Review on
Social Media and Education - avoiding the rabbit holes
Source: http://14sandwiches.com/2008/09/12/social-media-and-education-avoiding-the-rabbit-holes/
"Social media tools can be incredibly useful in schools... to help teach students safety online" (Martin, 2008) - this is one of the most important thing to teach students in the first place, due to a number of information a stranger could gather from one's profile, that could lead to identity theft, etc. This issue (on identity-sharing behaviour among students and concern on identity theft) is covered in detail by Stutzman (2006).
From Martin's experience reflected in this article, it shows that there is a fine line between work and personal life, once we 'expose' ourselves in social media. I was a bit aware too on this part, before I could finally decide to accept my students' invitations to social online networks. Yet, I have nothing much to hide.
Social media can be a friend or a foe, so if it's going to build trust among my students on me and what knowledge I have to share with them, then why not? "Just be sure that any skeletons you have are hidden in a suitable closet," as Martin (2008) advised.
Bunnyman with skeleton in the closet,
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
06 Oct 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Wiser Machine?
Review on
Is Google making us Stupid?
Source: Carr, N. (2008) Is Google making us Stupid? Atlantic Monthly (Jul/Aug)
This review is for discussion based on these questions:
“How has the ability of students to access whatever, whenever, wherever through information and communication technologies changed the way they interact and process that information? What are the new skills and abilities needed to cope with this stream of information? What changes have you seen in your own students - if any?”
Making sense of what we find online:
"We stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock" (Carr,2008) - Just like reading and selecting literature reviews for research, we rely (and trust) the search engine so much to do the work, that we sometimes tend to ignore the real reading and digestion of the information.
Carr (2008) talked about skimming instead of reading... It might be OK for us to skim through (the content we find online), because we've learnt the basics and know what to skip and what to focus/concentrate on. But for students, (especially those working on literature review for research), it's like "teetering on the edge of precipice" for me to see how they select contents without really reading! And if they don't really read through what they copy from the Net, they won't know how to argue/justify if they are asked after that.
Net's influence affecting other media:
I agree with Carr (2008) about people's minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media that the traditional media have to adapt to the audience's new expectations. I saw this from the designer's perspective, where the design of the DTP media (e.g. newsletters) has to have a 'capsule summaries' and 'info-snippets' in the first page itself, even though the newsletter is only 4 pages long. :-S As for readers/audience, they tend to skim through these summaries and selectively read the details. If this is also a habit of our students (for the case of text books, lecture notes, etc. in any form of media), I can't guarantee that they could learn much in their campus years.
During our time, we had to cover a lot of pages just to get to the real point we want. I still do that today for new subjects that I need to teach, and it helps me in elaborating the points in detail. I don't have good memory, but when I read more, I understand better and somehow I could remember things.
"In the past the man has been first, in the future the system must be first" (Taylor, n.d.):
Such a bold statement from Taylor. Is that why men are replaceable, because system is at "perfect efficiency"? Meaning, knowledgeable men are not a competitive asset of an organisation anymore? Does that mean knowledge now is totally in the system, including tacit knowledge? Then, academicians are replaceable and we are not needed eventually? (I use the word 'eventually' because we are still needed as a guide and motivator for online-learning, today.)
Countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine:
Carr (2008) has a good way to relate to Plato’s and Squarciafico’s words, regarding humans being “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom”, where technology is leading to “intellectual laziness” making men “less studious” and weakening their minds. The “worry” will never end, because there’s always new literacy being introduced and emerged every millennium, year, day or even second.
Carr (2008) also mentioned “evolving under pressure of information overload and the technology of the instantly available”. The word he uses is “evolving”, but I don’t think that “instantly available” would diminish the information overload; it might be worse!
There is a nice (dark) prophecy by Kubrick, mentioned in this article: “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence”. This quote is worth to ponder on…
The reason why we need to continuously learn and relearn...,
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
05 Oct 2008
Is Google making us Stupid?
Source: Carr, N. (2008) Is Google making us Stupid? Atlantic Monthly (Jul/Aug)
This review is for discussion based on these questions:
“How has the ability of students to access whatever, whenever, wherever through information and communication technologies changed the way they interact and process that information? What are the new skills and abilities needed to cope with this stream of information? What changes have you seen in your own students - if any?”
