EDER 679.07-Blog Synthesis: How has teaching and learning adapted to a digital age?

After completing two years of graduate work first in e-Learning and now in Transforming Teaching and Learning in a Knowledge Society, I have realized that my teaching has dramatically changed.  The purpose of graduate work is for people to question, to explore and to reflect on current methodologies.   With the vast changes in technology, teaching and learning methodologies have become more individualized leading to the need for 21^st Century skill development, which requires educators to re-think teaching styles, curriculum design, teacher-student interactions, and more.  What exactly does this entail?  How can I implement what I have learned from the last two years into my teaching?  I have come to some understanding of how I can reflect my learning, but I am still discovering the best ways to use technology to reinforce 21^st Century developments.  

 21^st Century skills focus on developing competencies in technology, collaboration, problem solving, and networking, etc. that “…build on the foundation of traditional literacy, research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills taught in the classroom…” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 19).  It also includes re-examining the notion of traditional literacies.  The New Media Consortium (2005) defines new literacies as “…the set of abilities and skills where aural, visual, and digital literacy overlap…” (p. 8).  Literacy must also include traditional literacies of reading and writing as well as media literacy of developing social skills if students are to work collaboratively in a global, interconnected society (Jenkins, 2006).  Educators as well as students need to acquire these proficiencies to compete in the digital age.  Educators need to now design curriculum that seamlessly integrates technology and fosters interdisciplinary inquiry that requires a new way of thinking about teaching and that incorporates new ideas about literacy into curriculum.  This can occur through the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge or TPACK. 

 In addition to TPACK, “learning by design” where teachers become designers of technology and learn along side their students allows for authentic learning opportunities.  This type of design encourages learners to develop the critical thinking skills needed to function in a complex society where thinking involves more than just memorizing information.  As Simon, 1996 states, “…knowledge building has shifted from “knowing” or the ability to remember details to being able to develop the intellectual tools to use knowledge.  This requires educators and schools to restructure so that students learn with understanding of content rather than through the repetition of information.  In this digital age, technology has given learners heightened access to information, ideas and people where knowledge can be shared using Web 2.0 tools.  Educators need to keep up-to-date with this knowledge and be digitally resilient when learning to implement new technologies into the classroom. 

 Such strategic usage of technology is supported by connectivism and social constructivism since educators design curriculum to allow students to solve authentic, real-world problems.   These learning theories can seem disorganized and time intensive but “…through this arbitrary learning, understanding and knowledge is obtained (Siemens, 2009).  This does not imply that students will naturally learn just because they are connected to other students or educators.  Therefore, Selwyn (2010) argues that there needs to be a more structured and scientist approach to using technology in classrooms, which justifies the need for TPACK. 

 During the last two years, I have discovered that I support the constructivist ideology more than I initially realized.  I design lessons using project-based outcomes, and I allow my students opportunities to discover content in a way that fits their learning style.  This type of teaching focuses on student-led exercises instead of teacher controlled learning.  I have learned how to use TPACK to develop competencies in technology, collaboration, problem solving, networking, and I use new definitions of literacy to advance my awareness and understanding of the skills needed for the future.  I can now use technology to further my teaching goals so that technology doesn’t take over good teaching practices and pedagogy.  Furthermore, I have a new appreciation for the importance being digitally literate since it involves accessing and interpreting the relevance of information.  The last two years have changed my teaching ideologies as well as enhanced my ability to lead my students.  I look forward to developing more relevant and engaging lessons using technology that sparks authentic learning.

 References:

 Jenkins, H. (2006).  Confronting the challenges of participatory culture:  Media education for the 21^st Century.  John D. and Catherine T.  MacArthur Foundation.  Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

 New Media Consortium (2005).  A Global Imperative:  The Report of the 21^st Century Literacy Summit.

 Selwyn, N.  (2010).  Looking beyond learning:  Notes towards the critical study of educational technology, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65-73.

 Siemens, G.  (2009).  Chaos, and emergence.  Retrieved from http://docs.google.com/View?docid=anw8wkk6fjc_15cfmrctf8

 Simon, H.A. (1996).  Observations on the Sciences of Science Learning. Paper prepared for the Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning for the Sciences of Science Learning: An Interdisciplinary Discussion. Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University.

