Rusk et al give a great explanation of where the Computer Clubhouse came from, what it is there for, and where it is going. They discuss the 4 core principles behind the computer clubhouse when it was started 15 years ago, and despite the amount that technology has changed since then, the core principles have remained the same. The computer clubhouse is a space where students are provided access to technology and to people who can provide them with support about using the technology. The program allows students to investigate/create/design with technology without the pressure of sticking to one particular task or completing one assignment before another is started, like they might be subjected to in a traditional classroom setting.
Reading the Computer Clubhouse article this week was particularly interesting since the idea behind it is the basis for Maggie and I's final project. Maggie had approached me with the idea of an after school program that would help bridge the gap between technology and teachers. The program would be a place where teachers could voluntarily go to learn about, get support with, and become comfortable with technology. I thought this was an excellent idea (for many many reasons, but I will refrain from listing all and stick to, what I think, are the most important ones) 1. because technology can be extremely motivating, engaging and just plain old fun... When used with the understanding of the educational theories and motivations behind it, 2. because the technology is available! We should be using it, and not just because the state says we have too,but because we feel it will enhance the learning that goes on in the classroom for our students, as well as teachers, and 3. because I will be in the same boat as a lot of teachers out there who want to use technology in their classrooms. Rather than just using technology for the sake of using technology, I want to make sure I am using it the way it was intended to be used, play/navigate it so that I know what my students will be encountering, but overall be a learner myself.
Many of the core principles that Rusk et al discuss in the chapter could certainly be applied to an after school technology program for teachers. The whole idea of giving teachers a chance to play around with the technology themselves is echoed in the reading when the authors say "As clubhouse members work with these tools, they build toward greater confidence and technical fluency"(p.7). They also talk about the "creative design spiral", which if teachers could do when designing lesson plans that integrate technology, they might feel more inclined to use technology in new ways. Another thing I found interesting was that the authors observed communities forming between people with common interests. I think that would be a great way to bring together teachers in different subject areas and use their like-interests to their advantage to create activities that span across subjects.
Although I am clearly an advocate for programs that foster learning through experimentation, exploration, and inquiry, I think that the Computer Clubhouse's success has been partially due to the fact that it is a voluntary after school program, which most likely attracts students who are interested in computers and technology. In the case of the after school program for teachers, the problem I foresee is getting teachers who might not be to interested in technology in the first place to come in. But for the sake of being optimistic, even if the not-interested-in-technology teachers didn't show up, there would still be a place for the sort-of-interested-in-technology and really-interested-in-technology teachers to have a place for support and guidance.
The Pinkard article discussed using culturally familiar raps and clapping songs as scaffolding to help African-American children develop early literacy skills such as vocabulary and reading. The raps and clapping songs are part of software, Rappin' Reader and Say Say Oh Playmate, that is used in an after school program for African-American low SES students.
The author suggests that using raps and clapping songs will aide students with their literacy skills because the songs are part of their every-day lives, they have repetitive lyrics, and the motivational impact because "African American males are the largest contingency of rap music listeners" and because many of these students "look up to rappers as role models."
While I am totally all for using culturally relevant material in certain situations, I kind of feel like this is extreme stereo-typing. Yes African American males might be the largest contingency of rap music listeners, but they sure as heck aren't bumping to Kriss Kross's "I Missed the Bus". You can't just replace Jay-Z with Micky Mouse 'rapping' "Whoomp there it Went" and call it cultural relevance. I think what makes something culturally relevant, are the components of the material. The language, plus the rapper, plus the context make the music 'rap' music, and taking away any of those parts takes away the culture that is embedded within the music. I just think this is going in the totally wrong direction. Rather than providing kids with rather ridiculous versions of what we think is 'appropriate' culturally relevant material, why not provide them with authentic culturally relevant material which is appropriate at the same time?
My model has not been included because I think the idea of technology and education is not something that can be put into squares and circles and be 'connected' in the way a model requires. I think my blogging been a better way to express what I think of technology and education and to show how I think they coexist.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Reflection 4
When I started reading the articles this week about gaming the first thing I thought about was how much I miss playing The Oregon Trail.
