The authors have given us the three core problems and eleven core skills. In the last section of the chapter they give suggestions about how schools, after-school programs and parents can help students learn this new literacy.
Of course, I was most interested in their suggestions of how schools could help students learn the new literacy. Many ideas were shown under the "What Might Be Done" section of each of the eleven skills. However, the authors want schools to take a more systematic approach to teaching thes literacy skills. They believe skills and cultural competencies have implications across the entire schools curriculum. Furthermore, they suggest that each teacher should take the reponsibility to help students develop the skills necessary for participation within their discipline (i.e. school subject). They admit more "discipline-specific research is needed to fully nderstand the value and relevance of these skills to different aspects of the school curriculum".
I believe that ISTE standards are a beginning "systematic approach" to schools having similar demands as other schools/districts. Though these new literacy skills are not thoroughly known, directly taught, nor systematically taught, they are to some degree happening within our schools both - with technology and in non-technological areas. More and more students are coming to school with some of the new literacy skills already showing through their computer work and classroom assignments. Beyond this, some students are not only working with fellow students but teaching these students computer skills and resulting thinking/problem-solving skills. Also, some students are actually teaching teachers computer skills and the "how to" behind their thinking/problemsolving skills.
Teachers and schools have a distance to go before they can teach students either advanced computer skills or bew literacy skills. First, of course, they must learn more advanced computer skills and, in this process and that of exploration, begin to learn the new literacy skills themselves. We must first experience more computer use, both personally and professionally, and become more a part of the computer participatory culture ourselves!
The authors are correct in assessing that the resistance to media literacy training is that the school day is "bursting at its seams". (And I would add that teachers are swamped with numerous continuing curriculum changes, and added state standards, almost every year. So we have created a system that itself creates burned out teachers!) Our only salvation might come in systematically integrating computer and media literacy skills within each subject area and/or looking at what is essential in each subject area to make a student a success in the future. I often think we need to simplify our goals and standards in order to be successful without burning out the students or the teachers! There is a point where less really is more...
The authors comment that it is not just traditional media- print, broadcast, cinema, popular music, and advertising- that is having a great influence on students' lives but, rather, the broader picture of media power. This "more complex picture of media" is that not only is media power more concentrated than ever before but media is now produced by everyday people and districuted world-wide via the internet. The media literacy rules help us to teach students to think critically about how the media communicates perceptions of the world and reshapes experience according to its "own codes and conventions". The authors advocate that these concepts need to be thought about again in our new "era of participatory culture".
The authors contend that after-school programs should be more than playing "catch up on school based standards". They contend that after-school programs should be places that promote experimentation and encourage innovation. These programs should be places where teachers "catch up with changing culture and teach new subjects that expand children's understanding of the world". (Again, I hear idealism creeping into the authors' ideas. Most after-school programs I know about are simply trying to maintain the safety of their charges and their own sanity! Most are not out to create a "brave new world" for the children. Though I believe some activities open new worlds for individual children. For example, excursions to the public library
open worlds for children if they can read [or have someone to read to them].)
I'm glad that the authors get around to suggesting that parents have a role to platy in their children's lives! It's true that the firt five or six years of a child's life are formulative for literacy and social skills. And I believe that parents really are their child's first teachers (in every area of life and functioning).
I agree with the authors that parents play significant roles in teaching their children "to make meaningful choices in their use of media and in helping them anticipate the consequences of the choices they make". Again, the issue here for me is that parents must first be computer saavy themselves and aware of their own personal use of media. Also, parents must anticipate the consequences of their own choices on both themselves and their children. So, in my opinion, adults must accept responsibility for their own lives and learn to reflect on their own choices before they can guide their children or anyone else. Furthermore, we live in such a hurried culture. We are not often encouraged to reflect because we are too busy working on the next goal or activity. Without relection, we repeat past performances but do not often find ways to learn from our experiences.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Part 2: Beginning with Core Media Literacy Skills...
Core Media Literacy Skills:
1. Play: the capacity to experiment with one's surroundings as a form of problem-solving.\
The authors cite Pratt (1991) who gives the example of Sam and Willie who learned a lot about phonics by deciphering the names of baseball players on baseball cards.
Baseball card collecting required some skills that had clear payoffs for academic subjects. For example, math was practiced when the boys worked out batting averages; arranging his cards gave him concentrated effort at classification; and discussing the baseball cards gave him reason to work on his communication skills.
On a different level, the cards helped him become motivated and shaped his acquiring of academic subjects. Sam thought about the cities where the teams played. This gave him the desire to learn about map-reading skills. Furthermore, Sam developed a sense of himself as a learner that enjoyed the process of learning.
Fun in this context means engagement. Some of what a person does to compete in a game is not fun--- it's a chore. However, the efforts make it possible to begin to master skills, collect materials, or line up things. The payoff is down the line, after the work or chores. The individual is willing to spend the time on this "work" because he/she values the goal or purpose. When the individual is "working" for the goal, they are meaningfully (to them) engaged. For our current generation, games are often the best way to get students engaged in learning.
Play is valuable because it lowers the emotional stakes of failing. Taking risks and learning through trial and error are encouraged in "play". Since textbooks often are dull to children (and adults!)because they are abstract and often depersonalized, games make up intresting worlds players must compete in. The players feel involved in the "world" and have some stake in the events happening and final outcome. In many cases the games actually give a reason to "Why learn this?".
Also, what players learn is immediately put to use in the game to solve dilemnas - with consequences in the game itself.
The authors cite Jenkins (2005) who relates that a game is really just a set of problems. Furthermore, he believes the most interesting games are those that do not have one answer but a an "infinite range of solutions".
