Reflecting on teaching another term

Every semester the university conducts formal course evaluations which enquire about the course as well as the lecturer. This past semester was my second to last term teaching W200 where I could incorporate student feedback into my teaching practices. Since I began position as an Associate Instructor teaching W200: Computers in Education I have struggled with a few repetitive issues which include a lack of clarity in giving project directions and my unapproachable personality. One of the big changes I have made in my instruction is bringing in specific examples of my k12 teaching experience and to explicitly describe my instructional decisions. I believe that making the learning environment authentic, by drawing my experiences, would make the content more approachable. Also by explaining to the student why I make certain teaching decisions I believe that will help them become better educators. While I felt as though I had improved on these aspects they were negatively commented up on in my fall 2015 evaluations. Again this semester, some of my students felt that I wasn’t giving clear enough directions on the major projects and that my personality was blunt and overly sarcastic. Despite these negative remarks the students ranked my instruction fairly positively. Overwhelmingly, the students didn’t like the course load and the 3 hour classes. My students believed that I was an outstanding instructor (3.4/5 and 2.9/5) and promoted an “atmosphere conductive to learning” (3.6/5 and 3.5/5). The students stated that I motivated them to do their best work (3.3/5 and 3.1/5) and I emphasized student learning and development (3.7/5 and 3.4/5).

Valuing Technology Integration for Enhanced Resources Access

I was asked to respond to the following prompt for a mini conference presentation: Technology integration in learning environments provides access to more resources and information (as society changes). So here are a couple of my thoughts as to how this might go.

 

In today’s classrooms, technology has not only become expected, but teachers are also expected to integrate technology to enhance access to resources and information (Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2010;Johnson et al., 2013; Hannon et al., 2013).  Bringing a diverse array of technology into the classroom serve not only as a tool, but also as a resource for accessing materials that facilitate enhanced learning (Johnson, Levine, Smith & Stone, 2010; Moyle, 2010).  Technology blended learning environments create new opportunities for students to learn (Cassidy et al., 2014; Walling, 2014; Martin, Diaz, Sancristobal, Gil, Castro, & Peire, 2011; Johnson et al., 2013).  Access to instructional technologies implies use, and that use implies an educational impact (Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2008)

Empirical studies noted that integration of technology in classrooms has created efficient systems of addressing student needs (Kay & Lauricella, 2011), allowed students to access information in an up to date manner (Weston & Bain, 2010; Weston & Brooks, 2008), and warranted hands-on practical learning (Sen & Passey, 2013). For example, Feldstein et al. (2012) study looked at the Flat World Knowledge textbook initiative only to discover that adopting open technologies in the learning environments “increases access to educational materials” (p.2); increased access can lead to better student outcomes in terms of learning and student performance.

As society expectations shift towards technonocetric learning environments students are more likely to align with systems that have high the visibility of technology resources (Bates, 2003).  Studies (e.g. Kuker, 2009; Lindshield & Adhikari, 2013; Warschauer, Zheng, Niiya, Ctten, & Farkas, 2014).  Found that technology integration across academic campuses has lead to increased collaboration among instructors and continued use of flexible access to resources. Additionally, technology integration allows instructors improved access to student populations while simultaneously allowing students increased access to education (NEA, 2001; Jackson, 2004; Okamoto, 2013).  In fact several studies have found that instructors will shape their teaching approaches to accommodate for technology that allows learns more access to information (Drayton et al., 2010; Shapley el al., 2010; Suhr et al., 2010).

 

References

Bates, A. T. (2003). Chapter ten: Avoiding the faustian contract and meeting the technology challenge. In A. T. Bates (Ed.), Managing technological change: Strategies for College and University Leaders (pp. 210-217). Chicago, IL: Jossey-Bass.

Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 5-14.

Cassidy, E. D., Colmenares, A., Jones, G., Manolovitz, T., Shen, L., & Vieira, S. (2014). (2014). Higher education and emerging technologies: Shifting trends in student usage. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1).

Drayton, B., Falk, J.K., Stroud, R., Hobbs, K., & Hammerman, M.J. (2010). After Installation: Ubiquitous Computing and High School Science in Three Experienced, High-technology Schools. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(3), 5-54.

Feldstein, A., Martin, M., Hudson, A., Warren, K., Hilton III, J., & Wiley, D. (2012). Open Textbooks and Increased Student Access and Outcomes. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1-9.

Hannon, J., Bisset, D., Blackall, L., Huggard, S., Jelley, R., Jones, M., … Sadler, R. (2013). Accessible, reusable and participatory: Initiating open education practices. In H. Carter, M. Gosper and J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric Dreams. Proceedings ascilite 2013 Sydney. (pp.362-372). Retrieved from: http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney13/program/papers/Hannon.pdf

Jackson, R. M. (2004). Technologies supporting curriculum access for students with disabilities. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/technologies_supporting

Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). The NMC horizon report: 2013 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from: http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-HE.pdf

Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: New Media Consortium. Retrieved from: http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010

Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Exploring the Benefits and Challenges of Using Laptop Computers in Higher Education Classrooms: A Formative Analysis. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 37(1), 1-18

Kuker, G. (2009). Technology integration: A study on the impact of increased technology access. University of Northern Iowa.

Lindshield, B. L., & Adhikari, K. (2013). Online and Campus College Students Like Using an Open Educational Resource Instead of a Traditional Textbook. Journal Of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(1), 1-26.

Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893-1906.

Moyle, K. Australian Council for Educational Research, (2010). Building innovation: Learning with technologies (371.334678). Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: ACER Project Publishing.

National Education Association (2001, March). Focus on distance education. Update 7(2). Washington, DC.

Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, No Use, No Impact: Snapshot Surveys of Educational Technology in K–12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 36(1), 15-27.

Okamoto, K. (2013). Making Higher Education More Affordable, One Course Reading at a Time: Academic Libraries as Key Advocates for Open Access Textbooks and Educational Resources. Public Services Quarterly, 9(4), 267-283. doi:10.1080/15228959.2013.842397

Shapley, K.S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student Achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 5-67.

Sen, A., & Passey, D. (2013). Globalisation of next generation technology enhanced learning environment (tele) for stem learning: Contexualizations in the asia-pacific region. In 2013 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E) (pp. 111-118). doi: 10.1109/T4E.2013.35

Suhr, K.A., Hernandez, D.A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and Fourth-Grade Literacy: Assisting the Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(5), 4-43.

Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the One-To-One Equation: Equity and Access in Three Laptop Programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 46-62.

Weston, M.E. & Bain, A. (2010). The End of Techno-Critique: The Naked Truth about 1:1 Laptop Initiatives and Educational Change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(6), 5-24.

Weston, M., & Brooks, D. (2008). Critical constructs as indicators of a shifting paradigm in education: A case study of four technology-rich schools. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education, 2(4), 281–291.