In my lifetime, we have moved from a mostly analog world to a mostly digital world. The transition has impacted every profession, and change is constant. I am currently enrolled in a course called BlendedLearningTootkit and our first assigned reading is Understanding Blended Learning, by Kelvin Thompson, Ed.D.
Blended learning is not a precise term in academia, but it mostly stands for a combination of in person (face-to-face) class time and additional materials offered to the student outside of class. This can provide some flexibility for the students, and it can also add instructional resources and coursework. In the reading this week, we were introduced to the basic terms and research that shows the potential benefits when a blended course is well designed. Thompson says that the design of such a blended course works well in situations where the instructor designs for a "learner-centered, teacher guided (as opposed to teacher-directed), interactive, and student-collaborative learning"
We reviewed a case study of a sample course, which -- not surprisingly -- was a campus-based course for pre-service teachers called Distributed Learning: Teaching and Learning Online. This for-credit course met weekly on Fridays for three hours but students were encouraged to connect from home so that they could have a real life experience of learning online. The design of the course was flexible enough so that changes and updates have been incorporated over time, especially as new tools and technologies are introduced into the digital landscape.
No doubt the use of online and blended instruction will grow in modern educational organizations. It will be our challenge, as instructors and curriculum providers, to make sure that the design of courses should not serve the technology, but rather that technology be used creatively and judiciously with the goal of improving learning.
Musings and tipping points in politics and civic engagement.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Back to college as an adult
I returned to college as adult, having sold our first business, ShowBiz Expo, and then discovering Glendale Community College. I had spent fifteen years building the business with my husband, raising our son and organizing a five-year humanitarian aid and human rights project in war-torn former Yugoslavia. After all that excitement and activity, it seemed like a good time to focus on something that I always had a passion for, which is music. I earned my Certificate of Music at GCC and then transferred to Woodbury University, earning a BA in Organizational Leadership. I am currently enrolled in BlendKit, an online course in blended course design.
Being a student is always fulfilling to me. I am an active student and have a tendency to get really involved in starting clubs, producing events on campus, working with both faculty and fellow students. I also love thinking about human nature, learning about history, sharing what I know and learning from others.
Being a student is always fulfilling to me. I am an active student and have a tendency to get really involved in starting clubs, producing events on campus, working with both faculty and fellow students. I also love thinking about human nature, learning about history, sharing what I know and learning from others.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Testing the Limits of Free Speech for Students
In this case, I was interested in the fact that Kenneth Starr refered to the Olympic Torch Relay as a "school sanctioned event." In fact, the Rally was sponsored by Coca-Cola and other private groups and drew a crowd of citizens. The high school did release their students for the event, and there were administrators and teachers among the students, but the student Frederick had not been in attendance at school that morning.
I feel that the case rests on whether this was an actual field trip in which students are expected to conform to a code of conduct, also whether the conduct itself was disruptive to the lessons, and whether or not the banner itself was "political" speech. Under the Tinker case, political speech is protected unless it's disruptive and that is the legal rule that the Supreme Court was asked to uphold.
I didn't think that the banner was political. I saw it as humerous, perhaps poking fun at the student clubs, or having a group of the high school student trying to get attention for themselves.
While the augument could be made that the students had to conform to the normal code of conduct, the Supreme Court was asked to make it's ruling based on the content of the banner. It was argued that the banner glorified drug use, in conflict with the district policies of education to prevent drug abuse. So, it wasn't that the banner itself was considered disruptive, it was the thoughts conveyed on the banner that the high school principal was disturbed by. The message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as Frederik told CNN, was "just a joke."
The student says that he was being deliberately provacative to test his free speech rights. In an telephone conference with reporters on March 2, 2007, just prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Joseph Frederick said “I conducted my free speech experiment in order to assert my rights at a time when I felt that free speech was being eroded in America. “The high school I attended advocated that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not apply to students. I was skeptical of my own free speech rights and I wanted to know more precisely the boundaries of my freedom. I guess we'll get to find that out soon.”
I did not see this public rally as a controlled field trip. Therefore, as a public event, this student was free to exercise his normal guarenteed rights of speech, political or otherwise. For instance, if he and his friends had worn a t-shirts that said "Bong Hits for Jesus," they would not have been suspended for ten days, or told to remove their clothes. In an earlier case, the Supreme Court has already given guidelines in which "Students, for example, cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises whether in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours unless the school shows that the speech would substantially interfere with the work of the school." Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 266 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 512-13 .)
