|
I recorded this YouTube video about using Pinterest to get ideas and resources for teaching Spanish class. I apologize for the poor sound quality. I recommend you use ear buds to listen.
|
0 Comments
In this TED Talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeaAHv4UTI8, Michael Wesch talks about how it is technologically "ridiculously easy" to connect, organize, share, collect, collaborate and publish. However, it's very hard to truly connect, organize, share and collaborate with other people, and to publish something of worth. His idea about education is that we should move away from teaching students to be knowledgeable (know stuff) towards teaching them to be "knowledge-able," which means being able to find, sort, analyze and ultimately create knowledge. I agree that this is a worthwhile goal; I also agree that this is not as simple as just logging onto the internet and poking around. Wesch describes knowledge-ability as a "practice" that takes sustained effort. As a teacher, he does the following things to help students create knowledge-ability:
(1) embrace problems that he doesn't know the answer to; (2) collaborate to solve them; and (3) harness relevant internet tools. These are all steps I can and should take in my classroom. In fact, I have already started. Recently, in my world history class we looked at child labor during the Industrial Revolution. I asked my students to use the internet to find out about child labor in the world today, including the industries where it is occurring and American companies that sell popular products that rely on that overseas child labor. Then students wrote letters to American manufacturers and retailers asking them to take specific steps to stop child labor. Students saw this project as highly relevant to their lives, because they realized they were consumers of some of the very products that rely on child labor. This is the type of project I want to do more of in the future, and better--with more collaboration and more visibility in Web spaces. I think Wesch would agree it's a good start on the path to knowledge-ability. Dave White presents a theory of "visitors" and "residents" on the web in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sFBadv04eY. I find his theory fresh and interesting, because it does so much more than just say, "Old people just don't get it."
Visitors are presented as people who see the web as having a set of "tools" they can use. White makes a terrific analogy to describe visitors' use of digital tools: they go in the tool box, rummage around, take out the tool they need, and put it back after using it. Visitors are not less technically adept, but they are focused on achieving particular goals with the web tool, not "living" online. White gives the example of individuals who learned that Skype would be useful and picked it up right away. Visitors are also more concerned with privacy; they don't see the point in "flaunting themselves online" and see constant posting on social networking sites as a form of egomania. I completely identify with the visitor persona. I can use technology tools perfectly well, but sometimes I feel uncomfortably exposed. I also tend to use the web tools I think will be useful for certain purposes, rather than using the web for social purposes. In the context of work, I am more comfortable "residing" in digital spaces and maintaining high visibility. That is mostly because I recognize networking as important for career development and continuing education. However, in my personal life, I tend to act more like a visitor, posting on my Facebook and other social networking sites when I feel I have something important to say. (This may change due to Pinterest, which I love.) Residents are presented by White as people who "live" online. Their presence continues on the web after they have logged off, through their web sites, blogs, tweets, and so on. They see the Web as important social space, and they like to be visible in that space. They promote their persona as a brand, which requires constantly "feeding the machine" (tweeting, blogging, posting, etc.). The downside to this constant need to stay in the public eye is that a lot of what they write may be banal. Personally, I feel embarrassed about writing banal things and broadcasting them to the public, even if the public is my closest 200 "friends." When I blog or post other writings to the web, I spend a lot of time carefully composing them, and I prefer a format that allows me to write about something in depth--not Twitter's 140 characters. I don't see myself as becoming a daily blogger, because it's too time-consuming for me to do it "right." White says the differences between visitors and residents has more to do with educational ideology than with technical skills or age. I agree completely. In Why School?, Will Richardson presents two types of school reform occurring today. The first type of reform is the so-called corporate reformers’ approach, which involves delivering the same old content using technological tools. According to Richardson, the corporate reformers see big business opportunities in charter schools, assessment software, delivering “personalized” curriculum via computers, among other “reforms.” However, the educational focus remains on “information acquisition, basic skills, a bit of critical thinking, analysis—accomplishments that can be easily identified and scored” (24-25).
