ED238 Technology and DisabilitiesEducational Technology Leadership Program The George Washington University |
|
Syllabus |
| Instructor |
| Instructor | Chih-Hsiung Tu, Ph.D. | ED238i@gwu.edu | 202-994-2676 |
| Teaching Philosophy |
The instructor's philosophy of teaching rests in a firm belief that students learn best when engaged in active learning activities that is relevant to their current and future professional placement.
A Teacher’s role has been changed from oracle and lecturer to consultant, guide, and resource provider, and from passive receptacles for hand-me-down knowledge to constructors of their own knowledge. Both teachers and students are learners. Teachers become expert questioners, rather than providers of answers. Students should engage in complex problem-solving skills in learning communities rather than just memorizing the facts. Teachers are designers of student experiences rather than just providers of content. Teachers should assist students in seeing topics from multiple perspectives. It is important that teachers provide only the initial structure to student work, encouraging increasing self-direction where students refine their own questions and search for their own answers. Teachers present multiple perspectives on topics, emphasizing the salient points, allowing students opportunities to review, analyze, and synthesize research in order to develop their own philosophical beliefs regarding the use of technology in education. Thus, the courses require students to complete a research project in which they review and synthesize current research on a selected topic.
To foster more learner interaction, students work as members of a group in a collaborative learning environment. From total control of the teaching environment to sharing with the student as fellow learner, teachers provide more emphasis on students as autonomous, independent, self-motivated managers of their own time and learning process, and more emphasis on sensitivity to student learning styles.
The concept of a collaborative learning community, integrating various technology-based active activities, is used to enhance student’s learning. Student publishing creates motivation and enhances the quality of learning. Critical collaborative evaluation (a new concept in learning) requires learners to reshape their ideas and acquire new information in learning communities that they might not discover on their own.
Students have the opportunity to provide me with suggestions for improvement in all of my classes. This feedback not only involves the traditional University course evaluations, but also evaluation instruments I have developed to gain further insight into the class activities students have found useful (or lacking). Additional feedbacks are from colleagues’ observation. Acquiring feedback is continued to collect and to improve and update teaching in an effort to improve my instructional strategies and teaching techniques.
| Goals & Objectives |
|
Upon completion of this course, each student will be able
to:
|
| Overview |
|
Educators and other public service providers generally know very little about the tools and legal mandates for accommodating individuals with special needs. This is especially poignant for those who concern themselves professionally with educational and information technology for they are likely to be called upon to recommend technological solutions. The problem is not simply a technical one; it involves negotiating the accommodations with a team of professionals concerned about the well being of the individual with a disability and determining the necessary resources. This course surveys the field of assistive technology as it impacts the lives of people with disabilities, including the performance of tasks related to employment, education and activities of daily living. |
| Delivery Format & Pre-requisites |
Delivery Format
Pre-requisites
|
|
| Course Schedule |
| Date | Lesson | Topics |
| 09/03/03 | Orientation | Orientation |
| 09/10/03 | Lesson1 | Overview |
| 09/24/03 | Lesson2 | Delivery & Human Factors |
| 10/08/03 | Lesson3 | Augmentative & Communication Systems, & Cognitive Problems |
| 10/22/03 | Lesson4 | Mobility & Learning Disabilities |
| 11/05/03 | Lesson5 | Visual & Auditory Impairments & Emotional and/or Behavioral Needs |
| 11/19/03 | Lesson6 | Classroom & Workplace |
| 11/26/03 | Thanksgiving Break (One Week) | |
| 12/10/03 | Lesson7 | Funding, & Final |
| Evaluations |
|
| Collaborative Evaluation: Self & Peer Evaluations |
| Assignment 4, a team project, will
undergo collaborative evaluation. Collaborative evaluation includes
evaluations by the instructor, peers, and self. The value of this
assignment is 10 points. 50% of the points will be based on the grade
given by the instructor(s) and the remaining 50% will be divided
between peer evaluations and self evaluation. Each team will need to
determine how the 50% to be applied at the beginning of the
semester. Self evaluation will require students to evaluate their own
contribution to the team project. Peer evaluation will require that
the team evaluate the contribution of each member to the team project.
Peer evaluation and self evaluation are required, also required are written
explanations of the evaluations.
Here is the guidelines for conducting peer evaluations. How to evaluate peers' performance. The number of points for each evaluation is decided by an agreement reached by the team at the beginning of the semester and these results are given to the instructor by e-mail. There will be no change in the combination after it has been reported to the instructor. Below are examples of how percentages of the different self and collaborative evaluations can be combined. If a team has three team members, the peer evaluations will be computed on the average score. The combinations are not limited to the examples listed below as long as the total evaluation and peer evaluations do not exceed 50%.