Okay so I missed traveling in my covered wagon across the US, forging rivers, and trading gun powder to fix my broken wheel axle all in the hopes to get my family to Oregon in tact, but in all seriousness, I cannot for the life of me, 10 years later, tell you what I learned from that game and why we even played it in school. All I remember is that I had a lot of fun playing it. After reading Good Video Games and Good Learning (Gee, 2005), many of the learning principles that are discussed seem to explain why I was so into playing the Oregon trail. Some of the ones that I think really played into my experience playing a video game when I was younger are identity, interaction, risk taking, agency, and challenge.
I think Gee brings up some valid points about why video games can work well as teaching tools, but part of me wonders if I had so much fun playing The Oregon Trail, not because of the fun activities (as well as learning principles that most likely I was unaware of at the time, but I'm sure played a part) that I got to do in the game, but because I didn't have access to the game, let alone a computer at home. So this brings me to my first question, since kids have a lot more access to technology outside of the classroom, especially with games that are not so "educational", are the video games still as motivating as they used to be? Do kids still want to play "educational" video games at school when they can just go home and play "uneducational" video games at home?
The Quest Atlantis (QA) article gave me mixed emotions about using video gaming in the classroom. I think what the developers of this software have created is really quite a great piece of technology. Let me start with why I really enjoyed reading about QA. I think after all the articles we have read, video-games are the technology that I buy into the most so far. After being in a classroom with students all last year, I can tell you that video-games are definitely a part of their everyday lives. I even bonded quite well with a student after he found out that I knew what Call of Duty was and had actually played it (apparently teachers are supposed to sit at home twiddling their thumbs until it's time to go to school again.. haha) Anyway, I have to agree with Barab et al that using video games as a teaching technology can be engaging to a generation that is so heavily involved with technology. I think they put a lot of thought and effort into making a game that related to the real-world, where kids can be in charge of what their next action is going to be, and also requires reflection and assessing content knowledge. Where I felt a little cautious about using something like this in the classroom would be my fear to be known as "the teacher who sits my students in front of a computer all day." This might seem like an over-reaction, because as the authors point out, QA does not necessarily "teach" students because it requires the teacher to support students while they are doing the quests along with reviewing student work, but I still feel that with the rise of technology in the home, parents might be opposed to a teacher using this because of the amount of video game playing done outside of school. Another concern I had was when thinking about QA being it's own "world" and the need to be QA literate. As a teacher being around QA all day, it's only natural that over a short period of time I would be comfortable talking about QA, but what about parents/guardians of students using QA? Would they feel unable to help a child who uses QA?
Overall, I think video games could be highly beneficial in a classroom since obviously they are part of many students' everyday lives. I just hope they are used rather than abused.
Okay so I missed traveling in my covered wagon across the US, forging rivers, and trading gun powder to fix my broken wheel axle all in the hopes to get my family to Oregon in tact, but in all seriousness, I cannot for the life of me, 10 years later, tell you what I learned from that game and why we even played it in school. All I remember is that I had a lot of fun playing it. After reading Good Video Games and Good Learning (Gee, 2005), many of the learning principles that are discussed seem to explain why I was so into playing the Oregon trail. Some of the ones that I think really played into my experience playing a video game when I was younger are identity, interaction, risk taking, agency, and challenge.
I think Gee brings up some valid points about why video games can work well as teaching tools, but part of me wonders if I had so much fun playing The Oregon Trail, not because of the fun activities (as well as learning principles that most likely I was unaware of at the time, but I'm sure played a part) that I got to do in the game, but because I didn't have access to the game, let alone a computer at home. So this brings me to my first question, since kids have a lot more access to technology outside of the classroom, especially with games that are not so "educational", are the video games still as motivating as they used to be? Do kids still want to play "educational" video games at school when they can just go home and play "uneducational" video games at home?
