, goals and objectives will not be met. Issues also include the task analysis not including all the prerequisite skills and knowledge needed to perform the learning goals. During goal review, issues will arise if the goal does not meet an instructional need. During task analysis review, if the target audience doesn’t have entry level skills and are not confirmed through a pre-evaluation, then neither the formative and summative evaluation will accurately measure expectations or results.

Additional issues with formative evaluation include not knowing the target audience well and not picking the appropriate materials, content not being accurate, up-to-date or persistent, examples and exercises are not relevant to the learner context, or are not consistent with the principles of instructional theory (Smith and Ragan, 2005).

Summative evaluation involves the actual materials already implemented and evaluated in terms of effectiveness in order to provide data for decision makers who may adopt or continue to use the materials. One common error in conducting summative evaluations that causes them to yield fallacious data is conducting the evaluation too early in the implementation of the instructional program (Smith and Ragan, 2005). Many times in evaluation studies, it is not possible to eliminate all of the factors that might threaten internal and external validity, because there is not a logical relationship among the payoff outcomes. Kearsley (1986) examined several of these factors, namely: costs avoided as a result of problems such as overruns, overtime, or employee turnover, increased output in sales/orders, production rate, or the number of transactions processed.

Data. For the formative evaluation process in the design phase, the main reliance is on informal comments from team members and our IX510 professor. As each asset is developed for instruction, there will be at least one assigned or voluntary KU professor that will review the material closer. These assets will have tracked changes enabled, so that the professors can make changes and comments as needed and/or desired. A short questionnaire will assess their overall approval of the asset using a simple three-point scale rubric: 1 meaning failure, 2 indicating basic functionality and 3 providing an exemplary score. All changes in the asset will be evaluated before they are accepted. Combining the overall rubric with a subjective evaluation of each comment will generate an overall score that will determine the priority of addressing the particular concern. Any asset that has an overall rubric of 1 must be redesigned or seriously revised and re-evaluated by that KU professor again.

The summative evaluation process will rely heavily on individual reports and surveys from professors and their students. To ensure that professors are using Web 2.0 tools in their virtual classroom and to what extent, their current students must report this information. Ideally, the reporting process would require only an email response from students, indicating the usage and frequency of Web 2.0 tools per class. At least one student per class taught by that professor will need to be recruited. To ensure that professors are continuing their collaboration effort beyond the course’s conclusion, the instructor will facilitate at least two brainstorming sessions and make a simple pass/fail determination on their effectiveness.

Objective Assessments. These assessments will evaluate the first learning outcome, namely that learners will demonstrate how to use the basic features of Web 2.0 tools Dipity, Jing and Prezi. In the first objective, the following rubric will be the basis for assessing individual projects using these Web 2.0 tools: (continued onto next page)

Category	1	2	3
Continuity	Exceeds the following requirements: Media elements pertain to the learning objective. Visual media elements are located closely to their associated textual elements.	Meets the following requirements: Media elements pertain to the learning objective. Visual media elements are located closely to their associated textual elements	Does not meet the following requirements: Media elements pertain to the learning objective. Visual media elements are located closely to their associated textual elements.
Modality	Provides excellent organization and choice of media elements.	Provides minimal organization and limited use of media elements.	There is little organization and only a few or no examples of media elements.
Redundancy	All media elements are used effectively and appropriately. Animation and narration do not include on-screen text.	Most media elements are used effectively and appropriately. Animation and narration do not include on-screen text.	Too many redundant media elements are used and could compete with the learner's attention.

For the remaining objectives, the following rubric will be a basis for evaluation of discussion board posts:

Category	1	2	3
Knowledge	Student successfully applies sufficient concepts, facts, and ideas from readings and community forums.	Student attempts to apply some concepts, facts, and ideas from readings and community forums; some key points may be missing or misinterpreted.	Student fails to apply sufficient concepts, facts, and ideas from readings and community forums.
Contribution	Student’s posts contribute significantly to the depth and evolution of the discussion.	Student’s posts contribute somewhat to the depth and evolution of the discussion.	Student’s posts fail to contribute to the depth and evolution of the discussion.
Redundancy	Student provides a high level of reciprocal engagement with other participants. Postings and replies are made throughout the academic week.	Student provides a moderate level of reciprocal engagement with other participants.	Student fails to provide appropriate level of reciprocal engagement with other participants.

Summative Assessments. Before addressing summative evaluation, all learners will need to take a brief questionnaire to verify their current computer literacy level. The questionnaire will require learners to rate their proficiency in the following skills (Christensen, 1997):

● Using electronic mail and an internet browser.

● Using search engines and saving Web pages as bookmarks.

● Printing Web pages and saving Web graphics.

● Authoring and publishing Web pages .

● Integrating Web content and tools into instruction.

Also, the questionnaire will require learners to categorize their general computer knowledge and indicate their purpose in taking the course. Because the last learning outcome is primarily an attitudinal adjustment, the questionnaire will further inquire into existing capacities to fuse and transform technologies and facilitate instruction of these technologies (Christensen, 1997).

The first assessment will directly evaluate the second learning outcome, namely that learners will use at least one Web 2.0 tools in their virtual classroom within the next ten weeks. Students will be sent this survey after completing a KU course with one of the learners. The survey will be hosted by Survey Monkey at the URL http ://www .surveymonkey .com /s /87 SNTQT and includes the following question:

Please rate the professors proficiency with Web 2.0 tools (Dipity, Jing and Prezi) based on the following statements: (Not Applicable, Disagree, Somewhat Agree, and Completely Agree)

● Usage of the Web 2.0 tool(s) met clearly-defined objectives.

● Dipity timeline(s) were clearly labeled and easy-to-follow.

● Dipity timeline(s) contained audio/visual elements that were interesting.

● The instructor's voice and cadence was animating and interesting in Jing presentation(s).

● The instructor's usage of images and other media elements in the Jing presentation(s) made the content easier to understand.

● Prezi presentation(s) were clearly organized and easy-to-follow.

● Prezi presentation(s) contained audio/visual elements that were interesting.

● Overall, the instructor was proficient with creating and sharing Dipity timelines.

● Overall, the instructor was proficient with creating and hosting Jing screencasts and presentations.

● Overall, the instructor was proficient with creating and sharing Prezi presentations.

● The instructor was able to answer the majority of questions I had with these Web 2.0 tools.

