I enjoyed this course immensely. By far, the most interesting assignment to me was the book synthesis. I've always been a synthesizer and like to think that my strongest talent is my ability to make connections between seeming unrelated things. Consequently, the book synthesis was quite a bit of fun for me. As a lifelong science fiction fan, I spend a lot of time thinking about the near and distant future. Pink's ideas about the near future economic applications of the "right brain" were especially helpful in giving me direction. And of course, Diamond Age essentially embodied everything I always had in mind for educational technology and then some.
If I have any regrets, other than my own issues that arose during the semester, it would be that I didn't take TLT 470 before taking 471. Even though it might not have mattered in reality, I would have been more self assured in my approach to the class if I had some more information under my belt in terms of specific things that I could have included in a tech plan.
If I were to make a suggestion for the course, it would be that an example of the type of tech plan you were looking for would have been helpful. Unless I missed something, the examples on the site for the course were in the range of a hundred or so pages long. I found relating that to our 15 page assignment somewhat overwhelming. On the other hand, my own mental state might have had more to do with that than anything else.
In the end, despite the fact that I struggled with the major assignments, I feel a lot more capable of tackling this type of thing in the future. I generally learn best by jumping in and seeing if I sink or swim. Without the central puzzle of the tech plan, I don't think I would have gotten as much out of the course, and I will be able to think about the technology we're looking at in 470 from a more implementation centered view as a result of having the tech plan in the back of my mind. Linear thinking is an effort for me, but it's an essential skill that I'll need to succeed in the field, this course was invaluable for that reason.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
TQ #11 Voice Thread
Trying to get this to work... unsuccessful so far.
http://voicethread.com/#u625858.b746441.i3951851
http://voicethread.com/#u625858.b746441.i3951851
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
TQ #9 - Principle of least restraint
Children in public schools are often treated as though the Constitution does not apply to them. In the spirit of either protecting or controlling them, limitations are set that would be unacceptable in any other environment.
When I was younger, the middle school I was attending instituted a policy that would enable any student to be searched on the basis of a teacher or staff person's suspicion of drugs. No consideration was given to the Constitutional right of a person in this country to be searched without a warrant. When word of this new policy hit the rumor mill of the student population, a protest was organized; someone pulled the fire alarm; and we ran out side chanting our disagreement. In retrospect, I still think we did the right thing.
From what I see of the implementation of restrictions of technology, the principle of least restraint is ignored in favor of the principle of strictest control. It's one thing to keep pornography out of the schools, but blanket censorship of the internet is a limitation to learning. It's the responsibility of the school to limit the use of censorship as much as possible, in order to foster the intellectual growth of the students.
When I was younger, the middle school I was attending instituted a policy that would enable any student to be searched on the basis of a teacher or staff person's suspicion of drugs. No consideration was given to the Constitutional right of a person in this country to be searched without a warrant. When word of this new policy hit the rumor mill of the student population, a protest was organized; someone pulled the fire alarm; and we ran out side chanting our disagreement. In retrospect, I still think we did the right thing.
From what I see of the implementation of restrictions of technology, the principle of least restraint is ignored in favor of the principle of strictest control. It's one thing to keep pornography out of the schools, but blanket censorship of the internet is a limitation to learning. It's the responsibility of the school to limit the use of censorship as much as possible, in order to foster the intellectual growth of the students.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
TQ #4 - Reflection
Taking this course and being married to a teacher is an interesting combination, particularly since it gives us something to bicker about that isn't the usual why I didn't take the garbage out or where did she hide the whatever-I-happen-to-be-looking-for. I generally come home happily babbling about all my science fiction ideas for improving education and after about two minutes of this she assumes her usual posture of hissing like a cornered alley cat. My impression from speaking to her and other teacher friends is that this is the standard relationship between technologists and educators in general.
I'm being lighthearted about it, but I think this might be the fundamental problem with education in our country. Teachers are under constant criticism from parents, administration, and society at large. It's a tricky issue. How can we offer new tools to teachers without being viewed as outsiders? My wife told me about a consultant who was hired to talk to the teachers at her school about technology just before the start of the school year. After a few poorly chosen remarks, the entire auditorium full of teachers stood up and walked out. All of them. While a more persuasive speaker would probably have had a better time of it, this man was clearly treading on much thinner ice than he thought he was.
I think the answer is that the implementation of technology needs to come from the teachers themselves. Few technologists are sufficiently armed to overpower a school full of offended teachers, and even if we were, the technology would be implemented with resentment; we would see the same failures we have seen in study after study. Our culture does not respect the teaching profession as much as it once did or as much as other cultures sill do. If we continue to reflect that negativity onto those who should be our allies, we will all fail together.
We must tread lightly.
I'm being lighthearted about it, but I think this might be the fundamental problem with education in our country. Teachers are under constant criticism from parents, administration, and society at large. It's a tricky issue. How can we offer new tools to teachers without being viewed as outsiders? My wife told me about a consultant who was hired to talk to the teachers at her school about technology just before the start of the school year. After a few poorly chosen remarks, the entire auditorium full of teachers stood up and walked out. All of them. While a more persuasive speaker would probably have had a better time of it, this man was clearly treading on much thinner ice than he thought he was.
I think the answer is that the implementation of technology needs to come from the teachers themselves. Few technologists are sufficiently armed to overpower a school full of offended teachers, and even if we were, the technology would be implemented with resentment; we would see the same failures we have seen in study after study. Our culture does not respect the teaching profession as much as it once did or as much as other cultures sill do. If we continue to reflect that negativity onto those who should be our allies, we will all fail together.
We must tread lightly.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
TQ #3 - School of the Future
Technology should serve to augment human relationships, and to a large extent it is beginning to do that. In my opinion, the Internet is not being used to anywhere hear its full potential. I see this as primarily the fault of our hunger for the sensationalism presented by our media, who would have us believe that a pedophile lurks behind every MySpace and Facebook profile on the web. As in the Union City Case study we read about in the Dede book, just getting kids communicating with each other in writing is an excellent way to boost their test scores. Couple that with the known fact that teaching someone else is the best way to organize and solidify information in your own mind, and the Internet becomes the ultimate tool. A "School of the Future" would make abundant use of the Internet as a means of connecting students with one another.
The biggest gap I see in transforming the school of the present into the school of the future (or more accurately, turning the antiquated schools of the past into schools of the present) is the level of professional development offered to teachers. Simply offering a class on using some piece of software, even if that software is miraculous in its ability to effectively improve the learning of students, will accomplish nothing if the training does not show teachers how to incorporate the software into their lessons. Even a tool as ubiquitous as the Internet won't necessarily have any obvious application to the classroom if it isn't considered creatively. It's entirely possible that we already have the tools we need to produce classrooms for the future, what we need is implementation in the present.
I once read that the study of economics is the study of incentives. As much as I'd like to view money as a mere tool for accomplishing a higher aim, it takes center stage in the eyes of the public and the politicians who use it as the fundamental metric for success in all endeavors. Of course personal development costs money, but so do textbooks and software and other things we can find as open source. Can we as tech planners, convince districts to save money by turning to open source tools, and use what's saved to train teachers to incorporate technology into classrooms? I certainly hope so, because I'm beginning to suspect the alternative is to mandate the learning of foreign languages so our kids will be able to communicate with their bosses in ten or fifteen years.
Dede, C., Honan, J. P., and Peters, L. C. (2005). Scaling Up Success : Lessons Learned from Technology-Based Educational Improvement. Jossey-Bass.
The biggest gap I see in transforming the school of the present into the school of the future (or more accurately, turning the antiquated schools of the past into schools of the present) is the level of professional development offered to teachers. Simply offering a class on using some piece of software, even if that software is miraculous in its ability to effectively improve the learning of students, will accomplish nothing if the training does not show teachers how to incorporate the software into their lessons. Even a tool as ubiquitous as the Internet won't necessarily have any obvious application to the classroom if it isn't considered creatively. It's entirely possible that we already have the tools we need to produce classrooms for the future, what we need is implementation in the present.
I once read that the study of economics is the study of incentives. As much as I'd like to view money as a mere tool for accomplishing a higher aim, it takes center stage in the eyes of the public and the politicians who use it as the fundamental metric for success in all endeavors. Of course personal development costs money, but so do textbooks and software and other things we can find as open source. Can we as tech planners, convince districts to save money by turning to open source tools, and use what's saved to train teachers to incorporate technology into classrooms? I certainly hope so, because I'm beginning to suspect the alternative is to mandate the learning of foreign languages so our kids will be able to communicate with their bosses in ten or fifteen years.
Dede, C., Honan, J. P., and Peters, L. C. (2005). Scaling Up Success : Lessons Learned from Technology-Based Educational Improvement. Jossey-Bass.
Monday, September 7, 2009
TQ #2
While it certainly appears that these two studies demonstrated failures of technology in the classroom, I'm left wondering what information is missing from the reports. According to the summary of the software study, all the teachers indicated they were instructed in the software and that they understood it. What isn't included in the report is whether the teachers agreed to the study begrudgingly or enthusiastically, or whether they felt ownership of the process or whether they felt this was yet another ridiculous idea foisted upon them by the bureaucrats who had nothing to do with actual classroom teaching. Extrapolating the success or failure of technology use in general would be a mistake.
Wenglinsky research suggests that technology is best used in conjunction with constructivist methods. I didn't see any mention of training the teachers on how to use the software in conjunction with the classroom. Simply showing them how to load the program and make the problems appear would not be sufficient to show any demonstrable progress if, in fact, the software was amenable to constructivist teaching methods.
