Reflective Blog No. 4: Technology Plans

The task of comparing the National Educational Technology Plan 2010, the 2010 State of Michigan Education Technology Plan, and the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) Strategic Plan (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm#iltech) was a bit daunting at first. But upon closer examination, common themes began to emerge.

The most common theme among the three plans was learning. For example, the National Educational Technology Plan (2010) calls for "engaging and empowering personalized learning experiences for learners of all ages" as well as "leveraging the power of technology to support continuous and lifelong learning" ("Executive Summary", para. 3). Additionally, the first of the five essential components referenced throughout the document is Learning: Engage and Empower.

Likewise, in the State of Michigan Educational Technology Plan Goals (2010), Teaching for Learning is listed as the first of the five goals (p. 3); while the ACRL Strategic Plan cites Learning as its first goal under for the Higher Education and Research strategic area.

Of particular note, I was surprised to find that the state plan didn't emphasize assessment as much as the national plan. "The National Education Technolgy Plan 2010 (NETP) calls for revolutionary transformation rather than evolutionary tinkering"...and "urges our education system at all levels to be clear about the outcomes we seek" (p. 7).While the second component listed in the national plan is Assessment: Measure What Matters, the state plan only alludes to assessment under the their fifth of five goals: Data and Information Management. I was pleased to see that the ACRL Strategic Plan recognizes the need for assessment by "improving techniques for assessing learning outcomes" ("Strategic Area: Higher Education and Research", para. 1).

Perhaps most pleasing of all, was the discovery that the ACRL Strategy Plan recognizes the importance of technology as evidenced by their goal of Information Technology described as "Academic and research librarians are leaders in using information, academic and instructional technologies to create and manage information resources and to deliver library and information services" ("Strategic Area: The Profession", para. 1).

The ACRL Strategic Plan also highlights what they call "mega - issues" which are defined as "questions that span areas with the the Strategic Plan". The forth mega issue listed is "What role will ACRL play in ensuring that the professional is leading technology change rather than responding to it?"("Strategic Area: The Association", para. 7).

I'd like to think that ACRL and its members will rise to the challenge and lead the way as innovative technology leaders in the library profession. As an ACRL member myself, my choice to pursue a masters degree in Educational Technology has been reaffirmed just by knowing that this well respected professional association acknowledges the importance of becoming technology leaders and innovators. I'm on my way!


Bibliography:

2010 State of Michigan Educational Technology Plan: Teaching for learning in a digital age (2010, February 9). Retrieved from http://techplan.org/STP%202010%20Final.pdf

ACRL Strategic Plan 2020: Charting Our Future. (2004, June 26). Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/about/whatisacrl/strategicplan/index.cfm

McKenzie, Jamie. "The New Texas Miracle." 2005. JPG file.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. National Education Technology Plan 2010: Transforming American Education Learning Powered by Technology. (2010, November). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010

Reflective Blog No. 5: Educating the Millennium Generation

Before examining the opportunities and challenges in educating the Millennium Generation, I decided to see how this particular generation is defined by Wikipedia. What I discovered is that the Millennium Generation is referred to by many different names, including Generation Y, Millennial Generation, Millennials, Generation Next, Net Generation, and Echo Boomers ("Generation Y", n.d.). Regardless of what you call this generation, the characteristics they share are generally undisputed: "an increased use and familiarity with communications, media, and digital technologies" ("Generation Y", n.d., para. 2).

So what does this mean for educators? In order to effectively teach this generation, it behooves us to consider the opportunities, as well as the challenges, we are likely to face. According to Horne (2010), "these [are] high-tech students, many of whom have short attention spans and very little interest in their teachers' 'antiquated' teaching practices" (p. 10). The YouTube video entitled "Joe's Non-Netbook" (Lehmann, 2008) confirms that many Millennials view the traditional printed textbook as "antiquated".

