Nagel, Dave. "Women Lose Ground in IT, Computer Science." The Journal. November 2007.
Summary
This article comments on a recent study released by the National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) which suggests women make up the drastic minority of participatns in science and technology related studies and that number only continues to shrink farther up the academic and corporate ladders. In 2006, only 1% of female students who took the SAT test indicated an interest in pursuing a computer or information sciences major. The study attributes the lack of female desire to enter the sciences to perpetuated misconceptions about the field. The article provides shocking statistics about how few female CEOs, VPs, managers and executives there are in the business field, particularly in corporations related to technology and/or science. The NCWIT study suggest women need to feel that their skills are validated and suggests that rewards for female performance in the IT and science sectors could make women in the field more visible, thus inspiring others.
Reaction
As a member of Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) while I completed my bachelor's degree at the University of Washington, I am all for encouraging women to join the sciences. But, the inherent feminist in me balks at the article's suggestion that companies should provide more awards to females. If it's for a job well-done, then great, but don't go awarding us just for being chicks. I recently read an interview NBC conducted with the new female president of Harvard University. Her election followed a highly publicized dismissal of a tenured male professor who had made lewd comments about females in publications, public addresses and in the classroom. Many argue that the current female president was hired to neutralize the genders at the university. While I'm all for women leading up major universities, especially one that has so traditionally been a male-dominated college (women weren't even allowed in the main library on Harvard's campus until almost 1970), but I hope she was hired for her credentials and not her gender. When I imagine myself in the classroom, I hope I can teach as gender-neutrally as possible. Why not shift the focus to encouraging students of all "minorities" to engage in academics, especially in the technology field. I think many bright young women, as well as many bright young Black, Hispanic and Asian students are all overlooked as candidates for careers in the sciences. I hope teachers who read this article will remember the importance of encouraging all students, regardless of gender, race, economic status or background, to pursue a challenging career field and work hard at improving their knowledge in the areas of science and technology. It's the future for everyone.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Computers + Pedagogy
McKenzie, Jamie. Inspired Writing and Inquiry. FNO.org From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal. 15(2), December 2005.
Miscellaneous Entry
Summary
This article explores the symbiotic relationship between literacy and computers. According to research, national writing has improved little since the arrival of computers and laptops because programs such as Inspiration and others that strengthen the generation of ideas through writing have been largely ignored by the general population, and the educational system. McKenzie believes strongly that American writing would improve if we capitalized on the wealth of technology that surrounds us. Suggesting that explicit instruction on computer programs, typing, brainstorming, revising, etc (virtually all aspects of the writing process) are needed in todays educational system, the author suggests that student performance will improve as teaching methods begin to embrace technology in the classroom.
Reaction
Computers don't make writers better. A blank computer screen is equally as intimidating to a novice writer as a blank sheet of notebook paper, so I like McKenzie's suggestion that teaching methods must improve if we expect student writing to improve. Just as much of the writing process is "invisible" to students unless we lead them through it, so too are many benefits of technology. I frequently surf the Internet and blog sites when brainstorming ideas for a paper. Programs such as Microsoft Publisher and even Microsoft Word hold much potential for aiding the writing process, but rarely do you see this instruction take place in school. I can only imagine that figuring out ways to make computers more useful to students for homework and studying purposes can aid all teachers. Students are already incredibly computer-literate; they can build websites, create imovies and regularly download music. If we can figure out a way to help students use their computer literacy for educational purposes by tapping into and expanding this prior knowledge, the potential benefits are limitless!
Miscellaneous Entry
Summary
This article explores the symbiotic relationship between literacy and computers. According to research, national writing has improved little since the arrival of computers and laptops because programs such as Inspiration and others that strengthen the generation of ideas through writing have been largely ignored by the general population, and the educational system. McKenzie believes strongly that American writing would improve if we capitalized on the wealth of technology that surrounds us. Suggesting that explicit instruction on computer programs, typing, brainstorming, revising, etc (virtually all aspects of the writing process) are needed in todays educational system, the author suggests that student performance will improve as teaching methods begin to embrace technology in the classroom.
Reaction
Computers don't make writers better. A blank computer screen is equally as intimidating to a novice writer as a blank sheet of notebook paper, so I like McKenzie's suggestion that teaching methods must improve if we expect student writing to improve. Just as much of the writing process is "invisible" to students unless we lead them through it, so too are many benefits of technology. I frequently surf the Internet and blog sites when brainstorming ideas for a paper. Programs such as Microsoft Publisher and even Microsoft Word hold much potential for aiding the writing process, but rarely do you see this instruction take place in school. I can only imagine that figuring out ways to make computers more useful to students for homework and studying purposes can aid all teachers. Students are already incredibly computer-literate; they can build websites, create imovies and regularly download music. If we can figure out a way to help students use their computer literacy for educational purposes by tapping into and expanding this prior knowledge, the potential benefits are limitless!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Gender and Instructional Technology
Bennett, D. and Brunner, C. (2000). The Role of Gender in the Design of Electronic Learning Environments for Children. Technology and Learning, 2(1): 1-5.
Diverse Populations: Female Gender
Summary
This article seeks to understand how gender continues to shape young people's experiences with technology and how educators can select gender-equitable environments for their students in the realm of integrated technology in education. Research discussed in the article suggests that males and females view technology (and its purposes) from fundamentally different perspectives. Women and girls think about technological tools that can facillitate human interaction while men tend to be drawn to technical objects and enjoy using technology to transcend the barriers of space and time, rather than to stay connected to the present. Because technology (as traditionally incorporated into the educational system) has by and large been thought of and used as a tool for diseminating information, educators are now encouraged to think of technology as a tool to facillitate personal sharing and collaboration. Incorporated in this change is the possibility to include young women into the technology conversation. KAHooTZ, an online construction and design place, was reviewed for its possiblities as a tool to help make technology use in classrooms communicative and dialogical. KAHooTZ is an Internet-based, multimedia construction environment that allows students to create computer games or cartoons, known as Xpressions, which kids can show and discuss with one another.
Reaction
In many ways, KAHooTZ seems like a useful vehicle for inviting young women into the technological realm of education. It allows students to create a virtual community where they can create a sense of place and identity. This kind of play encourages young girls to think about design in the real world, to imagine themselves as future designers and inventors, and to go through a process of critical analysis and thought that enables them to create animations and games (Xpressions). The critical thinking piece is key--getting kids to think on their own and to "own" their learning is one of my major goals as a teacher. While I can see the potential of this technology, it's only a tool and the benefit lies in what you do with it. The article suggests that girls crave community and collaboration, but one of the stated drawbacks of the program is that finding another individual to create and publish with (collaboratively) requires work. Helping students navigate this virtual program and scaffolding instruction so students can interact online would be key to hooking young women--not the technology itself. Still, there's little argument that this is progress. The past several decades have been focused on physically integrating technology into schools (ex: Gates Grants, a computer in every classroom, etc.), but little has been discussed about what to do with the technology. I think this article is a sign of more things to come. Savvy educators need not focus solely on what technology is available, but must also ask themselves how to make that technology a learning tool for all their students regardless of skin color, socio-economic status or gender.
Diverse Populations: Female Gender
Summary
This article seeks to understand how gender continues to shape young people's experiences with technology and how educators can select gender-equitable environments for their students in the realm of integrated technology in education. Research discussed in the article suggests that males and females view technology (and its purposes) from fundamentally different perspectives. Women and girls think about technological tools that can facillitate human interaction while men tend to be drawn to technical objects and enjoy using technology to transcend the barriers of space and time, rather than to stay connected to the present. Because technology (as traditionally incorporated into the educational system) has by and large been thought of and used as a tool for diseminating information, educators are now encouraged to think of technology as a tool to facillitate personal sharing and collaboration. Incorporated in this change is the possibility to include young women into the technology conversation. KAHooTZ, an online construction and design place, was reviewed for its possiblities as a tool to help make technology use in classrooms communicative and dialogical. KAHooTZ is an Internet-based, multimedia construction environment that allows students to create computer games or cartoons, known as Xpressions, which kids can show and discuss with one another.