Making sense of what we find online:
"We stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock" (Carr,2008) - Just like reading and selecting literature reviews for research, we rely (and trust) the search engine so much to do the work, that we sometimes tend to ignore the real reading and digestion of the information.
Carr (2008) talked about skimming instead of reading... It might be OK for us to skim through (the content we find online), because we've learnt the basics and know what to skip and what to focus/concentrate on. But for students, (especially those working on literature review for research), it's like "teetering on the edge of precipice" for me to see how they select contents without really reading! And if they don't really read through what they copy from the Net, they won't know how to argue/justify if they are asked after that.
Net's influence affecting other media:
I agree with Carr (2008) about people's minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media that the traditional media have to adapt to the audience's new expectations. I saw this from the designer's perspective, where the design of the DTP media (e.g. newsletters) has to have a 'capsule summaries' and 'info-snippets' in the first page itself, even though the newsletter is only 4 pages long. :-S As for readers/audience, they tend to skim through these summaries and selectively read the details. If this is also a habit of our students (for the case of text books, lecture notes, etc. in any form of media), I can't guarantee that they could learn much in their campus years.
During our time, we had to cover a lot of pages just to get to the real point we want. I still do that today for new subjects that I need to teach, and it helps me in elaborating the points in detail. I don't have good memory, but when I read more, I understand better and somehow I could remember things.
"In the past the man has been first, in the future the system must be first" (Taylor, n.d.):
Such a bold statement from Taylor. Is that why men are replaceable, because system is at "perfect efficiency"? Meaning, knowledgeable men are not a competitive asset of an organisation anymore? Does that mean knowledge now is totally in the system, including tacit knowledge? Then, academicians are replaceable and we are not needed eventually? (I use the word 'eventually' because we are still needed as a guide and motivator for online-learning, today.)
Countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine:
Carr (2008) has a good way to relate to Plato’s and Squarciafico’s words, regarding humans being “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom”, where technology is leading to “intellectual laziness” making men “less studious” and weakening their minds. The “worry” will never end, because there’s always new literacy being introduced and emerged every millennium, year, day or even second.
Carr (2008) also mentioned “evolving under pressure of information overload and the technology of the instantly available”. The word he uses is “evolving”, but I don’t think that “instantly available” would diminish the information overload; it might be worse!
There is a nice (dark) prophecy by Kubrick, mentioned in this article: “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence”. This quote is worth to ponder on…
The reason why we need to continuously learn and relearn...,
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
05 Oct 2008
Learning from Digital Natives
Review on
Learning from Digital Natives: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning
Source: Trinder, K.R. et al (2008) Learning from Digital Natives: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning. The Higher Education Academy: Glasgow.
In my search for better understanding on new technology as knowledge sharing enabler, I was introduced to this literature by Trinder, et al (2008). It is the beginning to my further search on methods in using new technology for teaching and learning, and in my research interest – knowledge sharing.
O’Reilly (2004) has introduced the concept of Web 2.0 as a new generation of web-based tools for knowledge sharing. Yet, instead of an enabler, it is more considered as a value-added tool, as mentioned by Coates (2005). Whatever the terms, this new ‘phenomena’ is due to ‘decentralisation’ of certain aspects (i.e. knowledge creation, technology ownership, publication, control, etc.), which Surowiecki (2004) considered as “architecture of participation that harnesses the wisdom of crowds”.
I don’t quite agree with the statement, “students are developing new forms of evaluation skills and strategies (searching, restructuring, validating) which enable them to critique and make decisions about a variety of sources and content”. I believe that the students are yet to learn to understand, digest, assert and evaluate the ‘information overloaded’ contents they get from the Internet. Until today, I’m still worried for my students when they show off their ‘copy-and-paste’ skills and yet claim that they ‘paraphrase’ everything they get/search from the Internet. In fact, it is so clear to me that the whole ‘chunk’ of content is not something they understand and paraphrase, and it shows when they could not explain well what they present to me in their report. Thus, the statement is debatable, at least to me.
The use of these new tools is “changing the way they gather, use and create knowledge” (Conole et al, 2006), but it’s not to a better way. It still depends on the individuals, on how much experience (or guide) they get in learning the way to gather, use and create knowledge, before they can be ‘trusted’ in understanding the right thing. This happens very much across languages and cultures.
