Pixabay to the Rescue!

Posted on by
1

I did enjoy the process of kind of brainstorming on the fly in my post a couple of weeks back. It’s usually a pretty productive way to get some thoughts down in a less linear fashion, and maybe encounter ideas you wouldn’t have if you were just “writing.”

My experience in creating my infographic was much more structured though. Not being a techie or having a lot of experience creating images or art online, I realized that most of musings weren’t going to be all that accessible to me without several crash courses in web design. I was a bit at the mercy of what I could find on the internet. Luckily I was introduced to Pixabay last year by a librarian during a session for my EAP students. The site offers free images without copyright entanglements, although you are given the chance to credit the author or even donate when you download an image. Of course it was a little tricky to find an image that exactly suited my needs, but I realized that that was probably an unrealistic expectations in the first place. But by combing a composite image out of several different image, I think I was able to get to the idea I meant to convey in each case.

This might be an idea that we need to explicitly share with our students as well. As they try to find the simplest way to get a visual project done, they may overlook their ability to convey an idea by combining a few images. This is probably an apt metaphor for their writing as well. Quoting a source (which is likely required in most pieces) may not exactly address the point you are trying to make in a paper, but by citing several sources, and tying them together with your own viewpoint and logic, you can create a unique and fresh take on what already exists.

Thinking Out Loud

Posted on by
1

As I contemplate how I will create my final image for the teachnology philosophy remediation, I am kind of stumped. So, here I am, thinking “out loud” about it. Forgive me jumping around as I take notes for a few minutes. As I discussed in earlier posts, I had a sort of mind movie idea in place. A movie, or course, is composed of many, many images. So how am I going to get that “movie,” that PPT of several slides, down into a single image? There is a sense of time there that I will have to try to capture. I was also trying to get a sense of balance between digital teaching and more traditional teaching that I will want to include in  the image. And of course, intentionality is part of my philosophy, so how does one illustrate a concept like “purpose”?

*look at the suggested applications to create the image, which has the abilities that seems to speak best to your vision?

*a “life cycle” like you might find in biology textbook’s image concerning the “time” problem

*actually the time aspect isn’t all that important here. you showed how technology has kind of invaded our classrooms and how a teacher has made intentional choices in trimming the fat so as not to become overwhelmed, but you can simply address the “now” of the situation – we are already inundated by technological options, just illustrate what you think is important about limiting tech’s takeover of a classroom ***and why you think that is important.***

*one half of the screen versus the other half? two cycles occurring together, one inside the other perhaps? which inside? why?

*Venn diagram/s? Tech vs. Traditional? Tech vs. Teacher? Tech vs. Student? Intentional vs. Indiscriminate?

*there is a sense of “coming together” in your PPT project, and it is recurring here as you bounce thoughts around, how can you maintain that piece? concentric rings acting as filters as you approach the innermost circle? that is a separation though… several categories being distilled, yes…but the categories blending as the reach the center?

*how would you address this project with colored pencils, clippings, glue, etc. – traditional art supplies?

Statement of Goals and Choices

Posted on by
2

I was wondering what I had entered into my search box last week, because I remember at one point only having results concerning educational remediation (as in intervention, taking a step back) come back to me. I don’t think the “visualizing a text” search I mentioned in my last post was the combination that brought me there. At any rate, I was looking to explore remediation again this week as I work on finishing up my philosophy remediation, and using “remediating composition assignments” With this combination, I found relevant results much more easily this week. This search brought me to Remediation by Becca Tarsa on the Digital Rhetoric Collaborative. Tarsa gives us the “who” “what” why’s” of remediation, and she also includes a brief interview with Dr. Lori Beth de Hertogh from Washington State University. Dr. de Hertogh relates her experiences with using remediation in her classroom for the first time.