Reaction
In many ways, KAHooTZ seems like a useful vehicle for inviting young women into the technological realm of education. It allows students to create a virtual community where they can create a sense of place and identity. This kind of play encourages young girls to think about design in the real world, to imagine themselves as future designers and inventors, and to go through a process of critical analysis and thought that enables them to create animations and games (Xpressions). The critical thinking piece is key--getting kids to think on their own and to "own" their learning is one of my major goals as a teacher. While I can see the potential of this technology, it's only a tool and the benefit lies in what you do with it. The article suggests that girls crave community and collaboration, but one of the stated drawbacks of the program is that finding another individual to create and publish with (collaboratively) requires work. Helping students navigate this virtual program and scaffolding instruction so students can interact online would be key to hooking young women--not the technology itself. Still, there's little argument that this is progress. The past several decades have been focused on physically integrating technology into schools (ex: Gates Grants, a computer in every classroom, etc.), but little has been discussed about what to do with the technology. I think this article is a sign of more things to come. Savvy educators need not focus solely on what technology is available, but must also ask themselves how to make that technology a learning tool for all their students regardless of skin color, socio-economic status or gender.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Assistive Technology for Students with Disabilities
Wahl, Lisa. (2008). "Assistive Technology: Enhanced Learning for All," Edutopia. 2(1): www.edutopia.org/assistive-technology-enhances-learning-all.
Special Needs Article
Summary
Assistive Technology (AT) has become a buzz word in educationese since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997. Under this act, school districts must provide assistive technology to eligible students with disabilities to ensure the provision of a “free and appropriate” public education. AT devices range incredibly in their technology and learning aid potentials—from triangular pencil grips or oversized calculators for students with motor skill deficits to a voice amplifier for a student with a vocal cord strain, all AT devices used in the classroom are highly individualized for specific student needs.
Because AT devices are often expensive and many students fall into the “crack” between Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and IDEA, this article suggests practical (and inexpensive ways) teachers can implement AT strategies in their own classrooms. Suggestions vary between student assignment boards to facilitate peer tutoring to Velcro strips for alerting students of the daily agenda and current activity that’s underway.
Reaction
Many of the tips suggested in this article I’d already read or heard about in my Special Education class and I often thought the devices and ideas could be useful for the classroom at large. It was refreshing to hear about enlightened schools and districts who are proactive in the area of AT. The potential for technology for special needs students, as well as for the general population of students who simply have different learning needs is massive. In talking and/or observing practicing teachers, I find that too often, teachers, schools and districts are uninformed about the potential of AT as well as uninformed about the letter and spirit of the law (IDEA) as it relates to AT. I think this article could be immensely useful if distributed at a faculty meeting or even just tucked in faculty mailboxes for skimming. Time to get the idea (or the IDEA) across!
Special Needs Article
Summary
Assistive Technology (AT) has become a buzz word in educationese since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997. Under this act, school districts must provide assistive technology to eligible students with disabilities to ensure the provision of a “free and appropriate” public education. AT devices range incredibly in their technology and learning aid potentials—from triangular pencil grips or oversized calculators for students with motor skill deficits to a voice amplifier for a student with a vocal cord strain, all AT devices used in the classroom are highly individualized for specific student needs.
Because AT devices are often expensive and many students fall into the “crack” between Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and IDEA, this article suggests practical (and inexpensive ways) teachers can implement AT strategies in their own classrooms. Suggestions vary between student assignment boards to facilitate peer tutoring to Velcro strips for alerting students of the daily agenda and current activity that’s underway.
Reaction
Many of the tips suggested in this article I’d already read or heard about in my Special Education class and I often thought the devices and ideas could be useful for the classroom at large. It was refreshing to hear about enlightened schools and districts who are proactive in the area of AT. The potential for technology for special needs students, as well as for the general population of students who simply have different learning needs is massive. In talking and/or observing practicing teachers, I find that too often, teachers, schools and districts are uninformed about the potential of AT as well as uninformed about the letter and spirit of the law (IDEA) as it relates to AT. I think this article could be immensely useful if distributed at a faculty meeting or even just tucked in faculty mailboxes for skimming. Time to get the idea (or the IDEA) across!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Course Management Systems and Flexibility
Smart, K.A. and K.A. Meyer (2005). "Changing Course Management Systems: Lessons Learned," Educause Quarterly. 2(1): 68-70.
Unit Six: Learning Management Systems and Learning Objects
Summary
This article presented findings on how well courses convert from one course management system (CMS) to another, an issue of increasing relevance in today's technology-dependent classrooms. Researchers asked ten faculty in the Academic Affairs Division at UND to evaluate the transition of a Blackboard course to Desire2Learn (a different CMS) at the University of North Dakota. Much of the course content was lost in the transition including important online documents and course materials. The study found that, despite the work of ensuring materials in the new CMS (Desire2Learn) are intact and accurate, there was an overwhelming willingness to change to another CMS in the future; most professors admitted they would willingly transfer CMS structures again.
Reaction
Though this article examines course management system changes at the college level, I think the article holds relevance to teaching at the secondary level. First of all, the article is a reminder that technology is everchanging. Blackboard, as used widely at WWU, is already quite outdated technology. In order to entice and interest young students with online and virtual classroom materials and assignments, teachers need to be ready, willing and able to experiment with new technologies and online academic resources.
The overwhelming complaint by subjects of this research was that course materials were lost in the system transfer process. This is a clear reminder to teachers that online resources are not permanent and can fail or move at any time. It's important to back up any and all instructional material, rather than relying on online forums as storage units.
I was disappointed to not learn more about the Desire2Learn system. I'm incredibly familiar with the Blackboard Academic Suite (and I'm very aware of if it's limitations), so as a novice teacher, I'm open and interested to the idea of exploring new systems to manage the online portions of my courses and I wholeheartedly support advances to connect classroom learning to technology. I think this is a step all teachers need to be willing to take as we move toward a more and more virtual world.
Unit Six: Learning Management Systems and Learning Objects
Summary
This article presented findings on how well courses convert from one course management system (CMS) to another, an issue of increasing relevance in today's technology-dependent classrooms. Researchers asked ten faculty in the Academic Affairs Division at UND to evaluate the transition of a Blackboard course to Desire2Learn (a different CMS) at the University of North Dakota. Much of the course content was lost in the transition including important online documents and course materials. The study found that, despite the work of ensuring materials in the new CMS (Desire2Learn) are intact and accurate, there was an overwhelming willingness to change to another CMS in the future; most professors admitted they would willingly transfer CMS structures again.
Reaction
Though this article examines course management system changes at the college level, I think the article holds relevance to teaching at the secondary level. First of all, the article is a reminder that technology is everchanging. Blackboard, as used widely at WWU, is already quite outdated technology. In order to entice and interest young students with online and virtual classroom materials and assignments, teachers need to be ready, willing and able to experiment with new technologies and online academic resources.
The overwhelming complaint by subjects of this research was that course materials were lost in the system transfer process. This is a clear reminder to teachers that online resources are not permanent and can fail or move at any time. It's important to back up any and all instructional material, rather than relying on online forums as storage units.
I was disappointed to not learn more about the Desire2Learn system. I'm incredibly familiar with the Blackboard Academic Suite (and I'm very aware of if it's limitations), so as a novice teacher, I'm open and interested to the idea of exploring new systems to manage the online portions of my courses and I wholeheartedly support advances to connect classroom learning to technology. I think this is a step all teachers need to be willing to take as we move toward a more and more virtual world.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Virtual Classrooms!
Greenway, R. and G. Vanourek (2006). The Virtual Revolution: Understanding Online Schools, Education Next, 6(2): 1-8.
Unit Eight: Distributed Learning
Summary
Touted to be the most radical change in American Education in the last century, virtual classrooms and schools have begun to grow exponentially in popularity since the new millennium. What are they? Best described as a hybrid between public, charter and home schools, with aspects of tutoring and independent study sprinkled in, along with the key component, technology and the Internet, virtual schools are really more like a regular school that you might initially suspect, but without the building and infrastructures—oh yeah, and the extracurricular activities, the social aspect, the cafeteria, etc. Virtual classrooms rely on individualized, interactive and self-paced instruction, but receive significantly less funding than “traditional” (a.k.a. physical) schools… and of course, they have no snow days!
So who do these virtual schools serve? Students with severe medical problems (a.k.a. diabetes, mononucleosis, etc.), extreme athletes, child actors, and any other student who simply cannot remain in school during regular school hours are best served by these virtual schools. Unfortunately, these schools are not equipped to serve students with disabilities, visual impairments and of course, students who have English language deficiencies. And while the benefits seem clear, there are definite drawbacks; many virtual school teachers lack proper training to adjust teaching styles to an Internet-based classroom, not to mention the severe social deficits.
Research lacks greatly on virtual schools. These authors suggest more needs to be studied regarding what types of virtual schools work, under which conditions they succeed, with what types of students, with which teachers and with what formal training. Regardless, it comes down to the fact that many of these virtual schools are run by people who don’t have a good understanding of how these schools operate.
