Last Wednesday in the Eng 504/505 class, I learned something that delighted me: “teaching to the tests” lends itself perfectly to technology, given Alex’s ideal situation.
Professor Kennedy reviewed the 11th grade Regent’s test and the 8th Grade ELA test. The change in test format over the past 20 years is remarkable; examples draw from multiple genre including magazine articles and interpretive graphs. The test can no longer be aced by those who have the innate capacity to b.s. (not that there are any of those on this blog!) Students have to be able to assimilate information on real life issues and opinions, compare and contrast them, and make judgments accordingly.
The most interesting change to me, though, is that students are not asked to simply write for the sake of writing; the issue of audience is present. One question asks students to make a presentation for a board of education to encourage them to purchase personal copies of books for students. Students need to have an understanding of “who’s out there” and need to organize their thoughts to gain their attention.
I’m observing a school that links social studies and English in a writing lab, which is the perfect place to start teaching to the test. The possibilities are endless. Select a current issue that is meaningful to you and become an expert on the subject (involves Web searches, wikipedia, blogs). Form an opinion on the issue based on your research and personal experience (using word processing, graphs in spreadsheets). Cite references from both web sites and professional journals (many of which can be read online through full text searches). Subscribe to a blog that discusses the issue and contribute to it; use your knowledge to edit a wiki. Finally, present your findings to the class (involves powerpoint and/or multimedia tools).
Having the luxury of a writing lab shared with another course gives students a chance to organize their thoughts for a flat world and learn to the test. In Literature classes, students could still delve into literature, learn components of effective writing from literary greats and practice their technique in original work, which only helps them to communicate their arguments more effectively. Original work could easily be displayed on a blog, enabling ease of peer review and community discussion.
Dr. Kennedy’s class has opened my eyes to the concept of genre: each culture has its own set of literary forms used in everyday life. Literature is novels, memoirs, blogs, articles, fairy tales, graphic novels, and so many other wonderful venues that students relate to and need to interpret/respond to. Technology only gives us more tools to teach literacy as it evolves over time.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Enabling or Disabling Youth?
...so (read previous posts here, I can't use my enter key for some reason), I couldn't disagree more with Sharos' quote uttered by Greenberg: "Electronic gizmos make us stupid."
Technology is enabling; it always has been to me. (When I learn to permanently save to the Cortland network, it will be even more enabling!) My point is: be aware that there are (given estimates which I think are conservative) at least 18% of students who have the potential to be disabled, but not the way Sharos discusses. These are students who don't have the technology and know-how to "get with the program". Learned apathy is my greatest concern (I can see where it comes from although again, I repeat, I personally am not there yet.)
I'm glad to hear that Scott is working on grants for his school, and I think this will be a crucial part of our role as educational advocates (I'm considering doing this as a part of my project): bringing in funds to help the lower end of the bell curve. We are not yet the enlightenned society of the future. Everything still comes down to money, and teachers who are willing to learn with their students.
Technology is enabling; it always has been to me. (When I learn to permanently save to the Cortland network, it will be even more enabling!) My point is: be aware that there are (given estimates which I think are conservative) at least 18% of students who have the potential to be disabled, but not the way Sharos discusses. These are students who don't have the technology and know-how to "get with the program". Learned apathy is my greatest concern (I can see where it comes from although again, I repeat, I personally am not there yet.)
I'm glad to hear that Scott is working on grants for his school, and I think this will be a crucial part of our role as educational advocates (I'm considering doing this as a part of my project): bringing in funds to help the lower end of the bell curve. We are not yet the enlightenned society of the future. Everything still comes down to money, and teachers who are willing to learn with their students.
So when I say "I am dumb"...
... I am not saying, "I am unwilling to learn new things, and I am unwilling to know less than my students." The opposite is true; learning new technologies is thrilling to me. Generally, I love to discover a new competency with kids I work with, and I'm certainly not beyond being told I'm wrong. What I am saying is this (and for some reason, I can't use my enter key to make a new paragraph to say it in): teach new technology, be willing to be bewildered and have to putter... but don't ignore teaching some core competencies to achieve your goal. There is a level of competency beneath which students give up and become apathetic. I am not talking about me here. (although I've been tempted to give up on the Mac's) These are the students who are happy to take a 'd' because they just can't get it. If a class is racing well beyond these core competencies, and no one backs up to teach them, it's more than a loss; it's inexcuseable.
