Final Course Reflection

Lessons learnt

EdTech 541 is a summary course. The curriculum featured all the topics I covered in the preceding ten courses of the program. I had an opportunity to refresh my technical skills, apply those skills within a learning context, and to remind myself of the ethical issues involved in the application of the skills.

In revisiting the topics, I learnt to appreciate the totality of the education technology profession. Wheeras the courses that preceded EdTech 541 focused on individual elements of the profession, this course synthesized the elements into a coherent whole. I learnt to think in terms of the education technology as an integrated practice where skill, design and ethics are melded together to enrich the learning environment of the individual learner.

The individual learner is the true client of the education technology profession–this is the most important takeaway from the course. As is true with the relationship between the medical professional and her patient, the education technology professional’s primary responsibility is the individual learner. EdTech 541 summarized the process I can use as an education technology professional to discharge my professional responsibility.

Theory Informed Practice

In the course of my EdTech studies, I had an opportunity to examine no less than 12 educational theories. Personally, I was drawn to the logic of the constructivist learning theory. I made use of this theory to frame, design and execute the majority of the projects and assignments I completed during the program. I continued this practice to complete the assignments of the EdTech 541 class as well.

The constructivist theory is built upon observations of the learning experience of children. It states that children as well as adults construct their understanding and knowledge of the world by experiencing new phenomenon and reflecting on those experiences. When a learner encounters a new phenomenon, she reconciles the new information with her previous ideas and experiences. She updates her knowledge base. She seeks out new phenomenon and continues the learning process.

The active constructivist learner is the “client” for my projects. It was for her that I planned the lessons and built the online learning modules. It was her profile that led me to advocate for a more inclusive process for schools to set social media/ walled garden policies.

Theory provides a defined framework for intellectual activity. I use the constructivist learning theory to think about the learning process, to process new information and to execute class projects and assignments in EdTech 541. I will use this theory in my professional practice as well.

Mastering AECT Standards

STANDARD 1 – CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.

We made a number of lesson plans. Each lesson plan was tailored to accord with the demographic profile of the intended learners. The educational content was grade-specific.  It incorporated supportive tools in the form of text, video, animation content. Each student could make self-diagnosis of her/ his learning progress with the help of linked formative and summative assessment tools.

The technology platform for the online courses incorporated constructivist learning principles. Students could access the platform at her/his convenience, pursue learning independently or in a collaborative setting, explore curated learning and references to the limits of her/ his learning curiosity.  

STANDARD 2 – CONTENT PEDAGOGY

Candidates develop as reflective practitioners able to demonstrate effective implementation of educational technologies and processes based on contemporary content and pedagogy.

A number of my lesson plans anticipated the accessibility challenges faced by special needs students. Indeed, my last project on  “Adaptive/Assistive technology” was a summary document that catalogued technology tools that selective categories of physically-challenged students can use to level the learning field. These tools help create flexible and diverse learning environments.

STANDARD 5 – RESEARCH

Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance.

I made 10 blog posts in the duration of this course. Each post is the synthesis of a research undertaking.  I read greater than 5 academic articles, on average, to form the core knowledge base on each topic. I synthesized the information and delivered my output in the form of a structured, informed and reasoned blog post. The final submission conformed to APA guidelines for publication.

Professional Growth

The EdTech program caused me to be more measured in my approach. When I confront a new issue nowadays, my first effort is to understand the context. I think about right and wrong.

On the occasions that I have to make a statement or a proposal, I focus very specifically on the intended recipient. I avoid generalities and sweeping statements. I am clear on purpose.

Being clear, doing right are not entirely new to me, of course. What is new is the discipline that I subject myself to in the wake of the EdTech program. I now have a mental process in place. I used this process to understand the subject materials covered in the EdTech 541 curriculum and to complete the assignments for the course.

I signed on to the EdTech program to become a certified operator of online educational tools. I received an education instead. The result of that education is that I have developed a professional mindset. I will use this mindset for my new profession as well as to tackle other issues I come upon in my daily life.

Evolution in Teaching Practice

The EdTech program is built along constructivist learning principles. Constructive theory recognizes the learner as the focus of the learning process. My participation in the program gave me a first-hand opportunity to experience and appreciate this process. At the end of the program, I understand the central role of the learner in the learning process.

This is a change in my thinking. I was educated in a traditional structure, with the teacher as the fount of learning. Teachers taught. Students took notes. Tests measured students’ ability to remember the content of the notes. In this setting, the student is an empty mind. She is passive.

EdTech 541 did not give me any opportunity to be passive. I had to act to make progress with my coursework, to interact with fellow students, to engage my professors. I was alone with my mind and any progress I made was for my individual benefit.

My experience with the EdTech program in general and EdTech 541 in particular has caused me to change the way I conduct myself as a teacher. I am no longer focused on looking at my students from my perspective as a teacher. Rather, I listen to each student to understand where s/he is in her personal learning journey. My efforts are designed to help her/ him along.

In my teaching framework, I welcome technology. I welcome digital tools. I will gladly use these tools in my classroom but with one provision. The tools must enhance the learner’s personal learning process.

