|
Syllabus |
| Instructor |
| Instructor | Chih-Hsiung Tu, Ph.D. | ED239i@gwu.edu | 202-994-2676 |
| Teaching Philosophy |
The instructor's philosophy of teaching rests in a firm belief that students learn best when actively engaged in learning activities that are relevant to their current and future professional placement.
A Teacher’s role has changed from oracle and lecturer to consultant, guide, and resource provider, and students from passive receptacles for hand-me-down knowledge to constructors of their own knowledge. Teachers and students are all 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, thereby 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 greater learner interaction, students work as members of a group in a collaborative learning environment. From total control of the teaching environment to sharing it with students as fellow learners, teachers provide more emphasis on students as autonomous, independent, self-motivated managers of their own time and learning processes, and more emphasis on sensitivity to individual student learning styles.
The concept of a collaborative learning community, integrating various technology-based active activities, is used to enhance 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 suggestions to me for improvement in all of my classes. This feedback not only involves the traditional University course evaluations, but also evaluation instruments that I have developed to gain further insight into the class activities students have found useful (or lacking). Additional feedbacks are from observations of colleagues. All of the information I have received thus far indicates that students enjoy my classes and feel that the class activities and requirements help prepare them to effectively use technology in their professional settings. 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 |
| The purpose of the course is to increase understanding of how technology affects learning within the workplace. After completing this course, participants should be able to:
|
| Overview |
| Technology is reshaping how organizations work and how learning occurs in the workplace. This course examines such changes in the context of educational technology leadership and knowledge management in corporations, government/military agencies, associations, schools and universities. In addition to providing an overview of how and why technology impacts the world of work, emerging technological roles and expectations will be discussed. The interactions between and among management, employees, and customers are of particular interest. |
| Pre-requisites & Requirements |
|
This course is designed for graduate students in education who want to study the organizational context of technology in depth. Students should possess a basic familiarity with instructional technology. It will be assumed that all students possess basic familiarity with the Internet/Web when the course begins. |
|
| Course Schedule |
| Date | Lesson | Topics |
| 01/14/04 | Orientation | Orientation |
| 01/21//04 | Lesson1 | Technology, Organizations, & Performance |
| 02/04/04 | Lesson2 | Learning Technology |
| 02/18/04 | Lesson3 | Knowledge & Knowledge Engineering |
| 03/03/04 | Lesson4 | EPSS & Networks |
| 03/17-23/04 | Spring Break | |
| 03/24/04 | Lesson5 | Social Factors & Community of Practices |
| 04/07/04 | Lesson6 | Evaluation & Practices |
| 04/21/04 | Lesson7 | Final |
| Evaluations |
|
Discussion |
Online discussion is expected of all students registered in this course. Regular reading and posting of e-mails, and contributions to discussion groups is mandatory. 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 responding to peers must be posted later in the lesson (Su-T). Failure to post these messages 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 for regular posting to online discussions. 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 each other’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 Discussion Moderation |
| Each team must moderate one or more lessons (two weeks each) of the online discussion. Moderation duties include: (a). posting of one or two 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. 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 1/21/ (Wednesday), the moderator must post the discussion question(s) by midnight 1/20 and post the discussion summary by the midnight of 2/4 (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. Ten points are assigned to the online moderations. Team members should moderate, participate, and facilitate the discussions actively. Failure, or simply refusing, to facilitate may result in grade deductions. 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 paper assignments should be written in APA (American Psychological Association) format, double-spaced, including page numbers. Failure 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 requirements of each assignment. All assignments should be in APA format, doubled-space, font size 12, 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 Support Assignment |
|
Peer feedback is applied to each individual assignment. The purpose of reading teammates’ assignments 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 will 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 to allow teammates enough time to provide feedback and revise a final draft of assignments to improve support. Peer feedback will assist you in completing the assignments and will enhance your learning experience. Each student should send their teammates their first draft of an assignment. After receiving this draft, teammates are obligated to review the draft and return it with constructive comments. After receiving the comments from the peer, each individual has an opportunity to revise their assignments based on the feedback received from peers and the reflections obtained from reading peers’ assignments. Finally, students will submit a final draft for assessment by the deadline required by the instructor (Generally, it is the last day of the lesson, unless otherwise specified.). Teams should discuss appropriate deadlines for the first draft of assignments and the peer feedback, and what technology the team will use to exchange the assignments. One copy of the first draft and the peer feedback should be submitted to the class for the record. 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 be seen by your teammates as a lack of support. There are no length limitations for peer feedback; except providing definite suggestions is more useful than simply saying “I like your xxx and xxx.” The teams may want to setup a policy to regulate the format and length of the peer feedback. Teammates are encouraged to support each other and enhance each other’s learning. You will find that you learn a lot from your teammates; therefore, taking advantage of this opportunity will enhance your learning experience in this course. |
Collaborative Evaluation: Self & Peer Evaluations |
| Final Project is 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. View Collaborative evaluation information. Submit team Collaborative evaluation information. 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 should be submitted via the online form. 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%. Teams should discuss the point allocation at the beginning of the course and submit their decision to the instructor. Teams may alter their percentage allocations as frequently as their want; however, the decisions should be made with all the agreement of all members of the team. If teams need to update the point allocations, please visit the Point Allocation Form.
|
| Grading |
|
|
Copyright 2004 The George Washington University. All Rights Reserved. |