Saturday, September 18, 2010

Reading Post 3

Klein, A. (2008). VIRTUAL SCIENCE. Science World, 64(14), 7. Retrieved from MAS Ultra - School Edition database.

Article talks about the use of V-Frog which allows students to perform a virtual frog dissection.  In this frog, organs still work and students can zoom in and look at multiple views of structures.

Mathai, S., & Ramadas, J. (2009). Visuals and Visualisation of Human Body Systems. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 439-458. doi:10.1080/09500690802595821.

Believe that students learn structure best through visual material and function best through verbal material.  Suggest the integration of verbal and visual methods to train students to be able to take spatial information and articulate it verbally.

Foreman, Lloyd J., & Pomerantz, Sherry C. (2006). Computer-assisted instruction: A survey on the attitudes of osteopathic medical students. JAOA Medical Education, 106(9), 571-578.

Surveyed students about their preferences and attitudes towards using computers to learn anatomy.  Opinions varied based on technology literacy with students that had advanced computer skills showing a preference for leaning using computers while others thought the learned best through books and lectures.  Highlights the need to adequately train students in technology and to maintain traditional teaching methods while incorporating technology.

Bay, BH & Ling EA. (2007). Teaching of anatomy in the new millennium. Singapore Medical Journal. 48(3), 182-183.

Surveyed professional anatomists and found that they there preferences for learning anatomy ranked in descending order: cadaver dissection, prosection, living and radiological anatomy, computer aided learning, lectures and the use of models.  The authors acknowledge the difficulties associated with training on cadavers but stress that the method is the best teacher.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.

Sought to find out if so called digital natives really learn differently.  While a very large number of subjects owned computers and cell phones, most used basic technology and few created multimedia content.  It was also uncommon for them to be proficient in emerging technology.  Argued that claims that this generation learns differently are overarching and without proof.

Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

The authors investigated the true technology skills of incoming college students and found that while they were very proficient in their daily use of technology, that proficiency did not transfer to emerging technology or unfamiliar platforms.

Cross, T. (2006). Digital Immigrants, Natives, and "Tweeners": A Glimpse Into the Future for Our Students With Gifts and Talents. Gifted Child Today, 29(3), 52-53. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Highlights that technology has its own language and that today’s students speak in fluently and comfortably.   Also states that this proficiency is increasing with each younger students as they grow up with increasing exposure.

Sandars, J. (2006). The e-learning site. Education for Primary Care, 17(5), 516-517. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Today’s students do not see technology as something distinct but as part of normal life.  The author is especially focused on social networking and the powere of sharing information.

No comments:

Post a Comment