Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
In the article Listen to the Natives by Marc Prensky teachers are called to listen to the technological voice of their students.
The question to be considered seems to be adopt or adapt. The parts of Prensky’s article which did not resonate sounded like adopting. That is, adopting the “21st Century” technology as some magic potion for success with these “21st Century” kids. The suggestion to make math video games for instance seemed to suggest that simply making the game would lead to learning. “For example, students could learn algebra far more quickly and effectively if instruction were available in game format. Students would need to beat the game to pass the course. They would be invested and engaged in the process.” I think it is obvious there would need to be more to it than this. Too often in this article Prensky suggests adopting technology is THE answer. He says things like, “Our students are no longer ‘little versions of us,’ as they may have been in the past. In fact, they are so different from us that we can no longer use either our 20th century knowledge or our training as a guide to what is best for them educationally.” This is simply not true. Young people will still face the same fundamental problems people have always faced. There may be some surface factors which are different but the underlying human experience will be very similar. There are so many educational factors outside of technology which come into play.
Let me explain with an example from another field. Suppose, a 20th Century person and a 21st Century person both buy stock. The 21CP uses a computer to buy stocks and does research on the internet. The 20CP calls his broker on his landline phone and read a paper version of the Wall Street Journal for research. The 21CP is probably getting better transaction rates, quicker reaction times, and newer information. But none of the technology benefits necessarily equal success. Technology will make a difference, especially in the margins but just like education success goes far beyond the method. The 20CP probably has a lot of experience and knowledge which indicate which companies to buy and which to pass on. The 21CP would be wise to understand the values of the older 20CP. Also the 21CP would probably be more successful long term to skew toward the 20CP practices before 21.5 comes along and wins the technology battle. By comparison I think teachers have or should have a lot more to offer than methods which technology really is, just a method.
I do think though Prensky is probably more on the adapt side of the equation. On rereading the article, most of the things proposed are just examples and suggestions not lesson plans. So I think I can cut Prensky a little slack. Most of his ideas seem to be presented to help spur teachers to positive adapting practices. I certainly agree that teachers should adapt and treat their students with respect for their ideas. But this is not new, it just looks different. I would have like the article a little more if Prensky connected adapting as a fundamental teaching attribute and not something new.
The question to be considered seems to be adopt or adapt. The parts of Prensky’s article which did not resonate sounded like adopting. That is, adopting the “21st Century” technology as some magic potion for success with these “21st Century” kids. The suggestion to make math video games for instance seemed to suggest that simply making the game would lead to learning. “For example, students could learn algebra far more quickly and effectively if instruction were available in game format. Students would need to beat the game to pass the course. They would be invested and engaged in the process.” I think it is obvious there would need to be more to it than this. Too often in this article Prensky suggests adopting technology is THE answer. He says things like, “Our students are no longer ‘little versions of us,’ as they may have been in the past. In fact, they are so different from us that we can no longer use either our 20th century knowledge or our training as a guide to what is best for them educationally.” This is simply not true. Young people will still face the same fundamental problems people have always faced. There may be some surface factors which are different but the underlying human experience will be very similar. There are so many educational factors outside of technology which come into play.
Let me explain with an example from another field. Suppose, a 20th Century person and a 21st Century person both buy stock. The 21CP uses a computer to buy stocks and does research on the internet. The 20CP calls his broker on his landline phone and read a paper version of the Wall Street Journal for research. The 21CP is probably getting better transaction rates, quicker reaction times, and newer information. But none of the technology benefits necessarily equal success. Technology will make a difference, especially in the margins but just like education success goes far beyond the method. The 20CP probably has a lot of experience and knowledge which indicate which companies to buy and which to pass on. The 21CP would be wise to understand the values of the older 20CP. Also the 21CP would probably be more successful long term to skew toward the 20CP practices before 21.5 comes along and wins the technology battle. By comparison I think teachers have or should have a lot more to offer than methods which technology really is, just a method.
