Week Two Reflections on The Collaborative Team Model, Improving Student Learning, andChapters I, 2, and 3 of A Flickering Mind:
The Collaborative Team Model describes a school working together to provide an ideal learning situation: "Thoughtful, realistic integration of academic content and information and technology literacy standards happens best through collaboration" (7). I couldn't agree more. Our district is in the throes of revisiting our technology plan and realigning our tech standards to our curriculum. I hope a more consistent approach to technology results. A couple of key ideas I noticed in the article: media specialist must take an active role in teaching teachers and students. Sometimes at our library, when my class arrives to work, the librarians teach a quick, but often times dull mini-lesson that hits the average student but bores the more the technologically proficient, and loses the struggling tech student. Then they sometimes disappear to manage the media center and are difficult to find for troubleshooting. I meanwhile, am trying to assist my students with both the content of their work and the technical lapses, which I often don't always have the quickest answer. So at my school, the area that needs the most work, but seems the hardest to work on is the Grade/Level Collaboration.
Improving Student Learning delineated the way I was taught technology versus the way my students exposed to technology: "These standards emphasize learning with information and technology rather than learning about information and technology"(13). This echoes an idea in A Flickering Mind: "We have got to get computers away from the image of being separate from everything else" (9). No wonder I found computer class an incredible torture as a kid. This article also pinpointed an idea that is universally true, "As society changes, learning how to learn will be more important that recalling constantly changing factual information" (13). My only disagreement is that I think this has always been true. I consider my role as a language arts to teachers to teach kids how to write, how to develop a critical eye about their own written work and the written work of others. In terms of the 5 assessment tools mentioned I noticed that I use all of them. I rely heavily on individual conferences in my class to draw out better thinking. I use the journal the least consistently and would like to have students reflect more on the processes of learning, writing and researching. And finally, I would love to see the media specialist carve out time to meet with our grade-level teams consistently, rather than just on a desperate need basis.
My thoughts on A Flickering Mind
Some of the history presented in Chapter I made me feel like my mind was flickering but Oppenheimer's history of examples of poor tech support, less than noble intentions and planned obsolescence has established a clear disdain of the technology industry. I feel like I am getting very wordy so I will list some of my annotations..
Chapter I: Technotopia
I found schools lack of planning their technological purchases shocking.
I think that technology, like all fields, only interest some kids, about 1 in 5 according to the Time article.
Everyone wants to change school but no one says how.
Computers are always faced off with texts. Why? They are apples and oranges!
Papert proves you can perform miracles with money, expertise and small groups of kids but that doesn't mean you can change an entire school.
Is making school more relevant and fun watering down education as the report on page 27 suggests?
Now I know who to blame for the invention of standardized testing!
Teachers are not just for troubleshooting like some idiots think!
Who is naive enough to believe that automated telephone drills would be fun?
I like Weizenbaum's comments about video games teaching dissociation between actions and consequences.
I found the idea that students write more on computers but edit less thought provoking.
It is absolutely true that my special education students are much more engaged in writing when computers are involved.
Chapter 2: Harlem
This chapter is powerful. I like that Oppenheimer admits that schools can be conservative or progressive but they have to have high expectations and I would add, a common goal. Reading about how Harlem schools have been shortchanged by all branches of government was tragic. My blood was boiled as a I read the DeGrasse opinion; in my opinion he reasoned that poor schools don't need more money because we need factory workers and janitors. All schools deserve qualified teachers, small classes, new books and a chance to be part of the competitive job market. Despite all of the troubling examples of misused, abandoned and unsupported technology, I felt this chapter said unequivocally that there is no replacement for powerful, engaging teachers. Levvy's history lecture made me smile and this is the part of teaching that no one but teachers understand; you cannot mandate, force, or standardize good teaching. Good teaching requires an intense amount of knowledge and energy. I'll bet Levvy's students walk out of his class knowing three things: a solid grasp of American History, that their teacher thinks what he is saying matters to their everyday lives and that he cares about them.
