Hi Everyone,
I chose to read the article “Boot Camp Builds Tech Fitness” by Cristy Magagna-McGee who is a “National Board certified early childhood education instructional coach” in Wyoming and has received her PhD in educational technology (2010, 36). I selected this article mainly because the title caught my interest but, after reading it, many of the ideas that Ms. McGee shares are brilliant and feasible options to incorporate into my own classroom. She shares how this desire came when she won a classroom set of handheld computers and was given the opportunity to “improve [the students’] academics and motivate them to stay on task” (36). Ever since then, she has been working to “provide cutting-edge technology integration in the core curriculum areas” and has actually worked on creating “an all-digital kindergarten laboratory classroom” (36). In her technology “boot camp” she worked with another partner class in the neighboring school district “to build community and increase communication for both teachers and students” (36).
Ms. McGee uses these handheld computers in most of the academic subjects and an instructional coach who was assigned to her classroom revealed that “students using traditional tools to learn were on task for 10-15 minutes, but students using the technology were on task for almost 55 minutes” (36). My attention was peaked! One of the assignments that she discussed and that I would love to have my own students participate in is “chatting with virtual pen pals.” The kids use the webcams on the handheld computers to increase social skills by interviewing a "pen pal" from another school district with the same handheld devices. In the beginning of the year, the students “did not always make eye contact, speak clearly, or project their voices so that the other students could hear” but, by the end of the year, “everyone was doing a great job of listening and speaking” (36). This activity would thus help to fulfill the “Communication and Collaboration” standard (#2a) as students would “use digital media and environments to communicate and work collaboratively, including at a distance, to support individual learning and contribute to the learning of others.”
Also, even though I believe in children spending time outside, the next activity that Ms. McGee incorporated into her classroom seems obvious and extremely appealing. That is, she uses the Nintendo Wii to play sports which helps “build coordination, teamwork, fitness, and communication while enabling them to meet their physical education standards” (36). She goes even further to include Guitar Hero, Karaoke, and Dance Dance Revolution to meet music and dance requirements (37)! These activities are so engaging and, if they are as successful enough to meet the requirements, I am definitely willing to use them in my program (along with playing real sports outside, of course)!
In essence, Cristy Magagna-McBee created an all-digital kindergarten learning environment and the results are extremely encouraging. Not only is the “green” factor a plus for the environment without books and paper but, the students “have learned concepts faster and with a greater retention level” by using the different technology methods and the parents “have been pleased that their students are using technology in a 21st-century learning environment” (37). I did not think that students would adjust so well to this technological format but they are fully capable and doing extremely well on performance screening tests (37). This is the classroom of the near future and I am overwhelmed with the possibilities. What are your thoughts?
Magagna-McBee, C. (June/July 2010). Boot Camp Builds Tech Fitness. Learning and Leading with Technology, 37 (8), pp. 36-37.
~Blessings,
Marissa
Monday, March 19, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Schools Without Grades?
Hi Everyone,
Before reading the article “From Degrading to De-Grading” by Alfie Kohn (1999), I thought that schools without grades were just a dream. Are grades really a necessity when they might actually be causing more harm than good? Sure, getting a good grade feels great, but is that what school is about?
Kohn is passionately opposed to using and emphasizing the importance of grading and his article is very persuasive as he lists the harmful effects of this practice both in the classroom and on a personal level. According to motivational psychology, the reward almost always outshines the means and therefore, in this case, it can be argued that grades take the focus and joy away from actually learning. Also, grades “tend to reduce students’ preference for challenging tasks.” If students want, or feel pressured, to get an “A”, they will find that challenging themselves is a waste of time, not because they are lazy, but because they are rational. In essence, students are saying, “‘the easier the assignment, the more likely that I can give you what you want. So don’t blame me when I try to find the easiest thing to do and end up not learning anything.’” Furthermore, grades reduce thinking depth and quality among students. If students know that they are going to be graded, they will answer according to the restraints of the grade they want to receive. If they know that they will not be graded, they have more freedom to speak their minds and explore possibilities without restrictions. Studies show that students who are told that they will be graded on information have more trouble grasping the main point and retaining what they have “learned” than those students who were told that grades were not involved. Does this mean anything?
