Games are a legitmate and practical way of educating students. Especially those that simulate events or allow students to experience history through various points of view. By interacting with history and having history come alive through these games, many students will hopefully be able to remember important information and make historical connections. For some students history is too abstract. It's a bunch of dates and wars betweend dead people, who have no impact on their life. Games will put students in the postion of Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s during Nazi agression, or in the position of G. Julius Caesar in the civil war with Pompey. Learning is not only experiential in this sense, but fun.
I do not believe the learning that occurs during game play is testable. However, it is assessable. Students should take their game playing experience and produce a finished project. Whether it be a journal entry, and evaluation or analysis or the moves they made in a game, or creating their own civilization after playing Civilization IV. I don't think it makes sense to have students learn WWII through the game Making History and then giving them a test on the cause, events of, and legacy of WWII.
Games can oversimplify situations. Students can miss out on important details and miss substantial points. The story Jim mentioned about the student who stated that people riot when taxes are raised is the perfect of example of this. Games should be used as enrichment and as a way of reinforcing concenpts and ideas from other lessons.
I would not be worried about promoting agressive behavior or passive learning. A teacher has to chose the right games. I would never use America's Army or any game like that. A game like that would clearly make some boys a little agressive. And cames that make students think and challenge them won't produce passive learners. I remember playing Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego in 4th grade. We had to research the clues, write down information, and keep track of it. There was nothing passive about it and nothing that promoted agressive behavior. And I believe I learned a lot about the culture of other countries by playing that game. Games like Carmen Sandiego have a place in the classroom and should be utilized.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
iMovie/Documentary Reflection
Using a video camera to make a documentary is a wonderful teaching tool. First of all, it really allows students to demonstrate their creativity. Almost everyone has though about making their own movie or at the very least, upon viewing a movie, said themselves, "Oh, if I were the director I would've done that." This is simply a fun and creative assignment for students.
Secondly, unlike the other projects we've done, group work was a necessity on this one. Making a documentary/movie allows students to work cooperatively. Even the shy student gets involved because perhaps they do the editing on iMovie or operate the camera.
Thirdly, making a documentary can allow students to become "experts" in a particular topic, as making a documentary requires research. Also, has a social studies teacher, students can recreate history and show an understanding of events and turning points by filming a movie. In effect making a movie can make history come alive for my students.
The pitfalls...This can be a very time consuming assignment and thanks to the high stakes testing and standards movement, it would be very hard to allot some much class time to students to do this sort of project. They would have to do it on their own. And not every student has access to a video camera. My school doesn't have enought to lend out to students and they don't lend them out to students.
Secondly, unlike the other projects we've done, group work was a necessity on this one. Making a documentary/movie allows students to work cooperatively. Even the shy student gets involved because perhaps they do the editing on iMovie or operate the camera.
Thirdly, making a documentary can allow students to become "experts" in a particular topic, as making a documentary requires research. Also, has a social studies teacher, students can recreate history and show an understanding of events and turning points by filming a movie. In effect making a movie can make history come alive for my students.
The pitfalls...This can be a very time consuming assignment and thanks to the high stakes testing and standards movement, it would be very hard to allot some much class time to students to do this sort of project. They would have to do it on their own. And not every student has access to a video camera. My school doesn't have enought to lend out to students and they don't lend them out to students.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Webpage Design Reflection
One of the advantages of assigning a project that incorporates web design is that students are truly learning something new. It's a skill that many people don't have or know about. It gives students an answer to that daily question at dinner, "So honey, what did you learn at school today?" Web design also allows for students to be artistic and express creativity in the colors, fonts, pictures, etc. they choose for their web design.
One of the pitfalls is having the time to teach the web design skills. At the high school level where I have to prep the kids for a Regents exam in June, I don't know if I can afford the time to teaching Dream Weaver. Another pitfall for some teachers is that they may not have such a program at their school or the school may not provide teachers and students server space.
I also think that using Dream Weaver is better suited for making a WebQuest and that the project Angel and I did could have easily been done on PowerPoint.
What makes the technology aspect of this more motivating than traditional teaching methods is that students can view one another's webpages, which is more interesting by far than sitting through a PowerPoint or going to posters and reading from them. Now does this foster more critical thinking? Only if you have a problem with the technology. I don't think the use of web design fosters deeper critical thinking than would students creating a poster board exhibit.
One of the pitfalls is having the time to teach the web design skills. At the high school level where I have to prep the kids for a Regents exam in June, I don't know if I can afford the time to teaching Dream Weaver. Another pitfall for some teachers is that they may not have such a program at their school or the school may not provide teachers and students server space.
I also think that using Dream Weaver is better suited for making a WebQuest and that the project Angel and I did could have easily been done on PowerPoint.
What makes the technology aspect of this more motivating than traditional teaching methods is that students can view one another's webpages, which is more interesting by far than sitting through a PowerPoint or going to posters and reading from them. Now does this foster more critical thinking? Only if you have a problem with the technology. I don't think the use of web design fosters deeper critical thinking than would students creating a poster board exhibit.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Response to July 13 Readings
Response to Min Liu Study
First off, let me start by saying that the projects described in the study sound interesting and something I would've liked to have done as a student. Now it's time to criticize the study.
Okay...Basing the many of the results and outcomes of the study on a student questionnaire is the most reliable way to extract information. Anyone who has given high school students a questionnaire knows that many students do not answer seriously. Some even answer the way they think the teacher wants them to answer. While most students probably answer truthfully, there are a large number that do not.
The study claims that student motivation was increased, increased on-task time, and increased belief in the value of the class. The reason these statements are probably true is because the project seemed as if it was well structured and each student had a role and task. This didn't necessarily have to be a technology project. Any project that is well organized, explained, structured, and clearly defines the expectations of students will increase motivation, on-task time, and belief in the value of the class. This could've been done with poster board and markers and could've had the same effect, as long as it was a well planned and structued.
However, I will not dismiss the impact technology had on these students. Anytime you learn something completely new, especially a skill, you are motivated. One student was quoted as saying that he now knew how they created a particular graphic magazine. The students feel as if they are in the know. Graphic design/web design/multimedia design skills are skills that the vast majority of people do not possess. Students will feel good about themselves because they have a skill most people don't. It makes them feel "cool" and smart, as well it should. That was the beauty of this project.
It also had the fringe benefit of interesting students in a multimedia design career. The study noted that many students talked about getting internships and jobs with the skills they had acquired and that's fantastic.
Response to Lynch & Horton Chapter 2:
I really don't have much to say about this. Everything that was stated about web page design made sense. I agree that you should never be more than 2 clicks away from the homepage, but really it should be 1. I think there should be a link to the homepage on every page of the site. And how impatient is America that the average person gives up on a web site dowloading after 10 seconds? I think I go about 20-30 seconds before I hit refresh or give up, which doesn't make me all that patient myself.
And lastly, I never knew there was World Wide Web Consortium that had guidlines, in particular to regards to those who happen to be deaf or blind. I had never really thought about the blind navigating websites and how audio could enable them to do so.
First off, let me start by saying that the projects described in the study sound interesting and something I would've liked to have done as a student. Now it's time to criticize the study.
Okay...Basing the many of the results and outcomes of the study on a student questionnaire is the most reliable way to extract information. Anyone who has given high school students a questionnaire knows that many students do not answer seriously. Some even answer the way they think the teacher wants them to answer. While most students probably answer truthfully, there are a large number that do not.
The study claims that student motivation was increased, increased on-task time, and increased belief in the value of the class. The reason these statements are probably true is because the project seemed as if it was well structured and each student had a role and task. This didn't necessarily have to be a technology project. Any project that is well organized, explained, structured, and clearly defines the expectations of students will increase motivation, on-task time, and belief in the value of the class. This could've been done with poster board and markers and could've had the same effect, as long as it was a well planned and structued.
However, I will not dismiss the impact technology had on these students. Anytime you learn something completely new, especially a skill, you are motivated. One student was quoted as saying that he now knew how they created a particular graphic magazine. The students feel as if they are in the know. Graphic design/web design/multimedia design skills are skills that the vast majority of people do not possess. Students will feel good about themselves because they have a skill most people don't. It makes them feel "cool" and smart, as well it should. That was the beauty of this project.
It also had the fringe benefit of interesting students in a multimedia design career. The study noted that many students talked about getting internships and jobs with the skills they had acquired and that's fantastic.
Response to Lynch & Horton Chapter 2:
I really don't have much to say about this. Everything that was stated about web page design made sense. I agree that you should never be more than 2 clicks away from the homepage, but really it should be 1. I think there should be a link to the homepage on every page of the site. And how impatient is America that the average person gives up on a web site dowloading after 10 seconds? I think I go about 20-30 seconds before I hit refresh or give up, which doesn't make me all that patient myself.
And lastly, I never knew there was World Wide Web Consortium that had guidlines, in particular to regards to those who happen to be deaf or blind. I had never really thought about the blind navigating websites and how audio could enable them to do so.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Web Quest Thoughts
For me, web quests provide students with an opportunity to research and explore a topic on their own, with minimal guidance (in the form of websites and guiding questions) from the teacher. Web quests also allow for the possibility of collaborative work and a project based assessment at the end. Ideally, after introducing students to web quests and having them complete a few, it would be great to have students create their own web quests and have their classmates complete them. Student created web quests would really demonstrate student understanding of technology and the purpose of a web quest.
I do not think that a web quest is a "mind tool." For me a mind tool helps students make connections and understandings in an organized way unique to the student. I view the web quest as an activity to explore a particular topic on their own. Connections and understandings might be a by product of the web quest, but it doesn't fall into my definition of a "mind tool."
I do not believe that web quests stray to far away from traditional classroom settings. The use of a web quest does not alone make a teacher progressive versus traditional. Using a web quest as one of many methods and approaches makes a teacher progressive. Does a web quest allow students to learn information from something other than a chalkboard? Yes. But that is assuming our definition of a traditional classroom setting is students sitting in rows, with notebooks out, while the teacher writes notes on the board.
Web quests are fun for students, but they are not this great method of teaching. What makes a web quest worth doing is with students is the fact that they are in charge. They are exploring. They are researching information. They are creating a project. When students take ownership of they learning, they typically learn better and take an interest in school.
I do not think that a web quest is a "mind tool." For me a mind tool helps students make connections and understandings in an organized way unique to the student. I view the web quest as an activity to explore a particular topic on their own. Connections and understandings might be a by product of the web quest, but it doesn't fall into my definition of a "mind tool."
I do not believe that web quests stray to far away from traditional classroom settings. The use of a web quest does not alone make a teacher progressive versus traditional. Using a web quest as one of many methods and approaches makes a teacher progressive. Does a web quest allow students to learn information from something other than a chalkboard? Yes. But that is assuming our definition of a traditional classroom setting is students sitting in rows, with notebooks out, while the teacher writes notes on the board.
Web quests are fun for students, but they are not this great method of teaching. What makes a web quest worth doing is with students is the fact that they are in charge. They are exploring. They are researching information. They are creating a project. When students take ownership of they learning, they typically learn better and take an interest in school.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Response to July 6 Readings
Response to Mayer's Theories of Learning...:
There is no doubt that the more we understand about the way learners learn, the more effective our pedagogy will become, and in turn we will be able to help students learn to their full potential.
I agree with Mayer's statement that "The main idea is that more learning occurs when more channels are used for delivering the information." Using narrative, visual, and animations aid students in retention and making understandings/connections. However, we must be mindful, as to not over stimulate. Too many things presented simultaneously can distract students and they won't be able to make any connections or retain any information.
I do have a few criticisms. In some ways rote learning is made out to be "bad." Personally I was a rote learner. I could remember a formula or fact after just hearing it once. And I can see some of my students, not many, but a few learn best the same way. We have to be careful not to confine ourselves in classify they types of learner. Everyone learns differently. With that being the case, it is imperative that we address all types of learners in the classroom. Teachers need to mix up.
Another criticism is that all the evidence Mayer presents deals with either math or science. Take the formula and construct something. School is more than math and science. Evidence/examples in an English or Social Studies or Foreign Language class is needed for a stronger case.
Response to Oppenheimer's The Computer Delusion:
While computers aid in the educational process, they should not been seen as the savior of our schools. For nearly a hundred years, as long as public education has been a mass institution, schools functioned without computers in the classroom. And isn't funny how many people complain how schools are no longer doing their job; schools are no longer effective. And critics are saying that in the age of classroom computers. I think the quote from Wired magazine's interview with Steve Jobs sums it up nicely, "What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent...You're not going to solve the problems by putting all knowledge onto CD-ROMs. We can put a Web site in every school - none of this is bad. It's only bad if it lulls us into thinking we're doing something to solve the problems with education."
Unfortunatley some people are lulled into thinking we're doing something to solve the problems with education. When computers are placed into classrooms, parents and tax payers see their money at work. Their school district is making an effort and modernizing.
While it's acceptable and necessary to budget funds for computers and technology labs, other programs should not be cut in order to do this. There is more evidence of the positive impact that art, music, and sports/physical education classes have on student achievement. To cut those programs in order to by a 25 brand new Dell computers is ridiculous. We should not bring in more computers at the expense of other programs.