Technology is meant to augment the ability of humans to perform a certain function, but it needs to be used with understanding and in context. The ancient methods of didactic teaching would not be well served by technology configured for modern constructivist methods any more than a caveman would be served by providing hum with Photoshop to assist in his cave drawings. Ultimately, I think studies like this one are a danger to the cause of instructional technology. It can easily create the impression that technology has no place in the classroom, when the more proper conclusion is that bureaucrats have no place in educational research.
Book choices:
Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future
The Diamond Age or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Prime
(I also picked up The Singularity is Near)
Wenglinsky research suggests that technology is best used in conjunction with constructivist methods. I didn't see any mention of training the teachers on how to use the software in conjunction with the classroom. Simply showing them how to load the program and make the problems appear would not be sufficient to show any demonstrable progress if, in fact, the software was amenable to constructivist teaching methods.
Technology is meant to augment the ability of humans to perform a certain function, but it needs to be used with understanding and in context. The ancient methods of didactic teaching would not be well served by technology configured for modern constructivist methods any more than a caveman would be served by providing hum with Photoshop to assist in his cave drawings. Ultimately, I think studies like this one are a danger to the cause of instructional technology. It can easily create the impression that technology has no place in the classroom, when the more proper conclusion is that bureaucrats have no place in educational research.
- Institute of Educational Sciences (2007) Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort. Executive Summary. US Department of Education. Washington, DC.
- Institute of Educational Sciences (2008) Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report. Executive Summary. US Department of Education. Washington, DC.
- Wenglinsky H. (2005) Using Technology Wisely: The Keys to Success in Schools. Teachers College Press. Columbia University. New York. pp. 43-59
- http://xkcd.com/605/
Book choices:
Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future
The Diamond Age or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Prime
(I also picked up The Singularity is Near)
Sunday, August 30, 2009
TQ #1
I was most impressed with the progress of Missouri's eMINTs program. To go from 7% to 80% of third graders reading on grade level in three years is quite impressive.
In looking at the actual assignments, I was a bit disappointed with the level of technology used. One of the assignments in particular described the learners traveling through the body. I was hoping for at least a rudimentary simulation or game where the learner could interact with the inside of a virtual body, but such adventures are left to the student's imagination (or future developers) to conjure. Interactivity is limited to choosing which piece of linear text the student wants to read next. What was present was still useful and interesting; my excessively high expectations are probably a product of having read too much science fiction.
The Wenglinsky book introduces the constructivist as diametrically opposed to the didactic approach, with technology as the ideal tool for pursuing the former (preferred) method. The Missouri example appears to fall somwhere between the two extremes. The students investigate on their own, and create an adventure of traveling through a human body, while at the same time their choices in terms of where to do their research are fairly didactic in nature. I think this shows that we don't necessarily need to choose one or the other, but can pick and choose on the basis of the subject at hand and the needs of the individual learners.
An increase from 7% to 80% in three years is unarguably a huge improvement over existing methods. The strength of this program is most likely the ability of the learner to move at his or her own pace and the concomitant feeling of control over the subject matter that must instill. The open source nature of the project increases its scalability by allowing teachers to share across school, district, and even state boundaries. The ultimate question in technology implementation is probably how much technology to implement; at what point do we move from accelerating returns to diminishing returns? The success of this program leads me to reconsider my ideas about how much technology is appropriate to implement at once.
In looking at the actual assignments, I was a bit disappointed with the level of technology used. One of the assignments in particular described the learners traveling through the body. I was hoping for at least a rudimentary simulation or game where the learner could interact with the inside of a virtual body, but such adventures are left to the student's imagination (or future developers) to conjure. Interactivity is limited to choosing which piece of linear text the student wants to read next. What was present was still useful and interesting; my excessively high expectations are probably a product of having read too much science fiction.
The Wenglinsky book introduces the constructivist as diametrically opposed to the didactic approach, with technology as the ideal tool for pursuing the former (preferred) method. The Missouri example appears to fall somwhere between the two extremes. The students investigate on their own, and create an adventure of traveling through a human body, while at the same time their choices in terms of where to do their research are fairly didactic in nature. I think this shows that we don't necessarily need to choose one or the other, but can pick and choose on the basis of the subject at hand and the needs of the individual learners.
An increase from 7% to 80% in three years is unarguably a huge improvement over existing methods. The strength of this program is most likely the ability of the learner to move at his or her own pace and the concomitant feeling of control over the subject matter that must instill. The open source nature of the project increases its scalability by allowing teachers to share across school, district, and even state boundaries. The ultimate question in technology implementation is probably how much technology to implement; at what point do we move from accelerating returns to diminishing returns? The success of this program leads me to reconsider my ideas about how much technology is appropriate to implement at once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)