1.
Teaching and Learning with the Internet: Hughes
Teaching and Learning with Internet-supported Technologies
Spring 2014* EDC 385G
Online Course
Instructor
Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.
244M Sanchez Bldg
Office Hours: Tuesdays 2:00-4:00 PM; Sign up http://tinyurl.com/jehofficehours (Skype or in
Canvas Conference available)
Phone/Voice Mail: 512.232.4145
E-mail: joanh@austin.utexas.edu
Course Description & Goals
In the course participants will examine a myriad of ways the Internet may function within teaching and
learning contexts through internet-supported technologies (e.g., web, apps etc.). The course will focus on
these technologies’ capabilities for instructional use, learning, professional development, and research.
The course will provide a set of foundational readings to situate your thinking in this educative space.
Then you will lead your own experiences with a diverse array of Internet-based instructional and learning
tools; it will also encourage you to consider these tools with a critical eye, always determining the
advantages and disadvantages of using particular web-supported or web-based tools.
This course focuses on the role of Internet-based technologies within face-to-face or hybrid learning
situations and mostly within PK-12 realms. For all uses we consider, we will use the following questions
(as well as any you offer) to structure our analysis of Internet uses:
•
•
•
•
•
What assumptions about the nature of knowledge and learning does this innovation make (either
explicitly or implicitly)?
What unique role does the technology play in facilitating learning?
How is this innovation seen to fit with existing school curriculum (e.g., Is the innovation intended
to supplement or supplant existing curriculum? Is it intended to enhance the learning of
something already central to the curriculum or some new set of understandings or competencies?)
What demands does the innovation place on the knowledge of teachers or other “users”? What
knowledge supports does the innovation provide?
How does the technology fit or interact with the social context of learning? (e.g., Are computers
used by individuals or groups? Does the technology support collaboration or individual work?
What sorts of interaction does the technology facilitate or hinder? Does it change or reify social
systems?)
Course goals include:
• Understanding the historical context of uses of the Internet and Web for teaching and learning
• Experiencing what it is like to be an actor in the ‘participatory’ or ‘semantic’ or ‘connected’
culture of the Web
• Developing a critical framework for evaluating web uses in educational contexts
• Interpreting (i.e., reading, understanding, interpreting, adapting) educational research that focuses
1

2.
Teaching and Learning with the Internet: Hughes
on teaching/learning with the Internet-supported technologies
This course is not about fully online or distance education topics. If you are interested in that topic,
consider taking LT’s “Online Learning” course(s).
Course Web Page
The website for this course will use Canvas. https://canvas.utexas.edu
You should be already enrolled in the course called “Teaching and Learning with the Internet,” and you
log-in using your UT EID.
Course Structure
Readings (you may obtain at the library, online, or in the Canvas course)
Alvermann, D. E., Hutchins, R. J., & McDevitt, R. (2012). Adolescents' Engagement with Web 2.0 and
Social Media: Research, Theory, and Practice. [Article]. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 33-44.
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position
person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525-536.
Beach, R. (2012). Uses of Digital Tools and Literacies in the English Language Arts Classroom. [Article].
Research in the Schools, 19(1), 45-59.
Berners-Lee, Hendler, & Lassila (2001). The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5), 34-44.
Dede et al. (2009). A Research Agenda for Online Teacher Professional Development [Part of the special
issue, Innovative uses of technology in teacher education]. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1),
8-19.
Donnelly, D., McGarr, O. & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their
classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469-1483.
Generation M2 Report, 2010 (Kaiser Foundation) – Available:
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/mh012010pkg.cfm
Gentry, L. B., Denton, C. A., & Kurz, T. (2008). Technologically-based mentoring provided to teachers:
A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3), 339-373.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age:
Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? . Educational Researcher,
38(4), 246-259. http://www.aera.net/publications/Default.aspx?menu_id=38&id=7886
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Use of web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: The
search for evidence-based practice. Educational Research Review, 9, 47-64.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the "Net
Generation". Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113.
Jenkins, Henry. (2006.) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the
21st Century, Available at:
http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org/site/c.enJLKQNlFiG/b.2029245/k.C6EC/Library.htm
Krueger, K. (2013). 'Connected educators' spur connected learning. eSchool News, 16(9), 45. Available:
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/b124b13d#/b124b13d/45
Lenhart, A., Kristen Purcell, Aaron Smith, Kathryn Zickuhr (2010). Social media and young adults.
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level theory
of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau
& R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Vol. 6th, pp. 1150-1181).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Owston, R. D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and Learning?
Educational Researcher, 26(2), 27-33.
2