Self Assessment for Blog

Content: 70/70

All of my blogs feature in-depth content. They are full of thought, insight and synthesis with connection to real life situations.

Readings and Resources: 20/20

I have used resource materials from course text as well as from other sources to support my blogs. I have used APA style for in-text citation and references.  

Timeliness: 16/20

Most of my blogs were posted during weekends. All of my blogs have comments from peers.

Responses to Other Students: 26/30

I have responded to two posts weekly.  My posts were not always substantial and detailed.

Accessibility Features on Android Devices

My phone is a Samsung Galaxy S5. I use this device to access my student account at Boise State. When I am on the move, the phone is particularly handy–to maintain online communications with professors and classmates, to participate in group discussions, to read up on assignments, to watch video tutorials and to make short audio or text notes. The phone is an essential learning platform for me personally. Hence, I explored the accessibility features of the phone to find out if the device could be of equal use to physically-challenged fellow students. I am pleased to make a positive report.

The Galaxy S5 phone is built on the android software platform. The android is the most popular  operating system that is used to power mobile devices. The operating system features a number of accessibility settings. The Galaxy S5 incorporates these settings within an expanded accessibility toolbox. Samsung’s custom-built tools improve the interaction between a user and the phone,  Select features are particularly helpful for visually and hearing challenged individuals.

Interaction enhancement

• Assistant menu. Users who have trouble pressing physical buttons can activate an on-screen interface. The interface is in the form of a floating square button. Users press this button to access a grid of four icons. The icons control function such as volume, screen lock, navigation and screenshot. Additional setting enable user to personalize the look of the button and to use the service within the context of some apps.
• Smart scroll. This feature permits users to scroll through the display content on the phone by tilting one’s head or the phone. Users may also control the speed of the scroll. This tool can be particularly useful for users who are facing challenges in using fingers to scroll the phone.
• Air wake up: Users can turn on the screen by waving one’s hand over it. This tool is helpful for users facing difficulty in pushing the power or home buttons.

Hearing enhancement

• Closed captioning and subtitles for video presentations. The phone is tooled to display closed captioning and subtitles on supported video presentations. Closed captioning permits users with advanced hearing challenges to appreciate a presentation. Subtitles are helpful for students who are not hearing challenged but prefer reading text content–such as students for whom the language of instruction is a second language, for example. Users can adjust the size and color of the font used to display the subtitle.
• Flash notification. The phone turns on a light to alert its user of an inbound notification. Users who may need a more powerful visual signal can activate the camera light to perform this service.
• Sound balance and mono audio. The phone permits users who are experiencing more hearing difficulties in one ear versus another to use the sound balance features to balance the sensory input. The mono audio feature is useful to listen to dated audio content.

Vision enhancement

• Font size. Users can adjust the font size of the text display. The user’s selection of font size will be maintained across the majority of websites and apps.
• Negative colors. This option changes the phone interface to a color palette that’s easier to see. The interface turns white, the text is displayed in black and the highlights are presented in red or pink.
• Color adjustment. Users who are challenged in seeing elements in the interface may use this tool to select color that conforms to personal perceptions. The tool presents the user with an interface in which s/he register her/ his perception of color by selecting among a choice of shades. The interface will then adjust the display colors to conform to the registered preference of the user.
• Notification reminder: Users may elect to receive phone notifications in the form of an audio beep. The phone can be programmed to beep at a given interval if there are pending notifications. The interval can be selected to be 3, 5, 10, 30 or 60 minutes. This tool is particularly useful to users with poor eyesight.
• Accessibility shortcut. TalkBack is an android service that helps vision-impaired users interact with their devices. The service uses spoken word, vibration and other audible feedback to let users know what’s on the screen, what s/he is touching, and what s/he can do with it. Samsung makes it easier for users to access the TalkBack service on the Galaxy S5. Galaxy S5 users can turn on TalkBack by pressing the power button and by placing two fingers on the screen for a few seconds. Once the TalkBack service is activated, the user can get an audio report of his activity on the phone as well as use voice command to navigate the interface.

Other enhancements

• Direct access. This feature permits users to gain quick access to accessibility option. Users press the home button three times in rapid succession to turn on the settings for accessibility, TalkBack, Negative Colors, Interaction Control.
• Answering and ending calls. This feature permits user to answer and end calls by pressing the home button or by waving one’s hand across the screen and using voice commands.
• Managing accessibility. A user’s accessibility settings are stored in a file. This file can be transferred to other devices

The Galaxy S5 has been an useful learning tool for me personally. I am glad to note that the phone’s accessibility features makes it possible for my physically-challenged fellow students to enjoy its full benefits.

