Monday, November 20, 2006
Ten: Resnick
An effective classroom environment is achieved through successful communication and information gathering processes. In order for students to develop critical understanding and meaningful analyzing skills, they must engage in deeper thinking. It is still my firm belief that technology promotes learning in the classroom.
Proper use of technology can stimulate different learning modalities (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic). However, I agree that it is not good enough to just deliver information in these forms. In order for technology to be truly beneficial, it must be implemented in a way that allows students to design and create knowledge. As technology advances, our implementation skills must advance as well. “The combined capabilities of these media, and the access to a range of social situations and processes that they bring, provide designers with powerful new tools that they can use to construct their designs” (Kozma, 1994, 17).
Resnick, like Kozma, recognizes the advantages of instructional uses for technology and challenges the way in which technology is used to promote learning. Technology should be used so it provides students with learning experiences they do not receive from basic instruction. Teachers need to develop technology instruction so that it fosters student participation and interaction. “
When a teacher lectures and students are only provided with the opportunity to ask questions, an effective lesson is not taking place. This is also true when teacher’s implement technology only in the basic ways (e.g. “information-centric views of computing”). In my opinion, it is important for students to actively participate when using technology by recalling prior knowledge, connecting information, designing solutions, and creating experiences. Students need to be provided with opportunities that encourage them to respond and reflect.
“Proper use of technology,” “allow students to design and create knowledge,” “provide students with learning experiences,” and “foster student participation and interaction.” These phrases are relevant and important when establishing my viewpoint on instructional technology; however, when I really think about it they are very open-ended. They sound nice but what do they really mean for someone like me – a teacher? After reading Resnick’s article, I really wanted to figure out a way in which the above phrases could move from fancy wording to a classroom reality.
Right now I do not know how to specifically accomplish all of these phrases but I do know that I want my classroom to move beyond instructional technology and into learning technology. Perhaps the first step to achieving this in the classroom is to eliminate using computers for basic information gathering. Like computer clubhouses, classroom computers would only be used for creative design and critical thinking purposes.
I want my students to know “how to conceptualize a project, how to make use of the materials available, how to persist and find alternatives when things go wrong, how to collaborate with others, and how to view a project through the eyes of others” (Resnick, 2001, 51).
In blog post #6, I talked about I-Search projects. I still believe that they goals and process of the I-Search would help students use technology to develop their own knowledge. However, I feel that there has to be other ways to implement the “proper use of technology,” “allow students to design and create knowledge,” “provide students with learning experiences,” and “foster student participation and interaction.”
[References]
Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reforming the debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42, 7-19.
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/reources
Proper use of technology can stimulate different learning modalities (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic). However, I agree that it is not good enough to just deliver information in these forms. In order for technology to be truly beneficial, it must be implemented in a way that allows students to design and create knowledge. As technology advances, our implementation skills must advance as well. “The combined capabilities of these media, and the access to a range of social situations and processes that they bring, provide designers with powerful new tools that they can use to construct their designs” (Kozma, 1994, 17).
Resnick, like Kozma, recognizes the advantages of instructional uses for technology and challenges the way in which technology is used to promote learning. Technology should be used so it provides students with learning experiences they do not receive from basic instruction. Teachers need to develop technology instruction so that it fosters student participation and interaction. “
When a teacher lectures and students are only provided with the opportunity to ask questions, an effective lesson is not taking place. This is also true when teacher’s implement technology only in the basic ways (e.g. “information-centric views of computing”). In my opinion, it is important for students to actively participate when using technology by recalling prior knowledge, connecting information, designing solutions, and creating experiences. Students need to be provided with opportunities that encourage them to respond and reflect.
“Proper use of technology,” “allow students to design and create knowledge,” “provide students with learning experiences,” and “foster student participation and interaction.” These phrases are relevant and important when establishing my viewpoint on instructional technology; however, when I really think about it they are very open-ended. They sound nice but what do they really mean for someone like me – a teacher? After reading Resnick’s article, I really wanted to figure out a way in which the above phrases could move from fancy wording to a classroom reality.
