Sunday, April 3, 2011
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Journal Article#9: Science + Technology = Creativity (and Fun!)
Mader, Jared (2009). Science + Technology = Creativity (and Fun!). Learning and Leading with Technology, 1, Retrieved 08/07/2009, from http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=August_No_1_2&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&NavMenuID=4363&ContentID=23906&DirectListComboInd=D
The article Science + Technology = Creativity (and Fun!) discusses ways to integrate technology and creativity with science. Science is usually thought of as a very systematic, methodical subject with little room for creativity. The first thing that article stresses in combining science and creativity is giving the students the right tools. The article lists as examples, microphones, camcorders, and digital cameras as tools that students would find useful in this integration process. The article suggests students make digital recordings of themselves relaying information about a specific scientific topic. It then goes on to suggest taking it a step further once students become comfortable with this, and adding digital images to their research. In the second semester, the article states that teachers should begin giving assignments that are vague in the procedure and open ended in the product description. The article gives an example of this by a teacher instructing a class to do a project on how waves work. The teacher was vague and open ended. The majority of class chose to do Powerpoint presentations, but one group chose to create a music video in which the lyrics defined how waves worked. This type of creativity is exactly what the article is getting at. The article also stresses the point that student will need to be given more time to complete these sort of open ended projects, to transition into the new approach and to figure out how to use the new technology tools. Eventually students will require less time once they become acclimated.
How much time does it take to teach students how to use new types of technology? Teachers are pressed for time as it is, how much time will be taken away from science lessons to teach students how to use technology that has nothing to do with science? Are students really going to benefit from technology that they are only going to use to present projects? My only concern is that too much time may be devoted to making science fun and not enough time devoted to actual lessons. The way the article described the usage of new technology seemed like suggestions on how to incorporate media tools that students either already know how to use, or don't have any real scientific value. They were using digital cameras, not Geiger counters.
Is being vague good for the majority of students? The article listed an example of the teacher being purposely vague that actually got students to be creative and think "outside the box" but what did it do for the rest of the class? I think that the majority of students resent teachers that are vague in instructions and procedures, and often times it is frustrating and leads to poorer results then if a teacher is explicit. I would like to know how many projects were below expectations because the students did not know what to do. I personally don't believe creativity has any place in the science class. I think if teachers continue down this path, facts and application are going to take a back seat to creativity, which should be encouraged in an art or creative writing class.
The article Science + Technology = Creativity (and Fun!) discusses ways to integrate technology and creativity with science. Science is usually thought of as a very systematic, methodical subject with little room for creativity. The first thing that article stresses in combining science and creativity is giving the students the right tools. The article lists as examples, microphones, camcorders, and digital cameras as tools that students would find useful in this integration process. The article suggests students make digital recordings of themselves relaying information about a specific scientific topic. It then goes on to suggest taking it a step further once students become comfortable with this, and adding digital images to their research. In the second semester, the article states that teachers should begin giving assignments that are vague in the procedure and open ended in the product description. The article gives an example of this by a teacher instructing a class to do a project on how waves work. The teacher was vague and open ended. The majority of class chose to do Powerpoint presentations, but one group chose to create a music video in which the lyrics defined how waves worked. This type of creativity is exactly what the article is getting at. The article also stresses the point that student will need to be given more time to complete these sort of open ended projects, to transition into the new approach and to figure out how to use the new technology tools. Eventually students will require less time once they become acclimated.
How much time does it take to teach students how to use new types of technology? Teachers are pressed for time as it is, how much time will be taken away from science lessons to teach students how to use technology that has nothing to do with science? Are students really going to benefit from technology that they are only going to use to present projects? My only concern is that too much time may be devoted to making science fun and not enough time devoted to actual lessons. The way the article described the usage of new technology seemed like suggestions on how to incorporate media tools that students either already know how to use, or don't have any real scientific value. They were using digital cameras, not Geiger counters.
Is being vague good for the majority of students? The article listed an example of the teacher being purposely vague that actually got students to be creative and think "outside the box" but what did it do for the rest of the class? I think that the majority of students resent teachers that are vague in instructions and procedures, and often times it is frustrating and leads to poorer results then if a teacher is explicit. I would like to know how many projects were below expectations because the students did not know what to do. I personally don't believe creativity has any place in the science class. I think if teachers continue down this path, facts and application are going to take a back seat to creativity, which should be encouraged in an art or creative writing class.
