Fwd: September/October Issue of The Technology Source

[Roy Tennant]

>From: "James L. Morrison" <morrison at unc.edu>
>Subject: September/October Issue of The Technology Source
>Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:40:51 -0400
>
>Below is a description of the September/October 2000 issue of The
>Technology Source, a free refereed Web periodical at
>http://horizon.unc.edu/TS
>
>Please forward this announcement to colleagues who are interested in using
>information technology tools more effectively in their work.
>
>As always, we seek illuminating articles that will assist educators as
>they face the challenge of integrating information technology tools in
>teaching and in managing educational organizations. Please review our call
>for manuscripts at http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/call.asp and send me a note
>if you would like to contribute such an article.
>
>Jim
>--
>James L. Morrison                                     morrison at unc.edu
>Professor of Educational Leadership         CB 3500 Peabody Hall
>Editor, The Technology Source                 UNC-Chapel Hill
>http://horizon.unc.edu/TS                          Chapel Hill, NC
>27599-3500
>Editor Emeritus, On the Horizon               Phone: 919 962-2517
>http://www.camfordpublishing.com           Fax: 919 962-1693
>
>IN THIS ISSUE:
>
>Anyone who has taken a college course knows what happens after the final;
>instructors pass out the infamous course evaluation sheet--the remaining
>obstacle between students and their long-awaited semester breaks. With
>their backpacks already slung over their shoulders and their car keys in
>hand, students typically scribble out their ratings of course content and
>teacher performance in about twenty seconds flat before scooting out the
>door. Is there any way that instructors and administrators can receive
>more thoughtful feedback from students? Keith Hmieleski and Matthew
>Champagne argue that Web-based evaluation is a much better method of
>review. High-tech course evaluation, they explain, wards against the
>all-too-common "autopsy approach," whereby instructors use evaluation
>results to determine what went wrong in a course only after the course is
>over. Hmieleski and Champagne thus inaugurate our new assessment section,
>which results from collaboration with the American Association for Higher
>Education's TLT Group.
>
>Conferences have long been important opportunities for professionals to
>exchange ideas, present current trends in their fields, and develop
>relationships with their colleagues. As the influence of technology
>permeates the professional world more and more, many conferences are now
>taking place, at least to some degree, over the Internet. According to
>James Shimabukuro, there are two key challenges to the success of these
>virtual professional gatherings: balancing face-to-face and virtual
>interaction, and maintaining flexibility in terms of conference
>scheduling. Shimabukuro's Vision of the future of tech-savvy conferences
>draws on his five years of experience with the Teaching in the Community
>Colleges Online Conference.
>
>While Shimabukuro argues for better technology in the planning of online
>conferences, Joe Slowinski's Commentary addresses the challenge of
>insuring that teachers improve their technology use in their classrooms.
>"Despite growing access to technology in schools," he reveals, "the number
>of teachers who report using technology in the teaching and learning
>process remains limited." Yet while teachers seem reluctant to integrate
>technology fully into their courses, states are continually enacting
>legislation that holds them accountable for technology competency. To
>remedy this inconsistency, Slowinski suggests key policies that he
>believes will allow teacher-training institutions to model appropriate
>technology use to emerging educators.
>Most sports players can testify to the great sense of reward and
>accomplishment that accompanies a team's success. These same players also
>know the hard work and collaboration that such success requires. Since
>teamwork is so invaluable on the court, can't it also bring success in the
>professional world? In our second commentary, Peshe Kuriloff argues that
>it can. Collaboration among teachers and technologists, she explains, is
>crucial to improving instruction in all disciplines. As she has discovered
>in her direction of the Mellon Writing Project at the University of
>Pennsylvania, this kind of teamwork is a winning situation for all.
>
>In our third commentary, Nancy Cooley and Michelle Johnston explain the
>many factors that impede teachers' technology use in P-16 classrooms.
>While Slowinski suggests that responsibility for teachers' poor
>implementation of technology lies with teacher-training institutions,
>Cooley and Johnston contend that the sources of this problem are varied
>and complex, requiring more broad-based solutions. As they describe, poor
>funding and training and insufficient incentives and rewards are just a
>few of the many circumstances that continue to hinder greater educational
>achievement. Much like Peshe Kuriloff, Cooley and Johnston argue that
>teamwork is the impetus for better teaching and learning. They call for
>collaboration among teachers, administrators, and higher education faculty
>to develop a comprehensive approach to technology use.