Right now I do not know how to specifically accomplish all of these phrases but I do know that I want my classroom to move beyond instructional technology and into learning technology. Perhaps the first step to achieving this in the classroom is to eliminate using computers for basic information gathering. Like computer clubhouses, classroom computers would only be used for creative design and critical thinking purposes.
I want my students to know “how to conceptualize a project, how to make use of the materials available, how to persist and find alternatives when things go wrong, how to collaborate with others, and how to view a project through the eyes of others” (Resnick, 2001, 51).
In blog post #6, I talked about I-Search projects. I still believe that they goals and process of the I-Search would help students use technology to develop their own knowledge. However, I feel that there has to be other ways to implement the “proper use of technology,” “allow students to design and create knowledge,” “provide students with learning experiences,” and “foster student participation and interaction.”
[References]
Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reforming the debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42, 7-19.
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/reources
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Nine: Rethinking Assessment
Education continually grows, and reforms to improve the educational system are consistently developed. As our nation progresses in intelligence and technology, student achievement is transformed. In order to better teach and evaluate students, assessment styles need to advance as well (Bond, 1995).
Student achievement is evaluated by using either traditional assessment or alternative assessment. Traditional assessment requires students to choose a response often in the form of a multiple choice question. Alternative assessment requires students to create a response, often in the form of a task or complex question.
Herman (1997) feels that alternative assessments allow students to apply skills of organization, “apply knowledge wisely in current situations, learn and relearn as need, and use their knowledge to understand and solver the real world problems they face,” (p. 197).
Alternative assessment allows students to formulate complex solutions and apply real world connections to their curriculum. Instead of merely answering multiple choice questions, students are engaged in creating and producing an answer or project. Alternative assessments allow students to convey their answers in a variety of ways, and provide them with opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge.
Alternative assessments may have some solid benefits, but there are several drawbacks as well. In my opinion, alternative assessments are more subjective then traditional assessments. It is difficult to evaluate creativity and originality on an objective basis. Multiple solutions place difficulties on grading and evaluate students against each other. Teachers face challenges of implementing and conceptualizing alternative assessments. Alternative assessments are more time consuming for schools, teachers and even students. Alternative assessments can be more costly because they require more than just paper and pencil.
I feel that it is important to use traditional assessment in order to emphasis factual recall and application of rules. When I become a teacher, I will use traditional assessments because they are a fast and easy way for me to determine what areas of curriculum need immediate attention. I hope to figure out ways of combining the two forms of assessment. Alternative assessment can complement traditional assessment. Both forms of assessment evaluate important skills and qualities in students. Traditional assessment holds students accountable for information, and alternative assessment allows students to demonstrate their competence.
It is important for students to have both good knowledge and be able to apply that knowledge in a real context. In my opinion, the combination of the two forms of assessment will be beneficial to all of my students regardless of their learning styles and capabilities. The main goals of assessment are to identify what is important, identify what needs to be accomplished, and identify the students understanding. A combination of assessment styles would allow for a variety of forms of expression and analysis in a manner that promotes concrete facts.
[References]
Bond, L.A. (1995). Critical issue: rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved November 2, 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm
Herman, J. (1997). Assessing new assessments: how do they measure up? Theory into Practice, 36, 196-204.
Student achievement is evaluated by using either traditional assessment or alternative assessment. Traditional assessment requires students to choose a response often in the form of a multiple choice question. Alternative assessment requires students to create a response, often in the form of a task or complex question.
Herman (1997) feels that alternative assessments allow students to apply skills of organization, “apply knowledge wisely in current situations, learn and relearn as need, and use their knowledge to understand and solver the real world problems they face,” (p. 197).
Alternative assessment allows students to formulate complex solutions and apply real world connections to their curriculum. Instead of merely answering multiple choice questions, students are engaged in creating and producing an answer or project. Alternative assessments allow students to convey their answers in a variety of ways, and provide them with opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge.
Alternative assessments may have some solid benefits, but there are several drawbacks as well. In my opinion, alternative assessments are more subjective then traditional assessments. It is difficult to evaluate creativity and originality on an objective basis. Multiple solutions place difficulties on grading and evaluate students against each other. Teachers face challenges of implementing and conceptualizing alternative assessments. Alternative assessments are more time consuming for schools, teachers and even students. Alternative assessments can be more costly because they require more than just paper and pencil.
I feel that it is important to use traditional assessment in order to emphasis factual recall and application of rules. When I become a teacher, I will use traditional assessments because they are a fast and easy way for me to determine what areas of curriculum need immediate attention. I hope to figure out ways of combining the two forms of assessment. Alternative assessment can complement traditional assessment. Both forms of assessment evaluate important skills and qualities in students. Traditional assessment holds students accountable for information, and alternative assessment allows students to demonstrate their competence.
It is important for students to have both good knowledge and be able to apply that knowledge in a real context. In my opinion, the combination of the two forms of assessment will be beneficial to all of my students regardless of their learning styles and capabilities. The main goals of assessment are to identify what is important, identify what needs to be accomplished, and identify the students understanding. A combination of assessment styles would allow for a variety of forms of expression and analysis in a manner that promotes concrete facts.
[References]
Bond, L.A. (1995). Critical issue: rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved November 2, 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm
Herman, J. (1997). Assessing new assessments: how do they measure up? Theory into Practice, 36, 196-204.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Eight: Learning for Mastery
If time was not of the essence then all students would be able to achieve “Learning for Mastery.” Instruction and curriculum are implemented so that each student succeeds. Mastery of learning (and teaching) aims to help all students progress at their own pace. Although, I wish mastery learning was always an option I do no think it is reality. As a teacher, you must adhere to structured curriculum. Benchmarks are set for student achievement and standardized tests force teachers to present information in a timely manner. Sometimes, teachers must move from one unit of instruction to the next whether students master the material or not. Mastery learning is a strategy fit for utopia; however it is grounded in good intention and, if time allows, some research proves it is effective.
Aptitude for learning, quality of instruction, ability to understand instruction, perseverance, and time allowed for learning are all aspects explored by Bloom in his article. In order to achieve success in all of these aspects, individual needs of all students must be addressed. Students control the course of information and learn independently.
The main focus of mastery learning is for each student to be graded on their performance without any predetermined or low expectations. An overlying objective is set and students accomplish this objective by working with each other or on their own (when the objective is reached a student receives an A). Bloom (1968) argues that differential instruction and opportunity to learn would allow a majority of students to achieve mastery.
As far as contemporary educational practices go, I feel that mastery learning is used in some form. Critical thinking skills are stressed across disciplines and open-ended questions force students to find answers independently.
“Mastery learning offers a framework for determining a meaningful balance between directed teaching activities and the use of cooperative student teams” (Guskey, 1990, 37). Students use their different levels of ability and prior knowledge to improve their understanding of the material. Students work with each to create an atmosphere of achievement.
In my opinion, students acquire higher learning skills. They are able to develop their critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills because they work towards the objective until accomplished. Interpersonal life skills are attained through team work and achieving a common goal.
“Cooperative learning and mastery learning offer educators complementary tools that can yield benefits greater than either strategy is likely to yield alone” (Guskey, 1990, 40).
As this course progresses, it is evident that the focus must be on the students learning rather than the teaching. A teacher should pull from different strategies in order to reach all modalities.
[References]
Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery. Instruction and curriculum, 1, 1-11.
Guskey, T.R. (1990). Cooperative mastery learning strategies. The elementary school journal, 91, 33-42.
Aptitude for learning, quality of instruction, ability to understand instruction, perseverance, and time allowed for learning are all aspects explored by Bloom in his article. In order to achieve success in all of these aspects, individual needs of all students must be addressed. Students control the course of information and learn independently.
The main focus of mastery learning is for each student to be graded on their performance without any predetermined or low expectations. An overlying objective is set and students accomplish this objective by working with each other or on their own (when the objective is reached a student receives an A). Bloom (1968) argues that differential instruction and opportunity to learn would allow a majority of students to achieve mastery.
As far as contemporary educational practices go, I feel that mastery learning is used in some form. Critical thinking skills are stressed across disciplines and open-ended questions force students to find answers independently.
“Mastery learning offers a framework for determining a meaningful balance between directed teaching activities and the use of cooperative student teams” (Guskey, 1990, 37). Students use their different levels of ability and prior knowledge to improve their understanding of the material. Students work with each to create an atmosphere of achievement.
In my opinion, students acquire higher learning skills. They are able to develop their critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills because they work towards the objective until accomplished. Interpersonal life skills are attained through team work and achieving a common goal.
“Cooperative learning and mastery learning offer educators complementary tools that can yield benefits greater than either strategy is likely to yield alone” (Guskey, 1990, 40).
As this course progresses, it is evident that the focus must be on the students learning rather than the teaching. A teacher should pull from different strategies in order to reach all modalities.
[References]
Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery. Instruction and curriculum, 1, 1-11.
Guskey, T.R. (1990). Cooperative mastery learning strategies. The elementary school journal, 91, 33-42.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Seven: Mindtools
Student understanding is constructed and maintained by a student’s active role in which they are fully engaged in integrating new information with past knowledge and experience. The constructivist model shows how learning can be facilitated through certain types of engaging and constructive activities. Constructivism emphasizes in-depth analysis of all concepts (historical, social, political, emotional) through active participation.
In his article “Constructivism Examined,” Richard Fox explores the negative aspects of constructivism. Fox (2001) claims that constructivist theories “provide misleading and incomplete views of human learning, with consequently misleading implications for teaching in classrooms,” (p.23).
Fox presents a critic of what he feels to be the building blocks of constructivism. His main argument is that constructivist learners are restricted by their learning history and that “no upsetting differences in innate ability or talent have to be confronted,” (Fox, 2001, 33). Constructivism, however, goes beyond innate ability because it challenges students to reorganize their cognitive information.
I believe that no matter what instruction model a teacher uses, it is often hard to engage students who are not interested. However, constructivism does not allow learners to passively receive and store information.
Integrating technology can help facilitate student understanding. “Mindtools function as formalisms for guiding learners in organization and representation of what they know” (Jonassen et al., 1998, 30). Technology forces students to actively create meaning; thus, engaging them in their learning process. I believe that students remember more and process information better if it is related to previous knowledge and if it appeals to their interests. It is hard to deny that students are interested in technology.
Technology and constructivism reaffirm and support my previous opinions on the Clark/Kozma debate. Kozma urges his readers to “think about media not in terms of their surface features but in terms of their underlying structure and the causal mechanisms by which they might interact with cognitive and social processes,” (Kozma, 1994, 11). I still feel that technology is more than often the better choice. Technology helps to gear instruction more towards the individual student and task.
I would personally integrate technology with a constructivist point of view when creating my lessons because it encourages thoughtful reflection on real-world settings or case-based learning instead of predetermined sequences of instruction. Technology can help students in the constructing, organizing, inventing, and developing of knowledge.
[References]
Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism Examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27, 23-35.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.
Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reforming the debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42, 7-19.
In his article “Constructivism Examined,” Richard Fox explores the negative aspects of constructivism. Fox (2001) claims that constructivist theories “provide misleading and incomplete views of human learning, with consequently misleading implications for teaching in classrooms,” (p.23).
Fox presents a critic of what he feels to be the building blocks of constructivism. His main argument is that constructivist learners are restricted by their learning history and that “no upsetting differences in innate ability or talent have to be confronted,” (Fox, 2001, 33). Constructivism, however, goes beyond innate ability because it challenges students to reorganize their cognitive information.
I believe that no matter what instruction model a teacher uses, it is often hard to engage students who are not interested. However, constructivism does not allow learners to passively receive and store information.
Integrating technology can help facilitate student understanding. “Mindtools function as formalisms for guiding learners in organization and representation of what they know” (Jonassen et al., 1998, 30). Technology forces students to actively create meaning; thus, engaging them in their learning process. I believe that students remember more and process information better if it is related to previous knowledge and if it appeals to their interests. It is hard to deny that students are interested in technology.
Technology and constructivism reaffirm and support my previous opinions on the Clark/Kozma debate. Kozma urges his readers to “think about media not in terms of their surface features but in terms of their underlying structure and the causal mechanisms by which they might interact with cognitive and social processes,” (Kozma, 1994, 11). I still feel that technology is more than often the better choice. Technology helps to gear instruction more towards the individual student and task.
