Monday, November 26, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Journal # 10
Title: More Than Money Matters, Establishing Effective School-Corporate Partnerships
Author: Nancy Flynn
Learning & leading with Technology, Nov. 2007
This article describes potential problems when schools partner with business. There are fears and concerns of the influence that can be exerted over students and schools when schools are desperate for money and need resources. Business can have an overpowering effect on the student by exerting influences over the curriculum and learning materials adopted by the school.
The author warns that when financial needs dominate the reasons for entering into these partnerships, principles should consider all the implications. In a telephone interview with principles across the nation the author states that principles agree corporate partnerships are a necessity due to financial constraints and lack of school funding. The author identifies concern with the effect on students when school partnerships involve technology. To help school administrators think more critically about implications of school-corporate partnerships that involve technology the author created ten guidelines.
Vision – Principles need to have a clear vision as to what they expect to get from the partnership provided resources. Principles can’t just get resources for which they have no idea how they will be used.
Support for Technology - School technology departments need to be involved with tech resources to avoid waste and a mismatch of resources with school capabilities.
School Curriculum – Principles must be sure that the corporate resources actually fit into the design of the school’s curriculum.
Collaboration & Communication – make sure the school knows what it is giving-up to get the corporate resources. Time commitments from school employees to communicate and facilitate implementation and upkeep can be extensive.
Internal Capacity – Make sure you know the extent of the tech support the corporation intends to commit and make certain it matches the schools internal capacity to use the resources.
Commitment – Make sure the corporation is committed and not a fly-by night group that is gone with the wind.
Obligations – Make sure you know the extent of the obligation you are committing the school to. Know what exactly the school is responsible to accomplish.
Product Promotion – Corporations are masters at recruiting professionals to deliver presentations at public events, corporate affairs and seminars. These are usually a product promotion masquerading as a presentation. Teachers are professionals and should avoid product promotion for more than just ethical reasons.
Assessment – Make sure you pick your assessment markers before you partner and be sure to actually do the measurement. Hold the partner accountable.
Longevity – If it doesn’t work end it and don’t do it again. In the long-run you are wasting your time.
Author: Nancy Flynn
Learning & leading with Technology, Nov. 2007
This article describes potential problems when schools partner with business. There are fears and concerns of the influence that can be exerted over students and schools when schools are desperate for money and need resources. Business can have an overpowering effect on the student by exerting influences over the curriculum and learning materials adopted by the school.
The author warns that when financial needs dominate the reasons for entering into these partnerships, principles should consider all the implications. In a telephone interview with principles across the nation the author states that principles agree corporate partnerships are a necessity due to financial constraints and lack of school funding. The author identifies concern with the effect on students when school partnerships involve technology. To help school administrators think more critically about implications of school-corporate partnerships that involve technology the author created ten guidelines.
Vision – Principles need to have a clear vision as to what they expect to get from the partnership provided resources. Principles can’t just get resources for which they have no idea how they will be used.
Support for Technology - School technology departments need to be involved with tech resources to avoid waste and a mismatch of resources with school capabilities.
School Curriculum – Principles must be sure that the corporate resources actually fit into the design of the school’s curriculum.
Collaboration & Communication – make sure the school knows what it is giving-up to get the corporate resources. Time commitments from school employees to communicate and facilitate implementation and upkeep can be extensive.
Internal Capacity – Make sure you know the extent of the tech support the corporation intends to commit and make certain it matches the schools internal capacity to use the resources.
Commitment – Make sure the corporation is committed and not a fly-by night group that is gone with the wind.
Obligations – Make sure you know the extent of the obligation you are committing the school to. Know what exactly the school is responsible to accomplish.
Product Promotion – Corporations are masters at recruiting professionals to deliver presentations at public events, corporate affairs and seminars. These are usually a product promotion masquerading as a presentation. Teachers are professionals and should avoid product promotion for more than just ethical reasons.
Assessment – Make sure you pick your assessment markers before you partner and be sure to actually do the measurement. Hold the partner accountable.