Jornal Article #8: Choosing the Perfect Tools for One-to-One
Bouterse, Brian (2009/08). Choosing the Perfect Tools for One-to-One. Learning and Leading with Technology, 1, Retrieved 08/07/2009, from
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/LL/Current_Issue/L_L_August.htm
The article Choosing the Perfect Tools for One-to-One deals with the issue of selecting the right computer for the classroom. The article lists three types of computers, the thick, ultraportable, and thin. Thick devices are traditional computers, ultraportable devices that can't handle application or educational content locally, and thin devices are not portable and cannot work unless they are connected to a network. The article also lists six critical questions that should be addressed before selecting the type of devices needed to create a portable educational atmosphere. 1. Does the schools have the need for single-purpose machines or does it have the need for multipurpose machines? 2. What sort of operating systems does the school have the resources to support? What system do the teachers feel most comfortable with? 3. Does the school want to install local applications, web-based applications, or both? 4. Does the school want to install local content, web-based content, or both? 5. Will the school be using peripheral equipment such as probes, microscopes, GPS units, digital cameras, etc.? 6. How well can the school protect its devices from the everyday wear and tear from students and staff? Schools need to take into consideration the robustness of the device, battery life, virus protection, etc. The article also lists some important expenditure consideration in regards to new technology: device, support, professional development, connectivity and networking, software, replacement, and retrofitting. It is also important for schools when purchasing new technology not to be overly concerned with the initial expense of the device itself. The total cost of ownership reflects many more considerations. If the technology is inexpensive, but the output is poor, then the overall investment is a bad one.
What good is new technology if it can't do it all? The article lists several alternatives to a traditional computer, but what are the advantages of buying new technology that is so limited. The article listed a TI graphing calculator as one of the alternatives, but it seems almost pointless. What school plans on buying new technology to perform single-purpose functions. It seems to me that the logical thing for a school to do is just spend the money for traditional computers that can do it all.
What exactly is an ultraportable and thin device? The article listed what they can and cannot do, but it did not give any examples of each (except for the graphing calculator, which I don't even think of as a real computer, and an Alphasmart, and I have no idea what that is). The article did not make a very good case for these alternative devices because they did not explicitly define what they are. Are they computers or not? I would like to see a picture of what an ultraportable and thin device look like.
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/LL/Current_Issue/L_L_August.htm
The article Choosing the Perfect Tools for One-to-One deals with the issue of selecting the right computer for the classroom. The article lists three types of computers, the thick, ultraportable, and thin. Thick devices are traditional computers, ultraportable devices that can't handle application or educational content locally, and thin devices are not portable and cannot work unless they are connected to a network. The article also lists six critical questions that should be addressed before selecting the type of devices needed to create a portable educational atmosphere. 1. Does the schools have the need for single-purpose machines or does it have the need for multipurpose machines? 2. What sort of operating systems does the school have the resources to support? What system do the teachers feel most comfortable with? 3. Does the school want to install local applications, web-based applications, or both? 4. Does the school want to install local content, web-based content, or both? 5. Will the school be using peripheral equipment such as probes, microscopes, GPS units, digital cameras, etc.? 6. How well can the school protect its devices from the everyday wear and tear from students and staff? Schools need to take into consideration the robustness of the device, battery life, virus protection, etc. The article also lists some important expenditure consideration in regards to new technology: device, support, professional development, connectivity and networking, software, replacement, and retrofitting. It is also important for schools when purchasing new technology not to be overly concerned with the initial expense of the device itself. The total cost of ownership reflects many more considerations. If the technology is inexpensive, but the output is poor, then the overall investment is a bad one.
What good is new technology if it can't do it all? The article lists several alternatives to a traditional computer, but what are the advantages of buying new technology that is so limited. The article listed a TI graphing calculator as one of the alternatives, but it seems almost pointless. What school plans on buying new technology to perform single-purpose functions. It seems to me that the logical thing for a school to do is just spend the money for traditional computers that can do it all.