The School Board claimed that the banner was a reflection on the school administrators, and that if they didn't punish the student they would be accused of condoning the message of the banner. However, the public is understanding enough to know that this banner was the work of a student, on his own volition, and had nothing to do with what is being taught in school, other than the principle of free speech.The school felt that the banner had changed the message of the event and appeared to endorse or promote drug use, which was contradictory to the mission of the school. In a classroom, if a student were to stand up and take out a banner, that would disrupt the class and would be subject to punishment. But in the case of the public display of a humourous and nonsensical banner, nothing was disrupted. The rally continued and the school day continued.
In the Amicus Brief of the Student Press Law Center, they quoted a legal precedent "There is, of course, no constitutional exception for subject-altering speech. The government may not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in publicfacilities. Carey, 447 U.S. at 463."
Inside the classroom, I think that students should be allowed the freedom to state their opinions or their questions freely, even controversial ones. Where abusive languages comes into the picture, a treacher should also have the freedom to protect the rights of the victims of verbal abuse. The problem comes in when one person's right to free speech steps on another person's right to be protected from harassment or hatespeech.
I value the freedom of speech that we enjoy in the United States. I know that in many parts of the world, our freedoms are envied. The laws that protect my ability to state my opinions in a wide variety of public forums, and in the privacy of my own home as well are extremely important and worth defending, and testing, so that future generations will enjoy the same hard won freedoms we have.
I feel that the case rests on whether this was an actual field trip in which students are expected to conform to a code of conduct, also whether the conduct itself was disruptive to the lessons, and whether or not the banner itself was "political" speech. Under the Tinker case, political speech is protected unless it's disruptive and that is the legal rule that the Supreme Court was asked to uphold.
I didn't think that the banner was political. I saw it as humerous, perhaps poking fun at the student clubs, or having a group of the high school student trying to get attention for themselves.
While the augument could be made that the students had to conform to the normal code of conduct, the Supreme Court was asked to make it's ruling based on the content of the banner. It was argued that the banner glorified drug use, in conflict with the district policies of education to prevent drug abuse. So, it wasn't that the banner itself was considered disruptive, it was the thoughts conveyed on the banner that the high school principal was disturbed by. The message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as Frederik told CNN, was "just a joke."
The student says that he was being deliberately provacative to test his free speech rights. In an telephone conference with reporters on March 2, 2007, just prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Joseph Frederick said “I conducted my free speech experiment in order to assert my rights at a time when I felt that free speech was being eroded in America. “The high school I attended advocated that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not apply to students. I was skeptical of my own free speech rights and I wanted to know more precisely the boundaries of my freedom. I guess we'll get to find that out soon.”
I did not see this public rally as a controlled field trip. Therefore, as a public event, this student was free to exercise his normal guarenteed rights of speech, political or otherwise. For instance, if he and his friends had worn a t-shirts that said "Bong Hits for Jesus," they would not have been suspended for ten days, or told to remove their clothes. In an earlier case, the Supreme Court has already given guidelines in which "Students, for example, cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises whether in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours unless the school shows that the speech would substantially interfere with the work of the school." Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 266 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 512-13 .)
The School Board claimed that the banner was a reflection on the school administrators, and that if they didn't punish the student they would be accused of condoning the message of the banner. However, the public is understanding enough to know that this banner was the work of a student, on his own volition, and had nothing to do with what is being taught in school, other than the principle of free speech.The school felt that the banner had changed the message of the event and appeared to endorse or promote drug use, which was contradictory to the mission of the school. In a classroom, if a student were to stand up and take out a banner, that would disrupt the class and would be subject to punishment. But in the case of the public display of a humourous and nonsensical banner, nothing was disrupted. The rally continued and the school day continued.
In the Amicus Brief of the Student Press Law Center, they quoted a legal precedent "There is, of course, no constitutional exception for subject-altering speech. The government may not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in publicfacilities. Carey, 447 U.S. at 463."
Inside the classroom, I think that students should be allowed the freedom to state their opinions or their questions freely, even controversial ones. Where abusive languages comes into the picture, a treacher should also have the freedom to protect the rights of the victims of verbal abuse. The problem comes in when one person's right to free speech steps on another person's right to be protected from harassment or hatespeech.
I value the freedom of speech that we enjoy in the United States. I know that in many parts of the world, our freedoms are envied. The laws that protect my ability to state my opinions in a wide variety of public forums, and in the privacy of my own home as well are extremely important and worth defending, and testing, so that future generations will enjoy the same hard won freedoms we have.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Final Fantasy Congress Post
My team ended up #12. I was a little dissapointed by my "Change Agents," expecially Ruben Hinojosa who didn't score any points on legislation. Also, the Rookie Rahm Emanuel surprised me because I thought that as a leader in the Democratic Party, he would be more aggressive. But I now think that both these players are more of a backup team members and in order to get support on bills, you need a lot of those! I learned that there are people who are the "stars" in the Congress, people who are the front persons to lead major efforts to pass legislation. I also learned that many bills get introduced by one person but never gained much support. The legislators can then tell their constituants that they are busy introducing bills, even if those bills don't go anywere at all. That was very interesting to see.
