In Chapter 5 of Multiliteracies for a Digital Age (2004) Selber explores how instruction in english, composition and ICT tools should be integrated in higher education. This chapter examines the requirements for change in order for this shift to occur. Although much of his exploration and reasoning are related to higher education, I believe many of the arguments could be applied to how the literacy classroom in K-12 education will also need to shift as a result of the growing importance of ICT in daily life.
In his examination there are five nested and spiraling contexts that must be examined and utilized in order to make change; these are technical, pedagogical, curricular, departmental and institutional (Selber, p. 185). Certainly these 'nested contexts' (yes there is that context word again) ring of the elements involved in TPCK - where change of instruction to a more powerful model with the integration of many quality aspects of teaching and learning results from the interaction of many forces, not a simple switch to a technical solution.
In his analysis I really appreciated two elements that I have not yet found in the TPCK model literature. First he acknowledges the struggle and needs of change in an educational setting. Although the TPCK model can be implemented by a single teacher, this chapter helps to explore how to make the change process more systemic in nature. The second elements, which is certainly present in the TPCK literature (but I haven't read anything on it explicitly yet) is the fact that the 'nested contexts' mean that teachers and those in education need to shift away from 'either/or' to a more systemic approach. "Systemic approaches offer teachers a conceptual frame of reference that shifts attention away from oversimplified cause-effect relationships, often between just two variables, and toward networked conceptions in which causation is considered to be a mutual, multiple, and contingent phenomenon, one that can be difficult to trace and pin down" (p. 190). I love this move away from simplification of solutions and towards a realization that in order to make change in educational settings we will need to approach and development many layers at once.
Another point that is emerging in much of this literature on changing the nature of literacy instruction with the inclusion of multiliteracies is the fact that these shifts will cause fundamental shifts in the authority of the teaching position and teachers will need to be able to embrace their role as co-learner in the educational process (p. 201). It seems to me that this shift in role is a salient point to discuss with preservice teachers as it may be in conflict with the model they experienced as a student. Another avenue of exploration for me might be to consider having students redesign an existing unit from practicum in 302 - as way to help them take a static form of teaching and shift it (this idea came from a project that Selber has his students do - a webdesign project for a 'client' in the local area - I love the idea and think it could foster great development and conversation on many levels p. 220).
His ideas were exciting on many levels to me. He agrees that there is a shifting landscape in what it means to be literate and that shift means a shift in the teaching and learning contexts must occur. I believe his ideas could be taken out of higher education and considered for education in general, but certainly appreciate his passion and interest in shifting how english departments and technology infrastrutres, personnel and curriculum interact.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Instant Messaging
Similar to my last post A. O'Connor in her article Instant Messaging Friend or Foe of Student Writing? (2005) suggests that the either/or approach to formal writing or informal communication does little to help students navigate the worlds they live and learn in. Instead perhaps there is opportunity to teach the role of audience in writing and engage students in more learning through this conversation.
She has a great analogy in her piece - about how we dress - we dress differently to do yardwork than we do to go out on a Saturday night. Somehow we learned this difference, and teachers today may need to engage with helping students learn this difference as we all confront the world of multiliteracies.
She has a great analogy in her piece - about how we dress - we dress differently to do yardwork than we do to go out on a Saturday night. Somehow we learned this difference, and teachers today may need to engage with helping students learn this difference as we all confront the world of multiliteracies.
Repetoire of Writing Practices
In a recent article We Learn What We Do: Developing a Repertoire of Writing Practices in an Instant Messaging World (November 2008) G. Jacobs researched the social practice of IM and engaged in a case study of one young student to learn how the formal writing process of writing and online chatting interacted and impacted each other. She argues that CMC (Computer mediated communication) " is not poor writing but is a response to social needs as mediated by technological constraints" (p.204). At one point in the case study she presents she is talking with the subject of the case who maintains that IM is not writing, "it's talking". I found this distinction fascinating since it makes sense given the slang, interruptions and nature of the communication, but because it was put down with a keyboard - I considered it writing.
