The CTL provides faculty with the means to innovatively and collaboratively advance the process of education.
Skip to: [Content] [Navigation]
[ To view this site's graphical design UPGRADE your web browser to Firefox ]
PSY 290 (Research Methods) and PSY230 (Statistics)
This year in my research methods course (PSY290), I wanted to increase my understanding of how students thing about the research process. After reading an article by Russell (1997) I began to question how writing in research methods could be used as a tool to further mediate writing in psychology, particularly transitioning into future studies in psychology, such as upper division work and graduate training. Although many students have taken many English courses, oftentimes what is lacking is learning to become "specialized" writers in the academic discipline of psychology. It became apparent that research methods students would benefit by an immersion into academic discourse. I wanted to investigate the use of various methods to aid in the development of psychological academic discourse in an introductory course in research methods.
These goals are being worked on continually. Based on pre- and post-tests, preliminary results allow me to conclude that after leaving the course students:
It is interesting to note that critiquing peer work does not improve, but rather the perception decreases (Xpre=1.733 and Xpost = 1.600). Through the use of the computer classroom, students were able to apply the knowledge directly. Students have given classroom evaluations and have commented on how helpful the classroom was to their learning. It allowed them to formulate more questions which helped them grasp the materials more deeply. Students enjoyed working with other students and having the accessibility to the statistical software and databases.
I wish all the classrooms were like this! It truly fosters dynamic learning experiences. I was able to use the technology available to aid in my instruction. The assistance from the CTL was amazing. I have gathered more questions to further investigate and improve my teaching through this experience.
SLG 101, SLG 102
Until now, our American Sign Language curriculum did not make use of technology. For as long as American Sign Language (ASL) has been offered, we have spent countless dollars making overhead transparencies of the line drawings provided by the publisher of our curriculum. This is unfortunate considering that ASL is a visual language and would lend itself particularly well to a multimedia platform. I have spent this year converting our current ASL 101 and 102 curriculums into a multimedia format. Additionally, I shared my curriculum development and shared the use of the classroom with one of our ASL adjunct faculty. Sharing the materials is the first step toward increasing the use of technology in the ASL classroom, and promoting a standard for instruction and consistency here at MCC. Moreover, providing technology mediated instruction saved valuable instruction time and copying funds for our department.
When I experimented with mediated instruction in the past, students have consistently reported that they prefer the use of mediated presentations over transparency presentations. Students noted that the improved visuals used in mediated presentations were easier to understand and remember. Additionally, students noted considerable time was saved during my power point presentations because I was not putting overheads away between instruction. This created a more seamless transition for them.
Introduce the principles, methods, and techniques for communicating with Deaf people who sign. Students will develop expressive and receptive sign skills with the focus on communicative competence, manual alphabet, numbers, and sign vocabulary. Students will gain an understanding of syntax, grammar, and culture related to American Sign Language.
The teaching and learning goals of my classes did not change based on this project; I just wanted to arrive at those goals more effectively and efficiently. Using the CTL classroom has provide me with the necessary physical set up to conduct my classes including proper lighting (students need to be able to see me when I’m teaching),Einstein tables, technology (LCD projector and computer) and most important; technical support.
My experiences using the CTL classroom thus far have been excellent. I have learned so much about effective PowerPoint development and presentation. Based on my evaluations, students feel the visual support provided by this method of instruction is invaluable to their leaning. One of my biggest concerns for the future of my materials is the ability to use them in my department’s classrooms. Not to mention what that would be like for me to revert back to the conventional and archaic overhead projector. In order to continue my development and growth technologically, I need to have a classroom that is appropriate for ASL instruction AND has the necessary equipment. It would also be increasingly helpful to have the equipment necessary to “capture” the language I teach available to me in my own office (camcorder/editing software etc).
Additionally, while several other adjunct instructors have expressed an interest in using my materials, learning to use this technology increases the burden of my department to create appropriate teaching environments to support such growth and development.
Another thing I learned during this experience was that developing two levels of multimedia curriculum is an enormous task. In doing it again, I would probably teach only one level, develop it fully, and then move on to the next.
This experience has inspired me to consider many more possible applications of technology in and out of the ASL classroom. I plan on continuing my journey instructionally in order to better support student learning in a technologically enhanced environment.