I started this master’s program thinking I would find new ways to use technology to engage my students. I had not expected that I would end up reevaluating my entire instructional strategy. I now realize I looked at technology as a teaching tool, but did not understand its power as a learning tool. What I used was appropriate, but I had never taken full advantage of my digital natives' ability to manipulate technology to learn on their own.
This course has strengthen my belief that all of the learning theories need to be present in any Personal Theory of Learning. No one theory takes into account all the unique factors that are present in today’s classroom. One principal that Dr. Orey stressed at the beginning of the course has been proven true for every learning theory – the student must be active in his or her own learning (Laureate Education, 2001). As we explored the different learning theories, it was evident that technology can be used to actively engage students in many different ways. This study of the theories has caused me to reevaluate my own instructional methods to consider each of the theories and how to incorporate the best of each.
This new understanding has had an immediate effect in my classroom. I have incorporated more technology in various ways. These steps have been incremental so that I could be to evaluate the effectiveness of each technology use or change in instructional style. Each new technique has been successful. So much so that I intend to completely revamp almost all of my lessons for next year. The most successful tool was my experiment using ActivInspire, free software offered by Promethean. It allows for student interaction with the information on a computer screen like a smartboard does for an entire class. My first attempt at using independent learning at computer stations was having students take notes from PowerPoints. They had to travel around the room to see each of five shows. It was essentially the stations concept used mostly in elementary school. It proved so successful that I was inspired to develop a more in-depth lesson with ActivInspire. The second technology tool that I will definitely continue to use is educational social media. For the final project, students have the option of creating a Fakebook page, an educational site that mirrors the look and application of Facebook. For next year, I plan to expand social media tools such as Edmodo into the class instruction itself.
This course has convinced that I need to turn more of the responsibility over to the students. I plan to have students use stations and interactive software to not only review material, but also to learn it. I have always used technology to have students synthesis information through the formation of a final project using PowerPoint. Now it is time to truly integrate technology into all stages of the instruction. Over the summer I plan to look at every unit and mix technology into each. Some units will start with pre-knowledge analysis using Google Docs poll. Some units will use PowerPoints at stations for note-taking while others will use ActivInspire to deliver instruction. I used ActivInspire to reinforce teaching, but plan to use it to deliver instruction as well. Students learn from mistakes so using interactive software will be powerful. A PowerPoint with triggers or ActivInspire can be used for some units for review. I know that the different learning styles benefit from different aspects of technology. I need to make sure all styles are actively covered. I’m good at providing lessons for visual learners, but need to take more advantage of reading software and videos for auditory learners and use more manipulates such as ActivInspire for kinesthetics.
I also plan to use social media, specifically Edmodo, to connect with my students. I tested three websites – Wikispaces, Edmodo and Fakebook – through my enrichment time aka co-curricular activity time. It was dramatically and immediately apparent that students both enjoyed using this type of technology and were able to figure out the technology on their own. I gave no instructions on any of the sites other than how to access each. They were soon instant messaging each other and emailing me. The experience other class members shared also showed that students can learn to use this technology effectively. The bonus is that students will also learn and model their own understanding of the appropriate ways to use social media.
Technology for its own sake is not necessarily effectively. Technology used in a deliberate way to engage students in their own learning can be powerful on many levels. Instructional technology can be woven into the very core of the instructional theory in ways that benefit students.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is an integral part of classrooms. Partners and small groups are used frequently in most classrooms. From the basic Pair-Share to full blown projects, students benefit from working together. A key to cooperative groups is the need to meet an objective that can only be accomplished cooperatively (2001). With this goal in mind, everyone benefits when everyone is successful. This would elicit support from team members who may not otherwise be socially friendly. In Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works the authors gives a theoretical framework for cooperative learning that includes motivation and cognitive learning.
