Dialogue Integrative Analysis of Learners' Essays by Demario Strickland

A prime example of the quality and insight of work capable through peer learning

Thank you, Demario for permission to post this essay to our public blog as model for teachers and learners.

Dialogue Integrative Analysis of Learners' Essays

by Demario Strickland

Fordham University

June 15, 2008

As the education gap continues to increase in education, educators need to think of new ways to improving the educational field to ensure the success of all learners. One phenomenon that is being used is the implementation of continuous professional development for all educators. Teachers, principals, guidance counselors, administrators, law-makers, and parents are individuals who benefit from professional development. These individuals are the ones that work together to ensure the success of all learners. (King 2002)
The students in the curriculum and instruction program at Fordham Universities”, “Graduate School of Education” are learning what professional development really is and how people are to learn how to grow in the field. The following individuals have done research on New Media Technologies and have discussed the benefits in the education field. Responses for the following individuals will be responded to in this paper. This is to ensure that these individuals understand they are being heard and that their research continues to make a world of difference in the field of education. (King 2008)
The first new media research that will be analyzed is entitled “Building A Sustainable Ed-Tech Culture in Your School or Organization.” This research was conducted by Ms. Anna Ponterosso. Anna begins her research by explaining the individuals of a professional development session. She lists a detailed line up of capable individuals who are going to affect the world of education. Anna then lists the goals of her program and the effects that they will have on the individuals benefiting from the professional development. Anna then begins to explain the needs for technology to improve the field of education. She then goes through a detailed list of schools at different levels of education and their professional development programs that are designed to increase the learning by use of technology at the schools. Finally, Anna explains her experience with professional development programs and the need for more training to be available. (King 2008)
Albilda Hernandez conducted research and titled her paper “Equity Issues.” Albilda's introduction ends with an important question in which all educators should continue to ask themselves while practicing and finding the right niche for the field. “Can technology bring equity or will it just make the digital divide bigger? Even after technological equity is established, will it really improve education and provide educational and societal equity?” This is in direct response to the digital divide which discusses the gap that exist between individuals with technology, individuals that have access to technology, and the individuals who do not have access to technology. Albilda continues to talk about the differences that those who do not have access to technology suffers which does not narrow the gap but further increases it. She presents hard statistical information that is very relevant to equity issues making her research clear and focused. Albilda sums up her research by explaining the different factors that must be solved so that everyone has access to technology to ensure closure of the gap. (King 2008)
Next, Georgia Trim wrote a research paper entitled “Information Literacy and Education.” Georgia begins quoting references from articles which talked about the variety of ways that technology could be used. This was a good way to begin her topic so that the reader understands where her paper intends to take its readers. One important point that she puts in her paper was that new technologies can be used by “providing scaffolds and tools to enhance learning.” She then begins to speak about digital equity and how it should be improved so that all learners benefit equally. Most importantly about Georgia's paper was that she talks about how information literacy should be improved in education. Literacy is a challenge in classrooms today and it is important that it takes a positive turn for the better. When this happens, many of the inequities will be erased and the achievement gap overall will be decreased. (King 2008)
Low Residency Programs in Higher Education titles Anita Oelker's research. Anita's research was very well detailed and practical for the world of higher education. Many colleges and universities have begun to create low residency programs at their schools. On line learning is an example of a low residency program. These programs provide access to all students and does not always require a face-to-face environment which in the twenty-first century has not become practical. Students are not learning in just the traditional classroom like the past, but many have taken on learning virtually. In addition to education directly, Anita touches on how low-residency programs have influenced other fields. Most importantly, she brings up great issues about how adults are benefiting from these programs. These are individuals who are left out at times because of the quick pace technology continues to take. (King 2008)
Irene Sarno's research was titled “Building Your Professional Community With Online Development.” Irene's paper was very general and to the point. This is very beneficial for individuals who need an overview of the issues and trends regarding to technology. Irene does a great job of explaining how professional development programs should have goals that are in line with NSDC Standards for staff development. Irene then explains how the goals that are set forth by NSDC can be met so that all professional development program goals are met. She even talks about the converse effects of professional development can occur if the goals do not align with the NSDC standards and what the current stakes and trends are. This is very beneficial for anyone who wants to have the ideas of what not to do in regards to trying to set up professional development programs.
Lastly, Elaine Surovich conducted research in regards to “Building A Sustainable Ed-Tech Culture.” It was very powerful how Elaine began her research paper when she explained the age of technology that the world is in. She then list a few technologies that are in regards to how everyone is growing up. Elaine then explains how schools must begin to build this sustainable ed-tech culture. She lists the information step by step and makes it very understandable for the reader to begin to react to educational technology. Most importantly, Elaine remembers to discuss the drawbacks that educational technology can have in education. She makes one realize that they are not to forget about some of the issues that are involved in educational technology today. This helps educators go in with a clear mind and not expecting perfection when building a sustainable ed-tech culture. In addition, these individuals know that they are not going into a field where things are very stagnant, but they are going into something that is very exciting and something that is in constant transformation which one needs to accept in order to build this sustainable culture.
The research conducted by the students on the CTGE 6265, Issues and Trends in Educational Technology are very relevant and conducive to education today. The individuals listed above with their research have clear perspectives about education and they realize that it extends all over the world. In addition, educational technology is everywhere, not just in the field of education. Reading these research documents in detail will allow anyone, especially professional development staffs to touch on pertinent information in regards to what is best for everyone to know about education.


References
King, K. P. (2002). Keeping Pace with technology (vol 1). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

King, K. P., Hernandez, A., Surovich, E., Sarno, I., Nugent, L., Ponterosso, A., Trim, G., Norris, W., & Ytuarte Oelkers, A. (2008). CTGE 6265 Summer 2008 Emerging Issues in Technology. Retrieved May 28, 2008 from, http://ctge6265.blogspot.com/

Building a sustainable ed-tech culture in your school or organization

by Anna Ponterosso

The Internet has provided a number of resources for research and professional development that was not readily available a decade ago. Hence, today’s students, both the adult learner and k-12 are using different methods of learning than those used in prior years. To keep up with the pace of technology, today’s teachers and facilitators are incorporating new technologies in their system of teaching. However, in order for teachers and facilitators to make such changes in their teaching methods, they must learn how to use the technology.
Below is a professional development strategy that will work on establishing a Community Learning Center.

