Research on Technology

Working with my classmates at the university whether online or a campus class, I always try to integrate technology such as Google Docs to collaborate on projects. In my experience, unless the instructor requires it, my classmates look at it as something to humor me with rather than a tool with real value. It usually comes across as extra work and some of my classmates either ignore my instructions on how to set it up or just find that they don’t have the time to set it up (and possibly don’t find the energy as well). They apologetically offer some excuse but I do understand if they are not able to expend the extra time. Some come to see how to use the tool and how it can benefit them in projects. I hope they all utilize it in the future for other academic projects as well as real-life scenarios.

I cannot really blame my classmates for their lack of appreciation of these tools. Most people that I know take online courses because of time restraints. To ask them to use a separate non-required tool is probably like running my fingernails down a chalkboard. In the study (Thompson, et.al.) I read concerning computer-mediated communication, it was “found that learners may only post the minimum amount of messages required…or may post low-quality messages simply to meet the requirements”. In another study, it was noted that in a “goal- and rule-based graded discussion…led to ‘high phase[s] of critical thinking” whereas “a nonstructured ungraded discussion open to all 300 students in the course…only 19 students chose to participate in.” It would make sense that they would focus on the graded or rule-based requirements and let the ungraded, non-required discussion sink to the lowest priority when time is at a premium. I can see that computer-mediated communication could work if the facilitator set up specific rules on using the communication tools. How successful the tools would turn out to be does depend on whether it is used or pushed aside.

In my professional life, I have taken some of the tools we have learned here in this course and utilize them for online collaboration with my Technology Committees at both of my schools. Wiggio is effective but was not without trouble in the beginning. We found that if our school had a block on Facebook, then the Wiggio would not show appropriately in the web page. The IT folks at Wiggio, however, were very gracious and worked with me to overcome this. I have considered Google Docs as a solution for collaboration between teachers and students but mostly because most of the students did not have Microsoft Office at home. Using Google Docs could help with the compatibility problems between what the students do have, which is usually Microsoft Works, and Microsoft Office. I have to temper the technology I have already introduced my staff and the students to, though, before looking at what else I can “feed” them.

We are utilizing a Content Management System (CMS) now at our schools called Moodle. It allows for collaboration between student and teacher. Just like our Blackboard, Moodle allows for the student to be enrolled in different courses and for the student to access these courses through one login. Only a handful of the teachers even utilize the Moodle to collaborate with the students even though that’s the main purpose of using the CMS. The teachers, however, that do utilize the Moodle, in my observation, find the students more cooperative and excited about their work. When they arrive in my Computer Lab, the first thing they ask is “Are we moodling today?” I utilize Moodle for my third through eighth grade classes in collaboration. It can be something as simple as asking a question and having them type in the answer and submitting the answer back to me. One of our teachers has her students writing journals in their Moodle. The teacher is able to give feedback faster because she types it in and the student is able to see her response almost right away.

In these new experiences, we are already seeing what the study “Thompson, et.al.” says about utilizing required technology versus voluntary computer-mediated communication. I added a section about free time work. It involved downloading Gamemaker which is a program to build your own computer game. I threw that in because I figured that many of my students would be interested. A handful of students checked it out but the rest passed it by because it was not worth a grade. This surprised me because I just assumed they would jump at the chance to download this program. Most of the students focus on the graded assignments and then, if we have time left, they will look at the rest of what I have to offer them in my Moodle course.

The one element of a course management system that I do not utilize is messaging or email. Since my students are elementary to middle school, it is hard to keep them on task if they have access to messaging. The students utilize forums instead in Moodle to communicate messages among groups. It keeps the student accountable because they know the teacher can see the entire conversation. Finding other ways to communicate such as the forums instead of the messaging tool in Moodle is one way to utilize flexibility in using technology tools to communicate. It satisfies the students need to communicate with their classmates and the need for the teacher to collaborate with them as individuals and as a group.

In Karpova et.tal., they discuss how students utilize technology when it is controlled, such as what I have done with the Moodle versus an open proposition where the students can utilize any number of technology tools to work on their projects. In the study, some of the groups were limited in their use of certain technology tools such as allowing audio but denying video. One of the student’s complaints was that he could not see the other team members’ facial expressions. (I didn’t have to read further to tell that he was a visual learner.) I do find that with the limited (what can be allowed with my young students) technology choices, it does give me challenges in how to utilize this technology best for my students. For the group that was allowed free reign with the technology tools they utilized three to five different technology tools for different tasks. In our practice in online collaboration in this course, our team found strengths and weaknesses in the different tools we used. Wiggio is great for sending out notes to the whole group just as Google Groups would do but only the administrator of a meeting could show a file on video or even show their face on video. Instead of calling the long distance number prompted to us in Wiggio to form a videoconference, we utilized Skype with Wiggio so we could hear with Skype and see with Wiggio. That also didn’t work well because using them at the same time caused memory problems and an echo in our conversation. We braved it long enough to view the document we were discussing but eventually we finally had to drop the Wiggio in favor of the Skype. Unfortunately, we never tested a videoconference using Wiggio’s conference number, so I’m not sure it would’ve worked out. I may try this with my technology teams at work. There are many technology tools to choose from. I have found that most have a weak spot and utilizing another tool with the first is the best course of action.

When I started reading the next article by Dockter, I grew excited because it sounded like something that I want to institute in my urban inner-city school where most of the students have no access to a computer at home. Of particular interest on this page was the “The DigMe Program”. See www1.umn.edu/urelate/newsservice/Multimedia_Videos/digme.htm for more information about the program. The program’s “aim was, and continues to be, to increase student engagement and achievement in a high-poverty urban high school, with the goal of empowering students to think critically, build meaning, and deepen their understanding across all subjects by applying project-based learning using evolving digital technologies. This work, we hope, will promote educational equity and relevancy while narrowing the digital divide”[Dockter]. I could foresee such a project at my school with my inner-city students utilizing different technology tools to think critically about their projects. While I doubt that I would utilize Twitter since my students are so young, I’ve learned of a social network tool at the last technology conference I attended in Perrysburg, OH - Free-Tech Ohio - that I could possibly utilize with my students. This could help us teach the students to use social networks such as Twitter and Facebook ethically and judiciously, while keeping them safe on the Internet.

Much was learned from reading the research on technology tools. Much of it was not a surprise but it was nice to see my views mirrored on the pages I read.

Dockter, J. (2010). Redefining Rigor: Critical Engagement, Digital Media, and the New English/Language Arts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(5), 418-420.

Karpova, E., Correia, A., & Baran, E. (2009, January). Learn to use and use to learn: Technology in virtual collaboration experience. Internet & Higher Education, 12(1), 45-52. Retrieved March 27, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.006

Thompson, E., & Savenye, W. (2007, October). Adult Learner Participation in an Online Degree Program: A program-level study of voluntary computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 28(3), 299-312. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.