One thing I am really learning from this class is not to be so afraid of the computer. I go investigating all over now and have discovered some really neat options I was never aware of before. For example, I didn’t know that I could set my printer to print only in black & white to save on color ink when color isn’t necessary, that I can set it to print the last page first so that it comes out in ready order, and that I can set it to print draft quality (again, saving ink) when it’s just for my reference and the actual printing quality isn’t important. I did all these things and only wished that I had known all this before. But, again, better late than never!
Another shot to my confidence came when I was contacted by another classmate who is in a different group. We share another class together and she called me because she didn’t understand CutePDFWriter, how it worked, how to download it, etc. I had already set it up and used it, so I was able to explain how it worked and why she needed it and, then, I actually walked her through the entire download and installation—me! Can you believe it?? I was so thrilled to be able to help someone, as I always feel as if everyone is helping me. My new found confidence even caused me to change the copy on my web page to reflect my emerging optimism. I hope that, by May, my web page portrays a digital immigrant who can walk in a digital native’s shoes!
I completed my web site evaluation form and was very happy with the end result. It’s for a third grade class but could be used in grades 1-6, as well. Since evaluating a web site can be somewhat subjective, I set up mine so that each web site in our class would be evaluated by two different students. These students would then have to meet and compare their results. If they differed radically, they would have to revisit the web site, together, and defend/explain their rating and see if they can reach agreement. This makes it a more engaged exercise and calls upon higher levels of thinking in presenting their positions. Anyone wishing to view my web site evaluation form can visit my web page, where it is located under Assignments.
Our February 5th group meeting went well, with everybody contributing to each topic. We had some confusion over whether the readings were to be done prior to the class or during it, but that has now been resolved with the input of Dr.S. Maria Pavco directed us to a wonderful site technology integration site at http://its.leesummit.k12.mo.us/. It is a veritable goldmine of ideas, lesson plans, projects, games, resources, webquests, virtually everything a teacher needs to integrate technology.
The class readings for week 5 were wonderful, especially Steven McGriff’s Portfolio. He had such excellent information on learning theories and models. His definition of a descriptive theory (internal thinking process) versus a prescriptive theory (external application) was a relief to me. I had always found the descriptive theory somewhat difficult to translate into actual teaching models. As he states, a descriptive theory describes what’s going on “inside the learner’s head when learning occurs” but does not, by itself, facilitate learning. Having an instructional-design theory, in combination with the learning theory, does facilitate learning and it does so in a wholly constructivist and engaged manner. According to McGriff, “the key to understanding instructional systems design is to recognize the focus is on the learner, not the teacher. Learning is king, teaching is the supporting role.” To that, I say, "Amen"!
Within his information on constructivism, McGriff talked about contextualism, whose supporters advocate authentic learning and authentic assessment, the latter meaning that testing should be integrated into the task, not a separate activity. I completely agree with this, even though I rarely see it in action. I have always had problems with separate, one size fits all tests. To me, they do not fairly represent knowledge gained for every student. They represent the abilities of those who do well on standardized, paper and pencil tests.
And some of these tests! My son has brought home exams, over the years, that were so poorly worded, that had no “white” space to work out answers even though the directions demanded that the student “show your work”, that used examples/stories that were so unauthentic, that, basically, went against everything I was taught in my Assessment and Evaluation course here at MSMC. If one must give a separate test, at least make it as doable as possible—even if it means redesigning it yourself. My son’s tests and quizzes are all taken from a book and copied. This is plain laziness. No teacher can honestly look at some of these sheets and not see the problems with them. But, maybe they are required to use these workbook pages? That would be awful. I must look into this and see what’s what. However, getting back to the idea of integrated assessment, this is, I believe, the best measure of learning because, done correctly, it should measure knowledge in more than one way.
Another interesting point raised under contextualism was that some contextualists believe that “certain types of problems should not be simplified for novice learners, rather they should be presented in their full complexity early in the learning process. This is to avoid giving learners the false impression that these kinds of problems are simple and easily solved”. This was a really interesting point to ponder. We are so geared, today, toward making our kids/students believe that everything is simple and easy, that they are “smart”, that they can do anything.