The Quest Atlantis (QA) article gave me mixed emotions about using video gaming in the classroom. I think what the developers of this software have created is really quite a great piece of technology. Let me start with why I really enjoyed reading about QA. I think after all the articles we have read, video-games are the technology that I buy into the most so far. After being in a classroom with students all last year, I can tell you that video-games are definitely a part of their everyday lives. I even bonded quite well with a student after he found out that I knew what Call of Duty was and had actually played it (apparently teachers are supposed to sit at home twiddling their thumbs until it's time to go to school again.. haha) Anyway, I have to agree with Barab et al that using video games as a teaching technology can be engaging to a generation that is so heavily involved with technology. I think they put a lot of thought and effort into making a game that related to the real-world, where kids can be in charge of what their next action is going to be, and also requires reflection and assessing content knowledge. Where I felt a little cautious about using something like this in the classroom would be my fear to be known as "the teacher who sits my students in front of a computer all day." This might seem like an over-reaction, because as the authors point out, QA does not necessarily "teach" students because it requires the teacher to support students while they are doing the quests along with reviewing student work, but I still feel that with the rise of technology in the home, parents might be opposed to a teacher using this because of the amount of video game playing done outside of school. Another concern I had was when thinking about QA being it's own "world" and the need to be QA literate. As a teacher being around QA all day, it's only natural that over a short period of time I would be comfortable talking about QA, but what about parents/guardians of students using QA? Would they feel unable to help a child who uses QA?
Overall, I think video games could be highly beneficial in a classroom since obviously they are part of many students' everyday lives. I just hope they are used rather than abused.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Reflection # 3
This week's readings talked about how to use programming and robotics effectively in the classroom. My main overall thought about some of these articles was: it is cool what technology brings to the table, but why do people think that technology is the "thing" to make learning more meaningful and engaging? I keep seeing these words pop up in several articles, not just with ones related to technology. We (as in my classmates and I) all grew up with much less emphasis on technology than todays generations and we turned out to be well-rounded and intelligent, so what makes using these approaches different or unique?
The Physical Programming: Designing Tools for Children to Create Physical Interactive Environments (Montemeyer et al, 2002) was definitely a unique approach, since most designing of education, whether it be a curriculum or classroom set-up, is designed by an adult rather than children. This kind of reminded me of the movie "Accepted" where students create their own university and create their own classes because it is what they are interested in (sorry for the tangent). I was a little confused about whether the child is supposed to see themselves as part of the story, a storyteller, or a "programmer" of the story (almost an 'architect' of the story). I thought it was interesting how the children were the most intrigued with the outcomes of the parts being programmed (ie, hitting the hand several times to see the light come on) because it makes me wonder what is going on in their head.. are they thinking about how pressing the hand makes the light turn on, or are they just concerned with the seeing the light turn on. I was disappointed that the authors left out some key insights into how this technology would be useful in the classroom, I was left wondering what the actual purpose of this tool was. Was it to teach programming skills, or storytelling/interpreting skills or both?
The article Teachers as Designers: Integrating Robitics in Early Childhood Education (Bers et al, 2002) was interesting to read because I like the constructionist approach to teaching and learning and even though this article caters towards early childhood teachers, I think this approach can work at any age. I agree with the authors when they explain that pre-service teachers lack the technological skills needed to integrate and use technology in their future classrooms. I think the constructionist approach taken when teaching how to use technology in the classrooms by having the preservice teachers go through the process that their students might go through was a unique approach, but where this article lost my interest was in the examples of how the pre-service teachers used programming and robotics to aid learning. In the first three examples, all three lessons could have been taught with or without the use of the robots. Other than possibly provoking some interest because the robots were new and different than what the students were used to, the students did not gain anything from robots being used. The last example impressed me though and I thought one of the key elements to this design was not only were the students using robotics and programming design skills to build an actual robot, they were becoming 'technologically fluent' which was also a goal for the pre-service teachers as well. It seemed to me the first three examples were using the technology to aid in teaching the subject matter, whereas the forth example was teaching design and organization skills, PLUS technological vocabulary.
another sort of food for thought question I have been thinking about is: Does technology make the subject matter relevant and meaningful to the students or is it the technology itself that is relevant and meaningful?
