Texas Instruments Timeline

Google Drive Tetrad

The rise of advanced and mobile technologies ushered the society in an era where laptops, notebooks, tablets, handheld and pocket-sized mini computers have become an integral part of individuals’ life (van Velsen, Beaujean, & van Gemert-Pijnen, 2013).  Google provides software applications such as Google Drive, which replaces Google Docs.  Like any other technologies, Google Drive follows McLuhan’ s tetrad of enhancement, obsolescence, retrieval, and reversal (Thornburg, 2008).

            Indeed, as in the displayed tetrad above, Google Drive enhances data storage, information retrieval, and sharing of file and folders.  The Software Engineer Zach (2013) demonstrated ways to blog, share, and retrieve files and folders via any device, using Google Drive (Sangani, 2012).  Indeed, software applications provide wide language support; however using keyboard is sometime cumbersome and individuals might resort to handwriting (Xiao, 2013). 

Google Drive is a Web-based productivity software for cloud-based storage services

such as Dropbox  Sky Drive, and sets up itself for cloud computing, in terms of reversal.  Google Drive obsoletes hard drive, compact disc, diskette drive,  flash drive storage, and dropbox.  It rekindles the old way of storing data on floppy disc, which is hard to find in the digital communication era.
           The table of comparison below, provides information on free allowable space in gigabytes (GB on cloud storage.  Thus, individuals might embrace cloud computing that encompasses Google Drive, for a comprehensive and collaborative medium to create, share, and edit documents, calendars, and social networking communities (Robertson, 2013).

References

Robertson, C. (2013). Using a Cloud-based Computing Environment to Support Teacher Training on Common Core Implementation. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(6), 57-60. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0702-9

Sangani, K.  (2012).  Google:  Google drive.  Engineering & Technology (17509637), 7(8), 101

Thornburg, D. D. (2008).  Emerging technologies and McLuhan's Laws of Media.  Lake Barrington, IL:  Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.

van Velsen, L., Beaujean, D. A., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. C.  (2013).  Why mobile health app overload drives us crazy, and how to restore the sanity.  BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Making, 13(1), 1-5.  doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-23
Xiao, X.  (2013).  Handwriting input comes to Gmail and Google Docs.  Retrieved from http://googledrive.blogspot.com/2013/10/handwritingindocs.html

Zack, L. (2013).  New Google sheets:  Faster, more powerful, and works offline.  Retrieved from http://googledrive.blogspot.com

EMERGING AND SUTURE TECHNOLOGIES

Identifying an Emerged Technology

Graphing CalculatorTI-84 Plus

The advanced technology brings increasingly changes in educational technology, generating emerging technologies that offer individuals new opportunities for effective and efficient task completion (Thornburg, 2009).  The available technologies encompass inexpensive, hand-held calculators through expensive multimedia workstations, in mathematics education.  Technology is available to support mathematics instruction in technology-rich laboratories with modern workstations and teacher workstations with projection capability.  One such low-end emerged technology is the graphing calculator Texas Instrument (TI) 84-Plus (http://education.ti.com/en/us/products/calculators/graphing-calculators/ti-84-plus/tools-for-teachers/ti-technology-rewards-program).

The TI-84-Plus graphing calculator serves as a motivational tool to students and its uses facilitate students’ mathematical computations and some problem solving techniques (Lyublinskaya & Tournaki, 2010), as TI E2E^TM Community revealed and McLaughlin (2013) depicted in his blog. Blog

Dr. Steven McLaughlin

 The Center for Technology in Learning

TI-Navigator System

SRI International (2012) conducted a study on computer algebra system (CAS) graphing calculators TI and networked graphing calculators (TI-Navigator system), and found that the new technology spurred new theoretical, methodological, and design frameworks for engaging classroom learning.  These hand-held mini computers provoke and support highly interactive and group-centered capabilities of a new generation of classroom–based networks.

