RIP3Reflection

For my final project I I wanted to find a tool which I could envision not only having my students engage with on a meaningful level, but a tool that I could use as an educator to increase student engagement.  I wanted to find a tool that could be used by students in both individualized and collaborative efforts, and by myself as I taught in a teacher-directed manner.  Throughout my own experiences as a student inside of the classroom, a great deal of teacher-directed lessons that I have experienced were developed using Microsoft Powerpoint as a tool.  Although my own pedagogical philosophies will likely lead me to teach using predominantly student-directed teaching strategies, I wanted to explore with a tool which exceeded Microsoft Powerpoint applications–and one that I could use for teacher-directed lessons.  I wanted to find a tool that I could use to enhance traditional teacher-directed methods for teaching lessons.  Additionally, I aspired to find a tool that could be used across all content areas.  To begin my search for a tool that could be used by both educators and students, I relied on some prior knowledge–film is an engaging educational tool that can have a profound impact on student learning.  I began to research and explore some technological tools that could be used to create movies.  When I came across Moovly as an educational tool to enhance pedagogical practices, I knew that this was precisely the tool that I had been searching for.  I began exploring: Nebraska state standards,  unit plan topics, educational objectives, lesson plan ideas, and student activities that could be developed with Moovly embedded in the curriculum design.  It was more challenging for me to identify ways in which I might use Moovly as a tool in a teacher-directed manner, than it was for me to identify ways in which I would have my students build a relationship with Moovly.

What has been important to me about this learning experience, is the fact that I subconsciously began this final project with the aim of perfecting a lesson.  I repeat, I began this process with the aim of perfecting a lesson: increasing student engagement as much as possible, teaching to all different learning styles, embedding technology into the curriculum in a meaningful way, reinforcing higher order thinking to the greatest degree, etc.  But, I soon realized that tweaking my lesson was never going to end.  The more that I explored with Moovly, the closer I got toward my goal.  However, my goal was unrealistic–as there will always be room for improvement in regard to enhancing lessons.  Always.  I soon realized, that the perfection which I was seeking simply does not exist.  For example, my initial Moovly creation from an educator’s perspective consisted of a presentation which provided direct instruction for an activity, including warnings in regard to time allocated for the activity.  However, I did not think that I was taking this tool and utilizing the applications of the tool to the best of their capabilities.  Of course, that is because I was not.  After altering my lesson over an extended period of time with the aim toward enhancement, I was ultimately able to come to a solid consensus with Moovly.  I became aware of the fact that imperfection is at the heart of the art of pedagogy, I have entered a field in which there will always be room for improvement.  This is one of the many beautiful aspects of teaching.  Additionally, reflection is a critical component of the enhancement process.  For example, if I had the opportunity to alter my Moovly mini-lesson (the moov that I created depicting a teacher-directed use of the tool), I would!  Rather, I might have incorporated students’ animations from previous years at the end of the mini-lesson presentation that I created.  I might have also depicted real scenarios with real individuals at the heart of the stereotypical issues that I was addressing.  In regard to the assignment that I have considered to have my students implement while using Moovly, literature circle activities and Moovly presentations succeeding those literature circle activities might have been a more effective pedagogical approach.  Furthermore, the only way that I would truly know if using a literature circle activity preceding group presentations over group findings designed using Moovly, was a better pedagogical approach than the final presentation assignment that I designed…Would be to try this approach.

This reminds me of the very nature of learning, the writing process, and the world of technology.  Once again, my mind seems to gravitate toward the words of Benjamin Franklin, “Tell me and I forget.  Teach me and I remember.  Involve me and I learn.”  Although I know that reflection is a critical component to pedagogical practices, until I actually engage with that process in order to obtain an enduring understanding in regard to the effects of reflection, there is no telling that I will be able to apply what I know out in the field.  Revision is to the writing process, as teaching is to the art of pedagogy.  Like the writing process, our work as educators should always be seen as a work in progress.  Our own knowledge and learning as educators, must always be seen as a work in progress.  We are never finished learning, we must always strive to enhance our work, and we must always take time to reflect upon our work.  The writing process does not end with revision, and our job as educators is not simply fulfilled with successfully teaching a: lesson, unit, or semester.  We must analyze our practices, synthesize in order to enhance our practices, and evaluate in order to meet our ultimate goal as educators–to teach our future generations to the best of our ability.  In regard to teaching and learning in the digital environment, with the profound impact that technology has had on our society–not staying relevant to the times (and up to date with science and technological advances) we back ourselves into a very limiting corner.  Not only do we label ourselves as incompetent, the opportunities available for enhancement blow up in smoke.

