When I first heard about E-learning about four years ago, I was alittle bit nervous about the future of education. At the time, I thought there was a possibility that my job might be in jeopardy in years to come. However, after now having the opportunity to research, expose myself to the technology, and explore what's out there, I know that my job will be around for years to come. Whereas there are some benefits that can promote E-learning, the negatives far outweigh that positives at this time. For this last encounter with collaborative services, my group members and I explore Elluminate. We chose Elluminate because it was the product that class was going to be run on and we were not familiar with this product.
As of right now, I believe my group members would agree with me when I say this, but we are not big fans of the program. After exploring with my team, we became frustrated and annoyed with the program that we believed was going to be better than what we had worked with before. As Kevin and I were talking, one would talk, then click the button/keys, then the other could talk and click the button, then the original (I say it in this way because we were frustrated with the fact that we could not talk at the same time, that we constantly had to wait until the other person was finished with their thought, only to forget the original thought or there was a need for one person to talk and the other to type to keep a true conversation going). This became annoying in that one person was the "leader" and the other the "follower". This also became apparent when we were working with different applications. It was as seamless as we would have thought. Another thing that I became frustrated with is that I could not see the person I was talking to. All in all, after our experience, I have a feeling that Kevin is going to tell his co-workers about this wonderful program that takes the place of their two programs they use to collaboratively conference call. And I am not going to my students to set up collaborative programs as homework. Whereas the program was nice to explore, I can't believe that this is one of the better programs out there right now for conference calling/ E-learning.
When thinking about how this program could help my classroom, I feel that there are too many glitches to make it worthwhile. For one, it's based on the Internet and that is never a reliable source. Two, if I were to give a presentation to a group of students through Elluminate, I would never know if I lost a student to a computer game, the bathroom, or another room to watch TV. I felt as like it would seem as though they were with me throughout the presentation/ conference because answers could be typed sporadically and if I asked a question, they could run over to the computer and answer but were they really paying attention. Third, I didn't see the collaboration element if students could not talk at the same time nor view a screen that was being changed as a real-time speed compared the delay responses that we experienced. All in all, I can see how I would like the program to be modified in order to make it useful to me and so far I haven't found that modified program. So for the purposes of my needs, I feel that I will continue to be quite needed in the classroom and not in front of some computer, teaching the students in that way.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
TQ 5: The benefits of concept mapping
When teaching, I feel it is important to try new things, to make changes to the curriculum, and to see what works. With concept mapping, I would definitely give collaborative concept mapping a try to see how it works. However I am sceptical that it would take a lot of work to help students to understand the benefits of the tools and I don't see myself applying this new tool too soon. The reasons I would give it a try are that it helps to fill the state standards and it promotes constructivism. However, I think the time that it would take the students, who have trouble organizing what's laid out for them, to learn this new idea would outweigh the benefit it would make unless it was used from year to year. All in all, I think schools could benefit from this idea if all grades would support using the same/ similar resources so that the students get used the similar process.
As mentioned before, I don't know if this idea of a collaborative concept map would be too practical for the setting that I am working with. The students who are going to pick up quick to an idea like this are those who can organize their thoughts and pull out key words. I have learned, through the years, how to keep myself organized- I feel that making a concept map was easy. However, I fear that the students who have trouble organizing their notebook in a class who teaches you how to organize your notebooks, will also have trouble organizing the concept map. I'm not sure if they would be able to make the connections to make the map fit. (On the other hand, this could be the missing link- and therefore, proving me wrong but showing that the tool is useful to someone new- which is my goal in teaching.) With all of that being said, I would definitely try this tool in my class and I really like the idea of collaborating to learn "working together" skills. My only hope that this tool would not become a unit itself- learning how to use the tool that after some explanations the students would be able to work with it on their own.
As far as teacher skill goes, as with any technology, I believe that a teacher needs to know and understand how the program/ tool/ skill works before they are truly able to teach another person about it. Here with this tool, teachers need to both understand concept maps and how they function along with how to work with the program that runs the mapping process. Simplicity would be key here as the simpler the teachers keeps the project the more they are able to help out and the more that the students can be differentiated. As stated before, all teachers should be exposed to tools like this because then the tools can be used cross- grade levels and therefore their knowledge can continue to grow throughout the years.
