A10.4: EFN (Progress Memo)
10/31/08
Content Summary:
When looking back on this unit I can see that I definalty learned about different technologies and how to use them as tools in therapy. We not only got to learn in depth about an adaptive technology in detail, but we got to look at others and learn how they can help as well. Then while putting this into a presentation on the web we learned some good ways to present our data for other people to see. Software is also another thing that we can use in our therapy that can help us accomplish goals. We learned about different software that can be used in therapy, or could help us prepare for therapy. This way we learned a little about each one when we presented them in class. We also learned that after we found and searched these softwares they were not that helpful to us. There were some that could be helpful but they mainly were not the easiest programs to work with and the things that they were accomplishing could have been done by us without the programs. I also learned about literacy and that digital literacy has many subcatagories in it. If you break it down you can see that there are many different things that you can be literate in, not only the broad subject of digital literacy but also the subcatagories included in it.
Progress Summary:
As mentioned in the first progress memo I am definately online more often then I use to. I have also learned how to operate different discussion sites such as nicenet. These discusstions have also made me get on line more often to see whtat people have written about the topic that we are talking about. It is interesting to see all the different opinions and views on the topics we have been discussing such as the different types of literacy, what digital literacy is, how we can use different technologies in therapy, ect. I have also learned how to subscribe to Google alerts and receive new information that is listed under certain subjects. This is extremely helpful when you are researching on a topic. The importance of checking the accuracy of the information on the sites that I find has also been brought to my attention through us performing different evaluation on websites. The newest thing that I have learned to do is on the Diigo account. Here I have learned how to bookmark certain sites, highlight those sites, put them in certain orders, and learned how to create notes on the sites that will be there when I return to that site through Diigo. I really like this application and am glad that it was brought to my attention.
Assessment:
The information that I have during this unit is definatly helpful to me. The Adaptive technologies and presenting them allowed me to see a few of the devices that are available for people to use and now I can see that I could possible see some of these devices when working with my clients. The Software evaluation will also allowed me to see that there are certain software programs out there that can be used, but I also think that I learned that they are still developing and that they may be better in the comming years. The discussions that we have been involved in, especially the literacy one, have also helped me see that there is definatly more to literacy then just reading and writing and it has made me wonder when we truly are literate and how we measure this. We had a discussion about this but I think we all just danced around and came up with that we really didn’t know? Software evaluations are not the most fun things to do, but I have also found myself looking more indepth at the informaiton on the websites that I go to now. I find myself looking at the dates, authors, and associations that these differnet sites are associated with. I definatly more aware of the information that I read and how accurate it is.
Reflection:
When looking at this unit I can see that the work that I have done could be seen by others. One of the evaluation I did was actually seen by the author and he wrote back to me. I never thought that people would acutally see the things that I wrote on the internet and actually care but they did. They could google the device that I made my presentation on, or they could even see the evaluation I wrote on the Software. These could potentially be seen and help someone know if this could be the device for them, but not only that I have to realize the things that I write could be seen and potentially offend someone. When I wrote the evaluation about the betterdogfood.com I wrote that the telephone company could not prepare him well for the site he opened, and he actually wrote back and corrected me by saying that it did prepare him and that I was wrong. I never thought that that would happen or that anyone would read it. It was definatly a new experience for me.
A10.2: Web Evaluation II
Source:
Heavner, K. (2008). Literacy and cochlear implants. Advanced Bionics. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.bionicear.com/Support_Center/Educational_Support/eLearning_Library/Candidates,%20Recipients%20and%20Parents/Rehabilitation/Literacy_and_Cochlear_Implants.cfm?langid=1
Authorship:
The author of this page is clearly stated at the bottom of the page along with a short biography. She is a Speech-Language Pathologist and Certified Auditory-Verbal Therapist, and has been working since 1999. It also says that she has been working with University of Michigan Cochlear Implant Program from 2001-2006, and is now a consultant at Advanced Bionics. It also lists her interests in research which include spoken language outcomes with the Auditory-Verbal approach, and she has presented many national cochlear implant meetings on this topic. Then it gives a little personal information about where she lives and her family. I feel that is this is sufficient information to trust what is listed on this website.
Publishing Body:
The name of the organization is listed on this site and it is called Advanced Bionics. The author is a consultant for this company. There is also a link to the company so that you can contact them if you need to. There are not any headers, footers, or a distinctive watermarks to link this site with an academic or scholarly Web site. It is linked to the site of Advance Bionics where you can purchase an implant from this company and see success stories. I however, do not know if this company is known in our field, but I am only a student at this time. This organization should be allowed to talk about this subject because they sell and lead you through the steps of cochlear implants so they defiantly should be able to tell you what they will have to go through and what the outcome could lead to. It is also linked to an official website.
Point of view or biases:
This site is directed toward and sells cochlear implants so they are going to show good things about them. The link that I am looking up however from this website is about literacy methods used with children with hearing loss, and offers specific strategies that follow a normal developmental approach to reading. So it is would not be as biased as the information on this site about he actual cochlear implant.
Referral to and/or knowledge of the literature:
The author of this site displays a biography that tells of all of her experience in the field and with aural rehabilitation.
Accuracy or verifiability of details:
When looking at the information that she presents in the presentations on the website you can see that it includes in text citations to allow you to see that this information is in other sources and it is not just her coming up with the information.
This websites does not include the date that it was published or the day that it was last updated, but it does include a copyright date. It also includes the dates to which the information that she is using in her presentation was copyrighted letting you know when the information she used was published.