With my experiences throughout this course, including this final project, I have gained a wealth of knowledge.  Technology is a tool, but using technology in the classroom is not optional.  We must use technology in the classroom on a daily basis: pencils, pencil sharpeners, whiteboards, Smartboards, iPads, and even social media.  Computer technology applications (although they do not create an equal opportunity in the world for each and everyone one of our students), are detrimental to our students’ success in life.  And like reading and writing skills, teaching our students how to engage with technology is a shared responsibility on behalf of all educators.  We must all work together, in order to teach our students literacy skills–including digital literacy skills.  However, it is important not to stray away from our educational objectives.  Although technology can always be embedded in the curriculum, it has to be both relevant and meaningful in regard to our educational goals.  Additionally, there is such a thing as going over the top.  We must know our students: age appropriateness must be considered while exploring with technological tools, differentiation must be considered while exploring with technological tools, and student diversity must be considered while exploring with technological tools.  I know now that teaching to different learning styles is more complex than simply incorporating different concepts or elements into the curriculum.  As an educator, I will strive to balance my methods and practices along a continuum.  I will share what I have learned throughout this course, with my future co-workers.  I will apply what I know in the field: explore additional technological applications (and along a continuum), systematically decipher between tools that I could or could not use with my students, embed technological applications into my curriculum that reinforce my educational goals, scaffold and model the use of technological applications that I will have my students engage with, and share what I have learned throughout this course in order to both educate others and decrease or eliminate misconceptions entirely.  I will be–technologically instinctive!  However, I will also always have a plan of action in regard to backup technology. Teaching effectively in contemporary society, is teaching and learning in the digital environment using research based theory and advanced tools.  That being said, all of the tools in the world cannot replace educators.  Yet, embedding technology into the curriculum is an obligation that we have as educators.  As educators, we must use our skills and knowledge in order to embed technology into the curriculum in a meaningful and effective way.

Final Blog Post (I liked blogging)!

I found the various perspectives on gamification provided in this final set of assigned readings to be very insightful.  I wonder how many educators in the surrounding community believe that gamification supports learning, and how many educators in the surrounding community do not believe that gamification supports learning?  I completely identify with the thoughts provided in Mascle’s “Why Gamification?” on not wanting my future classroom to be about the grade.  I am certainly guilty of obsessing over what I have to do to please my teachers and earn an A grade, rather than focus on exploring and experimenting.  However, it seems to me that the educational system in general, society even, has been structured in such a way that exploring and experimenting is not the main goal–it’s also risky.  At the University level, we complete entrance exams obsessing over what we have to do to please our judging panel throughout the construction of our essays–which is certainly limiting (we remain entirely focused on the rating, and not on our work).  Furthermore, how much room is there for students completing state writing exams to explore and experiment?  Certainly, there is little to no room evident in many cases, as students focus on the areas in which they will be assessed on (what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable) rigorously leading up to such exams, as well as studying mechanistic examples that they are in some cases blatantly convinced to simply mimic.  I certainly like the idea that gamification supports writing (and learning in general) as a recursive process, allowing students to recognize their written work as a work in progress–as opposed to the message that state writing exams send (state testing is over, so your essays are “done”) (Mascle).  I also like the idea that badges offer students who believe that they simply cannot write, goals that they can achieve which emphasize on function as well as form (Mascle).

I am a secondary education English and Art major, so thoughts are swimming around in my head about the possible applications of gamification in regard to the art curriculum (it can be a constant battle to convince students that they can in fact: draw, paint, sculpt, etc.).  I believe that the badge concept would work across all content areas and for students of all ages.  If we would have had badges given out in this course for our blog posts in regard to asking challenging questions or bringing forth interesting ideas, I wonder if our blog posts would look any different (I think that I might have been more inclined to step outside of my comfort zone)?  I do however; believe that positive reinforcement through the use of badges is problematic in the fact that in the real world, you’re not always going to be provided with a badge in regard to learning and progress.  Although gamification is a step toward teaching students to be more self-sufficient, students need to understand that they will have to learn things on their own (without a grade or badge as motivation), and for themselves (learning needs to be looked at as a self-fulfilling prophecy).  In this retrospect, gamification is acting as a sort of chameleon–the badge and the grade lie parallel in posing the same issue.  On a lighter note, Mascle was not pursuing gamification as sole an alternative to grading.  He pursued gamification as an alternative to grading in the hope that students would no longer focus on the grade, and rather focus on exploration and experimentation.  However, gamification as an alternative to grading is a concept that certainly has the potential to be abused, despite the fact that grading is harmful in multiple ways.  Guidelines in regard to gamification as an alternative to grading certainly need to be set in place, and rules need to be both established and enforced.  Gamification is also fantastic in the sense that it allows for students to be provided with instantaneous feedback.  However, I think that the importance of written feedback between a teacher who knows his or her student, and the student, is going to be a far more important concept in many contexts (regardless of the notion that teachers are subjective and computers are not).  Students need written feedback developed in an effective manner on an individualized basis.  Although the competitive climate of both grading and gamification (in certain contexts) can be seen as a negative concept, I think that in regard to our blog posts it is clear that with our peers potentially reading and commenting on our blog posts–we are motivated to put forth substantial effort into these posts.  I appreciate the competitive opportunities that gamification can offer.  If we were to have had the opportunity to obtain badges for developing critical questions on our blog posts though, certainly those badges would not portray what we really know–the blog post itself would do a better job of portraying what it is each that of us individually–actually knows.  In regard to gamification I absolutely love the idea of implementing a whole group reward system in which students work together as a team, and providing students with the opportunity to create their own badges (Holloway).  It is important not to forget that there is a market for gamification, and like everything–there is a business for gamification.  As educators, we must remain both willing and critical.  The preceding point also lies in parallel with notions put forth in Selfe’s “The Perils of Not Paying Attention”.

