The course “New and Emerging Technologies” has introduced me to a few of the technologies that I either wasn’t aware of, or that I would never have made use of in the context of education.
As an example of an online technology that I knew about, but would never have considered as having educational value before taking this course, I would present SecondLife. This free educational technology is modeled after online gaming applications. I know that lots of my students participate in online gaming. My son even does so. First-hand, I know that kids (and adults) will spend literally hours on these games, trying to overcome “obstacles” to attain “goals.” Why, I have always asked myself, would anyone want to dedicate so much of their time to “succeeding” in a virtual environment (which is, after all, nothing but zeros and ones, in the binary sense!) having little or nothing to do with reality? According to Gee (2005) there are sixteen good reasons, all of which can be associated with valid learning principles. They are
(1) Identity (learner takes on new identity: e.g. physicist, biologist)
(2) Interaction (learning is not a passive process)
(3) Production (learners are producers, not just consumers)
(4) Risk taking (learners are willing to try new things, regardless of potential failure)
(5) Customization (learners like to customize a context to fit their learning style)
(6) Agency (learners like to feel in control and have a sense of ownership)
(7) Well-order problems (if problem space is too complex, students will find creative solutions to problems, but will NOT be able to build on that solution in further problems, thereby necessitating order and levels of mastery)
(8) Challenge and Consolidation (learn something new, practice and master it-- consolidate it, then build up on it to meet a new challenge)
(9) “Just in time” and “On demand” (learn details IN context, when needed, or just in time—not out of context and prior to actual need for usage)
(10) Situated meanings (word should be defined in terms of actions, images and dialogues, rather than in the traditional words for words, out of context definitions)
(11) Pleasantly frustrating (learning should occur at the outer edge of competence”
(12) System thinking (learning should encourage thinking in terms of relationships, rather than in terms of isolated events, facts and skills)
(13) Explore, think laterally, explore (learning should encourage thorough lateral exploration rather than linear and rapid progression)
(14) Smart tools and Distributed knowledge (multiple learners pool their skills, knowledge and tools to solve collaborative problems)
(15) Cross-functional teams (learners specialize, but know enough about other learners’ skills that they can collaborate smoothly through integration and coordination)
(16) Performance before competence (learners can perform actions before they gain competence—this is how one “learns by experience” after all)
In light of these sixteen traits—which Gee goes on to state can be used even in the traditional learning environment—I am convinced that SecondLife or some other virtual multu-user environment could be used in a very productive and engaging way to bring 21st century teaching-learning techniques into my curriculum.
As an example of a technology that was completely unknown to me, I’ll describe “Smart Objects” in the context of the Horizon Report (Levine and Smith, 2009). Smart objects are real, physical objects, which have electronic tags on them which have coded traits, characteristics and functions which can be scanned into a virtual environment, and be made to interact in a “smart” way with other smart objects and the virtual environment itself. A scanner, and software to make and encode the desired virtual properties of the physical object, and a platform for creating a virtual environment, are all that is needed. Smart objects, I think, could be used in many creative and engaging ways, in many different courses, to actually incorporate real objects into an interactive virtual environment.
These are only two of the Horizon Report ‘s enumerated emerging technologies. There are many more in the 2009 report, and I am sure that there are many on the way. The fact that I wasn’t aware of the potential (or even existence) of these technologies has further demonstrated to me the need to keep up with the burgeoning growth of these technologies and their applications to education through the use of online peer collaboration, RSS readers, and reading the educational literature.
References:
Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33–37.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Smythe, T. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report: K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Learning Management System presentation
Click the title of this posting to view my LMS presentation, which focuses specifically on Moodle.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Reaching and Engaging all Learners through Technology (EDUC-6714-I-4)
Participation in this course and interaction with members of my Differentiation Station social network have contributed greatly to adding to my list of technological resources and suggestions for their use. Among the many resources suggested by this coursework and my cohorts are the following...
The tools I will use to determine my students' academic strengths and weaknesses will be a pretest which I wil use to determine English language usage and basic scientific knowledge, and http://www.terragon.com/tkobrien/algebra/ which will help me determine the mathematical preparedness of my students.
To determine my students' academic interests and learning preferences and profiles, I will use Survey Monkey to attempt to elicit student classroom preferences, goals and interests. For learning styles, I will use the Memletics Learning Styles Inventory.
The main modification I will incorporate into my learning environment wil be to become more flexible in exposing students to content (not just lecture-oriented) and assessment (allowing for various modalities of testing knowledge). This is a basic tenet of UDL. Having established the learning styles preferred by my students, I can incorporate best practices into all of my lessons to meet the needs of students with a large variety of learning styles.