 

Reference

Mobile Accessibility. (2017). Samsung.com. Retrieved 12 April 2017, from http://www.samsung.com/latin_en/mobileaccessibility/

Basic accessibility settings in Android | Android Central. (2014). Androidcentral.com. Retrieved 12 April 2017, from http://www.androidcentral.com/basic-accessibility-settings-android

Top 10 Mobile Phones Operating Systems. (2012). ShoutMeLoud. Retrieved 12 April 2017, from https://www.shoutmeloud.com/top-mobile-os-overview.html

Obstacles and Suggested Solutions for Integrating Technology in the Chemistry Classroom

In this, the second decade of the 21st century, the chemistry classes offered in the high schools of Olympia, Washington–the capital of a state that is home to Microsoft and Amazon–should be exemplars for integrating technology into the learning process. They are not. In this blogpost, I will outline the architecture of an ideal high school chemistry classroom and draw on my experience–as a substitute teacher in four school districts in the capital region–to identify the obstacles that are currently in the way of achieving that ideal. Each of these obstacles can be overcome and I offer specific solutions to overcome those obstacles.

Ideal Classroom

The ideal learning environment for high school chemistry is a blended classroom. In such a classroom, the traditional brick-and-mortar classroom is just one component of the learning platform. The platform extends in digital space to incorporate a custom-built website featuring all the resources that are required to accomplish the learning objectives for a specific academic session. The resources are grouped in modules that correspond to the topics that are specified in the curriculum. Each grouping consists of primary text material, supporting learning and reference resources and associated assessment tools. The learning and reference resources consist of text notes, video tutorials, laboratory exercises prepared personally, or curated, by the instructor.

Individual students access the digital platform any time, any day. Using their personal accounts to sign-in, students consult the featured materials and make notes. They share the notes with classmates. Individual students join with others in a shared digital space to study together, to discuss and to add supplementary learning content. Individually and collectively, students methodically tackle each topic until they master the subject matter. They complete their assessments online and proceed to the next lesson or the next academic session.

In this blended learning environment, the brick-and-mortar classroom is a scaffolding tool. The class-at-school presents an opportunity for teachers and students to continue the tradition of physically gathering together in a single location, for a brief period of time, to participate in the education process. The activities of the physical classroom complement the learning process that is primarily conducted, recorded and assessed online.

Obstacles on the Way

High school chemistry teachers in Olympia face no obvious roadblocks in conducting blended courses. They practice their profession within the ambit of a State policy that enthusiastically endorses this mode of learning. All schools have internet access. The majority of schools (I have worked in) issue laptops to students for classroom use. On the face of it, teachers should face no problems in using technology to expand the learning environment from the confines of the classroom. But this is not the case.

Teachers face four specific obstacles in integrating technology in chemistry education. The common thread among the obstacles is the lack of preparation: with teachers, students, school districts’ digital policies and digital infrastructure.

Teachers are untrained. My chemistry teaching colleagues have not been trained to use digital technology tools. As teachers, they have no idea how to develop a technology pedagogical content knowledge for chemistry (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The practical impact of these two points cannot be overstated. Washington’s teachers are in the same position that a weekend driver would be if she found herself behind the wheels of a racing car in the midst of a Daytona 500 event.

Students are untrained. Olympia’s students do not receive any form of computer training in elementary or middle school. Students are issued computers for classroom use without any formal instruction on the technology behind the tool. They navigate the online world without any training on the rules of the digital road.

School districts’ digital policies are not optimal. Individual school district create walled gardens to limit student access to online websites. Although the intent behind this practice is to prevent contact between students and undesirable websites, some school districts have banned access to YouTube, social media and other web properties that may be crucial in implementing a blended classroom.

Digital infrastructure is not prepared. I have experienced great delay in accessing online chemistry labs and in operating online simulation tools. The latency in network traffic is frustrating for students and provides teachers with the excuse to dismiss the innovations as mere gimmicks.

Solutions

The solutions to the four identified obstacles are to:

Train teachers

Teachers need formal and structured training to learn the skills required to operate blended classes (Guzey & Roehrig, 2012). Such training should start by acknowledging the central role of the learner in the learning process and branch out to explore the use of technology in creating a supportive learning environment. Active teachers should have access to trainers on an ongoing basis to ease their transition to the world of blended education.

Train students

Washington’s Department of Education should incorporate computer classes in elementary, middle and high school curriculum. The classes should include lessons on netiquette, copyright and other best practices for online navigation.

Rationalize digital policy

School districts should adopt digital policies that facilitate online learning. To promote enlightened use of YouTube, social media and other internet resources, individual school districts should define the nature and construct of the digital wall in consultation with all stakeholders, particularly students.

Organize digital assets

Online tools used in a blended chemistry course–labs, animations, videos, social learning platforms–should be hosted on a local server. A local server will minimize latency in network access and encourage teachers and students to build, upload and use local resources to aid their learning experience.

Conclusion

The State of Washington is respected for the contribution its citizens have made to connect the physical person with the digital world. Educators across the world will seek inspiration from the steps that the state’s teachers may initiate to incorporate technology in the learning process. Currently, the teachers face a number of obstacles that limit their ability to initiate the integration process (Keengwe, Onchwari & Wachira, 2008; Mumba, Banda & Chabalengula, 2015). Those obstacles can be systematically identified and overcome. It is my hope that the relevant education authorities will implement the solutions I have proposed in this blogpost.

Reference

Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Integrating educational technology into the secondary science teaching. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-12/issue-2-12/science/integrating-educational-technology-into-the-secondary-science-teaching

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560-565.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.

