Thursday, November 7, 2013
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Video games as a learning tool
In the article,
“A Neurologist makes the case for the video game model as a learning tool”, the
author makes a convincing case that video games are a model for “best teaching
strategies.” As the player plays, the video
game rewards “incremental goal progress”, and as a result, the brain releases
dopamine (a neurotransmitter) that produces a feeling of “deep satisfaction.”
According to the author, the brain then “seeks future opportunities to repeat
the action”, thus setting up a positive environment in which the student may be
more receptive to learning. As we
learned in our Educational Linguistics class, this type of learning is based on
(Vygotsky’s) “i +1” strategy; whereas, we teach at the student’s level, and add
“one level” to provide meaningful stimulus to maintain progress to the next
benchmark.
Because today’s students are “digital natives”,
I believe we must incorporate (these types) of teaching methods into the curriculum,
but we also need to teach the children that not all lessons or experiences will
have that immediate “incremental goal progress” reward, nor hold their interest
in the same way as (the video game) method.
For example: A musical instrument requires many hours of practice, with
minute increments of improvement as a reward.
Unless you have one of those rare “breakthrough” moments (which may or
may not release dopamine), progress is measured (almost painfully) slow. What
happens to the student in this situation, who is used to “Future” learning
strategies? Does he or she get soon get
bored or frustrated, and give up on playing music?
No doubt using video games are an
effective teaching strategy, but I believe we also have to be cognizant that we
must balance “Legacy” with (these types of) “Future” learning methods. Students
must be taught the ability to adapt to different learning environments: After all, how will they cope when they enter
college, adulthood, and ultimately their career and/or the workforce? Will they have the tools necessary to adapt
to environments and situations they find themselves in?
References:
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Session 2 Pros and Cons "Technology & Curriculum in Education"
Technology
and Curriculum in Education
Over the last decade, integration of technology into the
classroom has grown exponentially. With the introduction of one, two or more
computers in the classrooms, as well as the use of computer labs, wireless
mobile labs, and interactive whiteboards, teachers today have access to tools
that can promote depth and change in students’ achievements in the classroom
(Gunter, etc. 24).
Benefits of technology in the classroom include
encouraging the students to think not only in words and pictures, but also in
colors, sounds, and animations (Gunter, etc. 220). At an early elementary age, it’s been my
experience that students are more “visual/kinesthetic” learners (especially
boys). By utilizing technology in this manner, the teacher is able to shape the
lessons in a manner that aligns with the best way to teach the curriculum to
the class.
I tend to agree with what researchers uncovered in the
Robert Marzano article “The Art and Science of Teaching”; There are some
drawbacks to watch out for when incorporating technology in the classroom,
including not organizing the content well, relying too much on the “bells &
whistles” of technology (for example; using too many visuals), and most
importantly, when incorporating a feature such as when the students are using
the hand-held voting tools; The researchers found that “oftentimes” the teacher
does not follow up with the results of the voting; If a student chose the
incorrect answer, why did they make the choice? Did they comprehend the
material? Was the material taught in a way that best aligns with how the
student learns? (Marzano).
Although technology has been a part of the curriculum in
the school system for a number of years now, I believe we are still in the
“honeymoon” phase; Special care and attention must be observed when
incorporating technology into the classroom: We must balance the “novelty” of the
medium while at the same time, use it to achieve the desired results, as
mandated by benchmarks such as the newly-incorporated “Common Core Standards” (Office
of Superintendent of Public Instruction).
References
Gunter, Gunter, Shelly “Integrating Technology in A
Connected World”. Seventh Edition. Cengage. Boston. 2010. Print
Marzano, Robert J. “The Art and Science of Teaching/
Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards”. Multiple Measures Pages 80-82, Volume
67, Number 3. November 2009. www.ascd.org.
Web. Retrieved October 16, 2013
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. “Common
Core Standards”. July 2011. www.k12.wa.us.corestandards.
Web. Retrieved October 16, 2013
Session 1 "Digital Natives/ Digital Immigrants
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants
This paper will cover the topic of “Digital Natives and
Immigrants” as described in the Cashman Series book “Integrating Technology In A Connected World”, as well as the
article “Digital Natives, Digital
Immigrants” authored by Marc Prensky, the TED talk video presentation by Sir
Ken Robinson, as well as from the Dr. Jean Twenge book “Generation Me.”. The title of this paper describes the
distinction between those born into our current era of technology as “Digital
Natives”, and those (who were born earlier) and had to adopt (and adapt to) the
new “digital era” of computers, videogames, social networks, and cellphones (to
name a few), as “Digital Immigrants”. The
main question of this paper is: How do educators effectively teach “Digital
Native” students, in a classroom that is (for the most part), fundamentally
grounded in the “Digital Immigrant” era? Opinions both for and against this issue will
be described from my own perspective as well as from the point of view of this
field, from “other experts” in the field.
My son Ronan is almost 10 years old and in the fourth
grade. He would be aptly described as a
“Digital Native” because technology has always been a part of his life. He was
able to use interactive books when he was as young as 4 years old, and nowadays
easily navigates between instant messaging and voice (over) the Xbox, while
simultaneously playing games with his friends, logging in on computers at
school (and home), to do his homework.
He thinks it’s nothing special to have information at his fingertips.
Whereas; if he is doing homework, and has a question about a particular lesson,
he just goes to one of our laptops, brings up a search engine, and finds what
he needs to know.
