“It is widely agreed that the most
effective forms of ICT to use with deaf children are highly visual rather than
reliant on the written word or sound”
(Richards, 2004)
This was my focus in searching for technologies. Highly
visual, highly accessible technologies are my main interest. Many technologies,
despite their diverse range of capabilities, are heavily text-based. This
assumes that the students receiving the information understand written English
with academic fluency—which isn’t always the case. For students who are Deaf,
on the autism spectrum, or learning English as a second language, this is not
the most effective method of presentation. For students who are Deaf or on the
spectrum, their first language is highly visually-based*. For
typical students learning English as a second language, presenting information
as highly visually-based with text support could aid them in written language
acquisition. For the purposes of this assignment, my process began with
focusing on educational technologies to be used for and by Deaf students,
although the technologies I discovered could be adapted to meet the needs of
others, as well.
Gallaudet University is renowned as THE university for
deaf/hard-of-hearing students in the United States. Their technology services department
provides a list of resources used throughout their school, including
blackboard-type services, web conferencing tools, and their YouTube channel.
Two of these stood out: Echo 360 Lecture Capture, and myThread (hosted by VoiceThread).
Echo360
Gallaudet uses Echo360 Lecture Capture, in order to
video-record lectures for students to access later—presumably due to the fact
that it’s very difficult to attend to a lecture presented in ASL and take notes
simultaneously, given the necessity of eye contact on the presenter. However,
the Echo360 tool is much more diverse than just a recording system. Take a look
at the video on this page showing
Dr. Melissa Gross of University
of Michigan using Echo360
Active Learning Platform in her anatomy class. (Scroll down a bit, under the
title “Hear From Our Customers”—she’s on the left. I couldn’t manage to link
directly to the video).
 |
| Dr. Gross controls the main presentation (top) A student takes notes on her personal copy of the day's lecture (bottom) |
As you can see in the video, students use their own hardware
(laptop computers and iPads with stylus pens) to participate in the lesson, as
does the instructor (iPad to conduct the lesson, projector to display it). The
technology integration here is effective for a number of reasons. The variety
of interactive features allows students to participate and engage with the
material in new ways, addressing the need for reaching diverse learning styles.
These features include multiple choice response and free response
opportunities, image interactions, a note taking option, and the ability for
the students to save the presentation on their own device. The use of the free
response, according to Dr. Gross, allows students to use their creative mind,
addressing one of the NETS-T
standards.
Standard 1a: Promote, support, and model
creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness
The free response tool promotes
creative thinking and inventiveness, in this lesson, by allowing students
to “make up anatomical names” of muscles they are just learning, which allows
Dr. Gross to peek into their thought process regarding what they understand
about the lesson thus far.
The use of Echo360 software also addresses standard 2b,
providing a technology-enriched learning
environment that encourages students to become
active participants in their own learning. In this lecture hall, it’s clear
that students are immersed in the technology, keeping them engaged with the
material—they’re taking notes, answering questions, annotating images. Unless
the camera work is really that perfect, it doesn’t appear that a single student
is off task. Students can also assess
their own progress by taking note of the multiple choice and free response
questions they get wrong during lecture, to better understand where their
misunderstandings lie before moving on.
Standard 2b: Develop technology-enriched
learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual
curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational
goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress
 |
| Students respond to a multiple choice question on their devices, and the total results are displayed in the presentation |
It is clear in Dr. Gross’ classroom that the technology
supports the learning, and not the other way around. Echo360 makes anatomy accessible
for a large group of students, by providing a highly visual platform with
interactive capabilities with which students can truly engage with the
material. The software allows them to “engage with the material, right now:
‘What do you think about this?’ They’re active with the material—they find out
what they know, and what they don’t know” (Gross). From there, when their
answers are displayed on screen, they can discuss as a class the right and
wrong answers, and how they can improve their understanding. The technology
gives them a deep connection to the material in this way, and directs classroom
conversations towards the material,
rather than away from it, allowing class time to be much more productive than
before.
VoiceThread
VoiceThread is a presentation software in which
presentations are created, stored, and shared on the web— not unlike Prezi.
However, VoiceThread carries a few distinct advantages: creators can add text,
voiceover, or video commentary, to which commenters can respond in kind. Take a
look at the video ASL Handshapes here. (Again, couldn’t
link directly to the video). In the first slide, the professor provides
instructions to her students: “You will see several pictures of ASL
handshapes…. Please add your sign (for each?) handshape. For example: handshape
‘1’ (index finger), the sign for ‘think’.” Then, she provides an example of a
comment (at left) using the comment feature. In subsequent slides, the students
respond to the prompt for each handshape provided.
Assessments like this are fantastic examples of effective
technology integration. Since ASL is a visual language, video is the most
appropriate means of technological communication, and thereby, assessment. The
complete presentation is a collaborative effort between the instructor, who
provided the foundation, and the students, who provided examples in the
comments. The work being available online enhances integration, as well:
students can view one another’s responses, an excellent opportunity to learn
from one another; and their work is now available for others to build upon (for
example, my using the presentation as an example of effective technology use in
education).
Again, the technology here supports the learning, rather than using technology for
technology’s sake. It allows students the chance to respond to the prompt
thoughtfully, rather than rushing through an example in class while under
pressure to perform well. What’s more, these students are likely hearing
students in an ASL language or interpreting class—using a webcam to communicate
their thoughts in the language is an important cultural perspective to gain,
and cultural understanding is a foundation of any ASL class. The Deaf use
video-based technologies to communicate in a variety of settings: video relay
services for important telephone calls, iPhone FaceTime for closer friends and
family, and videoconferencing for work purposes are among the most common
examples. Using and becoming comfortable with this technology is necessary for
prospective interpreters (and anyone that wants to gain cultural perspective),
and the opportunity to do so is a great benefit of using VoiceThread.
The use of this technology for an assessment also addresses
the NETS-T standards. Based on other available presentations provided by this
instructor, this particular approach to assessment appears to be a unique
exploration into the technology, making clear that her assessments must be varied (standard 2d). This form of assessment
isn’t a standard go-to item for her: rather, it appears as though it was
intended to be a step into new technological territory, for both her and her
students. Providing multiple, varied
assessments using technology allows students to sample new tools, and
explore concepts in different ways—rather than taking drill-based exams at
every turn. This seems to have been an effective and interesting assessment
opportunity, which I hope she and others will continue.
Standard 2d: Provide students with multiple and varied
formative and summative assessments aligned with content and technology
standards, and use resulting data to inform learning and teaching
Also based on presentations by the same instructor, it is
clear that she is achieving standard 5c, reflecting
on current research… to make
effective use of existing and emerging digital tools. Her other two
VoiceThread presentations are entitled, “The Effectiveness of SMART
Technologies in Deaf Education,” and “Technology in the ASL/English Bilingual
Classroom”. As an instructor at Gallaudet, these are highly relevant topics to
her students’ learning.
Standard 5c: Evaluate and reflect on
current research and professional practice on a regular basis to make effective
use of existing and emerging digital tools and resources in support of student
learning
Accessibility in education is incredibly important, whether
students are Deaf, on the spectrum, learning English, or have any of a number
of diverse learning needs. Whatever the cause, students’ specific learning
needs must be acknowledged and supported. Technology helps make this support possible.
The diverse tools and capabilities of technology make learning accessible for
all—now, the only challenge is using the technology to support that accessibility.
"Good tools do not make a good
teacher, but a good teacher makes good use of tools." – Eleanor Doan
(Fuller et al, 2012)
---
References:
Fuller, W. et al. (2012). Assessing classroom technology integration. Education
World. Retrieved from
http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech243.shtml
Richards, C. (2004, Mar 22). Using ICT Effectively with Deaf
Children. The Guardian. Retrieved
from http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/mar/22/elearning.technology
*: This statement is made in the belief that students on
the autism spectrum use symbol-based communication systems as their primary
language (understood and acquired prior to the use of spoken or written
English), and could be considered arguable among professionals. I’m still doing
some personal study into this matter—that’s for another post entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment