Web 2.0: I started with Geography because it ties into all of the areas I am interested in teaching. But there were no posting for it. I do not think many schools teach this as a separate subject any longer.
So then I skated over to Google Earth because it fascinates me. There was a nice discussion started by Thomas Petra, who teaches school in Guam, about using Google Earth resources for his mathematics classes. He was trying to find ways to expand the assignment base for his students. Many of the ideas that the other teachers suggested, made for a better educational opportunity. For instance, Mr. Petra uses weather data to track storms through Guam. By using longitude and latitude the students are able to track where a storm might go in relation to their community. Then the students look at weather date to determine how strong the storm will be. Using Google Earth they are able to follow all of this in real time. By pulling other classes into the project, i. e. Mathematics, history, population figures, population density, etc. It just opens your mind the many interactive activities and long term projects for students.
More than a few of the teachers suggested the http://www.googlelittrips.com/ site as an excellent resource for projects. It is a bit off the subject for Mr. Petra, but a source well worth mentioning. As more educators add lit trips to the site, the subjects are beginning to grow beyond strictly English literature trips. More and more cross-curricular projects are being posted.
I enjoyed the Classroom 2.0 site quite a bit. I found myself exploring many tools that I might have skipped in the past, but because of the way the site was set up, I found myself exploring. The dialogues are interesting and easy to follow. It is amazing how creative educators are, and their willingness to share those ideas.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Journal #9
The New Gold Rush: Establishing Effective Online Learning Policies, Ferdi Serim, Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 12-16.
Online learning has become probably the fastest growing area of education. On one side we have the development of a learning process that allows any student, anywhere to self-pace their learning. The article also looks to the possibilities for abuse in the system. The article states there is a “…temptation to replace highly skilled professionals with scripted, mass delivered “content” as a means of reducing costs and /or maximizing profits is a contender for the worst reason.” The author talks about the promotion of, or the prevention of, online learning will depend on whether the experts approve or disapprove of its use in schools. “New policies at both district and state levels will either promote or prevent effective online learning, depending on how well they are informed by professionals who have already spent years working in this field.” From the authors point of view the best way to teach would actually be a combination or hybridization of both types of teaching. He feels that a combination of online and face-to-face is needed to best educate students. Take the quality elements of both types of education and combine them for an optimal learning experience. The teachers can provide effective facilitation of the subjects and their needed methods for being taught and the online instructors can offer a specialized instructional design and the implementation skills needed to create a top learning environment. He is not advocating the replacement of face-to-face with online learning, but is adamant that a combination of skills is needed in order to best educate students.
Finally the author has developed priority issues that need to be addressed when understanding and evaluating online learning situations. The first part he addresses are policy issues: costs and benefits, quality and equality of programs, funding, accountability, assessment, state or district planning, coordination, support, evaluation, and teacher certification and licensing. The second set of priority issues are for teaching and learning. They include: Professional development, Constructionivist teaching practice, Philosophy, best practice, quality assurance, and technology equality.
Do I agree with the priority issues the author outlines? The fist part of the authors issues concerning policy in general I think are well done and a good start for establishment of a good networked learning environment. The second set of priority issues concerning teachers themselves worries me a bit. I think the guidelines are rather esoteric and broad. Professional Development is hard to define, but necessary to the ability to run a educational program. The part that is concerning is the remaining parts of the teaching requirements. Constructionivist and philosophical, best practices need to be defined as well or the program parameters are too broad.
What kind of learning do I think is needed? Face-to-Face, Hybridization, etc… I like the idea of combining the expertise of a teacher with the expertise of a computer user. There are many subjects that I think a student could benefit from in a self paced learning environment, which still has the traditional face-to-face encouragement of a teacher for help and guidance. Students all learn differently and at different paces, by combining the methods of learning, I think education has a chance at producing well rounded students. We will still have students that are better in some areas than others, but we may also be creating an environment where they are able to learn more that they might have in a traditional teaching environment.
Online learning has become probably the fastest growing area of education. On one side we have the development of a learning process that allows any student, anywhere to self-pace their learning. The article also looks to the possibilities for abuse in the system. The article states there is a “…temptation to replace highly skilled professionals with scripted, mass delivered “content” as a means of reducing costs and /or maximizing profits is a contender for the worst reason.” The author talks about the promotion of, or the prevention of, online learning will depend on whether the experts approve or disapprove of its use in schools. “New policies at both district and state levels will either promote or prevent effective online learning, depending on how well they are informed by professionals who have already spent years working in this field.” From the authors point of view the best way to teach would actually be a combination or hybridization of both types of teaching. He feels that a combination of online and face-to-face is needed to best educate students. Take the quality elements of both types of education and combine them for an optimal learning experience. The teachers can provide effective facilitation of the subjects and their needed methods for being taught and the online instructors can offer a specialized instructional design and the implementation skills needed to create a top learning environment. He is not advocating the replacement of face-to-face with online learning, but is adamant that a combination of skills is needed in order to best educate students.
