Jennifer+Brown

Hello, I am a newly minted part-time student in the UC MEd IDT program. I am a mom of three (Nathan-2008, Ben-2009, and Allie-2010) and have been married for 6 years. I am from Cincinnati and a product of the CPS (SCPA and Walnut) and after taking the scenic route through college graduated from UC with a BS in Biology, a Russian and Eastern European Studies, and Basic Spanish Competency Certificates. I play piano badly but love it. We have 3 dogs, 3 horses (2 in foal) and no cats (except at the barn!).

Professionally, I work for the university in a joint venture between the College of Medicine (Neurology) and the Department of Electrical Engineering called “POCCENT”- The Point-of-Care Center for Emerging Neurotechnologies where we sponsor projects that we believe will benefit stroke, traumatic brain injury and seizure patients.

I have several complex motivations for pursuing a career in education: re-education of baby-boomers entering 2nd and third careers, designing coursework for secondary science education, and integrating distance learning in both possible paths. My current position allows me to multitask and network with an eclectic group of professionals which has inadvertently made me appreciate the need for thoughtfully designed instruction (even when dealing with already highly educated) participants for attaining at least collaborative educational and work goals.

Nice to “meet” you all!

[|POCCENT] -where I work and it has other links to engineering and medical training resources on it. [|Ted Lectures/Talks] - A friend turned me onto these. It is not strictly an educational or IDT link but you can search it for Educational talks by renown innovators in many fields. They last usually about 20-40m in length. [|Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training] - This is a GREAT UC resource for any MS, or PhD student venturing into research projects unknown as well as for translational science professionals conducting clinical and human subject research. They host guest speakers in the field regularly on the East Clifton Campus.

It's hard for me to list a talent with all the teaching experience I look up to in my classmates but one way I may serve as a resource to off-campus folks is knowing some of the offices and policies regarding research, specifically the IRB (Institutional Review Board) and hoops we will have to jump through in submitting forms for Social and Behavioral studies related to education.

I can also weigh in on virtually any discussion or questions that have to do with horses!

**Reflective Blog 1: Objectivism and Constructivism**

In some of my education classes so far I have wondered (even when I’ve done well) when my lack of teaching and education experience would be exposed. And here in week 1, assignment 1 it happened! I am grateful that we are beginning this class with lessons on the basic philosophical foundation in teaching and learning. From this week’s readings, although many “isms” were mentioned they were for the most part discussed in terms of their contrast to, or agreement with the two dominant educational camps: Objectivism and Constructivism.

Unlike the authors of this week’s assignments, I am not familiar with the nuances that make certain terms describing teaching and learning such as Cronjé‘s “learning event” (Cronjé, 2006) more apropos than “instruction”. I hope through effort in this class some of that sophistication will come to me. Before launching into a harangue, my thoughts regarding education were concisely represented in Cronjé's stance that “Learning experiences are opportunistic”.

Cronjé‘s and Jonassen’s renditions of Objectivism and Constructivism were for fairly concurrent. Most of my reflection draws on Cronjé but I also think there is so much more I could’ve discussed regarding Jonassen’s discourse on behavior and 20th century psychology, but it’s beyond the scope of one short reflection! The major themes discussed address not only how the “isms” are applied in education but inferred that when considering them they do not apply themselves equally to the teacher as they do the student (at the risk of stirring the debate of who actually occupy those roles!). Constructivism is a method/doctrine of learning that places emphasis on the student’s mental autonomy. Intrinsic to that autonomy is the notion that the student determines their own “reality” or context of and disposition to learning. In contrast (sort of) Objectivism as applied to teaching and instruction emphasizes the transmission of knowledge by the knowing teacher to the student typical of a teacher in the traditional scenario lecturing in front of a class and the transmission of knowledge. Followers in the Constructivists camp will wax eloquently on the deficiencies of this model but I believe the stereotype can be (albeit crassly) summed up by the example of Ben Stein’s famous quote (and its context in the 1986 movie Ferris Beuller’s Day Off). “Beuller, Beuller, Beuller …”

It wasn’t overt but when the comparing and contrasting the two main “isms” both articles conveyed that constructivism focused on the student, and objectivism on the teacher. There is no way I will cast a ballot on which one wins out in my opinion at this early stage in my learning career and I daresay that will likely always be the case. One reason is that with only these two references and short of our in-class discussion of the material, at this point I don’t have enough information to declare a “winner”.