Technology allows cooperative learning to happen anytime, anyplace. It empowers the team to fully take charge of the project and eliminates the need for the dependence on the teacher for leadership. It expands the project outside the classroom. In fact, it explodes any limits. Teams not only don’t need to be homogeneously group – which is recommended against by the authors of our textbook – but they don’t even have to be in the same country. It would be possible for a team to be composed of students from different countries. A science project could conceivably be done by students in different countries using technologies such as Skype, wikis and Google documents to discuss strategies and compare data. Students in different states could compare their geography, culture, weather or whatever they are studying by using Google docs to create a multimedia presentation together. For the research project in my class, students must individually choose from a set list related to their social studies curriculum. But students in different classes could share information about a shared topic through the class wiki to make their own work more efficient.
For most students, cooperative learning is an activity they actively request. They want these types of activities because it comes naturally to most of them. As teachers we can see the benefits to having students actively engaged and motivated.
Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Technology allows cooperative learning to happen anytime, anyplace. It empowers the team to fully take charge of the project and eliminates the need for the dependence on the teacher for leadership. It expands the project outside the classroom. In fact, it explodes any limits. Teams not only don’t need to be homogeneously group – which is recommended against by the authors of our textbook – but they don’t even have to be in the same country. It would be possible for a team to be composed of students from different countries. A science project could conceivably be done by students in different countries using technologies such as Skype, wikis and Google documents to discuss strategies and compare data. Students in different states could compare their geography, culture, weather or whatever they are studying by using Google docs to create a multimedia presentation together. For the research project in my class, students must individually choose from a set list related to their social studies curriculum. But students in different classes could share information about a shared topic through the class wiki to make their own work more efficient.
For most students, cooperative learning is an activity they actively request. They want these types of activities because it comes naturally to most of them. As teachers we can see the benefits to having students actively engaged and motivated.
Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
VoiceThread
"Extra Credit Assignment: Cyberbullying" presented through VoiceThread.
http://voicethread.com/share/1894508/
http://voicethread.com/share/1894508/
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Constructionism in Practice
A central component of both constructivist and constructionist learning theories is that learning isn’t imparted from teacher to student, but must be developed by the learner him or herself. Constructionism expands to include the necessity of the creation of something tangible to allow the learner to make connections to allow for assimilation or accommodation. This practical application and connection to self allows the learner to find relevance in the challenge and motivation that allows for learning.
Constructionism supports the method of having students generate then test a hypothesis. The sciences have used this approach very successfully. Technology has been developed to support the activities so students can concentrate on the results and analysis rather than the mundane tasks needed to generate data. Problem-based learning and webquests allow for more discplines to use the hypothesis concept.
Students could identify a real-life problem then using the hypothesis-test mode explore answers. Through the process, students are assimilating information and possibly even accommodating new thinking. The process isn’t explicit, but rather implicit. It’s not necessary to point out that students are learning to compare and contrast, test and analysize, manage expectations and time, and the multitude of other skills required to work through the process. Students may blunder, but it is through these missteps that they can self-analyze and self-correct. A well-designed webquest could also provide the same type of exploration. A student or team can be given a problem, goal or purpose then given the leeway to find the end result. It is important to the constructionism theory that the students are allowed to chart their own way and to produce their own artifact at the end.
I personally believe in constructionism. It allows the student to become the teacher and the teacher take on the role of facilitor. Brain research has proven that memory is developed through concrete experience. Earlier in the class, Dr. Wolfe shared findings that the brain is good at remembering what was seen and experienced. She also explained how emotion can impact learning and memory. The more emotional connection to the problem or project, the more the student will engage and learn.
Constructionism supports the method of having students generate then test a hypothesis. The sciences have used this approach very successfully. Technology has been developed to support the activities so students can concentrate on the results and analysis rather than the mundane tasks needed to generate data. Problem-based learning and webquests allow for more discplines to use the hypothesis concept.
Students could identify a real-life problem then using the hypothesis-test mode explore answers. Through the process, students are assimilating information and possibly even accommodating new thinking. The process isn’t explicit, but rather implicit. It’s not necessary to point out that students are learning to compare and contrast, test and analysize, manage expectations and time, and the multitude of other skills required to work through the process. Students may blunder, but it is through these missteps that they can self-analyze and self-correct. A well-designed webquest could also provide the same type of exploration. A student or team can be given a problem, goal or purpose then given the leeway to find the end result. It is important to the constructionism theory that the students are allowed to chart their own way and to produce their own artifact at the end.
I personally believe in constructionism. It allows the student to become the teacher and the teacher take on the role of facilitor. Brain research has proven that memory is developed through concrete experience. Earlier in the class, Dr. Wolfe shared findings that the brain is good at remembering what was seen and experienced. She also explained how emotion can impact learning and memory. The more emotional connection to the problem or project, the more the student will engage and learn.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Cognitive Learning and Technology
Cognitive learning theories dovetail with what we already know about our students. We know that our students must make connections to the new information in order to process it. Cognitive theories explain this process even deeper.
Paivio’s dual coding theory especially makes sense for our students. Today’s digital natives are accustomed to visual stimulation through multimedia devices. For them to make connections, the senses need to be engaged. A static presentation won’t engage them, but, more importantly, it doesn’t provide them with the necessary connections. Using technology to allow students to manipulate their learning through graphic advance organizers or concept mapping will allow them to make the connections on their own. Virtual field trips and other experiences will allow them to create the dual coding. As Dr. Orey explained, the student may retain the information but not be able to access it without cues. By providing cues, be it a video, photo, clip art, sound bit, movement or other device, teachers are furnishing a structure for their students to build multiple connections to the bit of information. A very simple example would be how I use clipart. The same clipart on the PowerPoint slide will be on the note sheet and will appear again on the study guide and quiz. This helps with simple fact retrieval. Deeper understanding comes from allowing the student to make the connection him or herself. Providing experiences such as videos or virtual field trips allows the student to take away what is most important to him or herself.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2001). Cognitive Learning Theories. [Video webcast]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/ crs/default.learnCourseID=4889554&Survey=1&47=7434473&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Paivio’s dual coding theory especially makes sense for our students. Today’s digital natives are accustomed to visual stimulation through multimedia devices. For them to make connections, the senses need to be engaged. A static presentation won’t engage them, but, more importantly, it doesn’t provide them with the necessary connections. Using technology to allow students to manipulate their learning through graphic advance organizers or concept mapping will allow them to make the connections on their own. Virtual field trips and other experiences will allow them to create the dual coding. As Dr. Orey explained, the student may retain the information but not be able to access it without cues. By providing cues, be it a video, photo, clip art, sound bit, movement or other device, teachers are furnishing a structure for their students to build multiple connections to the bit of information. A very simple example would be how I use clipart. The same clipart on the PowerPoint slide will be on the note sheet and will appear again on the study guide and quiz. This helps with simple fact retrieval. Deeper understanding comes from allowing the student to make the connection him or herself. Providing experiences such as videos or virtual field trips allows the student to take away what is most important to him or herself.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2001). Cognitive Learning Theories. [Video webcast]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/ crs/default.learnCourseID=4889554&Survey=1&47=7434473&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Behaviorism in the 21st Century
Though the behaviorist learning theory is supposedly out of style, there are important concepts that will always be part of education. The benefits of behaviorist instructional methods to teach the lowest levels of Bloom’s Taxomony seem obvious since repetition is necessary for some skills. Parents and teachers both instinctively and intentionally use behaviorist methods to reward and encourage certain behaviors. Additionally homework and practice fall within behaviorist learning theories and those methods are not only accepted but expected in education.
Technology can bring the drill and practice methods into the 21st century. Games and software can make repetitive practices more engaging for students and easier for teachers to implement. Software can gave the user immediate feedback and calculate the results of the practice for the teacher.
McREL’s research supports the need for teachers to not only reward effort, but to teach students about the benefits of effort (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007). Dweck’s research correlates the belief in a set ability or intelligence that discounts the value of effort is detrimental to a student’s growth and learning (Krakovsky, 2007). Behaviorist theories are important to understand as negative behaviors can be invertently taught as well as positive ones. We are now learning about the dangers of overpraise when that praise is not aligned with a desired behavior. In other words, using a behaviorism method without giving the child the ability to repeat the behavior is detrimental to the child’s growth. Dweck demonstrated the harm done by focusing praise on the child’s ability rather than the effort during a research study in New York public schools (Bronson, 2007). In summary, students who were praised for their efforts at a task continued to improve their results on subsequent tasks. Conversely students praised for their intelligence in solving the first task choose the easy way out in subsequent tasks.
Some time-tested techniques will never be replaced, but educators can use research on the brain and learning to best understand how to use the techniques effectively and can marry those best practices with technology to engage the learners in their own learning experience.
Bronson, P. (2007, Feb. 11). How Not To Talk To Your Kids. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/.
Krakovsky, M. (2007). The Effort Effect. Stanford Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.htm.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Technology can bring the drill and practice methods into the 21st century. Games and software can make repetitive practices more engaging for students and easier for teachers to implement. Software can gave the user immediate feedback and calculate the results of the practice for the teacher.
McREL’s research supports the need for teachers to not only reward effort, but to teach students about the benefits of effort (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007). Dweck’s research correlates the belief in a set ability or intelligence that discounts the value of effort is detrimental to a student’s growth and learning (Krakovsky, 2007). Behaviorist theories are important to understand as negative behaviors can be invertently taught as well as positive ones. We are now learning about the dangers of overpraise when that praise is not aligned with a desired behavior. In other words, using a behaviorism method without giving the child the ability to repeat the behavior is detrimental to the child’s growth. Dweck demonstrated the harm done by focusing praise on the child’s ability rather than the effort during a research study in New York public schools (Bronson, 2007). In summary, students who were praised for their efforts at a task continued to improve their results on subsequent tasks. Conversely students praised for their intelligence in solving the first task choose the easy way out in subsequent tasks.
Some time-tested techniques will never be replaced, but educators can use research on the brain and learning to best understand how to use the techniques effectively and can marry those best practices with technology to engage the learners in their own learning experience.
Bronson, P. (2007, Feb. 11). How Not To Talk To Your Kids. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/.
Krakovsky, M. (2007). The Effort Effect. Stanford Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.htm.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Final Reflection
This class has had a great impact on how I view my teaching responsibilities. I have both clarified my thoughts about how to best teach today’s students and have radically realigned my beliefs about the generation called “Digital Natives” by Mark Prensky (2001). I had felt that today’s students needed a dose of the old-fashioned teaching to help them gain patience, to slow down and think critically, and to simply focus on a subject. I felt their immediate gratification, entertainment-centered world left them unprepared for the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
After a significant number of readings focused on the different ways that “Digital Natives” process information, I admit that I had to rethink my attitude. Different has never meant better or worse, it simply means different. Our young people today process information in a different way than most teachers did at their age. I felt they needed to learn to use the previous way, now I believe that it is I not them who must change.
I still believe that they have an expectation of entitlement that includes entertainment, instant gratification, and easy solutions. But we can use that to our advantage by utilizing their natural comfort with technology. By designing assignments and challenges that engage them in their learning, they will develop skills that reward patience and diligence. In fact, I now believe it is irresponsible for teachers to not develop their repertoire to include student designed tasks and technology based assignments to engage learners.
From our first reading by November (2008) to the last by Prensky (2005) the focus has been on the changing education needs of our students. We must prepare them for the new world of employment that demands many new technology based skills. There is a much quoted comment that today’s students will have jobs that haven’t been created yet. There is already evidence that those jobs are here and our employees aren’t ready for them. There’s a disconnect between the unemployment rate and the unfilled jobs being advertised. Many tech companies and tech focused job markets are unable to find qualified employees. We must accept our responsibility for adding technology skills to the “three R’s”. The traditional skills haven’t gone away – they still need to do reading, writing and arithmetic – but those skills must be applied in new ways. Reading skills must include critical analysis of the source, writing must include the ability to write for an authentic audience, and arithmetic must be understood from a practical application. Applications could include web site analysis, blogging and computer aided design.
Many of the readings focused on the need to teach responsible use of Web 2.0 tools. Many institutions are afraid of Web 2.0 because it allows student control. That’s the very reason we must teach it. Students will be using Web 2.0 with or without our assistance. Without guidance they will continue to post inappropriate comments and pictures. With guidance they can learn netiquette, proper usage, and understand the consequences for irresponsible actions.
