notes about lit review and updates.

I broke my lit review up into smaller parts because of how long it was. I am hoping for any feedback because it has been awhile since I have done one. Any input would be appreciated.

Updates:
(5/8,5/9 and 5/10)--worked on lit review
(5/10)-- i just read through the blogs of Jason, Heidi, Bill, Barbara, Mark and Kristina. It amazes me how all of us are sitting here on Mother's Day trying to crank this out. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

Literature Review Introduction

Literature and daily observation has shown the growth of technology of classrooms throughout the world. In the last 20 years, we have seen classrooms going from the Apple IIE with programs being on floppy disks to laptops with the Internet to reach out to the world. While experts are arguing if it is more important for today’s students to be able to operate the computer and have a thorough understanding of how a computer operates to another camp that is arguing that information literacy is more important for our students. This literature review will focus on three different areas that are at the forefront of utilizing computers in classrooms. Even if you are a supporter of information literacy, there needs to be an understanding that it is important to assess a student’s ability to operate the computer and use the software and concepts available on it. It is also important to look at the differences between web-based instruction (WBI) and Virtual classrooms of the future.

Online Assessment

On October 7, 2008, eSchoolNews reported that beginning in 2012, technology literacy will be assessed as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). No Child Left Behind has made it mandatory that students will be proficient in technology literacy by the end of eighth grade but has not defined how to assess if students are proficient. By the end of 2009, the National Assessment Governing Board will have a framework that will establish the guidelines for the assessment. One problem with this is how to do students get evaluated? What standards are being used for the assessments? ISTE’s NETS-S or National Technology Standards? (eSchoolnews, 10/7/08)
States and the Federal government are scrambling to develop an assessment that will assess students’ ability to use computers. In 1995, the European Computer Driving License was created testing people in seven major areas: Concepts of Information Technology, Using the Computer & Managing files, Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Database, Presentation and Information & Communication ( http://www.bcs.org ). It was through this framework that many of today’s studies on IT assessment come from.
Tuckett (1989) stated that computer literacy had three components such as an understanding of what computer do, the skills necessary to use them and confidence in their use. An assessment on IT needed to show an understanding of all three to show the ability to use the computer. Vivien Sieber stated in her study of 1st year undergraduates from Oxford that “e-assessment provides opportunities for diagnostic assessment which has potential to inform teaching.” Sieber also stated that the purpose of creating “diagnostic assessments that would show the need for IT training and allow the students an opportunity to review their skills/performance within a given range of expectations; to learn to question feedback; and to provide personal performance-related training recommendations along with information about opportunities for that training” (Sieber 2009, 217). Assessments should have a combination of multiple-choice, true-false, and drag and drop questions. (Sieber 2009, 217) “The primary criterion for selection of a question type…should not be the ease with which the response to the question gets evaluated by the computer but rather the type of learning the question is designed to assess” (Gibbs and Peck, 1995). Biggs in 1999 stated that this type of form does not show an “active demonstration of the knowledge in question, as opposed to talking or writing about it” (Biggs, 1999). Thus in order to get a clear assessment there would need to be a combination of both the multiple choice, true-false and drag and drop as well as a way for the student to be able to write or talk about it. Truly we judge mastery by the person’s ability to be able to explain what is expected to be known. Researchers have struggled with that concept.
