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!

Pixiclip Tutorial

Below is a tutorial about a tool called Pixiclip.  Since part of my method is posting videos for my students to use as review problems and help with homework, I am always looking out for new ways to do it.  Pixiclip has a couple of features that I like and a couple that need to be worked around.  Overall, it is something you can use if you do not have access to a SMARTBoard on a regular basis.

Reaction, Module2, Week 2

Should the learning theories that we have been studying and discussing since Education 101 be reexamined in the light of today's society?  Clearly, advances in technology have altered the way we go about our day, but have they also changed the way that we think and learn?

The article by Siemens posits that Connectivism is the natural learning theory for use in the digital age.  I agree that Connectivism, with its  emphasis on the role of social and cultural context would seem to be well-suited for today's world.  As society in general, and schools more specifically, embrace trends in technology, social and cultural lines will most likely keep changing.  Well-prepared students will have the characteristic of understanding these changes.

I appreciated Siemens' idea that "knowledge is growing exponentially" and his reiteration of Gozales' notion of the "half-life of knowledge."  Siemens continues by stating that the acquisition of all the knowledge that we need to act is no longer possible through personal experience and that the vetting of the knowledge that is available to us has become the key to learning.  I certainly see that change in my daily pursuits.  I see teachers in my school almost incessantly teaching about how to tell a valid source of information from a spurious one.  In the article, the author lists the principles of Connectivism.  The one that resonated most with me was "Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning."  I absolutely agree with that statement.  In mathematics, those connections are the key to progress.  Students must be able to connect the new concept to the old in order to succeed.  Those who try to remember what to do in every situation are doomed to mediocrity at best.

Of course, the article made some statements that gave me pause, especially under the heading of significant trends in learning.  One of these trends is that "formal education no longer comprises the majority of our learning."  To the extent that formal education has ever comprised the majority of our learning, I do not think that that has changed.  I do not see students in our school extending themselves outside of their assignments to gain more knowledge than the teacher is asking of them.  Another such statement is that "many of the processes previously handled by learning theories (especially in cognitive information processing) can now be off-loaded to, or supported by, technology."  The very idea that cognitive information processing can be off-loaded to technology seems absurd to me.

Two of our readings were chapters from The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences.  Greeno's chapter on what he refers to as a "situative approach" was dense and made some interesting points, but ultimately did not serve my purpose as, by its own admission "situativity is a general scientific perspective and as such does not say what educational practices should be adopted."  My needs are a bit more immediate and so I set that article aside for this discourse.

I enjoyed the second chapter much more.  That one, by Scardamalia and Bereiter, on Knowledge Building, made a more immediate connection with my practice.  One of the tenets of Knowledge Building is that students should be assessed on idea improvement as opposed to strict concept acquisition.  In the example given in the chapter, the students were successful because they improved their understanding of gravity.  They still had a way to go to completely understand it, but they added to their knowledge and that is the goal.  I like that theory, but do so with a caveat.  If the students are curious and the building of knowledge ultimately leads to complete understanding, that sounds great to me.  I worry, however, that, when teaching higher level math concepts, students need to acquire skills completely pretty much right away- the ACT is just around the corner.  I am not sure if I have time to gradually build their understanding of each topic.

So, the answer to my opening questions is still "I don't know."  The internet has certainly changed the landscape of where information can be found and how much there is to find, but I remain unconvinced that what it means to acquire knowledge, and the ways we go about that acquisition of knowledge have undergone a significant metamorphosis.

Reaction, Module 2, Week 1

I think that everyone needs to relax a little.  "Experts" feel that we need to completely overhaul the educational system.  (Are these the same "experts" who brought us No Child Left Behind?)  Apparently, the influx of new tools made possible by advancements in technology means that we, as teachers can no longer maintain the status quo.  Largely, I agree.  The whole job of the status quo is to be challenged.  But we need to be careful and thoughtful.  We need to keep in mind that traditional education works for the most part.  Consider that the "experts" and the advancers of technology were probably educated in a traditional manner and they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.  Alterations that we make need to improve the educational system, not just change it.  We need to be sure that the changes will lead to improvements before we make them.

While I was reading our assigned articles, I went through a roller coaster of reactions from excitement to confusion to anger to hunger (but that was because I was reading at dinner time.)  The NMC Horizon report was very interesting and it raised some very valid thoughts and concerns, but, to me, it shot itself in the foot by making statements such as "Many experts believe that learning by creating and doing will engage students in their education, prepare them for college . . ." (pg. 8) Many experts believe?  What does that even mean? Is that proof? Is that evidence? Is that anything that we can use to support the call for change.  Doesn't that mean that most experts don't believe that to be true?  I cannot change what I do in my classroom based on "many experts believe."  I do, however, agree with much of what the report said.  Teachers do have to understand and be able to interact with technology in order to survive today.  The role of the teacher should be examined to see if the role of coach or guide is a better fit.  Regarding Open Educational Resources, on page 10, the report states that "The notion of sharing is inherent to the philosophy of open content . . . "  That is also true of the notion of teaching.  Teaching is sharing.  Most teachers I know use content they find in books or on-line in a way that best serves the students, without much thought of the legalities involved.  If a shift to Open Educational Resources means that there will be more material for me to borrow, then I am all for it.