Finally the author has developed priority issues that need to be addressed when understanding and evaluating online learning situations. The first part he addresses are policy issues: costs and benefits, quality and equality of programs, funding, accountability, assessment, state or district planning, coordination, support, evaluation, and teacher certification and licensing. The second set of priority issues are for teaching and learning. They include: Professional development, Constructionivist teaching practice, Philosophy, best practice, quality assurance, and technology equality.
Do I agree with the priority issues the author outlines? The fist part of the authors issues concerning policy in general I think are well done and a good start for establishment of a good networked learning environment. The second set of priority issues concerning teachers themselves worries me a bit. I think the guidelines are rather esoteric and broad. Professional Development is hard to define, but necessary to the ability to run a educational program. The part that is concerning is the remaining parts of the teaching requirements. Constructionivist and philosophical, best practices need to be defined as well or the program parameters are too broad.
What kind of learning do I think is needed? Face-to-Face, Hybridization, etc… I like the idea of combining the expertise of a teacher with the expertise of a computer user. There are many subjects that I think a student could benefit from in a self paced learning environment, which still has the traditional face-to-face encouragement of a teacher for help and guidance. Students all learn differently and at different paces, by combining the methods of learning, I think education has a chance at producing well rounded students. We will still have students that are better in some areas than others, but we may also be creating an environment where they are able to learn more that they might have in a traditional teaching environment.
Journal #8
Power of the Mashup: Combining Essential Learning with New Technology Tools, Suzie Boss & Jane Krauss, Learning & Leading with Technology, August 2007, Pages 12-17.
I used to be a computer geek. Then I burned out on computing and all things digital, electronic and video related. When I first saw this article I avoided it because, after giving it a light skim, I thought that it was probably going to be on how to use these various gadgets for teaching. What I failed to notice about this article, and that I finally got when I actually read it, is that the idea is to use established learning functions and then technology to enhance these already established functions. In other words integrate technology into the, and with the classics, not necessarily use technology to just teach the classics. What the authors call the “Power of the Mashup – a hybrid application that draws from multiple sources to create something new.” In other words, use technology to teach and enhance the learning experience. Using the authors Eight Essential Learning Functions: 1. Ubiquity; 2. Deep Learning; 3. Making Things Visible and Discussible; 4.Expressing Ourselves, Sharing Ideas, Building Community; 5. Collaboration; 6. Research; 7. Project Management; 8. Reflection and Iteration. By using the basics of learning and combining them with the technology tools available, “Burg and other teachers manage to keep their focus on these essential learning functions while staying alert to the potential of new technology tools.” Burg and Fagg came to the same realization, but from different directions. Burg discovered Google Earth and began exploring. Using the learning materials he had already amassed, he applied it to Google Earth, with spectacular results. “For Burg, it wasn’t the slick new technology that caught his attention, but rather how it would allow him to extend the reach of his proven teaching strategies.” Fagg, in the other hand admits he wanted to “…subvert the use of MP3 players in my classroom.” He also had a desire to stay focused on the essential learning, but to integrate the technology available. By using the MP3 players and other assorted technologies, he hoped to make history interactive for the students. “Both Burg and Fagg are good examples of teachers willing to take a classroom experiment public, inviting feedback from colleagues to help improve on project design.”
1) What have been some of the unexpected outcomes? Some of the unexpected results from the Mashup have been great. Students are staying interested longer and learning at their own pace. Students that learn better by hearing information are reporting an increased appeal to assignments that they can listen to learn. And, finally the authentic feedback from sources all over the world is very appealing.
2) Are teachers going to have to develop into techno geeks in the classroom? To a certain degree ‘yes’ teachers are going to have to develop strong technical skills to keep up with their students, but it also up to us to build strong learning functions as well. There is no reason why it can’t be fun for both the teachers and the students. While technology is undergoing vast changes all the time, the basic skills are established and stable.
I used to be a computer geek. Then I burned out on computing and all things digital, electronic and video related. When I first saw this article I avoided it because, after giving it a light skim, I thought that it was probably going to be on how to use these various gadgets for teaching. What I failed to notice about this article, and that I finally got when I actually read it, is that the idea is to use established learning functions and then technology to enhance these already established functions. In other words integrate technology into the, and with the classics, not necessarily use technology to just teach the classics. What the authors call the “Power of the Mashup – a hybrid application that draws from multiple sources to create something new.” In other words, use technology to teach and enhance the learning experience. Using the authors Eight Essential Learning Functions: 1. Ubiquity; 2. Deep Learning; 3. Making Things Visible and Discussible; 4.Expressing Ourselves, Sharing Ideas, Building Community; 5. Collaboration; 6. Research; 7. Project Management; 8. Reflection and Iteration. By using the basics of learning and combining them with the technology tools available, “Burg and other teachers manage to keep their focus on these essential learning functions while staying alert to the potential of new technology tools.” Burg and Fagg came to the same realization, but from different directions. Burg discovered Google Earth and began exploring. Using the learning materials he had already amassed, he applied it to Google Earth, with spectacular results. “For Burg, it wasn’t the slick new technology that caught his attention, but rather how it would allow him to extend the reach of his proven teaching strategies.” Fagg, in the other hand admits he wanted to “…subvert the use of MP3 players in my classroom.” He also had a desire to stay focused on the essential learning, but to integrate the technology available. By using the MP3 players and other assorted technologies, he hoped to make history interactive for the students. “Both Burg and Fagg are good examples of teachers willing to take a classroom experiment public, inviting feedback from colleagues to help improve on project design.”
