Stacy Getz
11-20-06

Blog Post #10

Resnick Article

I agree with the point that technology can be good and bad. It just all depends on how you use it. I’ve realized in the past three years of my teaching career that my mindset has changed on how I use computers in my classroom. I used to use the basics like Microsoft Word or just do a PowerPoint presentation. Now with some more training in technology, I’ve created my own classroom webpage, a WebQuest, and have the students now do an animated PowerPoint story using many of the tools. I would not consider myself fluent in technology, but I believe I’m slowly eliminating my gap between useful technology and digital fluency (Resnick 2001). Mike’s story at the Clubhouse reminds me of my PowerPoint stories that I do with my students, only mine is at a lower level of technology skills. The students are allowed to create their own fairytale on the computer. I taught them how to draw characters and objects and add animation, sound, and effects to make their stories realistic. I believe that by allowing the students to learn about all these technology details, they wee actually understanding all the components that an author and illustrator must go through before publishing a book. It seems as though the students gain a much greater knowledge for the reading material, because their PowerPoints are created all by his/herself. I agreed with the results that stated students achieved higher-order thinking skills after using technology consistently in their classrooms (Harvey 2003). I find that when I let my students run with a new technology where they can develop their own ideas with it, they tend to get really excited and want to collaborate with their peers more. I would love it if I had more time to allow my students to engage in this authentic style of learning with technology. I feel that this is the way they should be learning, and their products are much more authentic to them. I love the point that was made by Resnick about allowing students enough time to actually carry out and complete a project, instead of focusing on a time limit for each subject area. I would absolutely love to do this, but I find it even difficult to allow students to do this. In our school, students are constantly being pulled out throughout the day for instrumental or music lessons, speech class, gifted, learning support, etc. I don’t really know of anytime throughout the day that I have all my students for a longer period of time. I do feel though that it is important to mix all types of learners together, because you just never know what each one with bring to the table when working and discussing ideas together. This is when I find that my students are most creative and truly learn from one another.


References:

Harvey, B. (2003). Investigating in technology: The payoff in student learning. (ERIC Document ED479843)


Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age.
Publications from the forum for the future of higher education.
Boulder, CO: Educause.

Blog Post #9
Stacy Getz
11-14-06

Rethinking Assessment

After reading this article, I felt like I could relate 100% to it. Assessments are constantly changing. I know in a matter of three years of teaching, I am not using the same assessments that I had used three years ago. Students are constantly being pushed to do more and more at a younger age. You will then find some schools that will agree with standardized assessments, while others promote the more authentic open-ended response assessments. The question teachers debate is which one is correct? I believe that it all depends of what the topic is that your teaching. Obviously, students sometimes need that skill and drill assessment like when they are practicing their math facts. On the other hand, abstract concepts that are often given in Science would benefit more when given as an open-ended and authentic assessment. The problem with open-ended responses is that the scoring can be very subjective. I personally struggle with this area, because I don’t always feel like I’m being consistent. Let’s say you have a lower-level learner in the classroom, and he/she wrote the correct answer. This answer may be correct, but it does not have the correct sentence structure and grammar. I would be ecstatic if a lower-level learner comprehended the story accurately, but should they be penalized in grades for not including all the extra details. Some teachers may feel that they should, while others think that they shouldn’t. I got a kick out the statement in the article about how educators and administrators should both decide what materials are appropriate for the students (Bond 1995). I wish I could say that my administrators did this, but they did the exact oppose. My administrators implemented a new reading series, but only gave us a two-hour in-service a few days before school started. Many of the supplies that go along with the Reading series is missing, and I’m still waiting to receive them. Our district is pushing for those more authentic and open-ended responses and assessments. I think it is a great system and gets the students thinking on higher-levels. The problem is that teachers must be well trained more this is implemented. The main struggle with authentic assessments that teachers have is that are all teachers grading the same way. There are six fourth grade teachers in my school, and we try to work closely together to be on the same wavelength. Our problem that we find with open-ended response questions is other schools assessing the same way we are. All teachers can do is to try their best and make that connect with students so that they are learning and retaining the information that was taught. Authentic assessments allow the students to connect to the community and allow teachers, parents, and themselves to learn what academic standards they have mastered (Brighton, Callahan, Moon, & Tomlinson 2002). Authentic assessments are much more meaningful to the students and are a much better way of viewing what the students actually know.