Longevity – If it doesn’t work end it and don’t do it again. In the long-run you are wasting your time.
Journal #9
Classroom 2.0
Collaborative Idea Maps
Collaborative Idea Maps are a way for students to take notes and demonstrate knowledge of a particular subject by creating graphic organizers on their computers that can be posted to a community web arena. Idea Maps are used to create graphic representations of anything that can be dissected into a step-by-step format. For example, a student could demonstrate knowledge of a mathematic principle in an Idea Map by illustrating the steps of a function or procedure in graphic form. Also, a student could demonstrate knowledge of an historical sequence by mapping out the stages of an event. Or, the student could personalize the Idea Map by plotting out the steps he/she needs to take to complete a project and/or finish a course or semester.
To accomplish this, the student plots out the steps, or information, in graphic format and creates a picture. The graphic format is product dependent and there are many products available that offer Idea Map software. Whichever product is used, the resulting graphic (picture) is something that is self explanatory and easily followed by any number of readers. It presents as a neat way to look at a problem or process to instantly see how all the parts fit together.
To make the Idea Maps collaborative the student then places them on a web based arena that can be accessed by a teacher and/or other students. The web based arena is the part that is commercial. The arenas and particular software exists in many formats and designs and are generally purchased by the user. However, the threads at Web 2.0 seem to say that these can be made available for free to educators.
From reading the threads I have learned that the existence of web based Idea Maps can be a revolutionary way for students to synthesis their class or reading notes into a format that is a much more effective study tool. The ones I have looked at on the web seem to be an excellent study source from for exams or future use. As the saying goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” These picture representations seem like an excellent way for students to organize their lives and obligations. Here is an example of one that was on one of the threads: Idea Map Example
Collaborative Idea Maps
Collaborative Idea Maps are a way for students to take notes and demonstrate knowledge of a particular subject by creating graphic organizers on their computers that can be posted to a community web arena. Idea Maps are used to create graphic representations of anything that can be dissected into a step-by-step format. For example, a student could demonstrate knowledge of a mathematic principle in an Idea Map by illustrating the steps of a function or procedure in graphic form. Also, a student could demonstrate knowledge of an historical sequence by mapping out the stages of an event. Or, the student could personalize the Idea Map by plotting out the steps he/she needs to take to complete a project and/or finish a course or semester.
To accomplish this, the student plots out the steps, or information, in graphic format and creates a picture. The graphic format is product dependent and there are many products available that offer Idea Map software. Whichever product is used, the resulting graphic (picture) is something that is self explanatory and easily followed by any number of readers. It presents as a neat way to look at a problem or process to instantly see how all the parts fit together.
To make the Idea Maps collaborative the student then places them on a web based arena that can be accessed by a teacher and/or other students. The web based arena is the part that is commercial. The arenas and particular software exists in many formats and designs and are generally purchased by the user. However, the threads at Web 2.0 seem to say that these can be made available for free to educators.
From reading the threads I have learned that the existence of web based Idea Maps can be a revolutionary way for students to synthesis their class or reading notes into a format that is a much more effective study tool. The ones I have looked at on the web seem to be an excellent study source from for exams or future use. As the saying goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” These picture representations seem like an excellent way for students to organize their lives and obligations. Here is an example of one that was on one of the threads: Idea Map Example
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Journal#8
Title: Fitting the Pieces Together; Successful Technology Integration with Laptops
Author: Patricia Yost
Learning & Leading with Technology, Nov. 2007
This article reports on a strategy used to integrate technology in middle schools. I describes improvements in teacher performance through the use of technology. Examples include using video clips rather than showing an entire movie, creating interactive hyper-link-infused self paced presentation documents, using word processing software tools to develop better writers, and others. The teachers infused a progression of hardware devises starting with a couple of laptops and a camera and growing over a two and a half year period. The teachers are grouped into one, two and three year teachers. They start off small and then progress with hardware and ways to implement technology.
The article is heavily detailed in description of the implementation process and the effectiveness of the strategy. The method is determined to be successful and offered as a model to adopt. It seems logical that an implementation strategy that is closely monitored and slowly brought along would be successful.