1) What have been some of the unexpected outcomes? Some of the unexpected results from the Mashup have been great. Students are staying interested longer and learning at their own pace. Students that learn better by hearing information are reporting an increased appeal to assignments that they can listen to learn. And, finally the authentic feedback from sources all over the world is very appealing.
2) Are teachers going to have to develop into techno geeks in the classroom? To a certain degree ‘yes’ teachers are going to have to develop strong technical skills to keep up with their students, but it also up to us to build strong learning functions as well. There is no reason why it can’t be fun for both the teachers and the students. While technology is undergoing vast changes all the time, the basic skills are established and stable.
Journal #7
Point/Counterpoint: Is Chat Speak Destroying English? Linda Howard & Greg Monfils, Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 8-9.
The first author argues that chat speak is killing English. The author feels that there is no room for chat speak, because students will be unable to differentiate between chat speak and clear concise written English. She goes on to say that there is “… a time when we all have to grow and evolve into our true character and many young people will have a difficult time drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable dialogue in everyday life, especially in written communications.” By using chat speak, she feels the average student will not be able to transition effectively between chat speak and proper written English. That the students will not be able to express opinions, engage with others in academic, business and formal situations, because of this inability to transition to proper English. The author is of the opinion that chat speak has no place in larger society.
The second author approaches the infiltrations of chat speak as a challenge. Chat speak is a students way of maintaining privacy and personality. He feels that the students know the difference between chat speak and proper English. He feels that they know when to use each type of English that is necessary for a given situation. Given that he teaches in a virtual environment, he is used to communicating in chat speak, but expects his students to complete their assignments in proper English. He compares the uses of chat speak to that a student using a foreign language, not as a threat to a student’s ability to use English. He comments that English has been standardized, but students live to challenge standards.
Though I find myself agreeing with the argument that chat speak is not going to mark the end of the use of proper English, I do have two questions about the authors standpoints.
Do the authors treat chat as a language? The first author seems to feel that students are incapable of switching from chat speak to proper English and therefore should not use chat speak at all. She does not consider chat as even an informal language. She appears to consider chat as an intrusion or abomination of English. The second author treats chat as though it was a foreign language. A language like any other a student might know, and be able to speak along with English.
This leads me to my second question. Do we find that teaching a foreign language is a threat? Some teachers seem to think that just knowing English is enough in today’s world. I have traveled extensively, and constantly amazed at how many times I have heard “What do you mean you don’t know English?”. We are one of the few countries in the world that do not require additional language comprehension as a basic rule. Instead, here we argue about what little language is taught, and expect all of our students to be at an equal level of English language comprehension. Teaching and speaking in other languages should not be viewed as a threat, but rather as a learning opportunity. For a country that wants to have the world be as one, we are very egocentric about the language that is used to do so.
The first author argues that chat speak is killing English. The author feels that there is no room for chat speak, because students will be unable to differentiate between chat speak and clear concise written English. She goes on to say that there is “… a time when we all have to grow and evolve into our true character and many young people will have a difficult time drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable dialogue in everyday life, especially in written communications.” By using chat speak, she feels the average student will not be able to transition effectively between chat speak and proper written English. That the students will not be able to express opinions, engage with others in academic, business and formal situations, because of this inability to transition to proper English. The author is of the opinion that chat speak has no place in larger society.
The second author approaches the infiltrations of chat speak as a challenge. Chat speak is a students way of maintaining privacy and personality. He feels that the students know the difference between chat speak and proper English. He feels that they know when to use each type of English that is necessary for a given situation. Given that he teaches in a virtual environment, he is used to communicating in chat speak, but expects his students to complete their assignments in proper English. He compares the uses of chat speak to that a student using a foreign language, not as a threat to a student’s ability to use English. He comments that English has been standardized, but students live to challenge standards.
Though I find myself agreeing with the argument that chat speak is not going to mark the end of the use of proper English, I do have two questions about the authors standpoints.
Do the authors treat chat as a language? The first author seems to feel that students are incapable of switching from chat speak to proper English and therefore should not use chat speak at all. She does not consider chat as even an informal language. She appears to consider chat as an intrusion or abomination of English. The second author treats chat as though it was a foreign language. A language like any other a student might know, and be able to speak along with English.
