As I gaze back through the window, albeit still very small, which is now opening to permit my view into the world of eLearning and technology, and taking into consideration the wide range of perspectives and beliefs on whether it is a good thing or not, I am at a point in time where I want to heartily embrace some of the technology and am still wary of some others.
I realise that some forms of eLearning have probably overtaken me almost by default. In my business as a Music Teacher and Administrator, youtube has been a huge bonus. I find myself almost as a matter of course recommending students take time to view their chosen pieces of music for learning on youtube. Not just one version but as many as they can, so they get a feeling for the whole. It has also been a godsend for the introduction of critical thinking in terms of comparing and contrasting to inform their own interpretive performance. It has become such an integral part of our teaching arena that it almost came as a shock to know that this technology has in fact been around for just over 5 years now, which means it only started half way through my tenure as the Principal and director of my company. The use of youtube is now in our planning sights for other uses to benefit our organisation.
On a personal level I have been a fairly active facebook user for some time now, although perhaps still have the reticence of my age group for full and frank exposure of myself to the world through this media, choosing a high level of privacy and not seeing the point in taking part in online games. I see it as a communications tool and have reconnected with several friends lost over time through distance and changing circumstances and divergence of interests. It feels a good thing to re-establish these connections, especially with folks across the world. Some I am happy to keep in the facebook realm, others I would like to reconnect face to face. But there is a more sinister side which bothers me. Only this past week I have had cause to block a person who had made an offer on a car I was selling for my son. The car was for sale through an internet sales service. Some personal details had to be shared and a viewing arranged. After selling the car to someone else he then proceeded to send an abusive email, and then call me continually. The upside to this unpleasant experience was that he did not ever get my physical address. Since I searched and found him easily enough on facebook I determined, however, that he too could do the same with me. Here is a two edged sword - the ability to be able to take charge to a wider audience of a task liking selling a car is of great benefit, but are the privacy concerns more than if one were to advertise in a more 'old fashioned way' - through a newspaper or sitting the car on a street corner? Is it the fact the there is more accessibility that stalking is more possible? Is it really possible to compare this aspect with experiences in a former world of less online communication? Or does the thing which makes online communication so much more accessible also introduce the feelings of a right to accessibility? Is there evidence of a lack of real face to face human contact and therefore a decrease in the ability to read emotions and feelings and therefore feel empathy?
I have been excited by the possibilities of things such as Moodles and wiki's and the availability of research for students at all levels. To have at one's fingertips the ability to find out information on any given topic or area of interest is something in which I myself revel. There is no reason not to know what you want to know. But therein also lies a rub. Does the technology which allows me to find out what I want to know, whether it be of a social, intellectual or even of a culinary nature, at the click of a button, put me at an unfair advantage to those in the community for whom access to adequate hard ware is a matter of affordability? Will the explosion of availability of technology also create greater social stratification where the poor get poorer, not just in a monetary sense, but also in a sense of general knowledge, understanding and accessibility to the world and what it has to offer in physical and metaphysical terms?
At whatever age or stage we are, there is the question of educating in the use of the latest technology. Unless there is ongoing and continually updated education on not just 'how to' but the 'what's new' then the gaps between the haves and have nots will grow wider. The whole face of education is changing and being challenged. In schools, the vast majority still of those teaching are from the generations of the immigrants to technology and for whom technology is a threat or at least part of the unknown, untested and just plain scary. So who is educating who? What is the knowledge that is needed to exist in today's world? Is it a knowledge about finding knowledge? Or is there still a body of knowledge that should just be known? Or should there be a happy medium somewhere? In my own field of music education, there is no changing the power and beauty of past masters at creating the art. Mozart and Beethoven and Bach will always remain by their very nature and position in a historical perspective, producers of great aesthetic beauty in the eyes, and ears, of many. The greatest questions for performers now is whether modern equipment should replicate the sound Bach would have expected in his works, or whether modern equipment should provide its own interpretative element to the black dots on the page.
It is the accessibility for all which tempers my enthusiasm. Although I have ready access and a certain willingness to learn, I know that there are many others in socio-economic terms who have not the funds perhaps and therefore the attitude that is required to embrace much of this technological explosion in communication and learning. There is clear evidence that technology, being so young, is a domain of the young. If the world has changed so much in just 5 years, what can we expect in all the '5 years' of the rest of our lives? Will the young who are the natives of today's technology, be the immigrants of the next 5 years? How does this auger for the fragmentation of society as we know it? What are the implications for educating into the future when so much changes so quickly and more importantly more becomes redundant quicker.
