EXAM – ED2203 Q2.d)

Ensuring that learning occurs at Bloom’s higher level

• Create – they are creating a blog or wiki or flickr etc. this all needs knowledge from the other taxonomies. Creating pages means a person has to put thought in what they are doing. The student has the choice of the many programs available. To differentiate the exceptional students from the average students the teacher can judge on the basis of their final creation.

These tow links are Web 2.0 programs available for all usesrs. This softwear enables users to be as creative as possible.

• Evaluate – because there are so many programs available the teacher need to supply the options they have. An evaluative student will look at what will suit their work, see which program is better and finally which is the safe program.

There is a major difference between iGoogle and the every day Google account. A good evaluative student will be able to see that iGoogle may suit their needs of Web 2.0 and is safe due to the personalised nature of the program.

• Analysing – looking at the necessity of work and applying them

Look at VodPod vrs YouTube

Vodpod is personalised and hold relevant information as well as fun things fom YouTube

• Applying – just using information and adding it to the final work i.e: their web page.

This page is an example of first time users of  wiki’s. they have applied their knowledge to the program they are learning to use

• Understanding – getting the basic concepts and completing the assigned task

Do they understand their work? They should know how to define what is a wiki?

• Remembering – about knowledge and the intake the students chose to absorb.

It is nothing too exceptional if the student can recite URL’s. 

Bloom’s Taxonomy

EXAM – ED2203 Q2.c)

 Classroom management methods

• Good time management – this is held by the teacher and the student
• A structured lesson plan to give direction to the students.
• key questions that have to be answered by the end of class
• Monitoring the screens of students
• One computer per student! Absolutely essential!
• Have a set of rules for the classroom
• Always remind them about copyright issues. (Look at UNDA’s referencing guidlines)  
• Give freedom but not overboard that no work is to be done.
• Monitoring is absolutely essential.
• Allow the students to use programs they are comfortable with
• Allow the student’s input information to the class.

Do not allow them to slack off …. hint hint the picture….

EXAM – 2203 Q.2 b)

The encouragement of collaboration amongst students

• Get them to choose the groups they are able to work with. Together they can chose the subject they want and work on to achieve a common goal.
• Allow them to work together and keep mentioning on their tasks together
• Overtime they should learn to trust each other.
• The teacher should encourage the collaborative culture. This is done through creating a group on facebook, adding each other to your del.icio.us web site, g-mail account and all these other programs.
• Because every one is scared about losing money because of ideas the teacher should mention that money factor is useless. A good example is  Tim Burners Lee – who created the World Wide Web and chose not to make money off it because he thought it’s unethical
• If they are still untrusting, the teacher should mention that the students have to copyright and source all their work – i.e: the task of find 3 articles and evaluate them. Students should copy each other’s links t save time … schemes of collaboration. Classroom activities such as these will be the best thing.
• A blog I wrote on 12 -10 -2007: I mentioned there were people I must thank because they helped me to do this page. This was mainly due to our lecturer who stated that collaborative learning will encourage us to learn. This is correct and now we ALL ask for help and learn faster.

EXAM 2203 – Q2.a)

 The way in which the teacher conveys new information

This website is a small synopsis of the Theorist Lev Vygostky on Social Development Theory. This theory has been a personal favourite of mine because the theory is about socially learning. In the world of Web 2.0 people can do their research, receive information, and collaborate this with other people. The notion of connectivism is and constructive learning is the best option for the classroom. It is a bonus because the students are then able to take their collaborative learning were ever they go. From Home to School or even over seas. Collaborative social leaning is apparent and happening.

A ways a teacher can convey the new information is looking at the students styles of learning. Howard Gardener mentions 7. In the world of Web 2.0 a teacher can use programs such as YouTube, VodPod, Flickr, Bolgs, Wiki’s, iGoogle to attract their attention then be able to teach them how a student will be able to use these widgets and programs to their class work. They would be able to teach each other and reach their Zone of Proximal learning because of the inclusive nature and the MANY means of finding information

They main idea is they are learning new ICT skills and research mainly on computers.