The professional development team will consist of the following:
Superintendent
Principals from each of the schools within the district
One Secondary Teacher from each school
One middle school teacher from each middle school
One elementary teacher from each of the elementary schools
3 Parents from PTA
One Student from each level (elementary, middle, and HS)
Instruments that will be used to analyze the needs of the project:
Surveys, completed by parents
Surveys, completed by teachers
Surveys, completed by students
Focus groups involving all constituents in the school district
Follow-up:
Analysis of data collected from surveys
Incorporate suggestions from focus groups
Identify needs, resources, funding

Program goals:
Provide surrounding community educational instructions at a low cost
Provide adult learners the ability to improve computer skills
Teach adult learners how to communicate via email
Provide a nurturing adult learning community where individuals feel safe and comfortable
Encourage teachers and students (HS, middle, and elementary) to participate in volunteer programs
Provide a location with technology that will be leased, upgraded and maintained.

Superintendent, Dr. Margaret Keller-Cogan is one of the many educational professionals committed to developing a sustainable educational technology culture in the Clarkstown Central School District of Rockland County. In 2007, she organized a committee to develop a strategic plan that focused on developing PD sessions for teachers and administrators. As a result, fifty-one PD sessions were offered through a program called My Learning Plan. The committee also organized a conference day for teachers that included thirteen PD sessions. The conference was developed from suggestions and feedback from parents, administrators and teachers. Additionally, fifty-three PD courses were offered for Teaching Assistants.

To insure continued professional development throughout the school district, in 2008 teams were established with the responsibility to plan for on-going support of professional staff training at each of the schools. The PD sessions were based on the individual needs of each school within the district and with the consultation of the principals. The Clarkstown Central School District also established a Community Learning Center and interest in its programs tripled since it was first created. Dr. Keller-Cogan believes that this is “a testament to the importance of providing such an important service to our community.” (ccsd.edu)

Educators and administrators, such as Dr. Keller-Cogan that have the vision to see how technology can improve the status of the school district are the type of individuals we need to encourage and empower teachers to learn and develop skills that they can integrate in their courses. However, there are a number of challenges that districts face when trying to provide the support needed for the professional development projects. Such challenges include: funds, infrastructures, equipment, staffing, time, lack of cooperation, fear, and poor technical support.

In order to insure that a PD project is successful it is important to follow the guidelines set by the NSDC thereby creating a learning community that understands the goals of the school district, provides leadership, and collaboration of resources, while using the process and content standards to improve the learning of all students and teachers.

Therefore, the first step that must be taken when planning a professional development project is to form a committee to assess the needs of the institution or school district, its students and teachers. The committee should include members of the administration, teachers, facilitators, parents, students and support staff, as stated in my example above. In addition to examining the needs of the organization, the committee will also be responsible for establishing goals, finding resources and setting a timeline for goals to be met. Furthermore a system, to measure the effectiveness of the PD program should be established, as well as, provisions to make any necessary amendments to set procedures. The committee should also plan for future and continued PD sessions by organizing resources such as staff time, equipment and its continuous maintenance, and allocate funds that will sustain goals.

Professional Development programs will provide not only better skilled and technology informed educators that understand the learning methods of our children, but also create an encouraging learning environment with higher academic accomplishments (nsdc.org). This belief is also shared by Patrick Hockey who is the Technology Administrator and Cyber School Principal in Phillipsburg Osceola (Pennsylvania school district). In an interview with Ed tech magazine, Mr. Hockey stated that teachers “must be able to adapt technology skills and knowledge to improve instruction. It’s all about quality control; teachers must take an analytical or evaluative approach to determine how to implement technology in the classroom”. (edtechmag.com)

At High Tech High, teachers are using technology to instruct students on how to use the internet for researching, and “producing documentary films”, “making robots”, and “presenting their work publicly to real audiences, so the technology for us does help to achieve those goals” (edtechmag.com). Mr. Daley, who is the Chief Academic Officer at High Tech High, also states that technology is not the solution to the challenges of American education, and by just adding new technology to schools it will not necessarily improve the quality of teaching. I agree with Mr. Daley, since technology is only the instrument or tool to facilitate teaching methods.
School districts across the country, such as Pennsylvania’s School District of Jenkintown, are finding ways to educate students through technologies that are native to the students. For example, the teachers at Jenkintown School District use YouTube to “illustrate points about the principles of government. YouTube is able to give the students, who are primarily visual learners, an ‘Aha!’ moment”(edtechmag.com). The teachers in this school district also use YouTube for their comedy course and part of the assignments are to find video clips that show the “principles of comedy that the teacher is trying to get across” and “ to write essays on that topic” (edtechmag.com) . This is a very interesting approach of incorporating new teaching techniques into course assignments making them more interesting than simply sitting listening to a lecture.

In the public schools of Great Neck, New York, they installed wireless devices called clickers to assess students learning ability while class is in session. Part of the district professional development plan involves getting “teachers to think about how they could specifically integrate this technology into the classroom” and “make sure they have time to meet and discuss when they would use the device and what data they could collect.” (edtechmag.com)
This plan seems to insure that teachers not only have the appropriate skills to use the clickers, but also accounts for time management which sometimes is forgotten. This idea is also supported by the following statement: “determining and understanding this culture enables professional developers to plan programs that are relevant and consistent with the staff’s daily working context (Caffarella, 1994, 2002 Preparing For The Journey, Dr. King, p.71)

Hence, professional development sessions that include strategies on how to incorporate new technologies into the curriculum, must be well planed to insure that the technology fits the need of its constituents. It is also important to provide adequate technical support and continued funding, not only for the technology, but also for the continuous training of teachers, administrators, and support staff. Presenters providing the professional development training must also be experts with the technology to insure a comfortable learning environment.

As I look at my current professional setting and the implementation of a new system in the next year or so, I understand that there are plans for professional development of support staff, administrators, faculty, deans, and students. However, at the moment the plans are not completely clear and do not seem to follow the NSDC’s standards. In fact, I am disappointed with the lack of organization and lack of knowledge from some of the IT staff and training facilitators. I would like to see a more structured and balanced professional development training project that includes less convoluted information and more concise procedures. To insure the success of the training, I plan to be involved in all aspects of this project and provide as much feedback as possible so that my colleagues and support staff are training in a comfortable environment.