The third and final learning outcome, namely that learners will collaborate best practices and strategies of using Web 2.0 tools within each department, will be addressed by an informal evaluation of the instructor as facilitator. After the course concludes professors from each department must schedule at least two brainstorming meetings within six weeks with others in their department. These scheduled meetings must be attended by the instructor and will either be judged as effective or ineffective. If determined to be ineffective, then this learning outcome has not been accomplished.

Limitations. Several limitations were identified to the existing evaluation plan. There definitely exists a possibility that the formative assessment phase will rely on subjective comments. We have sought to neutralize this concern by using a focused rubric based on the principles of continuity, modality and redundancy principles.

Although a preliminary survey was given, addressing the basic computer literacy of professors, there may be issues that the designers have not anticipated. Based upon the results of that survey, it is relatively certain that little computer knowledge can be assumed. Thus, each lesson will need to have a pre-test to address this knowledge or lack thereof and provide a brief overview of related basic skills before instruction of Web 2.0 tools can proceed.

The reliability of professors addressing their own capabilities with Web 2.0 tools has been addressed by having their students perform the evaluation. However, there are inherent issues with having students report of their instructors. Specifically, students have a vested interest to report positively as their professors will be evaluating their performance in the course. Personal bias against the instructor or subject matter may also unduly influence the evaluation as well.

Although professors will be exposed to Web 2.0 communities and forums and will be expected to collaborate to perform group assignments, there is no guarantee that professors will continue these trends after the course concludes. The collaborative fruit of applying a Web 2.0 tool effectively will be judged by the student evaluation, but there is no comparable evaluation to assess the collaborative element singly. The reliability of professors evaluating themselves was considered too uncertain. By grouping professors by department, encouraging collaboration through traditional academic channels and requiring professors to join Web 2.0 communities in the course, it is expected that it will be easier to maintain these expectations, than to abandon them when the course is completed. Although they will not be monitored, the instructor will serve as a facilitator for brainstorming meetings after the course concludes.

Design and Development Implications

Design. Based upon these characteristics, the importance of these Web 2.0 tools must be emphasized instruction and contextual examples provided that relate directly to the professors’ curricula. The delivery mechanism must be simple and intuitive to use, so as to avoid further intimidation and learner discouragement.

Although the instructional strategy must be clearly defined and structured, collaboration between colleagues should be encouraged to emphasize potential student scenarios, but also to facilitate an ongoing synergy between learners. In collaboration, students should be grouped by education department whenever possible. All of these elements indicate a constructivist approach.

Even though adult learners are rarely motivated by external factors, offering a $5,000.00 bonus to the first instructor to meet the learning goal will provide a level of professional competition common to academia. Also, professional recognition including a certificate and ceremony should be incorporated into the final assessment.

Development. By using the existing KU platform and pre-built Web 2.0 tools, we are reducing the resources involved in framework and delivery development. Most of the development effort will focus on actual content and assignment scenarios. Much of this content can be added by instructors without the need for additional instructional design hours. Because many of our tutorial resources are provided by third-party communities and forums, the content should provide adequate reference and directing activities to these tutorials and their originating Web sites.

Group projects will require active postings and consistent moderation using the current KU discussion board mechanism. These expectations will need to be developed further and codified. One step further could be taken by redesigning the Wiki to allow learners to edit HTML code so that presentations can be embedded.
References

Cercone, K.(2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design, AACE Journal, 16(2), 137-159.

Check, J. (1984). Teaching-Learning Preferences of the Adult Learner. Paper presented at the National Adult Education Conference, Louisville, Kentucky : November, 1984.

Christensen, R. (1997). Impact of Technology Integration Education on the Attitudes of Teachers and Their Students. Doctoral Dissertation: University of North Texas.

Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R. E.,(2008). Learning together. In M. Davis' (Ed.), E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Cochran, D., & Conklin, J. (2007). A New Bloom: Transforming Learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 34(5), 22-25.

Cross, K.P. (1981). Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Department of Education, (2007). http ://www .jff .org /Documents /adultlearners .dol .pdf.

Eurich, N.P. (1985). Corporate Classrooms. Princeton, N.J.: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Greenfield, P.M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. Everyday cognition (pp. 117-138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hastings, R. (2009). Collaboration 2.0. Library Technology Reports, 45(4), 16-18. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Kazis, R., Callahan, A., Davidson, C., McLeod, A., Bosworth, B., & Choitz, V. (2007). Adult Learners in Higher Education: Barriers to Success and Strategies to Improve Results. Employment and Training Administration. Occasional Paper 2007-03. Jobs for the Future, Retrieved from ERIC database.

Kearsley, G. (April, 1986). Analyzing the costs and benefits of training: Part 2: Identifying the costs and benefits. Performance and Instruction, 25(3), 23-25.

Kelly, D.K. (1986). Adult Learners: Implications for Faculty. Fullerton College.

Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

LeBow, D. (1993). Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design: Five Principles Toward New Mindset. ETR&O, 4(3)(pp. 4-6).

Merriam, S.B., & Caffarella, R.S. (1999). Learning in adulthood (2nd Ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Preston, Burnham & Wendell (1986). Adult Learners: Implications for Faculty.

Schwartz, Y.K. (1985). Undergraduates as Adult Communicators: A Life Skills Model for Curriculum Change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, Colorado, November 7-10, 1985.

Sewell, T.J. (1986). Nontraditionals in Traditional Setting: Why Older Adults Return to College.

Simonson, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek (2009). Teaching and Learning at a Distance (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Smith, P. & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Solomon, L.C. & Gordon, J.J. (1981). The Characteristics and Needs of Adults in Postsecondary Education. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Sussex, R. (2008). Technological options in supervising remote research students. Higher Education,55(1), 121-137. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9038-0.

Zemke, R. & Zemke, S. (1981, June). 30 Things We Know For Sure About Adult Learning. Abstracted from Training: The Magazine of Human Resources Development, Innovation Abstracts, 6, (8), March 1984.

Second Life in Higher Ed

2011-01-10T19:06:00.000-08:00

For this discussion choose one of the roles in the scenarios and respond accordingly. Note that in the interest of balancing responses, your instructor may assign roles to you.

Higher Education - Faculty role

You are a faculty member at a large university. You recently completed a workshop on the use of Second Life and other virtual worlds as teaching/learning tools. You would like to start including Second Life in your online courses. When you discussed this with your department chair, however, she raised several questions about the efficacy of this approach. She asked you to support your position with research on the use of virtual worlds in online instruction. What information will you provide her?