Games are much like the scientific process. Players are asked to make their own discoveries and then apply what they have learned in different settings and contexts. Thinking about how they play the game is much like reflection and talking about what they have learned (through the game).
There were three examples that the authors gave of how teachrs might develop "play" into their classroom situations:
1) Students could create alternative history scenes (than what occurred in reality).
For example, "What might have happened if Germany had won WW II? Or if Native Americans had colonized Europe?" These questions compel students to think deeply and creatively because there is no one right answer. Also, the questions lead to exploration that comes back to why and how certain events in history occurred. They teach students to not be overawed by adult expertise; allow many different levels of engagement (play), and can lead to students making logical arguments and searching for evidence to back up their perspectives.
2)Art students are given a waide variety of everyday materials and asked to use them to solve a spcific design problem. Thus students are encouraged to look again at common objects, to think in multiple directions about common problems, and to respect others' responses to the same activity.
3) Games give the opportunity to learn through direct experience. The example given was with physics and the game Supercharged, a game that teaches the core principles of electromagnism. Students were to move their cars through a electromagnetic maze by using charges that attract or repel their cars (in the game). Physics teachers then taught underlying principles that they were using, ultimately sending them back to play again on higher levels.
(I just realized that I need to summarize more succintly or it will take way too long to finish this paper.... so here goes my try at minimalizing words and concepts!)
At this point, I'll just list the other 10 Core Literacy Skills and comment afterwards:
2. Simulation - the bility to understand and make dynamic models of real world processes.
3.Performance - the ability to take on alternative identities for the reason of improvisation and discovery.
4. Appropriation - the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content.
5. Multi-tasking - the ability to scan the environment and chage focus onto the
prominent details for a specific purpose.
6. Distributed Cognition - the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that increase our mental capacities.
7. Collective intelligence - the ability to share knowledge and compare notes with others toward as common goal.
8. Judgment - the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources.
9. Transmedia Navigation - the ability to deal with the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities.
10. Networking - the ability to search for, synthesize, and desseminate information.
11. Negotiation - the ability to travel across very different communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative sets of norms.
(Now, I'm going to post the above [I don't want to lose what I've already typed---since I've been working on this assignment all day], reread the information about each New Core Literacy Skill, and process my thoughts on the description and uses of these skills.)
1. Play: the capacity to experiment with one's surroundings as a form of problem-solving.\
The authors cite Pratt (1991) who gives the example of Sam and Willie who learned a lot about phonics by deciphering the names of baseball players on baseball cards.
Baseball card collecting required some skills that had clear payoffs for academic subjects. For example, math was practiced when the boys worked out batting averages; arranging his cards gave him concentrated effort at classification; and discussing the baseball cards gave him reason to work on his communication skills.
On a different level, the cards helped him become motivated and shaped his acquiring of academic subjects. Sam thought about the cities where the teams played. This gave him the desire to learn about map-reading skills. Furthermore, Sam developed a sense of himself as a learner that enjoyed the process of learning.
Fun in this context means engagement. Some of what a person does to compete in a game is not fun--- it's a chore. However, the efforts make it possible to begin to master skills, collect materials, or line up things. The payoff is down the line, after the work or chores. The individual is willing to spend the time on this "work" because he/she values the goal or purpose. When the individual is "working" for the goal, they are meaningfully (to them) engaged. For our current generation, games are often the best way to get students engaged in learning.
Play is valuable because it lowers the emotional stakes of failing. Taking risks and learning through trial and error are encouraged in "play". Since textbooks often are dull to children (and adults!)because they are abstract and often depersonalized, games make up intresting worlds players must compete in. The players feel involved in the "world" and have some stake in the events happening and final outcome. In many cases the games actually give a reason to "Why learn this?".
Also, what players learn is immediately put to use in the game to solve dilemnas - with consequences in the game itself.
The authors cite Jenkins (2005) who relates that a game is really just a set of problems. Furthermore, he believes the most interesting games are those that do not have one answer but a an "infinite range of solutions".
Games are much like the scientific process. Players are asked to make their own discoveries and then apply what they have learned in different settings and contexts. Thinking about how they play the game is much like reflection and talking about what they have learned (through the game).
There were three examples that the authors gave of how teachrs might develop "play" into their classroom situations:
1) Students could create alternative history scenes (than what occurred in reality).
For example, "What might have happened if Germany had won WW II? Or if Native Americans had colonized Europe?" These questions compel students to think deeply and creatively because there is no one right answer. Also, the questions lead to exploration that comes back to why and how certain events in history occurred. They teach students to not be overawed by adult expertise; allow many different levels of engagement (play), and can lead to students making logical arguments and searching for evidence to back up their perspectives.
2)Art students are given a waide variety of everyday materials and asked to use them to solve a spcific design problem. Thus students are encouraged to look again at common objects, to think in multiple directions about common problems, and to respect others' responses to the same activity.
3) Games give the opportunity to learn through direct experience. The example given was with physics and the game Supercharged, a game that teaches the core principles of electromagnism. Students were to move their cars through a electromagnetic maze by using charges that attract or repel their cars (in the game). Physics teachers then taught underlying principles that they were using, ultimately sending them back to play again on higher levels.
(I just realized that I need to summarize more succintly or it will take way too long to finish this paper.... so here goes my try at minimalizing words and concepts!)
At this point, I'll just list the other 10 Core Literacy Skills and comment afterwards:
2. Simulation - the bility to understand and make dynamic models of real world processes.
3.Performance - the ability to take on alternative identities for the reason of improvisation and discovery.
