Mindtool Reflection Feedback

Thank you Jason and Lakisha (learner & former colleague in Tennessee)! The feedback that I received from both of them was very insightful and I plan to implement most of it.

It appears that Jason learned from the WebQuest and had an overall good experience. His insights though, indicate that I need to clear up technical glitches and refine the activities a bit further. Lakisha on the other hand, became very annoyed at the technical glitches (security setting in wikispaces and angel were too high) and most of her comments focused on getting access to Angel and wikispaces. Overall though, she enjoyed the topic and just wished that it had run smoother.

The input I received from both of these educators and the process of having another person (especially an educator) review my instructional material was very helpful has taught me a good lesson – collaborate with colleagues! It is such an easy and common-sense approach to improving as an educator yet I never take advantage of the opportunity.

Based on their experiences, these are the adjustments I would make to the WebQuest:

• Resolve any and all technical difficulties that are related to access. I currently work with a group of students that cannot afford to struggle with technical difficulties - they quickly lose focus and because of their low-level of motivation will not complete the assignment if it is cumbersome.
  

  
   

• I will make format the PDF document so that it is able to accept text input. The reason I choose not to include a MS Word document is mainly for reasons of accessibility. I try my best to not require the learner to invest additional money into software/hardware. Although many computers have MS Word, the lower-income computing options do not.
  

 

• Jason recommended that I record the skits. I thought this was a great idea - I could record the videos and create a database of example to show future learners.
  

The input I received from both of these educators and the process of having another person (especially an educator) review my instructional material was very helpful has taught me a good lesson – collaborate with colleagues! It is such an easy and common-sense approach to improving as an educator yet I never take advantage of the opportunity.

Classroom/Assignment 1.0 to 2.0

| View | Upload your own

Mirrors or Windows?

Yes…I know… not the most original title considering there are about a million blogs using these metaphors but I have found some value in thinking of the use of technology in these terms. I first heard these metaphors used to discuss the teaching of diversity and multiculturalism. I was on planning committee for a diversity workshop where we were creating activities for high school students in an effort to foster “respect”. In one of our meetings, the director of diversity asked us to consider if the activities we were creating were “mirrors” or “windows”. Were the activities “windows” onto diverse viewpoints or self-reflections? She was not trying to guide us one way or another. She wanted us to have a clear understanding of the effect of the activity. After reading Jonassen’s chapter on asynchronous communication, I felt that the “windows” and “mirrors” metaphor could apply to how we view our use of the web 2.0; especially as it applies to discussion boards.

Thinking back to my previous classroom, I asked myself if my use of discussion boards fell under the category “mirrors” or “windows”? Were the discussions mainly reflections for the group (“mirrors”) or was there an opportunity for learning from viewpoints outside of the group (“windows”)? I realize now that I have been mostly “mirrors”, with an occasional “window”. Students have been reflecting and responding from within the group. Although I have been happy with this level of participation, I’m starting to feel as though I have not used one of the most valuable utilities of being connected to the WWW; the first two W’s – World and Wide.

I don’t believe working with discussion boards in a “mirror” is a negative thing. Not all activities need or work well with “windows”. In Jonassen’s discussion board example, the one where the students would propose an ordinance regarding the legality of same-sex marriages, it would probably benefit the students to discuss the ordinance first in a group discussion (“mirrors”) before presenting it to an outside group (“windows”).

In my particular case, I was thinking of a discussion board assignment I gave where I asked students to discuss whether industrial change in Latin America was worth the environmental sacrifice. We had just read a short story by Horacio Quiroga that had a central theme of “man vs. nature”. Students shared and discussed each other’s viewpoints. This activity was primarily a “mirror” and I found it to be successful in engaging the students’ interest towards Horacio Quiroga’s writings. In thinking of this of this activity in terms of “mirrors” and “windows”, I could have a created a “window” by inviting the participation of another group of Spanish-speaking students from outside of the class. Preferably students from a high school class within Latin America or the Caribbean (the logistics of getting this accomplished requires some effort; right now I am just exploring the concept). If reaching out to another teacher in another country seems daunting, another way to have incorporated a “window” into this activity could have been to invite native Spanish-speaking students or even parents from within the school community. If that still seems difficult, I would create a “window” with a Webquest or Online Research Module where the students would be guided to essays of opposing views. I believe the overall assignment with a “window” would have had a greater impact on students’ views and has greater potential of being a greater overall experience.

