LTS 401 Cavallaro

Resnick

2006-11-21T08:34:00.000-08:00

Computers and “finger paint” (Resnick 2001) is not the analogy that most of us would make. Most of us see computers as a tool used to accomplish specific tasks. In reality, they are both. They can be used for simple tasks like research or word processing. They can be used for making movies and as an artist’s canvas. They can be used to build new programs and new ways of accomplishing old tasks. The possibilities are endless when we talk about computers. It is our job as educators to showcase these possibilities and educate our children with the skills they need to make the technology work for them.

This may not be as easy as it seems. As we have discussed throughout this semester, technological advances come very quickly today. Quite frankly, we are struggling to keep up. Our technology teachers need to constantly be learning the newer products and systems so they can teach effectively. Alleviating this problem requires a constructivist approach to education. By putting our students in a situation where they can build their own knowledge, we lessen the pressure on our teachers. We move away from teaching literacy in a program such as Word or Excel, to teaching how to solve problems using the tools at hand.

When it comes to using technology in the classroom, the goals should be to incorporate computers into every curriculum (Ferguson 2001). By doing so, we allow our students to use the computer as a different tool each time. In a physics lab, the computer may have an integrated probe and the lab uses Logger Pro to measure the results of an experiment. In the math classroom, the computer may help with complex computations or better graphing as we saw in the presentation a few weeks back. A WebQuest might be a perfect activity for a class on ancient civilizations. We could allow our students to become archaeologists right in the classroom.

These examples show how technology can be integrated into any subject to allow the students to use the computer. I cannot think of one subject where technology could not be used as a constructivist tool. So many school districts are focused on putting the technology in the classroom but we fall behind when we are asked to utilize what we are given. The technology is here. We have supplied the tool. We now need to redesign our curriculum to use what has been provided.

References

Ferguson, D. (2001). Technology in a Constructivist Classroom. Information technology in childhood education annual. 45-55.

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Publications from the forum for the future of higher education. Boulder, CO: Educause.Available online at http://www.educause.com/resources

Assessment

2006-11-14T13:28:00.000-08:00

Proper assessment helps to steer our schools in the right direction. Assessments allow us to track our progress as we make changes to the curriculum. In many cases, assessment results drive those changes. They provide the measuring stick on the wall that we measure our progress against. Assessments and standards go hand in hand. Since No Child Left Behind, the standards are defined by the state. In this manner, I felt some of the article was out of date. We need to prepare our students for a world very different than we have now. If we follow the same level of advancements we’ve had in the last ten years for the next ten years, the global landscape could be very different. Our students need to master tasks we were never presented with. They also need to be able to master the basic tasks that we learned years ago. With this changing landscape comes changing curriculum. As Simmons and Resnick express, “We have a curriculum…that is more in touch with the 1920’s than the modern day “(1993, p.11).
In an effort to perform better and meet the standards, many school districts have made changes to their curriculum. In most cases, these changes help our students perform better. In some cases though, we need to be mindful of what long term effect these changes have on our students. All too frequently the changes that are made focus on the core subjects such as Language Arts and Math or Science. The electives end up suffering with smaller numbers and lass offerings. Eventually, these programs get cut all together. In my district, we are experiencing this problem now. Family Consumer Science, Business Ed, Tech Ed and Music are all suffering from smaller numbers. Our cooking program has all but been eliminated. As a student that lived off campus, I would have been lost without some cooking experience. Now we rely on these tasks being learned outside the school walls. I have heard some educators say that these are things that can be taught at home, outside of school or that they can be optional after school programs. They can be, but should they be? How focused are we at teaching the standard? What do we lose along the way?
Assessments are good measuring tools. They measure what we predefine as the important things, the standards. How well we teach the standards directly impacts how well we perform on the assessment. We can’t allow our educational system to get into the trap of just teaching the standards. We can’t sacrifice other important programs just to make sure we perform well on the standards. At some point, the standards will change. How do we measure our education then?