The Physical Programming: Designing Tools for Children to Create Physical Interactive Environments (Montemeyer et al, 2002) was definitely a unique approach, since most designing of education, whether it be a curriculum or classroom set-up, is designed by an adult rather than children. This kind of reminded me of the movie "Accepted" where students create their own university and create their own classes because it is what they are interested in (sorry for the tangent). I was a little confused about whether the child is supposed to see themselves as part of the story, a storyteller, or a "programmer" of the story (almost an 'architect' of the story). I thought it was interesting how the children were the most intrigued with the outcomes of the parts being programmed (ie, hitting the hand several times to see the light come on) because it makes me wonder what is going on in their head.. are they thinking about how pressing the hand makes the light turn on, or are they just concerned with the seeing the light turn on. I was disappointed that the authors left out some key insights into how this technology would be useful in the classroom, I was left wondering what the actual purpose of this tool was. Was it to teach programming skills, or storytelling/interpreting skills or both?
The article Teachers as Designers: Integrating Robitics in Early Childhood Education (Bers et al, 2002) was interesting to read because I like the constructionist approach to teaching and learning and even though this article caters towards early childhood teachers, I think this approach can work at any age. I agree with the authors when they explain that pre-service teachers lack the technological skills needed to integrate and use technology in their future classrooms. I think the constructionist approach taken when teaching how to use technology in the classrooms by having the preservice teachers go through the process that their students might go through was a unique approach, but where this article lost my interest was in the examples of how the pre-service teachers used programming and robotics to aid learning. In the first three examples, all three lessons could have been taught with or without the use of the robots. Other than possibly provoking some interest because the robots were new and different than what the students were used to, the students did not gain anything from robots being used. The last example impressed me though and I thought one of the key elements to this design was not only were the students using robotics and programming design skills to build an actual robot, they were becoming 'technologically fluent' which was also a goal for the pre-service teachers as well. It seemed to me the first three examples were using the technology to aid in teaching the subject matter, whereas the forth example was teaching design and organization skills, PLUS technological vocabulary.
another sort of food for thought question I have been thinking about is: Does technology make the subject matter relevant and meaningful to the students or is it the technology itself that is relevant and meaningful?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Inquiry? or Inquiry.
This weeks reading had a common theme of getting students to think about the steps and criteria needed to reach an answer. These approaches wanted students to use their existing knowledge, test that knowledge, and reflect on what the results were. It seemed as though there was a cyclical theme, talked about briefly in the White & Frederiksen article, of coming up with an idea of how to get to the answer, testing that idea, analyzing the results, and then evaluating if it is correct, or if another approach should be tried.
Reading the Wilensky and Reisman article, Thinking Like a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Firefly: Learning Biology Through Constructing and Testing Computational Theories- An Embodied Modeling Approach got me excited because as a future science educator, one goal I have that I think is really important, and that these authors really promote, is getting students to think in more abstract/higher level ways, rather than focusing solely on getting the correct answer. The authors argue the basis for needing an embodied modeling approach is because students see the sciences as information to just absorb and memorize (which in some cases is because of the way it is taught in schools), rather than something to test or question. This is SOOOOO true. As someone who holds a bachelors degree in geological science, I have recently been struggling with the fact that I seriously lack critical reading and thinking skills. Sure we read articles about cool ore deposits in Canada or about Kimberlite pipes and diamond formation in Africa, (which is pretty freaking cool), but never once was I asked to question if what I was reading could have been one, out of many, possible answers to why this geologic phenomena occurred. If it's what "The Book" says, then that's how it happened, No Questions Asked. My point is really just that I am in favor of what Wilensky and Reisman are advocating for in this article, learning biology through processes of constructing and testing theories, sort of like what we do with our models each week. The use of technology, such as the NetLogo modeling language, seems to make this goal a little easier in some ways. In the case studies that were presented the software was able to get the students to think about the processes, interactions, and specific elements (ie, in Talia's model whether grass was available or not), and see the outcomes immediately. I thought the most important part of modeling was the revising part, but I think there should be an emphasis on WHY they changed what they did because otherwise it could turn into a game of trial and error until the "correct" graph shows up. Another thought I had was is technology changing the role of the teacher from person who passes along information and knowledge to students, to more of a person who is there as a guide/resource?
