Exploring the Virtual Classroom: What Students Need to Know (and Teachers should Consider)

Exploring the virtual classroom: What students need to know (and teachers should consider)  was written by Garry Falloon for the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching.  In this paper, Falloon conducts a study of 22 students over a 16-week semester during an online class.  His goal was to see if the virtual classroom was as effective as a regular classroom on campus.  What he found was that learners suffered a sense of isolation and disconnect which adversely affected their performance.  The researcher used Adobe Connect Pro and the program iShowU HD to conduct his online classes through.  Although the researcher himself was the professor of the courses, he allowed an independent research assistant to carry out all interviews.

From the interviews, Falloon found students didn't feel comfortable interrupting the professor during his online lecture, or the emoticon for hand raising was not registering on a timely manner.  When the emoticon did come up the moment had passed and the question not asked.  The professor also was frustrated with the lack of verbal feedback and was unaware if he was "coming across" to his audience.  The researcher concluded that more research needed to be done to identify "best practices" for virtual classroom use.

I think that a mix of what we do and some virtual interaction would be very beneficial.  It would create a more personal feeling and interaction would be quicker.  From what the study said, some students had difficulty with the computer program itself.  If that is the case then a better format should be investigated in order to get the most out of the class as possible with technology being an interference.  

Experiencing technology integration in education: children's perceptions

Experiencing technology integration in education: Children's perceptions by Baytak, Tarman, and Ayas.  They did a phenomenological study of fifth and sixth grade boys.  They questioned the boys about the use of technology at school and at home.  They also did observations after the interviews were completed.  The observations recorded their non-verbal behaviors and physical settings.   The main goal of the study was to  explore how children define and use technology in their education.  The researchers found four themes emerge from the data: the value of technology, authority over learning, misuses and misperceptions, and the border of integration.

The value of technology: The boys expressed the idea that anything that plugs in is technology.  They did not know what technology integration was, but were aware of  the influence of technology in their learning.
Authority over learning: The researchers noted that students showed more independence when using a computer then in a regular classroom setting.  The students felt that they had more power when using computers for their lessons.
Misuses and misperceptions: Most parents feel that a student's technology experience at school is considered as integration, but not in the home.  The researchers found that parents were the biggest barrier to technological integration in the home.
The border of integration: The boys felt that "searching on the Internet" was the best use for education.  They felt that efficiency, speed, and clarity benefited their educational experience more than anything else.  Some of the boys felt that the use of technology should be limited.  They preferred a person teaching them over using technology for learning.

Finally, the researchers came to the conclusion that although students felt that their use of technology isn't integration, the researchers found that it was.  Students were "gaming" online, but many times the games were educational and beneficial to the students learning.  They suggest that teachers provide students with homework and projects that require use of technology.  This may give students the feeling of being empowered and may take their learning on themselves through assignments and guidance.

I liked this research!! I felt that it was time to look at the kids perspective on technology "integration".  I know from personal experience that my students always get excited when I "integrate" any technology into their regular lessons.  I wish the Internet was readily available throughout rural Tennessee so that my students would be able to use "gaming" and fun websites to enhance their learning.  I created a whole page of fun, educational websites just for this reason:  http://www.19pencils.com/mycomputerlab/site/66 

Portfolios as developmental assessment tools

Portfolios as developmental assessment tools by Harm H. Tillema was in the International Journal of Training and Development.  Tillema sites three kinds of portfolios: the performance dossier-type portfolio, the reflective learning portfolio and the course-related learning portfolio.  The dossier-type portfolio is used mainly for documenting work performance.  The reflective learning portfolio is used to illustrate professional growth in relation to work experiences.  The final portfolio is the course-related portfolio that is used for learning experiences for coursework or a program of study.  Tillema states how the portfolios are very helpful in establishing strengths and weaknesses and to resolve discrepancies in coursework or performance.

I agree with the usefulness of portfolios in both professional settings and educational settings.  I think that electronic portfolios will become more and more in demand rather than just a resume saved as a PDF or scanned for job applications.  Businesses are able to see an applicants abilities by viewing an online portfolio and sample work done by the person.  I think colleges should not only do their own portfolios for students, but also encourage students to start an online portfolio that they can build while in college for when they are ready for job hunting.  VisualCV offers just such a portfolio site.  Students could build the online portfolio during their undergraduate years and continue during their graduate courses.  When finished with school, they have a completed portfolio ready for job applications.

The Problem in Technology Education (A Definite Article)

The Problem in Technology Education (A Definite Article) found in the Journal of Technology Education  Vol. 21 No. 2 in the spring of 2010 was an interesting article written by Jim Flowers.  Flowers spends a lot of time talking about the word "the".   I have used italics with my "the-s" to show how the word "falsely imply uniqueness".  This article was a bit "out there" and I was greatly disappointed with it.  The article ran on pages 10-20, but Flowers didn't even get to the technology part until the bottom of page 13. Flower's problem in technology all stems from the word "the" and how it leaves the learner with the idea that there is no other way or it is the only way.  As he states, "If I teach students 'The definition of technology is...' it conveys something different than had I said, ' A definition for technology is...'."

As I mentioned earlier, this article was "out there".  I almost felt like I was reading one of Dr. Wall's articles she picks that we have to critique.  This one is perfect for her to use.  It is true that the word "the" can imply one thing and not another, but do we really believe that if I say, "I love the scarf around your neck!" means I only love that scarf?  Unless an educator stresses the word in a phrase, "This is the answer for number 4!" Then I don't believe students are closed minded and only zero in on the word "the".  Man I hope this wasn't too confusing, but I did leave the article with a *sigh* and "ok, here goes nothing" feeling.

The Net Generation as Preservice Teachers: Transferring Familiarity with New Technologies to Educational Environments

The Net Generation as Preservice Teachers was written by Swapna Kumar and Katya Vigil for the Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education magazine in 2011.  They are looking into the teacher education and educational policy issues that are preparing the "digital natives" or "Net generation" for the 21st century classroom.  The researchers begin by stating that ISTE has prepared state standards for teachers and students in order to help the learning experience through classroom citizenship and assessments.  Not only are students entering school with a lot of digital experiences, but college students entering education are also familiar with technology and comfortable with it.  Therefore, if technology is "taught to make the connection between the technology, subject matter, and pedagogy, they will quickly become adept at implementing educational technology activities in the classroom".

Kumar and Vigil sent out a survey to preservice teachers regarding their prior use of computer learning and their experiences with technology during their teacher education.  Some interesting results came out during the survey.  When asked about using Web 2.0 tools for informal use and informal creation, there was a big difference.  Surveys showed that many did use the tools of blogs, wikis, or podcasts for informal use, but not for informal creation.  100% of the surveyors never made a podcast informally or for a class. When compared to educational use and educational creation, again, there was a large difference.  Online videos was the Web 2.0 tool that was used the most for education and blogs the lowest.

The final statements by the researchers after evaluating the data they felt that "preservice teachers have to be able to critically evaluate Web-based content, create digital content, and make connections to real-world technologies or resources for their future students".  They urge teacher educators to find ways to encourage preservice teachers to integrate and implement technology into their lessons.

My Reflection:
I completely agree with what the researchers found in their survey.  I do not fall into the Net generation (people born after 1984), but I know the importance of using technology and implementing it into lessons daily.  I wish my district had more computers in each classroom in order to allow students to do paper-free lessons, but the exposure is good with what we have to work with.  Our county has put $600,000 into model classrooms, that's mounted projectors, document cameras, and surround sound.  I found out the other day that one teacher hasn't even tried to use hers, how do I know?  She hasn't turned it on to find out it's not hooked up.  Her students are not receiving any digital experiences in her class because she is older and is not sure of how to integrate it into lessons on a daily or weekly basis.
Newer teachers will probably use the equipment more readily if they are taught during their college courses how to implement it and use Web 2.0 tools regularly.

Equipping the Next Generation of Teachers: Technology Preparation and Practice

Equipping the Next Generation of Teachers  was written in the Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education (vol. 27 Num 1).  This paper was written to prove that a teachers technology skill does not necessarily mean  that they are equipped to integrate it into their classroom seamlessly.  The ability to integrate technology into classroom curriculum is a process that many new teachers are not getting.  The authors of this paper found that 100% of all teacher preparation programs in the US said that they do provide  instruction on technology integration.

