TRAINING K-12 EDUCATORS FOR A NEW TECHNOLOGY Training K-12 Educators for a New Technology Computer Networking: Training K-12 Educators
for a New Technology
Henry C. Amoroso, Jr.
College of Education
Thomas B. MacDonald
School of Business, Management, & Economics
Leonard Shedletsky
College of Arts & Sciences
The University of Southern Maine
96 Falmouth Street
Portland, Maine 04102
An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY, October, 1993
Abstract
This paper compares two attempts at introducing K-12 educators to the Internet, and briefly reports on student evaluations of the course for two additonal runs. The first presentation of the course was a 1992 one-week summer course. The 1992 course is compared to a 1993 two-week revised version; both courses were taught by the three authors. Data were gathered in a number of ways: questionnaires, electronic-mail logfiles, journals kept by students, course projects, and informal observation. Findings from the 1992 run of the course are briefly reported and used to modify the 1993 version of the course. Data from the 1993 course are discussed. The 1993 run of the course was well received and a clear improvement over the 1992 course. The pedagogical changes that made for the more successful teaching of the Internet to K-12 educators are spelled out. What we learned from the 1992 and 1993 runs of the course was further tested in a 1994 and 1995 offering of the course taught by two of the authors.
Amoroso, MacDonald, Shedletsky, & Travers (1993) reported their findings on how to teach K-12 educators to use computer-mediated communication (CMC) to further educational objectives. They team taught a course on computer networking, designed specifically for K-12 educators1. The course ran for one-week of 8 hour days during the summer of 1992 with follow up sessions during the fall semester. It was dedicated to teaching educators how to use long
istance computer networking for educational purposes. They were introduced to various aspects of the Internet. The approach of the course was simply to introduce K-12 educators to basic telecommunication skills so that they could have access to other teachers, informational resources, and classroom uses of long distance computing. It was assumed that if teachers saw the potentials of the medium of computer-mediated communication, and if they acquired some minimal skills in using it, they would explore further on their own and come to be competent users
and teachers of this technology.
Simultaneously with teaching this computer networking course, Amoroso, MacDonald, and Shedletsky gathered data from their 35 students (a mix of teachers, librarians, computer coordinators, and administrators) on how they were learning this information, with the intention of examining how the authors could improve their teaching of computer networking skills to K-12 educators.
This paper briefly reviews the findings of the 1992 implementation of the course and reports on a second, revised offering in the summer of 1993, along with student evaluations from the 1994 and 1995 offerings of the course. That is, during the summer of 1993, Amoroso, MacDonald, Shedletsky, & Travers taught the computer networking course for a second time, making use of what they learned from the 1992 experience. Hence, this paper is a follow-up to the earlier effort to discover how best to present computer networking to K-12 educators. We now present our findings from the second offering. We compare the 1992 course to 1993 in an attempt to discover what improved student learning or failed to improve student learning. Overall, it is our impression, based on data gathered as well as casual observation, that what we learned about teaching CMS and Internet skills from the first run of the course and put into practice the second, third and fourth runs, greatly improved the effectiveness of the student learning. We will briefly present student evaluation data from the 1994 and 1995 runs of the course (taught by Amoroso and Shedletsky) which strongly supports our conclusions.
The Technology -- Background Information
The objectives of the course were to introduce participants to a variety of computing environments and tools that would be necessary or very useful in developing their skills in telecommunications technology. The technological arrangements in both years of the course involved a complex computing approach, but one that is typical currently in off-site access to the MAC or Apple II or PC/Clone, the machine is reduced to acting as a "dumb terminal" of the mainframe system during the session. Gone are the user friendliness of mice, icons, and operating systems such as on the MAC or using MS Windows on PC/Clones. These are replaced by the very unfriendly command line approaches of the mainframe CMS system. To function adequately, the user must become comfortable with the mainframe operating system (CMS/CP), the editor (XEDIT), the mainframe e-mail system, and key utilities for managing, sending, and receiving files (e.g. Filelist, Sendfile, and Rdrlist). These tools and the ways in which they function tend to have very few analogies in the computing experiences of the typical consumer of this course.
The approach leads to many learning complications. First, the user must learn a communications software package in order to access the mainframe via modem. Second, whether the user is on a
MAC or Apple II or PC/Clone, the machine is reduced to acting as a "dumb terminal" of the mainframe system during the session. Gone are the user friendliness of mice, icons, and operating systems such as on the MAC or using MS Windows on PC/Clones. These are replaced by the very unfriendly command line approaches of the mainframe CMS system. To function adequately, the user must become comfortable with the mainframe operating system (CMS/CP), the editor (XEDIT), the mainframe e-mail system, and key utilities for managing, sending, and receiving files (e.g., Filelist, Sendfile, and Rdrlist). These tools and the ways in which they function tend to have very few analogies in the computing experiences of the typical consumer of this course.
The classroom/lab approach can't quite emulate the experience the users will have when they return to their K-12 classrooms. The machines in the university labs are linked to the mainframe system by directly wiring the networks to the mainframe resources; there are no dial-up modems to contend with. Further, even though consumers of this course are relatively evenly divided among a preference for working with each of the three main categories of micros employed in K-12 systems (MAC, Apple II, PC/Clone), the labs of the university are predominantly PC/Clones. Although the practical differences among the three when they are functioning as mainframe "dumb terminals" are not substantial, the comfort levels of the consumers are clearly affected by the differences.
When the consumers return to their own K-12 classrooms and begin to implement this technology, they are faced with other problems as a result of the current technological approach to access. Many schools have so few phone lines as to make it difficult to tie one up for lengthy periods while accessing an Internet
resource in the classroom. Because the university does not have any toll free access lines, the phone charges can easily rise beyond those allowed in a typical Maine school support budget, for those schools needing to access the system through a long distance line. Most significantly, the dial-up modem approach only allows one user at a time per modem / phone line combination. Thus, the classroom teacher must be content with demonstrations and small group activities, even if the school has a fully equipped computing lab.
There is a far superior access strategy available to schools that
addresses all of the above problems. It involves linking Local Area Networks (LANs) in the K-12 setting directly to the university sub-node of the Internet. This bypasses the mainframe, and all of the learning associated with it. Further, because it is accomplished with a high speed, high quality, dedicated phone line, it can support quality activity on the Internet for the complete LAN simultaneously. Of course no modems are required in this approach. The problem is cost. Such an approach is estimated by the university to have an initial cost of $8000
plus annual charges beginning in the second year of $5000. Although these costs are not that large as a percentage of school budgets or in contrast to the wonderful resources they provide, they are beyond the current reach and/or justification of most Maine school systems. It will take successful projects employing the more problematic access approaches in order to sell the more expensive and far more effective approach to K-12 school systems.
Main Findings from the 1992 Course on Computer Networking
First, we will briefly review some main findings from the 1992 course.
Our students were K-12 educators having greatly varying experience with computing and with computer networking. Sixty percent had never used electronic mail before taking the course. Most of the participants were used to working with Macintosh-based or Apple II interactive programs. The command line environments of the mainframe and MS-DOS based PC's were new to them. The instructors of this course were new to teaching together and two of the three were new to teaching computer networking skills. Professor Thomas MacDonald is a seasoned teacher of computer use and Tom Travers is a computer science undergraduate student who assisted with technical support. Professor Henry Amoroso is an education professor, quite new to computer networking, and Professor Leonard Shedletsky is a communication professor with some years of computer networking experience but no formal training in computers. Only Henry Amoroso was previously familiar with teaching K-12 educators.
Data on the 1992 course outcomes were collected in a variety of ways:
(a) electronic mail logfiles; (b) a questionnaire distributed at the end of the course, during a post-course meeting; and (c) course projects.
Logfiles were analyzed for content, problems and successes.
Questionnaires provided information on student perceptions of what they learned and what they thought could improve learning in this course. Finally, course projects required that students devise an actual project that they could carry out with their students or colleagues, making use of computer networing. Both logfiles and course projects extended beyond the one-week of meetings for the course. Faculty and students maintained contact after the week was over and students reported on their projects and filled out the questionnaire at a meeting some months after the regular course meetings were over.
We learned some key ideas from these data. In short, students were able to learn how to create mail messages, to send and receive e-mail, to manipulate files on the mainframe, to get on line in the classroom or at home, and to create and use a names file. However, participants left the course feeling a lack of confidence in their ability to access bulletin boards, link to other mainframes, teleconference, print documents, connect to listservs, use remote library systems, and trouble shoot. Moreover, approximately 50% of our students failed to pass in a project and therefore were not able to pass the course. At the same time, more than 85% ranked as useful telecomputing for promoting teacher to teacher exchanges and student learning. When asked who should take the course, seventy-three percent said "all."
Approximately 60% thought that the instruction was sufficient. Nine percent did not think instruction was sufficient and the remainder were mixed in response. Here are some fundamental problems that limited student learning:
Inappropriate Instruction and Materials
We adopted a building blocks approach to curriculum on the assumption that no student should be introduced to the vast resources of the Internet until s/he acquired a minimum degree of competency in how e-mail works. Perhaps because of that decision, few if any practical examples and applications of networking use were made to stimulate interest and motivate thinking about educational applications.
Little in the way of a textbook or guide to the Internet was in print at the time of the first offering of the course, and what we did have, Zen and the Art of the Internet, was not effective. Moreover, we spent little time developing materials for the course.
The hands-on lab sessions were unstructured. That is, we did not provide specific enough assignments within that context to facilitate learning.
Environmental Concerns
In addition, through discussion with students, it became clear that for many the switch from the Macintosh environment to the command line environment of the mainframe was a source of difficulty. More time was needed for the student to adapt.