I would personally integrate technology with a constructivist point of view when creating my lessons because it encourages thoughtful reflection on real-world settings or case-based learning instead of predetermined sequences of instruction. Technology can help students in the constructing, organizing, inventing, and developing of knowledge.
[References]
Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism Examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27, 23-35.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.
Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reforming the debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42, 7-19.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Six: Papert
I agree with Papert’s argument that it is important to teach/show students how to learn. I think that this applies across all mediums of learning. For example, teachers insist that their students listen to them and to each other but what teacher’s often fail to do is to teach/show the students how to listen. Teachers need to model and explain good listening skills and techniques. They need to provide the students with a purpose for listening just like they should provides them with a purpose for learning.
I-Search projects are a good example of how the learning process should take place. I-Search projects replace the traditional research project. “A collaborative classroom is the natural setting for an I-Search project because of the emphasis on conversation” (Kaszyca & Krueger, 1994, 62).
The I-Search Unit consists of four sections:
I. Becoming immersed in a Topic – Teachers elicit student knowledge and interest in brainstorming activities. Teachers guide students in finding a topic of interests. Students create a focus statement, questions and/or idea.
II. Developing a Search Plan – Teachers guide students in developing plan and techniques to gather information. Students are encouraged to use a wide variety of resources. Students keep track of their resources and information.
III. Gathering and Integrating Information – Students gather and organize their information. The construct meaning from their research.
IV. Representing Knowledge – Students must reflect on their process, what they have learned and what this means to them. Students finalize and share reports and exhibitions with the class.
This inquiry-based research project actively engages students in the research process. The main objective is for students to research and write about a topic that interests them and connects to their life. “It even suggests that the deliberate part of learning consists of making connections between mental entities that already exist; new mental entities seem to come into existence in more subtle ways that escape conscious control” (Papert, 1993, p.105).
I-Search allows students to develop their own knowledge by providing them with freedom to explore different resources and develop individualized products. It is a learning process because students must work through their confusion and create their own understanding. Papert was able to create meaning by connecting two different parts of knowledge; I-Search guides students to do the same.
[References]
Kaszyca, M. and Krueger, A.M. (1994). Collaborative voices: Reflections on the I-Search project. The English Journal, 83(1), 62-65.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.
I-Search projects are a good example of how the learning process should take place. I-Search projects replace the traditional research project. “A collaborative classroom is the natural setting for an I-Search project because of the emphasis on conversation” (Kaszyca & Krueger, 1994, 62).
The I-Search Unit consists of four sections:
I. Becoming immersed in a Topic – Teachers elicit student knowledge and interest in brainstorming activities. Teachers guide students in finding a topic of interests. Students create a focus statement, questions and/or idea.
II. Developing a Search Plan – Teachers guide students in developing plan and techniques to gather information. Students are encouraged to use a wide variety of resources. Students keep track of their resources and information.
III. Gathering and Integrating Information – Students gather and organize their information. The construct meaning from their research.
IV. Representing Knowledge – Students must reflect on their process, what they have learned and what this means to them. Students finalize and share reports and exhibitions with the class.
This inquiry-based research project actively engages students in the research process. The main objective is for students to research and write about a topic that interests them and connects to their life. “It even suggests that the deliberate part of learning consists of making connections between mental entities that already exist; new mental entities seem to come into existence in more subtle ways that escape conscious control” (Papert, 1993, p.105).
I-Search allows students to develop their own knowledge by providing them with freedom to explore different resources and develop individualized products. It is a learning process because students must work through their confusion and create their own understanding. Papert was able to create meaning by connecting two different parts of knowledge; I-Search guides students to do the same.
[References]
Kaszyca, M. and Krueger, A.M. (1994). Collaborative voices: Reflections on the I-Search project. The English Journal, 83(1), 62-65.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Five: Tarlow and Spangler
The Tarlow and Spangler article poses several questions about implementing technology in the classroom. Below are some of those questions and my responses to them.
1. The authors assume that technology makes our lives easier. They ask their audience “is an easier life good for our cognitive souls?” (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001, 26).
Our cognitive souls consist of processes of awareness, perception, reasoning and judgment. Technology is able to foster and further develop each of these processes; therefore, I would argue that technology is good for our cognitive souls. For example, accessing information on current events is made easier with the Internet. This information increases your awareness. The Internet allows you to access more information in a shorter time, it provides a variety of sources, and it makes the most current information accessible. Therefore, the convenience of the Internet provides users with ways to effectively increase their awareness.
2. “Have the conveniences that come with technology…been beneficial…to our tendency to reflect and think critically?” (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001, p. 26).
(Listed below are the conveniences of technology and a description of how that convenience helps users to reflect and think critically.)
Variety of sources – If a user is able to access a variety of sources (via the Internet for example) then that user is being exposed to different information, opinions, perspectives and experiences. A user who already possesses critical thinking skills will be able to identify reliable sources and reflect on why or why not they agree with the information presented.
Time effective – Technology is often implemented in order to save time. If a user is able to perform a task faster then more time can be spend on reflecting on the strengths, weaknesses and effects of the task. For example, graphing technology allows users to organize and graph data in a time effective manner. Once the information is recorded, users are able to reflect on the process and outcomes.
Individual Learning – Computers, for example, help students to work independently. Each student is able to work at his or her own pace as well as at his or her ability level. Students must work through the task by themselves and solve any problems they encouter. Teachers are then able to take on the role of a helper rather then a sage on the stage.
3. “What is necessary to developing a new literacy that incorporates circular, linear, and multidimensional modes of thinking” (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001, p. 27).
Teachers must be able to generate holistic designs that enable new ways of teaching and learning. Using technology requires careful planning, and the teacher must always keep in mind student ability. Effective teachers must develop individualized techniques and principles for each technology the implement (Lusty, 1969).
A major educational problem is how do we get teachers to teach less and students learn more. Technology has the potential to do this. It is important for students to explore resources independently and make connections without guidance. If students have access to technology they are able to apply what they have learned with real-world relevance. Technology integration eliminates problems of student disengagement and low academic achievement by creating personalized, project-based learning environments.
[References]
Lusty, Stuart. (1969). Educational technology. Peabody Journal of Education, 47 (1), 53-56.
Tarlow, M. C. & Spangler, K.L. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest, 67 (3), 23-27.
1. The authors assume that technology makes our lives easier. They ask their audience “is an easier life good for our cognitive souls?” (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001, 26).
Our cognitive souls consist of processes of awareness, perception, reasoning and judgment. Technology is able to foster and further develop each of these processes; therefore, I would argue that technology is good for our cognitive souls. For example, accessing information on current events is made easier with the Internet. This information increases your awareness. The Internet allows you to access more information in a shorter time, it provides a variety of sources, and it makes the most current information accessible. Therefore, the convenience of the Internet provides users with ways to effectively increase their awareness.
2. “Have the conveniences that come with technology…been beneficial…to our tendency to reflect and think critically?” (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001, p. 26).
(Listed below are the conveniences of technology and a description of how that convenience helps users to reflect and think critically.)
Variety of sources – If a user is able to access a variety of sources (via the Internet for example) then that user is being exposed to different information, opinions, perspectives and experiences. A user who already possesses critical thinking skills will be able to identify reliable sources and reflect on why or why not they agree with the information presented.
Time effective – Technology is often implemented in order to save time. If a user is able to perform a task faster then more time can be spend on reflecting on the strengths, weaknesses and effects of the task. For example, graphing technology allows users to organize and graph data in a time effective manner. Once the information is recorded, users are able to reflect on the process and outcomes.
Individual Learning – Computers, for example, help students to work independently. Each student is able to work at his or her own pace as well as at his or her ability level. Students must work through the task by themselves and solve any problems they encouter. Teachers are then able to take on the role of a helper rather then a sage on the stage.
3. “What is necessary to developing a new literacy that incorporates circular, linear, and multidimensional modes of thinking” (Tarlow & Spangler, 2001, p. 27).
Teachers must be able to generate holistic designs that enable new ways of teaching and learning. Using technology requires careful planning, and the teacher must always keep in mind student ability. Effective teachers must develop individualized techniques and principles for each technology the implement (Lusty, 1969).