Although some individuals had knowledge about innovations, they lack understanding and insight about the process of change, which drive successful change (Fullan, Cuttress, & Kilcher, 2005).  Thus, rather than technology, people might constitute other barriers to the diffusion process, evoking lack of money. To diffuse any technological innovations in the mathematics classrooms, the scholar of change would think of students, and teachers’ perceptions on the attributes (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability) of the innovation that influences its adoption and diffusion (Rogers, 2003), citing scholarly works and presenting the video below.  The change agent might educate stakeholders on the uses of the new technology in terms of its applicability and reliability (Webster & Jeong-Bae, 2012), and be proactive in the decision-making.

References

Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005).  8 forces for leaders of change.  Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 54-58,64.  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/211518218?accountid=14872
Lyublinskaya, I. and N. Tournaki (2010).  Integrating TI-Nspire technology into algebra classrooms:  Selected factors that relate to quality of instruction Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference San Diego, CA, AACE.
Rogers, E. M.  (2003).  Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.).  New York, NY:  Free Press.
The Center for Technology in Learning SRI International.  (2012).  Algebra N-spired research study phase 2:  Final report.  Retrieved from http://education.ti.com/en/us/research/research_navigator/quantitative-studies
Thornburg, D. D.  (2009).  Current trends in educational technology.  Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.
Webster, T.E., & Jeong-Bae, S.  (2012).  Implementing proactive maintenance policies to address problems with access to technology at Korean universities.  International Journal Of Pedagogies & Learning, 7(2), 109-121

Video Presentation: Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Interactions

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/_kM5DBJN9Ns?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/_kM5DBJN9Ns?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Video

ASYNCHRONOUS VERSUS SYNCHRONOUS INTERACTION

Video Presentation

INTRODUCTION

In all instructional contexts, including hybrid and distance education, there is an expectation that learning involves human interaction. Current instructional applications of technology provide two distinct formats for such interaction - asynchronous and synchronous (Hines & Pearl, 2004).

Interaction between instructor and learners and among students is fundamental to higher education (Berge, 1999). Teacher-student, student-student, student-content interactions are prerequisite to course satisfaction to limit attrition.

OVERVIEW

Individuals traced synchronous applications of instructional technology to the closed-circuit television on university campus in 1940s.  By the 1980s, video-conferencing and interactive television connected remote classrooms, allowing students to ask questions and discuss concepts (Bernard et. al., 2004).  synchronous instructions occur in real time and require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004).  Synchronous communication and collaboration tools, such as synchronous text chat, audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, and white boards, are increasingly important components of online learning (National Center for Accessible Media, 2005). 

Asynchronous instruction has its roots in early forms of distance education such as correspondence schools (Keegan, 1996); communication was truly asynchronous because of postal delays (Bernard et al., 2004, p. 387). Asynchronous instruction occurs in delayed time and does not require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Rovy & Essex, 2001; Sabau, 2005).  Students experienced learning events independently and learning is not synchronized in time or space. Although asynchronous voice conferencing has proven useful in some instructional contexts (Mclntosh, Braul, & Chao, 2003), text-based conferencing is widely implemented in post-secondary education (Berge, 1999; Romiszowski & Mason, 2004; Tu & Corry, 2003) and is synonymous with asynchronous online discussion (Fjermestad, Hiltz, & Zhang, 2005).

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

In a survey of educators, synchronous chat was reportedly useful for holding virtual office hours, team decision-making, brainstorming, community building, and dealing with technical issues" (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with synchronous discussion included; getting students online at the same time, difficulty in moderating larger scale conversatioans lack of reflection time for students, and intimidation of poor typists (p. 36).