The second reason is because I think Cronjé‘s contention that the placement of the two “isms” on two exclusive poles of a binary model is not valid **//is//** a valid point. His two dimensional “Four quadrants of teaching and learning” model (Cronjé‘, p411) seems to me more credible. I also like that he introduces metrics in this model (units for the axes). I don’t believe at this juncture that these two educational philosophies are apples and apples because when describing them, both authors seem to focus on the student as the determinist for one (Constructivism) and the teacher as the determinist for the other (Objectivism), which makes the targets for action a little different.

Finally, if the mechanisms of constructivist learning and objectivist teaching are truly different pathways as Jonassen offers as the beliefs of cognitive scientist, (Jonassen, p7) then it stands to reason that using one method in one educational scenario and the other in another (deemed appropriate for its use) would mutually exclude one method from impeding or harming the progress of the other’s in their respective educational scenario. That is why I agree with one of Cronjé‘s contributors that it may appear that the two methods are employed simultaneously when in fact they are rapidly oscillating events in succession. (Cronjé, p404)

A question left unanswered by both articles is what harm do proponents of Constructivism see in Objectivism and vice versa? This is a difficult question to answer because “ // the capacity to learn is a dynamic one based on politics, personal circumstances (maturity, health, SES) which may change at any point in time ever expanding and contracting. Teaching across differing perspectives, or circumstances and due to learning style and a diverse allocation of resources, both human and material, requires nimble methodology. Inflexibility stymies students’ success // ” (Brown, My own learning autobiography for 18-CI-702). I would add having read these articles that education requires a nimble //collaboration// of methodologies.

Following that question is how does “better living through chemistry” relate to teaching and learning in the consideration of methodologies? Are children prescribed medication (in some instances) to cope with a particular system? Would a different system benefit them and their educational success potentially reducing their dependence on chemistry?

One quote that I have admittedly used several times so far in my coursework but that is relevant here once again is from John Dewey’s __Experience and Education__: “//There is always the danger in a movement that in rejecting the aims and methods of that which it would supplant, it may develop its principals negatively rather than positively and constructively. Then it takes its clew in practice from that which is rejected instead of from the constructive development of its own philosophy.//” (Dewey, p20)

If as Cronjé quotes Alessi and Trollip, “Instructional designers will always find themselves ‘somewhere in the middle’” (Cronjé, p393), then it appears that I am probably right where I should be as a student in IDT.


 * 1) Cronjé, Johannes. (2006) “Paradigms Regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and Constructivism in Instructional Design and the Learning Sciences”. ETR&D, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp 387-416.
 * 2) Jonassen, David H. (1991) “Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do we need a New Philosophical Paradigm?” ETR&D, Vol.39, No. 3, pp 5-14.
 * 3) Dewey, John (1938) Experience and Education. Simon and Schuster, NY, NY.

** Reflective Blog 2: One-Computer Classrooms **

Both articles this week suggested ways of compensating with limited computing resources in attaining educational goals (preparing a report for example). Of this week’s two assignments I first read Chaika’s “How to Thrive –Not Just survive in a one-computer classroom”. I think a better title would’ve been more accurately “//How to survive in a one-computer classroom//”. I thought Chaika’s ideas for the most part were a little anemic. In fact, I disagreed with the Popsicle idea for taking turns at using the computer. In this scenario, students take turns on the computer as their name s are randomly drawn from a cup of the labeled sticks. I believe this would disrupt students’ focus or train of thought as they’d be expected to jump to the computer at any spontaneous moment. Alternatively, a predetermined succession of turns would allow students to plan their time accordingly and they wouldn’t be disrupted every time the computer changed hands.