Clearly I don't have answers and sit very much on the fence, albeit with both feet on the technology side. I am happy to keep an eye on the other side! There is definitely an age factor involved, I am prepared to admit. Am I clinging to the past because it is comfortable and known or because there is so much from the past which really is still relevant and useable and not disposable? I admire the likes of Michael Wesch for his enthusiastic embracing of technology in his world of educating others but I also see so much benefit in not throwing out centuries of learning in other ways. Perhaps I fear that if I don't keep up with what is happening in terms of eLearning and the availability of new technology I will find myself in a similar position to my elderly mother who seemed to have given up many years ago when tapes were introduced and stopped even bothering to try to learn how to operate a her beloved radio when it became incorporated with a tape player, and for whom handwriting was the only possibility after the typewriter was no longer the tool for publishing.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Can't or won't -personal and practical obstacles in implementing eLearning
The presentation with the above title, accessed through http://elearning.spruz.com/ resonated a strong chord for me.
As a person of more senior years than the generation for whom technology is a natural part of life, accepting, learning and continually adapting and adopting has been challenging, exciting, overwhelming and informative all at once. Although I was ready to embrace early computer technology and jumped in to purchase one in the early 1980's, it has not necessarily been an easy road. After all I am a 'creative person' and don't have a mathematical technology brain! I loved the ease of performing word processing tasks, but games were never of interest and the thought of understanding all the terminology and how things worked and what to do when things went wrong were just altogether too daunting.
As a teacher, schools were slow to introduce technology, primarily because there was not a lot of money in public schools to do so and not many teachers had the training or the knowledge or the expertise to teach each other let alone the students. I am not sure whether it was the FEAR factor to which Kate alludes in her section on 'Barriers to eLearning'. In the early days I am not sure whether teachers really thought they would be replaced by these new fangled devices and we certainly never imagined their inclusion within the school life to the extent we now see it. Fear of not knowing what to do in front of children we are supposed to be teaching does ring bells. I was challenged through this presentation to consider whether my own feelings of being overwhelmed at times are in fact the " fear of change, a lack of willingness to take risks, fear of deviating from entrenched instructional practices and lack of assurance about the benefits of technology.....(Hunt, Eagle & Kitchen 2004; Weston 2005)".
I am so at one with Lachlan's comment "the sheer volume of associated technical knowledge and skills required to be 'across' all these new teaching and learning mediums, let alone being able to adapt effectively integrate said tools into existing curriculum, play a huge part in the stigma attached to e-learning by some teachers." I think that's where much of the fear comes from. It's something of an overwhelming sense of lack of being in control. That lack of control can include feeling that you don't really UNDERSTAND how things work and that learning and changing involve stretching the boundaries of one's current thinking patterns and perceived lack of comfort or capability, which will be seen by others, especially learners.
I believe that the biggest impediment to educators comfort and uptake of technology has much to do with the provision, or otherwise, of adequate and ongoing training. ICT is here to stay and if the past is anything to go by, the changes we will experience over our lifetimes will be so significant that not attempting to keep up in some way could indeed get us to a point of "I REALLY can't because I just am not thinking, learning, teaching in a way that is relevant anymore". This must be a much more daunting prospect, and something to be really fearful of, than the whole system of education from administrators down to be certain that at every level, there is certainty that everyone even part way willing to give it a go get a fair chance to do so.
Discussion and analysing of why we 'can't' or 'won't' can be helpful in that we see we are not the only ones feeling the same. From my own experience even small senses of achievement gained from actually doing are enough to prompt one into taking the next step. This is one area of education where looking at too big a picture is not helpful, as the picture has too many blurred areas and is altogether too large in it's entirety to pretend to grasp in one viewing.
As a person of more senior years than the generation for whom technology is a natural part of life, accepting, learning and continually adapting and adopting has been challenging, exciting, overwhelming and informative all at once. Although I was ready to embrace early computer technology and jumped in to purchase one in the early 1980's, it has not necessarily been an easy road. After all I am a 'creative person' and don't have a mathematical technology brain! I loved the ease of performing word processing tasks, but games were never of interest and the thought of understanding all the terminology and how things worked and what to do when things went wrong were just altogether too daunting.
