This link has been bookmarked by 10 people . It was first bookmarked on 30 Oct 2008, by someone privately.
-
13 Jan 09
-
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.
-
-
22 Dec 08
-
15 Nov 08
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
13 Nov 08
George BradfordInformation technology has been an important part of higher education since the development of the lantern slide in the mid-1800s. However, occasions in which the academy has been transformed by technology are rare. Viewed in a historical perspective, these occasions can be considered as a series of three epochs: the online public-access catalog epoch; the personal computer, Internet, and web epoch; and the enterprise systems (ERP, CMS) epoch. Certainly, developments are continuing, but for most colleges and universities, these three epochs no longer represent technological frontiers. Looking forward, those of us in higher education are now focusing our attention on technology applications for teaching, learning, and research—or what can be viewed as the epochs of teaching and learning with technology, and cyberinfrastructure. In this commentary, I’ll be confining my comments to teaching and learning.
-
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 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.
-
-
10 Nov 08
Jerry JohnsonThis article has some very important points about developing and promoting the use of instructional technology in a college.
-
. 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.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.
- 2 more annotations...
-
-
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.
-
Achieving meaningful transformation requires institution-wide, systemic initiatives.
-
-
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
07 Nov 08
Beverly Brownmoving technology into the curriculum. Includes a list of factors to consider and include when implementing.
-
25 Oct 08
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.