Lesson structure:

• 3 min settle time for the students to log on and be prepared
• 5-10 min of the lesson on what they have to learn in class. In this process the Web 2.0 are introduced the class. They are taught what it can do, as a motivation tool. It must be relevant.
• They are assigned a task and the rest of the time they are to work on it
• To reach the Zone of Proximal learning they should direct their questions to each other or try and figure it out themself.
• They should use the teacher as a last resort
• The teacher must monitor the class
• In they end the teacher should cheek
• what they did for the lesson some the work they completed in the lesson.

Giving the students hint on what is Web 2.0. look at YouTube, iGoogle, blog pages, Wiki’s, what are Wiggets and telling us to collaborate them all in a personal page.\

The way in which the teacher conveys new information

Collaborative learning is when we were given our group assignments and had to work together. Create is the highest form of thinking and blogging using web 2. Built the student’s skills. The teacher can use the principle of ‘Fun’ from Glasser to show them the easiness and enjoyment of these programs. Then use Bloom’s highest taxonomy of ‘Create’ where they can figure out and create means of using these programs.

The teacher will show them the features of how to use the programs. Then ask them to be individuals and see HOW they want their information to be displayed. They will have to analyses this and evaluate the best programs.

To make life easier the students to use only ONE program. It may cut off the line of individualism, but it doubles the work for the class to listen to the same thing twice. If the students are fussing they must use a particular program then allow them, monitoring they are still on track and not going to fall behind because of their stubbornness.

The teacher does not always have to do go the talking. They can use the Web 2.0 technology to teach the class. This will be perfect for the slow learners because they can constantly refer to the information later.

I.E: learning about RSS feed. Click here and learn something new. The future classroom may look at this as a means to teach. There is also a TeacherTube for this reason

EXAM 2203 – Q.1 a&b

(20064136)

ED 2203

Question 1

Marking Blog: http://www.berniebou.wordpress.com/

 Discuss 5 key issues that you had to struggle to get this project to work?

1. Time – we struggled to make time to see each other person to person. As a contingency we used the previous tutorial meetings to think and collaborate with each other. There we planed to meet deadlines of what work needs to be done. It was not until the last week were it all came together; yet we kept lengthening the deadlines. The Wiki was last updated the day before it was due and it still is incomplete.
2.  Place – It only occurred to us that not everyone in the group was in the same tutorial. So we only had two tutorials were we had a physical place to met. As a contingency we shared each other’s e-mail address. We met mostly online throughout the study week. The worst part was two of the three members were not talking to each other. So I had to liaise with them both. It was hard because they were acting stubborn and refusing to meet and discuss. 
3. Communication between 3 people – as I was the one person who was liaising between them, I found that they refused to speak to each other. They had all the technology to be able to i.e: phone, internet, e-mail, facebook. One member would rather tell me how mad they are about the other member, while that other member would rather tell me how clueless they felt. So between trying to get my own work done and delegating what each person should do we waisted time that they could have been able to take care of themselves.
4. Assignment topic- it was easy to choose the subject of Religious Education because collectively it is our major. It took bargaining and looking past stubbornness to figure out what topic we specifically wanted to create the assignment on. As a result we chose ‘Prayer’ because it was the easier topic and it resonated with our other subjects.
5. Information – Matching what each person was to do for their section of work was harder.  It was a struggle to see what information we wanted to put in. Organising who was going to take care of the information that is presented to on the wiki – i don’t think we edited out wok

www.mibechirs.pbwiki.com

Evaluate the worth of collaborative nature of this project in light of motivation that comes from within the person.

Dreikurs’ principles of Democratic Discipline

His theory states there are four reasons why a student will misbehaves

(1) Attention seeking,

(2) Power seeking,

(3) Revenge seeking and

(4) Avoiding failure

Our group’s main cause of misbehaviour surrounded the notion of Avoidance of failure. We had a common goal which was to creat a wiki and make sure it was handed in before the exam.