As a teacher, schools were slow to introduce technology, primarily because there was not a lot of money in public schools to do so and not many teachers had the training or the knowledge or the expertise to teach each other let alone the students. I am not sure whether it was the FEAR factor to which Kate alludes in her section on 'Barriers to eLearning'. In the early days I am not sure whether teachers really thought they would be replaced by these new fangled devices and we certainly never imagined their inclusion within the school life to the extent we now see it. Fear of not knowing what to do in front of children we are supposed to be teaching does ring bells. I was challenged through this presentation to consider whether my own feelings of being overwhelmed at times are in fact the " fear of change, a lack of willingness to take risks, fear of deviating from entrenched instructional practices and lack of assurance about the benefits of technology.....(Hunt, Eagle & Kitchen 2004; Weston 2005)".
I am so at one with Lachlan's comment "the sheer volume of associated technical knowledge and skills required to be 'across' all these new teaching and learning mediums, let alone being able to adapt effectively integrate said tools into existing curriculum, play a huge part in the stigma attached to e-learning by some teachers." I think that's where much of the fear comes from. It's something of an overwhelming sense of lack of being in control. That lack of control can include feeling that you don't really UNDERSTAND how things work and that learning and changing involve stretching the boundaries of one's current thinking patterns and perceived lack of comfort or capability, which will be seen by others, especially learners.
I believe that the biggest impediment to educators comfort and uptake of technology has much to do with the provision, or otherwise, of adequate and ongoing training. ICT is here to stay and if the past is anything to go by, the changes we will experience over our lifetimes will be so significant that not attempting to keep up in some way could indeed get us to a point of "I REALLY can't because I just am not thinking, learning, teaching in a way that is relevant anymore". This must be a much more daunting prospect, and something to be really fearful of, than the whole system of education from administrators down to be certain that at every level, there is certainty that everyone even part way willing to give it a go get a fair chance to do so.
Discussion and analysing of why we 'can't' or 'won't' can be helpful in that we see we are not the only ones feeling the same. From my own experience even small senses of achievement gained from actually doing are enough to prompt one into taking the next step. This is one area of education where looking at too big a picture is not helpful, as the picture has too many blurred areas and is altogether too large in it's entirety to pretend to grasp in one viewing.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Teaching for today or for the future - with reference to the past
Call it Baby Boomer sensitivity or whatever it is, I have been struggling to come to terms with what I view as the somewhat negative implications in terminology such as "Digital Native" and "Digital Immigrants" as put forward by Marc Prensky and the "Net Generation" of Don Tapscott. I may have to conclude that they are fundamentally correct if it comes to the letter of the definition. But I'd like to try to balance this wonder world with the world of those who are the Immigrants, and challenge the notion that Baby Boomers' culture consisted of "rock n'roll, long hair, protest movements, weird clothes and new lifestyles" as Tapscott puts it.
The changes to culture, and especially in the arena of technology and communication has been astronomical during my lifetime. The Net Generation may well have grown up and within a digital culture but there are a good many others of us who have been on a massive ride of change throughout our entire lives. Many of us have continually adapted and adopted.
I agree with the proposition that Digital culture and digital literacy are not necessarily the same thing. I sit in front of a computer every day, I LOVE that what I want to know is at my fingertips, even when I am out at dinner thanks to my iPhone. I work them all for everything I can get out of them but I don't know that I ever feel I am literate about them and certainly many times not totally comfortable. If something goes wrong I get a funny flutter in my tummy. What the..... do I do now? And then go ahead like I am entering a dark cave and attempt to manoeuvre my way into a solution. If all else fails I might even try the old fashioned telephone only to be greeted with a faceless voice guiding me through a succession of button pushing motions. It seems that only by ignoring this digital faceless voice that I might be able to get to speak with a real person, albeit in a different country. Marshall McLuhan - this is indeed the 'tribal village' of which you spoke all those years ago.