This leads me to my second question. Do we find that teaching a foreign language is a threat? Some teachers seem to think that just knowing English is enough in today’s world. I have traveled extensively, and constantly amazed at how many times I have heard “What do you mean you don’t know English?”. We are one of the few countries in the world that do not require additional language comprehension as a basic rule. Instead, here we argue about what little language is taught, and expect all of our students to be at an equal level of English language comprehension. Teaching and speaking in other languages should not be viewed as a threat, but rather as a learning opportunity. For a country that wants to have the world be as one, we are very egocentric about the language that is used to do so.
Journal #6
More Than Money Matters: Establishing Effective School-Corporate Partnerships – Nancy Flynn, Learning and Leading with Technology, November 2007, Pages 18-21.
This article focuses on the points that need to be considered for good relationships between schools and corporations, beyond the monetary aspects. These relationships are becoming more critical as school funding overall has dropped. As schools have become more and more under funded, and technology pricing has gone up. In order for students to be ready for the future we need to try and provide them with the skills needed to achieve in high technology environments. This in itself has determined the need for partnerships with corporations. Once you get past the gains/losses on both sides of the issue, i.e.: corporate financial gain, advertising, marketing and promotion, latest hardware and software, etc. What should principals be looking for in these partnerships? What cautions and concerns should be passed onto other principals? The author, after interviewing nine principals across the U.S., determined the following Ten Guidelines.
1) Vision – What do you expect? A plan needs to be developed by both parties, so that there is no miscommunication of goals.
2) Support for technology – Ensure support of software/hardware by both parties.
3) School curriculum – Does the software/hardware fit the school curriculum? An honest assessment of needs has to be determined so no time, energy or resource is wasted.
4) Collaboration and Communication – Identify key contact people on both sides of the collaboration.
5) Internal Capacity – Is the internal support available to mind the software/ hardware.
6) Commitment – Ensure that the level of commitment is available by both parties.
7) Obligations – Make sure expectations are clear for both sides of the partnership. Perhaps getting expectations in writing to insure no misunderstandings.
8) Product Promotion – Determine the levels that qualify in the partnership, so as not to slide into commercialism.
9) Assessment – Determine strengths and weaknesses and the longevity of the partnership.
10) Longevity – Is it working or has the partnership or software run its course? Evaluate the worth on an annual basis.
The author feels there will be a continual need for technology partnerships if we are to keep our students trained for the future.
1) Are the outlined criteria enough? I think the authors criteria are well rounded and well thought out. I would also stress that a user needs to always keep and eye open for hidden agendas, but all in all the criteria are sound steps for considering a technology partnership.
2) How do you determine line between presentation and product promotion? There is a very fine line between presentation and product promotion. This issue is one that will have to be determined on a case by case analysis. I think the authors’ example of students giving a presentation at a conference with a company’s software is cutting the issue very closely, but it is a great opportunity for the students involved. Experiences like this are hard to call, but there should be a way for the students to gain experience from this event, without compromising them.
This article focuses on the points that need to be considered for good relationships between schools and corporations, beyond the monetary aspects. These relationships are becoming more critical as school funding overall has dropped. As schools have become more and more under funded, and technology pricing has gone up. In order for students to be ready for the future we need to try and provide them with the skills needed to achieve in high technology environments. This in itself has determined the need for partnerships with corporations. Once you get past the gains/losses on both sides of the issue, i.e.: corporate financial gain, advertising, marketing and promotion, latest hardware and software, etc. What should principals be looking for in these partnerships? What cautions and concerns should be passed onto other principals? The author, after interviewing nine principals across the U.S., determined the following Ten Guidelines.
1) Vision – What do you expect? A plan needs to be developed by both parties, so that there is no miscommunication of goals.
2) Support for technology – Ensure support of software/hardware by both parties.
3) School curriculum – Does the software/hardware fit the school curriculum? An honest assessment of needs has to be determined so no time, energy or resource is wasted.
4) Collaboration and Communication – Identify key contact people on both sides of the collaboration.
5) Internal Capacity – Is the internal support available to mind the software/ hardware.
6) Commitment – Ensure that the level of commitment is available by both parties.
7) Obligations – Make sure expectations are clear for both sides of the partnership. Perhaps getting expectations in writing to insure no misunderstandings.
8) Product Promotion – Determine the levels that qualify in the partnership, so as not to slide into commercialism.
9) Assessment – Determine strengths and weaknesses and the longevity of the partnership.
10) Longevity – Is it working or has the partnership or software run its course? Evaluate the worth on an annual basis.
The author feels there will be a continual need for technology partnerships if we are to keep our students trained for the future.
1) Are the outlined criteria enough? I think the authors criteria are well rounded and well thought out. I would also stress that a user needs to always keep and eye open for hidden agendas, but all in all the criteria are sound steps for considering a technology partnership.
2) How do you determine line between presentation and product promotion? There is a very fine line between presentation and product promotion. This issue is one that will have to be determined on a case by case analysis. I think the authors’ example of students giving a presentation at a conference with a company’s software is cutting the issue very closely, but it is a great opportunity for the students involved. Experiences like this are hard to call, but there should be a way for the students to gain experience from this event, without compromising them.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Journal #4
Online textbooks: the future of Learning? – by Chris Moran
San Diego Union-Tribune, Sunday October 7, 2007, Pages B1 & B5.
