How To Do More With Less: Lessons From Online Learning

Hi everyone!

This week, I chose the article "How To Do More With Less: Lessons From Online Learning" by Liz Pape, Tracy Sheehan, and Colleen Worrell. I chose this article because I think that this is something that every teacher needs to know - especially in this economy, when teachers are having to "do with less."

This article has two parts: examples of free/online classroom resources, and real-life examples.
In the first part, the authors briefly explain various online, free resources that teachers can use in their class: Wikis, Blogs, blended classrooms, flipped classrooms, Glogster, VoiceThread, Prezi, Popplet, My Fake Wall, Fotobabble, and Photovisi are all explained. 

In the second half of the article, real life examples are shown. For example, we learn that in Jeanie Keyes-Plante's seventh grade literacy lab, her students construct a digital storyboard, using Photo Story 3, which allows for pictures, text, and audio to help transform a book report into an interactive, fun storyboard. The article also describes a successful blended classroom: Karen Bernier, an 8th grade math teacher, turned her classroom into a blended classroom by using Khan Academy videos, and then eventually making her own podcasts and videos. She found that her students excelled with the integration of technology. Her struggling students moved up a level more quickly, and her students often invited their parents to participate.

Ultimately, I feel that this article was really written to advocate blending classrooms. Every other resource had only two or three sentences describing the benefits of the digital resource, but the blended classroom has four paragraphs devoted to it.

Despite reading this article, I'm still a bit suspect of blended classrooms. I suppose that these classrooms can be great for certain students, but I feel that more study needs to be done on just how effective they are.

Thank you,

Lily

Pape, L., Sheehan, T., & Worrell, C. (2012). How To Do More With Less: Lessons From Online Learning. Learning and Leading With Technology, 39 (6), 18-22.

Common Core Standards for High School (English)

Hi Class!

Sorry this is so long! I found it really interesting.

This week, we have been asked to investigate the Common Core Initiatives for our prospective grade level. I have found quite a few pros and cons to the Common Core Standards (CCS). 

One pro is the nationwide standards. I really like that the entire nation will be on the same page when it comes to Educational standards. This will make moving schools/states easier on students, and will cut out discrepancies between states' educational systems. However, I'm a bit suspect towards what standards changed and why and by whom.

In the video, they said they were leaving topics and concepts out, so that they go more in depth with less content. I like the idea of not having to rush through topics, but I can't help but wonder: what got left out and why? The video also mentioned that 70% of English Literature will now be non-fiction under the CCS. I don't agree with that. I understand that they feel that fiction literature is not prevalent in college - but that's wrong. I definitely had to analyze a great deal of fiction literature. Also: schools should be promoting fiction literature readings - regardless of being college bound or not. I would have like to have seen a more 50/50 approach to fiction and non-fiction.

A "roadblock to the success of student learning" could be the things that were left out from the CCS that were in the CA State Standards. For example, 11/12th graders are supposed to "Analyze seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century foundational U.S. documents of historical and literary significance (including The Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address) for their themes, purposes, and rhetorical features." which, I believe, is something that we do in the 8th grade! When I was in 6th grade, we had to memorize the Preamble, discuss what it meant, and analyze the effectiveness of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Dec. of Independence, and such documents. I feel that this should stay in the 8th grade, as an introduction into rhetoric and literary purpose.

Another "road block" or disagreement that I have with the CCS are what were removed from the standards. The following standard was removed from the CA State Standards and not mentioned in the CCS:  "1.5 Distinguish between and use various forms of classical and contemporary logical arguments, including: a. Inductive and deductive reasoning b. Syllogisms and analogies"

Syllogism and analogies, along with inductive and deductive reasoning, are vital to education and college prep (which is the major claim for the CCS).  Without knowing the logical fallacies, students will not effectively make persuasive arguments, nor will they be able to analyze and critique readings in their everyday and collegiate lives. One must be able to see how a persuasive argument is presented to decide whether or not it is effective.

There are actually quite a few CA State Standards that are not in the CCS for 9-12 grades that I believe should be:

"3.9 -3.9 Explain how voice, persona, and the choice of a narrator affect characterization and the tone, plot, and credibility of a text."

This is paramount in literary analysis! Knowing whether or not your narrator is trustworthy (via voice, and persona) and why/why not is essential to being able to understand the narrative, and can be easily applied to every domain. Knowing the narrator of the story is on par with knowing the credentials of a author of a scientific or historical document.

"1.2 Use precise language, action verbs, sensory details, appropriate modifiers, and the active rather than the passive voice."

The CSS claims to be all about college readiness: yet they decline to mention the use of active voice as opposed to passive voice! A college application written in passive voice is likely to be rejected! In addition - active v. passive voices are prominent on the SAT and ACT, which are the tests that can single-handedly decide where students get accepted to college. If students aren't taught about precise language, how will they pass those questions? This seems more detrimental than beneficial to me.

"2.4 Write persuasive compositions: b. Use specific rhetorical devices to support assertions (e.g., appeal to logic through reasoning; appeal to emotion or ethical belief; relate a personal anecdote, case study, or analogy)."

To me, this is similar to Standard 1.5 in regards to identifying rhetorical persuasive devices. This standard, however, calls for actual writing persuasive comps. This would be the application and assessment bit of a unit on persuasive writing and devices.

"1.11 Assess how language and delivery affect the mood and tone of the oral communication and make an impact on the audience."

This also, while maybe not the most important standard for high school students, is one that should still be addressed. All of these standards can be applied to non-literature arenas and could easily be incorporated into teaching. 

"2.3 Write expository compositions, including analytical essays and research reports: b. Convey information and ideas from primary and secondary sources accurately and coherently."

This writing standard should rally be included into the CSS. Students have to write research reports and analytical essays in college - they're probably the most common written type of essay in college - regardless of the subject. High school students could get a head start on the format and application of research/analytical papers and would be highly benefited in college by writing these in high school.

I personally met all of these standards in high school, and I believe that they really helped me in college. I was able to graduate college in three years, in part because I knew how to write all the various forms of essays. My peers had to take time to understand the essay form they had to write for classes, whereas I could simply start to write them. This allowed me to save time and worry.

Overall, I really like the idea of nationwide educational standards. I am curious as to who commissioned this privatization of standards, and I want more justification for why certain standards were added (like the American historical documents in high school) or removed. One part of me really likes how specific the standards are, but I worry if that specificity will stifle how teachers can teach their topics. I feel that it's not far from specific standards to scripted classrooms. 

Another concern I have is the political sphere on education. If this is nationwide and a new president doesn't agree with a standard educational system that prepares students for college (e.g., Rick Santorum), could (s)he change the standards? I feel that changing standards every 4-8 years would be more detrimental for the students.Similarly, implementation will be difficult, because the students entering high school would not have received the foundational support CCS calls for in the previous grades. 

Thanks for reading,

Lily

Associated links:

About the Common Core State Standards

Standards taken from this .pdf.

YouTube video about High School CCS

Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12

Hello All,

We've been asked to consider whether learning today should tap into computational thinking. However, after reading the article "Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12: What is Involved and What is the Role of the Computer Science Education Community?" by Valerie Barr and Chris Stephenson, I'm not sure what my stance is. This article attempts to find a definition for "Computational Thinking" and yet manages to only bury the concept in multiple definitions and case studies.

This 2011 article includes a nifty table outlining different Computational Thinking concepts, and gives examples in various disciplines (e.g., Data collection in Language Arts could be through linguistic analysis of sentences), which is a cool way to apply computer science terms such as "problem decomposition" and "algorithms and procedures" to many school subjects.

The article calls for teachers to use the correct "computational vocabulary" in the classroom. However, I would feel strange referring to instructions as "algorithms and procedures" in my Language Arts classroom. Similarly, I'm not sold on the idea of explicitly integrating these concepts into every subject. In Language Arts, "figurative language" embodies such terms as "metaphor" and "simile," but the article would have it be called "abstraction" instead. I feel as if that undermines Language Arts.

To me, "computational thinking" simply means using logic and problem solving to find solutions. As long as these are being done in a majority of the educational fields, why should computer science terminology dominate?

The article calls for integrating computational thinking and terminology into the classroom. However, the article fails to define "computational thinking." I feel as if instead of focusing on this indefinable concept, teachers and administrators should ensure that their lessons have a logical/problem solving approach and that their students are able to thinking logically and work together to solve problems.


Thanks for reading!

Lily


Barr, Valerie, & Stephenson, Chris (2011). Computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community. ACM Inroads, Vol. 2(1), 48-54.

Is your website accessable?

Esteemed classmates:

As a teacher, having an accessible website for students and parents to use is very important.  In "Five Steps to an Accessible Classroom Website," Linda Amundson describes five ways to insure that your website is available for everyone. 

The five steps are: Organization, Navigation without a mouse, text for images, descriptive links, and using Web validators.

"Organization" encompasses having clear headings, using horizontal lines and graphical elements (secondary to the headings), and consistency between pages. Also, being aware of colors (red and green are indistinguishable for color blind people and should therefore be avoided) and fonts is essential. After all, if your students and parents cannot read your website - why bother?