Even though I really liked this article and thought the case studies seemed to show that this type of approach does get students involved in the process of scientific inquiry, I hate to say it but... most kids don't want to learn this way, they want to be told what to do and how to do it. Boo :( Which is not to say that this can't be changed, but I think there has been a lot of emphasis put on getting to the right answer as quickly as possible, that a lot of students don't think in this sort of, analyzing, evaluating, testing, hypothesizing way. This was kind of evident in the Explanation-Driven Inquiry article. The software, ExplanationConstructor, is a tool used for getting students to organize and structure their ideas in way that will help them to give better explanations of how they came to their conclusions. To me, it seemed like this software was too much like an outline construction tool. I wrote the question "how is this different than answering questions from a textbook?" in the margins of the paper a couple times. It allowed the students to organize their thoughts clearly, but it lacked a lot of the "inquiry" skills that were talked about in the other 2 articles.
The way I changed my model this week was to take out the different color coordinated "community" boxes and just have a Teacher-Student-Technology box around everything because I think that in order for this type of community to work, everyone needs to be involved and supporting and interacting with each other. It is important for the teacher to be involved with the students and technology and vice versa. I also added a few little points to the model like technology enhancing instruction. I also wanted to add some sort of cycle-like feature to my model for this week, because I thought the "Inquiry Cycle" brought up in the White and Frederiksen article was important, but I wasn't really sure where to incorporate it into my model... any suggestions?
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Model Project
The readings for this week have The piece by Rochelle et al. is advocating for the use of computers in the classroom and uses several examples of actual software (CSILE, Diagnoser, etc.) to explain the benefits of using technology in the classroom. The Cuban article talks about the use of technology in classrooms early on and conveyed the message (at least to me) that it is just as important that teachers be on board, willing, and knowledgeable about using technology in the classroom, as it is important that the technology is in the classroom. As a teacher himself, Cuban points out that often times school administrators make the decisions when adopting new instructional techniques into schools, whether it be the 1930's and the introduction of the radio as an "assistant teacher" or 2000 with video conferencing and smart-boards.
I gravitated towards the Rochelle et al. piece more just because it seems to be addressing how technology can be used to facilitate learning in a modern classroom. I drew my model before I read this piece, but I think it addresses some of the main points of this article. I thought the big ideas, that technology can enhance how children learn, through active engagement, participation in groups, frequent feedback and making real-world connections, were pretty valid points, but at the same time found myself continuously questioning how optimistic and sugar coated the findings were. The first problem I had was with the Micro-computer based Laboratory software. Yes, the students are getting instant feedback and are able to manipulate their data and be able to see the results right in front of them, but are they missing out on some of the fundamental basics of learning how to make a graph and plotting points? But then again, if they are always going to have a computer to do the graphing for them, now and in the future, does it really matter they learn those basic skills?
I do happen to have the same outlook on relating content material to real-world situations or problems. I have also been that student who sits in a chemistry class while the teacher draws lewis dot structures on the board and can continuously only think about ONE thing.... when am I EVER going to use/need/apply this to my REAL life EVER again ??! So I see the benefit in this idea, but I think Rochelle et al sugar coat their scenarios quite a bit, especially when they say "Through the Internet, students from around the world can work as partners to scientists, business-people, and policymakers who are making valuable contributions to society" (83). Not that I don't believe that situations like this can occur, but in reality it takes a lot of planning, facilitating and collaboration (with professionals who are willing) to create opportunities like that, it's not as easy as just hopping onto a computer at school and suddenly your students are controlling NASA telescopes.
