End+of+Semester+Project

=﻿One more thing, I remembered after we talked on 11/21, we need to come up with a list of resources (online learning communities, blogs, books) that will take our learning beyond this class. So, if you know of some good resources, pls put them on this wiki. I'll make a new page, called "End of Semester Project Resources" for that purpose. :) = =Pls post comments to your selected question regarding our book study. =

=** This book predicts/hopes that technology would improve teaching by... Byron **= Seymour ﻿Papert, in The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, has visions for technology and how it can transform and save education. His views take both a macro approach and a micro view. On the macro level, Papert sees the school system circa 1993 (and probably largely still true today) as being dysfunctional. Learning is all compartmentalized and the creative powers of technology have been subverted by making "technology" a department among many. At its worst, education is a technical process of knowledge-for-knowledge-sake that is boring and does little more than prepare students to be cogs in the economic environment.

Papert would like to see schools as smaller environments ("little schools") where technology is abundant and plays a key role in helping students explore their passions. He believes that schools only work when there is a "shared vision" and when students believe that attending school will lead toward future success. Papert is a big believer in project based learning, especially when students are take part in the design of their education (as opposed to being told what they "must" study). He envisions education where students have the time to think about and process through conversation what it is they are doing. Papert feels that using technology helps make education more interdisciplinary and therefore more interesting, real, valid, etc...

I think Papert would envision education like the video from an Oceanside High School art class. Here is the link...[]

=** This prediction/hope has fallen short because... Melissa **= Papert likes the concept of collaboration projects. He feels that by giving the tools to the students, they will explore and discover to find meaning in their learning. It seems that projects of exploration need a lot of direction and a lot more time to implement than we, as educators, seem to have within the school day/year. Educators that are using project based learning may not be giving the freedom intended in Papert’s thoughts to make their learning more meaningful. Papert likes the idea of thematic units and making a unit fluid through all subject areas. In our system today, many students travel to many teachers for many different classes leaving the student to compartmentalize their learning. Compartmentalizing leads to a lack of exploration, discovery and use of students’ metacognition. Most every school has a computer lab and computer classes. Papert says that computers should be a tool to use and explore to expand and discover knowledge. Computer should not be another class. Papert would be disappointed to know we are teaching the students how to use and what to do with this learning tool. The less you teach and the more the students discover and explore, the more they will take away from the experience. This book gives some great ideas, but doesn’t help educators figure out how to best put these ideas into practice. Twenty years later we have more technological capabilities yet our abilities to use technology in education is still altogether fallen short of the expectations of Papert and society. = Even though this book was written 20+ years ago, its application in this chapter relates to today by... Trista = Sadly, what Papert saw in the classrooms of his time is what he would still see in today’s classrooms. It is still drill and kill and applying building blocks of knowledge one brick at a time only there are more bricks to learn. His book champions computers as a means to accomplish a different way of conducting class. He wanted computers to be a mediator between children and their ideas. In today’s classroom, we have not moved beyond paper and pencils as the mediators and medium for the students’ ideas, for the most part. The call for schooling to change has been shouted for numerous years, yet little change has occurred on how a classroom is conducted. Computers are still viewed as a way to improve schooling but why has it not happened? Computers have dramatically changed workplaces and social habits. So why is the classroom outside of this change? Perhaps it lies in the isolating nature of teaching. Our teaching is contained within the walls of our classrooms. Web 3.0 tools can help contribute and connect to others outside of the walls but it has not happened much in the classroom.

= This chapter ties into the TPCK model by... Carol = SIMILAR TO TPCK: The only similarities between Papert and the TPCK model is that they are both theoretical views on how to approach education. I just think Papert seems quite displeased with the current model.

DIFFERENT: Papert does not seek to offer a model that addresses all areas of the TPCK model -- he is simply talking about a shift in our thinking about teaching in general. I think he is interested in thinking outside the box and that looking at how best to combine technology, pedagogy, and content would not interest him. Papert feels the current system is so poorly set up that he would want to work on developing a very different kind of theory of learning. Due to Papert disliking curriculum and confining students to a certain way to learn and think, I don’t think he would like the combination of pedagogy, technology, and content. If there was a model that included technology into the classroom and into the way things are presented and taught, I think he would enjoy that. He wouldn’t care for the traditional educational part of the model. It’s specifically the P in TPCK he has issue with -- the pedagogy. It’s the process of teaching he doesn’t like. Papert states, “…If we are to have new forms of learning, we need a very different kind of theory of learning.”

Papert seems to be a bit heavy on the technology portion, assuming that kids will choose items of interest that contain content knowledge. He couldn't have possibly imagined the wide range of activities available on the internet today. In the most basic terms... if you handed a teenager a computer and said, "do what you want", they'd be on Facebook all day. I do believe that there's much learning to take place via social networking (we do a lot of it in this very class!) but I believe for K-12 students, the content knowledge needs to come from standards (or some other guideline) and the pedagogy comes into play when we carry out the teaching and provide guidelines for learning. Left to their own devices, I do believe many children will thrive. But what about the ones who don't?

Papert would argue with the TPCK approach. I don't think Papert wants technology to become co-opted by a traditional academic approach. Papert is more interested in rethinking how we can use technology to reconfigure education so that it is more student centered and less one-size-fits-all.

=Overall, my take-away from this book, and our group, and the class in general as to how to implement technology in the classroom is... (ALL):=

As a technology teacher, I probably have technology implemented into my classroom the most. However, I don't believe the way it is being done at my school is the most effective way for the students, but I have no other options due to our school's hardware limitations and schedule. After taking this class and looking at all of the technology tools and tricks out there, reading Papert's book and collaborating with all of the students in this class, I have come up with some ideas on how to reform our school's technology program, which I will hopefully be implementing next school year (depending on how many decision makers I can get on board with me!)

Currently, K-8 students come to my class (computer lab) one time per week for a technology class (35-45 min depending on grade level). Our K-5 students come to the computer lab one additional time per week for Spanish Language Lab. During their technology class, students are taught keyboarding, how to use Microsoft Office, Web 2.0 tools and internet safety. Their classroom teacher does not stay -- that is the teacher's prep. I try as much as I can to tie their current classroom curriculum into their technology class lessons. During their Spanish Language Lab time, I team teach with our Spanish teachers, so the Spanish curriculum is tied in every single time. During this time, we allow the students to "play" with the language and the technology. They are provided with microphones, headphones, internet access and Microsoft Office software. We have a guided portion of the lesson and a free time portion. I think this model is something that Paper would probably agree with because the students are given ample time to play and explore. I must admit, as much as I did not enjoy Papert's book, the time is well spent and the learning goes deep.

For next school year, I'd like to do things in reverse -- get technology into the curriculum rather than curriculum into the technology. I think the way to do this is to get the mobile laptop labs (we have 2) into the classrooms and run the classes alongside the classroom teachers. I think it will be important to continue with the Spanish Langague Lab or at least provide our Spanish teachers with a laptop lab once a week. The most common reason I hear from teachers that don't want to use the laptop labs is that it takes too long to set up and there are always technical problems. I currently teach 7 classes a day, so I cannot be anywhere else except in my classroom. If I am taken off the student schedule and have a schedule where I'm in the classrooms, I think this will be more effective. That way, I can schedule the labs rather than the students. This will allow me to be in multiple locations over a short period of time. I can be there to set up a lab, get the students going with the technology portion and then the classroom teacher can take over -- I then move on to another classroom. In this way, I believe the important piece will be the content and the technology will be used as a tool in order to facilitate the learning of the content. I should be acting as more of a technology integration specialist rather than a "technology teacher". It might also be valuable to allow students access (depending on the schule) to the computer lab 1x week in order to play and explore as Papert has suggested in his book.

For this school year, the big change I plan to make for next trimester is to incorporate the class structure like we have in this class -- a thinking about technology portion, a blogging portion and a tool task portion. The New York Times has a "lesson a day" feature that has many technology lessons -- lessons such as "what do you think about alternative fuel sources" which allow the students to research, collaborate and reflect on their ideas. This would be a great way to implement the thinking and blogging portion. I then have unlimited ideas for showing students tech tools -- rather than having them share their final work with me and grading them on what I think they should create, I will grade them on their responses -- I would much rather read their thoughts on the tool rather than grading the product of the tool itself. So, from this course itself, this is my biggest take-away.