References

Simmons, W. (1993). Assessment as the Catalyst of School Reform. Educational leadership, 50(5), 11-15.

Bloom

2006-11-07T14:02:00.000-08:00

While reading the Bloom article, I could not help but think of some of Dr. Michael George’s statements in class on October 17. In the opening of the article, Bloom describes the expectations of a standard class. One third will fail no matter what you do. Another third will pass even if you don’t teach. The final third is the group you need to teach. Dr. George talked about this same topic during his lecture. He was furious that we aren’t really teaching all our students, only the middle third. Both Bloom and Dr. George agree that this manner of teaching is flawed and needs to be corrected. The critical issue however, is that their statements are separated by thirty eight years. How much has changed during that time period? Bloom sets out describing the five variables of the Carroll model to promote mastery. Evidence shows that the Carroll’s model has been accepted and that Carroll is responsible for focusing the educational community to how learning is affected by time (Carroll 1989). Mastery learning on the other hand has become a topic of some debate.

Robert Slavin authored Mastery Learning Reconsidered in 1987 and questions some of the principals of Bloom’s theory. Since that article, both authors have responded to each other with additional thoughts and justifications. One of the primary principles Slavin takes issue with is the idea that all students need to be at the mastery level before they can continue learning. He continues by illustrating how this requires a change from the traditional model of set time on task with variable achievement to a mastery model where time is the variable and achievement is set (Slavin 1987). Slavin further illustrates the problems associated with time being a variable. What happens to the students that do achieve mastery after the initial instruction? They can’t move on to the next lesson so long as some students are still working. In addition, how long do does the teacher continue to work with the students needing extra attention?

Once answer that Bloom did highlight in his original paper is the idea of students working at their own pace. When I was in high school, I was able to put this theory into practice. My high school had an Algebra 2/Trigonometry class that allowed students to work at their own pace. There were only 15 students in the class and one teacher. There were minimum guidelines set that each student had to master in order to get credit for the Algebra 2. If you were able to move quickly through the material, you could get credit for Trigonometry as well. The teacher did a brief instruction once a week highlighting where you need to be to keep on track and the rest of the time was spent on one-on-one teaching. If you were having difficulty, you could request additional time with the instructor. If you were not having difficulty, you progressed quickly through the material. It was one of the most unique learning experiences I have been involved in.

While this method is not practical for all types of instruction, for math it was a good fit. There are ways to make mastery learning work. It is our job to find out how and implement those ways. We must remember, just because something isn’t easy doesn’t mean we can’t do it. Our goal is to provide the best education for all “thirds” of our students.

References

Bloom, BS. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1.

Carroll, JB. (1989). The Carroll Model: A 25-Year Retrospective and Prospective View. Educational researcher, 18(1), 26-31.

Slavin, RE. (1990). Mastery Learning Re-Reconsidered. Review of educational research, 60(2), 300-02.

Mindtools

2006-10-31T13:59:00.000-08:00

While reading this particular article, my thoughts focused on the idea that for me, this seemed like a terrific way to learn. These types of programs allow students to take the next step while learning. The students can build upon the foundation of knowledge gained through conventional instruction by applying what has been learned. I began to wonder how well Colonial School District utilizes mindtools. I started by taking inventory of the programs we use in our classrooms. I made a list of the applications I felt were classified as mindtools. The Microsoft Office package contains Excel, Access and PowerPoint. Web browsers for searching the internet can be considered mindtools as well. In the elementary buildings, I added to my list Inspiration, Kidspiration, and Hyperstudio and at the secondary level, I found Interactive Physics and the West Point Bridge Designer.

