Blue Lotus

I am using the discussion board feature of Blackboard for my face-to-face class. I’m seeing that my students are having the same issues with it that I am having with my blog. I like Kara’s explanation of the difference between the two, especially the locus of control issue. My students have made good comments, and I feel like the topics are being fleshed out as I’d hoped, but the lack of interaction is glaring. Ok we all have an opinion and I want them to voice them. “I think blah blah blah.” But I really notice when one student will actually build on the comment of another student. This creates a dynamic that ignites. I am still waiting for someone to disagree, though. I think when we commit something to print, we are less inclined to dissent. I guess that is rightfully so, in that when we express emotions with words they seem to be much more susceptible to misinterpretation.

I think the technology is prohibitive, though, to have my class do a blog. As I mentioned in an earlier entry, I do not feel like I understand the blog process well enough to teach it so how can I require it of my students? And, as a result of a converstaion with Nate I asked my class two questions. Who knows what a blog is? Who has a blog? Out of 20 students, one knew what it was, three had heard of them before, and none had one of their own. I think that is a good illustration of the fact that this technology is still select. I have all kinds of cool gadgets and I bug Nate to death asking him questions about new ones, but this blog thing is a challenge. I would guess that the same applies to my students.

So, I think that the purpose of use and experience of participants has to dictate which one of these you use. I don’t have a sense of one being better than the other.

Based on the feedback I got, my course description was fine. It was brief, but clear and concise. I feel like it explains everything that was supposed to be there, especially in conjunction with the syllabus.

“Sufficient levels of deep and meaningful learning can be developed as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student–teacher; student-student; student-content) are at very high levels. The other two may be offered at minimal levels or even eliminated without degrading the educational experience.

High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely deliver a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences.” (Anderson, 2002).

It seems as though the theory is that these three forms of interaction must exist in some balance to create an effective learning environment. Anderson (2002) states that “Student- teacher interaction currently has the highest perceived value amongst students and thus commands highest market value.” I found this very interesting in that it represents my own feeling about distance education. Following this theory, as long as one of the other forms of interaction is high, this one is not as important. I’m not so sure I totally agree with this. But, he does also make the point that the importance of each of these vary based on the individual class participants. Let me find another source….

Ok. So to provide each student, whether near or far, with an equivalent learning experience. Quite a challenge, especially in light of the variety of preferences of the learners. Key elements are the concepts of equivalency, learning experiences, appropriate application, students, and outcomes. Conceptually, this makes sense. How do I make this happen? I think understanding tools makes this more doable. For example, in GA there is a satelite learning system that is available for use. It is a system of cameras and audio that bring learners spread out all over the state together with the instructor. You can see your class, they can see you, you talk in real time, etc. That class would look a lot different from one taught on Blackboard. I think that is one of my hang-ups. Blackboard is rather limiting, as far as these programs go. I guest lectured one time using a program (of course I don’t remember the name of it), but it used mics so you could speak to one another, and it had a real time chat so that those not talking could contribute for various reasons or about other topics. It was very user friendly and I felt like I got to know the students. I guess it was akin to a conference call on the web.

This theory has framed a way of thinking for me, and I feel like maybe I’m starting to get it, but I need to think about it some more.

Anderson, T. (2002). An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper63/paper63.htm on September 11, 2005.

Simonson, M., Schlosser, C., & Hanson, D. (1999). Theory and distance education: A new discussion. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(1).

To evaluate the websites, I guess I just thought about usefulness of it. Mainly, the content of the site. When I was reading others’ reviews, I noticed they mentioned ease of navigation and accessibility and thought, “Ahhh! I should have included that!” I don’t think about the ease of navigation until I come across a site that is not user friendly. The sites that I use are user friendly, perhaps that’s why I use them. (Which came first? The user friendliness or the hits? Hmmm….) As for the accessibility, I notice that the people who work in the field of blindness and low vision are primarily the ones that included that. That made me think. Website accessibility is not really an issue with people with a hearing loss because they have sight. However, this is not a good excuse. I should be sensitive to access and accessibility issues for all people. A lesson for me!

