Reflection Paper - Ed. 565

                                                                                  Janet Long

 4-18-10

 

 

 

                    SS/LA Technology Integration Class Reflection Paper

 

 

 

      Just as information in 2012 “will double every 72 minutes” (per the “Digital Learner” class reference, Belinda Sessions, et al), my digital general knowledge exposure grew rapidly in my University of Alaska ed. 565, 1-credit course.  Many Tech terms, tools, applications, standards/frameworks and rubrics were new to me and left me anxious not only to learn more, but, in particular, to practice with the applications and digital tools used in the course design, and to share them with my students, parents and colleagues. 

     As I reviewed the National Technology standards for teachers (nets-T), I highlighted the performance indicators which I dream of incorporating into the mentoring and modeling that I do for my 17-22 year old high school students:

1.   b. engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tools and resources;

2.   b. develop technology rich learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress

3.   C. communicate relevant information and ideas effectively to students, parents and peers using a variety of digital-age media and formats

4.   B. address the diverse needs of all learners by using learner-centered strategies and providing equitable  access to appropriate digital tools and resources

 

    Though I jumped at the chance to learn more about technology as applied to enhanced learning, I must admit that my “mindset”. until now, has not been wholeheartedly in the digital arena. But, alas, we are loosing student “engagement” en masse and must expedite the slow progress toward restructuring our learning communities.

       My “repressed tech phobia” has begun to lessen as I read comforting comments such as Jason Ohler’s, “No need to be a technician-magician…. students know the ‘clicks and tricks’ of digital communication.” He groups the “new-media literacies”: text, sound, graphics, moving images, and calls for the “need to integrate media forms into a media collage,” all of which were modeled in our UAA class and made learning “fun”! (www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2009/MJ/Feat/ohlw/htm)

    

     I recalled midway though our class a reading workshop I attended in 2005, presented by the author of How to Amuse an Elephant, and relived my curiosity about his statement that the students’ of the 21^st century classroom are “wired differently”. I have since attended several brain-based learning workshops, as well, and have seen first hand brain scans of the various lobes and quadrants of the brain activated by different pedagogies.  Our students’ “Digital road maps” are designed in infancy in our “new world” of digital, social, collaborative learners, and we must accommodate their synapses (neurological “wirings”) in order to reach/teach them. Ed. Tech News (week of 4-11-10) highlights this idea and urges the use of computer tools in our schools; it names a model U.S. school called “Wiregrass,” a forerunner in 21^st Century learning.

       Newsweek magazine prints weekly commentaries on tech tools and emerging philosophies. Under the heading *reading  *Evolution(4-5-2010), Anna Quindlen’s hot essay, “The Future of Paper and Ink,”  is billed with the cover story “What’s so great about the iPAD?”  In her amusing and entertaining commentary, she quotes a 1952 Gallup Poll statistic which found 18 per cent of those polled to be currently reading a book, while a 2005 poll found 47 per cent of those polled as reading a book. She also contends that one study revealed “that the biggest users of eReaders are not the UTube  young but affluent middle-aged men”.

    Just as our class resource, “The Digital Learner” referred to the “literate elite”, who once “controlled books and texts,” (J. Olher), Quindlen notes, “And now we have a gleeful elitism as well, the notion that the conventional product, printed and bound, is a hopeless dinosaur. Tech snobbery is every bit as silly as the literary variety,” she adds. “Both ignore the tremendous power of book love.”

    Though my eyes love that ink on paper, over the “Back Lit and Bright,” (from the subtitle of her 4-5-10 Newsweek essay, “Turning the Page,”) I again reflect how my “mindset” and biases have become “unsettled” after taking Ed. 565. 

·  P.S.  Does anyone have any cool Garage Band lessons to share, a la social studies and language arts technology integration?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

    

   

 

 

Response to FNO.org - "The New Plagarism"

  In the introduction to his book From Now Own - The Educational Technology Journal, educator Jamie McKenzie addresses concerns of teachers in "wired schools" for the huge potential for "cut and paste" plagiarism, as well as for the student use of the "electronic shovel" to scoop large amounts of information from the web, reflecting  low levels of learning. He places research projects into three levels:  1. "Just the Facts" (info. retrieval with little analysis)  2. "Other People's Ideas" (repetition of ideas from text represented as the student's own original thoughts)  3.  "New Ideas & Synthesis (a higher level or learning/research, where students give opinions and pose questions). 

  In his article, McKenzie proposes strategies to "prevent the highway robbery of the Electronic Age".  In his seven "antidotes," I found "Antidote 5" represented the most useful one for my population of special needs students, for whom narrowing information for "storage" is a monumental and often overwhelming task.

  I particularly liked his sample format for electronic note taking, which included citations, subject and key words  (as pulled from graphic organizers used during the research process), and the abstract, or a paraphrased summary of findings. 

  Though I have used a similar format, I have never built in the subject and key words, which would be a struggle for many of my students. With guided practice, I believe that it would truly bring them to a higher level of research, when used in conjunction with the summary/paraphrasing practice of the abstract. I notice that McKenzie's book was copyrighted in 1998; his plagiarism fears have become reality and beyond.

  In McKenzie's bio, I notice that he has extensive experience with the gifted population, and though I have no doubt that he could reach many at all levels, I find myself thinking of the modifications that would be needed to enable my students to access the curriculum, using "Antidotes 1-7".  How many of my concrete thinkers would be able to move from the "black ink" of the other's ideas to the "green ink" of questioning and original thought?