References:

Bond, L.A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. Critical issues in assessment. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm


Brighton, C. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). Development of differentiated performance assessment tasks for middle school classrooms (RM02160). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Blog Post #9
Stacy Getz
11-14-06

Rethinking Assessment

After reading this article, I felt like I could relate 100% to it. Assessments are constantly changing. I know in a matter of three years of teaching, I am not using the same assessments that I had used three years ago. Students are constantly being pushed to do more and more at a younger age. You will then find some schools that will agree with standardized assessments, while others promote the more authentic open-ended response assessments. The question teachers debate is which one is correct? I believe that it all depends of what the topic is that your teaching. Obviously, students sometimes need that skill and drill assessment like when they are practicing their math facts. On the other hand, abstract concepts that are often given in Science would benefit more when given as an open-ended and authentic assessment. The problem with open-ended responses is that the scoring can be very subjective. I personally struggle with this area, because I don’t always feel like I’m being consistent. Let’s say you have a lower-level learner in the classroom, and he/she wrote the correct answer. This answer may be correct, but it does not have the correct sentence structure and grammar. I would be ecstatic if a lower-level learner comprehended the story accurately, but should they be penalized in grades for not including all the extra details. Some teachers may feel that they should, while others think that they shouldn’t. I got a kick out the statement in the article about how educators and administrators should both decide what materials are appropriate for the students (Rethinking). I wish I could say that my administrators did this, but they did the exact oppose. My administrators implemented a new reading series, but only gave us a two-hour in-service a few days before school started. Many of the supplies that go along with the Reading series is missing, and I’m still waiting to receive them. Our district is pushing for those more authentic and open-ended responses and assessments. I think it is a great system and gets the students thinking on higher-levels. The problem is that teachers must be well trained more this is implemented. The main struggle with authentic assessments that teachers have is that are all teachers grading the same way. There are six fourth grade teachers in my school, and we try to work closely together to be on the same wavelength. Our problem that we find with open-ended response questions is other schools assessing the same way we are. All teachers can do is to try their best and make that connect with students so that they are learning and retaining the information that was taught. Authentic assessments allow the students to connect to the community and allow teachers, parents, and themselves to learn what academic standards they have mastered (Moon). Authentic assessments are much more meaningful to the students and are a much better way of viewing what the students actually know.






References:

Bond, L.A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. Critical issues in assessment. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm


Moon, T. R., Callahan, C. M., Brighton, C. M., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). Development of differentiated performance assessment tasks for middle school classrooms (RM02160). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Stacy Getz
Blog Post #8
11-7-06

Bloom Article

Benjamin Bloom is a very intriguing and in depth man. He contributes many great theories for people to ponder about education and the learning process. Bloom believes that there are five variables that must be considered in order for students to achieve mastery. The five variables include aptitude for particular kinds of learning, quality of instruction, ability to understand instruction, perseverance, and time allowed for learning (Bloom 1968). Before thinking about these five variables though, one of the most important parts for a teacher to know in order to begin a lesson is to known the students’ background. A teacher must know their students and where they are from. Different cultures have different beliefs and lifestyles, which affects the students’ learning. At my school, our guidance counselor implements a learning styles program that reminds me of Bloom’s theories and thinking. This program allows the students to recognize whether they are tactile, kinesthetic, or auditory learners. What is helpful of the learning styles program that is implemented at my school, it helps me recognize Bloom’s variables.

Teachers tend to give aptitude tests in order to see what students’ have already mastered. These are good and bad. The good point of aptitude tests is that a teacher is able to see what students already know, but on the other hand, it takes some students much longer to master certain skills. The question is whether not it is right to assess these students and judge them by these aptitude tests. Instruction plays an important role in how much learners retain. I find that the more you relate a new concept being taught to the students’ lives, the more they retain and participate. If I were to find that my classroom was filled with a bunch of kinesthetic learners, obviously a lecture wouldn’t be so beneficial to these types of students. Therefore if a teacher were to lecture to these types of kinesthetic learners, it would make assessment results invalid. Like I said above, if a teacher doesn’t know the students’ background, this may affect assessment results. If I ask a student to show me how to plant a tree, many would expect that a student could show me this. If a student came from a desert region, he/she might not understand the concept of plants and fail an assessment about plants. In order to help a student persevere, teachers must give students differentiated instruction in order to allow for each one to succeed. Teachers need variations to gather authentic assessments (Guskey 2005). It is challenging, but very helpful when a concept can relate to each of the students. I know that as a student, I always took my time to achieve perfection when I completed any and all of my work. All students learn at different rates, so how can anyone limit the time they have to finish an assessment? By limiting the students and setting a time limit, the results would not portray true results. It is very important to focus on the students, and how each one learns.




