Sunday, May 25, 2014
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Reading Response Week 3
There are many definitions of what is later referred to as instructional
design and technology presented in chapter 1. It’s not that I disagree
with any of these definitions. In fact, I agree with most of them.
In my opinion, however, it seems as if the definitions are just expanding
on what I think are bigger themes in the field. For me, instructional
design and technology should include the following characteristics:
· It should create a more convenient learning environment for
teachers and students.
· It should look to create student-driven learning and greater
student independence.
· It should support an idea in the most user-friendly way.
· It should be open to process and supplement the intuitive nature
of teachers.
What I found to be surprising in chapter 1 was that humans weren’t
included in the definition of instructional design and technology until 1977.
Media aside, it’s still humans who have to drive the media and design how
the media will supplement classroom content. I guess if anything seemed to
be missing, it would be the mentioning of teacher intuition. Maybe this
wasn’t mentioned because it isn’t something that can be measured, but it seems
as if the intuitive nature of a teacher plays greatly into the success of a
classroom.
The “Application” scenario presented in the book was interesting
because our middle school rolled out a 1:1 initiative this year. Although
the program is still in the preliminary phase and it’s hard to gauge whether
this initiative will positively affect instructional practices, I was able to
come up with reasons why the hypothetical scenario in the book might have
faltered.
First of all, it’s likely that the project gave teachers and
students lots of tools, but didn’t instruct the teachers how to use the tools
or how to incorporate these tools into the curriculum. It might also be
likely that the tools themselves seemed trendy, but in actuality, didn’t
supplement curriculum in any meaningful way. In the two years I’ve been
employed in an elementary school, I’ve probably seen 3-5 programs, which seemed
like the new, trendy wagon to jump on, but faded out within a year because of
the aforementioned reasons. Perhaps many of our teachers had a similar
mentality as Postman, wondering what problems these tools answered?
Another possible reason the proposed program had minimal effect
could be lack of funding needed to service and maintain the computers and
update the tools. Or, it could be one of the reasons why television media
had minimal effect: teacher unwillingness to adopt the change. Although
many teachers have adopted widespread tools such as online grade books, email,
etc.; other teaching tools, without proper training, could be seen as frustrating
and more of a nuisance.
I think one strategy that could be used to mitigate the above factors would be a thorough introduction of the tools and training of the tools for teachers so that teachers don’t feel the pressure of learning and introducing something new by themselves. I think it would also be important for teachers to have a say in the instructional devices to be introduced before committing to them. Perhaps by doing this, teachers would feel more included in the decision and would be able to select tools they think are applicable to the curriculum.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Reading Response Week 2
My first impressions of using the technology-based tools this week
were those of familiarity and unfamiliarity. I have previous experiences
with a blog, RSS feed, and wiki, but the extent which I’ve used these tools
varies greatly. Out of the three technologies, I feel most comfortable
with a blog. (I actually kept a blog during my time in France and
recently found out it has over 1,000 views.) I created an RSS feed and a
wiki during my undergraduate studies, but haven’t taken advantage of these
tools since.
I actually found all three of these tools to strongly obtain the
Web 2.0 characteristics as described by O’Reilly. All three were
user-friendly, free (which takes away the exclusive, business-like models of
many Web 1.0 tools), based on some form of collaboration and/or community, and
easily accessible. All three also seemed intuitively designed with clean
interfaces making them easy to navigate and manage.
I can think of a number of ways a wiki could be used in my
classroom, both as an instructional, organizational tool and as a tool for
students to manage their artistic creations and experiences. I think a
common application amongst educators is to have a classroom wiki, which serves
as a tool for communicating with students and parents, and cataloging items
relating to the curriculum. I could definitely see myself making a wiki
for my class (and I’m a little disappointed that I haven’t already) in order to
post units, demonstrations pertaining to those units, art news, events, etc. I
could also see students using a wiki as an art portfolio or as a source for
displaying artwork and then critiquing others’ work via the comments
feature. A wiki could also be used
to supplement a research project. Perhaps students have to create a wiki
about a particular artist with widgets to supplement the research.
When thinking about which part of Dale’s Cone the blog and Feedly
lend themselves to best, it’s important to consider this idea from the aspect
of the creator and the aspect of the viewer. First of all, I learned each
tool by “direct purposeful experiences,” meaning that I went through the steps
of creation and playing around to figure out how each tool operates. For
the viewer, I think both the blog and Feedly would fit best into the “contrived
experiences” tier. In the article, it’s mentioned that an experience is
contrived when “we deal with a representation that differs from the original
reality in size, in complexity, or in both.” With a level of abstract thinking applied, the blog eliminates
the need for an audience to congregate in one area to listen to a story and
then respond directly to the storyteller.
Feedly, on the other hand, makes it so I don’t have to obtain physical
copies of the literature I want to read or constantly refresh numerous sources
for updates. Content wise, both of
these tools have the ability to expand into most every tier of Dale’s Cone
based on what media the creators choose to add and their intended usage.
In the article “Falling Asleep at Your Keyboard: The Case for
Computer Imagination,”
Martin Siegel gives many examples for what he defines as “computer
imaginative.” Things that are “computer imaginative” create unique
experiences, employ a “coherent set of concepts,” and have a purpose. A
blog is an example of a web tool that allows for multiple people to assemble
around a shared idea and participate in a discussion about that idea without
the need to travel or participate within time constraints. Those features
in themselves are “imaginative.”
An “imaginative” application of a blog in an art classroom would be for
students to create individual blogs with photos of ongoing work and for other
students to critique that work via the comments feature. This solves the aforementioned problems
related to travel and time, and also the problem of students working on
projects at home and not getting feedback until class assembles. One might say that a group SMS could be
sent to individuals, but a blog allows for a more coherent interface (perhaps
the artist wants to share her artist statement and multiple photos) and opens
comments up to a broader audience.
Feedly, on the other hand, solves the problems of having to
physically obtain in one space the things I want to read or have my students
read, and having to navigate through numerous sites for updates. In the classroom, Feedly would answer
the problem of having safe (because I’ve selected them) literature relating to
a particular subject in one place that is free, user friendly, and
community-based. Student could
also subscribe to other classmate’s blogs, similar to what we did, and comment
as a form of critique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)