text:
Issues in Digital Technology in Education/The Net Generation

The Rise of Net Generation

For much of our recent history, the Baby Boomer Generation (29 % of population) was the biggest population wave ever until it was surpassed by the Net Generation (30% of population).

A Brief History

Several factors explain the rise in population during the Baby Boom (1946-1964). The economy was quite strong after the war giving families the confidence and stability to have babies. The United States was considered land of promise, attracting many immigrants who were procreating with large numbers. While computer and the internet may be the technologies that have shaped the Net Generation, the television shaped the generation of the Baby Boomers. TV created a real-time world and began to consume a significant part of the day. TV was the era’s most powerful communication tool. Not only did the TV spark controversy (i.e. Elvis Presley), but it mobilized and sent messages across the world (i.e. Viet Nam war).

Immediately followed by the Baby Boom was the Baby Bust (1965-1976). During this time-period there was a great decrease in population. The Baby Boom Echo (1977-1997) followed the Bust, and resulted in the fact that many women were postponing having children to prolong youth and to advance careers. The Echo becomes the Net Generation (1990s). The Net Generation is shaped by the Web browser, e-mail (1994), cyber kids, interactive technology pours into schools; computers become indispensable, and complete social transformation results. Children growing up in the Net Generation are developing in an environment extremely different from their parents, thus causing the idea of the digital divide.

Today’s youth taking control of communication revolution. They are searching rather than viewing information; they are questioning the unchallenged; information becomes knowledge; and they are fostering critical thinking skills

Net Generation Learning''

Dan Tapscott in his critically acclaimed work growing up digital: The Rise of the Net Generation reminds educators and all readers alike, that it is high time that we abandoned the “Broadcast model of education and focus all educational endeavours on a more “Interactive” approach to learning. Tapscott defines the broadcast method of learning as one in which the teacher is someone who is considered to be an expert, someone who dispenses information en masse to groups of students. It is the receptacle theory of education if you will, one in which children/students are passive recipients of the knowledge that is transmitted to them by their teachers and is then stored in the active working memory bank. The lecture, textbook and myriad homework assignments that are dispensed at will are factors that are indicative of a broadcast method of instruction. In a Broadcast method of instruction, the curricula is created by a group ‘experts’ in a format that is believed to deliver a program that is drenched in age old tradition, tried and true methodologies that help all children learn all of the subjects in the same way. The program is executed in such a way so that all children receive the same curriculum in the same format- a one size fits all mentality much like a broadcast which when delivered reaches all people in the same way. Also, much like in a broadcast, the learning is unilateral and does not allow for an open dialogue in which the listener or student can contribute or participate in their own education.

The Interactive Learning Model

In order to meet the needs of students in the 21st century, Tapscott (1998) delineates steps that should be taken or at the very least considered in order to make the paradigm shift to an interactive learning model. (Tapscott, 1998)

1.	From linear to hypermedia learning

2.	From instruction to construction and discovery

3.	From teacher centered to learner centered education

4.	From absorbing material to learning how to navigate and how to learn.

5.	From school to lifelong learning

6.	From one-size fits all to customized learning

7.	From learning as torture as learning as fun

8.	From the teacher as transmitter to the teacher as facilitator

The Net Generation @ Play

In the past, online gaming and video games were not considered to be beneficial. Some games were considered to be very violent and many parents found video game playing to be more harmful than a violent movie or television show because the child is initiating the actions. Parents developed the fear that their children would become numb to violence and may resort to violence in everyday situations. However, one must consider the ratings of games; that should give a good idea of whether or not it is appropriate for children. Today, computer games and non-violent video games are being regarded more positively. It is believed that children have the opportunity to play with ideas, images and develop relationships with other people. They allow for playful brainstorming & playful construction of ideas. Games cater to the multiple intelligences and help children develop a healthy attitude. They provide a zest for life and openness to new, interactive experiences, help develop hand-eye motor skills and give the child a sense of accomplishment. In addition, “boys” culture is traditionally violent and aggressive. Video games help displace that violence. The net generation also greatly participates in online chatting, emailing and often develop online relationships.

References:

1. McKenzie, Jamie. (2001) How Teachers Learn Technology. Electronic School.com. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.electronic-school.com/2001/01/0101f2.html

2. McLaughlin, Laurie. (2006) Teaching the Net Generation: How Learning is Driving Technology in the Classroom. Retrieved, May 5, 2008, from http://e-advancement.csupomona.edu/publications/panorama_winter06.pdf

3. Tapscott, Dan. (1998) Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York. McGraw Hill.


text:
Using Your Dealer Management System/Automatic Data Processing/Alliance

ADP Alliance is the group responsible for the production of the w.e.b.Suite 1000 (WS1000) system. WS1000 may or may not be located at the Dealership. If it is located at the dealership, it is colloquially called Alliance, if it hosted by ADP it is colloquially called Web Suite 1000.

The Alliance is a native windows system, and as such does not have dial-in terminal access. It might however have dial-in PCAnywhere access if you bought that package from ADP.

For off-site Alliance information please refer to the w.e.b.Suite 1000.

The Alliance's customer support can be reached at: 1.866.668.5394

Exporting Inventory
Using an Alliance Web 1000, you can run the inventory using a little-known ADP application vminvent. It takes two arguements, a start date DDMMYYYY and an end date.

It will output a mutilated csv file to C:\vmimvent.

Accessing
Because the on-site version is not by default globally accessible you will have to find or create a means to access it from outside of the Dealership.

 * Many systems have Norton's PCAnywhere. With PCAnywhere you can remote into and take control of their machine with their IP and the Username and Password.
 * If you have access to the ADP VPN network, you can surely get access to the system.
 * All methods will of accessing the Alliance will require the dealer to supply you with credentials and the IP Address. ADP can tell you the address of the server on the ADP VPN if you furnish the phone number of the dealer or the ADP Client Number.
 * If all else fails use Citrix's |GoToAssist and take control of their machine in that fashion.

Technical

 * Pervasive SQL 8.x backend (.btr file store)
 * Often NetCOBOL interface

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Suicide

This book discusses the philosophical and practical issues revolving around the subject of suicide. It aims to be a scholarly discussion of the subject and not a debate, guide or recommendation. The authors do not condone or object to the conscious and reflected termination of oneself. Just as with other causes of death, accidental or inflicted, suicides are mostly about emotional and mental issues and not surprisingly different societies have arrived at different attitudes and points of view regarding suicide and these have varied throughout history. Countries with highest suicide rates include China and India taking first and second place. This topic is sensitive and it should not be for others to rationalize or establish what a proper or acceptable motivation should be behind the act. There should at least exist a degree of respect for this final act of self determination when carefully considered in all its implications, especially beyond those to the self. Finally, this book is a work in progress. Currently it has had few contributors and part of the content was absorbed from the no longer active SuicideWiki and often streamlined and complemented with content from Wikipedia so what text there is has had little review, due to the nature of the book there may be some attempts of censure and erasure, so check page histories edits when editing. Please feel free to contribute where you can in order to improve it.

Defining Suicide
In the simplest terms, "suicide" is defined as the intentional act of taking ones own life: the ending all bodily systems and functions of oneself through one's action and direction.

The act of suicide has many nuances. For example, the legal term suicide attempt typically applies to theatrical acts often committed not with the necessary goal of life termination but as a social statement or cry for help. Even inconclusive self-inflicted damage or accidental death can fall under the term suicide and suicide attempt in the legal form. In medicine there is also the term euthanasia which is a form of assisted suicide. In certain cultures, there are honorary forms of suicide which derive from: taking responsibility for one's own failures; sacrificing one's life in warfare for the perceived benefit of one's kin; and sacrificing oneself in the name of a deity and religious struggle. In this sections we will explore different definitions of suicide and discuss their merits. We will examine
 * Sub-intentional suicide
 * Self Sacrifice made for the benefit of others
 * Suicide as part of different cultures
 * Depression and other mental illness

Suicide as a means to an end
Suicide has been practiced for a long time as a means to an end. While the individual does not gain anything from the act, they may often find a goal (the advancement of an idea or ideology, the survival of family or friends, or the defense of their land) worth sacrificing their own life.
 * /Self-Sacrifice/
 * Suicide in Nature (non human)
 * Suicide in /Hinduism/ (Prayopavesa)
 * Suicide in /Buddhism/ (Sokushinbutsu)
 * Suicide in /Voodoo/ (Voodoo death)
 * Suicide in /Jainism/ (Sallekhana)
 * Suicide in /Christianity/
 * Suicide in /Radical Islam/
 * Suicide in /Paganism/ (Coronavirus party)(Bugchasing)
 * The Japanese /Kamikaze/

Honor

 * /Seppuku/ in Japan.

Involuntary suicides

 * Certain soldiers on duty have (involuntarily) committed suicides to avoid being captured alive by the enemies, to be posthumously considered heroes.

 * Forced suicides may be a way of execution, or a major crime if not legally authorized.

Flight from suffering
A major reason for suicides is the flight from some form of suffering. This can be emotional or physical suffering but either way, the thought of continued living is so overwhelming to some people that they choose to end their lives. There are arguments for and against such a decision. These include:
 * the potential for recovery which would make the person willing to continue later on
 * the feelings of those who would lose their loved one
 * the moral right to die

 * /Moral Reasoning/ (Note: the bit at the end should be moved to a page linked to from the "means to an end" page)

Common triggers
Thoughts of suicide are often brought on by external triggers. These can be crises in an individual's personal or professional life, but can be aggravated by other factors.
 * Drugs
 * Alcohol
 * Prescription drugs
 * Environmental
 * Mental torture
 * Influence of Others
 * Peer pressure, including bullying having resulted in so many suicides, even several murder–suicides
 * Hormonal dysfunction, such as during adolescence
 * Mental Condition

 * Depression

 * Self determination

Getting help

 * Suicide Hotlines for the US.
 * Samaritans is an organization to help people in the United Kingdom and Ireland. They describe themselves in this way "Samaritans provides confidential  non-judgemental emotional support, 24 hours a day for people who are experiencing feelings of distress or despair, including those which could lead to suicide."
 * Hotlines for Canada.
 * Lifeline is a support service for those living in Australia.
 * Karam And Friends Foundation working for Suicide Prevention

Considering Others

 * /Saying Goodbye/

Methods

 * /Anaphylaxis/
 * /Blades/
 * /Collision/
 * /Firearm/
 * /Diseases/
 * /Drugs/
 * /Exsanguination/ (bleeding)
 * /Electrocution/
 * /Explosion/
 * /Exposure/
 * /Immolation/ (burning)
 * /Terminal dehydration/
 * /Starvation/
 * /Toxification/ (poisons or poisonous dosages)
 * /Suffocation/ (a specific method of Toxification but at a cellular level, by refusing oxygen to normally enter the organism)
 * /Drowning/ (a particular method of Suffocation)
 * /Jumping/
 * /Hanging/ (a particular method of Jumping or Suffocation, sometimes with fatal spinal/neck injuries)

Other resources

 * /Literature/
 * Filmography
 * Suicide (at Wikipedia)
 * Suicide (at Wikiversity)
 * Death special: How does it feel to die?, in New Scientist Print Edition, 13 October 2007
 * Internet Sites Biased Towards Supporting Suicide, posted on slashdot by kdawson on Saturday April 12
 * Does the Earth's magnetic field cause suicides?, in NewScientist.com by Catherine Brahic 24 April 2008,

title: Suicide


text:
Issues in Digital Technology in Education/Blended Learning

The Concept of Blended Learning

The definition of blended learning

With the advent of digital technology blended learning takes on new dimensions and merges the best features of conventional face-to-face instruction and online learning (Graham, 2006). Today’s framework of blended learning replete with various blends and models that makes it difficult for educators to concur with a single definition of blended learning (Graham, 2006; Procter, 2003). The most common definition of blended learning is a combination of face-to-face instruction combined with computer-mediated instruction to facilitate interactive and reflective higher-order learning (Graham, 2006).

The types of blends

Blended learning is about a mixture of instructional modalities, delivery media, instructional methods, and web-based technologies (Graham, 2006). Blends of instructional modalities usually include a balanced mixture of onsite, web-based, and self-paced learning (Martyn, 2004; Picciano, 2006; Rossett, Douglis, & Frazee, 2003). To make blended learning more powerful, educators can blend various media delivery types, for instance, classroom trainings, seminars, web-based courses, CD-ROMs, video, computer simulations, books, study guides, the Internet, PowerPoint slides, etc. (Bersin, 2003). In most cases, blended learning is designed with the use of synchronous and asynchronous web-based technologies, such as chat rooms, wikis, threaded discussions, virtual classrooms, instant messaging, conferencing tools, bulletin boards, computer conferencing, blogs, etc. (Graham, 2006). Some researchers believe that incorporation of new pedagogies, learning theories, and instructional methods transform conceptually models of teaching and learning in blended learning environments (Carman, 2005). The choice of a blend is usually determined by several factors: the nature of the course content and instructional goals, student characteristics and learning preferences, instructor experience and teaching style, online resources and others (Dziuban, Hartman, Moskal, 2005).

The principles of blended learning methodology

Through the literature review, four main principles of educational design for blended learning are identified: (a) a thoughtful integration of face-to-face and fully online instructional components; (b) innovative use of technology; (c) reconceptualization of the learning paradigm; and (d) sustained assessment and evaluation of blended learning. The first principle is intended to maximize the advantages of both environments and better address the diverse students’ needs and preferences (Carman, 2005; Martyn, 2003). The innovative use of technology means that any technology should be applied in a pedagogically appropriate way and used for creating and maintaining socially situated and highly interactive learning (Vaughan, 2007). A reconceptualization of the learning paradigm entails the incorporation of new pedagogies and learning theories (e.g., student-centered, social constructivism), the development of new understandings and knowledge through students’ social interactions with a community of peers, and new roles of students (e.g., active author of content, self-paced learner) and teachers (e.g., mentors, coaches) (Dziuban, Moskal, & Hartman, 2004). And, the fourth principle of sustained assessment and evaluation of blended learning solutions is aimed to ensure the quality of education (Graham, 2006).

Benefits and challenges posed by blended learning

Potential benefits of blended learning include pedagogical richness (shifting from a presentational format to active learning); greater access to personalized learning, to resources and experts; greater flexibility and persona agency; greater accommodation for learners and teachers of diverse backgrounds; increased interaction and sense of community; and increased cost-effectiveness (e.g., reduced seat time, decreased costs)(Albrecht, 2006; Dziuban, Moskal, & Hartman, 2004; Moore, 2004; Owston, Wideman, & Murphy, 2008; Picciano, 2006; Vaughan, 2007)

Most universities face challenges to transform their instruction into a blended learning format. The four main barriers are identified: administrative challenges (lack of awareness, policies, plans, goals, support related to blended learning), re-designing courses and/or programs, faculty preparedness, and quality assurance (Cook, Owston, & Garrison, 2004; Dziuban, Moskal, & Hartman, 2004).

In conclusion, it needs to be stressed that blended learning is not just a mixture of strategies and technologies, but a holistic didactical method that combines “the effectiveness and socialization opportunities of the classroom with the technologically enhanced active learning possibilities of the online environment, rather than ratio of delivery modalities” (Dziuban, Hartman, Moskal, 2004).

References

Albrecht, B. (2006). Enriching student experience through blended learning. ECAR Research Bulletin, 12.

Bersin, J. (2003). What works in blended learning. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/bersin.htm

Carman, J. M. (2005). Blended learning design: Five key ingredients. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from http://www.agilantlearning.com/pdf/Blended%20Learning%20Design.pdf

Cook, K., Owston, R. D., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Blended Learning Practices at COHERE Universities. (Institute for Research on Learning Technologies Technical Report No. 2004-5). Toronto, ON: York University.

Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. ECAR Research Bulletin, 7. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erb0407.pdf

Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2005). Higher education, blended learning and the generations: Knowledge is power – no more. In J. Bourne and J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quartely, 1, 18-23.

Moore, J. C. (2004). ALN principles for blended environments: A collaboration. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/alnprinciples2.pdf

Picciano, A. G. (2006). Blended learning: Implications for growth and access. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(3).

Procter, C. (2003). Blended learning in practice. Proceedings of Conference on Education in a Changing Environment 2003. Salford, UK: The University of Salford.

Rossett, A., Douglis, F., & Frazee, R. V. (2003). Strategies for building blended learning. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/rossett.htm

Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.

Blended Learning in the Workplace

 Adult Learning Theories

Adult learners in the workplace have very specific learning needs. Knowles, the father of adult learning, posited that adults preferred learning when learning is relevant, self-directed, experienced based, problem based (rather than subject based) and delivered in a social context. (Knowles, 1990)  Experiential learning theorist Kolb, postulated that adult learning occurs in a cyclical pattern, where the learning takes place through the steps of experience, reflection, conceptualization and then application in the workplace. (Kolb, 1984) Finally, research by Wenger on learning as social participation, suggests that the social context of learning is important to adults. (Wenger, 1998) These three theories establish the backbone of workplace course design today and are the basis for the interest in blended learning.

Organizational Drivers and Needs for Blended Learning

Workplace training evolves as employers continuously seek ways to optimize their training investments. In the development of his Learning Management Maturity Model, Moore noted that companies mature through the stages of the learning management process. Least mature companies are at an ad hoc level, and develop through managed-learning, competency-driven learning, integrated-performance and end at the highest level of maturity, an optimized-workforce. He explained that organizations have various degrees of sophistication in how they plan, direct, and account for resources, participants and outcomes of learning activities within their learning management systems.(Moore, 2003)  Because organizations are at different maturity levels they require different learning solutions. Workforce size, budget, geographical location, organizational performance objectives, learning content and learners’ individual needs dictate learning design.(Singh and Reed, 2001)  Benefits of Blended Learning

Adult learning principles, organizational maturity and advances in technology collectively point to blended learning as in increasingly optimal method for workplace learning. Numerous studies have demonstrated that blended learning can outperformed instructor-led and e-learning programs in accuracy and speed of job performance. (Thompson Job Impact Study, 2003) Blended learning can capitalize on adult learning needs and workplace maturity by providing self-directed, relevant experiential learning, social interaction, and access to knowledge, at the same time as being cost effective and efficient. For the organization, blended learning can also extend the reach of the program, optimize development costs and time and accelerate the dissemination to knowledge to vital channels.(Singh and Reed, 2001) Basically, blended learning can deliver workplace learning to the organization and the learner in a highly flexible and customized manner.

Strategic Blending: A conceptual framework

In the context of optimizing organizational performance while engaging the learner, Yoon and Lim redefine blended learning as Strategic Blended-Learning and Performance Solutions. They suggest that this type of blended learning is: “…a purposeful mix of delivery media (particularly face-to-face and various forms of technologies) to improve learning/performance solutions which are derived from the goals and needs of an organization.” (Yoon and Lim, 2007)

Yoon and Lim design a conceptual framework that considers five interrelated phases that form a strategic connection between the goals and needs of an organization, performance solutions and delivery methods (instructional and non-instructional).

The five procedural phases include:

1)	Strategy and needs analysis - In this phase long term business and human resource strategies are reviewed, along with tasks, employee needs, work systems, costs and benefits and existing technology infrastructure. 2)	Performance solutions – Both instructional and non-instructions modes of learning reinforcement are considered at this phase. Non-instructional techniques might include feedback, reward systems, resources or institutional support. Based on the performance objectives of the organization; learning theories and component display theory point to the balance of face-to-face vs technology that should be employed in the blended learning strategy.

3)	Delivery media – It is at this point of the process that the specific e-learning technologies and face-to- face learning design techniques are identified.  The authors use the e-learning structures identified by Driscoll (Driscoll, 2002) and Rossett (Rossett et al., 2003) to determine the right mix of approaches.

4)	Strategic blending - Instructional effectiveness, budget, frequency of need, and learner expectations are considered at this phase in the context of the organization’s performance goals.

5)	Evaluation and improvement – In this phase, the inputs and outputs of the strategic blended learning activity are evaluated. The solution would be evaluated on efficiency, effectiveness, cost and the ultimate achievement of the performance outcomes. (Yoon and Lim, 2007)

Practical Application

According to a 2003 survey of “Blended Learning Best Practices” by The Learning Guild, over 85% of organizations are using blended learning for the creation and/or delivery of educational content. The experience of respondents has been positive, with more than 76% saying blended learning was more effective than classroom training, and 73% suggesting that blended learning had a higher learner value/impact than non-blended processes. Over 36% of the respondents used 6 to 10 different components in their blended program. The top five components were classroom instruction, interactive web-based training, email communication, self-paced content, and threaded discussion. (The Learning Guild, 2003)

Conversely, survey respondents indicated that their top five obstacles to implementing blended learning were lack of budget, choosing the right strategy, lack of senior management buy-in, inability of developers and/or trainers, and inadequate technical infrastructure.

Summary

Blended learning is a widely used and effective method of workplace training in companies with mature learning management systems. It is more effective than classroom training and meets the needs of adult learning styles. To optimize its impact it should be tied to the organization’s strategic performance goals. Over time, as costs decrease and awareness of these systems increase, it is likely that blended learning will become the mainstay for workplace training.

Bibliography

Driscoll, M. (2002). Web-based training: Creating e-learning experiences. 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Knowles, M.S. (1990). The adult learner. A neglected species. 4th edition. Houston, Texas:Gulf Publishing.

Moore, C. (2004). Using models to manage strategic learning investments. Retrieved May 19, 2008 from http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_feature.asp?articleid=579&zoneid=31

Rossett, A., Douglis, F., & Frazee, R. (2003). Strategies for building blended learning. ASTD Learning Circuits Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/rossett.htm

The Learning Guild (2003). The Blended Learning Best Practices Survey. Retrieved May 19, 2008 from http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?action=viewonly2&id=10&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eelearningguild%2Ecom%2Fsearch%2Ecfm

Thomson Job Impact Study (2003). The next generation of corporate learning. Training and Development, 57 (6), 47.

Singh, H. and Reed, C. (2001). A White Paper: Achieving Success with Blended Learning. Centra Software White Paper Series. Retrieved May 19, 2008 from www.centra.com/download/whitepapers/blendedlearning.pdf

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Yoon, S-W and Lim, D.H. (2007). Strategic blending: a conceptual framework to improve learning and performance  International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 475-489.

 Blended Learning in the EFL Setting

 Blended Learning Definitions for EFL

Blended learning is a relatively new ‘pedagogical’ approach to instruction. In the English as a foreign language (EFL) setting blended learning (BL) is only just beginning to take stride. There are many definitions of BL but at the core of all the BL definitions implies a combination of face-to-face and online as components of the pedagogy (Graham, 2006). In the EFL setting social interaction is needed to facilitate language outcomes (Vygotsky, 1987). Therefore, blended learning in the EFL setting can be defined as a pedagogical approach that combines the effectiveness and socialization opportunities of the classroom with the technologically enhanced active learning possibilities of the online environment (Dziuban, Hartman, Moskal, 2004). What are the learners’ needs teachers should be aware of when implementing BL in the EFL setting? What are some constraints of BL that teachers need to understanding? How does the methodology enhance the learning and thus facilitate the students overcoming the constraints of the EFL setting?

The Needs of the EFL Setting

The EFL setting differs from the ESL setting in that most EFL countries the students have little or no access to the target language community (Cummins, 2001; Baker, 2000; Graddol, 2006). This means understanding of socio-pragmatic discourse, cultural understanding (Duff, P. & Uchida, Y. 1997) which affects literacy, speaking and listening, and exposure to literacy genres is limited or non-existent (Al-Jarf, 2006). Therefore, students’ who may be grammatically correct when speaking lacks experience with the proper meaning and context of the language. The EFL learner differs from the ESL learner in three important aspects: a) a lack of socio-cultural exposure b) the lack of chance to practice meaningfully (Oxford, 1990; Spada & Lightbown, 1996) c) the lack of high frequency exposure of English (Lee, K., 2000, O’Donnell, T.). As we will see later BL can eliminate or at least diminish many of these constraints. First, teacher awareness within this new pedagogy will be examined.

Constraints for the Learners

There are three areas that can constrain the learner and they are; the design and content of the program, the teacher training, and awareness of how the student is processing the new language learning environment. When designing a program the teacher should remember that the context of learning might not always be culturally appropriate for the students (Duff, P. & Uchida, Y., 1997). Another factor in the design of the program that needs consideration is for the standardizing of content and testing. The teacher needs to upgrade and learn technology skills. This is so they are aware of how to properly utilize the tolls so to avoid a mismatch of the learning content and technology. A big mistake teachers should avoid is using technology for non-target reasons (das Neves Seesink, T., Dissertation, 2007). Finally teacher must become aware to check in with the students feelings about the programs (das Neves Seesink, T., Dissertation, 2007). Research has shown that sometimes e-learning produces anxiety in students (das Neves Seesink, T., Dissertation, 2007). Language learning is ultimately about communication therefore the teachers need to balance face-to-face with online so to avoid anxiety (Al-Jarf, 2006).