I was particularly interested in the West Point Bridge Designer. A free computer aided design program developed by the United States Military Academy, this program requires students to design a bridge to a certain specification while strongly considering the project cost. As I watched the students use the program, I noticed several things. The students, both male and female, were all involved in the project. The students had to apply what they knew about engineering in a hands-on environment. It was obvious that they had very little knowledge when starting. The majority of the learning was going to take place as the students tried different things within the program. In addition to the engineering aspect, students also had to keep track of the bridge cost. This added a real world aspect to the project by requiring them to build an affordable structure.

This program serves as a perfect example of the use of mindtools. To succeed, students need to look back and reflect on what they have been taught and use that information to construct additional knowledge during the project (Averill, 2005). In addition, the level of collaboration in the classroom was exciting. Everyone was actively involved in the project, not just a few students working while everyone else was watching. Perhaps the most awakening aspect was being able to watch the groups learn. When one idea didn’t work, they modified their thinking and tried something else. You could see them making progress bit by bit. The reactions from the students were also remarkable. When they overcame a hurdle, they cheered and quickly attacked the next one. After class, I was able to see some of the designs that were completed by students last year. The differences from the beginning stages I witnessed to the end result from last year were amazing. I can’t wait to revisit this classroom later in the year and see how much progress has been made.

References

Averill, D. (2005). Using mindtools in education. THE Journal. Retrieved October 28, 2006 from http://thejournal.com/articles/17216_1.

Papert Post

2006-10-24T13:34:00.000-07:00

The Art of Learning; I’m not sure I ever thought about learning in that context. How do we learn to learn? Before we can answer that, we need to know exactly how we learn. Is that possible? Many people learn in different ways. How can we say this is how you learn when a single classroom may have students with several different learning styles?

As I was growing up, this was evident at home. My older brother was a book learner. Give him a book, let him read it and he would be fine. I, on the other hand, am a hands-on person. I learn by doing. I can take something apart, analyze the structure and components, and put it back together. Give me that same information in the written form and I would not have the same understanding. Give my brother the device and ask him to take it apart and put it back together and you will first have a broken device, and second, a lot of extra parts. We learn differently, always have.

It might not be as hard to document the different ways people learn. As shown above, we just documented the best way to teach both me and my brother. The problem comes along when you have a classroom of thirty, or even worse, a secondary teacher teaching the same course to three groups of thirty. How do we separate the students and still teach everything? DeCastro-Ambrosetti and Cho question this as well by highlighting that “teachers find themselves in the predicament of attending to one segment of the population, using with a certain approach to teaching and learning, only to be later faced with the task meeting the needs of another segment” (2005, p.58).

Papert’s article states that we are in the Age of the Computer. The computer or technology in general has the potential to help teach different groups in different ways. While thinking about my post, I remembered the Gooru device from group six’s Wiki assignment. That type of device may be useful in allowing us to teach multiple styles simulations. That technology is on the outer rim though, still a few years away. Until that point, unless we break classes down by a defined learning style or have classrooms of a handful of teachers assigned to one teacher, I’m not sure we can put into practice that which we have learned about learning.

References

Cho, G. & DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D. (2005 Oct/Nov). Synergism in Learning: a Critical Reflection of Authentic Assessment. The High School Journal. 89(1). 57-62.

Tarlow Blog

2006-10-15T11:37:00.000-07:00

Literacy is commonly defined as the ability to read and write. In this week’s article, Tarlow and Spangler ask if today’s kids will be literate. They question how well children growing up in our technological world will be able to read. Technology has the ability to change the way we define things in our lives. Will it change literacy as well? If we look at the addition of technology literacy, it already has.

The ability to read and write is extremely important in our society. Children need to master this skill regardless of the level of technology they have available to them. While researching for children and literacy, I found two additional articles that question if we are introducing technology to children at too young an age. There are two sides to this issue. Many parents have the belief that if children start using technology early, it will benefit the child (Miller, 2005). Many things are learned more easily when introduced at a young age. If we look at the technology literacy of the average third grader, we could say that this is the case with technology. Many third graders are far more technology literate that many adults.