The great variety of computer experience created a source of
difficulty. Having a range from novices to K-12 computer coordinators in the same course was disturbing for the novices and slowed the pace too much for the coordinators.
Team teaching itself added a source of difficulty, with faculty mirroring the diversity of student experience and knowledge with computers (one was a computer trained member and the other two were users). The faculty often compromised teaching decisions to accommodate one another. For instance, a major point of tension in teaching was between a step-by-step "cookbook" approach and a conceptual or abstract approach, you could say a bottom up versus a top down approach. Although many students wanted a step-by-step approach, some of the faculty were not convinced that this would serve the students well later.
The above should provide the reader with a good idea of some major teaching/learning difficulties we and our students came to face in the first run of the course. The leading recommendations
students made for what to continue doing or what to change included:
more command handouts
a readable guide to long distance networking
a modem for home (and school) computing
much more practice
a pre-course workshop on basic computing skills for
Next, let's look at some changes that were instituted for the second run of the course.
Paradigm Changes in Teaching/Organizing the Course in 1993
A number of dramatic changes were introduced into the course for the 1993 version. To begin with, the course was expanded to two-weeks long instead of one, with less class time and more lab time per day. This change was a direct result of the finding that students needed more time to practice between class meetings. In the 1992 one-week course, both students and instructors went home exhausted every night. We had underestimated just how much there was to teach and learn, how little time we left for reading and practice. In addition, an accidental change (due to a misprint of the laboratory time) was having laboratory time twice in the day, first thing in the morning before the presentation, and again, after each day's presentation.
Second, we spent part of the first day with an overview of the Internet. Moreover, several topics were eliminated and others included. For instance, we eliminated discussion of Chat Relay and Muses and introduced Gopher and Gopher based searches. These changes resulted in increased understanding of the educational value of telecommunications.
Third, we assigned specific exercises that students were required to complete and to hand in -- at least minimal competency in computer networking became a goal of the course. For each presentation of a major course topic, an assignment required demonstration of skills, e.g., sending and receiving e-mail; using gopher; using ftp; joining a listserv, and telnet-ing.
Fourth, we required two texts, Ed Krol's The Whole Internet: User's Guide & Catalog, and the IBM CMS Primer, IBM's beginning guide to using mainframe tools within the CMS operating system. In addition, handouts were prepared for every major topic in the course. This strategy provided step-by-step instructions and recorded significant instructions (e.g., commands). For instance, a seventeen page handout was provided for introducing students to e-mail and XEDIT. It also meant that presentations could follow the orderly design of the handouts; thus presentations tended to be more orderly than in the 1992 version of the course.
Fifth, the course was contained to the two-week period. Unlike the 1992 course, where students needed to continue sending us e-mail after the meetings ended and where they needed to go back to their schools to carry out their projects during the Fall semester, in the 1993 course, all assignments were fulfilled at the end of the two weeks or shortly afterward.
Sixth, projects were proposals of how students will use the Internet back at their schools rather than actual reports of use. And, not all students were required to write a proposed project; only those who chose to for a higher grade.
We did not provide Macintosh computers in the 1993 course, whereas wehad provided a few for the 1992 course. However, we again did offer a session on translating the skills they were learning to the Macintosh environment.
Although we had intended to have a pre-course workshop day, we were not able to.
Since we decided to focus on the basic skills level of computer
networking, leaving the larger conceptual issues aside, we were
conflicted by the fact that the course was offered for graduate credit. We did not wish to give graduate credit for a course limited to hands on
skills and devoid of intellectual content. This was dealt with by offering a maximum grade of B to those who wished to limit their they learned and what they thought could improve learning in this course. Finally, course projects required that students devise an actual project that they could carry out with their students or colleagues, making use of computer networking. Both logfiles and course projects extended beyond the one-week of meetings for the course. Faculty and students maintained contact after the week was over and students reported on their projects and filled out the questionnaire at a meeting some months after the regular course meetings were over. We learned some key ideas from these data. Generally speaking, students were able to learn how to create electronic mail messages, to send and receive e-mail, to manipulate files on the mainframe, to get on line in the classroom or at home, and to create and use a names file. However, participants left the course feeling a lack of confidence in their
ability to access bulletin boards, link to other mainframes,teleconference, print documents, connect to listservs, use remote library systems, and trouble shoot. Moreover, approximately 50% of our students failed to pass in a project and therefore were not able to pass the course. At the same time, course
work to the competencies involved and a maximum grade of A to those who would take the work further and write a project proposal.
The 1993 Course Results
The 1993 course ended with applause from our students. Not so in 1992,when we felt a degree of frustration and even anger from some of the students. Based on student comments in the classroom, comments sent tous by means of e-mail, and from data collected in the course, exercises, logfiles, journals, project proposals, and questionnaire responses, it is clear that the 1993 course was more effective than the 1992 course.