Benefits of Blended Learning for the EFL learner

One thing absent in the EFL setting is the target language culture. E-learning can allow access to target language culture through the use of YouTube videos, meaningful situational interacting videos, blogs, chat rooms etc. (Duff, P. & Uchida, Y. 1997). These ‘tools’ enable the EFL student to have more access to native speakers. Using tools such as blogging, wiki pages, and brainstorming aid the student with overcoming academic literacy issues (Al-Jarf, 2006).Not only can blended learning provide safe way to practice chatting without the fear of the native speaker presence. The distance created from the online atmosphere helps to relax the student’s research has found (Al-Jarf, 2006). This real life online exposure can enables strategy use in the process of reading and writing (Al-Jarf, 2006). Strategy use to solve a problem facilitates the increase in self-direct learning (Barenfanger, O., 2007). The 24 access nature of online learning coupled with the reality practice of face-to-face allows for more practice (O’Donnell, 2006). Researchers have found that the e-learning component of the blended course gives the student a chance to revisit lectures (Graham, C.,). Overall blended learning offers more affordances than constraints.

Pitfalls of Blended learning that EFL Teachers Should Avoid

When designing a blended learning program the needs of the students must be balanced with the outcomes expected by the institution. Teachers as good as they may be in the traditional classroom need further training so that implementation of the course is not hampered by a mismatch of content and technology. Finally the teacher and the students need to understand the collaborative nature of the new learning endeavor so that a balance will be struck and motivation to learn will remain.

References:

Al-Jarf, R. (2006) Impact of Blended Learning on EFL College, Riyadh: Readers, King Saud University.

Baker, C. (1991). Foundations of Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Barenfanger, O. (2005) Learning management: A new approach to sturcturing hybrid learning arrangements. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 14-35.

Cook, K., Owston, R. D., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Blended Learning Practices at COHERE Universities. (Institute for Research on Learning Technologies Technical Report No. 2004-5). Toronto, ON: York University.

Cummins, J. (2001). An Introductory Reader to the Writings of Jim Cummins (C.Baker & N. Hornberger, eds) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Das Neves Seesink, T. (2007), Using Blended Instruction to Teach Academic Vocabulary Collocation: A Case Study. Dissertation submitted to College of Education University of West Virginia.

Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. Research Bulletin, 7. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erb0407.pdf

Graddol, D. (2007). English Next- Why Global English may mean the end of 'English as a Foreign Language'. London: British Council.

Heinze, A. & Procter, C. (2008) ; Reflections On The Use Of Blended Learning.

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1996) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educause Quartely, 1, 18-23.

O'Donnell, T. (2004)Learning English as a Foreign Language in Korea: Does CALL have a place?, Asian EFL Journal,1-27

Lee, K. (2000). English Teachers’ Barriers to the Use of Computer-assisted Language Learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(12). Retrieved May 23, 2005 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lee-CALLbarriers.html.

Lee, S. (2000). Teaching writing using a bulletin board on the Internet: A preliminary study. English Teaching, 55(3), 171-191.

Oxford, R. & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.

Duff, P.A.& Uchida, Y. (1997) The Negotiation of Teachers' Sociocultural Identities and Practices in Postsecondary EFL Classrooms TESOL Quarterly, 451-486

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.


text:
Issues in Digital Technology in Education/Online Communities

Communities of Practice

Online Discussion Forums

There has been a push to embrace collaborative learning in education. Simultaneously, there is also an increasing demand for the integration of digital technology in education. As a result, the online discussion group has emerged. The online discussion group is a tool that allows participants to engage in collaborative learning within a digital environment, and has been established as a popular method to apply accepted learning theories through technology. Drawing on Vygotsky’s social development theory, the online discussion group provides a space for participants to engage in dialogue and develop a dynamic learning community which enhances and enriches understanding of content (Kayler and Weller, 2007).

Two major forms have come to typify online discussion: the chat and the forum. The chat is characterized as a synchronous conversation that occurs between multiple participants who are online at the same time, allowing questions and responses to be posted simultaneously. The forum, however, is asynchronous and does not occur in real-time. Therefore, participants are afforded the flexibility and convenience to provide reflective and thoughtful contributions to an online discussion at their leisure (Wall Williams et al., 2001).

Online discussions have been heralded in education for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the most valuable is the claim that online discussions allow for an enriched learning experience that results in a higher order of thinking. In her research, Meyer (2003) observed that students involved in a threaded, asynchronous online discussion tend to exhibit a higher level of thinking that may not be seen in the classroom, particularly when they contribute comments that are exploratory in nature. Meyer (2004) also identifies the value in the written document that is produced in an online discussion that can be referred to and analyzed by both student and teacher at any time for assessment purposes.

The nature of online connectivity to transform time and space has also influenced the application of the online discussion group. Research conducted by Kayler and Weller (2007) indicated that utilizing a web-based learning community is an effective means to expand teacher-student interaction time and classroom pedagogy beyond face-to-face opportunities, thereby extending the boundaries of the educational arena. Other research has indicated that online discussion, particularly asynchronous forums, allows for “unrestrained, comfortable, and flexible participation, in addition to allowing unlimited space for participants to express viewpoints as well as being able to read other group member's contributions and build on them” (Wall Williams et al., 2001, p. 151). The opportunity for students to read, analyze, and respond to the work of their peers is one that is relatively unique, and helps foster a supportive and encouraging atmosphere as well as allows students to see how others write, reflect, inquire and debate.

Like all technology, online discussion is not without its challenges. Perhaps the greatest challenge is that it has proven time consuming. Successful and meaningful online discussion requires effective planning, reading and responding to contributions, and monitoring and directing the discussion, all of which can be very time-consuming and lead to a less positive experience for both teacher and student (Parra, 2000; Meyer, 2003). In addition, a lack of participation or the tendency for simple, shallow contributions can also diminish the meaning and success of an online discussion (Kayler and Weller, 2007).

Another challenge lies in the very nature of online interaction. Online interaction can be perceived as distant and impersonal, lacking the body-language and visual cues that contribute to making meaning in a face-to-face encounter. Depending on the preferred learning style of a student or their comfort level with digital technology, opportunities for misunderstanding and miscommunication may arise (Wall Williams et al., 2001; Meyer, 2003). Other challenges hinging around accessibility and the technological skills students and teachers require to engage in online discussions also need to be considered.

References:

Kayler, M., & Weller, K. (2007). Pedagogy, Self-Assessment, and Online Discussion Groups. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 136-147.

Meyer, K. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: the role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.

Meyer, K. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101-114.

Parras, G. (2000). Learning English through online discussion groups. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(1), 36-38.

Wall Williams, S., Watkins, K., Daley, B., Courtenay, B., Davis, M., Dymock, D. (2001). Facilitating cross-cultural online discussion groups: implications of practice. Distance Education. 22(1), 151-167.

Moderating

Being a good moderator is a very difficult role. Moderators act in numerous ways to not only police an online discussion, but are also act as administrators and work to keep discussion going when it starts to falter. According to Collins and Berge (1997), “Findings included indicators of the roles of moderators acting a different times and for different lists as a filter, firefighter, facilitator, administrator, editor, promoter, expert, helper, participant, and marketer.” Feenberg and Xin add, “Teachers must adopt a dialogic style  involving students actively in the electronic classroom. Collaborative learning theory finds its most compelling realization in this setting. Online teachers must exploit this potential of the medium to create an educational experience comparable in quality to the conventional classroom. Properly performed, the moderating role in the online discussion forum can serve as a basis for this new type of collaborative learning.”

Moderators lead the way in making sure that a conference or discussion is successful. They need to act to keep the discussion on track as well as limit hurtful, unconstructive or off topic discourse. They key to being a good moderator is to develop a set of specific and explicit rules regard the behaviour of site users. These codes of behaviour should be agreed upon by all users. Furthermore, in order to create a cohesive community and improve discussion, the users themselves should help to create these rules. It is important to understand that good moderators act as teachers, facilitating discussions toward specific outcomes. It is important to understand that the skills needed to be successful in this task face-to-face can be very different from those needed online. As Chao says, “Moderating online conferencing is as important as conducting discussion in class. You want to create a friendly, non-threatening atmosphere so students feel free to speak of their minds. You want to make sure the discussion is on topic and everyone participates equally. There are even tactics to increase participation and to avoid potential conflicts between diverse perspectives. The need for moderating discussion in class and on line is the same but the techniques vary significantly.”