>
>Though most of our authors advocate technology as a way of customizing our
>educational system for the twenty-first century, Bethany Baxter reminds us
>not to forget the successes of schools of the past. In our fourth
>commentary, she explains how technology can allow everything old to be new
>again in modern education. Recollecting the days of one-room schoolhouses,
>she suggests that the individualized learning of the past was highly
>effective in insuring that students mastered skills, regardless of their
>ages or the number of years they had attended school. According to Baxter,
>today's teachers can replicate and improve upon this model. She asserts,
>"technology gives teachers the ability to again offer every child an
>individualized learning plan and to implement mastery learning using an
>abundance of resources."
>
>Along with Kuriloff, Cooley, and Johnston, Kathy Biggs advocates greater
>collaboration in her case study of Clemson University's Collaborative
>Learning Environment (CLE). But while our other authors focus on
>professional teamwork, Biggs stresses the benefits of collaboration among
>students and professors. Providing examples from the English, Psychology,
>Chemistry, and Management Departments, she explains how the CLE enhances
>learning, enabling students to produce better projects for their courses,
>easily exchange ideas with their classmates, and effectively use resources
>in the community and in other University departments. She notes that the
>CLE has risen to prominence as a learning tool at Clemson largely because
>of student enthusiasm, suggesting that the system is succeeding in its job
>of improving the future of education.
>
>Increasingly, state governments are passing initiatives that require not
>only greater technology hardware in schools, but also greater technology
>proficiency among teachers. But as many teachers and school administrators
>well know, tougher standards for technology use in education do not
>automatically guarantee success in such integration. Dalton Young and
>Patricia Reed present a case study of OKTechMasters, a program in Oklahoma
>that picks up where state requirements leave off. By expertly training
>master teachers, who then model their skills to their peer teachers,
>OKTechMasters insures that technology training suits teachers' needs. As
>Young and Reed explain, the program is a positive step toward the state's
>ultimate goal: "to place a 'lead technology teacher' (LTT), an expert in
>technology infusion, in every wing of every school building in Oklahoma
>within five years."
>
>In their faculty and staff development article, Nancy Levenburg and Howard
>Major examine the challenge of motivating faculty to take advantage of the
>growing prominence of distance education. According to Levenburg and
>Major, many professors have been slow to accept distance learning as a
>concept because of the traditional basis for evaluating instructor
>performance: research and teaching and service. They assert that faculty
>should instead be encouraged to adapt to new technology through rewards
>that motivate, such as evaluations based on student learning rather than
>performance in the classroom. Through techniques such as these, they
>explain, teachers will become excited about new possibilities through
>technology.
>
>Yuehua Zhang advises that the time to get teachers excited about
>technology is before they are actually teaching at all. Zhang suggests
>that good relationships between pre-service and in-service teachers are
>key to good faculty and staff development. Yet successful technology
>training for pre-service teachers is not reliant solely on in-service
>mentors, Zhang explains; students can also generate excitement for
>technology-assisted projects during future teachers' classroom visits.
>Using a collaborative project between K-8 teachers and Concordia
>University education students as evidence, Zhang describes the way in
>which teachers in training can benefit from exchanges with current
>teachers and students alike.
>
>Learning Web course design can often be an intimidating prospect for
>faculty members accustomed to teaching in a traditional way. Luckily,
>there is help available to those taking that first step toward high-tech
>teaching. In the spotlight this issue is the UMUC-Bell Atlantic Virtual
>Resource Site for Teaching with Technology, an online resource developed
>and maintained by the University of Maryland University College. As
>Stephen Downes explains, the site is a simple yet valuable resource for
>teachers who want to use technology to enhance their teaching.
>
>In a letter to the editor, Roberto Bamberger responds to Stephen Downes'
>commentary in our July/August issue, in which Downes complains that
>Microsoft Word does not adequately accommodate speakers of Canadian
>English. Bamberger, of Microsoft's Higher Education Division, asserts that
>Microsoft's 2000 suite of tools does account for language differences such
>as this, and he defends Microsoft Office as allowing "more personalization
>and customization than any other productivity suite on the market."
>
>In our second letter to the editor, Mary Harrsch echoes Bamberger's
>statements, adding that a software company's balance of advanced
>production with affordability for consumers can often be quite a task.
>Additionally, while Downes criticizes some of Microsoft Word's help
>features, Harrsch expresses her appreciation for the features, revealing
>her affinity for "Rocky" the friendly assistant.