What follows are both qualitative and objective observations that lead to the conclusion that the 1993 course worked well. In addition, we try to pinpoint where the improvements occur in relation to the changes in the course.
Survey Based Findings from the 1993 Course on Computer Networking
This project employed two extensive surveys of the course consumers,developed by the course instructors. One was administered as a pre-course survey on the first day of class, and the other was an end of course survey. The first survey focused on demographics, computing confidence, types and degree of experience with both hardware and software, and the extent of consumer experience with the specific topics of the course (e.g. mainframes, e-mail, Internet). The second survey was concerned with course perceptions such as why the student took the course and who s/he believes should take it, what improvements could be
made in the course, and what degree of knowledge and satisfaction were derived from the course.
The primary relationship built into the two surveys was an attempt to contrast the degree of knowledge and ability with the course content at the beginning of the course with the knowledge and ability in those areas at the end of the experience. This comparison proved unnecessary when almost all of the respondents (21 out of 23) reported essentially no knowledge or experience in the key course areas at the beginning of the course.
Pre-Course Survey
The course was composed of 23 students (we had limited the course to 25 for the 1993 experience). All 23 responded to the surveys. The mix was what we expected, based on 1992 course demographics. Among the characteristics:
DEMOGRAPHICS
* 61% were teachers
* 30% were librarians (17%) or administrators (13%)
* 19% worked with a very large range of grades (K-12 or 1-12)
* The others worked with single or multiple grades representing all grades but the second
* The emphasis of enrollments were high school oriented
* The range of years in education was 0 to 30, with a mean of 12.5 years
When asked to describe the extent of their computing experience, 39% reported that their experience levels were either extensive (9%) or above average (30%) for their profession. Of the remainder, 44% called their experience adequate while 17% considered their computing skills insufficient. When asked how comfortable they were in using computing, on a 7 point scale, the scores ranged from 3 (slightly uncomfortable) to 7 (very comfortable), with the responses towards the high end of the range.
Participants were asked to describe their comfort with various computer hardware platforms. Apple II experience would clearly seem to be the strongest. There were a surprising number who had either IBM or clone experience. The results were as follows (Table 1):
MACINTOSHNONE 18%
VERY LITTLE 23%
SOME 32% SUBSTANTIAL 27%
APPLE IINONE 13%
VERY LITTLE 9%
SOME 39%
SUBSTANTIAL 39%
IBM PCNONE 35%
VERY LITTLE 20%
SOME 40%
SUBSTANTIAL 5%
PC CLONESNONE 53%
VERY LITTLE 5%
SOME 37%
SUBSTANTIAL 5%
Only 6 participants in the course had ever used E-mail, and much of that experience was on a LAN. Six students had used communication software before, but had used six different products.
Participants were presented with a chart listing eight different types of software products (word processors, spreadsheets, databases, etc.) and asked to answer a number of questions about each, including the software product used in each category, the hardware it is used on, and the confidence level with that product. Of the eight categories, only word processors, spreadsheets, databases were used by half or more of he participants. A large variety of products were used, and they appeared to be evenly distributed on Apple II, Macintosh, and IBM/Clone hardware. Confidence levels with the three categories are reported here .
Word Processors: 0% Novice Users, 4% Some Comfort; 12% Mastery of Key Features; 7% Mastery of the Product.
Spreadsheets: 5% Novice Users; 7% Some Comfort with the Product; 5% Mastery of Key Features; 2 % Mastery of the Product.
Databases: 3% Novice Users; 3% Some Comfort with the Product; 8% Mastery of Key Features; 3% Mastery of the Product.The non-responses should be interpreted as an absence of experience with that category of software (based on survey design and user response patterns). Considering the results above and the lack of responses to the other software categories, it is reasonable to assume that much of the class has not developed a substantial amount of computing expertise prior to the course.
In areas more directly related to the content of the course, 91%
reported having no prior mainframe computing experience, while 87% had no prior Internet or Bitnet experience.
Post-Course Survey
We asked the participants: "To what extent did each of the following motivate you to take this course?" The three strongest motivators for the participants were personal interest, potential for use of this material with students, and their own professional development. Of much less concern were the academic requirement categories.
When asked if their learning goals were fulfilled by the course, exactly half of those responding got more than they expected (much more 36%, and better than adequate 14%). Of the remainder, 36% thought the goals were adequately fulfilled, while 14% said they were partially fulfilled. When asked what quartile of the class they would place themselves in regarding Internet skills, 61% placed themselves in the upper half, and only 9% placed themselves in the lower quarter.
The participants, based on their experience in the course, all believed that K-12 teachers and school librarians should take this course. Ninety-one percent believed that administrators should take the course. The participants were asked an open ended question about how highly they would recommend the course in its present form. Twelve of the twenty-two who responded would recommend it highly. The next highest response involved cautioning inexperienced computer users about the complexity of the course.