According to the standards, there are three separate PA state standards that fulfill the idea of learning how to organize one's own thoughts for writing, for discussions, and for research. I feel that concept maps can easily be used to support the organization for discussions that are held as to a single topic, along with finding ease in creating a map to support research that has been found. When students are able to take the appropriate amount of time to have their understand build, they will be able to easily utilize tools like concept mapping to organize their thoughts.
All in all, I believe that this tool can be helpful in schools, if the schools are able to encourage different grade levels to be on board with similar concept mapping tools. In this way, the student's learning can continue to grow in understanding throughout the years. I believe that this tool supports the constructivist model of learning in that it puts the knowledge that the student is gaining through their discoveries in a way that they can organize their findings to then make more connections. Therefore, it keeps their understanding in a state of "constant development"(North Central Regional Educational Laboratory). Once again, I am interested to have students, who have learned, or have knowledge of, a new topic organize their learning to help them make connections through using a concept mapping tool like Cmap.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/sc5model.htm
As mentioned before, I don't know if this idea of a collaborative concept map would be too practical for the setting that I am working with. The students who are going to pick up quick to an idea like this are those who can organize their thoughts and pull out key words. I have learned, through the years, how to keep myself organized- I feel that making a concept map was easy. However, I fear that the students who have trouble organizing their notebook in a class who teaches you how to organize your notebooks, will also have trouble organizing the concept map. I'm not sure if they would be able to make the connections to make the map fit. (On the other hand, this could be the missing link- and therefore, proving me wrong but showing that the tool is useful to someone new- which is my goal in teaching.) With all of that being said, I would definitely try this tool in my class and I really like the idea of collaborating to learn "working together" skills. My only hope that this tool would not become a unit itself- learning how to use the tool that after some explanations the students would be able to work with it on their own.
As far as teacher skill goes, as with any technology, I believe that a teacher needs to know and understand how the program/ tool/ skill works before they are truly able to teach another person about it. Here with this tool, teachers need to both understand concept maps and how they function along with how to work with the program that runs the mapping process. Simplicity would be key here as the simpler the teachers keeps the project the more they are able to help out and the more that the students can be differentiated. As stated before, all teachers should be exposed to tools like this because then the tools can be used cross- grade levels and therefore their knowledge can continue to grow throughout the years.
According to the standards, there are three separate PA state standards that fulfill the idea of learning how to organize one's own thoughts for writing, for discussions, and for research. I feel that concept maps can easily be used to support the organization for discussions that are held as to a single topic, along with finding ease in creating a map to support research that has been found. When students are able to take the appropriate amount of time to have their understand build, they will be able to easily utilize tools like concept mapping to organize their thoughts.
All in all, I believe that this tool can be helpful in schools, if the schools are able to encourage different grade levels to be on board with similar concept mapping tools. In this way, the student's learning can continue to grow in understanding throughout the years. I believe that this tool supports the constructivist model of learning in that it puts the knowledge that the student is gaining through their discoveries in a way that they can organize their findings to then make more connections. Therefore, it keeps their understanding in a state of "constant development"(North Central Regional Educational Laboratory). Once again, I am interested to have students, who have learned, or have knowledge of, a new topic organize their learning to help them make connections through using a concept mapping tool like Cmap.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/sc5model.htm
Friday, February 13, 2009
TQ #4: Wenglinksy's views
There's a common statement going around in the education world: "Students work needs to be individualized and assignments must meet the needs of the learner." Whereas most educators would agree with this statement, we all know that it doesn't always happen. The same thing goes with using computers as a method of improving anything. The assignment needs to cater more towards the students learning styles than one assignment for the whole class. Some students will prosper based on one type of computer use and another will benefit from a completely different use. On the conceptual basis, I do agree with Wenglinksy when he says, "computer use is positively associated with student performance when computer are used in a constructivist manner." A majority of the students will preform better when working in a group on a topic that interests them while continuing to collaborate about the given topic. Unfortunately, in my experience, individual performance is hard to assess in a group setting so how do you determine how a child has benefited from one type of learning or another unless some type of individual assessment is given?
While reading through Wenglinsky's section on Mathematics, I was thinking that all of what he was saying from the tests made sense. From 1996 to 2000, it was stated that computers became more available in class but that frequency of computer use in school went down. It makes sense because although the radio of computes to students went up in a school, computers that the whole class could work on were in a lab providing for a whole school. Therefore meaning that more computers were available for the school's use but maybe not readily available for a single class to use. The piece about home use makes sense because more teachers, at least in a rural setting, are able to give out work to be done on the computers at home because they are available there. As far as the type of use based on student performance also makes sense that eighth graders would benefit more from simulations and demonstration whereas fourth graders would be benefitting from drill and practice on the computers because of the curriculum and maturity differences. All in all, the statements from the tests seemed to support any of the thoughts that I've had about computer use in the schools.
