Reflection on A Flickering Mind 4-6:
To me these chapters were a serious downer. I was and still am ready for some GOOD news. For the first time I get the feeling Oppenheimer doesn't believe that teachers are hard workers or bright thinkers. He continues to note a few exceptions to a group, for which he seems to have little regard. I started to think during these chapters: come to my school. I do not teach at a perfect school but I think he sometimes isn't telling the whole story, for example, his discussion of PowerPoint. In the earlier chapters I agreed that sometimes content is lost in the face of technology but not always. Some students excel and some don't. My understanding of PowerPoint is that it is a presentation tool. My students complete a PowerPoint after they have written their poetry research paper. Creating the PowerPoint is easy because the hard work of gathering research, integrating information and writing the paper is done. I tell my students to consider that I am the audience for their paper while myself and their peers are the audience for their presentation. So might Oppenheimer judge our presentations as "academically thin" despite five pages of writing to the contrary? Maybe, but he'd be wrong. PowerPoint is a fancy poster board and it doesn't replace content or preparation. Students have to know, sometimes even memorize the information they are presenting to do well for their Speaking and Listening Standard, in this case a PowerPoint presentation. The best presentation I had this year was about Maya Angelou. My student dressed, spoke and presented as if she was Vivian Baxter, Angelou's mother. She was incredible. The PowerPoint in the background was for reference as she mesmerized her peers with her memorization of "Still I Rise" as well as her discussion of Angelou's difficult life and poetic talent. But this student is one of my "silk purses." I also had presentations where students did a lot of reading off their own project. However, I was thinking: read his or her paper. There is no doubt that it is "academically thin." So my point is: I am not sure technology deserves to be the full scapegoat here. Many of my lower performing students tend to struggle with everything: reading, writing, presentation, and social skills and they tend to be, more often than not, boys with or without IEP's. And I think this is a serious problem. Now that I have my own incredibly active two year old boy, I wonder about the lack of activity, of physical manipulation in an average wired classroom. So instead of refuting Oppenheimer's point I guess I am just piling on more blame: another dark side of technology is the promotion of a sedentary classroom.
But since the 4th of July is approaching I will get a tiny bit patriotic. Despite all of our American failures in education and I agree they are almost infinite, we as a society still attempt to educate everyone. My first grade nephew living North of London is up to two years ahead of where he was as an American kindergartener. He has started long division and frequently writes multi-paragraph stories with a demanding required vocabulary list. His teachers are also very strict. When I think about my own classroom, I know that in other countries and other times, many of the students would not even be there. By 8th grade most struggling students would have long been siphoned to vocational academies or working to support families. And I think, unlike at Blair, that all kids, especially in an English classroom deserve to be together. Putting all your "silk purses" together might look fantastic but who really loses in that situation? Sruggling students need to see excellent work in action. How does a struggling student strive to be excellent if he or she doesn't know what that looks like?
This is a general question for our cohort: Do other classmates see traditional curriculum being tossed aside regularly for the purpose of technology as they were at Tech High? Does Oppenheimer have it right in most schools? Are the three R's being lost to our e-lusions? What about the atmoshphere of chaos that he assumes accompanies technology?
My last complaint for this reflection is a lame one but I have to say it. While the percentage of money schools spend on wasted technology is inexcusable, it is a mere fraction of our military's budget. And I have to point out that despite lots of funding this other behemoth stuggles to perform as well. According to the CIA World Fact site and the Department of Education the numbers fall out like this: 518.1 billion to 56 billion for 2005. Ok, I'll admit it I am officially in defensive mode! But c'mon Oppenheimer tell us something teachers are doing is working!
Reflection On Bowe, Introduction and Chapters 1 & 2:
I found these three excerpts enlightening and important in considering how to best teach all students. I feel like I have accidentally stumbled on "Univeral Design" as a teacher but this article added depth and evidence for the adage, "What is good for one student usually helps all students." The special education teacher I collaborate with doesn't modify work or curriculum for just her students in our inclusion class like many special education teachers do. She will say, let's rethink this assignment, or can we add another option or I created a sheet of notes for everyone about that. She helps me find ways of presenting material in redundant ways to better suit all kids.
I thought the examples in these articles were very convincing. One of note for me was the discussion of larger bathrooms for the"handicapped." I always use guiltily use these facilities when I am with my son, especially when he was very small and in a stroller. Otherwise, my choice was to leave the door opened. Obviously, leaving a baby unattended in a public place is not an option. I won't feel terrible about using a better designed bathroom anymore.
I also like that Bowe noted that "Meeting all of the tremendous variety of needs these students present is not something most teachers can do. What is possible is to design and deliver instruction that responds to most of these needs" (Bowe 2). Otherwise the burden on teachers is too great.