EDER 679.07: “Netiquette” & the Need for Digital Citizenship

Digital literacy teaching involves learning about technology (WikiHow, 2013).  This doesn’t mean only learning how tools functions; it also includes learning how to use technology in a respectful way, which is referred to as “netiquette”.   Netiquette is network or Internet etiquette, and it is defined as “…socially acceptable conduct in an online or digital situation” (Wikipedia, 2013, Etiquette-technology).

Technology offers many benefits to individuals; however, when used inappropriately, it can also cause harm.  Information put on the Internet is forever; people need to be aware of this so they aren’t embarrassed or put in danger because of poor choices.  The longevity of digital footprints makes the consequences of abusing technology like cyberbullying even more serious.  Educators have a responsibility to “…promote respectful online behaviours” (Harte, 2011, p.3).  “…Educators are the gatekeepers to what goes on in classrooms and are instrumental in cultivating a positive (or negative) school culture”  (Cassidy, Brown & Jackson, 2012, p. 520).  I want to cultivate positive technology usage so that my students (foreign trained professionals) know the cultural norms of technology usage, for a lack of understanding could affect employability.  Therefore, I have a responsibility to learn netiquette and inform my students.  I intend to insert micro lessons on netiquette and digital citizenship into my curriculum so that students become “…informed through research and learning from others”, and participate in “…respectful deliberation, and use of various media…to communicate with others, to move them to action” (Herrington & Moran, 2012).

Why do educators need to include netiquette in their media literacy curriculum?  Since technology has developed so quickly, people aren’t sure how to use it or how to appropriately interact with each other leading to cyberbullying and poor conduct.  I have witnessed people answering their cell phones or texting during meetings, taking pictures of people and posting them online without consent, texting message or answering phone calls while driving, sending offensive e-mails to co-workers, etc.  It seems that manners have gone out the window. People have a responsibility to behave appropriately and professionally in public.  According to Evans & Gerwitz (2008), “…e-professionalism involves behavior related to professional standards and ethics when using electronic communication” (Harte, 2011, p.3).

Learning how to appropriately use technology should be everyone’s concern.  How do teachers and parents tackle this important concept?  They should ask themselves questions such as:  What is digital citizenship, why is it important to teach, and who is responsible for teaching it?  Digital citizenship can be defined as “norms of appropriate, responsible technology use” (Ribble, 2013). It is important to teach because “…the lack of digital citizenship awareness and education can lead to dangerous student conduct including cyberbullying, so it is in the best interest of society to help students become better citizens (Hollandsworth, Dowdy & Donovan, 2011).  Ohler (2011) states that digital citizenship teaching is much like any other character education programs, which should be based on community defined values.  Ultimately, the first step in teaching digital citizenship is for educators and parents to act as positive examples and use technology appropriately.

References:

Cassidy, W., Brown, K.N., & Jackson, M.  (2012).  “Under the radar”:  educators and cyberbullying in schools.  SchoolPsychology International, 33(5), 520-532.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/resultsadvanced?sid=7e26c5cb-66e9-43e6-9763-id0775e3d0bf%40sessionmgr4&vid=9&hid=19&bquery=under+AND+the+AND+radar&bdata=JmRiPWVyzWMmdHIwZT0xJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGI2ZQ%ed%3d

Evans, T., & Gerwitz, A.E.  (2008).  E-Professioalism dos and don’ts.  NALP Bulletin.  Retrieved from http://www.tourolaw.edu/cso/docs/eprofessionalism.pdf

Harte, H.  (2011).  E-Professionalism for Early Care and Education Providers.  Dimensions Of Early Childhood, 39(3), 3-10.

Herrington, A., & Moran, C. (2012).  Social Deliberation and Social Action.  Retrieved from http://digitalis.nwp.org/collection/civic-deliberation-and-social-action

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.

Ribble, M.  (2013).  Digital Citizenship:  Using Technology Appropriately.  Retrieved from  http://www.digitalcitizenship.net/

WikiHow.  (2013).  Be a Responsible Digital Citizen.  Retrieved from http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Responsible-Digital-Citizen

Wikipedia (2013).  Etiquette (technology)  Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_(technology)

EDER- 679.07 Changes in Literacy: What happens to people who are not digitally literate?