__________________________________________________________________

In the higher education—faculty role, I would tell my online college that if we want to be competitive out there with other online universities, then we must integrate Second Life into our curriculum.

According to Sussman (2007) more than 300 universities, including Harvard and Duke, use Second Life as an educational tool, which she found out from Claudia L'Amoreaux of Linden Labs, the creators of Second Life (SL). Some educators conduct entire distance-learning courses there, while others supplement traditional classes. Universities and other academic institutions pay a reduced rate to buy land to build structures and develop the environment. The first-time cost for a 16-acre private university island is $980, and monthly land fees are $150 (Sussman 2007).

From interacting with the world or just a select few, Second Life lets colleges choose who has access to what, which makes seminars and classes possible, and halts griefers, which is a term to describe attention-seeking, and unwelcome, SL users (Salmon, 2009).

Colleges are incorporating elements of campus life into Second Life. The University of Kentucky embraces Second Life. The University of North Carolina Pembroke has over 50 different Second Life locations that range from a wheat field to an art gallery in addition to the usual computer labs and classrooms (Hayes, 2010).

The University of California Irvine has created a virtual library on Anteater Island, which faculty and students have incorporated into University of California Irvine college classes, like Reasoning and Modeling with Graphical Models and Computer Games as Art, Culture and Technology (Hayes, 2010).

Sometimes higher education takes Second Life construction beyond anything found on their traditional campus. You can view the beauty of the Sistine Chapel without ever leaving home by heading to the Sistine Chapel on Vassar Island. According to Hayes (2010), Indiana University, and the IU-based Synthetic Worlds Initiative, has created a bunch of virtual reality worlds, from Shakespearean Arden and the Victorian-era LondownTown, to Greenland, which explores trade and diplomacy in the Stone Age, and United Islands, which is a more modern look at government.

Unusual or every day, the main point of higher education on SL is to enhance learning. As the University of Oregon knows, learning languages can be rough, especially with a tonal language like Chinese (Hayes 2010). To make Chinese easier and more fun, they created MyChina Life, an SL world to help students study the Chinese language by interacting with Chinese speakers (Hayes 2010).

SL is becoming almost crucial to health related industries. The virtual stage provides a way to test trainees on reaction and knowledge. The University of Kansas Medical Center uses SL simulations for its Nurse Anesthesia Education Program (Wheeler, 2009).
The University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health designed a program to test public health officials at their ability to handle various epidemics like small pox or anthrax. Idaho State University uses SL for its bioterrorism awareness and preparedness program by testing response reactions to man-made or nature related crises (Hayes, 2010).

Not only are colleges and universities interested in spreading knowledge, they also want to host virtual events. Drexel University presented a virtual symposium called Education for Everyone. Emerson College had a location on its island for the Floating 6 Event to take place, an event for discussion on art and video games.

The University of Texas bought over 50 Second Life regions in 2009 for learning and sharing as well as to help the university go green. Minnesota state colleges and universities, Buena Vista University, and Montana State University's Creative Research Lab are some other colleges that have become a part of SL. The State University of New York doesn't have a campus wide presence just yet. However, they have a lot of sub-groups.

So incorporating SL in a college is a vital resource that needs to be used and explored. There are endless ways to create exciting, dynamic environments for long-time retention (Clark, 2008).

References

Clark, R. C. and Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Hayes, G. (2010). My college guide. Retrieved from http://mycollegeguide.org/blog/03/2010/life-higher-education-endless-possibility/.

Kemp, J. W., Livingstone, D., & Bloomfield, P. R. (2009). SLOODLE: Connecting VLE tools with emergent teaching practice in Second Life. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 551-555.

Salmon, G. (2009). The future for (second) life and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 526-538.

Sussman, B. (2007). Teachers, college students lead a second life. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-08-01-second-life_N.htm.

Wheeler, M. (2009). Developing the Media Zoo in Second Life. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 427-443.

Netvibes

2011-01-10T12:09:00.000-08:00

By Caroline McKeon

"Netvibes (http://www.netvibes.com) is a web portal where users can personalize pages.

Individuals can assemble favorite widgets, websites, blogs, email accounts, social networks,
search engines, instant messengers, photos, videos, podcasts, and more in one place. Netvibes is
primarily an information gathering service, but one can see in this service the semblance of a
PLE" (Martindale & Dowdy, 2009).

Martindale, T., & Dowdy, M. (2009). Personal learning environments. Teachable.org. Retrieved from http://teachable.org/papers/2009_ple.pdf

The company was founded by Tariq Krim (French) and Florent Frémont in 2005.

"Netvibes is the first personalized dashboard publishing platform for the Web including digital life management, widget distribution services and brand observation rooms. Interactive agencies, businesses and brands rely on Netvibes Premium Dashboards to better monitor the real-time Web. Netvibes is also a multi-lingual Ajax-based personalized start page or personal web portal much like My Yahoo!, iGoogle. It is organized into tabs, with each tab containing user-defined modules. Built-in Netvibes modules include an RSS/Atom feed reader, local weather forecasts, a calendar supporting iCal, bookmarks, notes, to-do lists, multiple searches, support for POP3, IMAP4 email as well as several webmail providers including Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, and AOL Mail, Box.net web storage, Delicious, Meebo, Flickr photos, podcast support with a built in audio player, and several others. A page can be personalized further through the use of existing themes or by creating your own theme. Customized tabs, feeds and modules can be shared with others individually or via the Netvibes Ecosystem.For privacy reasons, only modules with publicly available content can be shared.
The Netvibes Ecosystem is a collection of user submitted modules/widgets built using Netvibes Universal Widget API (UWA) , feeds, podcasts, events, tabs, and "universes". A "universe" is a publicly viewable customized page of another entity" (Wikipedia, 2010).N

2011-01-04T12:00:00.000-08:00

By Caroline McKeon

"Claroline is a collaborative eLearning and eWorking platform (Learning Management System) released under the GPL Open Source license. It allows hundreds of organizations worldwide ranging from universities to schools and from companies to associations to create and administer courses and collaboration spaces over the web. The platform is used in more than 80 countries and is available in more than 30 languages" (Wikipedia, 2010, para. 1).