Reaction
Clearly, virtual schools are still in their infant years. Simply looking back at the history of public schools reminds us of how long it takes to make a school system function, let alone function smoothly. What makes some virtual schools successful are many of the same things that make regular schools successful—individualized instruction, meeting the needs of diverse students and a focus on challenging and thought-provoking assignments. My question is how much is lost in these virtual classrooms? Research shows that kids only take away 10% of the intended curriculum. The other 90% are friendships, lessons about power and communication, inner-personal/self discovery, etc. In other words, a large portion of schooling relies on socialization and peer/teacher interactions. How can virtual schools supplement and account for this loss? They simply can’t. Perhaps the message is more about what we need to do to pay attention to in all schools, which is a focus on integrating technological advances into the classroom to facilitate student learning. I think teachers needn’t worry… virtual classrooms won’t replace actual teachers, real schools and classrooms any time soon.
Unit Eight: Distributed Learning
Summary
Touted to be the most radical change in American Education in the last century, virtual classrooms and schools have begun to grow exponentially in popularity since the new millennium. What are they? Best described as a hybrid between public, charter and home schools, with aspects of tutoring and independent study sprinkled in, along with the key component, technology and the Internet, virtual schools are really more like a regular school that you might initially suspect, but without the building and infrastructures—oh yeah, and the extracurricular activities, the social aspect, the cafeteria, etc. Virtual classrooms rely on individualized, interactive and self-paced instruction, but receive significantly less funding than “traditional” (a.k.a. physical) schools… and of course, they have no snow days!
So who do these virtual schools serve? Students with severe medical problems (a.k.a. diabetes, mononucleosis, etc.), extreme athletes, child actors, and any other student who simply cannot remain in school during regular school hours are best served by these virtual schools. Unfortunately, these schools are not equipped to serve students with disabilities, visual impairments and of course, students who have English language deficiencies. And while the benefits seem clear, there are definite drawbacks; many virtual school teachers lack proper training to adjust teaching styles to an Internet-based classroom, not to mention the severe social deficits.
Research lacks greatly on virtual schools. These authors suggest more needs to be studied regarding what types of virtual schools work, under which conditions they succeed, with what types of students, with which teachers and with what formal training. Regardless, it comes down to the fact that many of these virtual schools are run by people who don’t have a good understanding of how these schools operate.
Reaction
Clearly, virtual schools are still in their infant years. Simply looking back at the history of public schools reminds us of how long it takes to make a school system function, let alone function smoothly. What makes some virtual schools successful are many of the same things that make regular schools successful—individualized instruction, meeting the needs of diverse students and a focus on challenging and thought-provoking assignments. My question is how much is lost in these virtual classrooms? Research shows that kids only take away 10% of the intended curriculum. The other 90% are friendships, lessons about power and communication, inner-personal/self discovery, etc. In other words, a large portion of schooling relies on socialization and peer/teacher interactions. How can virtual schools supplement and account for this loss? They simply can’t. Perhaps the message is more about what we need to do to pay attention to in all schools, which is a focus on integrating technological advances into the classroom to facilitate student learning. I think teachers needn’t worry… virtual classrooms won’t replace actual teachers, real schools and classrooms any time soon.
The "New" Tech-Savvy Student and Classrooms Today
Oblinger, D. “Boomers & Gen-Xers Millennials: Understanding the New Students,” Starlink.
Unit Five: Multimedia and Technology
Summary
Dr. Diana Oblinger, Executive Director of Higher Education for Microsoft Corporation, argues that an essential component of a successful classroom is understanding learners. She asks, what do we know about today’s “new students”? She suggests the “new” student may be a seventeen-year-old high school student (a “Millennial”) who uses instant messaging to contact peers and teachers. The “new” student may also be a twenty-six-year-old college student (a “Gen-X”) whose use of the internet and expectations for wireless capabilities differ radically from previous generations. The focus of the article centers on the question: how do we, as educators, address the learning needs of such “new” students?
Her article goes on to “classify” these “new” students in a variety of contexts—the elimination of delays, customer service expectations, desire for experiential learning, and constant connectedness. The implications of a “delayless” society have caused students to disengage with anything that isn’t instantaneous. Oblinger suggests that in order to encourage student connectedness with classroom discussions, prompt responses through email and instant messenger will make a difference in the decision-making process (and ultimately the achievement) of “new” students. Oblinger writes that “customer service is an expectation, not an exception” for today’s learners, noting that today’s students want immediate response and support from their faculty. The third context, experiential learning, is important to student engagement. Creating opportunities for authentic assessments and performances of learning are key to hooking “new” students. Lastly, Oblinger acknowledges that many students carry multiple electronic devices and use various communication protocols to be sure they are always connected to friends, events, and information. Oblinger thus suggests capitalizing on this “connectedness” by encouraging and inviting the use of PDAs, laptops and other devices into the classroom infrastructure (for more information on this, please see the review on Peterson’s article from Campus Technology on using PDAs in the classroom).
Ultimately, Oblinger challenges schools and universities today to ask the following questions of their students:
Ø Is instant messaging a fad or should it be incorporated into how institutions work with students?
Ø Do the educational resources provided (textbooks, reference materials, etc.) fit the needs and preferences of today’s learners?
Ø Does the current definition of “anytime, anywhere” equate to students’ expectations that any device (laptop, PDA, cell phone, etc.) will be able to access the Web at any time and from any place?
Ø Do students’ desires for group learning and activities imply rethinking the configuration and use of space in classrooms, libraries, student unions and residence halls?
Reaction
I like the underlying ideas embedded within Oblinger’s article. What seems to the subconscious message is the idea that good teachers get to know their students. Who are my kids and what are their needs should be the first questions teachers ask of any given class, so that teaching can take a student-centered approach, ensuring the individual and diverse needs of each student are not overlooked. While the overarching agenda of Oblinger is clear—that school reform needs to take the direction of incorporating information technology into the classroom—her message is really about addressing the needs and expectations of a constantly changing population of students. One element I found lacking in Oblinger’s report is the prevalence of media in today’s “new” student’s frame of reference and identity formation. While pop culture and media have always influenced young students (at least since the mid 1900s), today more than ever, students daily lives are saturated with media commentary, stereotypes and messages. This media-savvy aspect of students should take a front-row seat to instruction today. Instead of ignoring the messages that students receive from media outlets, why not invite it into the classroom and use it as a forum for encouraging student discrimination and choice, critical thinking and understanding? Certainly media ties to technology, the two go hand-in-hand, and without this consideration, a huge portion of today’s “new” student is left unseen, unattended and, ultimately, uneducated.
Unit Five: Multimedia and Technology
Summary
Dr. Diana Oblinger, Executive Director of Higher Education for Microsoft Corporation, argues that an essential component of a successful classroom is understanding learners. She asks, what do we know about today’s “new students”? She suggests the “new” student may be a seventeen-year-old high school student (a “Millennial”) who uses instant messaging to contact peers and teachers. The “new” student may also be a twenty-six-year-old college student (a “Gen-X”) whose use of the internet and expectations for wireless capabilities differ radically from previous generations. The focus of the article centers on the question: how do we, as educators, address the learning needs of such “new” students?
Her article goes on to “classify” these “new” students in a variety of contexts—the elimination of delays, customer service expectations, desire for experiential learning, and constant connectedness. The implications of a “delayless” society have caused students to disengage with anything that isn’t instantaneous. Oblinger suggests that in order to encourage student connectedness with classroom discussions, prompt responses through email and instant messenger will make a difference in the decision-making process (and ultimately the achievement) of “new” students. Oblinger writes that “customer service is an expectation, not an exception” for today’s learners, noting that today’s students want immediate response and support from their faculty. The third context, experiential learning, is important to student engagement. Creating opportunities for authentic assessments and performances of learning are key to hooking “new” students. Lastly, Oblinger acknowledges that many students carry multiple electronic devices and use various communication protocols to be sure they are always connected to friends, events, and information. Oblinger thus suggests capitalizing on this “connectedness” by encouraging and inviting the use of PDAs, laptops and other devices into the classroom infrastructure (for more information on this, please see the review on Peterson’s article from Campus Technology on using PDAs in the classroom).
Ultimately, Oblinger challenges schools and universities today to ask the following questions of their students:
Ø Is instant messaging a fad or should it be incorporated into how institutions work with students?
Ø Do the educational resources provided (textbooks, reference materials, etc.) fit the needs and preferences of today’s learners?
Ø Does the current definition of “anytime, anywhere” equate to students’ expectations that any device (laptop, PDA, cell phone, etc.) will be able to access the Web at any time and from any place?
Ø Do students’ desires for group learning and activities imply rethinking the configuration and use of space in classrooms, libraries, student unions and residence halls?
