Blog 5

Grosseck, Gabriela. “To Use or Not to Use web 2.0 in Higher Education.” ScienceDirect www.sciencedirect.com Web 8 June, 2010.

In this article, the author, from West University of Timisoara in Romania, argues that educators should embrace Web 2.0 technologies, “because teachers can foster collaborative work not only among their own students, but with colleagues, students, and community members from around the world.”

This article is great for my peers because it includes a comprehensive list of opportunities and challenges that Web 2.0 offers for college-level writing classes. Included in the list of advantages is reduction of costs, quick access to information, a variety of options, sharing experiences and resources, and low level of complexity. Disadvantage include inadequate Internet connections, variations between types of browsers, low quality of actual content, encourages complaints, lack of rules, limited security, and consumer of time.

Grosseck also lists reasons why educators resist new technologies: technological immaturity, indifference, and the erosion of creativity among instructors to name just a few. On the other hand, she realizes that if these tools are not presented properly (not course-objective based or goal based), they may not benefit the learner.

I find it hard for the student not to benefit from learning new technologies in all classes. For example, using the Blackboard discussion board in a math class for students to introduce themselves to each other can be beneficial to the student simply because they are learning and practicing a skill that can be used in other classes. Math teachers, on the other hand, may think that it isn’t their job to teach student how to use Bb. For example, students may actually learned more about the features of Microsoft Word in a freshman writing class than when they take the information technology course that focuses on Word. Purpose and application makes all the difference in the world.

Another point that the author fails to mention is the joy that comes when students (and faculty) learn something by what may appear to be an accident. Jim Gritton calls this “serendipitous learning”. We have all experienced this when browsing online for information or doing research online. I find it is exciting to find a jewel (article I can use) when I least expect it. Yet, just as Gritton points out that scientist find cures by “accident”, I find what I need when doing research because I am doing a great job researching my topic.

When these technologies are properly planned and executed in a writing class, the instructor may still experience resistance and the student may be frustrated initially, but with practice, good writing and communication skills will be developed. Students learn from each other in chats, discussion boards, blogs, wikis, Twitter, and other tools in a way that can feel like serendipitous learning. That is the joy of a well-planned activity or session.



Gritton, Jim. “Can serendipitous browsing lead to serendipitous learning?” FutureLab Innovation in Education. Sept. 2007. Web 7 June 2010.
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/web-articles/Web-Article795

Blog #4 IM

Blog 4
Kadirire, James. "Instant Messaging for Creating Interactive and Collaborative M-Learning Environments" The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning [Online], v8¸9 Jun 2007. Web 31, May 2010.

Although instant messaging (IM) has been around since before the Internet, it has taken on new meaning in the distance learning environment. At the center of this discussion is the fact that faculty need to rethink how they teach so that they can help students, who have not been allowed to use technology in the classroom in high school, learn to learn using the tools they have at their finger tips.

In this article, Kadirire explained the nuts and bolts of mobile learning (m-learning) and argued that IM, “reduces the formality of the learning experience, helps engage reluctant learners and raises their self-confidence, encourages students to become more engaged with material outside the classroom, and helps students communicate better among themselves” (1,2).

First, Kadirire explained the system design: user identity, user profile, directory, presence awareness, instant messages, asynchronous chat, message size, ease of use, multi-user chat, and security, and then he looked at content adaption: informational content, cost, design metrics, and relevance.

Next, Kadirire looked at different types of mobile devices to see how fast the page downloaded, how easy it was to navigate, and how easy or difficult it was to type the message into the message window. He concluded that there are many factors to consider when using mobile devices such as the screen resolution, colors used, stylus, software, and the web browsers. The advantage to IM is that it is inexpensive (free with an Internet connection), and “learners are able to expand their linguistic competence outside the traditional face-to-face environment” (11).

Knowing as much as I can about the technology I plan to use in an online writing class is very important. I think students should be exposed to the information in this article, the history of IM, how it works, and the definition of m-learning. Just like any tool, using IM in an online writing class requires research, pre-planning, and patience.

Speaking of patience, one thing Kadirire fails to mention is that sending a text message to a friend is very different from chatting with a classmate in a virtual classroom. It takes time to build confidence with writing and this type of on-demand writing can be very intimidating.
On the other hand, I think students need to be pushed beyond their comfort zones. In the work place they will be called upon to articulate thoughts on-demand (often in writing) and IM devices give them real world practice.