Claroline
Developer(s)	UCL/IPM, ECAM
Stable release	1.9.5 / May 27, 2010
Written in	PHP
Operating system	Cross-platform
Type	Learning Management System
License	GPL
Website	www.claroline.net

About Claroline*

An eLearning and eWorking platform

Released under Open Source license, the Claroline platform allows hundreds of organizations from 93 countries to create and administer courses and collaboration spaces online. Each course space provides a list of tools enabling the teacher to :

Write a course description
Publish documents in any format (text, PDF, HTML, video...)
Administer public and private forums
Develop learning paths
Create groups of students
Prepare online exercises
Manage an agenda with tasks and deadlines
Publish announcements (also by e-mail)
Propose assignments to be handed in online
See the statistics of the users activity
Use the wiki to write collaborative documents

Adjustable to various training contexts, Claroline is not only used by schools and universities, but also by training centres, associations and companies. The platform is customizable and offers a flexible and custom-made working environment.

An adequate technology

Claroline is capable of hosting a large number of users easily. It is compatible with Linux, Mac and Windows environments.
Claroline is based on free technologies like PHP and MySQL and uses the current standards like SCORM and IMS/QTI for the exchange of contents.

An easy-handling tool

Claroline has been developed following teachers' pedagogical experience and needs. It offers intuitive and clear spaces administration interface. The daily platform management doesn't require any specific technical skill. The platform is quickly installed and the use of any web browser allows to manage the various course sections and enrolled users fluently.

eLearning with Claroline

By Marcel Lebrun (IPM/ UCL - lebrun@ipm.ucl.ac.be)

Claroline is a free LMS, online learning management system developed in PHP/MySQL, which is an Internet based database programming language. Originally developped in the IPM (Institut de Pédagogie universitaire et des multimedias of the UCL, Université Catholique de Louvain), it results now from a collaboration between the former and the ECAM (Institut Supérieur Industriel), both from Belgium.

A platform from teacher for teacher

The teacher training philosophy of IPM is to develop the teacher autonomy concerning pedagogy and, furthermore the good use of technical tools in pedagogy. This main objective was expected to be met by allowing teachers to make experimentations, to discover the need for a sound pedagogy and so to foster pedagogy in university teaching. IPM intended, 5 years ago, to use WebCT but the autonomy requirement failed behind the difficulties to develop courses with this platform. In a team meeting, we develop the idea that a large percentage of the teachers needs may be fulfilled with approximately five or six functionalities like : publishing documents and announcements, giving students tools to develop activities and to demonstrate their competences, allowing interactions between students and with teachers. Simplicity of use and independence concerning pedagogical setup were the leitmotivs of the development and accompaniment teams. Yet, in our traditional university, the platform would allow traditional “lectures”, autonomous learning, blended learning or real distance learning. As far pedagogy is concerned, the possibilities will range from documents delivering to problem and project based learning with a special attention paid to collaborative eLearning. Also, this platform which supports evolution in the teachers uses may act as a catalyst for pedagogical innovation and faculty development.

*(all information taken from Claroline.net website found at http://www.claroline.net/

Choosing an LMS

2011-01-04T11:29:00.000-08:00

Question for class discussion:

You are on a committee charged with researching the adoption of a new LMS at your small community college. You are tasked with determining what’s required to implement the LMS. What support systems (servers, networks, etc.) are required to run the LMS? What, if any, considerations are necessary if the environment is Mac-based? What are the pros and cons of using an LMS versus a cloud (see more about cloud computing here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing)

This discussion addresses the unit outcomes,

Determine hardware requirements for an LMS
Describe the pros and cons of using an LMS

_____________________________________________________________________

My answer:
Learning Management System software is great for planning educational needs, educational training, track the results of training and new programs, provide students with additional educational content and more, (Ellis, 2009). As I have been learning through my readings and studies, as well as participating and experiencing eCollege through Kaplan, the software contains anything a school would need to administer, teach and track their educational system. An LMS has the ability to enroll students in classes, report scores and exam grades, organize the school or class curriculum, student and teacher notification and messaging. It is possible to track the success of different student or employee groups, identify skill gaps in courses or individuals and track the success of training and new curriculum, (Ellis, 2009). LMS software can successfully manage students, teachers, courses, facilities and the administration within an educational institution.

Servers: From my experience at Hamilton Middle School in Tulsa, OK as a computer technology instructor, I know the number of servers that you need will depend on the number of users that will be accessing the LMS. The server is the main hardware that will link all electronic devices carrying the LMS together. It will store all of the information and allow all the users to access and use the LMS.

From my background, I know that the more people using the server, the higher memory capacity the server should have. There should be a server dedicated to databases, another server dedicated to Web services and an additional server dedicated to printing services. LMS software with less than 1,000 users can use a single server in which all software and programs are contained within that one server (ShareKnowledge, 2010). For more than 1,000 users you would need to spread the functions among multiple servers. Otherwise access to the LMS will be slow and the program may frequently be unavailable. In particular, a separate server for databases, known as an SQL server, is required, (ShareKnowledge, 2010).

Operating System: All computers to be used on the LMS must contain the necessary operating system. LMS software can be run on various operating systems, including Windows, Mac OS and Linux, (ShareKnowledge, 2010). However all the computers in your system need to be using the same operating system for the best performance. If your computers run on old operating systems, such as anything released before 2000, you will need to upgrade to the latest version.

Installation Disc Space: Each LMS will require space on the computer's hard drive. The amount of disc space that is needed will vary, depending on the program. In general, an LMS program will require approximately 2 GB of disc space to install and 5 GB for data storage (Learning 2010). This is a must for every user. So if you have 500 users then you will need 2500 GB of data storage space.

Internet Browser: In order for the user to be able to access the LMS, she must have a compatible browser supported by the LMS. LMS supports several browsers. Regularly used LMS Internet browsers are Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer and Safari (Learning Management, 2010). My client will choose the browser their school will use to access the LMS, and the technician will make sure the preferred browser is installed on all computers. Distance users must be warned to update their computers or install updated versions of the commonly used browsers.

References

Ellis, R. (2009). A field guide to learning management systems. Learning Circuits: ASTD's Source for E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/12ECDB99-3B91-403E-9B15-7E597444645D/23395/LMS_fieldguide_20091.pdf.

(2010). ShareKnowledge LMS 3.1 hardware and software requirements
for smooth deployment. Retrieved from http://www.shareknowledge-lms.com/support/requirements/.