Reaction
I like the underlying ideas embedded within Oblinger’s article. What seems to the subconscious message is the idea that good teachers get to know their students. Who are my kids and what are their needs should be the first questions teachers ask of any given class, so that teaching can take a student-centered approach, ensuring the individual and diverse needs of each student are not overlooked. While the overarching agenda of Oblinger is clear—that school reform needs to take the direction of incorporating information technology into the classroom—her message is really about addressing the needs and expectations of a constantly changing population of students. One element I found lacking in Oblinger’s report is the prevalence of media in today’s “new” student’s frame of reference and identity formation. While pop culture and media have always influenced young students (at least since the mid 1900s), today more than ever, students daily lives are saturated with media commentary, stereotypes and messages. This media-savvy aspect of students should take a front-row seat to instruction today. Instead of ignoring the messages that students receive from media outlets, why not invite it into the classroom and use it as a forum for encouraging student discrimination and choice, critical thinking and understanding? Certainly media ties to technology, the two go hand-in-hand, and without this consideration, a huge portion of today’s “new” student is left unseen, unattended and, ultimately, uneducated.
Online Paper Mills, The Internet and Plagiarism...
Hamlin, L. S. and W. T. Ryan (2003). “Probing for Plagiarism in the Virtual Classroom,” Campus Technology.
Unit Seven: The Internet and Computer Networks
Summary
With the trend toward increased online teaching, educators today are skeptical about the preservation of academic integrity in the virtual classroom. The Internet poses great opportunity for educational resources, but also provides students with additional opportunities to cheat. This is the focus of Hamlin and Ryan’s article, who examine how various types of assessment may or may not influence academic “virtual” integrity for courses today. What they found is that current research shows that while cheating remains a serious academic problem, current studies do not show whether the Internet has really changed the percentage of students who cheat. Many skeptics of the educational benefits of the Internet argue that online education worsens a student’s sense of “isolation and anonymity.” With the increasing number of online term-paper mills, such as Cheater.com and Gradesaver.com, students have an even greater temptation to plagiarize. Along with the advent of such “academic” warehouses, came plagiarism-detecting websites. Databases such as Plagiarism.org cross-references an uploaded student’s paper with a local database containing hundreds of thousands of papers. Ultimately, educators today are faced with preserving academic integrity, a task that must incorporate and acknowledge the growing and changing field of technology. Hamlin and Ryan’s advice to teachers is to encourage on-going student participation through the use of weekly responses to online discussion boards and periodic online (timed) quizzes, noting that students who are held accountable for learning on a progressive basis are deterred from procrastination and less likely to panic and cheat.
Reaction
As an English teacher, I know plagiarism will, unfortunately, be a reality I will encounter at some point in my teaching career. Even in my limited teaching experience, I often found that students relied heavily on “other sources” rather than their own voice. While I firmly believe that most students simply had never learned how to incorporate the ideas of others in with their own, rather than allow other texts to do their arguing for them, I know that occasionally, students intentionally submitted plagiarized (in part or in whole) term papers. I think there is a lot teachers can do to discourage plagiarism. First of all, incorporating modern novels and texts into the classroom literature base will decrease the likelihood of a student finding a “ready made” paper online. Secondly, teachers can design essay questions that encourage (and require) students to include their own self-reflection and life experiences as evidence for their arguments. Such student-centered assignments encourage students to be “invested” in their work and, I would imagine, decrease the reliance on other sources and experts. Thirdly, I agree with Hamlin and Ryan that frequent and ongoing accountability and engagement are key to limiting plagiaristic temptations. Frequent checks for learning and formative assessments require students to participate periodically in a course, rather than saving all the work for the end of a term. When a deadline looms and it’s 2 am, I imagine the Internet seems enticing to a young, exhausted student. Limiting the opportunities for this procrastination will lessen the likelihood of any reliance on outside materials. Finally, it may simply be boiled down to the idea that teacher don’t prepare students for using a variety of sources. Perhaps explicit lessons are needed that focus on how to take notes, paraphrase, rephrase and quote from sources. Such conversations may clear up any misconceptions students have about what counts as plagiarism and what does not.
Unit Seven: The Internet and Computer Networks
Summary
With the trend toward increased online teaching, educators today are skeptical about the preservation of academic integrity in the virtual classroom. The Internet poses great opportunity for educational resources, but also provides students with additional opportunities to cheat. This is the focus of Hamlin and Ryan’s article, who examine how various types of assessment may or may not influence academic “virtual” integrity for courses today. What they found is that current research shows that while cheating remains a serious academic problem, current studies do not show whether the Internet has really changed the percentage of students who cheat. Many skeptics of the educational benefits of the Internet argue that online education worsens a student’s sense of “isolation and anonymity.” With the increasing number of online term-paper mills, such as Cheater.com and Gradesaver.com, students have an even greater temptation to plagiarize. Along with the advent of such “academic” warehouses, came plagiarism-detecting websites. Databases such as Plagiarism.org cross-references an uploaded student’s paper with a local database containing hundreds of thousands of papers. Ultimately, educators today are faced with preserving academic integrity, a task that must incorporate and acknowledge the growing and changing field of technology. Hamlin and Ryan’s advice to teachers is to encourage on-going student participation through the use of weekly responses to online discussion boards and periodic online (timed) quizzes, noting that students who are held accountable for learning on a progressive basis are deterred from procrastination and less likely to panic and cheat.
Reaction
As an English teacher, I know plagiarism will, unfortunately, be a reality I will encounter at some point in my teaching career. Even in my limited teaching experience, I often found that students relied heavily on “other sources” rather than their own voice. While I firmly believe that most students simply had never learned how to incorporate the ideas of others in with their own, rather than allow other texts to do their arguing for them, I know that occasionally, students intentionally submitted plagiarized (in part or in whole) term papers. I think there is a lot teachers can do to discourage plagiarism. First of all, incorporating modern novels and texts into the classroom literature base will decrease the likelihood of a student finding a “ready made” paper online. Secondly, teachers can design essay questions that encourage (and require) students to include their own self-reflection and life experiences as evidence for their arguments. Such student-centered assignments encourage students to be “invested” in their work and, I would imagine, decrease the reliance on other sources and experts. Thirdly, I agree with Hamlin and Ryan that frequent and ongoing accountability and engagement are key to limiting plagiaristic temptations. Frequent checks for learning and formative assessments require students to participate periodically in a course, rather than saving all the work for the end of a term. When a deadline looms and it’s 2 am, I imagine the Internet seems enticing to a young, exhausted student. Limiting the opportunities for this procrastination will lessen the likelihood of any reliance on outside materials. Finally, it may simply be boiled down to the idea that teacher don’t prepare students for using a variety of sources. Perhaps explicit lessons are needed that focus on how to take notes, paraphrase, rephrase and quote from sources. Such conversations may clear up any misconceptions students have about what counts as plagiarism and what does not.
E-Learning and The Modern Classroom
Meyen, E. L., Aust, R. J. and R. Isaacson (2002). Assessing and Monitoring Student Progress in E-Learning Personnel Preparation Environment. Lawrence, Kansas: The University of Kansas, E-Learning Design Lab.
Unit Four: Teacher Training
Summary
This research report presents the findings of an e-learning study. The intent of the research was to focus on experiences in online-instruction (via virtual universities and online courses) and web-based supports in providing examples of how the pedagogy of e-learning accommodates good teaching practices and the contributions of employing sound assessment practices and the use of electronic portfolios in building a more powerful pedagogy of electronic (e) learning. Some questions that guided the search included:
Will assessment strategies be learning experiences in themselves?
Are judgments of performance made against peer standards or established criteria?
How can reliability and validity of assessment be assured?
Essentially, the study examined how electronic portfolios can be assessed and what the results of this assessment can mean for driving practice.
The study resulted in some key findings. First, students were more engaged with the electronic courses than with traditional classroom-based learning. Especially in those e-courses that required students to submit a weekly response (such as journaling or article reviews), student achievement was higher than in courses where students were not “accountable” for completing work on an ongoing weekly basis. Secondly, student responses were more creative and innovative, incorporating animations, photos, diagrams, streaming audio and video into their written work. Lastly, students reflected that the actual set-up of an electronic classroom allows for persistent and on-going student participation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For the night owls, the insomniacs and the random late-night epiphany moments, students found the ease of accessing course material and assignments from their own home on their own time essential to their success in the class“room”.
Reaction
I am excited about the ideas presented in this article. As a firm proponent of the writing process, the idea of electronic portfolios combines the elements of a traditional written portfolio (formative assessment, credit for improvement, a forum for revision, etc) with the ease of technology where revision, multimedia and virtual “texts” can be incorporated into written work with the click of a mouse. Students are comfortable with the internet, virtual chat rooms and web pages, so incorporating these forums into the classroom presents great opportunities for student success, inviting students own voices and familiarity with technology culture into the classroom. The article is a good reminder of the ongoing technology instruction pre-service and practicing teachers must seek. I recently attended a technology workshop at one of the local middle schools. The theme of the course was internet safety. To my great shock, few of the teachers knew much about protecting their own identities over the internet, let alone that of their students. Many of the teachers admitted to allowing and even encouraging their students to surf the internet for images or ideas related to an assignment, unaware of the potential hazards such activities posed for the instructor. Few, if any, knew how to operate a web page, let alone set one up and manage it. The technological deficiencies of the teachers was detrimental to the success of their students. All Washington State schools have computer labs and most students grow up with a computer in their home, if not one in their own bedroom. Students are continually connected to virtual media, online discussions, web videos, etc. Why wouldn’t teachers want to capitalize on these skills and know-how for classroom use?
