Week 6: J2E Mash Up

We experimented briefly with J2E during this week's session. We had some connectivity problems and could not figure out how to upload a picture. It looked like it was expected that we would upload an image from an internal collection. An advantage of J2E seems to be that you can put together different kinds of files to create a mash-up website.

See our very rudimentary experimentation here.
Or use our QR code:

Week 5: Research Topic and Rm 321 Critical Analysis

This week, we used Google docs to collaborate and to create a shared document in response to this week's assignments:

Week 4: Digital Storytelling

We each created a digital story around the theme "My journey to the Msc ITE". Within our group, different people used different digital storytelling tools.

This week, we used a Google doc to communicate and sort out logistics. Our REFLECTIONS are in the COMMENTS section of this post.




Megha's, Tony's, Chris's and Purvi's digital stories:

6024 Coffee Group from Tony Rodgers on Vimeo.

Diana's digital story:



Please see this post's COMMENTS for our REFLECTIONS.

Week 4: Views about Students and Technology

Please this post's COMMENTS for our contributions.
Here's a video that just came my way via twitter. I think it sums up many of the issues well. Tony


Here's another one - listen to what students want, cheers Tony

Week 3: Focus on Blogs: How do they support teaching and learning?

Together, we created a Voicethread presentation on how blogs support teaching and learning.

Our Voicethread presentation:
http://voicethread.com/share/2294629/



We used a Google doc to communicate and sort out logistics (see immediately below). Our REFLECTIONS are in this post's COMMENTS section.

Week 2: Thoughts on educational theory in technology use and design

Week 2: Evaluate the learning object for its usefulness in teaching and learning.

We chose to evaluate the Learning Theories Webquest (http://people.cite.hku.hk/dchurchill/LTwebquest/)

All group members collaborated on Google docs to create the following document evaluating the learning object's usefulness:

Review of educational website: “Learning Theories Web Quest”
http://people.cite.hku.hk/dchurchill/LTwebquest/
The learning theories behind this educational website seem to be:
Constructivism, and more particularly problem-solving based learning and social constructivism. Because the website uses a problem-solving approach, the learners can build new understandings based on their previous knowledge through interactions with new information that arises (through research and/or discussion) while actively trying to solve a problem, which is what constructivism involves. By working together in small groups, the students use their own previous knowledge to help each other to develop new understandings when solving the problems presented in the tasks (social constructivism). Each students’ understanding develops in a different, and often cognitively deeper, way than if s/he has tried to develop his/her understanding on his/her own. (Bransford, 2000).

What this educational website does well:
- Defines central tasks and goal for the user to complete.
- Provides a basic assessment method so users can figure out whether they’ve learned according to the objective.
- The problem-based learning format ensures that learning objectives (LOs), teaching/learning activities (TLAs) and assessment tasks are aligned. This should in theory lead to higher levels of understanding (e.g., according to SOLO taxonomy). (Biggs, 1999).
- Helpfully narrows the search for relevant resources (limited selection of site to start from).
- Puts learning in context (in “Introduction”). This increases the inherent meaning in doing the activities (“why do I want to learn this?”). Seely Brown and Adler (2008) argue that in the current context of an ever-changing economic and work landscape, effective learning needs to be tailored to a learner’s desire to learn something to apply in real life: “Demand-pull learning shifts the focus to enabling participation in flows of action, where the focus is both on “learning to be” through enculturation into a practice as well as on collateral learning”. A problem-solving based approach in the context in which the learner will actually be working in the future provides meaning and construction of understanding through solving real problems.
- Allows students to work at own pace and tailor their work to strengths.

What could be improved about this educational website:
- Too text-based and linear. It is worksheet-like.
- Needs to be proof-read.
- Could use more aspects that can’t be used without technology, like interactive mind maps, video (not entirely clear whether this particular learning object can’t be delivered as well through traditional text form, etc.)
- Use of pop-ups is a bit annoying - and problematic with some browser settings.
- Uses a Web 1.0 approach - simply provides information and resources, but no collaboration embedded in actual object. It is not interactive.
- It would be good if feedback questions were interactive, integrated into website (click on chosen answer, leads you to advice/information)
- Allows for collaboration between people (team work), but only offline. If the learning object is online, it might make sense to allow users to interact online too.
- A good set of resources are provided but one of the links has expired. Do we consider this as a problem with the tool? Or it is not compatible with the browser? Is it just because it is an old site?

References:
Anderson, J. and McCormick, R. (2005). Ten Pedagogic Principals of E-learning. Observatory for New Technologies and Education

Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18 (1), 57-75.

Bransford, J. et al. (2000). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (CBASSE). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Research & Development, 18 (1), 57-75.

Seeley Brown, J. and Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0 EDUCAUSE Review, 43 (1), 16–32.
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420.

Some group members added additional reflections in this post's COMMENTS.