Similar to my post on identity I think the key here to better understanding these tools socially and educationally is to begin by talking with those students and people who use them, to better understand the perceptions at play. Jacobs argues" Good writing then, is writing that meets the purpose of the author and fulfills the requirements of the audience as defined by the social and cultural expectations of the community in which the writing is used" (p. 205). In these conversations about perceptions it would also be appropriate to discuss the role of audience with students such that they can be explicitly taught when and why certain forms of communication are appropriate in certain contexts. Instead of just simply correcting or dismissing these conventions Jacobs suggests engaging students in conversation and allow the student to develop a meta-awareness of the context and audience issues.
In addition to engaging in conversation Jacobs also suggests, and I agree that teachers must try new forms of media to better understand the medium before dismissing it as having no place in school. Perhaps students today have the potential to develop more forms of writing than in the past, and we as teachers can help this process.
Similar to my post on identity I think the key here to better understanding these tools socially and educationally is to begin by talking with those students and people who use them, to better understand the perceptions at play. Jacobs argues" Good writing then, is writing that meets the purpose of the author and fulfills the requirements of the audience as defined by the social and cultural expectations of the community in which the writing is used" (p. 205). In these conversations about perceptions it would also be appropriate to discuss the role of audience with students such that they can be explicitly taught when and why certain forms of communication are appropriate in certain contexts. Instead of just simply correcting or dismissing these conventions Jacobs suggests engaging students in conversation and allow the student to develop a meta-awareness of the context and audience issues.
In addition to engaging in conversation Jacobs also suggests, and I agree that teachers must try new forms of media to better understand the medium before dismissing it as having no place in school. Perhaps students today have the potential to develop more forms of writing than in the past, and we as teachers can help this process.
Bloom's Taxonomy Revised
In reading an article from EducationSector - Measuring Skills for the 21st Century I discovered that former colleagues of B. Bloom's had proposed a revised taxonomy for learning. Their work was published in the book a Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing.
Although the idea of levels remains the same, how they are presented and worded has changed. A quick visual here might help.
What was also interesting to note is that the article, and I think good practice suggests that students do not need to learn in 'order' of the levels, but rather the levels should be integrated to provide richer learning experiences for students and to engage them as thinkers.
Although the idea of levels remains the same, how they are presented and worded has changed. A quick visual here might help.
What was also interesting to note is that the article, and I think good practice suggests that students do not need to learn in 'order' of the levels, but rather the levels should be integrated to provide richer learning experiences for students and to engage them as thinkers.
Literacy and Identity
According to Williams (2008) "today's online technologies have young people reading and writing far more than they were 20 years ago" (p. 682). As she goes on to explore in her article "Tomorrow will not be like today" Literacy and identity in a world of multiliteracies this change means that students have more opportunity to create and shape their identity than before. And while the opportunity might exist for more play with identity; Palfrey and Gasser (2008) in Born Digital found that " young people tend to express their personal and social identities online much as people always have in real space, and in ways that are consistent with their identities in real space" (p. 21). Regardless of how much students choose to play with identity Williams suggests, as do Palfrey and Gasser that students need to engage with caring adults in dialogue on what it means to have the options and opportunities, such that we can learn from them, and they can learn more about future implications from adults.
I have to be honest that this dialogue does not seem to occur as much as perhaps it should, and perhaps it is because there is such a divide between the languages and experiences of the generations involved. I therefore think that this must all begin with listening to experiences and sharing understandings about digital identity. Once we have listened then perhaps we can begin to have the conversation about how to better use these tools to engage and transform learning.
I have to be honest that this dialogue does not seem to occur as much as perhaps it should, and perhaps it is because there is such a divide between the languages and experiences of the generations involved. I therefore think that this must all begin with listening to experiences and sharing understandings about digital identity. Once we have listened then perhaps we can begin to have the conversation about how to better use these tools to engage and transform learning.
Mutliliteracies Framework
The multiliteracies framework proposed by the
The new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs include the skills, strategies, and dispositions necessary to successfully use and adapt to the rapidly changing information and communication technologies and contexts that continuously emerge in our world and influence all areas of our personal and professional lives. These new literacies allow us to use the Internet and other ICTs to identify important questions, locate information, critically evaluate the usefulness of that information, synthesize information to answer those questions, and then communicate the answers to others.
