Researchers seek a better understanding of technology's effects on reading, learning
I was struck by this article because of its perspective. Being entrenched in educational theory and eLearning, I don't often consider the very real possibility that our ubiquitous digital immersion is not simply changing how we behave and relate - it is altering the physical reality of our gray matter. I recognize the need for new theories of learning, like connectivism, but do neurosurgeons need to start questioning their knowledge as well?
If so, is it just another stage of our evolution? Should we plow ahead as usual, or should we pause to consider the ramifications of that "rewiring?" Internet usage moderation?
<::no tomato throwing please::>
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Sloan Consortium Report
Every year the Sloan Consortium's report gathers more attention. Their 6th report, like the others, includes a plethora of quantitative information from a broad array of colleges and programs; this year's included more than 2500 colleges and universities. Of course all the key question areas are pertinent. However, with Monday's acknowledgment by the National Bureau of Economic Research that we are in a recession (and have been for a year), this year's focus on the economy's impact on Online enrollments could not be more timely.
Here is a link to the executive summary: http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/staying_course
Here is a link to the full text: http://mirror.nber.org/dec2008.pdf
From a student of educational technology, and for what its worth since I cannot you money ... thank you Sloan Consortium!
Successful and Unsuccessful Innnovations in Education
Using Rogers' (2003) definition, education has experienced countless innovations (p. 12). His definition of a “technology cluster” also applies to modern education, whose elements are so closely interrelated that distinguishing one from the other is difficult (p. 14). As Rogers elucidates, technology and innovation are matters of perception (2003, p. 12). Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) clarify the relevancy of this to modern education and the “net generation” by defining technology as no longer an object or thing, but as the practice of using “the activity technology enables” (p. 2.10). Successful and unsuccessful innovations can be distinguished from this framework of perception and practice.
The practice of using the internet for education is a clear example of successful diffusion at individual and societal levels. Educational use of the internet has increased since its modern beginning with the Mosaic browser in 1993 (Schrader, 2008; Allen & Seaman, 2008). As it developed, the internet created its own communication channels and social systems, helping increase its usage and status as an expected classroom tool. Shrader (2008) further demonstrates business, hardware, software, and user support aligned over the past 15 years, allowing 21 million students to use the internet for education; 3.9M taking at least one fully online course by the fall of 2007 (Allen & Seman, 2008, p.1). Students and faculty continue to make the innovation-decision to adopt as they move through the five attributes of innovation (Rogers, 2003, pp. 15-16).
Comparatively, a practice that has not diffused as successfully is homeschooling. Since its modern roots in the 70s, the number of homeschooled children has risen to approximately “1,096,000 from the 2003 National Household Education Survey,” only 2% of all schoolchildren (Isenberg, 2007, p. 388). It is easy to see how the myths about homeschooling represent barriers existing within the five “perceived attributes of innovation” (Rogers, 2003, pp. 15-16; Romanowski, 2006). Moreover – even though Romanowski (2006) offers well-structured counterpoints – the continued persistence of these myths and misperceptions, combined with its comparatively low adoption rate, indicate a social system rejecting a “collective innovation-decision”, even though individuals are making “optional innovative-decisions” (Rogers, 2003, p. 28).
References:
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf
Isenberg, E. (2007, January 1). What Have We Learned about Homeschooling?. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 387-409. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ772374) Retrieved December 3, 2008, from ERIC database.
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. http://bibpurl.oclc.org/web/9463.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Romanowski, M. (2006, January). Revisiting the Common Myths about Homeschooling. Clearing House, 79(3), 125-129. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Schrader, P. (2008, October). Learning In Technology: Reconceptualizing Immersive Environments. AACE Journal, 16(4), 457-475. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from Education Research Complete database.
The practice of using the internet for education is a clear example of successful diffusion at individual and societal levels. Educational use of the internet has increased since its modern beginning with the Mosaic browser in 1993 (Schrader, 2008; Allen & Seaman, 2008). As it developed, the internet created its own communication channels and social systems, helping increase its usage and status as an expected classroom tool. Shrader (2008) further demonstrates business, hardware, software, and user support aligned over the past 15 years, allowing 21 million students to use the internet for education; 3.9M taking at least one fully online course by the fall of 2007 (Allen & Seman, 2008, p.1). Students and faculty continue to make the innovation-decision to adopt as they move through the five attributes of innovation (Rogers, 2003, pp. 15-16).
Comparatively, a practice that has not diffused as successfully is homeschooling. Since its modern roots in the 70s, the number of homeschooled children has risen to approximately “1,096,000 from the 2003 National Household Education Survey,” only 2% of all schoolchildren (Isenberg, 2007, p. 388). It is easy to see how the myths about homeschooling represent barriers existing within the five “perceived attributes of innovation” (Rogers, 2003, pp. 15-16; Romanowski, 2006). Moreover – even though Romanowski (2006) offers well-structured counterpoints – the continued persistence of these myths and misperceptions, combined with its comparatively low adoption rate, indicate a social system rejecting a “collective innovation-decision”, even though individuals are making “optional innovative-decisions” (Rogers, 2003, p. 28).
References:
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf
Isenberg, E. (2007, January 1). What Have We Learned about Homeschooling?. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 387-409. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ772374) Retrieved December 3, 2008, from ERIC database.
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. http://bibpurl.oclc.org/web/9463.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Romanowski, M. (2006, January). Revisiting the Common Myths about Homeschooling. Clearing House, 79(3), 125-129. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Schrader, P. (2008, October). Learning In Technology: Reconceptualizing Immersive Environments. AACE Journal, 16(4), 457-475. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from Education Research Complete database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)