Teaching Theory: Cognitive Flexibility.
Overview:
Cognitive flexibility theory focuses on the nature of learning in complex and ill-structured domains. Spiro & Jehng (1990, p. 165) state: "By cognitive flexibility, we mean the ability to spontaneously restructure one's knowledge, in many ways, in adaptive response to radically changing situational demands...This is a function of both the way knowledge is represented (e.g., along multiple rather single conceptual dimensions) and the processes that operate on those mental representations (e.g., processes of schema assembly rather than intact schema retrieval)."
The theory is largely concerned with transfer of knowledge and skills beyond their initial learning situation. For this reason, emphasis is placed upon the presentation of information from multiple perspectives and use of many case studies that present diverse examples. The theory also asserts that effective learning is context-dependent, so instruction needs to be very specific. In addition, the theory stresses the importance of constructed knowledge; learners must be given an opportunity to develop their own representations of information in order to properly learn.
Cognitive flexibility theory builds upon other constructivist theories (e.g., Bruner, Ausubel, Piaget) and is related to the work of Salomon in terms of media and learning interaction.
Scope/Application:
Cognitive flexibility theory is especially formulated to support the use of interactive technology (e.g., videodisc, hypertext). Its primary applications have been literary comprehension, history, biology and medicine.
Example:
Jonassen, Ambruso & Olesen (1992) describe an application of cognitive flexibility theory to the design of a hypertext program on transfusion medicine. The program provides a number of different clinical cases which students must diagnose and treat using various sources of information available (including advice from experts). The learning environment presents multiple perspectives on the content, is complex and ill-defined, and emphasizes the construction of knowledge by the learner.
Principles:
1. Learning activities must provide multiple representations of content.
2. Instructional materials should avoid oversimplifying the content domain and support context-dependent knowledge.
3. Instruction should be case-based and emphasize knowledge construction, not transmission of information.
4. Knowledge sources should be highly interconnected rather than compartmentalized.
Read more at http://teaching.concordia.ca/resources/learning-theories-and-models-for-teaching/cognitive-flexibility-theory/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Teaching Theory - Anchored Instruction
Teaching Theory: Anchored Instruction.
Anchored instruction is a major paradigm for technology-based learning that has been developed by the Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) under the leadership of John Bransford. While many people have contributed to the theory and research of anchored instruction, Bransford is the principal spokesperson and hence the theory is attributed to him.
The initial focus of the work was on the development of interactive videodisc tools that encouraged students and teachers to pose and solve complex, realistic problems. The video materials serve as "anchors" (macro-contexts) for all subsequent learning and instruction. As explained by CTGV (1993, p52): "The design of these anchors was quite different from the design of videos that were typically used in education...our goal was to create interesting, realistic contexts that encouraged the active construction of knowledge by learners. Our anchors were stories rather than lectures and were designed to be explored by students and teachers. " The use of interactive videodisc technology makes it possible for students to easily explore the content.
Anchored instruction is close ly related to the situated learning framework (see CTGV, 1990, 1993) and also to the Cognitive Flexibility theory in its emphasis on the use of technology-based learning.
Scope/Application:
The primary application of anchored instruction has been to elementary reading, language arts and mathematics skills. The CLGV has developed a set of interactive videodisc programs called the "Jasper Woodbury Problem Solving Series". These programs involve adventures in which mathematical concepts are used to solve problems . However, the anchored instruction paradigm is based upon a general model of problem-solving (Bransford & Stein, 1993).
Example:
One of the early anchored instruction activities involved the use of the film, "Young Sherlock Holmes" in interactive videodisc form. Students were asked to examine the film in terms of causal connections, motives of the characters, and authenticity of the settings in order to understand the nature of life in Victorian England. The film provides the anchor for an understanding of story-telling and a particular historical era.
Principles:
1. Learning and teaching activities should be designed around a "anchor" which should be some sort of case-study or problem situation.
2. Curriculum materials should allow exploration by the learner (e.g., interactive videodisc programs).
For more about anchored instruction, visit the web site of John Bransford or the Jasper Woodbury project at Vanderbilt University.
References:
Bransford, J.D. et al. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds), Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Bransford, J.D. & Stein, B.S. (1993). The Ideal Problem Solver (2nd Ed). New York: Freeman.
CTGV (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19 (6), 2-10.
CTGV (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisted. Educational Technology, 33 (3), 52- 70.
Read more at http://teaching.concordia.ca/resources/learning-theories-and-models-for-teaching/anchored-instruction/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Anchored instruction is a major paradigm for technology-based learning that has been developed by the Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) under the leadership of John Bransford. While many people have contributed to the theory and research of anchored instruction, Bransford is the principal spokesperson and hence the theory is attributed to him.
The initial focus of the work was on the development of interactive videodisc tools that encouraged students and teachers to pose and solve complex, realistic problems. The video materials serve as "anchors" (macro-contexts) for all subsequent learning and instruction. As explained by CTGV (1993, p52): "The design of these anchors was quite different from the design of videos that were typically used in education...our goal was to create interesting, realistic contexts that encouraged the active construction of knowledge by learners. Our anchors were stories rather than lectures and were designed to be explored by students and teachers. " The use of interactive videodisc technology makes it possible for students to easily explore the content.
Anchored instruction is close ly related to the situated learning framework (see CTGV, 1990, 1993) and also to the Cognitive Flexibility theory in its emphasis on the use of technology-based learning.
Scope/Application:
The primary application of anchored instruction has been to elementary reading, language arts and mathematics skills. The CLGV has developed a set of interactive videodisc programs called the "Jasper Woodbury Problem Solving Series". These programs involve adventures in which mathematical concepts are used to solve problems . However, the anchored instruction paradigm is based upon a general model of problem-solving (Bransford & Stein, 1993).
Example:
One of the early anchored instruction activities involved the use of the film, "Young Sherlock Holmes" in interactive videodisc form. Students were asked to examine the film in terms of causal connections, motives of the characters, and authenticity of the settings in order to understand the nature of life in Victorian England. The film provides the anchor for an understanding of story-telling and a particular historical era.
Principles:
1. Learning and teaching activities should be designed around a "anchor" which should be some sort of case-study or problem situation.
2. Curriculum materials should allow exploration by the learner (e.g., interactive videodisc programs).
For more about anchored instruction, visit the web site of John Bransford or the Jasper Woodbury project at Vanderbilt University.
References:
Bransford, J.D. et al. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds), Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Bransford, J.D. & Stein, B.S. (1993). The Ideal Problem Solver (2nd Ed). New York: Freeman.
CTGV (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19 (6), 2-10.
CTGV (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisted. Educational Technology, 33 (3), 52- 70.
Read more at http://teaching.concordia.ca/resources/learning-theories-and-models-for-teaching/anchored-instruction/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Universities Reshaping Education on the Web
Universities Reshaping Education on the Web.
As part of a seismic shift in online learning that is reshaping higher education, Coursera, a year-old company founded by two Stanford University computer scientists, will announce on Tuesday that a dozen major research universities are joining the venture. In the fall, Coursera will offer 100 or more free massive open online courses, or MOOCs, that are expected to draw millions of students and adult learners globally.
Even before the expansion, Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng, the founders of Coursera, said it had registered 680,000 students in 43 courses with its original partners, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania.
Now, the partners will include the California Institute of Technology; Duke University; the Georgia Institute of Technology; Johns Hopkins University; Rice University; the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; the University of Washington; and the University of Virginia, where the debate over online education was cited in last’s month’s ousting — quickly overturned — of its president, Teresa A. Sullivan. Foreign partners include the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, the University of Toronto and EPF Lausanne, a technical university in Switzerland.
And some of them will offer credit.
“This is the tsunami,” said Richard A. DeMillo, the director of the Center for 21st Century Universities at Georgia Tech. “It’s all so new that everyone’s feeling their way around, but the potential upside for this experiment is so big that it’s hard for me to imagine any large research university that wouldn’t want to be involved.”
Because of technological advances — among them, the greatly improved quality of online delivery platforms, the ability to personalize material and the capacity to analyze huge numbers of student experiences to see which approach works best — MOOCs are likely to be a game-changer, opening higher education to hundreds of millions of people.
To date, most MOOCs have covered computer science, math and engineering, but Coursera is expanding into areas like medicine, poetry and history. MOOCs were largely unknown until a wave of publicity last year about Stanford University’s free online artificial intelligence course attracted 160,000 students from 190 countries. Only a small percentage of the students completed the course, but even so, the numbers were staggering.
“The fact that so many people are so curious about these courses shows the yearning for education,” said Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education. “There are going to be lots of bumps in the road, but this is a very important experiment at a very substantial scale.”
So far, MOOCs have offered no credit, just a “statement of accomplishment” and a grade. But the University of Washington said it planned to offer credit for its Coursera offerings this fall, and other online ventures are also moving in that direction. David P. Szatmary, the university’s vice provost, said that to earn credit, students would probably have to pay a fee, do extra assignments and work with an instructor.
Experts say it is too soon to predict how MOOCs will play out, or which venture will emerge as the leader. Coursera, with about $22 million in financing, including $3.7 million in equity investment from Caltech and Penn, may currently have the edge. But no one is counting out edX, a joint venture of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or Udacity, the company founded by Sebastian Thrun of Stanford, who taught the artificial intelligence course last year.
Each company offers online materials broken into manageable chunks, with short video segments, interactive quizzes and other activities — as well as online forums where students answer one another’s questions.
But even Mr. Thrun, a master of MOOCs, cautioned that for all their promise, the courses are still experimental. “I think we are rushing this a little bit,” he said. “I haven’t seen a single study showing that online learning is as good as other learning.”
Worldwide access is Coursera’s goal. “EPF Lausanne, which offers courses in French, opens up access for students in half of Africa,” Ms. Koller said. Each university designs and produces its own courses and decides whether to offer credit.
Coursera does not pay the universities, and the universities do not pay Coursera, but both incur substantial costs. Contracts provide that if a revenue stream emerges, the company and the universities will share it.
Read more at https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/education/consortium-of-colleges-takes-online-education-to-new-level.html?ref=education
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
As part of a seismic shift in online learning that is reshaping higher education, Coursera, a year-old company founded by two Stanford University computer scientists, will announce on Tuesday that a dozen major research universities are joining the venture. In the fall, Coursera will offer 100 or more free massive open online courses, or MOOCs, that are expected to draw millions of students and adult learners globally.
Even before the expansion, Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng, the founders of Coursera, said it had registered 680,000 students in 43 courses with its original partners, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania.
Now, the partners will include the California Institute of Technology; Duke University; the Georgia Institute of Technology; Johns Hopkins University; Rice University; the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; the University of Washington; and the University of Virginia, where the debate over online education was cited in last’s month’s ousting — quickly overturned — of its president, Teresa A. Sullivan. Foreign partners include the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, the University of Toronto and EPF Lausanne, a technical university in Switzerland.
And some of them will offer credit.
“This is the tsunami,” said Richard A. DeMillo, the director of the Center for 21st Century Universities at Georgia Tech. “It’s all so new that everyone’s feeling their way around, but the potential upside for this experiment is so big that it’s hard for me to imagine any large research university that wouldn’t want to be involved.”
Because of technological advances — among them, the greatly improved quality of online delivery platforms, the ability to personalize material and the capacity to analyze huge numbers of student experiences to see which approach works best — MOOCs are likely to be a game-changer, opening higher education to hundreds of millions of people.
To date, most MOOCs have covered computer science, math and engineering, but Coursera is expanding into areas like medicine, poetry and history. MOOCs were largely unknown until a wave of publicity last year about Stanford University’s free online artificial intelligence course attracted 160,000 students from 190 countries. Only a small percentage of the students completed the course, but even so, the numbers were staggering.
“The fact that so many people are so curious about these courses shows the yearning for education,” said Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education. “There are going to be lots of bumps in the road, but this is a very important experiment at a very substantial scale.”
So far, MOOCs have offered no credit, just a “statement of accomplishment” and a grade. But the University of Washington said it planned to offer credit for its Coursera offerings this fall, and other online ventures are also moving in that direction. David P. Szatmary, the university’s vice provost, said that to earn credit, students would probably have to pay a fee, do extra assignments and work with an instructor.
Experts say it is too soon to predict how MOOCs will play out, or which venture will emerge as the leader. Coursera, with about $22 million in financing, including $3.7 million in equity investment from Caltech and Penn, may currently have the edge. But no one is counting out edX, a joint venture of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or Udacity, the company founded by Sebastian Thrun of Stanford, who taught the artificial intelligence course last year.