Of the 19 participants who had an opinion on the subject, 16 would favor requiring participants with limited computer experience to take a pre-institute workshop in basic skills.
The post survey contained the following question: "In your opinion, how useful (very, fairly, or not too) can telecomputing be in:"
1. Promoting teacher to teacher exchanges of classroom experiences and instructional ideas;
2. Improving student learning;
3. Reducing teacher isolation.
All 23 responding thought that telecomputing would be very useful in promoting teacher to teacher exchanges of classroom experiences and instructional ideas;
Nineteen thought telecomputing would be very useful for improving student learning;
Twenty-two thought telecomputing would be very useful for reducing teacher isolation.
It is clear from the above responses that the students held this
technology in high regard at the completion of the course.
Students were asked: "Suppose you could improve the way this course is taught. To what extent would you favor an increase in the following measures?" More time, follow up sessions, more step by step instruction, and small group learning projects are ideas that should be initiated or expanded, while guest speakers and better handouts are improvements favored by noticeably fewer students. It is interesting to note that the most popular improvements are along the same themes that were used to improve this year's course.
Following the 1993 run of the course, we felt quite confident that we had found an effective way to teach the course. At the same time, Professor MacDonald chose to leave the teaching team. Shedletsky and Amoroso, with the help of a student assistant, William Jones, taught the 1994 course. While we did not collect data in as systematic a way as the earlier two years, we did put out a questionnaire via e-mail to our students and asked them to respond on a voluntary basis. Also, in compliance with university rules, we passed out student evaluation forms on the last day of class. Both student responses to our informal questionnaire and to the evaluation form will be presented below. Overall, the following data support the findings above. What follows are some of the student responses to the e-mail questionnaire.
THE E-MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE (1994)2
Dear People:
have been debating with myself whether or not to ask you for feedback this way. My lazy side is saying, it's too much work. My responsible side has been saying, "ask them!" So, here I am asking you. I really want to know whatever I can find out from you about this course, what works, what doesn't work, what could work better, what could be tossed out, etc. So, I will phrase a few questions below, hoping that you will answer however briefly, but please feel free to simply let me know whatever you can that could help in honing this course. Of course, this is optional and has nothing to do with grading. This is research. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Please respond by sending email to Lenny.
1. Are you a novice computer user, moderately experienced, pretty experienced?
The overwhelming majority were novices and moderately experienced.
2. How many years have you been in education?
An average of 22 years (based on 18 responses).
3. Why did you take EPDI517?
RESPONSES
credits 1
to use Internet in teaching, etc. 14
curiosity 6
to get out of the house -
other -
4. What worked well for you in this course?
FREE FORM
SELF-PACED LEARNING
TEACHERS AND CLASSMATES WERE GREAT
HANDS-ON APPROACH
DEMONSTRATION FOLLOWED BY DOING
HELP FROM CLASSMATES AND HAVING THREE STAFF
DAILY PRACTICE
HAND-OUTS LISTING STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES
USER STANDPOINT--AS OPPOSED TO TECHNICAL LANGUAGE
RELAXED ATMOSPHERE, BEING ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS WITHOUT FEAR
STARTING WITH E-MAIL AND HOOKING US
FINDING MATERIAL OF INTEREST TO US
PRESENTATION OF NEW MATERIAL IN WELL THOUGHT OUT INCREMENTS
THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE ARE ALL BEGINNERS
HUNT EXERCISES AND TEAMS
THE INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION
5. What did not work for you in this course?
Mosaic. I don't think it was a very good demonstration
X's presentation--would have liked more demos and specific paths given3
he pace of the class was too fast for me at times. I needed to kill working on skill practice. Also, I would have liked a team/group approach during scheduled time.
often felt overloaded. There is so much to learn.
tended to resent the "lecture" time since it took away from the hands-on and tended to ramble. Viewing the action on each screen while demonstrating was a great help.4
t's impossible in a course like this, but I need practice, practice, practice. My greatest fear is that I will forget what I know before I can access the Internet again, at some nearby home terminal.
f you used an overhead projection screen, we could have time to try doing the gopher stuff as we go along rather than having to remember how after two hours. I know--this means that you won't have everybody's attention all the time and this is a problem, but it would help if we could go along with rather than do it later.
I found time a problem. I did not have access to the material at home and so I arrived everyday at 8 a.m. and often went to the lab in Luther Bonney Hall after class ended.
I think more repetition would have been helpful for me, because everything was new. A lot of what the technical expert guest said was over my head.
I began to get lost the day we did Mosaic. I didn't feel it was successful or well taught. Wish there was more instruction on the MAC.