Links for Week Three:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPoint
http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html
To me these chapters were a serious downer. I was and still am ready for some GOOD news. For the first time I get the feeling Oppenheimer doesn't believe that teachers are hard workers or bright thinkers. He continues to note a few exceptions to a group, for which he seems to have little regard. I started to think during these chapters: come to my school. I do not teach at a perfect school but I think he sometimes isn't telling the whole story, for example, his discussion of PowerPoint. In the earlier chapters I agreed that sometimes content is lost in the face of technology but not always. Some students excel and some don't. My understanding of PowerPoint is that it is a presentation tool. My students complete a PowerPoint after they have written their poetry research paper. Creating the PowerPoint is easy because the hard work of gathering research, integrating information and writing the paper is done. I tell my students to consider that I am the audience for their paper while myself and their peers are the audience for their presentation. So might Oppenheimer judge our presentations as "academically thin" despite five pages of writing to the contrary? Maybe, but he'd be wrong. PowerPoint is a fancy poster board and it doesn't replace content or preparation. Students have to know, sometimes even memorize the information they are presenting to do well for their Speaking and Listening Standard, in this case a PowerPoint presentation. The best presentation I had this year was about Maya Angelou. My student dressed, spoke and presented as if she was Vivian Baxter, Angelou's mother. She was incredible. The PowerPoint in the background was for reference as she mesmerized her peers with her memorization of "Still I Rise" as well as her discussion of Angelou's difficult life and poetic talent. But this student is one of my "silk purses." I also had presentations where students did a lot of reading off their own project. However, I was thinking: read his or her paper. There is no doubt that it is "academically thin." So my point is: I am not sure technology deserves to be the full scapegoat here. Many of my lower performing students tend to struggle with everything: reading, writing, presentation, and social skills and they tend to be, more often than not, boys with or without IEP's. And I think this is a serious problem. Now that I have my own incredibly active two year old boy, I wonder about the lack of activity, of physical manipulation in an average wired classroom. So instead of refuting Oppenheimer's point I guess I am just piling on more blame: another dark side of technology is the promotion of a sedentary classroom.
But since the 4th of July is approaching I will get a tiny bit patriotic. Despite all of our American failures in education and I agree they are almost infinite, we as a society still attempt to educate everyone. My first grade nephew living North of London is up to two years ahead of where he was as an American kindergartener. He has started long division and frequently writes multi-paragraph stories with a demanding required vocabulary list. His teachers are also very strict. When I think about my own classroom, I know that in other countries and other times, many of the students would not even be there. By 8th grade most struggling students would have long been siphoned to vocational academies or working to support families. And I think, unlike at Blair, that all kids, especially in an English classroom deserve to be together. Putting all your "silk purses" together might look fantastic but who really loses in that situation? Sruggling students need to see excellent work in action. How does a struggling student strive to be excellent if he or she doesn't know what that looks like?
This is a general question for our cohort: Do other classmates see traditional curriculum being tossed aside regularly for the purpose of technology as they were at Tech High? Does Oppenheimer have it right in most schools? Are the three R's being lost to our e-lusions? What about the atmoshphere of chaos that he assumes accompanies technology?
My last complaint for this reflection is a lame one but I have to say it. While the percentage of money schools spend on wasted technology is inexcusable, it is a mere fraction of our military's budget. And I have to point out that despite lots of funding this other behemoth stuggles to perform as well. According to the CIA World Fact site and the Department of Education the numbers fall out like this: 518.1 billion to 56 billion for 2005. Ok, I'll admit it I am officially in defensive mode! But c'mon Oppenheimer tell us something teachers are doing is working!
Reflection On Bowe, Introduction and Chapters 1 & 2:
I found these three excerpts enlightening and important in considering how to best teach all students. I feel like I have accidentally stumbled on "Univeral Design" as a teacher but this article added depth and evidence for the adage, "What is good for one student usually helps all students." The special education teacher I collaborate with doesn't modify work or curriculum for just her students in our inclusion class like many special education teachers do. She will say, let's rethink this assignment, or can we add another option or I created a sheet of notes for everyone about that. She helps me find ways of presenting material in redundant ways to better suit all kids.
I thought the examples in these articles were very convincing. One of note for me was the discussion of larger bathrooms for the"handicapped." I always use guiltily use these facilities when I am with my son, especially when he was very small and in a stroller. Otherwise, my choice was to leave the door opened. Obviously, leaving a baby unattended in a public place is not an option. I won't feel terrible about using a better designed bathroom anymore.
I also like that Bowe noted that "Meeting all of the tremendous variety of needs these students present is not something most teachers can do. What is possible is to design and deliver instruction that responds to most of these needs" (Bowe 2). Otherwise the burden on teachers is too great.
Links for Week Three:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPoint
http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html
posted by Mary at 9:31 AM
2 Comments:
Mary,
As I wrote on my blog this week, I feel as though Oppenheimer is finding the minority of schools not the majority. I do not think that most schools are like New Tech. I too would be interested in what he would say about the elementary school I teach at. I do not think that traditional education is being set aside for technology. As for the chaotic atmosphere accompanying technology I cannot really comment on. I have not noticed the students acting up during this time (but I also teach kindergarten so our computer time is 30 minutes a week). However, I sometimes get frustrated when the computers do not cooperate.
Are there schools who make lousy use of technology resources? Yes. Are there other schools that are completely the opposite? Of course there are. But truthfully, the vast majority of our schools probably lay somewhere in between.
While student-teaching 7th grade Social Studies in Waunakee a couple years ago, we conducted a month-long WebQuest on the Holocaust. Students researched individual victims, and through the internet were able to access primary documents on families, travels, and concentration camp ordeals.
To culminate the project, we were able to interact live via video with a Holocaust survivor in California. Now in her 80s, we were only able to spend about an hour with her, but our entire class was captivated by her recollections. Is this an appropriate use of technology? The answer is obviously a resounding YES. It's an experience each of us in that room that day took with us the rest of our lives.
Don't let Oppenheimer drag you down!
Post a Comment
<< Home