Abstract

Title: Moral Considerations when Teaching and Learning with Technology

Purpose of Session
The purpose of this session is not to advocate for moral education, per se, but rather to encourage discussion about the moral implications of the endeavor of education and more especially of teaching and learning with technology. These considerations become possibly more important to consider as technologies, including social media, change the way that students and instructors interact and as people become life-long learners involved in personal learning networks. From multiple perspectives we will discuss a) moral goals of education, b) what if any are the moral challenges of teaching and learning with technology, and c) what are the moral imperatives of teaching and learning.

Objectives of the Session
The objective of the session is for participants to discuss the moral related issues surrounding the use of technology in education. To encourage discussion, the presenter will provide some possible frameworks related to each of the major questions proposed. Then he will ask pointed questions to help participants share their views and experiences related to each subtopic.

Information and Practical Application
Many educational theorists, philosophers, and scholars have stated that education is a moral endeavor—and consequently, the moral implications and effects on students are unavoidable (Johnson, et al., 2010; Balmert & Ezzell, 2002; Berkowitz, 2002; Berkowitz & Fekula, 1999; Carr, 2005; Lewis, 1965). If this is truly the case, then it follows that there are also moral implications for the practice of teachers, designers, and administrators. To tease out these moral implications, the presentation will primarily focus on three questions.

The first question we will address is, what are the moral goals of education, and are they attainable when using technology? To encourage discussion we will look at frameworks of Performance and Moral Character from Davidson, Lickona, and Khmelkov (2008, also see Lickona & Davidson 2005), Voices of Conscience- Craft, Membership, Sacrifice, Memory and Imagination from Green (1999), Agency and Love from R. T. Osguthorpe (2009), as well as ideas from other theorists (e.g., Berkowitz & Fekula, 1999; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; R. D. Osguthorpe, 2009, etc.) to discuss if their ideas are applicable to technology mediated education.

For the second question, what are the moral challenges of teaching and learning with technology? We will explore challenges faced with the use of technology, such as copyright and fair use, plagiarism and other forms of cheating (Gismondi, 2006), privacy (including FERPA issues), predatory behavior, anonymity, pornography, distractions, disengagement from the real world, among others. Participants will be able to share ideas on how we might handle these challenges to avoid or minimize their occurrence and effects.

Finally, assuming education truly is a moral endeavor as some advocate, we will discuss the third question, what are (or should be) the moral obligations of teachers and learners when teaching or learning with technology? I will present ideas from many of the authors cited above such as, R. D. Osguthorpe, 2009, R. T. Osguthorpe (2009), Berkowitz & Fekula (1999), Johnson, et al. (2010), and others (such as Lewis, 1965, 1996, etc.).

Participants will hopefully come away from the session with questions of their owns about the moral implications of their work with educational technology, whether they are learners, teachers, designers, administrators, etc. They should also come away with ideas and resources for pursuing answers to those questions on the moral implications of their practice.

References
Balmert, M.E., & Ezzell, M.H. (2002). Leading learning by assuring distance instructional technology is an ethical enterprise. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Adult Higher Education Alliance, Pittsburgh, PA.

Berkowitz, M.W. (2002). The science of character education. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character education (pp. 43–63). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Berkowitz, M.W., & Fekula, M.J. (1999). Educating for character. About Campus, 4(5), 17–22.

Davidson, M., Lickona, T., & Khmelkov, V. (2008). Smart & good schools: A new paradigm for high school character education. In L.P. Nucci (Ed.), Handbook of moral and character education. New York: Routledge.

Gismondi, A. (2006). The downside of the Internet: Cheating and technology in higher education. Journal of College and Character 7(5). Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://journals.naspa.org/jcc/vol7/iss5/5/

Johnson, M. J., Osguthorpe, R. D., & Williams, D. D. (2010). The phenomenon of character development in a distance education course. Journal of College and Character 11(1). Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://journals.naspa.org/jcc/vol11/iss1/7/

Lewis, C.S. (1965). The abolition of man or reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools. New York: MacMillan Publishing.

Lewis, C.S. (1996). The screwtape letters (Revised ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart & good high schools: Integrating excellence and ethics for success in school, work, and beyond. Cortland, NY: Center for the 4th and 5th Rs (Respect & Responsibility), Washington, D.C.: Character Education Partnership.

Osguthorpe, R.D. (2009). On the possible forms a relationship might take between the moral character of a teacher and the moral development of a student. Teachers College Record, 111(1). Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.tcrecord.org

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Presenter

Michael Johnson
Sr. Instructional Designer
Brigham Young University

http://michaelcjohnson.posterous.com

Michael C. Johnson holds a master’s degree in Instructional Technology from Utah State University and a PhD in Instructional Psychology and Technology from Brigham Young University. He previously worked as a middle school Spanish teacher and as an instructional designer in the financial industry creating and delivering training for call center employees. He is currently an instructional designer at BYU’s Center for Teaching and Learning.

by Hugh MacLeod, Gaping Void (CC by-nc-nd)

Presenter: Chris Lott

We create, discover, discuss and exchange ideas, but what are they, really? How does an idea mean? And once we have one, can collaboration and creation of the highest order even co-exist, much less be meaningfully combined?

