terça-feira, 24 de novembro de 2009

Online teaching techniques - anotated bibliography

Digimind; Le Web 2.0 pour la veille et la recherche d’information; Exploitez les ressources ; http://www.digimind.com; viewed in 17/11/2009

  • This is a document made for the enterprise (Digimind) workers. It is however very interesting because it pretends to be a document that allows to everyone that is interested to know what really is the web 2.0.
  • The document give us a definition of the web2.0 and its principles, explain the technologies, has a glossary, tell us in what and for what it is useful and before telling us the conclusions, it give us a panoramic of web 2.0. limitations.

Bryan Alexander; Web 2.0 A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Viewed in 17/11/2009

Through these sentences we can see what Bryan Alexander has to tell us about web 2.0 and its possibilities:

  • Social software has emerged as a major component of the Web 2.0 movement
  • Rather than following the notion of the Web as book, they are predicated on microcontent

  • Social bookmarking is one of the signature Web 2.0 categories, one that did not exist a few years ago and that is now represented by dozens of projects.

  • Researchers at all levels (students,faculty, staff) can quickly set up a social bookmarking page for their personal and/or professional inquiries

  • Users can also subscribe to tags and receive a list of URLs tagged with a certain word on their del.icio.us page.
  • Each annotated tag is dated, editable, and organized in reverse chronological order, blog-style.

  • Web services have evolved, projects have emerged that act as social writing platforms.
  • After e-mail lists, discussion forums, groupware, documents edited and exchanged between individuals, and blogs, perhaps the writing application most thoroughly grounded in social interaction is the wiki. Wiki pages allow users to quickly edit their content from within the browser window. At a smaller level, other Web 2.0 services are aimed at somewhat more constrained yet still easily collaborative writing.

  • social writing platforms support people creating and editing each other’s content, a different group of Web 2.0 services explores that content from the outside, as it were. Blogging has become, in many ways, the signature item of social software, being a form of digital writing that has grown rapidly into an influential force in many venues, both on- and offline.

  • Social writing platforms appear to be logistically useful tools for a variety of campus needs, from student group learning to faculty department work to staff collaborations.

  • Web 2.0 therefore supports queries for information and reflections on current events of all sorts. Given bloggers’ propensity for linking, not to mention some services’ ability to search links, blogs and other platforms readily lead the searcher to further sources. Students can search the blogosphere for political
  • Commentary, current cultural items, public developments in science, business news, and so on.
  • The rich search possibilities opened up by these tools can further enhance the pedagogy of current events
  • The extensive growth of Web 2.0 projects has even more recently given rise to tools that make use of multiple services simultaneously.

  • Web 2.0’s lowered barrier to entry may influence a variety of cultural forms with powerful implications for education, from storytelling to classroom teaching to individual learning.

Simon Heid, Thomas Fischer and Walter F. Kugemann; Good Practices for Learning 2.0:Promoting Innovation

  • “This report is part of the research project “Learning 2.0 – the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe”,1 launched by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) in collaboration with the European Commission Directorate General Education and Culture (DG EAC) at the beginning of 2008. The project aims to gather evidence on the take up of social computing by European Education and Training (E&T) institutions, in order to understand the impact of this phenomenon on innovations in educational practice and its potential for a more inclusive European knowledge society. The project also sets out to identify challenges and bottlenecks so as to devise policy options for European decision makers.”

  • “This report presents the results of the in-depth study of 8 initiatives employing social computing tools in innovative ways in predominantly formal learning settings. The case assessment examines impacts and outcomes, factors for failure and success, as well as obstacles and barriers, in order to assess good practice and the impact of Learning 2.0 on innovation.”
  • “The results of this study have been presented at the validation workshop and will feed into the final report of the Learning 2.0 project. They also contribute to continuing previous work conducted in the IS Unit at IPTS,7 in particular the recently concluded IPTS “Exploratory Research on Social Computing” (ERoSC) and the IPTS vision on future “Learning Spaces”, models for future learning in the Knowledge Society, where technologies mediate new participative and flexible opportunities for learning.”

Tom Franklin; Mark van Harmelen; Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education viewed in 17/11/09

  • This report is the result of a study into the use of Web 2.0 technologies for content creation for learning and teaching in Higher Education, funded by the JISC, and carried out between March and May 2007. It draws on existing studies, interviews with staff at universities who have implemented Web 2.0 technologies for learning and teaching, and a week-long web based seminar (webinar) with expert contributions, both from speakers and the audience. The report builds on the briefing documents that were written especially for the webinar and the results of the webinar discussions, many of which can be found in the Moodle site that was used to support the conference.”

In this document we can find:

  • How Web 2.0 will affect how universities go about the business of education, from learning, teaching and assessment, through contact with school communities, widening participation, interfacing with industry, and maintaining contact with alumni.
  • the possible realms of learning to be opened up by the catalytic effects of Web 2.0 technologies are attractive, allowing greater student independence and autonomy, greater collaboration, and increased pedagogic efficiency
  • That Because Web 2.0 is a relatively ‘young’ technology, there are many unresolved problems and issues in its use in universities
  • Most importantly, because the use of Web 2.0 in various areas of application (learning, teaching, administration, management) is still in an early stage, we recommend that institutions take a light-weight approach use of regulations that might constrain experimentation with the technologies and allied pedagogies.

  • Recommendations about.

domingo, 22 de novembro de 2009

sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de 2009



Note: In addition to the following criteria, evaluation of all online courses must also include the criteria for evaluating any Web site: content (accuracy, appropriateness, scope) and technical aspects (navigation, presentation). These criteria are delineated in the NCDPI publication Criteria for Evaluating Web Sites.
  • Course is accredited by a nationally- or state-recognized academic accrediting agency
  • Course is aligned to originating state’s academic standards and/or to national standards, with realignment to participant’s state standards guaranteed if necessary
  • Course reviewed and endorsed by both the Local Education Agency(LEA) and the state Department of Education (DOE)
  • Course documentation (credit hours, LEA FTEs, certification renewal) determined by LEA and DOE
Teaching Site
  • Technical requirements for student access are documented
  • Minimum technology competencies for students are announced and assessed
  • Access to learning resources (books, periodicals, etc.) is available equal to traditionally delivered course
  • Online and offline activities are available to the student
  • Asynchronous and/or synchronous interaction between teacher and student and student-to-student guaranteed
  • Teacher credentials are verified and in place
  • Teacher is trained in Web-based instruction techniques
  • Course has been previously field-tested and revised if necessary
  • Monitoring plan for student chat sessions and/or student-to-student interaction is in place
  • Teacher workload and compensation is aligned with LEA/DOE standards
Student Site
  • All qualified students are given equal opportunity for course enrollment
  • LEA has approved course for credit
  • LEA has established policy for tuition/fees and enrollment procedures
  • Site facilitator/coordinator is trained and in place
  • Just-in-time technical assistance is available to student and facilitator
  • Procedures are in place to guarantee security of student work
  • Students will be advised/surveyed about the program to determine that they possess the self-motivation and commitment to learn online.
  • Provision is made for students with special needs
  • Quality control and assessment procedures are in place for both student participation/behavior and course delivery/quality
Course Content
  • Syllabus available for review and is understandable by students and parents
  • Course is comparable in rigor, depth, and breadth to traditionally delivered courses
  • Instructional goals, objectives, strategies, and evaluation are aligned to state/national standards
  • Instructional and learning goals are clearly defined for student
  • Course promotes active learning through student interaction with class peers and/or worldwide peers
  • Course is organized in coherent, sequential manner
  • Course is designed to take advantage of the unique applications for online delivery
  • Assignments are clear and understandable to the student and site coordinators.
Teacher Interaction
  • Course is taught in such a way as to promote trust and teamwork between teacher and student and among students
  • Various levels of teacher control are planned and teacher guides and monitors students in lower control assignments
  • Teacher models standards for accountability and appropriate online interaction
  • Teacher addresses and supports individual student needs, skills, and knowledge
  • Teacher provides timely, specific, and authentic feedback
  • Teacher provides criteria for grading and weighting for each assignment.
  • Teacher provides private communication to students when appropriate.
Student Evaluation
  • Evaluation is timely, fair, and based on local/state/national standards
  • Teacher and student sites have monitoring/proctoring policies in place
  • Teacher and student sites have verification of student participation/performance procedures in place
  • Teacher and student sites have intervention plans for student failure
Teacher Evaluation
  • Teacher evaluation is determined and conducted according to state and/or local policies
  • Teacher evaluation is based on:
    • Course content
    • Course design
    • Course presentation
    • Student performance
    • Teacher interaction with students
Course Evaluation
  • Course is evaluated on a regular basis and revisions documented
  • Instructional materials are reviewed periodically to ensure they continue to meet program standards.
  • Course evaluation includes:
    • Technical design
    • Curriculum alignment
    • Rigor, depth, and breadth
    • Student performance
    • Student participation and interaction

