Great class research

It isn't exactly a research article but it was about a classroom survey about what makes a classroom great. So I thought it sort of counted. It was from Remote access and the link is http://remoteaccess.typepad.com/remote_access/2008/11/great-classroom.html

The article started out by asking the students "What things would make a classroom a great place to be and learn?" What would the teacher be like? What kinds of things would the students be doing and be involved in? How would the day be spent?

The results of the research/survey found several trends from students. They thought that a great class is fun, but their explanation shows they meant that the learning was engaging. They also wanted more time outside of the school. Not to avoid work or learning, but to see what jobs are like and to take field trips. Finally they expressed that classrooms should bring more reality in instead of just always preparing for real life.

I think kids are right. They need to be engaged. They need more exposure to the real world. But we are constantly worried about portfolios, tests, IEPs, and following laws about what good education is we miss it. We find ourselves bogged down in lesson plans, paperwork, teacher meetings, parent conferences, required content, and anything that keeps us from really teaching the kids anything.

There may be a few unstated assumptions. First, it is that kids would actually have any idea what a good classroom is. Second is that they would tell you what a good classroom is without being selfish and just thinking of what would make it better for them as opposed to what is best for them. Another major assumption would be that this is a representative sample set of students. Perhaps they represent the world or USA as a whole or perhaps they are an outlier in the land of representation and don't even adequately represent their county as a whole. It would be better if the survey was across classes and schools. Perhaps it could cover a district. The bigger the sample size the better. I realize that if you are focusing on your school you may be tempted to only go as far as your school, but is it possible that anyone outside your school would have a good idea? Maybe.

Possible research topic

In Distance Education the topic I would like to research would be 'How much a students past experience with computers limit/enhance their ability to perform in Distance Ed courses'. Several steps would be needed to study it, but it would definitely involve a survey. That would be the best way to know their exposure to computers.

Questions would include things like: is there a computer in your home? How often do you use a computer at school/work? How often do you use email? chat rooms? Instant messaging?

Beyond this the survey would have to include demographic information about socio-economic level, urban/rural lifestyle and the like. Another useful set of questions might include how much they use a cell phone, text message, play video games, are involved in sports/groups, and how well they do in classes now. Success may be linked also to the use of technology in general.

After the survey, which would be of students preparing for an online class, the students would actually go through a Distance Ed course. At the end the teacher and student would both fill out an exit survey and the grade would also be used in the study.

The question is a simple one, but there are many possible things that could drive high performance in distance ed classes. That is why the post and exit surveys are important. Also this would have to be a sample set across demographics and geographic area. In the end the correlations of different answers and performance would be calculated. Hopefully some trends would emerge.

Chatroom value

Well, since we are not having a chat this week we need to post about the value of the chat. I think chat rooms as a tool for the class can be invaluable in distance learning. Yes email and instant messaging can accomplish most of the same thing, but not all. Chat rooms give that feel that we are actually in a classroom. There are awkward pauses/silences of contemplation. There are also times when everyone is talking at once. I really enjoy those moments. Chat allows for everyone to accomplish in a few minutes what might take a day of emailing and instant messaging. It becomes so more efficient for some interactions. I personally never use chat rooms outside of my classes. But that is only because my family needs me and I don't have time. I can see great value in going to chat rooms focused on certain issues in politics, recreation, relationships, education, and so on.

Lack of Posting

I suppose the only thing causing issues for me in the class right now is the lack of posting lately. Posting is supposed to be done at noon on Sunday, but I find many haven't posted until after noon on Sunday and then I get confused between new and old postings. I find many post nothing until Saturday or Sunday. I don't have time to read and respond or comment on my own blogs about what they are saying. I think it hurts the class as a whole if people don't blog some by at least Thursday. If we don't blog then we can't respond to one another or make reply posts. Also, I hope everything is OK with the Doc, but it has been days since and email or post from him. He is probably sick, most people are having issues with that. I just hope the week finishes strong. Not just for me, but for the whole class.

