Entry #10: Thoughts on “Revolutionizing Learning in the Digital Age”

This article suggests a pivotal change in how we view technology and its role in teaching and learning. Specifically, Resnick (2001) insists that focusing on computers as “information machines” is very limiting and distorting. Instead, he suggests that computers should be used more like finger paint and less like a television, allowing people to create and express themselves. I agree that this ability to create and learn with the computer is a powerful educational opportunity. But I think ultimately, it is the creativity along with the information (and communication) that really makes computers such powerful tools. This technology expands what people can create and thus, extends learning farther. A great example presented in the article was the Computer Clubhouses, where students do not play games, but instead create them. I think this is an excellent idea and would love to visit one of these centers. It allows people to develop many skills, instead of spending endless hours playing a game that has little benefit. Most children seem to be very excited about technology, and it is up to teachers and parents to encourage them to use it creatively, instead of just passing the time in a similar manner as watching television.

The idea of digital fluency was one that really interested me. I agree that most schools just teach the basics of computer skills, such as word processing and Internet searching, but do not extend instruction further to help students become fluent. Interestingly, Resnick (2001) compared learning technology skills to learning a foreign language and I found this to be a perfect analogy. Many people learn key phrases in a foreign language so that, for example, if they traveled to that country on vacation, they could get by with their limited skills. The same is true with technology. Students almost all know the basic computer skills that allow them to get by, even through college. But in either case, fluency is not attained. It is only when one can construct things, whether with technology or in a language, then you can really use it and continue to develop your proficiency in it. This analogy brought a few questions to mind. Is digital fluency similar to language fluency in that it is best to start at a very early age? I think yes (this seems to be true with a lot of things – the younger you start, the better). The earlier students start learning, the easier it will be for them to develop advanced skills. The implication of this however is: what about teachers? We are now asking teachers to integrate technology into their classrooms. This expectation comes with many concerns. Often, teachers are expected to learn and use technology in a short amount of time. Many however, are uncomfortable using the technology and experience something known as “technostress”, which is the inability to adapt to or cope with new computer technologies (Henderson & Shepherd, 2004). And this certainly should not be surprising. After all, this is essentially the same as asking a teacher to learn a foreign language and then teach using that language. Certainly, teachers need a great deal of time and support. This means that extensive professional development opportunities are needed, and teachers should be given ample time to adapt. Also, it is important to remember that professional development must not be limited to using a technology, but must strive to help teachers achieve fluency – how to use as well as integrate to best enhance instruction with the technology.


References

Henderson, Z.S. & Shepherd, S.G. (2004). Relationships between computer skills and technostress: How does this affect me? Proceedings of the 2004 ASCUE Conference, June 6 – 10, 1004, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.lib.lehigh.edu/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/31/f3/8d.pdf

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Publications from the forum for the future of higher education. Boulder, CO: Educause. Available online at
http://www.educause.com/reources

Entry #9: Reaction To “Rethinking Assessment and its Role in Supporting Educational Reform”

“Although basic skills may be important goals of education, they are often overemphasized in an effort to raise standardized test scores” (Bond, 1995). Interestingly, many people believe that we focus too much on basic skills, for the sole purpose of better performance on standardized tests. They, along with the author, argue that students need to develop critical thinking and analysis skills, as well as other higher order skills needed for a 21st century global economy. While I agree that these skills are very important, I do not think an overemphasis on basic skills is the problem. In fact, how can students master these higher-order skills without having a solid foundation in the basics? How can a student analyze a problem without having basic mathematics skills? How can a student communicate their ability to think critically about a scenario without having strong reading and writing skills? I believe this is not a logical sequence, similar to targeting step two before having completed step one.

Ultimately, I think assessment needs to be a two-step process. Students must first be assessed on their mastery of basic skills, then on their ability to apply these skills and exhibit 21st century skills – such as critical thinking, problem solving, etc. If students are not achieving on standardized tests, it may be a strong indication that students do not yet have even the necessary basic skills, let alone higher order skills.

