2009 Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Conference in Charleston–March 5

site2009Thursday was my second day at the the 2009 SITE conference.  I attended the last part of Lisa Hervey’s presentation, “Lost and Found in Translation: A TPCK View of Mid-Career Teacher Beliefs and Practice.”  I regretted arriving late!  Hervey’s study seemed to be a more qualitative approach to examining Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.  My colleagues at BYU are working to develop an instrument that measures TPCK using quantitative and qualitative items.  I was curious about how Hervey interpreted the TPCK constructs as she coded her transcripts, so I asked her about it after the session.  At the end of our conversation, she offered me her card (I really need to get cards made up) and suggested that I contact her during the next week to discuss possible collaboration.

After Hervey’s presentation, I attended the presentation of a colleague, Michael Griffiths, “Using Asynchronous Video to Achieve Instructor Immediacy and Closeness in Online Classes: Experiences from Three Cases.”  Mike had asked me to attend, since I am using his model asynchronous model in my oneline course this semester.  Mike’s enthusiasm for asynchronous video is akin to that of a religious convert.  My enthusiasm is more measured.  My section of the course has been plagued with technical difficulties.  The “video blog tool” that we are using has dropped my entire section from the course, randomly refused to record video from myself and my students, and added the wrong date to several videos.  Asynchronous video does allow me to pick up on nonverbal cues and better diagnose student concerns than email alone.  However, I find it inconvenient, so using it actually delays the frequency of the feedback that I provide to students.  I’m curious to see how my students answer Mike’s survey questions about asynchronous video at the end of the course.

After Mike’s presentation, David Byrum and Liz Stephens of Texas State University-San Marcos presented on “Using Wikis for Curriculum Building: Creating a Web 2.0 Course.”  I was very interested in their presentation.  The wiki model that they have created for their course is based on principles similar to the wiki that I use in my course.  They are using student work to prepare materials that future students then use to learn about Web 2.0 tools.  However, they are using a graduate level instructional design course to create modules to teach students about tools.  Being a graduate student myself, I don’t have the same resources.  Instead, students in my course prepare articles on Web 2.0 tools that future students can use a resource.  Also, Byrum and Stephens’ students create web-based projects and post links to them on a wiki.  So do my students, but Byrum and Stephens’ students create a coherent unit plan.  The principles are similar, but I believe Byrum and Stephens’ course has the superior execution.  I would love to see IP&T 286 move towards Byrum and Stephens’ model.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

About Kimberly McCollum

I'm a former middle and high school science teacher and current stay at home mom.
This entry was posted in Conference and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s