https://getkahoot.com/
Kahoot is an online interactive program, which allows users to create quizzes which can be accessed by a varied audience through an internet connection. Questions are generated by the user, with multiple choice or open form answers being options for completion. Once the quiz has been completed, Kahoot will generate a random game number, and participants can access that unique game by inputting the pin on their computer or mobile device. Points are given for the quickest correct answers, with incorrect answers getting no points. Participants can enter names, and their points are tallied and tracked after each question round. At the end of the game, a winner is shown with the highest accumulated points from all of the questions. The interface and design style is simple, clean and vibrant, creating an almost game show feeling for the players.
Strengths: The easily modified framework of Kahoot, from the ability to design the number of questions, level, content, and type of answers, allows for a great deal of customization within the quiz. Questions can even be designed not to test for one correct answer, but a variety of possible answers, varying degree's of responses and lead towards developing new questions. Kahoot can also serve as a conversation starter or a discussion group. Students can be asked to theorize on a topic, with the teacher moderating. The length of the quizzes can also be changed to have as few or as many elements as desired. The startup process, having students login, get ready, and the anticipation for a competition builds a great deal of excitement and interest. Many times students not engaged in a unit have become intensely focused because of this format. Competition can also be tempered by having students function in teams, sharing the responsibility of tapping the response and brainstorming before deciding on an answer.
Weaknesses: If used with lower grade levels, students can have a hard time logging in, or with the online format of the quiz. This can be solved by modeling and practicing the procedures for the quiz before, allowing students to build familiarity with the activity. Kahoot also suffers from being a very topical survey of student knowledge at times. This weakness is only an issue if relied on as a primary form of assessment without more rigorous, complete models of assessment incorporated before and after. To circumvent this, Kahoot is excellent as a diagnostic tool, to reinforce information, or to gauge a classes comfort and understanding, in a much more fun and interesting way than a green light/red light survey, or thumbs up poll. If done correctly, Kahoots can be a quick 5 – 10 minute recap of a previous unit, or used as an assessment tool to highlight important information. Another weakness is the access to devices and digital literacy. In my grade 8 class, we had some ipads we could borrow from the school, but other students were allowed to use their cellphones. In my current grade 4/5 class, cellphones are not available, so groups might have to be bigger to engage in the activity. This can pose a problem, however, if more time is given on each question, and the group is asked to reach a formal consensus, deliberating and discussing the information; that could quite easily turn into a positive.
Use as an Assessment Tool: I believe this is an incredibly effective tool if used correctly. Throughout my practicum I used Kahoot's as a treat for the students, at the beginning and end of units. It served as a primer to open discussion, posing probing questions to assess knowledge or interest in subjects, and also highlighted key points before other major assessments, such as quizzes, tests or culminating tasks. This allowed the validity of the assessment to not only be quite appropriate and high in the Kahoot itself, but also raise the validity of other assessments which followed. The Kahoot served as a buffer assessment for learning, allowing students to recognize areas that they were deficient on. It also served as a good class diagnostic for me, allowing me to see if students were actually comfortable with material, or if they needed further review and consolidation of knowledge.
The reliability however does come under some question. If every student has a device, then the results show some indication of individual understanding. However even in that best case scenario, that still allows for random guesses and chance to form a large part of the assessment. If used in groups, the dynamic and level of the students must be closely watched so that equal participation is maintained. This is a clear reason why Kahoot's should be used as assessment for learning, within a unit, and never as any kind of culminating assessment. However, reliability can be strengthened by pausing after a question, and initiating activities like turn and talks, or asking students to explain their choices orally. While this has direct links to the emphasis in Growing Success of assessment for learning, it does not quite meet the expectations of assessment as learning. To move from the former into the latter, further lessons, discussions, activities and assessments would be needed. I was also keenly aware of the benefits of the customization of the Kahoot's, which allowed me to differentiate between levels, and even learning styles. Within a quiz, I could ask different questions for different grade levels, allowing everyone to engage, while also using images, sounds and even videos to form questions or answers, allowing students with accommodations and modifications to succeed and engage with the material. Kahoot's also lessen the stigma and anxiety of formalized written quizzes and tests, changing the atmosphere of the class, encouraging students to participate rather than hide their understanding. One of the most effective Kahoot's I used, was when I mixed in questions from different strands and subjects, and occasional questions about myself. This allowed for a break in concentration, some fun, and increased the engagement of the class ten fold. Instead of just reviewing terms and concepts from pressure and force, students laughed about my grade 8 photo and how short I was, keeping them interested and learning even after the quiz was finished. As a final note, one creative way to use Kahoot's would be to actually assess the 6 Learning Skills and Work Habits that appear on report cards, progress reports and in the Growing Success document. Students could be asked to participate in a quiz which rated or assessed their own performance in the learning skills mid way through a unit, or after, engaging in meta-cognition and allowing them to revise their own habits and strategies for success. Asking questions about Independent Work or Organization would be a wonderful theme to continue openly throughout the year, having the students rating their own work habits as a class. Hopefully creating a fun and interactive quiz like this would help refocus those vital tools in a natural, intrinsic way, rather than teacher reminders or formal lessons. Kahoot's are an impressive tool, which if used correctly, can enhance and enrich a classroom, building on new technologies and ways for students to engage. The temptation to make simple, lazy and classic quizzes is quite dangerous though. Any teacher thinking about using this tool must continually question what they are assessing, what the point of the assessment is, and how that is furthering the learning and engagement of the students. A fun pop quiz is not nearly as useful as an interactive thermostat on classroom interest and understanding, opening new opportunities for discussion, learning and fun. I hope this critique provides some new ideas into how to incorporate this tool effectively.