There is still more to consider. Grades can be (and often are) as subjective as the results are uninformative, they distort the curriculum (as they tail learning to make assessment easier), they waste a lot of time that could be spent on learning, they spoil teachers’ relationships with students, and spoil students’ relationships with each other (as the ranking sends the message that the point is to defeat others). If this is the result of grading, why are grades still used?
After reading this article, I am persuaded that grades are not as valuable as we have made them out to be. There are other (more empowering) systems of assessment, other motivations to maintain students’ attention, and other ways to get into colleges and universities. Even though I cannot rationally imagine all schools without grades, I can still dream. If grades take away from learning, there has to be a better system. Who knows? Maybe our being chained to the grading system is keeping us from exploring the possibilities, the very point that Kohn is trying to argue. What do you think?
Kohn, A. (1999, Mar). From Degrading to De-Grading. High School Magazine,
Blessings,
Marissa Carney
Before reading the article “From Degrading to De-Grading” by Alfie Kohn (1999), I thought that schools without grades were just a dream. Are grades really a necessity when they might actually be causing more harm than good? Sure, getting a good grade feels great, but is that what school is about?
Kohn is passionately opposed to using and emphasizing the importance of grading and his article is very persuasive as he lists the harmful effects of this practice both in the classroom and on a personal level. According to motivational psychology, the reward almost always outshines the means and therefore, in this case, it can be argued that grades take the focus and joy away from actually learning. Also, grades “tend to reduce students’ preference for challenging tasks.” If students want, or feel pressured, to get an “A”, they will find that challenging themselves is a waste of time, not because they are lazy, but because they are rational. In essence, students are saying, “‘the easier the assignment, the more likely that I can give you what you want. So don’t blame me when I try to find the easiest thing to do and end up not learning anything.’” Furthermore, grades reduce thinking depth and quality among students. If students know that they are going to be graded, they will answer according to the restraints of the grade they want to receive. If they know that they will not be graded, they have more freedom to speak their minds and explore possibilities without restrictions. Studies show that students who are told that they will be graded on information have more trouble grasping the main point and retaining what they have “learned” than those students who were told that grades were not involved. Does this mean anything?
There is still more to consider. Grades can be (and often are) as subjective as the results are uninformative, they distort the curriculum (as they tail learning to make assessment easier), they waste a lot of time that could be spent on learning, they spoil teachers’ relationships with students, and spoil students’ relationships with each other (as the ranking sends the message that the point is to defeat others). If this is the result of grading, why are grades still used?
After reading this article, I am persuaded that grades are not as valuable as we have made them out to be. There are other (more empowering) systems of assessment, other motivations to maintain students’ attention, and other ways to get into colleges and universities. Even though I cannot rationally imagine all schools without grades, I can still dream. If grades take away from learning, there has to be a better system. Who knows? Maybe our being chained to the grading system is keeping us from exploring the possibilities, the very point that Kohn is trying to argue. What do you think?
Kohn, A. (1999, Mar). From Degrading to De-Grading. High School Magazine,
Blessings,
Marissa Carney
Monday, March 12, 2012
Common Core Standards
Hi Everyone,
I watched the video that explained more about the Common Core Standards (CCS) in the elementary school level and it seems that the rigid lines for teaching and learning are bending and expanding. The box that once defined what and how subjects would be taught has maintained the “what” but “leaves the ‘how’ up to the teachers.” To me, this sounds like freedom; the bird cage door has finally been opened.
These CCS have so many advantages. Beginning with the ideal that all students across America will be learning from the same expectations thereby creating educational unity across the nation is enough to pique my interest. This is accomplished through the use of “domains” and “progressions.” By having the “domains,” or main standards that continue throughout Kindergarten through 5th grade, students have the opportunity to focus on fewer valuable concepts and therefore have more time to “internalize, practice, and learn what is being done in that grade.” Within these domains are then “progressions” which are a “coherent set of skills that progress and become more sophisticated with each grade.”