We can state that our group used Democratic Principles because of the nature of how our group worked together. Though they may not have spoken to each other as much we were firm and stuck to our responsibilities of completing the delegated tasks. Though after the task was complete we did not edit it to be exceptional . as a motivation we had to use Dreikurs’ theory of motivation. That is, we encouraged each other to go back and fix our work. The theory could only work so much. This is because in the end I felt like I was nurturing everyone too much and not being able to preform to the best of my ability. I should not have taken on the leadership role because they assumed it was me.

The democratic choice theory is ‘workable’ in the sense that has they not had the choices to do as they please there would have been a greater power struggle in the group and as the assumed leader I would have had to take care of useless arguments.\

So Dreikurs’ theory did work to a certain extent.

As the liaison, I made sure that we were all on speaking terms with each other.

The democratic process seemed to have work because in the end the assignment was complete due to common goal of the fear of failure. They learnt to respect their responsibilities due to the collaborative nature of the assignment and the consequences if they did not do it.

The Prevention idea is extremely useful. Having to be flexible meant that everyone had a say and it kept the motivation high.

In a murder trial…

In a murder trial, the defense attorney was cross-examining the coroner:

Attorney: Before you signed the death certificate, had you taken the pulse?

Coroner: No.

Attorney: Did you listen to the heart?

Coroner: No.

Attorney: Did you check for breathing?

Coroner: No.

Attorney: So, when you signed the death certificate, you weren’t sure the man was dead, were you?

Coroner: Well, let me put it this way. The man’s brain was sitting in a jar on my desk. But I guess it’s possible he could be out there practicing law somewhere

Web 2.0 is essentially an increase range of software that supports a variety of technologies for open and collaborative communication, learning and creativity. Discuss.

In order to understand importance of Web 2.0, Web users should understand the original Web 1.0. Ultimately, Web 1.0 is the starting point of the World Wide Web, which gives internet users the ability to research and electronically communicates with people using their computer. The internet, in its primitive stage, was the utensil for initial points of references and a new form of digital contact with the outside world. As the lines of communication and fact-finding became more open, people have decided to share their information using programs that are regularly accessible to Web users. Some programs included Google search and specialty websites that the users would know and regularly refer. Thus, it created the starting point of Web 2.0.

 Web 2.0 goes beyond the point of just searching for information and receiving e-mails. It is having the ability to use the software programs that are available from the World Wide Web; to be able to collaborate, communicate, learn and create. Originally, the users would only have the option to search for information; now the information can be sort-for and sent to the user. To name some, programs that can are classified as Web 2.0 are Wikis, podcasts, RSS and IGoogle. They are software applications that Web users would apply to their computers for a wider Web quest. They are free to download and broaden searches and the lines of today’s form of communication.