“Literacy has always been a collection of cultural and communicative practices shared among members of particular groups” (NCTE Definition, 2013, p.1).  This statement made by the National Council of Teachers of English made me think about the vast technological changes occurring in the 21^st Century and how society now views literacy.  The speed of innovation has had dramatic effects on teaching and learning practices where students must work collaboratively to develop proficiency and fluency with technological tools, and they must manage, analyze and evaluate multiple modes of information simultaneously (MediaSmarts, 2013).  This ability to access information using multiple media is “transliteracy”, which is “…the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from…handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks” (Thomas et al., 2007, p. 2).

Educators expect students to be able to manage information using various media sources.  However, being digitally literate isn’t an innate skill.  How do individuals learn it? Mifsud asks relevant questions including: “is digital literacy something one expects to learn at school, something one brings from other contexts or a crossover of both?” “What does a student have to appropriate and master in order to be called digitally literate by the current society?”  “What counts as digital literacy?” (Mifsud, 2005)  The question I am most concerned with is-what happens to youth and adults who have not learned to be digitally literate?

Developing digital literacy affects an individual’s entire existence since it involves accessing the relevance of information.  Therefore, teachers must devote time for students to practice digital literacy.  I will ensure that my lessons include such opportunities, and I will encourage students to practice these skills in and out of the classroom.  Today, students “require a repertoire of both print and digital literacy practices for their future workplace and life” (Rowsell and Walsh, 2011, p. 54).  This is a serious statement that cannot be ignored!

“Digital literacy is a complex phenomenon” (Mifsud, 2005, p.143).  It involves interpreting the “…users perception of the affordances of a digital artefact”, as well as considering “…the culture that the technology is being used in, and whether the technology contributes to an evolvement of new practices which become embedded in the culture” (Mifsud, 2005, p.143).  It also looks at the teacher’s perception of the technology.  Defining digital literacy is the first step in deciding how to implement it in curriculum so students develop the skills needed for success.  The next step is to allow students opportunities to practice using technologies in the classroom in an appropriate way that furthers societal progress.  Only with practice can students master the tools for thinking and acting, which are the foundations for digital literacy and digital citizenship.

Resources:

MediaSmarts (2013).  Canada’s Centre for Digital & Media Literacy.  Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/?gclid=CLSKiJf_4rcCFUbhQgod9wUAUA

Mifsud, L., (2005).  What counts as digital literacy:  Experiences from a seventh grade classroom in Norway.  Retrieved from http://www.socialscience.t-mobile.hu/dok/9_Mifsud.pdf

National Council of Teachers of English Executive Committee (2013).  NCTE definition of 21^st century literacies.  Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition

Thomas, S., Joseph, C., Laccetti, J., Mason, B., Millis, S., Perril, S., & Pullinger, K.  (2007).  Transliteracy:  Crossing Divides.  First Monday, Vol. 12 (12).  Retrieved from http://www.ulc.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ois/Index.php/fm/article/view/2060/1908

Technology allows educators to become facilitators in the classroom.

Many schools are banning mobile devices because educators and administrators fear that they will negatively impact learning.  I feel that this type of censorship is the wrong choice.  We should be embracing technology since it can improve collaboration and engagement with content as well as provide support to students with cognitive and physical disabilities.  It has been shown that self-directed learning improves leading to authentic learning opportunities since learners are able to express themselves and their ideas more effectively (Alberta Education, Bring your own device, 2012, p. 3).

Educators are supposed to help students learn digital responsibility and citizenship. How can this occur if learners don’t have access to technology?  Schools and educators have modified how they use technology.  According to Joan Tod, instructor at Bertha Kennedy Community School, “…teachers use technology when it makes sense to use it” (Alberta Education, Emerge one-to-one Learning, Authentic Learning, July, 2012).  This practice helps to keep boundaries and it ensures that information is up to date, which further supports authentic learning.  Changes need to take place to allow for such improvements.

These changes include being flexible and open-minded towards technology so that students can reap the benefits of using it.  Teachers also need to know when to use it and learn how to modify their teaching so that technology doesn’t overtake good teaching practices and pedagogy.  When teachers use technology they become more like facilitators rather than lecturers.  This shift in roles helps to put students more in control of their learning (Crichton, Pegler & White, 2012).