I also learned that senority is a huge factor in who sponsors legislation. The Upper Senators were, far and away, the ones who introduced the most legislation. I imagine that many of their bills might come from a more collaborative process, but that these senior leaders are asked and expected to be the front person.I think that the game is very instructive but only if the student takes the time to get out of their game page and browse the site. One thing that could draw in more understanding is if there was a news crawl at the bottom of every page, like the stock ticker on TV, that would show the bill numbers that had some new activity that week. They already do show those on the "Research Legislation" page, but if it was spruced up into a real time crawl, that might grab more attention and encourage clickthroughs to learn more about those individual bills.
I also learned that senority is a huge factor in who sponsors legislation. The Upper Senators were, far and away, the ones who introduced the most legislation. I imagine that many of their bills might come from a more collaborative process, but that these senior leaders are asked and expected to be the front person.I think that the game is very instructive but only if the student takes the time to get out of their game page and browse the site. One thing that could draw in more understanding is if there was a news crawl at the bottom of every page, like the stock ticker on TV, that would show the bill numbers that had some new activity that week. They already do show those on the "Research Legislation" page, but if it was spruced up into a real time crawl, that might grab more attention and encourage clickthroughs to learn more about those individual bills.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
2008 Presidential Candidates: a website review (Blog 5)
Rudy Giuliani Rudy has a good website and he wants us to call him Rudy. I guess because of 9/11, he's in the same name recognition league as Hillary or Cher, and so he's capitalizing on that. He's the Big Crime Fighter, and people soak that up. His top story right now is demanding the cancellation of aid to Yemen for realeasing the mastermind behind the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Also, his prayers to CA victim of fires and praise for the firefighters. His YouTube page is a FOX news clip "Rudy's Close Call, Saved by one mob vote" We'll go after illegals and go after them the way we went after criminals in NY. Immigration, he knows is a passionate issue for people and he's got a very sharp focus on being the crime fighter for America. Looking deeper into the site, it seems obvious that he's the favorite FOX TV candidate and that is a turnoff to me.
John McCain website focused on his WWII career and POW status. I didn't get an immediate feel for what he wants to do for the country today. I learned more about his wife than I needed to know. And her page on volunteer info was all text, no interesting graphics or photos and it sort of bothers me that his charities are mostly all her charities! But mainly, I'm not that interested. She's not running. I thought that "Cindy's Recipes" was a weird feature. It was better to call them McCain Family Recipes as they didn inside each actual receipt. But, honestly, they weren't even that special. Rosemary Chicken with Spinich Salad? What's so special about that and what does it tell us about our candidate? This website is tedious and boring.
One thing that bugged me about all 6 out of the 10 websites was to be greeted with a "sign in" screen first. In some cases, that even caused a "runtime error" on my computer, which is a hassle. It's just too aggressive, in my opinion. I know it's hard to design a website to bring about a 'call to action' but I'd prefer a better approach than to simply put that in place of a "Welcome" message.
Hillary Clinton Once I got past the "sign in screen" on Hillary's site, there were some good features. I love the simplicity of the graphics. Her photos are very friendly as well. She creates a mood of being someone you can relate to. Her primary focus is to help the middle class, health care and women's issues. These are all very important for our country, issues that need help now. he interviews with her constituants were fantastic....really set a mood of someone they respect, trust and appreciate. It was a perfect blend. It was very smart to have the video clips throughout the About Hillary section.
In contrast, the Mitt Romney site was very poorly designed. It didn't "hang together" with an overall feeling. It was more of a template, very little custom design or creativity and way more text than photos and graphics. He's to a huge Red Cross logo splashed across the top. Does he want this website to be about the Red Cross, or about Mitt Romney as President?? This speaks to his ability to build a team of people around him and whether they have the sort of talent that we need from our next adminstration. His focus is mostly about 'family values' and that to me is more of a code word rather than a real political agenda. Like the other Republicans, he seems to want the status quo of low taxes and small government.
Gettting back to Hillary's site, she obviously isn't afraid to be aggressive, which appeals to a large segment of the population. For example, on her "HillaryHub" news section features a big photo of Sen. Obama and slams him for "attacking her character." I don't know if he actually did attack her character, but once that is screamed in a headline, it barely makes a difference if it's true or not. She is obviously determined to use every single day, including her own birthday, as an opportunity to raise money and get people to commit their support. She's a fighter, that's for sure.