In my short experience as a composition instructor, I utilized Blackboard technology and online discussion forums as an extension of classroom discussions and resources. I posted interesting site links relevant to classroom discussions and encouraged on-going sharing of knowledge through online conversations and virtual chat-rooms. In my course evaluations, students overwhelmingly attributed much of their personal success to the aid of the Blackboard site. I wish I had read this article back then, so I could have tried out the electronic portfolio. My students created a quarter-long written portfolio that they submitted (in hard copy) at the end of the term. Often times, those students who spent extra care in the presentation of their portfolio (visual elements, neatness, illustrations, organization and other special effects) were also those who scored the highest. It seemed that the creative outlet fueled their academic response, increasing conceptual understanding and rhetorical awareness (central elements of writing). It would have been fascinating to try out the electronic portfolios, for the possibilities for creativity are endless.
Unit Four: Teacher Training
Summary
This research report presents the findings of an e-learning study. The intent of the research was to focus on experiences in online-instruction (via virtual universities and online courses) and web-based supports in providing examples of how the pedagogy of e-learning accommodates good teaching practices and the contributions of employing sound assessment practices and the use of electronic portfolios in building a more powerful pedagogy of electronic (e) learning. Some questions that guided the search included:
Will assessment strategies be learning experiences in themselves?
Are judgments of performance made against peer standards or established criteria?
How can reliability and validity of assessment be assured?
Essentially, the study examined how electronic portfolios can be assessed and what the results of this assessment can mean for driving practice.
The study resulted in some key findings. First, students were more engaged with the electronic courses than with traditional classroom-based learning. Especially in those e-courses that required students to submit a weekly response (such as journaling or article reviews), student achievement was higher than in courses where students were not “accountable” for completing work on an ongoing weekly basis. Secondly, student responses were more creative and innovative, incorporating animations, photos, diagrams, streaming audio and video into their written work. Lastly, students reflected that the actual set-up of an electronic classroom allows for persistent and on-going student participation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For the night owls, the insomniacs and the random late-night epiphany moments, students found the ease of accessing course material and assignments from their own home on their own time essential to their success in the class“room”.
Reaction
I am excited about the ideas presented in this article. As a firm proponent of the writing process, the idea of electronic portfolios combines the elements of a traditional written portfolio (formative assessment, credit for improvement, a forum for revision, etc) with the ease of technology where revision, multimedia and virtual “texts” can be incorporated into written work with the click of a mouse. Students are comfortable with the internet, virtual chat rooms and web pages, so incorporating these forums into the classroom presents great opportunities for student success, inviting students own voices and familiarity with technology culture into the classroom. The article is a good reminder of the ongoing technology instruction pre-service and practicing teachers must seek. I recently attended a technology workshop at one of the local middle schools. The theme of the course was internet safety. To my great shock, few of the teachers knew much about protecting their own identities over the internet, let alone that of their students. Many of the teachers admitted to allowing and even encouraging their students to surf the internet for images or ideas related to an assignment, unaware of the potential hazards such activities posed for the instructor. Few, if any, knew how to operate a web page, let alone set one up and manage it. The technological deficiencies of the teachers was detrimental to the success of their students. All Washington State schools have computer labs and most students grow up with a computer in their home, if not one in their own bedroom. Students are continually connected to virtual media, online discussions, web videos, etc. Why wouldn’t teachers want to capitalize on these skills and know-how for classroom use?
In my short experience as a composition instructor, I utilized Blackboard technology and online discussion forums as an extension of classroom discussions and resources. I posted interesting site links relevant to classroom discussions and encouraged on-going sharing of knowledge through online conversations and virtual chat-rooms. In my course evaluations, students overwhelmingly attributed much of their personal success to the aid of the Blackboard site. I wish I had read this article back then, so I could have tried out the electronic portfolio. My students created a quarter-long written portfolio that they submitted (in hard copy) at the end of the term. Often times, those students who spent extra care in the presentation of their portfolio (visual elements, neatness, illustrations, organization and other special effects) were also those who scored the highest. It seemed that the creative outlet fueled their academic response, increasing conceptual understanding and rhetorical awareness (central elements of writing). It would have been fascinating to try out the electronic portfolios, for the possibilities for creativity are endless.
PDAs and Use-Centered Analysis
Peterson, D. (2002). “Implementing PDAs in a College Course: One Professor’s Perspective,” Campus Technology.
Unit Three: Classroom Application and Software Evaluations
Summary
This article introduces the idea of “use-centered design” (Flach & Dominguez, 1995). Use-centered design replaces the traditional focus that centers either on the user or product with a concentration on the goals and tasks associated with the use of the technology. The central ideas of use-centered design include understanding the user’s tasks and the technologies capabilities to find a marriage between the two. Professor Doug Peterson of the University of South Dakota examines the effectiveness of use-centered approach to implementing PDAs in a college classroom. On the University of South Dakota campus, PDA kiosks appear throughout the common areas. In classrooms, students “beam” documents to one another for quick collaboration, facilitating the sharing of ideas. Syllabi, course calendars and practice exams can be recalled and reviewed with the touch of a button. Further, settings on some PDAs can be customized to create practice quizzes and academic games geared to help the students study for their courses. In summation, the resulting study showed that PDAs played a much larger role outside the classroom than within it, suggesting PDAs pose a nice potential as supportive technology, rather than a replacing classroom education. Dr. Peterson predicts PDAs will take a front-seat in future college courses, especially as the trend toward wireless campuses grows.
Reaction
It was interesting to read about PDAs in the context of education. Sure, there are a number of my peers and classmates who use their Blackberries as a calendar and phone, but I have seldom heard of PDAs used as a classroom tool outside of the field of special education. Though they permeate America’s business front, they have yet to make a “big wave” in classrooms.
While I certainly agree with the benefits Dr. Peterson suggests PDAs can bring to a classroom, and I even think his analysis falls short (perhaps because the article is already outdated), I am not so naïve as to ignore the disadvantages of such technology. Cellular phones, iPods and other electronic devices already pose a problem in schools. Locally, many schools have banned the use of personal electronic devices within school hours due to problems of theft and classroom distraction. As a teacher of English, I can see how students would easily plagiarize with the “beaming” technology of shared papers. But do the disadvantages outweigh the benefits? That really isn’t the point. The article begins by introducing this idea of use-centered design that unites the needs of users with the capabilities of technology. It’s a good way to think about teaching—as a means to meet the needs of students with the current and available technology, texts, experts and experiences. I’m not sure I can picture Bellingham School District opting to purchase a PDA for each of its students anytime soon, but I have high hopes that perhaps someone will come up with a PDA specifically designed for classroom use. In the meantime, I will try to implement use-centered analysis into my own classroom and pedagogical decisions as a way to consider all the variables: texts, technology, standards, assessments, time and especially my students.
Unit Three: Classroom Application and Software Evaluations
Summary
This article introduces the idea of “use-centered design” (Flach & Dominguez, 1995). Use-centered design replaces the traditional focus that centers either on the user or product with a concentration on the goals and tasks associated with the use of the technology. The central ideas of use-centered design include understanding the user’s tasks and the technologies capabilities to find a marriage between the two. Professor Doug Peterson of the University of South Dakota examines the effectiveness of use-centered approach to implementing PDAs in a college classroom. On the University of South Dakota campus, PDA kiosks appear throughout the common areas. In classrooms, students “beam” documents to one another for quick collaboration, facilitating the sharing of ideas. Syllabi, course calendars and practice exams can be recalled and reviewed with the touch of a button. Further, settings on some PDAs can be customized to create practice quizzes and academic games geared to help the students study for their courses. In summation, the resulting study showed that PDAs played a much larger role outside the classroom than within it, suggesting PDAs pose a nice potential as supportive technology, rather than a replacing classroom education. Dr. Peterson predicts PDAs will take a front-seat in future college courses, especially as the trend toward wireless campuses grows.
Reaction
It was interesting to read about PDAs in the context of education. Sure, there are a number of my peers and classmates who use their Blackberries as a calendar and phone, but I have seldom heard of PDAs used as a classroom tool outside of the field of special education. Though they permeate America’s business front, they have yet to make a “big wave” in classrooms.
While I certainly agree with the benefits Dr. Peterson suggests PDAs can bring to a classroom, and I even think his analysis falls short (perhaps because the article is already outdated), I am not so naïve as to ignore the disadvantages of such technology. Cellular phones, iPods and other electronic devices already pose a problem in schools. Locally, many schools have banned the use of personal electronic devices within school hours due to problems of theft and classroom distraction. As a teacher of English, I can see how students would easily plagiarize with the “beaming” technology of shared papers. But do the disadvantages outweigh the benefits? That really isn’t the point. The article begins by introducing this idea of use-centered design that unites the needs of users with the capabilities of technology. It’s a good way to think about teaching—as a means to meet the needs of students with the current and available technology, texts, experts and experiences. I’m not sure I can picture Bellingham School District opting to purchase a PDA for each of its students anytime soon, but I have high hopes that perhaps someone will come up with a PDA specifically designed for classroom use. In the meantime, I will try to implement use-centered analysis into my own classroom and pedagogical decisions as a way to consider all the variables: texts, technology, standards, assessments, time and especially my students.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Reading Technology
Temple, Elise. (2003). Changes in Brain Function in Children with Dyslexia after Training. In The Phonics Bulletin, vol 1. (pp. 1-3). Cornell University Press.
Responding to Textbook Unit 2: Curriculum and Instructional Design
Summary
This article highlights the advent of FMRI technology which projects visual images of brain function (rather than just brain structure as in a traditional MRI) in adults and children. Such technology proves especially helpful for children with developmental dyslexia. A 2003 study showed that reading and language interventions which focus on oral language and auditory processing increased changes in brain function and improved reading and language ability in children with dyslexia. The specific intervention was a computer-based intensive program that helps children discriminate amongst rapid auditory signals. It also emphasizes other aspects of oral language, including auditory attention, memory processing, phonological processing and listening comprehension, all areas of deficit for children with dyslexia. While the implications of this study are widespread, this research proves specifically helpful to reading and writing instructors. Specific remediation and intervention treatments (especially those which occur early on in a child's academic career) boost reading and language skills and are suspected to drastically improve student scholarship and achievement long-term. The study also shows dyslexia is not simply a matter of children "not trying hard enough", but rather the brain research proves there are biological aspects of dyslexia which can be partially "normalized."
Reaction
The connection to technology in this article was evident, though mainly through a medical diagnosis and/or treatment standpoint. The technology I found most interesting was the computer reading intervention program called Fast ForWord Language, and yet, little attention was given to this technology. In a number of special education research journals and texts, high-tech reading intervention programs have been suggested for classroom use in the past decade, yet the phenomenon has only recently begun to catch on. My guess is that part of the problem may be funding. Some computer programs (such as Fast ForWord Language as described in the study) cost several thousands of dollars for a single installation dvd. In order for such programs to be useful on a school-wide or classroom-wide scale, there would need to be a number of computers available as well. That said, the potential for technology to improve the language, reading, writing and speaking skills of students with disabilities is paramount.
Students with disabilities often miss the opportunity to gain the benefit of the reading and writing experiences that surround young children on a daily basis. From shopping lists and television guides to email and computer games, most young children interact with texts (in the broader sense of the term) virtually all day, everyday. For children with disabilities, especially those with language-based disabilities such as dyslexia, ADD and ADHD, much of this textual information is lost on them. Without appropriate supports, students with cognitive or reading/writing disabilities fall into the literacy failure cycle: attempt to read, fail at reading, become frustrated, avoid reading, lack practice at reading, lack improvement, lose motivation, lose self-esteem and avoid further attempts to read. Ultimately, this cycle leads to illiteracy or alliteracy and students who fall into this category begin to show signs of failure in virtually all other subjects in school. This begs the question, how can educators support struggling readers and writers, or those who can’t access regular books and/or writing tools? Research shows that educators can adapt the materials so that the student with a disability can participate in the same curricular events as their classmates.
It is clear that without frequent and substantial interactions with texts, students cannot become better readers. But, reading more of the same material students with disabilities already struggle with does not seem to be the solution, and reading preschool level books does not help older children’s self esteem. And while the technology examined in the Temple article poses great potential, the high cost renders it inaccessible and unrealistic for use in most public schools where budgetary concerns and expenses are already maxed out. Therefore, I believe teachers need to be particularly creative when searching for ways to bring new technology into the classroom.
When I visited the Ershig Assistive Technology Resource Center (E-ATRC) in Miller Hall, I specifically searched for assistive technology equipment that could increase or improve literacy skills for students with disabilities. To my surprise, I found many products which ranged from low to high technology. While some of the higher technology items were intriguing (such as Blackberries, specialized lap tops with sound recognition mechanisms, high tech digital cameras, etc), I chose to focus my search on the low/light technology products. Because often times financial cost is a challenge for schools, and many students with learning disabilities are ineligible for services under IDEA or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because their intelligence/achievement discrepancy is not great enough, researching low-cost and low-technology products to aid students with disabilities seems to make the most sense. The more familiarity I have with kinds of accommodations that are affordable, readily available and easy to use, the better equipped I will be to aid students with disabilities in my English classroom. For, while high technology products have more features, can be easily individualized and can be tailored to a specific lesson or subject, they are also less user friendly than low-tech products and they are generally expensive. For example, the Quicktionary Reading Pen is a handheld device that scans words, provides definitions, and reads words aloud. This device retails for almost $300 USD. A similar device, the Speaking Homework Whiz, is a handheld spell checker that articulates words and definitions aloud and retails for less than a third the price of the reading pen. Both devices are examples of accommodations which can change how students with disabilities access information and demonstrate learning. Both items can increase fluency, providing speedy definitions for unknown words, and increase language skills by providing pronunciation examples. But, these technologies do not solve the problem of the “text”, they only supplement it.
Adapted books based on trade books change the text to make it simpler, use symbols to interpret difficult terms, utilize larger-sized print, include sound-effects, recorded speech and or reduce complex sentence structure. Adaptive texts can be created using Boardmaker, Writing with Symbols 2000, or Picture It. Slide shows can be created with PowerPoint by scanning text into computers, which can allow you to include recordings, images, etc. The E-ATRC at WWU offered a line of Start-To-Finish Books. This series, created by Don Johnston Inc., offers over fifty titles in three formats (audio tape, CD-ROM, and adapted book) to provide multiple levels of reading support for below-grade level readers. While the cost is $65.00 per text (far less than the Fast ForWord Language program), the CD or adapted books could serve multiple students over several years. The Start-to-Finish texts include titles such as Oedipus, Moby Dick, Hamlet, The Great Gatsby, and a number of other literary “classics” which I will likely teach as a high school English teacher. I picked up a copy of The Invisible Man, with which I am extremely familiar, and perused the text to see how it matches up with the tradition H.G. Wells text. I found the text to be closely aligned with the original novel. While much of the content of this novel is still mature, the reading barriers (language, syntax, vocabulary and dialog) had all be altered to lower the perceived reading level of this text. I listened to the first chapter, narrated by John Bergez, and found that while some of the vocabulary and sentence structure had been changed, the powerful images, the motif of blindness and the theme of racism were all clearly still a part of the text. Bergez, the narrator, adapted voices for the various characters, enhancing the clarity of shifting perspectives and important dialogue.
After visiting the E-ATRC, I browsed through the Don Johnson website, to look up other products available by this manufacturer. This company offers a variety of technology including whole curriculum packages, membership services which discount a variety of their products, literacy starters, reading guides, content guides, etc. Additionally, they connect each product to the Washington State EALRs and GLEs, which makes incorporating this technology into a lesson or unit plan a cinch.
The E-ATRC is a valuable resource housed on Western’s campus, and I will certainly make use of it when I am a practicing teacher. It is also a good reminder that many more such products are available on the Internet, especially those products which classify as “high-technology”, as the field of electronics is rapidly changing. I intend to research the process for requesting materials at the E-ATRC, so that when I come across new products, I can suggest the E-ATRC purchase them. The key element of research in the technology and education fields is transferability; asking when and how new technology might be adapted to a real classroom is a vital component for teachers to understand research briefs and published studies.
Responding to Textbook Unit 2: Curriculum and Instructional Design
Summary
This article highlights the advent of FMRI technology which projects visual images of brain function (rather than just brain structure as in a traditional MRI) in adults and children. Such technology proves especially helpful for children with developmental dyslexia. A 2003 study showed that reading and language interventions which focus on oral language and auditory processing increased changes in brain function and improved reading and language ability in children with dyslexia. The specific intervention was a computer-based intensive program that helps children discriminate amongst rapid auditory signals. It also emphasizes other aspects of oral language, including auditory attention, memory processing, phonological processing and listening comprehension, all areas of deficit for children with dyslexia. While the implications of this study are widespread, this research proves specifically helpful to reading and writing instructors. Specific remediation and intervention treatments (especially those which occur early on in a child's academic career) boost reading and language skills and are suspected to drastically improve student scholarship and achievement long-term. The study also shows dyslexia is not simply a matter of children "not trying hard enough", but rather the brain research proves there are biological aspects of dyslexia which can be partially "normalized."