1 Comment
So this prezi is my attempt to have a digital accompaniment to how I would explain the process and justification for backwards design and the cumulative task planning we just completed. It's not really complete without being narrated and directed in person, but it's still a good overview of some things. :)
http://prezi.com/gyvptmh9szjt/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy Re-placing the Arts in Elementary School Curricula: An Interdisciplinary, Collaborative Action Research Project: by Allen Trent and Jorge-Ayn Riley
I have mixed emotions reading reports like this on the role of Art in school curriculum's. It's not because I don't value art education, but I'm hesitant by how often arts are redefined, brought in or out of vogue and treated without as much serious consideration as maths, sciences or language. This article takes the approach that instrumentalist approaches to art can help support different disciplines by providing multimodal experiences for students, constructivist learning situations, and encouraging broader social and behavioral lessons that go beyond the curriculum expectations. I do agree that movement beyond the transmission model of teaching is essential, and there needs to be a return in our societies to valued places for artists within communities; not as fringe members or oddities, but as contributing foundations to cultural mosaics. This however, does not necessarily mean I support this study. It sounds quite wonderful what they were able to accomplish with their students, and I'm sure it was more enjoyable than a standard, teacher led lesson, but it raises concerns for me of the treatment of art as a whole. One big glaring issue that kept coming up throughout the document was the reported validity of the research method, this collaborative research approach, which the authors valued so highly. Yes of course you're going to say it's a wonderful approach, because basically you are both judging your own performance and work? Wow, you two were able to co-operate and help each other succeed? How very humble of you. This reflects upon a wider misunderstanding I think that pervades some forms of education: doing creative, colourful lessons/activities does not always mean they are better. It's too easy for teachers to get caught into flavor of the month lesson plans which strive towards being innovative, that don't necessarily really show deeper understanding by students. I think they can be, but I wasn't sold by how wonderful the findings were in this document based upon their own personal reflections and bias. Also, they kept throwing out terms like "quality art", and "quality lessons". Who is determining the quality of the art lessons they are performing? They themselves admitted they had no formal art training and relied on google searches to guide their lessons. How much quality does that ensure? For me this criticism strikes at a deeper fear I have; that as someone who believes in the value of art education, that it becomes degraded to a form of "making pretty pictures, or colourful posters" that anyone can simply tag onto a project or lesson and feel good about. At lower grade levels, this is less of a concern, as just exposing children to art is wonderful in itself and creativity and expression are more valuable than technique or form. However at higher grades, I have seen too many art classes and teachers ill prepared to actually engage students to further their abilities and students entering into University/College programs for art, have no foundations, no idea of fundamental art concepts, and rely basically on natural talent. Deciding we don't need to teach art separately can lead to a dangerous precedent later that would have the value of formal art education whither and decay. Now, I know this is looking at elementary classrooms, but this bleeds over into middle school and high school classrooms as well. Often the art components for classes is limited to depictions of projects done in other subjects, posters, presentations, drawings, etc., simply because art is not a priority. Why not have subjects in history/math/science be taught inside an art classroom instead? Why not reverse this idea of instrumentalist teaching to have art as a core subject and other subjects represented through it? I don't see why you can't teach grade 3's about plants and animals (or whatever their curriculum might entail) through carefully planned art lessons, rather than through other classes that tag art alone as supplementation. Maybe that is a wider critique of our societal values, art is something that is designed or espoused as a frill or decoration, but not an integral part of our lives. Of course, it is integral, but we do not value it as such on a wider level. So most of my objections are more at the philosophical level and trying to see arts place in the curriculum as a whole. I did actually like the activity and opportunity the students had to engage the issue of privacy, and how through art they could explain their understanding. One concern I had was how does this approach to art at lower levels scale when going to higher grades? How much more difficult does it become to plan these artistic activities beyond simple things like painting, posters and drawing? Once you move beyond the most fundamental, easily accessible kinds of art, the knowledge of the teacher, the tools and resources needed and the preparation increase dramatically. If the level of material is being increased in difficulty and maturity, why not the level of art involved? From my own experience, I was making the same kinds of posters in grade 4 and 5, as I was in grade 12 or OAC. Not because my posters didn't improve, but because the demands and expectations for presented art were never challenged or developed. That isn't necessarily a detraction from these types of lessons, its just an added complexity that might prove problematic. To be fair, I am glad these kinds of studies are being done, even in the face of increasing pressure for test based results in schools, but I didn't find anything really groundbreaking in this report. It seems more to echo what most primary school teachers already know and practice, that learning supported by multimodality, especially arts, increases student involvement, understanding and enjoyment. It just saddens me that art, unlike almost every other discipline in school, has not progressed in a linear fashion. What I mean is that the achievements and understanding of science, linguistics, mathematics, history, etc, have all increased in our school systems over time, however art is one of the few areas where we have huge lapses in ability and knowledge, and someone, not even a genius, but an average student in the 1600's, could produce artwork that would amaze and astound us today, and that only incredibly motivated and dedicated people can hope to produce today. How did we lose the skills and abilities of art so quickly and consistently? The answer I'm afraid is because we treat art as a commodity and luxury, instead of a necessity and integral part of human nature; the beauty of expression and connection. I wish we could develop a curriculum which would instill those values once again. From Tourist to Storyteller: Reading and Writing Science by Dawn Abt-Perkins and Gian Pagnucci I really liked this article and its approach to reinterpreting students interactions with texts, and moving beyond observers with static relationships, to involved, creative participants in material. For me, this relates heavily to some of the concepts in Indigenous Learning techniques and styles we have been introduced to. Especially the oral narrative tradition, and how human history is really based around the capacity to share and participate in oral traditions, and that written transmission of ideas is really a modern invention. The reality of most scientific texts and studies are that they try to parse information and remove human bias. This however does create a barrier to which information can longer be easily accessible. In some ways this speaks to the elitism present within academia and science. Why must scientific studies and research be presented in overly complex, convoluted ways? Why can't human experience, emotion and colouring be left into scientific data, not to usurp empirical figures, but to support and bolster them? By creating these stories, challenging their critical thinking skills and entering the world of imagination, these students were able to break that barrier, bringing the information off the page, and into their worlds. This technique could also be incorporated into mathematics, history, geography, civics, law, and a host of other subjects. I'm familiar with engaging students with information to form more and stronger relationships and interactions, increasing retention, enjoyment and ownership of information, however I never thought of this simple, yet seemingly effective approach. I'm glad this exposure is helping me to search for more creative and effective ways of engaging student literacy on the interactive and engaged level, rather than as passive trolling for data and figures. And so we come to the final chapter of Cooper's Talk About Assessment, which on the whole, was a lot more enjoyable than the bland cover and boring title would have suggested. This final chapter deals with Implementing Change, and true to form, suggested some good ideas, but remained rather vague in a lot of ways. Of course there is no real way to quantify how much change is needed in education, as the entire system is affected by any number of factors, and focusing on one, or even several, never produces results like in a vacuum. School boards, curriculum's and whole societies routinely go through flavour of the month style approaches to education. "Open concept", student driven, rigid, standardized testing, complete freedom and creativity, etc etc. And they bounce students around and back and forth and mix them up. Oddly enough though, one outcome is predictable and stable, inevitably, students end up learning. Not all of them, but the vast majority will learn regardless what system you implement. That, I'm sure, comes down to teacher quality and people who care about education.