One aspect of assessment that de Hertogh used in her application of the assignment was the SOGC – Statement of Goals and Choices (borrowed from Jody Shipka’s Toward a Composition Made Whole). Shipka’s call to ask student to “detail how, why, and under what conditions they made their rhetorical, technological, and methodological choices” is relevant in comparing their text product to their remediation, but may also be useful in exploring the composition of  a text alone. I have made it through a round of a major composition in my FYC course now, and I see students aren’t all intentionally considering the rhetorical situation in which we are writing. While Tarsa, de Hertogh and Shipka all offer pieces for consideration concerning remediation, and they have got me thinking of how to tie that activity to my class rather than just how to navigate it for myself, the SOGC calls to me in particular. I think this may be a way to address some of what I see lacking in many of the first full compositions I am seeing from my students this semester. I think we are still missing (in some cases) that rhetoric is a series of intentional choices with a goal of persuasion. Too many students are still looking at assignments as hitting all the criteria the teacher has listed, without ever looking at the process of how they are writing, without ever asking why they are doing it one way (i.e. the fastest, easiest way – which is the answer in most cases) or how they could be doing it more effectively.

Remediation Movie

Posted on by
Reply

I plugged the search “visualizing a text” into Google as I thought about remediating my teachnology philosophy, and found the article Brain Movies. It focuses on younger students and language learners boosting comprehension by visualizing what they are reading. Useful, but not what I’m doing. Exactly. In my case, I am creating a bit of a movie of slides, but more so out of concepts than what a young reader might be doing in a fiction or nonfiction world of concrete objects. But still, the technique can apply.

It is interesting how trying to tell the same story in a different medium, or with a new set of constraints, makes you have to really get to the bottom of what you were trying to say in the first place. I’m working on a series of slides that show a progression of involvement with technology vis-à-vis students and teachers. But I know that there is more to my philosophy written in my text version. Part of my philosophy deals with how we interact with technology through time, so it can become a “brain movie,” but other pieces are more static perceptions. How they will get translated into images is a mystery to me yet, but I don’t doubt that it can be done. The process of distilling my thoughts down to images that someone else should be able to successfully “translate” is a challenging and useful process in the understanding of my work myself.

On a side note: I’m not the most creative person, and am certainly not an artist, but I do enjoy creative processes. Reworking the text into a visual is fun for me. I can see how this assignment would be really difficult for some students. Maybe even more difficult than writing the philosophy in the first place. This is a great way for us to get students to stretch themselves and their abilities, maybe not with the content of the course per se, but with the abilities they believe they have.

A Work in Progress

Posted on by
Reply

I found after I submitted my actual Teachnology Philosophy, that it consisted mostly of keeping up with technology, using technology purposefully rather than as flash, and teaching students to approach technology in the same manner. I remember looking back at my blog as I finished up and making notes about ideas to include. Keeping the philosophy to around 750 words naturally limited including everything a philosophy could contain, but I do wish I had said more about the teacher as a “crucial component”, and the ability of technology to lead us out of ourselves to benefit society. I’m not fully sure why I didn’t include these topics. I think I got wrapped up in what my first draft had addressed, and I didn’t move too far away from that.

This is what is nice about a teaching philosophy though. It is in flux. At times we focus on one aspect of the profession, at another time we become intrigued with another piece of the life. Hopefully we don’t lose either one, and we generally experience more of a snowball effect. One piece begins to inform the other as we develop our professional approach. Even if we never pulled in new considerations, the pieces we already hold on to would synthesize to a degree, but by continually adding to our philosophies, the synthesis will grow to be a more full and informed philosophy. We will become more professional practitioners of our field. This is part of the teacher being the “crucial component” in the classroom. Technology at this point is only capable of doing what it is programmed to do. Teachers have the ability to read widely on a variety of matters that affect the classroom, and to manufacture solutions to address the issues that arrive in our classrooms daily. Our teaching philosophies will inform those decisions, and should never become stagnant assumptions, but always living entities with whom we work.