"Navigation without a mouse" is vital for those who use braille readers or even those who have a broken arm. Roll-overs and dropdown menus are difficult without a mouse and should be limited. Including an access key (assigning letters on the keyboard various functions) allows keyboard users the same opportunities as those with a mouse. 

"Text explanations for images" insures that the visual impaired and those using a slower Internet connection can still "see" the graphics. The descriptions should be as if you were describing the image to a friend - not too long, but still informative.

"Using text that makes sense" applies for hyperlinks. Hyperlinks should be expressive - telling what the hyperlink links to, instead of simply saying "press here." They should be included in paragraphs, and if the same description is used multiple times then each should link to the same page.

Finally, "Web validators" evaluate your websites accessibility and tell you where you can improve. This lets you know that your website is accessible.

Ultimately, I feel that some of this article is obvious (like using headers), but I like the points about not needing a mouse and including descriptive text for graphics. It's important for all of your students and parents to be able to equally access your website.

-Lily

Amundson, Linda (2009). Five Steps to an Accessible Classroom Website. Learning and Leading        With Technology, Volume 37. Retrieved from http://www.learningandleading-digital.com/learning_leading/200911?pg=20&pm=2&fs=1#pg18.

Article #2 Response: Computing in the Clouds by Doug Johnson

Hi Everyone:

This week, I read "Computing in the Clouds" by Doug Johnson, which essentially summarizes "the cloud" and how it can be beneficial for educators. The cloud can be accessed from any computer with access to the Internet, requires no flash drive, and is free of charge. Essentially, the cloud is a file storage facility that requires only the Internet. Johnson argues that students need a Netbook (miniature laptop computer with only access to the Internet and a few related applications) and the cloud to excel at school, which would reduce the cost of computer software (like Word) or textbooks.  By "living in the cloud," Johnson found that he needed only slight adjustments from his "normal" computer usage.

One major advantage of using the cloud is that it's free - so anyone can use it, without worrying about money. By using Google Docs instead of Microsoft Word, students and teachers can save money and can access their documents from any computer. In addition, flash drives are unnecessary because students can simply upload or share the URL with teachers instead. Johnson suggests that parents will be willing to pay for a $250 Netbook, since they have to pay for other supplies instead (like a $100 scientific calculator). I, however, do not know if I agree with that statement. Many families, especially in today's economy, cannot afford things like that. I think that it would be better for schools to have a class set of Netbooks that classes can check out, that way students can access their information on their home computers or at the local library. I've worked in high schools with a school set of laptops that teachers could then check out for the class period.

Johnson notes that there are a few issues with working in the cloud. If the Internet crashes or is unavailable, so is the cloud. Also, the security of websites can be a little sketchy, as can the privacy. Privacy is of the up-most priority where students are concerned.

I personally think that working in the cloud would be excellent for many classrooms, I just worry that eventually teachers will shift a majority of lessons and classwork into the cloud, and students will have less hands-on learning. I hope that balance can be found between the online and offline worlds.

Thank you,

Lily
 

Johnson, Doug (2009). Computing in the Clouds. International Society for Technology in Education,  Volume 37. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-and-leading/issues/Computing_in_the_Clouds.aspx

Is blogging worth the risk?

Hello class!

I personally believe that blogging is worth the risk. After reading the article this week, I found myself aligning with James Maxlow. In particular, his statement that, "We may not be responsible for how others react to our words, but effective communicators anticipate reactions" really resonated with me.

Bloggers have to be aware of the power that words can have; bloggers need to anticipate reactions and be prepared for them.  Teachers with blogs need to be certain that their student's privacy is protected, that they take care to have pseudonyms for students or have some system so that parents/students are safe.  Part of teaching writing to students includes teaching the responsibility author's have to their writings. Lisa Nielson did not seem as if she had properly anticipated the response of her blog. Furthermore, if she was treated as rudely as she makes it seem, perhaps she should have fought back and stood up for her blog. 


Technology is finding a really hard time being accepted in the classroom, which I think Lisa Nielson showed in her writing. However, just because it's challenging does not mean that it shouldn't be integrated into schools. New things often create discontent and administrators might have a hard time adjusting. But, technology needs to be shown responsibly. Teachers that blog can show such responsibility to their students, and students can absorb and use that knowledge in their written work. Blogs and online writings are the things that students will need to know how to write, think critically about, and show caution with; the best teachers to teach this will be the ones that actually participate in that sphere of writing.

I ultimately think that blogging is worth the risk, especially if bloggers think critically about their words.

-Lily

This is my first post!

Yay!