Read This Book

Catching Up or Leading the Way

Mindtools, Part B

This is another type of mindtoodling to make a mindtool. Double click on the jpeg to enlarge it.

Mindtools Post using a Mindtool, Part A

Mindtool Wordle

The Real First Voki

This link is to the first voki I made, but couldn’t post because of ISP server issues. Imagine how pleased I was to: a) receive the first confirmation email, only one week later; and b) to see that the voki I made had been saved.

kerpuf

see video content on 583 wiki web 2.0

NETS-Teachers and Administrators

• on the left side of the page for the NETS-S you can find navigation for NETS for Teachers, Administrators, and Technology Leaders–check them out; reflect on where you see yourself fitting in these areas
  

Where is the stumbling block in the process of integrating technology in education? I’m surrounded by teachers and students who revel in the really cool stuff and can’t wait to do more with it. I’m surrounded by students who blossom when they can teach me how to do something; who gain stature in their own eyes when they are identified as the expert consultant. Technology has the opportunity to be the great equalizer across socioeconomic levels. So what holds this change back?

Frankly, I think the stumbling block is in the mindset of some important constituents beyond the school system. There are somewhere those in power with fixed, no, fossilized mindsets. See Carol Dweck’s book, Mindsets. They are lethally invested in being knowledgeable and right.

As a teacher I need to model the growth mindset – exulting in being at the bottom of the learning curve.

NETS-Students

what do they mean, what are the implications for your classroom, and how do they compare to Jonassen’s criteria for Mindtools and criteria for critical and creative thinking? create a reflection

What do they mean? They mean that students will use technology tools to learn in ways that they would not been able to do without these tools. In other words, the technology tools are Mindtools and are Type II technologies. By using these Mindtools, students will spend a greater proportion of their education exploring higher-order thinking skills than they may currently.

What are the implications for my classroom? The standards provide support for a shift from many documented paper tests to employing variety of learning experiences and assessments. One advantage of technology is that the products can be captured and stored digitally to provide documentation of learning. Another implication for my classroom is that I have to provide opportunities for students to learn, practice, and utilize tools that require high-speed Internet access. Living in the land of dial-up as I do understand that not all students have capacity at home to use the tools to their fullest potential.

I can so identify with the frustration parents and students can feel when they try to work with technology. It’s wonderful, but a royal pain when it doesn’t work. For example, it took me 45 minutes to sign on to the internet at my house, to a 44k dial-up connection. I posted the draft of this blog successfully. It took 10 minutes for voik.com to load. I successfully made a message, and registered. For some reason, the request has not been processed, and therefore I cannot access my message. I feel thwarted, positively thwarted!

http://learningoccurs.blogspot.com/2010/07/nets-1.html

http://www.connectwithmusic.org/

UNESCO and ICT

The UNESCO site appears to have many applications to places like Maine which are underfunded and under resourced. I liked the intention to have as many resources as possible available online. The online courses and textbooks are worth examining further. It would be worth finding out how they could be integrated into the school system. Simply being able to access a 206 page book for free (Technologies for Education) is a help. A simple scan of the table of contents implies that adults can learn remotely by using various technology tools. But then I went to another page and read in the report that “… [t]here is no alternative to primary school. Technology-based alternatives have not thrived.” http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.140.html . UNESCO does seem to advocate strongly for ICT at the Junior-secondary level. So what do these positions say about how the brain develops? Does this correlate with the Roblyer and Doering chapter? It seems to me that most of the chapter applied to students over the age of 10. It didn’t seem to be stated anywhere in the chapter, but that’s my impression. Roblyer and Doering do advocate that young children have access to computers. But they don’t seem to have any recommendations in their review for very young children and instruction in technology.

Some situations are universal. One group found that “[t]eacher and administrator use lags behind student abilities.” http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.160.html Isn’t that the truth! I heard about using texting capacity on student cell phones combined with a website (free) that would allow a teacher to instantly obtain and protect student opinions and understandings. It sounds wonderful idea to me, but somebody needs to show me how to use the texting feature on my phone first. This dinosaur-like attribute connects directly to the next item from the same publication. “Teacher use outside of school is under-studied”. If the teachers don’t stretch themselves on their own, how can they be encouraged to provide their students with complex experiences with technology? Again, this is a universal situation, not limited to the developing world.