4. Appropriation - the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content.
5. Multi-tasking - the ability to scan the environment and chage focus onto the
prominent details for a specific purpose.
6. Distributed Cognition - the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that increase our mental capacities.
7. Collective intelligence - the ability to share knowledge and compare notes with others toward as common goal.
8. Judgment - the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources.
9. Transmedia Navigation - the ability to deal with the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities.
10. Networking - the ability to search for, synthesize, and desseminate information.
11. Negotiation - the ability to travel across very different communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative sets of norms.
(Now, I'm going to post the above [I don't want to lose what I've already typed---since I've been working on this assignment all day], reread the information about each New Core Literacy Skill, and process my thoughts on the description and uses of these skills.)
Part 1 continued
What Should We Teach? Rethinking Literacy
The authors agree that textual literacy will remain a central skill in the 21st century. They go on to say that youth must add to their competencies, not exchange old skills for new skills. I agree because reading and writing is such a necessity for doing anything in the world (one of the reasons I love teaching reading).
Researchers Blqack and Jenkins say that the new digital cultures provide support systems to help youth grow as readers and writiers. They cite blogs and live journals as ways for young people to receive feedback on their writing.
The authors state that beyond core literacy skiils, youth also need research skills
such as accessing books and articles through the library, taking notes on and integrating sources; assessing the reliabilty of data; reading maps and charts; making sense of visuals of all types; understanding the type of information that is being put forth by its representation; telling the difference between fact and opinion, fact and fiction; and constructing arguements or using evidence.
Technology skills (such as moving a mouse, searching, logging on/off, etc.)
also need to be developed in students.
Beyond these simple skills, students also need to see the influence of media on our selves and our culture, including "the economic and cultural contexts within which mass media is produced and circulated". However, even these more global skills are not enough. The authors advocate social skills for working in groups, pooling knowledge with a collective intelligence, for negotiating across cultural differences, and for "reconciling conflicting bits of data to form a coherent picture of the world around them">
The authors say that teachers/schools are still producing independent problem-solvers. They believe, instead, that we should be creating individuals who can work in teams to collaborate to solve problems.
(O.K., I might add here that the authors, in my oipinion, have just slipped into the ideal outcome of educating an individual. Some kids can work in groups well, others cannot due to their own issues, their upbringing, or otherfactors. Additionally, I think schools are more and more utilizing group work to teach kids to be collaborative individuals. Sometimes it works, at othr times it doesn't due to the maturity and social skills of the students.)
The authors give eleven Core Skills needed to participate within the new media culture. They say these skills are needed "to participate fully in public, community, and economic life". Furthermore, the skills are not exhaustive. Rather
they are illustrations of the kind of work already being done in each skill area.
(I'll describe these in Part 2 of this article- since this section is getting a bit long and I need a short break!)
The authors agree that textual literacy will remain a central skill in the 21st century. They go on to say that youth must add to their competencies, not exchange old skills for new skills. I agree because reading and writing is such a necessity for doing anything in the world (one of the reasons I love teaching reading).
Researchers Blqack and Jenkins say that the new digital cultures provide support systems to help youth grow as readers and writiers. They cite blogs and live journals as ways for young people to receive feedback on their writing.
The authors state that beyond core literacy skiils, youth also need research skills
such as accessing books and articles through the library, taking notes on and integrating sources; assessing the reliabilty of data; reading maps and charts; making sense of visuals of all types; understanding the type of information that is being put forth by its representation; telling the difference between fact and opinion, fact and fiction; and constructing arguements or using evidence.
Technology skills (such as moving a mouse, searching, logging on/off, etc.)
also need to be developed in students.
Beyond these simple skills, students also need to see the influence of media on our selves and our culture, including "the economic and cultural contexts within which mass media is produced and circulated". However, even these more global skills are not enough. The authors advocate social skills for working in groups, pooling knowledge with a collective intelligence, for negotiating across cultural differences, and for "reconciling conflicting bits of data to form a coherent picture of the world around them">
The authors say that teachers/schools are still producing independent problem-solvers. They believe, instead, that we should be creating individuals who can work in teams to collaborate to solve problems.
(O.K., I might add here that the authors, in my oipinion, have just slipped into the ideal outcome of educating an individual. Some kids can work in groups well, others cannot due to their own issues, their upbringing, or otherfactors. Additionally, I think schools are more and more utilizing group work to teach kids to be collaborative individuals. Sometimes it works, at othr times it doesn't due to the maturity and social skills of the students.)
The authors give eleven Core Skills needed to participate within the new media culture. They say these skills are needed "to participate fully in public, community, and economic life". Furthermore, the skills are not exhaustive. Rather
they are illustrations of the kind of work already being done in each skill area.
(I'll describe these in Part 2 of this article- since this section is getting a bit long and I need a short break!)
Part1 Confronting the Challenges of the Participatory Culture
Interestingly enough, as I have had more experiences with the computer in the class we are taking with Bryan and as I have done more research on the internet concerning our last unit project, I have come to understand this article more. I have also realized I am agreeing more with the points and the conclusion of the article.
(But I'll get to some of this in Part 2: pages 32- 61.
O.K., at first I was irritated with this article. It seemed to be too long, going on and on forever. However, as I reconciled myself to the length of the article (Chapter?), I di begin to pick out some points I thought were worth summarizing and commenting on.