I'm not fond of XEDIT as a word processor, but I am getting used to it5.
encountered all the frustrations that everyone else did (computer mysteries, dead ends, feeling overwhelmed from time to time)but that's just the nature of the beast. The fact that you both geared the course to beginners was crucial, and that helped me through the rough spots. Again, your willingness to answer all our questions with patience and humor also helped a lot when things were tough.
The last day and a half, too hurried, too many new skills presented too quickly. Remember, I am a beginner, so my perception is from this point of view; many of the people in the class handled this well.
Knowing what was important to make note of and what was conceptual. Not having options within the labs that were geared to the novice, moderate, and competent user.
6. How was the Ferret book6. Did any other seem better?
The best book I have seen.
It's very helpful, but so is Internet for Dummies
A very helpful guide
Ferret was great!
The Ferret book was a good backup to classroom discussions and labs. I don't know of others to compare it to.
I found the Ferret book to be a very valuable resource.
I thought the Ferret book was very good. It provided a lot of information but still managed to stay non-technical.
I liked it, especially especially with all the addresses pulled together in one place. I also read section of The Whole Internet book. I think Ferret was a good choice.
It's great to have a reference book tailor-made for educators.
The Ferret book works well for me.
I thought the Ferret book was useful.
7. Should the class meet for more or less hours per day, more or less weeks?
I found the time frame to be comfortable.
I think most of us could have used a third week with assignments a bit more spread out.
The time schedule worked well.
Consider beginning the novice group for week one, adding the fairly experienced for week two, and that group can stay for week three while the novices can go home and let it all sink in and PRACTICE. Then bring everyone back for a final session, two days maybe.
The hours are about all the eyes can take, but another week wouldn't be amiss.
I think the lecture, lab, homework, practice mixture worked. There is never enough practice time.
I think you have gotten it to the optimum amount of hours and days.
Not more hours per day but maybe more days or an additonal week. I also think we should have a follow-up day to get together to share progress, problems, or ideas.
I was pretty maxed out when I left in the afternoon. Maybe another week with more time built in for individual work.
I think the organization of our days here were good. I think there should be a follow up meeting(s) in the fall after we have started the year and discover problems.
Not more time per day! 8-3 is a long day when it's so full of new material. Practically and realistically, two weeks is probably just right. Maybe a few follow-up opportunities would be helpful; informal workshops to problem-solve or fill in gaps wew find when we "get out there."
More.
Certainly not for more hours per day. I really liked having the lab time available to us as part of the course. Due to the activities I am involved in during the summer, I would not want to have devoted more weeks. I also am about on info overload.
the course should be at least as long as it is now and maybe longer.
I like the three week, four days a week, three and a half hours a day schedule for those of us with other responsibilities to attend to during the summer.
I think two weeks is plenty during the summer. One can only stand so much of this in one gulp. I appreciate the
lab time you gave us. I think the schedule was perfect.
18.I think two weeks is fine.
8. Should we cut out some of the content?
No! No! Don't be afraid to take the computers away from us and give us some instruction. Many times that would have been better time spent than our surfing around.
No! W need every bit of it and more.
9. Any advice you can offer on the course--please do.
Student Comments from the 1995 run of the course:
What follows is a collection of comments students wrote in to their evalution of the course given during the summer of 1995. There were 48 students in the course, a larger number than we had ever worked with before. We had two computer classrooms to use, one that seated 30 students and the other that seated 20, across the hall from one another. On the last day of the course, students responded to the following instructions:
"This form is to be used if you wish to make signed comments about this course. Unsigned comments may be made on the standard evaluation forms. However, unsigned comments may not be used in consideration of faculty personnel actions, and will not be maintained in personnel files. Signed comments may be used in consideration of personnel actions and are included in the faculty member's file, subject to protections afforded faculty members regarding the inclusion of signed materials in their files.
Upon completion of this form, please return it to the student who distributed it for delivery to the Dean of Education's office in 119 bailey Hall, Gorham.
Comments:
Comment #1: "I enjoyed this course a great deal. It challenged me to learn basic internet skills, but gave me a great deal of freedom to focus on what I as a learner and educator wanted to know in detail. Henry, Lenny and Bill7 make a great combo! Discussions were well run and satisfyingly rich."
Comment #2: Enjoyed this--and the power this information gives me--who knows--maybe the school system's computer guy will talk to me now!"
Comment #3: "Fantastic course. I think everything was perfect. I love the aspect of a slip account for a semester and the fact that we can continue contact with you both. I hope you can work out an advanced course or followup course of somekind. Thank you for your time and patients!"
Comment #3: "(1) Liked the layout of course--review intro/lab gave us structure but allowed us freedom--Best of both worlds
(2) Excellent use of resources -- % the class/2 rooms and back together
(3)DO NOT as someone suggested tell people who to pair up with. I naturally evolved to work with the people I sat with and we worked well as a team and as supporters to each other
Comment #4: "Both instructors worked well together in lowering
the anxiety ratio in class. Both were knowledgable
and very willing to spend time with students. They
also are allowing communication after the completion of this course which is an important follow-up
technique."