I agree with the author that having the IM experience in a classroom gives students confidence especially when it come to composing the more formal writing projects later.

In addition, I recommend using IM for the teaching of writing because students have the technology at their fingertips and it provides a vehicle for students to develop critical thinking skills and practice impromptu writing.

Twitter in the classroom...

Here is an example of using Twitter in a history class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WPVWDkF7U8

Blog #3

Garrison, D. Randy, and Martha Cleveland-Innes. "Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough." American Journal of Distance Education 19.3 (2005): 133-148. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 May 2010.

The authors of this article conducted a survey on the importance of student interaction in online learning. They argued that, “a community of inquiry is more than a social community and more than the magnitude of interaction among participants. It is an interaction of cognitive, social, and teaching presence. To prove their theory, they conducted a survey using four DE classes and found that “structure and leadership were crucial for online learners to take a deep and meaningful approach to learning” (133).

The different approaches to learning, they explain, are deep, surface, and achievement. Deep learners are active learners who are in the class to soak up as much information as they can, and they “embrace the material in the search of meaning” (137). Surface learners are in class to get the assignments done and hopefully get a passing grade, but they “put forth the least amount of effort toward realizing the minimum required outcomes” (137). Achievement learners are those who just, “focus on the activities that will result in the highest marks,” but it doesn’t appear that they care if they learn anything or not (137).

According to the authors, these learning approaches can change if the student gets more involved in the learning (self-motivated) and is motivated by peer support/pressure and teacher involvement.

Although the authors take into consideration that students exhibit different approaches to learning, they fail to consider that learning styles play a part in student success as well. For example, reading the instructions for the assignments may be a problem, or students may need an example of a task before they can grasp a concept. Other students may lack typing skills and thus take longer to complete projects or have limited access to technology. These factors were not discussed.

On the other hand, this was an interesting study that I think all online teachers will appreciate. Getting students engaged in conversations advances learning, but the design of the class and the involvement of the instructor are key.

Although this article focuses on asynchronous assignments for the purpose of the study, these principles also apply to synchronous and on-site assignments. Designers of online classes should take this study of student learning approaches (and learning styles) into consideration when designing online classes.  

Regards,
Nancy Warren

Blog # 2

MacArthur, Charles, A and Rachel Karchmer-Klein. “Web 2.0 New Opportunities for Writing.” Putting Writing Research into Practice. Ed. Gary A. Troia, Rebecca K. Shankland, and Anne Heintz. New York: Gilford, 2010, 45-69. Books.google. Web 18 May, 2010.

MacArthur and Karchmer-Klein give an overview of using social media in the classroom, in which they argue that blogs, wikis, and SNSs (social networking sites), “expand the audience with whom they [students] communicate” and “facilitate interaction, collaboration, and sharing” online (46).

Having these tools available can present opportunities as well as challenges. Two of the issues the authors address are safety and privacy.  Although the tools they examine are great for communication and building community, the challenge to instructors is how to balance the text production (“writing that involves planning, gathering and evaluating information and self-regulation”) with the multiple interactions the writer has with the audience. 

I believe that when students go online to SNSs, it is assumed that the content of their posts should be personal. In other words, the lines become blurred between what is academic and what is conversation with classmates when they are composing work for a writing assignment. I have seen this happen in the Blackboard Discussion Board as well, and it can be a challenge. 

The first tool the authors examine is the blog. They reference examples of blogs written by teachers and by students/teacher collaboration in secondary schools. One advantage of using the blog, they contend, is that it, “offers the potential to expand social context for writing in ways that make it more authentic.” 

I agree that blogs are a great tool and they work well in composition classes because they provide the student with an actual audience. For example, when students turn in their paper, it my have only been read by one person in a peer review session before it is submitted, thus, the instructor is the primary audience. But, with the blog the entire class gets a chance to read it. 

On the other hand, the authors fail to mention that posting to the Internet for some students can be frightening because many people lack confidence in their writing skills, and others just don’t feel comfortable sharing and reflecting on personal experiences. 

Wikis are another great tool for online learning. The authors describe a wiki as a collaborative writing space. The pitfall with this tool, however, is that wikis require a lot of work on the part of the instructor to “practice, investigate, and educate students before ahead of time.”

After investigating how the wiki functions, I can see how it may be overwhelming for the student in a writing class and difficult for the instructor to maintain. Some students may make changes to the wiki that are not correct or have misspelled words, so the instructor has to constantly monitor it. Giving too much editing freedom to the student could be a major problem for students especially if the student is overconfident about the work.  