In a survey of educators, asynchronous online discussion was reportedly useful for encouraging in-depth, more thoughtful discussion; communicating with temporally diverse students; holding ongoing discussions where archiving is required; and allowing all students to respond to a topic" (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with asynchronous discussion included; "lack of immediate feedback, students not checking in often enough, length of time necessary for discussion to mature, and students feeling a sense of isolation" (p. 36). Based on a survey of student preferences, Dede and Kremer (1999) concluded that asynchronous discussion provided "richer, more inclusive types of interchange" (p. 4), but required more time and provided less social interaction than synchronous chat. While synchronous discussions are more difficult to implement than asynchronous discussions, "they have the advantages of providing a greater sense of presence and generating spontaneity" (Mines & Pearl, 2004, p. 34).

NEEDS OF DYNAMIC SKILLS

In case of the online chat agenda is already set, instructors could note student input on areas of progress as well as difficulty, which could be addressed separately upon the conclusion of the chat session or as part of an asynchronous discussion Student-centered and self-regulated  teaching, using online resources to facilitate information sharing in a networked form to promote learning. Learners show higher -level cognitive  Processing when they demonstrate  analysis, evaluation, and creation. Dynamic skills support Adaptive (transformative and reflective) learning. Adaptive learning is  prescriptive, systematic, wholostic, and humane  (Driscoll, 2005, p. 139). Student-instructor interaction, student-content interaction, student-student interaction, feedback from peers and instructor  provide asynchronous, video, audio- and text rich communication platform that simultaneously connects students to the wider affordances of the Internet (Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Teras & Teras, 2012).

MOVING TOWARD DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY

Distance education (distance teaching and learning) is evolving at a fast pace to include static (podcasts or video casts, Web pages, and text ) and dynamic (virtual simulations, gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools) technologies (Moller, 2008).  Moller (2008) argued that static technologies were efficient at broadcasting information and helping learners build their own knowledge, while dynamic technologies served as catalysts to engage learners in a deep understanding, application, and transfer of knowledge, through representation, manipulation, and reflection on what students knew.

Technologies allow individuals to capture information in online learning environment that is supportive of experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multiple perspectives, complex understanding and reflection than face-to-face learning environment.

REFLECTIONS

In asynchronous and synchronous environments, instructional designers and subject matter experts should develop, test, and implement incipient and appropriate media and technology theories with instructional and learning theories to increase students’ interactions (Borup, West, & Graham, 2013; Wenger et al., 2005).  The 21^st century online learning environment should portray high-quality learning activities, meaningful cognitive engagement through learners’ autonomy and interaction in a complementary manner (Bernard et al., 2009), and avoid mindless activism (Anderson, 2008).

References

Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A.  (2012).  Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education?  Distance Education, 33(3), 311-329. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723162

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R.  (2013).  The influence of asynchronous video communication on learner social presence: A narrative analysis of four cases.  Distance Education, 34(1), 48-63.  doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.770427

Moller, L., Forshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008a).  The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web.  Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(3), 70-75.  doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0158-5 

Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008b).  The Evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web.  Techtrends:  Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(4), 66-70.  doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0179-0

Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner, A.  (2013).  Blending synchronous face-to-face and computer-supported cooperative learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar.  Techtrends:  Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(3), 54-59.  doi: 10.1007/s11528-013-0663-z

Sauter, M., Uttal, D. H., Rapp, D. N., Downing, M., & Jona, K.  (2013).  Getting real:  The authenticity of remote labs and simulations for science learning. Distance Education, 34(1), 37-47.  doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.770431

Shaltry, C., Henriksen, D., Wu, M., & Dickson, W. W.  (2013).  Situated learning with online portfolios, classroom websites and facebook.  Techtrends:  Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(3), 20-25.  doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0658-9

Shinyi, L., & Yu-Chuan, C. (2013).  Distributed cognition and its antecedents in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL).  Asian Social Science, 9(7), 107-113.  doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n7p107

Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Merrienboer J. V., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.).  (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.).  New York:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Strang, K. D.  (2012).  Empirical research:  Skype synchronous interaction effectiveness in a quantitative management science course.  Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 3-23

Terass, H. & Teras, M.  (2012).  Using Google tools for authentic learning and progressive

inquiry in 21st century faculty development. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012. Chesapeake, VA: AACE