In reading the Johnson chapter this week I was immediately
pulled into the chapter as it began by discussing the significance of teacher
talk and building classroom community. In my job I travel around the district
and visit many schools. It is no secret that our district is plagued by
discipline and behavior issues, however I have noticed that many of the worst
issues arise in classrooms where the teacher has been unable to build a
community of respect. These same teachers can often be heard using sarcastic,
mean, and demeaning language, and frequently yelling at their students. Now I
do not think that everything will be fine and dandy and there will never be any
problems if a teacher builds a positive community, but there is strong evidence
to point to a significantly less amount of behavior issues when students feel
invested in the class, the work, and the teacher.
The activities that Johnson suggests to build classroom
community are interesting, and I appreciate her breaking them down
step-by-step. By doing this she makes it easy to understand for someone who has
never worked with the programs before, and she is modeling effective
instruction. I was able to make the connection between what I have always done
at the beginning of the year (a powerpoint to introduce myself & a mystery
bag activity for my students to introduce and share information about
themselves) and how these activities can be transformed using web tools. I
really like the use of feedback and collaboration within the activities, which
beat the heck out of the post-it notes my kiddos would write questions on for
their classmates.
The chapter out of the BABR was also very interesting. Right
off the bat I felt a little lost again as they referred to virtual environments,
of which I have absolutely no clue or understanding of what those are or how
they work. (Jacqueline your expertise would be much appreciated here! Lol) I
have never so much as played a game on the PS3 or X-Box. Playing Super Mario
Party (don’t judge!) on the Wii with my kids is about as fancy as I have gotten
when it comes to any sort of online or computer gaming.
As the chapter shifted focus and began sharing the benefits
of digital discussions, I was excited to see the reference to constructivist
theory, which is where my personal teaching philosophy lies. If you’re not
familiar with this theory, a very brief explanation is that people build their
personal understanding and knowledge based on experiences, both past and
present. This method of learning involves exploration, questioning, and problem
solving, which transfers to a very active classroom, in which students become “experts”
and the teacher acts as a facilitator of learning. I’m not sure why it took me
so long to make the connection to new literacies, perhaps because this topic is
so new to me, but I now see the relationship and it is beginning to make more
sense to me.
I think the most beneficial part of the BABR text for me is
the plethora of resources given in each chapter. For someone who has had
minimal exposure to such a wide variety of Web 2.0 tools, the extensive list of
websites and apps is very beneficial, particularly when their purpose,
location, and strengths and/or limits are provided. The Digital Discussions
article this week provided so much good information and was written in a very
easy to understand format. I think it would be an excellent article to share
with classroom teachers who are not currently utilizing new literacies with
their students. The White article was also fantastic. I loved how in depth it
went with explaining how the research study and instructional unit were planned
and executed, as well as what worked really well and what presented challenges.
By seeing the examples and applications presented in this
week’s reading, my understanding of the TPACK model has deepened and I am
feeling slightly more confident in my understanding of how Web 2.0 tools and
technology can be utilized to facilitate and deepen understanding of both
content and technology. In all honesty, I have just been absorbing so much new
information that I am not sure what questions I have at this point, or perhaps
better stated as I don’t know what I don’t know!
What I would like to know from my group is how you see the
information (presented in class and readings thus far) impacting you as an
educator and writer, specifically with regards to your particular area of focus
in your degree program. I’d also be interested in knowing how you would respond
to the student survey (Figure 6.1) located on p.132 in BABR and if you feel
like your answers now would be different from 5 weeks ago. Finally, I’d be
interested in your thoughts regarding the research presented regarding the
relationship between “textspeak”, writing, language, and reading (on the bottom
of p.120- 3rd paragraph on p.121 in BABR). Did any of the
information surprise you? If so, how? If not, why?
Mackinley, I have two areas of interest in regard to my doctoral studies. One is critical literacy, and the other is new literacies. How these two will tie together for a research question and methodology is still on the table, but I’m creating a foundation that will lead to more questions, and eventually a burning question to pursue. The readings and classes I have taken over the past year has enlightened me to deeply reflect on my own pedagogy and what it means to be an educator in the 21st century. It is really been through my education here at OU that I’ve come to see technology, the Internet, and new literacies as vital components of literacy, where they should be consciously and appropriately embedded into all content areas. Prior to attending OU, I was using technology as an add-on. I’ve come to understand that literacy is a representation of culture and social practices, and as cultures change and evolve, so do our literary practices.