I really liked John Edwards website. He is sort of a hipper, younger, better looking Al Gore. By placing Global Warming as his top issue, I think he can appeal to many of the liberals who have been won over by Gore career and that maybe the Edwards campaign is trying to position him that way. The family photo was also very appealing, but frankly for me that a bit of a turn off as well. He's taking on corporations, including the drug companies, and that's gutsy. On the down side, he has young children and his wife is battling cancer and I worry about a man who has that many pressures and demands on him. I kind of like it when the kids are already older and on their own. This next period in U.S. history is going to demand a full time President. I didn't care for his blog section. There were too many comments by Joe Blow, and many of them were the same hostile, griping tone that dominates the internet discussion boards. They are a real turn off. I'd rather listen to John and form my own conclusions.
Bill Richardson has a great story to tell. I really like this man and I've followed his career. The info was all there on his website, his story and character, but I wonder if other people are going to be as drawn into it. He has a lighter touch, not to clobber you over the head, and for a lot of Americans, they seem to need clobbering! Richardson lays out his views and the issues very well, very succinctly. But he's not going to be the showman that I think is needed in this race. His strength is that he can relate to the foreign issues of the day. He has experience oversees as well as governing a state and so he really does have a lot of the skills it takes to be a good President. I hope that he will be in the government for a long time and this campaign run will at least introduce him to another big chuck of Americans. He could be a great vice president.
Barack Obama website took a long time to load. That can be hard for people who don't have a fast connection. But at least he didn't put the "sign in" screen up front! A lot of the site was videos and commercials and, frankly, I didn't want to watch commercials because they are so manipulative. Like the one that showed his position on the war in Iraq. At first, he's giving a speech, and all of a sudden we hear a dozen citizens give their opinions in a script format. He did have some attractive photos of big smiles and it's that warmth that probably will get him a lot of support.....that and his position on cutting off funding for the war in Iraq. He positions himself as an agent of change and a person of conviction and committed to public service.
Fred Thompson just seems like a TV character, not a serious political leader. His bio is extremely short and I think his lack of depth is summerized by his quote, "“Occasionally, doors have opened to me,” Senator Fred Dalton Thompson told Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday in a recent interview, “and I had sense enough to see that they were opening, and I would walk through them.” That doesn't inspire any great hopes for his leadership.
If the election were held today, I would vote for Hillary Clinton. This would be a 'prospective', expecting that she will continue to focus on the priorities that she has worked on over her entire lifetime. I think that she has some of the best connections in the world and will appoint a progressive Cabinet and will seek to work with all members of Congress to get some important legislation accomplished. She could secure a lasting legacy for her and her husband, by making good on her goals for improving the condition of the middle class and making great strides in affordable healthcare and championing the needs of women, not just in this country, but worldwide. She and Bill got beat up very badly by the conservatives and humiliated by a bogus impeachment trial. I think she can earn the respect of the country and I'd like to give her a chance to do it.
John McCain website focused on his WWII career and POW status. I didn't get an immediate feel for what he wants to do for the country today. I learned more about his wife than I needed to know. And her page on volunteer info was all text, no interesting graphics or photos and it sort of bothers me that his charities are mostly all her charities! But mainly, I'm not that interested. She's not running. I thought that "Cindy's Recipes" was a weird feature. It was better to call them McCain Family Recipes as they didn inside each actual receipt. But, honestly, they weren't even that special. Rosemary Chicken with Spinich Salad? What's so special about that and what does it tell us about our candidate? This website is tedious and boring.
One thing that bugged me about all 6 out of the 10 websites was to be greeted with a "sign in" screen first. In some cases, that even caused a "runtime error" on my computer, which is a hassle. It's just too aggressive, in my opinion. I know it's hard to design a website to bring about a 'call to action' but I'd prefer a better approach than to simply put that in place of a "Welcome" message.
Hillary Clinton Once I got past the "sign in screen" on Hillary's site, there were some good features. I love the simplicity of the graphics. Her photos are very friendly as well. She creates a mood of being someone you can relate to. Her primary focus is to help the middle class, health care and women's issues. These are all very important for our country, issues that need help now. he interviews with her constituants were fantastic....really set a mood of someone they respect, trust and appreciate. It was a perfect blend. It was very smart to have the video clips throughout the About Hillary section.