Reaction
The connection to technology in this article was evident, though mainly through a medical diagnosis and/or treatment standpoint. The technology I found most interesting was the computer reading intervention program called Fast ForWord Language, and yet, little attention was given to this technology. In a number of special education research journals and texts, high-tech reading intervention programs have been suggested for classroom use in the past decade, yet the phenomenon has only recently begun to catch on. My guess is that part of the problem may be funding. Some computer programs (such as Fast ForWord Language as described in the study) cost several thousands of dollars for a single installation dvd. In order for such programs to be useful on a school-wide or classroom-wide scale, there would need to be a number of computers available as well. That said, the potential for technology to improve the language, reading, writing and speaking skills of students with disabilities is paramount.
Students with disabilities often miss the opportunity to gain the benefit of the reading and writing experiences that surround young children on a daily basis. From shopping lists and television guides to email and computer games, most young children interact with texts (in the broader sense of the term) virtually all day, everyday. For children with disabilities, especially those with language-based disabilities such as dyslexia, ADD and ADHD, much of this textual information is lost on them. Without appropriate supports, students with cognitive or reading/writing disabilities fall into the literacy failure cycle: attempt to read, fail at reading, become frustrated, avoid reading, lack practice at reading, lack improvement, lose motivation, lose self-esteem and avoid further attempts to read. Ultimately, this cycle leads to illiteracy or alliteracy and students who fall into this category begin to show signs of failure in virtually all other subjects in school. This begs the question, how can educators support struggling readers and writers, or those who can’t access regular books and/or writing tools? Research shows that educators can adapt the materials so that the student with a disability can participate in the same curricular events as their classmates.
It is clear that without frequent and substantial interactions with texts, students cannot become better readers. But, reading more of the same material students with disabilities already struggle with does not seem to be the solution, and reading preschool level books does not help older children’s self esteem. And while the technology examined in the Temple article poses great potential, the high cost renders it inaccessible and unrealistic for use in most public schools where budgetary concerns and expenses are already maxed out. Therefore, I believe teachers need to be particularly creative when searching for ways to bring new technology into the classroom.
When I visited the Ershig Assistive Technology Resource Center (E-ATRC) in Miller Hall, I specifically searched for assistive technology equipment that could increase or improve literacy skills for students with disabilities. To my surprise, I found many products which ranged from low to high technology. While some of the higher technology items were intriguing (such as Blackberries, specialized lap tops with sound recognition mechanisms, high tech digital cameras, etc), I chose to focus my search on the low/light technology products. Because often times financial cost is a challenge for schools, and many students with learning disabilities are ineligible for services under IDEA or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because their intelligence/achievement discrepancy is not great enough, researching low-cost and low-technology products to aid students with disabilities seems to make the most sense. The more familiarity I have with kinds of accommodations that are affordable, readily available and easy to use, the better equipped I will be to aid students with disabilities in my English classroom. For, while high technology products have more features, can be easily individualized and can be tailored to a specific lesson or subject, they are also less user friendly than low-tech products and they are generally expensive. For example, the Quicktionary Reading Pen is a handheld device that scans words, provides definitions, and reads words aloud. This device retails for almost $300 USD. A similar device, the Speaking Homework Whiz, is a handheld spell checker that articulates words and definitions aloud and retails for less than a third the price of the reading pen. Both devices are examples of accommodations which can change how students with disabilities access information and demonstrate learning. Both items can increase fluency, providing speedy definitions for unknown words, and increase language skills by providing pronunciation examples. But, these technologies do not solve the problem of the “text”, they only supplement it.
Adapted books based on trade books change the text to make it simpler, use symbols to interpret difficult terms, utilize larger-sized print, include sound-effects, recorded speech and or reduce complex sentence structure. Adaptive texts can be created using Boardmaker, Writing with Symbols 2000, or Picture It. Slide shows can be created with PowerPoint by scanning text into computers, which can allow you to include recordings, images, etc. The E-ATRC at WWU offered a line of Start-To-Finish Books. This series, created by Don Johnston Inc., offers over fifty titles in three formats (audio tape, CD-ROM, and adapted book) to provide multiple levels of reading support for below-grade level readers. While the cost is $65.00 per text (far less than the Fast ForWord Language program), the CD or adapted books could serve multiple students over several years. The Start-to-Finish texts include titles such as Oedipus, Moby Dick, Hamlet, The Great Gatsby, and a number of other literary “classics” which I will likely teach as a high school English teacher. I picked up a copy of The Invisible Man, with which I am extremely familiar, and perused the text to see how it matches up with the tradition H.G. Wells text. I found the text to be closely aligned with the original novel. While much of the content of this novel is still mature, the reading barriers (language, syntax, vocabulary and dialog) had all be altered to lower the perceived reading level of this text. I listened to the first chapter, narrated by John Bergez, and found that while some of the vocabulary and sentence structure had been changed, the powerful images, the motif of blindness and the theme of racism were all clearly still a part of the text. Bergez, the narrator, adapted voices for the various characters, enhancing the clarity of shifting perspectives and important dialogue.
After visiting the E-ATRC, I browsed through the Don Johnson website, to look up other products available by this manufacturer. This company offers a variety of technology including whole curriculum packages, membership services which discount a variety of their products, literacy starters, reading guides, content guides, etc. Additionally, they connect each product to the Washington State EALRs and GLEs, which makes incorporating this technology into a lesson or unit plan a cinch.
The E-ATRC is a valuable resource housed on Western’s campus, and I will certainly make use of it when I am a practicing teacher. It is also a good reminder that many more such products are available on the Internet, especially those products which classify as “high-technology”, as the field of electronics is rapidly changing. I intend to research the process for requesting materials at the E-ATRC, so that when I come across new products, I can suggest the E-ATRC purchase them. The key element of research in the technology and education fields is transferability; asking when and how new technology might be adapted to a real classroom is a vital component for teachers to understand research briefs and published studies.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Postmodernism and Students Today
Taylor, Mark L. (2006). Meeting Generation NeXt: Today’s Postmodern College Student. In J. J. Hirschbuhl and D. Bishop (eds), Computers in Education, 12th ed. (pp. 112-126). Chicago, Illinois: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Responding to Textbook Unit One: Introduction
Summary
This article explores “Generation NeXt,” the current twenty-first century population of college-aged students, suggesting that better understanding these students will enable teachers to tailor instruction and increase Generation NeXt student success. Taylor uses postmodern literary theory to unpack the shifting, permeable and wide-ranging identity of this generation, drawing distinct parallels between the formation of identity, media and technology. Major changes in industry, commercialization and disintegration of the traditional “nuclear family” as well as an increased tendency toward American consumerism have all played heavy roles in shaping this generation of late adolescents. An increased emphasis on pluralism, multiculturalism and democratic values in education in the early 1990s influenced these students (elementary aged at the time), causing them to reject absolute truths and believe in multiple worldviews, a continuum of “right answers” and reliance on self-discovery rather than traditional “top-down” learning models. As such, many Generation NeXters have strong distaste for authority and engaging, encouraging and supporting such a diverse, creative and tech-savvy group of students poses a major problem for many educators today. Taylor concludes his article with a list of practical suggestions for educators today to help motivate and manage Generation NeXt students. Such suggestions include connecting classroom experiences to the real world, deemphasizing the authoritarian role of the instructor, inviting technology into the classroom frequently and encouraging the validity of multiple viewpoints in all classroom discussions and subjects.
Reaction
Taylor’s discussion of Generation NeXt students informs and confirms my own experience in the classroom. As a member of Generation NeXt myself, I embody a potential bridge for educators. I grew up with many of the same “wired” experiences as my tech-savvy students, but I also must strive to keep up with the ever-shifting field of technology, the importance of popular culture and media in teen life and the desire for constant multimedia entertainment of today’s students. Each time I enter a classroom, I am reminded at the constant social network that (wirelessly) unites students today. As class begins, I watch students hurry to switch off their cells, tuck their Ipods in their bags, and hide their videogames. Conversations about last night’s episode of Lost, what movies they’ll see this weekend, and what’s in at the local mall’s retail stores come to a quiet murmur as class officially starts. Ipods, myspace, facebook, blogging, instant messaging, text messaging, internet gaming, cell phones, television and popular films are just a few examples of how students today are constantly “wired” to popular culture. In a recent Newsweek survey, researchers found that 90% of college-age and high school kids are “connected” to some virtual social network for over 85% of their day. In the midst of this connectedness is seated popular culture. Popular films and television shows such as American Idol, Cribs and Grey’s Anatomy are buzzwords amongst many of these virtual conversations. Pop culture is a major ongoing conversation amongst high school students and serves as an already-existing network of communication. I see this as an opportunity for high school teachers. Rather than draw students into the classics, why not draw the classics toward pop culture? Why not merge these conversations?