Comment #5: "This class was a must for today's educators. It should be a requirement for all education students. If you are to teach today, you must know how to use the Internet.
I think Henry Amoroso and Lenny Shedletsky should be
commended for pioneering in this area."
Comment #6: "The university needs to provide more courses like this for educators, both graduate and undergraduate.
This particular course was exceptionally well done."
Comment #7: "Informative and very useful. Both instructors and technical assistant were great."
Comment #8: "Very invigorating two weeks with Henry and Lenny! I appreciated their enthusiasm and their patience and felt challenged by the course. A few more hand-outs would be helpful to those of us who are "type-A's," but overall we covered a lot of new material and learned some very useful skills."
Comment #9: " The largest difficulty that I had was the changeover from Macintosh to PC/IBM. I have no PC/IBM at home or in my workspace. Once the flow of the course began, I was comfortable enough. Bilingual, in fact.
The instructors were patient and purposive. The assistant worked hard to be everything to everyone".
Comment #10: "Excellent course!! I would be very interested in an 'Internet II' next summer in a MAC lab.
. . . .
I will highly recommend this course to others in my school system."
Comment #11: "I felt that I learned a lot more about computer networking after two weeks in this course. Both Henry and Lenny were enthusiastic about networking and conveyed that enthusiasm to the class. I would like to have a follow-up session with them--which I feel is a tribute to their course. They were attentive to all individual needs in the class-- always patient and often willing to work through a problem with you--even when they didn't know the answer."
Comment #12: "Both instructors had excellent rapport with students.
Coursework was exciting. A new avenue discovered each day.
I would highly recommend this course with these two instructors to anyone who is looking for an introduction to the Internet.
On a personal side, I did some excellent networking with fellow classmates, people I plan on communicating with again."
Comment # 13: "My compliments to both Henry Amoroso and Lenny Shedletsky for their enthusiasm, high degreee of organization, flexibility, patience and caring in the design and delivery of this course. In a complex area, we have been given a solid base upon which to build. A follow-up course should be considered."
Comment #14: "I enjoyed this class and would like to see a follow-up workshop/course on Netscape."
Comment #15: "Though I have much more to learn--somehow I know
now that it will all come together. Thank you very."
Comment #16: "This was a difficult course to teach but I feel Lenny and Henry did a great job.
Kudos to bill Jones also who is already a great
teacher and a super tech."
Comment #17: "Course was Great! It fit all the telecommunication pieces and terms together for me. It was just what I wanted for information. I do recommend more mapping type handouts. I'm making them on Ursus for my project. Still would like a handout on mainframe commands.
Thanks for the keys to the Information Super Highway!"
Comment #18: "This course was great in all areas. I expect that it will have many implications
for my future that I do not even realize yet. I am grateful that the professors had the skills and foresight to present this material so that I will be realizing benefits from it for years to come."
Comment #19: "I liked the team teaching approach. Lenny, Henry and Bill were just great. Class size should be limited to one student per computer in one room only, however. I would have enjoyed a "built-in" time to get together with colleagues (9-12 librarians). Students should have their nicknames 'built-in' at the beginning to help us get to know each other! I would have enjoyed more personal feedback... I felt as if I didn't get to know you well enough.*but there's always e-mail"
Comment # 20: "The course had directed assignments but allowed for browsing and excursions so that we could find things of interest to us. Follow up on research techniques would be helpful. This course has given me confidence to go
further on the Internet-- EXCELLENT."
Comment #21: "Very kind professors who are excellent and caring individuals. Teachers in the truest sense. Knowledgeable, caring and patient. Little technicality--pure educational point of view--thank goodness. I hope they continue teaching this course and others."
Comment #22: "Excellent preparation and presentations. Appreciated the patience and consideration given by
instructors and assistant.
Now I will try to digest and use info gathered during these two weeks."
Comment #23: "This was just what I had hoped for. The blends of instruction
and practice were just right for me! Great assistant, discussions and balance. Knowledgable and patient instructors."
Comment #24: "This class met my expectations
and instilled a great deal of confidence in my pursuit for
computer literacy."
Comment #25: "
NAME:
EPDI 517-51 COMPUTER NETWORKING
POST-COURSE QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is necessary so that we can continue to improve the course and so that we can conduct research into the most useful ways of teaching the INTERNET material. We need you to provide your name so that we can compare responses from the pre-course questionnaire.
Please be assured that:
a. Your responses will not be considered in any way towards establishing your grade for this course.
b. Survey results will always be used in the aggregate, protecting the identity of the respondents.
1.a. To what extent did each of the following motivate you to take this course?
Please check one column for each row
AJOR REASON
INOR REASON
OT A REASON
ecertification
raduate Credit
Personal interest in the subject
rofessional Development Opportunities
Potential for use with Students
ther: (specify)
.b. To what extent were your learning goals fulfilled by the course?