The article stated that most computer professional development focuses on how to use technology. I think this is often true; however, at this point many teachers still need the "how to do it" type of technology information. I do! I can see myself getting some of that info. on my own with my own money, perhaps at a community college. I can also see that just by "playing around" I am learning, or re-learning, many skills and processes on the computer. On the other hand, I think its fantastic that SalemKeizer School District has classes routinely available for its own district's teachers. The classes really should be called very quick workshops as often they are an intro. to what the teacher wants to know rather than a longer period (class) where there is time to begin to get better at any skill that is demonstrated. I have taken several of these "mini-workshop/classes"; however, I seldom have time to play around with what has been presented to me.
In regards to how technology can transform education, I think it already has (at least to some degree). I believe that the more comfortable teachers get with using the technology on their own, perhaps even in their personal life, the more the teachers will desire to use it with students. Also, some teachers are leading the way in using technology with students. This causes me to see the possiblities in real-life (instead if theoretically in an article on-line)and want to learn more so I can confidently use technology in appropriate ways. (We have only one teacher at our school that is using Power Point with 5th grade students. However, she's excited about what the kids have mastered and her enthusiasm is catching!)
At first, I wasn't impressed with the term "participatory culture" because too often I have not seen the computer used to really be involved with the culture. Instead, I have seen people draw away from other people, sometimes having "relationships" with someone on the internet. That would be o.k. if this was indeed a person who was who they said they were. But I have had friends who started their relationship on the internet and when they got together could not live up to the image they had projected on-line. To me, this was a "nonreality" and it could have happened in person. People do misrepresent themselves in all kinds of ways, however, it seems to me that it's easier to misrepresent yourself on the computer. Why? Body language isn't available, there often is more time for the person to respond on-line than there is in person, tone of voice isn't involved, and people obviously can use fake names and entire identities. As adults, we are very much aware of all these possiblities. As teachers, we can see children have a limited perspective and often
believe what they are told by anyone. (They are still forming who they are and what is reality versus non-reality. They also are still transforming the beliefs about self, others, and the world.) Even teenagers have this limited perspective simply because they are young and have not been around enough to see all that happens in our world. Furthermore, they often don't attune themselves to the news---it may not make sense to them due to the vocabulary and pace of one news story after another.
All of the above is to say, that children and teens can play/practice at "participatory culture" but, for most, it is quite different than an adult would experience the same "participatory culture".
The "participatory culture" as described in the chapter included the following features: low barriers to creative expression; encouragement and support for sharing one's work with others; an informal mentor program that allows more technologically experienced students to help those less experienced; students may often feel that their contributions are important (because they are shared with others) and they experience a "connection" to others. The authors point out that games on the computer, simulations, and communications give student-users a "non-threatening environment." Students see these activites as "fun" and not real work, although they may be learning skills for their future careers.
While the chapter takes a culture-large-view approach, I can only compare what is said to my small-view approach (i.e. my school, my world, what I see/think on a daily basis in Salem, Oregon). I'm sure this accounts for some of the dis crepancies I have with the article.
Also, the article comes across very idealistic to me. Educators can change the world, however, it will be in small daily steps with their students. Yes, we do create a ripple effect, our teaching is passed from one-student to someone(s) they interact with but any culture change will happen over relatively longer amounts of time. (Though in some other ways, advances in technology itself is moving extremely quickly, not to mention our culture/society as a result is changing more rapidly than past U.S. history.) Rome really wasn't built in a day! Beyond this, there is a part of me that rebels at having all the responsibility dumped on educators. So many factors effect an individual and how they in turn act on and effect our culture.
On page 12, the article addresses three core prooblems with not directly teaching technology: 1) the participation gap; 2)the transparency problem; and 3) the ethics
challenge.
The article cites some places (like Philadelphia, Boston, and Cambridge)where high-speed wireless Internet can be accessed for free. It also talks about a non-profit agency in Philadelphia that provides free network access to its shelter residents.
Furthermore, the author states that students often have access through schools or public librarys. While this is often true, I know that at our school the students come from poverty circumstances. They may not even have access to bus fare money to get to the public library. Furthremore, access to computers at school are limited by the number of partipants that can be involved at one time and to the classroom schedule of each child. This doesn't even include the fact that supervision is necessary at public schools. Students may simply be denied because no adult is available to be in the computer lab. So, at best, computer access is "limited" if the student does not come from a "middle class home."
Equal computer access/availability for all students is an idealistic dream. With limited budgets, pressure on teachers' time schedule due to having "testing" take up so much of the school day, and the fact that children who have the most computer experience may not "share" the computer in a group situation, there will always be digital "haves" and "have nots".
Second is the transparency problem. Students have to be able to "think backwards" on their experiences, to reflect on their experiences. They must be able to tell the difference between what is real and reliable and what is not. In games and simulations, children often assume there are no biases. They may actuaaly believe that the computer automatically conveys only reality and truth. As adults know, this often is not the case.
Finally, the issue of ethics must be approached with students. What once was seen only by their classmates, may now be seen by many around the world (if placed on-line). This may cause some real physical dangers, or simply some unwanted attention from others. The author contends that "cyberspace's ethical norms are in flux".
Furthrmore, the author believes that having discussions about ethical concerns may be more valuable than having strict rules or even guidelines. He believes that the process of discovering our own ethics, and the process of finding our ethical concerns about others, will help everyone "to recognize and articulate the differrent assumptions that guide their behavior".
(I am continually reminded, as I am reading this article, that the article was written about adolescents not elementary students. However, most of these issues relate in the same wya with this much younger school population.)
(But I'll get to some of this in Part 2: pages 32- 61.
O.K., at first I was irritated with this article. It seemed to be too long, going on and on forever. However, as I reconciled myself to the length of the article (Chapter?), I di begin to pick out some points I thought were worth summarizing and commenting on.
