Facebook Fears

 

I use Facebook almost daily for personal communication, and it's convenience.  When thinking about using it professionally, or to communicate with students however, I begin to get nervous.  I have heard too many bad stories about teachers having problems with what students see on, post on, or say they saw on teachers' Facebooks.  Reading the Sardine blog's post about how teachers can harness the potential of social media gave me pause.  Use Facebook to communicate with students?  Isn't that dangerous somehow?  From the graphics, it would seem that YouTube is a form of social media too.  I have never seen a teacher have qualms about showing an educational video via YouTube in class or encouraging students to upload video project assignments to the site for presenting.  It really is all about how the technology is used.  The blog listed several good ideas for using social media effectively in the classroom: using a blog as a class calendar and assignment forum, posting activity ideas or project ideas to a group Pinterest board to communicate with parents or teacher teams, etc.  There are sites like Moodle that serve some of these same purposes, but they cannot also be used for social communication.  I would certainly rather be the teacher who allows her students to use the technology that they are already familiar with and enjoy for classroom learning, than one who says, "Okay now this is our learning social media site."  I want to learn more about some of the ideas mentioned in the blog such as Flashcards and WeRead, to learn how to become even more effective and more relevant in the classroom.

Don't Tell the DOE about Ethiopia!

How do illiterate Ethiopian children receiving tablets and the United State's failing system of standardized testing relate?
The correlation between the two ideas: standardized testing doesn't work; the U.S. is falling far behind countries like Finland where learning is innovative and engaging; and the study where children in a remote Ethiopian village hacked Android on Motorola tablets in five months without help; suggest the need for change in the way we teach.  We know that there is no evidence for the benefits of standardized testing on learning.  We are also learning more about the capabilities of the brain when given tools and allowed to be responsible for one's own learning (Ethiopia).  There is much that could be discussed here, for example: What if teachers made learning goals more like mysteries to be solved as in the case with Ethiopia?  If standardized testing doesn't work, but given teachers freedom does (Finland), what should that mean for the classroom?  Is it too late for the U.S. to change it's ways or is the Department of Education too sold out on standardizing?  All of these things could be deeply explored.  My main concern is how others, specifically those currently in power in education, might make a correlation here.
How can we take what we saw happening in Ethiopia and apply it to the way we teach in the U.S.?
Along the lines of current DOE thinking, those in charge might say the solution is to replace teachers with Motorola tablets, giving each student one.  The tablets would be programmed to teach the students that information they need to know for their standardized tests.  "School," would become a free range facility where student could mill around as they liked, totally engrossed in their tablets, then ushered into rooms to take tests every so often.  There would also have to be a few adults present to handle misbehavior.  This is scary.  So let's be selective with who we tell about the research in Ethiopia and avoid correlating the study to the current failure of teaching to tests in the presence of those who work for the United States DOE.

BYOT Affirmations and Criticisms

BYOT=Bring your own technology

Affirmation 1: The principle behind students bringing their own technology to help them be more engaged and work more efficiently in the classroom, is a great one.  It is encouraging for me to read that there are current educators who are embracing the possibilities of students commanding technology in the classroom and who are willing to push back the restrictions of typical school conventions.  The BYOT article rings true with its statement about how educators tend to ban that which they do not understand.  This is unfortunately true and the close-mindedness of this attitude is ironic considering how it is the purpose of education to expand the knowledge and imagination of students, not restrict life into the box of what is already understood and comfortable.  Students bringing their own technology would be a great way for students and teachers to find new avenues of exploration and imagination.

Affirmation 2: I loved how the article touched on how banning personal devices from school creates a situation where students cannot perform how they normally would, using their devices at home.  As an educator, I would rather my students have a school experience where they are able to do more and experience more than they would if they stayed at home.  I want school to be a place of discovery, not a place where students have to live within a list of restrictions on what they can and cannot do and have.  Technology has quickly become part of students' basic functioning and taking that away from them would become very confining and limiting.

Criticism 1: It is a good argument that students who do not have their own devices to bring to school will have greater access to the school's technology while their peers are busy with their personal gadgets.  This position does not take into account however, how it feels to be the unique student who does not have his/her own technology to bring/  This student will in part experience the thrill of getting to do something at school that is not available at home, but s/he may also feel singled out, judged, or like s/he is not contributing as much to the class.  A big benefit of BYOT is that students will be familiar and efficient with their personal devices, but students who cannot bring their own will be at a disadvantage in that way.

Criticism 2: I loved that the article pointed out how BYOT allows students to teach their teachres about the uses of different technological devices--that's a great thing.  Classroom learning could be of greater benefit to the students, however, if they had teachers who were better prepared to help them harness the potential of their technology in the classroom.  For teachers who are not as familiar with technology, jumping into a BYOT classroom will make them feel like they've been thrown to the wolves.  Part of this is the need for an attitude adjustment on the part of the teacher; s/he should learn to move past distrust of technology or distrust of students using it.  There is a sense however, that the teacher really is at an unhelpful disadvantage.  There needs to be greater teacher training concerning technology in general before BYOT can work to its maximum potential in the classroom.

You Say Cheating, I Say New Reality

After watching the various clips about Augmented Reality and how it is being developed for practical use in the classroom and elsewhere, my first response is to say that augmented reality is not cheating like some might think, but a vision into what will soon be reality.  In this blog post I will argue for augmented reality in the classroom by providing counterarguments to potential positions against it.

