“Technology and the Institutions for higher education have finally merged and become a vital part of our educational system called Course Management Systems. Authors (McGee, P., Carmean, C., Brown, G. 2005) setting the foundation for Course Management Systems (CMS) in the way we speak and think of transformative change, not only in the context of education but in how we disseminate information that directly influences the way we learn, striving to attain deeper learning and engagement within an higher educational pedagogy. With this emerging technology there are myriad of issues that affected the stakeholders. Moreover, authors (McGee, P. ,Carmean, C., Brown, G. 2005) “refine some of these questions by examining the roles and needs of each of the stakeholders in CMS: teachers, students, support services, leadership, and vendors”.”
Terrance,
The proliferation of technology continues in all aspects of our lives. However, nowhere is the question of its effectiveness more apt than in education. Technology for the sake of using it does not improve or enhance learning. The questions raised by the authors cited in your paper are valid.
I contend most CMS unequivocally have changed how we learn if merely for the constant availability of the content matter. That of itself will affect how well some learn by attending to biocognitive cycles (Jensen, 2008). Jensen contends that requiring learners to be attentive for extended periods is counterproductive to learning. Ubiquitous learning allows students of all ages to schedule learning when their rhythm of learning is at its peak. This is only one possible answer to a flurry of questions that surround the effectiveness of CMS.
You did a nice job of synthesizing the information.
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment