I finally got my project proposals approved by Dr. Newberry. As per his suggestion, he asked to post these in my blog and solicit peer feedback as well as suggestions; thus, I hereby present to all of you scholars, my project proposals for your evaluation.
BACKGROUND:
Presently, I do not teach under the umbrella of the State of California. Rather, I conduct Corporate Training as needed for my employer, QSC Audio, Inc. which is a professional audio manufacturer located in Costa Mesa, California. My corporate training sessions consist of lectures aimed to Authorized Service Center's technical staff. These individuals come to our manufacturing plant to become familiar with the repair and maintenance of our electronic products. The training available at our plant varies, ranging from basic troubleshooting and repair, to very intricate subjects, such as lectures on amplifier architecture, amplifier design theory, amplifier power parameters, the understanding of engineering specifications, sound system design, audio distribution system design, audio distribution layouts, etc.. Consequently, my projects are based on the present teaching environment I find myself in. Please, follow the links to my projects and provide some feedback. Thank you.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Weekly Activities
- Downloaded and listened to session 3 podcast.
- Took podcast notes.
- Read other scholar's responses.
- Posted comments on other scholar's blogs.
- Worked to develop project ideas.
- Submitted project ideas to Dr. Newberry and solicited feedback.
- After some e-mail exchanges, my project ideas were clear to be posted in my blog.
- posted response to Session 3 questions.
- Finalized project proposals.
- Published project proposals.
- Took podcast notes.
- Read other scholar's responses.
- Posted comments on other scholar's blogs.
- Worked to develop project ideas.
- Submitted project ideas to Dr. Newberry and solicited feedback.
- After some e-mail exchanges, my project ideas were clear to be posted in my blog.
- posted response to Session 3 questions.
- Finalized project proposals.
- Published project proposals.
SESSION 3
Can Technology Integration in American classrooms adequately and correctly be expressed as a hierarchy?
I downloaded and listened to Dr. Newberry's podcast regarding what he termed his technology integration "hierarchy". In his podcast, Dr. Newberry explained what he preceived to be five ascending levels of technology integration in the American classroom. Dr. Newberry described these levels, starting with the lowest as the Adjunt or Peripheral State of Technology Integration, followed by the next level in this case termed as the Use of Computers by Teachers as a Tool. The next level of technology integration was the Non-Integrated Use of Computers. The fourth level was called the Integrated Use of computers as a Student Tool. The highest level of technolgy integration was termed Transformation.
My answer to Dr. Newberry's question as to whether technology integration in American classrooms adequately and correctly be expressed as a hierarchy, is the following:
First of all, the question of adequacy is to a large degree a subjective one; by that I mean to say that as long as the concept Dr. Newberry is trying to get accross does make sense to the receiving party, namely the students, that makes it right for the idea to be termed adequate.
Secondly, the question of correctness is of no consequence, since there is no right or wrong way to express technology integration. The key point to remember here is that the analogy gives the student a reference point by which the student can grasp the concept Dr. Newberry is trying to get accross to everyone in his lectures. If this method is successful, then it can be deemed correct.
Since there is no right or wrong way to adequately and correctly express technology integration, then any expression that serves the purpose is also just as adequate and correct; therefore, we could conceivably say that technology integration can also be represented as a bell-shaped curve, that technology integration can be represented as a pyramid, a ladder, as different levels of strata, etc.
In conclusion, what someone chooses to describe technology integration is not important; rather, whether the type of imagery used that successfully conveys the key idea is what makes it adequate and or correct.
We scholars see different things to represent the same thing; as long as we end up with the same mental conclusion, we all are in the same page; for there is an underlying common denominator we all can converge to.
In conclusion, to answer Dr. Newberry's question: you perceive a hierarchy and I perceive a strata; nevertheless, we both understand the underlying concept. Dr. Newberry, based on the aforementioned facts, it is POSSIBLE for Technology Integration in the American classroom to be adequately and correctly expressed as a hierarchy.
I downloaded and listened to Dr. Newberry's podcast regarding what he termed his technology integration "hierarchy". In his podcast, Dr. Newberry explained what he preceived to be five ascending levels of technology integration in the American classroom. Dr. Newberry described these levels, starting with the lowest as the Adjunt or Peripheral State of Technology Integration, followed by the next level in this case termed as the Use of Computers by Teachers as a Tool. The next level of technology integration was the Non-Integrated Use of Computers. The fourth level was called the Integrated Use of computers as a Student Tool. The highest level of technolgy integration was termed Transformation.
My answer to Dr. Newberry's question as to whether technology integration in American classrooms adequately and correctly be expressed as a hierarchy, is the following:
First of all, the question of adequacy is to a large degree a subjective one; by that I mean to say that as long as the concept Dr. Newberry is trying to get accross does make sense to the receiving party, namely the students, that makes it right for the idea to be termed adequate.
Secondly, the question of correctness is of no consequence, since there is no right or wrong way to express technology integration. The key point to remember here is that the analogy gives the student a reference point by which the student can grasp the concept Dr. Newberry is trying to get accross to everyone in his lectures. If this method is successful, then it can be deemed correct.
