Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tensions of New Literacy in Old Structures
This week E Sky-McIlvain responded to an earlier post
What is missing, from my point of view, is creativity - a literacy that we seem to be killing, even in laptop classrooms. It is interesting that the new 2.0 literacies can be just as limiting as they can be expanding. Enter the teacher/bar-setter (which can also be student peers) and the platform for creative ideas to be showcased. Are teachers afraid of that? Yes, I think they are. How many history teachers would let students immerse in Vietnam without learning about other 20th century wars? How about just immersing in "war" as a concept, with facts and documents gathered and organized and shared for emotional rather than academic messages? Confining technologies to facts and outcomes has to go if we are to reach those higher, newer, levels of use.
I could not agree more with her sentiments and found myself returning to this post as I was reading a chapter from W Kist's book New Literacies in Action. In the chapter "My Grandchildren's Time Zone" he talks about the tensions inherent in new literacy classrooms and questions if the current structure of schools can support this new kind of learning. Just as Betsy questions above, these new literacies can really begin to free teachers and students to examine ideas and content in new ways, but not if confined to old methods of assessment and understandings of being a teacher. Additionally Kist makes a wonderful point that if we embrace these new literacies and multiple forms of presentation and communication, we must question if we still revert back to text once students have had this new learning. I know as a teacher I have been guilty of this! You ask students to engage, create, explore, all those good things, and then...you ask them to write about. This return back to traditional response and print media has to be examined. I am not sure it is never appropriate, but if we always come back to the same place, have we gone anywhere.
Kist presents many tensions - the role of the teacher, the return to the same media, the time spent on projects, the presence of assessment and grading demands. These realities of how we understand school exist, and as teachers look to change the way we educate students how can we help explore and ease these tensions such that we avoid black and white answers, but instead deal with the ambiguity that is always present in education and life.
What is missing, from my point of view, is creativity - a literacy that we seem to be killing, even in laptop classrooms. It is interesting that the new 2.0 literacies can be just as limiting as they can be expanding. Enter the teacher/bar-setter (which can also be student peers) and the platform for creative ideas to be showcased. Are teachers afraid of that? Yes, I think they are. How many history teachers would let students immerse in Vietnam without learning about other 20th century wars? How about just immersing in "war" as a concept, with facts and documents gathered and organized and shared for emotional rather than academic messages? Confining technologies to facts and outcomes has to go if we are to reach those higher, newer, levels of use.
I could not agree more with her sentiments and found myself returning to this post as I was reading a chapter from W Kist's book New Literacies in Action. In the chapter "My Grandchildren's Time Zone" he talks about the tensions inherent in new literacy classrooms and questions if the current structure of schools can support this new kind of learning. Just as Betsy questions above, these new literacies can really begin to free teachers and students to examine ideas and content in new ways, but not if confined to old methods of assessment and understandings of being a teacher. Additionally Kist makes a wonderful point that if we embrace these new literacies and multiple forms of presentation and communication, we must question if we still revert back to text once students have had this new learning. I know as a teacher I have been guilty of this! You ask students to engage, create, explore, all those good things, and then...you ask them to write about. This return back to traditional response and print media has to be examined. I am not sure it is never appropriate, but if we always come back to the same place, have we gone anywhere.
Kist presents many tensions - the role of the teacher, the return to the same media, the time spent on projects, the presence of assessment and grading demands. These realities of how we understand school exist, and as teachers look to change the way we educate students how can we help explore and ease these tensions such that we avoid black and white answers, but instead deal with the ambiguity that is always present in education and life.
Monday, February 23, 2009
What makes something a new literacy
As the snow is swirling outside my mind too is trying to make sense of how and when we can label something a new literacy. Lankshear and Knoebel (2007) argue that in order to be labeled as such there needs to both new "technical stuff" and "ethos stuff" (p. 7).
The technical stuff side makes more sense to me, I can understand and appreciate new technologies that promote user generativity. The ethos side of things for me is not more difficult to understand, but rather it is more difficult to accomplish and promote in an academic setting. As Lewis (2007) in a different chapter of the same book points out, schools have not moved beyond the technology or technical stuff for the most part (p.230). As I was reading about the new ethos stuff, and the social and relational aspects of new literacies - I am struck by the parallels with Type I and Type II technology integration. Type I is focusing on the tool, whereas in Type II the tool enables a new experience or learning environment that is not possible previously. The movement from an Internet focused on "use, reception, consumption" to one that allows for "participation, interactivity and agency" (Lankshear and Knoebel, p. 16) is a wonderful shift, but one that still is largely taking place in the private lives, not in the educational lives of students.