The design framework proposed is a pedagogical approach to planning instruction that is in line with new media developments. The framework of planning for engagement with multiple modes of language suggest that students should learn through engaging projects with more than just written language as both the form to learn from, and the way to document learning. The approach has three stages and seems similar to the work by Wiggins and McTighe on Understanding by Design with attention to multiple intelligences. Additionally this work certainly seems in line with the TPCK model. Certainly the multiliteracies framework suggests using pedagogical approaches to reaching students that will be in line with their experiences, and using many forms of technology to accomplish this goal. Also the model gives consideration towards planning with a strong content knowledge background to ensure that students achieve the desired goals. Leu et al. also argue that simply using any technology to teach does not represent teaching within this new framework - a perspective consistent with the TPCK model that it is not to use technology for the sake of the tool, but rather the goal of the learning. In this example it appears that the students through flexible grouping might experience extremely varied instructional experiences, and little thought is given to designing these experiences to match the goals for each students. There seems to be a more haphazard approach to planning, and then hoping that the students each get the desired learning from the experience.
More investigation into this model will be helpful to see what is said on designing with students in mind. This model does suggest five domains of meaning: visual design, spatial design, audio design, gestural design and linguistic design that comprise the multiliteracies. These five domains stretch my understanding of literacy and really do suggest that the new forms of literacy are about interpreting and using much more than just written language.
Additionally in reading the work of Leu, Kinzer, Coiro and Cammack (2004) it is clear that the role of the teacher will change with these new literacies, because the teacher will no longer be the most ICT literate person in the classroom, and therefore the relationship between teacher, students, content and learning shifts.
Leu et al. http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/leu/
Ryan, M. (2008). Engaging Middle Years Students: Literacy Projects That Matter. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 52(3), 190-201
Monday, December 22, 2008
Participation Gap
Another way of looking at the digital divide (or divides) is through what Palfrey and Gasser call the Participation Gap. As they suggest in Born Digital "the harder issue arises when you realize that access to technology is not enough. Young people need to learn digital literacy- the skills to navigate this complex and hybrid world" (p.15). On a wiki of the Digital Natives Project they pose these questions:
Questions for Discussion
- How do we explore the nuances of the participation gap, taking into account the impact of social inequality and parental fluency?
- Who is our digital native? Do we accept the premise that digital natives process information in a different way than immigrants? How do we empirically explore the digital generation gap?
- Does the technology develop first, or the social norms about how the tools are used? Are the technological limitations of these tools transforming the way natives socialize and understand themselves?
- How do youth in different countries use online socialization tools differently, and what is the significance of these differences? How do on-line social activities affect off-line identity development?
New Literacies Are Deictic
In Chapter 4 of the TPCK Handbook for Educators Hughes and Scharber present two cases studies of English teachers and examine these against the TPCK model. They also suggest that the TPCK model can be further understood through the multiliteracies framework proposed by the New London Group. In this work they support the claim from Leu et al that new literacies are deictic, meaning they have context that is important in understanding.
Additionally in this chapter Hughes and Scarber argue that preservice teachers need to exposed to teaching within the TPCK model in school so that they will be able to apply this mode to their future classroom. An example given reminds me of the project that we did this fall with EDU 302 and EDU 388 students in developing the HeartBeat units. However I can now see that the way we approached this project was in using technology as a vehicle to present learning and not as a way to approach learning. In the future better application of the TPCK model could help to strengthen these preservice teachers conceptions of teaching with technology. I am excited to share these ideas with my colleagues.
Context, through all this reading seems to be rising to the surface as an important consideration for learning and using technology - social contexts and the context of the schools where learning is happening. I plan on continuing to follow this idea to see how others interpret the importance of context.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis
Linguistic definition http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsDeixis.htm
Additionally in this chapter Hughes and Scarber argue that preservice teachers need to exposed to teaching within the TPCK model in school so that they will be able to apply this mode to their future classroom. An example given reminds me of the project that we did this fall with EDU 302 and EDU 388 students in developing the HeartBeat units. However I can now see that the way we approached this project was in using technology as a vehicle to present learning and not as a way to approach learning. In the future better application of the TPCK model could help to strengthen these preservice teachers conceptions of teaching with technology. I am excited to share these ideas with my colleagues.