While the need for moderators in online discussion groups is significant when dealing with classrooms moving to online spaces, more and more message boards and online discussion forums (youtube, myspace, facebook, etc.) employ few moderators. Instead they rely on users to self-moderate, or to effectively use peer pressure to help keep the discussion flowing and safe for all users. This is similar to Wikipedia in that while one user can do a lot of damage by vandalizing an article, any other user can easily and quickly undo the damage at any time. Online discussion groups rely on these moral users to police their message boards.

Moderators walk a fine line in online discussion groups. Yet it is only through their use that elearning communities can flourish. While self-moderating works for general discussion boards, any system devoted to learning must allow for facilitators to model proper interactions and keep the peace.

Bibliography

Chau, Tracy. Resources for Your Teaching: Articles and Tips. University of Alberta, Arts Resource Centre. Online at: http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/TLC/teaching/articlestips/moderating_conferences.htm

Collins, M.P. and Berge, Z.L. (1997). Moderating Online Electronic Discussion Groups. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. March 24-28.

Feenberg, Andrew and Xin, Cindy. A Teacher’s Guide to Moderating Online Discussion Forums: From Theory to Practice. Textweaver.org. Online at: http://www.textweaver.org/modmanual4.htm


text:
Issues in Digital Technology in Education/Accessibility and Usability

What is Web Accessibility?

Web accessibility in an extension of the inclusion movement whereby all components within society and the environment in which we live are available and readily accessible to everyone, including people with a disability. “It is essential that the Web be accessible in order to provide equal access and equal opportunity to people with disabilities.” (WAI, p.2)

"The potential of the Internet is access for anyone to anything from anywhere at anytime." (Wall & Sarver, 2003, p. 1)  In the age of technology, the internet has opened up the world to everyone, in particular for those individuals with a disability. The internet has provided unprecedented opportunities for individuals to access information, make life choices and improve the quality of life. According to Berry (1998) “the Web is becoming an everyday part of life for many people” (p.1).

Magnitude of the Issue

According to Statistics Canada (2006) there are 4.4 millions Canadians (1 in 7) with a disability. Disability is multi-faceted and can include a visual or auditory impairment, physical limitations, cognitive issues, speech impairment, a neurological issue and/or multiple diagnoses. Not all individuals with a disability encounter issues when using the internet or other forms of technology, however a significant number require some type of assistance.

World Wide Web Consortium

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was established in the 1990s to serve as the governing body for the web. The Web Accessibility Initiative, stemming from the W3C, was established in 1997 for the purpose of promoting web functionality for people with disabilities and establishing accessibility guidelines for use by web developers. (Introduction to Web Accessibility (n.d.))

Students with a Disability and Postsecondary Education

For students with a disability the issue of access to education has become very important, in particular access in relation “to the environment of the Internet” (Rowland, 2000, p.1). According to Rowland (2000), “the web is a fundamental tool in postsecondary education” (p.3). Rowland (2000) further adds that “the intent of postsecondary education is to help prepare an educated citizenry to become participatory, productive members of our country’s workforce and society” (p.3). If the internet is not accessible to students with a disability then it limits the student experience and the capacity to learn and succeed.

Wall and Sarver (2003) stated that “a postsecondary education is no longer a luxury of the wealth but a necessity for anyone who wants to enjoy a decent lifestyle” (p.282). In 2005, the Government of Ontario implemented the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Within this legislation, all businesses and organizations, including institutions of higher learning will be required to eliminate all barriers which limit accessibility. (Government of Ontario, 2005)

Educational administrators need to be aware of the legal, economic and social ramifications for not providing access to barrier-free educational opportunities. Administrators and students alike must work together to ensure that an accessible education includes appropriate access to the internet. As stated by Wall and Sarver (2003) “Use of the internet means access to a world of information. Thus, it is important that students with disabilities have the same access to the internet as other students.” (p.278)

References

Berry, Jonathan (n.d.). Apart or a part? Access to the internet by visually impaired and blind people, with particular emphasis on assistive technology and use perceptions. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from Rochester Institute of Technology Web site, http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv06n3/article2.htm

Government of Ontario (2008). About the accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2005. Toronto: Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Introduction to Web Accessibility (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.w3org.WAI/intro/accissibility.php.

Introduction to Web Accessibility (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://www.webaim.org/intro.

Rowland, Cyndi (2000). Accessibility of the internet in postsecondary education: Meeting the challenge. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from WebAIM Web site, http://www.webaim.org/articles/meetchallenge/

Statistics Canada (2007). Participation and activity limitation survey. The Daily. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071203/d071203a.htm

Wall, P.S. and Sarver, Lee (2003). Disabled student access in an era of technology. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 277-284.

Tools and Parameters for the Design of Accessible Web Sites

''“The power of the web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”'' Tim Berners-Lee

In this Web 2.0 environment, attention (and criticism) has turned to how design of online environment must be aware of the diverse needs of the segment of users with disabilities. Of late, there has been a deluge of academic papers on this subject offering many solutions to this social and technological challenge. “Technological” because it is often that assistive technology is required to overcome the lack of access for disabled users.

''““Technical accessibility is not enough to make a website easy to use. The real question is whether users can get what they want from a website in a reasonable amount of time and whether the visit is pleasant for them. Users with disabilities are human and need easy and simple user interfaces just like anybody else.”'' Jakob Nielsen

When considering the creating and designing of accessible website, the designer(s) must consider the following criteria in order to evaluate and finally measure, the approachability and usability of the site:

'''• Content • Organization and Navigation • Performance • Compatibility • Interaction • Visual Design'''

To define the word design, one must be aware that in the online environment, design needs to be considered from the following points of view:

• Graphic design: Visual communication of information • Information design: Identifying groups of related content; structuring info into a coherent whole • Navigation design: Designing methods of finding one’s way around the info structure • User interface design/Info Architecture: Primarily, the design of navigation systems; combination of info design and navigation design

And in some cases,

• User experience design: More esoteric design based on the psychology of online consumer behaviour and buying habits

Examples of sites who have employees responsible for this burgeoning area of design include: Amazon, EBay, Apple, Nike, Mercedes-Benz, Mac Cosmetics, Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts and other category leaders that rely on a personal relationship sell and corresponding user loyalty.

Tools of Web Design

The majority of web deign is conducted using a small cadre of the actual software available. They include, but are not limited to:

• Macromedia Director, Flash • Adobe Illustrator • ''Photoshop • Dreamweaver • Visio • BBEdit''

Further, the range of products that can be used for specific needs and areas of customization is almost limitless and includes many other nascent digital tools.

Assistive technologies to permit a range of disabled persons to interact with websites are now available and have revolutionized the impact with the disabled segment. Visually impaired, hearing impaired and many other users who have up until now, been marginalized because of a lack of creative and technological vision, are expecting to be able to use most major web sites who have seized the opportunity to attract and retain new customers/users.

“In most projects, accessibility has fairly low priority because project managers underestimate the number of people who are impacted by design problems…” Jakob Nielsen

The revenue generated by this group of people, by online participation, is estimated in the billions (See Danielle Chateau’s posted presentation on accessibility for citation.). Partly due to this progress is being made on a number of fronts when analyzing online communications for disabled users. However, of concern to note anecdotally, in the 2nd edition of the very popular series “Web Design For Dummies”, there is absolutely no mention of accessibility and/or usability in the entire 316-page book. This indicates a significant disconnect between what many governments have mandated (President Clinton’s online accessibility bill, for example) and the marketplace in general. In time, I have confidence that this will change. The most powerful force in today’s society–the consumer– will demand it.

Citations & Sources

Lopuck, L., Web Design For Dummies, Hungry Minds, Inc. New York, 2001.

Newman, M. W., and Landay, J. A., Sitemaps, Storyboards, and Specifications: A Sketch of Web Site Design Practice, Group For User Interface Research, 2000, (263 – 274)

Nielsen, J., Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing, 2000.

