 |
We open the
June/July issue of Innovate with two articles that resume the
discussion of the Net Generation from our previous issue—but
with very different assessments of the educational playing
field. In addressing
the needs of this population, Donald Philip proposes a model of
education that acknowledges the sociocultural changes wrought by
new technological tools, taps into the virtualization of
knowledge arising from such tools,
and fashions learning environments based on small, flexible
groups that resemble the small teams currently used by
institutions in the business world. (See
http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=368
)
|
|
|
However, Sarah
Lohnes and Charles Kinzer caution that our assumptions about the
Net Generation may often be based on generalizations that do not
sufficiently address contextual differences from one population
to the
next. Their ethnographic study found that while liberal arts
students relied extensively on technology in their everyday
lives, they remained resistant to in-class technology use and
instead endorsed a traditional model of education based on
interpersonal contact with the instructor. (See
http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=431
)
|
|
|
While debates about
the Net Generation will continue, instructors are also
addressing these questions through innovative forms of
pedagogical practice. Helen Sword and Michelle Leggott discuss
how their students used
online tools to preserve literary texts from university archives
while also exploring the potential of such tools to support new,
collaborative forms of creative expression in cyberspace. (See
http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=389 )
|
|
|
Edward Gehringer,
Luke Ehresman, Susan G. Conger, and Prasad Wagle offer an
account of how a custom-designed software product was used in
computer science courses to support the construction of
peer-reviewed learning objects by the students themselves, which
can in turn be assessed, modified, or supplemented by future
students in the same course, thereby allowing students to take
ownership of their learning to an entirely new level. (See
http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=365 )
|
|
|
Bill Gibbs and Erik
Larson illustrate the use of a videoconferencing system to
deliver highly detailed forms of instruction in courses focusing
on multimedia design and software design for online and hybrid
courses. (See
http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=388 )
|
|
|
Meanwhile, future
innovations in pedagogy and instructional design will continue
to rely upon effective, well-planned faculty development and
teacher training programs. In his account of faculty development
efforts at
Bronx Community College, Howard Wach outlines how these efforts
evolved through three major formats—two-hour technology
workshops, semester-long workshops, and a one-week summer
program—and he describes the respective challenges and
advantages afforded by each format.
(See
http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=424 )
|
|
|
We close this issue
with an article by Kathleen Roney and MaryAnn Davies, who
describe how they employed a Web-based communications tool to
promote standards-based instruction, foster reflective practice
and focused
mentoring, and facilitate the development of electronic
portfolios to help teacher education interns bridge the gap
between their training and their classroom practice. (See
http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=294 )
|
|
|
Finally, please do
not forget the Innovate-Live Seminar Series beginning Tuesday,
June 5 through Friday, June 8, 2007. The seminar program and
registration (free) is available at our Innovate-Live portal at
http://www.uliveandlearn.com/PortalInnovate/
|