|
| Online Discussion |
|
Online discussion is expected of all students registered in this class. Regular reading and posting of e-mail, and contributions to discussions groups is mandatory. Non-participation may reduce your final grade average up to one-third of the total grade. Each student must post at least “TWO” messages each week (four messages each lesson). One message in response to the weekly discussion questions must be posted early in the lesson (W-Sa) and a message in responding to peers must be posted later in the lesson (Su-T). Failure to post these messages in every week may result in a grade deduction. Students are required to participate in online discussions regularly throughout each week of the semester. However, the requirements of this course are not satisfied by simply posting two messages a week; the quality of participation and interactive engagement are necessary requirements to learning in the environment of this class . Grades for online discussions will be posted regularly. Grades for week 2 and 3 will be posted individually to assist students in understanding expectations. Afterward, online discussion grades will be posted lesson-by-lesson, not weekly. Here are some guidelines for participants regular posting to online discussion. 1. You should complete the activities throughout the workweek and avoid leaving them until the last day. 2. Your posting should be thorough and thoughtful. Just posting an “I agree/disagree with your comment” or an “I think the same” to someone else’s thoughts is not considered an adequate response. 3. It should be evident from the postings that participants are reading one another’s comments. That is, the participants should make references to each other’s points of view. 4. Two comments per week (four per lesson) are considered marginal, three or more are expected. Of course, posting more frequently is certainly welcome. Rubric
|
| Team Online Moderation |
|
Each student/team must moderate one lesson (two weeks) or more of the online discussion. Moderation duties include: (a). posting of one or more discussion questions on the discussion board, (b). moderating/facilitating the discussion, ensuring that the focus of the discussion is maintained, (c). and posting a summary of the discussion at the end of the lesson (the following Monday after the due date). Teams/Students will select one lesson (two weeks) to serve as moderator at the beginning of the semester. Team members will share the moderating responsibility. The moderators of the lesson will need to post the discussion question(s) by Tuesday midnight prior to the week they moderate. For example, if the lesson begins on 9/10 (Wednesday), the moderator must post the discussion question(s) by midnight 9/9 and post the discussion summary by the midnight of 9/24 (Wednesday). Remember each discussion lasts two weeks except for Orientation week and Lesson 7. Generally, posting two or three questions is appropriate. Moderation includes the questions posted by the team and the instructor. There are several useful resources that focus on how to moderate an online discussion. Students are advised to read these resources to become acquainted with the process of successful moderation of online discussions.
|
| Assignments |
|
All assignments will be written in APA (American Psychological Association) format, double-spaced, including page numbers, pin. Failing to follow the required format may result in point deduction. Assignments may involve various written reports, critiques of articles, research papers, or technical productions (see each assignment for the details). Assignments must be written in a clear and concise English format. Students should follow the required length and requirements of each assignment. All assignments should be in APA format, doubled-space, font size 12, and include pin, and page numbers. Failure to follow the proper format will result in grade deduction. See each assignment for the details. The standard file format is Adobe Acrobat, unless otherwise specified. APA is the style to be used for references and bibliography. If different reference styles are required in your professional field please note this in each of your assignments. Those of you in educational fields are required to use APA style. APA resources American Psychological Association. (2002). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association. (2003) Electronic Reference. Retrieved October 12, 2003 from http://www.apastyle.org/elecref.html Here are some APA examples for your references: Journal: Tu, C. H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27-37. Book: Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Book chapter: McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance Education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research on educational communications and technology (pp. 403-437). New York: Scholastic Press. Web site: Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience: Science working group on facilitated communication. Retrieved January 25, 1996, from http://www.apa.org/journals/jacobson.html |
| Peer Feedback |
|
Peer feedback is applied to each assignment and the final project, the team research paper, and some other activities. The purpose of reading teammates’ assignment and providing peer feedback is to allow students to support each other and learn from each other in addition to the support provided by the instructor . In fact, reviewing another's assignment would provide a great opportunity to improve your own assignment and learning experiences. Each team member is expected to read the assignments of two other team members and provide appropriate feedback and recommendations for further revisions. If the team has four members, only two peer feedbacks are necessary per member. In this case, the team should decide who reviews whom so all team members will receive two feedbacks. It is highly recommended allowing teammates enough time to provide feedback and revise their final draft of assignments to improve support. You create difficulties for yourself when delays providing a first draft for review in a timely fashion. Peer feedback will assist you in completing the assignments and will enhance your learning experience. Each student should e-mail their teammates their first draft of an assignment by the deadline. Teammates have up to four days to provide the feedback and revise their first draft. If the assignment is received three days later than the deadline, the reviewers will not be required to provide feedback. All students are expected to submit the first draft of their assignments to the “Drop Box” and e-mail their teammates by the deadlines; submit their two peer feedbacks to the “Drop Box” (in one file; do not separate the file for the individual feedback in the submission) and e-mail their teammates about the feedback; and submit their final draft of assignment to the “Drop Box.” The instructor will NOT grade the first drafts of the assignments. The instructor may review or compare the feedback, first draft, and final draft of assignments. Providing feedback will not accrue credit; however, failing to provide appropriate feedback to your teammates may result in losing assignment credit. These are no length limitations for the peer feedback; however, providing definite suggestions in your feedback is more useful than simply saying “I like your xxx and xxx.” Teammates are encouraged to support each other and enhance each other’s learning. After receiving feedback from teammates, students are expected to revise their first draft and submit their final draft by the deadline. It is highly recommend that team members should help each other. You will find that you learn a lot from your teammates; therefore, taking advantage of this opportunity will enhance your learning experiences in this course. |
| Grading |
|
|
Syllabus |
|
Copyright 2003 The George Washington University. All Rights Reserved. |