Different researchers have come up with different ways to assess student performance online and with paper and pencil. Sieber in 2009 created her study that asked students in the Medical Services program at Oxford to complete a questionnaire asking students to rate on a scale of 1-5 about their ability to use different programs including file manager, word processing, spreadsheets and email. The questionnaire had the scale as well as a free response section. The results of Sieber’s study concluded that beginning in 2004 students were about to use the programs but there were some gaps in understanding. Sieber states “There was extensive variation in file management and word processing, which is particularly disheartening as students might be expected to be familiar with them. One possible explanation for complacency is that despite using a word processor regularly, students do not know how to use this software properly and are not aware of many of the advanced functions: (Sieber 2009). The research also pointed out that the most popular way to learn new skills was to have a friend teach the students the skill and weak students overestimated their skills while the stronger students underestimated their ability.
In Taiwan a study was conducted at different elementary schools to test the students’ competency in computer technology literacy. 1,539 Students were given a questionnaire that had them rate themselves on a scale of 1-5 of how they agreed or disagreed with statements. Questions ranged for operation skills to computer usages and concepts to attitudes towards computer technology. The results showed that students that used the Internet for homework scored better in computer technology while the students that used to computers for online gaming, scored better on attitudes toward computer technology. Students that accessed the computers for chat/MSN scored better in technology operation skills, computer uses, learning with technology and Internet operations. The research also concluded that based on this study, females were more competent that the males based on the results (Chang, 2008).
The best example of how an online assessment can be developed to get meaningful conclusions was the Formative Automated Computer Testing or FACT. This project was conducted by the University of Dundee to study how students were able to show IT competency. The researchers created the computer based section using Microsoft Word that allowed them to create and save the versions of the test and control how it was given to the students. The assessment was broken into three different parts evaluating different skills. The first part was the computer-based test using FACT to test the students to create and edit two different Microsoft Word documents by changing the font, applying different text styles and other functions. This had to be completed in 20 minutes. The second section was the 20 minute paper based skill test that tested the student’s knowledge of Microsoft Word and how to perform different tasks. This allowed the student to be able to write out the steps to show mastery. The third section was a written evaluation comparing the two different tests and describing the pros and cons of the sections.
The results of the FACT evaluation concluded that the software was able to handle what the researchers were looking for and had no problems. When surveyed to the preference of the computer-based test versus the paper test, students said that they preferred the computer based test. They felt that the FACT test was easier because they were able to get help using the computer and they felt that it was fairer. The students felt that the paper based assessment was more difficult because the students had to be able to visualize the steps needed to complete a task without the programs in front of them. The students that did not like the FACT computer-based test complained that the timer distracted them and pressured them to complete the assessment in the time needed (Hunt, Hughes, Rowe 2002).
The FACT assessment seemed to be the fairest version of online assessment because of it’s ability to assess basic IT skills on the computer plus being able to test for understanding by having the students write out the steps and explain them. Hunt, Hughes, and Rowe stated in their study that an IT assessment had to have three components in order to be a good tool. The tool had to be able to test how: “information technology tests can be constructed easily which are relevant to different disciplines; students be given appropriate feedback to assist learning; assessments be task-based and realistic, yet cost-effective and reliable” (Hunt, Hughes, Rowe 2002). The FACT assessment met those three components.

