Brenda+Courtad

Hi! I'm Brenda Courtad and this picture is of me, my son (Will) and my husband (Scott). My son is 6 months old. And yes, we are in a very large chair! I am currently a second year PhD student in the college of business with a focus in Business Analytics. I grew up in Ohio, near Youngstown. I got my undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering from Ohio University. Then, I worked for 6 years as a production engineer in Findlay Ohio at DTR Industries. DTR is a Japanese based company that makes rubber products for the automotive industry. While I was there, I got my MBA from the University of Findlay. I moved to Cincinnati about 3 years ago and worked with my husband inspecting homes for insurance companies and then started the PhD program.

I bring some industry experience, a little bit of technology experience, and a little bit of teaching on the college level to the class. Technology areas where I have the most experience is Excel and Simulation.

One link I am currently using for education is the help for Blackboard. [|Blackboard-help]

Reflective Blog – Week 1 Entry

The article by David H. Jonassen (1991) talks about the two perspectives on learning. One is that there is one reality and learning is having that real world mapped for you. This is the view of objectivism. The other is that each person creates their own reality and learning is the process of creating what your own real world is to be. This is the view of constructivism. The article talks about the shift in thinking from objectivism to constructivism and how it has not yet affected the overall philosophies of how we teach. The article questions whether we should completely change the way that we teach. He implies that a new philosophical paradigm is unnecessary and instead only an incorporation of constructivism into objectivism teaching is needed. He indicates that neither polar extreme is best. In the end he states, “…it depends upon the context” (Jonassen, 1991, p. 13). The second article that we read by Johannes Cronje (2006) makes the argument that the two perspectives aren’t on opposite ends of a linear spectrum. Instead it is suggested that the two perspectives be graphed on opposite axes creating four quadrants. The idea is that teaching techniques can have both objectivism and constructivism characteristics within one learning event. It seems that previously researchers supported one perspective and discredited the other. Cronje’s view is that teachers shouldn’t have to choose one extreme but instead use both styles in the appropriate situation.

For my current teaching, these were thought provoking articles. Currently I am teaching Business Analytics which is a math application in the business world. The context of math is very much in the objectivism realm. In math there is often a right and wrong answer. Also, math is used to communicate and as in the article by Jonassen (1991) if everyone was left to create their own reality we would no longer be able to communicate. However, I am teaching business students with all different backgrounds and areas of concentrations. The purpose of my class is to give them tools to apply in the real world within their concentrations. I often hear the complaint that I will never use this in my job. If I am able to give them a tool that they could interoperate into their own reality, they would have learned more from the class. As I stated, this was a very thought provoking article. Not coming from an education background, I haven’t given education this type of thought before. I agree with the article that this is not the “panacea for all of the instructional problems in education and training” (Jonassen, 1991, p. 11). I also agree with the idea that the context is the biggest determiner in the correct school of thinking. Education and training is such a broad spectrum of ages and subjects that each situation requires different teaching methods. However, it is interesting to think about this when planning a curriculum for any age or subject and how it could enhance and improve learning. I agree with the Cronje (2006) about plotting it on two different axes. This would create greater integration of the two methods and help different learners.

Is the constructivism philosophy the paradigm of Montessori schools? How do you use a constructivist approach with students who have never worked in the “real world”? Constructivism is that you create your own reality based on experiences but isn’t teaching constructing reality for the student (whether it is the one true reality or their own personal reality)?

References:

Cronje, J. (2006) Paradigms Regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and Constructivism in Instructional Design and the Learning Sciences. // Educational Technology, Research and Development //, 54(4), 387-416.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991) Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? // Educational Technology, Research and Development //, 39(3), 5-14.

Reflective Blog – Week 2 Entry

Both articles this week, one by Chaika (2003) and one by Anderson (2006), gave ideas on what to do with the one computer in your classroom. They make many of the same suggestions. Planning ahead was the key. The activities included having students look up articles that could then be printed quickly, having students type up a paper that had already been outlined by hand, using the computer as one station with other media at other stations and having the students rotate, sharing computers with other classrooms, projecting the computer or pre-printing information from the computer, using older computers to do word processing work and making the computer available at other times for students.

Both articles covered all of the same ideas though Anderson seemed to explain them in more detail. I think these are all good ideas for using one computer. I especially like the idea of setting up different stations around the classroom with different media at each station. Then you can have the students work in small groups at each media and then rotate. It seems to me that the biggest problem is that you can’t be doing a lecture or class teaching while one person is on the computer. Therefore, you have to have computer time coincide with individual work. That individual work has to be able to be made up by the person or group on the computer too.

This is very difficult to apply to my teaching. At (I believe) every college, students have access to computer labs. If they don’t have a personal computer, they always have access to the computers at the school. Word processing and research would not typically be done during class hours. The only thing I can see that might apply is being prepared by having students look things up and bring them to class instead of trying to teach it and then have them go look it up. The biggest problem I have with one computer is teaching technology (like Excel Solver) during class. It is difficult to explain how to do something without having the students follow along.

How do you teach a new technology with only one computer in the room? (Example: How to use a search engine or Microsoft Word) Does group work on the computer really work?


 * What I would recommend for teaching a software program is to create a screen capture -- like [|Jing (free)] or Captivate and record your demo of the program, so that students can review how to use the program when they are at home. There are ways to do group work at computers and hopefully you will see that in our class. - JZ**

References:

Anderson, W. (2006). //North Central Regional Technology in Education//. That's not a drinking fountain or how to survive in a one computer classroom.

Chaika, G. (2003). [|www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech092.shtml]

Reflective Blog – Week 4 Entry

The two articles from this week’s assignment cover the topic of copyright material in the classroom. They talked about the confusion over what is and is not legal. Some teachers follow their own strict rules on copyrighted material while others are limited by school policy. The fear seems to have come about in the age where it is easier and easier to download information from the internet or copy it straight from the TV. This has created legitimate fear from the creators of this copyrighted material as it was socially acceptable to steal this material. In the late 90’s songs were downloaded and shared among entire college campuses and movies were recorded off of satellite TV copied and distributed. This was done by many people who would never go to a store and steal a music CD or movie DVD. The industry had to take action to stop this piracy of their property. I’m assuming this is the same time that teachers and schools began to implement strict rules on the use of copyrighted material. This can limit the effectiveness of many teachers. This is especially true for teachers trying to teach media literacy or media production. Both articles say that many guidelines and rules of thumb go too far in limiting the use the copyrighted material. They defiantly go beyond what is legally necessary, but many schools chose to take a conservative approach.

There are also teachers that take the opposite approach. This could be because they are unaware of the laws or do not understand the laws. They chose to use copyrighted material even though they are not certain if it is being used properly or not. Both articles talk about this practice. The article from the center for social media referred to this as the “close the door” policy. The teachers would use the material but within their small classrooms only and without informing others.

I can understand the confusion about the laws. After reading these two articles, I am still unable to tell the correct interpretation of the law and it seems that it might be up to a judge to decide that on a case by case bases. There were two general rules that were provided. The first, use the material in a new way or transform the material into a new product with a new purpose. In other words, you cannot copy a text book into another text book with the purpose of selling or even giving it away as a competing text book. The second rule is that you should only take as much of the copyrighted material as is necessary. Some limiting rules of thumb take this too far by saying specifics such as two lines of text is ok to copy. The teacher really needs to decide for themselves how much is necessary. Maybe it is only one line or maybe it is the entire piece of work.

Currently I do not use any copyrighted material in my classroom. This is not because of restrictions by me or the college, but instead the nature of my class. I can see using it in the future though to get real world applications. Also, if I were teaching some of the other classes offered in my department, it would be more necessary. I had never really thought about the use of copyrighted material in the classroom. In a presentation, I did use a clip from “Friends” while I was getting my MBA and never thought about the fact that it was copyrighted material because I rented the DVD. I looked up UC policy and only found a guideline for students that is targeting more of the music and movie downloads I referred to above. They do not cover the use of copyrighted material for educational purposes in the material I found.

Does UC have a policy for copyrighted material use for educational purposes?


 * Here it is**
 * []**
 * - JZ**

If material is already publically available through the internet, is it covered by copyright law and if so why?