(2010). Learning Management System requirements. Retrieved from http://www.e-learningconsulting.com/products/lms-system-requirements.html
_____________________________________________________________________

Dr. Nakasone's response:

Aloha Gloria,

You covered the topic well. You have shown that this is a two way street....not simply purchasing services and away you go. As you described well, depending on your student population, this will determine how many servers you will need, addition of a data-base server, storage and standardizing users on the same computers and browsers.

If an organization chooses a "cloud" system like eCollege, this takes any concerns about servers and storage away, but steps for standardization and support are still required.
I see you are from Tulsa, Oklahoma! The Hurricanes are playing the Univ. of Hawaii tonight in the 2010 Sheraton Hawai'i Bowl.

Jon
_____________________________________________________________________

More from Dr. Nakasone:
Aloha,

Choosing an LMS is one of the major decisions any post-secondary institution can make. If its the institution's first LMS, they can extend their programs beyond brick and motor and reach a wider audience. If they are replacing an antiquated system, a new superior LMS can provide students and faculty a much more enriching and interactive experience and help the institution reach specific goals (Schaffhauser, 2010) .

A lot rides on this decision because it will impact students, faculty and the administration. The institutions success in the highly competitive distance education market will be at stake depending on how reliable, affordable and easy to use the system is.

When replying to this topic, take into consideration IT staff size, budget, programs at the institution, existing equipment etc. Would the IT staff be able to manage a server? Would there be enough faculty and student support available? How about hiring a hosting company that can provide the hardware and maintenance?

Thanks,
Jon

Reference:
Schaffhauser, D. (July 2010). Mission Critical: Selecting the Right LMS, Retrieved October 6, 2010 from Campus Technology Web site: http://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/07/01/mission-critical-selecting-the-right-lms.aspx.

______________________________________________________________________

Response from student, (which I thought was interesting):

Jon,

I am so glad that I am not done with this degree yet. I still feel as though I have so much to learn. I do not feel comfortable yet suggesting a particular LMS for a school to use. I have used Angel, Blackboard, WebCT, eCollege, and Spartan. There are aspects of each I love. There are others I hate.

Elluminate live is awesome but what we use at KU is terrible for live seminars. Adobe connect has its advantages as well.

I am working on getting this all straight.

Carolyn
__________________________________________________________________

Dr. Nakasone's response (which was very wise):

Hi Carolyn,

I used or investigated all the products you listed except for Spartan and I also use Elluminate which I find very user friendly.

I found it frustrating when we were planning to phase out WebCT and started looking at other products. Nearly all had great things, but also lacked others. Also, the pricing and even the demeanor of the sales person came into play. Of course the feelings of faculty is a major one!

Best to take it slow and include as many people as possible so nobody feels they got left out of the process and complains later.

Jon

Pedagogical Multimedia: Caricature Agents Vs. Human Agents

2010-12-23T06:19:00.000-08:00

Introduction (Philosophical World View)

Today's students are active and prolific on social networking sites, blogs, and mobile devices that have access to the internet. They are on the internet a major portion of their day and are more accustomed to reading books online via eReaders and other mobile devices rather than on paper. McLuhan (1967) states that learners today are bemused when they enter the traditional classroom that characterizes an educational establishment that presents limited information in an ordered and structured manner that is disjointed, and has classified patterns, subjects and schedules.

Vast sums of information are available at the click of a button and reading books online via eReaders and other mobile devices rather than on paper is the norm. A constructivist view epitomizes this view where people pursue new knowledge and construct it to fit existing schemas that makes sense to them.

Perspectives

When people learn by constructing new knowledge they often learn more when linked to instructors on a personal basis. Research has found that learner motivation increases when a personalized connection between the learner and the instructor is present (Wlodkowski, 1999). Some say that developing a personalized connection in a Web based environment is impossible, but personal narrative is one method that has been found to personalize instruction, center learning on the student and directly engaging them in the learning process (Newmaster, Lacroix & Roosenboom, 2006). Therefore, the relationship between narrative and motivation is an essential component when fostering interactive online learning experiences. It would stand to reason that if the student views the instruction of a multimedia presentation in a very personal way, she will be able to identify with the instructor and feel greater satisfaction from the presentation.

In presenting information some online course designers use a caricature agent, while others use a more realistic, or human agent. Reeves and Nass (1996) found that personalized, conversational narration within web-based environments fosters familiarity among learners and users reported that it was more enjoyable to use. Further studies promoted human-like media, including web based learning programs that can promote social presence because it uses conversational narration that promotes immediacy, encouraging learners to become more deeply involved with the subject matter and work toward deeper understanding (Mayer, Fennell, Farmer, Campbell, 2004). Thissen (2003) said, "Emotions and motivation are central driving forces behind human actions. For this reason, a good multimedia product addresses users not only on a cognitive level, but also on an emotional one and applies specific motivational strategies." (p. 227). Thus, the driving question of this paper is, "Do adult students learn better from caricature agents or from human agents in pedagogical multimedia video?"

Research Design

In order to discover the deeper emotions and motivations tied to either caricature agents or more human-like agents, the researcher chose concurrent mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2008). Other methods alone were ruled out because they could not illuminate the entire phenomenological nature of the research question. While the researcher of this paper did not utilize post-positivist experimental research, she did employ surveys and measure them quantitatively or numerically to measure attitudes or opinions (Creswell, 2008). No treatment to an experimental group was compared to a control group as in pure experimental research where the goal is to determine if a particular treatment or approach will influence an outcome (Creswell, 2008). The sequential mixed method was not used where the researcher seeks to elaborate or expand on findings from one method by using another method, because few findings exist in this area.

Qualitative method was chosen because it is a procedure in which the researcher will ask questions as to their opinions and how each method made them feel (Creswell, 2008).

Strategies of Inquiry

The Qualitative Method will be incorporated by using phenomenological research. As a life-long educator from a family of educators, the belief that teaching involves deep connection with students on a personal level, which involves a human face for students to which to relate.

The phenomenological research method was chosen in order to discover exactly how adult students feel about caricature agents versus videos of the human-like agents. Is one more condescending or distracting? Does one method make the student feel more of a camaraderie with the instructor? A model will be derived from exploration of these methods and results of this phenomenology study, or the human experience from the phenomenon and can help inform facilitators and instructors of online courses in ways they can be more effective.

