Group items tagged

This article takes a case study approach using qualitative and quantitative survey questions to measure the difference between pre and post uses of Google Docs. The research problem was based on the observation that Web 2.0 collaborative technologies were initially causing hesitation. However, upon consistent use in the context of an online course, students changed their minds about the usefulness of Google Docs. Both researchers intended to measure undergraduate levels of self-efficacy and undergraduates perceptions of using these collaborative technologies. The study had 18 respondents to the survey. Although the researchers acknowledged Google Docs limitations in the robustness of the software, they argued that this would make no difference to the perceptions of the undergraduates using it. The results of the study are somewhat unremarkable and predicable, yet support the idea that Google Docs is very useful for collaborative student work. There were major differences pre and post use of Google Docs that were significant. A majority of students felt their level of self-efficacy, that is confidence to use the software, was much higher after undertaking the course. The second hypothesis also showed the majority had positive perceptions of using Google Docs both in the course but significantly in future studies and workplaces. Although the researchers reported mostly positive results about the use of Google Docs, one issue clouded the results. Not being able to access the documents when offline is perceived as a major impediment in the collaborative process. Overall this study may seem somewhat bland and predictable; however, it supports much positive and negative criticism of Google Docs in the ability to foster and impede the learning of the students using it.

I have used Google Docs on many occasions for education purpose both as a teacher and a student. As a teacher I had found that Google Docs provided a tool that created group work with ease. Student where able to contribute to ideas and develop learning outcome far more than the unit outline proved for. The article here proves that through the efforts of many working on the same document improves as more contribute ideas and ads greater value to the document. Your comment about the uselessness of Google without online access does provide problems when it comes to the digital divide. We in the western world still have areas that suffer from digital divisions as well as those in less fortunate countries. However tools like Google docs can contribute to the cost of entry to CMC as there are no licensing fees required and programs such as the one laptop per child that aids in the narrowing of the digital divide(OLPC, n.d). As a student I have done one project with Google docs and currently using Google docs in another project. The reason for the choice to use Google Docs was mainly the reason cited in this article. Although the article was limited in what Google docs can actually do and takes on the assumption that we know what it can do. It is more about how it can be used in education. I recently used Google docs to collaborate with my family in arranging my mother's funeral. The outcome was very smooth as each member collaborated amicably on the document that may have been a family feud if handled face to face. References OLPC. (n.d). OLPC's mission is to empower the world's poorest children through education. Retrieved 15th April 2011, from http://one.laptop.org/about/mission Edwards, J.T., & Baker, C. (2010). A case study: Google collaboration applications as online course teaching tools. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/edwards_1210.htm

Your comment about the uselessness of Google without online access does provide problems when it comes to the digital divide. We in the western world still have areas that suffer from digital divisions as well as those in less fortunate countries. However tools like Google docs can contribute to the cost of entry to CMC as there are no licensing fees required and programs such as the one laptop per child that aids in the narrowing of the digital divide(OLPC, n.d). - that is 100 % right and that causes some disadvantages yet being free if connectivity can be gotten in any form then it has the potential to educate in any society that has networking. More work needs to be done to get to those areas, but I also argue that income might also be a factor and age. Nevertheless, GD if networking is there can provide the benefits of sharing and working on projects, it is just a case of making sure those that need it can get access to it in some form.

This wiki is about Social Constructivism. The idea that learners are influenced by their environment is the bases of this theory.  The empathy on the importance of culture and understanding what occurs in society and constructing knowledge based on it understanding.(Derry, 1999; McMahon, 1997) There is three elements to the assumption of social constructivism.  Reality: Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed through human activity Knowledge: To social constructivists,. Individuals create meaning through their interactions with each other and with the environment they live in. Learning: Social constructivists view learning as a social process.. Meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities Topics covered include 1 Social Constructivism Vignette2 What is Social Constructivism?3 Assumptions of Social Constructivism4 Intersubjectivity of Social Meanings5 Social Context for Learning6 General Perspectives of Social Constructivism on Learning7 Social Constructivism and Instructional Models8 Sorting Out Variations on the Terms "Constructionism" and Constructivism" Derry, S. J. (1999). A Fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.),  Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism.. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 15th April 2011, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

(2001) This is a critical view about the internet and education. Peter Macinnis Speaks with Robyn Williams (ABC Science National Radio) about the evolution of Technology and how technology takes 20 plus years to become an accepted technology. Macinnis shows the analogy of the printing press, steam trains, telephone,radio and TV development and then compares the internet.  He claims you need to take the rear view mirror approach to see what the trends are.   One interesting point that Macinnis makes is that the examination process of education is still ran by the old school where the generation today have a whole new literacy in Internet communications. He also criticise how the Internet is organised and there is some work needed to add metadata to the already exciting data on the web.  I find this a good argument as search engines rank results based on several factors other than truth and reliability.     Williams, R. (Writer). (2001). The Internet and Education [Radio ], ABC Science. Australia: ABC Radio National.