Mumba, F., Banda, A., & Chabalengula, V. M. (2015). Chemistry Teachers’ Perceived Benefits and Challenges of Inquiry-Based Instruction in Inclusive Chemistry Classrooms. Science Education International, 26(1), 180-194.

Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.

Relative Advantage of Using Technology to Enhance Chemistry Learning

Chemistry is a challenging subject in high school (Treagust, Duit & Nieswandt, 2000). “Because chemistry topics are generally related to or based on the structure of matter, chemistry proves a difficult subject for many students” (Sirhan, 2007). Chemistry teachers can help students overcome their difficulties by integrating technology in the learning process.

The United Kingdom’s Royal Society of Chemistry (the Society) examined a number of applications of technology to enhance chemical education (Seery & McDonnell, 2013). The Society published its findings in the form of a special edition of Chemistry Education Research and Practice, in Spring 2013. The findings support the case for using videos, simulations, modeling and other similar technology-enabled resources to enhance chemistry education. The primary conclusion of the report is that multimedia resources can be used as cognitive scaffolding devices to help students manage the cognitive load involved in learning the basic and foundational chemistry concepts taught in high school classrooms.

The American Chemical Society (ACS) is in full agreement with their counterparts from the United Kingdom. In their guideline for the teaching of high school chemistry, the ACS notes that American students are not interested in the traditional classroom methods used in teaching chemistry (ACS, 2012). The students hunger for a pedagogical practice that takes advantage of the technological age to help them overcome their fears of the subject matter (Gilmore, 2013) and to comprehend and retain information as they proceed with their chemistry courses.

The Technological Pedagogic Content Knowledge (TPACK) is an example of a technology advancement that has helped teachers’ pedagogical approaches to teaching chemistry to high school students. Using this framework, teachers can incorporate a number of technology tools to enhance the chemistry classroom. The ACS endorses a number of such tools. One such tool is the virtual laboratory.

Virtual laboratories provide students with the opportunity to gain insights through experiments (Gluck, Dillihunt & Gilmore, 2000). Websites like ChemTeacher and ChemCollective and Virtual ChemLabs enable students to conduct experiments online. Students can conduct online experiments as often as they find it necessary to understand the underlying chemistry. They can perform these experiments by themselves or in collaboration with colleagues and at all times during day or night.

The virtual laboratory and other technology enhanced tools permit students to actively engage in their learning. This is the great breakthrough for the learning and teaching of chemistry. Technology helps students visualize the science and, in the process, keeps them engaged in understanding the phenomenon that we experience “everywhere” around us at all times.

 

Reference:

American Chemical Society (2012). ACS guidelines and recommendations for the teaching of high school chemistry. 1-28

Gilmore, M. W. (2013) Improvement of STEM education: Experiential learning is the key. Modern Chemistry & Applications 1:e109. doi:10.4172/2329-6798.1000E109

Gluck, L., Dillihunt, M., & Gilmore, M. W. (2000). Advantages of using innovative technological pedagogy to teach chemistry in secondary schools. Modern Chemistry & Applications.

Seery, M. K., & McDonnell, C. (2013). The application of technology to enhance chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(3), 227-228.

Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 2.

Treagust, D., Duit, R., & Nieswandt, M. (2000). Sources of students’ difficulties in learning Chemistry. Educación química, 11(2), 228-235.

Game-Based Learning

Introduction

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (“STEM”) majors earn more money than their classmates after graduation. STEM-related jobs are expected to exceed non-STEM related jobs over the next decade. Yet, only 16 percent of American high school students are interested in a STEM career, according to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). What gives? What is the cause of this disconnect?

The DOE data provides a clue to one possible answer. According to the agency, 28% of students declare an interest in a STEM-related occupation during their freshman year, but 57% of them lose interest by the time they graduate from high school. In other words, students lose interest in a STEM career as they progress through their science studies during high school. The implication is clear: the standard practice for teaching high school science is not working.

As a prospective high school chemistry teacher, I understand the problem. It is my responsibility to engage my students. It is my duty to spark their interest in chemistry.

According to a survey conducted by Pew Research, 97% of students in the 12-17 age group play video games. Can I, as a chemistry teacher, use the medium of digital games to engage my students? I researched this topic and came up with an unqualified answer: yes. Yes! Digital games can be used to not only engage students but also to enhance their learning of chemistry.

Chemistry as a subject matter

Chemistry “is a difficult subject to teach and to learn at both secondary and tertiary levels” (Treagust, Duit & Nieswandt, 2000). “Because chemistry topics are generally related to or based on the structure of matter, chemistry proves a difficult subject for many students” (Sirhan, 2007). The curriculum I use to teach high school students incorporates many abstract concepts. These concepts–chemical reaction and equations, the mole, changes in states of matter, for examples–are key to further learning in both chemistry and other sciences. These abstract concepts are important because further chemistry/science concepts or theories cannot be easily understood if these underpinning concepts are not sufficiently grasped by the student (Coll & Treagust, 2001, quoted in Srihan 2007, p. 2).

