This presentation explains how one instructor developed an approach to the ongoing integration of digital communications within online courses – using a cycle of testing, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Examples are shown from YouTube, wikis, badging, and virtual reality. Questions are posed for instructors considering such tools in their courses. A list of the author’s publications are included.
2. Review of instructor course evolution, with
increasing digital literacies –
The goal—to improve science-teacher education,
especially online; to build communities of learners
A cycle with integration, testing, evaluation,
improvement & dissemination – ongoing &
generative
Several focusing themes:
Needing to map to the emerging world and live of
digital natives; ultimate K12 learners
Expanding digital-literacy science teaching – and
assessing via video
Helping adult learners in changing times – addressing
uncertainty . . . and making quality, open work
Highlighting – YouTube / Wikis / Badging / Virtual
3. Explore new
technology -
• Ie. YouTube; digital
probes
Disseminate Integrate into
• Conferences & online or f2f
publications • Align w/ course
• Slideshare – hist. objectives
Digital ethnography NOTE: community
• Holistic study of the building is an
course
• IRB - process
objective
4. Online can be more than simply text &
discussion boards
Visual learning; dual coding theories; multiple
intelligences; multi-lingual; information processing
(brain based); 21st century skills
5. To close the gap-move beyond writing
proxies (aka lesson plans) in science teacher
education
Students were required to demonstrate a
tech-in-science use related to their lessons
and to share with class
Instructor could review equipment,
presentation style, and competency . . . in
addition to written planning documentation
Colleagues – learned from and about their
peers
6.
7.
8.
9. Value to using YouTube, in general
Easily • Accessible to most students
• Useful especially with online; improves student &
implemented teacher communication
“Performance” • Many facets can be studied
• Richer assessments possible since live materials can
can now be be readily reviewed
observed • Data can be saved, stored, compared over time
New ways of
• New questions arise about what is evidence of
teaching & learning in the content area
learning emerge
11. HOW CAN “WORKING
TOWARDS PUBLIC
SHARING” IMPROVE
TEACHING &
LEARNING?
Teams developed support wikis / votes on
what to go public . . . and why
Communities of practice; situated
learning; Vygotsky & social aspects of
learning; 21st century skills
12. The assignment
Plan & create
wiki w/ team process
Final vote of Anonymous peer
publication ready assessment
Some made Instructor
revisions evaluation
Peer comments
circulated
13. Instructor Evaluation of wiki
Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4
Coverage & Well covered Adequate Well covered Well covered
quality coverage
K12 applications Well explained Poorly explained; Well explained Well explained
or background background info little info about
info K12
Formatting (not Excellent: Fair: multiple Good: multiple Poor: one long
an evaluation multiple pages; pages; images pages; images page; infrequent
criteria) images used well; used though used well use of images
internal links some were too
large
Grade given 98% 82% 94% 94%
Students’ comments:
Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4
Clarity & quality 4.4 out of 5 3.9 out of 5 4.5 out of 5 3.8 out of 5
Usefulness 4.5 out of 5 4.5 out of 5 4.8 out of 5 4.2 out of 5
% think public 85% 62% 92% 69%
ready
14. Students comment on team work
– some have misgivings
% (#)
The team was supportive, in general 77% (10)
Working as a team improved over time 77% (10)
The team provided help with topic 46% (6)
Team provided help with organization of wiki 38% (5)
Would have worked differently alone 31% (4)
Would have worked better if alone 23% (3)
Students who said they were “nervous” about working 23% (3)
in this format
“Everyone has different ideas and are working on different ideas so sometimes
the page seems disjointed or the team is not working at the same pace.”
“At first, I thought working with a team would be a breeze because I would not
have to bear the entire workload and the different perspectives would make the
wiki better. As the assignment wore on I realized the difficulties of working with
team members.”
15. • School endorsement? Ongoing updating?
Web issues Professional presence?
• No longer simply content provider
Instructor • Orchestrating / managing timetable &
process; review liaison
role shifts • Involvement in the thinking/learning process
• How do you evaluate the complexities of a
Valuing / process when the standard is “the paper”?
• Do students and institutions truly value this
assessing type of work?
• Useful content created; a legacy
HOWEVER • Greater involvement & professionalism
• Incorporating & modeling future ways of learning
16. So, how might you use peer-
reviewed wikis/websites to
improve instruction?
What topics / assignments would you have
students share with the public?
How would you ensure quality?
Again, the technologies are the easy part – what do
you want to do and how will you manage & assess?
17. Establishing peer reviews –
with badges – can increase
interest & distributed learning
Motivation theories; Vygotsky & peer support;
distributed learning; 21st century skills
18.
19. Grad course
•Create, model, make
criteria, require, assess
•Elect which stays
Revisions /review Dean award
•in later Grad course •Ensure follow-
up
Badges: ongoing /
generative
•for input, continuity,
and ownership
20. REAL connections with & support for
science (Cornell; www.globe.gov;
www.nasa.gov)
Science literacy; science sharing;
extending & creating new knowledge
and understanding; helping other
nations
21. During an Emerging Technology course
students award badges to Prezi, Facebook,
Websites, YouTubes and such as they are being
created to meet course objectives;
Models a new approach that these students
might use in their future;
Adapt and adopt as moving through course
needs and requirements;
More at SUNY Conference in Instruction &
Technology May 2013
22. -- Encourage reflection around
course criteria?
-- Provide evidence of outside-
the-course accomplishments?
-- Ensure learning from others?
23. Where, how, & why can virtual
realities create more
engagement, ownership,
context, & community?
With infinite applications (you
design the environment),
immersive learning makes:
◦ distance more “real” Community of practice;
motivation; context &
◦ the impossible, possible visualizations;
simulations; 21st century
◦ caring more apparent skills
27. Teaching others, across
the state or the world
Individual support to faculty
members . . . who can now
present their areas of expertise to
your online students
28. From a development & fun six months with
the Mall of the Universe to SER/VE (the
project on the next pages)
◦ Students developed a shopping mall economy
33. Overall:
Many ways to develop, create, meet,
and share in virtual reality;
ESC has had virtual holdings since
2004;
NOTE: you can tape a virtual meeting
– machinima
How could you and your students meet, share, and
visit? How can seeing an avatar & context make a
distance community more real?
34. In closing
Digital closes gaps, preserves
interactions, extends across time and
geography, empowers multiple
learning styles;
Experiment, experiment, experiment
Assess, assess, assess
Share, share, share
Please contact me for more info –
eileen.occonnor@esc.edu
35. Selected peer-reviewed publications and a book chapter
O’Connor, E.A. (2013). Next generation online: advancing learning through dynamic design, virtual and web 2.0 technologies, and
instructor attitude. (in press, Journal of Educational Technology Systems).
O’Connor, E. A. (2012). Developing effective online collaborative science projects by using course scaffolding, a virtual world, and
web 2.0 technologies. In Proceeding of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp.
2192-2198). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Abendroth, M.A., Golzy, J., & O’Connor, E.A. (2012). Self-created YouTube recordings of microteachings: their effects upon
candidates’ readiness for teaching and instructors’ assessment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 40(2), 141-
159.O’Connor, E. A. (2012). A survival guide from an early adopter: how Web 2.0 and the right attitude can enable learning and
expansive course design. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 40(2), 194-209.;
O’Connor, E. (2011). Practical considerations when using virtual spaces for learning and collaboration, with minimal setup and
support. In H. H. Yang, & S. C. Yuen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in Virtual Worlds and Environment.
Hershey PA: IGI Global.
O'Connor, E. (2011). Migrating Towards K12 in Virtual Spaces: Second Life Lessons Learned as Higher Education Meets Middle
School Students. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 2192-
2198). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
O’Connor, E. A. (2010- 2011) The effect on learning, communication, and assessment when student-created YouTubes of
microteaching were used in an online teacher-education course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2), pp. 135-154.
O’Connor, E. (2010). The Use of a Wiki in Teacher Education: How Does Learning and Instruction Change When Work Can Go
Public?. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2010 (pp. 2822-2829). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
O'Connor, E. A. (2009). Instructional and Design Elements that Support Effective Use of Virtual Worlds: What Graduate Student Work
Reveals about Second Life. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 213-234.
O’Connor, E. A. and Sakshaug, L. (2009) Preparing for Second Life: Two Teacher Educators Reflect on Their Initial Foray into
Virtual Teaching and Learning, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(3), pp. 259-272.
O'Connor, E. (2008). Becoming a Virtual Instructor: How Can Higher Education Faculty Prepare for Second Life?. In G. Richards
(Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 1144-
1149). Chesapeake, VA: AACE;
O'Connor, E. A. (2008). Initial Study of Pre-Service Teachers' Comments on a Reality-Based, Urban-Student Video Streamed within
an Online Course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(2), 139-157.
Oconnor, E. (2007). Using Reality-Based, Authentic Streamed-Videos and Online Conversations to Prepare Pre-Service Teachers for
Urban Classrooms: A Pilot Study. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate,
Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 1179-1184). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
O'Connor, E. A. (2007). A Case Study of the Approach to Teaching and to Technology of Three New Teachers in an Alternative
Teacher Certification Program. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 357-382.
Notas del editor
For example, the instructor was able to get a very good perspective on the technology and science-lesson skills of the student.
Instructors can not simply give the assignment and then return and grade a finished product; the teacher is now involved in the outcome and the way it can / might look to the world ; I didn’t put my name on the finished product