I live in Virginia Beach, Virginia and I am married with three boys. One is in the Navy in Hawaii and two are at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!
The type of technology I enjoy using for teaching and learning is Interactive Media Instruction (IMI). IMI is simply instructional material designed to work on a computer. It is asynchronous and works well when delivering prerequisite basic learning material that is static and does not change much. This delivery model frees up the instructor assets so that they can concentrate on more advanced topics. This delivery method works best with entry level learners. Feel free to visit my google page for more information about me if you care to.
June 25, 2015- Here is the link to my Symbaloo webmix
https://www.symbaloo.com/mix/navyskillstraining
June 24, 2015-Discussion Forum 4
Here are my comments on the Future of Learning Networked Society video.
June 16, 2015-Blog 3
Here are my thoughts on the use of social networking in education.
June 9, 2015- Discussion Forum 3
It is important to have choices. This especially holds true
for training and education. Arash, S., Strawderman, L., Huang, Y.,
Ahmed,S.,& Babski-Reeves, K., (2009) tell us that the effectiveness of a
training program has more to do with the student than does the delivery method.
Students with certain learning modalities prefer certain types of learning
experiences. There are some general advantages and disadvantages of various
training programs that transcend learning styles, however. According to this study, synchronous
online learning had the advantage of convenience with respect to setting but
the disadvantage was that it did not perform well in training effectiveness and
retention. Asynchronous was a much more effective method of delivery. It had
the advantage of convenience as well as the potential for collaboration and
higher taxonomy exercises. Its disadvantages were minimal because it was not
ideally suited for all learning styles. Face-to-face instruction did
surprisingly well because of its advantage of direct feedback and high level of
interaction. Its main disadvantage was the effort involved in receiving the
training due to transportation. As stated by Arash et al. (2009), different
learners seem to respond better to one delivery method over another. It is
important that there remains a variety in learning methods because not every
student is able to transfer knowledge equally with every method.
Arash, S.,
Strawderman, L., Huang, Y., Ahmed,S.,& Babski-Reeves, K. (2009).
Effectiveness of Three Training Delivery Methods in a Voluntary Program, Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, October 2009, 53, 1959-1963.
June 3, 2015- Here is my video for Blog #2 on my favorite web resources.
May 26, 2015- Here is my Discussion Forum #2 response on the use of Powerpoint.
May 20, 2015- Please click the play button arrow on the video below to view my Video Blog #1.
May 13, 2015- Click the Play button below to view my my DB Forum #1.
You made several points with which I agree in your blog. In order for teachers to successfully implement technology, Hammonds, Matherson, Wilson, and Wright (2013) confirm that teachers cannot view technology as yet one more thing they have to do! Additionally, Hammonds et al. (2013) explain that given all of the demands placed upon teachers today—from being curriculum developers to data analysts—if teachers viewed technology as helping them to meet these demands more efficiently, they will be more likely to integrate technology. From experience, I know this is true. Recently, we were told that we will be moving to standards-based grading, which requires a lot of grading and re-grading. This can lead to a mess of paper unless students have their own devices. Fortunately, my school district is embracing a one-to-one ratio between students and devices. I am eager to integrate the students’ devices into the new grading protocol.
ReplyDeleteReferences
Hammonds, L., Matherson, L. H., Wilson, E. K., & Wright, V. H. (2013). Gateway Tools: Five Tools to Allow Teachers to Overcome Barriers to Technology Integration. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(1), 36-40.