One of our greatest challenges in completing the group Wiki project was communication. We had started using our wiki as a “chat room” but it quickly dwindled down to only two people. These two members, obviously needed a lot of reassurance that the project was being completed with plenty of time for review and revision of each other’s work, but even they eventually resorted to e-mail for greater candor. Since I really wanted this to be a true group project, I constantly asked for feedback but received very little in return, although people were posting their work in the files on the site. When the format of the wiki changed suddenly, I just assumed that someone else had changed it without telling anyone and I tried to find out why. It took me over a day to realize that I had probably changed it accidentally myself when I was revisiting the Wiki start-up page over the weekend.
We also differed in work styles. I expected this group process to take longer than solo work and therefore felt that we needed a work plan that would help keep us on task and also clarify the project for Bolu, who had missed the class session in which we set up the wiki in the first place. Tom was very anxious about the presentation itself and so created a PowerPoint presentation early on while other group members posted their work much closer to the time it was due.
A third challenge arose from my obsession with finding a way to use the wiki to create our presentation. Had we watched the tutorials on Tuesday, as we almost did, we could have saved ourselves a lot of frustration. By the time I went back to them to learn about WikiWords and linking pages, there was so much already on our site that we needed to create another wiki to present. Still, I would not suggest telling the students about WikiWords. Instead I would urge them to use all of the tools available to them and let them have the thrill of figuring this out. I was so surprised that we were the only ones to “discover” WikiWords, that I felt compelled to teach everyone else about them, which I hope was not too out of line.
It appeared, given what the other groups presented, that we made too big a deal of this whole thing. I was disappointed that our group did not collaborate more and sometimes this assignment felt like payback for all of the group projects that I have assigned to others over the years and especially last year in Contemporary Biology. However, it was good to get to know Tom more, since I really knew little more than his name and department before this project. Also, even though we obviously didn’t rehearse, I felt very good about our presentation in the end and satisfied with my level of participation.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Reflections on the Media vs. Methods Debate
There is nothing like a good debate to help clarify an issue and generate much-needed discussions about what kind of research must be done to truly settle an issue. Debates are often integral to hurdling specific challenges and furthering advances within a particular field. Knowing this, I was immediately drawn into these readings, even though I was unfamiliar with the “players” and fairly new to the field of educational technology itself.
At first I was struck by the timing of the articles. Both of the assigned readings were from the same journal published in 1994, yet the original statement that “studies clearly suggest that media do not influence learning under any conditions” was published by Dr. Richard Clark in 1983. Why had eleven years passed before the debate actually started? Why had 1994 been the year that Dr. Robert Kozma decided that Clark’s statements needed “reframing?” More importantly; why had no one else effectively questioned Clark’s first assertions during those same eleven years? I also wondered what had happened in the twelve years since these articles were published and today.
The second thing that struck me was that the debate, as laid out in the details of the articles, was not nearly as polarized as the titles of the articles would have one believe. Both men acknowledged areas of common ground and it seemed as if there was a very real chance of compromise and possibly even collaboration between the two which led to the next important question; have educational technologists been able to resolve this issue and if so, how? Based on the results of the values clarification exercise in our last class, it would appear that the teaching methods vs. media used debate is still unsettled.
I started researching subsequent writings and found the answers to some of my questions in an article published last fall which clearly outlines the vast differences between the technological media of 1983 and those available in 1994 (Hastings and Tracey, 2005) which the authors propose prompted Kozma to challenge Clark’s original assertions then. Hastings and Tracey also state that in order to test the validity of Clark’s original views or Kozma’s assertions in today’s world, one must focus attention on “the one medium whose attributes have changed dramatically since 1983: the computer.” (Hastings and Tracey, 2005). While I agree with this view, I also think that Clark’s call to take into account the complexity of educational research is also valid. Indeed the need to identify and attempt to control all of the possible variables when conducting educational research is, in my opinion, the single most enduring message of this entire debate.
[References]
Clark, R.E. (1994) Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, v42, n2, 21-29.
Hastings, N.B. & Tracey, M.W. (2005) TechTrends. 49, 2, 28-30
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 2, 7-19.
At first I was struck by the timing of the articles. Both of the assigned readings were from the same journal published in 1994, yet the original statement that “studies clearly suggest that media do not influence learning under any conditions” was published by Dr. Richard Clark in 1983. Why had eleven years passed before the debate actually started? Why had 1994 been the year that Dr. Robert Kozma decided that Clark’s statements needed “reframing?” More importantly; why had no one else effectively questioned Clark’s first assertions during those same eleven years? I also wondered what had happened in the twelve years since these articles were published and today.
The second thing that struck me was that the debate, as laid out in the details of the articles, was not nearly as polarized as the titles of the articles would have one believe. Both men acknowledged areas of common ground and it seemed as if there was a very real chance of compromise and possibly even collaboration between the two which led to the next important question; have educational technologists been able to resolve this issue and if so, how? Based on the results of the values clarification exercise in our last class, it would appear that the teaching methods vs. media used debate is still unsettled.