ReplyDeleteWhat has been so astonishing is the speed and constant changes of how one uses new technologies and the Internet to gain information and knowledge. It appears students are surpassing many teachers in their abilities to create and use digital tools and environments to engage in collaborate projects, blogs, and communities where communication is being promoted more outside the classroom than inside the classroom.
My epiphany, if you will, is the realization that students require skills, abilities, and dispositions that are unlike those that were required just a couple of decades ago. My research interests dove tail between ensuring that students receive the digital literacy instruction and preparation that they require, but also receive the guidance and authentic experiences to engage in digital environments. I believe it is vital that students explore and inquire about what it means to communicate and be an active participate as a mindful citizen outside of school. Embedding technology that will enhance a student’s ability to demonstrate critical thinking, be cognizant of bias, and make reasonable judgments when problem solving, are all goals educators should be sprinting to achieve. Collaboration and one’s ability to convey their thinking from listening and evaluating different perspectives (most likely from a variety of cultures) seems to be a main target for students now living in a globally connected world.
What do you all think about embedding mindfulness into student literacy programs to be active participants in their communities? What skills should a teacher include to ensure students are prepared for the digital environments they will encounter outside of school?
Barbara, the skills teachers should include to ensure students for the digital environments are, I believe, the skills and knowledge of communicating, collaborating, and comprehending for the knowledge building processes in digital ways. As we discussed and the readings say, the purpose of teaching NL/nl is not letting our students know the humongous list of apps nor how to use the apps just as how teachers model. Rather, we want our students to freely "play with" the tools in accordance with the social needs, their academic purposes, professional goals, and ultimately for identity and meaning constructing processes. The reason could be simple; this is because the digital environment is what we are living with now. Back in 1950s, if a person did not know how to read, the person was not able to communicate well in the society, e.g., he/she could not pay the bills or he/she could not go to a meeting when the meeting info was delivered by mail. The mailing was a prominent communicating tool. Likewise, people recently share information/knowledge using the digital tools more increasingly. For example, a few years ago, the UN monthly meeting minutes were only shared by the UN app through the Apple and Android market. Market? Where is the market? If your students have no ideas about the mobile device-app market relation, he or she should be left behind. Also, for an extreme example, if a student has no email, and if the school sends out score report cards via emailing, the student is also behind the scene. I feel sorry for making this discussion to go somewhat too conceptual; however, the two cases mentioned above could be an example of "21st century illiterate." So, I think that teachers should include fundamental skills of using Web 2.0 technologies as well as the mobile technologies in terms of how we communicate, collaborate, and make senses with each other in this digitally enriched era. To be honest, however, I am also a bit confused about this dilemma; so, is it a computer class? or a literacy class? I want to say that ours is the latter, because we embed and utilize the technology components in the new literacy class; apparently we don't teach how to program Java for example. But, still I heard that quite remarkable amount of students complain for that: the Technology class vs. English class debate. Have you heard of any of these concerns? Or, any other ideas or thoughts? :)
DeleteBarbara, you pose a really good question, and I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. While I completely agree with you and John, the idea of students utilizing technology in the classroom and at home, is so far from reality in many of our schools. For example, in many classrooms in OKCPS) the largest district in OK, serving 40,000+ kiddos, there is not a single computer. In schools of 1,200+ students, there is ONE computer lab with ~30 computers, 4-5 of which won't work on a regular basis. With all of the CBT now, teachers can schedule at most 40 minutes in the computer lab per week, 3 weeks a month, at best. There may also be a laptop cart with 30 Dell laptops, most of which will turn on but not be reliable. Every teacher is provided with a Dell Laptop of their own, which are in excellent condition and maintained by IT. However, no personal devices (iPads, Kindles, iPhones, etc) can access the already frail and extremely slow wifi. Even if a teacher writes a grant (or purchases, like I did) for a set of iPads for their students, the district will not allow them to connect.
DeleteOn the home end, last year in a class of 25 kids, about 1/3 of their parents had working phone numbers and less than 1/8 of them had internet access at home. Many of the kids who have "free phones" can call and text, but that's it.
So, while I completely agree with you, I wonder how we level the playing field a bit, or how we support those teachers who desperately want to prepare their students, compared to Mustang that has a BYOD policy in place. I know there are no easy answers, and I don't think these should be used as excuses, but this is definitely the reality for the 2000+ teachers in OKCPS.
MacKinley, I really like your comment: “I don’t know what I don’t know.” That’s exactly how I feel when it comes to my possible research topic for dissertation. As for the first question you posted, the readings and discussions so far have meaningfully impacted how I approach and integrate Web 2.0 technology in my classroom. I have used a Web 2.0 tool, VoiceThread, for my speaking and listening class as well as a poetry class by, I believe, integrating (not adding-on) the tool in the meaning making process. However, I think I need to confess that I had an adding-on approach sometimes, especially when it seems like that I have to spend a lot of time to follow up my students’ work. For example, approximately 30 students record their verbal answers for open-ended questions every weekend, which is nice because it gives them more opportunities to “speak out” the target language meaningfully. However, at the same time, you want to remember that you have 60 ish recordings to grade, give feedback on, and reflect on your teaching and their achievements. I loved the job, giving them authentic feedback using another digital tool; however, the time-consuming aspect has led me to think - “Do I do too much?” With that in mind, the way I applied the tools sometimes seem “adding-on” more than “integrating.” One of my goals for this course is to tackle my current limitations to better utilize the tools for my students to develop the new literacy skills, which eventually help them possess critical thinking that empowers them.
ReplyDelete
DeleteAdditionally, the readings and discussions so far have impacted me to think outside the box in terms of my pedagogy as well as my area of focus in my degree program. My research interests are computer application for language learning, second language (L2) assessment, and curriculum development. For this topic, I think that this course has given me a new thought about “NL/nl” when I justify why technology is needed in L2 education. Also, discussions about TPACK, TPACK+, and TIPC have provided me with more systematic ways regarding what tools to use, how to incorporate them, and many more relevant concerns to consider when introducing a digital tool into pedagogy. Honestly, however, I still like to critique the IRT, because of the “modeling and reproducing” type of approach I mentioned the other day. I want my students, in the end, to get out of the “box” that teachers (un)intentionally made by modeling. In my experiences of using VoiceThread, I have stopped modeling how to get to know and use the tool step by step; I did the modeling for my first group by saying, “Click here and there” and showing the details. However, at some point, I realized that that kind of super specific modeling could be waste of time, because I believe that my students have grown up with Web 2.0 tech. So, I ended up giving them just a link of VoiceThread project, and give them a clue saying, “Do you know how to use email? Then, you are ready. This is much easier than using Gmail; just get the account and reach this link and answer the questions there.” Of course, I showed them how the project looks like, but not with step-by-step instructions to get there. Almost 90% of them successfully got to know the inside and out of the tool by themselves; some searched YouTube videos, some asked their classmates’ help. The 10% asked my help; I guided them to their tech-savvy classmates - following the learner community notion. I think the modeling phase of IRT can be constructively tackled in this way.
For now, regarding my degree program, I’d like to incorporate the significance of NL/nl for my dissertation topic. I am recently interested in how Web 2.0 technology affect learner identity and cognition; and I believe that the insights from this course will contribute to my literature review and justification for the topic.
Barbara, I really like your point that literacy is evolving as our society is evolving. I strongly agree with you, so that we want to incorporate the new literacies in our classroom now. At this point, I am thinking about how “Web 3.0” would look like…we’ll see. ☺
So, this is my first input for the first topic MacKinely posted; I will read more and come back to you all for more discussion. A quick question based on my comment though is that; have you ever experienced any issues or interesting indications while you model any tools as I mentioned? What do you think about my critique for the IRT approach? Any thoughts about the modeling phrase or other aspects would be appreciated. Lastly, yes, we want to remember that our topic for this week is the 3Cs, not IRT, so, any brief input for this comment will be greatly appreciated. Let’s tackle 3Cs more together. Thanks! ☺
John I think you are absolutely right when it comes to not needing to model as much for your students, as (if I'm correct) most of them are adult learners. However, when working and teaching elementary age students, it's a whole different ball game. Developmentally they are concrete thinkers and need concrete instruction, then be guided to more abstract and independent tasks. Yes, they may be able to navigate a program better than me, but if I want them to evaluate and analyze content with that program, I had better be pretty clear with my expectations and given them at least one, if not several examples, as to what their outcome could look like (but not limited to) and must include, or I am likely going to end up in a world of disassociated products that are technologically amazing but contain no reflection of the necessary content.
DeleteJohn, I am giving a short response to your question about modeling. One of the challenges of being a teacher is knowing when to continue modeling and when you know it's time to release responsibility. With some situations and students it is clear, but with others (especially younger students) their lack of confidence and experience can make it difficult to judge. Modeling is tied to the context of the situation—you have to model math, you have to model strategies, and in many cases, your guidance and modeling can sometimes get blurry. Working with students online and introducing online technology tools is a bit of a different situation—should the release of modeling be about the step-by-step implementation of the tool, or should the modeling, instruction, or guidance be about the expectation of the tool, and what learning can be attained from using the tool.
ReplyDeleteFor me, as I’ve been in recent classes where knowledge needed to be constructed with others in a collaborative setting (both in class and online), many of my experiences have led me to realize that people need guidance and instruction on what it means to be a collaborator and critical thinker to achieve intersubjectivity. My experiences with adults of all ages in various situations where a collaboration of ideas are meant to be shared, discussed, and evaluated, is one where there seems to be a lack of the most fundamental communication skills. John, I believe I understand what you are saying about releasing the responsibility of implementing a technical tool, such as, Voice Thread, and I’m sure most are reasonably intelligent people who can figure it out, or find the resources to implement the tool, but where I think guidance is important, is in regard to the intended goal of the tool, and what the expectation for learning and knowledge is hoped to be using that tool. I’m not saying this information should be fed to them, but with the instructional skills of inquiry, I think asking the important questions to ponder is where the excellence is seen by the facilitator/teacher.
Teachers are in the communication and collaboration business, but sadly, some don’t collaborate (share ideas, build on other’s ideas), communicate, or listen to other perspectives without feeling they are being judged, threatened, or in some way being measured. In past classes, I’ve had adults interrupt, talk over other’s interpretations, fire back with conflicting opinions, engage in positional arguing, and never acknowledge another opinion or hope of understanding other viewpoints. My point is, communication is the KEY to collaboration. I would say that many excellent communicators are critical thinkers; they mindfully listen, reason, evaluate, and synthesize viewpoints and information. They have the ability to make people feel they have been heard, not attacked or confronted, but heard. For me, this is the direction for our 21st century students; having the ability to collaborate well because they have learned and practiced HOW to evaluate different perspectives with a critical mind. Classrooms that embed the sources of online communication as landscapes of practice for life after school, are the classrooms that truly have their focus on the skills, abilities, and dispositions that are required for the future. Communication is and will continue to be rewritten—our students MUST know how to write and communicate on-line (understanding purpose, intention, voice, and protocol) and what communications should be conducted online or via another mode. The marketplace demands these skills and dispositions now. Do you see classrooms that embed critical thinking with the implementation of technology? Do you see, or have you experienced classrooms that have given guidance in creating frameworks for collaboration with purposeful intentions that foster the foundations of critical thinking? Do you think guidance in this arena is important? If so, why?
Those same communication skills are necessary (and typically absent) online as well. There’s such a community of anonymity online, so some people are able to open up and share their opinions more, but some take that too far (i.e., “Beware the trolls.”) and like to bait people into an argument. Many people take as fact headlines that are meant to be misleading. There is a whole other language online, as well, that I’m not sure educators are very aware of (bae, “netflix and chill,” and the myriad acronyms that are stand-in words of their own now). As much as I cringe when someone uses any of them (especially the adjectives) it’s the evolution of our language at the moment, and I kind of wonder if we as adults are truly able to pass on the correct critical skills to navigate new literacy without being fully involved ourselves.
DeleteOn the other end of the spectrum (and I think I may have mentioned this before) some of our kids are learning how to read even more critically than their teachers, acting upon the understanding that “the cake is a lie” (throwing in some more jargon for you) and fully vetting everything--and everything should be fully vetted because it’s all lies online. Because of that, I think many students are actually leagues ahead of their teachers on translating online information and understanding that even the factiest of facts are still only opinions with "proof." I bet that skepticism translates into the classroom too, though. Has it?
As far as gaming goes, we don’t really type to one another as much anymore. It’s all headsets using true voices and digital manifestations of our imaginations online to communicate. It’s communication through avatars, really, or then there are people like putie pie (I hope I spelled that wrong, because I have no respect for that person), who hover in the corner of a static video to comment on a pre-recorded game in the most frenetic way possible. Technology has allowed gamers to become commentators, though, and has allowed gaming to be a spectator sport (see: Twitch). DnD families are playing together regardless of location, thanks to things like Twitch and Skype, or become imagination manifested, thanks to things like ESO or WoW (which are MMORPGS, massively multiplayer online role playing games). Aaaaand Mario Party is still being made, and I bet that can be played online as well. We even have a Mario creator now that allows players to create a level to challenge others with). These kids are growing up as part of a collaborative culture, and I’m sure that I could learn something from them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the questionnaire went, I actually haven't discussed a whole lot online, though I think I may be taking a Skype-facilitated class later this semester. I've only communicated through them with friends and family. I use G-docs all the time for work, all of my works, and usually a chat service of some kind (this year's craze is Slack, though I've used Google Hangouts and Group Me before). I'm old fashioned though and I prefer communicating in the comments of things, like this. I'm an introvert, so here, I get to rethink what I'm going to say before I blurt something silly out, and if I'm afraid of someone attacking me about my opinion afterward, I don't have to read it. I like being able to leave it and pretend it never happened; that it's just lost in the jumble of other meaningless online things.
I totally agree that discussion boards even the playing field for students like me (BABR), who aren't fast types and who aren't necessarily extroverted, well-adjusted, or familiar with technology.
I'm going to read back through everyones posts to see if there's anything I missed.
Oh my gosh Jacqueline!! I'm not sure I know what you are talking about--haha. I don't even want to say haha, because I'll be laughed at for using an out-of-date term! I've never even heard of Twitch, Slack, ESO, WoW---I asked my 22 year old sitting next to me what "bae" and "netflix and chill" meant---I was informed. There is a conversation and meaning making process out there I'm not even aware of. I'm looking at this new language and means of communication between adolescents and young adults with a lens that needs to be adjusted. The cultural divide between generations looks like it has become so large---I wonder if the cultural and language divide is clearly apparent between each different group that communicates online. I mean, is the culture and language of gamers, bloggers, and others that use online sources to communicate similar? What is the criteria for the differences? Age? Interest? Experience in tech talk? All of it?
ReplyDeleteHi Barbar and Jacqueline, because I only have a 2 year-old boy who cannot talk yet, I searched what "bae" means; the urban dictionary gave me the answer - what an interesting meaning, haha. For your question, Barbara, I think that there is a common aspect underlying in that people "coin" new words. That aspect could be "situatedness (Paul J. Gee)” because people make a new term, or come up with a new words to refer to new concepts through their needs, consensus, and their own identity issues to some extent. The term BOGO can be another example. I have had absolutely no idea about what BOGO means before coming in the US, actually my wife grabbed the meaning way before me. So, a group of people, in a particular interest (shopping experts in the BOGO example), tend to coin a new term in order to efficiently communicate and make meaning. They use the environmental components in their social situation regardless of that whether the resources are from the web or physical world. So, the technology or online source seems just a different kind of the components I think.