A major educational problem is how do we get teachers to teach less and students learn more. Technology has the potential to do this. It is important for students to explore resources independently and make connections without guidance. If students have access to technology they are able to apply what they have learned with real-world relevance. Technology integration eliminates problems of student disengagement and low academic achievement by creating personalized, project-based learning environments.
[References]
Lusty, Stuart. (1969). Educational technology. Peabody Journal of Education, 47 (1), 53-56.
Tarlow, M. C. & Spangler, K.L. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest, 67 (3), 23-27.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Four: Reeves Cultural Diversity in Evaluation
Inequalities in evaluation were brought to my attention early in my college experience. I attended Syracuse University for my freshman year and participated in a literacy program that placed me in an inner-city elementary school. I read the story of the hen who asks the other animals to help her cook but no one wants to; however, when the cooking is done everyone wants to eat. I had to follow a formatted evaluation that was being implemented to help determine student reading levels. I was evaluating a Hispanic boy on his comprehension and interpretation skills. He was able to recall the important aspects of the story; however, when he was asked why no one helped the hen his response was because it is not their job to help, it is the hen’s job to cook for the men and children. My corresponding teacher immediately marked him as have poor interpretation skills. When we met to discuss the results, I tried to explain to my corresponding teacher that the boy’s answer was based in his personal experience. In his house, his mother is responsible for cooking for the rest of her family. In fact, if he goes into the kitchen while she’s cooking he often gets in trouble. The formatted evaluation did not take into consideration cultural diversity or sensitivity.
Cultural diversity and sensitivity in evaluation is important because it eliminates institutionalized privileges. In my opinion, the issue of cultural diversity in evaluation will always exist when there is a majority in which has privileges. Privileges in evaluation are granted to those who are a part of the mainstream culture and reflect the ideals of the majority because evaluations are designed by people of the majority and reflect mainstream culture. In order to create equality in evaluation, the values of different cultures must be recognized and appreciated (Reeves, 1997).
Evaluations are conducted because feedback is necessary for development. It is important for evaluations to accurately reflect those being assessed. If evaluations aim to be ethical and truly portray who/what is being assessed then cultural diversity is needed to legitimatize the process (Reeves, 1997).
Content bias in tests make the results insignificant because they are disproportionate representations of those being tested. “Just as blatant forms of bias have no place in education, more subtle forms are equally intolerable” (Zoref & Williams, 1980, p. 313).
It is evident that bias in evaluation should be eliminate; however, determining how to eliminate bias by promoting cultural diversity and sensitivity is more complex. I do not have a solution; however, I feel that the first step is to recognize that there is an issue and that this issue must be solved in order to achieve equality. Individuals should take it upon themselves to explore their personal bias and privileges. They should be recognize, appreciate and promote diversity.
[References]
Reeves, T. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.
Zoref, Leslie & Paul Williams. (1980). A look at content bias in IQ tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17 ( 4), 313-322.
Cultural diversity and sensitivity in evaluation is important because it eliminates institutionalized privileges. In my opinion, the issue of cultural diversity in evaluation will always exist when there is a majority in which has privileges. Privileges in evaluation are granted to those who are a part of the mainstream culture and reflect the ideals of the majority because evaluations are designed by people of the majority and reflect mainstream culture. In order to create equality in evaluation, the values of different cultures must be recognized and appreciated (Reeves, 1997).
Evaluations are conducted because feedback is necessary for development. It is important for evaluations to accurately reflect those being assessed. If evaluations aim to be ethical and truly portray who/what is being assessed then cultural diversity is needed to legitimatize the process (Reeves, 1997).
Content bias in tests make the results insignificant because they are disproportionate representations of those being tested. “Just as blatant forms of bias have no place in education, more subtle forms are equally intolerable” (Zoref & Williams, 1980, p. 313).
It is evident that bias in evaluation should be eliminate; however, determining how to eliminate bias by promoting cultural diversity and sensitivity is more complex. I do not have a solution; however, I feel that the first step is to recognize that there is an issue and that this issue must be solved in order to achieve equality. Individuals should take it upon themselves to explore their personal bias and privileges. They should be recognize, appreciate and promote diversity.
[References]
Reeves, T. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.
Zoref, Leslie & Paul Williams. (1980). A look at content bias in IQ tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17 ( 4), 313-322.