When educators act more as facilitators rather than as lecturers, they become “silent” teachers.  I have been using this “silent” teacher method for almost ten years, and I have found the experience rewarding.  Currently, my BIM (Building Information Modeling) students are completing a technical English Manual as well as working on a presentation for their projects.  Our government representative observed my class this week and found students’ work to be exceptional.  Furthermore, our employment developer has had many requests from engineering firms in Calgary to interview our students for employment.  I believe that much of this success is because the teaching staff at Bredin is dedicated to allowing students to showcase their work in diverse ways.  We encourage the use of technology and allow students to use their own devices.  We also use technology appropriately so that it supports our curriculum rather than being the focal point of lessons.  Ultimately, teachers act as facilitators and provide opportunities for students to determine their project outcomes-a necessary process in adult education.

References:

Alberta Education (2012). Bring your own device: a guide for schools. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/admin/technology/research.aspx

Alberta Education (2012). Emerge one-to-one laptop learning: Authentic Learning. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/admin/technology/emerge-one-to-one/videos.aspx

Crichton, S., Pegler, K., & White, D. (2012). Personal devices in public settings: lessons learned from an ipod touch / ipad project. Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 10(1), 23-31.http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login?ur

 

Week 8: A New Appreciation for Assistive Technologies

Assistive technology (AT) can be a lifeline for disabled students, for it is redefining what people with cognitive and physical disabilities can accomplish (Kelker & Holt, 1997).  Assistive technology can be used to aid students in many ways by helping them overcome barriers, but these technologies can be expensive and difficult to obtain.  Many parents are confused by the variety of software available, and they need help finding the right tool so that (AT) becomes an essential but fluid part of their child’s education rather than an additional part (Kelker & Holt, 1997).

I have a new awareness and appreciation for assistive technology.  I have developed extreme Carpal Tunnel Syndrome this month due to pregnancy; this has made typing almost impossible.  I have relied on assistive technology to complete my assignments for this program.  I have ordered Dragon Dictation, which has definitely helped, but I am also finding that I need time to adapt to the technology.  As Ellis indicates in the Assistive technology: Enabling Dreams video, students need to learn AT tools at younger ages so later they can focus on content rather than on technology (Ellis, 2009).  It is important for parents and educators to realize that navigating new software takes patience and time.  The process can be extremely frustrating.

I have also used wrist splints and compression gloves for arthritis to help me function.  These aids are also categorized as assistive technologies, so AT doesn’t consists of only computer software (Coleman, 2011).  It can be assistive listening, visual aids, enhanced mobility aids, computer-based instruction, social interaction and recreation and self care.  “Assistive technology means any device which helps an individual with an impairment to perform tasks of daily living” (Kelker & Holt, p. 6, 1997).

Assistive technology is changing the way teachers instruct students with disabilities because AT is “…not just a civil right guaranteed by law; it is also a means of achieving human rights to grow up happy, independent and self-sufficient as possible” (Kelker & Holt, p. 43, 1997).   AT definitely offers something different for each of us.

References:

Coleman, M.  (2011).  Successful Implementation of Assistive Technology to Promote Access to Curriculum and Instruction for Students with Physical Disabilities.  Physical Disabilities:  Education And Related Services, 30(2), 2-22.  Retrieved from:  http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ955444&site=ehost-live

Ellis, K. (2009). Assistive Technology Enabling Dreams. Edutopia Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5CkpgVQJ4

Kelker, K. & Holt, R. (1997).  Family Guide to Assistive Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.pluk.org/Pubs/PLUK_ATguide_269K.pdf

Week 6-Empathy Gone! Are young people losing their humanism?

Social Web technologies are greatly influencing our lives-especially our children’s lives.  Parents are putting their children’s pictures on Facebook before birth, and children are interacting with each other on a global scale.  A National School Boards Association survey (2007) found that “80 percent of young people who are online are networking and that 70 percent of them are regularly discussing education-related topics”  (Richardson, 2008, p. 16).  Children are creating content without their parents’ or teachers’ awareness, which is scary since no rules for safe and ethical behavior have been established.  “This may be the first large technological shift in history that’s being driven by children”  (Richardson, 2008, p. 16).  Children are becoming “Googleable without us” (Richardson, 2008, p. 16).

When using social Web technologies, children need the guidance of parents and teachers.  Without guidance, students may lose their way and engage in unethical and cruel behavior such as cyberbullying.   It is difficult to know how frequent cyberbullying is.  Most teachers report that even though they are concerned about the problem, they aren’t aware of the severity of it, and they don’t know how to manage the problem.  Heiman (2010) found that German teachers reported a lack of professional training to deal with cyberbullying, and Bauman, Rigby, and Hoppa (2008) found that counselors, not teachers, were better trained to deal with issues of cyberbullying.

Nevertheless, a study of two large, technology-rich secondary schools in Canada conducted by Cassidy, Brown and Jackson (2012) discovered that 36% of over 2,000 students had participated in cyberbullying and 32% had been victims.  What is also shocking is that a South Korean study conducted by Yoon, Bauman, Choi, and Hutchinson (2011) observed that more experienced teachers (those with 26 years or more of experience) were less likely to do something about cyberbullying than less experienced educators (those with 11-16 years of experience).  I was surprised by these results.  Is it possible that more experienced teachers minimize the effects of cyberbullying or could it be that this problem is so misunderstood that educators are not sure how to deal with it?

The first step for teachers and parents in combating cyberbullying and other forms of bullying is to be aware that it is happening.  This means that schools need specific policies to address the issue including encouraging educators and students to engage in ethical and respectful treatment of others.  According to Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, (2000), “…empathy training is the first step towards teachers developing an appropriate skill set to deal with bullying issues (Cassidy, Brown & Jackson, 2012, p. 521).  These values of citizenship could easily be taught in social studies and other courses as long as teachers understand that there needs to be a deeper awareness of how technology impacts society.  Basically “work must be done to democratize technology” to ensure that ethical, responsible and safe communication occurs online (Weaver and Gahegan, 2007, p. 347).  Teachers need to implement activities that develop empathy into their lessons.  For example, they can ask students to create personal narratives using blogs and audio casts.  Such activities allow students to interpret information from different perspectives; helping to promote more respectful online behavior.

References:

Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008).  US teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents.  Educational Psychology, 28, 837-856.  Doi:10.1.1.133.8126.

Cassidy, W., Brown, K.N., & Jackson, M.  (2012).  “Under the radar”:  educators and cyberbullying in schools.  School Psychology International, 33(5), 520-532.  Retrieved from:  http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/resultsadvanced?sid=7e26c5cb-66e9-43e6-9763-1d0775e3d0bf%40sessionmgr4&vid=9&hid=19&bquery=under+AND+the+AND+radar&bdata=JmRiPWVyaWMmdHIwZT0xJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGI2ZQ%3d%3d

Craig,  W., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J.  (2000).  Middle school students’ preferences for antibullying interventions.  School Psychology International, 21, 5-21.  Doi:10.1177/0143034306070435.

Heiman, T.  (2010).  Cyberbullying:  Coping with negative and enhancing positive uses of new technologies, in relationship in educational settings.  Paper presented at COST IS 0801 Conference 2011.  Retrieved from http://8540237597776146556-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/costis0801/dr-tali-heiman-stsm-report-2011/.

National School Boards Association.  (2007).  Creating and connecting:  Research and guidelines on social-and-educational-networking.  Alexandria, VA:  Author.  Available:  http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?CID=63&DID=41340

Richardson, W.  (2008).  Footprints in the digital age.  Educational Leadership, 66(3),  16-19.  Retrieved from: http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ817754&site=ehost-live

Weaver, S. D., & Gahegan, M. (2007).  Constructing, visualizing and analyzing a digital footprint.  Geographical Review, 97(3),  324-350.  Retrieved from:  http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohpst.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27619792&site=ehost-live

Yoon, J., Bauman, S., Choi, T., & Hutchinson, A.  (2011).  How South Korean teachers handle an incident of school bullying.  School Psychology International, 32, 312-329.  Doi:10.1177/0143034311402311.

Week 5-How vigilant should educators be when using social media and electronic communication?

I learned a valuable lesson this week at work.  A co-worker sent angry e-mails to many members of the staff.  My principal spoke with her about her inappropriate behavior, but instead of acknowledging her mistake and apologizing, she became defensive and insubordinate to my principal.  She was asked to leave the office for the day and was later laid off because this wasn’t the first time such behavior had been displayed.

People have a responsibility to behave in an appropriate manner at work-this is professionalism.  The Harte article depicts how sending inappropriate e-mails in anger can undo years of professionalism.  It takes years to build a reputation, yet it can take only moments to destroy it.  Professionalism must include e-professionalism.  According to Evans & Gerwitz (2008), “…e-professionalism involves behavior related to professional standards and ethics when using electronic communication” (Harte, 2011, p. 3).  Sending inappropriate e-mails, such as my co-worker and Miss Christine in the Harte article can greatly influence public perception of the teaching profession.  This affects everyone in the profession, so teachers need to pause and think about their actions before sending inappropriate messages in electronic form.