Online textbooks: the future of learning?
This article looks at a Montgomery High School teacher Gerald French who gave his Biology students a choice – book or online. Mr. French’s hope was that he could entice hesitant learners into learning. He hoped to prepare his students for the technological future. By teaching with an online book the students would be honing their technology skills, and improving their learning skills in a non-traditional method. A method that will in all likelihood will become the method of the future. Permission was given for one class to be taught in this method, but he engaged all four of his classes. Upon review, The Office of Education inspectors, not seeing evidence that all the students with passwords had access requested that he issue books. He feels that by “Having to issue books to students who have computers takes away his leverage to coax this students into the 21st-century-style learning.” The article goes on to describe the issues around online learning and the shortage of textbooks for schools. Many publishers have drifted towards the online market. This issue is going to become more important in the future. Some students may still favor the physical comfort of a book. The Lemon Grove School District has issued laptops and online books to their entire middle school science and social studies classes through a Microsoft program, but they are still bundled with a physical book. The end of the article points out that if you can’t be sure a student will open a physical book, how can you be sure they will use an online book?
1. How do you show evidence that the students with passwords also have computers and Internet access? This issue has been bothering me for two weeks. The Lemon Grove middle school project where all the students were given a computer and an online account is great, but unreachable for most schools. Is there a real way to grant computer and access to all students? Even now I know students that have no access to computers or to the web. Unless there is a way to grant every student in a school district access and then provide them with a computer to access those accounts, you can’t. But you can start slowly, grade by grade. This would lessen the initial output a school district might face and eventually bring all students to an equitable level of access to online learning. Eventually, all learning will migrate toward the inclusion of technology in school.
2. How do you ensure that a student is receiving an equal level of learning online or by book? In the global environment that exists today all people will have to have some level of computational expertise, but unless there is a social revolution I am not sure that education will ever be equal. A school may use a physical book for class, with a student having to independently having to do research to learn more, or online with the same text, but access to instantaneous additional information. Given that both could be identical, it really comes down to the teacher and the learning environment.
San Diego Union-Tribune, Sunday October 7, 2007, Pages B1 & B5.
Online textbooks: the future of learning?
This article looks at a Montgomery High School teacher Gerald French who gave his Biology students a choice – book or online. Mr. French’s hope was that he could entice hesitant learners into learning. He hoped to prepare his students for the technological future. By teaching with an online book the students would be honing their technology skills, and improving their learning skills in a non-traditional method. A method that will in all likelihood will become the method of the future. Permission was given for one class to be taught in this method, but he engaged all four of his classes. Upon review, The Office of Education inspectors, not seeing evidence that all the students with passwords had access requested that he issue books. He feels that by “Having to issue books to students who have computers takes away his leverage to coax this students into the 21st-century-style learning.” The article goes on to describe the issues around online learning and the shortage of textbooks for schools. Many publishers have drifted towards the online market. This issue is going to become more important in the future. Some students may still favor the physical comfort of a book. The Lemon Grove School District has issued laptops and online books to their entire middle school science and social studies classes through a Microsoft program, but they are still bundled with a physical book. The end of the article points out that if you can’t be sure a student will open a physical book, how can you be sure they will use an online book?
1. How do you show evidence that the students with passwords also have computers and Internet access? This issue has been bothering me for two weeks. The Lemon Grove middle school project where all the students were given a computer and an online account is great, but unreachable for most schools. Is there a real way to grant computer and access to all students? Even now I know students that have no access to computers or to the web. Unless there is a way to grant every student in a school district access and then provide them with a computer to access those accounts, you can’t. But you can start slowly, grade by grade. This would lessen the initial output a school district might face and eventually bring all students to an equitable level of access to online learning. Eventually, all learning will migrate toward the inclusion of technology in school.
2. How do you ensure that a student is receiving an equal level of learning online or by book? In the global environment that exists today all people will have to have some level of computational expertise, but unless there is a social revolution I am not sure that education will ever be equal. A school may use a physical book for class, with a student having to independently having to do research to learn more, or online with the same text, but access to instantaneous additional information. Given that both could be identical, it really comes down to the teacher and the learning environment.
Journal # 3
Threat of Security – by LeAnne K. Robinson, Abbie Brown, and Tim Green
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 19 - 23.
The article “Threat of Security”, discusses the use of security by educational institutions may actually be creating an atmosphere of apprehension for students and teachers. “Could our concern over security be generating a fear that is now hindering the integration of technology?” The article discusses various areas of usage (Networks, Web Sites, and Filters). It also point out the subsequent regulation that has had implemented by educational institutions in an effort to protect children’s safety.