Context, through all this reading seems to be rising to the surface as an important consideration for learning and using technology - social contexts and the context of the schools where learning is happening. I plan on continuing to follow this idea to see how others interpret the importance of context.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis
Linguistic definition http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsDeixis.htm
Teachers and Machines...20 years later
Just finished reading Chapter 4 from Larry Cuban's book Teachers and Machines. This chapter, published in 1986, looks forward to predict how computers will impact or change the educational landscape. He suggests that "In all of the enthusiasm for classroom computers, an assumption that has gone largely unchallenged is that these machines with appropriate programs, could teach student knowledge and skills efficiently and effectively" (p.84). In this instance and others throughout the chapter is seems he was suggesting that by investing in computers in the classroom we would be replacing teachers. He speaks of how these computers cannot possibly form the relationships that are at the heart of teaching. In addition he predicts that by using computers in this manner educational reformers will seek to make the art of teaching into a science. He suggests that the computer as an aid to teacher productivity and a tool to reduce the amount of skill and drill a teacher must be involved in, are good ideas.
It is fascinating now to read his ideas and see that the future in 1986 may have appeared to some as replacing teachers with computers. I guess the framework I have of understanding technology as a tool for teaching and learning is drastically opposed to this early concept of how computers might influence the classroom. Although I do believe that computers can serve productivity functions, I think the more powerful learning comes as students are able to construct meaning, manipulate knowledge, interact with others and showcase learning.
Cuban talks about the unexamined danger of collateral learning with computers, and the fact that students might learn dangerous other unintended curriculum. He goes on to explore the fact that students learning with the aid of the computer might not learn important other skills. I certainly agree that the use of technology needs to be balanced with multiple forms of learning and engagement, but hardly see the dangers he does - in fact the collateral learning of skills to me seems one of the real benefits of using technology in teaching and learning.
He predicts that computers will not fundamentally shift instructional practices and will be used in limited capacity. He predicts that teachers, administrators and school personnel will yet be accused of limiting the growth of another innovation. Now with hindsight, he is in part right - the impact of technology on the classroom is widely varied and represents a spectrum of implementation.
However this chapter was fascinating to read at the same time as I am reading Born Digital because this book, published in 2008 describes the reality of life for those people who are the digital natives. Defined as those people born after 1980, Palfrey and Gasser make a point to show that they are a population not a generation (p.14). They are a generation because not all people worldwide born in 1980 or later have the same access to the digital landscape.
In examining this population Palfrey and Gasser present the reality of these people's lives as being immersed in this digital landscape - so much so that they do not consider what it means to not live this way. Their portrait and lens to view these digital natives was informed by research and communication with these digital natives. It is strange to consider that Cuban's book was predicting the reality of these exact people, and then this book looks at the life they know.
I guess what amazes me in reading about the digital natives (oh I guess I am digital settler by definition) is the fact that the huge amount of time and skills they have with technology are not really being taught or used in schools. In this sense Cuban's prediction feels right. But as a person involved in educational technology it is such a shame that the inherent skills and knowledge and curiosity of these students is not being harnessed effectively by schools.
It is fascinating now to read his ideas and see that the future in 1986 may have appeared to some as replacing teachers with computers. I guess the framework I have of understanding technology as a tool for teaching and learning is drastically opposed to this early concept of how computers might influence the classroom. Although I do believe that computers can serve productivity functions, I think the more powerful learning comes as students are able to construct meaning, manipulate knowledge, interact with others and showcase learning.
Cuban talks about the unexamined danger of collateral learning with computers, and the fact that students might learn dangerous other unintended curriculum. He goes on to explore the fact that students learning with the aid of the computer might not learn important other skills. I certainly agree that the use of technology needs to be balanced with multiple forms of learning and engagement, but hardly see the dangers he does - in fact the collateral learning of skills to me seems one of the real benefits of using technology in teaching and learning.
He predicts that computers will not fundamentally shift instructional practices and will be used in limited capacity. He predicts that teachers, administrators and school personnel will yet be accused of limiting the growth of another innovation. Now with hindsight, he is in part right - the impact of technology on the classroom is widely varied and represents a spectrum of implementation.