Fortunately, the Michigan Educational Technology Standards for Students (2009) aims to move beyond the printed page. Consider a few of the expectations outlined therein: (1) communication and collaboration, (2) research and information fluency, and (3) digital citizenship. Setting well defined technology standards supports the shift in education as described by Horne (2010), "...educators and students benefit from this exciting shift in education that emphasizes application, rather than just acquisition of knowledge" (p. 11).

However, despite the many opportunities afforded by the implementation of technology in the classroom, there are many challenges too. For example, although technology enhances research and information fluency, the students I help everyday often lack the fundamental, underlying knowledge of the research process itself.  These students are at a great disadvantage despite their comfort level with technology in general. Case in point, if a student is unaware of how to construct a search strategy using Boolean operators and truncation, they are likely to retrieve far too many results from a database search (assuming they know which database to search in the first place).

Another challenge is related to the concept of digital citizenship. Although technology enables students to explore the world like never before, it also exposes them to more dangers. These dangers go beyond online predators. I was shocked to discover that "more than a quarter of young people have been involved in some form [of sexting]" while the prevalence of sexting is even greater among young adults ("Poll finds sexting common," 2009). What I found most disturbing of all was the students' nonchalant attitude. Has it become so commonplace that it is now the new normal for so many of today's youth?

As educators, I believe that we must first understand how technology has affected this generation so that we can better guide them in how to use it more effectively and, in some cases, more wisely. We are teaching in an exciting time when the opportunities and challenges are great indeed. While watching Joe's reaction to the printed text in Joe's Non-Netbook, the phrase "the world is flat" came to mind. Those living so many ages before us thought the world was flat. Joe's perception of the printed textbook was that it too was flat. But Joe and his generation know that the learning experience doesn't have to be that way. As educators, let's explore the possibilities that exist when we use educational technology to make learning a more interactive and "less flat" experience. After all, the Millennium Generation expects nothing less.

Bibliography:

Chris Lehmann (Poster). Joe's Non-Netbook [video]. (2009, March 28). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkhpmEZWuRQ

Generation Y. (n.d.).  Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y

Horne, M. (2010). A new role for CTE. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 85(4), 10-11.

Michigan Educational Technology Standards for Students (METS-S): Alignment with NETS 2007 and the 21st century framework (2009). Retrieved from http://techplan.edzone.net/METS/

Poll finds sexting common among youth (2009). eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2009/12/03/poll-finds-sexting-common-among-youth/

Extra Blog No. 6: First Online Wimba Session

Unable to attend the very first online class session via Wimba for EDU 590, I was disappointed and, to be truthful, somewhat afraid that I'd be at a disadvantage. But circumstances made it impossible to participate in that particular synchronous chat session: I was on a flight returning from the American Library Association (ALA) conference in San Diego. So I made arrangements with the instructor to view the archive of the session and write a blog on the experience. But before I comment on the archive itself, I should share my previous experiences with archived Wimba sessions to give some perspective.

As a distance learning librarian, I have presented more than a few bibliographic instruction sessions via Wimba, both synchronous and asynchronous. Each time I do an online session in Wimba, I archive it for those students who are unable to attend; and also for those students who might want to refer to the session again. Sometimes I forgo the synchronous session altogether and create an archived session for a class to view asynchronously as time permits. Either way, I was quite familiar with the concept of a recorded archive. But the idea of viewing one as a student myself was intriguing, not to mention I was excited to get started with the first course of the Educational Technology program!

So what was my overall impression? The thing that struck me the most was how quiet the students were. I expected there to be many more questions asked and a lot more chatter. But upon reflection, I realized that my previous experience with Wimba might have made me more comfortable with the whole experience. Even though I was a new student like everyone else, I wasn't new to the technology known as Wimba. So instead feeling like I was at a disadvantage, I began to see that maybe I had a bit of an advantage simply because of my previous experiences with the technology. Whether or not this was the case, I also soon realized that any advantage I might have would be short lived as the rest of the class began to feel more at ease with the technology. And isn't that the point of Educational Technology anyway? "To enhance teaching and learning for all [emphasis added] students" (Professional Standards for Michigan Teachers, 2008).