The article stated that most computer professional development focuses on how to use technology. I think this is often true; however, at this point many teachers still need the "how to do it" type of technology information. I do! I can see myself getting some of that info. on my own with my own money, perhaps at a community college. I can also see that just by "playing around" I am learning, or re-learning, many skills and processes on the computer. On the other hand, I think its fantastic that SalemKeizer School District has classes routinely available for its own district's teachers. The classes really should be called very quick workshops as often they are an intro. to what the teacher wants to know rather than a longer period (class) where there is time to begin to get better at any skill that is demonstrated. I have taken several of these "mini-workshop/classes"; however, I seldom have time to play around with what has been presented to me.
In regards to how technology can transform education, I think it already has (at least to some degree). I believe that the more comfortable teachers get with using the technology on their own, perhaps even in their personal life, the more the teachers will desire to use it with students. Also, some teachers are leading the way in using technology with students. This causes me to see the possiblities in real-life (instead if theoretically in an article on-line)and want to learn more so I can confidently use technology in appropriate ways. (We have only one teacher at our school that is using Power Point with 5th grade students. However, she's excited about what the kids have mastered and her enthusiasm is catching!)
At first, I wasn't impressed with the term "participatory culture" because too often I have not seen the computer used to really be involved with the culture. Instead, I have seen people draw away from other people, sometimes having "relationships" with someone on the internet. That would be o.k. if this was indeed a person who was who they said they were. But I have had friends who started their relationship on the internet and when they got together could not live up to the image they had projected on-line. To me, this was a "nonreality" and it could have happened in person. People do misrepresent themselves in all kinds of ways, however, it seems to me that it's easier to misrepresent yourself on the computer. Why? Body language isn't available, there often is more time for the person to respond on-line than there is in person, tone of voice isn't involved, and people obviously can use fake names and entire identities. As adults, we are very much aware of all these possiblities. As teachers, we can see children have a limited perspective and often
believe what they are told by anyone. (They are still forming who they are and what is reality versus non-reality. They also are still transforming the beliefs about self, others, and the world.) Even teenagers have this limited perspective simply because they are young and have not been around enough to see all that happens in our world. Furthermore, they often don't attune themselves to the news---it may not make sense to them due to the vocabulary and pace of one news story after another.
All of the above is to say, that children and teens can play/practice at "participatory culture" but, for most, it is quite different than an adult would experience the same "participatory culture".
The "participatory culture" as described in the chapter included the following features: low barriers to creative expression; encouragement and support for sharing one's work with others; an informal mentor program that allows more technologically experienced students to help those less experienced; students may often feel that their contributions are important (because they are shared with others) and they experience a "connection" to others. The authors point out that games on the computer, simulations, and communications give student-users a "non-threatening environment." Students see these activites as "fun" and not real work, although they may be learning skills for their future careers.
While the chapter takes a culture-large-view approach, I can only compare what is said to my small-view approach (i.e. my school, my world, what I see/think on a daily basis in Salem, Oregon). I'm sure this accounts for some of the dis crepancies I have with the article.
Also, the article comes across very idealistic to me. Educators can change the world, however, it will be in small daily steps with their students. Yes, we do create a ripple effect, our teaching is passed from one-student to someone(s) they interact with but any culture change will happen over relatively longer amounts of time. (Though in some other ways, advances in technology itself is moving extremely quickly, not to mention our culture/society as a result is changing more rapidly than past U.S. history.) Rome really wasn't built in a day! Beyond this, there is a part of me that rebels at having all the responsibility dumped on educators. So many factors effect an individual and how they in turn act on and effect our culture.
On page 12, the article addresses three core prooblems with not directly teaching technology: 1) the participation gap; 2)the transparency problem; and 3) the ethics
challenge.
The article cites some places (like Philadelphia, Boston, and Cambridge)where high-speed wireless Internet can be accessed for free. It also talks about a non-profit agency in Philadelphia that provides free network access to its shelter residents.
Furthermore, the author states that students often have access through schools or public librarys. While this is often true, I know that at our school the students come from poverty circumstances. They may not even have access to bus fare money to get to the public library. Furthremore, access to computers at school are limited by the number of partipants that can be involved at one time and to the classroom schedule of each child. This doesn't even include the fact that supervision is necessary at public schools. Students may simply be denied because no adult is available to be in the computer lab. So, at best, computer access is "limited" if the student does not come from a "middle class home."
Equal computer access/availability for all students is an idealistic dream. With limited budgets, pressure on teachers' time schedule due to having "testing" take up so much of the school day, and the fact that children who have the most computer experience may not "share" the computer in a group situation, there will always be digital "haves" and "have nots".
Second is the transparency problem. Students have to be able to "think backwards" on their experiences, to reflect on their experiences. They must be able to tell the difference between what is real and reliable and what is not. In games and simulations, children often assume there are no biases. They may actuaaly believe that the computer automatically conveys only reality and truth. As adults know, this often is not the case.
Finally, the issue of ethics must be approached with students. What once was seen only by their classmates, may now be seen by many around the world (if placed on-line). This may cause some real physical dangers, or simply some unwanted attention from others. The author contends that "cyberspace's ethical norms are in flux".
Furthrmore, the author believes that having discussions about ethical concerns may be more valuable than having strict rules or even guidelines. He believes that the process of discovering our own ethics, and the process of finding our ethical concerns about others, will help everyone "to recognize and articulate the differrent assumptions that guide their behavior".
(I am continually reminded, as I am reading this article, that the article was written about adolescents not elementary students. However, most of these issues relate in the same wya with this much younger school population.)
Saturday, May 5, 2007
To Bryan
Don't forget that due to my "learning experiences" in how to blog on my own blogsite,
my first article is under comments (before the second and third articles, on my last commentto you on my blog).