Question #1 Is implementing technology into the classroom in a stepped tiered format desireable? Yes. If I were a teacher undergoing a barrage of technological changes in the classroom, I would rather have it done in this way. This way would limit my chance of failure and frustration because I could pace myself. Also, help would be available from those of a higher proficiency than me. Also, I could feel some satisfaction by being of assistance to those not as proficient as me. This method allows for a systems of mentors and ‘mentees.’’
Question #2 Does developing proficiency of word processing tools make better writers? I would have to say No. I know this is contrary with what the article states but I think the answer depends on what the evaluator uses to measure the ‘goodness’ of a writing. The article did not elaborate on the criteria they used to measure this improvement but I suspect the improvements were mostly technical. When I write using a word processor I am continually disturbed and distracted by the warnings, the red and green highlighting, the automatic indents and numbering. I know these can be turned off and that’s what I do but they, in their active form do not facilitate better writing for me.
Author: Patricia Yost
Learning & Leading with Technology, Nov. 2007
This article reports on a strategy used to integrate technology in middle schools. I describes improvements in teacher performance through the use of technology. Examples include using video clips rather than showing an entire movie, creating interactive hyper-link-infused self paced presentation documents, using word processing software tools to develop better writers, and others. The teachers infused a progression of hardware devises starting with a couple of laptops and a camera and growing over a two and a half year period. The teachers are grouped into one, two and three year teachers. They start off small and then progress with hardware and ways to implement technology.
The article is heavily detailed in description of the implementation process and the effectiveness of the strategy. The method is determined to be successful and offered as a model to adopt. It seems logical that an implementation strategy that is closely monitored and slowly brought along would be successful.
Question #1 Is implementing technology into the classroom in a stepped tiered format desireable? Yes. If I were a teacher undergoing a barrage of technological changes in the classroom, I would rather have it done in this way. This way would limit my chance of failure and frustration because I could pace myself. Also, help would be available from those of a higher proficiency than me. Also, I could feel some satisfaction by being of assistance to those not as proficient as me. This method allows for a systems of mentors and ‘mentees.’’
Question #2 Does developing proficiency of word processing tools make better writers? I would have to say No. I know this is contrary with what the article states but I think the answer depends on what the evaluator uses to measure the ‘goodness’ of a writing. The article did not elaborate on the criteria they used to measure this improvement but I suspect the improvements were mostly technical. When I write using a word processor I am continually disturbed and distracted by the warnings, the red and green highlighting, the automatic indents and numbering. I know these can be turned off and that’s what I do but they, in their active form do not facilitate better writing for me.
Journal #7
Title: Is Chatspeak Destroying English?
Authors: Linda Howard and Greg Monfils
Leading and Learning with Technology, Nov. 2007
This article is a presentation of two divergent views of the damage and/or value of chatspeak on school age children. The authors define chatspeak as the shorthand slang language that kids have developed and adopted with the emergence of electronic forms of communication. Linda Howard presents the anti chatspeak view by claiming that it ill prepares kids for writing proper educated English. She identifies the reality that kids need to be prepared to write in a form that is precise, accurate and able to be understood by other educated English speaking people and that encouraging chatspeak will compromise a students command of English. Greg Monfils defends student’s use of chatspeak claiming that the English language itself is an expanding entity that incorporates many exceptions and meaning into its body. He argues that teaching foreign languages in class does no harm to a student’s command of the English language and analogizes chatspeak to another language such as Spanish.
The article is limited to a dialoge of the authors’ fears, opinions, and experiences. There are suggestions as to the impact of chatspeak on students but there is little substance to back-up the claims made. The article is however, valuable for what it is, a exposition of the fact that chatspeak is a language modality that is growing in usage among students. The authors inform the reader that chatspeak is an evolving thing that teachers will have to face at some point. When this happens, the teacher can reflect on the information in the article to guide their decisions about how to proceed.