I like the idea that Rochelle et al bring into the discussion of how technology can help expand children's communities, I think it would be an amazing learning experience for kids to be able to video chat/e-mail with students the same age in different countries and talk about what they are learning about.
Where my model is incorporated into all of this is that like Rochelle et al say, education is a puzzle, and we are constantly trying to fit all the pieces together and make sense of what we really want the outcome and the goals to be. Probably the biggest problem, and one that Cuban talks about, is the divide between the technology and the teacher. Teachers are either not educated on how to use the technology, think the way they currently teach the material is sufficient or are too bothered to make 2 lesson plans because "most likely" the technology will fail them. I have to say from experience, it is a nightmare when you planned to do an entire 50 minute lesson using video-clips and interactive software on a smart-board, only to come to school that morning and find out that the bulb on the projector has burnt out and the ONE tech guy that the middle and high schools share is booked up for the day. That is why I have technology tools and instruction as 2 parts of the puzzle, because how do they fit together when there are so many things keeping them apart. I also included curriculum as part of my model because I think it is important to keep in mind that there are still those learning standards that each student leaving the classroom should know, and making sure that they right software is chosen to teach students that information is crucial.
I gravitated towards the Rochelle et al. piece more just because it seems to be addressing how technology can be used to facilitate learning in a modern classroom. I drew my model before I read this piece, but I think it addresses some of the main points of this article. I thought the big ideas, that technology can enhance how children learn, through active engagement, participation in groups, frequent feedback and making real-world connections, were pretty valid points, but at the same time found myself continuously questioning how optimistic and sugar coated the findings were. The first problem I had was with the Micro-computer based Laboratory software. Yes, the students are getting instant feedback and are able to manipulate their data and be able to see the results right in front of them, but are they missing out on some of the fundamental basics of learning how to make a graph and plotting points? But then again, if they are always going to have a computer to do the graphing for them, now and in the future, does it really matter they learn those basic skills?
I do happen to have the same outlook on relating content material to real-world situations or problems. I have also been that student who sits in a chemistry class while the teacher draws lewis dot structures on the board and can continuously only think about ONE thing.... when am I EVER going to use/need/apply this to my REAL life EVER again ??! So I see the benefit in this idea, but I think Rochelle et al sugar coat their scenarios quite a bit, especially when they say "Through the Internet, students from around the world can work as partners to scientists, business-people, and policymakers who are making valuable contributions to society" (83). Not that I don't believe that situations like this can occur, but in reality it takes a lot of planning, facilitating and collaboration (with professionals who are willing) to create opportunities like that, it's not as easy as just hopping onto a computer at school and suddenly your students are controlling NASA telescopes.
I like the idea that Rochelle et al bring into the discussion of how technology can help expand children's communities, I think it would be an amazing learning experience for kids to be able to video chat/e-mail with students the same age in different countries and talk about what they are learning about.
Where my model is incorporated into all of this is that like Rochelle et al say, education is a puzzle, and we are constantly trying to fit all the pieces together and make sense of what we really want the outcome and the goals to be. Probably the biggest problem, and one that Cuban talks about, is the divide between the technology and the teacher. Teachers are either not educated on how to use the technology, think the way they currently teach the material is sufficient or are too bothered to make 2 lesson plans because "most likely" the technology will fail them. I have to say from experience, it is a nightmare when you planned to do an entire 50 minute lesson using video-clips and interactive software on a smart-board, only to come to school that morning and find out that the bulb on the projector has burnt out and the ONE tech guy that the middle and high schools share is booked up for the day. That is why I have technology tools and instruction as 2 parts of the puzzle, because how do they fit together when there are so many things keeping them apart. I also included curriculum as part of my model because I think it is important to keep in mind that there are still those learning standards that each student leaving the classroom should know, and making sure that they right software is chosen to teach students that information is crucial.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