In my opinion, students believe too much on technology. That is why they use online tools “regardless of the course structures or teacher preferences” (Kurhila, 2006). In my most recent experience, I instructed my students to use the textbook (just to ensure that they read the chapters properly and that everybody would have the same ground to discuss), but instead they went to great distance to search for the online version of the book and get answers from there! How can I ensure that they learn something when they could spend the vital hours given to them by getting the answer directly from the publisher? They prefer to use their mind to search and copy-paste using online tools instead of study hard to understand the subject.
In referring to the statement, “Outside formal educational environments individuals act as active participants navigating their way independently through complex multimodal digital environments”, I think the right question to ask is “Why are they active ‘outside’?” Is it trust (that they have from online tools)? Is it being introvert and anonymous that makes them comfortable to be active? Or is it because of having virtual identities (that they can use to hide their true self, in fear of being accused for saying something wrong)?
In answering these questions, Collis & Moonen (forthcoming) summarises four effective ways that the technology provides:
1. To be heard
2. To connect
3. To find and share
4. To build identity
In fact, the real issues in hand would be on the teachers’ side – our skills in teaching using new pedagogies supported by technology. The old way of teaching (as how we were taught) is no longer effective or enough for the learners’ generation. So, how to use the technology for education? The key question is: “What is the actual value of these technologies (blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.) and the processes they afford for formal learning and should institutions be investing in them?”
I see a similarity between the computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems and e-Advantage system that we have on UCSI virtual learning environment (VLE). The only difference would be that our e-Advantage is not well-accepted, and this has brought to a huge curiosity to the first-year students who join our campus every semester.
I always believe that we can learn better by teaching others. It helps in empowering our memory on certain subjects because we repeat the topics to others during the explanation. My opinion is supported by Sefton-Green (2004), who stated that “young people are taking on roles of teacher and learner in peer-based online groups”.
This follows by the statement that I agree very much by Eraut (2000) and Sternberg et al (2000): “A great deal of learning is non-formal, in that it results during the course of daily life events and activities related to work, family and leisure”. We, humans, learn better when we could relate the topics we learn with the things we observe around us in our daily lives. For example, during my postgraduate studies, I could relate the subject of Organisational Behaviour with the discrete group of software development team we had in my then-current firm, where the behaviours of different individuals are due to many ‘unseen’ reasons. I could even understand my family members better when I gain the knowledge in such subjects.
In understanding the differences between formal and informal learning, I summarise the details in a comparison table as follows [I can't manage to draw a table in this blog, so I have to list the details down according to same sequence for each concept]:
Formal learning
Provided by an educational/training institution
Lead to certification/award
Structured
Involving presence of a designated teaching/trainer
Intentional
Informal learning
Not provided by a formal educational/training institution
Typically does not lead to certification
May be structured or non-structured
Results from daily, social life activities related to education, work, socialising with others or pursuit of leisure activities and hobbies
May be intentional or non-intentional (incidental)
Another good question that is essential is “What educational processes are fostered by social and personal technologies?” A set of research results is derived from answering this question:
The key commonly used e-tools could be divided into 3 main categories as follows:
1. Hardware
Three aspects under network and connectivity:
Ability to access
1. Mudlarking in Deptford (Sutch & Sprake, 2005)
Overall, there are 2 limitations that are not covered, due to the focus that is more on student satisfaction:
1. How the use of technologies impact learning outcomes
2. How barriers can be identified, analysed and addressed
References:
Antonacci, D. & Modaress, N. (2005). Second Life: The educational possibilities of a Massively Multiplayer Virtual World (MMVW). Paper presented at the EDUCAUSE Southwest Regional Conference, Austin, Texas. Retrieved on 10 January 2007, from www2.kumc.edu/tlt/SLEDUCAUSESW2005/SLPresentationOutline.htm
Coates, T. (2005, January 5). An addendum to a definition of Social Software. Plastigbag.org [blog], Retrieved 13 July 2007, from www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/01/an_addendum_to_a_definition_of_social_software
Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (forthcoming). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (special issue on supporting sustainable e-Learning).
Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2006). LXP: Student experience of technologies. Final report. JISC, UK. Retrieved on 29 August 2007, from www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_pedagogy/elp_learneroutcomes.aspx
Eraut, M. (2005). Informal learning in the workplace, Retrieved 10 November 2006, from : www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/226/Informal+Learning+in+the+workplace1.doc
Kurhila, J. (2006). “Unauthorized” use of social software to support formal higher education. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp.2602-2607). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved August 30 2007, from:
www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=24098
Lonsdale, P. & Beale, R. (2005). Using context awareness to enhance visitor engagement in a gallery space. In Editor Proceedings of HCI 2005 Conference, Edinburgh, UK, pp. Retrieved 01 May 2007, from www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~rxb/Online%20papers/HCI2005-crc.pdf
O’Reilly, T. (2004). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software Retrieved on 27 August 2007 from www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Reynolds, L. (2007). An Essay Evolves Retrieved on March 5 2007, from http://evolvingessay.pbwiki.com/
Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature Review in Informal Learning with Technology outside School [online], NESTA Futurelab report No. 7. Retrieved 10 November 2006, from: www.futurelab.org.uk/research/reviews/07_01.htm
Sternberg, R. J., Forsyth, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R.K, Williams, W. M. (2000). Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few. Abacus: London, UK.
Sutch, D. & Sprake, J. (2005). Mudlarking in Deptford. Project report. Retrieved on August 10, 2007, from www.futurelab.org.uk/showcase/mudlarking
Forever in learning mode,
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
05 Oct 2008
Learning from Digital Natives: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning
Source: Trinder, K.R. et al (2008) Learning from Digital Natives: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning. The Higher Education Academy: Glasgow.
In my search for better understanding on new technology as knowledge sharing enabler, I was introduced to this literature by Trinder, et al (2008). It is the beginning to my further search on methods in using new technology for teaching and learning, and in my research interest – knowledge sharing.
O’Reilly (2004) has introduced the concept of Web 2.0 as a new generation of web-based tools for knowledge sharing. Yet, instead of an enabler, it is more considered as a value-added tool, as mentioned by Coates (2005). Whatever the terms, this new ‘phenomena’ is due to ‘decentralisation’ of certain aspects (i.e. knowledge creation, technology ownership, publication, control, etc.), which Surowiecki (2004) considered as “architecture of participation that harnesses the wisdom of crowds”.
I don’t quite agree with the statement, “students are developing new forms of evaluation skills and strategies (searching, restructuring, validating) which enable them to critique and make decisions about a variety of sources and content”. I believe that the students are yet to learn to understand, digest, assert and evaluate the ‘information overloaded’ contents they get from the Internet. Until today, I’m still worried for my students when they show off their ‘copy-and-paste’ skills and yet claim that they ‘paraphrase’ everything they get/search from the Internet. In fact, it is so clear to me that the whole ‘chunk’ of content is not something they understand and paraphrase, and it shows when they could not explain well what they present to me in their report. Thus, the statement is debatable, at least to me.
The use of these new tools is “changing the way they gather, use and create knowledge” (Conole et al, 2006), but it’s not to a better way. It still depends on the individuals, on how much experience (or guide) they get in learning the way to gather, use and create knowledge, before they can be ‘trusted’ in understanding the right thing. This happens very much across languages and cultures.
In my opinion, students believe too much on technology. That is why they use online tools “regardless of the course structures or teacher preferences” (Kurhila, 2006). In my most recent experience, I instructed my students to use the textbook (just to ensure that they read the chapters properly and that everybody would have the same ground to discuss), but instead they went to great distance to search for the online version of the book and get answers from there! How can I ensure that they learn something when they could spend the vital hours given to them by getting the answer directly from the publisher? They prefer to use their mind to search and copy-paste using online tools instead of study hard to understand the subject.
In referring to the statement, “Outside formal educational environments individuals act as active participants navigating their way independently through complex multimodal digital environments”, I think the right question to ask is “Why are they active ‘outside’?” Is it trust (that they have from online tools)? Is it being introvert and anonymous that makes them comfortable to be active? Or is it because of having virtual identities (that they can use to hide their true self, in fear of being accused for saying something wrong)?
