Reaction, Module 3, Week 3

The readings this week were interesting, but I could find no significant thread that ran between them.  They both, however, were of use to me as I considered the learning environment for my practicum. 

I found much to agree with and to disagree with in the Mishra and Koehler article about Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.  I agree with the general idea of the authors and believe that it is important to understand the interplay between technology, pedagogy, and content.  Each area on its own is worthy of study, but the dark grey area of the Venn diagram on page 1025 of the article seems the key.  I recognize in my own work that technology can inform content.  With the availability of websites such as Desmos where students can graph algebraic expressions and display intercepts and zeros of functions and vertices quickly and easily, is it necessary any longer to teach these concepts on paper?  Is there any advantage to knowing the math behind those points or should we just find them on the computer and see what we can do with them?  And from there, the content informs my pedagogy.  Is it better to have students discover the relationships between the expressions and the graphs, or is it better to instruct the students directly and then have them practice the techniques?  Of course, it all depends on the students in the class.  So only I, the mighty teacher, have access to all of those pieces and components and can make these big decisions.  That is why I get the big bucks!

I do, however, disagree with the authors on a couple of points.   When they elaborate on their ideas regarding teacher training in the area of technology, they opine that learning a technology tool outside of the context in which it will be used is “ill-suited” to produce the desired result for teachers.  I think that is wrong.  Teachers need to learn the entirety of the tools.  If you teach how to use it in only one context, you are undoubtedly going to not utilize various features of the tool that could be applied to a different setting.  As one of my colleagues is fond of saying “Trust your teachers, they are smart and creative and can do the job well.”  Teach them the tool and let them figure out how to use it in an appropriate way.  In the author’s example called Making Movies, the course taught both educational psychology and how to use a video production program.  Well, call me crazy, but if you take a finite amount of time and teach two different skills, then you are learning less of each skill than if you separated the skills into two classes.  I say teach a class on video production and then you can use that skill in future classes about anything you want. 

The quote of the day comes from the Mishra and Koehler article.  Actually the quote itself, “teaching and learning with technology exist in a dynamic transactional relationship,” is not what makes it special.  What makes it special is that the authors use a Dewey and Bentley study from 1949 as a reference for the quote.  1949! The only technology in 1949 was Marcus’ pencil.   

Reactions, Module 3, Week 1

There are two ways for me to enjoy the readings for our class.  One is to learn and take something away that I can apply to my own teaching or to some other aspect of my job.  Even if it just a great quote or a way of explaining something to my students, I walk away with a new folder in the filing cabinet of my mind.  The other way for me to enjoy an article is to read something that causes me to storm into another classroom room and say "Did you read what so-and-so said about this-or-that? And these people call themselves experts!" Then I am politely told to go away and I return to my work.

Suffice it to say that I enjoyed this week's readings.  Both gratification methods were represented.  The two articles on scaffolding were interesting to me.  While the two overlapped a fair bit, I found myself agreeing with Puntambekar and Hubscher over Tabak wherever they disagreed.   Puntambekar and Hubscher (P and H) began from the Wood definition from 1976 that apparently gave rise to the scaffold metaphor.  In that definition, an adult provided the support that was necessary for the student to be successful.  Of course, the ubiquitous hand of technology is causing everyone to rethink that definition and to include sources other than adults such as peers, learning environments, and on-line tools.  P and H caution that whatever you choose to call a support, the key feature of any scaffolding is that the student be able to perform the task by himself when the scaffolding has been removed.

Part of the P and H article was a discussion of the scaffold metaphor.  Scaffolding is, of course, the support system that is built around a building so that the workers can reach farther and complete tasks that would be out of reach without it.  The article also discusses the work of some experts who question the appropriateness of the metaphor.  these experts point out that when the scaffolding is removed, the worker returns to ground zero.  I think that they are missing the point entirely.  In the metaphor, the student is not the worker, the student is the building and the workers are the parts of the brain that build the understanding of the student.  That is why it is so important that the building stand on its own when the scaffolding is removed.  That feature of the metaphor is very important to me.  When P and H go on to say that "Merely providing students with a visual interface or structure for a process cannot be described as scaffolding unless the hints and prompts are contingent on an ongoing diagnosis of student learning," (p. 8) and, in fact, the entirety of the Tabak article on differentiated scaffolding, that feature cannot be overlooked.  Scaffolding is built for individuals for specific reasons.  There is no one-size-fits-all model.  All scaffolding, by definition, has to be differentiated.  It would be absurd to think that a construction company could build the required scaffolding off-site and then apply it to several different buildings.  It has to be constructed on-site to the specifications of that one building.  On-line tools, learning environments, and peer tutoring can all be used as scaffolding, but each must be crafted carefully to include feedback and malleability.

On the other side of my enjoyment coin was the article on "The New Literacies of Online Reading Comprehension . . ."  I disagreed with just about everything in that article.  I actually poked my head into one classroom and said "Literacy is now deictic? Really?"  I am sorry, but literacy is not changing.  What it means to be literate is not changing.  The definitions of literacy are still the ability to read and write, and competency in a specified area.  The only thing that is really changing is where the information is coming from.  The "New Literacies" article makes the point that, with the increasing importance of the internet as a source of information,  those who can recognize the important problems and find the best information and evaluate it effectively to develop the best solutions will succeed in the challenging times ahead of us.  That has been true since we were cavemen and cavewomen (when I was in high school.) The article also quotes other authors who say that "A critical component of successful Internet reading is the ability to read and locate information that meets one's needs." (p. 7) That was true 35 years ago when I went to the library to do my research for school.  Back then I even had to be careful to evaluate a source's validity and be aware of the author's bias.  None of that has changed.

And these people call themselves experts!