The contrary history of the idea of the idea, from Plato and the poets to the Perl Parrot, not only sheds new light on the contemporary world of memes and microblogs but provides valuable insight into fundamental– and too often forgotten– aspects of the practice of teaching and learning, such as fostering creativity, allowing for originality and making sense of individual insight in the connected and networked world.

We begin our presentation with an overview of Google Tools and the benefits of using them in your classroom. We will also discuss the pros and cons of using Google Tools. We will discuss methods to increase student access to information, decrease workloads, and create collaborative opportunities. The second part of this presentation will present a hands-on session that will help you work with the tools. We will cover Google Docs, Reader, Sites, and Calendar.

Purpose of presentation

With the current economic times, budgets are feeling the strain, as are teachers and faculty in both K-12 and Higher Education settings. With web 2.0 tools, specifically Google Tools, we are empowered to use the technology to decrease our budgets, create a paperless environment, and introduce collaborative learning environments into our curriculum.

The researchers work to empower teachers to embrace our digital natives and create a world of digital immigrants that are comfortable with the technologies and are given new opportunities to empower their students to reach new heights. Students often feel that they must ‘power-down’ when they enter the classroom. It is our desire and passion to help teachers and faculty feel comfortable with these learners. In order for our students to compete in the current job market, they must be cross-trained in all aspects of life and their curriculum with technology. Those who can meet the demands of the current job market will reach the highest levels of success. When we keep students away from technology, due to fear and lack of training, we take away opportunities that are readily available overseas.

Objectives of the presentation

Part 1 of this presentation works to:
•    empower faculty/teachers to take control of their classrooms
•    introduce collaborative learning environments into your curriculum
•    create collaborative communities of practice among cooperative teachers
•    create a paperless learning environment

Part 1 of this presentation is a theoretical introduction to Google Tools. We will share our classroom sites and other examples of practical uses of the technologies.  Attendees will leave this seminar/session with resources found on Google docs.

Part 2 of this presentation works to:
•    present Google Documents and gives pros and cons as compared to Microsoft Word
•    present Google Spreadsheets and gives pros and cons as compared to Microsoft Excel
•    present Google Presentations and gives pros and cons as compared to Microsoft PowerPoint
•    present blogging as a method of reflection for both students and faculty
•    present Google Reader as a method of managing blogs
•    present Google Calendar as a method of organizing classes and curriculum
•    present Google Sites as a wysiwyg method of creating websites

Part 2 of this presentation is a hands-on seminar that will allow attendees the opportunity to create accounts and begin the process of creating digital resources. Attendees will leave this seminar/session with working models of the aforementioned tools.

Practical applications

Faculty can use the tools to create collaborative opportunities that previously were more difficult to set-up.  Students can collaborate with other students throughout the US and worldwide.  Students are given the opportunity to work in collaborative groups without regard to other team members’ schedules, opening up opportunities and engagement. Faculty can keep all resources digital and can carry their documents from computer to computer. Students and faculty enjoy access to documents from the web which leads to lighter backpacks, lower copy costs, reduces lost homework or hand-outs, and keeps parents informed with access to all curriculum materials.  Lesson plans are stored online and are easily accessible to substitutes and other faculty members. These tools give you immediate access from either the office or home, making grading portable and paperless.

Relationship to the conference theme

Web 2.0 tools increase the accessibility to collaborative opportunities leading to engaged students and a more involved parent support system. Everyone benefits from the use of Google tools. Students can work on projects with students at different locations across the world increasing engagement, collaboration, social connections, and cultural knowledge via new medias to which our students are native.

Information (data or theoretical base) to support what is advocated.

The researchers have integrated these resources into the classroom over a 5-year time period. The benefits of the tools and the pedagogy is well documented and tested with a great number of students, and with personal use in our curriculum.

Presenters

Sandie H Waters

Dr. Sandie Waters is an Assistant Professor in the Elementary Education Department at Utah Valley University, former Adjunct Faculty and Distance Learning Endorsement Coordinator in the Instructional Technology Department at Utah State University, and Program Coordinator of the Intern Program of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. She has previously taught and conducted research at Indiana University, Bloomington, Utah State University, and Utah Valley University.

Dr Waters’ research focuses on the integration of Web 2.0 technologies into schools and higher education, the impact of Web 2.0 technologies on collaboration and creativity, and socially responsible open education. She has taught Distance Education, Technology Integration, Computers in Education, Foundations of Education, Projects in Instructional Technology, Practicum in Distance Education, Web 2.0 Tools in Education, and Learning Theory. She is currently working on ‘backpack’ technologies and will begin working with schools, principals, tech coordinators, IT specialists, and teachers to empower them to bring 21st Century Technological Tools into Utah’s educational system in Summer 2009. She is currently writing a book regarding Web 2.0 and backpack technologies to be published by an open publisher.