Web-based Instruction (WBI)

As research moves beyond online assessment and how to give students feedback and remediation if needed, the next step is to look at web-based instruction (WBI). In the mid 1990s, schools started to utilize the Internet as a platform to deliver information. When I was taking classes at Cal-State in the late 1990s, we used the Internet to get information and share emails, but it wasn’t until my last class that I completed a class online using WebCT. Now we see programs such as the University of Phoenix that have an entire program built around getting a college degree entirely online while “working” with other students online to complete projects on line to submit to a professor. Other colleges and high schools are moving to a more web-based curriculum for many reasons including cost and availability of courses.
A WBI class should do the following:” encourage self-paced learning where the student can work independently at their own pace; promote interaction between teachers and learners, learners and learners and allow students to create and share their knowledge; help with contextual learning and discussion; and provide live learning resources for learners” (Yang, Chang, 2008). A typical class that is web-based will have the student log on to a website to see the assignments. Classes are set up on sites such as Moodle or Blackboard that allow instructors to set up the class with assignments, a calendar, discussion boards, chats and links for information. Many schools have taken the on line courses to the next level by creating a multimedia class. There are classes that have teachers set up a time that the teacher is in front of a camera or computer and the class is conducted. The camera allows for web cams with different students that are logged in and the teacher presents the information. Students are able to chat with the teacher and get instant feedback as well as emails. This allows for the face to face interaction that is missing in many of the web-based classes.
There are many advantages to web-based instruction as seen by the researchers. Students prefer the WBI classes because they enjoy the factor that they do not have to go to the main campus and can complete it on their time. According to the study by Rodriguez, Ooms and Montanez (2008) of the students they surveyed 48% appreciated the flexibility of study time and less need to go to the campus (24%). 49% liked the limited face to face interaction. “Among the students who had online-learning experience, half (52%) reported to agree that online courses meet the same quality standards as classroom courses. Even so, 89% reported that they would consider registering for another online course, 11% would not” (Rodriguez, Ooms and Montanez, 2008).
The University of Georgia conducted a study on the use of online learning. The researchers looked at the following components: design of the course, comfort with online technologies and time management. The study results were all favorable for the online courses with design being the highest (89%). The lowest result was time management with (71%) (Song, Singleton, Hill and Koh, 2003). The students were also surveyed on using different tools of communication such as email, chats and bulletin boards.
Web-based instruction also had some disadvantages that need to be dealt with in order to make it a valuable tool. Many researchers found that there were limitations to WBI such as” no human teacher expression and explanation; no synchronization and match between course materials and explanations; lack of contextual understanding, just in time feedback and interactions; lack of platform-independent standardized materials” {Yang, Liu, 2007). Also many participants in the study by Song, Singleton, Hill and Koh, (2003) struggled with the lack of community, difficulty understanding instructional goals and technical problems.
Some of the problems with WBI centered around the social and lack of community of the instruction. Most of the classes did not see building a community as a goal so did not motivate social immersion and linking to the other students. They do not allow students to link together even if they use the same communication tools. They lack pedagogical features which are essential for creating a learning community (Mioduser, Nachmias, Oren and Lahav ,1999).
The study by Yang and Change (2008) pointed out that many of the web-based classes are set up for individuals and they tend to be people that want a task described and want to attack It to complete it. “These adult students desired more of interactions via internet with experts who have the expertise related to the target issue rather than with their peers “(Yang, Chang, 2008). “As for the instructional approaches, students preferred the inquiry-based instructional design, expected more of the accommodation-oriented cognitive activities, and were like to engage in the outward interaction” (Yang, Chang, 2008).
Students also had an issue with the lack of feedback from instructors. They found that they were missing the face to face interaction with the teachers and missed the feedback from the teachers. Hislop (2001) found that online classes required more time taken by the instructor to prepare the curriculum and set it up. Other factors that added to the workload were the lack of experience of the participant and the time required to interact with the participant. “Online exercises also challenge the teachers, not only in terms of complexity and compatibility, but also in the fundamental ways of sense making. In the physical classroom, the experienced teacher knows how to “read the situation” and immediately adjusts his roles and methods accordingly. In the virtual classroom, one has to rely solely on what is being explicitly stated, and gaps between accustomed personal and professional competencies and the demands of the situation are likely to occur” (Heilson, Josephson, 2008).
“Accordingly, to encourage students to engage in explorative and interactive web-based learning environments, instructors could help students to build up more positive thought about web-based learning. What can be done is to show and discuss with students the benefits and positive results of web-based learning prior to any learning activities” (Yang, Chang, 2008).