3.
Teaching and Learning with the Internet: Hughes
Schulten, K. (2013). What 'connected education' looks like: 28 examples from all over. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/what-connected-educationlooks-like-28-examples-from-teachers-all-over/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Wallace, R. M. (2004). A Framework for Understanding Teaching With the Internet. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447-488.
Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take? Educational
Researcher, 27(1), 28-33.
Wong, T. (2013). Meeting needs: Are you connected? School Library Monthly, 29(8), 33-34.
Some readings not listed here are directly linked within Canvas to external websites where the reading is
located.
Required Technology
1. Bibliography Software (your choice)
a. Zotero - http://www.zotero.org/ (Free)- Please download and install on your computer.
Consult help materials on their website, as needed.
b. Endnote - $79; https://webstore.hied.com/cgibin/WebObjects/CampusComputer.woa/13/wo/tbsXh81YJxSFdbOeD5Yin0/0.6.7
There is a range of technologies that you may need to complete the projects. Some of these may involve
purchasing apps, software, hardware, or membership to online tools. These costs are low to moderate and
should be considered part of your “books” (please consider the fact that there are no required books.)
Please do not go out and purchase all these items until you know you need them – it is unlikely you
will need all of these tools/features. Some of these are also available for free check-out in the Learning
Technology Center (LTC): http://www.edb.utexas.edu/education/centers/ltc/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Good quality headset (earphones) with microphone
Audacity: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ or GarageBand
Domain Names Costs (www.godaddy.com)
Webserver / webhosting fees
Website service fees (e.g., blogging, video / podcasting hosting, etc.)
Camera
Videocamera
Audio recorder
External microphone
Class Participation
Class participants are required to read assigned readings, contribute to discussions, and participate
maximally in all class activities.
Assignments
Students are required to:
· Prepare all assigned readings for discussion and contribute to discussions
· Conduct on-line or off-line literature research
· Complete assignments related to course topics
3

4.
Teaching and Learning with the Internet: Hughes
Performance Outcomes
1. Experience Badges (3)
2. PSC Internet Project (Adopted, Used, Analyzed)
3. Expert Panel Discussion
4. Participation
(Point Values)
n/a
100
15
77
Total
192 Points
Performance Outcome Short Descriptions (see Long Descriptions in Canvas Assignments for more
information)
1. Experience Badges
•
You need to earn at least three web experience badges. When completing them, you earn
badges that are displayed within Canvas, and you can serve as a more knowledgeable other
(MKO) for others in the class who may be pursuing challenges related to the web experience
you already have. In this way, we will try to cultivate a learning community.
2. PSC Internet Project – Adopted, Used, Analyzed, Project
•
You will become part of the “participant, semantic, and connected culture” of the
Internet. You will develop the requisite technology for your project and keep a diary (in
Canvas Collaborations) relating to your own experience as a participant in a journal. You
will write a final paper that describes your experiences being a web user/creator/connector
using literature perspectives from the course’s readings to explain/understand your
experience. Ph.D. students: will end their paper by sketching ideas about how one might
conduct research to study aspects of teaching and learning related to your developed project.
3. Expert Panels – Q & A
•
As a culminating activity to the course, several expert panels will be assembled from
class participants to respond to a range of questions from class audience, community peers,
and the course instructor. The panel will occur as an asynchronous text-based, archived
conversation.
4. Participation in Discussions
• High participation is expected in online activities and discussions. Expectations will be
set for each activity/discussion in the Module Overview.
******File Backups*******
You are responsible for your files. Therefore, you must backup all your files to your own disk, key drive,
or cloud. Make sure you back-up your data in several places! In addition, you may want to type any
responses in a Word document and copy/paste into Canvas just to be sure your thoughts are not lost if
there’s a technological malfunction.
Relevant Policies
Course Drop:
January 16th is the last day of the official add/drop period; after this date, changes in registration require
the approval of the department chair and usually the student’s dean. January 29 th is the last day to drop
and possibly receive a refund.
Policy On ADA:
The University of Texas at Austin provides upon request appropriate academic accommodations for
qualified students with disabilities. For more information, contact the Office of the Dean of Students at
471-6259, 471-4641 TTY.
4

5.
Teaching and Learning with the Internet: Hughes
Policy on Scholastic Misconduct
Scholastic misconduct is broadly defined as "any act that violates the rights of another student in
academic work or that involves misrepresentation of your own work." Scholastic dishonesty includes,
(but is not necessarily limited to): cheating on assignments or examinations; plagiarizing, which means
misrepresenting as you own work any part of work done by another; submitting the same paper, or
substantially similar papers, to meet the requirements of more than one course without the approval and
consent of all instructors concerned; depriving another student of necessary course materials; or
interfering with another student's work.
I process all incidents of scholastic misconduct.
Definition of Grades
A - achievement that is outstanding relative to the level necessary to meet course requirements.
B - achievement that is significantly above the level necessary to meet course requirements.
C - achievement that meets the course requirements in every respect.
D - achievement that is worthy of credit even though it fails to meet fully the course requirements.
S - achievement that is satisfactory, which is equivalent to a C- or better (achievement required for an S is
at the discretion of the instructor but may be no lower than equivalent to a C-.) ---F(or N) - Represents failure (or no credit) and signifies that the work was either (1) completed but at a
level of achievement that is not worthy of credit or (2) was not completed and there was no agreement
between the instructor and the student that the student would be awarded an I (see also I).
The grading for this course is as follows
A 95 – 100%
A- 90 – 94%
B+ 87 – 89%
B 84 – 86%
B- 80 – 83%
C+ 77 – 79%
C 74 – 76%
C- 70 – 73%
D+ 67 – 69%
D 64 – 66%
D- 60-63%
F Below 60%
Academic Dishonesty
Academic dishonesty in any portion of the academic work for a course shall be grounds for awarding a
grade of F or N for the entire course.
Incomplete Grades:
The grade of "I" or “X” (incomplete) is not a regular grade and cannot be given without special
arrangements under unusual circumstances. It cannot be given merely to extend the time allowed to
complete course requirements. If family or personal emergency requires that your attention be diverted
from the course and that more time than usual is needed to complete course work, arrangements should be
made with the instructor of the course before the quarter ends and consent obtained for receiving an
"Incomplete" or "I" grade. These arrangements should be made as soon as the need for an "I" can be
anticipated. A written agreement should be prepared indicating when the course assignment will be
completed. I require an "Incomplete" grade for a course to be removed within two weeks into the
5

6.
Teaching and Learning with the Internet: Hughes
semester immediately following its receipt.
Receipt of Final Grade:
Feedback and grades will conducted within Canvas. Your final grade is available online with the
Registrar after they are posted. You are more than welcome to make an appointment to meet with me to
discuss your work or evaluation at any time.
Course Schedule
January 17-24: Introduction, Examples
Topics and Activities:
• Introductions and Class Overview/Syllabus
• Course Website
• Watch Movie: Julie & Julia
• Lecture: Austin Forum’s From Sous Vide to Social Search, How Technology is Changing How
We Cook and Eat
• Discussion
January 24-31: Conceptualizations of the Internet as Participatory/Semantic/Connected
Readings:
• Read: Jenkins, Henry. (2006.) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media
Education for the 21st Century, Available at: http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org/
• Read: Berners-Lee, Hendler, & Lassila (2001). The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5),
34-44.
• Watch: Tim Berners-Lee: “Linked Data” TED Talk (Long Beach, CA 2009):
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web.html?embed=true
• Watch: Tim Berners-Lee: 2010 TED talk update:
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_the_year_open_data_went_worldwide.html
• Read: Wong, T. (2013). Meeting needs: Are you connected? School Library Monthly, 29(8), 3334.
• Read: Connected Educator Profiles at http://connectededucators.org/innovations/connectededucator-profiles/
January 31-February 7: A Decade+ Ago: The World Wide Web and Teaching and Learning
Reading:
• Read: Owston, R. D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and
Learning? Educational Researcher, 26(2), 27-33.
• Read: Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take?
Educational Researcher, 27(1), 28-33.
6

7.
Teaching and Learning with the Internet: Hughes
February 7- Feb 14: Web 2.0 and “Classroom Learning”
Due February 14: Participant in Internet project proposal
Readings:
• Read: Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in
a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? . Educational
Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.
• Read: Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Use of web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher
education: The search for evidence-based practice. Educational Research Review, 9, 47-64.
February 14 – Feb 21: Frameworks: Learning/Teaching with the Internet
Due February 14: Participant in Internet project proposal
Readings:
• Read: Wallace, R. M. (2004). A Framework for Understanding Teaching With the Internet.
American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447-488.
• Read: Donnelly, D., McGarr, O. & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of
ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469-1483.
•
February 21- Feb 28: New Literacies
Readings:
• Read: Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A
dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E.
Alvermann, N. J. Unrau & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading
(Vol. 6th, pp. 1150-1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Read: Alvermann, D. E., Hutchins, R. J., & McDevitt, R. (2012). Adolescents' Engagement with
Web 2.0 and Social Media: Research, Theory, and Practice. [Article]. Research in the Schools,
19(1), 33-44.
February 28- March 7: Focused Project Work
•
SXSWedu conference (optional)
March 7 -14: SPRING BREAK
March 14 - 21: What do new literacies look like in classrooms?
Readings:
• Read: Beach, R. (2012). Uses of Digital Tools and Literacies in the English Language Arts
Classroom. [Article]. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 45-59.
• Watch and Read: Schulten, K. (2013). What 'connected education' looks like: 28 examples from
all over. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/what-connected-education-looks-like-28-examplesfrom-teachers-all-over/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
• Read: Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using
games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525-536.
7

8.
Teaching and Learning with the Internet: Hughes
March 21 - March 28: Youth, Media, and the Internet: Are Youth Ready for This?
Readings:
• Read: Generation M2 Report, 2010 (Kaiser Foundation) – Available:
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/mh012010pkg.cfm
• Read: Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among
members of the "Net Generation". Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113.
• Read: Amanda Lenhart, Kristen Purcell, Aaron Smith, Kathryn Zickuhr (2010). Social media and
young adults. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx
March 28 – April 4: Trends in Teacher Use of Web 2.0 Technologies: Are Teachers Ready for This?
•
Read: Selected Readings/Data from NCES, ECAR, PEW
April 4 – April 11: Learning from the AERA Conference
•
Special AERA Readings to be announced
April 11 – April 18: Teacher/Faculty Development for New Literacies and Web 2.0
Readings:
• Read: Krueger, K. (2013). 'Connected educators' spur connected learning. eSchool News, 16(9),
45. Available: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/b124b13d#/b124b13d/45
• Review: Connected Educators Month: Getting Started http://connectededucators.org/cem/cemgetting-started/
• Read: Gentry, L. B., Denton, C. A., & Kurz, T. (2008). Technologically-based mentoring
provided to teachers: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
16(3), 339-373.
• (Optional for Ph.D. Students) - Read: Dede et al. (2009). A Research Agenda for Online Teacher
Professional Development [Part of the special issue, Innovative uses of technology in teacher
education]. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8-19.
April 18-April 25: Internet for Teaching and Learning – Distinguished Panels Discussion
•
Class members are grouped into expert panels for an interactive closing panel discussion.
April 25 – May 2: Project Presentations
Due May 4: Project Paper
•
Presentations of Internet Technology Participation, Analysis, and Projected Research Individual
“Poster” sessions
8