During
our Elementary Education cohorts “Educational Linguistics” class, we talked
about finding out what type of classroom we would each have, and what type of students
would make up the class. We were then urged to model our lessons so that they
would fit the needs of each student. Based on this theory, my wife and I now
allow Ronan his choice to listen to music or have a video going in the
background when he does (some, but not all) of his homework, as well as pick a
place in the house he feels most comfortable doing his schoolwork (such as the
couch or floor); It seems to have done the trick. He is able to breeze through
most of his work, and do it correct and legibly. I bring light to this, because I have to
agree with one point that Prensky makes; Kids today “think and process
information fundamentally different from their predecessors”. As Sir Ken Robinson noted in his TED talk “Do
schools Kill Creativity?” we have to acknowledge that today’s kids prefer
different methods and modes of learning. How do we incorporate this into our
methodology?
The “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” article
champions the idea that today’s educational system is outdated and we (as
educators) have to adapt to today’s students: Author Marc Prensky argues that students of
today have changed (radically) and that they are “no longer the people our
educational system was designed to teach.” Prensky then posits that because
today’s K-12 students were born into an age where technology is a given, (they)
fundamentally think different. He even
quotes Dr. Bruce Perry of Baylor College of Medicine who said “it is very
likely that our students’ brains have physical changed: Different kinds of
experiences lead to different brain structures.” This may or may not be true,
but we know that their thinking patterns HAVE changed. Prensky champions that the educators of today
(who are described as the “Digital Immigrants”), must change their
methodologies of teaching, to the language of “Digital Natives.”
While I do believe Prensky is correct; we do have to
rethink HOW we teach today’s “Digital Native” students, we also have to find
the “balance” between the methodology of how educators used to teach (which
Prensky calls “Legacy”) and the new approach to teaching (called “Future”). My opinion is that today’s students are
missing something, if they continue to rely on (and we reinforce) the idea of
technology as the “end all, be all”. I say this, because I am reminded how the
“Legacy” type of teaching has aided me (and how) it can also help today’s
student.
When I was a child, we used to spend the summer on the Blackfeet
Reservation (Montana). This is my mother’s homeland. My great aunt had a full set of
encyclopedias. Because my many cousins
would sleep in late, and I was an early riser, I would find I had nothing to
do, so I would pull out an edition from the encyclopedia set and start reading
whatever topic interested me. I would go
from Alaska to airplanes, from Africa to ambergris … in the same edition! Because of my exposure to encyclopedias, I
developed a lifelong interest in history and geography.
Today’s students simply do not have this type of access
to a wide variety of subjects. Yes, you can argue that “it’s all there, at
their fingertips!” Even Funk & Wagnall’s
put their encyclopedia set online! … But it’s not the same. Without a tool such as the encyclopedia set, I
find it hard to envision a child or teen, with their computer (or whatever
personal device they have) “paging” through different subjects, in the same way
I did, when I had the physical book(s) in front of me.
Presnky’s argument is also a call for change, but
ironically (for me), a reinforcement that we need to retain “Legacy” content.
He illustrates a story of how a manufacturer of CAD software had to change
their instruction manual so that it became a game: Less a “dry” tutorial, and
more of a “fun” interactive medium. No
doubt this change brought along success for both the company, as well as those
who needed to learn the system. I am
troubled, though, by this “candy-coating” approach to learning.
In the book “Generation Me”, author Dr. Twenge suggest
that people born after 1975 are the “self-esteem” era generation: This
generation (champions) individual importance over other concerns, that to “feel
good” is not tied to any achievement, and (in the classroom), students are “less
likely to recognize the authority of teachers, presuming instead that their
perspectives and opinions are on an equal footing with the experts (Twenge 29).
In short, they are self-centered, not accountable, and feels equal, if not superior to
those in leadership roles.
Twenge
further illustrates that (this generation) is often and repeatedly told that
they are “special, unique people, whose opinions are important, and who can
achieve anything, as long as they follow their dreams (Twenge 118). What happens when students, who are brought
up in a system that accommodates THEIR needs, steps out into the “real world”,
where, more often than not, this same student, who is now an adult, must adapt
to an environment (such as college and/or workplace) that already has a culture
in place? What happens when they are
held accountable to what they did or didn’t do?
How will they react when they are not constantly pampered and praised
for simply “being”?
This
same generation who Prensky called “Digital Natives”, and Twenge called
“Generation Me”, have grown up in an environment where they have easy access,
through technology, to almost any information (and entertainment) that they
wish for. This same generation has also been repeatedly told to value “who they
are, not what they do” (Twenge 148). These
paradigms can probably serve to develop a thesis: Is there a correlation
between the social reinforcement of “Generation Me” and the technological
culture of the “Digital Native?”
I will end with a question: How will our
education system accommodate the learning behaviors and needs of todays “Generation
Me/Digital Natives”?
References
Gunter, Gunter, Shelly “Integrating Technology in A Connected World”. Seventh Edition. Cengage. Boston. 2010. Print
Gunter, Gunter, Shelly “Integrating Technology in A Connected World”. Seventh Edition. Cengage. Boston. 2010. Print
Twenge, Jean M. “Generation Me”. Simon & Schuster.
New York. 2006. Print
Prensky, Mark “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” (On
the Horizon), University Press, Volume 9, Number 5. 2001. Print.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)