Colette Cassinelli’s edtech VISION

Jen at @injenuity shared her concerns in a post entitled, “Web 2.0 is Not the Future of Education”. She states that early tech adopters are focusing on integrating new tools in their teaching instead of focusing on LEARNING. She writes:

“Learning is the future of education. Students need to develop an awareness of how they learn. By student, I mean every human being with whom we come in contact… All people deserve the right to understand how learning happens and the power they have to control their own lifelong learning journey.

Why are we hording these technology tools like some kind of magic trick that can only be performed for those worthy enough to earn our approval? We must embrace a more holistic approach to teaching and learning…

I really just want people to start to build their foundational values as educators, without ‘Web 2.0? as part of those values. The tools can enable engagement, transfer of learning and collaboration and can open the world to the student. Please see the student before the tools and give them the power they need in order to be successful with them.”

As a technology teacher who has transformed her computer classes from skill-based to LEARNING based – I whole heartedly agree with Jen. Its easy to get caught up in the lastest gadget or software tool. I feel my goal is to teach students how to learn.

I think part of this excitement depends on your basic personality. I am a learner. I love learning new things. It excites me and motivates me.

Other people are more cautious. They question the need for change. Change makes them uncomfortable and are slow to adopt.

Is there anything wrong with either one of these approaches? No. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.

But in the classroom our focus MUST be on engaging students as learners. Technology does provide opportunities for students to connect and be creative in ways that are unique and tranformative. But it takes a passionate and educated teacher to know the best way to do that.

I admit that I am guilty of rushing to incorporate a new tool into my classroom and found the experience to be lackluster. Usually it is because I haven’t taken the time to determine how using this piece of software will best meet my instructional goals and demonstrate student understanding.

When I first heard about VoiceThread I immediately saw it’s potential to engage students and give them a voice. But without careful planning, my student’s first attempts were more like narrated powerpoints with a few audio comments that said “Good Job”.

I didn’t give up, though. My frustration with the results made me dig deeper and ask myself what is the unique power of this tool that I can’t recreate in person.

My students love to discuss and debate – but it seems that the only ones who speak up are those with outgoing personalities.

VoiceThread gives each student an opportunity to plan and share their idea or point of view in the medium they are most comfortable in – text, audio or video. The collaborative nature of VoiceThread also allows students to respond back in a way that is appropriate and safe. Eric Brunsell commented, “VoiceThread, just like PowerPoint, is pointless if students are not crafting an argument, creating art (visual, aural or written), somehow communicating authentic thinking.”

Whenever I assign a project, I like to give my students a choice on how they will present the information (video, blog, PowerPoint, VoiceThread, etc..). Students can now choose a tool that fits their personality and learning style and the focus is on the message and not the tool.

Last year I blogged about this concept of focusing on student learning:

Student-centered learning means that the focus is on the learner – not the teacher and how the material is presented. The emphasis is on how the student is learning, the choices they have for expressing their learning, and how the teacher comes to understand that the student is learning.

But at the same time, I also teach these students HOW to use the tools effectively so the project doesn’t become about the flashiness of PowerPoint or the coolness of video.

We need to do both.

Michele Martin’s comment on Jen’s entry summed it up, “It’s about using technology along with the right thinking and collaborative processes.”

My journalism students conducted a survey on cheating last week and 65.8% of our high school students admitted to cheating before. Only 20.6% reported they hadn’t and 13.6% didn’t respond to the question.

I guess I’m not surprised. You only need to walk down the hallway in the morning to see kids “helping” each other with last night’s homework (which they didn’t start until this morning!). I’m all for collaboration and for kids working together and explaining a difficult concept to each other but what I am afraid is that what is probably happening is one person is copying the other person’s homework.

Students also have different opinions of what cheating is.Almost half of the 322 students surveyed do NOT consider copying off someone’s homework as cheating though 87% reported that copying of someone’s test IS cheating.What’s the difference?? See chart (right) for more results

The comments left on the survey were telling. Student gave reasons why or why they did not cheat.

“I didn’t have time to do the homework … I’m too lazy … I forgot my book at home … I wanted an A … My parents get mad at me if I do poorly in school … It’s just easier to copy your friend’s homework … I don’t want to ruin my GPA …I had to work last night …The assignment was “stupid” … Everyone does it … I didn’t want a 0 on the assignment … I didn’t understand the assignment … My friend lets me copy their work … The teacher assigns extremely hard work …So what?”

“Cheating is wrong … The consequences aren’t worth the risk … I’d feel guilty if I cheated … You are only hurting yourself … I don’t want to get caught …It’s not that hard to just do the work … Cheating is bad”

There isn’t as much shame attached to be a cheater these days. Some research I did explained that is was the high achieving AP students and busy athletes who cheat the most. They justify their cheating so they can get into a good college and they explain, “Everybody does it”.

An article titled Everybody Does It” by Regan McMahon, (San Francisco Chronicle, Sept 9, 2007) suggests Top 5 Ways to Curb Cheating:

• Create an honor code with student input so they’re invested in it
• Seriously punish cheaters according the academic integrity policy
• Create multiple versions of tests to make purloined answer keys useless
• Ban electronic devices in testing rooms
• Develop multiple modes of assessment so the grade is not determined primarily on tests

Doug Johnson is his Blue Schunk Blog suggests:

• Use performance-based assessments that require personal application of or reaction to the topic
• Be very clear about what will be tested/assessed
• Make every assignment a group assignment with expectations that the role of each group member be clearly defined
• Only make assignments that are actually necessary (Alfie Kohn writes that there is little correlation between test scores and homework?)
• Eliminate “objective tests” or make them all open book.

So what does this all mean for me? Honestly, I don’t think kids cheat that much in my computer classes because I rarely give “homework” and most assignments are completed in class. Yes, they “help” each other out, but I call that learning. I don’t allow kids to take over the controls of another student’s computer but I encourage collaboration.

I think it is very valid to examine some of the telling reasons why kids cheat. Teachers assign homework and tests to check for understanding and if kids are copying each other’s homework – then the teacher isn’t getting valid feedback and cannot adjust their instruction accordingly. But at the same time, if a teacher is just assigning busy work so they have a “grade” to enter or to “get through” the material, then they are giving the kids too much busy work and the kids know it.

We must discuss cheating with our students. The consequences are too high, now, later on in college and in the business world. Let’s examine our current educational system and devise instruction that is so engaging for students that they WANT to do their best work and are motivated to LEARN.

Isn’t that what this is all about … L E A R N I N G. We need to make that clear.

In his article about Instructional scaffolding, Konrad Glogowski describes a educational scenario how Web 2.0 tools support learning:

Let’s say that the student has chosen a specific aspect of the broader topic of social justice and is in the process of collecting information and resources. In today’s world of the world wide web and information overload, the student can begin to feel lost amid all the information. This presents the teacher with a perfect opportunity to introduce RSS, for example, or a tool that can be used to aggregate video clips, such as VodPod or a YouTube account. It also presents a perfect opportunity to work with the student on specific curriculum related skills, such as summarizing. This can also be a fantastic opportunity to help the student start a research journal (on her blog, using a del.icio.us account, or a tumble log) or use mindmapping to develop a plan for further research. The point here is that once the student feels stuck, overwhelmed, or discouraged, a perfect opportunity presents itself for the teacher (or a more knowledgeable peer) to step in and offer support.

Glogowski quotes Judith A. Langer who argues “that in order to use instructional scaffolding teachers need to ensure that the students have ownership of the learning event”. Glogowski goes on to say that “once the student is engaged as a researcher/writer/thinker, the teacher can focus on conversing with the student.”

Researcher/writer/thinker. Do we view our students like that? Do we give our students the respect to initiate, plan and developing their own learning and thinking? Do we see our ourselves as “co-participants” in our student’s research or are we waiting for the final product to be finished so we can “evaluate” it.

This mind shift is critical if we are to embrace a learner-centered environment. But Glogowski also makes a second point:

The sense of partnership that developed through the initial set of instructional conversations needs to evolve in order to be of benefit to the student. Since I now know (I have seen) that my student has made progress, I need to use different tools and engage in different conversations in order to ensure that the student does not see my involvement as patronizing or intrusive. The set of competencies that developed as a result of our instructional conversations now demands that our conversations increase in sophistication.

Our responsibilites and the tools we use change as our students grow and learn. As educators we cannot sit by passively and wait for our students “to get it”. We need to constantly adapt, challenge and find new ways to engage them in the conversation so they are involved in the process. Glogowski states that “blogging in a supportive community of peers …allows for the development of higher-order cognitive operations”. He concluded with two pieces of advice:

 

Create “activity settings” where writing is a tool for learning and not a way of presenting acquired information.

Ensure that writing is motivated by the student’s need to communicate ideas that are important – things that he or she wants to say.

My year-long Action Research project was titled, “Engaging Students in Authentic Technology Project”. The full pdf of the report can be found at my Pepperdine student website . Some final thoughts …

Planning: In order to be successful in using a thematic project-based approach I must carefully plan out curriculum and skills integration. It doesn’t just happen on its own.

Student Engagement: Engagement is present in the classroom if the student sees value in learning the new technology skill.

Authentic Audience: One of the most compelling factors in engaging students in technology lessons is to design projects that have an authentic audience. The difference is that the students are making innovative projects that are seen by real people and content that is authentic and interesting.

Best Assignments: The best assignments are related to “real world problems,” used real world technology tools, are built on life experiences and require in-depth work.

Challenges: The challenge for any teacher is to balance teacher-directed instruction and student-centered learning. I need to vary the nature of assignments and whether students worked by themselves or in groups.

Give Student Choice: Choice empowers students in their learning but also gives students options to choose projects that are more suited to their learning style or personality.

Assessment: This new type of curriculum planning required me to rethink how I assess skill knowledge to make sure students are learning the technology skills required. The focus is on the process of learning – not the end product. My job as a teacher is to discover whether students are learning and understanding the material.

Continue to grow: I need to continue to evaluate which skills should be covered in my computer classes. The world is flat. Change requires new ideas and new teaching strategies.

Go Global: I should continue to integrate newsworthy and global topics as a way to maintain the authentic feel of student projects.

Feedback: I also need to find a way to give valuable feedback to students about their learning and progress. Portfolios can provide an area for reflection and another authentic audience for their work.

Organization: I will continue to use Moodle for organization and journal entries. Having the ability to access the class site and handouts from home was a huge advantage for the students this term.

Let go: I need to let go of controlling all of the aspects of direct instruction and teaching. It is essential to give students opportunities to “learn how to learn”.

Finally: There must be a real purpose to learn technology skills and then opportunities to demonstrate their use. No longer will I stand in front of my computer lab and drill students on isolated technology skills when students don’t have a reason or purpose to learn them. Projects that have authentic audiences raise the quality of performance on projects and also provide students with purposeful motivation to do their best work.