The number of classroom examples described as chaotic is unfortunate. And I feel a bit guilty saying this because I work in a small town in Wyoming but classrooms require and crave order. A community atmosphere of learning has to be established before any business can take place. Our school employs a number of methods to create an atmosphere of learning when students are using technology: a signed code of conduct and understanding of the consequences for e-transgressions, a monitoring system that allows the lab administrators to view student screens, required keyboarding classes for 6th graders and a policy that students know exactly what to do when they happen on a site they know they shouldn't visit. Teachers have to work hard all year creating an atmosphere that establishes a work ethic that enables teachers to spend quality time conferencing with students. But this is hard.
Chapter 3: West Virginia
This chapter raised three concerns for me. I have been concerned for a while about students either willfully or inadvertently plagiarizing. I feel especially frustrated with this as an English teacher when content area teachers assign research and don't expect or teach how to give others credit for their work. The cut and paste temptation is scary. Students don't even have to READ work they are passing off as theirs. Teachers have to work extra hard to prevent this situation by requiring student commentary in writing, valuing the process of research as much as the project and creating assignments that are difficult or impossible to borrow. This all goes back to the idea of making student work authentic.
My second concern was selfish and prompted by the author's dismissal of online learning: Will this be a worthwhile program for me? I think so but Oppenheimer seems to make me doubt anything.
My last concern: are laptops a waste of money? We have three labs in our school, all with different focuses and software and four mobile carts. I like being able to leave the room and have a lab expert in a traditional setting OR being able to wheel in laptops for the whole class in our own space.
Link #1: Highlights obstacles related to Oppenheimer's concerns:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te200.htm
My media center's homepage if you are interested:
Link #2 http://www.tcsd.org/jhms_library.asp
The Collaborative Team Model describes a school working together to provide an ideal learning situation: "Thoughtful, realistic integration of academic content and information and technology literacy standards happens best through collaboration" (7). I couldn't agree more. Our district is in the throes of revisiting our technology plan and realigning our tech standards to our curriculum. I hope a more consistent approach to technology results. A couple of key ideas I noticed in the article: media specialist must take an active role in teaching teachers and students. Sometimes at our library, when my class arrives to work, the librarians teach a quick, but often times dull mini-lesson that hits the average student but bores the more the technologically proficient, and loses the struggling tech student. Then they sometimes disappear to manage the media center and are difficult to find for troubleshooting. I meanwhile, am trying to assist my students with both the content of their work and the technical lapses, which I often don't always have the quickest answer. So at my school, the area that needs the most work, but seems the hardest to work on is the Grade/Level Collaboration.
Improving Student Learning delineated the way I was taught technology versus the way my students exposed to technology: "These standards emphasize learning with information and technology rather than learning about information and technology"(13). This echoes an idea in A Flickering Mind: "We have got to get computers away from the image of being separate from everything else" (9). No wonder I found computer class an incredible torture as a kid. This article also pinpointed an idea that is universally true, "As society changes, learning how to learn will be more important that recalling constantly changing factual information" (13). My only disagreement is that I think this has always been true. I consider my role as a language arts to teachers to teach kids how to write, how to develop a critical eye about their own written work and the written work of others. In terms of the 5 assessment tools mentioned I noticed that I use all of them. I rely heavily on individual conferences in my class to draw out better thinking. I use the journal the least consistently and would like to have students reflect more on the processes of learning, writing and researching. And finally, I would love to see the media specialist carve out time to meet with our grade-level teams consistently, rather than just on a desperate need basis.
My thoughts on A Flickering Mind
Some of the history presented in Chapter I made me feel like my mind was flickering but Oppenheimer's history of examples of poor tech support, less than noble intentions and planned obsolescence has established a clear disdain of the technology industry. I feel like I am getting very wordy so I will list some of my annotations..
