Group items tagged

Their adoption of technology is based on top–down directives rather than interest or aptitude (Samarawickrema and Stacey, 2007).

They do not possess the “information literacy” skills now required of many undergraduates (Reid, 2006),

despite an assumption that professors are all computer–savvy (Dykman and Davis, 2008)

most are novices when it comes to the Web

most do not use the Web either extensively or intensively in their own work (Lane, 2007)

Few programs in the traditional disciplines at traditional universities offer anything in the way of Web–based methods

,300 college instructors showed that while many use e–mail and some use discussion forums or plagiarism–check applications, none were communicating with students via current Web technologies such as video or audio chat, and only a few were experimenting with blogs for classes (Jones and Johnson–Yale, 2005)

Those experienced with the content involved in the search, but inexperienced at using the Web, did not tend to search far from the central “hub” where they began

Expert users contextualize their resources fluidly and organize materials effectively, while novices just upload and share files, hoping students will find them (Reanut, et al., 2006)

novices are inclined to utilize only the aspects they understand from a non–Web context

they require “restricted vocabularies, simple tasks, small numbers of possibilities, and very informative feedback.” (Chen, 2001)

buttons are based on type rather than purpose

exactly what most instructors do: upload word–processed files of their classroom materials

“plug in” their content under the appropriate category instead of envisioning a translation of their individual pedagogical style into an online environment.

Blackboard “tends to encourage a linear pathway through the content” [3], and its default is to support easy uploading and text entry to achieve that goal.

It would be natural and useful for novice instructors to see a blank schedule into which they could create each week’s or unit’s activities, rather than a selection of pre–set buttons or links.

Most professors think in terms of the semester, and how their pedagogical goals can be achieved within the context of time, rather than space.

It forces the instructor to think in terms of content types instead, breaking the natural structure of the semester, or of a list of topic

You could change all the course menu buttons into “Week 1”, “Week 2”, or organize by topic instead of content type.

Faculty are led by the interface of a CMS not only because they do not immediately see an alternative, but because the familiar signposts (the Syllabus button) imply a single way of completing the task (upload a document).

experience with the CMS over time does not necessarily lead to more creative pedagogy, or even to more expansive use of system features

faculty requests for help focus on what the technology can do, rather than how their pedagogical goals can be achieved.

Carmean and Haefner (2008) argue that any CMS can provide a deep learning experience and can be used for multimedia and in–depth communication with students

Novices happily use the high–tech CMS as a glorified copy machine (Dutton, 2004; Walker and Johnson, 2008).

With Web novices, pedagogy must be emphasized before features and tools

creating a course piecemeal means that the pedagogical goals are left behind in the interest of mastering a few tools

That replaces the instructor’s main strength (their expertise in their discipline and their teaching) with their main weakness (technological literacy).

A history instructor at MiraCosta College in California since 1989, Lisa M. Lane