Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f19HGw900046; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:16:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:16:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <LCEPICPAEKHKHHBOEEEPEELCCDAA.tbr202@nyu.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Tommy B. McDonell" <tbr202@nyu.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:1576] for Mark about technology X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 883 Lines: 27 Mark, I have some questions for you that are different from those we have been discussing in literacy. I will list them below. I am interested in what you think about those colleges and universities who have jumped onto the ed tech bandwagon to teach through blackboard.com and or webct. My college is using BB but I find that while their intentions are the very best I worry about both the evaluation of this use and about the digital divide. This brings me to a second question. On other boards I am on (listservs)the question is how to evaluate technology. I have a fear that people tend to evaluate how students (esp college and adults) use the technology rather than produce language. I wondered if you might address assessment. Thanks. Tommy Ms. Tommy B. McDonell Adjunct, Marymount Manhattan College Tommy.McDonell@nyu.edu h:212-358-1233 before 9:30 PM f:212-358-1230
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:31:12 EST