In answering these questions, Collis & Moonen (forthcoming) summarises four effective ways that the technology provides:
1. To be heard
2. To connect
3. To find and share
4. To build identity
In fact, the real issues in hand would be on the teachers’ side – our skills in teaching using new pedagogies supported by technology. The old way of teaching (as how we were taught) is no longer effective or enough for the learners’ generation. So, how to use the technology for education? The key question is: “What is the actual value of these technologies (blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.) and the processes they afford for formal learning and should institutions be investing in them?”
I see a similarity between the computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems and e-Advantage system that we have on UCSI virtual learning environment (VLE). The only difference would be that our e-Advantage is not well-accepted, and this has brought to a huge curiosity to the first-year students who join our campus every semester.
I always believe that we can learn better by teaching others. It helps in empowering our memory on certain subjects because we repeat the topics to others during the explanation. My opinion is supported by Sefton-Green (2004), who stated that “young people are taking on roles of teacher and learner in peer-based online groups”.
This follows by the statement that I agree very much by Eraut (2000) and Sternberg et al (2000): “A great deal of learning is non-formal, in that it results during the course of daily life events and activities related to work, family and leisure”. We, humans, learn better when we could relate the topics we learn with the things we observe around us in our daily lives. For example, during my postgraduate studies, I could relate the subject of Organisational Behaviour with the discrete group of software development team we had in my then-current firm, where the behaviours of different individuals are due to many ‘unseen’ reasons. I could even understand my family members better when I gain the knowledge in such subjects.
In understanding the differences between formal and informal learning, I summarise the details in a comparison table as follows [I can't manage to draw a table in this blog, so I have to list the details down according to same sequence for each concept]:
Formal learning
Provided by an educational/training institution
Lead to certification/award
Structured
Involving presence of a designated teaching/trainer
Intentional
Informal learning
Not provided by a formal educational/training institution
Typically does not lead to certification
May be structured or non-structured
Results from daily, social life activities related to education, work, socialising with others or pursuit of leisure activities and hobbies
May be intentional or non-intentional (incidental)
Another good question that is essential is “What educational processes are fostered by social and personal technologies?” A set of research results is derived from answering this question:
- development and enhancement of users’ social capital and psychological well-being
- knowledge construction processes
- emergence of new types of literacy practices of “participation” (dichotomy of consumption and production) and “remix” (the notion of copying-and-pasting inherent to this dichotomy)
- development of metacognitive skills, including increased motivation
- knowledge transfer between various contexts
The key commonly used e-tools could be divided into 3 main categories as follows:
1. Hardware
- Mobile phones (e.g. vocabulary texting for learning of language, personal broadcasting, delivery of learning content and discussion activities)
- Personal media players (e.g. flash memory for storage, PC connectivity via USB port or Bluetooth for downloading, podcasting)
- Computers, PDAs, laptops and tablet PCs (e.g. GPS-enabled PDAs, built-in GPRS, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi for connection, gather data, photos, information)
- Game consoles (e.g. complete multimedia functionality with e-book reader, variety of options for formal learning or informal ‘play’)
- - Other hardware (e.g. interactive whiteboards, voting systems)
- Multiplayer gaming environment (e.g. for virtual team, collaboration, role-playing activities of person-object, object-object and person-person)
- Blogs (e.g. share reviews and work/assignment, regular writing practice –what I aim for most students)
- Wikis (e.g. online encyclopaedia, build trust and respect – what I want my students to learn, due to their various backgrounds)
- Social bookmarking (e.g. sharing links and information in peer-based learning)
Three aspects under network and connectivity:
Ability to access
- I’ve been pointing out on this since day one: IT infrastructure, the backbone, the connection services – should be reliable, stable, and supporting our effort in e-learning
- A good point made on this statement “Where students have access, and of what type, should be given consideration when planning the use of e-tools to support learning”. Just look at us going through the online course without a good, stable, quality of access; out of approximately 30 members, only 2 could go online for the web-conference, and even that two are without a good and stable quality of network and built-in device
- From public to private, complex and interlinked, use the e-tools in a public or institutionally controlled environment
1. Mudlarking in Deptford (Sutch & Sprake, 2005)
- It is an interesting project, suitable for Malaysia junior high-school Geography and History projects
- It help the students understand their close environment and teach them to appreciate their environment
- The ability (to record their own experiences) motivated the students, got them excited and gave them ideas to challenge their creativity
- In return, the students not only learn about the subject and surrounding, but also the technology – it’s like killing 2 birds with one stone when they learn to appreciate the tools as well as the subjects
- But how to measure the improvement of learning on the students part? Report writing? Or do we need 2 sets of learning methods (one group using e-tools, and another group using the traditional methods) and measure the differences or improvements from before and after they accomplish their mission?