Thanks---I really didn't want to retype the review as it was pretty long. I hope this is o.k. with you, Bryan.
Kath
my first article is under comments (before the second and third articles, on my last commentto you on my blog).
Thanks---I really didn't want to retype the review as it was pretty long. I hope this is o.k. with you, Bryan.
Kath
Third Article: Integrating technology with the teaching of an early literacy course
I read "Integrating Technology with the Teaching of an Early Literacy Course" by Lesley Mandel Morrow, Steven Barnhart, and Debra Rooyakkers, as found in The Reading Teacher, Volume 56, No. 3, November 2002.
Debbi Rooyakkers taught a college course to teachers and teachers-to-be with the hypothesis that if she as a college professor taught her students that were teachers with technological processes, these same teachers would go back aqnd use the technology they learned in the classes they taught.
In the endeavor of embedding technology into her college-level course, she succeeded. College students were asked to:
1) Chat on the class website at least twice.
2) Participate in an interactive chat on the class website at least once.
3) Post some of their projects, their students' projects, or items of interest on the class website.
4) Read and prepare an abstract for an online article from a professional journal, as opposed to a paper copy of a journal.
5) Use some type of technology you haven't used before (I'm laughing here because everything they mentioned would have been something I hadn't used before!)
6) Use an educational website to locate practical teaching ideas.
7) Participate in an interactive television (ITV) demonstration.
8) Videotape your class presentation for a personal critique of their own work.
9) Use technology in three different lessons and in three different ways in their literacy instruction.
10) Preview and critique one piece of software that teaches a literacy skill.
Evaluation of Rooyakkers project was evaluated on three criteria:
1 Her college students completed a survey that determined their knowledge and use of technology at the beginning and the end of the semester.
2. College students filled out logs to record the technology they used for the course, writing the date, type of technology, and how it was used.
3. A random selection of ten students were interviewed at the end of the semester class. They were asked how the course influenced the integration of technology into their present literacy instruction or what they would do in the future.
A conclusion: After students learned more, during the middle months of the semester, their use of technology increased. Most common uses were the course website, e-mail, Internet searches. The next three most common uses were not used extensively:
1) individually named websites, word processing programs, and different types of software.
Thirteen website addresses were listed as the most frequently used. (Several were new to me and I feel I could learn much from them.)
Most interesting to me was the interviews of students at the end of the course, especially their answer to "How will you use technology in your classroom?" Responses presented were varied. One answer included "create newsletters, student story creations, presentations to students in science and social studies."Another responded that they could use ITV to share "projects with studeents in other parts of the world and compare data and research." Yet another response was, "I'll use technology to have children create their own story and illustrations on Storybook Weaver." Beyond these responses, was that of "using the internet for research purposes and learning things outside their community or state or anywhere in the world." Class websites were also mentioned. Finally, ITV was mentioned as great for staff development.
As a result of this course, one university student took on a project where she paired her first grade class with a sixth-grade class in her school. They worked on an integrated unit on the theme of agrilculture. They e-mailed a farmer in Missouri for consultation on growing plants and used his advice to plant seeds, comparing its growth where they were at to the plant growth of the farmer in Missouri. The sixth grade class used the internet to find strategies and techniques to help their younger partners develop in reading, writing, and speaking skills.
Conclusion: Giving in person help to teach teachers how to use technology pays off
in more creative, project oriented lessons in classrooms for children.
This article reminded me of our class and how Bryan has demonstrated and helped us learn technology in practical ways. It seems a no-brainer that teachers will use what they know and understand to benefit their students. After all, teachers are very dedicated to their students. Also, learning how to apply the uses of technology to our specific curriculum and student population is a "growing/learning experience" for us as teachers.
I'm consistently very excited when I learn something practical in an education course--- sometimes history and theories are so numerous that practical ideas for classroom use are not found! I'm a very practical person and teacher. If what I'm taught isn't useful in my day to day teaching, I don't clutter my brain with it. I think this comes from having taken so many courses that were very theoretical but not practical (or useful) in the "real world".
I will use many of the computer applications I have been taught this term. However, on my own, I know I will be trying many things that may not work or that only work in ways I won't remember exactly what t did (but obviously did do the process correctly or the product would not have resulted). In my opinion, all of this "trial and error" is what real learning is about!
I will utilize
Debbi Rooyakkers taught a college course to teachers and teachers-to-be with the hypothesis that if she as a college professor taught her students that were teachers with technological processes, these same teachers would go back aqnd use the technology they learned in the classes they taught.
In the endeavor of embedding technology into her college-level course, she succeeded. College students were asked to:
1) Chat on the class website at least twice.
2) Participate in an interactive chat on the class website at least once.
3) Post some of their projects, their students' projects, or items of interest on the class website.
4) Read and prepare an abstract for an online article from a professional journal, as opposed to a paper copy of a journal.
5) Use some type of technology you haven't used before (I'm laughing here because everything they mentioned would have been something I hadn't used before!)
6) Use an educational website to locate practical teaching ideas.
7) Participate in an interactive television (ITV) demonstration.
8) Videotape your class presentation for a personal critique of their own work.
9) Use technology in three different lessons and in three different ways in their literacy instruction.
10) Preview and critique one piece of software that teaches a literacy skill.
Evaluation of Rooyakkers project was evaluated on three criteria:
1 Her college students completed a survey that determined their knowledge and use of technology at the beginning and the end of the semester.
2. College students filled out logs to record the technology they used for the course, writing the date, type of technology, and how it was used.