References:


Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Instruction and curriculum. Regional education laboratory for the carolinas and virginia, Topical papers and reprints, Number 1. (ERIC Document ED 053419)

Guskey, T. R., (2005). Formative classroom assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, research, and implications. (ERIC Document ED 490412)

Blog Post #7
10-30-06

Mindtools Article

This article was quite relieving and reviving. It was relieving and reviving to read about how technology can help students learn and be successful. These technology tools are not standard based or limited to content only taught in a certain grade level. It allows for students to use their own personal knowledge and higher thinking skills to enhance their learning. These so-called mindtools expand students’ thoughts and promotes authentic evaluations and teaching. Finally, the students are able to be the teachers instead of the opposite way around. What these mindtools allow students to do is to create something and look at it, as they would see it from their perspective. Many of these other instructional technologies have limited the students’ ability to actually learn. As it states in the article, instructional technologies are considered teacher proof and limit learners to any meaningful understandings (Car 1998).

As an educator, it was refreshing to read this article. We constantly hear about all these new technologies, but how do we truly know what is most effective for the students. These mindtools are exactly what teachers need to be using in the classrooms. Yes, we have these great programs that schools buy into to help promote advanced scores on PSSA’s, but these programs do not advance critical thinking skills. Like the article reads, these instructional programs are just a matter of clicking the correct answer and receiving immediate feedback on which questions were answered correctly (Car 1998). The mindtools allow students to create their own thoughts and analyze their information. Then the students are able to share, compare, and learn from creating their own information. If I understand correctly, I believe I have created a mindtool in my own classroom. Instead of having students just write a paper in a Word document, I introduced the PowerPoint program. The students created an animated story by using PowerPoint presentation. This allowed students to create their own illustrations and be the author of a book. Also, this activity displayed the students understanding of different literary concepts like genres, purposes, problems, etc. Much like these PowerPoint projects, concept maps created on the computer is another tool for problem-solving which leads to oral discussions (Plotnick 1997). No matter what mindtool a teacher may use, the students will gain a more authentic assessment by using it compared to an instructional technology. Students would finally feel proud of their work and achieve skills at higher levels.


References

Carr, C., Hsiu-Ping, Y., & Jonassen, D. H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.

Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts. (ERIC Document ED 407938)

Stacy Getz
Blog Post #6
10-23-06

Papert Response

I found Papert’s article to be quite interesting. It was interesting in the fact that it made me think of how teachers tend to be the director, and the students are the recipients. Thinking back, I can’t remember having a single class where I was asked how I learned best. Even if this was asked of me, I don’t remember ever having instruction in only that style. Also teachers may realize that children learn in many different ways, but it is unrealistic for them to be able to meet all their styles for each and every lesson.

It’s fascinating to find that the original meaning of mathematics was “disposed to learned”, where today mathe- is associated with numbers (Papert 1993). I’ve never once thought that mathematics could mean something else. It makes me wonder how many other words we use incorrectly. This just proves a point that children are gullible and will believe whatever is taught to them. There is nowhere in the school day that the students are asked to think about their learning.

In order to improve children’s learning in school, teaching must try to base their lessons on developing the children’s thinking. Instead of asking to solve a problem, the children may want to think of other problems that are similar to the one given. This will help to make the problem more authentic and hopefully trigger another real life experience like the one given. Instead of feeling as though a new skill must be learned by taking an assessment and becoming are concrete, the goal is to allow children to gain an understanding of the new skill that they can remember and relate to themselves. A good point made in this article is that picking a problem apart will help to eliminate the stress and fear of figuring out a larger problem (Papert 1993). This is an important rule to follow no matter what age and intellectuality the problem solver is at.