Furthermore, I think effective instruction will prepare students for a variety of assessments, whether more traditional (ex: multiple choice tests) or alternative (ex: portfolios and essay tests). We need to develop students who are adaptable. These students must be able to demonstrate knowledge in a variety of ways, not just in their particular area of strength. Effective teachers are ones, in my opinion, who offer a balanced array of assessments. In this manner, grades are determined as a combination of, for example, homework, tests, projects, and presentations. That way, a teacher tests a student’s mastery of basic skills as well as his or her ability to apply the knowledge to real-world scenarios and extend their knowledge to similar situations. Accountability is one of the four key aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act, and it is all about assessment. Assessment should be about gathering a body of evidence on students’ learning, using different types of assessment to evaluate student knowledge and skills (Cicchinelli, Gaddy, Lefkowits, & Miller, 2003). Plus, these multiple forms of assessment give students an opportunity not only to be assessed in an area where they are strongest (for instance, a presentation) but work on an area of weakness (perhaps multiple choice test taking). We shouldn’t always cater to a student’s strengths. This is an injustice to a student’s education. We must not avoid areas where a student is weak, but instead, help the student transform that weakness into a strength. This alone will prepare students for higher education or a career, where we rarely are given a choice about how we are assessed or must present information.



References

Bond, L.A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved November 12, 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm

Cicchinelli, L., Gaddy, B., Lefkowits, L., & Miller, K. (2003, April). No child left behind: Realizing the vision (Policy brief). Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, Aurora: CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED477177). Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.lib.lehigh.edu/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/06/fd.pdf

Entry #8: Reflections on Bloom article

This article discusses the 5 variables that contribute to achieving “mastery of learning”: aptitude for learning, quality of instruction, ability to understand instruction, perseverance, and time allowed for learning. In the past 38 years since this article was published, I think we have made good progress in determining effective instruction and trying to accommodate for individual needs. There is still a long way to go, but the article keeps us focused on the key challenges.

Interestingly, the largest challenge identified by the author is low expectations. In fact, Bloom (1968) estimates that teachers expect 1/3 of their students to fail and another 1/3 to learn a good deal but still not be “good students”. From my experience, I think the teachers who hold these beliefs are the minority. Regardless, low expectations are detrimental to student success, drastically decreasing students’ self-confidence and motivation. Students will not work hard if they “know” that they will fail anyways. Thus, it is essential for teachers to set high expectations for all students. If you believe in your students, they will start to believe in themselves.

The article made me question grading methods typical of schools. While I do believe competition is important in many instances and can teach valuable lessons, I don’t think it has a place in the classroom (save for friendly Jeopardy review games!) I agree that cooperation in learning rather than competition will lead to more achievement. To encourage this, I think we must eliminate the use of a curve when grading. Without a curve on tests, students will be encouraged to work together and help each other without worrying about giving an advantage to peers (and thus being disadvantaged themselves). I see this frequently in college. Students generally know before a test if there will be a curve, based on previous semesters. An interesting situation results. A student will hope that his or her peers do poorly so that he/she will benefit from the curve. Essentially, one just needs to score higher than the average. This neither motivates a student to achieve his best (only better than his peers) nor does it motivate him to help his peers. This is certainly not a good learning environment. By eliminating curves on tests, a more positive, cooperative learning environment can be established.

After identifying perseverance as an essential quality for mastery of learning, I was shocked to read this passage (p.6):

“There seems to be little reason to make learning so difficult that only a small proportion of the students can persevere to mastery. Endurance and unusual perseverance may be appropriate for long-distance running – they are not great virtues in their own right. The emphasis should be on learning, not on vague ideas of discipline and endurance.”

I was appalled that Bloom believes endurance and “unusual perseverance” are not “great virtues in their own right”. I do not understand how discipline and endurance are “vague” ideas. These character traits are essential for success in life (Wilkinson, 1983 & McCance, 2002). How do we set high expectations and yet, essentially allow students to give up after persevering for a little while. The message to students is: work hard, but not too hard. Should we then make learning easier just so more students can “master” it? No - we should hold the bar high. Perhaps some students will not reach it, but they will have a greater sense of accomplishment and succeed further than they thought they could, compared to holding the bar at a lower level. I would be more proud to earn a B in a really tough class than to receive an A in a class where I didn’t need to work very hard. As the saying goes, “shoot for the moon – even if you miss, you’ll land amongst the stars.” If we really believe all students can achieve and hold high expectations of them, we must also help them develop “unusual perseverance” to reach their potential. It is not just for long-distance running, but equally essential for every part of our lives – especially learning.



References

Bloom, B.S. (1968, May). Leaning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12.

Wilkinson, J. (1983, September 23). The art of teaching. Innovation Abstracts, 5(26). (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED237173)

McCance, S. (2002, October). Learning well, doing good. Leadership for Student Activities. Retrieved November 5, 2006, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3962/is_200210/ai_n9118761.