Erin’s Educational Technology Journey

I spent today re-reading some posts from past modules. I felt motivated to do so because I’m getting “deeper” into my LMS Moodle course design, and I can see all of the pieces fitting together. In our Module 2 discussion, we had to give advice to a community educator who was responding to the needs for an ESL population concerned with diabetes prevention and care. The community educator wants to create a DVD to help members of the population because their understanding of spoken English is great, but they find it difficult to recall important information from workshops.

My initial reaction was not to suggest a DVD due to the time, the cost and the lack of flexibility the format affords. However, through participating in discussion threads (I admit, I lurk more than I post) I realized that the population would benefit from a DVD. Simply because we have the Internet doesn’t mean it is the best choice. I overlooked the fact that a DVD covers all of the basic needs. It delivers the workshop in spoken English, subtitles could be added and it could be repeated several times to clarify understanding. In addition, if members had questions, they could note the time and segment of the DVD (depending on design) and reference it to the community educator. Just because there are bells and whistles with presentation software and formats doesn’t mean we need to use them! This reminded me of  Bates & Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS, where student needs and ease of use are emphasised as part of a framework for selecting educational technology tools.

Below is my original post. You can see how far I’ve come!

Anju’s need: To create a learning material that ESL students with fluent oral understanding and poor written understanding can use to help memorize one-hour workshop material.

Discussion:

I would not recommend a DVD for Anju. I would have suggested that Anju use PowerPoint (PP) presentations on a blog/website (or a similar OS application) instead of investing in a video camera and laptop to produce DVDs.  See Annette Smith’s post (May 31) on taping lectures, which inspired my thinking.

 This way, students could access the presentations online, and choose the ones that relate to their concerns without the risk or cost of losing or damaging a DVD. Anju could link her site to other resources on diabetes management, online dictionaries and to diabetes information in other languages. I am assuming Anju is not trained in media design or instructional design. Creating a simple website/blog would allow the community to access her materials and Anju would not need a great deal of “catch-up” in a WYSIWYG editor. Michael Haworth has posted four reasons to avoid creating a DVD in this case: time management, video creation issues, inflexibility of DVDs and being locked into a platform for the duration of her project. See his  June 1 post for details.

If Anju asked me for advice, I would suggest that she create a series of short (10 minute) clips that incorporate the main aspects of a given topic related to the overall workshop into a simple viewing program (powerpoint,for one). If the topic of a workshop was on daily exercise, 10 minutes about why exercise is important, followed by 10 minutes on how to do key exercises and 10 minutes on issues one may come across when exercising (elevated heart rate, excessive thirst…etc). This is to keep students interested and to lessen the risk of overwhelming them with new vocabulary and information. I assume Anju knows her audience, but a preliminary survey may be required to meet student needs and assess unique ESL issues (simplified vocabulary).

I have never authored a DVD, and I ventured into the 565 Toolkit for help with this activity. To create a DVD, Anju would need her lesson plan (divided into 10 minute sections),  her multimedia organized, her multimedia fully produced, her information in a folder hierarchy and DVD-R- because DVD+R may not work on older players (ETEC 565 Toolkit, DVD). She will need to learn her video camera’s functions, and how to upload her video for editing in her DVD authoring program. Whew!

According to ww.signvideo.com, she would have to author the video and audio into a structure like menus and chapters, and then burn her DVD. She would then have to know how many copies in total, and burn that number of DVDs. Her total number may be very high, rising the project’s cost,  and the entire process sounds time consuming!  She is also assuming that students would have a DVD player or access to one. This is a large assumption, and she should have surveyed students before purchasing a video camera and taking this route!

Estimated time:  I have never attempted to create a DVD as a learning resource. Including the time it would take to learn to use the video camera, laptop DVD program and design the materials, my best guess is two months for an amateur/beginner’s effort. I came up with this answer assuming that she would spend 3 weeks planning the learning materials for a unit (based on my teaching experience), 1 week recording various data, and the remainder of the time mastering her DVD authoring tool.

Resources:

Hudson, B. (2002). DVD authoring part 1. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://www.signvideo.com/d-athr_pt1.htm

ETEC 565 Learning Toolkit: DVD. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

ETEC 565 Diabetes DVD Discussion Thread

Wikipedia (2009). DVD authoring. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_authoring

I believe Lenora should use an open source wiki (or blog, Google sites) instead of a website. It is noted that Lenora’s members would have to create an account (in the case of pbworks or Google sites) which may be considered a hurdle by some. I chose to apply the SECTIONS frame work because Lenora has to select and use technology with the purpose of creating and maintaining a community for knowledge building. I think it would take her a few evenings of researching the best OS for her needs, and a few evenings setting up her wiki. She could be up-and-running in one week. My reasoning is as follows:

Students: In the future, the technology may have to be appropriate for students to find resources on bullying. Currently the concern is for other teachers. In this scenario the technology must be appropriate for novices because Lenora does not know the tech-comfort level of those who will attend her pro-d online day. A website or a wiki would be fine because both can be designed for novices. However, a wiki does have the advantage of WYSIWYG and Lenora does not know how to design a website. Decision: Wiki

Ease of Use: Will this technology be reliable. Teachers are depending on this as a learning tool and as a resource. Teachers have limited time for professional development and tech frustrations should be kept to a minimum. A website and a wiki are reliable. However, Lenora is a teacher with limited time and she will be a user of this technology. Decision: Wiki

Costs: Lenora does not have a departmental budget and will handle costs on her own. Assuming her school does not allow her to create a pro-d website using their server; she would have to pay for hosting. Decision: Wiki

Teaching and learning: The kind of learning will be collaborative. Knowledge will be shared and constructed. Instructional approaches will be discussions and feedback, and text-based information is suitable. The best technology would support asynchronous communication because teachers will have different time schedules. A website, if created by a novice, may be Web 1.0 styled. Decision: Wiki, with 2.0 WYSIWYG applications

Interactivity: The interaction required is shared communication. E-mail is not required, but the option would be nice for professionals to stay in touch. The ability to post discussions is required and members could post their addresses in forums. This would be difficult for Lenora to create in a website at her level. Decision: Wiki with 2.0 WYSIWYG applications.