Thoughts to Ponder

Does the global nature of the web have an effect on evaluation?

Obviously there has to be a language difference in evaluation. An evaluation created in Russian would do kids in eastern Tennessee no good at all and wouldn't be fair. I guess the question for me is that if the communication/language barrier can be resolved, then does the global web effect evaluation? I think it can. I don't think that is must always, but it certainly can. We have to remember that cultures are different and experiences can be different. Yes, kids in east Tennessee have many similar experiences and a similar culture. But compare that to East Kenya and suddenly kids aren't thinking the same. I think for evaluations to work globally within the web, they have to be very broad and as culturally neutral as possible. Now culturally neutral may not be totally obtainable but if done right it can almost be accomplished.

Are the goals and objectives changed when you take a course online compared to classroom based instruction?

No way. If a class if offered online and in the classroom, then the major goals and objectives should be the same. It only makes sense. What students should be learning should be the same online or in classrooms. The methods, techniques, and tools used to learn may be different, but the final goals should be the same. If they are not, then I'm not sure if it would even be the same course. This seemed like a no brainer to me, but I'm interested to see what others have to say.

Fear/Humiliation

What an interesting article about World of Warcraft and how someone can actually learn something from playing the game. I found myself agreeing with the writer because I too can understand that there is a time for orders and to follow them completely. There is a time when there will be no one there to catch you and you must do what needs to be done. I found a few phrases in the article interesting.

"A 25-person raid is the same size as a class, and like a class its leader can only take it to places places that it is willing to go." Well, I think that sums up real world leadership and management. You can't take people places they aren't willing to go. When I first read this I thought about motivation. I thought maybe this means we can't really motivate anyone. Then I realized that is not what it means to me. It means fear can stop you. Motivation can be given to you by others, but fear is a "mind killer" so to speak. If someone is afraid to go through a door, then just going through in front of them may not be enough. At some level they have to want it.

Also, "Teaching is about empowering students, and Warcraft has taught me that there is a difference between being powerful and feeling powerful." Students want to feel powerful and educated and important. Many times they don't care if they really are powerful, educated or important. How do I know this? Cheating. Not just classroom cheating, but at anything including video games. Many people want to "feel" successful and powerful. They don't care if they actually are. The illusion is good enough for most people. My students would rather be dumb with straight A's then smart with all D's.

iBrain research

Paper thin. That is how I would describe this article and it's reasoning. As I read it I was offended by the logic and suggestions made.

"We're seeing an evolutionary change. The people in the next generation who are really going to have the edge are the ones who master the technological skills and also face-to-face skills," Small told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Well, so he is saying that those who master both technology and social skills will do well. That seems to be a obvious statement. I don't need any research to make me agree with that. It is like saying bigger, faster, smarter guys will do better at football. That is just obvious.

He said a study of 24 adults as they used the Web found that experienced Internet users showed double the activity in areas of the brain that control decision-making and complex reasoning as Internet beginners.

OK, so 24 people. Not really a legitimate sample size but we will go with it. He says experienced Internet users have more activity when browsing then beginners. OK, again that just seems obvious. The more I use the Internet, then the more my brain will adapt to better use the Internet. Just like in multiplication tables. The more I use them, then the faster I get at using them. Duh.

"We are changing the environment. The average young person now spends nine hours a day exposing their brain to technology. Evolution is an advancement from moment to moment and what we are seeing is technology affecting our evolution."

I have issues with the word evolution being used. Not for religious reasons, but evolution is "gradual development". He seems to use it as though evolution is constantly happening, but I'm not sure that it is. I don't think we are constantly evolving, unless you simply want to use the word a little loosely. You could just as easily used the word learning in it's place for this article.

Overall I thought the article was a plug for the book. I don't think technology will have brains evolved in one generation. At least not in the biological sense of evolution.