Virtual Reality

As classrooms and students move beyond the basic web-based instruction that has been around for the last twenty years, researchers and programmers must look at how to make technology more meaningful for the student and still get the curriculum across. The next step which has begun to take hold in classrooms is utilizing tools that would be considered part of Web 2.0. Podcasts, videos, chats, instant messages as well as online communities that break away from a more text based use of the web to graphic representations of the world and the student. Virtual Worlds are the next step beyond the text because they are able to graphically bring the items to life. The students are able to log in and see a street with other classmates there are graphic avatars. The students are able to interact with the avatars and travel around the street to get where they need to go. Students work in groups or teams and interact with each other instead of the more individualized web-based. As these worlds become more prominent in the classrooms, designers must make a “strong commitment to the idea in the world will actively engage pupils who were sometimes ‘hard to reach’ as well as providing a motivation to use literacy in a variety of purposeful ways” (Merchant, 2009).
While reviewing virtual worlds, it was discovered that Warburton and Perez-Garcia created a list of the pros of virtual worlds. They stated that it was important for participants to have interactions with other participants that would allow for discussion and interaction within the site. Visualization and contextualization is important because in a traditional WBI, the student had difficulty visualizing what they needed to know and lost the connection. There needs to be authentic content and culture as well as identity play. Immersion is essential to get the buy in and allow the participant to be connected in the world. Often web-based classes are missing the community presence and simulation that is needed to get the buy in also. Warburton and Perez-Garcia felt that one of the keys to ownership of virtual worlds was that the worlds could be modified to meet the needs of the situation and that there was ease it doing so (Warburton, 2008, Warburton &Perez-Garcia, 2009).
In keeping with Warburton’s research, researchers at Northern Illinois University conducted a study of students utilizing a virtual world for a class. The study focused on the use of avatars, 3D space and dialogue bubbles to test the acceptance of virtual worlds. The students were trained in the procedures of using the virtual worlds and were then given assignments that they had to post. It was discovered that students liked the use of avatars and spent time creating one that was most like them. Students used the 3D space to navigate around the site and felt that it was like having their classmates in the room with them. The use of dialogue bubbles allowed the students to show words in a more graphic version to get the idea. It puts an avatar to the words to better show who said it. Students did find they were more careful with their words because they didn’t want to get misquoted or be seen in a poor light since people could see avatar and connect them to the person (Omale, Hung, Luetkehans and Cooke-Plagwitz, 2009).
One of the goals of using a virtual world would be to allow the student to discover and express digital literacy. Digital literacy is defined as “reading and writing with new technologies-technologies that involve the semiotic of written representation-recognizing that on-screen texts invariably combine writing with other modes of representation” (Merchant, 2007). Within a virtual world students are gaining digital literacy through the environmental print of the signs and posters within it, the tool tip clues, hyperlinked texts, interactive chats with spelling revisions and thought expressions. Students were correcting their words before others could correct them and working to develop and explain their answers. Merchant stated that “These chat data are interesting in the way that they replicated the characteristic features of spoken discourse in classroom settings” (Merchant, 2009).
Virtual worlds do have some cons that have caused some problems for those classes that have been trying to utilize this new technology. Currently one of the major barriers to utilizing virtual worlds in classrooms is to ascertain what should be included into them. The teachers must sit down with designers to create what they envision. The teachers have to establish clear objectives and outcomes. There must be controls in place to bring the students back into focus as well as control what they can and can not do.
Warburton stated in 2008 that there were issues that factor into it such as the following: “technical, identity, culture, collaboration, time, economic, standards and scaffolding persistence and social discovery” (Warburton, 2008, Warburton &Perez-Garcia, 2009). The technical issues stem from the development of the software and worlds as well as navigation around the site. Identity issues stem from the search for the avatar’s character and reputation. This focuses on character reputation. Culture centers around creating a safe zone for students and teachers where the world has rules and norms of what is acceptable or not. Collaboration and cooperation is important so that students can work together with trust. Time goes back to the time it takes to design and modify the virtual world. Economics focus on who will pay for the site’s development and hosting. There needs to be standardization of what is acceptable in the worlds and what software is used to create the worlds. Scaffolding persistence and social discovery are key to the worlds in that the social networking that can be contained in the world. There is also the question of allowing other programs to connect with the world in such objects as creating avatars and chat. (Warburton, 2008, Warburton &Perez-Garcia, 2009).
The students would view this as just playing a video game instead of interacting with their classmates and teachers as they learn the curriculum. “innovative digital literacy practices such as those involved in virtual game play can easily disrupt classroom routines and call into question deeply held assumptions about literacy, literacy instruction and even teacher-pupil relationship that lies at the heart of the educational process” (Merchant, 2009).
As virtual worlds become more prominent in classrooms and the issues are worked out, it is time to look ahead and see what will it be like in ten to fifteen years? It has been reported that sites like Second Life are working with Moodle to create a more 3-D interactive website where the students can take classes and the information can be connected to their Moodle classes. New browsers on coming on line to handle open source creation of virtual worlds so that the educators are able to create a virtual world to meet their needs. I was just looking at metaplace as an example. Standards are being created to make it easier for the different programs to talk to each other and create avatars that can go from world to world and keep all the data. Iphone is set up to connect to the virtual world of AjaxLife so there will become a more portable and mobile connection. Connectivity and interaction will create a more interactive society with students and teachers being able to connect in a more meaningful interaction. It will be interesting to see what it next.