References:

Lisa Fratt. Technology today.www.edtechmag.com/k12/issues/may-june2008/technology-today

Ron Schachter. Changing Habits.www.edtechmag.com/k12/issues/may-june2008/Changing-Habits

King, K. P. (2002). Keeping Pace with Technology: Educational Technology that Transforms, Vol 1: The Challenge and Promise for Educators. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. (K-12)
NSDC's Standards for Staff Development. (Revised,2001)http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm

Dr. Margaret Keller-Cogan. A message from the superintendent. http://ccsd.edu/district.cfm?subpage=24

Educational Equity and the Digital Divide

Educational Equity and the Digital Divide
Albilda Hernandez
Fordham University
CTGE – 6265
Dr. Kathleen P. King

Educational Equity and the Digital Divide.

In this day and age, when technology is increasingly becoming a permanent fixture in our daily lives, society seeks to incorporate the digital age into our education system in an attempt to bring educational and societal equity between the haves and the have-nots, between the rich and the poor, men and women, those of all ethnic origins, the young and the old, digital natives and digital immigrants, teachers and students. In the midst of integrating technology, we as a society must face the issue of the digital divide and how it affects education and society. There are many questions that come up in how to deal with technology and how we use it to bridge this gap. Can technology bring equity or will it just make the digital divide bigger? Even after technological equity is established, will it really improve education and provide educational and societal equity?

When discussing issues of equity we first must come to terms with what is meant by equity. According to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, the word equity means “justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.” For something to be equitable is to be fair and equal with all concerned (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2008). Educational equity means fair and equal education opportunities regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, level of technological knowledge, disability and age.
It is not enough to provide access to technology through funding and connectivity to bridge the digital divide. Funding spent unwisely will not help. If millions of available dollars are spent inappropriately and unwisely, it will not bring any solutions. “Decisions on purchase of technologies should be integrated within a plan developed with adequate consideration of educational, technological, and societal trends” (Mason & Dodds, 2005). It is not enough to donate computers and to be connected. Having access to technology in an old school building that is 100 years old means having to spend millions in local funds to upgrade electrical systems that previously could not support computers, printers, and other peripherals (Park, E., Sinha, H., & Chong, J., 2007).

In order to have any chance at educational equity and narrow the gap in the digital divide, there must be equal access to technology, equal instruction and training for students/teachers/support staff, equal quantities of resources/materials, equal attitudes towards participants, (meaning no prejudices), and equal opportunities for interaction with technology. Students with disabilities must be accommodated as well as those for who English is a second language. This may be done by including assistive technologies such as software that has voice command in place of using a keyboard (such as Dragon Dictate Naturally Speaking) and translation software. Schools must have someone on staff that is specialized in technology to be able to train the staff and teachers how to use such technologies, maintain equipment and stay informed and up-to-date on technological advances that can facilitate learning for special populations (Mason & Dodds, 2005). If computers and the Internet are distributed equally and used well, then they can become important tools that can be used to increase learning among students who have been marginalized and provide greater access to information and education. However, unequal access in either home or school or both can widen the digital divide and cause greater educational and social inequity (Warschauer, Knobel & Stone, 2004).

Unfortunately, not every student has the same access to technology. (Mason & Dodds, 2005). The digital divide is much more prominent among minority students, particularly Black, Latino, Native Americans and the poor, versus Whites and Asians. “While two-thirds of white children have gone online, just 45% of black children and 37% of Hispanic youth have” as of 2005 (Mason & Dodds, 2005). Studies done by the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration have also called attention to how computer and Internet access is distributed unequally by race, income, and education. Over the years these gaps seem to be decreasing as a higher percentage of Americans purchase home computers or obtain access through other sources such as schools, libraries, internet cafes, a relative’s house, etc. (Warschauer, Knobel & Stone, 2004). However, computer access in schools and libraries is very limited, making it difficult for students to finish their assignments and have any real benefit from the technology that surrounds them.

Amongst those that do have equal access, there is still no guarantee that the technology will help them in the same manner. One study revealed that students of high socioeconomic status with home computers are much more likely to use them to complete school assignments and for simulations and research in science courses, while low socioeconomic students use computers more for math and English courses and remedial and vocational uses. Another study shows that having a home computer helps students of high socioeconomic status have greater academic improvement than students of low-socioeconomic status (Warschauer, Knobel & Stone, 2004).
In addition to providing access at home, there is also the issue of students having technology access at schools. While affluent districts may have more resources to invest in technology, the poorer districts do not. Many schools and districts do not have the money to renovate old school buildings to make the electricity and wiring compatible to handle today’s technological equipment. Not every teacher understands how to incorporate technology into their lesson plans or even how to use the technology available to them. Schools often do not have the money to hire technical specialists that can train staff and teach them how to incorporate the technology into their subject matter and make it relevant. Professional development is crucially needed to educate teachers and staff on how to use technology effectively to enhance their lessons. (Park, Singha & Chung, 2007).

In the article Beyond Access: An Analysis of the Influence of the E-Rate Program in Bridging the Digital Divide in American Schools, Park, Sinha and Chong speak of the E-Rate program which is a “U.S. federal funding program for providing discounts for telecommunications, Internet access and internal networking costs for schools and libraries to ensure access equity across poor and rich, rural, urban and suburban areas, and highly served and underserved areas since 1996.” E-Rate was enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Park, Sinha & Chong, 2007). Technically this program has narrowed the divide between rich and poor schools if we look at equity in regards to access. However, the program was not meant to bring educational equity or enhance education in anyway. It was simply meant to bring equal access to schools and libraries and it was left up to the schools to decide what to do with the access. Schools were still responsible for providing their own equipment such as computers, telephones and software and many poorer districts did not even know about the program because it was not widely publicized. Others could not get funding because the application process was too complicated. Poorer schools needed assistance in filling out application and the distribution of the money needed to be overseen by a neutral party who could make sure that the neediest schools would get the amount of money required as many times the money was not distributed evenly when disbursed by the school districts (Park, Sinha & Chong, 2007).

