BitaWeb, An Online Language Resource
If you want to be able to write different characters of different languages on the same text area without installing any application or fonts, BitaWeb could be useful. BitaWeb offers multi- language Email editor so you would be able to use any computer to write your email in 30 different languages. You can also attach any other files or images to your email and even save it on your local PC as a HTML files.
This website also provides an Online HTML Editor to convert all texts in all languages and characters to PDF (Adobe Acrobat reader) or HTML (Internet pages).
If you receive email or any kind of texts or web site and see strange characters instead of alphabets, the Code Converter service converts these wrong codes to the readable one.
One of the disadvantages of this website is that all services are only available with Microsoft Internet Explorer, but you can try it out and let us know what you think!
My First EOSET Experience
Having never attended the Eastern Ontario Symposium on Educational Technology (EOSET to those in the know), I was initially apprehensive about my ability to follow along. In a way, the size of the group and the experimental presentation style (panels of 3-6 individuals, each presenting for10 minutes, followed by a general Q&A and poster session) made the experience quite comfortable. One interesting aspect was that even if certain sessions were less applicable to your needs, you only had to wait a few minutes for a brand new topic. The intermingling of professors, staff and private industry tech workers ensured a broad spectrum of presentation topics (and products) which kept the energy in the room high for most of the day.
Consulting my notes from the event, I’ve discovered that I truly found multiple sessions useful. Right off the bat was an interesting project called SmartBoard from the only student presenters at the conference (sidebar: my colleagues immediately confused this 4th year Carleton project with the identically named electronic whiteboard, while I remained oblivious until the end of the first panel). Despite the unfortunate name, I enjoyed the idea of an alternate to WebCT as SmartBoard proved an enticing wiki-based data management system that seems relatively easy to keep on top of. I’m not sure it will have widespread adoption in the near future, but with a sparkly new name and a few more security precautions, this could be a nice alternative for instructors who want their students to have easy access to course materials and discussions.
The combined use of clickers and vodcasts in From Interactivity to the Overflow Effect: Engaging Students with On-Demand Instruction in a Media-rich Popular Culture Course. The session enticed me because I saw the direct link between my future film course and Sydney Eve Matrix’s popular culture media course at Queen’s University. I’ve long admired the potential uses of clickers, while simultaneously acknowledging how easy it is to misuse it. Matrix demonstrated the practicality of such a technology, as well as the potential positives that can be derived from its proper usage: high attendance, higher final grades and good teaching evaluations.
Finally, Marc Fricker’s presentation on Using Classroom Presenter was noteworthy – although the words “future noteworthy” might be more apt. It quickly became apparent that institutions with tablets (be it for teachers and/or students) are more adept for using the technology, which allows live manipulation of powerpoint slides with the option to save.The potential for using Classroom Presenter is sky high providing instructors have decent penmanship, and although Carleton is a tablet-less institution, having two sets of slides – one plain set for students and one with added notes for instructors – is tantalizing considering the number of times I’ve found myself presenting on a slide whose purpose I can’t remember. Perhaps they should market this one as ideal for the Forgetful Instructor!
The Dangers of Surveys: Examining the May 4th STLHE-Listserv Debacle
Subscribing to an educational listserv can be a positive and negative thing. Positives include interesting new initiatives from other institutions, thoughts of the day, access to a variety of resources, etc. Negatives can include the sheer number of additional e-mails, especially if everyone wants to have their say on a particular topic.
A huge influx of e-mails can be seen as a positive, however, if the topic is interesting and juicy. This was the case late last week when a listserv message was sent out which initiated a huge flurry of responses, many of them questioning and concerned.
The initial e-mail that began it all was a request for listserv members to fill out what was described as “a short survey that will help us learn how prepared students are for introductory university courses.” The information collected would be presented in a concurrent session at the Society of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) conference in Windsor (visit our homepage for information on the conference or click here for more details). To see the survey, click here.
The message was sent on behalf of four individuals, two of which were members of 3M and very well respected. Initially it seemed very mundane (I personally overlooked the message), although things quickly escalated.
The first respondent was Trevor Holmes (University of Waterloo), 3 hours later. He immediately noted that personal information about survey respondents was being collected, although there was no statement of confidentiality or ethical review process. He also notes that one of the survey collaborators (Lesly Gouldie) is an employee with EduWiki, which raises the question of whether the results will inform “resource creation by the company” following the STLHE presentation. Essentially, it was unclear whether information collected from a close knit group of educators would be feeding a private company in order to churn out corporate teaching resources.
Following Holmes’ comment, there were a series of like-minded responses. The survey was described as “sloppy” when one institution was named twice in the demographic information, and questions were raised about who on the STLHE board approved it. When respondents actually got to the survey questions, they found that they hinged on presumptions and assumptions (students are presumed to be unprepared for University). One respondent declared “the important questions had already been decided, and I was being asked to rate how severely I beat my wife.” Ouch!
That response instigated rebuttals from other listserv readers who claimed that there are no perfect surveys because they all “necessarily guide/limit the conversation to the questions and options that the authors provide.” This comment was made by Robert Runte, a member of the Faculty of Education at the University of Lethbridge (who – per one of my previous posts – interestingly mixes personal and business information on his blog). Runte makes an excellent point when he explains “I believe it is incumbent upon ethical researchers to put sufficient thought into their survey design (including piloting it with knowledgeable colleagues) before going public with it that such negative reactions as we have seen here are avoided.”
Almost 24 hours after the initial listserv message, one of the authors – Arshad Ahmad – responded to the concerns that had been raised, including the fact that there was no ethical review process, there is an admitted bias to the questions, and the confidentiality of respondents would be upheld (and should have been noted). He also addressed the partnership with EduWiki, explaining that there are no commercial intentions, only opportunity to create a resource. He also explained that the partnership has not been officially signed, although the authors have been working with the company for 2 years.
In all, the whole survey debacle was an illuminating (and – admittedly – entertaining) affair. It offered insight not only on the intricacy of creating a survey, but also the need for peer-evaluation and careful consideration before sending any document out into the world (or listserv, as the case may be). In my eyes, it was an opportunity to open discussions on this particular feedback tool, and well as a reminder of the importance to recognize and cater to your audience, especially when your audience is composed of educators from across Canada.
For now the topic appears to have died down. We’ll see what happens in a few weeks when the authors present their findings at STLHE. The session is entitled, “I Wish I Had Known That . . . : Preparing first-year students for university before they get to campus” and is scheduled for Friday, June 20, from 11:00 to 11:50 am, in Odette B06.
I know I’ll be in attendance if I can (my colleague Maggie Cusson and I will also be presenting that day – more on that next week). I’d like to hear what the authors discovered with their controversial survey…and whether the drama that fueled the listserv late last week will reappear.
For the full schedule of concurrent sessions, including the EDC’s three (!) presentation, click here.
What do you think?
-Was the survey as improperly constructed as the respondents suggested?
-Were you satisfied with the explanation?
And will you attend the session on the 20th?
Tech Tips: Accurate Word Translation
This tip comes our way via a LifeHacker article in which a reader points out that Wikipedia can be used as a tool to accurately translate context specific words.
For example, in a regular online translator the word ‘foundation’ can return several different words depending on the context it chooses (a charity, a structural base, etc.). Using Wikipedia, however, you can first locate the appropriate meaning in English then switch the page language to get a context specific translation.
CALPER – Educational Language Resources
Carleton University Linguistics instructor Biana Laguardia turned me onto a great language resource center from Penn State called CALPER standing for Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.
“CALPER’s particular focus is to improve the environment of advanced-level foreign language teaching and learning, and assessment.”