The second type of reform is a progressive approach that involves a total shift in emphasis from content mastery to learning mastery, or, stated differently, from information delivery to information discovery. According to Richardson, “It’s about asking questions, working with others to find the answers, doing real work for real audiences, and adding to, not simply taking from…the Web…..It’s about developing the kinds of the kinds of habits and dispositions that deep, lifelong learners need to succeed in a world rife with information and connections” (27). Students will take more ownership of their own learning and create their own unique paths. Assessments will focus less on what students know, and more on what they can do with what they know. I am all in favor of a more progressive educational approach that shifts the focus away from memorizing trivial facts. This is not a new idea: law school is all about learning how to “think like a lawyer,” not memorize laws you can easily look up. I am deeply grateful for my law school experience. I would love to teach students how to research relevant information on the Web, evaluate the information using 21st century literacy skills (including how to evaluate sources for quality and reliability), and create something that will show me what they can do with the information. The main challenge with that approach, in my mind, is in laying the foundation that will prepare students to analyze information, engage in critical thinking, and apply what they have learned. I have little doubt that a typical high school honors student can already do this work effectively. Such a student already has “effective reading and writing skills, as well as a solid foundation in math, science, history, and more” (28). Furthermore, such a student probably has the maturity to engage in self-directed projects effectively. With younger, less curious, and less disciplined children, I am not completely convinced they are ready to take ownership of their own learning. However, I’m willing to give it a try. I certainly do not like the trends I see in “corporate” reform. Replacing real teachers and thoughtful assessments with computer hardware and software is a risky educational idea. Destroying public schools in the name of profit is a downright dangerous social proposition. Richardson proposes that, while the reform debate rages, teachers rethink how to help kids succeed according to both traditional measures and in the new, digital, information-saturated world of learning. He proposes that teachers rethink teaching in six ways: (1) SHARE your best practices/thinking about education digitally (39). (2) DISCOVER, don’t deliver, the curriculum (42). Guide projects where students pursue their own interests in the context of the subject matter. (3) TALK TO STRANGERS – i.e., have students connect online in the classroom with strangers from whom they can learn (46). (4) BE A MASTER LEARNER; model your own ongoing learning process (47). (5) Do REAL WORK for REAL AUDIENCES, such as creative projects that result in podcasts, videos, etc. posted online. (6) TRANSFER THE POWER; give students license to find their own teachers, classrooms, and information online. I can commit to four of these: share digitally, discover rather than deliver the curriculum, be a master learner, and do real work for real audiences. I am doing some of this already. The last two pieces of advice—talk to strangers, and transfer the power—may be a struggle for me. On the issue of talking to strangers, I have serious concerns about the safety of students who connect online privately with strangers. However, I would welcome an exchange in a forum to which I have access, and I certainly welcome exchanges with students at other schools and with educators at museums, universities, and so on. On the related issue of in-class computer use, monitoring it to make sure students are using digital tools appropriately is a major challenge. Students use their smart phones in my classroom all the time, and 90% of the time the use is unrelated to their learning and an unwelcome distraction. When they visit the computer lab, I inevitably have to stop students from watching YouTube videos about rap music, surfing, etc. when they are supposed to be working on world history assignments. Finally, the recommendation of giving students license to find their own teachers, classrooms, and information online sounds compelling in theory, but I fear parents and administrators would view it as an delegation of my duties as a teacher. It also sounds strangely like the “corporate reform” model Richardson criticizes in the book, where students report to a computer lab and do online work in the presence of an adult who is little more than a chaperone.
Chapter 7:
Quote: “[W]e propose three different, yet overlapping, frames for redesigning [education]. They are homo sapiens, homo faber, and homo ludens—or humans who know, humans who make (things), and humans who play.” (90) This quote sums up my understanding about Chapter 7. In Chapter 7, the authors argue that we should restructure education by focusing on: 1) knowing where to find information, not knowing the information itself; 2) learning by doing; and 3) playing as a tool for learning. Question: How to I translate the abstract ideas in these two complex sentences into something I can apply in a classroom setting? “Through the process of making, we are also learning how to craft context so that it carries more of the message, which helps solve many of the issues of information overload. Thus, as context begins to play an increasingly important role, it becomes easier to talk about things like visual arguments; expanding the notion of literacy to include images, color, and sound; and how information is transmitted through new phenomena, such as viral distribution.” (94-95) Connection: Tony Wagner, in The Global Achievement Gap, called the ability to access information one of the seven “survival skills” for the 21st century. Like the authors of A New Culture of Learning, Wagner recognizes the great importance of being able to sort through the glut of information available on the Web and evaluate it. Epiphany: The authors seem to feel that the kind of play and riddle-solving offered by gaming is the highest form of learning. I decided to test out the idea. I bought some well-regarded some strategy board games, and I’m going to let students play them in class on certain days to see if students are engaged and learning. Chapter 8: Quote: “Ito and her team constructed a typology of practices to describe the way young people participate with new media: hanging out, messing around, and geeking out. We believe these three practices could frame a progression of learning that is endemic to digital networks.” (100) Question: “Hanging around”, “messing around,” and “geeking out,” as defined by the authors (101-104), are what students are already doing in digital environments in their free time, to pursue topics of personal interest. Is it realistic to think that students will want to geek out on topics that are not personally interesting to them—say, the French Revolution, photosynthesis, or the use of simile and metaphor—with the same level of engagement and drive? Connection: In this class, our Google+ and Twitter pages have certainly allowed me to hang out with my classmates, and have provided an “enhanced environment for sharing information and engaging in meaningful social interaction.” (101) I have had the chance to get to know colleagues in different disciplines much better than I would have otherwise. Epiphany: I definitely see the value of a digital social network in helping create a sense of community, or “indwelling.” I plan to establish a Google+ or other community for my future classes. Chapter 9: Quote: “Massively multiplayer online games…are large-scale social communities that provide a case study in how players absorb tacit knowledge, process it into a series of increasingly sophisticated questions, and engage collectives to make the experience more personally meaningful. What they teach us about learning is not specific to any game per se but is embedded in the collectives that are constructed in, around, and through the game.” (107) Question: Why do the authors trivialize concerns about antisocial and violent behavior in games? Numerous serious research studies have documented the fact that sexism is extremely prevalent in online gaming. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3849516/ The touted benefits of “near-absolute agency, enjoying virtually unlimited experimentation and exploration” (107) have led to many instances of cyberbullying, sexual harassment, and even physical threats of women who spoke out against rape jokes on gaming sites. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3849516/ Connection: Tony Wagner, in The Global Achievement Gap, lists “curiosity and imagination” as his survival skill #7. Curiosity and imagination seem to embody the “questing disposition” that Thomas and Seely Brown equate with play. Epiphany: I need to think about how to make classroom lessons more like a puzzle or game, insofar as “we engage in acts of productive inquiry, where the answers we find become part of our stockpile of information, which can then be used to find better and more interesting questions as well as to solve future problems.” (117) |
AuthorEducator, history buff, parent. Archives
May 2015
Categories20% Project: |