Learning with Students
Recent posts on the class blog remind me of my favorite quote by Friedman. "The idea is to constantly learn. You are always taking an examination. There is no end to learning and to what can be done by whom." This is the one thing that I want to communicate to my students, the one attitude that above all others, was helpful to me in my business career. So many people around me were complaining about new databases, spreadsheets, tools for statistical analysis, and office PC environments, I was busy learning how to use and apply them to the material I worked with. It gave me an edge. This is part of the middling advantage kids need in the flat world... I think Friedman calls it adaptibility.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Creative Teaching in Socio-Ec Context
Using Alex's definition of teachers as "Knowlege Workers", I know one thing - it is not my vision to teach this way. By neccessity, teachers need to be creative and use new technologies to do so.
But using technology in the classroom assumes a few things: kids need to have access to technology, most importantly, at home. Learning to use technology requires time, above and beyond free periods at school, beyond signing out media tools from libraries. Forgive me for not referencing this, but I read one estimation that 82% of kids have technology at home. I don't have data to support this, but I would argue that the real estimations for rural and/or poor students is considerably lower.
Per Alex's 9/13 post: The knowlege worker "...Establish[es] ideological identities: along with other cultural institutions--media, family, church,, etc.--education articulates our cultural identities through repeated hailing as boy, as girl, as white or black, as smart or dumb, as rich or poor, etc"
I would argue that using technology in the classroom has the propensity to label kids in the same way. I've experienced labeling first hand in ENG506 to my benefit - it's sensitized me to what poor, rural, or tech unsavy kids go through when they get into a class that incorporates use of technology. Consider the following labels:
Having left a lucrative career and husband, I am poor (which is relative to kids whose parents often don't have money to buy groceries, and believe me, they're out there!) In ENG506, I need to use technology; my mastery of tech is part of my evaluation. But to gain mastery, I need a mac, a microphone, a new camera, a video camera, and a usb key. All of these things are "cheap". Cheap is relative, though. I'M POOR.
The rural issue is another thing I identify with: computer resources in rural communities are limitted. Many kids can't get to computers available in the communities d/t transportation issues. The Tioga Co. Boys and Girls club is a prime example. The county is sprawled out with no public transportation. Kids who live in town can walk to the club after school to use computers, but if you live in the country, you can't access that resource. I have a very nice Dell in my home, but if I have to work on macs, think of me as a kid without a computer. I have to go to the lab. The only lab available to me that works is ... in Cortland. Like a rural kid without a computer, transportation becomes an issue. I'M RURAL.
Also, using technology in the classroom implies a basic working knowlege of computers. Do English teachers who use blogs, for example, spend time teaching kids basic skills of navigating the web? Of clicking and pasting code? Or are we assuming they have these skills? You might argue that every kid knows how to surf... but I would guess there are those that don't. ENG506 assumes I know basic things. I'm glad we're backtracking now - a true example of creative teaching - but for those teachers who don't, there is the most repulsive label of all: I'M DUMB.
As educators, we need to have a great sensitivity to the relative situations of our students, acknowlege the gliches, and trouble shoot before we implement technologies. Otherwise, students who aren't rich, urban and smart develop learned apathy, and fall through the cracks.
But using technology in the classroom assumes a few things: kids need to have access to technology, most importantly, at home. Learning to use technology requires time, above and beyond free periods at school, beyond signing out media tools from libraries. Forgive me for not referencing this, but I read one estimation that 82% of kids have technology at home. I don't have data to support this, but I would argue that the real estimations for rural and/or poor students is considerably lower.
Per Alex's 9/13 post: The knowlege worker "...Establish[es] ideological identities: along with other cultural institutions--media, family, church,, etc.--education articulates our cultural identities through repeated hailing as boy, as girl, as white or black, as smart or dumb, as rich or poor, etc"
I would argue that using technology in the classroom has the propensity to label kids in the same way. I've experienced labeling first hand in ENG506 to my benefit - it's sensitized me to what poor, rural, or tech unsavy kids go through when they get into a class that incorporates use of technology. Consider the following labels:
Having left a lucrative career and husband, I am poor (which is relative to kids whose parents often don't have money to buy groceries, and believe me, they're out there!) In ENG506, I need to use technology; my mastery of tech is part of my evaluation. But to gain mastery, I need a mac, a microphone, a new camera, a video camera, and a usb key. All of these things are "cheap". Cheap is relative, though. I'M POOR.
The rural issue is another thing I identify with: computer resources in rural communities are limitted. Many kids can't get to computers available in the communities d/t transportation issues. The Tioga Co. Boys and Girls club is a prime example. The county is sprawled out with no public transportation. Kids who live in town can walk to the club after school to use computers, but if you live in the country, you can't access that resource. I have a very nice Dell in my home, but if I have to work on macs, think of me as a kid without a computer. I have to go to the lab. The only lab available to me that works is ... in Cortland. Like a rural kid without a computer, transportation becomes an issue. I'M RURAL.