I do think though Prensky is probably more on the adapt side of the equation. On rereading the article, most of the things proposed are just examples and suggestions not lesson plans. So I think I can cut Prensky a little slack. Most of his ideas seem to be presented to help spur teachers to positive adapting practices. I certainly agree that teachers should adapt and treat their students with respect for their ideas. But this is not new, it just looks different. I would have like the article a little more if Prensky connected adapting as a fundamental teaching attribute and not something new.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Death by Power Point
The pointlessness of PowerPoint™ , death by PowerPoint™ or any similar pithy remark are very common in our tech saturated world. Something which was so exciting when first introduced has become a negative in many settings. This is one area where my military experience strangely comes into play. For a while everything in the military was a PowerPoint™ presentation. Every place someone went the first thing was a safety PowerPoint™ then there would be an Equal Opportunity PowerPoint™. Eventually, a PowerPoint™ presentation was an unspoken way of saying we have to do this but I don't really have anything invested in it and you don't need to either. PowerPoint™ also enabled anyone to appear to be an expert at a moment's notice. If you had a good product and could fake it, you could present on anything. It was far easier to go over some slides then stand and talk next to them than to create a new presentation or genuinely know the material. So PowerPoint™ made everyone a "expert".
This is one of the serious considerations to discuss when using technology. Whether it is PowerPoint™ or some other form of multimedia, the presenter must know more than the presentation. The presentation is not going to be able to interact with the students or explain concepts in additional ways.
As Jamie McKenzie says, "The goal is the creation of a strong and charismatic relationship with the audience. Students must master strategies to develop and maintain contact, engagement, credibility and trust." Jamie also points out several ways to make multimedia more interesting. But this is the main point, the presenter must be the expert both in material and in communication. I think the point made about 80% research and 20% presentation is very good and illustrates this point well. In order to make multimedia and PowerPoint™ useful and relevant, there are certain steps to be taken in the creation of the product. However, educators must remain the experts who can understand students' questions to clarify and communicate the material.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Higher Order Thinking
How can technology help develop higher order thinking and problem solving skills?
Technology has extraordinary potential to influence higher order thinking and development of problem solving skills. Three areas which immediately come to mind are speed, interaction, and feedback. There may be more technical names for these areas but this is a blog so I’m going to take advantage of that and call them speed, interaction, and feedback.
Technology allows rapid access to virtually any topic one is looking for. In Bloom’s Taxonomy, knowledge is the first category. For students attempting to compile knowledge, quick access to the “answers” is a valuable tool. Technology shortens the search time for whatever knowledge one is seeking. Shorter search times increase repetition. Repetition is clearly a significant factor in being able to remember or recall knowledge.
Additionally, technology allows rapid access to information to build knowledge in different settings than traditionally available. For example, my sister-in-law takes the train into the city for her graduate program. A cell phone with internet access would allow her the opportunity to refresh her knowledge base or expand it quickly and easily, probably while still listening to music.
Thinking about this subject reminded me of the Ipad commercial I saw again the other day. Ipad Commercial I personally am not a big fan of the Ipad but the commercial is a good example of the speed and access technology can provide.
Interaction- As illustrated in the videos found on Edutopia video 1
video 2 Technology provides students the opportunity to interact with the computer programs on their own. A technology filled classroom could certainly facilitate the comprehension and synthesis categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy. If each student could work on a project while the teacher supervised, then each student would be increasing in comprehension and synthesis at a rate a traditional lecture format could not match or come close to matching. There may be more traditional projects which allow students to improve comprehension and synthesis. However, the interaction technology provides opportunities for much quicker development in these areas because of the final aspect of feedback.
Technology provides near instant feedback. There are many different facets of feedback one may receive with proper application of technology. Technology can provide instant information as we saw in the speed portion earlier. Also feedback can come in the form of interaction by a computer program. But probably more importantly, technology allows for feedback from literally all over the world. Simply post or tweet something and it is possible to receive feedback from others who live nowhere near you geographically. But they may be experts in that particular area. Feedback is especially helpful in developing evaluation skills. The opportunity to be evaluated and to evaluate others more quickly allows one to develop evaluation skills more rapidly.