However this chapter was fascinating to read at the same time as I am reading Born Digital because this book, published in 2008 describes the reality of life for those people who are the digital natives. Defined as those people born after 1980, Palfrey and Gasser make a point to show that they are a population not a generation (p.14). They are a generation because not all people worldwide born in 1980 or later have the same access to the digital landscape.
In examining this population Palfrey and Gasser present the reality of these people's lives as being immersed in this digital landscape - so much so that they do not consider what it means to not live this way. Their portrait and lens to view these digital natives was informed by research and communication with these digital natives. It is strange to consider that Cuban's book was predicting the reality of these exact people, and then this book looks at the life they know.
I guess what amazes me in reading about the digital natives (oh I guess I am digital settler by definition) is the fact that the huge amount of time and skills they have with technology are not really being taught or used in schools. In this sense Cuban's prediction feels right. But as a person involved in educational technology it is such a shame that the inherent skills and knowledge and curiosity of these students is not being harnessed effectively by schools.
More on the Digital Divide
In thinking about the Digital Divide (or the multiple divides suggested by Kelly) I consulted this reference source DigitalDivide.org and began by reading about what this organization sees as the fallacies to closing the divide. It is a really interesting list and according to the list fallacy number 5: "The key to closing the Digital Divide is investment in literacy and education." Arguing that attacking literacy may not be necessary to closing the divide. While it may not be necessary, does that mean that strategies to deal with the divide should bypass the importance of literacy (and especially now that technology skills could be considered a larger subset of what it means to be literate today?)
In terms of the 'truths' about closing the digital divide this organization seems to believe that closing the digital divide is about building a world economy and stopping terrorism. They claim it is the solution to growth in world markets.
I guess I have not thought at the digital divide on such a global level - I had been thinking about it in the State of Maine and how access and experiences might benefit all students - I guess it is time for me to think about situating these goals within the larger context to examine why I believe this is necessary and good. Reading this organizations materials is challenging the way I think about this issue.
In terms of the 'truths' about closing the digital divide this organization seems to believe that closing the digital divide is about building a world economy and stopping terrorism. They claim it is the solution to growth in world markets.
I guess I have not thought at the digital divide on such a global level - I had been thinking about it in the State of Maine and how access and experiences might benefit all students - I guess it is time for me to think about situating these goals within the larger context to examine why I believe this is necessary and good. Reading this organizations materials is challenging the way I think about this issue.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Digital Equity
In reading Chapter 2 by M. A. Kelly of the Handbook for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators I was struck at the expanded way of considering digital divides in education. He suggests that there are at least three divides that teachers need to be aware of. These divides are not necessarily an either/or situation, but rather exist as a divide continuum.
1st: Access to technology hardware, software and the Internet (p.33)
2nd: Access to achievement-enhancing TMI (technology mediated instruction) (p. 39)
3rd: Access to culture-sensitive technological pedagogy (p.43)
His exploration of these divides includes suggestions for teachers to reduce or mediate the potential divides and the effects of these divides. As I think about preservice teacher education I had been thinking a lot about ways for prospective teachers to learn about the community and context of a school and its students. I had not considered folding a technology access survey into this context discovery previously, but now think it is important to have future educators learn about these issues so that they can more effectively plan for instruction with technology integration in a manner that is senstive to the social justice implications of technology use.
I had thought about this issue before with the article Paul Gravelle had written for USM's Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation: Impact on the Digital Divide. However this article was written in 2003 and I would very much like to know what has changed since then. Regardless of the changes though it is important inMaine for teachers to be aware of how issues of access can greatly impact the learning taking place and the hidden messages that students learn with the use and requirement of technology. Considering these issues is a vital component of trainging new teachers, and I look forward to blending this into my instruction.
Just found this article as well from PBS: The Digital Divide
What is Maine doing about this issue LD 2080
1st: Access to technology hardware, software and the Internet (p.33)
2nd: Access to achievement-enhancing TMI (technology mediated instruction) (p. 39)
3rd: Access to culture-sensitive technological pedagogy (p.43)
His exploration of these divides includes suggestions for teachers to reduce or mediate the potential divides and the effects of these divides. As I think about preservice teacher education I had been thinking a lot about ways for prospective teachers to learn about the community and context of a school and its students. I had not considered folding a technology access survey into this context discovery previously, but now think it is important to have future educators learn about these issues so that they can more effectively plan for instruction with technology integration in a manner that is senstive to the social justice implications of technology use.