The reading also brings up issues about the priority of computers in terms of teaching skills. Is it the job of a public school to provide "real job training?" Well, at the high school level, the answer is probably yes. However the question then becomes, what skills should be taught? Students do not need to become experts in computer programming. They need basic skills. They need to know how to type efficiently (we don't need 90 words a minute) and should probably have a basic grasp of some Microsoft Office programs. Most companies have their own programs and software suited for their needs and provide training to new employees. All that is necessary, is a familiarity with computers.
The reading suggest that big business is a driving force behind the computer in every classroom craze. There is a modicum of truth to that belief. But the most frustrating part of that is the fact that within the profession of teaching, the professionals (teachers) have little say or control. Big business? What do they know about education? Why do they know what's best for a classroom? They don't. Teachers continue to lose power, authority, and decision-making ability within their profession. You don't really see this happening in other professions.
And lastly...One teacher was quoted as saying, "Every single child will do more work for you and do better work with a computer. Just because it's on a monitor, kids pay more attention. There's magic to the screen." Now, there is clearly a teacher who hasn't a clue. Hey, let's just throw a kid in front of a monitor...Magic will happen. I couldn't disagree more. Computers themselves don't inspire students. A well planned, structured, and exciting lesson does.
There is no doubt that the more we understand about the way learners learn, the more effective our pedagogy will become, and in turn we will be able to help students learn to their full potential.
I agree with Mayer's statement that "The main idea is that more learning occurs when more channels are used for delivering the information." Using narrative, visual, and animations aid students in retention and making understandings/connections. However, we must be mindful, as to not over stimulate. Too many things presented simultaneously can distract students and they won't be able to make any connections or retain any information.
I do have a few criticisms. In some ways rote learning is made out to be "bad." Personally I was a rote learner. I could remember a formula or fact after just hearing it once. And I can see some of my students, not many, but a few learn best the same way. We have to be careful not to confine ourselves in classify they types of learner. Everyone learns differently. With that being the case, it is imperative that we address all types of learners in the classroom. Teachers need to mix up.
Another criticism is that all the evidence Mayer presents deals with either math or science. Take the formula and construct something. School is more than math and science. Evidence/examples in an English or Social Studies or Foreign Language class is needed for a stronger case.
Response to Oppenheimer's The Computer Delusion:
While computers aid in the educational process, they should not been seen as the savior of our schools. For nearly a hundred years, as long as public education has been a mass institution, schools functioned without computers in the classroom. And isn't funny how many people complain how schools are no longer doing their job; schools are no longer effective. And critics are saying that in the age of classroom computers. I think the quote from Wired magazine's interview with Steve Jobs sums it up nicely, "What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent...You're not going to solve the problems by putting all knowledge onto CD-ROMs. We can put a Web site in every school - none of this is bad. It's only bad if it lulls us into thinking we're doing something to solve the problems with education."
Unfortunatley some people are lulled into thinking we're doing something to solve the problems with education. When computers are placed into classrooms, parents and tax payers see their money at work. Their school district is making an effort and modernizing.
While it's acceptable and necessary to budget funds for computers and technology labs, other programs should not be cut in order to do this. There is more evidence of the positive impact that art, music, and sports/physical education classes have on student achievement. To cut those programs in order to by a 25 brand new Dell computers is ridiculous. We should not bring in more computers at the expense of other programs.
The reading also brings up issues about the priority of computers in terms of teaching skills. Is it the job of a public school to provide "real job training?" Well, at the high school level, the answer is probably yes. However the question then becomes, what skills should be taught? Students do not need to become experts in computer programming. They need basic skills. They need to know how to type efficiently (we don't need 90 words a minute) and should probably have a basic grasp of some Microsoft Office programs. Most companies have their own programs and software suited for their needs and provide training to new employees. All that is necessary, is a familiarity with computers.
The reading suggest that big business is a driving force behind the computer in every classroom craze. There is a modicum of truth to that belief. But the most frustrating part of that is the fact that within the profession of teaching, the professionals (teachers) have little say or control. Big business? What do they know about education? Why do they know what's best for a classroom? They don't. Teachers continue to lose power, authority, and decision-making ability within their profession. You don't really see this happening in other professions.
And lastly...One teacher was quoted as saying, "Every single child will do more work for you and do better work with a computer. Just because it's on a monitor, kids pay more attention. There's magic to the screen." Now, there is clearly a teacher who hasn't a clue. Hey, let's just throw a kid in front of a monitor...Magic will happen. I couldn't disagree more. Computers themselves don't inspire students. A well planned, structured, and exciting lesson does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
