Pamela Wilson
BLOG 4
LS 589 W1
Podcasts
After I read Hendron’s article about Podcasting, I realized that this is a technology that I could use almost every week in my classroom. Since I have never owned an iPod or MP3 player and have no clue as to how to make a podcast, I have a lot to learn before I can use this technology in my classroom. That is why I decided to focus on podcasts for my fourth BLOG.
What are Podcasts?
Brian Bertucci writing for About.com (2009) states that podcasts are like radio programs. Podcasts can have many formats, but are accessible as video or audio files through the Internet. They can be published as a series to which the listener subscribes and can download to a portable media player. When a new podcast to which you have subscribed is published it will automatically download to your computer. You can then connect your portable media player and download the latest podcast to listen to at your convenience.
How do you get started listening to podcasts?
Bertucci (2009) states that the easiest way to get started listening to podcasts is to download iTunes from Apple Computers. It is a free download and once it is open you can go to the iTunes store and click on the option podcasts. This will take you to the iTunes podcast homepage where you can search for the types of podcasts that you want. You can preview a show, download a show or an episode. You can also subscribe to the episode.
How do you get started recording podcasts?
Bertucci (2009) lists software that can be purchased for podcasting such as Apple’s GarageBand and Sony’s Acid Xpress which you would want to purchase if your goal was to record high quality musical tracks. However, there is a free open source audio editor suitable for classroom recording which can be used on Windows, Mac, and Linux. It is called Audacity Audio Editor. Audacity performs basic editing of audio tracks and transfers formats. According to Bertucci, beginners don’t have trouble understanding how to use Audacity. You can add effects to your audio file, but you cannot reverse the effects that you have added. So if you use a compressor to get a more even volume and it deteriorates the quality of the recording you either have to re-record or live with the results. The audio quality with Audacity is very good. Because Audacity is free and reliable, it allows people who would not normally be able to podcast to start podcasting. When you want to advance to a more powerful audio editor, Bertucci (2009) recommends Adobe’s Audition which is highly rated by radio stations.
Why should educators use technology like podcasting in their classrooms?
Johnston and Cooley (2001) recommend that teachers “provide opportunity for students to practice cognitive flexibility” (pg. 28). Cognitive flexibility recognizes that the information presented and the way in which it is presented has an effect on the learners. The more ways that we can present information and the more ways that students can respond to that information will impact learning. Podcasting is an alternative way of presenting information. It can be used by the teacher to save time and provide background and by the students to present projects.
Hendron (2008) states that podcasting was first used in higher education but is now catching on in the K-12 school forum. He states that podcasting can, “extend classroom walls and simply appeal to a growing number of students who carry MP3 players and cell phones that can playback podcasted content” (pg. 47-48). By using podcasts we can communicate with our students on a level that they are comfortable with and use every day. Why wouldn’t teachers want to use this?
References
Bertucci, B. (2009). About.com:Podcasting. New York: The New York Times Company. http://podcasting.about.com;od/basics101/a/PodcastListen.htm?p=1 (accessed 9/26/09).
Hendron, J. (2008). RSS for educators: Blogs, newsfeeds, podcasts, and wikis in the classroom. Eugene, OR:ISTE.
Johnston, M. & Cooley, N. (2001). What we know about: supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology. Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Evaluating Technology
Pamela Wilson
Blog
LS 589 W1
As I was reading chapter five in Johnston and Cooley (2001), I was struck by the statement that even though many teachers are excited about using technology in the classroom, there is not much to support the assumption that “technology investments yield a return in terms of student achievement” according to Bartles in2000 (p.79). This was interesting to me because as a teacher I am encouraged to become acquainted with the available technology and use it as much as possible in my classroom. I assumed that studies existed which supported this view. I tried to look up some of the websites that were listed in the reference section of our book which were related to technology in the classrooms. Since our text is over eight years old, I found that none of the sites that I attempted to open were still supported and updated. I searched Carlson library for evaluations and found an article by Greg Farr, the principal at Shannon Learning Center, a high school for at-risk students in Texas.
Farr’s article (2009) was in favor of the complete use of technologies because “to allow anything less is to inexcusably ignore the most valuable educational tools available to us (n.p.). Farr believes that students have access to technology outside of the school, so we should let them use it in school with proper supervision and parameters. He thinks that all technology including cell phones, iPods, PDAs, iPhones, laptops, and social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook can be used for educational purposes. Farr (2009) likens prohibiting technology in the school to “going back to the 1950s-1960s-1970s formats of standup, teacher-led lectures, accompanied by worksheets and textbooks” (n.p.).