Also, using technology in the classroom implies a basic working knowlege of computers. Do English teachers who use blogs, for example, spend time teaching kids basic skills of navigating the web? Of clicking and pasting code? Or are we assuming they have these skills? You might argue that every kid knows how to surf... but I would guess there are those that don't. ENG506 assumes I know basic things. I'm glad we're backtracking now - a true example of creative teaching - but for those teachers who don't, there is the most repulsive label of all: I'M DUMB.
As educators, we need to have a great sensitivity to the relative situations of our students, acknowlege the gliches, and trouble shoot before we implement technologies. Otherwise, students who aren't rich, urban and smart develop learned apathy, and fall through the cracks.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Drowning in Attention Anxiety
Reading Alverman this morning set my head spinning. Admittedly I had made the coffee a little stronger than usual so perhaps there was a biochemical component involved... but let's face it, to a digital imigrant, all of this information is mind-boggling. Not only do I have to learn new technologies (in particular, the Mac platform and multimedia applications in iLife) but I also have to market my own curriculum and compete with the entire flat world for student attention! Am I the only one who feels like there is an elephant standing on my chest?
Forgive my "imigrant accent" but somewhere along the line, doesn't someone also have to teach students to be able to focus their attention on something that isn't strictly for their entertainment? Prospective employers will not market for student attention, they simply expect it. Students are coming into interviews in camophlage (still not the accepted norm) and loosing out on jobs they may otherwise be qualified for. We still have to "put on the face" Dr. Stearns referenced in our first lecture. We still have to learn how to interface ... well, face to face. And be entertained. We need both technology and human interface.
With the hours of time I've spent online the past 2 weeks I can certainly see the economics of attention in my own life. Forgive me, digital father, for I have sinned... I have desired to unplug all of these young minds, clear their caches, power down and learn to focus on one present moment, being blissfully ignorant of the vast plethora of data. I like Richard Lanham's description of information in the new "information economy"... "WE ARE DROWNING IN IT." This is going to be my quote of the week.
Forgive my "imigrant accent" but somewhere along the line, doesn't someone also have to teach students to be able to focus their attention on something that isn't strictly for their entertainment? Prospective employers will not market for student attention, they simply expect it. Students are coming into interviews in camophlage (still not the accepted norm) and loosing out on jobs they may otherwise be qualified for. We still have to "put on the face" Dr. Stearns referenced in our first lecture. We still have to learn how to interface ... well, face to face. And be entertained. We need both technology and human interface.
With the hours of time I've spent online the past 2 weeks I can certainly see the economics of attention in my own life. Forgive me, digital father, for I have sinned... I have desired to unplug all of these young minds, clear their caches, power down and learn to focus on one present moment, being blissfully ignorant of the vast plethora of data. I like Richard Lanham's description of information in the new "information economy"... "WE ARE DROWNING IN IT." This is going to be my quote of the week.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Old Posts, Comments
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
"Listenning to the Natives" was a thought-provoking article. While I have never thought about how it pertains to technology, I do believe that our educational system is sorely lacking a respect for its students, their values, and their knowlege - which in many cases, easilly surpasses that of Digital Immigrants, such as myself.
However... I find a few things in this article inherently disturbing. Leading the pack:
"Students would 'vote with their attention' just as adults 'vote with their feet' by leaving the room when a presentation is not compelling. Why shouldn't our students have the same option with their education when educators fail to deliver compelling content?"
The fact is, even in the 21st century, not everything is "compelling". We still find ourselves needing to stay and listen to inept bosses, presentations we don't agree with, and needing to make conversation with mundane conversationalists in order to network. What is "compelling"? Being stimulated by technology at breakneck speeds is thrilling, but not all of the world is made of this level of excitement, even in this techno-era.
The following quote also makes me question why we need to study literature at all... after all, isn't it obsolete?
"Students should be studying 21st century subject matter, such as nanotechnology [and other subjects, all of a scientific nature]"
So I guess my major question of the night is: how do you make literature (and by this, I mean those dusty old books) "compelling"? I believe there are ways, some of them involving the use of camera and video... but one has to wonder - if we only need to speak IM, why bother?
posted by T.Jolie at 7:59 PM 6 comments
You don't make books compelling. Books make themselves compelling, in the same way kittens do ... just expose students to them and watch!
UNCLE RON
10:00 PM
kstearns said...
Just seeing if this comment option works Tamara. I agree w/Uncle Ron by the way. Although I do think teachers can model what it means to encounter a compelling read--and many of our kids today need that before they will/can engage. KES
5:18 AM
Steven said...
I love the way many of the dusty old books are a free read online!
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
see ya in class... let me know who you are...
-Steven-
6:48 PM
Dawn Larson said...
I was also confounded by that same statement as you, whereby if students feel bored they can digitalize themselves out of the classroom where their classmate is giving a presentation (or, where you are lecturing...).