- Obviously it’s a one-way communication between human and machine
- It doesn’t reflect any learning taking place due to limited responses between the two subjects – human and machine
- The only ‘communication’ allowed between the two subjects is the Q&As that may not be 100 percent used by the human (most people tend to ignore the feature)
- Person-person activity
- The best is still real-life experience learning, unless learners are dispersed geographically
- Object-object activity
- Scripting, as per my understanding, is by using formulae and algorithms in producing the simulation
- This reminds me of my first 2 years in CAGD degree course, where I had to compile mathematical formulae in algorithm using C program, in producing an animated 3-D graph; it helped in my understanding and appreciation of mathematics
- Something that real-life cannot provide due to the subjects characteristics
- Maybe there’s no communication or feedback between teacher and learner, since the learner is engaged in a simulated experimental activity
- On the other hand, the tutor’s simulation can be a sample for students’ assignment; when the learners see the final product, they would have an idea on what is expected from them
- I like this case study for the fact that it managed to translate tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge – something that is found vital yet almost impossible in knowledge management concept
- I can use this for to track my students’ thesis writing, perhaps
Overall, there are 2 limitations that are not covered, due to the focus that is more on student satisfaction:
1. How the use of technologies impact learning outcomes
2. How barriers can be identified, analysed and addressed
References:
Antonacci, D. & Modaress, N. (2005). Second Life: The educational possibilities of a Massively Multiplayer Virtual World (MMVW). Paper presented at the EDUCAUSE Southwest Regional Conference, Austin, Texas. Retrieved on 10 January 2007, from www2.kumc.edu/tlt/SLEDUCAUSESW2005/SLPresentationOutline.htm
Coates, T. (2005, January 5). An addendum to a definition of Social Software. Plastigbag.org [blog], Retrieved 13 July 2007, from www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/01/an_addendum_to_a_definition_of_social_software
Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (forthcoming). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (special issue on supporting sustainable e-Learning).
Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2006). LXP: Student experience of technologies. Final report. JISC, UK. Retrieved on 29 August 2007, from www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_pedagogy/elp_learneroutcomes.aspx
Eraut, M. (2005). Informal learning in the workplace, Retrieved 10 November 2006, from : www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/226/Informal+Learning+in+the+workplace1.doc
Kurhila, J. (2006). “Unauthorized” use of social software to support formal higher education. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp.2602-2607). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved August 30 2007, from:
www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=24098
Lonsdale, P. & Beale, R. (2005). Using context awareness to enhance visitor engagement in a gallery space. In Editor Proceedings of HCI 2005 Conference, Edinburgh, UK, pp. Retrieved 01 May 2007, from www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~rxb/Online%20papers/HCI2005-crc.pdf
O’Reilly, T. (2004). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software Retrieved on 27 August 2007 from www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Reynolds, L. (2007). An Essay Evolves Retrieved on March 5 2007, from http://evolvingessay.pbwiki.com/
Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature Review in Informal Learning with Technology outside School [online], NESTA Futurelab report No. 7. Retrieved 10 November 2006, from: www.futurelab.org.uk/research/reviews/07_01.htm
Sternberg, R. J., Forsyth, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R.K, Williams, W. M. (2000). Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few. Abacus: London, UK.
Sutch, D. & Sprake, J. (2005). Mudlarking in Deptford. Project report. Retrieved on August 10, 2007, from www.futurelab.org.uk/showcase/mudlarking
Forever in learning mode,
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
05 Oct 2008
Connecting the Digital Dots
Review on
Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century
Source: Jones-Kavalier, B.R. & Flannigan, S.L. (2006) Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century. Educause Quarterly (2)
This review is for discussion based on these questions:
“How has the ability of students to access whatever, whenever, wherever through information and communication technologies changed the way they interact and process that information? What are the new skills and abilities needed to cope with this stream of information? What changes have you seen in your own students - if any?”
From the source, I could categorise my view in two aspects, as follows.