1. How can you truly test a student's knowledge if they are using augmented reality technology?
Will we still want to test/assess student knowledge in the same way if augmented reality becomes the new reality in our world?  If this type of technology becomes prevalent enough in everyday life to be considered for use in the classroom, why will students need to be tested for retention?  Would it not be a disadvantage for students' later lives if they were hindered from using modern technology in the classroom that they may one day be expected to use in their jobs?  "Assessing what you know" should look different as our world changes and "what is necessary for success" also changes.  I'm not saying that assessing student performance will become obsolete, but it should reflect reality and augmented reality may very well become the new reality.

2. How can teacher's monitor what students are learning if with augmented reality students have freedom to explore many different avenues?
Bringing augmented reality into the classroom will change the role of the teacher.  Instead of being a vast source of knowledge, teachers will need to become guides and facilitators for tapping into the vast source of knowledge provided by the technology.  Teachers will need to be trained for using these devices well and for monitoring student progress during their use.  The adaptability of augmented reality shown in the videos just expands on what good teachers already know to be true: everyone learns best in a different way and the more ways available to learn something, the better.

3. What if giving students free reign with this powerful technology leads to them becoming off task and distracted in the classroom?
Do you think students will be more willing to pay attention to your teaching if you bore them or if you engage their senses?  If augmented reality becomes a norm in everyday life, but is not permitted for students to use in schools, then schools will become guilty of (they already are by not allowing students to use their laptops, smart phones, etc!) providing students limited reality.  For the upcoming generation of students, the omnipresence of technology is just a way of life.  Wouldn't students be more likely to be engaged and less distracted, if at school they had the chance to use technology beyond what they normally experience, rather than being limited to less than in what they consider reality?  Schools will only stay relevant if they progress with technology, rather than fight against it.

3 Ways Today's Universities Can Prevent "Borders Syndrome"

 I recently read an article that discussed the possibility of traditional universities succumbing to the same fate as Borders Bookstores--closing as a result of becoming obsolete in our changing world.  The author related questions and answers from an interview with associates from Georgia Tech who were re-imagining the school's operations to stay relevant, and therefore desirable to perspective students.  These efforts seemed to focus mainly on reaching students in mass via the Internet with advanced level courses.  While I think it is noble (and necessary) for universities to change the way they "do learning," I also believe that traditional universities have to raise the white flag just  yet.  Here are three ways in which I feel today's universities could transform without going totally online:

1. Play up their unique "value."
Every university is unique in some way and it is often these special features that draw perspective students when there are so many options to choose from.  Universities should play up what makes them special, giving perspective students incentive for attending a traditional university over taking online courses.  For example, online courses cannot compete with the life experience gained from the "college campus" experience.  Without ignoring academic offerings, schools should make sure their atmosphere is a major selling point.  Not all students consult solely the price tag of a university; intrinsic value is also critically important.

2. Do adapt learning environments to match our progressive world.
While I agree that traditional teaching methods have lost their relevance for today's generation of undergrads, I think that these methods can be revamped rather than nixed.  Even though the digital generation is adept at devouring information online, information absorption alone does not provide experience.  Many students still greatly value hands-on learning experiences.  Professors must recognize that this new generation does not desire or expect them to have all of the information--information is easily attained from many sources!--but they do need someone who can help them interpret their information and discover what can be done with it.  A great example of this is Project Based Learning where students work to solve a driving problem or question in authentic real-world learning environments.  Here, the teachers acts more as a facilitator, guiding students.  This type of learning experience could be of great benefit at the university level, but is less easily accomplished in a strictly online setting.

3. Provide mentoring experiences.
This new generation of students craves to be mentored.  In the book Generation iY by Tim Elmore (which I highly recommend) Elmore writes that today's young people desire a "guide on the side" rather than a "sage on the stage."  The Georgia Tech article also included the idea of professional mentoring in it's online programming, but I fail to see how authentic, enriching mentoring can really take place over the Internet with a professor who is managing 10,000 plus students.  University professor who are approachable and respectable (not just for their work/knowledge) is a big draw for today's perspective students.  They want their teachers to be mentors to whom they can relate and from whom they can (indirectly) learn.  They want someone they can walk through life with rather than someone who is trying to transfer information to them (again, they already have many sources of this).  If universities professors can learn to adapt to this newly desired role, they will have great opportunity for attracting more students to traditional universities, keeping university students engaged, and helping transform the future.

A Day Made of Glass

I really enjoyed watching the "Day Made of Glass" video, both for the aesthetic entertainment and the glimpse they provided into the future.  The teaching implications here are extreme.  Most teachers today still struggle with correctly and effectively operating a Smartboard (I sure don't know how to use one!), let alone an entire interactive glass classroom.  What I loved about the education-focused video however, was that it showed students embracing the technology to help enhance their imaginations, rather than disappearing into the technology with the glazed over zombie look we've all seen on a face that is checked into a screen and checked out of the world.  The dinosaur exhibit was turned into an entirely new learning experience!  The young students were giving their full attention to the experience, because it was an experience not a lecture or a reading.  As a future educator, the idea of mastering this upcoming technology is daunting, but it is a challenge that I hope I will rise to to be an effective educator.  I do not want to be the kind of adult who scoffs at technology simply because it is not the way I was brought up to do things.  I used to think technology prevented young people from having to use their imaginations and stifled creativity.  However, I have in recent years, discovered how the progress of technology has opened the door for infinite expressions of creativity for young people.  I need to remember that just because a student's imagination or creative expression or learning preference differs from what I'm used to, it does not make him/her wrong, it means that I have something new to learn.

First Time Using Jing!