REFERENCES ABS. (2007). 8146.0.55.001 - Patterns of Internet access in Australia, 2006, Australian Bureau of Statistics. First Issued November 29, 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/8146.0.55.001Main+Features12006?OpenDocument Downes, S. (2007). The Future of Online Learning and Personal learning Environments. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from: http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/the-future-of-online-learning-and-personal-learning-environments NSWDET (2009). Social Learning 2.0 Concepts and Visuals. Uploaded by the NSW Department of Education and Training March 2009. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/etalbert/sociallearning20-concepts-and-visuals-mar09# Williams, R., and Peter Macinnis (2001). The Internet and Education. Ockham's Razor, Radio National. Broadcast Sunday May 6, 2001. Retrieved April 12, 2011 from: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s289416.htm

It is good to go back and examine Peter Macinnis's point of view. Reminds me of the exercise of examining Clifford Stoll's (1995) view on what the internet was to become, which of course was mostly wrong. Macinnis seemed to have predicted the unorganised nature of the information on the internet (ABC Radio, 2001) which to an extent does exist now. This is one reason I believe is important to address in terms of internet collaboration especially in education. Collaborating is about organising information into a presentation form for all students collaborating within a system. But that must be with a gatekeeper, namely the teacher or lecturer or tutor who can intervene when needed. Michael Green (ABC Radio, 1999) in an earlier view on that show quoted Fred Bennett who urged computers to teach students without an intermediary, namely a tutor or teacher. Whilst tertiary education is underpinned by self-reliance, I wonder if such views back then apply now. In collaboration, does the lecturer decide to be strictly a hands off non-interventionist given that their students are mature and can think for themselves? Or does the lecturer, given the high demands of departmental, research and publishing commitments, become part of the student group collaboration? In my resources, Google Docs seems to raise more issues about information use which suggest students place a high value on organised information which makes sense to them. I feel that Macinnis should revise today if inaccurate information is the real problem. We had virtual communities were information could be corrected, but with Web 2.0, Wikipedia being the most obvious example, we can correct what is wrong. I do agree with Tessa that social media overall seems to be quite behind in the way it is being diffused across educational sectors. Collaboration tools such as Facebook etc will be used by students anyway so it seems odd that the resistance still exists. This interview is a good resource to reflect on how f

This paper discusses the issues around eLearning and communication Technology. It cover how freeware skype  is an ideal tool for communication in education an suggest methods of how to use Skype for the learning outcomes. 7 Instructor Recommendations for Skype UseSchedule the students' Skype subscription in the class orientation. The sooner studentsare exposed to the technology, the better they'll adjust to the unique learning experience.Organize a pre-class training session for a subset of the entire class. Instructors canschedule a meeting with a group of class "trainers." These trainers then teach theirown group members skills.Divide students into groups of four. A Skype conference call can only take up to fiveparticipants. If needed, reserve a seat for the instructor for tracking/coaching purposes.Provide technology use protocols ahead of time. For instance, if someone accidentallyhangs up, the conference call initiator (usually the group leader) can immediatelyadd him back in to the meeting.Keep group deliberations on the record using additional tools. Skype conferencecalls are not recorded. Options are Skype Chat and Blackboard Chat.Reserve a Blackboard Chat Room for each group as the last resort. One of the drawbacksof using such freeware is that the service makes no guarantee that theprogram will be there when needed. An effective way to cope with this is to reservethe Blackboard Chat Room as a backup device.Encourage necessary accessories. A headset and a wired broadband connection arepreferred accessories for use with Skype and other similar communication tools. Pan, C.-C., & Sullian, M. (2005). Promoting Synchronous Interaction in an eLearning EnvironmentThe Journal  Retrieved 11th April 2011, from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2005/09/01/Promoting-Synchronous-Interaction-in-an--eLearning-Environment.aspx?Page=1

This poster aims to provide the concept of Web 2.0 and its relevant tools in language teaching and learning. An online blog is served as an information kiosk and indicate possible instructional design and applications to language education. By experimenting with the Web 2.0 tool in a participatory community, we are hoping language teachers will learn about appropriate tools ready to be used and further think about the relationship of Web 2.0 and the four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) and 5 Cs (communication, culture, connections, comparisons, and communities) as well as the Wallace's framework for assessing its effectiveness.