Taylor, M. T., Salces, F. S., Duffy, A. P., Teaching web site design: science or art? Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 29, No. 4, Nov. 2005 (331 – 340)

Walker, K., Theoretical Foundations for Website Design Courses, Technical Communication Quarterly, Winter 2002, Vol. 11 No. 1 (61 – 83)

Wang, F., Hannafin, M. J., Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments, Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 53, Number 4 / December, 2005, (5-23)

The Reality of Internet Filtering/Blocking By G. Chabrol.

While every educator will agree that the value of the computer and the Internet as an educational aid to learning is no longer debatable, there remain grave concerns about how much inappropriate material is on the Internet and how best to avoid it reaching students. As students become more computer savvy, this situation becomes more acute as they soon find ways to access it anyway. Besides the social (communication) and political (freedom of speech) ramifications of this issue, an additional problem is that digital technology is not static. It is constantly evolving, changing and expanding. As soon as a solution protocol is found, the technology improves and the issue of filtering is exacerbated. But is Internet filtering/blocking desirable? The overwhelming point of view in the literature suggests that it is not desireable.

The issue is succinctly stated by T. A. Callister Jr. et el. In, Just Give It To Me Straight: A Case Against Filtering The Internet:

“One of the most controversial and contentious issues surrounding the use of new information and communication technologies, especially in schools and libraries, is whether or not authorities should filter students’ access to the Internet. Like other kinds of “filter”, Internet filters keep out “bad” content while allowing “good” content to pass through (Callister et el.2004).

Callaister et el. Agrees that every parent has a right to monitor what their children are exposed to on the Internet and television. But “Schools and libraries, on the other hand, have a wider educational responsibility to expose students to a broader rang of ideas, experiences and point of views” (Callister et el.). More schools than ever are being equipped with computers with access to the internet. This is both a good thing and a problematic in other ways. It is good for the purpose of education and learning as students are hooked up to the world and there is no limit to research potential. Conversely, they can and will in all likelihood be exposed to inappropriate material, often unsolicited. It then must fall on the teacher/school to ensure a secure screening method is used. They must screen for content and be aware of the Board’s policies on this matter. Many Boards for instance have policies prohibiting the use of inappropriate language, hate material, racist comments, sexism, etc.

There are any numbers of ways to do this. For instance, computers in the lab/class could be blocked by the teacher to certain sites which are deemed inappropriate. Or, the computer could be loaded only with specific material peculiar to the curriculum thus excluding the need to use the internet. Some schools use site licenses to load DVD’s and run all programmes from it. Alternatively, where Boards of education may have their own servers, as many of them do today, access to certain sites are blocked centrally. What level of access is desired is determined by such things as grade level and Board policy. However, the practice of denial of access is a controversial issue. For instance, as noted in her book, “Access Denied”, Lynn Sutton (2006), from as far back as 2000, “the Commission On Online Child Protection presented its final report (COPA, 200) to the congress” (Sutton, p.11). Essentially, “The report stated that the best internet filtering technologies can be highly effective in directly blocking access to content that is harmful to minors, but noted that there are significant concerns about first amendment issues when filters are used in libraries and schools” (Sutton, p.11). By and large, “the vast majority of content is blocked because it is sexually explicit, though chat rooms, email and software downloads are also formats that are commonly blocked” (Sutton, p.11).

In 2004, L.B Ayre conducted a study that also looked at the status of filtering technology (Sutton, p.11). He noted that filters used several methods for blocking data: word blocking…and site blocking, which matches URLs against a list of predetermined sites (Rosenburg, 2001) (Sutton, p.11). Another commission to study the use of Internet filtering technology was the Committee to Study Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content” of the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National Resource Council” (Sutton, p.11). They found that “due to the nature of filters, ‘underblocking’ and ‘overblocking’ errors are inevitable” (Sutton, p.11). Based on this study, one of their findings was that “while the issue of underblocking and overblocking should not, in and of in itself, rule out filters as a useful tool, the extent of underblocking and overblocking is a significant factor in understanding and deciding the use of filter” (Sutton, p.12) (Thornburg ). They further noted legal challenges to government – mandated filters focused primarily on underblocking and overblocking problems” (Sutton, p.12). But perhaps their more telling conclusion is that “social and educational strategies”, more than technologies are most useful. (Sutton, p.12)

At the same time, schools, perhaps motivated among other things, by the fear of liable suites, are increasingly installing filtering technology ostensibly for the protection of students. For instance, “since 2001, the children internet protection act requires schools receiving the federal communication commissions universal service e-rate discount to install “technology protection measures” (i.e. filters) on computers with internet access” (Sutton, p.12). Because of this action, “according to Cattague and Farris (2001), the e-rate program has been largely responsible for the increase in internet access in public schools” (Sutton, p.12). This notwithstanding, Sutton argues, the individual rights to free speech remains important and would be challenged if the government should impose limits. The advantages of filters in school libraries was studied by Josh (2001), Powell and Bailey (1999). They found that the reduced chances of a student accessing “inappropriate material must be balanced against the knowledge that any kind of commercial filter will almost certainly block appropriate material, with a corresponding risk of violating students’ “first amendment right” (Sutton, p.13). This position is not unanimous however. According to some speech advocates such as Callister and Burbules, (2003); Knanich (2004) and Willard, (2003), they are quite open in their assertion that using filters are over-protective and “damaging in the long run” (Sutton, p.12).

All of this is not lost on the students. As more students become technologically savvy, they are becoming increasingly more frustrated with limitations on their Internet access in schools” (Sutton, p.13). Levin and Arafeh (2000) conducted studies that looked at the attitudes and behaviours of students using the Internet in schools. In their work, they used qualitative methods to describe these students’ reactions. They summarize the frustration by students this way: “while many students recognize the need and or desire to shelter teenagers from inappropriate material and adult-orientated commercial ads, they complain that blocking and filtering software raise significant barriers to their legitimate, educational use of the internet” (p.19) (Sutton, p.13).

In her book, “Access Denied”, Lynn Sutton (2006), noted “[B]ecause of the legal controversies surrounding the Children’s Internet Protection Act in recent years, the literature has been filled with various kinds of studies and opinion pieces on the effectiveness of filters” (p.13). She noted that the Kaiser study that is reported in Richardson, et el., 2002, looked at the differences that filters made in removing a large amount of harmless material (p.13). The authors of this study focussed their attention on adolescents’ use of the Internet for health reasons. “The objective of the study was to measure how much pornography-blocking software used in schools and libraries limits access to health information Web sites” (p.13). They found that:

“The use of filtering software in public schools is of special concern, because adolescents’ health concerns often focus on issues related to sexuality, and because those who do not have computers at home rely on schools and libraries for Internet access (p. 2888) (p.15).

The author (of this study) also stated that there is a “surprising lack of empirical studies on blocking errors” (p.15). As a methodology, they used simulations of searching of health information questions. What they found was surprising. “The results showed only minimal overblocking of litigitimate health sites at the “least restrictive” level, but significantly more overblocking at the “most restrictive” level”. (Sutton, p.14). They also noted that the amount of overblocking varied according to the topic, but such topics as “safe sex’ was blocked much more extensively than others such as breast cancer, for instance. These findings prompted the authors of the study to put forth the following warning: There may be principled reasons why some schools or libraries choose to block more than pornography, including some kinds of health information. These decisions, however, should be viewed as important policy decisions and not mere technical configuration issues to be left to network administrators” (p. 2893).

The importance of this argument is emblematic of the discourse in this field. For instance, as Sutton (2006) points out, “in a statement to the Kaiser Study, noted free speech activist Nancy Williard (2002) emphasized the dangers of oveblocking at the most restrictive level and states “this study clearly demonstrates the concerns about placing reliance on filtering software” (p.3). Countering this position, H. Auld, author of the article “Filters work: Get over it” in American Libraries (2003) believes that he study’s findings indicated that filters, when operated at their least restricted setting, posed only a minor impediment to searching for health information (for instance)” (Sutton, p.15)  Another impediment to access is that schools that implement internet blocking software will block at a minimum tens of thousands of sites inappropriately because the Web pages are miscategorised (p.15). So in effect, “the level of filter settings can be identified as a key element in the overall effectiveness of a filtering program”(Sutton, p.15).

So in conclusion, although Internet filtering/blocking software has been subjected to some intellectual scrutiny in recent years, it is fair to say that, given that there is no clear consensus on its usability, and given that the proliferation of inappropriate material is not likely to end any time soon, a good deal more needs to be done if a viable solution is to be found. In all likelihood, total agreement on this issue will not be found as the issue is too complex. But whatever is developed, a crucial caveat must be adhered to according to Kaiser. He warns “Any complete discussion of the literature on filtering technology must include an accounting of legal challenges to government-ordered restrictions on Internet speech” (p.16). As is agreed by all, protection of our children is crucial. How we go about doing this remains the challenge.