Students have traditionally relied on rote memory, classroom lectures and (limited) laboratory demonstrations to learn chemistry. These methods created a learning environment that precluded them from using their individual powers of inquiry to understand the subject matter. As a result, many students opted out of advanced studies in chemistry.  Even among those who persisted and pursued graduate level studies, researchers discovered evidence of misunderstanding of the basic concepts they learnt in high school (Bodner, 1991).

The basic concepts of chemistry relate to relationship between the microscopic world of atoms and molecules to the macroscopic phenomena we live in and experience in our daily life (Bradley & Brand, 1985). Students have difficulty making sense of ideas for which they have no prior experience or knowledge. The subject matter is completely new, abstract and appears entirely arbitrary. The periodic table is a notable example (Weiss, Knowlton & Morrison, 2002).

Difficult as they are to grasp for high school students, many of the basic concepts of chemistry explain behavior that is very predictive and deterministic. There is only one way in which one atom combines with another to form a molecule, for example. The fact that there is a beginning, a middle and an end to chemical activity lends itself particularly well to a gaming framework, which can accurately reflect the linear process. Hence, hence high school chemistry teachers can build their own games or take advantage of existing online products to help teach the basic concepts.

Chemistry games for high school learning

In my quick survey of online resources, I found three examples that illustrate the advantage of using digital games for chemistry education. Each example empowers students to engage in one exercise and to repeat the exercise until s/he understands the concept. The student is in control of his/ her learning.

The first is a game called  Atooms to Moolecule.  Students who play this game will learn the concept of matter and its transformation at a granular level.

The second is a series of simulations that cover additional basic concepts. For example, students can learn to balance chemical equation, learn about molarity, perform experiments with acid-base solutions.

The third is Sokobond, a puzzle game.  A player controls one atom at a time to try to connect it to other elements through bonding electrons. Players create common molecules such as water and table salt as well as more complicated structures like ammonia and ethylene. Each new molecule formed unlocks new levels on the periodic-table-shaped map and shows fun factoids.

Conclusion

Practical sessions in the laboratory has always been an essential component of high school chemistry education.  With online learning, students have been able to conduct virtual experiments (Moudgalya & Arora, 2010). The use of digital games is another step in the evolution in chemistry learning (Rodríguez, Blázquez, López, Castro, San Cristobal & Martín, 2014). High school teachers will be helping their students learn the subject and gain 21st century skill by introducing digital games in their chemistry classrooms.

 

References:

Bodner, G. M. (1991). I have found you an argument: The conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 385-388.

Bradley, J. D. & Brand, M. (1985). Stamping out misconceptions, Journal of Chemical Education, 62(4), 318.

Coll, R. K. & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ use of analogy and alternative conceptions for chemical bonding. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(1), 24–32.

Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 2.

Johnstone, A.H., (1974). Evaluation of chemistry syllabuses in Scotland. Studies in Science Education, 1, 20-49.

Moudgalya, K. M., & Arora, I. (2010). A virtual laboratory for distance education. In Technology for Education (T4E), 2010 International Conference on (pp. 190-193).

Rodríguez, R., Blázquez, M., López, B., Castro, M., San Cristobal, E., & Martín, S. (2014). Educational games for improving the teaching-learning process of a CLIL subject: Physics and chemistry in secondary education. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2014 IEEE (pp. 1-8).

Treagust, D., Duit, R., & Nieswandt, M. (2000). Sources of students’ difficulties in learning Chemistry. Educación química, 11(2), 228-235.

Weiss, R. E., Knowlton, D. S. & Morrison, G. R.(2002). Principles for using animation in computer-based instruction: theoretical heuristic for effective design. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 465-477.

Social Networking and Walled Gardens

Please leave  a comment on my voice thread.

https://voicethread.com/share/8854265/

 

Transcript for the VoiceThread video:

For adult Americans, the internet and social media are facts of contemporary life

• 88.5% use the internet

• 69% use one or more forms of social media

Many of these adults are heads of households. In their homes, adults share their internet access and social media accounts with younger members of the household. Adults harness online resources to teach their children. They post updates and pictures of their children’s accomplishment and family activities. The adults perform these activities by themselves or with the active involvement of their children.  The all-family activities last a few years.

Over time, the children venture off on their own on the internet. They seek homework help on their own. They play online games. They establish social media accounts. They gain mobile phones, as a security device, of course, initially. In short order, each child builds her or his personal digital world. It is the world in which each child learns, is entertained, maintains a community–and, sometime, stays in touch with family.

We do not have ready data for internet and social media use for children. However, we do have data for the 18-29 age group. Members of this group may still be in an adult-led household or on their way to make independent living arrangements. We can use their data to infer internet use and social media participation among the youth. According to a 2016 survey by Pew Research, 99% of Americans in the 18-29 year age group access the internet. 86% of internet users from this group use social media in one form or another. 98% of them own mobile phones.

The data indicates that internet access and social media participation is effectively universal for children in contemporary America. Of course, there are underserved populations within the country. The issue of digital divide is not insignificant. But, for the purpose of this voicethread on the topic of Walled Garden and Social Media Availability in Schools, I can reasonably state that the children who attend schools in contemporary America have experience with online services and with social media accounts in their home environments.