Moving Outward, Not Inward

Posted on by
Reply

While reading chapter nine of our Richardson text this week, Social Networks: Facebook, Ning, Connections, and Communities, I was interested to learn of the existence of sites such as Ning.com, Kiva.org, and TakingItGlobal.org. I’ve maybe heard of Kiva somewhere along the way before, but I had never heard of the other two sites. Considering Facebook is a “social network,” and that apps like Instagram or Twitter are “social media,” it seems there is an aspect of the “social” that is missing. Often we use these media to promote ourselves and our viewpoints. To me, there is rarely great value in this.

As I teach with technology, I hope that I will be able to employ the sites listed above to get students to consider rhetoric and writing, but also to think about and engage with the world around them. Technology offers us many chances to engage with the problems we see in the world, tools to work on improving those conditions, and access to communities abroad and nearby – it would be a shame to use this powerful tool to focus only on our selves and immediate concerns.

Starting earlier on than I was considering, social-emotional learning aided by technology is discussed in EdTech’s article focused on elementary students. Teq also had ideas to encourage social learning in younger students.

My somewhat unfruitful and frustrating search for other socially conscious service learning-based sites or articles indicates that we have a way to go in the area. Combing “technology” “classroom” “service learning” “socially conscious” and similar concepts in various ways, I either found articles focusing on children, like those above, classroom projects that didn’t involve technology (The Conscious Classroom does offer food for thought and some springboards), or those that somehow construed the most pressing social problem we have to be helping businesses function better. *sigh*

A Crucial Component

Posted on by
Reply

I went searching for some videos on teaching with technology, and among those I watched, I found Mary Jo Madda’s Tedx Talk: Why Technology Can’t Fix Education. In the video, she tells the story of a few districts that have experimented with partially or completely eliminating teachers in favor of more technology. In the examples she gives, this swap does not work out. She goes on to explain what she believes failed in the experiment.

She notes that we often bemoan the classroom of just a few years back, where the teacher was the sole focus of the room, and students sat attentively. But then she offers this image with her talk, and wonders if the scenario on the right is any better. She notes that “Students are sitting at desks, tapped in, singular device, no collaboration, no project-based learning, no communicating, no soft skill development…..and where is the teacher?” (9:25). One might argue the computer is the teacher, but I don’t believe that’s how Ms. Madda intended the idea, or the question. But even if we give that the computer is the teacher, we are left with a formidable list of omissions in the carrel-filled classroom.

I believe the point of Madda’s presentation is that we can err too heavily in either direction. Technology can certainly aid us in the engagement and education of our students, but teachers provide indispensable interpretation in the application of these tools.

Technology as Disruption

Posted on by
Reply

While reading through 7 EdTech Assumptions, I was struck by one word: disruption. Naturally, I had my own idea of what this word meant in relationship to the article, although the author, Kim, had a different idea in mind. But it is my own exploration of my philosophy on technology in the classroom, so for this post, my idea wins. 🙂

When I saw the word, I thought of how technology will be a shake-up of our traditional classroom, how it already is a shake-up of our schools. We are grappling at times to take it all in and to find ways to make it work with our students effectively.

Some people believe in shake-ups. They believe in challenging the status quo. They believe that only a rolling stone gathers no moss. I do as well. While we can rest on techniques proven through time to educate students, our students and world are constantly changing, so it is necessary to always reevaluate those techniques to be sure they maintain their function. If so, then good, let’s continue with them. I also believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

But a disruption is violent. I don’t believe we need to experience that revolution all at once. I hope that technology in my classroom will be an evolution, not a disruption. I believe we can move from those tried-and-true techniques to the newer tech-based approaches to teaching and learning along a continuum. We must trust ourselves enough as teachers to make those decisions. It seems at times that we abandon our own professionalism in the face of technology, “Oh, surely, the computers must know better!” But we are the educators in the room, the professionals who design what takes place within the walls. Let’s use our judgement to create classes that shake up the state of affairs in the classroom as necessary, and the integrate technology and its benefits, but let’s not create an explosion that does away with both the good and the bad of yesterday’s educational experience.

Drawbacks II

Posted on by
Reply

Trying to delve into what I believe about technology in the classroom by looking into what people believe is wrong with the practice remains my theme for this post. I looked at two more articles in an attempt to clarify my thoughts, “The Problem with Technology in Schools,” and “Technology in the Classroom: Don’t Believe the Hype.” In my last post, I pretty much did a search and picked an article that addressed drawbacks. Today, I wanted to look for articles from more recognized sources. The first article I listed comes from the Washington Post, and the second comes the National Education Association.

The arguments weren’t all that dissimilar given what might be seen as a disparity of sources: tech is leading to distracted researchers, schools are spending too much money for the return they’re receiving, tech sometimes wastes class time. The moral of the story of all three of these articles seems to be the same, there is a middle ground. You would think we would have learned this lesson in general, but we seem to need to hold completely back, or go all in. But when it comes to using technology in our classrooms, we simply must be discerning.

Noel Enyedy, associate professor of education and information studies at UCLA in the NEA article notes that policymakers should continue to invest in technology, but at a more incremental pace, rather than simply trusting and buying into the claims of tech companies. In what I find to be an important point, he notes that research isn’t always finding that tech promises are delivering, results are lacking. And generally, he categorizes technology as relatively new. That is to say, we haven’t developed a feel for what is good or what is bluster. We don’t have a lot of research yet to back up all claims on technology, or the history with it to have a lot of effective techniques to use it. In that vein, he also points out that teachers must be supported with training in the use of technologies, as the technologies will demand a broader range of skills from teachers than has been demanded in the past.

None of these articles say that technology is a bad thing in the classroom, but they caution that perhaps our approach to technology has been unwise, without caution. There are clearly avenue that technology is opening up to us and our students, but it may take us a little time yet to figure out what the most effective uses are.

Drawbacks of tech in the classroom

Posted on by
Reply

In exploring my thoughts of teaching with technology, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at an article focused on the the drawbacks of teaching with technology. In doing so, I’m thinking I might more clearly see where I can agree and disagree with such a viewpoint, and better see the value I place on technology in the classroom.

I came across “15 Disadvantages of Technology in the Classroom.” It’s not a particularly carefully written article, but it also raises a few points worth discussion. Some of the disadvantages in the article can’t be argued: technology is expensive, teachers are often poorly trained in using the technology, technology is buggy, and (importantly) access to technology is unequal across the board.

Are these detriments enough to keep us from looking at what technology can do for us in our learning environments though? The author, Grace Pomers, initially mentions in points 2 and 3, that teachers and students are using technology mindlessly. Teachers don’t have the training to do any better, students are becoming lazy because of computer assistance. She acknowledges that technology can be used more effectively, but doesn’t spend too much time looking into this. Yes, teachers do use technology inadequately or for its own sake at times, but we have the power to do better. If we get away from the flash of technology and teachers explore its value in inquiry-based learning (as Pomers mentions), then technology becomes  a powerful tool, not a liability.

Pomers next notes that technology allows for inaccurate sources of information, distraction, and the ability to cheat. The former is a problem. But again, it is up to the instructor’s ingenuity to train their students to critique what they are finding and to choose the best possible resources. The latter two are also true, but I believe schools and instructors are finding ways to counter these problems. Many social sites are blocked, and teachers are designing lessons to incorporate technology into quizzing or culminating projects, seeing the technology as a student’s ally, not an instructor’s enemy.

The list goes on: cyberbullying, student disconnection from the real world, lost assignments, and the like. It’s not particularly worth working to refute each of them. Some of her disadvantages seem a bit frivolous to me, some of them are real problems. But I think it is worth considering two points: the advantages outweigh these disadvantages; and technology is not going away any time soon. We as a society have committed to technology, and of course, there is no such thing  as a free lunch. There is going to be work involved in our adaptation to it. We are going to face challenges in how students make use of such a powerful tool that can be used for so many different goals. Technology is going to be a part of our futures, more so a part of our students’ futures and careers. It is incumbent on us as teachers to engage with technology, understand it, and engage our students in using it to its full potential as a learning tool.