Professional Standards for Michigan Teachers (2008, May 13).

Reflective Blog No. 3: Technology Standards

When comparing the 7th Standard (Technology Operations and Concepts) of the Professional Standards for Michigan Teachers with the objectives of this course (EDU 590) and my education (master's degree in Library and Information Science), I was a bit overwhelmed with the among of detail contained in the Professional Standards for Michigan Teacher document alone. However, upon closer examination, I realized that there were keywords and concepts throughout the Technology section that were very meaningful.

The introductory paragraph of the Technology Operations and Concepts section challenged the way I have viewed technology thus far: I'd always considered technology to be an application of some sort. But the way in which technology was referenced in this document forced me to take a much broader view. For example, "technological operations and concepts" not just "technological tools" are referenced throughout.

Another insight garnered: The fact that educational technology is intended not just to enhance learning, but to enhance "personal/professional productivity and communication" as well as the ability to perform and enhance a variety of educational activities.

To be honest, I've been questioning whether educational technology referred to (1) the technology used to teach or (2) the technology students use to learn or complete a task. But upon further reflection, it's both -- and so much more!

The objectives of EDU 590 are well aligned with the seven objectives listed in the Standards document (a-g). For example, "Implement curriculum plans that include effective technology-enhance methods and strategies to maximize student learning" (Professional Standard for Michigan Teachers, 2008) aligns with the "design, delivery, and evaluation of an action research project.....accurately reflecting on the key elements found in good instructional design related to the technology-based lesson plan" (Umpstead, 2011).

Another example, "Apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies" (Professional Standard for Michigan Teachers, 2008) correlates with ""Designing and utilizing appropriate rubrics to assess learning with technology activities" (Umpstead, 2011).

Having earned my master's degree in Library and Information Science in 1995, we were just beginning to explore the possibilities of the World Wide Web and the use of Archie, Veronica, and Gopher in library school back in those days. The fact that we were contemplating whether or not the Web would "catch on" outside of government applications left little room to imagine the far reaching applications for technology-enhanced learning in schools today.

Professional Standards for Michigan Teachers (2008, May 13).

Umpstead, B. (2011) Syllabus - EDU 590.

Reflective Blog No. 2: Instructional Strategy

Determining the instructional strategy that will be tested in both the non-technology and technology enabled assignment was a lot more difficult than I imaged it would be. As I pondered why I was having so much trouble, I determined there were several factors making my task hard to do.

First of all, although I've "taught" many library instruction sessions, I'm realizing that I have never approached these sessions with any sort of formal lesson plan. Rather, I've always approached these sessions as outreach where my primary task was promoting the library, its services, and vast number of resources. Having never put together a formal lesson plan has proved to be more daunting than I'd like to admit.

Secondly, after completing my Theory of Action diagram for my previous blog, I realized that the scale of my action plan was more appropriate for an entire course as opposed to a single lesson. So even before beginning to piece together my plan, I've learned that its scope is important. But this really shouldn't have been a surprise. The first step to doing action research as outlined in Action Research: An Educational Leader's Guide to School Improvement (Glanz, 2003) is "select a focus" (p. 24).

So what will my focus be? This question must be answered before I can attempt to address my instructional strategy. As someone who has approached teaching in a  much less formal manner, I am not accustomed to this amount of planning. But as planning is just as important as focus as stated by the Heath brothers, authors of Made to Stick, "The planning process forces people to think through the right issues" (Heath & Heath, 2007).

Based on the need to focus, I've changed the direction of my lesson plan. Instead of the following learning objective: To find scholarly articles on an education-related topic by constructing a successful search strategy in ERIC using controlled vocabulary, truncation, and Boolean operators; I am going to design lesson plans with this new objective in mind: Students should be able to (1) identify scholarly journal articles based on their characteristics, (2) differentiate between scholarly and poplar journals, and (3) locate scholarly journals using an online research databases.