I really liked how the author provided the moral of the story upfront, so that the audience is less likely to miss it, and so that there is less room for miscommunication: “The story will lead us to admit, I believe, that we are, in part, already responsible for a bad–even a shameful–situation, and, I hope, will inspire us to do something more positive in the future” (Selfe, 415).
This article was not only insightful, but also fascinating.  The emphasis on paying critical attention to technology is a very valid and necessary concept (415).  The annual expenses for the funding projects presented were simply astounding–unfathomable! “In comparison to the miserly federal funding this country is allocating to other literacy and education projects, these amounts stagger the imagination” (418) Certainly, these projects need more balance. The emphasis on literacy education as a political act is also a very necessary and valid concept: “Moreover, because skills in technological communication environments are so closely linked with literacy instruction in general, and because students who come from such backgrounds are afforded the poorest efforts of the educational system and the lowest expectations of many teachers, the label of “illiterate” has broader implications for these individuals’ ability to acquire other skills through their formal schooling years” (428).  Never–ever underestimate a single one of your students.  Not a single educational professional from my high school years would believe that I am where I am today, most gave up on me rather quickly, and many of them thought that I would wind up in very unfortunate circumstances in life.  I passed a single art course, and a single English course before dropping out.  There were no expectations for me, my teachers’ opinions of me were made very clear, and luckily I proved those educators to be very wrong in regard to their presumptions of my abilities (or lack thereof). I was generally pleased with the author’s take on how we can go about seriously shifting these oppressive trends, and not underestimating a single one of our students is certainly a first step in the right direction (430).

References

Holloway, Suzanne.  “4 Ways to Bring Gamification of Education Into Your Classroom.”  Modern Educator Blog.  Web.  1, Nov, 2014.

Mascle, Deanna.  “Why Gamification?”  Metawriting.  22, May, 2014.  Web.  1, Nov 2014.

Selfe, Cynthia.  “Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention.”  CCC.  50.3. Feb, 1999.  Web.  1, Nov, 2014.

Blog 3

I definitely enjoyed Branch’s “Snowfall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek” I appreciated both the descriptive writing and technological integration.  I must say though, I wonder how Elyse Saugstad knew that help would come?  To me, the unmonitored play area, and “powdery stash,” known as Tunnel Creek (what with it’s continue at your own risk signs and all) didn’t sound very promising in regard to being rescued.  In the article, Tunnel Creek is described as belonging outside of the ski area, not patrolled or assessed–and an area where regular avalanches occur.  That being said, I am certainly not a part of the skiing industry, and the visual images and videos included in this text certainly reinforced my decision not  to aspire to be a part of the skiing industry.  Nebraska is cold enough, and my goodness did those blizzardous mountains look cold.  I found the links in Harding’s text to be very helpful in grappling with the topics encompassing Branch’s text (Harding, “The Conversation Around “Snowfall”).  In Rue’s article, he explains that as a journalist he is constantly collecting links to examples of stories that attempt to innovate and redefine the narrative form (Rue, “The ‘Snow Fall’ Effect and Dissecting the Multimedia Long Form Narrative”).  I instantly thought of my own experiences with collecting links online, and my frustration with some links eventually becoming inaccessible.  One tool that I have recently come across which can seemingly be used to avoid the scenario where you return to a link, only to find it inaccessible, is Evernote.  Greenfield argues that Branch’s text includes “video photos and graphics in a way that makes multimedia feel natural and useful–not just tacked on” (Greenfield, “What the NYT’s ‘Snow Fall’ means to Online Journalism’s Future”).  The following question is also posed in Greenfield’s article: is “Snow Fall” the future of online journalism (Greenfield, “What the NYT’s ‘Snow Fall’ means to Online Journalism’s Future”)?  Great question, this is the great debate.  I think that only the future will be able to provide us with an answer to this question.  I enjoyed reading about the various perspectives on the controversy surrounding Branch’s text. The Atlantic Wire spoke with The New York Times, and in reading the discussion provided in Greenfields article, clearly the immersive design elements framing “Snow Fall” were in part influenced by the increasing popularity of tablets (Greenfield, “What the NYT’s ‘Snow Fall’ means to Online Journalism’s Future”).  I think that the future of design for online journalism will continue to be further influenced by tablets, their increasing popularity as well as capabilities.

In response to Branch’s text, Thompson argues: “It was immediately hailed by much of the Internet as the “future of journalism.” It’s not. And that’s okay” (Thompson, “Snow Fall isn’t the future of journalism”).  Thompson goes on to argue that most stories do not yield themselves to dynamic visuals, and according to Pew Research many young readers prefer a “print-like experience” over technological features (Thompson, “Snow Fall isn’t the future of journalism”). Thompson states: “The emergence of mobile devices reinforces the power and the ease of old, boring, columns of text. For all the ways the Internet is molding our brains, we seem to like reading stories just like our grandparents did” (Thompson, “Snow Fall isn’t the future of journalism”).

