There were a couple of things that struck me with the Module
3 reading, especially as I was actually using Web 2.0 tools for my
presentation, and as a matter of full disclosure, let me preface this entry by
saying that I will be developing an online class for educators on the use of
such tools for this course.
The first was how closely Ko and Rossen’s presentation in
Chapter 9 actually mirrored the syllabus that I had created for my own course.
I’ll admit to writing the syllabus for my own course three weeks before I
actually purchased the book. Given that this course is presented in a 7 week
format, I wanted to get a jump on things, and as I knew that some sort of
online course would be required, I decided to pursue a Multimedia Tools for
Educators course. As you can see from the attached syllabus, my syllabus and
their discussion in Chapter 9 are very similar. The one point at which we
differ is that the authors discuss creating a web page first and images second,
and I address graphics first. The reason for this, I believe, is the way we
approach creating a web page.
During my undergraduate education, I took a course in
computer graphics. At the time, I thought it would be one of those courses
where I would get any easy A and learn very little. I was half right. I did get
the A, but the instructor taught me something that has been invaluable going
forward. I intend on passing on this knowledge. The instructor had us create
something he called a “web treatment.” That is to say that he had us create a
graphical representation of a web page. To the layperson, this may not seem
entirely useful. After all, graphics don’t have dynamic content and can’t be
linked to other pages, but what he did then, in my mind, was pure genius. He
required us to split our graphical representation into different blocks and
then use those blocks to create the web page using the <div> tag in HTML.
Here’s why this was a stroke of genius. All too often, novice
web designers create their web pages as backgrounds with pasted pictures, much
like a scrapbook. Creating the template first, allows the designer to break
down their page into its component parts and then, if necessary, use javascript
to manipulate those parts as required. There is much more I wish to say about
this, but I’ll leave it for my course. Suffice to say that, like the Ko and Rossen,
I believe it’s incredibly important that an educator understand the nuts and
bolts of HTML before they move on to other Web 2.0 tools. One other area in
which we differ is in the use of WYSIWYG tools. I’m not a fan. I may be old
fashioned, but I still hand code each web page I create. It’s a bit more time
consuming, but I believe it adds a bit of elegance that page mills can’t
recreate.
The other thing that struck me about Chapter 9 was the
author’s discussion of scripted versus unscripted content. Again, I fear, we
disagree. Obviously things such as introductions should remain unscripted. The
last thing that any learner wants to see is a teacher presenting themselves
using cue cards. That being said, I feel that all presentations should be
scripted and edited prior to being utilized as an audio track. Ko and Rossen
liken the unscripted audio to a classroom presentation. They overlook one
important factor. In the classroom environment, the instructor reacts to both
verbal and non-verbal feedback, which would not be present when the instructor
is recording the audio for a presentation. It has been my experience that an
instructor who sits down at a microphone with the intent to ad lib will
inevitably end up rambling thus reducing the effectiveness of the presentation.
This is not to say that a script should be just read. An effective instructor
starts the recording process with an aural picture (how’s that for an oxymoron)
of what the lesson will sound like. With audio and video presentations, it is
imperative that the instructor see themselves as an actor addressing an
audience. They should attempt to visualize their students in front of them in
order to add the proper degree of inflection. Utilizing such tools results in
both interesting and entertaining presentations.
Lastly, where the text and I absolutely agree is the need
for students to create their own content. Far too often in multimedia courses,
the instructor demonstrates and the learner replicates. There are two things
wrong with this approach.
Students tend to approach learning with what I like to call
a math-centric approach. They desperately search for the one correct answer and
every other answer out there is wrong. I honestly believe that this is what
sparked the inclusion of rubrics for every activity under the sun. I’m going to
veer off on a tangent here, but it is something I have wanted to express for
quite a long time. My wife is English and was raise in the English school
system. After moving to the United States and attending a large U.S.
university, she spent 6 months in her homeland as a student abroad with her
American peers. She has repeatedly related to me the frustration of her UK
professors at the penchant for U.S. students to parrot the classroom lectures
and cite experts in their academic work. This is a weakness, I feel, in the
American education system. Far too often, students are looking for what the
professor wants rather than what they themselves feel. To be sure, all
statements should be supported by facts, but as an instructor, I want to know
what the students know. I want to see how they can apply the tools I’ve given
them in fun and interesting ways. I do not want to see a carbon copy of my
lesson demonstration. Wow me, make me think, make me laugh. To me, that is the
advantage that Web 2.0 tools give educators. Expression and knowledge transfer
is no longer confined to the written word and a whiteboard. There are infinite
possibilities for both teachers and learners to explore.
The second thing wrong with the demonstrate/replicate models
is that, quite simply, it sucks the fun out of learning. For adults, learning
should be both meaningful and fun. Adults in a classroom environment are
investing one of their most precious commodities, their time. They are taking
time away from their families or their jobs in order to participate in a class.
At the very least, the class should provide something they can take away, but
equally as important is the fact that it should be enjoyable. Students should
be presented with opportunities to have fun while they learn. Adults are almost
constantly confronted with serious situations, family issues, job obstacles. As
an instructor of adult learners, I believe the classroom should present an
environment where they can decompress and truly enjoy what they do.
Finally, what I’ve come away with this week is the knowledge
that the course that I will be developing in this class is entirely marketable
as an undergraduate offering. The fact that the authors discuss quite a few of
the tools that I would introduce in the course lets me know that I’m on the
right track. Additionally, the comments I received from my peers on my
discussion this week shows me that there is a desire to delve into the workings
of these Web 2.0 tools beyond a simple highlighting in a text book.
