I don't know where I am in terms of technology and teaching. A part of me feels like it's moving to the 'dark side' and starting to get convinced that technology really will add a useful dimension to my teaching. The other side of me is thinking ... really?? did you really need technology to do that??Today, I found myself revisiting the original question I had in my first post . During the first part of class I posed this question to Kristin. Do we really need technology to make portfolios and curriculum maps?? I think that a paper version would be just as useful as an online version. Yes, students might be more excited about doing an online one, and yes there might be more PR value in having students do things online, but I think that there isn't necessarily a learning advantage ... Is the fact that it's more motivating enough to do it online versus doing a paper version?? A big strong part of me was saying NO ...
During the second half of class, Tom's presentation made question that big NO ... Tom talked about how he was able to use a video game to engage students in the learning and get people who normally aren't active participants to become invested in the material. It seemed that by introducing the Angry Birds forum, he was able not only to get students to look at the material in a new way, but also to get students who thought they were 'bad at math' to rethink that. By introducing the game, he helped more students learn and he helped them learn better. Or at least that's how it seemed from what he said.
Histrorically speaking, I have been pretty anti-video game. I generally view them as a waste of time and extremely addictive. I know that Jane McGonigal claims that they have intrinsic value, but I feel that a lot of what she says is accomplished through gaming should be accomplished through schooling ... Intellectual engagement isn't the only reason that people are playing 5million years worth of World Of Warcraft. There is something else, and even if that is the only reason, it's not enough of an excuse to spend all that time playing the game. Yes it's engaging, but it's not productive; it's not fruitful. Even the skills and attitudes that these gamers have in the game world don't translate into the real world. That's not something she really assessed.
That might be where Tom and Jane diverge. I think by translating a game to fit the classroom, Tom was able to make gaming productive and fruitful. To do that though, he had to reinterpret the game. So if the students had just played Angry Birds in class and talked about how it related to math, I don't think that would have been very productive. By transforming the activity into real life however, and simulating the game, Tom transformed the game into something fruitful. First, the students were more engaged, so now instead of just having these skills and attitudes in the gameworld they were expressing and honing skills in the real world. Second, the students were able to learn something. They were actually gaining intellectual ground by doing this activity.
Maybe the usefulness of technology to motivate is something that I need to think more about ... Because students are receptive to technology, maybe I have to start there so I can move them to where I want to get them; to somewhere productive ...
During the second half of class, Tom's presentation made question that big NO ... Tom talked about how he was able to use a video game to engage students in the learning and get people who normally aren't active participants to become invested in the material. It seemed that by introducing the Angry Birds forum, he was able not only to get students to look at the material in a new way, but also to get students who thought they were 'bad at math' to rethink that. By introducing the game, he helped more students learn and he helped them learn better. Or at least that's how it seemed from what he said.
Histrorically speaking, I have been pretty anti-video game. I generally view them as a waste of time and extremely addictive. I know that Jane McGonigal claims that they have intrinsic value, but I feel that a lot of what she says is accomplished through gaming should be accomplished through schooling ... Intellectual engagement isn't the only reason that people are playing 5million years worth of World Of Warcraft. There is something else, and even if that is the only reason, it's not enough of an excuse to spend all that time playing the game. Yes it's engaging, but it's not productive; it's not fruitful. Even the skills and attitudes that these gamers have in the game world don't translate into the real world. That's not something she really assessed.
That might be where Tom and Jane diverge. I think by translating a game to fit the classroom, Tom was able to make gaming productive and fruitful. To do that though, he had to reinterpret the game. So if the students had just played Angry Birds in class and talked about how it related to math, I don't think that would have been very productive. By transforming the activity into real life however, and simulating the game, Tom transformed the game into something fruitful. First, the students were more engaged, so now instead of just having these skills and attitudes in the gameworld they were expressing and honing skills in the real world. Second, the students were able to learn something. They were actually gaining intellectual ground by doing this activity.
Maybe the usefulness of technology to motivate is something that I need to think more about ... Because students are receptive to technology, maybe I have to start there so I can move them to where I want to get them; to somewhere productive ...
Concerning your question to Kristin during class, thinking of myself as a student, I was prepared to answer in the same way she had. In fact, I had my hand up. It doesn't seem like you're one of the learners that would benefit from more technology in the classroom but I do think that there are many learners that would. Mainly, their curiosity and motivation could be piqued. This is what I was thinking the effective use of technology would do for me. I almost never showed my parents any of my work during my high school career but if a teacher had me make an online portfolio (like from weebly) I know that I would be way more likely to send them a link. My parents would also be way more interested and therefore could present more dialogue between parent and student about the work being done.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I like how you talked about the Higher Order Thinking segment of being able to assess that students had learned (just to draw you a parallel from today's class ;-) )
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think that we as teachers of adolescents really need to be on board with and on top of the new technology that's being invented everyday. It will help us to keep in contact and form closer relationships with our students, in my opinion, because we will connect with them on a level that maybe other / veteren teachers or their parents cannot. Let's say a new type of social media comes out and you know they're on it - we as teachers could find a way to use this in class, so as to make class feel more fun and relatable to their outside lives!
Hope this makes you feel a little better!
Hmmmm ... I guess you guys both have a point ... I don't know why I'm just not getting on board with this technology thing. I'm very resistant to the idea and I feel like I shouldn't be but for some reason I keep thinking 'okay imagine that we had no access to these tools ... do you really think that students can't learn as well without them??' I think that idea, that with technology students learn better, is really scary/problematic for me. Basically what that means in my mind is that students who don't have access to these things just won't get to be as intellectually developed as their richer peers and I really hate that idea ... Maybe kids can be more motivated if there's technology and maybe it can help me connect with my students better, but in the end it's just an extra thing and I hope that kids who don't have it can learn just as well ...
ReplyDeleteI really liked the differences you pointed out between Tom and Jane's way of thinking. I think that what Tom is going for can help because it would be using gaming as another form of learning, whereas Jane's idea might be more limited because it would try to use the skills learned in games and apply them in the real world where they might not be so easily transferrable as she thinks. I really do agree with you that we should try and use things that kids are already interested in, such as some video games like Angry Birds, and adapt them to teaching. This obviously has limits that maybe Jane failed to realize, i.e., you can't say that all video games are useful for educational purposes. But some are, and like you said, we should try and utilize that resource.
ReplyDeletei agree with u that "Because students are receptive to technology, maybe I have to start there so I can move them to where I want to get them; to somewhere productive" Students are obviously very important to us as educators, unless your a mean educator like my 10th grade math teacher. There is no reason for us to not try to make study more productive, and if we have to use technology.. then be like Nike and Just Do It!. There is no way to make study as fun as video games, maybe close but not quite as fun. Still we can make it useful.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need technology to make portfolios but I've been told by the people hiring teachers before that seeing the e-portfolio is so much more convenient and howling good technological skills gives you an edge on the competetion. Technology is important, if it makes things easier and better for students, just do it!