Digitally savvy students attend schools that are progressively more reliant on the internet. Administrations use e-mail to communicate with parents. Teachers supplement classroom instructions with youtube videos. Students navigate district-supplied Chromebooks, iPads or other online devices to access online resources for learning. They access online services using district-sanctioned online accounts. They use their Google accounts to communicate with each other, to perform online projects and complete group assignments.

Schools strive to offer a safe and secure environment for school children. Indeed, they have legal obligations to do so. The majority of school-age children are minors, and proper care for them is a paramount obligation of and for teachers and administrators. Schools endeavor to ensure that the school grounds are secure and the physical facilities are safe.

School administrators applied the same standard of care when they first considered offering digital tools in the classroom. Amongst the first things they built was a digital wall. They were inspired by the physical wall that defined the perimeter of the school grounds. The wall shielded the students from the outside world. They could move about freely within. The digital wall was built with the same principles. The digital wall enclosed a safe space in which school children could learn and flourish. The imagery of a garden was used to describe the new digital environment. The term “walled garden” was coined as a result.

The digital wall kept out undesirable members of the online world. Pornography was an obvious no-no. Administrators decided which websites they would allow within their digital compound, almost if not exactly on a case-by-case basis.

Social media services did not make the cut in many instances (Tess, 2013). In exercising their duties with an abundance of caution, many administrators determined that social media is just that: a social tool. They are not learning tools. In fact, social engagement detracts from the learning experience. Hence, they opted to keep social media tools outside of a school’s digital wall.

Administrators who kept social media services outside the digital wall are facing four issues:

1. Experiments using social media in the classroom have shown to improve student performance (Junco, 2011).
2. Teachers are using social media to enhance learning. Three examples:
   • Karen Lirenman (@KLirenman) has her first graders blog, tweet, and connect through a variety of social media, extending the classroom well beyond the walls of the building.
   • Students at Austin, TX high school participate in a dynamic, peer-centered learning community to design educational games.
   • Students are using social media tools to learn on their own, outside the classroom (Gikas & Grant, 2013)
3. New generation of students are not only familiar with social media, they also make extensive use of multiple social media platforms to navigate their daily life.
4. There is a growing and irreversible trend of students coming to school with data-enabled smartphones. Schools cannot govern how a student uses her or his smartphone.Hence, school administrators have to revisit the question of the pros and cons of social media in the classroom (Lederer, 2012).

Based on my research on this topic, I can state the following:

1. A digital wall is necessary for a school. It marks territory. It permits the growth of a “intellectual garden” in a safe and secure environment.
2. A digital wall is a useful artifact to alert students. Children who grow up with the internet at home may not have had a formal reminder of what is trustworthy and what is not in the online world. The chances that they have been educated about digital ethics and netiquette is minimal.
3. Administrators can use the digital wall as a learning exercise. They can expand the governing body that determines the fate of social media in schools. By including students and teachers, the governing body can articulate a policy for the digital wall that has buy-in from all participants.
4. Learning is an active process. Students should assume the roles of architect, engineer and bricklayer in building the digital wall that will keep them safe in the online world.

Reference

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26.

Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of computer assisted learning, 27(2), 119-132.

Lederer, K. (2012). Pros and cons of social media in the classroom. Campus Technology, 25(5), 1-2.

Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)–A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60-A68.

Acceptable Use Policies

Each of the many products and services that exist in the world wide web is the property of an entity. A prospective user must enter into a contract with the sponsor entity in order to use its product or service. The Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is an important component of the contract. In this blog note, we examine the role of an AUP in a contractual relationship and the sub-components of the document. We will conclude by recognizing a growing trend among educational institutions to phase out the AUP in favor of a Responsible Use Policy, albeit within the framework of an overall contract.

The contract between an institution and a user of its product or service is a comprehensive document. In the contract, the entity specifies the terms and conditions under which it makes its product or service available to the user. The document also spells out the rights and responsibilities of each party. The AUP is a statement on the responsibility of the user.

The AUP may be short and to-the-point or broad and nuanced. The AUP for Google Cloud Platform is brief. The AUP for the Olympia School District is four pages of elaborately descriptive  guidance. The shape and the size of the document notwithstanding, the AUP commits an individual user to work with the sponsoring entity in a combined effort to maintain the safety, security and reliability of the product or service. For products or services that are used by more than one person, and particularly with services that are used by the public-at-large, the entity enjoins users to contractually commit to maintain a safe, secure and reliable environment as well.

Federal and state laws specify the working definition of safe, secure and reliable acts. Regulatory statutes govern environmental conditions. The sponsor entity must ensure that its product or service is in compliance with governmental stipulations. One of the ways it remains institutionally compliant is by requiring users to observe the laws and regulations, as well. Microsoft’s AUP is focused entirely on highlighting the legal obligations of the user and the negative consequences that will fall upon the user who is found to be in violation of the laws.

The AUP’s of educational institutions recite applicable laws too, but they also include other provisions (Flowers & Rakes, 2000). The State University of New York’s  netiquette rule and the South Brunswick School District’s  anti-bullying measures are prominent and oft-used examples. Educational and civic minded organization seek to create supportive environments that promotes harmony, fosters learning and provides equal opportunity to all users, regardless of sex, race or ability.  They make every effort to define acts and activities they consider acceptable and activities they deem unacceptable.