Each company offers online materials broken into manageable chunks, with short video segments, interactive quizzes and other activities — as well as online forums where students answer one another’s questions.
But even Mr. Thrun, a master of MOOCs, cautioned that for all their promise, the courses are still experimental. “I think we are rushing this a little bit,” he said. “I haven’t seen a single study showing that online learning is as good as other learning.”
Worldwide access is Coursera’s goal. “EPF Lausanne, which offers courses in French, opens up access for students in half of Africa,” Ms. Koller said. Each university designs and produces its own courses and decides whether to offer credit.
Coursera does not pay the universities, and the universities do not pay Coursera, but both incur substantial costs. Contracts provide that if a revenue stream emerges, the company and the universities will share it.
Read more at https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/education/consortium-of-colleges-takes-online-education-to-new-level.html?ref=education
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Friday, August 10, 2012
Number of Students Increasing Rapidly, Universities Getting Overloaded
Number of students increasing rapidly, universities getting overloaded.
According to the Ministry of Education and Training, there are 46 universities and 17 junior colleges in Hanoi. Besides, there are also nearly 40 vocational high schools with the total number of students accounting for 43 percent of the number of students in the whole country. Meanwhile, there are 112 schools in HCM City.
Hanoi and HCM City are the two big cities where most of the key universities with very high numbers of students are located.
Material facilities poor, number of students increasing rapidly – what to do?
Tran Thanh Binh, Director of the School Design and Research Institute under the Ministry of Education and Training, said that the average area of schools is too low Most of the schools have the land of less than 10 hectares, lack basic functional areas, and their the education environment is generally bad.
Analysts have blamed the current situation on the too rapidly increasing number of students. Meanwhile, schools’ actual land area have been reduced because parts of the land have been used for different purposes.
The Hanoi University of Technology with 34 hectares of land was designed in 1960s to fit 2000 students. Meanwhile, the number of students has increased 10 times.
newly established schools have been running in even worse conditions. The classrooms are located on small areas or in houses which were not designed as classrooms. It is common that students of the same schools have to go to classrooms located in different places. Meanwhile, the schools are not located in easily accessible areas.
some schools have made large investment of hundreds of billions dong to upgrade their facilities. The Hanoi Economics University, for example, carried out the project to fit 15,000 students of the school. However, the school is located on Giai Phong Road near the key traffic point. Meanwhile, many other schools are located in the area with no urban roads, thus making it difficlut to travel.
Relocating schools to suburb areas? It’s not easy
The only solution to the current problem is to relocate the schools to suburb areas, where the there is more available land. The HCM City authorities have reserved 2210 hectares of land in Dong Bac new urban area for 50 schools to move in.
Hanoi is also planning to bring 40,000 students of the Hanoi National University to Hoa Lac new urban area, 30 kilometres from the city centre More than 10 universities and junior colleges will be moved to satellite urban areas such as Gia Lam (the area will gather agriculture, polytechnique and technology schools), Soc Son (polytechnique and information technology), and Son Tay (social sciences, pedagogical and tourism schools)
However, experts have warned that it is not easy to relocate and re-equip the schools, because the project will need a huge sum of capital which goes beyond the capacity of schools, while the state budget remains limited.
Then a new solution has been suggested that schools can exchange their campuses in the inner city for the capital to be invested in suburb areas.
This measure has been applied by the HCM City University of Physical and Sports Education is after getting the approval from the Ministry of Education and Training and HCM City authorities. This means that the city’s authorities will auction a land plot (which has the same value with the current land plot of the school) in order to get money to help the school build a new campus. After everything is prepared at the new campus, the school will hand over its current campus to the city.
However, the project is facing a lot of difficulties. An official from the school said that the land plot for auction has not been sold.
Dr Pham Van Nang, President of the HCM City Economics University, said that the school has been talking about the relocation for the past 10 years. However, no considerable progress has been made so far.
Read more at http://www.vnnewstime.com/education-news/number-of-students-increasing-rapidly-universities-getting-overloaded/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
According to the Ministry of Education and Training, there are 46 universities and 17 junior colleges in Hanoi. Besides, there are also nearly 40 vocational high schools with the total number of students accounting for 43 percent of the number of students in the whole country. Meanwhile, there are 112 schools in HCM City.
Hanoi and HCM City are the two big cities where most of the key universities with very high numbers of students are located.
Material facilities poor, number of students increasing rapidly – what to do?
Tran Thanh Binh, Director of the School Design and Research Institute under the Ministry of Education and Training, said that the average area of schools is too low Most of the schools have the land of less than 10 hectares, lack basic functional areas, and their the education environment is generally bad.
Analysts have blamed the current situation on the too rapidly increasing number of students. Meanwhile, schools’ actual land area have been reduced because parts of the land have been used for different purposes.
The Hanoi University of Technology with 34 hectares of land was designed in 1960s to fit 2000 students. Meanwhile, the number of students has increased 10 times.
newly established schools have been running in even worse conditions. The classrooms are located on small areas or in houses which were not designed as classrooms. It is common that students of the same schools have to go to classrooms located in different places. Meanwhile, the schools are not located in easily accessible areas.
some schools have made large investment of hundreds of billions dong to upgrade their facilities. The Hanoi Economics University, for example, carried out the project to fit 15,000 students of the school. However, the school is located on Giai Phong Road near the key traffic point. Meanwhile, many other schools are located in the area with no urban roads, thus making it difficlut to travel.
Relocating schools to suburb areas? It’s not easy
The only solution to the current problem is to relocate the schools to suburb areas, where the there is more available land. The HCM City authorities have reserved 2210 hectares of land in Dong Bac new urban area for 50 schools to move in.
Hanoi is also planning to bring 40,000 students of the Hanoi National University to Hoa Lac new urban area, 30 kilometres from the city centre More than 10 universities and junior colleges will be moved to satellite urban areas such as Gia Lam (the area will gather agriculture, polytechnique and technology schools), Soc Son (polytechnique and information technology), and Son Tay (social sciences, pedagogical and tourism schools)
However, experts have warned that it is not easy to relocate and re-equip the schools, because the project will need a huge sum of capital which goes beyond the capacity of schools, while the state budget remains limited.
Then a new solution has been suggested that schools can exchange their campuses in the inner city for the capital to be invested in suburb areas.
This measure has been applied by the HCM City University of Physical and Sports Education is after getting the approval from the Ministry of Education and Training and HCM City authorities. This means that the city’s authorities will auction a land plot (which has the same value with the current land plot of the school) in order to get money to help the school build a new campus. After everything is prepared at the new campus, the school will hand over its current campus to the city.
However, the project is facing a lot of difficulties. An official from the school said that the land plot for auction has not been sold.
Dr Pham Van Nang, President of the HCM City Economics University, said that the school has been talking about the relocation for the past 10 years. However, no considerable progress has been made so far.
Read more at http://www.vnnewstime.com/education-news/number-of-students-increasing-rapidly-universities-getting-overloaded/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Got the Next Great Idea?
Got the Next Great Idea?
EVERYONE, it seems, has an app or a genius idea for one. Credit the lackluster job market plus facile tools and technology — no Ph.D. in programming required — for the rise of campus hack cultures that reach far beyond engineering and computer science majors and Stanford and M.I.T. Big rewards like the $100 billion public offering for Facebook, which was conceived in a Harvard dorm, and its $1 billion splurge on Instagram only feed the fantasies of code-writing college students.
In 2010, four Emory students — Ian McCall, Nir Levy, Giovanni Hobbins and Pat Shea — met in Mr. Shea’s dorm room to upgrade the Web site of a student group but instead decided to build a portal to organize campus life. Thus was born Campus Bubble, a platform for university information and postings from campus groups, students and businesses.
Now headquartered in Mr. Shea’s apartment (he graduated in May), the founders have four summer interns and are working madly to launch version 2.0 next month after a pilot run last year attracted 4,000 users. Mr. McCall, a senior, recalls early meetings as “really exhilarating.” He’ll also tell you that the adrenaline rush of hatching a hot idea comes with a counter-rush: What now?
Instinct may suggest you head west. That’s the play if you land a spot in Y Combinator (despite a YouTube plea, Campus Bubble did not). Admission to the three-month program is more competitive than Harvard or Yale, and comes with cachet. You give up a percentage of your start-up’s equity. But those who get in, like Wesley Zhao and Ajay Mehta (Mr. Zhao is on leave from the University of Pennsylvania and Mr. Mehta from New York University), say the advice, speakers, community and high-power tech network is worth the price. “They provide you with so much value from Day 1,” says Mr. Zhao, who with Mr. Mehta developed FamilyLeaf, an online site for sharing family photos and news. The accelerator connected them with two additional founders, and $170,000 in initial financing. And their March “Demonstration Day” performance (sporting T-shirts hand-painted the night before with their company name) earned them several new investors.
Inclusion in private incubators like Y Combinator and TechStars is coveted because of their strong track records with start-ups (Dropbox, Bump, Loopt) and the Silicon Valley icons who serve as mentors. But young entrepreneurs can find good help without leaving campus. “It’s possible for a 20-year-old to create something that changes the world,” says Bryce C. Pilz, a University of Michigan law professor who works with student start-ups.
That’s revolutionary thinking for a university culture that has long focused on the inventions of graduate students and faculty. But campuses are beginning to put their bets on undergraduates. Who better understands the social media mindset? And what campus wouldn’t want an Instagram founder as an alum?
Campus incubators are growing. New data from the National Business Incubation Association show that about one-third of the 1,250 business incubators in the United States are at universities, up from one-fifth in 2006. Even nontechie campuses like Northern Kentucky University, Duke and Syracuse have jumped in the pool, recently adding or planning to add start-up incubators.
On campus or off, incubators are not always useful. Some do little more than provide free or cheap space and a coffee machine. What entrepreneurs really need is guidance and like-minded peers.
That’s why George Washington University decided to offer “soup-to-nuts support” for start-ups when it created the Office of Entrepreneurship two years ago, with workshops on crafting an elevator pitch and talks like “Student Start-Ups: From Dorm Room to Board Room.” Jim Chung, the program director, notes that today’s start-ups are led not just by business and computer majors but by “designers, musicians, anybody with good ideas,” so universities need to connect these students to experts and to one another.
“When students are doing crazy stuff, they need to be around other crazy people who think they’re sane,” says Moses Lee, assistant director of TechArb, a four-year-old university-sponsored student incubator (he prefers “start-up hive”) in the basement of a parking garage at the University of Michigan. Getting into TechArb is competitive. Last fall, 65 teams applied for 20 spots. Its curriculum has students pitching to potential users or customers and leading a monthly board meeting to learn how to justify themselves to investors.
Mr. Lee, who is starting up an online student portfolio for job hunting, says that talking about your vision and getting feedback are key early steps. Incubator offices are buzzing at 4 a.m.
Although universities tend to view incubators aimed at undergraduates as the equivalent of a career office, they can also have claims on a student’s I.P. (start-up parlance for intellectual property), says Todd Sherer, president of the Association of University Technology Managers, whose members turn campus inventions into commercial deals. Dr. Sherer, who is also director of Emory’s technology transfer office, says undergraduates are typically considered sole owners of their inventions, but there are exceptions: if a student receives a university grant or is paid by the university for the work, if the idea is developed with faculty, or if a student uses significant campus resources to develop the idea.
At the University of Michigan, students had feared that bringing a project to class or sharing with a professor “would trigger university ownership,” Mr. Pilz says. The language in its policy — that it could claim ownership if student inventors relied on “direct or indirect support of funds administered by the university” — was having a chilling effect. In 2009, the university gavestudents sole ownership of their inventions, even if they work on the idea in a course or use university equipment.
An Entrepreneurship Clinic, in which law students provide free help to undergraduate start-ups, began in January and is now the most popular clinic at the law school; 97 students vied for 16 clinic spots for the fall.
Mr. Chung notes that universities would rather foster positive relations than collect shares in student businesses. “Successful alumni breed successful schools,” he says. Yahoo! started on Stanford servers, but the university never sought ownership. Jerry Yang and David Filo, the founders, endowed a $2 million chair in the School of Engineering and Mr. Yang and his wife have given $75 million.
Google is another story. Stanford owns patents on technology developed by two graduate students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Federal filings for 2011 show the company paid Stanford $400,000 in royalties, and donated $3 million. Stanford’s president, John L. Hennessy, is on the Google board and some 1,300 Stanford graduates work at Google.