I hope that the use of “windows” and “mirrors” has not been too confusing. Basically, what I am hoping we consider when we use communicative tools is to not forget that we have the ability to communicate with the world. And if the world is just too unrealistic, then just try another school, district, state, etc…

Web 2.0 and the history of the calculator?

I recently read an article about the pros and cons of calculator use in elementary education (http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr072.shtml). I found this article interesting because the calculator is a technology that has evolved exponentially from its inception; it reminds me of the internet. In 1895 the American Arithmometer Co. (a leading calculator company in its time) sold a total of 286 calculators (http://www.officemuseum.com/calculating_machines_adding_listing.htm). Fast forward 112 years and the number of calculators in the world is nearly impossible to calculate. For example, Casio alone passed the one billion mark at the end of December 2006 (Museum of Computing, 2007). So how does this relate to the internet? I believe that the internet is going through an evolution similar to that of the calculator. At first the calculator was a tool that was not accessible by all. As technology improved, so did its widespread use. Eventually it became pocket-sized and affordable. It entered the classroom and became an educational tool – it also became a topic for debate. This sounds very similar to the story of the internet. In a recent blog post by Kevin Dorsey, he mentions a faculty member who did not want to incorporate Web 2.0 technology into their teaching. As irritating as that faculty member may have been, the faculty members views are not surprising. The calculator debate, the "how and when" to integrate it, is still alive and strong 35 years after the pocket calculator became affordable. How many years are we into the "read/write web"? Seven? Eight? Better yet, how many years has Web 2.0 been a visible presence in your school?

As the presence of Web2.0 tools in the classroom increases, it seems logical to me that there will be a group of instructors who will question the "how and when" of the integration. In the article mentioned above, the author (Linda Starr) summarizes the following claims by both calculator proponents and critics. I have reprinted them below. In my opinion, this calculator debate could also apply to the web:

Calculator proponents claim that calculators

• allow students to spend less time on tedious calculations and more time on understanding and solving problems.
  
• help students develop better number sense.
  
• allow students to study mathematical concepts they could not attempt if they had to perform the related calculations themselves.
  
• allow students who would normally be turned off to math because of frustration or boredom to increase their mathematical understanding.
  
• simplify tasks, while helping students determine the best methods for solving problems.
  
• make students more confident about their math abilities.
  

Critics say calculators:

• produce students who can't perform basic tasks without a calculator.
  
• encourage students to randomly try a variety of mathematical computations without any real understanding of which is appropriate or why.
  
• prevent students from discovering and understanding underlying mathematical concepts.
  
• keep students from benefiting from one of the most important reasons for learning math -- to train and discipline the mind and to promote logical reasoning.
  
• inhibit students from seeing the inherent structure in mathematical relationships.
  
• give students a false sense of confidence about their math ability.
  

(http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr072.shtml, 2002)

I'm interested in learning more about the criticisms for internet use. I have an awareness of the social risks that are prevalent in the internet but what are the academic risks? Is there a cognitive consequence to introducing Web 2.0 tools early in a child's education?

Making it from point A to point B with a wiki on your back…

How would one assess student learning if they used a wiki to do a collaborative task?

Interesting question… It almost sounds like one of those wordy math problems that draws the students’ attention away from the basic formula. Forget the fact that the train is carrying Hannah Montana and Zach Efron and calculate when it will arrive! My daughter would be so happy to hear that both Hannah and Zach are on the same train that she would begin figuring out how she could make it onto the train and forget the original problem. So how does this apply to assessing students’ learning if they used a wiki? The use of a wiki should not overhaul or significantly change how I would assess learning or collaboration. In my opinion the “wiki” is a tool that allows the learning and collaboration to occur at any place and at any time. It facilitates the process for the learner and allows them to experience an assignment in a way that would not be easy or convenient without the technology. The same benefits apply for the teacher. Remember traditional group work before email? It either involved a lengthy phone call or a face to face meeting. For the teacher, it was not easy to be aware of all the revisions and meeting that went into a group project outside of class. When used appropriately, wiki technology makes it easier to enable and track collaboration.

