Archive for October, 2011

EDTECH501: APA 1.6 using Zotero and Google Scholar

October 26, 2011 at 10:21 PM · Filed under 3.1 Media Utilization, 3.4 Policies and Regulations, 4.1 Project Management, 4.2 Resource Management, EDTECH501, Standard 3: Utilization, Standard 4: Management

I have found the best thing since EndNote in a combo punch, and I am shamelessly endorsing them for the scholarly as well as those who are, well..less drawn to scholarly activities.

I eagerly partnered with Zotero for the software’s ability to organize my myriad wanderings and ponderings on the world wide web.  Google Scholar is another lens that brings to focus the articles I need to extract the information I am looking for – in this case, mobile learning. I am including five correct APA citations as examples of the genius of Zotero. For a quick look at the FireFox plug-in, I chose to embed Arial’s tutorial. She has a few distracting “ums” and “uhs,” but her style captured my interest.

References

Adkins, S. S. (2008). Ambient Insight. The US Market for Mobile Learning Products and Services: 2008-2013 Forecast and Analysis (p. pp. 5). Retrieved from http://www.ambientinsight.com/Resources/Documents/AmbientInsight_2008-2013_US_MobileLearning_Forecast_ExecutiveOverview.pdf

Enabling Mobile Learning (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE. (n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume40/EnablingMobileLearning/157976

Masters, K. (2005). Seeing, Understanding, Learning in the Mobile Age. Low-key m-learning: a realistic introduction of m-learning to developing countries. Budapest, Hungary, April 2005. Retrieved from http://www.fil.hu/mobil/2005/Masters_final.pdf

Mobile Learning History. (2010).Mobile Learning Community. Retrieved from http://trainandgo.blogspot.com/2010/01/mobile-learning-in-cortina.html

Moore, J. (2009). Proceedings of IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning. A portable document search engine to support off-line mobile learning. Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17441/

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: A Lesson in Patriotism

October 16, 2011 at 7:42 PM · Filed under 1.1 Instructional Systems Design, 2.4 Integrated Technologies, EDTECH501

My principal, a retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant, approached me asking that I consider having my photography students “pull something together” for a Veterans’ Day tribute. In the midst of technology glitches, out of state conferencing, and state reporting deadlines, her request seemed a breath of fresh air. The project could be done with mobile devices, and our final product would highlight the advances our district is making with technology. Coincidentally, my EDTECH501 course assignment was to develop a lesson plan that integrated a new technology. Voila! My Lesson Plan
Servicing [an] A-20 bomber, Langley Field, Va. (LOC)

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: Plagiarism; Resist the Temptation!

October 3, 2011 at 11:51 PM · Filed under 1.2 Message Design, 2.2 Audiovisual Technologies, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies, 3.4 Policies and Regulations, EDTECH501, Standard 2: Development, Uncategorized

Plagiarism (Latin plagiare “to kidnap”)

 

Plagiarism
by: brimstef

http://www.xtranormal.com/xtraplayr/12517753/plagiarism

This video (Brimacomb, 2011) covers using someone else’s work as my own (in this case “buying” a paper from a website), copy and pasting without citations, and using my own prior work without instructor permission. As these two college students talk about whether or not to go to the beach with friends, I incorporated something that I learned on this project. I was intrigued by the root (Latin “kidnap”), and found it to be useful in the script. Xtranormal is a new medium for me. I was impressed by the animation, but found the text readers somewhat difficult to understand. Nevertheless, I was excited to see how my video-graphics students became immediately engaged. I wish I could accumulate points rather than purchase them. It would make the experience more enjoyable. I used the Salmon River Joint School District Trustees’ Policy Manual (2009) as my source rather than the BSU Code of Conduct (2011), because I want to embed my video onto my high school’s home page to emphasize the three aspects of plagiarism.

REFERENCES:
Boise State University (2011). Student Conduct Program – Code of Conduct – Article 4. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from Boise State University Code of Conduct: http://osrr.boisestate.edu/scp-codeofconduct-article4/

Brimacomb, S. (2011, October 3). Plagiarism. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from XtraNormal: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12517753/plagiarism

Brimacomb, S. (2011, October 3). Plagiarism Video Discussion Forum. Retrieved October 4, 2011, from EDTECH Boise State EDTECH 501-4175 (FA11): http://edtech.mrooms.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=28525

Salmon River Joint School District Trustees. (2009, April 1). Policy 3202. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from Salmon River Joint School District 243: http://www.jsd243.org/2032101210144059403/lib/2032101210144059403/3202.pdf

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: Digital Equality?

October 3, 2011 at 10:50 PM · Filed under 1.2 Message Design, 1.3 Instructional Strategies, 1.4 Learner Characteristics, 2.2 Audiovisual Technologies, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies, 3.1 Media Utilization, 4.1 Project Management, 4.2 Resource Management, 5.1 Problem Analysis, 5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement, 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation, EDTECH501, Standard 1: Design, Standard 2: Development

Online learning seems to be the pathway to enlightenment for some and the pathway to, well….disenchantment for others. Still others may never know because they don’t have the opportunity to–or choose not to–pursue the experience. After spending several weeks trying to collaborate with my virtual team across time zones and amidst the normalcy of chaos at work and at home, I realized that online learning is far more difficult than face-to-face learning. This coming from a veteran digi-learner, no less, who lives in a society whose core values lie in industry and growth.  All this collaborating and near-instantaneous global publishing is made possible by technology that was unavailable to me after graduating from high school in the early 80’s. However, not knowing your peers and instructors impersonalizes the learning experience in a way that creates a digital divide of its own. 

The primary digital divide I noticed when researching this project is that of those who use technology and those who don’t (by choice or by circumstance is irrelevant). To what future are our digital natives (Prensky, 2001) embarking? What of our society’s values will they retain, and what values will they relinquish as the digital nature of information seeps into every aspect of their lives. Will they be more comfortable collaborating with virtual peers, or will they long for the person to person interaction that only a traditional course can offer?

After completing this assignment with four highly competent digi-partners, I am of the opinion that there is less a digital divide than a digital inequality. The inequality stems from those who know how to, and have a desire to, manipulate the myriad venues of information to gain new understanding and knowledge and those who mainly use the speed and accessibility for social pursuits.

Because I prefer balance, I felt that our final choice would address the needs of the inequality,  yet bridge the gap left by the digital divide.  Watch our VoiceThread presentation, and let me know what you think.

REFERENCES
Prensky, M. (2001, October 5). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrents. On the Horizon. University Press. Boston Retrieved September 25, 2011 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

 

 

Leave a Comment