The Campus Bubble founders initially “worried about Emory taking some ownership,” says Mr. McCall. But they needed the cooperation of the university — it is The Emory Bubble they are attempting to introduce — so they hired a lawyer and made a deal, giving Emory shares for use of the trademark. Charles Goetz, their teacher in an entrepreneurship class, became their adviser. He says the deal has opened doors, including landing the start-up’s first investor. Mr. Shea agrees: “The fact that we were working with the university gave us some legitimacy.” The $25,000 infusion means the founders, who did Web development on the side to pay living expenses and a $2,000 legal bill, can now pay their interns and focus on their project.
Few student start-ups become Facebook. Most don’t even make a profit. Jeffrey Babin, business adviser for Wharton’s Venture Initiation Program at the University of Pennsylvania, an incubator with 31 student start-ups, warns that “ideas are a dime a dozen — whoever gets it to market in the fastest and most effective manner wins.” Success is elusive, Mr. Babin says, and young founders often decide that it makes more sense to work for someone else. But, he adds: “The value of the venture may be zero. What you have learned? It’s invaluable.”
Read more at https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/education/edlife/campus-incubators-are-on-the-rise-as-colleges-encourage-student-start-ups.html?ref=education
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
EVERYONE, it seems, has an app or a genius idea for one. Credit the lackluster job market plus facile tools and technology — no Ph.D. in programming required — for the rise of campus hack cultures that reach far beyond engineering and computer science majors and Stanford and M.I.T. Big rewards like the $100 billion public offering for Facebook, which was conceived in a Harvard dorm, and its $1 billion splurge on Instagram only feed the fantasies of code-writing college students.
In 2010, four Emory students — Ian McCall, Nir Levy, Giovanni Hobbins and Pat Shea — met in Mr. Shea’s dorm room to upgrade the Web site of a student group but instead decided to build a portal to organize campus life. Thus was born Campus Bubble, a platform for university information and postings from campus groups, students and businesses.
Now headquartered in Mr. Shea’s apartment (he graduated in May), the founders have four summer interns and are working madly to launch version 2.0 next month after a pilot run last year attracted 4,000 users. Mr. McCall, a senior, recalls early meetings as “really exhilarating.” He’ll also tell you that the adrenaline rush of hatching a hot idea comes with a counter-rush: What now?
Instinct may suggest you head west. That’s the play if you land a spot in Y Combinator (despite a YouTube plea, Campus Bubble did not). Admission to the three-month program is more competitive than Harvard or Yale, and comes with cachet. You give up a percentage of your start-up’s equity. But those who get in, like Wesley Zhao and Ajay Mehta (Mr. Zhao is on leave from the University of Pennsylvania and Mr. Mehta from New York University), say the advice, speakers, community and high-power tech network is worth the price. “They provide you with so much value from Day 1,” says Mr. Zhao, who with Mr. Mehta developed FamilyLeaf, an online site for sharing family photos and news. The accelerator connected them with two additional founders, and $170,000 in initial financing. And their March “Demonstration Day” performance (sporting T-shirts hand-painted the night before with their company name) earned them several new investors.
Inclusion in private incubators like Y Combinator and TechStars is coveted because of their strong track records with start-ups (Dropbox, Bump, Loopt) and the Silicon Valley icons who serve as mentors. But young entrepreneurs can find good help without leaving campus. “It’s possible for a 20-year-old to create something that changes the world,” says Bryce C. Pilz, a University of Michigan law professor who works with student start-ups.
That’s revolutionary thinking for a university culture that has long focused on the inventions of graduate students and faculty. But campuses are beginning to put their bets on undergraduates. Who better understands the social media mindset? And what campus wouldn’t want an Instagram founder as an alum?
Campus incubators are growing. New data from the National Business Incubation Association show that about one-third of the 1,250 business incubators in the United States are at universities, up from one-fifth in 2006. Even nontechie campuses like Northern Kentucky University, Duke and Syracuse have jumped in the pool, recently adding or planning to add start-up incubators.
On campus or off, incubators are not always useful. Some do little more than provide free or cheap space and a coffee machine. What entrepreneurs really need is guidance and like-minded peers.
That’s why George Washington University decided to offer “soup-to-nuts support” for start-ups when it created the Office of Entrepreneurship two years ago, with workshops on crafting an elevator pitch and talks like “Student Start-Ups: From Dorm Room to Board Room.” Jim Chung, the program director, notes that today’s start-ups are led not just by business and computer majors but by “designers, musicians, anybody with good ideas,” so universities need to connect these students to experts and to one another.
“When students are doing crazy stuff, they need to be around other crazy people who think they’re sane,” says Moses Lee, assistant director of TechArb, a four-year-old university-sponsored student incubator (he prefers “start-up hive”) in the basement of a parking garage at the University of Michigan. Getting into TechArb is competitive. Last fall, 65 teams applied for 20 spots. Its curriculum has students pitching to potential users or customers and leading a monthly board meeting to learn how to justify themselves to investors.
Mr. Lee, who is starting up an online student portfolio for job hunting, says that talking about your vision and getting feedback are key early steps. Incubator offices are buzzing at 4 a.m.
Although universities tend to view incubators aimed at undergraduates as the equivalent of a career office, they can also have claims on a student’s I.P. (start-up parlance for intellectual property), says Todd Sherer, president of the Association of University Technology Managers, whose members turn campus inventions into commercial deals. Dr. Sherer, who is also director of Emory’s technology transfer office, says undergraduates are typically considered sole owners of their inventions, but there are exceptions: if a student receives a university grant or is paid by the university for the work, if the idea is developed with faculty, or if a student uses significant campus resources to develop the idea.
At the University of Michigan, students had feared that bringing a project to class or sharing with a professor “would trigger university ownership,” Mr. Pilz says. The language in its policy — that it could claim ownership if student inventors relied on “direct or indirect support of funds administered by the university” — was having a chilling effect. In 2009, the university gavestudents sole ownership of their inventions, even if they work on the idea in a course or use university equipment.
An Entrepreneurship Clinic, in which law students provide free help to undergraduate start-ups, began in January and is now the most popular clinic at the law school; 97 students vied for 16 clinic spots for the fall.
Mr. Chung notes that universities would rather foster positive relations than collect shares in student businesses. “Successful alumni breed successful schools,” he says. Yahoo! started on Stanford servers, but the university never sought ownership. Jerry Yang and David Filo, the founders, endowed a $2 million chair in the School of Engineering and Mr. Yang and his wife have given $75 million.
Google is another story. Stanford owns patents on technology developed by two graduate students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Federal filings for 2011 show the company paid Stanford $400,000 in royalties, and donated $3 million. Stanford’s president, John L. Hennessy, is on the Google board and some 1,300 Stanford graduates work at Google.
The Campus Bubble founders initially “worried about Emory taking some ownership,” says Mr. McCall. But they needed the cooperation of the university — it is The Emory Bubble they are attempting to introduce — so they hired a lawyer and made a deal, giving Emory shares for use of the trademark. Charles Goetz, their teacher in an entrepreneurship class, became their adviser. He says the deal has opened doors, including landing the start-up’s first investor. Mr. Shea agrees: “The fact that we were working with the university gave us some legitimacy.” The $25,000 infusion means the founders, who did Web development on the side to pay living expenses and a $2,000 legal bill, can now pay their interns and focus on their project.
Few student start-ups become Facebook. Most don’t even make a profit. Jeffrey Babin, business adviser for Wharton’s Venture Initiation Program at the University of Pennsylvania, an incubator with 31 student start-ups, warns that “ideas are a dime a dozen — whoever gets it to market in the fastest and most effective manner wins.” Success is elusive, Mr. Babin says, and young founders often decide that it makes more sense to work for someone else. But, he adds: “The value of the venture may be zero. What you have learned? It’s invaluable.”
Read more at https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/education/edlife/campus-incubators-are-on-the-rise-as-colleges-encourage-student-start-ups.html?ref=education
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Big Data on Campus
Big Data on Campus.
This article is part of a collaboration between The New York Times and The Chronicle of Higher Education, a daily source of news and opinion for professors, administrators and others interested in academe. Marc Parry is a technology reporter for The Chronicle.
CAMPUSES are places of intuition and serendipity: a professor senses confusion on a student’s face and repeats his point; a student majors in psychology after a roommate takes a course; two freshmen meet on the quad and eventually become husband and wife. Now imagine hard data substituting for happenstance.
As Katye Allisone, a freshman at Arizona State University, hunkers down in a computer lab for an 8:35 a.m. math class, the Web-based course watches her back. Answers, scores, pace, click paths — it hoovers up information, like Google. But rather than personalizing search results, data shape Ms. Allisone’s class according to her understanding of the material.
With 72,000 students, A.S.U. is both the country’s largest public university and a hotbed of data-driven experiments. One core effort is a degree-monitoring system that keeps tabs on how students are doing in their majors. Stray off-course and a student may have to switch fields.
And while not exactly matchmaking, Arizona State takes an interest in students’ social lives, too. Its Facebook app mines profiles to suggest friends. One classmate shares eight things in common with Ms. Allisone, who “likes” education, photography and tattoos. Researchers are even trying to figure out social ties based on anonymized data culled from swipes of ID cards around the Tempe campus.
This is college life, quantified.
Data mining hinges on one reality about life on the Web: what you do there leaves behind a trail of digital breadcrumbs. Companies scoop those up to tailor services, like the matchmaking of eHarmony or the book recommendations of Amazon. Now colleges, eager to get students out the door more efficiently, are awakening to the opportunities of so-called Big Data.
The new breed of software can predict how well students will do before they even set foot in the classroom. It recommends courses, Netflix-style, based on students’ academic records.
Data diggers hope to improve an education system in which professors often fly blind. That’s a particular problem in introductory-level courses, says Carol A. Twigg, president of the National Center for Academic Transformation. “The typical class, the professor rattles on in front of the class,” she says. “They give a midterm exam. Half the kids fail. Half the kids drop out. And they have no idea what’s going on with their students.”
As more of this technology comes online, it raises new tensions. What role does a professor play when an algorithm recommends the next lesson? If colleges can predict failure, should they steer students away from challenges? When paths are so tailored, do campuses cease to be places of exploration?
“We don’t want to turn into just eHarmony,” says Michael Zimmer, assistant professor in the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, where he studies ethical dimensions of new technology. “I’m worried that we’re taking both the richness and the serendipitous aspect of courses and professors and majors — and all the things that are supposed to be university life — and instead translating it into 18 variables that spit out, ‘This is your best fit. So go over here.’ ”
ALERT! YOU ARE OFF-TRACK
EVER since childhood, Rikki Eriven has felt certain of the career that would fit her best: working with animals. Specifically, large animals. The soft-spoken freshman smiles as she recalls the episode of “Animal Planet” that kindled this interest, the one about zoo specialists who treat rhinos, hippos and giraffes. So when Ms. Eriven arrived at Arizona State last fall, she put her plan in motion by picking biological sciences as her major.
But things didn’t go according to plan. She felt overwhelmed. She dropped a class. She did poorly in biology (after experiencing problems, she says, with the clicker device used to answer multiple-choice questions in class). Ms. Eriven began seeing ominous alerts in her e-mail in-box and online student portal. “Off-track,” they warned. “It told me that I had to seek eAdvising,” she says. “And I was, like, eAdvising?”
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
This article is part of a collaboration between The New York Times and The Chronicle of Higher Education, a daily source of news and opinion for professors, administrators and others interested in academe. Marc Parry is a technology reporter for The Chronicle.
CAMPUSES are places of intuition and serendipity: a professor senses confusion on a student’s face and repeats his point; a student majors in psychology after a roommate takes a course; two freshmen meet on the quad and eventually become husband and wife. Now imagine hard data substituting for happenstance.
As Katye Allisone, a freshman at Arizona State University, hunkers down in a computer lab for an 8:35 a.m. math class, the Web-based course watches her back. Answers, scores, pace, click paths — it hoovers up information, like Google. But rather than personalizing search results, data shape Ms. Allisone’s class according to her understanding of the material.
With 72,000 students, A.S.U. is both the country’s largest public university and a hotbed of data-driven experiments. One core effort is a degree-monitoring system that keeps tabs on how students are doing in their majors. Stray off-course and a student may have to switch fields.
And while not exactly matchmaking, Arizona State takes an interest in students’ social lives, too. Its Facebook app mines profiles to suggest friends. One classmate shares eight things in common with Ms. Allisone, who “likes” education, photography and tattoos. Researchers are even trying to figure out social ties based on anonymized data culled from swipes of ID cards around the Tempe campus.
This is college life, quantified.