These more generalized standards allow for students to actually absorb what they are learning. They are able to share their thinking, dig deeper, and communicate by written and oral means. When they have to explain how they got their answers, teachers are able to see where students may be struggling and are given the room to support their students at the level they need. On the other hand, without the confinements of how students need to learn, those at a higher level are then able to expand their learning because questions often have “multiple answers and multiple ways to solve them.” In essence, these CCS “put the standards back into practical usage” for all levels.
A potential road block to this effort could come from the apparent ambiguity of these new standards. The “how” part of what educators are to teach could be interpreted differently within every classroom leading to confusion and frustration. I cannot help but think that the rigidity of the old standards were in place for a reason and, since this new system will be put into effect across the country, I fear that there will be some disappointments due to lack of clearly defined accountability. This is not to say that training will not be able to fix these problems but I am saying that in order for these to be effective in unifying the whole country, we should all be on the same page of understanding.
Nevertheless, the purpose of these CCS is not to turn the tables on education because, “90% of what they are asking for is already happening in the classrooms.” Their main goal, then, is to make educational systems think about “what is actually happening in the classrooms in an intentional way.” They are seeking to ask the questions, “Are students really learning?” and “Are they learning to their full potential?” These new standards are seeking to make the answers to both of these questions “yes” across the nation. I applaud their efforts.
Blessings,
Marissa Carney
I watched the video that explained more about the Common Core Standards (CCS) in the elementary school level and it seems that the rigid lines for teaching and learning are bending and expanding. The box that once defined what and how subjects would be taught has maintained the “what” but “leaves the ‘how’ up to the teachers.” To me, this sounds like freedom; the bird cage door has finally been opened.
These CCS have so many advantages. Beginning with the ideal that all students across America will be learning from the same expectations thereby creating educational unity across the nation is enough to pique my interest. This is accomplished through the use of “domains” and “progressions.” By having the “domains,” or main standards that continue throughout Kindergarten through 5th grade, students have the opportunity to focus on fewer valuable concepts and therefore have more time to “internalize, practice, and learn what is being done in that grade.” Within these domains are then “progressions” which are a “coherent set of skills that progress and become more sophisticated with each grade.”
These more generalized standards allow for students to actually absorb what they are learning. They are able to share their thinking, dig deeper, and communicate by written and oral means. When they have to explain how they got their answers, teachers are able to see where students may be struggling and are given the room to support their students at the level they need. On the other hand, without the confinements of how students need to learn, those at a higher level are then able to expand their learning because questions often have “multiple answers and multiple ways to solve them.” In essence, these CCS “put the standards back into practical usage” for all levels.
A potential road block to this effort could come from the apparent ambiguity of these new standards. The “how” part of what educators are to teach could be interpreted differently within every classroom leading to confusion and frustration. I cannot help but think that the rigidity of the old standards were in place for a reason and, since this new system will be put into effect across the country, I fear that there will be some disappointments due to lack of clearly defined accountability. This is not to say that training will not be able to fix these problems but I am saying that in order for these to be effective in unifying the whole country, we should all be on the same page of understanding.
Nevertheless, the purpose of these CCS is not to turn the tables on education because, “90% of what they are asking for is already happening in the classrooms.” Their main goal, then, is to make educational systems think about “what is actually happening in the classrooms in an intentional way.” They are seeking to ask the questions, “Are students really learning?” and “Are they learning to their full potential?” These new standards are seeking to make the answers to both of these questions “yes” across the nation. I applaud their efforts.
Blessings,
Marissa Carney
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Going Beyond: Response to “Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for Everyone”
Hi Group!