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ONLINE COURSES Posted via email from teresarafael's posterous Viewed in 19/11/09

calçada jardim botânico

Posted via email from teresarafael's posterous


Posted via email from teresarafael's posterous


Posted via email from teresarafael's posterous

teresarafael's posterous - Home

Posted via web from teresarafael's posterous

quinta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2009

Palestrantes discutem políticas globais para EAD

Será possível pensar em padrões de qualidade globais para Educação a Distância e estabelecer políticas comuns a todos os países? Esse foi o principal questionamento feito pelos palestrantes da última seção plenária da 22ª Conferência Mundial, nesta quarta-feira, 6, mediada pelo secretário de Educação a Distância do MEC, Ronaldo Mota.
"Qualidade é atingir metas que mudam durante o processo. Cada sociedade tem um contexto e uma ideologia diferente, o que pressupõe metas diferentes. Portanto, é difícil estabelecer uma só definição de qualidade para todas", afirmou o palestrante Henrik Hansson, da Universidade de Estocolmo. Ele fala com embasamento: apresentou a pesquisa que fez sobre políticas de Educação a Distância em 30 países europeus, na qual concluiu que cada um tem políticas com focos diferentes. Hansson dividiu as políticas em três principais categorias básicas de abordagem:
1. As que visam aumentar (políticas que visam aumentar o número de computadores, de acesso, banda larga, conexões, aumentar a cooperação em nível nacional, internacional, entre setores públicos e privados, aumentar a pesquisa na área). A maioria dos países nórdicos tem esse foco.2. As que visam proteger (sociedades que temem a Internet, por medo de perderem herança cultural, a língua, empregos).3. As que visam inovar (procuram reformular o sistema educacional, mudar as relações de poder entre alunos e professores, investir em análise e pesquisa, criar uma nova sociedade, um novo sistema de avaliação). Nesta categoria, se encaixam apenas dois países: Reino Unido e Holanda.
Hansson, no entanto, tem uma proposta que poderia servir para uma educação global em massa: criar uma abordagem de educação on-line que não precise de tutor, por meio de jogos, por exemplo. Para ele, só assim será possível difundir para um maior número de pessoas um conteúdo gratuito. "Não temos como disponibilizar tutores para todos que necessitam educação no mundo, não há nem como formar tanta gente. Os jogos on-line seriam a melhor alternativa, pois todo mundo aprende mais facilmente de forma lúdica".
Helen Lentell, especialista em Educação e Desenvolvimento de Materiais do Commonwelth of Learning (COL) - Comunidade do Ensino criada por chefes de governo de várias nações - frisou a urgência de desenvolver políticas que garantam segurança no comércio da Educação além das fronteiras. "Educação é uma mercadoria e há enorme demanda, muita comercialização, até as IES mais prestigiosas estão comercializando educação, é preciso garantir qualidade para que alunos tenham qualificação comparável a que podem ter no sistema presencial", afirmou. No entanto, Lentell abordou a dificuldade em definir critérios de qualidade. "Quem vai definir esses critérios: políticos? empresários? Os líderes das instituições de Ensino? Talvez cada um tenha visões diferentes sobre o que querem da Educação a distância. Precisamos ainda de muita pesquisa para definir modelos nesta área", concluiu.
"Qualidade é resultado. Independentemente dos meios como foi ensinado, é preciso haver uma prova que garanta ao aluno que ele aprendeu", defendeu o professor de Comunicação da Victoria University, na Nova Zelândia, John Tiffin. Ele propôs a criação um órgão normativo para definir normas globais de Educação. Para Tiffin, enquanto essas normas não forem estabelecidas, não chegaremos a lugar nenhum em EAD.
Para finalizar, Mota provocou os palestrantes com uma pergunta: "Suponhamos que tivéssemos um orçamento especial para investir em apenas uma destas três áreas em EAD, o que vocês escolheriam: a) conteúdo; b) apoio ao aluno (oferta de tecnologia); c) Professores (capacitação)?". Se preferirem não escolher apenas um, não ganharão o orçamento".
O único palestrante que optou por escolher apenas uma das alternativas foi Tiffin, que argumentou: "investindo em conteúdo, os outros dois viriam como conseqüência". Os outros dois frisaram a importância do todo, de definir metas e resultados.