Data mining hinges on one reality about life on the Web: what you do there leaves behind a trail of digital breadcrumbs. Companies scoop those up to tailor services, like the matchmaking of eHarmony or the book recommendations of Amazon. Now colleges, eager to get students out the door more efficiently, are awakening to the opportunities of so-called Big Data.
The new breed of software can predict how well students will do before they even set foot in the classroom. It recommends courses, Netflix-style, based on students’ academic records.
Data diggers hope to improve an education system in which professors often fly blind. That’s a particular problem in introductory-level courses, says Carol A. Twigg, president of the National Center for Academic Transformation. “The typical class, the professor rattles on in front of the class,” she says. “They give a midterm exam. Half the kids fail. Half the kids drop out. And they have no idea what’s going on with their students.”
As more of this technology comes online, it raises new tensions. What role does a professor play when an algorithm recommends the next lesson? If colleges can predict failure, should they steer students away from challenges? When paths are so tailored, do campuses cease to be places of exploration?
“We don’t want to turn into just eHarmony,” says Michael Zimmer, assistant professor in the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, where he studies ethical dimensions of new technology. “I’m worried that we’re taking both the richness and the serendipitous aspect of courses and professors and majors — and all the things that are supposed to be university life — and instead translating it into 18 variables that spit out, ‘This is your best fit. So go over here.’ ”
ALERT! YOU ARE OFF-TRACK
EVER since childhood, Rikki Eriven has felt certain of the career that would fit her best: working with animals. Specifically, large animals. The soft-spoken freshman smiles as she recalls the episode of “Animal Planet” that kindled this interest, the one about zoo specialists who treat rhinos, hippos and giraffes. So when Ms. Eriven arrived at Arizona State last fall, she put her plan in motion by picking biological sciences as her major.
But things didn’t go according to plan. She felt overwhelmed. She dropped a class. She did poorly in biology (after experiencing problems, she says, with the clicker device used to answer multiple-choice questions in class). Ms. Eriven began seeing ominous alerts in her e-mail in-box and online student portal. “Off-track,” they warned. “It told me that I had to seek eAdvising,” she says. “And I was, like, eAdvising?”
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Austria Boost Vietnam's Tertiary Education
Austria Boost Vietnam's Tertiary Education.
HCM CITY — Viet Nam and Austria would continue strengthening co-operation in tertiary education and science and technology, a forum was told in HCM City yesterday.
The Viet Nam-Austria forum on tertiary education, science and research was attended by Austrian President Heinz Fischer and Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Thien Nhan.
The forum was considered an important bridge between the two countries' higher education and science and technology sectors.
Speaking at the event, President Heinz Fischer said he was pleased with the development of bilateral ties in the science and research sector through co-operative agreements between tertiary education and research agencies, as well as the framework of the Austrian Southeast Asian University Partnership Network (ASEA-UNINET) initiated by Austrian universities.
Deputy PM Nhan affirmed that the forum represented the two countries' determination to make tertiary education, science and research a priority in bilateral co-operation.
Viet Nam considered education and science and technology vital for rapid and sustainable development, he said.
In its tertiary education strategy, Viet Nam would improve the quality of higher education by building high-quality universities, strengthening international co-operation in tertiary education and stepping up scientific research at universities, he added.
According to Minister of Science and Technology Nguyen Quan, Viet Nam attaches importance to scientific and technological co-operation with Austria, reflected by the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on scientific and technological co-operation between the Vietnamese Ministry of Science and Technology and the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research in late 2011.
The MoU affirms the two ministries' commitment to creating a mechanism to encourage co-operation between the Vietnamese and Austrian scientific and technological communities, especially between universities and research institutes.
At the forum, the Vietnamese Ministry of Science and Technology and the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research officially launched a programme to support bilateral research co-operation between Viet Nam and Austria in the 2012-2025 period.
Under the programme, the two countries' scientific communities will receive financial support to boost joint research co-operation activities and train scientists in the three priority areas of network security, intelligent transport and renewable energy.
During the event, six MoAs were also inked between leading universities of Viet Nam and Austria.
On the same day, Austrian President Heinz Fischer met with Chairman of the HCM City People's Committee Le Hoang Quan, who expressed his belief that the visit would boost multifaceted co-operation between Austria and Viet Nam and between Austria and HCM City in particular.
Read more at http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/politics-laws/225531/vn-austria-boost-tertiary-education.html
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
HCM CITY — Viet Nam and Austria would continue strengthening co-operation in tertiary education and science and technology, a forum was told in HCM City yesterday.
The Viet Nam-Austria forum on tertiary education, science and research was attended by Austrian President Heinz Fischer and Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Thien Nhan.
The forum was considered an important bridge between the two countries' higher education and science and technology sectors.
Speaking at the event, President Heinz Fischer said he was pleased with the development of bilateral ties in the science and research sector through co-operative agreements between tertiary education and research agencies, as well as the framework of the Austrian Southeast Asian University Partnership Network (ASEA-UNINET) initiated by Austrian universities.
Deputy PM Nhan affirmed that the forum represented the two countries' determination to make tertiary education, science and research a priority in bilateral co-operation.
Viet Nam considered education and science and technology vital for rapid and sustainable development, he said.
In its tertiary education strategy, Viet Nam would improve the quality of higher education by building high-quality universities, strengthening international co-operation in tertiary education and stepping up scientific research at universities, he added.
According to Minister of Science and Technology Nguyen Quan, Viet Nam attaches importance to scientific and technological co-operation with Austria, reflected by the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on scientific and technological co-operation between the Vietnamese Ministry of Science and Technology and the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research in late 2011.
The MoU affirms the two ministries' commitment to creating a mechanism to encourage co-operation between the Vietnamese and Austrian scientific and technological communities, especially between universities and research institutes.
At the forum, the Vietnamese Ministry of Science and Technology and the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research officially launched a programme to support bilateral research co-operation between Viet Nam and Austria in the 2012-2025 period.
Under the programme, the two countries' scientific communities will receive financial support to boost joint research co-operation activities and train scientists in the three priority areas of network security, intelligent transport and renewable energy.
During the event, six MoAs were also inked between leading universities of Viet Nam and Austria.
On the same day, Austrian President Heinz Fischer met with Chairman of the HCM City People's Committee Le Hoang Quan, who expressed his belief that the visit would boost multifaceted co-operation between Austria and Viet Nam and between Austria and HCM City in particular.
Read more at http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/politics-laws/225531/vn-austria-boost-tertiary-education.html
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Education Market Offers Salvation for Ailing Tech Vendors
Education market offers salvation for ailing tech vendors.
The education sector, particularly in developing markets, is an ideal arena for struggling tech vendors to stage their comebacks as they can build brand awareness and credibility among youths to reap long-term benefits, as well as help local governments strengthen their education IT infrastructure.
According to Peter McAlpine, senior director of education sales for Asia-Pacific at Adobe Systems, beleaguered tech companies should look to expand their presence in the education market as it could prove lucrative in the long run.
He noted that should these companies deliver a good product and user experience to the students, they would want to continue using these brands' products and services even after they leave school and enter the workforce.
Frank Levering, research manager of IDC's Government Insights, agreed. He said ailing companies should look at building their credibility among students, such as providing support and repair services when needed, will give them a "large competitive advantage" over IT vendors that do not have a presence in the education sector.
"The education [market's] transformation [in general] is at a very early stage, and any company with the right focus on a specific solution or a significant contribution to the education ecosystem will definitely see a good return on investment," he said.
Target developing countries
The analyst went on to suggest that the companies should focus their efforts on developing countries in order to generate market traction for their products and re-establish fundamental best practices in order to scale beyond these markets to more developed economies.
Furthermore, developing markets usually have a specific government budget set aside to improve the quality of education, Levering stated, citing Thailand's "One Tablet Per Child" initiative which aims to equip all Grade 1 child with a tablet PC device as an example.
The government was reportedly poised to ink a 2.2 billion baht (US$70.6 million) deal with Chinese manufacturers for 900,000 tablet devices to fulfill its election promise. A subsequent report by Thai news agency The Nation in April stated that the country's Cabinet had signed off on the revised tablet deal for 1 million devices at 2.4 billion baht (US$77.9 million), even though the Chinese manufacturer Shenzhen Scope Scientific Development had not yet signed on.
The IDC analyst also pointed out that the focus of developing countries is to improve their existing education levels by using technology as an enabler. Infrastructure, too, is commonly lacking in these countries. As such, ailing tech vendors can step up and push their offerings as these are viable market openings, he noted. By comparison, the education sector in developed markets has a more "conservative attitude" toward tech adoption in that the product or service being considered needs to produce a certain benefit or positive outcome for stakeholders, he noted.
"Developed countries will embrace technologies especially if they have a proven track record elsewhere and will transform at a much greater pace from there onward," he added.
Hence, this is why emerging countries may lead in innovations on many occasions over their more established counterparts as they are driven by necessity, Levering surmised.
Already, two regional companies have made moves to enter the education sector to revive their fortunes. Taiwanese display manufacturer BenQ, for one, announced plans to introduce three tablets in the Thai enterprise and education markets amid expectation that the tablet growth in these two areas is "poised to increase exponentially", according to a March report by Bangkok Post.
Singapore-based Creative Technology and its wholly-owned subsidiary ZiiLabs too unveiled its HanZpad in February, targeting China's education market. "This is [an] opportune time when its government aims to transform the conventional education system to one that embraces the latest in digital technologies," its press release stated.
Challenges loom
However, there are challenges vendors such as Creative and BenQ, among others, will have to face in order to see an upturn in their fortunes.
Levering pointed out that it's important tech vendors take time to thoroughly understand the sector in order to create the right offering that would integrate with institutions' existing systems and education methods.
Felicia Brown, Asia-Pacific education programs manager at Microsoft, concurred, saying that the education market is "unique". She noted that this requires a lot of understanding in areas such as creating the right content and curriculum, as well as incorporating "ruggedness" in computing devices meant for students, she explained.
To address this, Redmond works with global and local advisory councils made up of education thought leaders and youths, and also hires ex-teachers who understand specific local markets to develop its education offerings, she added.
The IDC analyst also noted that companies will find developing a generic, international product a "massive challenge". This is because there is too many different needs between schools and countries, and constant customization to the product would prove expensive for a sector with its limited budget, he explained.
High costs of education tech offerings was highlighted by Adobe's McAlpine too, who said that while governments can help financially in facilitating tech adoption, the education market will need to be self-sustaining at some point. This is especially so when the local government decides to shift its priorities to other sectors of the economy, he said.
Read more at http://www.zdnetasia.com/education-market-offers-salvation-for-ailing-tech-vendors-62304528.htm
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
The education sector, particularly in developing markets, is an ideal arena for struggling tech vendors to stage their comebacks as they can build brand awareness and credibility among youths to reap long-term benefits, as well as help local governments strengthen their education IT infrastructure.
According to Peter McAlpine, senior director of education sales for Asia-Pacific at Adobe Systems, beleaguered tech companies should look to expand their presence in the education market as it could prove lucrative in the long run.
He noted that should these companies deliver a good product and user experience to the students, they would want to continue using these brands' products and services even after they leave school and enter the workforce.
Frank Levering, research manager of IDC's Government Insights, agreed. He said ailing companies should look at building their credibility among students, such as providing support and repair services when needed, will give them a "large competitive advantage" over IT vendors that do not have a presence in the education sector.
"The education [market's] transformation [in general] is at a very early stage, and any company with the right focus on a specific solution or a significant contribution to the education ecosystem will definitely see a good return on investment," he said.
Target developing countries
The analyst went on to suggest that the companies should focus their efforts on developing countries in order to generate market traction for their products and re-establish fundamental best practices in order to scale beyond these markets to more developed economies.
Furthermore, developing markets usually have a specific government budget set aside to improve the quality of education, Levering stated, citing Thailand's "One Tablet Per Child" initiative which aims to equip all Grade 1 child with a tablet PC device as an example.
The government was reportedly poised to ink a 2.2 billion baht (US$70.6 million) deal with Chinese manufacturers for 900,000 tablet devices to fulfill its election promise. A subsequent report by Thai news agency The Nation in April stated that the country's Cabinet had signed off on the revised tablet deal for 1 million devices at 2.4 billion baht (US$77.9 million), even though the Chinese manufacturer Shenzhen Scope Scientific Development had not yet signed on.
The IDC analyst also pointed out that the focus of developing countries is to improve their existing education levels by using technology as an enabler. Infrastructure, too, is commonly lacking in these countries. As such, ailing tech vendors can step up and push their offerings as these are viable market openings, he noted. By comparison, the education sector in developed markets has a more "conservative attitude" toward tech adoption in that the product or service being considered needs to produce a certain benefit or positive outcome for stakeholders, he noted.