Research Methodology

Two short videos will be developed on how to set the scene in a story. One will be using a caricature agent; the other will be human-like agent. Both online lessons will utilize the Personalization Principle by using a conversational tone and verbiage, (second person).

After the same group of students have watch both videos, they will be asked which one they prefer and the reason. How did each video make them feel? Was one way more condescending? Why? Did one of the methods make them feel more engaged? Why? A short questionnaire will be devised to determine which version evoked deeper meaning, asking the participant to narrow down the reasons for their feelings.

References

McLuhan, M. (1967). The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects with Quentin Fiore, produced by Jerome Agel; 1st Ed.: Random House; reissued by Gingko Press, 2001.

Newmaster, S., Lacroix, C. A., & Roosenboom, C. (2006). Authentic learning as a mechanism for learner centredness. International Journal of Learning, 13(6), 103-112.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (2002). The media equation: How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Thissen, F. (2003). Screen design manual: Communicating effectively through multimedia. New York: Springer.

Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

2010-11-01T20:38:00.000-07:00

Questions:

Which one of these presentations was most effective for you as you learn about Personal Learning Objects?
Why are you drawn to one over another?
Relate one of learning principles from Clark and Mayer to your critique of these learning objects.

The most effective video, in my opinion, was Graham Attwell's PLEs Digested. I liked how he approached the subject, and his candidness. The graphics he used were unobtrusive and added to the content. There were no printed words to go with the audio. What he said made sense to me. In his other video, Comic Book, the music was a bit distracting, but thankfully it stopped when he started talking. But I did like how he correlated factory work with the traditional classroom, i.e., how desks are in rows, and classes begin and stop with a bell, similar to a factory. Although the graphics were interesting, I couldn't read the captions because I was too interested in what he said. Which is a no-no, according to Clark and Mayer (2008). All people have separate channels for processing verbal and audio material, and mixing verbal with words is distracting, which actually impedes learning, (Clark, 2008). Which is what happened to me.

Ann Carnevale's presentation was interesting, but I missed having her verbalize her speech rather than only use printed words, which emphasizes what Clark and Mayer (2008) says, that people learn better actually hearing the words rather than seeing them.

Will Richardson's presentation on Personal Learning Networks followed all of the concepts discussed in our textbook by Clark and Mayer (2008). As an aside, I guess he hired Aaron Smith to actually talk for the presentation. However, the content was a little elementary, and didn't add much to my actual learning. Others, however, might really learn from it.

Reference

Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R. E.,(2008). e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

The Machine is Us

2010-10-25T18:52:00.000-07:00

The point of the video The Machine is Us is that we are the web. We control the content, the formatting, the collaborating, the learning, the sharing, the tone, the friendships, the adversity, the love, family--everything. Starting a blog these days is easy now with Web 2.0 tools. Communication is easy. But it's up to us to organize the content, the websites we like by using Delicious, how we come across, etc. Since everything that flashed up on the video was familiar to me, I think it re-emphasized what I know and use on a daily basis and how important it is that I keep using all the programs, keeping my content as neat and organized as I can. I can see how others who aren't familiar with the tools Wesch showed on his video might become lost with the fast-moving, extraneous elements. But I wasn't and was actually entertained by the artfully switches of combining the same words in different ways, from the very first screen when the video started with handwriting and erasing then moving to keyboarding and backspacing in various programs and tools. We are responsible. We need more checks and balances.

Vision of Students Today

2010-10-24T18:37:00.000-07:00

The overall message I got from the Vision of Students Today video is that students spend most of their time online via Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and on their cell phones texting. Students spend money on text books that they never read. They spend money on college courses but don't attend. Only eighteen percent of teachers know their students' names.

There's almost an overwhelming number of collaborators to choose from on the Internet, (as seen on Google Docs), and they surveyed themselves for the video, which reemphasizes to me that students are stronger than ever in social networking. This is also evidenced by all the hours students spend on social networking tools.

I know this is true from my experience in the classroom at the alternative school. Although our administration blocked Facebook, MySpace, Blogger and other social networking tools from our school, I was able to provide networking among students on my own personal website and through Education2020. They responded better to projects and assignments this way rather than traditional classroom activities. I would also text students on their cell phones to promote discussion, which worked quite well.

Wesch and his students were wanting to get across that teaching strategies need to reflect the changes in the way students communicate. As far as principles we've learned in class, I think it clearly indicates that students don't learn in large lecture halls, where they don't collaborate, but instead simply listen to the professors lecture. We have consistent evidence that interaction promotes learning (Clark & Mayer, 2008). In the video there were two hundred collaborators and three hundred sixty seven revisions concerning the video, which was a decision-making process as to what to show in the allotted three minutes. Computer mediated discussions are more effective—not to mention coordinating 200 participants—rather than trying to coordinate this many people face to face (Clark & Mayer, 2008).

Reference

Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R. E.,(2008). e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, pp. 248, 270-271.

Seminars

2010-10-23T17:37:00.001-07:00

Question: Think back about seminars you have had. Which ones were the best and why?

One of the seminars we had last term that really made an impression on me is the one we had on school violence. We discussed the following problem: When a high school student gets expelled for six days because she had her facsimile rifles in the back seat of her car is a sign that the zero tolerance policy has gone too far and is no longer effective for school learning. I told the class how my daughter used a facsimile rifle every day in high school because she was in color guard, and this is probably why the student had a rifle replica in her car. The example school reacted too harshly, which is counterproductive to learning.

Several of us related similar problems with school policies, and going overboard. We concluded that it's important that we allow school administrators to make judgment calls as far as determining what is dangerous and what isn't. I told how one student I had in class was thrilled because he finally got to bring his inhaler to school. To deny a student his medicine that keeps his air passages clear is not only unfeasible and dangerous for the student, but counterproductive. Too, another participant in the seminar asked if he missed a lot of school, and I had to agree that he did. The discussion led me to describing my school culture.

The school I taught at in North Tulsa had a metal detector which the students had to pass through. We, the teachers, were required to search through backpacks. We didn't do it every day, but we did surprise checks. I think it was very effective. I don't think we ever found a gun, except for once when a backpack was ditched under a bus. The police discovered who the bag belonged to and dealt with the student. This thread of discussion led our professor to ask what programs we had in place for my school.

I told the class we had great counselors, and mostly caring teachers who listened to the students, and helped them with problems. The counselors had group counseling as well as individual counseling, and peer mediation. Lots of questions were asked about peer mediation, and how it worked. In the end, I told my other peers that these preventative steps didn't cure all the problems with school violence, but I believed they helped.

Discussing my life and experiences at this inner-city school helped cement the concepts we were discussing in the unit, and made me realize that I am making a difference for the good in students' lives.

LMS Vs. CMS

2010-10-22T20:19:00.001-07:00

LMS Vs. CMS on Prezi

Synthesis Paper

2010-10-14T06:52:00.000-07:00

Assignment:

Focus on a particular teacher and his or her teaching style. How do you think backwards design applies to the experience? And how does Clark and Mayer’s work on cognitive resources apply to this experience?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Synthesis Paper for HE 547

By Gloria Harchar

Authors Wiggins and McTighe (2006) believe that you cannot plan how you're going to teach until you know exactly what you want your students to learn. Backward design planning focuses on learning outcomes, standards and the assessments for accomplishing those standards.

Thirty years ago, I had a high school teacher named Della Craighead who taught us about racial prejudice, and it was the most memorable experience I've ever had. After all these years I still recall the lessons vividly.

She began the unit by having us read To Kill a Mockingbird. Once we finished the book, she facilitated the discussion by using the Socratic method.

Mrs. Craighead started off the discussion by asking open ended questions, which didn't have a "correct" answer. In Socratic teaching, she focused on giving students questions, not answers. She modeled an inquiring, probing mind by continually analyzing the subject with questions. In this manner the abilities we gained by focusing on the elements of reasoning in a disciplined and self-assessing way, and the logical relationships that resulted from such disciplined thought, prepared us for Socratic questioning. The penetrating questions she asked allowed us to reflect critically on our own way of thinking, feeling, or behaving in a particular hypothetical circumstance. Socrates method guided us to form conclusions or beliefs through our own efforts, potentially highlighting dissonance, conflicts of thought and actions with questions for further discussion.

This is an example of learner control (Clark & Mayer, 2008) since the class had good metacognitive skills, and the students were able to answer questions with questions, come up with new hypotheses and then question this. We covered empathy and how to put ourselves into someone else's shoes.

After this, Mrs. Craighead divided us into smaller, cooperative groups to analyze stereotypical images in films and on TV. We found pictures of women doing housework, a female Asian working at a dry cleaner, and a man grinning as he held up a Valentines card, (which some students thought he was gay—which was assumed because of his reaction to the card). We watched older sitcoms like I Love Lucy and Father Knows Best, then discussed these shows, again through Socrates method, (this time led by leaders in our small groups), and discovered several instances of stereotyping and prejudice.

The class took the lesson one step further by doing experiments in public. One girl asked a guy if she could help him carry his books, (this was in the seventies). The guy was offended. Another student and I got in an elevator with our backs to the door, which caused us to face a couple of strangers. We were uncomfortable and so were they! The whole learning objective was to have us understand the nature of prejudice and the difference between generalizations and stereotypes.

I don't know if Mrs. Craighead knew she was applying Backward Design, but it is obvious she knew that she wanted us to recognize prejudice, and to learn how to distinguish between generalizations and stereotypes, which is stage one, identifying desired results in Backwards Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). All of the activities were based on this end result.

When Mrs. Craighead had us identify stereotyping by using pictures and watching certain TV shows—describing the pictures or shows and how they depicted stereotyping—this is what she used for determining acceptable evidence, which is stage two of Backwards Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). She also graded our personal journals, looking for our conclusions based on our discussions during the Socratic seminars.

Throughout the activities every day we would update our journals and record our thoughts, what significant questions were asked and how we felt about the concepts with our own personal conclusions. We recorded observations among our peers and when we went on our field trip to perform our experiments.

Clark and Mayer (2008) define generative processing as obtaining a deeper understanding of the core material, which is what Della Craighead accomplished in her unit of instruction. What's more, we didn't simply memorize the definition for prejudice, stereotyping and generalizations. We finished the unit with a deeper understanding of how dangerous stereotyping can be and how detrimental prejudice is, and that these concepts are evident everywhere, which is a characteristic of Backwards Design Approach, (Childre, Sands & Pope, 2009).

The use of photos, TV shows, and the field trip—in which we performed our own experiments by breaking the mold—created visuals and experiences upon which we could develop our schema (Childre, Sands & Pope, 2009). Use of a graphic organizer for each region and our own personal journals to guide the writing process supported the learning for all. Finally, there were opportunities for small-group learning with peer Interaction for both literature activities and writing feedback (Childre, Sands & Pope, 2009).

In the Backward Design process, the third stage is plan learning experience and instruction. She did this by having us discuss first as a class and then in groups, evidence of prejudice in To Kill a Mockingbird, and in our own home town. We realized that there was a demarcation between blacks and whites via the railroad tracks that ran through town.

Our discussions in my small group also researched the Tulsa race riot that occurred in 1921, in which Greenwood, or nicknamed Black Wall Street, (a very prominent neighborhood), was burned down by the Ku Klux Klan. We learned a lot in our study group. Having a study group provided a structured opportunity for us to work together to explore new concepts, reflect on practice and apply our new knowledge and understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

References

Childre, A., Sands, J., & Pope, S. (2009). Backward design. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(5), 6-14.

Clark, R. C. and Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Wiggins, C , & McTighe, .i. (1998). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Educational Needs Assessment Tools and Research

2010-10-01T17:25:00.000-07:00

According to Corn (2010), there is a lack of valid, reliable, and easily accessible instruments available for schools to effectively assess their education technology needs, which are essential to better design and evaluate their projects and objectives. The School Technology Needs Assessment (STNA) described by Corn (2010) provides a free, user-friendly online tool that helps the planning stage and formative evaluation of technology projects in educational settings. This will apply also to college level.

Here is the link: Free Needs Assessment Survey

References

Corn, J. (2010). Investigating the quality of the school technology needs assessment (STNA) 3.0:
A validity and reliability study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(4),
353-376.

College, Inc

2010-09-12T19:13:00.001-07:00

Criticism of Online Colleges

2010-09-06T10:00:00.000-07:00

I read a very interesting article from Newsweek about the pros and cons with online colleges. Of course we've already talked about the convenience. For instance, a guy started taking courses from NYU online because his job takes him all over the world. He wants an advanced degree so he can get a promotion. I'm sure some of you who are enrolled in online colleges have similar stories!