Chapter I: Technotopia
I found schools lack of planning their technological purchases shocking.
I think that technology, like all fields, only interest some kids, about 1 in 5 according to the Time article.
Everyone wants to change school but no one says how.
Computers are always faced off with texts. Why? They are apples and oranges!
Papert proves you can perform miracles with money, expertise and small groups of kids but that doesn't mean you can change an entire school.
Is making school more relevant and fun watering down education as the report on page 27 suggests?
Now I know who to blame for the invention of standardized testing!
Teachers are not just for troubleshooting like some idiots think!
Who is naive enough to believe that automated telephone drills would be fun?
I like Weizenbaum's comments about video games teaching dissociation between actions and consequences.
I found the idea that students write more on computers but edit less thought provoking.
It is absolutely true that my special education students are much more engaged in writing when computers are involved.
Chapter 2: Harlem
This chapter is powerful. I like that Oppenheimer admits that schools can be conservative or progressive but they have to have high expectations and I would add, a common goal. Reading about how Harlem schools have been shortchanged by all branches of government was tragic. My blood was boiled as a I read the DeGrasse opinion; in my opinion he reasoned that poor schools don't need more money because we need factory workers and janitors. All schools deserve qualified teachers, small classes, new books and a chance to be part of the competitive job market. Despite all of the troubling examples of misused, abandoned and unsupported technology, I felt this chapter said unequivocally that there is no replacement for powerful, engaging teachers. Levvy's history lecture made me smile and this is the part of teaching that no one but teachers understand; you cannot mandate, force, or standardize good teaching. Good teaching requires an intense amount of knowledge and energy. I'll bet Levvy's students walk out of his class knowing three things: a solid grasp of American History, that their teacher thinks what he is saying matters to their everyday lives and that he cares about them.
The number of classroom examples described as chaotic is unfortunate. And I feel a bit guilty saying this because I work in a small town in Wyoming but classrooms require and crave order. A community atmosphere of learning has to be established before any business can take place. Our school employs a number of methods to create an atmosphere of learning when students are using technology: a signed code of conduct and understanding of the consequences for e-transgressions, a monitoring system that allows the lab administrators to view student screens, required keyboarding classes for 6th graders and a policy that students know exactly what to do when they happen on a site they know they shouldn't visit. Teachers have to work hard all year creating an atmosphere that establishes a work ethic that enables teachers to spend quality time conferencing with students. But this is hard.
Chapter 3: West Virginia
This chapter raised three concerns for me. I have been concerned for a while about students either willfully or inadvertently plagiarizing. I feel especially frustrated with this as an English teacher when content area teachers assign research and don't expect or teach how to give others credit for their work. The cut and paste temptation is scary. Students don't even have to READ work they are passing off as theirs. Teachers have to work extra hard to prevent this situation by requiring student commentary in writing, valuing the process of research as much as the project and creating assignments that are difficult or impossible to borrow. This all goes back to the idea of making student work authentic.
My second concern was selfish and prompted by the author's dismissal of online learning: Will this be a worthwhile program for me? I think so but Oppenheimer seems to make me doubt anything.
My last concern: are laptops a waste of money? We have three labs in our school, all with different focuses and software and four mobile carts. I like being able to leave the room and have a lab expert in a traditional setting OR being able to wheel in laptops for the whole class in our own space.
Link #1: Highlights obstacles related to Oppenheimer's concerns:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te200.htm
My media center's homepage if you are interested:
Link #2 http://www.tcsd.org/jhms_library.asp
posted by Mary at 8:48 AM
1 Comments:
Mary-I had similar feelings of disdain for technology after reading the Flickering Mind. Some of the comments the technology "experts" had made me angry that they were becoming involved in education at all. They were all so convinced that shoving expensive computers into the hands of kids would cure education's ills. But history has proven itself time and time again...no technology can be a replacement for a good teacher.
Post a Comment
<< Home