I will start out small, learning the many Web 2.0 tools out there, and incorporate them piecemeal into my lessons, geared to particular students. This differentiated instruction will be a necessary precursor to Universal Design for Learning, which incorporates all of these technologies into the foundations of lesson design, thus requiring a mastery of them by me at the outset of the design process.
I will provide various means of assessment of student knowledge, and evaluate the outcomes of these various papers, projects, and presentations using Rubistar. Students will be given a copy of the rubric at the outset so that they will know exactly what is required of them regardless of their choice of assessment artifact.
Since my classroom has only one computer, just about all of the technological applications I do with my students will have to be managed using "outside the classroom" forums such as Google Groups, Google Docs, Wikis, Blogs, and Voice Threads. All of these free Web 2.0 tools will allow me to extend the classroom beyond the school day. Participation can be monitored from any computer, and rubrics can be made so that students know what is required. From the school district it would be obviously to my advantage to repeatedly request more classroom computers following the adage the "the squeaky door gets the grease."
In conclusion, I will begin using the many Web 2.0 tools that are out there before incorporating them into DI. After field practice with these tools in DI I can then progress to the level where I can design technology seamlessly into my UDL lessons. The important thing for me is to begin with small steps, and maintain my pace. The end product should be a 21st centure classroom.
The tools I will use to determine my students' academic strengths and weaknesses will be a pretest which I wil use to determine English language usage and basic scientific knowledge, and http://www.terragon.com/tkobrien/algebra/ which will help me determine the mathematical preparedness of my students.
To determine my students' academic interests and learning preferences and profiles, I will use Survey Monkey to attempt to elicit student classroom preferences, goals and interests. For learning styles, I will use the Memletics Learning Styles Inventory.
The main modification I will incorporate into my learning environment wil be to become more flexible in exposing students to content (not just lecture-oriented) and assessment (allowing for various modalities of testing knowledge). This is a basic tenet of UDL. Having established the learning styles preferred by my students, I can incorporate best practices into all of my lessons to meet the needs of students with a large variety of learning styles.
I will start out small, learning the many Web 2.0 tools out there, and incorporate them piecemeal into my lessons, geared to particular students. This differentiated instruction will be a necessary precursor to Universal Design for Learning, which incorporates all of these technologies into the foundations of lesson design, thus requiring a mastery of them by me at the outset of the design process.
I will provide various means of assessment of student knowledge, and evaluate the outcomes of these various papers, projects, and presentations using Rubistar. Students will be given a copy of the rubric at the outset so that they will know exactly what is required of them regardless of their choice of assessment artifact.
Since my classroom has only one computer, just about all of the technological applications I do with my students will have to be managed using "outside the classroom" forums such as Google Groups, Google Docs, Wikis, Blogs, and Voice Threads. All of these free Web 2.0 tools will allow me to extend the classroom beyond the school day. Participation can be monitored from any computer, and rubrics can be made so that students know what is required. From the school district it would be obviously to my advantage to repeatedly request more classroom computers following the adage the "the squeaky door gets the grease."
In conclusion, I will begin using the many Web 2.0 tools that are out there before incorporating them into DI. After field practice with these tools in DI I can then progress to the level where I can design technology seamlessly into my UDL lessons. The important thing for me is to begin with small steps, and maintain my pace. The end product should be a 21st centure classroom.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Reflection on 6713
This course gave me the impetus and experience to integrate technology in a meaningful way into my course curriculum. In truth, I have not yet put the lessons developed in this course to the test in actual practice because my students are preparing for the May IB exams at this time. However, whether or not I actually implement these lessons, I will certainly use them as a model for other lessons that might not be quite so involved but will be authentic learning experiences nonetheless. The new technologies will certainly become more familiar to me as I mature, and my lessons more authentic and technology-oriented.
As far as my GAME plan is concerned, I did receive a free trial software package for Autodesk Inventor which I am currently muddling through. The portion of my plan on interacting with other teachers in a learning community has, I think, been fruitful. I have seen some really creative, authentic, and fun lesson plans, and have been given many ideas on the use of Web 2.0 tools I have never heard of before. I also learned how to really get good use out of a free wikispaces.com account from one of my cohorts, and have placed all of my notes online for my students. As my cohort Virg said: “When a student who has been absent comes up to me asking for make-up assignments or notes I ask him ‘Did you check the wiki?’.” Now I can do this, too.