Some educators do not share this opinion. Healy believes that computers should be withheld until after the second grade. She points to the fact that many programs geared towards young children actually limit rather than improve education (2004). In looking at my own district, I notice that many kindergarten and first grade rooms have very little daily computer activity. In fact, in one building, three of four first grade classes have not even powered the computers on since the year began. Technology access for these students is limited to dedicated lab time.

Should children have access to computers prior to establishing the ability to read and write in grade school? Will literacy improve if students do not have access to computers in the classroom in the early grade school years? It is our job as educators to make sure children master literacy as well as technology literacy. The educational system has some control over this issue. Taking computers out of the classroom will not keep children from using them. They may have access to them in after school programs and in the home. Plus, it may be very difficult if parent organizations push the issue. We need to develop new methods to ensure our children are literate. We cannot afford to have a society that has lost the ability to communicate without the use of technology.

References

Healy, JM. (2004). Young Children Don. The education digest, 69(5), 57-58.

Miller, E. (2005). Fighting Technology for Toddlers. The education digest, 71(3), 55-58.

Blog #4 Cultural Diversity

2006-10-03T12:04:00.000-07:00

As I read the assigned article and the text, I couldn’t help but think of the saying “you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” When it comes to cultural pluralism and educating in such diverse environments as we see today, we fall into this predicament. Examining how to evaluate results broken down into cultural groups may allow us to please more people. The real question becomes how.

Personally, I have never been in such a diverse environment as this class. I can understand how this would limit my ability to recognize cultural insensitivities. I do not posses enough knowledge of other cultures or their customs to see lesser instances of cultural bias. As Reeves points out, “the collaboration of representatives of each target culture is necessary to identify less obvious sources of cultural bias” (1997). This may be quite a bit harder than we think. How do we determine the groupings? How would we separate our class? Do we separate by gender, nationality, religion, and age? Sedlacek refers to this as the “quest for the golden label” and explores the idea that by defining the proper labels, diversity issues would be eliminated (1994).

A few years back, I was assigned to an assessment project at our school district. It was my job to correlate the raw data values with matching values in our student information system. The top level administrators were extremely concerned with certain values such as ethnicity being correct. I was informed it was essential that the district be able to run reports broken down by select variables to get a clear understanding of the assessment. Once the reports were generated, there were multiple issues where my correlation was questioned. In one instance, a building principal questioned the results from her building because the ethnic breakdown from the assessment did not match the records for the building. It turned out that several multiracial students did not record their ethnicity to match their student records.

In the case explained above, the district believed it had successfully separated the students by ethnicity and had run good assessment reports. Once the inconsistency was found, all students were manually checked against our student information system to verify ethnicity. The reports were run again to reflect the changes. The question I have today after thinking back on this experience is who was right? Was our determination to use the code we had in our database correct or should we have used the value the student provided? I’m not sure how much the assessment report changed on the second run but it would be interesting to see.

As our country becomes increasingly diverse, it may become harder and harder to separate us. Does this mean that we should stop trying? I don’t think so. Efforts should continue towards developing the best educational environment for all students. To do so, we need to recognize the differences in our students and work towards finding a way to eliminate cultural bias and insensitivities in our teaching. Only then can we provide the best educational opportunities for everyone regardless of culture.

References

Reeves, TC. (1997). An Evaluator Looks at Cultural Diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.

Sedlacek, WE. (1994). Issues in Advancing Diversity through Assessment. Journal of counseling and development, 72(5), 549-53.

Blog # 3 McLuhans Tetrad - Wiki Assignment

2006-09-26T15:36:00.000-07:00

While watching McLuhan’s Wake, I tried to listen to the ideas presented and understand how they can be applied today. By the end of the movie, I was somewhat skeptical about the value of McLuhan’s tetrad so many years later. It wasn’t until I began to apply the questions to my assigned technology that I began to see how universal his theory is. Once I understood the parameters, I could see how McLuhan’s Laws of Media can be applied to any piece of technology.