It ideal if all levels of education could ‘catch on’ to the new Web 2.0. If the students are clearly informed, the software will help students be open and collaborative with their work leading to an increase in their ability to learning and it will allow them to be creative. This statement is merely an ideal, because, though the Web 2.0 program’s purpose is to do those things, it also has flaws. Mainly, the flaws are not the programs, but merely the users of the programs. When people over or under use the programs it leads to negative consequences. Open and collaborative The software from Web 2.0 gives the users the ability to be open and collaborative through their communications. In an inactive classroom, collaborative group work would be suitable on a Wiki. According to Wiki.org (2007) a Wiki is a software which “allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser” (Wiki.org, 2007) in an organised format. The students who have access to the programs password are able to edit the work like any other internet website. What makes it definable to Web 2.0 is the ability for the browsers to add comments and give feedback on the spot. Kelly Driscoll (2007) stated, “Technology is playing a key role in various types of communication within the classroom today, changing the way communication takes place in a way that is having a real impact on learning”. To get the full capacity of collaborative learning the Web 2.0 program, PBwiki.com, is highly suggestion to help students for group assessments. As an ideal, the students are able to research on a given task and present it in an organised manner. The software is free to use; all the student needs is a computer with internet connection. The program is easily accessible from any computer. A positive is that each student is able to add information at any time. Though the students will rely on each other, constantly checking their work, there is also room for independent learning. The Wiki allows interactive links, pictures, videos and music. The page browsers are able to add and display comments on the webpage so there is a sense of feedback given to the creators of the page. With all the positives attributes of an open and collaborative communication, there are also negatives that follow. This is mainly not due to the software that Web 2.0 has to offer, but it is the external aspect of the technology. Group work has always been hard aspect of any collaborative nature of work. The group problems usually range from individual students wanting to do all or even none of the work. The digital aspect of collaboration still needs to have a human side because the work cannot be successfully completed unless collaborative information is placed in the program. Learning At the time of Web 1.0, Google was the program that people referred to when they were researching on topic. In the new age of Web 2.0, users are still able to research in this old-fashioned way, but can also subscribe to RSS feeds. Of which, this Web 2.0 program has become a regularly available application for people to use. RSS is the acronym for ‘Really Simple Syndication’. According to Jude O’Connell (2007) the RSS application “is a file format for delivering regularly updated information over the web” (O’connell, 2007). Now the web browsers are able to receive information with half the effort because the computer is looking for it on your behalf. George Siemens (2004) from elearningspce.org wrote in an article how there should be a review on teaching theories due to the changing nature of how students learn. Though the article is as informal as a blog is stereotyped, he cites Vaill’s (1996) definition on learning, which raises a correct point that “learning must be a way of being – an ongoing set of attitudes and actions by individuals and groups that they employ to try to keep the surprising, novel, messy, obtrusive, recurring events…” (Vaill, 1996). Though students are educated at school, they learn in more informal than formal situations. He lists the trends of learning and amongst them he states, “Technology is altering (rewiring) our brains. The tools we use define and shape our thinking” (Siemens, 2004). It is agreeable that in a classroom/group work situation a teacher will want their student to have a fulfilled education. In light of this, they may agree to have formal and informal task such as learning. One task could be having a lesson for student to familiarize themselves with the web programs. This is so they are able to make their own mistakes and find a way to get to a comfortable stage of their learning. In the world of Web 2.0, the creators of Google have caught up with the progression of the World Wide Web and have not made them self redundant in this area. Rather, they upgraded the searching method to the RSS program and redeveloped themself in the iGoogle.com software. Creativity There will be no point in submitting or presenting any form of work on Web 2.0 if it cannot allow the user to be creative. Understanding place and space for a student gives individuality. In Web 2.0, many software programs are readily available from any computer. In the case of students doing assignments, they are now becoming free to move their work from the usual home computer to other places with ease. Rothberg (2006) wrote, companies such as IBM are trialling the idea of using student’s creativity to look at the potentials of learning with technology. As it stated in the article, the “program is designed to equip students with skills in the creation and management of online communities and social network systems” (Rothberg, 2006). The many readily accessible programs such as FaceBook, MySpace, YouTube, Blogger and PBWiki allow the students to have fun and be comfortable in their learning. The programs are much better than the usual Word Document or other un-interactive Microsoft programs. The student can go beyond choosing colours, change fonts and add pictures. Now they are able to add videos clips, PodCasts or their favourite songs to the designed page. The students will have an area of place and space. The sense of belonging will encourage them to learn. Web 2.0 has become a revolutionary item to the world of technology. With the many different programs that come with Web 2.0, students are able to engage in learning with the use of technology. Together it is open and collaborative communication in a group work task and the class. It also helps in the students learning and allows them to be creative. Thought the programs have a set job description the students have to be familiar with them to understand its full potential use for their work as well as lifelong education.

Reference List -

Driscoll, Kelly. (2007), Collaboration in Today’s Classrooms: New Web Tools Change the Game. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, Vol. 14 Issue 3, 9-12.

- O’connell, Judy., (2007), Judy’s Web 2.0 Notes: RSS, Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://judyoconnell.wordpress.com/rss-2/ -

 Professor Allan Coman, B Sc (UNSW), Dip Ed (Auckland Uni), M Sc (Macquarie Uni), M Ed (Admin) (UNE) – Rothberg, Deborah., (2006), Big Blue brings Web 2.0 to school, eWeek, Vol. 23 Issue 43, p29-29.

 - Siemens, George,. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

- Vaill, P. B., (1996). Learning as a Way of Being. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Blass Inc, p.42. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm – Wiki.org, (2007), What Is Wiki, Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki