Potatoes and the Power of a Text Message (EDER 679.33 Blog Post #3)

To claim one method of learning more valuable than another is like saying there’s only one right way to cook a potato. But we know that there are many ways to cook a potato, from mashed to scalloped to baked to fried, it all depends on preference.

In education the same theory can be applied to learners. Theoretical frameworks have been researched, developed and implemented to meet the needs of a wide variety of learners. Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are two such frameworks that explore flexible teaching methods to ensure the learning preferences of students are met. Stanford and Reeves are proponents of DI because “...one style of teaching will not accommodate every student,” (2009, p. 3). The UDL framework ensures that resources, methods and strategies based on multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement are developed and used to meet the educational needs of all students (Brand, Favazza, and Dalton, 2012).  Not everyone is going to cook the potato in the same way.

Post secondary institutions are doing a good job in many cases of offering students programming options,  knowing that the needs of their students differ. Both face to face and online sessions provide learners with choices in terms of environment that can promote and enhance their learning experience. As a student enrolled in online graduate studies, I see the advantages and disadvantages of this type of programming. For some, the lack of connectedness and face to face dialogue can be disengaging for students. Although discussion boards and chat rooms allow participants interact with their peers, the immediate feedback and limited personal connection may affect academic results and engagement. One disadvantage of asynchronous instruction discovered by Murphy, Rodriguez-Manzanares & Barbour (2010) was a higher dropout rate than the synchronous environment. Could this be a mismatch in learning style and instructional method? Or could it be due to the  lack of personal connection? I recently came across the article Helping the Poor in Education: The Power of a Simple Nudge, by Susan Dynarski that speaks of the power of a text message. A study of low income high school students who received text messages reminding them of their college application deadlines, were more likely to follow through with their application. Another group of college students also received text messages while enrolled in college courses. The results revealed that fewer students who received the text messages dropped out than those who had not received text messages.  Would text messaging help students in asynchronous settings feel more connect? Knowing that someone cares about your participation or can guide you in meeting deadlines, could this help with retention and dropout rates? Can this be applied to a classroom setting for students who miss a great deal of school or those who struggle to complete assignments on time? Does the text message help students be accountable?

References

Dynarski, S. (2015). Helping the Poor in Education: The Power of a Simple Nudge. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 28 January 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/upshot/helping-the-poor-in-higher-education-the-power-of-a-simple-nudge.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&abt=0002&abg=0

Murphy, E., Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583-591.

http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=61140599&site=ehost-live

Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2009). Making It Happen: Using Differentiated Instruction, Retrofit Framework, and Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(6), 3.

Trostle Brand, S., Favazza, A., & Dalton, E. (2012). Universal Design for Learning: A Blueprint for Success for All Learners. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(3), 134-139. doi:10.1080/00228958.2012.707506

Access, Expertise, Importance & Coordination: Keys to Understanding Copyright (EDER 679.33 Blog Week 2)

“Copyright” is a scary and confusing word. One that is often misunderstood due to legal jargon, complicated amendments and clauses, and the potential to quite simply break the law. In fact, after reading and viewing the resources from this week’s topic, I’m not sure that I have a clearer understanding of the topic. How can the issue of copyright become one that is transparent to educators and that they feel they have a good grasp of?

Horava (2010) found four factors that affect the level of copyright awareness and application at the university level. They include access, expertise, importance and a coordinated approach to impact how copyright is perceived and portrayed. In addition, advantages to having an identified copyright officer or librarian to provide guidance and instruction was determined. This model is transferable to a school setting and can impact the knowledge and understanding of copyright laws as they apply to educators and students. Teachers need access to resources, such as Copyright Matters, along with a designated support person to reduce the “fear” and clarify questions surrounding the topic. Could monthly staff meetings include a brief presentation or address a new clause or amendment? Would these measures be enough for teachers to have a clearer understanding of how copyright applies to their lessons and instruction?

References
CMEC (2012). Copyright matters. Retrived from http://www.cmec.ca/139/Programs-and-Initiatives/Copyright/Overview/index.html

Horava, T. (2010). Copyright communication in Canadian academic libraries: a national survey. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences, 34(1), 1-38.

We're All in this Together (EDER 679.33 Blog Post #1)

Technology has been a part of my education plan since I began teaching 16 years ago. In the beginning, it was simple. Each teacher booked the lab for one block a week where students would use word processing software to type their essays or paragraphs. Eventually, students began to create powerpoint presentations and maybe added clip art too. Over time, I began to explore alternate modes of representation. I used videos and animations to enhance instruction which in turn increased student interest and engagement. Within the last 7 years, I really began to look at the potential that technology offered students to both create and consume. I empowered my students to find digital resources related to the subjects we were learning to share with the class. Unlike Ohler’s (2011) suggestion that students lead two different lives when it comes to the approach many school’s take in regards to using technology, my students were plugged in both at school and at home. Yet, among this usage and exploration there was little digital citizenship instruction. Aside from my daily speech, “Only go to websites I had approved” and “The district can see who is doing what”, further digital awareness was not provided. I think many teachers were and still are in the same boat I was - without direction or an implementation plan, teachers are left to implement technology as they see fit.

Instead a more proactive, in depth digital citizenship plan is needed for our students. One that includes all stakeholders in the development. Hollandsworth, Downey & Donovan (2011) propose that the responsibility to educate students on issues of digital citizenry includes the parents, teachers, administrators and media specialists. Each partner has a role and responsibility in preparing students for their involvement in a digital society.

As my role has changed in the last three years, I find teachers and parents look to me for support and guidance as they implement assistive technology in the classroom and at home.  Does a formal plan need to be developed and added to the curriculum? Will this be the approach necessary to hold teachers accountable? What about the role of the parent? How do we provide parents with the necessary tools to help their children navigate the diversity of technology today?

References

Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital Citizenship in K-12: It Takes a Village. Techtrends: Linking Research And Practice To Improve Learning, 55(4), 37-47.

Ohler, J. (2011). Digital Citizenship Means Character Education for the Digital Age. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(1), 25-27