Moving Teaching and Learning with Technology (EDUCAUSE Review...
Popularity Report
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 9 people (-1 private), first by anonymouse user on 2008-10-30
- Robynjay on 2009-01-13 - Tags educause , education , elearning , unsw , L&Tunsw , TELT , highereducation , L&T , trends
- Myszenka on 2008-12-22 - Tags teaching_learning , new_technologies_education
- Didiermex on 2008-11-15 - Tags no_tag
- Mendobiz on 2008-11-13 - Tags educause , education , online , elearning , article
- Jjedtechguy on 2008-11-10 - Tags edtech
Public Sticky notes
Robert Zemsky and William F. Massy’s Thwarted Innovation (2004),1 Chronicle of Higher Education features with titles such as “Professors and Technology: Helpless or Hopeless?” and “When Good Technology Means Bad Teaching,”2 a large body of “no significant difference” studies, and even occasional EDUCAUSE Review articles that confess to doubts about our progress. Although there have been some signature successes, overall higher education has not convincingly demonstrated that technology has had a systemic, widespread, or sustained impact on the process of teaching or on student learning outcomes.
Highlighted by didiermex
A review of the literature on teaching and learning with technology reveals that to date, much of the emphasis has been on selecting the “right” technologies (or the “right” vendors of a particular technology) and on encouraging and assisting faculty members to adopt and use those technologies. In support of this approach, institutions have implemented roundtable discussions, instructional technology centers, workshops, training programs, and help desks.
Highlighted by didiermex
The problem with this approach, as Bill Graves has stated, is that all too often we “bolt on” technology rather than redesign the teaching and learning process. Graves notes that as exciting as these individual technological “random acts of progress” may appear, they tend to increase the cost of instruction, to be short-lived, and to seldom disseminate widely or scale to a level that can achieve institution-wide impact.
Highlighted by mopelzel
. The problem with this approach, as Bill Graves has stated, is that all too often we “bolt on” technology rather than redesign the teaching and learning process.
Highlighted by jjedtechguy
Graves notes that as exciting as these individual technological “random acts of progress” may appear, they tend to increase the cost of instruction, to be short-lived, and to seldom disseminate widely or scale to a level that can achieve institution-wide impact.3 Tony Bates cites additional limitations of approaches centered on individual faculty adoption, including excessive time demands on faculty and support staff, failure to complete projects, inconsistent results, and lack of dissemination of best practices. Bates also notes that such initiatives typically do not scale well because they are so heavily dependent on the ideas and energy of one or a few individuals and because ramping up requires exponentially greater support resources.
Highlighted by jjedtechguy
The problem with this approach, as Bill Graves has stated, is that all too often we “bolt on” technology rather than redesign the teaching and learning process.
Highlighted by robynjay
n their simplest form, successful systemic approaches are characterized by institutional facilitation, administrative direction, and faculty interest. Institutional facilitation is perhaps the most critical of these because without it, administrative intent cannot be achieved and faculty engagement cannot be sustained.
Highlighted by jjedtechguy
One measure of an institution’s approach to teaching and learning with technology is the response to two questions: “How many instructional designers does the institution employ?” and “What do they do?” If the response to the first question is “none” or “a few,” and if the answer to the second is that the instructional designers are assigned to individual faculty projects, one picture emerges. On the other hand, if there are a number of instructional designers, if their work consists of developing and delivering enterprise-wide faculty development associated with institutional initiatives, and if they participate fully in project design, then a quite different picture emerges. Another measure of institutional capacity to facilitate is the relationship between information technology and instructional technology units. Institutions with closely aligned information technology and instructional technology resources are better prepared to mount and sustain large-scale initiatives than are institutions in which the two functions do not communicate or collaborate well.
Highlighted by mopelzel
One measure of an institution’s approach to teaching and learning with technology is the response to two questions: “How many instructional designers does the institution employ?” and “What do they do?”
Highlighted by mendobiz
if there are a number of instructional designers, if their work consists of developing and delivering enterprise-wide faculty development associated with institutional initiatives, and if they participate fully in project design, then a quite different picture emerges.
Highlighted by mendobiz
Achieving meaningful transformation requires institution-wide, systemic initiatives.
Highlighted by jjedtechguy
Public Comment