Computer Networking in Communication Disorders – CD 315

October 3, 2006

A6.5: Week 6 Reflection

Filed under: Online Journal, Week6 — by kmk22 @ 6:20 pm

Aims and Objectives: One of my goals this week was to complete the assignments by Sunday. Although I did not complete all the assignments early, I did start working on the assignments earlier this week.  I also wanted  to become more familiar with the different parts of the Multigenre Research Project (MRP) this week. Having some basic research sources, we now have more of an understanding what we will be doing for the overall project.

Declarative Knowledge:  This week I first learned what a project prospectus is, why it’s useful, and how to make one.  The project prospectus is the plan describing how I will complete my MRP.  Although this will undergo many changes as the semester progresses, it will give me a good place to start with the MRP.  I also conducted a search for five more sources in relation to my research question using MEDLINE, PychINFO, and Academic Search Premier.  I was able to find several scholarly articles using these databases.  Along with the project prospectus and the search, I internalized the web evaluations about my own site.  Keeping in mind the evaluations we used in a previous assingment helped me evaluate the credibility and validity of my site.  I had to be aware of what credibility and validity meant and also what the evaluation consisted of. Last, I had to reflect on our group discussion from September 13th. 

Procedural Knowledge: In order to do the project prospectus I had to first create it as a page in my web log.  I then had to follow a specific outline.  I had to identify my essential question and foundation questions, list my tentative point I plan to make with my project, the genres I will include, how I will integrate my genres, and a list of tentative resources I will use.  Four of the genres I included were already assigned, however I picked three additional genres.  I then had to tell what voice they would be written in such as clinician voice, parent/caregiver voice, or client voice.  Along with the voice of each I had to identify a potential audience for each genre and a discussion of why I chose that particular genre.  After completing the outline I saved and published the page. Next, to complete the library search assignment I chose some keywords and phrases that I would search for.  I then chose to search Academic Search Premier which gave me several useful results using the keywords “cochlear implant and language.” I then follwed the same process with MEDLINE and received numerous amounts of information. When using PyshINFO to see what I could find I changed my keywords to “cochlear implant and language development.” I received several different articles from the other two datatbases using these keywords. I then posted the resource where I got the articles, the keywords I used to search, and the bibliographical information for each article.  To site each source I referred to my APA manual fifth addition.  I then saved and publised my five sources on my weblog.  I then had to view my site and evaluate it thinking about its validity and credibility.  I kept in mind the evaluation outlines that we followed from a prevous assignment.  I also had to consider how other people would view my site and how I want to develop it.  This made me realize that I need to work really hard for people to think my site is valid and credible.  I saved and posted my thoughts from this assignment on my weblog.  Next, I reflected on our group discussion from September 13th.  In order to do this, I had to go to my e-mail and read the transcript from our discussion.  I specifically had to identify my essential question I started with, the essentail question I came up with during/after the discussion, how my groupmates helped me clear my thinking, how I helped my groupmates clear their thinking, and a list of recommendations for anyone who may participate in a similar activity in the future. I then saved and posted my results to my weblog.

Conditional Knowledge: My project prospectus will guide me throughout the class and my project.  Knowing it will be revised as we move on in our projects, it will still help me achieve the final product.  This is a good activity for any type of project because it makes you think about the final draft, even though we are still in the beginning stages.  The library search will continually help me in finding resources concerning my research question.  Searching for articles and citing sources is very good practice for students like myself.  Internalizing web evaluations is a good way for me to look at my own site and evaluate its validity and credibility.  I want people who look at my site to rely on the provided information and see that it is in fact valid and credible.   Reflecting on our previous group discussion allows me to look at, and still consider the suggestions that my group members made to me.  It also makes me see how my own thinking process evolved in our discussion.  The list of what others should do made me realize that we are all there for the same purpose, whatever that particular purpose may be, and we can really help each other throughout the process.

October 1, 2006

A6.4: Reflection on Discussion of 9/13/06

Filed under: Week6 — by kmk22 @ 2:33 pm

1. What was the essential question you brought to the class to share with your group?
Has early implantation proven to be more beneficial than implantation later in development?

2. What was the essential question you left class with (or have arrived at since that discussion)?
How has early cochlear implantation in deaf children been more beneficial for language development?