Reflective Blog – Week 5 Entry

The first reading by Roslen and Nelson (2008) was on the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. The idea is that the web has become much more writer/contributor friendly. The article helped to define Student 2.0 which is a student who has been exposed to the internet since birth and tends to be more computer savvy. One key point that Roslen and Nelson made was that not all current students are Student 2.0’s. They brought up a lot of points that need further exploration, such as the effect of becoming a Teacher 2.0 and how that can affect students learning. The second reading was on an experiment by Ikpeze and Boyd (2007). This was an experiment with five sixth graders taking a web based class. They felt it was a success as the students learned the material and were able to think critically about it on their own. However, there were challenges such as distractions on the web and overwhelming amounts of information. The third article by Wang and Hsua (2008) focuses specifically on blogs and why they are useful in classroom learning. They feel that a blog is the best medium because it can be accessed long after the class is over and the students can write for a larger audience than just the class. I feel like one of the most important lessons from this is that not all students have the same abilities when it comes to computers. I like that Ikpeze and Boyd (2007) noted that one student was able to help the other students, and I think that is important for all students learning. Also, Wang and Hsua (2008) said that one challenge was that some participants did not have the skills needed to participate fully. In my teaching experience, I was surprised by how few of my students were proficient with Excel. I think that this generation may be less afraid of technology but they still need to be given the skills to using the technology for learning and working. The idea that we can expose them to both the material being studied and the technology simultaneously I think is an important one. The use of blogs, wikis, simulations, internet research, and many more can help students learn course material and technology.

Do your students show a greater understanding of technology and is that intimidating to teachers? In what ways can blogs and web-based inquiry learning be used in math based instruction?

References:

Ikpeze, C., & Boyd, F. (2007). Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests. //READING TEACHER, 60//(7), 644-654. doi:10.1598/RT.60.7.5 Rosen, D., & Nelson, C. (2008). Web 2.0: A new generation of learners and education. //Computers in the Schools, 25//(3-4), 211-225. Wang, S., & Hsua, H. (2008). Reflections on using blogs to expand in-class discussion. //TechTrends, 52//(3), 81-85. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0160-y

Reflective Blog – Week 6 Entry

The first article (Hong et al. 2009) created an assessment tool that could be used to determine the educational value of digital games. However, first it gave a lot of background information about educational games. They talk about difficulty in categorizing games because many of them fit into several categories and each stake holder uses different categories. Much of the previous interest in gaming education has been on the negative effects of games, such as increased violence. A positive note about games is that they can be a motivator for learning. This came through again when the author noted “most important of all, they must be fun to play” (Hong et al. 2009 p 431). The article then talked a lot about the method of how they came up with their method of assessment of digit games using a KJ method. The final product has seven categories with 74 items within the categories (Hong et al. 2009).

The article by Sardone & Devlin-Scherer (2010) talks about the fact that most teachers and nearly all parents feel it is important to include technology and 21st century skills in education. However, few curriculums successfully implement them. They also found research that motivation and retention of knowledge is greater with game play then with conventional classroom instruction. The focus of their research was teaching a class of college education majors how to use games in teaching. They reviewed several free web-based games in the class and had them use the games with high school and middle school students. While this study wasn’t focused on how to evaluate the games for education use, they did evaluate them using the 21st Century Learning Skills. The other factors they considered were how appropriate they were for the intended age and if they were motivating or not (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer 2010).

I think the first article (Hong et al. 2009) was an interesting article. It would be useful if the developers used this information to rate the games they developed in this manner. I agree with the factors used in the second article (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer 2010), and think this may be easier to use for assessment. I think both provide a good starting point for teachers to access tools they use in the class room. I think that this could extend beyond games though to other web based activities as well. One of the best things this could provide is a rubric for which you could share the information with other teachers.

I don’t like in first article (Hong et al.2009) example assessment they did not use the exact wording of the rubric. For example in the rubric it says, “The game will be able to cultivate adventure” (Hong et al. 2009 p 431). Then the graph and explanation says, “Promotion of Adventure” (Hong et. al. 2009 p 429). If they decided on the word cultivate for the rubric, they should stick with that when decided that it does and why it does.

In the class I teach now, I don’t know of many games that can be played for learning the material. However, I think that if I did find a game the second article by Sardone & Devlin-Scherer (2010) would be the article I would use to assess the game. I like the categories that they used better because they seem to all apply really well to business skills. The rubric created for the first article (Hong et al.2009) was too lengthy and much of it does not apply to my teaching goals. I think this rubric would be more useful for the developers to assess their own games and provide to users as a way of understanding the intended use of the game.

How do you determine the educational value of games you play in class? Are some students motivated by other methods of learning more than by games?

References:

Hong, J., Cheng, C., Hwang, M., Lee, C., & Chang, H. (2009). Assessing the educational values of digital games. //JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LEARNING, 25//(5), 423-437. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00319.x

Sardone, N. B., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2010). Teacher candidate responses to digital games: 21st-century skills development. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42//(4), 409-425.