Still others worry that the brick and mortar schools might not make it financially since they are losing so many students to online colleges (McGinn, 2000). And what about physical labs, where students do experiments and work with chemicals? How do they do that—with a virtual environment where if you add a base to an acid, the combination will explode virtually, online? Does the virtual experience really take place of an experience like the real thing? The smells of the chemicals, the actual reaction--seeing it physically in front of you? This might be a con. Of course, I think this could be remedied if the online college could recruit actual working labs across the country that do research to allow online college students to do their experiments there.

Another criticism is that there are so many colleges popping up because companies see this as making lots of money for them (McGinn, 2000). And lots of these colleges offer the archaic kind of online classes with old instructional models being used. So, see, they need Instructional Designers!

Did you know that only 16% of the students between 18 and 22 who are going to colleges are living in a dorm and studying full time? (McGinn, 2000). And this is in the year 2000. Imagine what it is now, ten years later! Of course, critics say that online students miss the experience of living in the dorm, interacting with students and living the college life, which is a shame (McGinn, 2000). But then think of all the interaction students online get with their professors and their classmates. When I went to traditional undergraduate school, I didn't have nearly the interface with my professors the way I do here at Kaplan. And I am having more interaction with classmates too, than I did in the traditional lecture hall.

Another worry people have is that degrees will be watered down because they will become so easy to get, like Degrees R Us kind of mentality. Well, I think it's important to look at the curriculum and the instructional model. Don't color the whole online college experience with one brush. And online degrees aren't cheap! I embrace people who want to further their education, and who work hard to get their degrees. Too online classes can be even more difficult than the traditional courses, with challenging projects and tough critical thinking discussion boards that are graded. I never had to do that in a traditional college classroom.

And online colleges have the biggest dropout rate because the coursework is difficult—no cakewalk.

One thing the article said is that online students don't get a sense of whether they are on target or lagging behind (McGinn, 2000). That isn't true at all at Kaplan. We are told timely how our grades are, and what we are making in the classes. The grading rubrics are wonderful and let you know exactly how to do the activity/lesson, and how many points each section is in the graded activity.

Question: Why do you think the dropout rate is so high for online colleges? What do you think is the solution?

Reference

McGinn, D. (2000). College Online. Newsweek, 135(17), 54.

Trends in Higher Education

2010-09-05T10:00:00.000-07:00

I've been reading several articles about the current trends in higher education, and I'm going to talk about blended learning. But first I wanted to share a couple statistics that really caught my eye. One was that the Apollo Group, Inc., which is the parent company of the University of Phoenix, has more than doubled its profit in a year, from 2007 to 2008 (Grumman, 2009). Another statistic was that Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School predicts that within ten years over have of instruction will be online (Grumman, 2009). I think that is very good for those of us who are going to be searching for jobs in higher education in the IDT field. More and more colleges are going to need designers to create effective, dynamic courses online.

Now on to blended learning. What is it? Just to let you know, blended learning has become a buzzword in both the corporate world and higher education. there is an increasing focus on facilitating human interaction in the form of computer-supported collaboration, virtual communities, instant messaging, blogging, etc. For the purpose of discussion, let's say that blended learning is the combination of online learning and face-to-face instruction.

Interesting, but face-to-face can mean real time interaction on Facebook, Twitter, AIM, Skype, and texting. Additionally there is ongoing research investigating how to make machines and computer interfaces more social and human (Graham 2004). Even in the space dimension, there are some fascinating things happening with mixed reality environments and environments that simultaneously employ both distributed and face-to-face interactions (Graham 2004). Mixed reality environment is showing the results of a digitally enhanced activity, such as mixing primary colors and having a computer program generate the result.

I also read where surgeons used Wii's Marble Mania, which requires players to develop dexterity in their hand movements to succeed at the game (Kulman 2008). The trainees then wore “cybergloves” that allowed Kahol and Smith to evaluate their performance in simulated surgery (Kulman 2008).

References

Graham, C. R., (2004). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. (pp. 1-32). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer—An Imprint of Wiley.

Grumman, P. T., (2009). Trends in higher education. SCUP Trends in Higher Education, 6(1). 1-10.

Retrieved from http://www.scup.org/asset/53017/SCUP_TrendsWeb_v6n1.pdf.

Struggling Colleges

2010-09-03T22:25:00.000-07:00

Recently I've been hearing how colleges are suffering financially. And yet a college where my sister is assistant professor, there's an eighty-five-year-old professor who can't hear very well, his thoughts and speech meanders off the subjects, and he falls to sleep in the middle of his lectures. He's been at the college for thirty years, and has lost his effectiveness as an instructor. Yet he refuses to retire.

Since he's tenured, the dean can't do anything about it. The dean wants to hire somebody who is energetic and has fresh ideas, but he can't unless this tenured professor steps down, which he is adamant about not doing.

However, in many colleges, getting tenure might change in the near future.

At another college, the president told his staff that they are most likely going to downscale to a junior college, and that all the professors will lose their tenure.

Colleges are hurting financially and hiring adjunct professors seems to be the wave of the future, (Texter, 2009). Which might be a good thing if many tenured professors hide behind their contracts and simply go through the motion of teaching. But is there another solution besides merely having adjunct professors do the teaching?

According to Heathcott (2005), one fundamental problem is that higher education departments continue to run doctoral programs on an outdated guild model in which professors contend that the only worthy outcome for the apprentice is to land a journeyman position in academia, eventually becoming a tenured master. Heathcott (2005) suggests replacing the guild model with graduate programs that help shape students in to balanced, well-adjusted colleagues. He says colleges need to introduce other career paths, such as in the business and government arenas, to their Ph.D. graduates. But then Texter (2009) says there are no worries for future professors as long as you are idealistic and don't listen to the negative ones in the profession. He loves teaching, loves helping students and treating them as the adults that they are, and enjoys taking on all kinds of adjunct positions. And he says professors can survive and in fact thrive as long as they stay positive.

Of course, I think the answer is for traditional colleges to offer more online degrees so that they can attract a greater number of potential students throughout the world. As more colleges start doing this, though, the competition increases, which is another issue all together.

What do you think? What is the answer to help struggling colleges stay afloat during budget cuts? Will having a lot of adjunct professors hurt or help colleges?

References

Heathcott, J. (2005). Trained for Nothing. Academe, 91(6-), 14-17.

Texter, D. (2009). No tenure? No problem. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(26), B11.
Comments (Open) (4)