E-mails can go viral within seconds, and once they have been sent, they can’t be retracted (Carter, Foulger, & Ewbank, 2008).  This is why educators need to make sure the e-mails they send are professional, error free and that they go to the intended recipients (Harte, 2011).

Educators also need to be vigilant when using other forms of electronic communication such as social networking sites.  If Alberta teachers follow the recommendations from Gordon Thomas at the ATA, educators can comfortably participate in an online community of learning without worrying about violating their Professional Code of Ethics or risking damaging personal or company reputations (Thomas, 2009).  It comes down to finding the right balance between the benefits of social networking and the disadvantages (Harte, 2011).  Social networking encourages active learning leading to a more student-centered learning environment (Ferdig, 2007); however, when people engage in social networking, a loss of privacy and professionalism can occur (Teclehaimanot & Hickman, 2011).

I have learned this week that educators need to be extremely vigilant when using social networking and other forms of electronic communication.  After watching the videos and reading the articles for this week, I realize I need to spend some time improving my virtual identify on Facebook and LinkedIn.  Finding the time to do so is the challenge since maintaining a positive virtual reputation can be demanding, but it is important to do so.

References:

Carter, H. L., Foulger, T.S., & Ewbank, A.D. (2008).  Have you Googled your teacher lately?  Teachers use of social networking sites. Phi Delta Kappan, 681-685.

Evans, T., & Gerwitz, A.E.  (2008).  E-Professionalism dos and don’ts.  NALP Bulletin.  Retrieved from http://www.tourolaw.edu/cso/docs/eprofessionalism.pdf

Ferdig, R. E. (2007).  Editorial:  Examining social software in teacher education.  Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 15(1), 5-10.

Harte, H.  (2011).  E-Professionalism for Early Care and Education Providers.  Dimensions Of Early Childhood, 39(3), 3-10.

Teclehaimanot, B., & Hickman, T.  (2011).  Student-teacher interaction on facebook:  what students find appropriate.  Techtrends:  Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 55(3),19-30.  Retrieved from: http:// ezpoxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=59742738&site=ehost-live

 

Thomas, Gordon.  (2009, May 5).  Teachers and Facebook, ATA News, 43(17).  Retrieved from http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20News/Volume%2043/Number17/Pages/QA.aspx.

Week 4 Blog: Does e-Inclusion lead to marketization of the poor?

What is e-Inclusion?  E-Inclusion refers to a social movement aimed at minimizing the global digital divide as well as at providing a digital dividend for corporations.  This symbiotic relationship fosters “…entrepreneurship among the poor-which, according to Prahalad, is a solution to global poverty” (Schwittay, 2012, p. 45).  C. K. Prahalad, was a professor at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business and the University of Michigan and was a corporate strategy expert.

The question is who benefits the most from e-Inclusion programs- the poor in emerging markets such as India, Asia, Africa, Latin America and Central Europe or high-tech multinational corporations?  One could argue that this relationship benefits both parties, but I feel that multinational corporations usually prevail.  Corporations, such as HP (Hewlett-Packard) use e-inclusion to showcase global citizenship initiatives.  “Digital corporate citizenship” is an example of global corporate citizenship and refers to the social movement that the high-tech industry is involved in where rural poor are given access to ICTs in the hope of closing the global digital divide (Smith, 2002).  This allows corporations to “…present themselves to governments of developing companies as responsible and trustworthy partners” (Kirkpatrick, 2001, p. 25).

Matten and Crane (2005) argue that this type of citizenship is motivated by corporations because they need to ensure operating platforms for themselves in emerging markets.  The majority of these countries do not provide citizenship rights to the poor, so in most cases, corporations offer necessary social rights such as employment and welfare services but only if they feel that the profits they make are worth the expenditures.  What happens when these corporations feel that providing public services are not in the company’s best interest?