3. A random selection of ten students were interviewed at the end of the semester class. They were asked how the course influenced the integration of technology into their present literacy instruction or what they would do in the future.
A conclusion: After students learned more, during the middle months of the semester, their use of technology increased. Most common uses were the course website, e-mail, Internet searches. The next three most common uses were not used extensively:
1) individually named websites, word processing programs, and different types of software.
Thirteen website addresses were listed as the most frequently used. (Several were new to me and I feel I could learn much from them.)
Most interesting to me was the interviews of students at the end of the course, especially their answer to "How will you use technology in your classroom?" Responses presented were varied. One answer included "create newsletters, student story creations, presentations to students in science and social studies."Another responded that they could use ITV to share "projects with studeents in other parts of the world and compare data and research." Yet another response was, "I'll use technology to have children create their own story and illustrations on Storybook Weaver." Beyond these responses, was that of "using the internet for research purposes and learning things outside their community or state or anywhere in the world." Class websites were also mentioned. Finally, ITV was mentioned as great for staff development.
As a result of this course, one university student took on a project where she paired her first grade class with a sixth-grade class in her school. They worked on an integrated unit on the theme of agrilculture. They e-mailed a farmer in Missouri for consultation on growing plants and used his advice to plant seeds, comparing its growth where they were at to the plant growth of the farmer in Missouri. The sixth grade class used the internet to find strategies and techniques to help their younger partners develop in reading, writing, and speaking skills.
Conclusion: Giving in person help to teach teachers how to use technology pays off
in more creative, project oriented lessons in classrooms for children.
This article reminded me of our class and how Bryan has demonstrated and helped us learn technology in practical ways. It seems a no-brainer that teachers will use what they know and understand to benefit their students. After all, teachers are very dedicated to their students. Also, learning how to apply the uses of technology to our specific curriculum and student population is a "growing/learning experience" for us as teachers.
I'm consistently very excited when I learn something practical in an education course--- sometimes history and theories are so numerous that practical ideas for classroom use are not found! I'm a very practical person and teacher. If what I'm taught isn't useful in my day to day teaching, I don't clutter my brain with it. I think this comes from having taken so many courses that were very theoretical but not practical (or useful) in the "real world".
I will use many of the computer applications I have been taught this term. However, on my own, I know I will be trying many things that may not work or that only work in ways I won't remember exactly what t did (but obviously did do the process correctly or the product would not have resulted). In my opinion, all of this "trial and error" is what real learning is about!
I will utilize
Second Article Review: A New Look at Integrating Technology into the Curriculum
I read this article from Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol 26, No 2., entitled A New Look at Integrating Technology into the Curriculum, by June L. Wright (Education Department, Eastern Connecticut State University, Willimantic, Connecticut).
Wright participated in a series of 2-week seminars focused on integrating computers into a constructivist early childhood curriculum. She worked with teachers from two cultures to find authentic ways to incorporate software into childcare centers in Helsinki, Finland and Willimantic, Connecticut. (She worked with two others with doctoral degrees at the University of Joensuu, Finland).
They started with certain philosophical perspectives:
1) children are active learners, constructing their own knowledge,
2) Curriculum development is guided by the interests of learners; and
3) when used with "appropriate software and teaching strategies," the computer is a tool that can enhance young children's learning.
I am very much in agreement with children being "active learners" and "constructing
their own knowledge." However, in the public schools we don't always have the option to "guide the curriculum development" by the students's interests. Though, sometimes surprisingly, kindergarteners often are "interested" in the assigned curriculum. I'm still processing how computers can be effectively taught and utilized in the early grades of public school. Anyway, the point is day care centers have a much more open opportunity to shape curriculum for their youn learners. I've taught kindergarten at a private school/day care, and have seen it taught at a private school (while I was teaching first grade and did some cooperative projects with an amazing kindergarten teacher there), so I'm seen several sides of the comparison between day care/kindergartens, private school kindergartens, and the public school system I'm in currently.
Interestingly enough, the college education professors involved in this study had previously worked with a set of 11 bilingual programs which they felt provided an appropriate introduction to the computer.
Wright and colleaqes goal was to "study the impact of constructivism in the Project Approach and the theory of Multiple Intelligences on the potential power of technology in the classroom." Their first project was to visit a farm in rural Connecticut. Each teacher would observe a single child, looking for different interests and understandings.
Children's interests fell into four caategories:
1) animal families; 2) farm machinery; 3)jobs on the farm; and 4)how we get the food we eat.
The teachers used computers and robots (!) to offer new ways to enhance the field trip. The children interested in machinery created a large floor map of the farm. They used Roamer Robots to play out the roles of the tractor and trucks, moving animals and produce to necessary locations. Another group of children created families of animals using a mural maker program that produced a variety of sizes of animals. Later they used these images as puppets to act out life on the farm. The students who chose to study the jobs of the people, read books and applied what they had seen and read to a program that allowed them to write a story and create farm illustration about those people living on the farm. The fourth group of students looked through song books and recipe books for information about food. Since they couldn't find a song to match their subject, they wrote one themselves. The result, Our Farm Book of Recipes and Songs was published by this group and then sent home to their parents.
The Finland teachers' project was to combine bicycles, cameras, and computers with a field trip to a Finland forest (in A Multimedia Vision). Four, five- and six-year-olds used disposable cameras to take pictures of what they thought was important. The photos were printed, similar topics were categorized and sequenced, selections were made and digitalized. The children's voices were added. Some students added
pictures made from computer programs. The final project was the children's reflections on walking through a forest. The teachers thought that the students gained a "true sense of belonging" to the group and an awareness of the different perspectives of other membrs of their group.