Since there is no right or wrong way to adequately and correctly express technology integration, then any expression that serves the purpose is also just as adequate and correct; therefore, we could conceivably say that technology integration can also be represented as a bell-shaped curve, that technology integration can be represented as a pyramid, a ladder, as different levels of strata, etc.
In conclusion, what someone chooses to describe technology integration is not important; rather, whether the type of imagery used that successfully conveys the key idea is what makes it adequate and or correct.
We scholars see different things to represent the same thing; as long as we end up with the same mental conclusion, we all are in the same page; for there is an underlying common denominator we all can converge to.
In conclusion, to answer Dr. Newberry's question: you perceive a hierarchy and I perceive a strata; nevertheless, we both understand the underlying concept. Dr. Newberry, based on the aforementioned facts, it is POSSIBLE for Technology Integration in the American classroom to be adequately and correctly expressed as a hierarchy.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
SESSION 2
I listened to Dr. Newberry's podcast; in it, he discussed the difference between management and leadership. Despite the fact that I was not expecting this subject to emerge out of his podcast I listened to the material presented anyhow.
After listening to Dr. Newberry's lecture, I concluded that managers are mostly interested in the maintenance and control of the daily affairs of the group of people they have been entrusted with; this is the manager's way to reach the objectives of the particular organization in question. Leaders on the other hand, are more apt to think outside the box; these individuals contantly dream up of ways to improve things, procedures, plans, products etc. Leaders by nature are not very interested in the way things are now; rather, they are focused on the way things could be, guided by this relentless vision that constantly whispers to them that things can always be improved, that there is a better way to do something.
Everyone has in themselves the qualities of both a manager and a leader; the ratios of these two qualities however, vary quite a bit from one individual to another: sometimes someone comes accross as an excellent leader, while such individual could also come accross as a lousy manager; other times, another individual comes accross as just the opposite. We must also entertain the idea of all the possible combinations in between these two extremes.
There is a multitude of reasons as to why someone makes a good manger and less of a good leader; perhaps the main reason has to do with the individual's level of commitment to the position entrusted in him; with the idea that management simply consists of just making sure things run smoothly. It is possible that the individual is quite content with the way things are and the initiative to work past his circle of control is simply not there. Or perhaps, working outside the box, working outside the "comfort zone" is theatening to the manager.
I believe most people make good managers; leaders on the other hand are harder to come by. This is because most of us are not comfortable pushing the envelope; let's face it, it requires far more energy and effort to be a good leader, it also requires for the leader to feel that he is fulfilling a natural calling in him. Most people tend to naturally do no more than the absolute minimum required of them. Perhaps this is natural instinct, perhaps it is plain laziness; the point is: it is out there.
The study of Economics is based on the concept that there is a finite amount of economic resources that must be distributed by some sort of efficient system. Based on such concept, the manager's aim is to utilize the limited resources to efficiently run the business operation; the leader on the other hand, strives to come up with new, creative ways to maximize the efficiency with which the resources can be allocated to extract the maximum amount of benefit possible out of the same amount of resources.
It is obvious to note that the leader is looking farther than the manager into how the scarce resources can be more efficiently utilized by the research of never-before used ideas, concepts and newly-emerging theories and procedures. Perhaps the main difference from a manager and a leader is that whereas the manager's goal is to maintain a balance and control of the way things are by being conservative, the leader is a visionary who is capable of developing new concepts, calculates risk and is not as averse to risk-taking to the extent the manager is.
In my anecdotal example, I will compare and contrast my last employer versus my present employer's business styles: my previous employer was a mammoth company that took a very long time to change and implement new ideas; this was because of the firmly-entrenched management culture which resisted change of any type; these individuals were quite content with maintaining the status quo. You will notice that at the beginning of this paragraph I mentioned the word "was"; this is because shortly after I left the job, they were bought out by their competition; thus, the company is now out of business. My present employer on the other hand, is a very dynamic company; management changes rapidly to meet the customer's demands, they quickly react to market changes and they also put lots of effort to anticipate adverse market changes while they also take advantage of positive market changes. Since my present employer is made up of a group of managers who spend most of their time acting as leaders, this has resulted in the company becoming a success as well as a major player in their particular niche.
Weekly Activities:
- Still working hard to catch up with the rest of the class.
- Struggling with photo post in my blog.
- Busily responding to response items on weekly log.
- Reading blog posts.
- Posting comments on blog posts.
- Trying to come up with project ideas; nothing specific yet.
- Downloading podcast for session three.
I listened to Dr. Newberry's podcast; in it, he discussed the difference between management and leadership. Despite the fact that I was not expecting this subject to emerge out of his podcast I listened to the material presented anyhow.