"Developed countries will embrace technologies especially if they have a proven track record elsewhere and will transform at a much greater pace from there onward," he added.
Hence, this is why emerging countries may lead in innovations on many occasions over their more established counterparts as they are driven by necessity, Levering surmised.
Already, two regional companies have made moves to enter the education sector to revive their fortunes. Taiwanese display manufacturer BenQ, for one, announced plans to introduce three tablets in the Thai enterprise and education markets amid expectation that the tablet growth in these two areas is "poised to increase exponentially", according to a March report by Bangkok Post.
Singapore-based Creative Technology and its wholly-owned subsidiary ZiiLabs too unveiled its HanZpad in February, targeting China's education market. "This is [an] opportune time when its government aims to transform the conventional education system to one that embraces the latest in digital technologies," its press release stated.
Challenges loom
However, there are challenges vendors such as Creative and BenQ, among others, will have to face in order to see an upturn in their fortunes.
Levering pointed out that it's important tech vendors take time to thoroughly understand the sector in order to create the right offering that would integrate with institutions' existing systems and education methods.
Felicia Brown, Asia-Pacific education programs manager at Microsoft, concurred, saying that the education market is "unique". She noted that this requires a lot of understanding in areas such as creating the right content and curriculum, as well as incorporating "ruggedness" in computing devices meant for students, she explained.
To address this, Redmond works with global and local advisory councils made up of education thought leaders and youths, and also hires ex-teachers who understand specific local markets to develop its education offerings, she added.
The IDC analyst also noted that companies will find developing a generic, international product a "massive challenge". This is because there is too many different needs between schools and countries, and constant customization to the product would prove expensive for a sector with its limited budget, he explained.
High costs of education tech offerings was highlighted by Adobe's McAlpine too, who said that while governments can help financially in facilitating tech adoption, the education market will need to be self-sustaining at some point. This is especially so when the local government decides to shift its priorities to other sectors of the economy, he said.
Read more at http://www.zdnetasia.com/education-market-offers-salvation-for-ailing-tech-vendors-62304528.htm
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Technology Making an Impact Both at Home and at School
Technology Making an Impact Both at Home and at School.
Technology is playing an ever greater role in the lives in UK children, The Daily Telegraph reports. A survey of 2,000 homes by the toy company LeapFrog found that kids are spending an average of 58 minutes during the day using digital gadgets in their homes.
Seventy per cent of children regularly play with their parents’ laptop or computer; while 16 per cent of children aged 10 and under, own their own computer.
Nearly a fifth of parents claim their children know more about modern devices than they do and take to them more naturally.
Nearly half of those polled reported that they use technology as a means of bringing their families together. A futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson says that the penetration of new technologies like the iPad into the home, also leads to greater acceptance of its use by kids. Parents are responding to the same trends by being more welcoming of the emerging technology and more willing to bring it into their homes.
This acceptance comes at a time when digital devices are also making an impact in the classroom.
“Over the next 10 years it is likely that we will see learning on tablets in the classroom as commonplace, with Kindles often replacing books and learning gadgets being the materials of choice in the home. Video visors will even be commonly used for learning activities. However, traditional books will still have a place.”
The recent innovations in digital publishing, means that more schools, both in the UK and the US are now gradually introducing the tablets into the classroom. Schools in Fort Bend, Indiana, are now equipping most of their students with iPads as part of the iAchieve program. The iPads will be replacing traditional textbooks and, in addition to reducing bulk, will also provide interactive learning opportunities.
More and more school districts in the U.S. are even using technology to bring classrooms directly into the home, via the introduction or expansion of online-only schools. States like Louisiana and Iowa, for example, have recently announced plans to greatly increase the enrollment in their online schools in the coming years.
Read more at http://www.educationnews.org/technology/technology-making-an-impact-both-at-home-and-at-school/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Technology is playing an ever greater role in the lives in UK children, The Daily Telegraph reports. A survey of 2,000 homes by the toy company LeapFrog found that kids are spending an average of 58 minutes during the day using digital gadgets in their homes.
Seventy per cent of children regularly play with their parents’ laptop or computer; while 16 per cent of children aged 10 and under, own their own computer.
Nearly a fifth of parents claim their children know more about modern devices than they do and take to them more naturally.
Nearly half of those polled reported that they use technology as a means of bringing their families together. A futurologist Dr. Ian Pearson says that the penetration of new technologies like the iPad into the home, also leads to greater acceptance of its use by kids. Parents are responding to the same trends by being more welcoming of the emerging technology and more willing to bring it into their homes.
This acceptance comes at a time when digital devices are also making an impact in the classroom.
“Over the next 10 years it is likely that we will see learning on tablets in the classroom as commonplace, with Kindles often replacing books and learning gadgets being the materials of choice in the home. Video visors will even be commonly used for learning activities. However, traditional books will still have a place.”
The recent innovations in digital publishing, means that more schools, both in the UK and the US are now gradually introducing the tablets into the classroom. Schools in Fort Bend, Indiana, are now equipping most of their students with iPads as part of the iAchieve program. The iPads will be replacing traditional textbooks and, in addition to reducing bulk, will also provide interactive learning opportunities.
More and more school districts in the U.S. are even using technology to bring classrooms directly into the home, via the introduction or expansion of online-only schools. States like Louisiana and Iowa, for example, have recently announced plans to greatly increase the enrollment in their online schools in the coming years.
Read more at http://www.educationnews.org/technology/technology-making-an-impact-both-at-home-and-at-school/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Corporations Seek Greater Role in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education
Corporations Seek Greater Role in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education.
Corporations are stepping in to help solve the current education crisis before they’re left with nobody suitable to hire.
A quarter of our children drop out of high school every year. Two-fifths of those who do graduate leave high school unprepared for college or career, while 57% (PDF) lack comprehension of even remedial math. Apparently the national disinterest in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and math) starts early, as over 61% (PDF) of middle schoolers would rather take out the garbage than do their math homework.
Growth in STEM jobs is currently rising three times faster than that of non-STEM jobs and the National Science Foundation estimates that over the next decade 80% of created jobs will require some mastery of STEM subjects.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has donated $100 million towards various educational causes and Intel has given $1 billion with several other firms also stepping up to the plate. Other companies, like Microsoft are increasingly doing more than just donating money, as welcome as that investment is in an underfunded and underappreciated sector, and are actively participating in social innovation projects.
Microsoft partners with NGOs around the world to help young people have the tools to close what it calls the ‘opportunity divide’. Microsoft’s Partners in Learning has so far sent $500 million to education systems globally helping teachers and students in 114 countries.
“Our goal is to embrace the bigness of the challenge that government and society face in terms of transforming education in a holistic way,” says Vice President of Microsoft Worldwide Education Anthony Salcito. “It’s not just about technology. It’s about bringing innovation to schools. How do you personalize the education experience? How do you incorporate new modes of classroom design and curriculum, or think about assessment differently? How do you change a kid’s vision of his future?”
Microsoft helps education in direct and indirect ways. Their open source software platform allows people to create educational apps and tools for products like Kinect and Windows Phone, and allows talented students to stretch themselves and help their education system by doing so themselves. The Imagine Cup asks students to use technology to solve problems in the world. Partners in Learning challenges people to innovate within the school system itself and provides investment grants to help test and implement winning ideas.
Read more at http://www.educationnews.org/international-uk/the-global-search-for-education-a-life-of-learning/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Corporations are stepping in to help solve the current education crisis before they’re left with nobody suitable to hire.
A quarter of our children drop out of high school every year. Two-fifths of those who do graduate leave high school unprepared for college or career, while 57% (PDF) lack comprehension of even remedial math. Apparently the national disinterest in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and math) starts early, as over 61% (PDF) of middle schoolers would rather take out the garbage than do their math homework.
Growth in STEM jobs is currently rising three times faster than that of non-STEM jobs and the National Science Foundation estimates that over the next decade 80% of created jobs will require some mastery of STEM subjects.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has donated $100 million towards various educational causes and Intel has given $1 billion with several other firms also stepping up to the plate. Other companies, like Microsoft are increasingly doing more than just donating money, as welcome as that investment is in an underfunded and underappreciated sector, and are actively participating in social innovation projects.
Microsoft partners with NGOs around the world to help young people have the tools to close what it calls the ‘opportunity divide’. Microsoft’s Partners in Learning has so far sent $500 million to education systems globally helping teachers and students in 114 countries.
“Our goal is to embrace the bigness of the challenge that government and society face in terms of transforming education in a holistic way,” says Vice President of Microsoft Worldwide Education Anthony Salcito. “It’s not just about technology. It’s about bringing innovation to schools. How do you personalize the education experience? How do you incorporate new modes of classroom design and curriculum, or think about assessment differently? How do you change a kid’s vision of his future?”
Microsoft helps education in direct and indirect ways. Their open source software platform allows people to create educational apps and tools for products like Kinect and Windows Phone, and allows talented students to stretch themselves and help their education system by doing so themselves. The Imagine Cup asks students to use technology to solve problems in the world. Partners in Learning challenges people to innovate within the school system itself and provides investment grants to help test and implement winning ideas.
Read more at http://www.educationnews.org/international-uk/the-global-search-for-education-a-life-of-learning/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Thursday, May 3, 2012
How the Internet Will Change How We Learn
How the Internet Will Change How We Learn.
In the 21st century, online learning will constitute 50% of all learning and education. The rapid rise of learning on the Internet will occur not because it is more convenient, cheaper, or faster, but because cognitive learning on the Internet is better than learning in-person. Of the growing number of experts seeing this development, Gerald Celente, author of the popular book Trends 2000, summarizes it most succinctly: “Interactive, on-line learning will revolutionize education. The education revolution will have as profound and as far-reaching an effect upon the world as the invention of printing. Not only will it affect where we learn; it also will influence how we learn and what we learn" (Celente, 1997, p. 249). Recent research reported in the Washington Post cites studies showing that online learning is equally as effective as learning in-person. And note that we state "cognitive learning," not all learning.
It is still very early in the development of online learning. But the outlines of the potential of online learning are already emerging. The best guide to the next century lies in history, and the in examples of technological transition from the nineteenth to the twentieth century. The automobile and tractor were the driving forces for the Industrial Age. The tractor eventually was demonstrated to not only cover more acres than a horse drawn plow, but to plow deeper (read: better) and thus increase productivity .
Some sectors of society clung to the horse drawn vehicle, of course. The military still had a cavalry in 1939 to confront Hitler’s tanks before the obvious mismatch was addressed (Davis, 1993). The tractor changed education for the 20th century as well. Prior to the tractor and automobile, one room schoolhouses were placed every six miles so that a child would only have to walk at most three miles to school. The one room schoolhouse necessitated one teacher and multiple grade levels in one room. With the automobile, people moved into towns, and even rural residents could take buses to school, thus causing school consolidation and the eventual all-but-extinction of the one room schoolhouse. In the State of Washington, for example, between 1935 and 1939 almost 20% of rural one room schoolhouses were closed (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1945).
And when online learning is combined with a more interactive and facilitative in-person learning, it will easily out perform today’s outmoded one-size-fits-all traditional lecture delivery system. "Digital media and Internet communications will transform learning practices," notes Peter J. Denning of George Mason University in his How We Will Learn (1996, page 2).
Here are a few of the effects of online learning that will occur in just a few years:
* The average class size for an online course will be 1,000 participants;
* The average cost of an online course will plummet to below $100 a course;
* There will be hundreds of thousands of topics from which learners can choose.
But perhaps the most devastating and revolutionary change will be how the Internet will change how we learn. Because as we enter the Information Age, the era of lifelong learning, the era of online learning, distance has nothing to do with "distance education." By this I mean that even when the teacher is in close proximity to the learners, the quality of the cognitive learning and teaching will be higher when the cognitive part of the learning is conducted over the Internet. Keoko University in Japan, for example, is already establishing online learning for its on-campus students (Eisenstodt, 1997).
In this article I will outline what we already know and can forecast about how the Internet and online learning will change how we learn. We know, for example, that the economic force driving life in the 21st century will be the microchip and the Internet, just as the automobile was the economic force for change in the 20th century. And we know that business will need its workers to learn more, more quickly, and at a lower cost, to remain competitive. We will show that these market forces will create the need and desirability for online learning.
How We Learn Today
For most of history the standard educational setting has been an instructor (or teacher, leader, presenter, or speaker) standing in front of a group of people. This is the most common learning design in society, whether it be for college credit classes, noncredit courses, training in business and industry, high school instruction, or even a Sunday School class.
