Higher learning web-based technology grows in direct proportion
to the devotion of its creators and consumers.
Hail scholars!
I'm still on the hunt for teaching gems. I’ve
been immersed in the web again this week on the quest. Here are my reviews of two videos and three webquests that really made me re-assess technology use at the university level. Both of the web videos and one of the webquests hit the highmarks for
devotion to subject and careful presentation.—It just goes to prove that when you
think you have seen everything, somebody comes along and shows you new, wildly engaging ideas.
VIDEOS : After viewing the following web videos this
week, I pondered what ideas might be sparked in curriculum planning
meetings if both of the following web videos provided the
catalyst for an open forum discussion. The first one
provides quantitative warning that if learning institutions do not embrace
digital technology, they may well become obsolete. The second provides a look at web video impact on global ideas, understanding and innovation.
The
first web video is from Classroom 2.0’s blog list of the 100 best youtube
videos for teachers:
“Shift Happens: Educational (Technology) Reform”
The video is compelling and convincing. It includes a mesmerizing music background but no voice over.—Just 8.20 minutes of slides showing multiple statistics
which subtly build to the final premise that all educational facilities must ultimately embrace digital
technology. The statistics are most
convincing, (e.g., every 8 seconds,
34 babies are born in the world; in 2006, there were 1.3 million students in US
colleges, 3.1 million students in colleges in India, and 3.3 million students
in colleges in China; 100% of college graduates in India speak English; one in
four US workers has been employed by their current employer for less than one
year; a US worker will on-average have 10-14 jobs by his/her 38th
birthday; by the age of 21, an American will have watched 20,000 hours of TV,
played 10,000 hours of video games, and sent and received 250,000 e-mails or
instant messages; greater than 70% of US 4 year olds have used the computer; it
took radio 38 years to reach a 50-million household market base, television 13
years to do so, and computers only 4 years to do so; in 1984 there were 1,000
internet devices in the world and in 2006 there were 600,000,000; there are
more than 2.6 billion Google searches in 1 month; 230,000 people sign up for MySpace in one day; if MySpace were a country, it would be the 8th largest in the
world; there are now 540,000 words in the English language which is five times
more than in Shakespeare’s time; 3,000 books are published daily; and, by
2049, it is estimated that a single $1,000 computer will exceed the computing
capabilities of the combined minds of every person
living on the globe. The web
video concludes by stating that of the 2 billion children in developing countries,
1 out of 3 never completes 5th grade.
In the Ted Talks video, “How web video powers global
innovation”, Chris Anderson considers web video’s ability to drive a worldwide
phenomenon Anderson calls “Crowd Accelerated Innovation”. Anderson states that this phenomenon may well
become as significant as Guttenberg’s innovation of print. Anderson’s perspective is a simple but
persuasive mix of “light”, “desire” and “crowd”. He says that the makers of web videos have
to be willing to give away their ideas, (“light”) to empower the “crowd” that views a web video to “desire” to emulate and innovate the video's message. He claims this Crowd Accelerated Innovation phenomenon
is the new “art of spreading ideas.”
Anderson
provides excellent examples of how Crowd Accelerated Innovation works: a youtube video of some fairly rudimentary street dancing which
went viral led to thousands of youth picking up on the dance, perfecting it
and evolving it into new dance forms; the unicyclist youtube video that sparked new interest in unicycle riding, emulation of the youtube unicyclist’s form and invention of new riding tricks and styles; and the new movement in scientific publishing, www.jove.com , (peer reviewed scientific
research published on web video and available not only to other scientists but
to the general public for free).
Anderson
stresses that instruction by
web video is a more powerful way to share ideas than the printed word because
of the video caster’s ability to convey ideas through the combination of words, physical gesture, voice, emotion and audience reaction. Anderson predicts that web video will overtake the printed word as the “connective tissue of civilization”. Anderson points out that web videos like Ted
Talks need not be in a format of “one to many” but “many to many” through the
development of a global technology community where the “crowd” does not just
learn and react but becomes a reciprocating contributor to the community. Anderson ends with Ted
on site at the Kibera Slums in Kenya where land has been cleared to grow vegetables. A smiling young Kenyan ends the web
video saying “Kibera is a hotbed of innovation and ideas”.
