Group items tagged

This action research study explored the change in face-to-face teaching practices as a result of faculty professional development for online teaching. Faculty’s initial teaching model is typically born from that of their own teachers, and they teach as they were taught. However, few have any online experience as a student or a teacher. Learning to teach online may be a catalyst for faculty to reflect on and evaluate their current teaching practices.

The results of the study indicated that learning to teach online has the potential to transform faculty’s assumptions and beliefs about teaching, changing their face-to-face teaching practices.

Martinez (2001) has documented some key design considerations for personalized learning on the web. Martinez makes the following suggestions: “For transforming learners, design environments that are sophisticated, discovery-oriented, mentoring environments where learners who want to be assertive, challenged by complex problem solving situations, and able to self-manage learning and self-monitor progress can attain higher standard, long-term goals. For performing learners, design environments that are project- or task-oriented, energizing, competitive, interactive (hands on) environments, which use coaching, practice, and feedback to encourage self-motivation, holistic thinking, problem solving, self-monitoring progress, and task sequencing, while minimizing the need for extra effort and difficult standards. For conforming learners, design environments that are simple, scaffolded, structured, non-risk environments that use explicit, careful guidance. They should help individuals learn comfortably in an easy, step-wise fashion. These environments should also encourage learners to take assertive, challenging steps towards more independent, self-motivated achievement.”

Several of our speakers were able to shed light on the cause of this rising tide of faculty opposition to computer mediated instruction. Andrew Feenberg of San Diego State University summarizes the situation in the opening paragraph of his "Distance Learning: Promise or Threat" (1999) article: "Once the stepchild of the academy, distance learning is finally taken seriously. But not in precisely the way early innovators like myself had hoped. It is not faculty who are in the forefront of the movement to network education. Instead politicians, university administrations and computer and telecommunications companies have decided there is money in it. But proposals for a radical "retooling" of the university emanating from these sources are guaranteed to provoke instant faculty hostility."

The implementation of online education shows both promise and peril. Computer mediated instruction may indeed introduce new and highly effective teaching paradigms, but high-quality teaching is not always assured. Administrative decisions made without due consideration to pedagogy, or worse, with policies or technology that hampers quality, may cause much wasted time, money and effort of both faculty and students.

In training, a particular package of knowledge is imparted to an individual so that he or she can assume work within a system, as the firefighters do for example. According to Noble, training and education are appropriately distinguished in terms of autonomy (Noble, 1999). In becoming trained, an individual relinquishes autonomy. The purpose of education, as compared to training, is to impart autonomy to the student. In teaching students to think critically, we say in effect "Student, know thyself." Education is not just the transmission of knowledge, important as that is, but also has to do with the transformation of persons (and the development of critical thinking skills).

Constructivism is basically a theory -- based on observation and scientific study -- about how people learn. It says that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences.

Constructivism modifies that role, so that teachers help students to construct knowledge rather than to reproduce a series of facts. The constructivist teacher provides tools such as problem-solving and inquiry-based learning activities with which students formulate and test their ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, and pool and convey their knowledge in a collaborative learning environment. Constructivism transforms the student from a passive recipient of information to an active participant in the learning process. Always guided by the teacher, students construct their knowledge actively rather than just mechanically ingesting knowledge from the teacher or the textbook.

is

Constraints

Constraint

There are still so many tools and technologies to learn!

The common practice of systematic design, such as the ADDIE model, simply did not fit well with the academic culture (Moore & Kearsley, 2004; Magnussen, 2005). Over the past two decades, instructional designers in higher education have needed to redefine their role and practice. The role of a change agent emerged as instructional designers worked side by side with faculty to rethink their teaching in order to integrate technology into course design and delivery (Campbell, Schwier, & Kenny, 2007). Not only do instructional designers play the role of advisers to faculty and department on issues of curriculum and course quality, they also play a vital role in faculty development and institutional change when it comes to researching and implementing new learning technologies. Undoubtedly, instructional designers in higher education need to modify their approach and design models to fulfill their widening role and to make meaningful contributions. New design prototypes have evolved through field experience in higher education (Power, 2009), and role-based design has been proposed to transform the field of instructional design (Hokanson, Miller, & Hooper, 2008).

There was strong agreement among participants that the guidelines are more helpful for new and less-experienced faculty members.

Before urbanization, children were viewed as economic assets to their parents. If you had a farm, they toiled alongside you to maintain its upkeep; if you had a family business, the kids helped mind the store. But all of this dramatically changed with the moral and technological revolutions of modernity. As we gained in prosperity, childhood came increasingly to be viewed as a protected, privileged time, and once college degrees became essential to getting ahead, children became not only a great expense but subjects to be sculpted, stimulated, instructed, groomed. (The Princeton sociologist Viviana Zelizer describes this transformation of a child’s value in five ruthless words: “Economically worthless but emotionally priceless.”) Kids, in short, went from being our staffs to being our bosses. “Did you see Babies?” asks Lois Nachamie, a couples counselor who for years has run parenting workshops and support groups on the Upper West Side. She’s referring to the recent documentary that compares the lives of four newborns—one in Japan, one in Namibia, one in Mongolia, and one in the United States (San Francisco). “I don’t mean to idealize the lives of the Namibian women,” she says. “But it was hard not to notice how calm they were. They were beading their children’s ankles and decorating them with sienna, clearly enjoying just sitting and playing with them, and we’re here often thinking of all of this stuff as labor.”

He continues that we can face the future with confidence if we know how to teach ourselves, read between the subjective lines of media, process the vast amount of information that will be available, work collaboratively, and reaching for resources that will expand our capacities – for example a resource like this course!!

However, to be part of the social network and be actively involve citizens, each must become life-long learners.