These ideas could be utilized on any field trip or classroom event, using the imovie
process we learned in our class. Adding appropriate music, would make such a presentation shine.
During the third and fourth session, teachers experimented with web pages to share teaching ideas and, also, to share stories the childrenha written. A stuffed Buddy Pet Exchange took place, too. Finland's students learned about a Connecticut mammal
(the whale) and Connecticut children learned about Finland's hedgehogs. (The animals were exchanged through the mail and e-mails and pictures of new adventures the animals had were exchanged between countries.)
I really liked this stuffed animal exchange. It seems like it would really hold the children's attention, interest, and authentic reason to learn about the animals and settings in which they flourished. A creative and fun way to learn science objectives of animals and their habitats.
The last part of the teachers project was their own portfolios and demonstrations of their own multimedia projects.
The end of the article invited all readers to offer ideas or ask questions. The teachers provided a web address to do this on.
It would be fun to have time to go to their web site and read more. (Perhaps this summer my schedule will allow for this.)
The unique thing about this article is it presented not only practical projects with young children but, also, included some useful ways to reach out to build a cross-cultura community. Undoubtedly, this would benefit both teachers and students--- through sharing ideas and insights on both the children's and the adult teachers' level.
I'm still not sure how some of these projects were actually done on the computer but just thinking within my own mind about the possiblities is exciting and a beginning place for a native immigrant to start!
Wright participated in a series of 2-week seminars focused on integrating computers into a constructivist early childhood curriculum. She worked with teachers from two cultures to find authentic ways to incorporate software into childcare centers in Helsinki, Finland and Willimantic, Connecticut. (She worked with two others with doctoral degrees at the University of Joensuu, Finland).
They started with certain philosophical perspectives:
1) children are active learners, constructing their own knowledge,
2) Curriculum development is guided by the interests of learners; and
3) when used with "appropriate software and teaching strategies," the computer is a tool that can enhance young children's learning.
I am very much in agreement with children being "active learners" and "constructing
their own knowledge." However, in the public schools we don't always have the option to "guide the curriculum development" by the students's interests. Though, sometimes surprisingly, kindergarteners often are "interested" in the assigned curriculum. I'm still processing how computers can be effectively taught and utilized in the early grades of public school. Anyway, the point is day care centers have a much more open opportunity to shape curriculum for their youn learners. I've taught kindergarten at a private school/day care, and have seen it taught at a private school (while I was teaching first grade and did some cooperative projects with an amazing kindergarten teacher there), so I'm seen several sides of the comparison between day care/kindergartens, private school kindergartens, and the public school system I'm in currently.
Interestingly enough, the college education professors involved in this study had previously worked with a set of 11 bilingual programs which they felt provided an appropriate introduction to the computer.
Wright and colleaqes goal was to "study the impact of constructivism in the Project Approach and the theory of Multiple Intelligences on the potential power of technology in the classroom." Their first project was to visit a farm in rural Connecticut. Each teacher would observe a single child, looking for different interests and understandings.
Children's interests fell into four caategories:
1) animal families; 2) farm machinery; 3)jobs on the farm; and 4)how we get the food we eat.
The teachers used computers and robots (!) to offer new ways to enhance the field trip. The children interested in machinery created a large floor map of the farm. They used Roamer Robots to play out the roles of the tractor and trucks, moving animals and produce to necessary locations. Another group of children created families of animals using a mural maker program that produced a variety of sizes of animals. Later they used these images as puppets to act out life on the farm. The students who chose to study the jobs of the people, read books and applied what they had seen and read to a program that allowed them to write a story and create farm illustration about those people living on the farm. The fourth group of students looked through song books and recipe books for information about food. Since they couldn't find a song to match their subject, they wrote one themselves. The result, Our Farm Book of Recipes and Songs was published by this group and then sent home to their parents.
The Finland teachers' project was to combine bicycles, cameras, and computers with a field trip to a Finland forest (in A Multimedia Vision). Four, five- and six-year-olds used disposable cameras to take pictures of what they thought was important. The photos were printed, similar topics were categorized and sequenced, selections were made and digitalized. The children's voices were added. Some students added
pictures made from computer programs. The final project was the children's reflections on walking through a forest. The teachers thought that the students gained a "true sense of belonging" to the group and an awareness of the different perspectives of other membrs of their group.
These ideas could be utilized on any field trip or classroom event, using the imovie
process we learned in our class. Adding appropriate music, would make such a presentation shine.
During the third and fourth session, teachers experimented with web pages to share teaching ideas and, also, to share stories the childrenha written. A stuffed Buddy Pet Exchange took place, too. Finland's students learned about a Connecticut mammal
(the whale) and Connecticut children learned about Finland's hedgehogs. (The animals were exchanged through the mail and e-mails and pictures of new adventures the animals had were exchanged between countries.)
I really liked this stuffed animal exchange. It seems like it would really hold the children's attention, interest, and authentic reason to learn about the animals and settings in which they flourished. A creative and fun way to learn science objectives of animals and their habitats.
The last part of the teachers project was their own portfolios and demonstrations of their own multimedia projects.
The end of the article invited all readers to offer ideas or ask questions. The teachers provided a web address to do this on.
It would be fun to have time to go to their web site and read more. (Perhaps this summer my schedule will allow for this.)
The unique thing about this article is it presented not only practical projects with young children but, also, included some useful ways to reach out to build a cross-cultura community. Undoubtedly, this would benefit both teachers and students--- through sharing ideas and insights on both the children's and the adult teachers' level.
I'm still not sure how some of these projects were actually done on the computer but just thinking within my own mind about the possiblities is exciting and a beginning place for a native immigrant to start!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)