A final ePortfolio synthesis reflection, including a:
-
- 1-2 paragraph précis of your flight path;
- Substantive, comprehensive, and detailed reflection about your eLearning toolkit experiences;
- Substantive, comprehensive and detailed reflection about your overall ETEC 565A experience;
- Substantive, comprehensive and detailed reflection about next steps for you, in terms of your practice in educational technology, which could include what technologies you hope to explore moving forward, or how you plan on engaging as a lifelong learner in terms of educational technology;
- Overall quality of work is also important, as per the overall standards listed above;
- Be sure to cite relevant literature;
- Posted on the Synthesis page of your ePortfolio.
————————————————————————————————————————
When I began the course, I was already familiar with online learning, and had seen and used many different tools available today. In my current position, I lead a group that provides training and support for schools using a student information system. We provide both synchronous and asynchronous learning opportunities. We have also done online training sessions using WebEx and Elluminate. We have done some work using Adobe Captivate to create software demos. If we decided to create an entire course online per se, an LMS could be used. When I started the course, I wanted to learn more about the current trends in online teaching/learning.
As well, I wanted to enhance my skills in the selecting and evaluating these types of digital tools. I would say that ETEC 565 learning modules, readings, activities and discussions have all helped to increase and solidify my learning. I feel I learned more about Web 2.0 tools. I enjoyed the collaborative pieces and used Google Docs, Hangouts, etc. for this. The Discussion boards, as always, provide the affordance to contribute and review the commentary and learning available in our group. I also found the Moodle LMS course creation component to be interesting. Through the creation of my Moodle LMS module, I enhanced my experience with web design, HTML coding, working within another LMS tool.
Although somewhat dated, the e-learning toolkit was helpful. I enjoyed all of the information. Some was certainly a review but definitely helpful. The wiki format was easy to work with and to navigate. The web design and HTML authoring area was the most useful and I found the key design questions timely particularly for some of the course requirements.
All activities in the course have been interesting. I enjoyed the Flight Path posting as it forced me to reflect on where I have been and where I am going. Who doesn’t enjoy talking about themselves!
Again, I have been involved in e-learning previously so the Moodle Intro Module, Assessment, and Multiple Modules work were not necessarily new. Because of the Moodle server, there was a bit of a dis-pleasure doing these. No need to go there again. I personally enjoy any type of work in this field. I’m not the best ‘reflector’ but these activities, as always, have made me pause and think, which when you’re ‘life busy’ can be a good thing. I particularly enjoyed the digital story assignment for two reasons. One, I experimented with a tool I had not used before and two, I learned creating a story is not as easy as it looks. An issue was the limitation on the number of panels per comic. I had to create multiple comics and then put them together using graphics software. I think for the creation of smaller comic strips, this tool is ideal. The tool then certainly had limitations such as number of slides, editing one completed, etc. A great takeaway!
We have been exposed to a few different frameworks for selecting, evaluating and utilizing learning technologies including ISTE’s NETS Framework (2008) and Chickering and Erhmann’s Implementing the Seven Principles (Chickering & Erhmann, 1996). I personally like Bates and Poole’s A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology (Bates & Poole, 2003) as the structure and definition are quite clear and direct. I have been involved in evaluations before I have using different models can be useful as each provides a different insight and perspective. The end result would be a more effective discussion and/or evaluation. Going forward, I would reference the Sections model with the ISTE’s Performance Indicators in mind and Chickering and Gamson’s 7 principles in mind. At times, there can be too much of a focus on the software and not implementing, maintaining, etc. “User-friendly hardware, software, and communication vehicles that help faculty and students use technologies efficiently and effectively” (Chickering & Erhmann, 1996) can be implemented and maintained.
Here would be a take away for me based on the readings and discussion.
Cost – I’ve been around long enough to know that cost is one of if not the main driver in any technology project. Cost-benefit analyses are required and help to determine whether the usability and functionality of the technology is worth the cost outlay. Lower cost is always a benefit.
Teaching and Learning – Often overlooked, teaching and learning requirements are an important consideration and should be thought of from both the student and teacher perspective. As well, supportive educational task/functions curriculum, programming, etc. should be considered. Ongoing support for educators and students plays a role. Chickering & Erhmann (1996) refer to technology “respect diverse talents and ways of learning”and ISTE (2008) refers to technology helping to “model digital age work and learning”.
Students – Technology can provide barriers for students including access, vision, communication, etc. and consideration should be in given for these. I think the most basic thought is the use of the proposed technology in supporting students in their educational goals. IST (2008) indicates that technology should help to “facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity” and Chickering & Erhmann (1996) that technology improve the student’s “time on task”.
Ease of Use – If the technology isn’t easy to use, it won’t be used. Items to consider include: screen size, glare, customization, applicable learning environments, battery life, applicable for the classroom. ISTE (2008) refer to “effective use of the tool in support of student learning”.
Interactivity – Student use of the technology should allow for interaction with content and show their learning. Chickering & Erhmann (1996) indicate technology that “encourages contact between students and their teachers”
Time to Use – Technologies are implemented once a evaluation process has been completed and resources have been assigned to support staff and students. The time required for this varies and is dependent upon the size and scale of the implementation.
Novelty – Technology at time can be adopted for the sake of technology. At technology craze does not automatically merit adoption. A defined evaluation process including points around this is required. ISTE 2008) indicates that technology is useful if educators may explore the creative applications of technology and “engage in professional growth”.
Organization – Policy and procedure must be considered when implementing any technology. At a school level, this must be considered with district/divisional policy and procedures in mind.
Going forward, I think this particular course of the MET program will be extremely useful as technology usage and technical requirements are only going to increase. I believe these materials will be useful for me in now being able to “Evaluate and reflect on current research and professional practice on a regular basis” (ISTE 2008) as well as participate at a level to work to ensure “learner-centered strategies providing equitable access to appropriate digital tools and resources” (ISTE 2008). As always, the learning continues!
References:
Anderson, T. (2008). Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Edmonton, Alberta: AU Press, Athabasca University.
Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success (pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), p. 3-7.
Chickering, A.W. & Erhmann, S.C. (1996). Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49 (2) 3-6.
National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). (2008). Retrieved Aug 2, 2013 from International Society for Technology in Education: http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-t-standards.pdf