There are contradictions though. One Chris Pirillo, who I found on Youtube expounding on his take on the world, defined digital culture as "pervasive technology; assuming a solution is going to be there; part of ourselves and by extension our society". He claims that the world of the 80's was "me, me, me" but digital culture is "You and me". Yet he also says "I don't need to interact with human beings". Marshall McLuhan talked about the 'individual' as the dominant notion in the book/print age as opposed to the 'global village' notion he saw the world entering. But the village when I was a child was real. It may not have been global and the thought of travelling the globe was pretty daunting and expensive. But our communication was with other people in our community every day and in person - touchy, feely and face to face- and for as many hours as the communication that now takes place behind the screen of a computer. The 'me, me, me' was not the selfish communication it now comes across as. And it involved much more use of the other part of us - the part requiring physical movement.
I could list what I have seen change and have had to adapt to over my nearly 60 years but the list is too long. Enough to say that when I started school and began writing, I learned to write with a nib and an inkwell, in florid copperplate style, complete with blotches, dried out with a blotter, in desks nailed to the floor, 40-50 to a class. The Bic pen was such a threat to our writing skills that we had to write with pencil again when I reached high school, until that 'technology' was approved for use. Television was not officially introduced into Australian society till 1956 and the Melbourne Olympic Games was really the springboard for that. I in fact did not even have a television in my home until I was nearly 30. I had to present major essays for uni typewritten, initially paying someone to do so before I purchased an Olivetti Typewriter.
In the late 70's I was introduced to the Apple II computer and was one of the first in my community to buy one for home. It was primarily for word processing although the advent of games including educational games made it an instant hit with my children and the 'educational' bent made me feel ok about them using it. To differentiate between the 'serious' nature of the Apple II and the wish for something more suitable for games, I invested in a Commodore 64 for the children.
So my children literally grew up with a computer. But I grew into it. I think that was much more difficult!
Every generation will face change and be in fact the drivers of change. Every generation born into that change is comfortable with it. Prensky says "..the biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely different language." But those of the today generation - the Digital Natives or the Net Generation, will surely face change themselves and be the drivers of that change. If the last 60 years have seen change more than that of any other time in history, then what can this generation expect? And do they have the skills in every area of life to cope with that change? It seems to me that the overlap from one generation to another is always of great benefit in adapting - compare and contrast and improve or remove. It's niave I think to speak of the "immigrants" outdated language, as if it is unsuitable for the students using a language these immigrants helped create and develop. Maybe education for the future is not about the language of the digital generation but of how to adapt to any language which they or us may develop or refine into the future.
Dr Ken Robinson, in http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html , talks about another area in today's world which seems to be somewhat forgotten altogether in the drive to be technologically/digitally savvy. Creativity. Dr Robinson makes this point - the children who started school this year will retire in 2065. How do we educate them for life when we haven't a clue where the next 5 years is taking us?
The changes to culture, and especially in the arena of technology and communication has been astronomical during my lifetime. The Net Generation may well have grown up and within a digital culture but there are a good many others of us who have been on a massive ride of change throughout our entire lives. Many of us have continually adapted and adopted.
I agree with the proposition that Digital culture and digital literacy are not necessarily the same thing. I sit in front of a computer every day, I LOVE that what I want to know is at my fingertips, even when I am out at dinner thanks to my iPhone. I work them all for everything I can get out of them but I don't know that I ever feel I am literate about them and certainly many times not totally comfortable. If something goes wrong I get a funny flutter in my tummy. What the..... do I do now? And then go ahead like I am entering a dark cave and attempt to manoeuvre my way into a solution. If all else fails I might even try the old fashioned telephone only to be greeted with a faceless voice guiding me through a succession of button pushing motions. It seems that only by ignoring this digital faceless voice that I might be able to get to speak with a real person, albeit in a different country. Marshall McLuhan - this is indeed the 'tribal village' of which you spoke all those years ago.
There are contradictions though. One Chris Pirillo, who I found on Youtube expounding on his take on the world, defined digital culture as "pervasive technology; assuming a solution is going to be there; part of ourselves and by extension our society". He claims that the world of the 80's was "me, me, me" but digital culture is "You and me". Yet he also says "I don't need to interact with human beings". Marshall McLuhan talked about the 'individual' as the dominant notion in the book/print age as opposed to the 'global village' notion he saw the world entering. But the village when I was a child was real. It may not have been global and the thought of travelling the globe was pretty daunting and expensive. But our communication was with other people in our community every day and in person - touchy, feely and face to face- and for as many hours as the communication that now takes place behind the screen of a computer. The 'me, me, me' was not the selfish communication it now comes across as. And it involved much more use of the other part of us - the part requiring physical movement.