Basically, 90% of all education has been "information transfer," the process of transferring information and knowledge from the teacher’s head into the heads of the learners. To do that, teachers have had to talk most of the time. And right up until today that mode of delivery has been the most effective, most efficient, most desirable way to learn.
But as educators we know that the traditional lecture is not the only way to learn. We as learners learn in many different ways, at different times, and from a variety of sources (Knowles, 1973). We also know that learning is not purely a cognitive process, but that it also involves the emotions and even the spirit (Apps, 1991).
The Internet is destroying the traditional educational delivery system of an instructor speaking, lecturing or teaching in front of one or more learners.
The whole discipline of self-directed learning, variously called adult learning or adult education, has shown that the traditional delivery system is only one way to learn. The Internet represents the biggest technological aid helping people to learn in 500 years, according to many educators (Thieme, 1996).
What the Internet is doing is to explode the traditional method of teaching into two parts-- cognitive learning, which can be accomplished better with online learning; and affective learning, which can be accomplished better in a small group discussion setting.
Why cognitive learning can be done better on the Internet
Cognitive learning includes facts, data, knowledge, mental skills-- what you can test. And information transfer and cognitive learning can be achieved faster, cheaper and better online.
There are several ways that online learning can be better than classroom learning, such as:
* A learner can learn during her or his peak learning time. My peak learning time is from 10 am to noon. My step-son’s peak learning time is between midnight and 3 am. He recently signed up for an Internet course and is looking for a couple more, because as he put it, "I have a lot of free time between midnight and 3 am." With traditional in-person classes, only some learners will be involved during their peak learning time. The rest will not fully benefit.
* A learner can learn at her or his own speed. With traditional classes, a learner has one chance to hear a concept, technique or piece of knowledge. With online learning, a learner can replay a portion of audio, reread a unit, review a video, and retest him or herself.
* A learner can focus on specific content areas. With traditional classes, each content area is covered and given the relative amount of emphasis and time that the teacher deems appropriate. But in a ten unit course, a given learner will not need to focus on each unit equally. For each of us, there will be some units we know already and some where we have little knowledge. With online learning, we as learners can focus more time, attention and energy on those units, modules or sections of the course where we need the most help and learning.
* A learner can test himself daily. With online learning, a learner can take quizzes and tests easily, instantly receiving the results and finding out how well she or he is doing in a course.
* A learner can interact more with the teacher. Contrary to common opinion today, online learning is more personal and more interactive than traditional classroom courses. In an online course, the instructor only has to create the information transfer part of the course-- lectures, graphics, text, video-- once. Once the course units or modules have been developed, there is need only for revisions later on. The instructor is then free to interact with participants in the course.
Learners will acquire the data and facts faster using the Internet. Officials at University Online Publishing, which has been involved in online learning more than most organizations, say that a typical 16-week college course, for example, can be cut to 8 weeks because students learn more quickly online.
Finally, technology has consistently proven to drive down costs. Recent reports indicate that education costs are growing at over 5% for 1998, well above the 3% average for all other sectors of the economy. With education costs in the traditional system soaring, technological innovations promise the ability to deliver an education more cheaply.
Downward pressure is already being exerted on prices by online courses. Officials at Regents College in Albany, NY, which collects data on 8,000 distance learning courses, say that prices are dropping already. One community college in Arizona, for example, offers online courses at just $32/credit hour for in-state residents, and $67/credit hour for out-of-state learners.
More Interaction Occurs with Online Learning
The heart and soul of an online course will not be the lecture, the delivery, the audio or video. Rather, it will be the interaction between the participants and the teacher, as well as the interaction among the participants themselves. This daily interaction among participants, for example, will form what John Hagel, author of Net Gain (1997), calls a "Virtual Community."
The next time you are in a class, count the number of questions asked of the teacher during a one-hour time period. Because of the instructor’s need to convey information, the time able to be devoted to questions is very short. In an online course, everyone can ask questions, as many questions as each learner wants or needs.
There is more discussion. In an online course, there is more discussion. If there is a group discussion with thirty people and six to eight people make comments, that is a successful discussion that will take up almost a whole hour. And almost everyone in the group will agree it was a lively. Now if you go into an asynchronous discussion forum on the Internet, and thirty people are there, and six to eight are making comments, you will conclude that the discussion is lagging.
The same number of comments on the Internet do not appear to be as lively a discussion as when delivered in person because the capability and capacity of the Internet is that every person can make comments—at the same time. A transcript of a typical online discussion would take hours to give verbally. Online, we can participate in discussions easily, absorbing more information in a much shorter time and engaging in more interaction, not less.
How the Internet Will Change In-person Learning
Because the Internet can deliver information more quickly, at a lower cost, whenever a learner wants, as often as a learner wants, and with more interaction and dialogue, the Internet will replace the traditional in-person classroom delivery system as the dominant mode of delivery for education and delivery. But the Internet will not replace in-person learning.
While we will spend 50% of our time learning online, we will spend the other 50% of our time learning in person. But in-person learning will also be radically different from what is most common today.
There will be almost no need for the traditional lecture. However, there will be a tremendous need for teachers to become facilitators of learning, understanding how we learn, and able to work with learners as individuals. "The sage on the stage will become the guide on the side" has already been coined.
Though part of learning is centered around content, we as educators know that more of learning is dependent on the learner as an individual, a person. Learning is not just cognitive; it also involves the emotions and the spirit. It involves "unlearning." It involves what educator Jerold Apps calls "grieving the loss of old ideas."
The likely format for this kind of learning will be chairs in a circle, with a facilitator leading discussions, dialogues, role plays and more. And it is this kind of teaching and learning that we actually know very little about, because we as instructors have had so little time to engage in it.
The Internet certainly did not create facilitative learning. This kind of learning has been around for a long time and its value well established. But it’s use will grow exponentially because the Internet allows the cognitive information to be delivered faster, cheaper, better, thus allowing more time and resources to be devoted to facilitative in-person learning.
For now, the elementary school teacher comes closest to being the model for this new kind of in-person teaching. As a parent, I have experienced my son’s teachers being able to sit down and talk with me for thirty minutes or more about my son as a learner. Not about the class, not about content, but about my son’s learning. This is where the focus of in-person learning will be very shortly.
As online courses grow and change how we learn, some courses will involve almost all in-person learning and teaching. And some courses will involve almost all online learning. And probably the majority of courses will involve both online learning and in-person learning.
What an Online Course Will Look Like
A typical online course, or the online portion of course, will look like this.
* There will be hundreds of thousands of topics from which to choose. You will be able to take a course on "Mango trees," or "Adlai Stevenson (Democratic candidate for US President in 1952 and 1956)."
* Your online teacher will probably be the foremost authority and expert in the subject in the world.
* Because the foremost authority in the world is teaching the subject online, and because courses will be offered twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, there will be learners from all around the world.
* There will be an average of 1,000 learners in a course. This will occur for a number of reasons:
* There are one thousand people in the world who want to learn any given topic at any given time, even mango trees or Adlai Stevenson.
* Because people will want to learn from the foremost authority, there will be only 2-3 online courses for each topic.
* The cost of an online course will be extremely low, probably under $100, even for credit classes. This will occur because educational institutions can make more money on high volume and low prices than they can on low volume and high prices. It will occur also because the only way an educational institution can lose its market-share for a given course is because the course is priced higher than an alternative course.
The Forces Driving Online Learning
There are several forces that will turn this scenario for online learning into reality, and turn it into reality very quickly. They include:
Business. Business will be the biggest force. Business now understands that in order to remain competitive and profitable, it will need employees who are learning constantly. The only cost effective way for this to happen is with online learning.
So business will require its people to learn online, and it will look to recruit college graduates who can learn online. Colleges and universities will quickly adopt online learning because business will demand that capability from their graduates.
Youth. My children have never taken a computer course. And they never will. Because they are not just computer literate, they grew up in a digital culture. Young people want to learn online. They understand the future, because it is the world in which they must work and compete. Young students will choose online learning.
Competition. Just one college offering online courses at a low cost and recruiting high volume will force other educational institutions to do the same. In fact, many colleges are involved in online learning, and the cost of courses is declining steadily, according to an official at Regents College, which keeps a database of over 8,000 distance learning courses.
Conclusion
Online learning is rapidly becoming recognized as a valid learning delivery system. The number of part time students in higher education, to name just one educational system, now outnumbers full time students. The number of colleges offering online courses last year soared to over 1,000, and the number is growing. Online graduate programs and certificate programs have doubled over one year ago. Online learning has grown exponentially in the business sector, according to Elliot Masie of Saratoga Springs, NY, one of the foremost experts on online training in the workforce. Surveys by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) see online training replacing much of on-site training in the near future.
Online learning will do for society what the tractor did for food. A century ago food was expensive, in limited supply, and with very little variety. Today food is relatively cheap, in great supply in our society, and with tremendous variety. The Internet will do the same for education. More people will be able to learn more, for much less cost, and with a tremendous variety in choice of topics and subjects. It is something that societies of the past could only dream about. And it will come true for us in a very short time.
Read more at http://www.williamdraves.com/works/internet_change_report.htm
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
In the 21st century, online learning will constitute 50% of all learning and education. The rapid rise of learning on the Internet will occur not because it is more convenient, cheaper, or faster, but because cognitive learning on the Internet is better than learning in-person. Of the growing number of experts seeing this development, Gerald Celente, author of the popular book Trends 2000, summarizes it most succinctly: “Interactive, on-line learning will revolutionize education. The education revolution will have as profound and as far-reaching an effect upon the world as the invention of printing. Not only will it affect where we learn; it also will influence how we learn and what we learn" (Celente, 1997, p. 249). Recent research reported in the Washington Post cites studies showing that online learning is equally as effective as learning in-person. And note that we state "cognitive learning," not all learning.
It is still very early in the development of online learning. But the outlines of the potential of online learning are already emerging. The best guide to the next century lies in history, and the in examples of technological transition from the nineteenth to the twentieth century. The automobile and tractor were the driving forces for the Industrial Age. The tractor eventually was demonstrated to not only cover more acres than a horse drawn plow, but to plow deeper (read: better) and thus increase productivity .
Some sectors of society clung to the horse drawn vehicle, of course. The military still had a cavalry in 1939 to confront Hitler’s tanks before the obvious mismatch was addressed (Davis, 1993). The tractor changed education for the 20th century as well. Prior to the tractor and automobile, one room schoolhouses were placed every six miles so that a child would only have to walk at most three miles to school. The one room schoolhouse necessitated one teacher and multiple grade levels in one room. With the automobile, people moved into towns, and even rural residents could take buses to school, thus causing school consolidation and the eventual all-but-extinction of the one room schoolhouse. In the State of Washington, for example, between 1935 and 1939 almost 20% of rural one room schoolhouses were closed (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1945).
And when online learning is combined with a more interactive and facilitative in-person learning, it will easily out perform today’s outmoded one-size-fits-all traditional lecture delivery system. "Digital media and Internet communications will transform learning practices," notes Peter J. Denning of George Mason University in his How We Will Learn (1996, page 2).
Here are a few of the effects of online learning that will occur in just a few years:
* The average class size for an online course will be 1,000 participants;
* The average cost of an online course will plummet to below $100 a course;
* There will be hundreds of thousands of topics from which learners can choose.
But perhaps the most devastating and revolutionary change will be how the Internet will change how we learn. Because as we enter the Information Age, the era of lifelong learning, the era of online learning, distance has nothing to do with "distance education." By this I mean that even when the teacher is in close proximity to the learners, the quality of the cognitive learning and teaching will be higher when the cognitive part of the learning is conducted over the Internet. Keoko University in Japan, for example, is already establishing online learning for its on-campus students (Eisenstodt, 1997).
In this article I will outline what we already know and can forecast about how the Internet and online learning will change how we learn. We know, for example, that the economic force driving life in the 21st century will be the microchip and the Internet, just as the automobile was the economic force for change in the 20th century. And we know that business will need its workers to learn more, more quickly, and at a lower cost, to remain competitive. We will show that these market forces will create the need and desirability for online learning.
How We Learn Today
For most of history the standard educational setting has been an instructor (or teacher, leader, presenter, or speaker) standing in front of a group of people. This is the most common learning design in society, whether it be for college credit classes, noncredit courses, training in business and industry, high school instruction, or even a Sunday School class.
Basically, 90% of all education has been "information transfer," the process of transferring information and knowledge from the teacher’s head into the heads of the learners. To do that, teachers have had to talk most of the time. And right up until today that mode of delivery has been the most effective, most efficient, most desirable way to learn.
But as educators we know that the traditional lecture is not the only way to learn. We as learners learn in many different ways, at different times, and from a variety of sources (Knowles, 1973). We also know that learning is not purely a cognitive process, but that it also involves the emotions and even the spirit (Apps, 1991).
The Internet is destroying the traditional educational delivery system of an instructor speaking, lecturing or teaching in front of one or more learners.
The whole discipline of self-directed learning, variously called adult learning or adult education, has shown that the traditional delivery system is only one way to learn. The Internet represents the biggest technological aid helping people to learn in 500 years, according to many educators (Thieme, 1996).
What the Internet is doing is to explode the traditional method of teaching into two parts-- cognitive learning, which can be accomplished better with online learning; and affective learning, which can be accomplished better in a small group discussion setting.
Why cognitive learning can be done better on the Internet
Cognitive learning includes facts, data, knowledge, mental skills-- what you can test. And information transfer and cognitive learning can be achieved faster, cheaper and better online.
There are several ways that online learning can be better than classroom learning, such as:
* A learner can learn during her or his peak learning time. My peak learning time is from 10 am to noon. My step-son’s peak learning time is between midnight and 3 am. He recently signed up for an Internet course and is looking for a couple more, because as he put it, "I have a lot of free time between midnight and 3 am." With traditional in-person classes, only some learners will be involved during their peak learning time. The rest will not fully benefit.
* A learner can learn at her or his own speed. With traditional classes, a learner has one chance to hear a concept, technique or piece of knowledge. With online learning, a learner can replay a portion of audio, reread a unit, review a video, and retest him or herself.
* A learner can focus on specific content areas. With traditional classes, each content area is covered and given the relative amount of emphasis and time that the teacher deems appropriate. But in a ten unit course, a given learner will not need to focus on each unit equally. For each of us, there will be some units we know already and some where we have little knowledge. With online learning, we as learners can focus more time, attention and energy on those units, modules or sections of the course where we need the most help and learning.
* A learner can test himself daily. With online learning, a learner can take quizzes and tests easily, instantly receiving the results and finding out how well she or he is doing in a course.
* A learner can interact more with the teacher. Contrary to common opinion today, online learning is more personal and more interactive than traditional classroom courses. In an online course, the instructor only has to create the information transfer part of the course-- lectures, graphics, text, video-- once. Once the course units or modules have been developed, there is need only for revisions later on. The instructor is then free to interact with participants in the course.
Learners will acquire the data and facts faster using the Internet. Officials at University Online Publishing, which has been involved in online learning more than most organizations, say that a typical 16-week college course, for example, can be cut to 8 weeks because students learn more quickly online.
Finally, technology has consistently proven to drive down costs. Recent reports indicate that education costs are growing at over 5% for 1998, well above the 3% average for all other sectors of the economy. With education costs in the traditional system soaring, technological innovations promise the ability to deliver an education more cheaply.
Downward pressure is already being exerted on prices by online courses. Officials at Regents College in Albany, NY, which collects data on 8,000 distance learning courses, say that prices are dropping already. One community college in Arizona, for example, offers online courses at just $32/credit hour for in-state residents, and $67/credit hour for out-of-state learners.
More Interaction Occurs with Online Learning
The heart and soul of an online course will not be the lecture, the delivery, the audio or video. Rather, it will be the interaction between the participants and the teacher, as well as the interaction among the participants themselves. This daily interaction among participants, for example, will form what John Hagel, author of Net Gain (1997), calls a "Virtual Community."
The next time you are in a class, count the number of questions asked of the teacher during a one-hour time period. Because of the instructor’s need to convey information, the time able to be devoted to questions is very short. In an online course, everyone can ask questions, as many questions as each learner wants or needs.
There is more discussion. In an online course, there is more discussion. If there is a group discussion with thirty people and six to eight people make comments, that is a successful discussion that will take up almost a whole hour. And almost everyone in the group will agree it was a lively. Now if you go into an asynchronous discussion forum on the Internet, and thirty people are there, and six to eight are making comments, you will conclude that the discussion is lagging.
The same number of comments on the Internet do not appear to be as lively a discussion as when delivered in person because the capability and capacity of the Internet is that every person can make comments—at the same time. A transcript of a typical online discussion would take hours to give verbally. Online, we can participate in discussions easily, absorbing more information in a much shorter time and engaging in more interaction, not less.
How the Internet Will Change In-person Learning
Because the Internet can deliver information more quickly, at a lower cost, whenever a learner wants, as often as a learner wants, and with more interaction and dialogue, the Internet will replace the traditional in-person classroom delivery system as the dominant mode of delivery for education and delivery. But the Internet will not replace in-person learning.
While we will spend 50% of our time learning online, we will spend the other 50% of our time learning in person. But in-person learning will also be radically different from what is most common today.
There will be almost no need for the traditional lecture. However, there will be a tremendous need for teachers to become facilitators of learning, understanding how we learn, and able to work with learners as individuals. "The sage on the stage will become the guide on the side" has already been coined.
Though part of learning is centered around content, we as educators know that more of learning is dependent on the learner as an individual, a person. Learning is not just cognitive; it also involves the emotions and the spirit. It involves "unlearning." It involves what educator Jerold Apps calls "grieving the loss of old ideas."
The likely format for this kind of learning will be chairs in a circle, with a facilitator leading discussions, dialogues, role plays and more. And it is this kind of teaching and learning that we actually know very little about, because we as instructors have had so little time to engage in it.
The Internet certainly did not create facilitative learning. This kind of learning has been around for a long time and its value well established. But it’s use will grow exponentially because the Internet allows the cognitive information to be delivered faster, cheaper, better, thus allowing more time and resources to be devoted to facilitative in-person learning.
For now, the elementary school teacher comes closest to being the model for this new kind of in-person teaching. As a parent, I have experienced my son’s teachers being able to sit down and talk with me for thirty minutes or more about my son as a learner. Not about the class, not about content, but about my son’s learning. This is where the focus of in-person learning will be very shortly.
As online courses grow and change how we learn, some courses will involve almost all in-person learning and teaching. And some courses will involve almost all online learning. And probably the majority of courses will involve both online learning and in-person learning.
What an Online Course Will Look Like
A typical online course, or the online portion of course, will look like this.
* There will be hundreds of thousands of topics from which to choose. You will be able to take a course on "Mango trees," or "Adlai Stevenson (Democratic candidate for US President in 1952 and 1956)."
* Your online teacher will probably be the foremost authority and expert in the subject in the world.
* Because the foremost authority in the world is teaching the subject online, and because courses will be offered twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, there will be learners from all around the world.
* There will be an average of 1,000 learners in a course. This will occur for a number of reasons:
* There are one thousand people in the world who want to learn any given topic at any given time, even mango trees or Adlai Stevenson.
* Because people will want to learn from the foremost authority, there will be only 2-3 online courses for each topic.
* The cost of an online course will be extremely low, probably under $100, even for credit classes. This will occur because educational institutions can make more money on high volume and low prices than they can on low volume and high prices. It will occur also because the only way an educational institution can lose its market-share for a given course is because the course is priced higher than an alternative course.
The Forces Driving Online Learning
There are several forces that will turn this scenario for online learning into reality, and turn it into reality very quickly. They include:
Business. Business will be the biggest force. Business now understands that in order to remain competitive and profitable, it will need employees who are learning constantly. The only cost effective way for this to happen is with online learning.
So business will require its people to learn online, and it will look to recruit college graduates who can learn online. Colleges and universities will quickly adopt online learning because business will demand that capability from their graduates.
Youth. My children have never taken a computer course. And they never will. Because they are not just computer literate, they grew up in a digital culture. Young people want to learn online. They understand the future, because it is the world in which they must work and compete. Young students will choose online learning.
Competition. Just one college offering online courses at a low cost and recruiting high volume will force other educational institutions to do the same. In fact, many colleges are involved in online learning, and the cost of courses is declining steadily, according to an official at Regents College, which keeps a database of over 8,000 distance learning courses.
Conclusion
Online learning is rapidly becoming recognized as a valid learning delivery system. The number of part time students in higher education, to name just one educational system, now outnumbers full time students. The number of colleges offering online courses last year soared to over 1,000, and the number is growing. Online graduate programs and certificate programs have doubled over one year ago. Online learning has grown exponentially in the business sector, according to Elliot Masie of Saratoga Springs, NY, one of the foremost experts on online training in the workforce. Surveys by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) see online training replacing much of on-site training in the near future.
Online learning will do for society what the tractor did for food. A century ago food was expensive, in limited supply, and with very little variety. Today food is relatively cheap, in great supply in our society, and with tremendous variety. The Internet will do the same for education. More people will be able to learn more, for much less cost, and with a tremendous variety in choice of topics and subjects. It is something that societies of the past could only dream about. And it will come true for us in a very short time.
Read more at http://www.williamdraves.com/works/internet_change_report.htm
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
China Teaching Kids Tech Talent
China teaching kids tech talent.
BEIJING -- The US chip maker Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has announced the China launch of Activate!, an interactive website that allows children to easily design and program video games.
Dandelion Middle School for migrant children in Beijing is the first in the country to deploy the website.
Children aged 13 to 15 are the primary target of Activate! It is accessed through the school's Intranet. The website teaches youngsters to design games using a specially developed computer tool.
It contains tutorials for making games. Four workshops, each designed to last one week, are now under way at the school.
Instructors from Parsons The New School for Design are conducting the workshops. It is estimated about 480 students will take part.
Karen Guo, senior vice-president and president, AMD Greater China, said the program at the Dandelion Middle School was an important collaboration to teach students valuable technical skills, and may ultimately lead them to become productive future contributors to China's growing IT economy.
She said China was an important market for AMD and the program at Dandelion Middle School represented the first deployment of AMD's signature initiative, AMD Changing the Game.
The initiative is designed to help improve children's critical science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. It aims to make youngsters more globally conscious citizens and inspire teens to create digital games on important social issues, such as energy or the environment, the company said.
As part of this project, AMD also donated 30 Founder systems based on AMD Athlon II X3 425 processors to install in a technology laboratory at the school.
"Youth game development is an important learning vehicle around the globe, and we are thrilled to be able to translate and broaden the availability of Activate! to students in China," said Allyson Peerman, president of AMD Foundation. "
Peerman said Activate! was a key tool to expand AMD Changing the Game and said she hoped the project signaled the beginning of a deeper collaboration with Chinese partners to advance youth game development.
Since its launch in June 2008, AMD Changing the Game has funded 18 programs by organizations that enable youth game development. The Foundation also funds the AMD Employee Giving Program, which supports AMD employees' community interests by matching their personal donations of time and money to local organizations, schools and disaster relief efforts.
Read more at http://english.sina.com/technology/2010/0711/328695.html
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
BEIJING -- The US chip maker Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has announced the China launch of Activate!, an interactive website that allows children to easily design and program video games.
Dandelion Middle School for migrant children in Beijing is the first in the country to deploy the website.
Children aged 13 to 15 are the primary target of Activate! It is accessed through the school's Intranet. The website teaches youngsters to design games using a specially developed computer tool.
It contains tutorials for making games. Four workshops, each designed to last one week, are now under way at the school.
Instructors from Parsons The New School for Design are conducting the workshops. It is estimated about 480 students will take part.
Karen Guo, senior vice-president and president, AMD Greater China, said the program at the Dandelion Middle School was an important collaboration to teach students valuable technical skills, and may ultimately lead them to become productive future contributors to China's growing IT economy.
She said China was an important market for AMD and the program at Dandelion Middle School represented the first deployment of AMD's signature initiative, AMD Changing the Game.
The initiative is designed to help improve children's critical science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. It aims to make youngsters more globally conscious citizens and inspire teens to create digital games on important social issues, such as energy or the environment, the company said.
As part of this project, AMD also donated 30 Founder systems based on AMD Athlon II X3 425 processors to install in a technology laboratory at the school.
"Youth game development is an important learning vehicle around the globe, and we are thrilled to be able to translate and broaden the availability of Activate! to students in China," said Allyson Peerman, president of AMD Foundation. "
Peerman said Activate! was a key tool to expand AMD Changing the Game and said she hoped the project signaled the beginning of a deeper collaboration with Chinese partners to advance youth game development.
Since its launch in June 2008, AMD Changing the Game has funded 18 programs by organizations that enable youth game development. The Foundation also funds the AMD Employee Giving Program, which supports AMD employees' community interests by matching their personal donations of time and money to local organizations, schools and disaster relief efforts.