Question #1 Will I correct students who write to me in chatspeak? No. I think each generation has its own language/slang that allows them to express their youth and this allows communication in a more intimate style; one that the English of their parents is unable to convey. Chatspeak is the current form of slang. I would happily respond to chatspeak because it’s a form in which students can most comfortable communicate and accurately express themselves.
Question #2 Will I learn to write in chatspeak? No, unless. If it would be useful for my students then yes, I would do my best to struggle through it. However, I really don’t feel comfortable using these types of shorthand. I don’t even like deciphering acronyms much less chatspeak.
Authors: Linda Howard and Greg Monfils
Leading and Learning with Technology, Nov. 2007
This article is a presentation of two divergent views of the damage and/or value of chatspeak on school age children. The authors define chatspeak as the shorthand slang language that kids have developed and adopted with the emergence of electronic forms of communication. Linda Howard presents the anti chatspeak view by claiming that it ill prepares kids for writing proper educated English. She identifies the reality that kids need to be prepared to write in a form that is precise, accurate and able to be understood by other educated English speaking people and that encouraging chatspeak will compromise a students command of English. Greg Monfils defends student’s use of chatspeak claiming that the English language itself is an expanding entity that incorporates many exceptions and meaning into its body. He argues that teaching foreign languages in class does no harm to a student’s command of the English language and analogizes chatspeak to another language such as Spanish.
The article is limited to a dialoge of the authors’ fears, opinions, and experiences. There are suggestions as to the impact of chatspeak on students but there is little substance to back-up the claims made. The article is however, valuable for what it is, a exposition of the fact that chatspeak is a language modality that is growing in usage among students. The authors inform the reader that chatspeak is an evolving thing that teachers will have to face at some point. When this happens, the teacher can reflect on the information in the article to guide their decisions about how to proceed.
Question #1 Will I correct students who write to me in chatspeak? No. I think each generation has its own language/slang that allows them to express their youth and this allows communication in a more intimate style; one that the English of their parents is unable to convey. Chatspeak is the current form of slang. I would happily respond to chatspeak because it’s a form in which students can most comfortable communicate and accurately express themselves.
Question #2 Will I learn to write in chatspeak? No, unless. If it would be useful for my students then yes, I would do my best to struggle through it. However, I really don’t feel comfortable using these types of shorthand. I don’t even like deciphering acronyms much less chatspeak.
Journal #6
Title: The Threat of Security: Hindering Technology Integration in the Classroom.
Authors: LeAnne Robinson, Abbie Brown, and Tim Green.
Learning & Leading with Technology, November 2007
This article is about how perceived security threats are hampering the integration of technology in the classroom. It discusses a resulting problem when the concern over security overshadows technological integration. The authors make the claim that access is necessary for full integration. They do not deny and even agree that security is of prime importance for child safety and protection of computer and information systems, but they plead that this concern has reached a point where access is suffering. The greatest hurdle to integration was thought to be the presence of technology in the classroom but now ironically the mere presence of technology is not generating access. Fear of law suits lead to overkill and denial of access.
In analyzing the authors’ claims there seems to be the implication that a panicked concern for security is overblown if not misdirected; approaching a state of trowing the baby out with the bath water. They cite examples where tight restriction on e-mail use leads to communication failures and destructive limitations. They also describe the problem of network security log-off policies as unnecessary for student security and limiting efficient instruction in the classroom setting. The use of web filters are also described as a barrier to integration and the implication of overkill because it is pointed out that the actual number of potentially hazardous web sites is so low as to not justify the expense and concern for protection software. The whole article showcases the theme of mistrust. Teachers can’t be trusted to use e-mail or the internet and students can’t either. Big Brother is watching everyone in cyber form and everyone and anything can be labeled suspicious. It is ridiculous for teachers and students to be caught in the middle of two large opposing forces. One force is focused on telling the teacher that as far as technology goes, the sky’s the limit. They reassure teachers that the application of technology in the classroom is an endless cornucopia of potential and opportunity. The other force has an ever increasing list of restrictions on technological use in the classroom. Why should the classroom be the industrial battleground for such fundemental differences in opinion?