Why is this the case? Does it have to do with trust in schools? Power ideals of teachers? Outdated policies of Internet use? Lack of guiding standards for education?
Reading the new 21st century Skills Map it is clear that there are those organizations trying to push these new ideas through the standards-based channels. Talking with teachers it is clear that individuals are working to make these changes in their classrooms, but there still seems to be little comprehensive movement to align personal and academic understandings in the 21st century school. I hope this change is coming...
The technical stuff side makes more sense to me, I can understand and appreciate new technologies that promote user generativity. The ethos side of things for me is not more difficult to understand, but rather it is more difficult to accomplish and promote in an academic setting. As Lewis (2007) in a different chapter of the same book points out, schools have not moved beyond the technology or technical stuff for the most part (p.230). As I was reading about the new ethos stuff, and the social and relational aspects of new literacies - I am struck by the parallels with Type I and Type II technology integration. Type I is focusing on the tool, whereas in Type II the tool enables a new experience or learning environment that is not possible previously. The movement from an Internet focused on "use, reception, consumption" to one that allows for "participation, interactivity and agency" (Lankshear and Knoebel, p. 16) is a wonderful shift, but one that still is largely taking place in the private lives, not in the educational lives of students.
Why is this the case? Does it have to do with trust in schools? Power ideals of teachers? Outdated policies of Internet use? Lack of guiding standards for education?
Reading the new 21st century Skills Map it is clear that there are those organizations trying to push these new ideas through the standards-based channels. Talking with teachers it is clear that individuals are working to make these changes in their classrooms, but there still seems to be little comprehensive movement to align personal and academic understandings in the 21st century school. I hope this change is coming...
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Some new tools for writing
Glypho: http://www.glypho.com/ multiple users create and write the same story - readers vote on which versions they like
Novlet http://www.novlet.com/ a similar idea of writing by many different people - including across language barriers
Museum Box http://museumbox.e2bn.org/ allows students to create 6 sided cubes about different topics, cubes can be turned and different content can be embedded. Thanks D and T at MBHS for this one.
Novlet http://www.novlet.com/ a similar idea of writing by many different people - including across language barriers
Museum Box http://museumbox.e2bn.org/ allows students to create 6 sided cubes about different topics, cubes can be turned and different content can be embedded. Thanks D and T at MBHS for this one.
Disrupting Class
Just finished reading Disrupting Class and while many of the ideas were fascinating and exciting, it was actually not their ideas about education that grabbed me most. Instead it was the ideas about educational research that I found most interesting. This semester I am undertaking research on Web 2.0 and writing. So far I have found this interesting and exciting. I have begun the interview portion of the research and am really enjoying these interviews to try and get a window into how teachers come by these new tools, and how they deploy them in their classrooms. However in reading chapter 7 i realized that this, and even future research I am interested in is descriptive research. As they argue, descriptive research certainly has a place in building understanding of certain conditions. However, it is more through prescriptive research and examining anomalies and creating better categories that we might be able to offer more people better educational opportunities. Although these categories are but one way to split the different types of research, the investigation was useful to me as it forced me to think about how to make my research personally useful, and useful to a wider audience.
Writing to Learn
Armbruster, McCarthey and Cummins (2005) in a chapter from Learning to Write, Writing to Learn: Theory and Research in Practice review literature on how writing across the curriculum is perceived by teachers and used in local classrooms. In their work they found few studies to support the claim that writing across the curriculum makes an impact on student learning, but did find smaller studies that show support for continuing the practice since teachers perceive it as having a positive impact. Teachers cited reasons of thinking time, creating positions and helping students master content. All these are certainly important attributes of what we hope students will do through learning.
As a teacher I agree that writing across the curriculum has real benefits. But as a researcher i am wondering how teachers can prove this to transform ideas into beneficial practice for students.
So, I am trying to then wrap my brain around how to compare this article with the research brief that Silvernail and Gritter (2007) prepared about Maine's MLTI laptop program in Maine. This brief looked at MEA test data (our state assessment) to see if there was any difference in scores once laptops had been implemented state wide in the 1:1 model. Silvernail and Gritter found that "overall performance on the 8th grade MEA has not changed appreciably since the inception of the laptop program." (p.4). However they did find that scores on the writing portion of the MEA's have increased significantly since the laptops have been in place. This finding held true despite how the students took the MEA (with computer or without) and was further supported by data that students who used the laptops in more aspects of the writing process in school performed better than those students who were not using them for the writing process.
So, on the one hand I am excited to see that there is some data to support the investment in these laptops, but on the other hand I am wondering why the anecdotal and perceived impact of writing and using technology is not more well documented. Is it because of what we are using as metrics? Is it because people have not studied this topic? Is it because it is tool early to tell?
Writing and technology are becoming an intertwined process for those of us that live digitally. I am curious why there was little research to be found about writing across the curriculum, and why the laptop research shows gains in just the writing test, not across the curriculum? Certainly in the Armbruster et al chapter teachers acknowledged that one of the benefits of writing across the curriculum was that writing improved with content knowledge, so perhaps this is why we are first seeing the rise in writing scores with the MEA's. Will evidence be found later that shows growth in all areas of the MEA's? Or, is it that the MEA's may not measure what we are interested in?
As a teacher I agree that writing across the curriculum has real benefits. But as a researcher i am wondering how teachers can prove this to transform ideas into beneficial practice for students.
So, I am trying to then wrap my brain around how to compare this article with the research brief that Silvernail and Gritter (2007) prepared about Maine's MLTI laptop program in Maine. This brief looked at MEA test data (our state assessment) to see if there was any difference in scores once laptops had been implemented state wide in the 1:1 model. Silvernail and Gritter found that "overall performance on the 8th grade MEA has not changed appreciably since the inception of the laptop program." (p.4). However they did find that scores on the writing portion of the MEA's have increased significantly since the laptops have been in place. This finding held true despite how the students took the MEA (with computer or without) and was further supported by data that students who used the laptops in more aspects of the writing process in school performed better than those students who were not using them for the writing process.
So, on the one hand I am excited to see that there is some data to support the investment in these laptops, but on the other hand I am wondering why the anecdotal and perceived impact of writing and using technology is not more well documented. Is it because of what we are using as metrics? Is it because people have not studied this topic? Is it because it is tool early to tell?
Writing and technology are becoming an intertwined process for those of us that live digitally. I am curious why there was little research to be found about writing across the curriculum, and why the laptop research shows gains in just the writing test, not across the curriculum? Certainly in the Armbruster et al chapter teachers acknowledged that one of the benefits of writing across the curriculum was that writing improved with content knowledge, so perhaps this is why we are first seeing the rise in writing scores with the MEA's. Will evidence be found later that shows growth in all areas of the MEA's? Or, is it that the MEA's may not measure what we are interested in?
Writing in new media - two way change
"we see technology as an integral part of human experience, not as an outside agency that is somehow changing us against our will. Rather it is out process of using--an re-creating- these technologies that is essential human experience" (p.200)
Bruce and Comstock article, "Why Writing is Technology: Reflections in New Media"
Bruce and Comstock in this short chapter claim that writing and technology have a relationship whereby the user in participating with technologies and writing makes changes on both elements. This two way impact means seeing technology as more than just a tool that enables new forms of writing, but rather shows it to be changed by the ways writers are using the new tools. This picture is a more organic way of seeing the emergence of new media and new technologies.
As they claim "participatory design practices, the tools itself does not remain static, but emerges as the writer and reader interact" (p.201). This idea may be part of why writers feel empowered by using new media or web 2.o t00ls. The participatory nature makes them feel more a part of the organic process of learning and thinking.
Bruce and Comstock article, "Why Writing is Technology: Reflections in New Media"
Bruce and Comstock in this short chapter claim that writing and technology have a relationship whereby the user in participating with technologies and writing makes changes on both elements. This two way impact means seeing technology as more than just a tool that enables new forms of writing, but rather shows it to be changed by the ways writers are using the new tools. This picture is a more organic way of seeing the emergence of new media and new technologies.