Bibliography. Auld, H. (2003). Filters work: Get over it. American Libraries, 34(2)

Callister Jr. T. A., Burbules, Nicholas C. Phi Delta Kappan, Bloominton, (May 2004), Vol 85.

Kaiser, W. A. (2000, Fall). The use of Internet filters in public schools: Double click on the Constitution. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 34(1).

Sutton, Lynn, (2006), Access Denied: How Internet filters Impact Student Learning in High Schools. Cambria Press.


text:
Issues in Digital Technology in Education/Virtual Learning Environments

What is a Virtual Environment And How did it come to be?

A virtual learning environment (VLE) or virtual world, can be defined as an interactive simulated environment accessed by multiple users through an online interface. In order to fully appreciate he capacity of a VLE one must go back to the inception of the Internet. In 1969 The United States Defense Department created ARPANET a precursor to the Internet. Fifteen years later Islands of Kesmai, the first commercial MMORPG (massive, multiplayer, role play games) was launched on Compuserve. This is an example of early "coming together" on the Internet. At this time William Gibson publishes Neuromancer. In this work Gibson explores artificial intelligence, virtual reality, genetic engineering, and multinational overpowering corporations long before these ideas entered popular culture. By using words like "cyber speak" and "cyberspace," Gibson provided the vernacular for an emerging technology and a generation. By 1992 Neal Stephenson's novel Snow Crash is published and in this work, a new vision of virtual worlds is created, contenting ideas about history, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, religion, computer science, politics, cryptography and philosophy. In the late nineties most virtual worlds fade because the hardware and bandwidth requirements are too stringent and dot-com funding dries up at the end of the millennium.

7 Commonalities to all Virtual Environments/Worlds

1. All virtual environments are populated by avatars. An avatar is a computer user's representation of himself or herself, whether in the form of a 3D model or a 2D icon. In English, the word avatar has come to mean "an embodiment or an bodily manifestation of the Divine." However, the Sanskrit word Avatara mean "The descent of God" or simply "incarnation."

2. All virtual environments provide a shared space. A place that allows many users from around the world to interact at once.

3. All virtual environments host a graphical user interface. The world depicts space visually, ranging in style from 2D "cartoon" imagery to more immersive 3D environments.

4. All the action in virtual environments takes place in real time.

5. All virtual environments are interactive, and users can alter, develop and build with the environment.

6. All virtual environments will continue if the user is not logged in.

7. All virtual environments allow and encourage the formation of in-world social groups, teams, guilds, clubs, cliques, housemates, neighborhoods, etc.

Why are Virtual Environments created?

Virtual environments have also been built for purposes other than gaming. The following section summarizes a few ways in which virtual environments are currently being used:

Commercial Gaming: Tends to focus on a singular fictional theme and consistently follows formal conventions such as character-focused avatars, progression through an interactive narrative storyline, and a series of competitive events. These environments are strongly influenced by fantasy, science fiction, and anime genres of literature and film. The majority of virtual environments in existence today are commercial gaming world. •

Socializing/ Online community building: These environments emphasize socializing rather than gaming. This environment offers a more open-ended experience and is strongly influenced by the cultures of text-based chat rooms. Although small-scale, casual games may be incorporated into a social world, participants are not necessarily there to win or play a game, but rather to socialize with other and in many cases create and decorate a personal space such as a home, room, or apartment. Social worlds tend to use settings based on idealized versions of reality. Most provide some basic building tools and the ability to host activities and events that revolve around a wide variety of topics.

Education: In most cases, educational worlds are sponsored by academic institutions or nonprofit organizations, although some educational worlds are sponsored by corporations. Educational worlds come in a wide variety of forms, including 3D recreations of museum and gallery spaces, computer programming tutorials, virtual libraries, and meeting spaces for online university courses.

Military Training: Governments are using virtual environments to train their troops. Soldiers can practice high-risk combat situations in a safe, affordable environment. A variety of situations can be programmed, and depending on human interaction, different outcomes can be explored and addressed.

Virtual Environments: Second Life

Second Life: Introduction

One of the virtual environments that has been popularized recently is Second Life. Second Life was launched on June 23, 2003 by Linden Labs. It is widely popular with individuals in their early 30s (Generation X), and, according to the Kzero research group, it has 13 million registered accounts, which makes it one of the largest virtual environments. To understand Second Life, it is important to make the distinction between virtual environments and Massively Mulitplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPG). Whereas MMORPG are games where content is designed by developers and consumed by players, virtual environments are places where residents co-construct physical and social content through socialization and collaboration. The content of many virtual environments and in this case Second Life is co-constructed collaboratively by residents through creativity, invention, taking on identities, and experimentation. “Practices of the participants, their actions, conversations, movements, and exchanges come to define the world and continually infuse it with new meanings” (Thomas & Brown, 2007).

Second Life: Environment’s Characteristics

Distributed Networks

Second Life is a complex visual and audio-based 3D environment which is characterized by distributed networks as its residents are geographically, demographically, and generationally dispersed. Thomas & Brown (2007) also suggest that the distributed networks are, at the same time, co-present as, for any interaction to take place, residents’ avatars are in the same space.

Participatory Culture and Interaction

According to Ondrejka (2008), another characteristic that makes Second Life unique is its participatory culture (culture of interacting, sharing, and collaborating) characterized by innovation and creativity. Participatory culture is integral for Second Life to function as the social and physical content of the environment is collaboratively authored, preserved, modified, and maintained by its residents (Robbins quoted in Arreguin, 2007) through the process of what Yowell (Yowell quoted in Arreguin, 2007) and Thomas & Brown (2007) call networked imagination. To explain this further, it is the collective or network imagination of Second Life residents that leads to the creation of urban and natural spaces where the residents congregate, and it is the collective imagination of the residents that results in defining the purpose to meet in those spaces. These purposes can range from social gatherings to educational initiatives such as lectures or workshops. Because it is the residents of Second Life who are the creators and developers of the physical and social content, the quality and complexity of this virtual environment depend entirely on residents’ agency, that is, their willingness, frequency, and quality of interactions.

It is up to the residents to decide to what degree they become involved in this space. This, according to Ondrejka (2008), largely depends on residents’ needs, desires, and constraints. It is also worthy to point out that, in contrast to interaction in other Web 2.0 applications such as blogging, wikis, or microblogging which is sequential, the interaction in Second Life and other similar virtual environments is always synchronous.

Learning as Social Practice

Because the content is co-constructed by its residents, Second Life is an environment where learning occurs through social interaction. Ondrejka (2008) labels it as peer-to-peer pedagogy, learning which is modeled on the apprenticeship model put forward by Vygotsky (Vygotsky, 1978) and which takes place in communities of practice created by learners (Wenger, 1998). “Rather than requiring learners to become proficient in all Second Life skills, students are encouraged to become dependent on each other’s talents and strengths to the point of leading and teaching each other” (Arreguin, 2007). Learning in Second Life is predominantly driven by the needs of the individual. Ondrejka (2008) points out that there is no pre-set curriculum and that learning is regulated primarily by the needs of the learners. According to Robbins (Robbins quoted in Arreguin, 2007) knowledge is pulled by the learners rather than pushed at a student. Robbins also stresses that the roles of the learner and instructor change as a result of this; the learner becomes an instructor and the instructor becomes a learner. Learning in Second Life occurs through formal and informal instances that include conventions, conferences, workshops and demonstrations organized and led by more experienced residents or through informal peer-to-peer synchronous voice or text chats. Learning in Second Life is also supported by exchange of knowledge, expertise, and information through a mush-up of technologies that are adjacent to Second Life. Thus, Second Life residents continue to learn by interacting outside of Second Life by writing blogs, collaborating on wikis, joining facebook groups, exchanging twits on twitter or other microblogging applications, or participating in conversations on listservs, sharing images on flickr, and sharing resources on delicious or other social networking sites.