Knowing that students, in a seventh grade setting, benefit from technology which demonstrates simulations and modeling, I look for methods of incorporating technology in my curriculum in ways that will support this thinking. I know that if I have students complete a worksheet, even the most elaborate kind with special fonts and pictures, on the computer that no more learning will occur than if I gave it to them on a copied sheet of paper or on an overhead. Whereas if I make the outcome be some type of project, where research is needed to be done through the computer or applications, students are learning much more than any amount of words of text alone. Collaboration is key and inquiry is the basis that drives this type of learning to benefit the student more than drill and practice.
The one thing that bugs me about all of the "research" that is, should, or being done is that you can never seem to find substantial evidence supporting or oppose computers. Supports can find plenty of research to support computer use. And opposers of computers can find plenty of reasons to share why computers provide no benefit. Could it possibly be because computers are such a mindless piece of scrap parts that the only real method of using the parts is to really understand how they all work? Should we maybe focus more on making sure that all teachers know how to use the materials that are available, and that all of the pieces work as planned, before getting more materials to "show" that technology is in a school?
While reading through Wenglinsky's section on Mathematics, I was thinking that all of what he was saying from the tests made sense. From 1996 to 2000, it was stated that computers became more available in class but that frequency of computer use in school went down. It makes sense because although the radio of computes to students went up in a school, computers that the whole class could work on were in a lab providing for a whole school. Therefore meaning that more computers were available for the school's use but maybe not readily available for a single class to use. The piece about home use makes sense because more teachers, at least in a rural setting, are able to give out work to be done on the computers at home because they are available there. As far as the type of use based on student performance also makes sense that eighth graders would benefit more from simulations and demonstration whereas fourth graders would be benefitting from drill and practice on the computers because of the curriculum and maturity differences. All in all, the statements from the tests seemed to support any of the thoughts that I've had about computer use in the schools.
Knowing that students, in a seventh grade setting, benefit from technology which demonstrates simulations and modeling, I look for methods of incorporating technology in my curriculum in ways that will support this thinking. I know that if I have students complete a worksheet, even the most elaborate kind with special fonts and pictures, on the computer that no more learning will occur than if I gave it to them on a copied sheet of paper or on an overhead. Whereas if I make the outcome be some type of project, where research is needed to be done through the computer or applications, students are learning much more than any amount of words of text alone. Collaboration is key and inquiry is the basis that drives this type of learning to benefit the student more than drill and practice.
The one thing that bugs me about all of the "research" that is, should, or being done is that you can never seem to find substantial evidence supporting or oppose computers. Supports can find plenty of research to support computer use. And opposers of computers can find plenty of reasons to share why computers provide no benefit. Could it possibly be because computers are such a mindless piece of scrap parts that the only real method of using the parts is to really understand how they all work? Should we maybe focus more on making sure that all teachers know how to use the materials that are available, and that all of the pieces work as planned, before getting more materials to "show" that technology is in a school?
Monday, February 9, 2009
TQ #3: Living in Limbo
When asked in a recent survey, to teachers and professionals in a technological field, “did you think, when you were a child, that you would be leading the technological life that you are?” only 20% believed that they would be following the path that their life has led. I think many of the reasons that contributed to a life that is different than expected is because of the giant strides that technology has made in the past number of years. One thing that I often think hasn’t made as many giant strides is education. Many of the reasons for this are that teachers, meaning adults, sometimes find difficultly in learning to utilize newer technology to its fullest potential. And in my experience, excuses are sometimes made about why a new technology is not good for the greater cause instead of learning how students relate to the technology and therefore doing more to cater to the minds that we are looking to meld.
After listening to Gee (I found an interview with James Paul Gee done by edutopia.org), I was quickly changing my mind back to my original opinions I held when I was in high school. In high school, I was convinced that computers should have a greater role in classroom settings and for my graduation project; I was out to prove my opinions. And although my research was nothing profound, I learned one important thing- in the right settings, anything can happen and in the wrong settings, your expected outcome won’t happen. Now, sitting on the other side of the fence, I think to myself how as a whole, there are more diagnoses for students, more labels for the learner, and more ways to make an excuse for the child. Which came first- the chicken or the egg? Did we create a catch 22, where we, with the help of technology have created a society with students who have all of these needs? Or- did we create all of these needs because of the more open eyes we have with the new technology. Either way, it’s done- now my feeling is that we have to deal with it and provide for it. Learning has to occur and if it’s not working the traditional way then things have to change.