I like the suggestions posed by Taylor. As a long-time advocate of Paolo Freire and his student-centered teaching philosophy, I agree strongly with Taylor’s suggested de-emphasis of the teacher as authoritarian and the emphasis of student-driven curricula punctuated with increased opportunities for interpersonal communication in the classroom. Emphasizing diverse viewpoints and emphasizing the upper echelons of Bloom’s taxonomy are essential aspects of any literature class that seeks textual understanding through critical inquiry and examination. Taylor’s article reinforces my own belief that that popular culture has a definite place in English courses. Artifacts of pop culture serve as advanced organizers for students, who can then connect new material (prominent and persistent themes in American literature) to their own experiences with literature (television, movies, blogging, music, etc). Once they see that songwriters, performers, directors, and photographers develop themes in the various forms of art that students already enjoy, discovering those themes (and, of course, others) in literature new to them seems suddenly not such a big leap. From my experience, popular culture has an important place in the English classroom, as an object worthy of study and as a means for students to access and study literature successfully. Through analyzing themes in television sitcoms, rhetorical devices in essays and advertisements, and psychology in contemporary film, students improve their skills in critical thinking and writing.
An important part of popular culture as a valid school subject is the increased role of technology in the classroom and the dissolution of the traditional textbook. If teachers today want to connect with Generation NeXt students, we have to be flexible in our idea of what counts as a “text”. In addition to literature, poetry, photography and architecture, such nontraditional texts as film, television, hypertexts, web pages, graphic novels and music need to be incorporated into classroom reading. Pop culture and technological texts have a variety of attributes that make them particularly useful as educational tools. They are accessible, they tell us something about everyday life and they are almost inevitably postmodern. Taylor suggests that teachers need to increase student “ownership” of the curricula, activities and learning. Pop culture and technological texts are intensely personal for many Generation NeXt students. Referring again to Freire and his argument for using familiar material to promote learning. Popular culture and technological texts are genres about which students are highly conscious and may have many well-formed opinions. Their use in education, therefore, increases the probability that students will feel empowered to comment, that they will have something intelligent to say, and that they will feel gratified (and that much more empowered) at having contributed something useful to a real conversation.
It is generally accepted that teachers value the merit of literacy and community. Increasing the writing practices and habits of literacy both in the classroom and in other aspects of students’ lives can tap into students’ postmodern and collective identities and making space for such “knowledge” and discovery within the classroom. I believe that Taylor opens up an important conversation and rightly highlights the connection between today’s secondary/post-secondary student and postmodernism. Taking his argument one step further, I suggest that a successful Generation NeXt classroom must connect to students and their existing social networks. Because these networks are formed through widespread student familiarity with popular culture and technology, the two genres serve as major resources for teaching approaches and should take a front-row seat in the (post) modern classroom.
Responding to Textbook Unit One: Introduction
Summary
This article explores “Generation NeXt,” the current twenty-first century population of college-aged students, suggesting that better understanding these students will enable teachers to tailor instruction and increase Generation NeXt student success. Taylor uses postmodern literary theory to unpack the shifting, permeable and wide-ranging identity of this generation, drawing distinct parallels between the formation of identity, media and technology. Major changes in industry, commercialization and disintegration of the traditional “nuclear family” as well as an increased tendency toward American consumerism have all played heavy roles in shaping this generation of late adolescents. An increased emphasis on pluralism, multiculturalism and democratic values in education in the early 1990s influenced these students (elementary aged at the time), causing them to reject absolute truths and believe in multiple worldviews, a continuum of “right answers” and reliance on self-discovery rather than traditional “top-down” learning models. As such, many Generation NeXters have strong distaste for authority and engaging, encouraging and supporting such a diverse, creative and tech-savvy group of students poses a major problem for many educators today. Taylor concludes his article with a list of practical suggestions for educators today to help motivate and manage Generation NeXt students. Such suggestions include connecting classroom experiences to the real world, deemphasizing the authoritarian role of the instructor, inviting technology into the classroom frequently and encouraging the validity of multiple viewpoints in all classroom discussions and subjects.
Reaction
Taylor’s discussion of Generation NeXt students informs and confirms my own experience in the classroom. As a member of Generation NeXt myself, I embody a potential bridge for educators. I grew up with many of the same “wired” experiences as my tech-savvy students, but I also must strive to keep up with the ever-shifting field of technology, the importance of popular culture and media in teen life and the desire for constant multimedia entertainment of today’s students. Each time I enter a classroom, I am reminded at the constant social network that (wirelessly) unites students today. As class begins, I watch students hurry to switch off their cells, tuck their Ipods in their bags, and hide their videogames. Conversations about last night’s episode of Lost, what movies they’ll see this weekend, and what’s in at the local mall’s retail stores come to a quiet murmur as class officially starts. Ipods, myspace, facebook, blogging, instant messaging, text messaging, internet gaming, cell phones, television and popular films are just a few examples of how students today are constantly “wired” to popular culture. In a recent Newsweek survey, researchers found that 90% of college-age and high school kids are “connected” to some virtual social network for over 85% of their day. In the midst of this connectedness is seated popular culture. Popular films and television shows such as American Idol, Cribs and Grey’s Anatomy are buzzwords amongst many of these virtual conversations. Pop culture is a major ongoing conversation amongst high school students and serves as an already-existing network of communication. I see this as an opportunity for high school teachers. Rather than draw students into the classics, why not draw the classics toward pop culture? Why not merge these conversations?
I like the suggestions posed by Taylor. As a long-time advocate of Paolo Freire and his student-centered teaching philosophy, I agree strongly with Taylor’s suggested de-emphasis of the teacher as authoritarian and the emphasis of student-driven curricula punctuated with increased opportunities for interpersonal communication in the classroom. Emphasizing diverse viewpoints and emphasizing the upper echelons of Bloom’s taxonomy are essential aspects of any literature class that seeks textual understanding through critical inquiry and examination. Taylor’s article reinforces my own belief that that popular culture has a definite place in English courses. Artifacts of pop culture serve as advanced organizers for students, who can then connect new material (prominent and persistent themes in American literature) to their own experiences with literature (television, movies, blogging, music, etc). Once they see that songwriters, performers, directors, and photographers develop themes in the various forms of art that students already enjoy, discovering those themes (and, of course, others) in literature new to them seems suddenly not such a big leap. From my experience, popular culture has an important place in the English classroom, as an object worthy of study and as a means for students to access and study literature successfully. Through analyzing themes in television sitcoms, rhetorical devices in essays and advertisements, and psychology in contemporary film, students improve their skills in critical thinking and writing.
An important part of popular culture as a valid school subject is the increased role of technology in the classroom and the dissolution of the traditional textbook. If teachers today want to connect with Generation NeXt students, we have to be flexible in our idea of what counts as a “text”. In addition to literature, poetry, photography and architecture, such nontraditional texts as film, television, hypertexts, web pages, graphic novels and music need to be incorporated into classroom reading. Pop culture and technological texts have a variety of attributes that make them particularly useful as educational tools. They are accessible, they tell us something about everyday life and they are almost inevitably postmodern. Taylor suggests that teachers need to increase student “ownership” of the curricula, activities and learning. Pop culture and technological texts are intensely personal for many Generation NeXt students. Referring again to Freire and his argument for using familiar material to promote learning. Popular culture and technological texts are genres about which students are highly conscious and may have many well-formed opinions. Their use in education, therefore, increases the probability that students will feel empowered to comment, that they will have something intelligent to say, and that they will feel gratified (and that much more empowered) at having contributed something useful to a real conversation.
It is generally accepted that teachers value the merit of literacy and community. Increasing the writing practices and habits of literacy both in the classroom and in other aspects of students’ lives can tap into students’ postmodern and collective identities and making space for such “knowledge” and discovery within the classroom. I believe that Taylor opens up an important conversation and rightly highlights the connection between today’s secondary/post-secondary student and postmodernism. Taking his argument one step further, I suggest that a successful Generation NeXt classroom must connect to students and their existing social networks. Because these networks are formed through widespread student familiarity with popular culture and technology, the two genres serve as major resources for teaching approaches and should take a front-row seat in the (post) modern classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