This is, interestingly, right in line with the cover story in the February 19th issue of New York Magazine, titled, “Praise is Dangerous”. It talks about the inverse power of praise, how our present trend of labeling kids as “smart” has been proven to cause underperformance in students. The researcher, psychologist Carol Dweck, found that children praised for their effort, as opposed to their intelligence, were more willing to take on harder tasks and exhibited persistence and tenacity in their efforts to solve these tasks. Those praised for their intelligence gave up when presented with tasks requiring more effort. This was an eye opening study, for me. It described my own son! Then, while reading McGriff, I see a small reference to Weiner’s attribution theory which sounded similar to Dweck’s findings. I looked up Weiner and found that his attribution theory has been used to explain the difference in motivation between high and low achievers and does share certain characteristics with Dweck’s research. This is such critical information for parents and teachers—it deserves a good chunk of a professional development day! What’s most important about Dweck’s findings is that the problem is a fixable one—all it takes is knowledge of this problem, a desire to change it and a strong commitment to behavior modification on the part of parents and/or teachers. I know that I am going to be applying it, from now on, at home and in school. I’m also going to be sharing it with other parents and teachers. Hopefully, it will also find its way into the MSMC education curriculum.
Moving on…I loved the Jasper series, under the Assure Model. And, it used that new favorite word of mine that I learned from McGriff—contextualized! I think students would flock to this type of learning. It encompasses everything needed for an engaged constructivist activity. Even better, it provides for personal, student created follow ups that build on the knowledge base acquired from the Jasper adventure. Who could ask for anything more?
I also liked the content of the Classworks reading and math instruction. Any program that offers a variety of learning modalities (visual, auditory, tactile/kinesthetic), combined with authenticity and technology is worth further investigation.
ISTE/NETS: According to the IsteNETS site, our educational system must produce technology capable kids. Parents want it, employers want it, communities want it, the nation wants it! In that case, I’d better learn it! Only, here’s what I perceive to be the problem. It’s the same thing I’ve mentioned in the past. Engaged, constructivist, student centered, technology integrated learning requires a whole new mind set that has to start at the federal and state levels before it can become reality at the district/school level. All we new teachers entering the field, filled with all this new knowledge, usually find that we are unable to implement these new ideas due to federal and state mandates that simply don’t provide the time or support to create this type of learning environment. I ask, yet again, what is the answer? For all of us entering the field, there are others leaving, in droves, for this very reason. I have been looking at my substitute experiences and trying to figure out, if this were my classroom, where and how, could I facilitate this type of true student centered learning? The answer is not many places and not very often. The speed with which teachers are expected to complete the required curriculum, in each subject, is dizzying. Long term, discovery learning? Not in the current world. It is so frustrating. And technology integration? This is so low on the totem pole in a Title 1 district. One area where I know I can make a difference is in simple differentiated learning. Even that is rare in my school. Math, for the most part, is taught one way and one way only. Being weak in math, myself, I am especially sensitive to the fact that people learn math in a wide variety of ways. Prior to admission to MSMC, I was required to take Math for Elementary Education at Orange Community College. I was so over my head but I had a wonderful teacher who, among other things, taught us that there is no one right way to reach an answer in math—there are numerous ways, some short, some longer, but the main thing is to reach the answer. No one had ever said this to me before. It changed my entire perspective on math. I grew to love it. It became an adventure, a challenge! Math is still hard for me but, now, I really like it and I can convey that enthusiasm to my students. Further, I am open to different ways of learning (and modeling) a curriculum. I don’t generally like to believe that there is only one way to do anything. This limits the mind! I will always try to present a variety of exploratory options for my students—otherwise, they will never be able to teach me anything new and help me shape future lessons! When you think about it, students can be a teacher’s greatest resource in lesson design. I say, let them lead…or, to repeat Steven McGriff’s view (because it does bear repeating),
“the key to understanding instructional systems design is to recognize the focus is on the learner, not the teacher. Learning is king, teaching is the supporting role.”
Until next time...