After listening to Dr. Newberry's lecture, I concluded that managers are mostly interested in the maintenance and control of the daily affairs of the group of people they have been entrusted with; this is the manager's way to reach the objectives of the particular organization in question. Leaders on the other hand, are more apt to think outside the box; these individuals contantly dream up of ways to improve things, procedures, plans, products etc. Leaders by nature are not very interested in the way things are now; rather, they are focused on the way things could be, guided by this relentless vision that constantly whispers to them that things can always be improved, that there is a better way to do something.
Everyone has in themselves the qualities of both a manager and a leader; the ratios of these two qualities however, vary quite a bit from one individual to another: sometimes someone comes accross as an excellent leader, while such individual could also come accross as a lousy manager; other times, another individual comes accross as just the opposite. We must also entertain the idea of all the possible combinations in between these two extremes.
There is a multitude of reasons as to why someone makes a good manger and less of a good leader; perhaps the main reason has to do with the individual's level of commitment to the position entrusted in him; with the idea that management simply consists of just making sure things run smoothly. It is possible that the individual is quite content with the way things are and the initiative to work past his circle of control is simply not there. Or perhaps, working outside the box, working outside the "comfort zone" is theatening to the manager.
I believe most people make good managers; leaders on the other hand are harder to come by. This is because most of us are not comfortable pushing the envelope; let's face it, it requires far more energy and effort to be a good leader, it also requires for the leader to feel that he is fulfilling a natural calling in him. Most people tend to naturally do no more than the absolute minimum required of them. Perhaps this is natural instinct, perhaps it is plain laziness; the point is: it is out there.
The study of Economics is based on the concept that there is a finite amount of economic resources that must be distributed by some sort of efficient system. Based on such concept, the manager's aim is to utilize the limited resources to efficiently run the business operation; the leader on the other hand, strives to come up with new, creative ways to maximize the efficiency with which the resources can be allocated to extract the maximum amount of benefit possible out of the same amount of resources.
It is obvious to note that the leader is looking farther than the manager into how the scarce resources can be more efficiently utilized by the research of never-before used ideas, concepts and newly-emerging theories and procedures. Perhaps the main difference from a manager and a leader is that whereas the manager's goal is to maintain a balance and control of the way things are by being conservative, the leader is a visionary who is capable of developing new concepts, calculates risk and is not as averse to risk-taking to the extent the manager is.
In my anecdotal example, I will compare and contrast my last employer versus my present employer's business styles: my previous employer was a mammoth company that took a very long time to change and implement new ideas; this was because of the firmly-entrenched management culture which resisted change of any type; these individuals were quite content with maintaining the status quo. You will notice that at the beginning of this paragraph I mentioned the word "was"; this is because shortly after I left the job, they were bought out by their competition; thus, the company is now out of business. My present employer on the other hand, is a very dynamic company; management changes rapidly to meet the customer's demands, they quickly react to market changes and they also put lots of effort to anticipate adverse market changes while they also take advantage of positive market changes. Since my present employer is made up of a group of managers who spend most of their time acting as leaders, this has resulted in the company becoming a success as well as a major player in their particular niche.
Weekly Activities:
- Still working hard to catch up with the rest of the class.
- Struggling with photo post in my blog.
- Busily responding to response items on weekly log.
- Reading blog posts.
- Posting comments on blog posts.
- Trying to come up with project ideas; nothing specific yet.
- Downloading podcast for session three.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Hello ETEC 623 class,
I am very glad to be part of this class for the Winter quarter; I am looking forward to the knowledge that might be acquired by taking this course.
Thus far, learning has been quite edifying; I use computers frequently. Nevertheless, the term "Blog" and its use are foreign to me.
Because of a course scheduling conflict, it turned out I had to take this course over the original prescribed one, as directed by my graduation schedule. Consequently I lost time; thus, I enrolled late in this course.
Figuring out all the ins and outs of the alleged "Blog", plus a really tight schedule have resulted in me falling slightly behind; nevertheless, I still believe I will be able to work everything out and successfully finish this course (in theory at least, this is what my crystal ball is telling me; its been known to lie to me a few times).
Putting all fears aside and bravely hoping for the best, I have decided to close my eyes and do all three project Dr. Newberry is requesting in order to obtain the letter grade of "A". (Please, do not ask me yet what those projects will be, for I do not have the slightest idea at this moment).
I am very glad to be part of this class for the Winter quarter; I am looking forward to the knowledge that might be acquired by taking this course.
Thus far, learning has been quite edifying; I use computers frequently. Nevertheless, the term "Blog" and its use are foreign to me.
Because of a course scheduling conflict, it turned out I had to take this course over the original prescribed one, as directed by my graduation schedule. Consequently I lost time; thus, I enrolled late in this course.
Figuring out all the ins and outs of the alleged "Blog", plus a really tight schedule have resulted in me falling slightly behind; nevertheless, I still believe I will be able to work everything out and successfully finish this course (in theory at least, this is what my crystal ball is telling me; its been known to lie to me a few times).
Putting all fears aside and bravely hoping for the best, I have decided to close my eyes and do all three project Dr. Newberry is requesting in order to obtain the letter grade of "A". (Please, do not ask me yet what those projects will be, for I do not have the slightest idea at this moment).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