1. & 2. Has there been a loss of perspective regarding security? Are we in the process developing a punitive environment that does not allow for creativity and inspiration for educators and students? Many schools allow for little of no interaction with the web. Limited access is granted for classes to explore sites for school projects. Have we undermined the worthiness of technology in education? Are we becoming paranoid to the point of inactivity by perceived “threats to security”? The article ponders whether to avoid the use of computers in classrooms due to this environment of distrust. It has been shown that the use of technology helps develop more constructive and authentic learning environments. When explored by the authors they found that of security is actually not the chief impediment to technology use in education, (“…lack of appropriate hardware and software, training, administrative support, and collegial jealousy.”). This surprisingly was not a lack of access to computers and peripherals, but access to needed resources that would have allowed for more technology interaction in the classroom. The protocols or Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) that many schools have adopted can greatly limit both a teachers’ ability to teach as well as a student’s ability to learn. How do we balance security and AUPs with access to the many technological tools available for learning? We must have a level of trust in education. Levels of personal responsibility need to be established that increase with age and maturity. Schools need to trust educators to teach appropriately, and administration needs to be clear as to what is allowed. AUPs need to be clear, but not so binding that a teacher or student is unable to utilize the worth of technology. Give teachers more trust to check the sights they use and teach children what is appropriate for their environment. The article mentions that students usually worry more about losing their work, rather than security. If a balance is taught and that balance is respected then for the most part it will be followed. We need to assume that most teachers and students want to be learning, rather than assume that they are out to be nefarious. Perspective needs to be retained by the schools. Mainly, “We must empower teachers to fully integrate these tools and technologies into their classroom settings in ways that are both safe for the individual and satisfying for the learner.”
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 19 - 23.
The article “Threat of Security”, discusses the use of security by educational institutions may actually be creating an atmosphere of apprehension for students and teachers. “Could our concern over security be generating a fear that is now hindering the integration of technology?” The article discusses various areas of usage (Networks, Web Sites, and Filters). It also point out the subsequent regulation that has had implemented by educational institutions in an effort to protect children’s safety.
1. & 2. Has there been a loss of perspective regarding security? Are we in the process developing a punitive environment that does not allow for creativity and inspiration for educators and students? Many schools allow for little of no interaction with the web. Limited access is granted for classes to explore sites for school projects. Have we undermined the worthiness of technology in education? Are we becoming paranoid to the point of inactivity by perceived “threats to security”? The article ponders whether to avoid the use of computers in classrooms due to this environment of distrust. It has been shown that the use of technology helps develop more constructive and authentic learning environments. When explored by the authors they found that of security is actually not the chief impediment to technology use in education, (“…lack of appropriate hardware and software, training, administrative support, and collegial jealousy.”). This surprisingly was not a lack of access to computers and peripherals, but access to needed resources that would have allowed for more technology interaction in the classroom. The protocols or Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) that many schools have adopted can greatly limit both a teachers’ ability to teach as well as a student’s ability to learn. How do we balance security and AUPs with access to the many technological tools available for learning? We must have a level of trust in education. Levels of personal responsibility need to be established that increase with age and maturity. Schools need to trust educators to teach appropriately, and administration needs to be clear as to what is allowed. AUPs need to be clear, but not so binding that a teacher or student is unable to utilize the worth of technology. Give teachers more trust to check the sights they use and teach children what is appropriate for their environment. The article mentions that students usually worry more about losing their work, rather than security. If a balance is taught and that balance is respected then for the most part it will be followed. We need to assume that most teachers and students want to be learning, rather than assume that they are out to be nefarious. Perspective needs to be retained by the schools. Mainly, “We must empower teachers to fully integrate these tools and technologies into their classroom settings in ways that are both safe for the individual and satisfying for the learner.”
Journal #2
Turning Lurkers into Learners – by Jason Alley & Karen Greenhaus
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, August 2007, Pages 18-21.
This article talks about the ways to engage users in net learning. Particularly, because ISTE’s NETS is focused on integrating the use of technology tools in education the importance of engaging students and educators in online learning has become a paramount issue. When I first looked at this article for class, I laughed. I fit the description of someone who normally would not engage in online discussions, I lurk. A lurker is someone “…who rarely or never contribute to the online discussion.” The few times I have conversed online in the past, I have felt constrained and hesitant about adding to the traffic already streaming around me.
1. The very first question that came to mind for me had to do with the sheer effort of getting someone like me engaged in a discussion, much less a class online. How do you keep them drawn into the class? The first two items the authors suggested made a great deal of sense to me. Introducing a student into the online class and asking what they hope to learn in the class are excellent first steps. But, I have been drawn into discussions before and have taken one-on-one classes online before, but soon they become too much or lose my interest. But the authors acknowledge these are only the first steps. They state that you have to maintain or sustain those first steps. How?
Having the student answer what they want and what they expect out of the class is a good way to get them started and focused. “Hooking” them into the class is a whole different issue. By acknowledging everyone’s intentions and expectations you begin to develop a sense of community. Making the environment safe and non-threatening is imperative, and can be difficult to achieve. Not impossible, but difficult to maintain in the computer environment these days. The best and most functional idea for keeping students drawn into the online environment is enticing them. Literally, draw the student into the learning environment online. In the authors case they use fish analogies to pull the students into the environment. The student defines their expectations and goals, and the instructor places the onus on them to achieve. The facilitation of ongoing discussions and role playing are excellent ways to keep the student focused and active. Debate is another good tool. The authors actually describe what should be a fairly non-confrontational debate environment.