Dr Waters’ personal interests include Karate (1st Degree Black Belt), Life Coaching, bicycling, hiking, blogging , facebooking, texting, IMing, and of course my friends.

Suzy Cox

Her personal interests including spending time with her family, running, reading, and exploring new technologies.

Abstract

Using Online Homework in Traditional College Math Classes or How to Grade 45,000 Homework Problems and Still Keep Smiling
Purpose and Audience

The purpose of this presentation is to present research-based results regarding the effectiveness of using online homework as part of a college math class. These online homework systems offer many potential advantages to instructors, such as the ability to provide instantaneous feedback, as well as a great deal of tutorial assistance, on each and every homework problem assigned. Other potential advantages include increasing student motivation to succeed, offering many students the opportunity to develop content mastery, and allowing the instructor more time to teach instead of grade homework.

Whether teaching online, hybrid, or traditional face-to-face classes, many instructors are considering using one of the many available and highly advanced online homework systems. This presentation will provide these instructors with research-based and anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of these systems. In addition, I will share my experiences with using these systems for the past 5 years.

Objectives

During this presentation I will:

1) Discuss the basic features and benefits of modern online homework systems. These features include immediate feedback for each homework problem. Tutorial assistance is also offered for each homework problem including the option to have the computer help the student solve the problem, the option to view a completely solved similar problem, the option to view a Quicktime video lecture which discusses the related concepts, and the option to view Flash animations which demonstrate principles and procedures. All of these features are integrated completely with the textbook.

Other features include the opportunity for students to demonstrate mastery and feel like they can succeed if they are willing to expend the appropriate effort. Students can work on each homework problem until they get it correct. This small feature often inspires students to keep trying because they want a perfect score, a result that doesn’t often happen with textbook homework.

Other benefits and features will also be discussed.

2) Discuss research results which examine these benefits. Several studies (including mine) have been performed which attempt to answer the question: do students learn more when they use online homework, with all of its bells and whistles, than when they use textbook homework. These results will be shared along with a critical analysis of their methods and conclusions.

My study additionally asked the question, do underprepared students learn more from online homework than prepared students. This question is important because more and more students are enrolling in college math class underprepared. The hypothesis is that underprepared students may benefit more from online homework because of the feedback, tutorial assistance, and motivational opportunities.

3) Discuss personal and anecdotal experiences related to using online homework systems as part of a traditional, lecture-based college math class. I have used online homework systems for 5 years as part of my face-to-face classes. I have seen the pros and the cons of such systems and will share these during the presentation. In addition, many institutions are reporting incredible improvements when they employ online homework. These results will be discussed and analyzed.

4) Discuss the challenges and drawbacks of using such systems. Some of the challenges include network crashes and software incompatibilities. Students who don’t have internet access at home also have difficulties. Other drawbacks are related to how the computer grades homework and how students enter their answers. These drawbacks will be discussed and experience-based solutions will be offered.

5) Engage the attendees in discussions relating to their experiences. I am interested in hearing how others are using online homework systems. Everyone can learn something from this discussion.

Practical Applications and Relationship to the Theme

I believe that online homework systems are one technological advance that will be part of math classes for many years to come. In the past, these systems have often been disregarded by educators because of the lack of pedagogical strength and because they required computing/networking power that was not available. However, with the problem of computing/network power largely solved both personally and institutionally, modern online homework systems are being created which offer many features and which are very adept at teaching students and helping them understand. In short, these systems are the wave of the future and educators need to be made aware of their real advantages and the research which supports them.

Information to Support What is Advocated

Davidson, A. (2004). An examination of the effects and costs of instruction that relies on computer-assisted instruction for delivering and managing homework assignments in college calculus courses. Unpublished Ph.D., The University of Rochester, United States — New York.

Hirsch, L., & Weibel, C. (2003). Statistical evidence that web-based homework helps. FOCUS, 23(2), 14.

Hurn, J. L. (2006). An analysis of the effects of online practice quizzes on the achievement, self-efficacy, and academic motivation of college algebra students at a community college. Unpublished Ph.D., Kansas State University, United States — Kansas.

Speckler, M. D. (2008). Making the grade: A compendium of data-driven case studies on the effectiveness of MyMathLab and MathXL. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://www.mymathlab.com/makingthegrade_v3.pdf.

Zerr, R. (2007). A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the effectiveness of online homework in first-semester calculus. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(1), 55.

Presenter

Shane Brewer

I have been teaching math at the San Juan Campus for eleven years. Prior to that, I taught for short periods at BYU and UVU. I have always been interested in finding new ways to use technology to enhance traditional math classrooms. From graphing calculators and computer algebra systems to wikis and complete online learning systems I have tinkered with them all in the classroom at one time or another. I am particularly interested in exploring ways in which technology can help students who have previously had less than enjoyable experiences with mathematics. I have seen many of these students respond positively to approaches which use technology and don’t just follow the same pattern that frustrated them before. When not thinking about math I play golf, chess, and go. Or I am taking my family on some death march through one of the many canyons in Southeastern Utah.

So get ready to demo something cool related to teaching with technology.