Changing a classroom takes time and planning. I plan to incorporate more technology immediately, but will be also working towards a student-led model of teaching.
Goal one: Incorporate Web 2.0 tools to allow students the opportunity to develop their own collaboration and critical thinking skills.
I am in the process of developing a student designed wiki. Students have already started the brainstorming portion so I can set up an appropriate site for them to work with. Small groups of students have been tasked with coming up with topics and rules for the wiki. This will serve as a beta test before I implement a wiki or blog into the graded assignments.
Goal two: Move more of the process to learner-centered and away from teacher-centered.
This will come more slowly as I am able to find ways to challenge students to find ways to reach the objectives. I am working with sixth graders. They have unlimited enthusiasm and a sense of fearlessness about learning, but lack experience in how to achieve their academic goals. Some guidance and limitations must be in place. I liken it to learning to bowl. The bumpers keep the ball out of the gutter, but it is still up to the student to get the ball down the lane to score. For example, I have several activities that guide the students to the well-defined objective of being able to critically analyze a web site, but the students are restricted to the sites of my choosing. The next step will be to allow them to apply their knowledge to the Internet at large and trust that they will apply their knowledge appropriately. This is one small step in allowing more learner-centered control. True learner-centered would be to give the students the objective and challenge them to design their own way to reach it.
In our first week we were asked to do a self-analysis of our instructional practices and activities. At the time, I felt satisfied that my classroom was meeting most of these goals through my emphasis on the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy in my activities and focus on project based assessments of learning. In week seven I realize that I have a long journey ahead. I have started the trip by already using Internet resources, activities that require critical thinking and projects. To truly prepare my students for the challenges ahead and to appropriately use the current technology available to them outside of school, I must incorporate more Web 2.0 technologies and give them more responsibility over their own learning outcomes.
November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.
After a significant number of readings focused on the different ways that “Digital Natives” process information, I admit that I had to rethink my attitude. Different has never meant better or worse, it simply means different. Our young people today process information in a different way than most teachers did at their age. I felt they needed to learn to use the previous way, now I believe that it is I not them who must change.
I still believe that they have an expectation of entitlement that includes entertainment, instant gratification, and easy solutions. But we can use that to our advantage by utilizing their natural comfort with technology. By designing assignments and challenges that engage them in their learning, they will develop skills that reward patience and diligence. In fact, I now believe it is irresponsible for teachers to not develop their repertoire to include student designed tasks and technology based assignments to engage learners.
From our first reading by November (2008) to the last by Prensky (2005) the focus has been on the changing education needs of our students. We must prepare them for the new world of employment that demands many new technology based skills. There is a much quoted comment that today’s students will have jobs that haven’t been created yet. There is already evidence that those jobs are here and our employees aren’t ready for them. There’s a disconnect between the unemployment rate and the unfilled jobs being advertised. Many tech companies and tech focused job markets are unable to find qualified employees. We must accept our responsibility for adding technology skills to the “three R’s”. The traditional skills haven’t gone away – they still need to do reading, writing and arithmetic – but those skills must be applied in new ways. Reading skills must include critical analysis of the source, writing must include the ability to write for an authentic audience, and arithmetic must be understood from a practical application. Applications could include web site analysis, blogging and computer aided design.
Many of the readings focused on the need to teach responsible use of Web 2.0 tools. Many institutions are afraid of Web 2.0 because it allows student control. That’s the very reason we must teach it. Students will be using Web 2.0 with or without our assistance. Without guidance they will continue to post inappropriate comments and pictures. With guidance they can learn netiquette, proper usage, and understand the consequences for irresponsible actions.
Changing a classroom takes time and planning. I plan to incorporate more technology immediately, but will be also working towards a student-led model of teaching.
Goal one: Incorporate Web 2.0 tools to allow students the opportunity to develop their own collaboration and critical thinking skills.
I am in the process of developing a student designed wiki. Students have already started the brainstorming portion so I can set up an appropriate site for them to work with. Small groups of students have been tasked with coming up with topics and rules for the wiki. This will serve as a beta test before I implement a wiki or blog into the graded assignments.
Goal two: Move more of the process to learner-centered and away from teacher-centered.
This will come more slowly as I am able to find ways to challenge students to find ways to reach the objectives. I am working with sixth graders. They have unlimited enthusiasm and a sense of fearlessness about learning, but lack experience in how to achieve their academic goals. Some guidance and limitations must be in place. I liken it to learning to bowl. The bumpers keep the ball out of the gutter, but it is still up to the student to get the ball down the lane to score. For example, I have several activities that guide the students to the well-defined objective of being able to critically analyze a web site, but the students are restricted to the sites of my choosing. The next step will be to allow them to apply their knowledge to the Internet at large and trust that they will apply their knowledge appropriately. This is one small step in allowing more learner-centered control. True learner-centered would be to give the students the objective and challenge them to design their own way to reach it.
In our first week we were asked to do a self-analysis of our instructional practices and activities. At the time, I felt satisfied that my classroom was meeting most of these goals through my emphasis on the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy in my activities and focus on project based assessments of learning. In week seven I realize that I have a long journey ahead. I have started the trip by already using Internet resources, activities that require critical thinking and projects. To truly prepare my students for the challenges ahead and to appropriately use the current technology available to them outside of school, I must incorporate more Web 2.0 technologies and give them more responsibility over their own learning outcomes.
November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Connected Middle School Students
I was suprised how connected my 11- and 12-year-old students really are. I expected them to have technology accessible, but I wasn't expecting so many students to own so many gadgets.
The podcast features some of my sixth grade students talking about their technology usage at home and school.
See more Audio at TeacherTube.com.
The podcast features some of my sixth grade students talking about their technology usage at home and school.
See more Audio at TeacherTube.com.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Partnership for 21st Century Skills
I’ve been wondering why education hasn’t been changed from the outside in by the business community. It is the business community that is on the receiving end of the product of public education. If the public school system isn’t producing the highly skilled employees needed, the business community needs to be in the forefront demanding change. It turns out that I need not worry about this. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills organization is exactly the advocate for better education that I envisioned. They have brought together leading corporations with state educators to discuss the needs of our students. I found the Key Findings: Are They Really Ready to Work? a very compelling analysis of the precise reason education needs to be reinvented. They are starting by providing information and resources for educators. So far 15 states have joined the partnership. I’m happy to see states typically seen as lacking in foresight and resources such as South Dakota and West Virginia are partners. I’m deeply disappointed that my state of Maryland is not. We are next door to the capital and educate many federal employees. We should be at the front of the line in developing new curriculums and standards to meet the changing work place. Hopefully a quiet revolution is taking place in these 15 states. I am hopeful that a public revolt will eventually happen and all schools will become fully effective learning center.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Blogging in the Classroom
Blogging can be a natural extension of my 6th grade class. My curriculum includes teaching responsible use of technology. So far I’ve focused on how to use technology, but this can be the first step at teaching how to use Web 2.0 in a socially responsible way. Students can use this as a way to interact about the content that we don't have time to discuss in class. I can give a weekly question that requires deeper thinking such as looking at the impact of social networks or cyber bullying then students will have until the weekend to respond in a thoughtful way. Has anyone attempted to do higher leveling questioning through any of the Web 2.0 apps?
Sunday, January 9, 2011
How do you encourage intellectual curiosity?
For the first time, I'm at a loss to engage my sixth graders' interest in research. In past years, students were interested in the topic (directly from their social studies curriculum) and in using new research methods. They were doing high level synthesis and answering the thesis question with analysis that was equal to the high schoolers I used to teach. Every year for the past five the level of interest and quality of analysis has dropped. Is anyone else seeing this? How are you engaging the young tech savvy learner to want to think deeper?
New Blog
Welcome to my first blog. I hope to post questions and start a discussion about issues that are universal to teachers of 21st century learners. The students of today are very different from students of years past - in both good and not so good ways. These young people have grown up with technology as an integral part of their everyday lives. It has given them an extraordinary comfort level with technology that will allow flexibility as the world changes. On the other hand, it has also created a dependence on technology, an expectation of instant gratification and impatience with anything that is difficult or not entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)