After hearing Gee speak of video games (both gaming platforms and computer games), I’ve begun to hear more of the potential good that gaming can cause. Games, as stated by Gee, are an every moment constant assessment. They give you a task and if you don’t complete it you are told to do it again. Another positive about games is that they give you instructions to succeed. They are there in the beginning and even when you don’t succeed; so that you can take the time to reread them and try again. Games allow you to organize into groups, which according to Gee, is the future of the workforce. People will have to know how to work together and Gee states that gaming helps to teach students to do this. Gee also mentioned how it has been said that students do not do a lot of writing outside of the classroom, yet Gee argues that all of the social networks and the connection with media and the internet encourages students to write about things like “fan fiction” (Gee, 2008). Gee speaks about how teachers need to become de-professionalized so that they are not leading a scripted instruction. I find all of Gee’s statements to be truth as far as to where education is headed- the real truth now, will be, how long will it be until it takes affect?
Being a teacher, and knowing what our world is headed towards, I want to hold onto the morals that I was taught in school, yet still embrace the new changes. I find myself torn between knowing that letters are being replaced with emails, formal invitation cards are being replaced with evite websites, and individual assessments are being replaced by what the group can accomplish. So how do we make the break from accepting that these are things of the past? Gee also spoke of students as living lives that are cross-platform whereas many teachers see them separately. How do we find the balance between the student lifestyles and the teacher’s knowledge and comfort level? How/when do we get everyone on board with the wave of the future and will this new wave enable us to live successfully or dwell on what is lost?
As far as my own experiences go with gaming, I used to be involved with them in school when they were a way to do extra work without actually seeming like work. However, now, as an adult, I’ve found myself creating excuses for the way that I should spend my time. I do have to say, after playing the recent group of games, I might be more inclined to find time to play more computer games. The three games that I chose to experience were Age of Empires 2, Oregon Trail 5, and the Sim version that I chose to play was SimCopter. With Age of Empires, when I thought I was doing really well against the computer, I wasn’t. When I thought I was gathering adequate gold, wood, and food, along with moving myself through the ages, it was only mediocre according to what the computer could accomplish in the same time frame. (And don’t think that the few moments it takes to get laundry out of the washer would make a difference- my entire militia, consisted of about a dozen was taken out in the time that I was gone!). If I were to work all the way through the game again in more depth, I think that I would b
e able to relate much of what was done to real life learning situation- survival of the fittest. (As you can see the screen captures from this version of Age of Empires do not view very clearly- so I found a similar copy of what my screen looked like. And in response to how “well” I did, the only stars I earned were for learning about the ages in the quickest amount of t
ime.) After replaying Oregon Trail, this latest version of Oregon Trail that I downloaded got me rethinking the use for it in the classroom. I was very impressed how there was actual conversation occurring with “local” people along with the option to learn about a story of “real-time” Oregon Trail goers. I think this idea of conversation to learn more is an important skill that this newer version can
remind children. Another feature that I enjoyed seeing in this newer version is the idea of keeping a diary. Students can type their thoughts or reminders that they want to leave themselves or others for future games. This reinforces what Gee was saying about gaming today. As you can see, I did not do so well in the Oregon Trail. Again, I thought I was motoring along just fine, until a bullet wound and a near-fatal drowning cost me the game. [Please don’t think I’m a horrible gamer- I have won before but my ways of “testing the game” left me in the loser’s circle :( ] Last, but not least, is another game that I’m revisiting from my childhood- SimCopter. This is a game where you use real-life simulation of a rescue hero trying to save the day. The only unfortunate thing is that I haven’t found the most efficient way for the pickup and delivery of the “saved ones”. This game as the others has the potential to show real-life experience to the children who play it. As far as my opinion on all of these games, what’s the best practice in getting children to know the connection between real-life and real-life-like games? Many times in life you can’t get the chance to be “killed” and start new again.