Question #1 Should teachers have unlimited access to e-mail for purposes of their classroom and their professional needs? Yes. Restrictions on e-mail are completely unnecessary for a professional. When a professional is employed they are paid for a service and there must be trust that they will use their time and energies appropriately. They aren’t paid for the time they spend in the ‘trenches’ they’re paid for their talent at delivering a quality service. If problems arise then they should be dealt with, but hogtieing an entire profession for fear that a small percentage will abuse resources is penny wise and pound foolish.
Question #2 Would these types of barriers prevent me from integrating technology in the classroom? Yes. Classroom time is too short, almost as short as the attention span of the average 5th grader. I don’t feel that my time would be best spent troubleshooting software glitches, password protectors, site key protectors, virus warnings, pop-up blockers, security log-offs, encryption software, copyright infringements, etc… Not to mention responding to Big Brother information system managers as to why I visited a particular web site or had my students use a choice of software with questionable license protection. I would rather limit my time to showing students the the components of the plug and the on switch and then let them figure everything else out for themselves. I would prefer to concentrate on teaching them why Tom Sawyer is an important contribution to American literature and maybe how to do basic math. They'll figure out the computer on their own anyway.
Authors: LeAnne Robinson, Abbie Brown, and Tim Green.
Learning & Leading with Technology, November 2007
This article is about how perceived security threats are hampering the integration of technology in the classroom. It discusses a resulting problem when the concern over security overshadows technological integration. The authors make the claim that access is necessary for full integration. They do not deny and even agree that security is of prime importance for child safety and protection of computer and information systems, but they plead that this concern has reached a point where access is suffering. The greatest hurdle to integration was thought to be the presence of technology in the classroom but now ironically the mere presence of technology is not generating access. Fear of law suits lead to overkill and denial of access.
In analyzing the authors’ claims there seems to be the implication that a panicked concern for security is overblown if not misdirected; approaching a state of trowing the baby out with the bath water. They cite examples where tight restriction on e-mail use leads to communication failures and destructive limitations. They also describe the problem of network security log-off policies as unnecessary for student security and limiting efficient instruction in the classroom setting. The use of web filters are also described as a barrier to integration and the implication of overkill because it is pointed out that the actual number of potentially hazardous web sites is so low as to not justify the expense and concern for protection software. The whole article showcases the theme of mistrust. Teachers can’t be trusted to use e-mail or the internet and students can’t either. Big Brother is watching everyone in cyber form and everyone and anything can be labeled suspicious. It is ridiculous for teachers and students to be caught in the middle of two large opposing forces. One force is focused on telling the teacher that as far as technology goes, the sky’s the limit. They reassure teachers that the application of technology in the classroom is an endless cornucopia of potential and opportunity. The other force has an ever increasing list of restrictions on technological use in the classroom. Why should the classroom be the industrial battleground for such fundemental differences in opinion?
Question #1 Should teachers have unlimited access to e-mail for purposes of their classroom and their professional needs? Yes. Restrictions on e-mail are completely unnecessary for a professional. When a professional is employed they are paid for a service and there must be trust that they will use their time and energies appropriately. They aren’t paid for the time they spend in the ‘trenches’ they’re paid for their talent at delivering a quality service. If problems arise then they should be dealt with, but hogtieing an entire profession for fear that a small percentage will abuse resources is penny wise and pound foolish.
Question #2 Would these types of barriers prevent me from integrating technology in the classroom? Yes. Classroom time is too short, almost as short as the attention span of the average 5th grader. I don’t feel that my time would be best spent troubleshooting software glitches, password protectors, site key protectors, virus warnings, pop-up blockers, security log-offs, encryption software, copyright infringements, etc… Not to mention responding to Big Brother information system managers as to why I visited a particular web site or had my students use a choice of software with questionable license protection. I would rather limit my time to showing students the the components of the plug and the on switch and then let them figure everything else out for themselves. I would prefer to concentrate on teaching them why Tom Sawyer is an important contribution to American literature and maybe how to do basic math. They'll figure out the computer on their own anyway.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)