3.What kinds of contributions did your groupmates use that were helpful to you in shifting, refining, and clearing your thinking?  Give examples.
My groupmates first made me realize that I had not been very clear because I did not say what type of implantation I was referring to in my essential question.  Had I not told them my topic first then they would not have really understood my question.  I had originally thought that my first question was too specific, however once we started talking in our group they made me realize that I could narrow it down more.  I hadn’t thought about using a specific area until Abby said “as in semantics and phonology maybe?” Then, later in our conversation Lacie suggested language development. After our discussion I started thinking about it, and one of the most important goals of cochlear implants is to allow speech and language development, so I decided to focus on language development. (thanks girls)  Having our group discussion definitely made me rethink my essential question.  Several other recommendations were made that had not even crossed my mind, such as comparing adult and child language development.  It was nice to see other peoples perspectives on different issues, and really helped me in analyzing my question further.

4. What kinds of contributions did you use in the discussions about your classmates questions that seemed useful to in helping them shift, refine, and clear their own thinking?  Give examples.
I basically just asked my classmates questions that would possibly help narrow their essential questions.  Like someone in our group asked Alyssa if she wanted to focus on a specific area like language or pragmatics, so I then suggested maybe she narrow it down to a specific population like adults or children.  Also, Lacie’s topic was treating language and speech in dementia patients.  Alyssa asked if she was going to focus on the stages, and then I asked Lacie if she was going to address the therapy for that stage with her dementia patient. 

5. Based on your observations of helpful contributions, make a list of suggestions that might be given to other students who will one day participate in a similar activity.  You might want to think of it as creating a list in response to the following:

In order to be positive and influential in a group discussion online, participants should:
*all actively participate in the discussion
*prepare for the discussion prior to the discussion if necessary
*provide helpful and positive feedback
*make suggestions, do not tell a group member they must change something
*if you don’t understand something, ask for clarification
*be honest, yet aware of others feelings

A6.3: Internalizing Web Evaluations

Filed under: Week6 — by kmk22 @ 10:58 am

Evaluating websites in our previous assignment brought me to the realization that almost anyone can publish information on the web.  Knowing this, evaluating a sites validity and credibility is incredibly important.  Until our last class discussion on tapped-in I had never really thought of myself as an author.  I feel like a lot of responsiblity comes with the title of “author,” and I find it to be somewhat intimidating.  Because different people rely on your information to be credible and valid, evaluating our own work is important.  To this point, I am not sure that my site would be considered valid or credible.  Most of the information is about my personal views, thoughts, and class assignments.  Recently, I have added some research information, but I would not really say that my site is yet valid.  I think if people looked at my site as an assignment for another class they would find the information interesting, and if they further looked at my sources they would find that they were valid.  However, I am not sure if it would hold up to the evaluation forms that we used for our evaluating assignment.  Since my site is a work in progress and is not finished yet, this tells me that I need to think carefully about the additional information I add to my site.  I need to provide evidence based information, several reliable research sources, and possibly more information about myself, the author.  I hope to make my site more credible and valid thoughout the course of the class.

September 29, 2006

A6.2: Library Search II

Filed under: Week6 — by kmk22 @ 3:55 pm

Resource: Academic Search Premier
Keyword/keywords/phrase: cochlear implant and language
Bibliography:
Geers, A. (2002). Factors affecting the development of speech, language, and literacy
    in children with early cochlear implantation. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services
    in Schools, 33
, 172-183. Retrieved September 29, 2006, from the Academic Search
    Premier database.

Resource: Academic Search Premier
Keyword/keywords/phrase: cochlear implant and language
Bibliography:
Seung, H., Holmes, A., Coburn, M. (2005). Twin language development: A case study
    of a twin with a cochlear implant and a twin with typical hearing. The Volta Review,
    105 (2),
175-188.  Retrieved September 29, 2006, from the Academic Search
    Premier database.

Resource: MEDLINE
Keyword/keywords/phrase: cochlear implant and language
Bibliography:
Geers, A. (2006). Factors influencing spoken language outcomes in children following
    early cochlear implantation.  Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 64, 50-65.
    Retrieved September 25, 2006, from the MEDLINE database.

Resource: MEDLINE
Keyword/keywords/phrase:  cochlear implant and language
Bibliography:
Kane, M., Schopmeyer, B., & Mellon, N. (2004).  Prelinguistic communication
    and subsequent language acquisition in children with cochlear implants.  Archives
    of Otolarngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 130 (5),
619-623.  Retrived Septmeber
    25, 2006, from the MEDLINE database.

Resource: PsychINFO
Keyword/keywords/phrase: cochlear implant and language development
Bibliography:
Brinton, J. (2001). Measuring language development in deaf children with cochlear
    implants. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 36, 121-
    125. Retrieved September 29, 2006, from the PsychINFO database.

Powered by WordPress.com