In Chimero’s text, there were several intriguing intellectual thoughts which I truly appreciated.  One thought that I found particularly intriguing encompassed the essence of the screen being grounded in, and truly beginning with, stop motion photography of the late nine-teenth century: “I think that the grain of the screen has been there since the beginning.  Its not tied to an aesthetic.  Screens don’t care what horses look like, they just want them to move” (Chimero, “What Screens Want”).  We need things to change, to move–its the way of life.  Chimero goes on to state: “What screens want needs to match up with what we want” (Chimero, “What Screens Want”).  It’s that–not so simply–simple.  In response to “Snow Fall” attempting to define the future of online journalism, or supporters of the claim that ‘Snow Falling’ is re inventing online journalism…There is no right way or wrong way in regard to the future of online journalism.  Gruber argues that too many bells and whistles contradict the idea behind “Snow Fall”–to capture and hold the reader’s attention throughout (Gruber, “The Knock Against Snow Fall”).  I agree entirely.  Gruber states that: “Elements (large format pictures, informative graphics, and videos) shouldn’t be the primary focus of the piece.  The extra stuff is presented as an addition to the story, not a distraction from it” (Gruber, The Knock Against Snow Fall”).  I would have preferred reading “Snow Fall” without some of the ‘extra stuff’ provided, I was personally distracted from the textual format at times.  I definitely preferred Himmelman’s “A Game of Shark and Minnow” over “Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek.”

Greenfield argues that there is more balance with Himmelman’s text, and the second stab at ‘Snow Falling’ (Greenfield, “The New York Times Fights “Snow Fall” Fatigue With More Snow Falls—And It’s Working”). Collaborators on “A Game of Shark and Minnow” explain that there was better conversation about where readers are going to be served best with this second piece, which is clearly visible: “The team didn’t deliberately reduce visual elements, just thought about how to best use them for the story” (qtd. in Greenfield).  Greenfield goes on to explain: “There’s a lot of shiny stuff to distract on the page, but none of it fully makes sense without the prose. You have to read the story to get it. Even better: a lot of it—the eerie images of men living on a decrepit boat, the man fashioning an arrow-head—makes you want to read the story” (Greenfield, “The New York Times Fights “Snow Fall” Fatigue With More Snow Falls—And It’s Working”).  Exactly!.

I really enjoyed reading about Mrs.Dill (the fourth grade teacher who explored the use of the iPads to help her teach print-based literacy skill as well as provide students with the opportunity to learn digital literacy skills) In Hutchison’s text (Hutchison, “Exploring the Use of iPads for Literacy Learning” 17-23).  “The introduction of the iPad and other tablets like it has changed mobile learning possibilities for teachers and students” (17).  We must explore, investigate, learn, and utilize these tools in meaningful ways.  Then we must reflect on the experience in order to enhance our future practices.  Its our job as future educators.  “As teachers begin exploring the possibilities of using mobile devices such as the iPad in their classrooms, it will be important to examine how this technology, with its affordances and constraints, can influence student learning” (17).  This argument lies parallel to the hot topics encompassing ‘Snow Falling’.  Hutchison’s text goes on to point out that one way in which the iPad provides useful opportunities for literacy classrooms is in the form of digital texts, yet different modes of reading and writing require fresh consideration and analysis:  “Accordingly, digital texts can require different skills, strategies, and dispositions, collectively referred to as new literacies” (qtd in Hutchison 18).  Hutchison also points out that recent research (Hutchison and Reinking, 2011) indicates that a majority of technology use in literacy classrooms occurs as technological integration rather than curricular integration” (17).  Although not surprising, I wonder how long it will take this trend to predominantly shift toward curricular integration (five years, ten years?)?  “Mrs. Dill was selected for this study because she expressed a desire to integrate more digital technology into her instruction and because of her openness to trying new instructional approaches” (18).  Unfortunately, not all educators share Mrs. Dill’s perspective, even though as educators in the twenty-first century it is our job to carry such a perspective into the field of education.  That is not to say that this is an easy task by any means, as it certainly is not.  Technology advances at such an alarming rate, we are all learning together, teachers fresh to the field as well as teachers with decades of experience in the field.  On that note, Mrs. Dill made no excuses!  Mrs. Dill was not familiar with the iPad prior to this study, and she was presented with the task of integrating iPads into the curriculum daily, for three weeks.  In the study it is pointed out that the instructional strategies used in this study were based on technology integration according to Harris and Hofers 2009 model, but what exactly are the critical elements that determine the stance that views ICTs as curriculum integrated rather than technologically integrated (19)?  Does this pose a potential problem for educators attempting to shift toward curriculum integration?  Are there instances where the boundaries are blurred between technological integration and curriculum integration?  Although to me, it seems clear that Mrs. Dill’s instructional strategies are all examples which fall under the category of curriculum based technological integration, might other experts disagree?  I found it very interesting that through some of the experiences in which this particular group of students had the opportunity to engage in (such as using Popplet and peers finding it difficult to interpret each other’s webs), students came to the same realization as the individuals who collaborated on “Snow Fall” did: “Through this experience, the students were able to recognize how the visual component of a message must complement the written text” (20).