I had thought about this issue before with the article Paul Gravelle had written for USM's Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation: Impact on the Digital Divide. However this article was written in 2003 and I would very much like to know what has changed since then. Regardless of the changes though it is important inMaine for teachers to be aware of how issues of access can greatly impact the learning taking place and the hidden messages that students learn with the use and requirement of technology. Considering these issues is a vital component of trainging new teachers, and I look forward to blending this into my instruction.
Just found this article as well from PBS: The Digital Divide
What is Maine doing about this issue LD 2080
International Reading Association Standards for ELA
In thinking about the teaching and learning involved in writing I am wondering at times how to separate the skill/knowledge of writing from the larger collection of skills that fall under the umbrella of English Language Arts. Looking at the IRA website they have established these 12 standards for ELA this may be a helpful place for me to think about how the smaller skills interact with the larger set of skills.
There is also a special interest group within IRA Technology in Literacy Education with some great ideas and resources. The Resources look like a good start, but I wonder about how teachers use and implement these - a list of hotlinks is such a common place to start, and maybe works, but it seems like we need to work towards continuing to think about why we use these tools (the TPCK model).
The Research Section also looks like a good place to find more information about how the literary world approaches the ever shifting definition of literacy in the 21st century.
There is also a special interest group within IRA Technology in Literacy Education with some great ideas and resources. The Resources look like a good start, but I wonder about how teachers use and implement these - a list of hotlinks is such a common place to start, and maybe works, but it seems like we need to work towards continuing to think about why we use these tools (the TPCK model).
The Research Section also looks like a good place to find more information about how the literary world approaches the ever shifting definition of literacy in the 21st century.
ReadWriteThink
ReadWriteThink
What a great resource for teachers and students interested in literacy instruction ReadWriteThink offers helpful information and lesson plans. I like this overview of the different ways students engage with literacy: Learning Language, Learning About Language, Learning through Language
What a great resource for teachers and students interested in literacy instruction ReadWriteThink offers helpful information and lesson plans. I like this overview of the different ways students engage with literacy: Learning Language, Learning About Language, Learning through Language
Learning New Languages
Right now I am engaged in thinking about technology and literacy instruction, while at the same time continuing to perform my regular work. My regular work has recently necessisted that I learn how to use a database more effectively, and use a web creation software more effectively. I love the challenge of new problems and have been happily engaged in problem solving.
As for learning a relational database I had some basic knowledge of using filemaker, and tried to work on my own to learn Access, the software that I have as part of my work. It's been interesting and finally after a few hours of going nowhere, enlisted the help of a willing colleauge. In an hour she was able to walk though and problem solve with me in such a great manner - I could feel the new ways of thinking sinking in, and was ready to continue to play. This manner of learning (try, get help from an expert, play more, and then perform - it's cyclic) is my preference for learning and has reminded me of how I like to learn.
Learning to use Dreamweaver on the other hand I have gone to reading a manual and using online tutorials (with book support) to begin to learn these new skills. However I also have some experts waiting in the wings to help with the learning process here.
Regardless of the application I have been struck in both cases that both feel like I must learn new languages to make things work, and not only do I need to be able to program or output these languages, but I have to train my brain to think about issues in a different manner than I had previously. Although these might not be revolutionary insights, they do make me realize that learning for me needs to have social and practice applications, and needs to allow me to think internally in new ways and express this in new formats.
I wonder then about students in school transacting with new softwares and how much is shapes both their output of content and knowledge, and the internal wiring of thinking. "Hypertext and Hypermedia have signifigantly changed how we can read in digital environments and how we create paths to search for that information" (schmidt & Gurbo, 2008, p. 68). I couldn't agree more and think about this video The Machine is Us/Using Us. It is such a great video that really makes me think about how new mediums create new patterns of thinking in students (in anyone really). However understand the relationship between new media and brain/thinking patterns seems like a challenging problem to say the least. How do we begin to understand this dynamic realtionship between the form and the user and how each impacts the other (okay it feels weird to talk about impact between a human form and a non-human thing, but I do believe it is not just a one way relationship.
