Module 6 Video Presentations

I posted to Amy Cantymagli, Andree Simmons, Kat Crawford,Bradley Gogan and Aretha Coley's video presentations.

Second Attempt to post Video Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qIeaZxY9QU

Module 6 Collaboration Video

Cut and paste the link into the address bar to retrieve video project.

Module Five Postings

For Module Five:
I posted to Lynn Butkiewicz and Katherine Crawford's blog.

Technology and Media for Distance Education- Module 5

Click on image to enlarge

Moving Toward Dynamic Technologies- Module 5

After reflecting on the mind map that I created, I can say that I am very much on the static end of the continuum. Many of the technology tools/components that I listed on the static portion of my map I somehow use them daily. I continue to use them because they are familiar to me. However, I feel that as I continue to my studies at Walden I will move toward the dynamic end of the continuum. The reason I say this is because many of the new technologies I am being exposed to come from having to complete course assignments. For example, prior to taking this course, I did not have any knowledge of how to create a video from scratch using pictures, words, clips, and more. I have gained a new skill and I can see implementing videos into the curriculum. This would be perfect for covering some of the social studies standards. This also makes me realize just how important it is to continuously grow professionally by taking courses/classes. As an educator we HAVE to stay abreast of the changes that occur in our fields.

Module Four Postings

I posted to Andree Simmons and Richard Wasserman's blogs.

Module 4: Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools

With your graphic organizer, include a reflection describing how you can bring the technological tools learners are using outside the classroom into the educational process, and which tools and strategies are best for this purpose.

There was article written an author by the name of Marc Prensky that I had to read for an assignment when I was working on my master’s degree. I often refer back to the article because it provides me with a reminder of how our educational system is steadily changing in order to meet the needs of the “Digital Natives” as Prensky refers to them. Digital Natives are native speakers of the digital language (Prensky, 2001 p.1) Prensky (2001 p.1) also says,” Those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology are, known as , Digital Immigrants. Prensky (2001, p2) believes the single biggest problem facing education today is that Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language. With that being said, In order to have students actively participate and learn the content, I have to make decisions regarding planning based on the technology interest of my students. My graphic organizer reflects some technological tools that could be incorporated in the classroom. Under the category of content, virtual field trips, multimedia presentations, digital libraries, and Internet Inquiry projects are all ways for students to gain content knowledge. Blogs, emailing, Wikis, and discussion boards are common tools that can be used for communicating online. Each of them allow for engaging in communication with peers and instructors. Lastly, tools that can be incorporate for collaboration are Google Doc, Skype, Web 2.0, and podcasting.

References

Durrington, V., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-193. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Prensky, M.(2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Module 3- Assessing Collaborative Efforts

How should participation in a collaborative learning community be assessed?
The educator should utilize varies tools. Both the video by George Siemens and the book Collaboration Online states assessing students on line is a challenge and the task should not be solely completed by the educator. According to George Siemens (2010) there are a couple of ways participation can be assessed in a collaborative learning community. One way is peer assessment. This is the process of allowing students to assess each other. Another way to assess participation is by having students participate in online communities. This allows students to form different relationships with other experts and receive feedback and comments (Siemens, 2010). Palloff & Pratt suggest using a rubric to assess participation(Pallof &Pratt ,2005). In closing, there is not one perfect way to assess participation in a collaborative learning community. Therefore, it is important for the instructor to have multiple tools already in place to assess the participation.
The varying levels of skill and knowledge students bring to a course affect the instructor's "fair and equitable assessment" of learning because it pushes the instructor to be flexible when determining what is a valid indication of competence (Siemens, 2010).
When working with a student that does not want to network or collaborate in a learning community the instructor’s role, as the authors Pallof &Pratt (2005) stated should be that of a “playground monitor.” The instructor should monitor the progress and step in when he/she sees fit and assess each student accordingly. Next it is important to understand and respect the feelings of that member. As George Siemens stated in the video, many people during their academic learning have been solely dependent upon themselves now they are having to make an adjustment and work with others. This may not be an easy transition (Siemens, 2010). One thing, I think would be important for the students to do is try to build trust with the reluctant participant. In the video, George (2010) states that in order for people to work together there have to be a high level of trust. The members could continue on with the task and allow the student to join in when he/she reaches a level of comfort.

Reference:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2010). Distance Education: Learning communities featuring Dr. George Siemens [DVD]. United States: Walden University.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Storyboard Layout

Scene 1
Shot description:
Anticipatory Setting
Effects/Graphics:
Short clip of a person:
-Frantically trying to find something to wear,
-Pumping gas
-Tireless looking for a parking space
-Rushing in to sit in a meeting
Dialog & Narration:
Discuss the hassle of having to find clothing, purchase gas, find a parking space, and sit in a long meeting

Scene 2
Shot description:
Anticipatory Setting
Audio:
TBD
Effects/Graphics:
Flash the text: Out with the OLD
Have a short clip of a person throwing clothing over their shoulder and tossing car keys on a table
Dialog & Narration:
Announce: “Out with the old”

Scene 3
Shot description:
Anticipatory Setting
Audio:
TBD
Effects/Graphics:
Flash the text: In with the NEW
Shots of a person jumping into bed with pj’s on and pulling out their laptop
Dialog & Narration:
Announce” In with the new”

Scene 4
Shot description:
Introduction
Audio:
TBD
Effects/Graphics:
Flash pictures of different online collaboration tools
(Wiki, Blogging, Google docs, You Tube, and etc.)
Dialog & Narration:
Discuss how collaboration models have changed