Are attention spans so limited that students CANNOT sit for 40 minutes and listen to a speech/presentation? I mean who ever heard of NOT paying attention (or at least looking like it)?
Also, the article credits students with being amazing multi-taskers, so is he encouraging students to multi-task while watching a presentation?
10:24 AM
UNCLE RON said...
Teachers can touch/referrence a child's prior experiences with compelling reads ... use peer "pressure"/influence to draw out those in the class who HAVE exciting reading habits ... it's the rare class that doesn't have one or two ... and get a little "momentum" going ... this insight is simply to remember that the teacher is not the only "model" in the room, and doesn't need to bear the total responsibility for modelling.
10:17 PM
UNCLE RON said...
And, oh by the way, that "leaving the room" idea MUST be a thought-provoker, rather than a serious one. Students are in class to learn. If it's compelling, that's a bonus, but it's important that the relationship be clear: the student is there to work, not simply open a skull and expect knowlege to be poured in by an unfailingly compelling presentation. It's a two way street, and both halves have an obligation to scholarship itself to attend, physically and mentally, to the best of their ability and make every effort to do so beyond that ability.
10:20 PM
Imigration away from my own simple world of 35 mm film rolls will definitely be an adventure. I'm looking forward to hearing from Indigents and Imigrants alike.
posted by T.Jolie at 3:24 PM 0 comments
"Listenning to the Natives" was a thought-provoking article. While I have never thought about how it pertains to technology, I do believe that our educational system is sorely lacking a respect for its students, their values, and their knowlege - which in many cases, easilly surpasses that of Digital Immigrants, such as myself.
However... I find a few things in this article inherently disturbing. Leading the pack:
"Students would 'vote with their attention' just as adults 'vote with their feet' by leaving the room when a presentation is not compelling. Why shouldn't our students have the same option with their education when educators fail to deliver compelling content?"
The fact is, even in the 21st century, not everything is "compelling". We still find ourselves needing to stay and listen to inept bosses, presentations we don't agree with, and needing to make conversation with mundane conversationalists in order to network. What is "compelling"? Being stimulated by technology at breakneck speeds is thrilling, but not all of the world is made of this level of excitement, even in this techno-era.
The following quote also makes me question why we need to study literature at all... after all, isn't it obsolete?
"Students should be studying 21st century subject matter, such as nanotechnology [and other subjects, all of a scientific nature]"
So I guess my major question of the night is: how do you make literature (and by this, I mean those dusty old books) "compelling"? I believe there are ways, some of them involving the use of camera and video... but one has to wonder - if we only need to speak IM, why bother?
posted by T.Jolie at 7:59 PM 6 comments
You don't make books compelling. Books make themselves compelling, in the same way kittens do ... just expose students to them and watch!
UNCLE RON
10:00 PM
kstearns said...
Just seeing if this comment option works Tamara. I agree w/Uncle Ron by the way. Although I do think teachers can model what it means to encounter a compelling read--and many of our kids today need that before they will/can engage. KES
5:18 AM
Steven said...
I love the way many of the dusty old books are a free read online!
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
see ya in class... let me know who you are...
-Steven-
6:48 PM
Dawn Larson said...
I was also confounded by that same statement as you, whereby if students feel bored they can digitalize themselves out of the classroom where their classmate is giving a presentation (or, where you are lecturing...).
Are attention spans so limited that students CANNOT sit for 40 minutes and listen to a speech/presentation? I mean who ever heard of NOT paying attention (or at least looking like it)?
Also, the article credits students with being amazing multi-taskers, so is he encouraging students to multi-task while watching a presentation?
10:24 AM
UNCLE RON said...
Teachers can touch/referrence a child's prior experiences with compelling reads ... use peer "pressure"/influence to draw out those in the class who HAVE exciting reading habits ... it's the rare class that doesn't have one or two ... and get a little "momentum" going ... this insight is simply to remember that the teacher is not the only "model" in the room, and doesn't need to bear the total responsibility for modelling.
10:17 PM
UNCLE RON said...
And, oh by the way, that "leaving the room" idea MUST be a thought-provoker, rather than a serious one. Students are in class to learn. If it's compelling, that's a bonus, but it's important that the relationship be clear: the student is there to work, not simply open a skull and expect knowlege to be poured in by an unfailingly compelling presentation. It's a two way street, and both halves have an obligation to scholarship itself to attend, physically and mentally, to the best of their ability and make every effort to do so beyond that ability.
10:20 PM
Imigration away from my own simple world of 35 mm film rolls will definitely be an adventure. I'm looking forward to hearing from Indigents and Imigrants alike.
posted by T.Jolie at 3:24 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