The authors categorize social bookmarking (stored websites using tags), micro-blogging (Twitter) and social networking sites (Facebook) as technologies. Twitter, for example, limits the writer to 140 characters and is great for teaching students how to write succinctly.  It also allows student to post quickly and repeatedly. I used Twitter in the classroom last semester briefly (for five weeks), and plan to focus on its usefulness in a writing class for my final project for this class.

MacArthur and Karchmer-Klein conclude with some advice to the readers. They suggest professional development for instructors because these tools are new to education, new versions come out every year with updates, and the technology is still experimental. 

I have found that going to the free training workshops provided by the college has saved me a lot time and provided tips, new ideas, and short cuts that I would have never know about had I not attended the sessions.

This chapter is a great resource for people who teach online or hybrid writing classes. Before doing so, instructors should investigate the technology first, take it slow and easy so the student has plenty of time to embrace the technology, and then expect the unexpected. When the bar is set high, instructors will be surprised at the creative (and perhaps authentic) work the students will produce. 

Here is the link http://books.google.com/books?id=4DxWBw6_fDwC&pg=PA61&dq=microblogging+in+the+classroom&cd=2#v=onepage&q=microblogging%20in%20the%20classroom&f=false

Always,

Nancy Warren

First Blog

Riley, Karen L., and Barbara Slater Stern. "Problems and Possibilities of Web-Based Instruction: Transforming Social Studies Methods and Practice." Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 21.2 (2005): 65-71. First Search: Eric. Web. 15 May 2010.

I found an interesting article by Karen Riley, associate professor at Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM), and Barbara Stern, associate professor at James Madison University (JMU), in which they examine the pros and cons of teaching online classes. The conclusion, which is of particular interest to me, addresses the “burden” students feel concerning cooperative learning. The authors state, “We believe that what is burdensome to our students had less to do with the online nature of the assignment and more to do the cooperative learning (collaborative) aspect.

Riley and Stern divide online learning into two categories: “Web-based (totally online) instruction and Web-supported (teacher meets class but instruction is supported by the Web) instruction” (65). After completing the audacious task of teaching an online American History class to a combined group from JMU and AUM, Riley and Stern concluded that there are several “pitfalls and possibilities” to teaching online. 

Pitfalls
One of the major pitfalls they found is that students resisted the new technology, which made collaborative learning more difficult. In other words, students preferred lectures and textbooks (what they are comfortable with) over learning how to navigate Blackboard and WebCt (both were used in the combined History class in Fall 2000). They also found that some students preferred not to take “action regarding their own learning.” In other words, students depended on one-on-one instruction and additional help along the way rather than trying to figure some things out for themselves. I have found this true in my own classes. Even in groups, some students sit back and let others do the work, but one of the pitfalls of the online component is that students must be accountable, and they must take an active part in the learning. Not all students are willing to do that.

To clarify this observation, Professors Riley and Stern reference five of the seven principles of “effective online learning strategies” by Chickering and Gamson: openness to assessment (peer and self), knowing how to learn, prior knowledge and experience, problem/action based learning, and a sense of community (1987).

Riley and Stern also noted that students missed the “emotional component in online courses” that the f2f classes provide.

Possibilities
Students liked being able to review the discussion board and recorded lectures. This gave them a chance to review the information at their own pace and not having to worry about taking good notes during a lecture.

Riley and Stern also found, from the instructor’s point of view that another perk of the Web-based instructions is that it allows “teachable moments” to occur that may be missed in the f2f class. In their study they point out that the online classes “can have the potential to transform the way in which learners understand the course material and provide a social component that is often missed in the traditional classroom-the willingness of shy or introverted students to participate in classroom discussions” (66).

I found this article useful for my peers because it addresses the challenges of incorporating collaborative learning and other teaching strategies into the online environment. The authors faced many obstacles making their combined online History classes worthy of a reality show episode. Their experience inspired me to document my findings in greater detail when I teach my next online class.

Works Cited

Chickering, Arthur. W., and Zelda. F. Gamson. “Seven Principles for good practice in undergraduate education.” AAHE Bullitin (1997). Web. 15 May 2010. http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm

Riley, Karen L., and Barbara Slater Stern. "Problems and Possibilities of Web-Based Instruction: Transforming Social Studies Methods and Practice." Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 21.2 (2005): 65-71. First Search: Eric. Web. 15 May 2010.