When relating the challenges facing the integration of technology into schools, the report mentioned Integrating Personalized Learning.  I believe that all of education needs to be personalized learning and I find it interesting that the writers of the report feel that removing the teacher, a person, can improve the personalization of learning for the student.  They say that there are two paths being explored.  One path is "organized by and for the learner," (pg 22) and "school goals and interests are driving the other path . . . "(pg 22)  Those two quotes are a clear statement that schools are seen as having agendas that are at odds with the needs of the learner.  I find that notion to be ridiculous and insulting.

The article from the PewResearch Internet Project titled Digital Life in 2025 was both informative and disturbing.  As it was mostly a collection of quotes describing the future of the state and use of technology arranged in categories of decreasing hopefulness, it did not seem to have its own agenda. I liked that about it.  I did disagree with the placement of Judith Donath's quote on page 3 of the article.  Donath speaks of how we will be able to create an accurate picture of exactly how people spend their day.  Listed as one of the more hopeful theses, I found it to be a disturbing picture of the future.  Rather 1984-esque to me.  Without a doubt, the most engaging part of the article to me came in the form of the quote from Google Chief Economist Hal Varian on page 4: "The smartest person in the world currently could well be stuck behind a plow in India or China.  Enabling that person - and the millions like him or her - will have a profound impact on the development of the human race."  I love that quote and, to me, it effectively speaks to the power of the internet to reach everyone on the planet and allow them to make their mark on the world.  That is a hopeful statement,

The final article, written by Allan Collins and Richard Halverson was more infuriating than informative.  The two authors made statements that they can not possibly defend.  They insulted teachers as a whole and were wrong about a host of things.  If these are the experts that are shaping our future, stop the bus and let me off.  I do not wish to dignify the article with further comment.

And now I am hungry again.

Take-Aways from Module 1

I joined this class thinking that I knew a decent amount of information regarding the on-line classroom.  It turns out that there is much that I never considered.  I know that I am supposed to remark on what I learned, but instead, I will remark on what struck me the most.  I have spent more time since the beginning of the course thing about synchronous vs. asynchronous methodology than anything else.

The articles that were posted on the topic were very interesting.  Maha Bali and Bard Meier weighed in in favor of asynchronous classes and they made valid points about how synchronous learning is biased against certain time zones and is also culturally unaware.  On the other hand, Glen Cochrane's article discussed the work of Ursula Franklin which, although upwards of 25 years old, raises some very important points in favor of synchronous classrooms.  Franklin feels that people develop better when interacting in a live way.

So I have gone back and forth in my mind on the issue.  Of course, we have been immersed in a blend of the two and that seems to have worked well for us, but it does not settle the issue to say that a compromise is the best approach.  Then you have to decide the mix.  Is it best to have 80% synchronous and 20% asynchronous?  Would it be better to be 80 - 20 the other way?  Given my own experience so far, I would estimate that we are operating at about 25% synchronous and 75% asynchronous.

Of course, Bali and Meier would opine that even 25% synchronous is biased against some groups.  Where does that leave us.  I like the synchronous aspect of the class.  I like seeing faces and hearing voices and knowing that everybody is involved in the same way that I am right now.  It is important to have that aspect in a class.  It is important to have that aspect in any exchange of ideas.

Bali and Meier are just going to have to deal with that.

My Photo Story, Assignment and Excuse Combined.

I was given an assignment in my online class from Penn called VOLT.  I was going to learn something new that I may wish to include in my classroom instruction, so I was excited!

Can you just feel the excitement?  Well, but excitement was relatively short lived because I could not use the programs that were suggested.  That's okay, I thought, I will find another that is just as good.  So I was excited again.

I tried finding an app on my phone, but there were none that seemed promising.  They all had very bad reviews.  Then I checked on the app store on my Mac.

Apps like these are available, but they do not have the "story" feature that I wanted.  I was disappointed.

Then I tried finding an app on iTunes.  

That did not turn out well, either.  Again, I was disappointed.

Then I thought . . . 

I can do the assignment on . . .

So that is what I did and then I lived happily ever after.

No, wait.  That is the wrong picture.  That picture is actually terrible.

There.  I lived happily ever after.

The End