These sources can also be found on the individual pages, but have been combined here for ease of access.
Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 144-156. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ920738.pdf
This article discusses eight principles of online education and gives recommendations on how they can be used to design educational materials for mobile devices. It discusses the pros and cons of online education and how it is applied to mobile devices such as phones or tablets. At the end of the article it discusses UDL and how mobile devices can help meet the needs of curriculum designed with all students in mind. These deal predominantly with access, flexibility and the community that can be developed around it.
King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 199-201. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.dml.regis.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e1b01791-7030-4578-9b2e-7b635cea3252@sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=19
In this article the author discusses how technology can be used to meets the needs of a UDL based curriculum. That due to low physical effort, simplicity, multiple forms of perceiving a data set, and software’s tolerance for error, computers can provide what is most needed in a highly-differentiated UDL environment. This means that students can all utilize the same content, but do so through different mediums and at different speeds.
Hudson, H. (2011). The digital divide. Instructor, 121(2), 46-50. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ945726.pdf
This article gives an overview of both the desire students have for more technology use in the classroom and the apprehension teachers have about students misusing it. It proposes that we need to build a well structured environment with clearly defined boundaries and then allow students the freedom to use what they find best suits their learning style. Lastly, it proposes that allowing students to bring and use their own devices at school could save districts money.
McGrath, M. (2011). Zeroing the divide: Promoting broadband use and media savvy in underserved communities. National Civic Review, 100(3), 24-28. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.dml.regis.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=70ff9225-5a12-42b7- b435-00137924b31e@sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=14
Michael McGrath gives a look at broadband penetration within the United States, showing how in many areas, mostly rural, people are still not able to get speeds or reliability that would allow them to take advantage of what the internet has to offer. These areas are quickly falling behind in their ability to adapt in an ever changing technologically savvy world. They cite concerns with students not understanding how these innovations will affect them once they enter the job market. There is a push in many places to extend connectivity to these more rural areas in the hope that they will keep pace.
Sun, J., & Metros, S. (2011). The digital divide and its impact on academic performance. Online Submission, US-China Education Review, A(2), 153-161. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED524846.pdf
In this journal the authors pose the question of whether technology really improves academic performance, and whether, or to what extent, socio-economic factors limit their accessibility. Many institutions and schools are hesitant to implement technology use due to studies that have shown that the computers within public schools are used to the surf the internet more than they are for academic purposes. On the other hand, a study showed that training one-to-one shows quicker improvement, something a computer can simulate. The article’s conclusion finds that there is a socio-economic digital divide and that students in the lower areas are missing out on foundational skills in their use of technology, which can affect their career opportunities.
Morris, J. (2011). Digital bridge or digital divide? a case study review of the implementation of the “computers for pupils programme” in a birmingham secondary school. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10(IIP), 17-IIP. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol10/JITEv10IIPp017-031Morris899.pdf
This article discusses how the digital divides is being addressed in Australia, and how in many cases there is too much of a focus on the hardware and software and not enough on the implementation. Schools and districts are getting initial funding for laptops and software without funding to maintain the machines or even the proper support staff to help teach them how to effectively use it. When an area was rolled out with laptops for all students they would later find that nearly 50% of them were using the laptops almost wholly for leisure purposes. The cause of this stemmed from the staff not knowing how to effectively integrate it into their class.
“Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and Student Achievement. Working Paper 48.”National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. (2010): 48. Print. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED511763.pdf
While access to computers and the internet at school has become relatively equalized across socio-economic borders, at home there is still a significant gap. Students from low-income areas have less access than others, which often makes their time at school not as fruitful as those who can hone their skills elsewhere. They also found that on standardized tests those students who have home computer and internet access scored 2% higher than those without. This measurement occurred within the same socio-economic demographic.
McCollum, S. (2011). Getting past the “digital divide”.Teaching Tolerance, (39), 46-49. Retrieved from http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-39-spring-2011/getting-past-digital-divide
This is an article about how technology can be successfully integrated into the classroom. Specifically it deals with cell phones and laptops, giving numerous examples of how teachers have made this technology work for them instead of having to fight against it. The stipulate that students learn better when using these electronic devices because they are using familiar tools.
Nicholson, S. (2013). Exploring Gamification Techniques for Classroom Management. Madison, WI: Syracuse University.
This article talks about the way game strategies have been used in college courses. It covers leader boards and point-based systems as well as differentiation and more engaged in-depth learning. They found that point-based systems didn’t work as well as the latter, but in certain situations it was effective. It provides many suggestions for teachers that would like to add some layer of gaming to their course, but who are afraid of committing 100% from the start.
(08, 08 12). What is a CMS? Exploring Content Mangagement Systems. Retrieved from http://voices.yahoo.com/what-cms-exploring-content-management-systems-1758623.html.
In this article the author takes a look at the different CMS tools commonly available for teachers, such as Joomla, Drupal and WordPress. He compares these tools and their ease of use with respect to one another.
Parker, D. (2009, 01 27). How to choose the right CMS for education. Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2009/01/27/how-to-choose-the-right-cms-for-education/.
This is more a general overview of the criteria that one should have when choosing a CMS for school. The author talks about how one should stick with simplicity at first and then use add-ons and other tools to increase functionality. The main ones that are looked at are WordPress, Drupal and Moodle. The final choice seems to be WordPress because it has such an active community and is continually being updated and refined.
Illot, M. (n.d.). Open Source vs Proprietary CMS. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://www.bloomtools.com/articles/open-source-vs-proprietary-cms.html
This resource is nothing more than a brief overview of the differences between open source and proprietary LMS software. It gives a nice bullet list breakdown of each and then a quick summary of the two.
Shannon, M. (2009). OPEN SOURCE VS PROPRIETARY CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (CMS). Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://mainpath.com/open-source-vs-proprietary-content-management-systems-cms/
This article takes a look at the tradeoffs between open source and proprietary CMS software. It looks at the benefits of user support that one can get from a paid service, vs. the need for a more able tech staff with open source. No one solution is a fit for everyone, and each situation needs to be looked at in order to ensure that the best choices are being made for the primary users, whether that be teachers or students.
Mattelin, G. (2015, September 15). Are The Hidden Costs Of The Open Source LMS Worth Making? Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://elearningindustry.com/open-source-lms-hidden-costs
This article takes a look at the financial difficulties that one might encounter with an open source LMS. It assumes that the user will buy their own hardware, and that they will need to hire staff to keep it all up and running. They then note that in purchasing a solution, a school can actually save money.
Curran, T. (2011, November 8). Open Source or Proprietary LMS? Your Answer, My Friend, Is Floating In the Cloud. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://tedcurran.net/2011/11/08/open-source-or-proprietary-lms-your-answer-my-friend-is-floating-in-the-cloud/
If a school has chosen offsite hosting then open source solutions are available which have all the benefits of a paid app. These hosting sites set up Moodle platforms and have tech support just like any similar paid site would.
Warger, T. (2002). The Open Source Movement. Educause Quarterly, 18-20. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0233.pdf.
This article looks at the reasons why a company or school might be hesitant to use open source. What they found was that staff, for the most part, is either unaware or not qualified to deal with open source software. They also found that there is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to code that is freely developed, such as it being prone to having people “mess with it.”
Ford, K., & Lott, L. (2010). The Impact of Technology on Constructivist Pedagogies. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from https://sites.google.com/a/boisestate.edu/edtechtheories/the-impact-of-technology-on-constructivist-pedagogies-1
This article is about the changing culture with regard to technology. Digital natives react to technology different, and don’t have the same fears as others do. They instinctively understand how to navigate software, whether proprietary or not.
Beaumie, K. (2006). Social Constructivism. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://www.wikispaces.com/file/view/Social%2BConstructivism.pdf
I used this source for a brief section in the podcast about the way that technology can be used to supplement new teaching styles. The article itself looks at multiple perspectives, dealing almost exclusively with constructivism, and breaks them down into four general perspectives. Through these perspectives one can see how a teacher can move a class towards governing their own learning.
Koohang, A., & Harman, K. (2005). Open Source: A Metaphor for E-Learning. Informing Science Journal, 8. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex_Koohang/publication/200051088_Open_source_A_metaphor_for_e-learning/links/00b4953bc7003368c1000000.pdf.
In this article the author looks at constructivism and open source as having the same philosophical roots. This was not much a help in creating the factual content of the podcast, but change my views and thus impacted the overall tone.
Lakhan, S., & JhunJhunwala, K. (2008). Open Source Software in Education. Educause Quarterly, (2), 32-40. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/eqm0824.pdf
This is a comprehensive overview of the open source movement from beginning to end. What was most useful in this article was the listing of well-known open source software and the breakdown of the uses from many others.
Sultan, W., Woods, P., & Koo, A. (2011). A Constructivist Approach for Digital Learning: Malaysian Schools Case Study. Educational Technology & Society,, (14), 149-163. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://www.ifets.info/journals/14_4/14.pdf
This is a study that was done in Malaysian schools comparing students that use IT in a constructivist environment and those that don’t. What they found was that there was no significant academic impact between the two groups of students, though there were many qualitative benefits with the latter.
Gee, J. (2012, March 12). James Paul Gee on Learning With Video Games. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://www.edutopia.org/james-gee-video-games-learning-video
While this is only a short video, James Paul Gee packs a lot of information in it about how we as educators can learn from games. It talks about how students learn to form groups, strategy, and work together to reach an objective in a goal-driven world. Whereas the world of the classroom is more teacher-directed, the online world is community-directed. He believes that we should be working more towards the latter than the former.
Gee, J. P. (n.d.). GOOD VIDEO GAMES AND GOOD LEARNING (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Wisconsin-Madison, from http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/documents/Good_Learning.pdf
This is an article which contains in depth information related to the idea of gaming and education. It covers the social, intellectual and emotional benefits of incorporating ideas of gaming into the learning process. It also challenges many of the ideas teachers seem to have about how education could be handled.
Atweh, B., Forgasz, H., & Nebres, B. (2001). Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
This book covers mathematics from the perspective of its impact on the way we think, interact, and deal with issues of equality, gender, and culture. In reading this I was surprised at some of the underlying issues that come with teaching math, a subject that normally seems like it crosses cultural boundaries quite easily.
Schuck, S. (2012). Butterfly Brains and Digital Natives Inhabiting Schools in Transition. Dordrecht: Springer.
This article provides information on the problems that teachers face when dealing with technology in schools. As technology changes rapidly both new and old teachers are faced with having to adapt at a faster rate, something the students seem to do naturally. Issues come with striking a balance between learning these new skills and creating consistency in the classroom and curriculum.
Stack, M., & Kelly, D. (2006). Popular Media, Education, and Resistance. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(1), 5-25. Retrieved January 27, 2016.
This article is quite interesting in that it discusses not just how technology is changing the landscape of education, but the resistance to it. It also describe how media can be mined for information that will help educational researchers understand and adapt to these resistances.
Callahan, M., & Low, B. (2004). At the Crossroads of Expertise: The Risky Business of Teaching Popular Culture. The English Journal, 93(3). Retrieved January 29, 2016.
I like the examples given here that support adding popular culture to the class curriculum. The two teachers they observe integrating elements of popular culture into the class both encounter issues, but they also find ways to use these as part of the teaching process. This source helped me to write on the issues of public vs. private schools and how what is allowed in the classroom can vary between the two.
Fullan, Michael. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan’s book was a fantastic resource in helping me to understand how change is effected in the school setting, and the challenges that one must overcome in order to make it happen. It also helped me to see that many of the issues that a school’s administration must confront come from external sources such as the state and district. The idea of uniformity within the school system was once its greatest asset, allowing shared resources and skills. These days though it seems this desire for uniformity is running up against the culture.
McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation as Mutual Adaptation: Change in Classroom Organization. Retrieved from http://ereserves.regis.edu/ares/ares.dll?SessionID=S232815818X&Action=10&Form=50&Value=6557
Many of the ideas I’ve had with regard to the way I wish a school would implement change can be summed up by mutual adaptation. In my own classroom I am already building resources each and every year in order to adapt to the changes in technology and the way my students relate to it.
DeMarrais, K. B., & LeCompte, M. D. (1990). The way schools work: A sociological analysis of education. New York: Longman.
I used this book mostly for the case studies and the examples of real classrooms that they presented. The examples themselves didn’t provide a lot of facts, but were more inspiration for a set of ideas.