The focus on unacceptable acts does not resonate with all educators. A section of the education community, notably those working with school children, believe that the AUP should not focus on negative consequences of non-compliance. Rather, the document should promote positive behavior among users. The document points out the benefits user gain by observing particular laws and by practicing ethical behavior online (Dotterer, Hedges & Parker, 2016).

The educator who seek to reform the standard AUP argue for a revised thinking not only of specific provisions in the document. Rather, they propose a different name for the document altogether. Responsible Use Policy (RUP) is the title of the next generation of AUP’s (Bray, 2016; Russo, 2013).

I examined the RUP of a neighboring school district. The  Renton School District’s RUP is a relatively recent document. It contains all the provisions that populate a model AUP, but the language is softer, more supportive. The Renton School District caters to kids. By understanding their audience, the school district has developed and adopted a RUP that promotes safe, and secure reliable access for all users.

References

Bray, M. (2016). Going Google: privacy considerations in a connected world. Knowledge Quest, 44(4), 36.

Dotterer, G., Hedges, A., & Parker, H. (2016). Fostering Digital Citizenship in the Classroom. The Education Digest, 82(3), 58.

Education World: Getting Started on the Internet: Acceptable Use Policies. (2017). Educationworld.com. Retrieved 27 February 2017, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr093.shtml

Flowers, B. F., & Rakes, G. C. (2000). Analyses of Acceptable Use Policies Regarding the Internet in Selected K–12 Schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), 351-365.

Russo, D. L. (2013). The Necessity of Developing Responsible Use Policies: Advocacy for Use of Web 2.0 Tools in a Comprehensive School Computing Program. Policy Advocacy. 1. Digital Commons@ NLU, National Louis University.

Multimedia in the classroom

The Basic Suite for Learning

I wrote my first letters of the alphabet on a slate writing board (Note: I grew up in Nepal). For mathematics, I used my mind: I memorized the progression of numbers. I made faces to communicate ideas to others.

In kindergarten, I graduated to pencil and paper. I wrote words on paper.  I added and subtracted, on paper. I made posters with words and drawings to greet the New Year and other notable celebrations.

The typewriter and the calculator came into my life when I started college.  The professors encouraged us to submit research papers in typewritten form during my early years. By the time I graduated, neatly typed submissions were a requirement.  The slide rule and the mathematics log book had been consigned to the attic.  The blackboard remained dominant as the preferred presentation platform. The cyclostyle machine was the go-to technology to share ideas though the students with money were starting to use the Xerox machine to reproduce notes of classroom lectures.

I was introduced to a computer in my professional life.  I could write on it, I was told.  It was a glorified electronic typewriter–without the noise.  It had its own issue, however.  What you saw on the computer screen was not what you got on the printed document.  So, the term WYSIWIG, acronym for what-you-see-is-what-you-get) became a big deal. Word processing programs competed with each other, each promising its version of the software to be a better conduit for aligning author intent with screen representation and with printer output.

Each piece of software was a unique creation. Small companies and small teams competed to offer their version of word processing, numbers and presentation products.  The competition for the best did not benefit the consumer, however.  The many versions of software products did not share features, and, at times, the latest version of a particular software did not share the features of its immediate predecessor even though both were products of the same company.  I myself was not happy on the occasions I had to type and retype the same content when I moved from one program to another.

The forces of the marketplace induced software companies to focus on compatibility and backward integration in their products.  They responded by developing common standards and functionalities across applications.  The new generation of software enabled consumers to use a common user interface feature and theme to perform related tasks across their word, numbers and presentation projects.

The common user interface feature became a hit among consumers.  Microsoft caught on to the phenomenon by marketing bundling its word, number, presentation and other software products in a single package.  The package was called a software suite.

The software suite is the computer user’s slate board, chalk, paper, pencil, felt pen, ruler, typewriter, calculator–all rolled in one package. Using a suite, a computer user can focus on her or his project without having to be a software guru at the same time.

As an educator in 2016, I find the software suite to be indispensable.  I use the word processors to make notes and write reports, spreadsheets for mathematical calculations and to ”organize displays of information” that ”support asking ‘what-if’ questions’” (Roblyer, page 121) and presentation software for “information summaries”, “demonstration of materials for discussion,” “presentation of illustrative problems and solutions,” “automatically forwarding practice screens,”  “assessment screens,” or “brief or full tutorials.” (page 131).  I perform tasks that are basic to the life of an educator or a student.  The software suite is to my academic life what air is to my being.  Life is not possible without either.

I use two software suites today.  Offline, and working on a solo project on my computer, I use LibreOffice.  I use Google’s suite when I collaborate with colleagues.  Both are free to use–a crucial consideration me as an educator.

The learning population across the world is comprised largely of the economic have-not’s. They have as great a need to access the software suite as anyone else.  As an educator, I can only rejoice when organizations make sure that cost will not deter anyone from using the computer equivalent of the pen and paper.  LibreOffice is philosophically dedicated to the cause.  Google has built a very profitable business model based on its free services. Hooray to both, I say.