Many, if not all of the groups broke along the lines of one member being the primary person on one question. Our group decided this almost immediately. Once all the answers were posted, we would comment on each answer and work out any disagreements. When completed, each answer should represent the thoughts from all group members. As the assignment stated, each group should form a consensus or describe the issues that made a consensus impossible. As I listened to each group present, I didn’t hear many differing opinions. I saw no evidence of disagreement, my own group included.

As I though about this I found myself examining the way we broke down the questions. Personally, I found it was easier to define each segment before moving to the next. Once you have determined what is extended, it becomes easier to define what is obsolete. Each segment builds on the foundation laid before. If you had to only answer one segment, such as what is retrieved, it becomes much harder to formulate a good answer to the question. This could explain why there was so much agreement. Once the question has been answered by one individual, it is easier to agree if you don’t already have your own point of view.

After this realization, I thought of how the assignment may have differed if it was a traditional group assignment. In a face to face meeting, ideas are introduced to the group dialog and varying opinions are introduced immediately. The group then works out the difference or agrees to disagree. In my own experience though, the outcome is still usually the same. One person usually throws out an answer and then everyone else comments on it. This scenario is not much different than what we did online. I then struggled to determine if the issue was with the wiki itself, the assignment, or the individual group members.

The wiki (Hawaiian for quick) allows “all students to contribute to a space that is immediately and automatically updated” (Bold, 2006). It is hard to find fault with a technology that allows members of the group to make their thoughts immediately available. The assignment could be completed equally as well in an online collaboration or a standard group task with everyone meeting face to face. The only issue I found with the assignment was the time constraint of one week. Given additional time, I think varying opinions would have eventually surfaced. Finally, I looked at my group and the process we followed. We determined how we wanted to answer each question. We each did our portion and commented on other answers and had a complete assignment in the end. I still hadn’t pinpointed what was wrong.

In conclusion, I realized there was nothing wrong with the technology or the assignment. In addition, nothing was actually “wrong” with the groups either. Had we tackled the assignment from a different angle, where we each answered every question and then merged the answers to a true collaborative answer, more disagreement may have been visible. In the end the answers were supposed to be a consensus. Our presentations showed just that.

References

Bold, Mary. (Spring 2006). Use of Wikis in graduate course work. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17, p5(10). Retrieved September 25, 2006 from Expanded Academic ASAP via Thomson Gale:

Blog # 2 Clark/Kozma Debate

2006-09-12T14:40:00.000-07:00

Richard Clark and Robert Kozma agree that in 1994, there was “no compelling evidence in the past 70 years of published and unpublished research that media cause learning increases under any conditions” (Clark, 1994). This fact is essential to understanding the focus of this debate. The authors look at the topic from polar opposites. Clark looks at the history of media and learning and takes the stance that because there has not been a relationship defined in the past, there isn’t a relationship to be made. Kozma, on the other hand, looks forward. His position focuses on building a relationship that hasn’t previously existed.

We have the benefit of reviewing the debate twelve years after the articles were published. Advances in technology come faster and more often than they did in 1994. I focused on this point in my first blog entry. With this in mind, Kozma’s position seems to be correct. His argument acknowledged that at the time, we were at a point where emerging media could begin to influence the educational process. Clark’s position was concrete, as shown in his title, Media Will Never Influence Learning. In Clark’s argument, there is no room for change.

Does this mean the debate is no longer valid? Have we answered Kozma’s question of Will Media Influence Learning? It is hard to discount the impact computers have had on the learning process. As Hastings and Tracey have shown, the internet grants access to mass amounts of information through search engines and public databases (2005). This one media supports the Kozma argument and further exposes the flaw in Clark’s argument. Change is a part of life, especially in technology. Closing the door on the possibility of change doomed Clark’s position.