IT Infrastructure:
I agree with Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan (2006) on educational organisations developing "comprehensive technology plans... to enhance students' digital and visual literacy". It is quite true, but then again, even if they provide, it's not ample or strong enough, especially when technology has to be upgraded very frequently. Yesterday we had blogs, today we have pod-casts, tomorrow we'll have moodles, what's next? Changes in technology itself is hard for us to keep up, and students are much more updated on the technology that one of my students brought it up in the class asking, "Why are we still using the old technology, the new release was last year!" We have to remember that every time new technology is introduced, it requires new hardware, software, network bandwith capacity, etc.
Making sense of what we find online:
Gilster (1997), as cited by Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan (2006) mentioned that "the most critical of [digital literacy] is the ability to make educated judgments about what we find online". As I pointed out before, having the skill of using the digital media is not just it, it's only a start. The real challenge is to make sense of the information we (and students) get online, and "dealing with complexity" of the information overload. Students need the knowledge of how to trim down and filter the information they find, to get to the focused result expected. Until today, I still don't trust my students in their 'research' because of the way they present the reports that are hardly filtered. They found one article, which roughly has what they want, and they copy a whole chunk of it. They don't even know how to add their own words within the 'chunk' they get - and that shows that they don't really understand what they 'copied'. (And after that they argued saying that they've worked hard all night doing the research and they've paraphrased the content, etc... which is not true.)
Digitally Signed,
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
05 Oct 2008
Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century
Source: Jones-Kavalier, B.R. & Flannigan, S.L. (2006) Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century. Educause Quarterly (2)
This review is for discussion based on these questions:
“How has the ability of students to access whatever, whenever, wherever through information and communication technologies changed the way they interact and process that information? What are the new skills and abilities needed to cope with this stream of information? What changes have you seen in your own students - if any?”
From the source, I could categorise my view in two aspects, as follows.
IT Infrastructure:
I agree with Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan (2006) on educational organisations developing "comprehensive technology plans... to enhance students' digital and visual literacy". It is quite true, but then again, even if they provide, it's not ample or strong enough, especially when technology has to be upgraded very frequently. Yesterday we had blogs, today we have pod-casts, tomorrow we'll have moodles, what's next? Changes in technology itself is hard for us to keep up, and students are much more updated on the technology that one of my students brought it up in the class asking, "Why are we still using the old technology, the new release was last year!" We have to remember that every time new technology is introduced, it requires new hardware, software, network bandwith capacity, etc.
Making sense of what we find online:
Gilster (1997), as cited by Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan (2006) mentioned that "the most critical of [digital literacy] is the ability to make educated judgments about what we find online". As I pointed out before, having the skill of using the digital media is not just it, it's only a start. The real challenge is to make sense of the information we (and students) get online, and "dealing with complexity" of the information overload. Students need the knowledge of how to trim down and filter the information they find, to get to the focused result expected. Until today, I still don't trust my students in their 'research' because of the way they present the reports that are hardly filtered. They found one article, which roughly has what they want, and they copy a whole chunk of it. They don't even know how to add their own words within the 'chunk' they get - and that shows that they don't really understand what they 'copied'. (And after that they argued saying that they've worked hard all night doing the research and they've paraphrased the content, etc... which is not true.)
Digitally Signed,
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
05 Oct 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Welcome to Sha's Blog on Teaching and Learning
This is my 7th blog created in blogger.com. Most of my blogs are on personal matters, to keep my family and friends in touch with my kid's stories, to advertise my expertise via my portfolio blog, and to share ideas and knowledge on matters of interest.
This blog of mine on teaching and learning is created as part of my short-term study with University of Manitoba, on The New Literacy. Thus, this blog will be mainly for reviewing research papers and sharing ideas/knowledge on technology in education.
Keep yourself updated on my blog, for further reviews as my course continues. Do feel free to leave your comments on my blog. I appreciate the two-way communication we will surely have. ;-)
See you onboard!
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
02 Oct 2008
This blog of mine on teaching and learning is created as part of my short-term study with University of Manitoba, on The New Literacy. Thus, this blog will be mainly for reviewing research papers and sharing ideas/knowledge on technology in education.
Keep yourself updated on my blog, for further reviews as my course continues. Do feel free to leave your comments on my blog. I appreciate the two-way communication we will surely have. ;-)
See you onboard!
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
02 Oct 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