Scene 5
Shot description:
Introduction
Audio:
TBD
Effects/Graphics:
Flash the title COLLABORATION
Dialog & Narration:
Announce” Collaboration 21st Century style, the new way to communicate”

Scene 6
Shot description:
Introduction of Speakers
Audio:
TBD
Effects/Graphics:
Pictures of Karen and Gina flashing as the introductions are given
Dialog & Narration:
Introduce the guest speakers , Karen Blumberg and Gina Marcel
Provide background information on both speakers

Scene 7 and 8
Shot description:
Research (My focus may be on Google Apps, I still do not know the direction I am going to take)
Audio:
TBD
Effects/Graphics:
Shots of college students in a computer lab using collaboration tools
Shots of teachers in their classroom using collaboration tools
Shots of elementary students in the classroom using collaboration tools
Dialog & Narration: (No necessarily in this order)
Highlight findings from the research on collaboration
Highlight how we use technology to collaborate
Discuss the different collaboration tools ( strengths and weaknesses)

Scene 9
Shot description:
Closing
Audio:
Find some type of music
Effects/Graphics:
Roll credits and references
Dialog & Narration:
NONE

Elements of Distance Education Diffusion- Module 2

It seems like only yesterday that collaborations consisted of a group of people meeting in a physical location discussing topics in an attempt to draw closer to a paramount answer but distance education has amended this modeled. As stated by Seiman, more people are accepting the idea of participating in distance education (Laureate, 2008). As distance education continues to flourish, new methods of collaboration are being developed and experienced in order to effectively communicate with one another. In a face to face environment, you are only able to communicate with the participants that are in the room with you. Collaborating in distance education allows participants to communicate outside of their normal parameters. Participants are able to communicate with people around the world synchronously (Laureate, 2008).

As technology continues to take over our schools, business, and homes, collaboration becomes an essential skill to acquire. Technology has completely changed the way individuals communicate with one another. We are equipped with on-line tools like Wiki’s, Blogging, voice stream, You Tube, and Google Docs that all serve the purpose of providing collaboration.

Reference:
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008). Distance education: Higher education, K12, and the corporate world featuring Dr. Michael Simonson. United States: [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4199707&Survey=1&47=4862829&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

The Next Generations of Distance Education -1

Question: After reading the three articles by Moller, Huett, Foshay and Coleman, and listening to the Simonson video programs, compare and contrast the reasons these authors believe there is a need to develop distance education to the next generation. Do you agree with their positions? Why or why not?

Training Arena
It sounds to me that one reason the authors believe there is a need to evolve distance education is because some of the current training developments are lacking in instructional design. As stated in The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. Properly skilled trainers may not be aware of the specialized e-learning designs and development skills (Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J., 2008)


Higher Education
When reading the articles, I found it very interesting that because distance education programs have the capability of serving local and abroad learners schools are often in competition. Now the quality of the instructional design becomes questionable and not a vast concern (Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J., 2008).. Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June) provides us with a thought provoking statement” We’d better stake out our claim before all the good territory is gone; we’ll worry about effectively mining it later.” Is this the kind of message higher educational systems want to portray about the quality of distance education?

K-12
Online learning for K-12 has not flourished like higher education and the training arena. When reading the article, I found out that the funding for K-12 brings about an eye raising assumption (Huett, J, Moller, L., Foshay, W., &. Coleman, C , 2008 ). As discussed by Huett, J, Moller, L., Foshay, W., &. Coleman, C (2008, September/October), funding for online programs are established directly by the state government or funding is provided to local schools to create. This type of distribution of funds implies that face to face and online instruction delivery is equally effective (Huett, J, Moller, L., Foshay, W., &. Coleman, C , 2008 ). According to Simonson (2008), Equivalency theory is based upon the idea that education when it is practiced at a distance should not be identical to education that is practiced in a face to face environment.


Ultimately distance education provides a service of convenience to those who indulge in it. In the training arena, corporate entities are able to reduce their training and delivery cost by providing online training. They save on travel, lodging, and facility cost (Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J., 2008). In addition, distant learning has become the answer to professionals that desire to continue their education. Distance education provides them with the convenience of not having to spend countless hours sitting in a classroom. Lastly, distance education provides school districts with the convenience of being able to provide alternative services to meet the No Child Left Behind Act (Huett, J, Moller, L., Foshay, W., &. Coleman, C ,2008 ) Huett, J, Moller, L., Foshay, W., &. Coleman, C (2008, September/October) states, “Rather than hire new teachers, some rural schools offer online courses, allowing highly qualified teachers to instruct students in locations where teaching shortages exist.”

My opinion
As we move toward more technological advanced types of education, like traditional education it is imperative that the quality of the program and instruction supersede everything else. In order to provide a quality program, instructors need to be trained accordingly. As discussed by Huett, J, Moller, L., Foshay, W., &. Coleman, C (2008, September/October), expecting teachers to be instructors, content experts, distance education instructional designers, and technology experts is asking too much.” There needs to be a separations, so that instructors do not have multiple functions (Huett, J, Moller, L., Foshay, W., &. Coleman, C, 2008). Until this transpires, the quality of instruction can always be questioned.

Reference:
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5), 63–67.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 1: Training and Development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70–75.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, July/August). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 2: Higher Education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66–70.



Simonson, M. ( 2008). Distance Education: The Next Generation. (Vodcast). Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4199707&Survey=1&47=3719264&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1