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.

Entry#7: Reflections on Mindtools article

This article makes a striking claim about how technology should and should not be used in education. The authors warn against having students learn from technology, instead of with technology. They recommend using computers as mindtools to allow learners to become designers who are actively engaged in constructivist learning.

I think this article hits the nail on the head. Following the suggestions of the article, we can avoid one of the dangers of technology: becoming lazy thinkers. (I previously discussed this concern in Entry #5.) If one relies too heavily on technology, we could become lazy thinkers and passive participants. Using computers as mindtools however, changes the dynamic completely. Students become active learners instead of just depending on the technology to do the work for them. Learners play a pivotal role in an “intellectual partnership” (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998).

Technology plays an ever-increasing role in society, so it certainly holds a place in education. But to make technology effective, it must be integrated with education in mind. Thus, technology should be a promoter of education, and not vice versa. Some of the most beneficial ways of incorporating technology to enhance learning are mentioned in the article. Using technologies as organization, modeling, information interpretation, construction, collaboration, and conversation tools all enable the learner to create a deeper understanding of relationships, concepts, and meanings. The tools promote critical thinking and reasoning skills, as well as enabling active learning in the classroom.

One of the best mindtools I have worked with is concept mapping, an example of a semantic organization tool. Concept maps can be used for multiple purposes, including brainstorming, designing complex structures, communicating complex ideas, showing relationships between concepts, and assessing understanding. Concept maps are a visual representation of knowledge and the relationships that exist, allowing learners to gain an even greater understanding of the larger picture. A concept map is an excellent learning tool closely related to the ideas of constructivist learning. The mapping helps learners to integrate new knowledge into existing structures in order to create meaning, by illustrating the relationships. In fact, studies have shown that students who use concept mapping outperform non-concept mappers in long term retention tests. There are many software programs that allow you to create concept maps. Using technology here provides many added benefits. Perhaps the most important is the ease of adaption and manipulation. When constructing a concept map by hand, there are often many problems with fitting in more ideas later or trying to make changes, especially to the structure. With a computer program, learners can quickly and easily make changes, and are thus more likely to make revisions, enhancing their effectiveness (Plotnick, 1997). Thus, not only are concepts maps a great learning tool, but through using technology as a mindtool for creating the maps, the educational benefit increases significantly.

Ultimately, I agree with the article that if technology is used as mindtools, the “whole of learning becomes greater than the sum of its parts” (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998). I think this is the most important aspect to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to use technology for a particular activity or lesson. Does it improve the quality of the instruction? Will it somehow more fully benefit the learner, by helping the student engage in reflective, critical thinking about what they are studying? If not, then maybe we should rethink how the technology is used, or realize it is not needed at all.


References

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H-P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32.


Plotnick, E. (1997).Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse: NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED407938). Retrieved October 31, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.lib.lehigh.edu/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2a/28/8c.pdf

Entry #6: The Art of Learning

This article discusses a novel idea coined as “mathetics” or “the art of learning”. Unlike the art of teaching, the art of learning is rarely mentioned – perhaps because it is difficult to define. We are all born with the capability of learning, so the “art” seems to refer to becoming a better learner. The author’s example regarding learning varieties of flowers highlighted a key strategy for learning – building connections (Papert, 1993).

Research supports the idea that learning is about making connections. Cross (1999) identifies four categories of connections made by learners: neurological, cognitive, social, and experiential. The first refers to the firing synapses in the brain with sensory stimulation helping strengthen the connections. Cognitive connections refer to the schemata people use to categorize events, places, procedures, people, etc. These are ways we organize information into working structures. We create meaning by connecting new events to existing schemata. This is why great teachers always connect new material to prior learning. Thirdly, social connections are the basis for using collaborative learning, learning communities, and more to place students in a socially interactive environment. Lastly, experiential connections involve learners learning from hands-on, real life experiences. This can happen through simulations, role playing, problem-based learning, case studies, and other experiential learning opportunities. Ultimately, the idea of making connections is the common denominator of innovative instructional programs, including service learning, interdisciplinary units, technology-supported learning, and more. Making connections is one of the most essential learning tools.