In this article, David Barr, John Harrison, and Leslie Conery (2011, 20) share the process and beginning stages of incorporating “computational thinking” (CT) into the educational process. Although there is no definition that has been completely accepted as of yet (20), a basic description is that CT “is a problem solving process” that involves finding a way to use computers and other tools to solve problems and then coming up with the most efficient solutions that can then be transferred and implemented to solve “a wide variety of problems” (21). I believe that if CT is foundational in the classroom, the level of learning would sky rocket and so I agree with the call to “add computational thinking to every child’s analytical ability” (20). As a teacher, I would love to have my students practice “modeling” and “simulation” in order to logically organize and analyze data and also to have them “communicate and work with others to achieve a common goal or solution” (22). CT requires a lot of struggle and patience but the reward is extremely satisfying and motivating.
Since computer technology has and continues to change how work is done, “the ability to extend the power of human thought [in problem-solving] with computers and other digital tools” (23) is an exciting thought for me as a teacher. It would give my students the opportunity to leave the basic tedious aspects of a problem to the computer so that we can go further in creating the most efficient solutions possible. No more spending time teaching what computers can already handle for us. Of course this can be cause for concern as the future generation might become solely dependent upon technology if they do not learn the basics but just the idea of having this option is incredible. I would love to teach my students how to use computers effectively in this capacity!
In essence, computational thinking differs from critical and mathematical thinking in the sense that it “is more tool oriented” and allows problem-solving skills to be “automated and implemented at much higher speeds” (23). Because of this, students gain “confidence in dealing with complexity, persistence in working with difficult problems, tolerance for ambiguity, the ability to deal with open-ended problems, [and] the ability to communicate and work with others to achieve a common goal or solution” (21). All that I have to say is, if this is the outcome, sign me up!
Barr, D, and J. Harrison, and L. Conery. (2011). Computational Thinking: A Digital Age
Skill for Everyone. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38 (6), pp. 20-23.
~Marissa Carney
In this article, David Barr, John Harrison, and Leslie Conery (2011, 20) share the process and beginning stages of incorporating “computational thinking” (CT) into the educational process. Although there is no definition that has been completely accepted as of yet (20), a basic description is that CT “is a problem solving process” that involves finding a way to use computers and other tools to solve problems and then coming up with the most efficient solutions that can then be transferred and implemented to solve “a wide variety of problems” (21). I believe that if CT is foundational in the classroom, the level of learning would sky rocket and so I agree with the call to “add computational thinking to every child’s analytical ability” (20). As a teacher, I would love to have my students practice “modeling” and “simulation” in order to logically organize and analyze data and also to have them “communicate and work with others to achieve a common goal or solution” (22). CT requires a lot of struggle and patience but the reward is extremely satisfying and motivating.
Since computer technology has and continues to change how work is done, “the ability to extend the power of human thought [in problem-solving] with computers and other digital tools” (23) is an exciting thought for me as a teacher. It would give my students the opportunity to leave the basic tedious aspects of a problem to the computer so that we can go further in creating the most efficient solutions possible. No more spending time teaching what computers can already handle for us. Of course this can be cause for concern as the future generation might become solely dependent upon technology if they do not learn the basics but just the idea of having this option is incredible. I would love to teach my students how to use computers effectively in this capacity!
In essence, computational thinking differs from critical and mathematical thinking in the sense that it “is more tool oriented” and allows problem-solving skills to be “automated and implemented at much higher speeds” (23). Because of this, students gain “confidence in dealing with complexity, persistence in working with difficult problems, tolerance for ambiguity, the ability to deal with open-ended problems, [and] the ability to communicate and work with others to achieve a common goal or solution” (21). All that I have to say is, if this is the outcome, sign me up!
Barr, D, and J. Harrison, and L. Conery. (2011). Computational Thinking: A Digital Age
Skill for Everyone. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38 (6), pp. 20-23.