References

Branch, John.  “Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek.”  The New York Times.  19 Feb 2012.  Web.  1 Nov 2014.

Chimero, Frank.  “What Screens Want.”  FrankChimero.com.  Nov 2013.  Web.  1 Nov 2014.

Greenfield, Rebecca.  “The New York Times Fights “Snow Fall” Fatigue With More Snowfalls–and It’s Working.”  Fast Company.  25 Oct 2013.  Web.  1 Nov 2014.

Greenfield, Rebecca.  “What the NEW York Time’s ‘Snow Fall’ Means to Online Journalism’s Future.”  The Wire.  20 Dec 2012.  Web.  1 Nov 2014.

Gruber, John.  “The Knock Against Snowfalling.”  Daring Fireball.  7 Nov 2013.  Web.  1 Nov 2013.

Himmelman, Jeff.  “A Game of Shark and Minnow.”  The New York Times.  27 Oct 2013.  Web.  1 Nov 2014.

Hutchison, Amy.  “Exploring the Use of the iPad for Literacy and Learning.” The Reading Teacher:  September 2012.  Web.  1 Nov 2014.

Thompson, Derek.  “Snow Fall Isn’t The Future of Online Journalism.”  The Atlantic.  21 Dec 2012.  Web.  1 Nov 2014.

A Reflection on the Readings for 10.18.14.

In the text Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, it is stated that:  “A great deal of research establishes that individuals process and understand new information (correctly or incorrectly) in light of their experiences and prior knowledge and beliefs, and that they will often fail to remember, understand, or apply ideas that have no connections to their experience and no context  for acquiring meaning” (369).  It is also explained that one of the most important preconceptions that many teacher candidates hold encompasses learning as a mechanistic transfer of information from one source to another (369).  I would suggest for teacher candidates who hold such preconceptions about learning to reflect upon their own individual experiences as a student, and to not only consider the fish and frog scenario presented in the text, but to also take into consideration what Benjamin Franklin once said: “Tell me and I forget.  Teach me and I remember.  Involve me and I learn.”  In the text it is explained that  learning experiences which support understanding and effective action are different from those that simply support the ability to remember or perform rote sets of skills, however, experience alone is also just not enough (372).  Experience, adaption, and other critical concepts are needed, but what it really seems to boil down to is the ability to maintain different ways of thinking, and seeing, the world.  It was comforting to read about “case based” and “problem based” instruction along with their implications, as a good portion of our class can recognize that the essence of this approach lies in parallel with what we were doing over the summer in our combined TED 3550-3690 course .  “The problem of knowing something but failing to have it guide one’s actions is ubiquitous” (372).  For those of us who took TED 3550-3690 together, with this text we can reflect on our experiences in the course.  For me, although some of the the experiences were certainly more beneficial than others, overall the course was as close as one could get to everyday scenarios relevant to our practice without having the opportunity to implement our lessons in the context of a true high school setting–and therefore the course was successful in helping us think more professionally.  Although we were able to think more professionally, as stated in the text, “Developing an authoritative classroom presence, good radar for watching and interpreting what many different students are doing and feeling at each moment, and skills for explaining, questioning, discussing, giving feedback, constructing tasks, facilitating work, and managing the classroom–all at once–is not simple” (375).  These skills take a significant amount of time and experience to master.  In the text it is explained that data shows us teacher experiences, particularly in the first two years, are a consistent predictor of teacher effectiveness (375).  Although I was surprised to find that research based data proves that a teacher’s experiences in the first two years are critical to his or her effectiveness as an educator, the notion is one that makes sense naturally.  The notion can be analyzed in comparison to the first two years of a child’s life.  In the first two years of a child’s life, experience is fundamentally important to brain development.  Brain development is extremely vulnerable to environmental influences, and there are several connections that can be made between the patterns discussed in the text regarding teachers fresh to the field (Particularly in their first two years of practice), and child development in the first two years of life.  First off, like a child in the first two years of life, a teacher that is new to the field is vulnerable to environmental influences as experiences predict effectiveness.  Secondly, the influence of early environment on brain development is long lasting (Why Invest in ECD: Evidence).  Like the child, the educator’s experiences in the first two years will influence him or her later on in life (Shaping his or her overall effectiveness, or a lack thereof).  Finally, the environment in the first two years of life for a child affects the number of brain cells, and the number of connections made among those brain cells( it affects the way that connections are “wired”) (Why Invest in ECD).  Similarly, the educator’s early experiences affect their critical understanding of concepts (along with the number of needed concepts that are truly understood), and in turn effects the skillset that is obtained.  Like the child, for the educator, the experience effects the way that connections are wired.  I found the data on teacher experiences in the first two years of teaching to be very intriguing, and I wonder if their is a body of research that exists encompassing stressful experiences in the first two years of teaching?  I imagine that their might be a correlation between overwhelmingly stressful experiences in the first two years of teaching, and ineffectiveness.  The difference between novice and expert teachers was discussed on a continuum throughout the text, but the difference in thinking patterns between the two types of teachers, and the role that experience plays, is no big shocker (379).  It is explained that some theorists on teacher development believe that teacher development is sequential and hierarchical nature, while others disagree with an underlying ranking structure encompassing teacher development, and rather focus on complexities and preparation (380).  I believe that a more appropriate theory lies somewhere in between these two perspectives.  Teacher development is certainly an organic and forever growing process, and experience is simply the factor that makes teacher development seem sequential or hierarchical.  With the increase of advancements in intensive teacher preparation programs, complexities and preparation will continue to be researched.  With this, more promising theories will surely be developed.

In the text A New Culture of Learning, Thomas and Brown deconstruct the new culture of learning phenomenon, and discuss how the new culture of teaching requires a shift in thinking about education (19).  “The question is: in the twenty first century how do we cultivate imagination”?(19) Connections between resources and personal motivation are to cultivating the imagination, as experience is to a deeper understanding, and as education/preparation is to opportunities as well as effectiveness.  Experience enables a deeper understanding of a concept, and education/preparation enables greater opportunities as well as more effective practices.  At the core of my analogy is this: experience and education/preparation are windows that open up to and enable a multitude of bonds.  Clearly, the experience and education/preparation portion of my analogy encompasses some of the more dominant themes that were visible in Preparing Teachers for a Changing World.  But we can also extend this analogy to Sam’s case in the first chapter of A New Culture of Learning (Although we were not  required to read the first two chapters (Oops!), I recommend going ahead and reading them anyways.  I really enjoyed reading the stories encompassing individual experiences) (21).  For Sam, a collective online effort enabled him to learn from others (21).  Experience is to a deeper understanding, as education/preparation is to opportunities as well as effectiveness, and as collaboration is to learning.  This analogy extends to the moral of all of the stories presented in the first chapter of the text: “In short, the connection between resources and personal motivation led people to cultivate their own imaginations and re-create a space in a new way” (32).

In Croxall’s “Reflections on Teaching with Social Media”, after reflecting on the integration of social media into his classes, he explained that the dynamic made a difference for the number and duration of twitter-ers.  I am thrilled that we do not have to tweet daily, although I truly understand the benefits now that I have read Croxall’s text.  As he explained: “We suddenly knew about one another’s lives outside of class and that enabled conversations to happen in class more easily than they otherwise would have.”  However, he also states that: “While I was watching the feed and would comment on what they were saying as a portion of the lecture, I believe that I could have had more students playing along with the lectures if there would have been a way for me to interact with their tweets on twitter itself”.  As explained in Preparing Teachers for a Changing World, developing an authoritative presence in the classroom is far from a simple feat.  Interacting with students tweets on twitter while lecturing and maintaining all of the prerequisites for an authoritative presence, may simply be too much (It complicates things, and I would be hesitant to interact with the tweets on twitter itself because getting off track and losing control of the classroom seem like highly plausible outcomes as a result).  However, the most important idea here is most definitely building an interactive learning context, and I will apply what I have learned with this text to my own practices in the future.  In Sample’s “Twitter is a Snark Valve” he presents the twitter adoption matrix, but where is the science based evidence on these benefits?  Does twitter only work for particular students?  What is the degree to which these benefits exist?  What are the negative effects?  How is the learning of students with disabilities affected?  Further investigation and research into the effects (both positive and negative) needs to implemented.   Furthermore, during our first class session the in-class back channel included categories that existed that do not fall into any one of the three categories presented in this text. The categories presented in this text are as follows: “1.  Posting news and sharing resources relevant to the class.  2.  Asking questions and responding to the class with clarification about the readings. 3.  Writing sarcastic irreverent comments about the readings or my teaching.”  Sample explained that:  “When I look closely at what my students write outside of class I find that their tweets fall into one of three categories.”  Considering that during our last class meeting our in-class back channel consisted of several tweets that were: not posts about news, not posts that shared sources, not questions about the readings, and irrelevant to the assigned readings (such as tweeting about the heated oven of a room we were all baking in), I find it very hard to believe that there should not be a fourth category here–titled, irrelevant.  However, I do agree with the author, that snark is a legitimate way to engage culture, and that Twitter can be seen as a snark valve.  In Sample’s “A Framework for Teaching with Twitter” he explains that there is no single right or wrong way to teach with Twitter, but I do not so much agree with this statement. There certainly must be more effective ways, and less effective ways, to teach with Twitter.

References

Coxall, Brian.  “Reflections on Teaching with Social Media.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (2014). Web. 13 September 2014.

Hammerness et al. “Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do.” The National Academy of Education. Web. 13 September 2014.

Sample, Mark.  “A Framework for Teaching With Twitter.”  The Chronicle of Higher Education (2014). Web. 13 September 2014.

Sample, Mark.  “Twitter is a Snark Valve.” Sample Reality (2009).  Web. 13 September 2014.

Thomas, Douglas and Brown, John. “A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for A World of Constant Change”. Web. 13 September 2014.

“Why Invest in ECD: Evidence.”  The World Bank Group (2011). Web. 13 September 2014.

Readings for 9/6/14

The NCTE’s Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education are presented in a pretty straight forward manner.  However, they still seem pretty vague when considering the conditions of fair use or the implications for individuals who break “the code of best practices” (whether accidentally or not).  I found the concepts encompassing fair use to be entities synonymous with concepts encompassing the use of “common knowledge” when writing a paper using the MLA style format.  Sometimes distinguishing between common knowledge and plagiarism gets tricky.  I myself have recently visited the University of Nebraska at Omaha’s writing Center, to discuss both common knowledge and plagiarism using the MLA style format.  At some point, I felt like I had forgotten what I know, and I became comfused (summers will do that to you).  Although my visit was very helpful in regard to my own knowledge and the organization of my paper, to my surprise common knowledge and the MLA format in general continuously need revisited, even for the “experts”.  To their credit, the experts, I was most certainly redirected to find the answers in which I was seeking.  However, common knowledge as well as the MLA format in general, are both: not as cut and dry as they seem, and tricky (kind of like the English language itself–it’s difficult to remember all of the countless rules).  I felt as if many of the aspects encompassing fair use presented in the NCTE’s Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education lye paralell with aspects encompassing common knowledge.  Prensky’s Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants was obviously a reading very different from the NCTE’s Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education, in terms of both content and style.  I found Prensky’s article to be very intreiguing.  For years I have been contemplating about what what the root of the cause is in regard to the difference between my younger siblings and myself (in regard to technology that is).  I am twenty-four years of age, my brother is twenty-one years of age, and my sister is twenty years of age.  Although I fall into the millennial category, compared to my younger siblings I definitely feel like a digital immigrant.  In discussing with individuals over the last few years, there certainly is a significant difference between my siblings and myself in regard to technology.  In the conversations I have had with family and friends, we could discuss the ideology, but never really ground a name or argument in regard to the concept that came about.  Prensky, however, purposed it clearly in his article.  “Our students today are all “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet” (2).  That makes the rest of us forever digital immigrants compared to them (2).  This is precisely why (although by some experts I am considered to be a digital native) there is a fundamental difference between my engagement with technology in regard to my learning, and my younger siblings and their engagement with technology in regard to their learning.  However, although I found the article to be highly intreiging, I wish that the article would have gone beyond what it did.  There are certainly implications beyond the temporal which affect the digital immigrant, and digital native ideology.  For example, I did grow up in the digital native era.  However, my younger siblings were probed more in a digital environment and the digitial culture, than I was.  Multiple factors are certainly at play, and those factors defined my digital native-ness (or lack thereof).  Factors that were at play which shaped my digital native-ness include: time, money, and education.  It is possible that these additional factors may be less evident today (money and education), but if they are less evident they are still in existence and certainly measurable because technology is constantly improving and advancing.  When I was in high school there were less resources available via the internet, and the internet was not a force that was as dominant as it is today.  When I was in high school, my mom was poor and we did not have a computer at home.  A few years later, when my siblings were in high school, they were provided personal laptops to take home from school (this is certainly a factor that assists in distinguishing a difference between my relationship with technology, and that of my siblings).  Also, education played a huge factor in distinguishing a difference between my relationship with technology, and that of my siblings.  I attended Central High School and my siblings attended Westside High School; I would handwrite essays using a style-book as a guide, and my siblings wrote all of their essays using Microsoft Word.  Today,  students are increasingly digitally native.  Prensky argues that: “Today’s students are no longer the people our education system was designed to teach” (1). It has been thirteen years since Prensky wrote his article, and  I must say that I still find this arguement to be factual.  Educators and parents are still striving to keep up.  Teens have their cell phones attached to their hips, when they go over their data they raise phone bills through the roof, and there is always a new phone on the market that everybody wants.  “Prensky argues that: “Technology has changed things so fundamentally, there is no going back” (1).  Yet, the same might be said about some of the social dynamics that were evident in the eighties.  Regardless, the force of technology in this day and age is certainly astounding.  “Today‟s average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching TV)”(1).  In his article, Prensky explains that students today also have thinking patterns that are fundamentally different from previous generations (1).   He brings up the concept of the digital immigrant and his or her accent, an entity always retained to a certain degree (2).  Prensky also provides the humorous examples of the digital immigrant’s accent in his article: printing out a computer document in order to edit it (I am guilty as charged), physically bringing people to your computer to see something online rather than simply sending them the link (again, guilty as charged), or calling someone to verify that they received your email (or texting someone to verify that they received an email, in which I am guilty as charged).  An example that I came up with consists of the digital immigrant, me, printing out documents online just to read them.  This is something I do on a daily basis, for me there is something about having a tangible object (the printed page) that I find not only comforting, but necessary to my engagement with a text (whether or not  it is actually necessary to my engagement with a text, I do not know).  However, realizing how unnesecarry it might actually be (printing the document prior to reading it), in the future I will strive to shift toward simply reading the online documents and not printing them out at all (it would certainly save trees, and I could truly begin to pay particular attention to how reading a document online affects my reading of the text, and if it alters my reading in any manner).  Yet, in contemplating about such a shift in my reading of a text, I wonder what types of issues might arise (if any would arise) with a change in my reading strategy.  For example, returning to an online document can prove to be difficult, it has for me in the past (yet if you have a version of the document in print, you can always return to your bookshelf).  Furthermore, when considering the act of writing, I would not change my strategy for the world.  The act of writing does more for our brains than typing ever will.  In Prensky’s article he goes on to discuss what he describes as the number one problem facing education today:  “It’s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language” (2).  Prensky highlights some of the issues grounded in the disconnect between digital natives and the digital  immigrants whom are teaching them.  For example: digital natives are used to receiving information at a very quick pace, prefer their graphics before their text, function best when networked, prefer games to serious academic work, and thrive on instant gratification as well as rewards (2).  This is precisely why instructional strategies such as recognizing effort and providing recognition have gained the recognition that they so rightfully deserve, and have been emphasised to a greater degree in recent years compared to the past.  Although Prensky brings up the point that digital immigrants typically have very little appreciation for these new skills, such an idea is now outdated, and in the contemporary field of education these skills are largely appreciated and taken into great consideration (2).  Since this article was published, methodology and content in the field of education have shifted to a great extent, and with the swift power of technology educators now have endless possibilities and resources to incorporate into the classroom (such as collaborative brainstorming efforts using popplet, or creating short films using ipad apps).  Furthermore, digital immigrants have adapted to the world of technology,they use these resources in their classrooms, and they remain more flexible than ever before (if a student athlete is traveling with the team to compete, a teacher might audio-record or video-record the lecture for the day, than email it to the student athlete so he or she can take their notes).  In the article Prensky brings up the fact that the debate over calculators and computers in math has shifted from use (as they are part of the digital native world, it is no longer a debate over use) to application (the debate is now over how to use calculators and computers in a meaningful way ) (5).  However, I cannot help but wonder what some of the implications may be for these shifts (there is always a give and take, there must be negative implications that go along with the positive ones, and to find the perfect balance for educators to continually strive for, the negative implications must first be identified).  With the increase in learning environments across the globe being grounded in networks such as skype (and the pressure for educators to be: adaptable, open, and coherent in regard to teaching online courses or even using technology in the classroom), educators need to be aware of the differences between the thinking patterns of digital immigrants and digital natives (that is, if educators plan to teach digital natives, digital immigrants, or both).  Although Prensky presented some of the differences in thinking patterns between digital natives and digital immigrants in his article, I wish he would have elaborated a bit more on those differences.  In my hope of gathering a deeper understanding of those differences, I came across Ransdell’s Digital Immigrants fare better than digital natives due to social reliance.  In the article, a case study was conducted with the aim at providing empirical evidence for the ways in which digital natives are different when they interact with online environments (931).  “Older students (those born in 1960 or earlier) contributed more original postings to discussions, earned higher grades in the class, and were higher in critical thinking skill than younger learners (those born in 1987 or later).  The older students were not just better students; tests of critical thinking disposition and rote memory performance found the older and younger learners in this study  to be equal.  Socio-cultural and other personal factors like birth-year cohort, critical thinking skill and online activity play a pivitol role in students’ sucess” (932).  Conclusions found in this case study regarding millennial’s include: “Millennial students are among the first generation of digital natives and while the 21st century  will bring students exposed to online learning at ever earlier ages, it is important to know what to expect of these students and plan accordingly…  Younger students may use a resources of the online learning environment only if they deem it necessary.  Millennials may need extra encouragement to participate actively in a course and to exchange information and problem solving strategies with their classmates” (937).  Conclusions found in this case study regarding older students include: “Older boomers need to be encouraged to be more confident.  The wealth of work and other social experiences that they have makes it possible to compensate for their relative lack of online experience compared to the younger student.  Older students should also be reinforced for continuing to engage actively in the online environment” (937).  Although I plan to only teach at the secondary level, I found the implication differences between digital natives and digital immigrants to be very insightful.  Furthermore, since I will be teaching digital natives in the future, it is critical that I consider the implications of this study.  When considering the possibility that I may someday have to teach a course online, there are plenty of takeaways for me in regard to this article: “All students need to be encouraged to participate actively in their own learning, but especially the increasingly digital native student in an online class in the 21st century” (937).  It is also quite possible that this concept of engagement extends to other online realms, such as online activities in general (for example, encouragement to participate actively during an in-class online collaborative brainstorming effort may reinforce student learning).  I really enjoyed Prensky’s article, and I am glad that I am able to identify the underlying phenomena that is the root cause for the differences in regard to technology between my younger siblings and myself.  I am now curious as to the extent of this phenomena, do these implications exist in other countries?  Is this a world-wide phenomena?

References

National Council of Teachers of English.  “Code of Best Practices in Fair use of MediaLiteracy in Education”.  2014. Web. 5 Sept. 2014

Prensky, Marc.  “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.”MCBUniversity Press 9.5 (2001): 1-6.  Web. 5 Sept.2014

Ransdell, Sarah, et al. “Digital Immigrants Fare Better Than Digital Natives Due To Social Reliance.” British Journal Of Educational Technology 42.6 (2011): 931-938. Web. 5 Sept. 2014