I hope you enjoying the pouring rain on our campus now; it is strong but cooling down the hot weather. Reading this week's chapter and articles, under Dr. Beach's leading posting as well, I came up with the four questions:
1. First off, I would like to tackle the core questions:
what are similarities, differences, and challenges of TPACK, TPAK+, 21st
Century Literacy Learning, Open Learning, and IRT?
2. Consider the six social practices (BABR, p. 3). To what
extent, do the three teachers examples in Steckel et al. involve the six
practices? On the other hand, what do they miss among the six? If they missed
anything, how can we make up the missing parts?
3. In Debbie’s example (Johnson, p. 27), the use of souldcloud.com
seems beneficial for sharing individual and authentic feedback – which is a
form of formative assessment. However, this case does not mention any thought
about summative assessment aspects in the context. What pros and cons might be
there when using such technology application for summative assessment? This
might be a concern about the affordances concept as well. How can we deal with
this topic with the notion of affordances?
4. I am also very interested in your questions as well. Any other
questions are welcome as always. Thanks! J
John, TPACK is a whole lot to take in. I believe first and foremost, teachers have to have a technological pedagogy to successfully work within this or any framework. The TPACK framework says to begin with curriculum goals. What is the purpose of the lesson, and what would you like to see as the outcomes? The challenge becomes how to use the technology to further advance understanding and meaning to the lesson and the construct of knowledge. As said many times in our readings, technology should not be an “add-on”, but rather used to add a new perspective, give experiences with collaborating and sharing of ideas and perhaps different perspectives. I have always told young adults that people don’t often lose their jobs because they aren’t good at their job. They lose their jobs because they can’t work with other people in exchanging and valuing different insights and ideas.
ReplyDeleteWe are at a time in the 21st century where the exchange of information is global. Students must come out of schooling being able to communicate and think critically with different ideas and perspectives that are given from different cultures and ways of doing. Our students need to be able to have the experience to work with new literacies to discuss how they and others interpret these new ways of showing and comprehending information. Students in classrooms need the experience to discuss the best ways of communicating, designing, and interpreting sites, as well as multimodal representations to derive meaning. They need to know there is a clear purpose in communication whether in print or multi-modal. They need the awareness and practice to keep the goal in mind as they create or interpret information and knowledge from new literacies.
New literacies are a large component in how literacy has evolved. Questions such as, “What attributes are required to sustain the time to pursue answers or quest for knowledge amid all the information and multiple pathways one can take on their journey to access information for learning?” Our challenge is to make sure we have our pedagogy in tact to enable our students to think critically and experience collaboration in our classrooms using the new literacies so they will be prepared and successful for the challenges they will face upon graduating from the K-12 “factory”.
"I have always told young adults that people don’t often lose their jobs because they aren’t good at their job. They lose their jobs because they can’t work with other people in exchanging and valuing different insights and ideas." I absolutely love this, and it's so true in a technologically-oriented world, if not prior to that. With the amount of connectivity we have now, being able to collaborate and accept both criticism and others' ideas is the most important thing to keeping a job; and I really do think that this has a lot to do with setting a goal for the curriculum, in a modeling sense. By demonstrating goal-oriented behavior to young students, taking them through the steps of achieving that goal, and then evaluating their progress, students can learn to goal set for themselves.
DeleteAnyway, I really liked that sentiment you expressed and had to express my agreement and excitement to read it (especially since I never really thought about it that way before, so thanks!). I'll catch up on my BABR reading and check back here tomorrow for more inspiration.
Barbara, Jacqueline,
DeleteI also really like the phrase about the value of collaboration. I may use the phrase to my friends or mentees someday. I also like your another notion, Barbara, that the NL is a component of literacy evolution. :)
The "modeling" Jacqueline mentioned in this discussion had resonated with me regarding the IRT routine and its example narrated in Johnson book on the pages of 24-28. First, I'd like to clarify that my point here is based on the post-structuralism viewpoint. In IRT, theoretically, modeling of a NL tool and releasing the responsibility to students seems good, as it is a scaffolding process which may leads students to critical think not only about the comprehension strategies, but also about the tool as well. However, Debbie's example seems to focus somewhat only on "reproducing" NL tool users by teaching the students how to "use" the tool well only. In the example, the students did not "critically" question, locate, evaluate, and synthesize, but just follow what Debbie modeled - they read, replay, and reflect on the poem. Such activities, of course, successfully help the class achieve the course objectives; however, I want to point out that the students did not critically synthesize nor evaluate Debbie's modeling and the tool usage. Yes, the example is one of the best practices, indeed; however, what do they unconsciously miss by following such modeling-scaffolding approach? For example, was there any room for other suggestions that could be brought up by students - e.g., using another digital tool, or recording poems with classmates together line by line? Simply, I just wanted to critically think about the IRT's unforeseen pitfalls with critical eyes. Any thoughts? :)
So I am thinking about this through the eyes of a classroom teacher- a teacher of 7 & 8 year old kids for many, many years- and I keep coming back to the idea that there are content goals and process goals. Very, very rarely can you use the same assessment for both types of goals and get accurate information. I feel like her main objective with this activity was process related- she wanted her students to become familiar with Soundcloud, and her secondary objective was content related- to listen and respond to their own (and each other's) poetry read aloud. The formative assessment mentioned was in regards to the content objective only, which leads me to believe that at some point, in the future, the students will use this tool again. Perhaps this will be a similar content activity, or perhaps it will be used with completely unrelated content, but I would like to think that as students are revisiting this (Soundcloud) tool again, the expectation will be that they will begin to interact with it in different ways, eventually using it to address those higher levels of thinking.
DeleteHi Mackiley, I really like your idea about breaking down Debbie's objectives into two different concepts - process related and content-related. I wanted to add a simple thought here; it seems to me that the "content-related" objective was Debbie's "primary" objective. What I mean is that she wanted to find a tool that enables her students to read, re-record, and reflect on the poems by themselves - a key activity that she wanted to realize. For that reason, she found SoundCloud. So, I think the content goes first primarily and the tools support it; yes, even though those are subtly and closely intertwined. What do you think? :)
DeleteFrankly, I am a big fan of formative assessment; but still we need to deal with the summative assessment as well. I have used a similar digital tool like Debbie's for speaking assessment, which looks good for formative assessment purpose. However, the tool seems to have a limitation when it comes to summative assessment. I may show you the example and like to ask your advice in the next offline meeting. :)
I like your alternative ideas that the students might think about the tool for different purposes. I think at some point teachers should encourage students to critically yet creatively use the given tools for different purposes. This aspect should be a part of the whole curriculum, so that the classwork would help the students learn the Lew Literacies more authentically.
I absolutely see your view of the content being the primary objective, and believe that you could be right. However, without being able to see where this unit falls into the bigger picture of her curriculum and year, I don't think that either one of could state with absolution that we are correct. I think this is true regarding the assessment piece as well. Based on the definition, formative assessment is used to form a teachers action and instruction based on what the students are able to demonstrate at that time. It doesn't mean that a grade can't be associated with it, or credit given for the work already done. Likewise, a summative assessment, which gives a summary of what the student has been able to master (keyword). This can take place (possibly) at the end of a lesson, (most commonly) at the end of a unit, (sometimes, particularly in secondary classrooms and universities) at the end of a term, or (rarely, but not uncommon in elementary, particularly early childhood {pk-2} and in classrooms/schools that use a spiraling curriculum) after a significant period of time (months or even the span of a year). Unfortunately many teachers take a student's summative assessment and call it done, rather than revisiting, remediating, and/or reteaching until the student is able to demonstrate mastery on another summative assessment (whole other topic for a whole other day).
DeleteSorry, I promise to get off of my soapbox. ;)
I'm not sure that we are even truly thinking about the same thing, but the reason I just got all sudsy on you (on my box of soap) is because it is not unusual for a 2nd grade teacher to collect "formative data" on a student's performance within a particular objective for the entire year, especially with something like this particular skill that will likely be revisited over and over again throughout the Literacy curriculum used in her school.
John, I reread the pages you referenced after reading your last post. The way I look at it from what is written, is Debbie is having her lessons guided by the Common Core State Standards (RL) 2.4 which encompasses poetry and its connections to rhymes repeated lines, appropriate tone, inflection, and phrasing. I interpreted Debbie's decision to use SoundCloud to enhance how she would teach this lesson, being cognizant to embed technology into her instruction (although she states she was happy with what she did involving the students to talk, listen, and read aloud poems prior to using SoundCloud). By identifying the curriculum goals along with her instructional strategies, she was ensuring student success in understanding tone, inflection, and phrasing by extending her lesson in a manner where technology enhanced her curriculum goals. Students did need to evaluate and monitor their reading on SoundCloud, use metacognitive processes to reflect on their work, and work collaboratively to gain understandings by reflecting and sharing their work and readings. All of these activities fit within the TPACK frameworks, CCSS, and preparing the kiddos for the skills they need for their future. It may appear not overly "meta", but the tool matched the goal perfectly, and by embedding technology and doing the research to find the best tool to meet her objectives, she is on her way to becoming an instructional designer within a digital environment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks Barbara. Yes, I totally agree with you; Debbie's example is one of the best practices. My point here is, however, not just about her example, but more about the IRT itself. With the viewpoint of post-structuralism, IRT seems to more focus on the "reproducing (Bruner)" aspect than empowering aspect, because of its scaffolding and releasing responsibility approach. To me, it looks somewhat static. I could be wrong though. What do you think? :)
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you would choose to use the word static to describe the IRT. I think that if you view the release of responsibility in relation to Bloom's Taxonomy, you see a direct relationship between Phases 2 & 3 of the IRT and the Creating, Analyzing, and Evaluating levels of thinking.
DeleteJohn, I think the empowering aspect of IRT revolves around strategies of questioning, locating, evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating (Johnson, p. 25). Reciprocal teaching whether it be in the form of dialogue between the teach and student centered around printed text, or instruction of online reading, both are empowering in that the student takes on an active role of using the strategies---not necessarily modeling the strategies to reiterate information, but using metacognition to derive at questions and communication skills to assume a more active role in meaning making so they can assume the role previously required by the teacher. The teacher modeling is to provide knowledge of the strategies, but the empowering agent is when the student takes the baton and uses those skills to ask questions and go meta in their "teaching". Am I explaining my interpretation any better?
ReplyDeleteAs I was thinking about Bloom's, TPACK, IRT, & the 21st Century Literacy Framework, I was reminded of the graphic found at http://bit.ly/1FAEAfx and another one at http://bit.ly/1M0PboJ
ReplyDeleteIs it safe to assume that you folks have seen these and/or are familiar with them? What are your thoughts on them? Do you feel that they would be of assistance in leading teachers to a TPACK+, or be more likely to lead teachers towards a less artful integration or even misalignment of technology with content?
(I'm sorry I haven't commented so much this time, but I don't know that I have anything to contribute yet.. The reading was heavy with terminology, so I'm still trying to process it all. Reading your comments has helped me though. It's the thinking in acronyms that's been rough, lol.)
ReplyDeleteThey say that the only field that has more acronyms than education is the military. ;) I feel your pain!
DeleteThanks for the discussion on how static or dynamic the IRT lesson model is. I think all of you have good points, and John's point about the reproduction aspects of the model lesson is important. Process and content are important but remember also that the gradual release or responsibility model is not about having students do what the teacher did exactly but supporting their appropriation of the learning, and indeed, transforming it. That means using the tool in new and different ways as well as in a similar way as was modeled.
Delete