What exactly is an ultraportable and thin device? The article listed what they can and cannot do, but it did not give any examples of each (except for the graphing calculator, which I don't even think of as a real computer, and an Alphasmart, and I have no idea what that is). The article did not make a very good case for these alternative devices because they did not explicitly define what they are. Are they computers or not? I would like to see a picture of what an ultraportable and thin device look like.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Journal Article #7: Beyond Social Networking: Building Toward Learning Commuities
Reynard, Ruth (2009/07/15). Beyond social networking: Building toward learning communities. The Journal, Retrieved 08/01/2009, from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2009/07/15/Beyond-Social-Networking-Building-Toward-Learning-Communities.aspx?Page=1
The article Beyond Social Networking: Building Toward Learning Communities deals with the issue of creating learning communities out of social networking tools. The article stresses the point that if educators only encourage students to socialize, the goal of building virtual learning communities will be missed. Relationships are an important part of the classroom, but this should evolve into idea exchange and educational discourse. The article also points out the necessity of teachers connecting with their students through social networking, the teacher should also have an educational goal in doing this. It is stated in the article that if students perceive that their teacher is only interested in the social aspects of networking, they students will often find this "creepy". If teachers are going to actively be engaged in networks such as Facebook, there should be an educational reason that accompanies this. There should be references to the class or a separate container for classroom discussions.
The article also stresses the point that social construction of knowledge does simply go hand-in-hand with social networking, it has to be done on purpose. The article offer several steps to encourage students to become active participants in the social construction of knowledge: 1. Maintain a constant presence; 2. Use a variety of technology tools to keep the students' interest; 3. The instructor should showcase the methodology they use, explaining to students how they have done what they have done; 4. Continue to constantly engage the students and treat them as individuals.
The article also lists some of the challenges associated with constructing a community of knowledge through technology. First, students will often times feel uncomfortable with using new technology. Second, students may have a problem with presenting their material to a wide audience over the Internet. There are several skills that students should acquire through this process of knowledge constructivism. Students should learn simulation or how to interpret and construct dynamic models of real world processes. They should also become familiar with collective knowledge or being able to pool knowledge and compare notes toward a common goal. They should also learn about negotiation, or being able to travel across diverse communities, discerning multiple perspectives and grasping alternative norms.
How can students in lower income families participate in these learning communities if they do not have Internet access at home? I would assume the best answer is for these students to stay after school if there is something pressing that needs their attention, or use a library that has free Internet access. However this sort of defeats the purpose of what is trying to be achieved. Students in these circumstances will not have the luxury of joining into this learning community at their leisure and this will then become more work for them instead collaborative environment that is meant to make things easier for them.
How do you keep students engaged? The article states one of the most important elements of creating a learning community via social networking is to keep the students engaged, but it does not offer any suggestions on how to do this.
The article Beyond Social Networking: Building Toward Learning Communities deals with the issue of creating learning communities out of social networking tools. The article stresses the point that if educators only encourage students to socialize, the goal of building virtual learning communities will be missed. Relationships are an important part of the classroom, but this should evolve into idea exchange and educational discourse. The article also points out the necessity of teachers connecting with their students through social networking, the teacher should also have an educational goal in doing this. It is stated in the article that if students perceive that their teacher is only interested in the social aspects of networking, they students will often find this "creepy". If teachers are going to actively be engaged in networks such as Facebook, there should be an educational reason that accompanies this. There should be references to the class or a separate container for classroom discussions.
The article also stresses the point that social construction of knowledge does simply go hand-in-hand with social networking, it has to be done on purpose. The article offer several steps to encourage students to become active participants in the social construction of knowledge: 1. Maintain a constant presence; 2. Use a variety of technology tools to keep the students' interest; 3. The instructor should showcase the methodology they use, explaining to students how they have done what they have done; 4. Continue to constantly engage the students and treat them as individuals.
The article also lists some of the challenges associated with constructing a community of knowledge through technology. First, students will often times feel uncomfortable with using new technology. Second, students may have a problem with presenting their material to a wide audience over the Internet. There are several skills that students should acquire through this process of knowledge constructivism. Students should learn simulation or how to interpret and construct dynamic models of real world processes. They should also become familiar with collective knowledge or being able to pool knowledge and compare notes toward a common goal. They should also learn about negotiation, or being able to travel across diverse communities, discerning multiple perspectives and grasping alternative norms.
How can students in lower income families participate in these learning communities if they do not have Internet access at home? I would assume the best answer is for these students to stay after school if there is something pressing that needs their attention, or use a library that has free Internet access. However this sort of defeats the purpose of what is trying to be achieved. Students in these circumstances will not have the luxury of joining into this learning community at their leisure and this will then become more work for them instead collaborative environment that is meant to make things easier for them.
How do you keep students engaged? The article states one of the most important elements of creating a learning community via social networking is to keep the students engaged, but it does not offer any suggestions on how to do this.