As they claim "participatory design practices, the tools itself does not remain static, but emerges as the writer and reader interact" (p.201). This idea may be part of why writers feel empowered by using new media or web 2.o t00ls. The participatory nature makes them feel more a part of the organic process of learning and thinking.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Participatory Learning
Rereading the report that Jenkins et. al. (2008) put out Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture:Media Education for the 21st Century I was struck by the fact that they choose to focus on
Participation as a part of culture
instead of
Interactivity as an attribute of technology
Although all the learning and experiences they discussed relied heavily on new media and new literacies enabled by technology, they choose to focus on the fact that these new forms of learning have to do with participating in learning in a new way, and therefore there are cultural implications and contexts for these new learnings.
In addition the team adds to the New London group's work on new media by stressing that while these are new literacies, they are social in nature. The social realm of learning, be in real or virtual time or space fundamentally shift how we need to educate students to be part of this new landscape.
In reading this article I am excited to see the shift again away from the tools (technologies) that enable the new ways to interacting, participating and exploring education to a focus on creating more meaningful learning experiences. I believe this is similar to the reason I am interested in the TPCK model since it is about the effective integration of elements to produce more meaningful learning experiences. The shift away from the tools to the learning is a positive one, and i am curious how this concept will emerge in the interviews that I am conducting.
Participation as a part of culture
instead of
Interactivity as an attribute of technology
Although all the learning and experiences they discussed relied heavily on new media and new literacies enabled by technology, they choose to focus on the fact that these new forms of learning have to do with participating in learning in a new way, and therefore there are cultural implications and contexts for these new learnings.
In addition the team adds to the New London group's work on new media by stressing that while these are new literacies, they are social in nature. The social realm of learning, be in real or virtual time or space fundamentally shift how we need to educate students to be part of this new landscape.
In reading this article I am excited to see the shift again away from the tools (technologies) that enable the new ways to interacting, participating and exploring education to a focus on creating more meaningful learning experiences. I believe this is similar to the reason I am interested in the TPCK model since it is about the effective integration of elements to produce more meaningful learning experiences. The shift away from the tools to the learning is a positive one, and i am curious how this concept will emerge in the interviews that I am conducting.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Writing in the 1:1 classroom
According to Warchauer (2006) Internet browsing and word processing are the two most common uses of laptops in the 1:1 classrooms he studied. The word processing functionality of the laptop allowed for writing to be integrated into more areas of instruction, to be an iterative process, to be public and collaborative, to be authentic and allowed for diverse genres (76-79).
However, despite the presence of the laptops the quality of the educational experiences does not truly shift for the students. Laptops do allow for the amplification effect to occur - whereby good teaching and sound pedagogy can be made better through the use of technology to further support and individualize instruction. The presence of the laptops however do not guarantee that this will occur.
In reading this book it is clear that while technology holds a promise for supporting reform, without the foundation of the pedagogy and content knowledge, as suggested in the TPCK model, teachers and schools will not be able to leverage this tool.
Some thoughts about what students can do with the laptops in the writing process
PreWriting
However, despite the presence of the laptops the quality of the educational experiences does not truly shift for the students. Laptops do allow for the amplification effect to occur - whereby good teaching and sound pedagogy can be made better through the use of technology to further support and individualize instruction. The presence of the laptops however do not guarantee that this will occur.
In reading this book it is clear that while technology holds a promise for supporting reform, without the foundation of the pedagogy and content knowledge, as suggested in the TPCK model, teachers and schools will not be able to leverage this tool.
Some thoughts about what students can do with the laptops in the writing process
PreWriting
- Background research
- Graphic Organizers
- Keyboard vs. Hand
- Scaffolding tools
- Reading and evaluating
- Providing feedback
- Editing and revising
Reasons to Blog
Just reread a great post by Wes Fryer on Google's Infinite Thinking Machine Blog - Blogging Can Make You Smarter. I have to agree with him that the process of blogging about new media and new literacies has really forced me to think about each reading I am doing and try and connect it back to my big ideas about how to we use these new tools to make education work better for all students. As so many authors have pointed out, I do not believe it is the technology alone - rather it is the pedagogy of engaging students in individualized learning with the use of new tools. It is just that the new web 2.0 tools make it so much easier to do this.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
2009 Horizon Report
The 2009 Horizon Report has been released and is always interesting to read. Cool to see what new tools may impact the educational landscape in the coming years. Curious to me was the fact that personal web is in the 2-3 years out...seems that one is already coming and in place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