Read more at http://english.sina.com/technology/2010/0711/328695.html
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
eSchool Reading, Writing and Technology
Reading, Writing and Technology?
1) First of all, I understand that you have just won an impressive award. Tell us about it.
eSchool News, a publication network of eSchool Media Inc., identifies annually recipients of the Tech-Savvy Superintendent Award, which is award to the top 10 superintendents from coast to coast who best exemplify outstanding leadership and vision in using technology to advance their district’s educational goals.
Dennis Pierce, editor of eSchool News, said “research shows that technology can facilitate better teaching and learning, but only when used effectively.” And that starts at the very top, with strong school district leadership. If you start with a clear vision for how to implement technology wisely, and you make sure your staff are well trained and supported, and you seek to transform instructional practices to leverage technology’s full potential, then technology really can empower education. And that’s what the winners of our annual Tech-Savvy Superintendent Awards are doing,” he added.
2) What are YOUR priorities in terms of technology?
We determine what it is our students need to know and do when they graduate. We then select technologies that will help us achieve our end results. We always keep the end in mind.
Therefore, with this in mind, we have six basic priorities when it comes to technology:
(1) Implement technology that helps teachers be more efficient in the classroom.
(2) Implement technology that helps teachers become more effective teachers.
(3) Implement technology that will allow teachers to teach global skills and knowledge that otherwise could not be taught.
(4) Implement technology that contributes to a students technological literacy such that such that they become efficient and effective users.
(5) Use technology to increase the efficiency of the district’s operations.
(6) Use technology to allow teachers professional learning 24/7.
3) I have to admit I do not know what this cloud computing is all about. Do you use it and what is your evaluation of it?
Oxford does employ the use of both private and public cloud computing. On the private side of cloud computing, we want to own all our content and curriculum but make it available anywhere anytime. Security and safety of all our employees and students is always an issue and therefore we feel that different forms of clouds make sense in different situations.
4) Hardware vs. Software – what are the pros and cons?
You must first determine what the learning outcomes are and what instructional strategies need to be implemented to maximize the productivity of learning. We always design with the end in mind. We think about process first, then application/software, and then we select the appropriate hardware. We never start out with the hardware, we always end with it.
5) How does a Superintendent go about evaluating an ” app ” ? and how do you decide on what to purchase?
Does it make me more productive? Can I not live without it? Does it allow me to learn or teach more efficiently? The answers to these questions determine whether an app is downloaded or not.
6) Who assists in these decisions? Do you have a team?
Executive Director of Strategic Initiatives & Technology, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, and Assistant Superintendent of Business & Operations.
For the most part, these positions are driving the decision making process. However, building principals and teachers are also involved. In general, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum is deciding what applications are needed. The Executive Director of Strategic Initiatives & Technology is approving that the particular applications will work in our environment, and the Assistant Superintendent of Business is deciding the best vehicle through which to purchase the items.
7) It seems that every day I get an e-mail from some company promoting their product- How does one make sense of it all?
We never allow the latest technology to drive what we do. Instead, we determine what are the essential skills and knowledge all students need to compete in the global market. We then research the most productive ways to teach and have our students learning these skills and master the knowledge. However, it is important and imperative, that we also stays up with what is happening in the evolution of technology and software. This is true from a instructional, curriculum and operational perspective.
8) Ipod, Ipads, laptops, and hand held phones—do you have any priority list?
Many. It all depends upon what we are trying to accomplish. Everyone wants to talk about hardware but that is really the last question that is answered.
9) What have I neglected to ask?
Michael, I can probably come up with an additional question/s if I give this more thought. One of the most frequent questions I heard from my colleagues is, “how do you get all teachers to effectively use the technology and software you purchased?”
My answer is simple, the school district determines curriculum and the instructional strategies not teachers. You give teachers a reasonable timeline in which to implement the effective use of the classroom technology and software a district has chosen to implement. The district is responsible for providing the professional learning that allows teachers to decide when they want to learn how to effectively use technology to improve teaching and learning, where they will learn it, when they will learn it, and allow them to determine how they will learn it. It is up to the teacher to access the professional learning. The accountability comes through the teacher appraisal process in which they are held accountable for effective implementation and instructional use of the technology.
10) What is the most important thing to teach?
Technology and software are only tools. We evaluate the use and implementation of technology and software in how it will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of teachers, how it will increase the productivity of learning, how it will contribute to the acquisition of new global skills and knowledge that otherwise could not be taught, how it will increase the technological literacy of our students, how it will increase district operations, how it will support professional learning for all teachers, administrators and support staff. NOTE: We no longer provide professional development only professional learning.
Read more at http://educationviews.org/2012/02/13/an-interview-with-william-skilling-reading-writing-and-technology/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
1) First of all, I understand that you have just won an impressive award. Tell us about it.
eSchool News, a publication network of eSchool Media Inc., identifies annually recipients of the Tech-Savvy Superintendent Award, which is award to the top 10 superintendents from coast to coast who best exemplify outstanding leadership and vision in using technology to advance their district’s educational goals.
Dennis Pierce, editor of eSchool News, said “research shows that technology can facilitate better teaching and learning, but only when used effectively.” And that starts at the very top, with strong school district leadership. If you start with a clear vision for how to implement technology wisely, and you make sure your staff are well trained and supported, and you seek to transform instructional practices to leverage technology’s full potential, then technology really can empower education. And that’s what the winners of our annual Tech-Savvy Superintendent Awards are doing,” he added.
2) What are YOUR priorities in terms of technology?
We determine what it is our students need to know and do when they graduate. We then select technologies that will help us achieve our end results. We always keep the end in mind.
Therefore, with this in mind, we have six basic priorities when it comes to technology:
(1) Implement technology that helps teachers be more efficient in the classroom.
(2) Implement technology that helps teachers become more effective teachers.
(3) Implement technology that will allow teachers to teach global skills and knowledge that otherwise could not be taught.
(4) Implement technology that contributes to a students technological literacy such that such that they become efficient and effective users.
(5) Use technology to increase the efficiency of the district’s operations.
(6) Use technology to allow teachers professional learning 24/7.
3) I have to admit I do not know what this cloud computing is all about. Do you use it and what is your evaluation of it?
Oxford does employ the use of both private and public cloud computing. On the private side of cloud computing, we want to own all our content and curriculum but make it available anywhere anytime. Security and safety of all our employees and students is always an issue and therefore we feel that different forms of clouds make sense in different situations.
4) Hardware vs. Software – what are the pros and cons?
You must first determine what the learning outcomes are and what instructional strategies need to be implemented to maximize the productivity of learning. We always design with the end in mind. We think about process first, then application/software, and then we select the appropriate hardware. We never start out with the hardware, we always end with it.
5) How does a Superintendent go about evaluating an ” app ” ? and how do you decide on what to purchase?
Does it make me more productive? Can I not live without it? Does it allow me to learn or teach more efficiently? The answers to these questions determine whether an app is downloaded or not.
6) Who assists in these decisions? Do you have a team?
Executive Director of Strategic Initiatives & Technology, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, and Assistant Superintendent of Business & Operations.
For the most part, these positions are driving the decision making process. However, building principals and teachers are also involved. In general, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum is deciding what applications are needed. The Executive Director of Strategic Initiatives & Technology is approving that the particular applications will work in our environment, and the Assistant Superintendent of Business is deciding the best vehicle through which to purchase the items.
7) It seems that every day I get an e-mail from some company promoting their product- How does one make sense of it all?
We never allow the latest technology to drive what we do. Instead, we determine what are the essential skills and knowledge all students need to compete in the global market. We then research the most productive ways to teach and have our students learning these skills and master the knowledge. However, it is important and imperative, that we also stays up with what is happening in the evolution of technology and software. This is true from a instructional, curriculum and operational perspective.
8) Ipod, Ipads, laptops, and hand held phones—do you have any priority list?
Many. It all depends upon what we are trying to accomplish. Everyone wants to talk about hardware but that is really the last question that is answered.
9) What have I neglected to ask?
Michael, I can probably come up with an additional question/s if I give this more thought. One of the most frequent questions I heard from my colleagues is, “how do you get all teachers to effectively use the technology and software you purchased?”
My answer is simple, the school district determines curriculum and the instructional strategies not teachers. You give teachers a reasonable timeline in which to implement the effective use of the classroom technology and software a district has chosen to implement. The district is responsible for providing the professional learning that allows teachers to decide when they want to learn how to effectively use technology to improve teaching and learning, where they will learn it, when they will learn it, and allow them to determine how they will learn it. It is up to the teacher to access the professional learning. The accountability comes through the teacher appraisal process in which they are held accountable for effective implementation and instructional use of the technology.
10) What is the most important thing to teach?
Technology and software are only tools. We evaluate the use and implementation of technology and software in how it will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of teachers, how it will increase the productivity of learning, how it will contribute to the acquisition of new global skills and knowledge that otherwise could not be taught, how it will increase the technological literacy of our students, how it will increase district operations, how it will support professional learning for all teachers, administrators and support staff. NOTE: We no longer provide professional development only professional learning.
Read more at http://educationviews.org/2012/02/13/an-interview-with-william-skilling-reading-writing-and-technology/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Elementary School Students Go Global With Technology
Elementary School Students Go Global With Technology
With the help of modern technology, students at the Charlotte Jewish Day School are talking to and learning from kids all over the world.
Elementary students in Charlotte are going “global” with a technology initiative that links them to students from around the world.
Once a week, students at the Charlotte Jewish Day School meet with teacher Rachel Moore and connect with students in classrooms worldwide in a program from kindergarten to fifth grade aimed to connect with the wider world.
Through video and an online ePal program, they’re able to discuss pressing issues, brainstorm solutions and delve into the lives of their counterparts, writes Caroline McMillan at the Charlotte Observer.
From studying weather with French peers to natural disasters with students in New Zealand, the classes are taught in more than half a million classrooms in more than 200 countries and territories across the world.
Bonds outside of subject areas also grow out of the scheme. One fifth-grade boy spoke about his friendship with another student he’s never met:
“He likes to play soccer, just like me,” he said.
“And he’s talkative, too.”
A 21st century classroom is an important goal for Principal Mariashi Groner. And the results of the global classroom has been greater than she expected.
“You’ll read about global classrooms in middle schools and high schools, but at an elementary level it takes a different kind of tone.
“It really is special, and I believe it’s going to get more impressive and detailed as (Moore) explores with the students.”
The key for the program relies on an enthusiastic teacher, it seems. Moore has been at the school for almost a decade and Groner says that it’s her leadership and willingness to format each class based on the students’ interests that got her the role.
“Children today, they don’t have a lot of power over what they’re going to do,” said Groner.
“They’re over-programmed, they’re told what to study, what to do. … In this classroom, (the students) really are in charge of their learning.”
Read more at http://www.educationnews.org/technology/elementary-school-students-go-global-with-technology/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
With the help of modern technology, students at the Charlotte Jewish Day School are talking to and learning from kids all over the world.
Elementary students in Charlotte are going “global” with a technology initiative that links them to students from around the world.
Once a week, students at the Charlotte Jewish Day School meet with teacher Rachel Moore and connect with students in classrooms worldwide in a program from kindergarten to fifth grade aimed to connect with the wider world.
Through video and an online ePal program, they’re able to discuss pressing issues, brainstorm solutions and delve into the lives of their counterparts, writes Caroline McMillan at the Charlotte Observer.
From studying weather with French peers to natural disasters with students in New Zealand, the classes are taught in more than half a million classrooms in more than 200 countries and territories across the world.
Bonds outside of subject areas also grow out of the scheme. One fifth-grade boy spoke about his friendship with another student he’s never met:
“He likes to play soccer, just like me,” he said.
“And he’s talkative, too.”
A 21st century classroom is an important goal for Principal Mariashi Groner. And the results of the global classroom has been greater than she expected.
“You’ll read about global classrooms in middle schools and high schools, but at an elementary level it takes a different kind of tone.
“It really is special, and I believe it’s going to get more impressive and detailed as (Moore) explores with the students.”
The key for the program relies on an enthusiastic teacher, it seems. Moore has been at the school for almost a decade and Groner says that it’s her leadership and willingness to format each class based on the students’ interests that got her the role.
“Children today, they don’t have a lot of power over what they’re going to do,” said Groner.
“They’re over-programmed, they’re told what to study, what to do. … In this classroom, (the students) really are in charge of their learning.”
Read more at http://www.educationnews.org/technology/elementary-school-students-go-global-with-technology/
http://www.languagecorpsasia.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)