I found the websites I listed through professional affiliation. I feel that any site can be considered educational if you learn something from it. So, yes, of course the site that has lesson plans and tips for teaching spelling words is “educational.” But the site that shows me the research being done or that keeps me apprised of new ways of thinking about edcuation are also educational, as is the site that tells me that the second largest population of students with hearing loss currently being served in the United States is listed as Hispanic. Without specific definition of “educational webstie,” it is a fluid, subjective definition.

This applies to our class because our filters effect everything we do. My class will reflect my ideas about learning, information dissemination, and personal development (and in the case of the online one, my lack of knowledge in working in that arena). For example, if you walk into my class right now, hopefully you would walk into a discussion of young people with limited experience with the world of special edcuation explaining to each other why or why not they believe severe test anxiety qualifies one for services under the Learning Disabilities category of IDEA. You will see me facilitating discussions, supporting all trains of thought, and encouraging expansion of ideas. But that’s if you WALK in. Who knows what my virtual class will be like!

Critique this article. Hmmm… It seems to me to be a laundry list of research lacking in synthsis. The ideas presented in this article are not revolutionary. The trend toward authentic learning and guiding students through discovery has been happening in k-12 classrooms for years now. Perhaps the “ah-ha” moment is supposed to be in the application of these ideas to the postsecondary learning environment. Ok. But the article doesn’t apply the concepts to this level of education, and further, fails to live up to its promise made in the introduction to address the online learning environment. I believe in the humanistic model, in allow learners to self-actualize, in student-centered learning. And after reading this article, don’t feel any better able to apply these concepts to the online learning environment.

One of the biggest issues for me in regard to distance education is the interactions of the “class.” I have taken classes online and have not enjoyed them. I feed on the synergy created by individuals gathering physically in one location to learn. I am told that this can happen in an online environment.

I am currently facing the challenge of creating relationships with students whom I am supervising as they do their practicum teaching. They are not close so I am forced to get to know them via email. While I realized this is a bit different from a class, and it is several relationships with individual students who do not interact with each other, it is a perfect illustration of the difficulty in getting to know a person online. Now, we all probably know of people who have met and fallen in love online. They begin with this love affair online, meet, get married and live happily ever after, so we know intimate relationships can happen via the computer. However, when the sexual motivation is removed, how does one foster an intimacy (granted of a differenty type) with a person to create a producive relationship? In the role of mentor, one of the major components is trust. In order for the young grasshopper to accept feedback and feel supported, he or she must trust that the mentor is acting in his or her best interests. When you’ve not yet met the person, and the nature of the realtionship is instructive, the development of trust is a chore. You can’t just chit-chat for a few minutes and show caring through actions to set up the trust. It all has to be done via words. Each of us brings our own filters to a situation and it is impossible to control for all of them. I am achieving this through email, but I am augmenting it with phone calls, and will eventually visit all of them (except the one in KY, of course). I am finding that after chatting on the phone, our emails are much more relaxed and feel, to me at least, more open. The effect is on both of us.

So, to get to the question, I believe that what everyone should know about distance education is that there is a challenge when it comes to forming a relationship of trust, whether you are the teacher or the learner. Some people don’t need this, but I believe most do.

www.deafed.net

This is a grant project of Association of College Educators-Deaf/Hard of hearing. This is a fantastic site that has info, job postings, monies available, discussion board, etc for professionals in the field of Deaf Education. There are also resources and links to other sites, and collection of lesson plans that have been submitted, mostly, by students. This grant is the only one ever awarded to an organization.

clerccenter.gallaudet.edu

The Clerc Center is the information clearinghouse for Gallaudet University. Like the deafed.net website, this is just a wealth of information. National and state statistics, Info to Go pages, resources for professionals and parents are only a few of the things on this site. There’s also info on the two lab schools at Gallaudet, publications, training…it just goes on and on.

www.nichcy.org

This is the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Like the two site above, this is a compendium of resources for professionals and parents. This site also has information related to the law.

I use all three of these website regularly and find them to be an invaluable source of information both as a Teacher of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and as a researcher.