CeLC 2010 - Preparing K-12 Teachers to Support Online Learning
•
0 gefällt mir•313 views
Barbour, M. K. & Unger, K. (2010, June). Preparing K-12 teachers to support online learning. A paper presented at the annual Canadian eLearning Conference, Edmonton, AB.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (6)
Ähnlich wie CeLC 2010 - Preparing K-12 Teachers to Support Online Learning
Ähnlich wie CeLC 2010 - Preparing K-12 Teachers to Support Online Learning (20)
Mehr von Michael Barbour
Mehr von Michael Barbour (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
CeLC 2010 - Preparing K-12 Teachers to Support Online Learning
- 1. Instructional Technology The Impact of the Virtual Schooling Curriculum on Preparing In-Service Teachers for the Roles as Virtual School Facilitators Dr. Michael Barbour - mkbarbour@gmail.com Kelly Unger - klu728@gmail.com
- 2. Instructional Technology Current state of VS Students Enrolled in Online Courses • 2001 = 40,000 – 50,000 (Clark) • 2009 =>1,000,000 K-12 (Picciano& Seaman) Students Enrolled in Online Courses • 45 States (plus DC) reporting significant K-12 online learning activity
- 3. Instructional Technology Current state of VS • 2006 – Michigan adds online learning graduation requirement • Added 3 new standards for teachers in Educational Technology 1. Online Technology Experience and Skills 2. Online Course Design 3. Online Course Delivery • Necessitated changes to all endorsement programs in the state
- 4. Instructional Technology Current state of VS • At Wayne State University changed reflected in IT6230 – Internet in the Classroom – preparing teachers for three new roles (Davis, 2007) 1. Virtual School Designer 2. Virtual School Teacher 3. Virtual School Facilitator » most middle and high school teachers in Michigan were more likely to play the role of the facilitator the majority of course activities focused on this position
- 5. Instructional Technology Curriculum • Generational Differences (2 weeks) – dispelling digital natives/millennials myths – exploring “Generation Me” • Web 2.0 Tools (6 weeks) – blogs, RSS, wikis, microblogging, social bookmarking, social networking, collaborative tools • K-12 Online Learning (7 weeks)
- 6. Instructional Technology K-12 Online Learning • TEGIVS scenarios & IA case studies • Readings related to K-12 online learning • Reflective discussions using blogs and RSS feeds based upon the instructor’s prompt • Activities and videos about K-12 online learning • Individual project and group project from the TEGIVS curriculum • MI case studies
- 7. Instructional Technology Purpose of Study 1. Examine the effectiveness of the chosen K-12 online learning curriculum, with the goal of making continual improvements to the course (Stringer, 2004). 2. Examine impact of TEGIVS curriculum on the opinions of graduate students enrolled in IT6230 about the role of the virtual school facilitator.
- 8. Instructional Technology Methods • Four Semesters – Winter 2008 - 9of 15 students – Winter 2009 - 5of 7 students – Summer 2009 – 5 of 14 students – Winter 2010 – 4 of 10 students • Data – Blog comments based prompts by the instructor – Individual and group projects – Student evaluations of teaching
- 9. Instructional Technology Methods • Inductive analysis approach (LeCompte&Preissle, 1993) and constant comparative coding (Ezzy, 2002). • Microsoft Word® as a tool to complete this analysis following the procedure outlined by Ruona (2005). • Weekly meetings to discuss codes, categories and potential themes.
- 10. Cycle 1 – Winter 2008 Instructional Technology • Adopted Teacher Education Goes into Virtual Schooling (TEGIVS) curricular wholesale – Multimedia scenarios – Individual project – Group project • Discussion prompts from TEGIVS scenario tasks • Practitioner-focused readings 4 week unit
- 11. Cycle 2 – Winter 2009 Instructional Technology • Localized and revised TEGIVS scenarios • Modified individual project – Added tasks from TEGIVS scenarios • Discussion prompts more closely tied to readings • More research-based readings • Added ILO case studies to focus on VS teacher role 5 week unit
- 12. Thematic Analysis
- 13. Cycle 3 – Summer 2009 Instructional Technology • Modified individual project – added specific tasks related to ILO case studies – added tasks related to Converge special issue • Discussion prompts forced students to explore new resources – with a continued emphasis on the readings 6 week unit
- 14. Initial Thematic Analysis Instructional Technology • Consistent with Winter 2008 and Winter 2009 – Benefits at-risk students – More teacher preparation – Support online learning – Communication/interaction • No longer apparent – Appropriate access to technology • No real new issues
- 15. Cycle 4 – Winter 2010 Instructional Technology • Created Michigan- specific online teaching case studies – used as part of Individual Project • Better sequencing of topics • Better coverage of topics related to all three roles • Better illustration of Web 2.0 tools for online teaching 7 week unit
- 16. Instructional Technology Design Lessons • First you have to confront students’ preconceptions and dispel any myths • Michigan-specific examples • Discussions more meaningful when tied to the readings, but push students to use resources beyond (particularly with research-based readings)
- 17. Instructional Technology Continuing Design Issues • More Michigan-specific content • Continued revision of the Individual Project • Better mix of practitioner-focused and research- based readings • Increase in materials related to “virtual school designer” role
- 18. Instructional Technology Thematic Conclusions • Still unfamiliar to most teachers • Mandated or not, teachers see benefits • Number of perceived challenges decreases each semester • Most support virtual schooling and willing to give it a try
- 19. Instructional Technology Questions and Discussion
- 20. Instructional Technology The Impact of the Virtual Schooling Curriculum on Preparing In-Service Teachers for the Roles as Virtual School Facilitators Dr. Michael Barbour - mkbarbour@gmail.com Kelly Unger - klu728@gmail.com
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Update numbers
- 14 for analyzed data (W08 and W09)18 (Summer 09) addedAnd I believe there are 3 (I’m not on campus) from (W10)
- After Slide 11 - add in individual slides for Winter 2008 (first bullet point focused on data, second bullet point focused on changes to the course) and Winter 2009 (same format)Then use Slide 12 as is.Actually in thinking a little more about this... for the Winter 2008, Winter 2009, Summer 2009 and Winter 2010 slides, use this model:- begin with what the course included at the start of the semesterthen present the bullet point (sub-points) on the trends in the dataThat format will allow you to have something on the slide for Winter 2010.
- After Slide 11 - add in individual slides for Winter 2008 (first bullet point focused on data, second bullet point focused on changes to the course) and Winter 2009 (same format)Then use Slide 12 as is.Actually in thinking a little more about this... for the Winter 2008, Winter 2009, Summer 2009 and Winter 2010 slides, use this model:- begin with what the course included at the start of the semesterthen present the bullet point (sub-points) on the trends in the dataThat format will allow you to have something on the slide for Winter 2010.
- After Slide 11 - add in individual slides for Winter 2008 (first bullet point focused on data, second bullet point focused on changes to the course) and Winter 2009 (same format)Then use Slide 12 as is.Actually in thinking a little more about this... for the Winter 2008, Winter 2009, Summer 2009 and Winter 2010 slides, use this model:- begin with what the course included at the start of the semesterthen present the bullet point (sub-points) on the trends in the dataThat format will allow you to have something on the slide for Winter 2010.
- After Slide 12 - add in individual slide for Summer 2009 (first bullet point focused on first pass of the data, second bullet point on changes), then have a new slide for Winter 2010 or have it as third bullet point on Summer 2009 slide (I personally like the new slide better.
- After Slide 11 - add in individual slides for Winter 2008 (first bullet point focused on data, second bullet point focused on changes to the course) and Winter 2009 (same format)Then use Slide 12 as is.Actually in thinking a little more about this... for the Winter 2008, Winter 2009, Summer 2009 and Winter 2010 slides, use this model:- begin with what the course included at the start of the semesterthen present the bullet point (sub-points) on the trends in the dataThat format will allow you to have something on the slide for Winter 2010.
- After Slide 11 - add in individual slides for Winter 2008 (first bullet point focused on data, second bullet point focused on changes to the course) and Winter 2009 (same format)Then use Slide 12 as is.Actually in thinking a little more about this... for the Winter 2008, Winter 2009, Summer 2009 and Winter 2010 slides, use this model:- begin with what the course included at the start of the semesterthen present the bullet point (sub-points) on the trends in the dataThat format will allow you to have something on the slide for Winter 2010.
- After Slide 11 - add in individual slides for Winter 2008 (first bullet point focused on data, second bullet point focused on changes to the course) and Winter 2009 (same format)Then use Slide 12 as is.Actually in thinking a little more about this... for the Winter 2008, Winter 2009, Summer 2009 and Winter 2010 slides, use this model:- begin with what the course included at the start of the semesterthen present the bullet point (sub-points) on the trends in the dataThat format will allow you to have something on the slide for Winter 2010.
- Slide 13 - update as needed
- Slide 13 - update as needed
- Slide 13 - update as needed
- After Slide 14 - add contacts slide