This week’s readings have had a strong moral impact on me-as an educator and as a global citizen.  I feel that the poor in emerging markets are vulnerable to both their governments and to multinational corporations.  The entrepreneurial opportunities that e-Inclusion offers can benefit the poor in many countries, but Karnani, a scholar and Prahalad’s colleague, has been critical of statements that poverty can be eradicated through profits (Jenkins, 2005; Landrum, 2007).  I agree with Karnani.  I don’t believe that eradicating poverty is as simple as offering employment opportunities to disadvantaged individuals.  There are many other issues in these countries that need to be addressed such as women’s rights, dependable employment, political stability, etc.  Also, even though many multinational corporations are ethically responsible and believe strongly in global corporate citizenship, many other corporations use this platform to primarily gain profits in emerging markets.  Therefore, I believe that e-Inclusion does lead to marketization of the world’s poor.

I may be more sensitive to these issues because I teach New Canadians, and many of my students have worked for multinational corporations in Mexico, India and China, etc.  I have heard both positive and negative stories of how they were treated while working for such corporations.  Because of my experiences, I am more aware of my consumption patterns.  I will not purchase products from corporations if they are rumored to engage in unethical and immoral business practices.  The knowledge I have obtained this week will not greatly affect my teaching practices, but it will affect my consumption behaviors.

References:

Jenkins, R.  (2005).  Globalization, corporate social responsibility and poverty.  International Affairs, 81(3), 525-540.

Kirkpatrick, D.  (2001, May 2).  Great leap forward:  Looking for profits in poverty.  Fortune, 25.

Landrum, N.  (2007).  Advancing the “Base of the pyramid” debate.  Strategic Management Review, 1(1), 1-12.

Matten, D., & Crane, A.  (2005).  Corporate citizenship:  Towards an extended theoretical view.  California Management Review, 40(2), 8-17.

Schwittay, A.  (2012).  Incorporated citizens:  multinational high-tech companies and the bop.  Information technologies & international development, 8(1), 43-56.

Smith, C. W.  (2002).  Digital corporate citizenship:  The business response to the digital divide.  Indianapolis, IN:  The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Week 3 Blog: Time Constraints! Are educators given the time needed to develop and adapt lessons for face-to-face and online teaching?

From this week’s readings, websites and voice threads, I have realized how much time is involved in modifying lesson plans for online learning platforms.  Lessons that were originally designed for traditional face-to-face classrooms need to be modified to put online.  For example, in the voice-threaded discussion this week, Chris Mertens, a teacher at Sundre High School in Sundre, Alberta, found that he needed to digitalize his entire Math 31 course to upload to Moodle.  This included lectures, assignments, quizzes and tests, etc.  He also found that he had to adjust his delivery to meet the needs of a video conferencing audience.  When adding recorded comments to the voice thread discussion, I realized I initially felt uncomfortable with my voice and my performance, but I soon gained confidence having my voice recorded and began to enjoy the experience with time.  As many researchers have acknowledged, much teaching and study time is required for educators to be successful in online delivery (Richards and Ridley, 1997; Warschauer, 1998; Well, 2000; Davidson-Shivers, Tanner and Muilenburg, 2000).

Even though some lesson components need to be modified for online delivery, other parts remain the same.  Whether an instructor is teaching in f-to-f environments or online, activities should be varied to meet the needs of diverse learners.  Educators need time to develop these diverse learning activities.  Furthermore, teachers must monitor students’ progresses whether the class is conducted f-to-f or online.  One advantage of using cyber asynchronous teaching platforms is the enhanced ability to track and keep records of students’ learning outcomes (Tanimoto et al., 2002; Shi et al., 2006; Hew et al., 2010).  Such records allow students to review their learning activities, and increase reviewing time and reflective abilities leading to higher order learning including analysis and evaluation (Newman et al., 1997).  Technology minimizes the time teachers require to monitor students’ learning progresses.

Regardless of the teaching environment, educators require time to create and adapt lessons in both f-to-f and online platforms.  Teachers need time to also develop scaffolding exercises to promote and support long-term retention and self-directed learning (Rourke, 2010).  Time is the secret ingredient that educators need to practice good teaching principles including the development of diverse, engaging lessons that are supported by appropriate scaffolding exercises and are transferable between face-to-face and online learning environments.

I continue to improve my comfort level with technology, and I am learning to implement it appropriately into curriculum rather than using it to lead teaching.  I have spent much time adapting to teaching with technology, and I predict more time will be required for me to develop my skills.  For pedagogy to lead technology, educators need time to develop skills in lesson design and transferability.  Are educators being given the time they need?