There are many factors that need to be resolved in regards to equity and the digital divide. There is no one solution that can solve it, as many issues need to be addressed. Rather than dealing with one single, gaping divide, the nation’s schools are struggling with a set of divides, cutting in different directions like the branches of a river. It is seen more and more that these inequalities are due to not just the lack of access to computers, but what is done with computers and how they are used to educate children (Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L., 2004). The internet has tremendous potential to achieve greater social equity and empowerment and improve everyday life for those on the margins of society, however, we must know how the internet is used by individuals and populations in everyday life and what needs they have that need to be addressed in order to tailor the technology to get them to the next level that will put them on an equal threshold as everyone else (Mehra, B., Merkel, C. & Bishop, A., 2004)


References

Mason, C., & Dodds, R. (2005, May). Bridge the Digital Divide for Educational Equity.
Education Digest, 70(9), 25-27. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from Academic Search
Complete database.

Mehra, B., Merkel, C. & Bishop, A. (2004, December). The Internet for empowerment of
minority and marginalized users. New Media & Society, 6(6), 781-802. Retrieved
June 5, 2006, doi:10:1177/146144804047513

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. (2008). Definition of Equity and Equitable.
Retrieved June 5th, 2008.

Park, E., Sinha, H., & Chong, J. (2007, January). Beyond Access: An Analysis of the
Influence of the E-Rate Program in Bridging the Digital Divide in American
Schools. Journal of Iniformation Technology Education, 6, 387-406. Retrieved
June 5, 2008, from Education Research Complete database.

Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004, September). Technology and Equity in
Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide, Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-
588. Retrieved June 5, 2008, doi:10.1177/0895904804266469

Information Literacy and education

In the age of information and communications technology (ITC), the very concept of what it means to be literate has certainly changed. Without vital technological skills, one would be hard pressed to regard even the best of academic education as complete and proper. By definition technology in education should offer students the opportunity to gather, dissect and synthesize information in a timely manner while using the relevant tools.
What then is the true meaning of information literacy for education across the educational spectrum? Information literacy in education has two platforms to occupy because (a) it is a necessary component of today’s interpretation of what it means to be literate and (b) it is a means to achieve literacy as in distance learning for example. Within these two platforms we find the springboards to both self-directed learning and life-long learning. According to Lawrence, “Bransford, Brown and Cocking (2000, p.207) note five ways in which new technologies can be used:
1. Bringing exciting curricula based on real –world problems into the class-room.
2. Providing scaffolds and tools to enhance learning.
3. Giving students and teachers more opportunities to enhance learning
4. Building local and global communities.
5. Expanding opportunities for learning
(as cited in Uden, Richards and Gasevic, 2008, p. 15).
Central to information literacy is its well crafted integration into curriculums to form meaningful educative goals and experiences. Students must be intellectually able to understand information as a product. Educational institutions must therefore work to erase digital inequity. This inequity is not simply a matter of access or catering to those who are socially-disadvantaged as is often the belief. According to Hsieh, Rai and Keil (2008), “Many people stubbornly cling to the belief that digital inequity can be solved by addressing a single factor: technological access (e.g. Kvasny 2002; Vaan Dij and Hacker 2003). As a result, most governmental digital inequity initiatives have emphasized technology access” (p. 98). The crux of technological literacy therefore in what Hsie et al has termed “user acceptance”. This concept is more about sustained, continual usage of the technology by individuals in all aspect of their daily lives.
James (2008) adds to the debate by opining that, “Access is only a “potential” concept (such as being under the mobile foot-print). But whether this potential is converted into actual use is the real issue, and quite a complex one at that (there may be, for instant, a high percentage of the population under the mobile footprint but a much smaller number who actually use cell phones). All sorts of factors may come between having access to a technology and making good use of it” (p.57). In the educative process, technology acceptance should only be regarded as an early guidepost on the way to total user acceptance. The total integration of ITC into the educative process should be the ultimate goal.
In the realm of education it becomes crucial that technological literacy not be viewed as only familiarity with ITC’s. The perpetual acceptance and application of these technologies will bring a change in the educative process as student- centered learning and peer- collaboration becomes the norm in ways we have not seen. Collaborative communications forms a learning threshold, from which students exchange, disseminate, and distill information. Out of this education milieu will come even more credence for distance learning, both synchronous and asynchronous. It can be reasonably predicted that distance learning will eventually become the normative mode of education. Future generations will no longer expect a set time or physical building to be associated with procuring an education.
The availability of distance learning as a means of achieving literacy will change the face of education as we know it. Distance learning although popular now will have to reinvent its self as information technology becomes a standard in general education. As students of differing learning abilities and intelligences gather in their virtual classroom, institutions will have to find fitting and appropriate ways of delivering content and a variety of ways for students to produce and present their work. Student evaluation without face-to-face meeting can be a challenge for instructors, and instructor evaluations, needed for feedback, course planning and even tenure could be harder to capture.
Information literacy will produce students who are time-independent and place-independent with high expectations for their learning because they have 24/7 access to information. The training of teachers may have to shift away from the mostly dual concentration of student and content to include issues like program design and delivery. The perspectives of both teachers and students will continue to change as the technology grows and evolves.
Since information literacy is still a fairly new paradigm in the field of education it must catch up to learners with higher-order thinking, who are taking ownership of information. The transfer of information from teacher to student is not longer the domain of the teacher. What then is the role of the teacher or instructor in such a democratic learning environment? A facilitator who appreciates a constructivist philosophy towards education comes to mind. As Lawrence, (as cited in Uden, Richards and Gasevic, 2008) stated, “A constructivist approach can be an effective way to successfully integrate technology in schools. The environment provides facilities for students to learn by doing, to work with others, and to have authentic experiences making learning motivating and relevant” (p.14) Information literacy will help power education as learners become intellectually skilled at independently securing, managing and appraise information .






Reference
Brookfield, S.D. (1987) Developing Critical Thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey –
Bass.
Hsieh, J., A., & Keil, M. (2008, March). Understanding Digital Inequality
Comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically
advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quartely, 32 (1), 97-126. Retrieved
May 30, 2008, from Business Source Complete database
James, J. (2008, January) Digital Divide Complacency: Misconceptions and
Dangers. Information Society, 24 (1), 54-61. Retrieved June 02, 2008,
doi: 10.1080/01972240701774790
Knowles, M.S. (1970) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From andragogy
to pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge
Lawrence A. Tomei (Ed.). (2008). Encyclopedia of information technology
Curriculum integration [electronic resource}. Information Science
Reference.