Now that I've selected a focus, I can determine the instructional strategy that I plan to use. For the non-technology based assignment, students will be presented with approximately twelve characteristics of scholarly journal articles. They will also be presented with the characteristics of trade and professional journals as well as popular periodicals. Finally, they will be shown how to locate these types of journal articles using online journal article databases. Their assignment will be to select a research topic and to find one scholarly journal article, one article from a trade journal, and one article from a magazine on their chosen topic. They must identify the similarities and, most importantly, the differences between the scholarly journal article and the articles from the trade journal and the popular periodical by simply marking/highlighting the printed articles themselves.

For the technology enabled assignment, I will also have the students select a research topic and find one scholarly journal article, one article from a trade journal, and one article from a magazine on their chosen topic. But instead of simply marking the printed articles, I plan to use one of the data collection tools highlighted in Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. The second technology I plan to incorporate is summarizing/note taking using organizing and braining storming software also highlighted in the text. At first glance, the example that seems most fitting is the character trait note-taking template created in Inspiration which could easily be adapted to capture the characteristics of each journal article type.

Why did I chose these two instructional strategies? For two reasons: (1) Because they have the largest average effect size on student achievement as reported in Figure 3 (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007); and (2) because they complement the lesson plan and desired learning outcome. I was excited to learn more about guided note taking and the affect have on students' achievement. According to Konrad, Joseph, & Itoi, guided notes "[have] been found to improve the accuracy of students' notes, increase the frequency of student responses, and improve students' quiz and test performance" (p. 131).


Konrad, M., Joseph, L. M., & Itoi, M. (2011). Using Guided Notes to Enhance Instruction for All Students.  Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 3, 131-140.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

*****

Reflective Blog No. 1: Theory of Action

I'd like to start my third blog post with my favorite quote from "An Introduction to Action Research: It's Not All That complicated" that I found most reassuring at this point in the course, "Any graduate student is capable of readily applying sound research strategies to solve real problems in schools. Don't avoid research simply because it seems complicated. It's really very simple..." (Glanz, p. 22).

As a librarian who has responsibility for teaching bibliographic instruction sessions to CMU off-campus and online courses, I am interested in applying action research to my instruction practices. But where to begin? The text provided a simple, straight-forward approach outlined in four steps: (1) select a focus, (2) collect data, (3) analyze and interpret data, and (4) take action (Glanz, p. 24).

Selecting a focus has proved to be a somewhat difficult task so I was appreciative of the following questions for reflection (Glanz, p. 29):

1. What concerns me?

One of my most pressing concerns is based on my observation that many, if not most, graduate level students are unaware of how to construct success search strategies to find scholarly journal articles. 

2. Why am I concerned? 

During a typical instruction session, off-campus librarians highlight all of the library services and resources. When visiting an education course, I'll show students the best education-related databases for finding journal articles on education-related topics (e.g., ERIC, Education Abstracts, etc.). But I fear we spend too little time actually teaching them how to use these resources. As with any educational technology tool, students need to know what they're doing in order for the technology to enhance what you're doing. If they don't know how to construct a solid search strategy, the database won't do it for them.

3. Can I confirm my perceptions?

I should be able to confirm my perceptions by administering pre- and post-tests in order to measure students' level of understanding before and after instruction sessions.

4. What mistakes have I made?

I touched on these mistakes when addressing my concerns: Librarians spend too much time promoting their services and resources, and not enough time on teaching solid research skills.

5. If I was able to do it again, what would I do differently?

First, I'd assess students' level of research knowledge and then I'd focus more time and attention on how to construct a good search strategy before introducing the databases. Finally, I'd assess what they learned from the session. And most importantly, I'd get the students involved with hands-on exercises instead of simply "showing" them how do things via a boring lecture.