Journal Artical #6: Don't Feed The Trolls
Richardson, Karen W. (2008). Don't Feed The Trolls. Learning and Leading With Technology, 7, Retrieved 07/28/2009, from
http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=May_No_7_&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&NavMenuID=3972&ContentID=20817&DirectListComboInd=D
The article Don't Feed The Trolls deals with the issue of online civil discourse. The definition of a troll according to Wikipedia is a "person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion forums or to upset its participants." The article offers several guidelines, rules and suggestions in dealing with the issue. The article cites a writing program called MOOse Crossing that also promotes online civil discourse. According to MOOse Crossing, one of the most important things we can tell children is to review the rules that are already in place. This can broken down into the phrase, "don't say or do anything online that you wouldn't do at recess at school."
The following are several rules presented by the article in regards to proper discourse: Use "I" statements to clarify what you are saying and who is saying it; Avoid labeling groups of people; Don't use name-calling; Discuss ideas and not people; Don't respond to provocations-the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them; Stay on topic; Be willing to really listen to points of view that differ from your own; Realize that what you say may be taken differently than what you meant.
The article also encourages self monitoring. Students should constantly be using self restraint when engaged in online discourse. A rule of thumb is, "if you think that maybe you shouldn't post something, then you shouldn't." Students should be taught to think before they post. Students should also be encouraged to reflect about online conversations; they should be asking themselves 'what could I have said differently to avoid a miscommunication next time?' Teachers should also model civil discourse whenever the opportunity may arise. Lastly, teachers need to provide opportunities; civil discourse forms the foundation of a democratic society.
How are students supposed to handle a situation in which they have posted a comment that has been taken the wrong way? I would imagine the best way to handle this is to write another post explaining the miscommunication and apologizing for misunderstanding. I would like to know if there is some sort of etiquette or guideline that is in place for this sort of thing. I can imagine that I may someday post something that is taken the wrong way-I've done it several times with text messages.
At what age should students be trusted to engage in online discussions? It seems that online discussions involve a certain amount of tact that some students may not be mature enough for. Should third graders be allowed to post messages, or should they become more fluent in the subtleties of discourse first?
http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=May_No_7_&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&NavMenuID=3972&ContentID=20817&DirectListComboInd=D
The article Don't Feed The Trolls deals with the issue of online civil discourse. The definition of a troll according to Wikipedia is a "person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion forums or to upset its participants." The article offers several guidelines, rules and suggestions in dealing with the issue. The article cites a writing program called MOOse Crossing that also promotes online civil discourse. According to MOOse Crossing, one of the most important things we can tell children is to review the rules that are already in place. This can broken down into the phrase, "don't say or do anything online that you wouldn't do at recess at school."
The following are several rules presented by the article in regards to proper discourse: Use "I" statements to clarify what you are saying and who is saying it; Avoid labeling groups of people; Don't use name-calling; Discuss ideas and not people; Don't respond to provocations-the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them; Stay on topic; Be willing to really listen to points of view that differ from your own; Realize that what you say may be taken differently than what you meant.
The article also encourages self monitoring. Students should constantly be using self restraint when engaged in online discourse. A rule of thumb is, "if you think that maybe you shouldn't post something, then you shouldn't." Students should be taught to think before they post. Students should also be encouraged to reflect about online conversations; they should be asking themselves 'what could I have said differently to avoid a miscommunication next time?' Teachers should also model civil discourse whenever the opportunity may arise. Lastly, teachers need to provide opportunities; civil discourse forms the foundation of a democratic society.
How are students supposed to handle a situation in which they have posted a comment that has been taken the wrong way? I would imagine the best way to handle this is to write another post explaining the miscommunication and apologizing for misunderstanding. I would like to know if there is some sort of etiquette or guideline that is in place for this sort of thing. I can imagine that I may someday post something that is taken the wrong way-I've done it several times with text messages.
At what age should students be trusted to engage in online discussions? It seems that online discussions involve a certain amount of tact that some students may not be mature enough for. Should third graders be allowed to post messages, or should they become more fluent in the subtleties of discourse first?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
My Wiki Page: Studiyo; NETS IV
I created this Wiki page and had researched a quiz and poll tool called Studiyo, I created a sample quiz that can be accessed below.
NETS Power Point; NETS II
I created this Powerpoint presentation entailing the NETS-S for grades 3-5. I offered several suggestions on projects that could be done to accomplish specific NETS.
Intro to NETS for Students Grade Level 3
Intro to NETS for Students Grade Level 3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)