After listening to Gee (I found an interview with James Paul Gee done by edutopia.org), I was quickly changing my mind back to my original opinions I held when I was in high school. In high school, I was convinced that computers should have a greater role in classroom settings and for my graduation project; I was out to prove my opinions. And although my research was nothing profound, I learned one important thing- in the right settings, anything can happen and in the wrong settings, your expected outcome won’t happen. Now, sitting on the other side of the fence, I think to myself how as a whole, there are more diagnoses for students, more labels for the learner, and more ways to make an excuse for the child. Which came first- the chicken or the egg? Did we create a catch 22, where we, with the help of technology have created a society with students who have all of these needs? Or- did we create all of these needs because of the more open eyes we have with the new technology. Either way, it’s done- now my feeling is that we have to deal with it and provide for it. Learning has to occur and if it’s not working the traditional way then things have to change.
After hearing Gee speak of video games (both gaming platforms and computer games), I’ve begun to hear more of the potential good that gaming can cause. Games, as stated by Gee, are an every moment constant assessment. They give you a task and if you don’t complete it you are told to do it again. Another positive about games is that they give you instructions to succeed. They are there in the beginning and even when you don’t succeed; so that you can take the time to reread them and try again. Games allow you to organize into groups, which according to Gee, is the future of the workforce. People will have to know how to work together and Gee states that gaming helps to teach students to do this. Gee also mentioned how it has been said that students do not do a lot of writing outside of the classroom, yet Gee argues that all of the social networks and the connection with media and the internet encourages students to write about things like “fan fiction” (Gee, 2008). Gee speaks about how teachers need to become de-professionalized so that they are not leading a scripted instruction. I find all of Gee’s statements to be truth as far as to where education is headed- the real truth now, will be, how long will it be until it takes affect?
Being a teacher, and knowing what our world is headed towards, I want to hold onto the morals that I was taught in school, yet still embrace the new changes. I find myself torn between knowing that letters are being replaced with emails, formal invitation cards are being replaced with evite websites, and individual assessments are being replaced by what the group can accomplish. So how do we make the break from accepting that these are things of the past? Gee also spoke of students as living lives that are cross-platform whereas many teachers see them separately. How do we find the balance between the student lifestyles and the teacher’s knowledge and comfort level? How/when do we get everyone on board with the wave of the future and will this new wave enable us to live successfully or dwell on what is lost?
As far as my own experiences go with gaming, I used to be involved with them in school when they were a way to do extra work without actually seeming like work. However, now, as an adult, I’ve found myself creating excuses for the way that I should spend my time. I do have to say, after playing the recent group of games, I might be more inclined to find time to play more computer games. The three games that I chose to experience were Age of Empires 2, Oregon Trail 5, and the Sim version that I chose to play was SimCopter. With Age of Empires, when I thought I was doing really well against the computer, I wasn’t. When I thought I was gathering adequate gold, wood, and food, along with moving myself through the ages, it was only mediocre according to what the computer could accomplish in the same time frame. (And don’t think that the few moments it takes to get laundry out of the washer would make a difference- my entire militia, consisted of about a dozen was taken out in the time that I was gone!). If I were to work all the way through the game again in more depth, I think that I would b
e able to relate much of what was done to real life learning situation- survival of the fittest. (As you can see the screen captures from this version of Age of Empires do not view very clearly- so I found a similar copy of what my screen looked like. And in response to how “well” I did, the only stars I earned were for learning about the ages in the quickest amount of time.) After replaying Oregon Trail, this latest version of Oregon Trail that I downloaded got me rethinking the use for it in the classroom. I was very impressed how there was actual conversation occurring with “local” people along with the option to learn about a story of “real-time” Oregon Trail goers. I think this idea of conversation to learn more is an important skill that this newer version can
remind children. Another feature that I enjoyed seeing in this newer version is the idea of keeping a diary. Students can type their thoughts or reminders that they want to leave themselves or others for future games. This reinforces what Gee was saying about gaming today. As you can see, I did not do so well in the Oregon Trail. Again, I thought I was motoring along just fine, until a bullet wound and a near-fatal drowning cost me the game. [Please don’t think I’m a horrible gamer- I have won before but my ways of “testing the game” left me in the loser’s circle :( ] Last, but not least, is another game that I’m revisiting from my childhood- SimCopter. This is a game where you use real-life simulation of a rescue hero trying to save the day. The only unfortunate thing is that I haven’t found the most efficient way for the pickup and delivery of the “saved ones”. This game as the others has the potential to show real-life experience to the children who play it. As far as my opinion on all of these games, what’s the best practice in getting children to know the connection between real-life and real-life-like games? Many times in life you can’t get the chance to be “killed” and start new again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)