Obviously, technology has other applications to facilitate higher order thinking but these three areas of speed, interaction, and feedback are important. Proper use of technology can empower students to progress more rapidly towards higher order thinking. There are concerns with technology. Students could and often do use the technology without developing their own skills and that is certainly an area where the educator would come into play. The educator must be very involved to ensure students are applying technology toward developing their own skills and not just using tech to short circuit the process.
Technology has extraordinary potential to influence higher order thinking and development of problem solving skills. Three areas which immediately come to mind are speed, interaction, and feedback. There may be more technical names for these areas but this is a blog so I’m going to take advantage of that and call them speed, interaction, and feedback.
Technology allows rapid access to virtually any topic one is looking for. In Bloom’s Taxonomy, knowledge is the first category. For students attempting to compile knowledge, quick access to the “answers” is a valuable tool. Technology shortens the search time for whatever knowledge one is seeking. Shorter search times increase repetition. Repetition is clearly a significant factor in being able to remember or recall knowledge.
Additionally, technology allows rapid access to information to build knowledge in different settings than traditionally available. For example, my sister-in-law takes the train into the city for her graduate program. A cell phone with internet access would allow her the opportunity to refresh her knowledge base or expand it quickly and easily, probably while still listening to music.
Thinking about this subject reminded me of the Ipad commercial I saw again the other day. Ipad Commercial I personally am not a big fan of the Ipad but the commercial is a good example of the speed and access technology can provide.
Interaction- As illustrated in the videos found on Edutopia video 1
video 2 Technology provides students the opportunity to interact with the computer programs on their own. A technology filled classroom could certainly facilitate the comprehension and synthesis categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy. If each student could work on a project while the teacher supervised, then each student would be increasing in comprehension and synthesis at a rate a traditional lecture format could not match or come close to matching. There may be more traditional projects which allow students to improve comprehension and synthesis. However, the interaction technology provides opportunities for much quicker development in these areas because of the final aspect of feedback.
Technology provides near instant feedback. There are many different facets of feedback one may receive with proper application of technology. Technology can provide instant information as we saw in the speed portion earlier. Also feedback can come in the form of interaction by a computer program. But probably more importantly, technology allows for feedback from literally all over the world. Simply post or tweet something and it is possible to receive feedback from others who live nowhere near you geographically. But they may be experts in that particular area. Feedback is especially helpful in developing evaluation skills. The opportunity to be evaluated and to evaluate others more quickly allows one to develop evaluation skills more rapidly.
Obviously, technology has other applications to facilitate higher order thinking but these three areas of speed, interaction, and feedback are important. Proper use of technology can empower students to progress more rapidly towards higher order thinking. There are concerns with technology. Students could and often do use the technology without developing their own skills and that is certainly an area where the educator would come into play. The educator must be very involved to ensure students are applying technology toward developing their own skills and not just using tech to short circuit the process.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
First Post
About me:
Rustin Billings
Married two years
I am from Wisconsin/Iowa but now live in Lindenhurst.
Work is at Pursuit Auto (www.pursuitauto.com) and the Army National Guard
Why Teaching:
“If you do something you love, you'll never work a day in your life.” Certainly most have heard some sentiment along these lines. But where does such an idealistic concept intersect with reality? Amongst many reasons, I would like to teach because I find when expending extra effort to help someone grasp a concept I truly enjoy it. My life experience has provided many occasions to chose between letting it go at good enough and spending the extra time and effort to develop others. That is, I enjoy going beyond the simple transfer of knowledge to enabling people to develop and grow. I have found though, it isn't really extra effort to spend additional time because it is fulfilling. Also one feels the pleasure of the altruism of those moments. It is genuinely investing in a calling and not just a job.
Technology:
I am fairly comfortable with technology. I have in the past programmed a little bit for my math degree and built a couple of computers. But there are certainly some gaps just because technology always evolving. But I am generally comfortable with technology.
Class:
I think the class will be fun. I like tech and it plays an increasingly important role in the classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)