Second Life: New Learner/Shift in Learning

Researchers who are exploring virtual environments point out that these environments are important to analyze for educators to understand what the characteristics of the 21st century learners are and how learning is changing as a result of these learners’ participating in these environments. Thomas & Brown (2007) argue that virtual environments exemplify a new type of learner and a significant shift in learning. Because residents can create new identities and take on new roles, the concept of identity expands. According to Thomas & Brown (2007), learner’s identity cannot be considered binary anymore (real life vs. virtual reality identity), rather, they argue, an individual’s virtual reality identity is supplemental to real world identity. Because of the semiotic characteristics of virtual environments, knowledge acquisition is also conceptualized differently. According to Thomas & Brown (2007), residents learn to BE rather than learn ABOUT concepts and ideas as it is done via traditional models of learning. Furthermore, they argue that knowledge gained in/required to function in virtual environments should not be treated in binary terms (virtual reality knowledge vs. real world knowledge) but it is supplemental to real life knowledge. Thus, virtual world residents construct their identity and knowledge both/and (not either outside/either inside the world) (Thomas & Brown, 2007). This new conceptualization of learner’s identity and the purpose of knowledge acquisition has led Thomas & Brown to believe that virtual environments such as Second Life and other spaces are important spaces to study as they are making a significant impact on today’s learners and their learning.

References

Arreguin, C. (2007). Best practices from the Second Life Community Convention Education Track 2007. Retrieved on June 15, 2008 from http://www.rezed.org/forum/topic/show?id=2047896%3ATopic%3A323

Ondrejka, C. (2008). Education unleashed: Participatory culture, education, and I=innovation in Second Life. Retrieved on June 18, 2008 from http://www.rezed.org/forum/topic/show?id=2047896%3ATopic%3A2550

Thomas, D. & J.S. Brown (2007). Why virtual worlds can matter. Working Paper. Retrieved on June 11, 2007 from http://www.johnseelybrown.com/needvirtualworlds.pdf

Virtual Worlds Total Registered Accounts. Kzero Research. Retrieved on June 6, 2008 from http://www.kzero.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/virtual-world-numbers-q2-2008.jpg

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.


text:
User talk:81.242.254.190

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikibooks, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages.
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in votes and elections
 * Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikibookian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:81.242.254.190


text:
User talk:Rowston

Welcome, Rowston!

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rowston


text:
Talk:Issues in Digital Technology in Education/Web 2.0 Learning Environments

This page is under construction.


text: Template:NAIVEBOOKNAME

title: Template:NAIVEBOOKNAME


text:
User talk:Algone2002

Welcome!
Welcome, Algone2002!

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally.-- – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 22:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Algone2002


text: User talk:125.16.17.1

title: User talk:125.16.17.1


text:
User talk:Wikidsoup

Welcome!
Welcome, Wikidsoup!

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally.--Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bread
Good work on the bread page. It was an embarassment and really needed (geddit?) some help! Redlentil (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cookbook:Cuisine of Egypt
When you use content from Wikipedia, please don't copy-paste. Please instead request an import of the Wikipedia page(s) at WB:RFI - this will allow us to bring the content across in compliance with the GFDL. Thanks. – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikidsoup


text: Category:Book:Mewa User's Guide

title: Category:Book:Mewa User's Guide


text:
User talk:Erkan Yilmaz

Welcome to Wikibooks, Erkan Yilmaz!
 * Thank you Mike. I will return this with a transwiki in the future :-) --Erkan Yilmaz (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Erkan Yilmaz


text:
User talk:203.122.254.24

Block Notice
You cannot edit for 6 months due to vandalism. You are welcome to contribute constructively when editing privileges are restored. You may appeal this action with a reasonable argument by adding the text below. Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Block Notice
You cannot edit for six months due to vandalism. You are welcome to contribute constructively when editing privileges are restored. You may appeal this action with a reasonable argument by adding the text below. Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:203.122.254.24


text: User talk:76.236.78.255

title: User talk:76.236.78.255


text:
Talk:Inorganic Chemistry/Chemical Bonding

To do list:

Simply Molecular orbital theory: does it need to contain the formula? -no beginning student would use it. only mentioning the concept of overlaping and combining th orbitals is important How much history is needed? Cut most out. Overview: Good content, but long. The end parts(Methane, Benzene) have excess detail.

Wikipeida links from transwikied articals - relink to wikipedia? remove? link to other sections/books where applicable?


text: User talk:98.202.92.93

title: User talk:98.202.92.93


text:
Futurebasic/Language/Reference/on break

Statement
(+)	Appearance		(+)	Standard			Console

Syntax
ON BREAK {FN userFunction|GOSUB{lineNumber|"stmtLabel"}}

Description
This statement designates a particular function or subroutine as a break-event handling routine. A break-event handling routine is called in response to a cmd-period keypress by the user. After a cmd-period keypress event occurs, FB does not call your designated routine immediately. Instead, your program continues executing until it reaches a HANDLEEVENTS statement; at that time, HANDLEEVENTS will call your designated routine. If the user presses cmd-period but you have not designated any break-event handling routine, your program continues executing until a HANDLEEVENTS is reached; FB then displays an alert asking the user whether to continue or to stop. If the user elects to stop, FB next calls your "stop-event" handling routine, if any (see ON STOP); and then your program stops. If the user elects to continue, the program continues executing at the first statement following the HANDLEEVENTS. One common use for a break-event handling routine is to prevent the user from stopping your program by means of cmd-period.

Your routine can be as simple as this: LOCAL FN DoBreak END FN This function does nothing, but if you designate it in an "ON BREAK FN DoBreak" statement, then cmd-period keypresses will be "routed" to this function rather than causing the "Stop or Continue" alert to be displayed.

Note:

If you use the ON BREAK FN userFunction syntax, then userFunction must refer to a function which was defined or prototyped at an earlier location in the source code. Your break-event handling function should not take any parameters, nor return a result.

title: Futurebasic/Language/Reference/on break


text:
Futurebasic/Language/Reference/on dialog

Statement
✔ Appearance ✔ Standard ✔ Console

Syntax
ON DIALOG {FN userFunction|GOSUB{lineNumber|"stmtLabel"}}

Description
This statement designates a particular function or subroutine as a dialog-event handling routine. A dialog-event handling routine is called in response to a number of different kinds of user actions and internal events; see the DIALOG function for more information. After a dialog event occurs, FB does not call your designated routine immediately. Instead, your program continues executing until a HANDLEEVENTS statement is reached. At that time, HANDLEEVENTS will call your designated routine once for each dialog event that occurred; your designated routine should examine the DIALOG(0) and DIALOG(evnt) functions to get information about the event. If you have not designated any dialog-event handling routine, FB ignores events of this kind.

Note: If you use the ON DIALOG FN userFunction syntax, then userFunction must refer to a function which was defined or prototyped at an earlier location in the source code. Your dialog-event handling function should not take any parameters, nor return a result.


text: Template:Argicultural pest

title: Template:Argicultural pest


text:
Principles of Economics/S-D Shifts

Shift in supply

If the supply curve increases (such as an excise tax burden), the new equilibrium will have higher quantity and lower price; if it is lowered, the reverse happens.

Shift in demand

If the demand curve increases (such as something being in fashion), the new equilibrium will have higher quantity and higher price; if it is lowered, the reverse happens.

Shift in supply and demand

If both curves shift, their individual effects are added, although with slight alterations due to warping in the shape of the curves. If both curves increase, quantity increases for sure but price is indeterminate; if both curves decrease, quantity decreases for sure but price is indeterminate.

title: Principles of Economics/S-D Shifts


text:
The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/Chapter About the book

= About the book =


text: The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/Chapter Peer-to-Peer (P2P)


text:
The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/Chapter Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/Summary

 * What is Peer-to-Peer (P2P) ?
 * From a Computer Science Perspective
 * From a Economics Perspective
 * From a Sociological Perspective
 * From a Legal Perspective
 * Shadow Play


text: User talk:121.79.40.226

title: User talk:121.79.40.226


text: User talk:71.153.183.164

title: User talk:71.153.183.164


text:
Talk:Embedded Systems/PIC Programming

I have changed your directions to using SDCC and Code::Blocks
Here is the link to those changes. http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Using_the_Code::Blocks_IDE_with_SDCC_on_PIC_MCUs Tim S

 * Thank you, Tim. Looks good. I added this link to Embedded Systems/PIC Programming. --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 04:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Embedded Systems/PIC Programming


text:
User:Nomadgeek

= Main User Page = Please visit my Wikipedia UserPage.

= Info =

title: User:Nomadgeek