Last week’s class illustrates where we stand today. As Dr. Bishop stated, we don’t even need to go to the library anymore (2006). We can gain instant access to information and resources to support our arguments or research using the computer and available databases. If we examine this example using Clark’s argument, we would need to ask if we could get the same access from another source. The answer is simply no. Even going to the library and searching through old journals and micro-fiche for weeks or months could not give us the same results we can get in an hour using the internet. The media is not interchangeable as Clark insists.

The state of media and its uses in the educational environment are very different then when Clark originally wrote his article Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media in 1983. Hastings and Tracey want to “reframe the original debate to ask, not if, but how media affects learning” (2005). I would agree that this is a valid question in 2006 and should be answered. Only then will our field be able to close the Clark/Kozma debate. Only by answering this new question can we answer Kozma.

References

Bishop, M.J, (2006, September). LST401 Class 2.

Clark, Richard E. (1994). Media Will Never Influence Learning. Education Technology, Research and Development. 42(2), 21-29.

Hastings, Nancy B., & Tracey, Monica W. (2005). Does Media Affect Learning: Where Are We Now. TechTrends. 49(2), 28-30.

Kozma, Robert B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology, Research and Development. 42(2), 7-19.

Blog Post #1

2006-09-05T14:53:00.000-07:00

The use of technology in the classroom is not a new concept. For almost one hundred years, educators have been looking for ways to integrate technology into the educational arena. Each new concept was going to revolutionize the educational process. As we have seen, every one fell short of expectations. This leads us to question; will today’s newest advances suffer the same fate? As I read the articles, I began to realize that for the first time, the outcome may be different. The technology is not significantly better that past advances. Imagine the excitement in the early 1900’s when film began to make its way into the classroom. Today it doesn’t seem very impressive but this was in a world without television. The reason success seems to be on the horizon is a direct result of learning from our failures.

In the past, each new technology was a groundbreaking achievement that would alter the educational process. This statement was easy to make because advancements were slow in coming. Today, advancements come very quickly. If we think of our own education, how much changed in the time from first grade until graduation? I remember getting VCR’s in grade school and in high school we had IBM 286 computers to learn computer programming. Aside from that, nothing much changed. Now let’s look at the graduating class of 2006. They started first grade in 1995. In that twelve year span, the computer to student ratio went from one computer to nine students (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999) to the current ratio in our district, one computer to every three students. Additional advancements such as Smartboards and digital visual presenters have found there way into classrooms in the last three years. Music classes use iPods and students can checkout an mp3 player with a book downloaded to memory. The library system itself has undergone major changes over the educational span of one graduating class. Does anyone remember a card catalog?

Most technology media only has a short lifespan today until it is replaced by something better. We can look at the computer itself. First we had the fifty pound desktop computer. Next, the fifteen pound notebook. Within a few years, the notebook became five pounds. Then, the Tablet PC came out allowing you to use your PC just like a paper bound notebook. If that wasn’t enough, the new Ultra Mobile PC’s are being released this month. They are six inch by nine inch fully functional Tablet PC’s. We no longer have time to redefine the educational process based on the media itself. By the time it is fully integrated, it is outdated. As a direct result, the goal of educational technology is not to control learning but provide the tools to make the learning process easier (AETC, 2004). No single advancement will ever be the one to change the educational process. The change will be the cumulative effect of multiple advancements and a change in expectations. This fundamental change may be the difference between the technologies of yesterday and educational technology today.

References:

Anderson, R. E. & Ronnkvist, A. (1999). The presence of computers in American schools: Teaching, learning and computing: 1998 national survey (Report #2). Irvine, CA:Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 548).

Association of Educational Communications and Technology. (2004, October).The Definition of Educational Technology: An analysis and explanation of theconcept. Chapter 1.

Reiser, R.A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part 1: A history of Instructional Media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-63

1st Blog for LTS 401

2006-09-02T16:17:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my blog.