Other strategies for learning are often taught as “study skills”. These include outlining, using/creating mnemonics, repetition, flash cards, and highlighting. For me, the best way to learn material is to read through my notes/textbook, and rewrite all the important information. This thorough process takes quite some time, but by the repetition of reading and writing, I am able to learn the material well. I think the art of learning is different for everyone though. Certain strategies work better for some people, and it takes time to find out what works best for you.

Interestingly, the article noted a difference between our perceived “ability to learn” and actually wanting to learn. We might think we aren’t good at something, such as mechanics, but it is often only because we haven’t taken the time to learn how (Papert, 1993). We have a tendency to say we can’t before we’ve even tried. This points to the idea of character traits as a critical part of “mathetics”, which the author does not emphasize enough.

Beyond learning strategies, character traits such as responsibility, discipline, dedication, etc. play a significant role in one’s learning. Today we focus on teacher training and the responsibility of the teacher to ensure all students achieve. And yet, there are times when students simply do not learn. Often, I think students know how to and can learn, it’s just that they do not want to. Perhaps in schools, it is not that we need to teach learning, but expect learning. The standards movement holds teachers and school administrators responsible. Who is holding the children responsible? Perhaps we need to refocus and hold both students and teachers accountable.

The art of learning is largely a willingness to work hard and persevere. There are certainly strategies that can be taught to help students succeed. They all help to make learning easier and more efficient. But I think to actually master the art of learning, it is not about ease of learning. Being a good learner, to me, means being able (and willing) to persevere and work hard to acquire knowledge or a skill. We can learn anything if we put our minds to it.

References

Cross, K.P. (1999, June). Learning is about making connections. The Cross Papers, Number 3. League for Innovation in the Community College Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED432314). Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.lib.lehigh.edu/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/11/99/06.pdf

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Entry #5: Reaction to Tarlow and Spangler article

This article aroused concerns about how an increasing use of technology may prevent children from developing critical thinking skills. The authors caution us to consider where these new technologies are taking us and whether it will do more harm than good to rely heavily on technology. One concern is that using a great deal of technology will make us lazy thinkers. Watching movies, listening to books on tape, and dictating to a computer are all ways that technology has made life easier. But is an easier life better? At first glance, we may be inclined to say yes. But I certainly think this is not always the case. I think we need to remember the importance of hard work and challenging tasks. Technology often makes us passive, because much of the work is now done for us. For example, given the opportunity to watch a movie instead of a book, we do not have to take the time to create our own images, ideas, and interpretations of the characters, themes, and plot written by the author. We can just absorb/accept what we are presented, instead of taking the time to think about the material and how the producer interpreted and presented the information.

I do not think however, that it is simply the use or prevalence of technology that will be the cause of children lacking critical thinking skills. Regardless of the way information is presented, it can either be analyzed and discussed, or simply accepted at face-value. Teachers must engage students in activities that promote critical thinking skill development. We become lazy thinkers when we are not asked to think. If we only require students to memorize and regurgitate information, then yes, we will become lazy thinkers. We need to ask why and more exploratory type questions to have students really start thinking critically. Maybe showing a video of a science experiment will give students the “answers” and not the experience of trying to develop an experiment themselves. But the video can be used as a valuable example that can prompt students to develop their own experiments. One of the most important parts of teaching is being able to ask great questions. Don’t let media and technology replace these teaching practices. I don’t think technology should be stand-alone educational tools. If they are, both students and teachers become lazy thinkers.

Interestingly, we often flood schools with technology, thinking it will be an automatic enhancement to learning and teaching. Certainly, the gains that can be achieved through using technology effectively in the classroom are well-documented. Yet, we always focus on what benefits come from the technology. Rarely, if at all, do we stop to look at the other side, at what is lost by using technology versus traditional methods. This is one question posed by McLuhan which we’ve looked at during class. There are many ways in which using technology may in fact prevent children from developing good critical thinking and literacy skills. But maybe we just need to think about new ways to teach these skills and thus avoid dangers of technology in making us lazy thinkers. One example is through teaching media literacy. This helps students evaluate the merit of various information sources. With the amazing amount of information now at our fingertips, this is a vital skill to teach students (Adams & Hamm, 2000). It addresses a need for students to develop critical thinking skills and at the same time, embraces the benefits of technology.


References

Adams, D. & Hamm, M. (2000, Winter). Literacy, learning, and media. Technos: Quarterly for Education and Technology. Retrieved October 8, 2006, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HKV/is_4_9/ai_68951438

Spangler, K.L. & Tarlow, M.C. (2001, November). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply?. The Education Digest, 67(3), 24-27.

Entry #4: Reaction to Reeves' article

Cultural diversity has been the focus of many educational concerns in recent years. Reeves (1997) talks about how cultural diversity is a critical issue in evaluating instructional programs, products, and assessments. Looking at this closely, I realize it is one significant part of a broader attempt to meet the needs of each student.

I was amazed by the examples of cultural insensitivity discussed in the article, such as the use of animals as metaphors for people in “edutainment” software being insulting to Muslims. One may never give something like this a second thought, because we tend to take elements of our own culture/society for granted as being commonplace for everyone. Understandably, one cannot be aware of all cultural beliefs and practices. Nonetheless, it is important to be understanding and strive to become more multicultural. The question remains as to what we can do to minimize the bias. Here are a few suggestions of what to look at and how to improve.

Publishers of instructional materials, programs, and assessments should take a cue from the success stories of the corporate world. Look at McDonald’s for example. This franchise expanded globally, but not without making significant changes to their restaurants. The McDonald’s throughout India serve 100% vegetarian food – very different from the United States. Corporations know that to succeed, one must first identify and analyze the audience BEFORE trying to develop and sell their products. Businesses cannot expect a “one-size-fits-all” model to work. Likewise, people ranging from program developers to teachers must know their target audience: students. Many times, it seems that those in the education sector develop materials, programs, and assessments without analyzing the audience first, resulting in imminent failure. The difficulty here though is how feasible it is to cater to the diversity in American schools. How do we incorporate so many cultures?

One important answer to this is for teachers. Know your students! Take the time to learn about who your students are. Developing instructional materials that incorporate the life experiences, language, and skills of students has been shown to improve academic performance (Hulsebosch & Koerner, 1993). This should be incorporated into staff development opportunities. Teachers need support and guidance to effectively use a vast repertoire of teaching strategies and to explore curriculum, technology, and assessments that meet the needs of a diverse classroom. Lastly, teachers need to be able to establish a classroom that is a safe place to explore issues related to differences (Calderon, 1997).

Finally, it is extremely valuable to infuse multicultural learning into the classroom. We do not want to avoid cultural references and be “culturally neutral”. Instead, we should welcome this as an opportunity for learning. One example is a story I was told by a teacher in Allentown. He had tried to use a picnic as an example for mathematics students to determine what quantities of food they could buy while remaining within the given budget. The problem: none of the students knew what a picnic was. Such a simple concept for many, but for children who grow up in the city, they may never have the chance to go to the park for a picnic. This is only one little example, but imagine the wonderful things students can learn about each other and different cultures. Together, we can help students embrace cultures different than their own.


References

Calderon, M. (1997). Staff development in multilingual multicultural schools. New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED410368)

Hulsebosch, P. & Koerner, M. (1993). What does cultural identity have to do with the preparation of teachers? Case studies of “culturally-aware” teachers. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English (November 17-22, 1993), Pittsburgh, PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 403553)

Reeves, T. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.