References:

Davidson-Shivers, G., Tanner, E., and Muilenburg, L. (2000).  Online discussion:  How do students participate?  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, L.A.

Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L.  (2010).  Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion:  A review of the research and empirical exploration.  Instructional Science, 38(6), 571-606.

Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B. & Cochrane, C.  (1997).  Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative learning.  Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 484-495.

Richards, C. N., and Ridley, D. R., (1997).  Factors affecting college students’ persistence in on-line computer-managed instruction.  College Student Journal, 490-495.

Rourke, A., & Coleman, K.  (2010).  E-learning in crisis:  should not the pedagogy lead the technology?  Journal Of Education Research, 4(3), 265-282.

Shi, S., Mishra, P., Bonk, C. J., Tan, S. & Zhao, Y.  (2006).  Thread theory:  A framework applied to content analysis of synchronous computer mediated communication data.  Retrieved March 22, 2011, from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/submitted/thread_theory.pdf.

Tanimoto, S., Carlson, A., Husted, J., Hunt, E., Larsson, J., Madigan, D., & Minstrell, J.  (2002).  Text forum features for small group discussions with facet-based pedagogy.  In G. Stahl (Ed.), CSCL’02 Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning:  Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp.554-555).  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

Warschauer, M.  (1998).  Online learning in sociocultural context.  Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(1), 68-88.

Well, J. G.  (2000).  Effects of on-line computer-mediated communication course, prior computer experience and Internet knowledge, and learning styles on students’ Internet attitudes:  Computer-mediated technologies and new educational challenges.  Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(3), 22-53.

Is the Canadian Copyright Act silencing marginalized groups?

Many aspects of history have been told from the perspective of dominant groups.  Marginalized groups, such as women and minorities, have not always had a voice in our textbooks or in literature.  For these groups, re-writing of “…significant texts is a powerful tool of criticism and empowerment” (Derecho, 2006, p. 61).  Such re-writes “…expose, challenge, and correct stereotypes found in the original work” (Reynolds, 2010, p. 37).  Society needs to develop a stronger understanding of historical facts, from all perspectives; thus, re-writing of text is essential.  However, the Canadian Copyright Act may be prohibiting such re-writes and inadvertently silencing marginalized groups (Reynolds, 2010).

A relevant question is: do re-writes silence marginalized groups?  Another question is whether these re-writes are protected under the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act?  These questions are up for debate, and amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act, Bill C-32, has been proposed as a way of “…achieving a more equitable balance” between the rights of original authors and users-especially marginalized users (Reynolds, 2010, p. 38).

From the readings this week, I have come to realize that the Canadian Copyright Act’s main purpose it not to stunt the flow of ideas but rather to encourage innovation, especially in the arts and sciences, by protecting the original author’s intellectual property (Nenych, 2011).  Prior to this class, I viewed copyright laws from a monetary point of view, as well as from a prohibitive point of view. The Act is meant to protect the original author’s work, reputation, and moral rights.  Furthermore, the Act protects the original author’s right to not have his/her work “distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified” (Reynolds, 2010, p. 49).  The Act doesn’t prohibit the re-writing of texts that are no longer copyrighted, nor does it prohibit re-writes when the courts have deemed that the texts are used for certain “fair” purposes as long as re-writes give credit to the original author(s) by sourcing the work.  Since marginalized groups are able to re-write texts under the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act, I now don’t feel that marginalized groups face possible silencing from the Canadian Copyright Act (CMEC, 2012). 

After obtaining a deeper understanding of copyright legislation, I now feel more comfortable using copyrighted material in my classroom.  I also feel that I am in a better position to help my students understand how to use and source copyrighted images, music and text, etc.  In future classes, I will take time to teach ‘mini’ lessons on copyright rules, teach my students how to search for Creative Commons material, as well as how to reference original author’s work.

References:

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

Derecho, A.  (2006).  “Archontic Literature:  A Definition, a History, and Several Theories of Fan Fiction,” in Karen Hellekson & Kristina Busse, eds., Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet (Jefferson, N.C.:  McFarland, 2006) 61 at 61.

Nenych, L. A.  (2011).  Managing the legal risk of high-tech classrooms.  Contemporary Issues In Education Research, 4(3), 1-7.

Reynolds, G.  (2010).  The impact of the Canadian copyright act on the voices of marginalized groups.  Alberta Law Review, 48(1), 35-53.