Roles may be changing a bit anymore today with teaching and children’s learning style. With the changing times, many educators have realized that children need to make their own connection in order to process and retain it. Lessons today allow for students to think and relate their own situations to the problem. It may be challenging, but assessing these children by different aspects will give more valid results (Chapman 2003). The main focus is the children. As educators, we need to do whatever is best for the learner. If we want the learner to retain the information and feel successful, the educator must help the learner find a way to make it connect to him/her.



References:

Chapman, E. (2003). Assessing student engagement rates. (ERIC Document ED 483269)


Papert, S. (1993). A word for learning. The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer, (pp. 82-105). New York, NY: Basicbooks.

Blog Post #5
10-5-06

Tarlow & Spangler Response

This article did an excellent job in making me think about how technology can truly affect these students in today’s schools. Could it really be true that technology could be hurting us instead of improving our literacy rate? It seems hard to believe that technology could disable us instead of enhancing us. You would think that with all the new ways of communication, that students would be more literate. Maybe these masterminded technologies really do have a backfire to them. Instead of the students reading, they are playing games on the computers. As stated in this article, the social interaction is slowly deteriorating (Spangler & Tarlow 2001). I would find it interesting to see how well these students would do on a PSSA if solely a computer taught them. It is important as young children to have that social interaction with their classmates. They need to be able to express their thoughts and feelings. If you think about it, technology is actually desensitizing. If you sole way of communication is through the computer, you will miss out on the fine details that a reader needs or wants you to know. If we think about it, would it really be a good idea if we never had to write anything down, as some people assume the future will be this way? I find it next to impossible to completely eliminate the possibilities of every having to write.
If technology drives toward and improves like it has been, it is likely that students’ literacy rates will fall. Although some computer learning programs speak to the students in many different languages, the students are not learning how to use these skills in many different situations and even in everyday life. A great point that was made is that the connection between thinking and writing will never change (Abdullah, 2006). We can have great technology that can enhance learning, but these technologies will always be changing. Abdullah recognizes that teachers need to focus on the thinking and writing aspect, which will always be concrete. A technology program may find it difficult to teach students how to think.


References:

Abdullah, M. (2003). The impact of electronic communication on writing. (Eric Document ED 477614)

Spangler, K. & Tarlow, M. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest, 67 (4), 23-27.

Blog Post #4
10-3-06

Response to Reeves Article

As an educator myself, I have always learned to be culturally sensitive when assessing or even talking in the classroom. I never really thought about cultural sensitivity as in depth as Reeves had in his article. Educators always look for ways to ease language and cultural barriers, so they try their hardest to make connects between the United States and the other cultures. It is known that teachers must be flexible and sensitive when it comes time for assessing students off all races and cultures (Sanchez 1995).

When reading Reeves article, I had the feeling that cultural sensitivity was being pushed to an unachievable level. I find to hard to believe that anyone could create an assessment that would be culturally sensitive to even the handful of different aspects that Reeves wrote about in his article. Honestly, I don’t think about the colors or animals I may use on an assessment I may make up myself. Is it really possible to even create an assessment that could be used globally and be culturally sensitive to all the different places around the world? Reeves obviously feels that it can be done. All educators need to do is evaluate formatively by making observations, interviews, and reviews (Reeves 1997). I kind of have to laugh about all the cultural sensitivity. We push for society to be such individuals, but on the other hand, we’re bringing everyone together in a sense and trying to test by using a unified assessment. If we’re trying to make our global society so diverse, why is it so bad to expose them to the varieties of other cultures? The fact is that the United States is a big melting pot, but we still have to try and keep some of our roots. Our roots are what help to protect our uniqueness. What test takers have to realize is that if you are in the United States, you should expect that cultural sensitivity would be seen when being assessed in the United States. If I were to go to live in a whole new culture, I would have to be open-minded and realize that everyone is different. Just because I don’t like something or believe in a certain culture, it doesn’t mean I can became livid and unappreciable of that certain culture.

References:

Reeves, T.C. (1997 March-April). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 27-31.


Sanchez, W. (1995). Working with diverse learners and school staff in a multicultural society. Digest. (Eric Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 390 018)