I started researching subsequent writings and found the answers to some of my questions in an article published last fall which clearly outlines the vast differences between the technological media of 1983 and those available in 1994 (Hastings and Tracey, 2005) which the authors propose prompted Kozma to challenge Clark’s original assertions then. Hastings and Tracey also state that in order to test the validity of Clark’s original views or Kozma’s assertions in today’s world, one must focus attention on “the one medium whose attributes have changed dramatically since 1983: the computer.” (Hastings and Tracey, 2005). While I agree with this view, I also think that Clark’s call to take into account the complexity of educational research is also valid. Indeed the need to identify and attempt to control all of the possible variables when conducting educational research is, in my opinion, the single most enduring message of this entire debate.
[References]
Clark, R.E. (1994) Media Will Never Influence Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, v42, n2, 21-29.
Hastings, N.B. & Tracey, M.W. (2005) TechTrends. 49, 2, 28-30
Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 2, 7-19.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Reflections on Introductory Lecture and Readings
Educational Technology is the process of applying what we know about learning to the educational setting. Like any technology, it is practical in that it is used to solve a real problem. For educational technology, the problem is how best to utilize technological advances (such as audiovisual aids, computers, etc.) to enhance student learning and help students achieve a “meaningful understanding” (AECT, 2004) of the concepts at hand
In addition, like any other technology, educational technology is very dynamic because the field of student learning is constantly advancing and the “best practices” in the field are constantly changing. With the constant shifting in what is considered the latest technology, it is not very surprising that the general public views "educational technology" as synonymous with the latest technology (i.e. use of computers or the internet).
While the presentation in class and the first paper seemed to dwell on the failures of various technologies, I thought it was very telling that the Army training videos of WWII were considered such a success (Resiser, 2001). Obviously many factors such as student motivation, acceptance of the format (by teachers and by learners), instructional content, etc. influence the effectiveness of technology at least as much as the specific type of technology used. The challenge then seems to be to identify which of these factors are most important in a particular situation so that the media can be tailored to the need(s)at hand.
In completing the readings, and especially the third one (AECT, 2004), I was reminded of a media evaluation model that I found very useful in my work with social norms programming as an effective means of health education/health promotion. This model, developed by Michael Haines of Southern Illinois University is called “Media PIE.” It states that to be most effective, health education media {technology} needs to be positive (P) rather than negative, inclusive (I) so that the intended target audience can relate to it and empowering (E) so that the intended audience is encouraged to act on their own behalf (Haines, 1997). I am sure that we will meet many other models to help us develop appropriate and effective educational interventions as we move through this course and our respective programs.
The main message, I think, is that the learning process is so complex and so dynamic that it requires many different tools. Technology may not be the best tool in all cases, but as the field of educational technology and learning theories themselves advance, there will always be a role for technological resources in teaching and learning.
[References]
AECT (2004 Draft). The Definition of educational technology: An analysis and explanation of the concept
Reiser, R.A. (2001). A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part 1: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 53-65.
Haines, M.P. (1997). Wellness Management, the newsletter of the National Wellness Association, 13, #3, 1-4.
In addition, like any other technology, educational technology is very dynamic because the field of student learning is constantly advancing and the “best practices” in the field are constantly changing. With the constant shifting in what is considered the latest technology, it is not very surprising that the general public views "educational technology" as synonymous with the latest technology (i.e. use of computers or the internet).
While the presentation in class and the first paper seemed to dwell on the failures of various technologies, I thought it was very telling that the Army training videos of WWII were considered such a success (Resiser, 2001). Obviously many factors such as student motivation, acceptance of the format (by teachers and by learners), instructional content, etc. influence the effectiveness of technology at least as much as the specific type of technology used. The challenge then seems to be to identify which of these factors are most important in a particular situation so that the media can be tailored to the need(s)at hand.
In completing the readings, and especially the third one (AECT, 2004), I was reminded of a media evaluation model that I found very useful in my work with social norms programming as an effective means of health education/health promotion. This model, developed by Michael Haines of Southern Illinois University is called “Media PIE.” It states that to be most effective, health education media {technology} needs to be positive (P) rather than negative, inclusive (I) so that the intended target audience can relate to it and empowering (E) so that the intended audience is encouraged to act on their own behalf (Haines, 1997). I am sure that we will meet many other models to help us develop appropriate and effective educational interventions as we move through this course and our respective programs.
The main message, I think, is that the learning process is so complex and so dynamic that it requires many different tools. Technology may not be the best tool in all cases, but as the field of educational technology and learning theories themselves advance, there will always be a role for technological resources in teaching and learning.
[References]
AECT (2004 Draft). The Definition of educational technology: An analysis and explanation of the concept
Reiser, R.A. (2001). A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part 1: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 53-65.
Haines, M.P. (1997). Wellness Management, the newsletter of the National Wellness Association, 13, #3, 1-4.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Cindy's LST 401 Blog
I am looking forward to learning a lot in this class and to sharing this experience with everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