As far as my GAME plan is concerned, I did receive a free trial software package for Autodesk Inventor which I am currently muddling through. The portion of my plan on interacting with other teachers in a learning community has, I think, been fruitful. I have seen some really creative, authentic, and fun lesson plans, and have been given many ideas on the use of Web 2.0 tools I have never heard of before. I also learned how to really get good use out of a free wikispaces.com account from one of my cohorts, and have placed all of my notes online for my students. As my cohort Virg said: “When a student who has been absent comes up to me asking for make-up assignments or notes I ask him ‘Did you check the wiki?’.” Now I can do this, too.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Autodesk just arrived in my mail - I'm Somebody!
Wow, my 30-day free trial three-disk Autodesk Inventor software just arrived in the mail, and I have installed it. Now I just have to learn how to use it in the alloted thirty days! It looks really cool, and I think I will make a 3D model of my house and yard for landscaping purposes, if that is possible. I figure if I have a goal, I'll learn the software faster. We'll see.
In summary, about the only real accomplishment in my GAME plan is the receipt of this software package. I am, though, checking bloglines pretty regularily and responding to blogs here and there, which is certainly more than I have ever done before. All of this is making me more comfortable with Web 2.0 shiz, which I guess is one of the main goals of taking these courses.
In summary, about the only real accomplishment in my GAME plan is the receipt of this software package. I am, though, checking bloglines pretty regularily and responding to blogs here and there, which is certainly more than I have ever done before. All of this is making me more comfortable with Web 2.0 shiz, which I guess is one of the main goals of taking these courses.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Getting students into the GAME (or How to make our kids GAMEy)
The following are the NETS-S performance indicators for students: (1) Creativity and innovation, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) research and information fluency, (4) critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making, (5) Digital citizenship, and (6) Technology operations and concepts. The GAME plan is a problem-solving process which consists of defining a Goal, implementing an Action, Monitoring progress, and Evaluating and extending the process in a fluid manner.
Looking at the NETS-S performance indicators, it would appear that indicator (4) would be well-served by having students use the GAME plan, too. Not only could I model its use in my own presentations, but students could practice it in their problem-based learning assignments. The plan is applicable to problems of any type and so would easily extrapolate to “lifelong learning.” Critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making are probably the most important skills we can foster in the education of our students.
Looking at the NETS-S performance indicators, it would appear that indicator (4) would be well-served by having students use the GAME plan, too. Not only could I model its use in my own presentations, but students could practice it in their problem-based learning assignments. The plan is applicable to problems of any type and so would easily extrapolate to “lifelong learning.” Critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making are probably the most important skills we can foster in the education of our students.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Autodesk Inventor trial and Google Docs
Well, I signed up for a 30-day free trial software package from Autodesk Inventor which should arive in 2 to 3 weeks. I'm not exactly sure if I'll have time to look at it too closely before the summer, but we'll see. Also, I might be able to get the actual software package free through FIRST Robotics--I'll check with my engineer.
After reading the text and looking at this week's videos, I have looked into Google Docs as a vehicle for collaboration--students can look at, comment on, and edit Word, PowerPoint, and Excel documents online from different computers at the same time or asynchronously. The key here is that it would result in the creation of a single document by the members of a team, and document participation in the creation of the "product" (at least I think it does--maybe someone can straighten me out here...). This would ensure that each team member is an active participant in making the PowerPoint that a team will be responsible for.
So far, I have discovered that my browser must be updated from IE-6 to IE-7 to take advantages of all of the frills Google Docs has to offer. I uploaded an old PowerPoint just to see how it worked, and it uploaded all right, but doesn seem to have all the animation of the original. The initial memory capacity for a new account is 1024 MB, and it appears that it can be increased. In the next few weeks I will see how Google Docs is managed. For example, how do students share documents in such a way that outsiders can't mess with 'em. Can I look at them as they are created by my students? Can I comment on 'em? These are all questions that some of you may be able to answer for me!
After reading the text and looking at this week's videos, I have looked into Google Docs as a vehicle for collaboration--students can look at, comment on, and edit Word, PowerPoint, and Excel documents online from different computers at the same time or asynchronously. The key here is that it would result in the creation of a single document by the members of a team, and document participation in the creation of the "product" (at least I think it does--maybe someone can straighten me out here...). This would ensure that each team member is an active participant in making the PowerPoint that a team will be responsible for.
So far, I have discovered that my browser must be updated from IE-6 to IE-7 to take advantages of all of the frills Google Docs has to offer. I uploaded an old PowerPoint just to see how it worked, and it uploaded all right, but doesn seem to have all the animation of the original. The initial memory capacity for a new account is 1024 MB, and it appears that it can be increased. In the next few weeks I will see how Google Docs is managed. For example, how do students share documents in such a way that outsiders can't mess with 'em. Can I look at them as they are created by my students? Can I comment on 'em? These are all questions that some of you may be able to answer for me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)