A surprising comment found in the paper was that many of the faculty admitted to failing in giving appropriate modeling for students because they themselves struggle with keeping up with current technologies.  Many students in the paper acknowledge that they learn most of their technology integration through inservices rather than their teacher preparation classes.

This study addressed two research questions:
1. What are the perceptions of technology experiences used to prepare teachers to use technology?
2. What are the perceptions of technology topics used to prepare teachers to use technology?

So the results of the this study found that 60% of institutions required an educational technology course in their teacher preparation, but only 44% required an actual project or activity in a teaching methods course.  I also found it interesting that only 25% of the institutions required students to observe classroom integration of technology.  I think that would of been very beneficial for students.

Although many teacher preparation classes did not require a project or activity in the coursework, 60% do require student teachers to develop and/or implement technology during their field experience.  The teacher preparation institutions did mark that they most commonly taught personal productivity and information presentation to their students.  Using technology to analyze student achievement data was the least popular topic taught.

Apparently many institutions felt that the most important topic in their programs was using technology to facilitate professional growth and to teach computer literacy.  A sad result found in the paper was that many other institutions felt that student teachers would get most of their technology training during their field experience and did not provide it during coursework.  However, many faculty felt that technology does need to be included into the programs so students can practice and overcome barriers when they attempt to use technology in the classroom.

I completely agree with everything that this paper said.  I finished my undergrad degree in the late 80's and technology was not even a topic of discussion.  However, I have had several student teachers in my room and I encouraged them to use technology regularly and with purpose.  Technology is a great resource to provide many different viewpoints and examples for students.  It needs to be introduced and practiced during college coursework so professors can help mentor proper use and integration of the technology.  I hope that APSU encourages, pushes, and demands good technology integration for under graduate teacher candidates during their coursework and field experiences.

TPACK: An Emerging Research and Development Tool for Teacher Educators

TPACK: An Emerging Research and Development Tool for Teacher Educators was published in The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology in October 2011.  TPACK stands for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and is a framework for researchers working to understand technology integration in learning and teaching.  TPACK is used to explain how teachers are able to make sensible and creative choices in their use of technology.

The increase in technology has made it easier and more reliable for teachers to integrate it into their regular lessons which is changing the way teachers and students interact and learn.  TPACK is used for designing and developing programs to equip teachers with a more interconnected knowledge that is concentrated on student learning. The letters TPACK stand for different combinations of knowledge that a teacher may exhibit:

• Technology knowledge (TK)
• Content knowledge (CK)
• Pedagogical kowledge (PK)
• Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
• Technological content knowledge (TCK)
• Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)
• Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)

So the focus of the research is upon teacher planning, and it encourages teachers to focus upon the content of their lessons.  Once teachers have their content goals then they are able to incorporate the technology into the lesson.

I completely agree with this research and think the TPACK idea is worthwhile.  If teachers are able to see where they fall in the diagram above, then they can begin to expand outward and become a well rounded technology integrated educator.  By using all three areas equally students would be receiving an education above the rest and teachers would be working smarter and not harder.

I seem to be on to something...found this after writing my post:

Teacher Training in Technology

Teacher Training in Technology by Brian Christiansen is a student paper written at San Diego State University.  Although this is a student paper, he makes a lot of great points about teacher training and that is why I decided to share it with you.  Christiansen starts his paper with the importance of a vision statement, but concludes with the fact that even more important than a vision is the teacher training.

He explains that technology should enhance classroom practices that "include two interconnected components: learning the general capabilities of the technology, and integrating the technology across the curriculum."  He begins with an idea of how training should be set up.  First computers should already be in the classrooms in order for teachers to follow up and use after the training sessions.  He suggests that first trainings should be over hardware, how cables are connected and desktop navigation for the technology they have available.

Next. comes the introduction to software.  He suggests that teachers have hands-on capabilities during these training sessions.  An overview of the Internet is also appropriate for this training, getting teachers familiar with navigating the network and becoming familiar with the mechanics of technology.

Christiansen then begins talking about phase two, time for exploration and planning.  He stresses that planning is most important in order for a teacher to incorporate technology into their lessons.  He also suggests that teachers communicate with one another and mentor each other in order to continue to plan and implement technology into the curriculum.  On going support is critical for teachers to feel comfortable and explore ideas on their own.

I could really relate to this paper because I'm in the process of working on my 6005 project and have found that teachers are not willing to just try something they are not familiar with.  They want training, they want to know what the best practice is, they need support and tools to integrate technology into their classrooms.  I admit, that I've been shocked as to the amount of professional teachers who are not as comfortable with technology as I am.  I've always been around computers since high school (early '80's) because my dad was very "high tech" oriented.  As students of Instructional Technology it is our "duty" to continue to pass the word and help those teachers even if it is one at a time.

Technology and its use in Education: Present Roles and Future Prospects

Keith Courville wrote a paper entitled Technology and its use in Education: Present Roles and Future Prospects for a Recovery School District Technology Summit 2011.  Courville begins the paper with a look at the present uses of technology in education.  He mentions that technology has removed physical barriers to learning for both teachers and students.  Teachers have greater accessibility to distance learning and personal learning networks.  Students are learning new content that is removed from their daily lives.  They are learning to balance checkbooks before they even have checking accounts.  Courville also mentions how technology helps students visualize information and simulations turn passive learning into active learning.

Courville predicts that the use of technology in education will change the way we define learning objectives.  Many objectives require memorizing and recitation of facts, but technology helps children learn necessary skills for research and evaluation of other resources.  Which leads Courville to look at three major issues with technology: "the integration of modern technology into existing learning theory, the evaluation of the effectiveness of technology within instructional settings, and the trials of successful technology integration into similar fields."  Technology must be supported by previous learning theories and not become a distraction.  However, the concern comes with the fact that most learning theories were developed before our modern age of technology.  He does point out that as long as technology meets the standards and principles established by state and federal guidelines it would work with all learning theories.

I agree with the  paper Courville  wrote.  When using technology as a resource it enables students to view the material in a new way and allows them to personalize  it and retain it.  For teachers, the use of media broadens their social network and enables them to try new things and learn too.  As long as teachers continue to follow the curriculum they have been given, technology can only help explain material more thoroughly and enable students to experience the world outside the classroom with virtual field trips.  As far as the effectiveness of technology within instructional settings could easily be monitored with benchmark tests and random discussions with the children.  Over time, if scores continually increase while technology use continually increases, then some credit will have to go to the technology and the teacher who used it effectively.

Teaching competencies for technology integration in the Classroom

Teaching competencies for technology integration in the classroom was an article written by A. Guzman and M. Nussbaum in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2009).  They went about defining the necessary teaching domains and competencies that would best organize technology integration into classroom lessons.  This article was a bibliographic search based on content saturation criterion of two databases: Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar.

The researchers were able to use the two databases and have no duplicate results since each database has different filters.  Academic Search Premier uses a filter for specific classifications, education.  Google Scholar's subject area filter, computer science and humanities, resulted in a broader scope of papers.

Guzman and Nussbaum took their results and developed a coding for information and graphing.  The possible classifications used were C (conceptual), P (procedural), and A (attitudinal).  Each paper was broken down by it's wording and coded for easy calculations as to how technology training should take place.

Next, the researchers recognized six domains that technology integration should cover: instrumental, curricular, methodological, relational, evaluative, and personal.  Instrumental refers to the hardware and  and specific software for instructional purposes.  Curricular refers to the teachers ability to incorporate technology with the existing educational proposition.  Methodological refers to the ability to create a real life experience with the technology available.  Relational refers to the human interaction that will take place, whether teacher to student or student to student.  Evaluative is what it sounds like, getting feedback to see if the training was effective and being implemented in the classroom.  Finally, the last domain was personal, whether the instructor felt that technology was important enough to use and continue to seek ways of implementing it regularly.  Apparently, the personal domain has the greatest influence on technology integration in the classroom.

I agree with what the researchers found, but there is a huge difference between studies found on the internet and the actual experience of training.  The six domains are all important and must be addressed during any technological training, especially the instrumental domain of handling and understanding the equipment.  Personal, to me, should come second in importance, because if the teacher doesn't have the beliefs, emotions, and expectations for integrating technology into a classroom, then basically it won't happen.  In order to encourage a teacher to "step out of his/her box" they will need an in-service that provides them a social link and an interactive aspect during their training.  Make a teacher comfortable with the "equipment" and you will see a slow, but growing emergence of technology in their classrooms.