Anderson
urges that organizations “embrace radical openness” and join the art of
spreading ideas through on-line video. Isn't it the right time for higher learning institutions to establish our own “hotbed of
innovation and ideas”?
WEBQUESTS
“Technology Twist on a Copyright, Fair Use, and Plagiarism”
A
professor at Fairleigh Dickenson University created this webquest to take the
boredom out of both preparing and listening to lectures on the bland subjects
of copyright, fair use, and plagiarism. The webquest targets a college class of K through 12
teachers.
Overall design: 1.5
The overall design is formal but generally excellent. The dark blue background is somewhat glaring
however. Students can easily read and understand
the appropriately labeled process
section which is broken down into three sections for group performance. However, I
would like to see something in the design to visually grab attention about the subject matter. It's lacking.-- Interspersing some photos, quotes, etc. would help.
Ease of use: 2
There
is no problem navigating among the sections of the webquest. The professor provides ample links to
websites on the three topics. I
randomly checked links to see if they are live. They are. However, I think that this webquest’s ease of use could be enhanced
by including carefully selected web videos available on the three subjects. Searching Ted Talks under the topic
of “copyright” pulls up 10 web videos on point. (Not one of the professor’s links on the
subjects is to a web video). As I explain
below, the professor did not narrow the
topics to be researched. That factor
and the somewhat nebulous objectives in
the teacher’s section, make “ease of use”
for other professors somewhat problematic.
For example, what criteria are
used to “evaluate website content…validity”? How do you identify the relationships
and differences between the three broad
categories in general other than by definition? The student
page is equally perplexing in that the students are to “teach one another the
ins and outs” of the three topics. From what perspective? Legal?
Media? What are the “ins and outs”?
Use of higher
order thinking skills: 1.5
Despite
its somewhat nebulous goals and failure to narrow the topic areas, this webquest
is a gem in regard to group motivation and spurring creative thinking. The webquest starts out plainly enough by requiring students to divide into
groups, pick one of the three topics and ultimately make a presentation to the
class about it. Then an interesting twist is introduced. For the research and presentation, each member of the group takes on the role of
CEO, CIO, CKO, or CCO of the topic. The
professor spells out the role of each team member regarding the topic chosen
and their current work background. -- The
CEO is the dean of students at a university, the CIO works in technology, the
CKO is the director of educator training on a government staff development
council, and the CCO is the HR director for the Ford Motor Company. Ultimately, each team presents their topic to the other students in one of the following formats: board meeting, debate, interview, or another
group selected manner.
Unfortunately, there is a major design flaw. The professor has left
the three topics too open and too general. This creates a problem with perspective. Each of the corporate officers of the topic hails from a divergent work situation. There is nothing in the webquest to resolve how that officer's work role can be harmonized
with his/her role as an officer of the chosen topic. I think this major design flaw will hinder
use by other instructors without a major overhaul to narrow the
topics. The generality flaw is evident
from the first words in the webquest’s introduction: “In this WebQuest, you will…explore
Copyright, Fair Use Policy, and Plagiarism. That's like saying eat every dessert ever made by anyone anywhere all in one sitting. 'How about a rewrite that focuses on 1) how the three topics directly affect K through 12 teachers and students; and 2) what those teachers and students have to do to
avoid the pitfalls.
Total score: 5/6
"Article Review"
The two
word title of this webquest provides the accurate, upfront inkling that it’s a sleeper. The designer of the webquest is a professor
on the nursing faculty at WMCC. The designer states the webquest, (which is used to teach nursing
students), is “…created to provide
guidelines for an article review. The
article should be directly related healthcare and should be written within the
past 5 years. It should be a full length
peer reviewed article from a current journal or website.”