(circle best choice)
0 = too early to tell
1 = not at all fulfilled
2 = to a partial extent
3 = adequately fulfilled
4 = better than adequate
5 = much more than I expected
2. How comfortable are you using computing (circle a number below)
UNCOMFORTABLEEE
NEUTRAL
COMFORTABLE
very
oderately
lightly
slightly
oderately
ery
NEUTRAL
COMFORTABLE
very
moderate
1 ly
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. Based on your experiences in the course, and your knowledge of your classmates, in what quartile of the class would you place yourself regarding INTERNET computer abilities?
Circle one:
1. Lower quartile (1-25%)
2. Lower middle quartile (26-50%)
3. Upper middle quartile (51-75%)
4. Top quartile (76-100%)
4.a. Who do you think ought to take this course?
YES NO
K-12 Teachers
Administrators
Librarians
Others (specify)
4.b. As the course currently exists, to what extent would you recommend it?
4.c. What advice would you give to someone taking the course next summer?
4.d. Would you favor or oppose requiring participants with limited computer experience to take a pre-institute workshop to prepare them for the course?
FAVOR OPPOSE NO OPINION
5. The TEAM Approach to Learning
5.a. Did you pair off with a partner to do your lab and/or outside learning in this course?
Circle one: YES NO
If no, skip to question #6.
5.b. If yes, what were your comparative computing skills (circle one):
reasonably equal partner was considerably more skilled I was more skilled
5.c. To what extent did the partnership contribute to your learning
(circle one):
substantially not at all a modest amount
5.d. Who was your partner?
5.e. Other comments you are willing to offer about the team approach:
6. In your opinion, how useful can telecomputing be in:
HOW USEFUL?
VERY FAIRLY NOT TOO
Promoting teacher to teacher
exchanges of classroom
experiences and instructional
ideas
Improving student learning
Reducing teacher isolation
Other (specify):
7.a. Suppose you could improve the way this course is taught. To what extent would you favor an increase in the following measures?
YES NO UNSURE
Step by step instruction
More time for practice
Small group learning projects
Guest speakers
Follow up sessions after the
course
Better handouts
7.b. To what extent would you recommend a change in the course schedule that would accomplish the following:
alternative schedule:
* taught in a four week period
* meeting only on Monday, Wednesday, Friday
* with lab availability on non-class days
circle the best response
1. It would be a major improvement
2. It would improve the course somewhat
3. It would make no difference
4. It would be slightly worse than the current schedule
5. It would be much worse than the current schedule
7.c. In your opinion, to what extent would the alternative schedule proposed in the previous question have an impact on enrollments in the course?
1. Major reduction in enrollments
2. Minor reduction in enrollments
3. No impact on enrollments
4. Would improve enrollments slightly
5. Would improve enrollments dramatically
8. What other improvements would you make in this course?
9. What was the most valuable part of this course for you?
10. Any other comments you would like to make about this course:
11. TOPIC COVERAGE
For each of the topics below, was the classroom and lab emphasis sufficient to learn the material:
Scale:
1 = quite insufficient
2 = a little inadequate
3 = just about the right amount
4 = a little more than necessary to learn the material
5 = much more than necessary to learn the materialPlace the number of the best choice from the scale above in each box.
TOPIC
SCALE VALUE
CMS commands
XEDIT commands
FILELIST
RDRLIST
SENDFILE
Creating Temporary Disks
Uploading and Downloading files between
a micro and the mainframe
What the INTERNET is and its general
usefulness
LISTSERV's
NETWORK NEWS
GOPHER
VERONICA
ARCHIE
FTP
TELNET
WAIS
12. YOUR CONFIDENCE WITH EACH TOPIC
Assuming that you will have MORE PRACTICE on your own with each of the skills below, how confident are you in your abilities with it?
Scale:
1 = hopelessly confused about this skill
2 = less than adequate
3 = adequate
4 = comfortable enough to use this tool for myself
5 = comfortable enough to use this tool with my students
Place the number of the best choice from the scale in each box.
TOPIC
SCALE VALUE
CMS commands
XEDIT commands
FILELIST
RDRLIST
SENDFILE
Creating Temporary Disks
Uploading and Downloading files between
a micro and the mainframe
What the INTERNET is and its general
usefulness
LISTSERV's
NETWORK NEWS
GOPHER
VERONICA
ARCHIE
FTP
TELNET
WAIS
1 Travers was a student assistant in the course.
Since these data were not collected systematically, we will merely show the questionnaire here and a sampling of responses which we believe represent the data.
This comment refers to a guest speaker who was a technical expert.
The teacher's screen was projected onto the student's screen.
This reference is to the mainframe's editor.
Harris, J. (1994). Way of the Ferret. International Society for Technology in Education, Eugene, OR.
7 Bill Jones was a student assistant in the course.
??