Publication 160, http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.160.html , also pointed out that “… ICT is used mostly to present and disseminate materials…” In areas where hardcopy resources are scarce, it makes sense to me that much time would be spent using ICT in a Type I manner. After all don’t you need to have the materials before you can use them? And no matter what, learners have to become familiar with materials before they can manipulate them. Perhaps the authors refer to ICT being used more for lower order thinking skills than for higher order thinking skills.

The UNESCO site contains many thought-provoking ideas, articles, and resources. It was easy to get lost in the depth of the resource. It’s a site that needs to be explored over time.

Computers as Mindtools

Computers as MindTools for Schools- Engaging Critical Thinking, 2nd Edition. Jonassen , David H., 2000, Prentice-Hall Inc., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

Jonassen provides a useful operational definition for mind tools in Chapter 1, “… computer-based tools learning environments… adapted or developed to function as intellectual partners in order to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher-order thinking.” (Page 9). He refers to their authors emphasize the difference between a productivity tool and a mind tool. I agree with his rephrasing to Peas’ argument, “… cognitive tools reorganize (fundamentally restructure) how learners think.” Page 10 he defends the concept of mind tools by pointing out that learners are required “… to think harder about the subject matter domain …” (page 10) This statement provides me with a useful checkpoint in curriculum planning. When my students choose to use a particular modality (Keynote, podcast, etc.) do they need to think about how well the subject matter combines with the modality?

Jonassen then goes on to elaborate on a scale of five theoretical reasons for using mind tools. I can think of a sixth reason – the classroom teacher’s requirement to differentiate opportunities for students in the classroom. However, Jonassen wrote this book before the requirement for differentiation had been implemented (but that is a whole different blog post!).

Jonassen provides a most useful model in Figure 2.1 – Integrated Thinking Model. The model groups three domains of thinking (basic, creative, critical) and sorts the various behaviors/criteria within each domain. Even better, he goes on to supply an example of analyzing a mind tools use vis-à-vis the three domains (Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3). I could see myself developing a spreadsheet like this to analyze different learning applications in curriculum planning.

Roblyer & Doering – Ingredients for Successful Technology Integration: A Look at the Theory

Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. 5th Edition, 2010. M. D. Roblyer & Aaron H. Doering. Allyn & Bacon.

This chapter was review of learning theories and strategies from the 20th century (it makes me feel so old to say that!). It also included applications for the 21st century. Following the review of the theories were three tables correlating integration strategies to needs and problems, with examples (tables 2.3, 2.4, 2.5). Interestingly, after a year of one-to-one computing at the high school, I found my eyes glazing over and the descriptions of tutorial and drill and practice software. A year ago, I would’ve said that there was distinct use for these applications. The most useful instructional games have the characteristic of students needing to make decisions under pressure, with surprising consequences. For instance, sirens blaring and cells blowing up. And in these, part of the task is becoming accustomed to the distractions.

I think the authors mention (indirectly) an important problem that must be addressed, especially if students, teachers, and administrators are going to be held accountable by results of standardized testing. “… our society is beginning to place high value on the ability to solve novel problems…” (page 46) I contend that a standardized test is a novel problem. The surface features are frequently very different than the average classroom test or assessment. Items as simple as bubble charts alienate young testtakers. Bubble charts signal eyestrain and boredom. On top of that, students need to learn a few pragmatic skills to successfully completing bubble charts, but this might not be explicitly taught. So here you have subjected the students to novel problem, perhaps without preparation.

Another important point that the authors addressed indirectly is opportunities for transfer of learning. These students are capable of figuring out how to transfer learning. Just watch them play one computer game and then figure out how to play another computer game. They can do it! In the classroom situation they are usually unaware of the connection between their ability to do a computer game and using that ability to figure out how to do an assignment or task. Again, this capability may be something that needs to be pointed out to them, making them aware of the connection between skills they have and (apparently) unrelated assignments they need to do.