I do believe the outmoded system we've been brought into, the Industrial Revolution model designed to produce workers (and being perfected in a lot of other countries, like the Chinese school system, and those in Korea and Japan) needs to be completely reworked and updated. Unfortunately, that isn't about changing a system, but rather changing a society. Good luck. Change on these instances must occur on a much smaller scale. Montessori schools, nature schools (something I'm more and more in love with), are viable alternatives and provide unique learning experiences that have measured, proven results. An issue for why these will probably always remain local, small solutions is that education is also A HUGE industry. The amount of textbooks, documents, studies, etc. that rely on our current educational model, as well as teachers, boards, unions, staff, infrastructure, Universities, etc., is staggering. That tried and tested model is entrenched for a very specific reason, for self survival over results and actual efficiency. Okay, I'm definitely going off a bit, tying this back into Cooper's actual chapter, I did find his portion on Collaboration to be quite intriguing. Why is it that there is SOOOOO little collaboration across school boards and schools for teachers? Why are lessons seen as individual projects we all have to develop on our own? Is there any real evidence showing that a lesson plan from scratch, or based on solely one persons involvement, is superior to those shared in a group? I'm guessing no. Currently there are a lot of lesson plans available online, but they usually seem to be cursory kinds of lesson plans, with lower quality materials and structure. I would love for actual school boards to create indexes and catalogs of their lesson plans sorted by subject and grade level. This would definitely help spread best practices and help new teachers develop, while also helping to spread proactive teaching techniques and change teaching practices in a good way. Obviously outdated, ineffective and bad lesson plans won't be spread as much and not adopted, so they will naturally phase out without having to target teachers themselves. Finally, the final part on Fairness and Humour was a welcome ending point. I feel that while many teachers believe they can be funny as an effective teaching tool, fairness isn't often as highly regarded. Teachers who enjoy being the center of attention will use humour to either have students like them, or hopefully like the material. However, humour, especially sarcasm, can go too far and often has unintended negative effects. Students can lose respect for the teacher, feel uncomfortable, or even it can be a form of bullying. If fairness is kept in mind, and valued from all standpoints, then the classroom dynamic and well being will reflect it positively. Fairness also means acknowledging the limits and restrictions of a teacher, our own personalities, and what to expect from the students. I see so many teachers with unrealistic expectations on their students achievement or behavior, and often blaming students for any failures or problems. Blame should never be a part of a classroom, and moving beyond 'right or wrong' and assigning fault is a hallmark of a truly effective, and forward thinking teacher. I wish I could say I've retained all the lessons and information from Cooper, but honestly, a lot of it is already out the door. But I know that as I step into the classroom, and move along this journey into teaching, those ideas and foundations will crop back up, and help me address my own needs as a teacher. It was an interesting read, even enjoyable at times, but I won't pretend I'm not glad it's over now :P Thanks for reading, Peter Kind of sad that I'm too lazy to draw other characters beyond cartoon rabbits, but to be honest, trying to express some of my ideas in graphic format takes A LOT of time. I do enjoy it, but yeah, not as quick and easy as I remember it being. This week was another chapter of Cooper, and I have to be honest, I was pretty surprised we're already at chapter 9 of 10, and not only that, that I've actually almost read AN ENTIRE textbook. This is definitely a first for me (I don't count novels and literature) and I have to say, some parts were a little long and laborious, but overall, not the worst experience of my life. I am a little skeptical about how much I will retain, since I can't remember any of those initial big ideas of assessment, but its definitely a nice resource to have available to look back upon. Okay, chapter 9 focuses on grading and reporting. The majority of it just makes sense and seems like house keeping issues, finding enough evidence for grading, how to calculate and weigh marks, mostly logistical and practical issues around marks. I'll focus on some of the issues or topics that stood out and seemed interesting/odd to me. Cooper advocates that students need at least 2 or more anchors or sample work so they can properly understand what is expected of them. Okay, that sounds reasonable, but is there a best way to present that information? Is showing a level 1 piece and a level 4 piece better? Showing the extremes? Or is showing 2 level 3 pieces better? Should they be the same level to show consistency, but originality or diversity of work? Also, you need to allow for students to surpass the anchors and expectations, does that mean they should also be able to drop below the rubric? Can they score less than 1? I was told not to have rubrics which show zero learning whatsoever, but isn't that possible? Doesn't that need to be accounted for? I have a longstanding problem understanding the mentality and reasons behind the different forms of assessment in grades 1-8, and then in 9-12. It seems that students in 1-8 cannot fail, are not held back, and are graded on the same rubric, but on a different expectation/performance level. Why have that system in place until grade 8 (I've seen students reading at a grade 3 level in grade 8, but on an IEP, so they still score relatively well) and then have them fail in grade 9? Doesn't that create a situation where a lot of students will not be at the grade 9 level when they enter high school? Will they still have IEP's when they are not being judged to a different level anymore? I know we have the streams in high school, but this still seems like a huge shift, and from my viewpoint, not a good one. Here is my comic depiction of this situation simplified: I guess this seems extreme, however I know a lot of the students I'm working with now will face this reality next year. Is that not a disingenuous model of education?
I also have a hard time accepting that we should not factor in zeros into grades. Yes, a student not completing an assignment is not an accurate image of how much they have learned, but it is an accurate image of how much they've demonstrated they know, which is how we assess them in the first place right? By assessing their demonstration of their learning, via written work, presentations etc. So if they demonstrate zero learning, why ignore that and pretend that they might have known the information and estimate a mark based on other work? It's almost rewarding students who decided to skip an assignment and have higher marks on other ones. Do we not calculate zeros on EQAO testing? If I have a math test and leave some answers blank, should they not count towards my final knowledge? Maybe I'm just old fashioned and like things the way I experienced them, but that seems to make sense... right? It seems Cooper is more willing to rely on extrapolation of how he feels a student might be doing, or anecdotal evidence, rather than factor in those zeros, which sometimes can be legitimate. I mean, what if a student has a zero because they don't know, having missed too many classes or refusing to participate, should we be guessing how much they might know in some hypothetical world? I guess I have a similar issue with extreme scores. I can understand how they might reflect on a bad day or a one time situation, and not the entire unity of a students learning, but that is just one possibility. What if the extreme score is the final assessment of the term, and isn't a fluke, but rather shows a student has forgotten what they previously knew or no longer knows how to use that information? Shouldn't that score be the new norm then? Should that take precedence over the previous trend? As a final note, I thought the whole idea of report cards unnecessarily boring. Why is it that we can develop (this is the nerd in me) pages and pages in tons of books on stats for fictional characters in video games or comics, and not find an exciting way to present report cards? If I approached report cards like a turn based RPG, where characters level up skill points and develop over time, it would be WAY more interesting to see in a chart or graph or image. Why can't the information be presented in that kind of fashion, providing more detailed comments, information and feedback? Sounds a lot better than looking at a boring grid or inputting data into a software program. I have to admit, my issues and concerns in this chapter, like the past few, are nothing new. I seem to be hung up on the same issues and I already know they aren't black and white topics that can be easily addressed. These are those "every teacher has their own approach" kind of things, which is somewhat lame and annoying, but part of reality. Anyways, enough of my whining, until next time :) ~Peter Okay, none of them were actually bad or ugly, although I did have a lot more questions I think this week with some of the readings. But let's start with something a little more fun, and two doodles I draw/wrote as my response to Andrade's piece, Teaching with Rubrics. (side note: I wish I could respond to everything with doodles and drawing, sadly it's hard to get a lot of ideas and discussion into them without some SERIOUS planning and work) It was kind of hard for me to respond to this piece, mostly because she already deals with a lot of the bad things about rubric use. So I was kind of left nodding my head and saying "mm hmm". I think one other interesting idea she mentioned was self assessment of the rubric's and their performance, and checking for any bias, based on gender, race, ethnicity, etc. I'm sure a lot of teachers don't try to bias their marking, but it must definitely creep in quite a bit.
Chapter 7 Teaching and Assessing Students with Special Needs This will definitely be a hot topic for the rest of my studies and well into any actual teaching I do, and interestingly, it was one of the driving questions that brought me to apply to teachers college. I was completely unbalanced and troubled by the realities of some South Korean classrooms, where students with severe learning disabilities and challenges were just pushed through, grade after grade, and there was no way to help them.I remember reflecting on my own school experiences and being grateful that there were some specialized programs and assistance for students when I was growing up. Now you can imagine my disappointment and horror walking into an Ontario school today, and seeing that soo many students are being left behind, neglected and ignored. It's not because teachers don't care, but the reality is that there aren't the resources, training or time to make that difference. I was hoping this chapter would provide a lot of those answers, but unfortunately I don't think it did. It did in a round about, vague way, saying they need differentiated lessons, and more attention, and to be given specific tasks and "scaffolding", but what does that really mean? How do you implement that for 6 students with learning disabilities in a classroom of 30? How do you do it in a split class of 30, with 6 learning disabled children who are on completely different skill levels? How do you do that during contract negotiations where you aren't supposed to provide additional services at school beyond normal work hours and duties? The list of difficulties, scenarios and issues goes on and on and on. I feel that a lot of the material in this textbook is designed for a best case scenario kind of situation, or a middle of the road setting, where things aren't too bad, and you're finding ways to cope. It's not quite as applicable for the teachers who feel like they're drowning. At the school where I'm placed for my CSL, they've lost all specialty programs, courses and teachers, so things like woodworking/shop, a dedicated music teacher, a librarian, sports teams, all those wonderful resources and opportunities which can help under achieving students get involved, become passionate, enjoy school, have all been eliminated. So if you aren't good at sitting quietly in a class all day, and performing the assigned tasks, you're not going to do very well. Please don't take that as a knock against my school, what I'm saying is, having innovative, nice warm approaches is great, but a lot harder to do when you're scrambling to meet the basic expectations of a teacher and can't invest the time to diversify your approach or resources. I also found the idea that every teacher should be a special education teacher dangerous and frightening. Why should that be the case? Should every teacher adapt for their students and try to provide for their individual learning needs? Absolutely. But teachers are not social workers, we are not guidance counselors, we are not immigration experts and psychologists, and asking us to fulfill those roles, not just one on one with a few students, but with dozens of students, is asking way too much. Those are full time jobs, and beyond the capacity of what I believe a teacher should do. I mean, I'm not learning how to advise and counsel a troubled youth in my Bachelor of Education courses. So where should I attain that knowledge? I'm not developing new methods of teaching which revolutionize the epistemology of education, so how can I develop differentiated lesson plans for 25 students, and 5 additional ones which all need to be tailored and specific? I guess the question I'm really asking is, are those students being best served in that class to begin with? I don't think we should segregate all classes because students are of different levels, but having students reading at a grade 8 level, next to students reading at a grade 4 level, with a whole mix in between, creates a situation where effective teaching becomes harder and harder to achieve. This also ties into the portion on Educational Assistants and their roles. It was a little vague in the chapter since Cooper states the EA's role needs to be clearly defined, but then doesn't really give any framework or descriptions, besides the one example. I know this needs to be a case by case judgement call, but at the same time, how do we know what the EA should be, or shouldn't be doing? Should they be planning their own curriculum for the students? Does it become a separate class? Is that still allowed in today's system? I would like more clarification on this, because from what I've seen in my CSL, they can't do those things, and are only meant to assist, but without being involved in those aspects, it's limiting. Also, they have I believe 1 EA, split between 3 full intermediate classes, so even that interaction is very limited and sparse. I did like the idea of making sure to differentiate between which stage of the learning process students were being engaged in. We normally want more inclusive, dynamic exercises, learning as they demonstrate skills, but separating them in this context would be beneficial so that information and conceptual understanding can be reinforced, before asking them to display that through skills or presentations. Finally, the portion on assessment brought up the same question I had before. Cooper says how performance standards have to remain rigid, but we can adapt content standards to suit a student with special needs. Okay ... so I can give a student a report card that says he is performing at 80%, which is wonderful, but at the content level 2 grades below where he is supposed to be? How is that useful? Don't content and performance rubrics/assessment have to be considered in tandem since they are interdependent? How can you adjust one, keep the other, and say that's addressing the needs for differentiation while being fair? I still don't understand that logic. Chapter 8 Assessment Tools and Technology So sometimes I wonder if we should change the titles of different courses in the BEd program to "Using rubrics in Math" or "Increasing Productivity and Assessment with Rubrics" or "Rubrics: USE THEM!" since they seem to come up in every part of teaching so far. Now that should probably tell me something, like how useful they are, but the problem is I have a natural revulsion to them. It is a physical response that I just can't help. I turn a page, and upon seeing just the slightest corner of a table containing a rubric, and I start to cough, and convulse and my brain shuts down. That's why I find it even more incredible that they claim "Use rubrics, your students will LOVE them!" Really? Because I don't love them. I mean, yes, I like to know what is expected, but I don't enjoy a slew of developmental and gradual terms that reiterate the same thing with one difference: 'demonstrates little/some/strong/complete knowledge of yadda yadda yadda...'. I mean, how effect are terms like "some", "good", "interesting", "poor", "a few"? These are all terms which don't really give me actual information. If you wrote a paragraph describing the specifics of an assignment, instead of handing me a rubric, I'd probably understand things a lot more. I feel like what I should do with my time is make a phone app which auto-generates rubrics that can be differentiated by highlighting key words that change based on a 4 point sliding scale. Just input the key words, and then bam, instant rubrics at your disposal. Because that's how I feel about most of them, you're just filling space to check off all the possible parts. I know this is just me complaining, but having had to work with rubrics and try to make them more accessible to parents and students, I can say without a doubt, most rubrics presented and even the examples in Cooper, are pretty vague and useless. The last portion of the chapter dealt with technology, which aside from some small setbacks and cons, seems to be moving forward into mainstream teaching, which is great. I did find the section about the website good, however, I would definitely caution against having too many online interactions, such as in this cohort, where I literally have to check into 7-8 websites to find all my work. Being expected to check and update my e-mail, uzone, blackboard, google+, Ucal/events, sharet racker, blog, and class websites (non blackboard ones), is just ridiculous, and to be honest, I'm constantly worried I'm missing information. There should definitely be some kind of organizational program that we use to communicate across all classes with all people. So my reflections on chapter 8 were really not very specific or informative I guess, really more just grumbling over rubrics (yes I know deep down inside they will make me a better person ... I'll get used to them) and how convoluted things can get. On that note, we are getting to the end of Cooper, which is interesting, and some big group projects are coming up, so I'm looking forward to putting all these lessons into practice. Until then, adios~ Cooper Chapter 5
Chapter five focused on the different effective methods of differentiating teaching styles and lessons to accommodate students with lower than average performance or difficulties. It focuses on using initial assessment techniques to not only identify those students having problems or requiring attention, but also generating methods of incorporating different teaching approaches, materials and standards in order to best help those students learn and hopefully integrate back into the normal performance range. I definitely thought the emphasis on initial assessment was a good idea, as many teachers are faced with the dilemma of not knowing exactly how much students learned or retained from the previous year. It's been communicated to us that reports, especially superficial ones with only grades or percentages, or obtuse language, can provide little feedback to a students real abilities, so the methods shown here would really help teachers assess their students from the beginning, and develop lessons which can address their actual level. I especially liked the student survey, asking them to assess their own reading abilities and level, and also what makes them a good/poor reader. Seeing some of that feedback would definite provide teachers ways to address their students in a meaningful way. If someone was a good reader because they read quickly, or a poor reader because they read slowly, or stutter, or don't read on their own, all of these pieces of information would be amazing to use in your lesson planning. Another element introduced which I really enjoyed reading about was the need to assess course texts for reading level. That seemed like an issue that wasn't brought up before, and as someone new to teaching, I was having a really hard time selecting texts or books for different levels. Most books have suggested reading levels printed on them, but how old are those standards? How are they judged? And how do they apply to new curriculum's or student abilities? That issue gets even murkier when we talk about graphic novels, picture books, or anything introducing more controversial or mature themes. I guess you would have to approach all the texts on reading ability/difficulty and also age appropriateness, but that doesn't sound as easy or simple as I would have liked. I found the reciprocal reading approach to be very similar to inquiry based learning or learning circles, which sounds like it would be an effective way in which to engage under performing students and also have higher level students be interested. Differences in reading ability/skills could be offset by creativity, comprehension and interest. I think that inclusion of students of different levels would also hopefully motivate those who normally would feel left out, seeing that they can actually contribute to book discussion, predicting future developments and posing questions, giving them incentive to read more and be more active in class. While reading the Cloze procedure section, I was intrigued by it's application and use as an assessment tool for reading ability. But another idea came into my mind, and that was how frequently that method was employed when I was teaching English in Japan. It seems that standardized tests for English in foreign countries use that technique, and many others (ie. Scramble sentences) A LOT, but honestly, from my own experience, they are used sparingly in our education here. Now, I could definitely be wrong about that, since I am out of touch with elementary and middle school curriculum's now, but I wonder if students, especially young learners, would benefit more from such 'problem solving' reading assignments? I think we focus a lot on reading books, passages or large sections, and summarizing, or responding to those readings, but simple mechanical drills are not used as often. Just an idea I was wondering about, how maybe the manner in which ESL is taught overseas might help inform best practices for our own literacy courses and curriculum. Finally for this chapter, I was a little skeptical about the assessment rubric and how it is applied. Cooper makes a very direct point about not adjusting the grading rubric because then it loses its value as a measurement tool. However, he does suggest giving some students different material to be graded upon, so the same rubric applies, but to different assignments. Isn't that basically the same thing? Yes technically you are using the same rubric, so students of different abilities can both be performing at a level 3 proficiency, but if you have to put an * next to one and write *Level 3 based upon lower grade materials, isn't that adjusting the measuring stick? I'm not saying I don't see the value in giving them ability specific material to help them learn, but their grades should still reflect their actual ability in relation to where they should be for their level. Giving them a higher grade for work on a lower grade is really judging them on a different criteria, and doesn't reflect their actual grade abilities. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but it seemed an odd difference for him to first point out, and then address in a different way. Chapter 6 This is another one of those chapters where I was basically nodding my head most of the time, saying deep things like “Hmmm...” and agreeing with most of the ideas. One thing that became clear when talking about how important statements of assessment are and learning goals, was how dependent I am on them now, and it was only in University when things like syllabus' and more detailed assignment breakdowns were really given. I mean, now, if I don't get a syllabus detailing everything, I basically feel almost violated and demand one from the Professor. They would have been amazing in high school as well, and I'm surprised I never thought of that before. I would definitely love to incorporate that into my teaching strategies, no matter what level. Providing anchors for assessment samples was another similar example. I have definitely been in desperate need of them in these classes, especially the one's asking for lesson plans and assessment rubrics. I'd probably be lost without them. I think perhaps teachers assume students know what they are expected to do, or that the assignment is so simple, it's obvious, but don't provide enough feedback and examples, like an anchor, to really guide them. I did enjoy the fishbowl idea of modeling sample peer feedback and assessment, but what really caught my attention was the snowball activity. I have heard of the basic idea before, but not as a review and peer assessment tool. I thought that was really good, because it would definitely allow for students having problems with the material to be brought up to speed in an inclusive way. The traffic lights idea was also informative, I think a lot of the times I forget how much peer pressure plays into a students willingness to admit some kind of knowledge deficiency and ask for help. Giving that kind of anonymous feedback would be perfect to address that issue. Cooper's point about how assessment for learning must contain not only feedback, but feedback that has an impetuous and reason to be used and demonstrated was very important. I definitely had a lot of experiences of receiving feedback, but it really only being a “do this next time” kind of approach, with next time being a semester or year later, which of course rendered the advise pretty useless. On another feedback related note, at the very end Cooper deals with marking, and I have definitely experienced a lot of University professors making 'mandatory' marking notes, that started on the first page, a few scribbles and circles, but by page 4 of my 20 page paper, the marks simply stopped. Consistently attentive marking is something I definitely want to approach, but also incorporating Cooper's idea of lessening the work load by ensuring the high standards of finished work through self assessment (checklists, etc) and peer assessment. One last big highlight from this reading was the Mrs. Howdwedo example. I really really enjoyed that perspective of reviewing class work as a body, without any emphasis on grades or performance and comprehension being the real goal. I can't imagine too many teachers are doing that, especially in math classes, where quizzes and marks are designed to show progress and gradual development of understanding. I would love to see this implemented in the arts programs, but I think it would need some tweaking. One final idea, and this is more of a general comment on all the readings, we are being given a lot of new, seemingly innovative and progressive methods for teaching, assessment and educational theories. But of course, when we step into the real world, a lot of that is not being implemented. I wonder how much of this will end up with us trying to “undo” the previous status quo for teaching and student habits, and how much will be undone of our own efforts the next year after kids leave our classes. Even in University and high school, I remember some classmates freaking out if a teacher took a new, innovative approach to classes or assessment, and they complained, all they wanted was the stock, assignment/test/grade formula, and they didn't want people playing games with their University chances. It's interesting to see how much push back there is from established teachers and also how many stereotypes of being a 'fad' or 'trendy' implementing new ideas faces. I know we should basically look at it from a personal perspective and see how we can use these lessons to teach the best we can and help the students as much as we can, but there is a lot at work as well, politics, stereotypes, egos, etc etc. Just some food for thought I'm currently mulling over. Gregory and Chapman,Chapter 6: Instructional Strategies for Student Success This chapter had quite a bit of information packed into it, most of which was very useful, some of it I'll probably disregard (jiggsaw learning I've found to be less than effective, I'll get into that later). Some of the things which I guess really struck me was that this was the first time direct reference to neurological and epistemology studies have been used in our course, and while I do love those topics, I found some of the information a little brief at best, and sometimes misleading. From the beginning, it cites the work of Lev Vygostky for his development of a constructivist theory of learning. Right away, I had some issue with the second point in that theory, “2. To learn, one needs a more knowledgeable other (teacher, coach or mentor).” Wait, what? Why is that a necessity? What about learning through inquiry, discovery, self assessment, trial and error, or all the other ways people learn when they don't have someone with all the answers around? Also, even if that were true, you would have to completely redefine a more “knowledgeable other”. Does that include a calculator? What about your cellphone, google, wikipedia or any other social media or internet based fount of knowledge. Even learning from animals or nature itself, where does that factor in? Also the third point, “3. Students will perform a task better and with more pleasure if the task is within reach [...].” I find that also fairly misleading. Students love doing things for the first time, especially if the outcome or goal is a complete surprise. Students are also often motivated by unrealistic or unattainable goals, but they strive for them and often find creative ways to reach them. So yeah, did not start off this article agreeing with everything. Next was the presentation of how the brain works, which is largely accurate, but I thought left out some of the nuances it should have contained, specifically when dealing with building long term memory. It goes into briefly how our brains create neural pathways associated with new memories, and how short term memory and long term memory differentiate. Oddly though, it does not discuss that stronger memories are formed by creating more, and more unique pathways and bridges, and that the more distinct, scary, shocking or interesting something is, the stronger the neural bonds that will be created with that memory. So yes, kids having fun while studying is a good technique, but you could also make important information or concepts VERY memorable by infusing shocking, unique or bizarre imagery. So if you wanted to remember Napoleon's birthday, if you just had a fun lecture on it, that's one thing, but if you created a mental image of Napoleon peeing into a big snowbank, and in the snow he spells out the year of his birth with pee, you would remember that MUCH more clearly. This is the same technique used by memory geniuses and really is part of just a large system for developing memory. Why it isn't developed more in education and taught properly really boggles my mind. (I did hear about one class of history students learning it in the US, but that's about it.) Most of this information I've read from Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking: Fast and Slow which I believe is absolutely fantastic (although I know even that has some new studies out which advance or retort some his own research) and other pieces on mental cognition. One thing I find interesting is that in modern society, media and advertising has really hacked into these mental cognitive patterns and loopholes we all have, social engineering, group conformity bias, etc, and they exploit it all the time for personal gain. However, if we wanted to use these same techniques for education, making kids learn more, better and apply that knowledge, it would be unethical since it's akin to brainwashing. How can we allow it to sell products, but not to make us better humans? Quite an interesting contradiction. Another related book which I have really enjoyed reading recently is Quiet by Susan Cain, which brings up the fallacies and problems in our society when it comes to over valuing socially outgoing and loud people. She argues we have moved from a character based society in North America, to a personality (popularity) based one. And in many ways I believe she is correct. More importantly for this argument, Susan goes to great lengths to break down these commonly held ideas about group work, team building and leadership, which seems to dominate all spectrum's of education and values. She argues that group work rarely encourages more opinions to be heard, usually latches on to only the most popular or confidently delivered argument or idea, and allows for the herd mentality and peer pressure to gloss over better alternatives. As social beings, we have an innate desire to fit in, and when our sense of right or justice interferes with fitting in, we develop severe anxiety, fear and discomfort. So turning to group activities, especially larger one's, is not as ideal as this chapter would have it seem. Cooperative group learning can be effective, but it can also masquerade as real learning and simply push the agenda or ideas of the most dominant group member. All in all, I'm wary of all these kinds of suggestions, wary but not close minded I should add, and I try to assess how much of my own experience ties into the application and effectiveness, and also where my own bias and failures have affected me. For instance, the jiggsaw method that was illustrated, I've used that before, and have had it used on me, but usually with very mixed results. Yes sometimes members do retain more from their own respective part they've studied, but they usually do not develop strong memory associations with the other parts, and often are distracted when listening because they are focused on their work. I found it too disjointed and the portion where everything comes together underwhelming and not having the greatest impact. All in all, I still enjoyed this chapter, was very glad it presented more evidence for why teaching methods are effective, and I just kind of knit picked a little too much I guess. But that's a good thing ... right? :p I know many of you have been waiting for this next installment with bated breath, laying awake at night wondering 'how will Peter react to the next chapters in his PED3141 textbook?'. Well, worry no more my friends, here are some of the things I reacted to and some of my own related experiences.