Measuring, describing and understand the ways we interact with computers and the shifts we make in thinking and practice is such an exciting topic.
As for learning a relational database I had some basic knowledge of using filemaker, and tried to work on my own to learn Access, the software that I have as part of my work. It's been interesting and finally after a few hours of going nowhere, enlisted the help of a willing colleauge. In an hour she was able to walk though and problem solve with me in such a great manner - I could feel the new ways of thinking sinking in, and was ready to continue to play. This manner of learning (try, get help from an expert, play more, and then perform - it's cyclic) is my preference for learning and has reminded me of how I like to learn.
Learning to use Dreamweaver on the other hand I have gone to reading a manual and using online tutorials (with book support) to begin to learn these new skills. However I also have some experts waiting in the wings to help with the learning process here.
Regardless of the application I have been struck in both cases that both feel like I must learn new languages to make things work, and not only do I need to be able to program or output these languages, but I have to train my brain to think about issues in a different manner than I had previously. Although these might not be revolutionary insights, they do make me realize that learning for me needs to have social and practice applications, and needs to allow me to think internally in new ways and express this in new formats.
I wonder then about students in school transacting with new softwares and how much is shapes both their output of content and knowledge, and the internal wiring of thinking. "Hypertext and Hypermedia have signifigantly changed how we can read in digital environments and how we create paths to search for that information" (schmidt & Gurbo, 2008, p. 68). I couldn't agree more and think about this video The Machine is Us/Using Us. It is such a great video that really makes me think about how new mediums create new patterns of thinking in students (in anyone really). However understand the relationship between new media and brain/thinking patterns seems like a challenging problem to say the least. How do we begin to understand this dynamic realtionship between the form and the user and how each impacts the other (okay it feels weird to talk about impact between a human form and a non-human thing, but I do believe it is not just a one way relationship.
Measuring, describing and understand the ways we interact with computers and the shifts we make in thinking and practice is such an exciting topic.
New Technologies and Writing Instruction
As part of my doctoral work and my interest in educational technology I have decided to spend time thinking and reading about how new technologies (and even older technologies) are impacting writing instruction and writing achievement in schools. There is a lot of learn and think about in this field and topic, and so I am beginning with reading as much as i can on the subject.
I have just begun to read Handbook of Technological Pedgogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. In reading this book I am incredibly excited to see so many great ideas connecting in a framework for understanding these issue.The TPCK Model suggests that teachers use different, overlapping sets of background knowledge to effectively plan for instruction. These areas interact in a complex and shifting manner that is context dependent. The framework is therefor NOT a blueprint for implementation, but rather a way to think about and examine practices.
"One of the most important things to understand about technologies is that particular technologies have specific affordances and constraints. Technologies are neither neutral nor unboased" (AACTE, p.5). Certainly I agree with this statement and just like any pedagogical choice the use of a particular technology needs to be considered in light of the context, student, resource, goal and more.
As a teacher and teacher educator what I am left wondering is how to help teachers build these knowledge bases in a manner which encourages the application of the knowledge, rather than a blueprint fashion. Teaching teachers to be creative seems to be the first step in instilling imagintation, inquiry and innovation in students.
I have just begun to read Handbook of Technological Pedgogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. In reading this book I am incredibly excited to see so many great ideas connecting in a framework for understanding these issue.The TPCK Model suggests that teachers use different, overlapping sets of background knowledge to effectively plan for instruction. These areas interact in a complex and shifting manner that is context dependent. The framework is therefor NOT a blueprint for implementation, but rather a way to think about and examine practices.
"One of the most important things to understand about technologies is that particular technologies have specific affordances and constraints. Technologies are neither neutral nor unboased" (AACTE, p.5). Certainly I agree with this statement and just like any pedagogical choice the use of a particular technology needs to be considered in light of the context, student, resource, goal and more.
As a teacher and teacher educator what I am left wondering is how to help teachers build these knowledge bases in a manner which encourages the application of the knowledge, rather than a blueprint fashion. Teaching teachers to be creative seems to be the first step in instilling imagintation, inquiry and innovation in students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