References

Appel, J. (11/28/2006). Report: Students struggle with information literacy. eSchoolnews.com
Ascione, L. (4/1/2006). States erratic on IT literacy. eSchoolnews.com.
Biggs, J., (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Chang, C., (2008). Development and validation of the Computer Technology Literacy Self-Assessment Scale for Taiwanese Elementary School Students. Adolescence 43 Fall 2008, 623-634.
Davidson-Shivers, G., (2009). Frequency and Types of Interactions in Online Instruction. . Journal of Interactive Online Learning 8(1) 2009, 23-40.
DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R., Black, E., Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 7(1) 2008, 10-35.
eSchool News staff and wire service reports. (9/10/08). Report: Retool instruction, or U.S. will fail. eSchoolnews.com.
Heilesen, S., Josephsen, J., (2007). E-learning: Between augmentation and disruption? Computers and Education 50(2008), 525-534.
Hislop, G.W. (2001). Does teaching online take more time? Paper presented at the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10-13, 2001, Reno, NV. Session TIF, 23-27.
Hunt, N., Hughes, J., Rowe, G., (2002). Formative Automated Computer Testing (FACT). British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 525-535.
Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., Trivedi, A. (January 2009). Virtual world teaching, experimental learning and assessment: An Interdisciplinary communication course in Second Life. Computers and Education 53 (2009), 162-182.
Merchant, G., (2009). Literacy in virtual worlds. Journal of Research in Reading 32 (1) 2009, 38-56.
Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Oren, A., Lahav, O., (8/11/1999). Web-based learning environments (WBLE): Current implementation and evolving trends. Journal of Network and Computer Applications (1999) 22, 233-247.
Morgan, V., Toledo, C., (2006). Online Feedback and Student Perceptions. . Journal of Interactive Online Learning 5(3) 2006, 333-340.
North American Council for Online Learning and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, (November 2006). Virtual Schools and 21st Century Skills. North American Council for Online Learning and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Oliver, M., Carr, D., (2009). Learning in virtual worlds: Using communities of practice to explain how people learn from play. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (3), 444-457.
Olson, A. (5/4/09). It’s a virtual life for swine flu-bound Mexicans. MSNBC.com
Omale, N., Hung, W., Luetkehans, L. , Cooke-Plagwitz, J., (2009). Learning in 3-D multiuser virtual environments: Exploring the use of unique 3-D attributes for online problem-based learning. ). British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (3), 480-495.
Rodriguez, M., Ooms, A., Montanez, M. (2008). Student Perceptions of Online-learning Quality given Comfort, Motivation, Satisfaction, and Experience. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 7(2) 2008, 105-125.
Sieber, V. (2009). Diagnostic online assessment of basic IT skills in 1st-year undergraduates in the Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 215-226.
Song, L., Singleton, E., Hill, J., Koh, M. (2003). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Educations 7(2004), 59-70.
Staff. (10/07/2008). On the way: Nation’s first tech-literacy exam. eSchoolnews.com.
Stansbury, M. (3/26/2009). Six technologies soon to affect education. eSchoolnews.com.
Tuckett, H.W., (1989). Computer literacy, information literacy and the role of the instruction librarian on coping with information illiteracy: Bibliographic literacy for the information age. Ann Arbor, MI: Pierran Press.
Twining, P., (2009). Exploring the educational potential of virtual worlds-Some reflections from the SPP. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (3), 496-514.
Warburton, S., (2008). Loving your avatar: identity, immersion and empathy. Liquid Learning.
Warburton, S. & Perez-Garcia, M. (2009). 3D design and collaboration in massively multi-user virtual environments. In D. Russel (Ed), Cases of collaboration in virtual learning environments: processes and interactions. Hershey, PA:IGI Global. Forthcoming April 2009.
Warburton, S., (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (3), 414-426.
Yang, F., Chang, C. (2008). Examining high-school students’ preferences towards learning environments, personal beliefs and concept learning in web-based contexts. Computers and Education 52 (2009), 848-857.
Yang, Z., Liu, Q., (2004). Research and development of web-based virtual online classroom. Computers and Education 48 (2007), 171-184.