Chapter 3: I found this chapter, (like the previous) to be fairly enjoyable and informative. The focus was on implementing the backwards planning model and some of the ways in which essential questions, skills and understanding can be enhanced by that planning process. Right from the beginning, I completely agreed with the idea that any serious planning for a new curriculum or lesson needs to include people OUTSIDE that field of expertise. This allows for honest critiques, a fresh perspective, and also the identification of what really is essential knowledge, and not a teachers favorite subject or lesson, which probably gets included every year despite its lack of relevance. I found this bias was something I've been guilty of in the past, as I have selected and leaned towards projects and lessons based upon how easily and comfortably I could teach them, and how often they succeeded. I see now how short sighted that was, and how continuing to include them robbed my students of richer experiences I should have attempted. I definitely think a lot of areas in academia are too insulated and never allow outsiders to challenge the validity of their common beliefs. This was followed by the concept of INTU's, aka: things I Need To Understand, which reworks the more common themes or topics we normally work with in lessons. This definitely changes the traditional model of assigning topics and students just amassing information on them, which now can be done rather easily and superficially on google or wikipedia. If we have students identify their own INTU's, and base their research on that, they will naturally focus on essential questions and knowledge, rather than adding the first bits of information they find. I have definitely been on both spectrum's of that example, and I can see the inherent merit of adopting this system. Throughout my University career, especially in history, I often approached large papers with the objective "What does my Prof. want to read?" and worked from there. Which is a kind of backwards design, but not in a good way. It allowed me to crank out papers as quickly as possible and just adding the minimum amount of information, while making my papers seem thought provoking and insightful. That probably saved me in a lot of ways, because those papers were always done at 3 am the day they were due. I also used the idea of INTU's before exams throughout high school, and having not really studied, I would ask my friends right before, what information I really needed. This helped me perform rather well, since I completely skipped any rote memorization of facts, dates, etc., and I was able to relate the key essential knowledge points effectively. Conversely my friends who had studied for many long grueling hours, would always score lower than me, since they were bogged down by useless information they couldn't effectively apply. I guess that's another bad example of INTU's being subverted, but I'm glad they helped in get here ;) Hand in hand with the INTU's are the clear indications of what are essential questions, skills and enduring understanding, and how assessment design can strengthen those key areas. The enduring understanding emphasis is something I've benefited from, and I had a wonderful grade 11 chemistry teacher who helped impart real world examples to engage my interest. By illustrating simple applications of chemistry, checking shampoo labels and food nutrient breakdowns, she actually lit a spark within me that connected the boring, dry classroom material with these that actually matter to me. I know a lot of my day to day purchases ever since then have been influenced by that one lesson, which is quite a memorable experience for me. If I can focus my own assessment based planning to incorporate effective situations that model these ideas, I'm sure my own students will be carrying elements of enduring understanding with them into the foreseeable future. Moving along, I was a little surprised by Cooper's attack on the simplified view of problem solving in most assessment rubrics and how shallow those expectations are. I can see by his examples that we really don't try to engage students to problem solve on a deeper level, and even less so, to demonstrate that skill in a quantifiable way. I definitely think a really good way to integrate problem solving assessment would be to tie it into the inquiry based learning we've been talking about in PED3121. If students are driving the lessons, making their own questions and influencing the curriculum and lessons, they are almost by default engaging in problem solving, as they navigate what they feel is important to learn. That would definitely be a measurable metric that would tie into the ideas in Chapter 4. One last thought on Chapter 3 was that I was definitely not liking all the talk about rubrics, creating new one's, modifying or challenging existing one's, etc etc. I'm really more worried about the planning, assessment and technical aspects of teaching than I am about creative lesson ideas, implementing my ideas in class and being in front of students. There is a lot of information, and the amount of content being thrown at us from Ministry books is daunting. So Cooper's emphasis on reinventing rubrics is not all that appetizing at the moment. But I definitely have to admit, what he is saying makes sense, and that students need to be evaluated in an effective manner that targets the goals we've set in the backwards design. Chapter 4: For me, Chapter 4 had a few areas which really interested me, and more areas where I simply nodded my head and thought "yeah this makes sense". So I'll focus on some of the areas which piqued my interest. First was the development of the one sided method in which most assessment occurs, namely based on solely writing input based criteria; tests, papers, reports, exams, etc. I know that many school boards and methods of education focus WAY to heavily on memorization and standardized testing. My time in Korea and Japan were probably the most EXTREME examples of that (it's literally all they do, all day, all the time), which caused me to appreciate the Ontario school system. Now that I think about it, we do have a lot more opportunities for student involvement, creative projects and cross discipline lessons, however we usually end all of those with some kind of written marking scheme. Marks for performance and oral portions are usually severely limited in comparison to the handed in work. I've personally been against the heavily weighted exam systems or final papers of post secondary institutions, but I didn't realize how much of a change we could initiate in the lower school levels. I found Cooper's reference to the driving examination kind of amusing. Yes it does support his point of needing multiple kinds of assessment, including performance of knowledge, like driving, but the written multiple choice portion is probably one of the worst examples of enduring understanding or essential learning :p I mean, who has ever retained demerit point information from that test? I also liked the example of Leanne's approach on page 52, since that tied directly into our class today in PED3121, where we were tasked with creating a usable and effective assessment rubric for one math category. Reading Leanne's rubric helped put my own into better perspective and I have a better grasp of why specific, fully flushed out rubrics are key to both teaching and assessment, instead of academic jargon based one's sent out by the Ministry of Education. The last point I'd like to touch upon, and probably the most interesting to me from this chapter, was the various ways to approach late and incomplete work. Removing the rigid, binding timelines and due dates seems like a somewhat risky move, especially speaking as someone who was delinquent and lax on all my assignments at all levels of schooling. I don't think I would have benefited from extended or looser time frames, as I constantly took every possible moment to procrastinate and would still have been late regardless. I do recognize that the check ups and timelines might assist many students, but I believe those are already in practice quite a bit. I always had timelines for brainstorming, rough drafts, first drafts and then final copies. Ultimately though, since none of those steps were really being graded, the outcome of being late at the end rarely changed. I think maybe an incentive based approach might have helped a student like myself. What I was thinking was having those other processes in place, timelines, process check, etc., but then in addition to having the final due date, add a stipulation that students who complete their assignments in a reasonable time around that due date, will have feedback from the teacher on the finished work, and if they want, a final chance to make some adjustments. This kind of retains the notion of being on time and time management skills, but also adds one more layer to the developmental process, while not outright saying it. Maybe it's all the same thing, but I thought perhaps if approached in the right away, it might entice both high performing students to further develop their assessment for learning, while allowing the students who are under performing or struggling a means to help themselves. The completion contract was also a novel idea, since it brings more responsibility and understanding to the student, and hopefully with that ownership, more drive to complete their assignments. Well once again, there was quite a bit going on in these chapters, and I definitely feel I might benefit from writing some Cole's Notes styled summations, but I am enjoying the learning process, and I'm optimistic that all these lessons will stick in my head somewhere, with all that enduring understanding jazz, and help me in the near future. Thank you for reading, Peter~ Responses to "Talk about assessment: High school strategies and tools" by Damian Coope and "Too Cool for School? No way!"