Low Residency Programs in Higher Education

Low Residency Programs in Higher Education:
A Bridge Between Distance Learning and the Traditional Classroom

Anita Ytuarte Oelkers
Fordham UniversityGraduate School of Education

Online learning, or distance learning, even in light of tremendous growth in recent years, has had its skeptics. Unflattering comparisons between “correspondence courses” of the mid-twentieth century paint distance learning programs with the same broad brush, assuming that they are degree- or certificate-granting factories where people work in isolation before sending their minimally guided work to a virtual post office in exchange for second-rate validation or accreditation (Grant, 2002). Faculty, administrators, and prospective students express fear that learners will be left on their own without a connection to a learning community, and will lose their energy and interest, not to mention the valuable connections made through networking, peer support, and collaborative work.
Detractors have strong feelings about online learning, even when softened by the hybrid construction of low-residency models. A scathing commentary on National Public Radio by author and writing professor Andrei Codrescu expresses skepticism for the ability of online methods of communicating to express “emphasis, shades of irony, significant stresses or tongue-in-cheekisms” There are undoubtedly many who share the opinion that without the physical presence of peers and professors, the message is one-dimensional. Codrescu further states that without the physical signals of sweat, fear, tensing of facial muscles, and so on, “The trouble with low-residency world dominion is that the deals will be made of nothing but language; language in the absence of the body is dry dust” (as cited in Siegel, 2001).
Yet, even in the face of these doubts, low- residency programs have begun to take hold as a practical solution for all parties. By designing various programs that combine virtual classrooms with short, intensive face-to-face meetings on college campuses, higher education institutions have begin to bridge the gap—and the perception—of low-residency as inferior to the traditional on-campus degree program. The most common low-residency programs taking hold in higher education institutions in the U.S. are in the purview of Master of Fine Arts degrees. MFA programs in writing and visual arts are the fastest-growing area for low-residency programs, followed by various kinds of professional certification programs in business, medicine and health, science and (not-surprisingly) technology. Although degree completion programs for adults are offered through many traditional universities, there are a few who have added the “hybrid” and “low-residency” options to combine the independence and flexibility of online classes with the more traditional relationship-building venue of the face-to-face seminar (Waits & Lewis, 2003).
Much of this discussion is concentrated on MFA programs, particularly writing and visual arts degree programs. These have the longest history in college and university settings, and have produced enough graduates to generate a fair amount of literature for review. The first low-residency MFA program was a writing degree program created by poet Ellen Bryant Voigt in 1976 at Vermont’s Goddard College. From these modest beginnings, according to David Fenza of the Association of Writers & Writing Programs (AWP), MFA writing programs grew to more than 300 in North America by 2004. (Hurtes, 2004).
The general constructs of these programs have changed and metamorphosed with the advancement and ubiquity of technological tools, but the general model for writing programs has become standard. Students combine on-campus intensives, usually seven to ten days in length, with writing mentorships off campus. The off-campus components can take many forms, and the use of technology varies enormously. It was surprising to learn that many of these programs use technology simply for the purpose of sending documents back and forth between students and teacher/mentors, with limited use of web boards or web-based teaching modules such as Blackboard. This represents the “old school” model for a low-residency program, the isolated student/mentor process (Grant, 2002).
As students and institutions adopt and embrace technological advancements, white-boarding, synchronous web seminars and online presentations by “visiting” experts have been added. Class discussion boards, whether in the form of a class blog or a delivery system such as Blackboard, take the place of the traditional writing workshop, the cornerstone of face-to-face MFA programs, where students read and critique each others’ work. The use of a web board as a “virtual workshop” begins with the connections made in the learning community during the short residency periods, and continues to build these communities throughout the term. According to Andrew Gray, director of the University of British Columbia at Vancouver’s MFA writing program, the low-residency model is closer to the reality of a working professional, “As a writer, in the end, you are working alone, though connected to a larger community” (as cited in Dreifus, 2005).
The advantages to institutions are enormous, as low-residency programs are much less costly to develop and run than face-to-face programs. Although the hiring of tech support personnel as well as hardware and software purchase and maintenance is a necessary investment, the use of adjunct and non-tenured teaching in most low-residency programs more than balance these expenditures. The need for special campus facilities is minimal in hybrid low-residency programs, as on-site meetings take place in either summer months, before the start of fall classes, or in early January before traditional spring terms have begun. The requirements for housing, classrooms, libraries and meeting spaces at these times does not necessitate the creation of new spaces whenever a program is added; they simply use existing facilities when traditional residential programs are on break. In addition, the availability of visiting professors from other institutions is increased, so that collaboration between content areas and institutions, both public and private, is simplified. Additional teaching responsibilities don’t have to take away from students in the regular academic calendar terms, and faculty can give low-residency students the intense focus required by such programs.
Another advantage to both students and institutions is the ability to employ experts and working professionals in a given field. Rather than requiring instructors to spend an entire semester teaching, presentations and meetings can occur during the on-campus “intensive” weeks, or alternatively, through online interactive presentations or podcasts. Costs to institutions and students are minimal, especially when travel and lodging expenses are considered. Program directors agree that one of the main reasons students choose a particular MFA writing program is the desire to work with writers they admire; low residency programs broaden the selection of such writers. Many well-known published writers participate in these programs as mentors and part-time faculty members. Students benefit by having access to these field experts in a flexible time-frame, as well as enjoying the opportunity to learn with role models of their own choosing (Johnson, 2003).
In researching this topic, I discovered a new low-residency program in my own institution, a liberal arts college that has been stubbornly resistant to including emerging technology in their curricula. Although Sarah Lawrence’s MFA writing program is world renowned, this was not the program to break new ground in the low-residency realm. Instead, a certificate program in Public Health Genomics was needed for both students in the Genetics field and our own Human Genetics Graduate Program. Developing the program was difficult for the College to afford, even with a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As it turned out, the low-residency model provided a solution. It enabled the university to employ one part-time faculty member from another state as well as a local program coordinator, while using its own campus experts and working professionals to teach the seminars and lectures during ten-day intensives. Although the College did not invest in technology systems such as Blackboard or other web board options, students took matters into their own hands by creating class blogs and using Skype to communicate within their learning community. Future modules will include a web board, online conferencing, and other technologies as the “students and faculty drove home the need to bring more technology into the teaching model,” according to program coordinator Kara Sheridan (2008). She also points out that employers are more willing to pay for or assist with tuition when they do not need to grant substantial “release time” for training. The program is taught in three independent modules, so that students can enter at any point without having to consider sequence. A capstone project, in (mostly electronic and telephone) consultation with an advisor who students meet and select during the residency period, incorporates all three modules’ content areas and, after review, completes the certification. (Grob, Lieber, Wolman & Dolan, 2006).
In addition to the time and place flexibility offered to students in such programs, they have the luxury of continuing in their own homes without sacrificing family life or current employment while pursuing degrees. Rosa Irigoyen, a student in the MEA visual art program at Norwich University in Vermont, is a Cuban-born resident of Puerto Rico. A working artist and private art instructor, her goal was to obtain an MFA in order to teach in higher education settings, but the option of moving to the U.S. for two years was impossible. She expresses the wonderful compromise she found in a low-residency program. The work is isolated for a time, but never unguided, and the on-campus residency recharges her batteries when exhaustion creeps in “You get a new burst of energy about halfway through the week” (Polston, 1994, p. 26). Although technology is trickier for visual arts programs, digital photography and video is used to convey works in progress, and to develop the final thesis: a portfolio, either analogue or digital. Instruction is offered by video feed and live conferencing, even white board technology has been utilized for instruction in drawing (Polston, 1994).
The diversity of adult learning participants is increased when residency does not limit by location or mobility, and individual needs, contexts, and modes of learning are more easily accommodated by technological interventions. The shift to learner-centered program and the multiplicity of information sources enriches the overall experience for adult learners (White & Bridwell, 2004). In residency periods, students work with faculty and advisors to create their own bibliographies and negotiate guidelines and expected outcomes according to their own learning objectives. Bonds formed in the physical proximity of the residential periods carry through even after the group disperses. This interactive and student-centered model creates a rich and empowering learning experience (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).
Empowerment is a theme revisited in the scholarship on mentoring, and mentoring is at the center of MFA programs in both Writing and Visual Arts. Sarah Mitchell’s dissertation uses adult and feminist learning theory, as well as human development theory to describe mentoring relationships between faculty-mentors and adult women students. She draws on current research and years of experience teaching in low-residency programs to describe how the “dialogic relation of presence rather than distance” cultivates the empowerment and growth of these learners (Mitchell, 1996, p.5).
In addition to the many benefits to students and institutions, faculty members often prefer low-residency teaching for a variety of reasons. Many working professionals, (whether artists, writers, health care workers, or other content experts) do not want to fall into the position of making teaching a full-time “fall back” career. Although they enjoy their work as mentors and facilitators, they wish to pursue their own work in private practice. Low residency programs allow such experts to continue with their own creative pursuits, private practice, or research while supplementing their incomes by teaching. Their work can take them where it leads without the constraints of having to be physically present, save for a few weeks annually, in a given university’s location. Peter Turchi describes his delight in low-residency teaching opportunities:

I call it a luxury not because the work is easy or overpaid, but…
one in which each faculty member works with a very few students.
We aren’t driving a bus or even a taxi; we’re walking alongside our
students. (2004, p. B5)

When learners and mentor-teachers walk side by side, faculty, educational institutions and students benefit equally. Teachers are able to pursue independent career goals and varied areas of interest, students pursue programs suited to their individualized learning objectives, and institutions are able to develop programs at lower cost with more freedom to experiment and to engage experts as guest lecturers, mentors, and instructors. The low-residency model presents an opportunity to build a bridge between distance and face-to-face programs for those who seek a balance between the public and the personal, the individual and the academe, the technology-driven convenience of distance learning and the familiar social constructs of the traditional classroom.

References

Dreifus, E. (2005, March/April). The lowdown on low-residency programs. Poets & Writers. 33, (2). Research Library pp. 77-80.

Grant, D. (2002, November 10). If you can’t draw this… New York Times, pp. A4, A13.

Grob, R., Lieber, C., Wolman, F& Dolan, S. (2006, November 4-6). Poster session: Advancing Public Health Science for Education, Practice and Research: The 134th Annual Meeting & Exposition. Interdisciplinary educational opportunities in public health genomics: Sarah Lawrence strikes again.

Hurtes, S. (2002, November/December). How to choose a writing program. Poets & Writers. 32, (6); Research Library p. 54-63

Johnson, S.A. (2003, November). Too Busy for an MFA? Writer. 116,(11), p. 12-14.

Mitchell, S.l. (1996) Penelope’s daughters; Women mentoring women: The value of relational dialogue in adult learning. Ph.D. dissertation, The Union Institute, United States, Ohio. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from Dissertation & Theses Full Text database.

Palloff,R. & Pratt,K. (1999) Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Polston, P. (1994, September). Earning an M.F.A. your way. American Artist, 58 (6). P. 26.

Sheriden, K. (personal communication, June 4, 2008).

Siegel, R. (2001, July 18). Commentary: Low- or no-residency writing classes. All Things Considered (NPR)

Turchi, P. (2004, December 3). An itinerary for guiding our students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 51, (15), p. B5.

Waits, T. & Lewis L. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003) Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institution: 2000-2001, Washington, DC.:NCES

White, B. & Bridwell C. (2004). Distance Learning Techniques. in M.W. Gailbraith (ed.) Adult learning methods :A guide for effective instruction. Malabar, FL.: Krieger.

Building Your Professional Community With Online Development
by Irene Sarno

Effective professional development programs are essential for schools, companies or programs to achieve their desired goals. “Effective programs also become the vehicles for learning as an active process of transmuting new knowledge, values and skills into behavior.” (1982, as cited in Butler, J.A., 1992) As a substitute for traditional classroom based training, online development programs can provide a number of benefits. However, online development programs may also introduce many unique challenges.

First and foremost, all professional development programs should abide by the NSDC Standards for Staff Development of Context, Process & Content in order to improve the learning of all students. The program should also adhere to a well researched and thought out planning model. According to The Adult Learning Model for Faculty Development (Lawler & King, 2000b), the four well developed stages of preplanning, planning, delivery and follow-up, lay the groundwork for such professional development initiatives. (King, 2003, pg.65) In addition, the adult learning principles of “creating a climate of respect, encouraging active participation, building on experiences, employing collaborative inquiry, learning for action and empowering participants are especially important” in professional development experiences” (King, K.P., Tiago, A., Lawler, P.A., 2000) should be followed. Successful online learning communities, as systematically researched and evaluated by V. Charalambos, Z. Miuchalinos, and R. Chamberlin (2004, pp.138-139), have several of the following characteristics:
· They consist of people who cannot meet face-to-face because of place and time constraints and who meet online to work together on a shared task.
· The tasks and sub-tasks on which members work online are clearly defined and participants have a clear understanding of the expectations.
· A common sense of responsibility exists among participants towards the assigned task and peers.
· Easy access to technology and Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) tools is available to all members.
· The tools for communication are accessible and usable.
· There is good leadership and co-ordination of online activities.
· There are capable moderators that provide facilitation, help, guidance and support as needed to the members of the community.
· Ongoing interaction among members is based on constructive dialogue.
· A joint vision, control and ownership of the community, its goals and artifacts are equally shared among the members of the community.
· There is mutual support among its members and sub-groups.
· The rules that govern participation in the community are clearly defined.
· A system is in place monitoring member participation and behavior and a system to sanction certain inappropriate behaviors.
· It is a safe environment where participants can freely express their opinion and ask questions without the fear of being 'attacked' by others.
· Activities completed are evaluated regularly and feedback is provided in a timely manner.
· There is a certain degree of structural dependence that establishes the need for members to interact and share resources.
· Smaller groups within the community provide a peer-support group smaller than the larger community.

The benefits of successful online training communities are highlighted in Blackboard’s Educational Benefits of Online Learning (2000) and NSCD/NISI’s E-learning for Educators (2001). Both hail the use of multiple technologies as the primary supporter of enhanced learning. In addition to the use of computers and the internet, such alternative media forms such as pod and web casts, have become very effective learning enabling technologies. Student centered teaching approaches have become the standard, permitting the student to utilize materials that accommodate their individual learning style. Access to information, networks, people, and ideas provide significant resources and opportunities for exploration and reinforcement. By removing the reliance on physical attendance, this anytime/anywhere accessibility, increases the individual’s flexibility to learning. Online assessment tools provide instructor’s ways to build, distribute, and compile information quickly & easily. This, along with increased instructor accessibility, through the use of email, blogs, or on-line chat, reinforces student learning and heightens motivation. Lastly, students experience a sense of equality in their safe online e-learning environment. Each individual has the opportunity to participate in discussions, without feeling intimidated or anxious. In short, the opportunities afforded to online professional development can accentuate the e-learning experience.


Conversely, online professional development programs face numerous challenges as noted in NSCD/NISI’s E-learning for Educators (2001). Primarily, issues regarding resource and access inequality can severely inhibit e-learning. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the facilitators to provide a consistent online training experience across multiple technology platforms. Of course, costs associated with connectivity, hardware, software, tech support and assistance could be rather prohibitive. Thus, a sound implementation plan including support, documentation and regular upgrades is critical, as is the capability of executing the online training on the oldest deployed equipment. The developer must work to balance the use of current technologies to enhance learning not overpower it. An additional source of concern is the digital divide issue of imbalance of technical knowledge amongst learners. To assist in alleviating frustrations and avoid students becoming disillusioned, the NSCD/NISI recommends distance educators be dynamic & highly interactive with their students. The real challenge for e-learning is not in the use of technology to deliver the material but in using the technology to build on what we know about managing learners and how learners manage themselves.


E-learning is a viable alternative to traditional classroom experience. Online professional development can be a highly effective and very rewarding, yet challenging experience. Poor program design and implementation can inhibit learning, but with proper development, these programs can be effective vehicles for learning, as well as helping programs achieve their goals.








References

National Staff Development Council (NSDC). (2001) NSDC’s Standards for Staff Development Revised, Oxford OH:Author.

National Staff Development Council (NSDC)./ National Institute for Community Innovations (NICI) (2001) NSDC/NISI E-Learning for Educators, Oxford OH:Author.

Blackboard, Inc. (2000), Educational Benefits of Online Training, Retrieved from http://www.blackboard.com/

King, K.P. (2003). Keeping Pace with Technology: Volume Two: The Challenge and Promise for Higher Education. New Jersey:Hampton Press,Inc.

King, K.P., Tiago, A., Lawler, P.A. (2000). The Digital Divide: What does it mean for adult education?” Presented at: The Eastern Regional Adult Education Research Conference.
Univeristy Park, PA.

Lawler, P.A. & King, K.P (2000b). Planning for effective faculty development: Using Adult strategies. Malabar, FL:Krieger.

Butler, J.A. (1992). Staff Development. NW Archives - School Improvement Research Series Close-up #12. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu12.html.

Charalambos,V.Michalinos,Z., Chamberlain,R. (2004). The Design of Online Learning Communities: Critical Issues. Educational Media International, 41(2), pp. 135-143.

Building a Sustainable Ed-Tech Culture

Building a Sustainable Ed-Tech Culture

Elaine Surovich

Fordham University

CTGE – 6265

Dr. King

Building a Sustainable Ed-Tech Culture

Students today do not learn in the same way the teachers of today learned. Students have been living in a world of text-messaging, movies, video games, etc (Steele, 2008). “[Students] must ‘power down’ for class” (Steele, 2008, p. 8). As a result, teachers must adjust the ways in which they teach in order to “mirror the world outside of academia” (Steele, 2008, p. 8). One way for teachers to change their teaching approaches is through the use of technology in their classrooms. Building a technology program in a school is a very difficult process. Many decisions have to be made, funding has to be available, teachers have to be on board, and the right technologies have to be chosen to fit the needs of the school community.

In order to integrate a technology program into a school, much planning has to be completed. Schools first need to figure out what technologies they need and/or want (Lomberg, 2006). Once the technology is identified, schools can then begin “doing hands-on research, networking, seeing the product in action and talking to people who can share through past experiences” (Curtis, 2007, p. 24). The main idea of integrating new technology into the school is to help the teaching process and not just be for show (Lomberg, 2006).

Curtis (2007) interviewed many Directors of Technology at different school districts around the country. Each director stated how new technology is chosen for the school district once it is requested. These directors’ processes were all very similar. First of all, they all stated how important it was for them to stay current in the new technologies being introduced. They attend conferences and do web-based research to stay current. In addition, at the conferences they attend, these technology directors are getting to know the vendors of educational technology. They develop a relationship so that they feel comfortable to ask advice on different technologies and ask to see them demonstrated. Jerry Ashton, the Director of Technology at Northwest Independent School District in Texas, states how “…trial runs are especially useful for helping him make decisions about any technology that he hasn’t seen in action in the actual classroom” (Curtis, 2007, p. 24). He used a trial run when selecting projectors for the school district. He had been told that wireless projectors were excellent, but when he tested them, he found that they could not handle all the information and often missed information. As a result, Ashton chose a wired projector (Curtis, 2007).

After appropriate technology is selected, patience is often required in order to set up the technology in the school. For example, when the Richland School District Two in South Carolina wanted to institute new instructional technologies in their schools, they found that some of the schools did not have enough electricity to handle the new technology (Lomberg, 2006). Another problem encountered as new technology is being introduced is the operating system used by the district. On occasion, teachers have tried to implement new technologies, such as computer software in their classrooms, and found that the software did not work. The reason was that the software required a higher operating system than that the school district was currently using (Curtis, 2006).

The cost of technology is very high. This costs includes updating the buildings’ infrastructure, purchasing hardware and software, updating technology every few years, etc. “Securing ongoing funding is a constant challenge” (Lomberg, 2006, p. 32). Heather Ellwood (2007) makes some suggestions on how to stretch the technology money as far as possible.

For starters, Ellwood (2007) suggests leasing expensive hardware. The life span of high priced technology is not that long, “lease terms can be matched to the useful lifespan of the equipment, [the district] can pay the lease until the technology becomes outdated” (Ellwood, 2007, p. 36). This process ensures that a district will have new technology for their teachers and students and also ensures that no server or computer is more than a few years old. Districts can sell the used technology to used-computer vendors, usually making a profit (Ellwood, 2007). Finding companies to lease from is not too difficult, as many companies, such as Apple, Dell, IBM, Hewlett Packard, and Microsoft, see leasing as beneficial. They see leasing as an opportunity for students and teachers to develop brand loyalty (Ellwood, 2007).

Another suggestion Ellwood (2007) offers is utilizing open technology resources. Open technology resources are “fully functional, free or lowcost alternative to much of the expensive, proprietary software available for desktop computers…It refers to applications such as productivity suites, graphic tools, and Internet and networking software that users can modify to suit their needs” (Ellwood, 2007, p. 36). This open technology does have its problems. Sometimes the software is very complicated in its programming and needs advanced programmers for support. Hiring this type of personnel is another expense for a school district to think about (Ellwood, 2007).

Stretching available budgets can only go so far in getting a school or district fully immersed in technology, grants are a way to obtain more funding for technology. Writing grants can be difficult and time consuming (Ellwood, 2007). Diane Curtis (2007) offers suggestions on how to get grant money. One way to get started in the grant process is to get to know the foundations that offer grants. Knowing the goals, interests, and objectives of a foundation allows a district to know whether or not they should apply for grant money from them. Often, reaching out to a grant foundation early is a way to find out whether a school’s direction will fit with what the grant foundation is looking for.

When applying for grant money, it is important to be “clear, concise, and specific” (Curtis, 2007, p. 25). Hiring a grant writer or editor may be helpful in order to ensure that your needs and wants are clearly expressed. Grant foundations want to know what a program is all about, especially how the students are going to benefit from the program to be funded. The grant application should include a little bit of heart (Curtis, 2007). They “are looking to fund something that makes them feel good and something they know is special…” (Curtis, 2007, p. 25).

In addition to choosing the appropriate technology and receiving funding for a technology project, it is important to make sure that the teachers in the school are on board with the project. Technology programs are meant both to support and train teachers (Lomberg, 2006). One way to get teachers excited about the technology is through mentoring, especially peer mentoring. Through peer mentoring, inexperienced teachers are able to learn the latest technological advances from other, more technologically experienced teachers and adjust teaching strategies in order to implement the new advancements (Milner, 2006). These types of programs only work if they are supported by the administration and the teachers. In most mentoring programs, mentors volunteer for their position and recruit members to be the protégés. Both mentors and protégés have busy teaching schedules and are required to meet a certain number of times per month. Because of the amount of commitment these mentor programs require, mentors and protégés are usually compensated for their participation in this program (Milner, 2006).

Educational technology benefits entire districts, the administration, the faculty, and, most importantly, the students. However, starting and keeping an educational technology program takes a lot of work and effort. Educational technology programs need to meet the needs of a district, meaning the right technology needs to be selected, such as Smartboards. Funding needs to be found and stretched to buy and maintain the technologies and teachers need to be taught about how to use technology. It is not easy to do, but having a good educational technology program in a school district will be beneficial to all involved.

References

Curtis, Diane. (2007). Choose the Right Technology. i.e.: Interactive Educator. 3 (2). 23-27.

Curtis, Diane. (2007). Need Finding? Grant Providers and Winners Share Tips for Getting Grant Applications Approved. i.e.: Interactive Educator. 3 (1). 23-26.

Ellwood, Heather (2007). Stretching Technology Funding Dollars. i.e.: Interactive Educator. 3 (1). 35-38.

Harris, Judi. (2005). Is It Worth It? Deciding if Technology is Worth the Time, Effort, and Money. i.e.: Interactive Educator. 1 (2). 35-37.

Lomberg, Michelle. Initiating a Technological Evolution. i.e.: Interactive Educator. 2 (1). 31-33.

Milner, Jacob. (2007). Tap into Your School’s Technology Mentors. i.e.: Interactive Educator. 2 (2). 35-37.

Steele, Poppy. (2008). Technologies Such as Wikis in the Classroom. Online Submission - Paper presented at the Annual Instructional Technology Conference at Middle Tennessee State University. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from ERIC database.

Welcome to our class blog and new media site

We will be posting some assignments here (see new media assignment) and creating resources for many people to use as part of an authentic demonstration of our learning.

Think about what you would like to add AND how you could use a tool like this is your teaching environment and setting.

Your prof
Dr King