Both articles mentioned using a projector screen, but neither article suggested collaborative work on the computer. I think one great exercise would be an interview where students (as a class for example) could prepare questions and take turns asking an expert or cyber “guest-speaker” via Skype or GoogleTalk on the shared computer with a projected screen. The guest expert could be a zoo-keeper, an airplane pilot…the possibilities are limitless. Both articles did mention using stations and rotations which is a great way to manage resources as well as giving the students the opportunity to develop different research skills for their later discretionary use. Still, this suggestion was an obvious (tried and true) one. It’s rationing. I was most disappointed with the capitulation by both authors to basically just go and find (“scrounge”) more computers, because by definition of the problem, that really does not answer how to deal with __only having one computer__ in a classroom (if indeed that resource is limited). In terms of resources, and making the most of the limited resources a classroom may have, I believe it’s time for teachers (administrators) to start accounting for how many of our students have Smart-phones. If enough do have them and are willing/able to use them in class, then they can search for articles online for example, and even print sources from their phones. This voluntary exercise would allow technically disadvantaged students more time on the shared computer. I don’t know the statistics of how many economically depressed people/students have smart-phones, but I’d hazard the guess that more of those (that are of student-age) own smart-phones versus computers.

Anderson’s article does conclude with three solid suggestions: PLAN AHEAD, teach students how to make efficient use of time with a limited resource (using internet search engines on the computer) and finally, have students share this knowledge with classmates. A team is only as fast as its slowest runner.

** Reflective Blog 3: Copyrights and Educational Implications **

October 18, 2011

The information presented by Hobbs', Jaszi, and Aufderheide in their article //The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy//, was informative, but not conclusive. In this reflection I will for the most part reference the PDF article versus the website article (or embedded video) herein which is complementary to the article and shares it academic home and authors (The American University school of Communication; Center for Social Media). The very short summary is that there is currently no widely based consensus among teachers on the rules for using copyrighted material, especially as it applies to media resources (although the AU SoC Center for Social Media Website/authors do propose a “Best” code of use). As a result Hobbs et al contend that copyrighted material may in fact be underused by educators, and so a wealth of copyrighted resources is undistributed across the masses in academia. Hobbs et al cited sources and offered evidence consistent with a few other articles I was assigned previously in the complementary CI course Educational Technical Issues (774). In some ways I honestly felt that this article represented a balanced interpretation of copyright concerns in that one would expect a broad understanding (and misunderstanding) of the Act. Interpretation is extremely situational specific and beyond the scope of this article to consider the full gamut of scenarios. Likewise Kenneth Crows (Copyright Counsel/advisor at Columbia University) in the website video (“Fair Use for Media Literacy Education”) advocates that interpretation can of the Copyright Act can be broad while still respecting the rights of original creators/authors. In considering whether or not copyright infringement has occurred, the Copyright Act of 1976 established criteria that guide use of copyrighted material. In protecting the rights of authors/creators of copyrighted material, the Act prohibits unlicensed use(s) that:

// (1) reproduce the work // // (2) prepare derivative works // // (3) distribute copies of the work to the public // // (4) display or perform the work publicly // ” (Alsaffar, p3)

According to standard 4 of the ITSE NETS Performance Indicators for Teachers (2008), educators should “//advocate, model, and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology, including respect for copyright,// // intellectual property and the appropriate documentation of sources // ”. (ISTE NETS, 2008) Those teachers who wish to comply with this standard must educate themselves on the acceptable uses of copyrighted material in their lessons. Acceptable use of copyrighted material is considered “Fair Use” if it passes the “four factor test” in which the following criteria are analyzed:

// (1) the purpose and character of the use; // // (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; // // (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; // // (4) the effect on the potential market for or value of the work //. (Alsaffar, p5)

Finally, as Hobbs et al mention, a key allowance for the legitimate use of copyrighted material hinges on its “transformativeness” (Hobbs et al, p11), basically a (legal) degree of separation of ‘work’ produced from the original and copyrighted material.

Discussion Questions: Relevant to our expanding use of technology in the classroom Hobbs et al highlight in their article that teachers do not have a detailed consensus (“Code of Practice”) regarding what constitutes fair use of media in teaching and instruction. I would contend that that may be a good thing. (1) One discussion question would be to deliberate the girth of definition of fair use. The simpler a definition is - the wider is the girth of interpretation and some might fear, likewise the peril of misinterpretation and liability. The more detailed the definition, the less flexible/adaptable the interpretation is, which is counterproductive to the constantly morphing and expanding nature of media constitution and content.

One thing I read in the Hobbs et al article that I am not impressed with was the contention that an educator would use “copyright” and “plagiarism” interchangeably (Hobbs et al, p9). (2) Perhaps another discussion comparing and contrasting these two terms is warranted. For me it is apples and oranges, but in the article by Hobbs et al, there were several quotes by educators indicating that many do not share my take as the two terms being distinctive!

I personally agree with a quote from Hobbs' paper:”//we need to balance copyright ownership with other considerations such as democratic exchange of ideas and a healthy democracy//”. The murky waters where capitalism and Marxism meet is always charged with exciting debate (and a timeless discussion opportunity, 3) which is why this quote sticks with me: It weighs the common good against individual ownership, and as in consideration of copyright, where a legal structure must serve both parties as a fair referee.

References
 * 1) Hobbs, R., Jaszi, P., Aufderheide, P. (2007) The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy. American University Center for Social Media. pp 1--28.
 * 2)  [] ( The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education)
 * 3) AlSaffar, J. (2006) Copyright Concerns in Online Education: What Students Need to Know. J//ournal of Library Administration// (The Haworth Information Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 45, No. 1/2, 2006, pp. 1-16
 * 4) http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

** Reflective Blog 4: Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 ** October 24, 2011

For this week’s Blog and following the first assignment, I had to review the presentation for contextual orientation because the three articles are not about one topic but rather three, an appetizer of tools to be served up in class by Jacque, Paul, Soufei and Barb’s main-course (group presentation of “Web 1.0 –vs.- 2.0: Virtual Manipulations”). The first article compares and contrasts the Web 1.0 tool: Discussion board, with the 2.0 version: Blogs. I began reading the Wang and Hsau article “Reflections on Using Blogs to Expand In-class Discussion” with skepticism: What’s so different about Blogs versus BlackBoard Discussions? And almost as quickly as I jabbed with that question, the article punched back. Blogs are better for archiving and retrieving writings, for embedding media, for their ability to integrate RSS software tools (such as real-time news/feeds) and for distributing beyond the “closed system” (Wang and Hsau, p83, p84) of Blackboard and to the public. On a technical note; the article also mentions HTML language/programming considerations and that online publishing for the layman is reasonably accessible.

One thing that I believe after reading this article that warrants a little more investigation is the advantages and disadvantages of a closed (Discussion Board) versus open (Blogging) system/option. I did feel more secure in posting cavalier thoughts on previous classroom discussion boards which was riskier but elicited insightful response/critique from my educated and respectful (and sane) classmates. I might err on the side of being politically influenced if I knew my post would be public (and my audience less focused). I’m not sure how that would benefit my creative and critical growth as a “thinker”, but I suppose I would likely improve my composition skills. It may be a trade-off. I also share some concern for privacy and especially in the case of K-12 aged students. For this reason in following the ISTE NETS teacher performance indicators (2008, 4.a.), a “safe” protocol of blogging use would be developed so that students and their parents would have a clear understanding that the blogs were public, and would be offered an alternative means of participation if they declined public posting.

The second article did not compare Web 2.0 tools to an antiquated Web 1.0 version but when describing the pros and cons of the Web 2.0 tool [|WebQuest], it was easy for this student to draw comparison between the past legwork involved in research at the library and in the field to the information buffet of today’s Web 2.0. Information gluttony is a problem for today’s student’s and for that reason the time saved in searching for raw data might be well spent integrating the time consuming exercise of blogging for organizing thoughts and for planning research activity (i.e. developing “strategic knowledge” (Ikpeze and Boyd, p644). It did make me smile to read in Ikpeze and Boyd’s article their concerns for distractions and off-task activities…as it does whenever an article presents this issue as if it were a novel one! In fact with “history” and keystrokes recorded permanently, this issue should be //easier// to spot and to address (with evidence) when compared to the “he-said, she-said” past practice. I am not convinced that internet tools afford more distractions to learning than previous distractions in a student’s relative period of time in history. “Ferris Bueller” did not enjoy the internet twenty years ago and likewise had no deficit of off-task seductions! What the second article did stress (and I believe more than the Blogging article) was the opportunity for collaborative work and research in addition to and balanced with the individual pursuit of academic growth. Common with other ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies), WebQuest’s educational promise relies on the “**purposeful** integration of technology for thoughtful and **critical** literacy” (Ikpeze and Boyd, p644). The ISTE NETS indicator 2008,3.d. speaks directly to that aim in that technology should “//model and facilitate effective use of current and emerging digital tools to locate, analyze, evaluate, and use information resources to support research and learning//”. Without adherence to this standard many students would become “victims of disorganized thinking” or navigationally disorganized as Ikpeze and Boyd put it (2007, p645)

In the last of our reading assignments, “Web 2.0: A New Generation of Learners and Education. Computers in the School”, authors Rosen and Nelson offer three “key characteristics of the Web 2.0 platform:

//(a) user-initiated publishing of information without significant technical knowledge,// // (b) social networking, and // // (c) online communities formed around specific content” // (Rosen and Nelson, p211)

They continue with a comparison of the utility and pitfalls between that technology and the educational/ information harvesting and processing tools of the past (namely the recently dethroned Web 1.0). The main difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 seems to be that there are fewer barriers to participate (both as individuals and collaboratively) in writing and publishing on the later version, that barrier being the computer programming expertise to write (HTML) code needed to “present” information which was the case of the predeceasing Web 1.0. (Rosen and Nelson, p212). Web 2.0 tools (such as Blogging, Wikis, and Flikr) are “congruent with education” in that they afford for both “idea mapping” of both individual and group educational activities, provide productive tools with reasonable preparation (much reduced from the 1.0) version and are interactively archiveable. This article speaks to the previously mentioned ISTE NETS 2008 standard 3.d. but to others as well including 3.a which states that teachers must “demonstrate fluency in technology systems and the transfer of current knowledge to new technologies and situations”. This is exactly what I expect to get from my classmate’s technology presentations: both data and context-relevant applications with the liberty to pick the best tool for the educational task (ideally!).

Discussion Questions:
 * 1) In conjunction with the question of privacy and the fact that digital never dies, a question teachers could discuss with their students is: How much of one’s identity needs to be disclosed when using public tools like open system blogging in order to retain credit of publishing, or for thought, and alternatively to protect their own private information? **-- I like this question and thin I will use it for class discussion today, but just want to clarify that blogs can be made private, so you can still incorporate blogging but make it private for the class. - JZ**
 * 2) For the WebQuest Article and in considering how to integrate it into instruction: Is WebQuest more appropriate for individual or collaborative work? Is that question course/topic dependent?
 * 3) What other web 2.0 tools better serve individual versus collaborative work and are those different tools compatible with one another (like the programs of Microsoft Office for example)?

References 1. Ikpeze, C.H., Boyd, F.B. (2007) Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests. The Reading Teacher Vol. 60, No. 7, pp644-655

2. Rosen, D., Nelson C. (2008) Web 2.0: A New Generation of Learners and Education. Computers in the Schools, Vol. 25(3–4), doi: 10.1080/07380560802370997

3. Wang, S-K., Hsua, H-Y. (2008) Reflections on Using Blogs to Expand In-class Discussion. Volume 52, Number 3 Tech Trends • May/June

4. []

** Reflective Blog 5: Digital Gaming as an Educational tool **


 * October 24, 2011 **

For this week’s Blog I felt I needed to create my blog as two chapters contrasting my response to the two reading assignments while (hopefully) remaining faithful to the rubric of our Blog.


 * __ Chapter 1 __**** : ** “Teacher Candidate Responses to Digital Games: 21st Century Skills Development” by Nancy B. Sardone and Roberta Delvin-Scherer

One of the two readings assigned this week was scary ! I sure hope I do not harp too long on the first one “Teacher Candidate Responses to Digital Games: 21st Century Skills Development” but I’m afraid I will! If this stood as its most contentious defense, the argument for using digital games for instructional pursuit wouldn’t stand a ghost of a chance. The abstract states that authors Sardone and Delvin-Scherer sought to “//determine// [educational students’] //ability to recognize the motivational factors and 21st-century learning skills associated with digital games. “// (Sardone & Delvin-Scherer, p409) The data they collected via “mixed-methods” however was anecdotal - not reliable, as the criteria for participant inclusion and data was not well-defined. Additionally, while the authors summarized that “//Skills taught through digital game play//” include “//critical thinking and problem solving, teamwork and communication//” (and these are not novel educational aims) they offered no comparison of traditional game play that was not digital, nor any control group in their research design which weakened their credibility with this reader. (Sardone & Delvin-Scherer, p421)

Sardone & Delvin-Scherer define **n** = 25 students originally. Then they break participants out into subgroups:

25 __second year__ (and) __education course students (and) New Jersey mid-sized private school.__ (Sardone & Delvin-Scherer, p413)

16 female

9 male

7 with the experience of a technology integration course

13 with the experience of a computer fundamentals course

5 with the experience of a technology integration course and a computer fundamentals course

7 areas of educational concentration of study: History, English, Math, Science, Art, Theology and Spanish

20 digital games to choose from (subjectively(?) culled out of an initial consideration of 50 titles) with a focus on at least one of the following (7) subjects (which may or may not “match” the pre-service teacher’s area of concentration!): Art (2), Biology(2), Business(2), Chemistry(2), English(2), Social Studies** (8?) **, and Spanish(2), (Sardone & Delvin-Scherer, p416)

Of the original n = 25 there was a 20% attrition from the study due to “unusable” surveys (Sardone & Delvin-Scherer, p415), with a greater attrition of male pre-service teachers (33%) when compared to that of the female pre-service teachers (6.25%) who failed to submit “usable” surveys. (Sardone & Delvin-Scherer, p415)

Given the authors posit that “//personal experiences with technology may not provide the confidence needed for pre-service teachers to lead games with their students”// and that “//implementation of digital games requires skill, time and attention that new teachers may not have//” (Sardone & Delvin-Scherer, p411) is it reasonable to conclude from the authors’ data that **//male//** pre-service teachers are particularly lacking in that confidence or skill for employing technology (digital gaming) in the pursuit of 21st century Learning skills? That conclusion is of course ridiculous because the information presented herein is anecdotal and not scientific.

What I learned from this article is that all printed (research) word should not be taken as the gospel truth!

Discussion question Chapter 1:

While I had issues with the Sardone and Delvin-Scherer paper it did inspire one discussion question:

Based on their abstract statement concerning “motivational factors” what I think merits discussion (and what I am surprised these authors did not offer) was to investigate **what digital games __are__ in fact most popular with school-aged children** (conceding that the motivation and interests will vary from age-group to age-group), **and how can we use this information as teachers to design digital games relevant to their expressed interest** **or demonstrated skill** (based on their consensus of what games are popular)**?**


 * __ Chapter 2 __**** : “ ** Assessing the educational values of digital games” by J-C. Hong, C-L. Cheng, M-Y. Hwang, C-K. Lee and H-Y. Chang.

In contrast to the Sardone and Delvin-Scherer I found this paper to progress logically in its argument and to stay focused on its objective (as stated in the abstract and the introduction “to develop an assessment tool based on educational values for rating, selecting and designing digital games” (Hong et al, pp423,424)). As I read the paper it answered questions and reaffirmed objections I had to the first article. So much so, that I almost edited out my Discussion question 1! I left it intact for two reasons: I earnestly and independently constructed those questions and that these authors echoed that inquiry makes it all the more credible an inquiry!

In **“**Assessing the educational values of digital games” Hong et al concisely outline their multiphase study design for evaluating a candidate computer game on its educational adaptability and merit. Phase I involves developing major categories (6 “key structural elements”) and sub-categories (74 indices/criteria, including “other” for each of the major categories) for measuring educational value by game “scholars” and designers. (Hong et al, pp423, 427). The two objectives of Phase 1 were to “generate the educational value index” (constructed from those indices) and to establish credibility of that index. (Hong et al, p427-8) Phase 2 enlisted the academic consultants to choose a candidate game to vet based on its classification as an “evolutionary game” which the authors endorse as a “dynamic game scenario” (Hong et al, p425). This is an oversimplified version of the experimental undertaking but one which is unexpectedly relevant to my own academic efforts.

As part of my current technology internship, I have been tasked to construct an assessment tool for our virtual training module being developed in Second Life for future medical students. I just solicited the following plan to that end:

// “I’d like to run a two tier evaluation, the first to help evaluate whether the teaching method itself has viability, taking the suggestions and making any substantive changes in the methodology from this first group’s response. //// The subsequent goal is to, take the (improved?) method and try it on a second group, this time medical students(and/or faculty), to see how valuable the actual teaching is, this time focusing on the substance of the material that we’re trying to get across. //

// Using a panel of undergrad education students (with concentrations in science) it should be feasible to assemble 5 - 10 students to run through an online training simulation as a first group of beta testers. This would afford us an objective two-fold set of first objectives: (a) to proofread the simulation itself and (b) to assess the value of this simulation as an educational tool as well as to possibly (hopefully) guide refining of the tool.” //

Gaining firsthand experience in designing an educational assessment for an instructional tool is relevant to this week’s (CI-776) assignment, to my current internship effort (CI-775) and to my future professional applications in Instructional Design. If I am honest, I did not expect to place this in my "long-term keep" file after reading the first assignment, but now I am sure I will!

Hong et al complied with the ISTE NETS standard 5.b in ‘ exhibit leadership by demonstrating a vision of technology infusion, participating in shared decision making and community building, and developing the leadership and technology skills of others” integrating their research experience with the valuable expertise of instructional designers, media specialists (“gaming scholars”) educational psychologists, in order to fulfill their stated educational objective (to develop an assessment protocol for evaluating gaming as an educational tool).

Discussion question Chapter 2: From my experience in clinical needs assessment, I know how messy human research can be. In “Assessing the educational values of digital games” Hong et al relied on focus groups for much of their data generation. For an educational researcher a valuable discussion might center around: **What constitutes Human Research** (using surveys and focus groups for example)**? What are the barriers to Human research? Who at my learning institution or affiliation trains and enforces compliance of human research regulations?** At UC that would be the IRB (Institutional Review Board) and for anyone interested their website is: http://researchcompliance.uc.edu/HSR/IRB/Overview.aspx

References


 * 1) Sardone, N.B, Delvin-Scherer, R. (2010) Teacher Candidate Responses to Digital Games: 21st Century Skills Development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Vol 42. No 4 pp 409-425.
 * 2) Hong, J-C., Cheng, C-L, Hwang, M-y, Lee, C-K, and Chang, H-Y. (2009) Assessing the educational values of digital games. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning. Vol 25. Pp423-437. Doi: 10.111/j.1365-2729.2009.00319.x


 * 1)   []