6. What are my current options?

Because bibliographic instruction sessions are only a one-time, one hour event, time is extremely limited. With so many options for instruction, I have to be focused in my approach. Covering everything isn't an option. So I must focus on building a strong foundation.

7. What evidence can I collect to confirm my feelings?

I can collect data on students' perceived success rate when searching before and after an instruction session. I can also collect data on specific research-related activities such as students' use of controlled vocabulary, truncation techniques, and use of Boolean logic.

8. Who might be willing to share their ideas with me?

I've already spoken with a colleague of mine who teaches a one-credit library course on-campus at CMU. We've discussed ideas for lessons plans which I am considering.

9. What have been my successes?

My biggest success is always those students who express excitement about the library services and resources available to them. I also count as a success comments like "wow, this is awesome" or "I wish I had known about this sooner". 

10. How might I replicate these success?

I'd like to hear these comments more frequently and might be able to do so by implementing technology that would enable me to reach more students at their point of need.

The following keywords resonated with me as I read the text. Hopefully, they will guide me as I conduct my own action research: problem-solving, self-reflection, decision-making, and user needs. The importance of reflection was perhaps one of the biggest takeaways. As someone who easily gets bogged down in the daily grind, I will follow the advice given and set aside time at the end of each day to reflect upon problems to be solved, successes gained, opportunities for improvement, and ways to get there!

Glanz, J. (2003). Action Research: An Educational Leader's Guide to School Improvement (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

*****

Wikipedia

When contemplating the "Wikiality" assignment, my first inclination was to do option A: "Select a non-education related entry on Wikipedia.org and 'modify' the entry with incorrect information" noting if and when a correction was made to my change. This sounded simple enough. The entry I chose was the United States Constitution because the dates and facts associated with this topic are well-known and indisputable in that they can be traced back to original, historical documents. Thus, any change made with incorrect information would surely be corrected within the three days the assignment allotted. Or so I suspected. But alas, I will never know. Why, you ask? Because I was way more uncomfortable making such a change than I thought I would be.

As a librarian, I belong to a profession that places a high value on the credibility and authenticity of information. A librarian's purpose, if you will, is connecting accurate, reliable information with those who seek it. So option A was out of the question.

Once I determined option A was not for me, I dove into option B by comparing the Wikipedia entry on school voucher to the same entry found in the Encyclopedia of American Education, Second Edition. What I found surprised me and changed my point of view. I am librarian who, until now, thought that most librarians were generally opposed to Wikipedia. But its reputation is apparently changing.

According to my own boss, Timothy Peters, Director of Information Services at Central Michigan University, "Wikipedia should be treated like any other source...People should look at the sources the author cites and see if they did their homework" (After 10 Years, Wikipedia Changes Research Scheme, Central Michigan Life, para. 4).

Armed with an opened mind, I examined the Wikipedia entry and the encyclopedia entry from a librarian's perspective, paying close attention to: (1) scope, (2) authority, (3) ease of use, and (4) currency. This is what I discovered:

Wikipedia's scope: Extensive with the following categories: Background, History, Definitions, Controversy (Proponents and Opponents), Implementations (Chile, Europe, Hong Kong, United States), Legal Challenges, and Political Support. Lists of Further Reading and External Links were also included.
 
Encyclopedia's scope: Surprisingly limited scope with only two paragraphs.

Wikipedia's authority: I didn't expect to find as many cited sources as I did. Based on what I found, I was pleasantly surprised. There were sixty-six (66) references in total. Also lending credibility was a disclosure stating that the information was from the United States’ point of view rather than a worldwide view of the subject.
 
Encyclopedia's authority: The brief entry was followed by a mere three references one of which appeared to be rather biased based on its title alone, "Educational Vouchers: The Private Pursuit of the Public Purse" (Butts, NYT, September 1979).

Wikipedia's ease of use: Hyperlinks to related entries throughout made for easy cross referencing and the overall entry was well organized with seven main categories.

 Encyclopedia's ease of use: The index contained "school voucher" and listed four page numbers which were dispersed among all three volumes. Three of the four entries were only related topics.

Wikipedia's currency: Page last modified on 21 January 2011 at 10:52.

Encyclopedia's currency: Published in 2001.

Until now, my use of Wikipedia has been limited to personal use and to gather background information on a topic when a student's request is a little spotty, lacking context, or is simply difficult to understand. But based on my comparison of these two entries, my viewpoint has changed. Instead of treating Wikipedia as an unreliable source, I will begin to use it more frequently. But I'll use it responsibly; verifying the sources cited. It’s an excellent starting point and one that I’ll be using with less hesitation in the future: an educational tool to enhance my future research.

School Voucher. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

Tighe, M. (2011, January 21). After 10 Years, Wikipedia Changes Research Scheme. Central Michigan Life.

Unger, H.G. (2001). School Voucher. In Encyclopedia of American Education (Vol. 3, pp. 948). New York: Facts on File.

Plagiarism

As a new student in Central Michigan University's Educational Technology program, I approached the first assignment with a mixture of excitement, anticipation, and -- to be honest -- a bit of trepidation. As a librarian at CMU, I am very familiar with the reality that plagiarism is a growing concern on most college campuses today. But aside from assisting students with APA style questions, I had no previous experience using educational technology tools such as SafeAssign to detect plagiarized content. So the question of whether or not an essay made up of 90% plagiarized content could "trick" SafeAssign by assigning a score less than 90% was intriguing.  

Although multiple submissions were allowed in order to reach a score below 90%, I was pleasantly surprised to find that my essay -- which contained the required 90% of plagiarized content -- yielded a score of 44%. Perfect! No need to resubmit my essay and wait for a new score. But the implications of this score quickly began to take on new meaning. My score wasn't perfect at all. Far from it. Much to my surprise, nearly half of my plagiarized content was undetected by SafeAssign!

The SafeAssign report revealed a total of seven suspected sources, including an international newspaper, a university's web page, three different blogs, and another student’s paper. Although I obtained none of my plagiarized content from any of these secondary sources, nearly all seven suspected sources referenced the same primary source. Which begs the question: which source should be cited? It's not always easy to tell.

When considering this dilemma, I was reminded of a student who called the library to get help in understanding the concept of plagiarism. But instead of insisting that “everything belongs to everybody” (Fish, 2010, para. 11), he couldn’t grasp why he shouldn’t cite his entire paper. Because not even the ideas were his own. Unfortunately, as concerned as this student was, he seems to be the exception.

As I pondered how easy it was to cut and paste blocks of text to "create" an essay, I began to give more credence to what seemed at first like an oversimplified statement by Gabriel (2010), "Digital technology makes copying and pasting easy…But that is the least of it. The Internet may also be redefining how students...understand the concept of authorship and the singularity of any text or image" (Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age, para. 7). But he might be onto something. If students' understanding of authorship is changing, then too must their understanding of how their work is assessed. 

SafeAssign might not be fool-proof as evidenced by the fact it was "tricked" when 46% of my plagiarized content went undetected. But maybe that's not the point. Perhaps if students were made aware tools like SafeAssign, they might be persuaded to think twice about the importance of citing their sources.

Fortunately, for the librarians at CMU's Off-Campus Library Services, the number of APA style questions is increasing. Suggesting that even though students don't always know how to properly format a citation, at least they are aware of the fact that a citation is needed. Let's hope the trend continues!


Brownrigg, K. (2010, May 24). Plagiarism and the Web: A Blunt Look at How the 'Net Redefines Ethics. Herald de Paris. Retrieved from http://www.heralddeparis.com/plagiarism-and-the-web-a-blunt-look-at-how-the-internet-redefines-ethics/89940

Fish, S. (2010, August 9). Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal. Exclusive Online Commentary From The Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/plagiarism-is-not-a-big-moral-deal/

Gabriel, T. (2010, August 1). Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html

*****