Organizational issues: Lenora needs something she can do easily, by herself and something she won’t need considerable IT support for. Lenora does need a place (online) to go for help because she has limited skills. Decision: Wiki, with help links and forums available 24-7.

Novelty:Lenora needs a technology that is established and has been used to create a community of learning before. She is not a pioneer and she should use an application/site that has satisfied professionals who prioritize collaboration and communication exchange. In addition, a low novelty effect will be less likely to “scare” off the technophobes and novices in her community. Decision: A little research online would lead Lenora, at this point, to Google sites, pbworks, wordpress, edublogger…etc. She could research and decide which application is better suited for beginners.

Speed: Lenora needs to consider how quickly her work can reach others and how quickly they can respond to construct solutions to bullying in the community. This is directly affected by Lenora’s dial-up status. Decision: Keep it simple! Lenora does not need Flash animation, images or fancy banners. Simple text-based asynchronous communication would load with limited frustration. Lenora could prepare text in a word processing program and cut-and-paste into her posts/pages.  This would save her the time of attaching/downloading files.

The framework of “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” by Chickering & Gamson (1987) and Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996) “Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as a Lever” are written in a “common sense” style which camouflages the complex pedagogical principles and effective classroom management skills required to conduct “good practice” in an academic setting of any level. Bates and Poole (2003) read more academic, but the SECTIONS framework is deceivingly simple sounding. I found myself nodding my head in agreement with SECTIONS and the Seven Principles (1987, 1996) based on my personal experience. However, “Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as a Lever” (1996) now seems slightly dated when one reads the examples of technology use, but the principles hold.

Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996) 3rd principle of Good Practices Uses Active Learning Techniques and Bates & Poole’s (2003) T:Teaching and Learning resonated with me as being complementary and meaningful. I’m an ESL elementary teacher and I apply the SECTIONS “T” : Identifying what kind of learning to facilitate and make meaningful to meet my students’ diverse needs is a key reason I select learning technologies. I feel this technique is complemented by Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996) 3^rd principle because a thoughtful identification of technology should enhance and support active learning and result in the selection of active learning technologies. For example, an English language wiki project is selected over MS Power Point to encourage ESL students to collaborate using English. I have identified the skill of collaboration using English and I’ve selected an application that requires students to construct knowledge actively.

To keep my post reasonable length, I will briefly state that SECTIONS’ Costs and Ease of Use & Reliability are two areas of ed-tech I feel very strongly about. The principle of prompt feedback is another. I look forward to discussing these with others. Erin

References

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.

For more information on Bate’s publications, visit his site! http://www.tonybates.ca/tag/poole/

Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987).  Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.  American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), p. 3-7.
http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples1987.htm
Chickering, A.W. and Ehrmann, S.C. (1996).  “Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever,” American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), p. 3-6.
http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples.htm
 

Module one introduced me to methods of selecting and using learning technologies based on theoretical frameworks. This is my reflection after posting and discussing the issues with colleagues.

In ETEC 510 I was introduced to the work of Bates and Poole’s  (2003) A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In this module for ETEC 565, I returned to Bates and Poole’s framework with five MET courses between my first reading of it ( in January of 2008) and now. My ideas on how to implement SECTIONS have changed dramatically. I realize the importance of considering all aspects of SECTIONS from perspectives beyond that of a classroom teacher. The discussion in 565 reminded me that Cost is, usually, the deciding factor when selecting technology. As much as our 565 discussion applauded the value of Ease of Use, Students and Teaching and Learning, personal experience from colleagues centered on Cost.

This module introduced me to the work of Chickering and Gamson (1987) and of Chickering and Ehrmann (1996). Chickering & Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education are principles I have seen in great classrooms. Personally, I am a teacher who gives prompt feedback because students are motivated and focused on how to improve their work before it is due. I am also a teacher who considers time on task as essential and I provide time for students to focus on tasks. Chickering & Gamson’s (1987) principle of using active learning techniques has worked for me as both a teacher and a student. When I engage myself in a learning activity, I gain a greater deal of knowledge then if I simply use rote memorization techniques. From my own learning experience, I teach using methods that actively engage students. This point brings me to Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996) Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever. The authors discuss the original seven principles in relation to technology available in the late ’90s.  Active learning techniques, prompt feedback and time on task are principles that can be met more easily by technology: open-source software and social networking tools alone can motivate learners and teachers to use these principles at a framework for structuring lessons and selecting technology.

For a better idea of Bates and Poole’s (2003) holistic view on teaching with technology, I suggest their website: http://www.batesandpoole.ubc.ca/index.html where you can view the theoretical foundation of their work in the Resources tab or by clicking on this link: http://www.batesandpoole.ubc.ca/pdf/OPAS.pdf. To see an instructor’s suggestions for implementing the Seven Principles from the classroom perspective of 2008, follow the series of posts titled “Implementing the Seven Principles” here: http://georgeself.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/principle-one/. You can select which principle to focus on, they are organized by number.

References

Bates, A., & Pooles, G. (2003). A framework for selecting and using technology. In Effective Teaching with Technology (pp. 75-105).

Chickering, A. W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7. Retrieved May 5, 2009,  from http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples1987.htm

Chickering, A. W. and Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technolgy as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49 (2), 3-6. Retrieved May 5, 2009, from http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples.htm