As with almost any assignment, clear and detailed instructions are important in assisting the learner in reaching the assignment goals. When assigning an assignment using wikis, it is important to inform the student of the procedures that you would like for them to follow when using the tool. If I were using Wikispaces.com for one of my high school classes, I would make every effort to:

• Request that students reflect and document the thoughts that motivated additions or changes through the discussion tab;

• Inform students of the requirements for logging into the wiki and the expectations for participation (i.e. alternate contributions between partners, or discuss and reach consensus before editing the wiki.)

In essence, I would work towards making the presence of the wiki technology transparent. I don’t want the assignment to be a cool use of technology; it needs to serve a better purpose. Think of essays that are word processed… do we grade the content or the use of features (technology)? Wiki facilitates the process and should not dictate the grade.

So back to the original question, how would I assess student learning if they used a wiki? Essentially the same way I would any other group project; through a rubric that evaluated the objectives of the assignment. The difference is that the wiki facilitated the students’ collaboration and provided everyone with detailed documentation.

Do we think as much as we used to?

As I begin typing this blog I would like to thank the advances of technology for word processing and spell check! Both of these tools have relieved me from the cognitive burden of spell-checking and the difficult motor skill of writing with a torn collateral ligament in my thumb. It's under these circumstances that I can agree with David Jonassen comments that we should form partnerships with technology and use them to assist us with cognitive burdens. He writes that the educator's goal should be to "allocate to learners the cognitive responsibility that they do best, while we allocate to technology the processing that it does best." When did Jonassen write this statement? I wonder if this is a belief that carries over from his first edition in 1996? Did he base this statement on the computation capabilities of computers in 1996? In 1996 PC's were still running regular Pentium processors; although powerful, they are nowhere near the capabilities and efficiency of today PC's. Computing today is exponentially different than 11 years ago and as a result, computers can accept more of the learner's cognitive processing. Though I agree with Jonassen, I have concerns as to how offloading processing will affect the learner? Whereas technology of the past may have shared a reasonable role in its "educational partnership" with the learner, today it can assume a greater role. Where does that leave the learner and what are instructors doing to ensure that the partnership is fair? How will instructors ensure that the tools provided are used appropriately?

As a concept, the use of technology to relieve the learner of cognitive processing is a practice that appears to have practical applications. The WWW for example has made it possible for anyone with access to the internet to find answers to questions instantly. For instance, I just "Googled" the words: "tenth US president" and in less than 10 seconds I was able to learn that John Tyler was the 10^th president of the United States. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jt10.html) I did make an assumption on accuracy but with the top ten results all listing John Tyler, it was a safe assumption. So how does this apply to cognitive load? I believe that now more than ever, instructors need to move into teaching towards a performance context. Instruction needs to account for the technological partnership and request that the learner do something with the information. Let's make learning relevant to the millennials and focus on transferring knowledge from the learning context into today and tomorrow's performance context. (Check out this video… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o)

I was recently asked to help an elementary instructor as he struggled to comprehend why the majority of his students failed a test that required that they list the 50 United States. My initial question was why? Why do they need to list all 50? What is the point to this assessment? Is there a context in life that will require the majority of people to list all 50 United States? With our state of technology and on demand access to information, how relevant is it to require children to memorize a complete list of 50 states? I believe it is important to recognize the states and their relationship to the Union but disagree with the method in which I have witnessed some elementary teachers inculcate, or at least attempt to, this trivial skill. One of Gagne's critical learning conditions for this domain of information is to provide a meaningful context. With the internet as the student's partner, I suggest moving away from reciting or listing the fifty states to creating a unit instruction that accepts the technology tool and engages the student in a process of thinking – not memorizing aimlessly. Accepting technology as a partner will require shifting the learning environment from the traditional approach of production to one of performance and process. Regardless if the educational partnership with technology was engaged by or forced upon the instruction of an instructor, as computers and technology continue to relieve students from cognitive burdens, a greater effort must be made to advancing our instructional strategies and find other ways for learners to think.

 

 

Jonassen, David H. (2006). Modeling with Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc..

 

Hmmm

Rapid ramblings... will I survive the tsunami? There is a ton of information to be learned...how do we manage our learning? A professor recently introduced us to her "personal learning environment". I describe it as a favorite folders on steroids... probably not too appropriate but it amazes me how powerful learning is TODAY and how limited the access was to that knowledge in the past.