2. My second question would really have to do with the author’s comments that “Communication and discussion are keys to student learning and understanding in online environments.” I find that both of those are crucial to learning, but also the hands on use of a site or concept is also crucial to developing abilities. I think people need to use something to become familiar and comfortable. By using the technology and reviewing the technology a user becomes more comfortable with the discussions, and is more likely to participate in the discussion of the subjects at hand.
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, August 2007, Pages 18-21.
This article talks about the ways to engage users in net learning. Particularly, because ISTE’s NETS is focused on integrating the use of technology tools in education the importance of engaging students and educators in online learning has become a paramount issue. When I first looked at this article for class, I laughed. I fit the description of someone who normally would not engage in online discussions, I lurk. A lurker is someone “…who rarely or never contribute to the online discussion.” The few times I have conversed online in the past, I have felt constrained and hesitant about adding to the traffic already streaming around me.
1. The very first question that came to mind for me had to do with the sheer effort of getting someone like me engaged in a discussion, much less a class online. How do you keep them drawn into the class? The first two items the authors suggested made a great deal of sense to me. Introducing a student into the online class and asking what they hope to learn in the class are excellent first steps. But, I have been drawn into discussions before and have taken one-on-one classes online before, but soon they become too much or lose my interest. But the authors acknowledge these are only the first steps. They state that you have to maintain or sustain those first steps. How?
Having the student answer what they want and what they expect out of the class is a good way to get them started and focused. “Hooking” them into the class is a whole different issue. By acknowledging everyone’s intentions and expectations you begin to develop a sense of community. Making the environment safe and non-threatening is imperative, and can be difficult to achieve. Not impossible, but difficult to maintain in the computer environment these days. The best and most functional idea for keeping students drawn into the online environment is enticing them. Literally, draw the student into the learning environment online. In the authors case they use fish analogies to pull the students into the environment. The student defines their expectations and goals, and the instructor places the onus on them to achieve. The facilitation of ongoing discussions and role playing are excellent ways to keep the student focused and active. Debate is another good tool. The authors actually describe what should be a fairly non-confrontational debate environment.
2. My second question would really have to do with the author’s comments that “Communication and discussion are keys to student learning and understanding in online environments.” I find that both of those are crucial to learning, but also the hands on use of a site or concept is also crucial to developing abilities. I think people need to use something to become familiar and comfortable. By using the technology and reviewing the technology a user becomes more comfortable with the discussions, and is more likely to participate in the discussion of the subjects at hand.
Journal #1
The Software Report: Digging Deeper – by Robert Kadel
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 38 & 39.
This article looks at the recent report given to Congress by the U. S. Department of Education on “Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort.” The article was interesting in that on the surface it seems to say there is little effect of technology in the classroom, but as the reader enters into the article the indications are that this in not the case. Much like the title of this article there is a need to ‘dig deeper’ into the actual guts of this report. The author has pointed out many good points to examine. Two questions in particular occurred to me as I was reading this article.
1. Were the control groups actually control groups? When this study was undertaken it appears that little or no effort was made to create a ‘clean’ test control group. I think this is perfectly reasonable, in that no two classrooms are going to be identical. Classrooms are live environments, and as such it is very difficult to control. Anytime you involve people in a study, you have to expect skews based on personal details. As the author states “To be a ‘true’ control group, the study authors would have had to force all control classrooms not to use any technology products at all.” Since this would defeat the purpose of introducing technology into classroom environments and as stated, generally impossible to enforce, I cannot see a true “clean” test group ever being a possibility. I do think that the report should have stated, as the author of the article does, “…this isn’t so much a comparison of ed tech versus no ed tech. It’s a comparison of the use of certain software programs in classrooms to classrooms where other software may or may not have been used.”
2. How was usage gauged during the test? The grade levels were clearly defined in the study, but how was the usage monitored? Two things the author stated were very telling about this study. The first point was that the student used the software less that was intended. This would indicate that there was some form of monitoring occurring during the study. But, not knowing the instructions given by the developers is a problem, because we don’t know if it was an excessive amount of time or perhaps a reasonable amount of training time. If one were to assume that the training time was a reasonable amount of time, it is disturbing that the software was not utilized as recommended. Was it proportionally the same across the grades studied? The other point dealing with usage I found was the decline in usage after initial training by the teachers. I find this very ironic. I have seen numerous occurrences where we train individuals on the software, but without follow up training or Q & A sessions, the software is relegated to the closet. This author had concerns about the same issues. At the time that the product is actually used is when training needs to be available to the educators. If they don’t understand the software, it follows that they will not utilize the software correctly in the classroom.
International for Teaching in Education: Learning & Leading with Technology, September/October 2007, Pages 38 & 39.