The Instructional Technologist at Farr’s school talked with students about their views on the use of technology in school. The students were provided with a video camera and instructed to go around and videotape other student’s views on the use of technology in school. The result is a six minute video which can be viewed on YouTube at BISD What If…. I viewed the video and some of the students have very creative ideas for the use of technology in the classroom. There is one caveat to the use of cell phones, however. That is the fact that students can videotape with them. In a former class I read an article about students deliberately provoking teachers as a class and then videotaping their anger and posting the video on YouTube. I searched YouTube under angry teacher and viewed some of them. It isn’t professional for a teacher to lose control, but it wasn’t nice of the students either. A teacher would have to be aware that if cell phones are allowed in the classroom, the possibility of being videotaped exists.
Farr’s article is informative, but it includes no concrete evaluations to show that technology does enhance student’s learning. I performed an internet search and found numerous books and articles on evaluating educational technology, but they were all ranging in the mid-nineties. These would be obsolete. I am interested in researching the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow cited in Johnston and Cooley (2001) but that also dates back to 1998 (pg. 88). My personal opinion is that technology can be a valuable tool to use to engage students in learning. When I create projects in my classroom using technology, the students respond enthusiastically. I think that like any tool, it is only valuable if used efficiently.
Reference
Farr, G. (2009). “Mad” Magazine to Facebook: what have we learned? Teacher Librarian 36(5), 30-32.
Johnston, M. & Cooley, N. (2001). What we know about: supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology. Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service.
Blog
LS 589 W1
As I was reading chapter five in Johnston and Cooley (2001), I was struck by the statement that even though many teachers are excited about using technology in the classroom, there is not much to support the assumption that “technology investments yield a return in terms of student achievement” according to Bartles in2000 (p.79). This was interesting to me because as a teacher I am encouraged to become acquainted with the available technology and use it as much as possible in my classroom. I assumed that studies existed which supported this view. I tried to look up some of the websites that were listed in the reference section of our book which were related to technology in the classrooms. Since our text is over eight years old, I found that none of the sites that I attempted to open were still supported and updated. I searched Carlson library for evaluations and found an article by Greg Farr, the principal at Shannon Learning Center, a high school for at-risk students in Texas.
Farr’s article (2009) was in favor of the complete use of technologies because “to allow anything less is to inexcusably ignore the most valuable educational tools available to us (n.p.). Farr believes that students have access to technology outside of the school, so we should let them use it in school with proper supervision and parameters. He thinks that all technology including cell phones, iPods, PDAs, iPhones, laptops, and social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook can be used for educational purposes. Farr (2009) likens prohibiting technology in the school to “going back to the 1950s-1960s-1970s formats of standup, teacher-led lectures, accompanied by worksheets and textbooks” (n.p.).
The Instructional Technologist at Farr’s school talked with students about their views on the use of technology in school. The students were provided with a video camera and instructed to go around and videotape other student’s views on the use of technology in school. The result is a six minute video which can be viewed on YouTube at BISD What If…. I viewed the video and some of the students have very creative ideas for the use of technology in the classroom. There is one caveat to the use of cell phones, however. That is the fact that students can videotape with them. In a former class I read an article about students deliberately provoking teachers as a class and then videotaping their anger and posting the video on YouTube. I searched YouTube under angry teacher and viewed some of them. It isn’t professional for a teacher to lose control, but it wasn’t nice of the students either. A teacher would have to be aware that if cell phones are allowed in the classroom, the possibility of being videotaped exists.
Farr’s article is informative, but it includes no concrete evaluations to show that technology does enhance student’s learning. I performed an internet search and found numerous books and articles on evaluating educational technology, but they were all ranging in the mid-nineties. These would be obsolete. I am interested in researching the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow cited in Johnston and Cooley (2001) but that also dates back to 1998 (pg. 88). My personal opinion is that technology can be a valuable tool to use to engage students in learning. When I create projects in my classroom using technology, the students respond enthusiastically. I think that like any tool, it is only valuable if used efficiently.
Reference
Farr, G. (2009). “Mad” Magazine to Facebook: what have we learned? Teacher Librarian 36(5), 30-32.
Johnston, M. & Cooley, N. (2001). What we know about: supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology. Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Engaged Learning
Pamela Wilson
BLOG entry 2
LS 589
For more than two hundred years, traditional pedagogy has been based upon two levels. The first of these is knowledge based, which centers upon the memorization and repetition of facts. The second of these is scholastically based which centers upon studies of concepts contained within the disciplines. Students were not encouraged to apply the principles they learned to any meaningful situations (Johnston & Cooley, 2001). Though the previous statements are based upon research, I can attest to the validity of this assessment of traditional educational philosophy because I was educated in this manner. This approach to education resulted in a boring and seemingly irrelevant educational experience. Though I was highly motivated, I did not begin to enjoy my educational experience until I went to college. The effect of the former educational philosophy upon unmotivated or less able students must have been devastating.
Recently, as cognitive research has explored how people learn, we have come to understand that we need to change our methods of pedagogy if we want meaningful learning to occur. Johnston & Cooley (2001), list three findings from cognitive studies about learning. First, learning is more meaningful when it can be associated with prior knowledge and experience. Secondly, meaningful learning occurs when people are given multifaceted learning experiences which allow them to incorporate their own interests into the adventure. And thirdly, people are social learners. There is an emotional component to learning.
According to Johnston & Cooley (2001), the new learning model which has been created because of this research can be described as engaged learning. Engaged learning involves students in “meaningful activities” containing “hands on experience” which is placed in a “multidisciplinary context” involving “critical thinking and problem solving” in a “collaborative learning” situation (p. 12). In other words, the learning experience is taken from being an experience of rote memorization and cerebral understanding to becoming an experience of adventure and discovery. Because many teachers were trained by the old pedagogical philosophy, this new model of learning requires a huge shift in paradigm for these teachers. Some are unwilling to make this shift and continue pedantically preaching the praises of the parameters of the system under which they learned. Other teachers are struggling to make the shift, but being digital immigrants find it difficult. Then there are the young teachers who are wholeheartedly embracing this view of teaching and are using it with apparent success.
Since the concept of engaged learning is relatively new, I have not seen studies of accomplishments of a graduating class which has been taught under this philosophy. This raises a question. Students in the United States are falling behind other countries in educational performance. Many other countries follow the practice of separating students by ability at an early age. Their education is then focused toward their perceived ability. This seems to be working. Will our model of engaged learning be able to catch up and keep pace with the other models of learning in the world? A problem and a strength that we have in the United States is that we hold that all children have a right to an education regardless of ability. We practice inclusion and differentiated instruction which often tends to slow the advanced students down and leave the less advanced students in the dust. Will the model of engaged learning be able to overcome this difficulty for our students? Another problem that we have relates directly to the emotional component of learning. Students that have failed repeatedly under the old pedagogy have negative emotional connotations to learning. They are afraid to become involved in classroom activities because they are afraid of failing once again. Because of the strong emotional component to learning, we teachers have to find a way to serve up enough positive learning experiences to counteract the negative.
Will the model of engaged learning work? Time will tell. Will we be sacrificing yet another generation of children for the sake of educational philosophy? I don’t think so because the model of engaged learning doesn’t throw out the acquisition of facts and concepts. It seeks to attain that goal in a different way and then carry the learning to a higher plane.
Reference
Johnston, M., & Cooley, N. (2001). Supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology. Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service.
BLOG entry 2
LS 589
For more than two hundred years, traditional pedagogy has been based upon two levels. The first of these is knowledge based, which centers upon the memorization and repetition of facts. The second of these is scholastically based which centers upon studies of concepts contained within the disciplines. Students were not encouraged to apply the principles they learned to any meaningful situations (Johnston & Cooley, 2001). Though the previous statements are based upon research, I can attest to the validity of this assessment of traditional educational philosophy because I was educated in this manner. This approach to education resulted in a boring and seemingly irrelevant educational experience. Though I was highly motivated, I did not begin to enjoy my educational experience until I went to college. The effect of the former educational philosophy upon unmotivated or less able students must have been devastating.
Recently, as cognitive research has explored how people learn, we have come to understand that we need to change our methods of pedagogy if we want meaningful learning to occur. Johnston & Cooley (2001), list three findings from cognitive studies about learning. First, learning is more meaningful when it can be associated with prior knowledge and experience. Secondly, meaningful learning occurs when people are given multifaceted learning experiences which allow them to incorporate their own interests into the adventure. And thirdly, people are social learners. There is an emotional component to learning.
According to Johnston & Cooley (2001), the new learning model which has been created because of this research can be described as engaged learning. Engaged learning involves students in “meaningful activities” containing “hands on experience” which is placed in a “multidisciplinary context” involving “critical thinking and problem solving” in a “collaborative learning” situation (p. 12). In other words, the learning experience is taken from being an experience of rote memorization and cerebral understanding to becoming an experience of adventure and discovery. Because many teachers were trained by the old pedagogical philosophy, this new model of learning requires a huge shift in paradigm for these teachers. Some are unwilling to make this shift and continue pedantically preaching the praises of the parameters of the system under which they learned. Other teachers are struggling to make the shift, but being digital immigrants find it difficult. Then there are the young teachers who are wholeheartedly embracing this view of teaching and are using it with apparent success.
Since the concept of engaged learning is relatively new, I have not seen studies of accomplishments of a graduating class which has been taught under this philosophy. This raises a question. Students in the United States are falling behind other countries in educational performance. Many other countries follow the practice of separating students by ability at an early age. Their education is then focused toward their perceived ability. This seems to be working. Will our model of engaged learning be able to catch up and keep pace with the other models of learning in the world? A problem and a strength that we have in the United States is that we hold that all children have a right to an education regardless of ability. We practice inclusion and differentiated instruction which often tends to slow the advanced students down and leave the less advanced students in the dust. Will the model of engaged learning be able to overcome this difficulty for our students? Another problem that we have relates directly to the emotional component of learning. Students that have failed repeatedly under the old pedagogy have negative emotional connotations to learning. They are afraid to become involved in classroom activities because they are afraid of failing once again. Because of the strong emotional component to learning, we teachers have to find a way to serve up enough positive learning experiences to counteract the negative.
Will the model of engaged learning work? Time will tell. Will we be sacrificing yet another generation of children for the sake of educational philosophy? I don’t think so because the model of engaged learning doesn’t throw out the acquisition of facts and concepts. It seeks to attain that goal in a different way and then carry the learning to a higher plane.
Reference
Johnston, M., & Cooley, N. (2001). Supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology. Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
LISTSERV
Pamela Wilson
BLOG
LS 589
BLOG
LS 589
LISTSERVE
When you assigned us to join a LISTSERV, I had no idea what I was joining. I heard the word before but didn’t know to what it referred. Although I was able to find and explore a technological educational LISTSERV, I was surprised when I started getting emails from the LISTSERV to which I subscribed and from members of the LISTSERV. Because of this, I decided to explore LISTSERV for my first BLOG entry.
According to the information found on L-soft’s website, LISTSERV has been around for 23 years. It is an email list management system. According to redirected information from LISTSERV found on Wikipedia, Eric Thomas conceived of the idea for an automatic mailing system in 1986 when he was a student in Paris. The L-Soft page has autobiographical information on Eric Thomas which states that he helped to lead the way in Internet Technology. He became interested in the Internet in 1985 and became one of the developers of the Internet. When Thomas developed LISTSERV, email connection between the United States and Europe was extremely slow. There were only two links between the continents which had 9.6 kbps capacity each. After school, Eric moved to Switzerland, the place where the World Wide Web was created. He then moved to Stockholm, Sweden, where he created SUNET, a computer network which put Sweden at the forefront of European information technology.
LISTSERV was offered for free from 1986 through 1993. After that it became commercial software held by the company L-Soft which was founded by Eric Thomas in 1994. One can explore the products by visiting L-Soft’s website which is found at http://www.lsoft.com. L-Soft sells an email list management system, email marketing software, and email list hosting. A free version is still offered for non-commercial use. The company’s home page contains brief demos of the software for interested customers. L-Soft’s homepage also has a place for interested people to subscribe to the latest news and announcements from L-Soft.
According to the information on Wikipedia, in 1995 LISTSERV introduced the first spam filter. LISTSERV also offers security for its users because every message and message attachment is scanned for viruses. If a virus is found, the message will not be accepted. This protection is not offered by any other electronic mailing list software. This is an indication of the forward thinking management of the company.
Although my experience with using a technological LISTSERV is limited, I am already impressed with how it expedites communication between professionals who would otherwise have no contact with each other. On my H-Net LISTSERV (which is more for higher education), one member is requesting chapters for a book to be published on distance education. Another subscriber is requesting participants to review Maryland Quality Matters courses if anyone is trained to do so. Some new subscribers simply introduce themselves and tell what their educational background and expertise is for future reference. One new subscriber asked how to use the LISTESRV and one of the site managers responded in detail. This helped me to understand more about the workings of the site as well as the questioner. Others ask questions regarding technology problems. Some ask others how to best use the technology that they have. All of these questions are politely answered by a subscriber who has information on that particular subject. I have only been a subscriber for four days, yet I am beginning to see the value of this LISTSERV especially for technicians and faculty in higher educational settings. Sometimes my inbox gets quite full, though and it takes time to read and sort through all of the emails.
ED Tech, the high school LISTSERV to which I subscribed, is managed by the state of Texas. At this point the site isn’t quite as busy as H-Net. There are questions and suggestions which come, but not nearly so many. I am interested to see how the future develops. I am learning from this experience that if a person gets involved with the right LISTSERV, it can serve to be a very valuable resource.
References
http://www.lsoft.com (Retrieved September 5, 2009).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listserv (Retrieved August 28, 2009).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)