In contrast, the Mitt Romney site was very poorly designed. It didn't "hang together" with an overall feeling. It was more of a template, very little custom design or creativity and way more text than photos and graphics. He's to a huge Red Cross logo splashed across the top. Does he want this website to be about the Red Cross, or about Mitt Romney as President?? This speaks to his ability to build a team of people around him and whether they have the sort of talent that we need from our next adminstration. His focus is mostly about 'family values' and that to me is more of a code word rather than a real political agenda. Like the other Republicans, he seems to want the status quo of low taxes and small government.
Gettting back to Hillary's site, she obviously isn't afraid to be aggressive, which appeals to a large segment of the population. For example, on her "HillaryHub" news section features a big photo of Sen. Obama and slams him for "attacking her character." I don't know if he actually did attack her character, but once that is screamed in a headline, it barely makes a difference if it's true or not. She is obviously determined to use every single day, including her own birthday, as an opportunity to raise money and get people to commit their support. She's a fighter, that's for sure.
I really liked John Edwards website. He is sort of a hipper, younger, better looking Al Gore. By placing Global Warming as his top issue, I think he can appeal to many of the liberals who have been won over by Gore career and that maybe the Edwards campaign is trying to position him that way. The family photo was also very appealing, but frankly for me that a bit of a turn off as well. He's taking on corporations, including the drug companies, and that's gutsy. On the down side, he has young children and his wife is battling cancer and I worry about a man who has that many pressures and demands on him. I kind of like it when the kids are already older and on their own. This next period in U.S. history is going to demand a full time President. I didn't care for his blog section. There were too many comments by Joe Blow, and many of them were the same hostile, griping tone that dominates the internet discussion boards. They are a real turn off. I'd rather listen to John and form my own conclusions.
Bill Richardson has a great story to tell. I really like this man and I've followed his career. The info was all there on his website, his story and character, but I wonder if other people are going to be as drawn into it. He has a lighter touch, not to clobber you over the head, and for a lot of Americans, they seem to need clobbering! Richardson lays out his views and the issues very well, very succinctly. But he's not going to be the showman that I think is needed in this race. His strength is that he can relate to the foreign issues of the day. He has experience oversees as well as governing a state and so he really does have a lot of the skills it takes to be a good President. I hope that he will be in the government for a long time and this campaign run will at least introduce him to another big chuck of Americans. He could be a great vice president.
Barack Obama website took a long time to load. That can be hard for people who don't have a fast connection. But at least he didn't put the "sign in" screen up front! A lot of the site was videos and commercials and, frankly, I didn't want to watch commercials because they are so manipulative. Like the one that showed his position on the war in Iraq. At first, he's giving a speech, and all of a sudden we hear a dozen citizens give their opinions in a script format. He did have some attractive photos of big smiles and it's that warmth that probably will get him a lot of support.....that and his position on cutting off funding for the war in Iraq. He positions himself as an agent of change and a person of conviction and committed to public service.
Fred Thompson just seems like a TV character, not a serious political leader. His bio is extremely short and I think his lack of depth is summerized by his quote, "“Occasionally, doors have opened to me,” Senator Fred Dalton Thompson told Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday in a recent interview, “and I had sense enough to see that they were opening, and I would walk through them.” That doesn't inspire any great hopes for his leadership.
If the election were held today, I would vote for Hillary Clinton. This would be a 'prospective', expecting that she will continue to focus on the priorities that she has worked on over her entire lifetime. I think that she has some of the best connections in the world and will appoint a progressive Cabinet and will seek to work with all members of Congress to get some important legislation accomplished. She could secure a lasting legacy for her and her husband, by making good on her goals for improving the condition of the middle class and making great strides in affordable healthcare and championing the needs of women, not just in this country, but worldwide. She and Bill got beat up very badly by the conservatives and humiliated by a bogus impeachment trial. I think she can earn the respect of the country and I'd like to give her a chance to do it.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Fantasy Congress Post #5
In order to get the highst scores, such as kpjjangnan's team, a Player must bring in heavy hitter upper Seniority holders. A case in point is Ted Kennedy. My top two point earners for Legislation sponsored is Joseph Biden with 264 bills and John McCain with 235 bills. However, kpjjangnan (the 3rd highest scorer as of today) has scored big with Kennedy who clocks in with 340 bills to his credit. I also have noticed that Supporting Lineups and Rookies on most of the top teams don't actually have such great stats. That's why it's imperative to go with the heavy hitters on the top of the senority ladder. Also, I noticed that those members in Whip positions such as Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold have a lot of points as well. They are trying to keep the Party together and have to set a good example with their own aggressive legislative activity.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Chapter Ten Terms
My teammate, Connie, has posted a wonderful wrap-up of our Chapten 10. The vocabulary Terms are listed here:
http://conniepolitical101.blogspot.com/
http://conniepolitical101.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)