~Marissa Carney
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Response to “Digital Libraries: Shifting the Landscape” article by Glen Bull and Martha Sites
Hi Readers,
I found this article both interesting and emotionally difficult
to read because Glen Bull and Martha Sites share how “the era of the book as we
have known it is about to undergo an irreversible transition” (2009, p.12) as “the
500-year marriage between printing and reading may be nearing its end” (12). Actually, this article reveals that the University of Virginia
Even with all of these benefits, however, I am not sure why
this whole idea of replacing printed books with digital ones upsets me. Maybe it is because I grew up with actual
books and came to love reading by using them or it is because of the fact that
reading a screen for long periods of time has never appealed to me. I would not mind if some books became digital
but I still want the option of having a real book. What the University of Virginia
In essence, this article forecasts the transition of printed
books to digital ones. With the rise of popularity
that I have seen just within that past three years since this article was
written, it seems that we are headed towards what the University of Virginia
Bull, G, and M. Sites. (2009). Digital Libraries: Shifting the Landscape. Learning and Leading with Technology, 37 (1), pp. 12-13.
Bull, G, and M. Sites. (2009). Digital Libraries: Shifting the Landscape. Learning and Leading with Technology, 37 (1), pp. 12-13.
~Marissa Carney
Friday, February 17, 2012
Reflection on “The Beginner's Guide to Interactive Virtual Field Trips By Jan Zanetis
Hi Group,
After reading this article, I am so excited for all that
Virtual Field Trips (VFTs) have to offer (Zanetis, 2010, p.20)! The author, Jan Zanetis, was very persuasive as
she shared how these VFTs offer a great alternative to actual field trips for
both students and teachers (p. 20). She
highlighted all of the alluring components of VFTs and anticipated many of my
initial apprehensions. In essence, she
explained how we as teachers have the opportunity to “take” our students to all
of the “far-away [and] enticing destinations” (20) without the traveling costs
and headaches involved and without ever leaving the classroom. All of the aspects of a field trip are
involved including live demonstrations, tours, hands-on activities, and so much
more either through the use of previously recorded “asynchronous” (p. 20) or
live “interactive synchronous” formats (p. 21).
As soon as I heard that special “h.323 videoconferencing
codecs” were needed to use the online interactive synchronous format, however, I
was put off by the idea because installing a device of that nature would most
likely be too expensive and, therefore, unavailable. Apparently, though, “approximately
30% of U.S.
I would also love to have my students participate in a
“field trip” on the E-field Trips website because they could go at their own
pace and explore a location as much as they wanted. Also, the organization provides a “trip
journal, the Virtual Visit (a streaming video), an Ask the Expert tool, and a
hosted Web Chat” (p. 20). This experience would help to fulfill the Research
and Information Fluency standard (NET 3).
Essentially, VFTs enable teachers and students to “visit”
and experience organizations that had previously been unavailable to them due
to distance issues and travel costs (p. 20).
I found it interesting that most students “have no problem adjusting to
interaction with an on-screen instructor” and that they “often find the
experience novel and engaging” (p. 21).
If the students are interested in learning this way, I feel that, as
their teacher, I should be willing to incorporate VFTs into my lessons!
Zanetis,
J. (2010). The Beginner's Guide to Interactive Virtual Field Trips. Learning
and Leading with
Technology, 37 (6), pp. 20-21.
~Marissa Carney
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Worth the Risk
Hello Classmates,
I agree with how Maxlow argues that we have to take responsibility for what we post. Being under the intense scrutiny of other readers will make a person more conscientious and will hold the author accountable for what he or she says. Maxlow goes on further to say how powerful of a lesson this is, for young people especially. His challenge is valid, not only online but in person, when he says, “effective communication requires us to consider the effects our words might have on our listeners or readers…effective communicators anticipate reactions.” Words need to be chosen carefully.
In essence, I believe that blogging can be a powerful tool for a student (person in general) to be heard. It offers an unhindered avenue for expression and communication and, while there are risks involved, the person has the ability to censure what he or she wants to be seen and known. As someone who has a hard time expressing myself in person, blogging enables me to speak my mind and be heard. I know that I am not alone.
Marissa Carney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)