Overall Design: .5
This webquest illustrates the classic downfall of
a designer.—Except for the brightly colored background, this is nothing more
than a virtual depiction of a run-of-the-mill, hard-copy research paper assignment. In addition, unless the nursing student can intuit from
the evaluation rubric how to write the review, there is nothing in the design
which helps the student focus on and/or understand the steps necessary to write an acceptable article. The reference to APA style
provides no redemption. In regard to
use by other educators, the designer simply reiterates the statement made in
the introduction. Apparently the undefined “guidelines” are some secret formula that the
instructor choses to hide from both her current students and any other
instructors and students who might want to use the webquest.
Ease of Use. 1
The format of this webquest is no easier to use and no
harder to use than flipping through a few pages of a hard copy assignment. However, if
ease of use is interpreted as use by other educators and students, it has little or no application in its current form as I explain below in tandem with pointing out the higher order thinking design flaws.
Use of
Higher Order Thinking Skills. 1
If this assignment is meant to test the
nursing student’s ability to intuit without direction what the final content of a scientific article review should be, then maybe it does test the student’s ability to use
higher order thinking skills. However,
the stated goal of the webquest is to “provide
guidelines for an article review…”
Other than mentioning the use of APA style, the webquest’s process section contains absolutely no guidelines on how the student is to formulate and
complete the article review. It does
discuss topic areas to explore but not how to explore them and put them
together. There are more clues in the evaluation rubric but trying to mesh those with the five bulleted points in the purpose is disheartening and inadequately provides “…guidelines for the contents of an article
review”. To the extent that this
webquest requires student research and evaluation of medical journal articles
and texts, it inherently requires use of higher order thinking and
organizational skills. However, shouldn’t any
college level research assignment, whether by webquest or otherwise, test
student reasoning, application, and analitical skills beyond the norm? This webquest totally fails to do that.
Total Score. 2.5/6
"Righteous
Gentiles"
QuestGarden
placed this webquest in the section under technology webquests for adults and higher
learning institutions despite the fact that it was written by a middle school teacher for
use with younger students. However, the
WebQuest may not be misplaced for two
reasons: 1) Its style and content can easily be used “as
is” or, with very little trouble, adapted for use in highschool, adult education,
and college classes. 2) The content and style provide a quality
template and example for developing
excellent webquest designs at the university level. The designer states the purpose of the webquest is to “help students to learn about the most amazing individuals, who …saved
their friends, neighbors and others fleeing…the Nazi’s (who) received a title of
“Righteous Gentiles”.
Overall Design: 2
The
overall design is excellent. Each of
the individual sections from Introduction to Conclusion is visually appealing, eye-catching and thought provoking photographs are strategically placed, and a link to a web video is inserted at a relevant
location. This design does a
particularly good job of labeling each section and provides helpful definition links
for several words in the task and procedure explanations.
Ease of Use: 2
Navigation
of the sections is flawless, and a middle school teacher would be able to use this either
exactly as designed or easily adapt it. The process section contains clear “templates”
for the three tasks to be completed: To
write a narrative and a book about a "righteous gentile" and to write a poem
about a holocaust victim. However, ease of use for instructors of older and more
advanced students is somewhat hindered by the lack of any analysis features in
the tasks. The skills invoked by the
webquest as written are mostly limited to research and organization.
Use of Higher Order Thinking Skills: 2
Even
though there are structured “templates” to guide the students’
completion of the three tasks, the
templates do not force the students into a particular mindset about the
holocaust. However, that is not the
scope nor purpose of this webquest as written. The stated objectives
for this webquest are primarily quantitative and not qualitative.-- The students are to gather information
about a rescuer and assemble that information into a narrative and a book. The poem task does ask the student to assume
the role of a victim and write about feelings.
However, none of the objectives seek
any analysis nor otherwise invoke student viewpoint. Consequently, as a research project, the higher
order thinking skills required to successfully complete the tasks are evaluated on the depth of the research,
organization skills, etc. That is, in
fact, what the WebQuest’s Evaluation Rubric sets out. Consequently, this webquest should be adapted for a high school class, adult education, or college
course to include a carefully set-out analysis/viewpoint task in addition to the poem.
Total Score: 6/6
Thanks for reading. I'm off again on my hunt for new teaching ideas!
Cheryl Myers
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
No comments:
Post a Comment