Chapter 1 I'm pretty impressed that I managed to read through Cooper's first chapter without becoming agitated, frustrated or sleepy. I found the breakdown of the importance of assessment informative, useful and easy to follow. It definitely seems to make more sense to develop an assessment rubric first, before finalizing a curriculum, adding vision and direction to lesson planning and themes to be taught. I found the 8 big points kind of blending together, and I wish they had assigned some kind of acronym or key word for each one, because honestly, even after reading it 2 minutes ago, I can't recall specific steps or summarize them offhand. I think the real reason I agree with the ideas presented so strongly is that my own experience in different school system echoes the pitfalls and dangers of overly strict, absent or corrupted forms of evaluation and assessment. When I taught in South Korea, my English class was not given any grade or mark, and students were not being assessed. This put me at a HUGE disadvantage, as there was no motivation or incentive for the students to participate or try, as it was basically just a free period to relax and goof off. I had to rely on generating interest, with no help from the curriculum or larger school structure. That was also highly contrasted with the students normal experience with assessment and evaluation. Since elementary school, these children had been BOMBARDED with standardized tests in almost every subject, twice a year, that rendered their whole academic year hostage to memorizing and performing mandated material. Creativity, inquiry and any other form of expression was simply ignored as there was no time for teachers to deviate from the set curriculum. Teachers would ask to take over my class time to further prep 10 year old students for their end of term exams. It was insane. Development tools in assessment, such as assessment for learning and assessment of learning were never employed. As soon as the student was assigned a grade, they were shipped off to the next grade, regardless of any other learning or improvement they could have benefited from. My third experience was from teaching in a private school in Japan. Our curriculum should have been more open and flexible, as we were an International after school program. However, it was a small school, and parent input had a disproportionate amount of power. Our students parents had decided that they valued results based criteria more than anything else, and that the sole purpose of our teaching should be to prepare their children for the standardized English Eiken tests. This meant we were constantly sacrificing content, chances for learning and the students interest and passion, to hammer in grammar points and vocabulary. Speaking is not heavily tested in Eiken, so that section of English learning was almost completely discarded. I wish I had a document such as Cooper's first Chapter to present to my bosses and parents to illustrate the real values of continued assessment, and learning based around flexible interpretations of knowledge, not simply test scores and percentages. Sadly, I did not have that opportunity and I know for a fact that many students suffered because of that. I doubt I would have paid as close attention to Cooper's arguments and points had I not had those experiences. My own background had a mix of feedback, scan-tron tests, and other forms of evaluation, but I never suspected how deeply those grades and marks could have affected my teachers, my education and the outlook of education in general. I will definitely try to keep this lesson and it's points front and center throughout my teacher education process and onward's. Chapter 2 I definitely came into this chapter thinking there would be some real practical contradictions to a criterion-referenced system, such as the ones stated, real world application, not coddling students, preparing them for disappointment/responsibility/higher education. But I have to admit, all my concerns were handled pretty comprehensively by Cooper's arguments, and especially the case studies. This also tied in closely with the discussion and lesson we had in PED3121, Teaching at the Junior Level, where we explored ideas of entity theory based learning versus incremental theory learning. That was more applicable to the teachers initial outlook on students, their ability, and if their potential/intelligence should dictate their future education. Here, the same principles are shown to be effective influences based on an assessment model. I think most teachers have good intentions, and focus on following rules, guidelines and grading criteria, with strict consequences in order to better serve their students, or at least, better serve the top performing students. Those who buck the prescribed method of teaching/evaluation need to be punished for their infractions and the teacher is then in a position of judge, jury and executioner. Cooper rightly points out how ineffective that is for their long term growth, and that such black and white portrayals of student behavior and necessary consequences only worsens their situation. I found the example of Rebecca's art class particularly hard to reconcile, as it seems that the art teacher was doing a grave injustice to her, and his unwillingness to compromise or help her was tragic. At the same time, judging that situation from just those few lines is a little hard, and I realize, after reading Cooper's points, maybe I'm overly sympathetic. I would hope that if a situation like that ever crossed my path, there would be enough room for discussion, alternatives and compromise to find reasonable work around's to keep Rebecca engaged in the classes, pursuing her education, and allowing her to take greater ownership of her classes and responsibilities. I also found the introduction, with a student taking a cell phone picture was a wonderful opportunity to open a discussion for the class on modes of learning, and how people learn in different ways. Maybe they could come to a consensus on how to incorporate new technology without becoming distracted. I think teachers need to include their students on discussions about new issues to learning, and see how they react when given a choice. Too Cool for School? No Way! 'Using the TPACK framework' by Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler. This short, but fairly informative piece was interesting to read, and also terrifying at the same time. I definitely agree with the idea that teachers need to be extremely mindful of their ability to disseminate knowledge and information to students and facilitate their learning in a subject, beyond having a strong grasp of the subjects themselves (the PCK abilities); however I didn't realize how far behind my own knowledge of technology and online media is now. To be honest, I'm not one for the newest and latest technologies, and I hate things like social media, twitter, and new cutting edge search engines or databases. It's just too much for me to get caught up in and I actively tune out to a lot of it. However reading this article made me think about how detrimental that mindset will be for me as a teacher walking into a classroom with students deeply immersed in the newest website or app. I really value the importance of interpersonal connections and one to one relationships with students. Making eye contact, tone of voice, supporting them and being able to listen. I've never equated these principles with responding to a text, or posting on twitter, but maybe I should re-evaluate their merits. I would hate for my own preferences to deprive a classroom of potential learning opportunities or stifle their enthusiasm. I'll have to brush up on my tech savvy, and also look into these new fancy things like "content based web searches". I'm definitely feeling a little out of my element, but that's probably a good start. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
September 2016
Categories |