Round up

The course content was very challenging. It could take more than 2 hours a day to read background materials and write discussion posts. But the tasks were really feasible and flexible. They didn’t require to read this and this, but to use multiple resources to get a better idea of the technology and its integration. I don’t think there is anything to take out so far. Maybe some time in the future when technology advances. Of course there may be something to include, but at what expense?

The course is a good example to follow when organizing one of your own.  There was a great deal of development work done before we were invited to taste it. The course helped me to look at some things from a different angle: using social networks for education, writing blogs for reflection, or using rubrics for self-assessment. I finally attempted to develop a webquest, and saw it wasn’t at all scary. Sometimes I had an illusion that we were doing everything ourselves, there wasn’t anybody to actually teach us. Yet, when you think you did everything yourself – that’s the best evaluation of your teacher’s efforts to make you think so.

There were many other amazing things: multiple intelligences and technology; developing online exercises and websites; rubrics generation, etc. Everything made me think about the content and how it may mix with technology. Next week the academic year begins. What a perfect time to start implementing changes in our teaching with technology! I am also very excited about sharing my new skills with my colleagues through an online workshop, face-to-face training, and a masterclass.

Yesterday I felt so happy to find a browser that claimed to help me solve the problem with Blogger censorship. Unfortunately, I couldn't post a comment on Santiago's blog, and had to send him a personal message on Nicenet. Here is my comment:

I have similar impressions of the course. Although it's not my first experience, this course was more challenging than others, it kept me in tonus all the time. The resources suggested in the course are very useful, and motivated me to try some of them out in my project. As you may have noticed, I had some problems with the Blogger. So I just thought of it as an example for setting a blog at some other blog platform.

However, providing more links to each topic can be somewhat confusing. Yet there is a class wiki where these links may be shared. I am happy with Delicious where I can access the links shared by my peers.

I agree that the course was great. There was much novelty in it not only for you with less technology experience, but for me as well. Actually, when I assessed my level of technology integration, I was surprised to find myself at Level 2 with some features of Level 3. So, there's a lot to strive for!

Final Project Submitted - Long Live the Final Project!

This week brought me closer to the end of the course. It gave me a feeling of accomplishment, because I finally managed to develop a webquest and wrote my final project report. I had a look at a couple of final projects: Svitlana’s and Mykola’s. I was really impressed by Mykola’s report, which is more like an academic research paper. The tools Mykola selected for his project (Facebook platform and ANVILL voiceboard and live chat) are very challenging, and I appreciate his effort very much. The idea of the use of Facebook for educational purposes attracts me very much. Voiceboard and livechat which provide synchronous communication between students and teachers are very powerful tools. At the same time, one needs to take into consideration possible language use or speaking anxiety of students, pressure of online communication, and possible inability to participate in online events at proposed time. Therefore, some asynchronous communication events could be a comprehensible solution.

Svitlana published her webquest on “Recent Developments and the Future of IT”. I found Svitlana’s approach and ideas very similar to mine. It may probably be accounted to similar settings, target group characteristics and needs. I decided to develop a webquest for two main reasons: first, it was something I haven’t used before; second, I had thought it time-consuming and not worth the effort, so I wanted to have a go and see. As I was working at it I got involved in the process and saw possible bottle necks for my students. The most complicated part was the content and the practical outcome. This is where I could still work.  I hope it will get better with practice. I thought getting students involved in the assessment of their group members’ collaborative work skills and familiarizing them with the criteria for evaluation before the task would contribute much to building their communication skills. This may also encourage them to work better towards the end-result.  

Svitlana’s project also included a Powerpoint presentation of students’ findings in recent IT developments and, in addition, an essay on the future of IT. She is very detailed about the degree to which her students should perform the writing task. I went through the webquest at http://www.zunal.com/webquest.php?w=108943 and wrote a review.  

This week’s readings were very useful for bringing together theory and practice of multiple intelligences. I received a clearer insight into learner styles interaction with technology tools used in the classroom. Thanks to Mykola and others there is a list of learner styles and corresponding technology use to cater their needs. I will study my students’ learner styles using the Learning Styles chart at http://www.chaminade.org/INSPIRE/learnstl.htm, and/or the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire at http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html and will try to develop tasks engaging most of them.