Publicado em 06/09/2006 - 11:05
Acedido em 19/11/09

terça-feira, 17 de novembro de 2009

Web 2.0 tools and techniques

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Online Collaborative Learning

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

sexta-feira, 6 de novembro de 2009

Cooperative freedom theory - Anotated bibliography

This anotated bibliography was created to better understand the cooperative freedom theory and whith the knowledge brought, create a critical work about.

Kemczinski, Avanilde; Marek, Joel; da Silva Hounsell, Marcelo; Gasparini, Isabela–COLABORAÇÃO E COOPERAÇÃO – PERTINÊNCIA,CONCORRÊNCIA OU COMPLEMENTARIDADE - Brasil www.producao online.ufsc.

In this article the authors argue about “the relevancy, competition and/or complementarity of the processes of the collaboration and cooperation front different points-of-view".One of the first focuses goes to the difference between “cooperative” and “colaborative”. For the authors the fundamental problem is to know in what way that matters in a e-learning ambiance. in literature the opinion between authors is not consensual. Being so, the autors of this article give us a brief explanation of each point of view so as the fondamentation.They conclude that all of the point of view are relevant, and that cooperative and colaborative are complementary concepts.

Dr. Morrison; Behavioral Strategy Abstract: Self-Pacing Versus Instructor-Pacing Jennifer Maddrell Old Dominion University IDT 873 Advanced Instructional Design Techniques September 8, 2008

The purpose of this study is to compare achievement, student satisfaction, and retention between self-paced and instructor-paced personalized systems of instruction The researchers set out to extend prior research by focusing on the effect of pacing on these measures”
“Unfortunately, the authors offer the results as a demonstration of learning achievement, but it is unclear from the results what precisely was learned”

The main objective of research, was to establish whether and under what circumstances collaborative learning was more effective than learning alone. The authors present some of the major developments over recent years in this field, and then considers the implications of such changes for tools and methods with which to observe andanalyse interactions between learners.or them “a social structure in which two or more people interact with each other and, in some circumstances, some types of interaction.
The conclusion of this chapter could therefore be that we should stop using the word 'collaboration' in general and start referring only to precise categories of interactions. The work of Webb, reported above, showed that even categories such as 'explanation' are too large to be related to learning outcomes. We have to study and understand the The fundamental question in this article is: “What is the potential of social networking within cooperative online education?”
For these authors, transparency and cooperation are the supports of quality. As conclusion they say that the “pedagogical potential of social networking lies within transparency and the ability to create awareness among students”

That’s why they believe that:

“Transparency is important for cooperative online education. People can only cooperate if they know about each other and have access to some common information and services. Cooperation will benefit when general and personal information related to the learning and the learners is available directly or indirectly to the learning community. This transparent information may include personal information about the users and statistics related to the users’ deployment of the online tools. It may further include work students and teachers provide in online notebooks, blogs, and discussion forums as well as results from quizzes, surveys, and assignments.”Pedagogical potential that can be viewed in social networks is obviously related with the “special kind of communication and interaction afforded by social networking sites”. It will be very useful to consider social networking as a supplement to other tools.

Paulsen, Morten (2003); “Cooperative Freedom: An Online Education Theory”. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.studymentor.com/cooperative_freedom.pdf

It’s referring the three theoretical positions on distance education, identified by Keegan (Theories of autonomy and independence; Theories of industrialization, and Theories of interaction and communication) that Paulsen begin to expose his Theory of Cooperative freedom.

To Paulsen one of the targets in a distance education course “it’s to achieve the high level of freedom for the students”, and the better way to arrive there is using the hexagon of the theory: Time, Space, Pace, Medium, Access and Content.

But the conclusion shows us some difficulties:

Future adult students will seek individual flexibility and freedom. At the same time, many need or prefer group collaboration and social unity. These aims are difficult to combine, but online education, when integrated with other media, can be the means of joining individual freedom and collective unity into truly flexible, cooperative distance David D. Curtis education programs.