This article looks at the recent report given to Congress by the U. S. Department of Education on “Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort.” The article was interesting in that on the surface it seems to say there is little effect of technology in the classroom, but as the reader enters into the article the indications are that this in not the case. Much like the title of this article there is a need to ‘dig deeper’ into the actual guts of this report. The author has pointed out many good points to examine. Two questions in particular occurred to me as I was reading this article.
1. Were the control groups actually control groups? When this study was undertaken it appears that little or no effort was made to create a ‘clean’ test control group. I think this is perfectly reasonable, in that no two classrooms are going to be identical. Classrooms are live environments, and as such it is very difficult to control. Anytime you involve people in a study, you have to expect skews based on personal details. As the author states “To be a ‘true’ control group, the study authors would have had to force all control classrooms not to use any technology products at all.” Since this would defeat the purpose of introducing technology into classroom environments and as stated, generally impossible to enforce, I cannot see a true “clean” test group ever being a possibility. I do think that the report should have stated, as the author of the article does, “…this isn’t so much a comparison of ed tech versus no ed tech. It’s a comparison of the use of certain software programs in classrooms to classrooms where other software may or may not have been used.”
2. How was usage gauged during the test? The grade levels were clearly defined in the study, but how was the usage monitored? Two things the author stated were very telling about this study. The first point was that the student used the software less that was intended. This would indicate that there was some form of monitoring occurring during the study. But, not knowing the instructions given by the developers is a problem, because we don’t know if it was an excessive amount of time or perhaps a reasonable amount of training time. If one were to assume that the training time was a reasonable amount of time, it is disturbing that the software was not utilized as recommended. Was it proportionally the same across the grades studied? The other point dealing with usage I found was the decline in usage after initial training by the teachers. I find this very ironic. I have seen numerous occurrences where we train individuals on the software, but without follow up training or Q & A sessions, the software is relegated to the closet. This author had concerns about the same issues. At the time that the product is actually used is when training needs to be available to the educators. If they don’t understand the software, it follows that they will not utilize the software correctly in the classroom.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Greetings:
It has been a long week for everyone I have spoken to today. Apparently, not a stress free week. Personally, it has been a bit tough, but my sister and her family are in tomorrow for a visit. I am looking forward to seeing them.
I have learned a lot in class this week. Those wicked passwords being my biggest headache. BTW ;) if anyone is having problems with their ISTE account, if you have an @ sign in your log-in, or any other symbol, there is a known problem. You will need to call them and have them manually change your account. They are very friendly people and easy to deal with there. Have a good weekend and relax!
It has been a long week for everyone I have spoken to today. Apparently, not a stress free week. Personally, it has been a bit tough, but my sister and her family are in tomorrow for a visit. I am looking forward to seeing them.
I have learned a lot in class this week. Those wicked passwords being my biggest headache. BTW ;) if anyone is having problems with their ISTE account, if you have an @ sign in your log-in, or any other symbol, there is a known problem. You will need to call them and have them manually change your account. They are very friendly people and easy to deal with there. Have a good weekend and relax!
Sunday, September 2, 2007
My name is Jonina Pogue, but I’ll answer to almost anything. With a name like this you become very flexible. I was born and raised in San Diego. Somewhere in all of this we lived in Milwaukee, WI, because two of my brothers were born there. I went to school in the Del Mar school system. I spent six years in the Special Education program there. My inspiration for teaching is Mrs. Edgington. She was completely unstoppable. When I did a career internship in high school, she was till teaching! I have always wanted to teach, but life took other paths, finally I am ready for this endeavor.
I have been on computers my whole life. I have worked on just about every platform out there. Mainly on PC based machines. A family friend was part of the beginning Web development out of Stanford University. So we got to play with all types of strange programs and machines. Mostly I have been on the hardware side of the computer age. I work for a large computer storage company now. I burn medical software information for clients. I have little or no experience with iPods and CD players, etc. I have a lot to learn in this class.
Commitment is the phrase that stands out to me. We have a commitment to teach the adults of tomorrow. This commitment is a group effort. I want to be part of that future. I have a commitment to train myself to be the best teacher I can be with the skills available, and to continue to improve those skills for the rest of my life. By my learning these skills I am better able to help my colleagues and students in their goals. It is going to take a concentrated effort by all of us to prepare for the future.
I have been on computers my whole life. I have worked on just about every platform out there. Mainly on PC based machines. A family friend was part of the beginning Web development out of Stanford University. So we got to play with all types of strange programs and machines. Mostly I have been on the hardware side of the computer age. I work for a large computer storage company now. I burn medical software information for clients. I have little or no experience with iPods and CD players, etc. I have a lot to learn in this class.
Commitment is the phrase that stands out to me. We have a commitment to teach the adults of tomorrow. This commitment is a group effort. I want to be part of that future. I have a commitment to train myself to be the best teacher I can be with the skills available, and to continue to improve those skills for the rest of my life. By my learning these skills I am better able to help my colleagues and students in their goals. It is going to take a concentrated effort by all of us to prepare for the future.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)