I could list what I have seen change and have had to adapt to over my nearly 60 years but the list is too long. Enough to say that when I started school and began writing, I learned to write with a nib and an inkwell, in florid copperplate style, complete with blotches, dried out with a blotter, in desks nailed to the floor, 40-50 to a class. The Bic pen was such a threat to our writing skills that we had to write with pencil again when I reached high school, until that 'technology' was approved for use. Television was not officially introduced into Australian society till 1956 and the Melbourne Olympic Games was really the springboard for that. I in fact did not even have a television in my home until I was nearly 30. I had to present major essays for uni typewritten, initially paying someone to do so before I purchased an Olivetti Typewriter.
In the late 70's I was introduced to the Apple II computer and was one of the first in my community to buy one for home. It was primarily for word processing although the advent of games including educational games made it an instant hit with my children and the 'educational' bent made me feel ok about them using it. To differentiate between the 'serious' nature of the Apple II and the wish for something more suitable for games, I invested in a Commodore 64 for the children.
So my children literally grew up with a computer. But I grew into it. I think that was much more difficult!
Every generation will face change and be in fact the drivers of change. Every generation born into that change is comfortable with it. Prensky says "..the biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely different language." But those of the today generation - the Digital Natives or the Net Generation, will surely face change themselves and be the drivers of that change. If the last 60 years have seen change more than that of any other time in history, then what can this generation expect? And do they have the skills in every area of life to cope with that change? It seems to me that the overlap from one generation to another is always of great benefit in adapting - compare and contrast and improve or remove. It's niave I think to speak of the "immigrants" outdated language, as if it is unsuitable for the students using a language these immigrants helped create and develop. Maybe education for the future is not about the language of the digital generation but of how to adapt to any language which they or us may develop or refine into the future.
Dr Ken Robinson, in http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html , talks about another area in today's world which seems to be somewhat forgotten altogether in the drive to be technologically/digitally savvy. Creativity. Dr Robinson makes this point - the children who started school this year will retire in 2065. How do we educate them for life when we haven't a clue where the next 5 years is taking us?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Learning about eLearning - an Evaluation
My investigations of the world of eLearning have led me to realise that there are aspects which I need to clarify and understand.
1. What is eLearning?
2. What do I understand by eLearning?
3. Where do I position myself in terms of being an optimist or positive or a pessimist or negative in the debate on eLearning?
Along the way I realised I needed to redefine for myself in relation to the application of eLearning
a. ICT
b. Blended Learning
c. Theories of Behaviourism v. Cognitivism v. Constructivism
d. Pedagogy v Andragogy
I have found 2 articles in particular which have helped shape and help inform my understanding.
An Instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach, a paper by F. Alonso, G. Lopez, D. Manrique and J. M Vines written for the British Journal of Education Technology and appearing in Vol 36 No2 2005, pp 217-235. (Ref 1)
A Theory for eLearning, a pre-and post discussion paper prepared by Mark Nichols in New Zealand and published in the periodical Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), pp1-10 (Ref 2)
1. eLearning has variously been described as "the use of new multimedia technologies and the internet to improve the quality of learning by facilitating access to resources and services, as well as remote exchange and collaboration" (Ref 1 as quoted from EC) or "the use of various technological tools that are either Web-based, Web-distributed or web-capable for the purposes of education." ( Ref 2). eLearning incorporates ICL i.e Informational and Communication Technologies and so can include specific purpose learning tools and technology such as streaming video/audio, online or web-based training and learning or interactive whiteboards; or communication tools such as social networking sites.
2. eLearning is a shift in the concept of teaching and learning. Face to face teaching involved the imparting of the teacher's knowledge to the learner, whether in fact the learner wants to know it, and often in a didactic manner. This is a pedagogical paradigm, (pedagogy meaning 'leading children') and so implies that the process of learning is predominantly teacher directed. Pedagogy has however come to refer to principles or theories that relate to the science or methodology of learning. By contrast, 'andgragogy' was the term used for the process of teaching and learning for adults and implied a much wider sense of involvement from the learner, including the ability to have input about what, why, how and even when they learn. The 2 are almost interchangeable for child or adult, implying a blended or constructivist approach to learning.