I like LibreOffice because it is an open-source software.  If a program is open-source, its source code is freely available to its user.  This is important to me not because I intend to modify the code or manipulate the computing engine but because I believe, as an educator, in supporting this remarkable initiative to keep knowledge in the public domain.  Also, my sentiment lines up well with the quality of the LibreOffice product. The LibreOffice suite has six application: Write (word processor), Calc (spreadsheet), Impress (presentation), Draw, Math and Base (database) and there are also extensions and templates available. Draw and Math are great for creating drawings and images as well as mathematical equations; Base is an alternative to the Microsoft Company’s Access program.  LibreOffice is available for Windows, Mac and Linux and its products are completely compatible.  Good points all. If you wish to read more on LibreOffice, please read Education Technology Guy’s review.  Educators who seek to adopt this platform may read Bernard John Poole’s Essential LibreOffice Tutorial for Teachers.

The Google Office Suite is convenient for collaborative learning.  Its word, number and slide services permit many users to work on single projects.  The chat, audio and video conferencing services integrated with the basic software service permit asynchronous participation and engaged in multiple media formats. The Google suite can be downloaded to a computing device and used offline as well.

I summarize this post by stating that the software suite is the computing equivalent of the pencil and paper.  For an educator, learning and using the software suite is a matter of basic literacy.

 

Reference

Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (7th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

 

The Horizon Report: K-12 edition

I am a chemistry teacher. I taught high school students in Nepal and I am in the processing of gaining the accreditation necessary to continue my career in the United States. I have enrolled in the Masters in Education Technology program at Boise State in the hope that I can teach chemistry online. I brought these perspectives–teacher, teacher of chemistry, teacher of chemistry in Nepal and prospectively in the United State, and online teacher–to bear on my reading of the 2016 K-12 edition of the NMC/CoSN Horizon Report.

The NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition charts the “trends and technologies” that a team of educational experts believe “will drive educational change” over the next five years (NMC, p.1). By their reckoning, the principal change will be in the transformation of the education mission. The old model focused on the teacher.  The student is at the center of the new education mission.

Emerging technologies, in the view of the authors of the study, are greasing the transition to a learning platform that is optimized to individual students. The new learning space will feature “more immersive hands-on activities” (NMC, p. 1).  Taking advantage of the new space, the coming generation of students will learn collaboratively, engage in deep learning and, generally, prepare themselves to develop “future-focused skills” to keep pace with the demands of the 21st century workforce.

How can I, as a high school chemistry teacher, participate in this transition? How can I incorporate the trends and technologies identified in the NMC/CoSN Horizon Report in my teaching process?

I have developed an answer for myself by rethinking the purpose of chemistry education for high school students.

Chemistry is the science of matter and its transformations. The purpose of a chemistry education in high school is to help students understand the chemical basis of matter and appreciate the chemistry of how matter behaves.  The keyword here is understand.

I was taught to chemistry by a teacher who gave me the facts.  Matter, I was told, consists of the stuff we encounter all around us, such as solids, liquids, and gases, as well as atoms and molecules of which these substances are composed.  I was then given a series of facts to illustrate transformation.  For my exams, my teacher asked questions which tested my memory.  I repeated the facts as they were given to me. My grades were excellent.  But, did I really understand chemistry until I started graduate studies in the subject? No.

I refer to the chemistry of water to illustrate my non-understanding. I learnt that water existed in three states and I observed ice turning to water and water turning to steam.  These were facts. I could observe them. But what did these facts and observations imply? During my high school years, I had no idea.

I can repeat this pedagogical practice with my own students. Or, I could help them understand by allowing them to boil a beaker of water in the laboratory. One student initiates the process.  Other students gather around her. They watch as bubbles form, small ones first, large ones later.  Why does this happen, one students asks. One student answers. Another offers another answer. A discussion takes place. Somewhere along the way, one student asks me to confirm their classmates’ observation. I do so, adding a few more observations for the group to consider.  The boiling water turns to steam. I step in to show a video of a steam engine. The discussion takes another turn.  They gather in groups around computers and perform simulations of water molecules reacting to heat.  For additional work, they revisit the water cycle they covered in their elementary school science classroom, this time with the added information of chemistry. I assess their understanding by inquiring about the process that pirates used to make drink-ready water from salty sea water.

My new teaching approach will help students internalize their knowledge of chemistry.  They will have engaged in a deep understanding of matter and its transformation because they will have generated the learning content for this subject in the form of their discussions and observations. As a “guide on the side” (p. 1), I would make a contribution in the form of providing the appropriate learning space for their education.  The learning space consists both of the physical environment as well as the reading and audio and visual contents I will have selected for them.

The graduates from my new chemistry class will be problem solvers. They will have learnt to think for themselves, to express and convince.  These are the skills that will help pave their way to joining the “workforce of the 21st century.” (p.1)

Reference:

Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., and Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from. http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-cosn-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf

ACS High School Chemistry Guidelines and Recommendations. (2017). American Chemical Society. Retrieved from. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/policies/acs-guidelines-and-recommendations-for-teaching-high-school-chemistry.html