DeleteWhat’s more interesting about this phenomenon is the fact that this type of words tend to be gone away pretty quickly (e.g., myspace) as our society constantly evolves. With that in mind, what’s more significant from this discussion, would be the significance of it. I think we need to teach this social phenomenon to our students. They need to know that they are one of the subjects who can make the meaning in the society. Yes, this is somewhat related to the intersubjectivity, post-structuralism, communication, and collaboration as well. What do you hunk? Would it be redundant? If not, how can we teach this phenomenon either using technological or traditional methods? Has anyone of you had any experiences dealing with this aspect when planning a class or writing a journal? Thanks! :)
Ouch... I'm feeling really old, and really disconnected at the moment. I did recognize WOW, which my former roommate used to play. I don't know much about the game, but I do know he'd be playing with it turned up really, really loudly in his room and be screaming into his headset and cursing up a storm at the people he was playing with (or against?). So, not exactly a positive experience on my end. lol
DeleteJohn I've never really thought about new words as being a positive impact on society by sub-groups. It is an interesting thought, and I agree that providing students with the idea that what they have to say is important, and is valued, and that it can (actually) change the world, is a super important message. However, along with that message needs to come the message of responsibility. Indeed we are talking about life changing power, so they must also clearly understand the implications of digital citizenship as well.
Back to MacKinely’s questions, I want to talk about the “textspeak” research (BABR). First off, the study as a whole was honestly not that surprising to me, because I have encountered many students who use the emoticons or metamarkings even for their academic writing assignments from time to time. I believe it is a “trend” in this time of history - even my mother likes to use those textspeaks when we communicate by using a chatting app. One interesting thing the study suggested was the idea of using “texting” as a community building tool and the idea’s background theoretical pieces; because I have never thought about it in that way. Oh, actually, I have created a group discussion window for my Korean learning students, both heritage learners in the US and Japanese adult learners living in Japan, by using a chatting app called KakaoTalk and Line (a sort of Korean and Japanese version of Whatsapp), but not yet for my CESL students. We communicate using the apps for announcements, any sudden changes, or sharing stories and pictures. However, I have not intentionally used the tools to foster community building and knowledge constructing purposes yet. Yes, still, the students reflect on their language knowledge while typing and revising, which could makes “texting" another multimodal method. So, I may want to integrate texting tools for those reasons later.
ReplyDeleteWhat really captures my eyes in the section was how teachers can incorporate the “textspeak” aspect into academic learning materials. Given the fact that students use emoticons for essay writing, it is a very good teachable moment for “discourse/genre analysis” concept. “They may note differences in their use of “textspeak” related to abbreviations, acronyms, emoticons, alternative spellings, syntax, and……versus their formal written language…(BABR, p. 122)” Therefore, using texting (even Facebook writing) can be a good source to broaden our students' eyes for that aspect.
Additionally, the negative correlation between students' use of texting and inability to correct their writing was very thought-provoking indeed (p. 121). However, still I think we can use this factor beneficially for our classes. We may want to consider this type of “differences” among the genres (texting, blogging, and making captions at VoiceThread), when we plan classes, because which occurs based upon the characteristics of each discourse - audience, context, and purpose. Students can communicate, collaborate, and eventually comprehend the knowledge behind the activities simultaneously. Am I too supportive to this idea maybe? Any other thoughts will be greatly welcome! :)
I was left with some additional questions after reading the research presented, and I was surprised to see it. I'd like to read additional studies to see how balanced the information presented truly is. The reason I am a little skeptical is because this is totally different from what I am seeing, and many of my colleagues are seeing, in the elementary classroom. It makes me wonder if the group studied received enough spelling, grammar, and writing instruction to lay a solid foundation so that they can flip back and forth as needed (like you and I), compared to current Kindergarten, First, Second, and Third graders, who are really lacking in foundational skills for reading and writing (and speaking), regardless of the language. These same kids are the ones that can out perform me on any given game on any tablet device, but they can't read the instructions on how to play, or write instructions to help a friend learn how to play. They didn't learn by reading, they learned by trial and error while playing the game. Same thing with many of the apps they know how to use.
DeleteAnd just for the record, I truly don't mean to sound like I disagree with everything we have read about thus far, as I am truly fascinated. However, I am also struggling to see the reality for so much of this as far as how it relates to my kids, my teachers, and my schools.
Hey team! Sorry it took me so long to get back to each of you. We are having some work done on the house (finally settled with the insurance company after the storms in May) and one of the workers cut the fiber optic cable that provides our internet! I have been completely technology free for 3 nights! Crazy!!! Anyways, AT&T came today and fixed it about 8pm, so I'm baaaaaaaaaaack! ;)
ReplyDelete