Constructivism is the theory of learning that says people construct their own understanding and knowledge through experiencing things and then reflecting on them, and then learning more from the reflections. It espouses the notion that we are active creators of our own knowledge. This is in contrast with either the Behaviourist (Skinner) theory with its conditioning, and the Cognitive theory of learning through internal mental mechanisms.
Clearly, eLearning is built on a Constructivist theory, even though a pedagogical, or andragogical, theory for eLearning is still very much in its infancy. "..unfortunately the use of technology in education has tended to be technology-led rather than theory-led (Ravenscroft, 2001)" (Ref 2, p.1)
Mark Nichols goes on in his Discussion paper to put forward 10 'hypotheses' as he originally called them, to elicit debate on the missing theories of eLearning. The Alonso et al paper also takes the view that there is a lack of theory behind the technology revolution and proposes what it calls an ‘Instructional Model’ to “..enable learners to apply the concepts learned and evaluate the results”. (Ref 1, p6)
3. Currently I am sitting very firmly on the fence in regards to being an optimist or a pessimist for eLearning. I found the Nichols paper guided my thinking about what is behind the ‘learning’ in eLearning. It consolidated previous study and practical experiences about the nature of learning with a springboard for understanding how that will apply to ICT. The Alonso et al paper proposes how that learning takes place, and could be viewed as a Blended approach.
"Blended" learning could mean one of at least 3 different things - blending of modes of web-based technology; blending or combining theories of learning (i.e. behaviourism, cognitivism and cognitivisim); blending of web-based/online research or training with face to face training.
When I think of my past and present experiences of teaching and even my own learning, what has not changed is that different people do still learn in different ways. ICTs are here to stay and there can be no question that they have already had an effect on the body of knowledge available to be discovered, applied and evaluated. Understanding of What and How eLearning can be applied is lagging behind the actual application of the technology and therefore has implications for the teachers as well as the learners. In terms of the benefits for individualised learning, there is no doubt that technology and computers are a gift to educators. In Ref 1, this is referred to as 'personalised learning' but I prefer to think that personalised learning is the face to face component of a blended model, where different technologies are utilised and explored in learning discovery, but that guidance through various technologies still comes from face to face guidance.
The greatest challenges I see with eLearning are the seemingly limitless availability of information and communication, which can be overwhelming; and the lack of real pedagogical direction as to how to harness and use this limitless availability effectively. In my life, it has been a wonderful enriching learning tool on the one hand, and a major cause of distraction on another! And from watching Michael Wesch, I know I am not the only one.
Other references.
EC - European Commission, (2001). Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament: the e-Learning action plan, Brussels, 28.3
http://web.njit.edu/~ronkowit/teaching/andragogy
Saturday, March 6, 2010
My first task was to create this blog so I can enter through the portal to the world of eLearning. "Blogging" has been a word spinning around me for a few years and something which I always said - "One day I will do my own blog and let the world know about my wonderful world." But it never happened. As, with so much in a life already crammed, it is the imperative to do so that is the driver.
My connections so far to eLearning have been facebook and a little twittering. I have struggled my way around the UTS website and was relieved to learn that it is somewhat "clunky" so don't feel quite so bad. At least I managed to get the readings downloaded.
I have such a long journey to go. I don't know where I sit on the pessimism/optimism of the eLearning debate at this point in time. I am a little on the overwhelm side and will hopefully have an expanded understanding of the theoretical perspective as well as so much more practical experience by the end of this semester. I will then be able to tell you better on which side of this fence I sit.
My connections so far to eLearning have been facebook and a little twittering. I have struggled my way around the UTS website and was relieved to learn that it is somewhat "clunky" so don't feel quite so bad. At least I managed to get the readings downloaded.
I have such a long journey to go. I don't know where I sit on the pessimism/optimism of the eLearning debate at this point in time. I am a little on the overwhelm side and will hopefully have an expanded understanding of the theoretical perspective as well as so much more practical experience by the end of this semester. I will then be able to tell you better on which side of this fence I sit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
