Glorified Typewriter?

This discourse relates back to assessment one, though focused on the English discipline more specifically, and having it in a separate post serves to separate the ideas a little more efficiently. It seems that the majority of what I discuss in this Blog is either critical of technology or out right negative. I wish to point out that this is not the intent, rather, I feel it is necessary to highlight the potential 'complications' or 'challenges' that ICT poses in its practical application, rather then just focusing on its potential gains.

In English computing technology is most often used for word processing, mostly in the form of essay and assignment finalisation. While there is often a drafting process included in this final outcome, students often view the drafting process as more of a 'hurdle' to drag themselves through to get to the real task. The problem I see with this is that two of the common issues that we encounter with students, particularly in the middle years, is poor handwriting and spelling. These same students will often demonstrate a capable grasp of the English language when the task is to use a computer to produce a piece of work. The conclusion that I can't help but draw from this is that students who come to rely on word processing applications do not develop in their handwriting and come to rely on the program to handle their spelling for them, so therefore have little or no grasp of how to actually spell the words that they are using.

Is this a problem? If the students can still produce a piece of work that is both conceptually complex and sound in all other aspects in the final piece then aren't they demonstrating higher order thinking and we shouldn't worry about the rest? The issue I have with this is that we assess our students in a method that is handwritten to a time limit and where there only spelling or grammar assistance comes from a dictionary, something which most students do not use except in exams now.

So, are we not preparing our students adequately by allowing them too much access to ICT or are we assessing them incorrectly? Personally Im not that sure, though I will say this in terms of the assessment: Blooms taxonomy dictates that the levels of thought are cumulative, however word processing programs such as word actually serve to undermine that. We can have students who demonstrate higher order levels of thinking such as creating and evaluating, but have no proper understanding of the words or language that they are using. This, in my mind, is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow. Though, it does beg a further question: Is conceptual knowledge to be referenced over procedural? Does it matter that a student doesn't know how to spell a word as long as they understand what it means and how it is used?

Assignment 1 - ICT and the VELS

1.                 ICT provides a rich and flexible learner-centred environment in which students can experiment and take risks when developing new understanding.

From personal experience I find that ICT is an interesting facet of our educational repertoire, and that it functions as a tool that can be used both appropriately and inappropriately by educators. The thing that is emphasized here is the idea of ICT being a tool, and that, contrary to the implications in the VELS, it cannot, on its own, “provide a rich and learner centered environment in which students can experiment and take risks when developing new understanding.” It can, most certainly, assist in this endeavor, but in and of itself does not inherently contain any special factor that ensures this outcome.

A whiteboard is another example of a tool in a teachers arsenal, and, like ICT, it is something that can be used creatively and well, poorly, or not at all. Do not misunderstand, the comparison I make is not to say that ICT is the same as a whiteboard, or anything else in the class for that matter, indeed ICT has the broadest range of possibility and breadth that is available to the student, the comparison instead is to highlight that the influencing factor in whether or not ICT provides this environment is the teacher.

VIT standard 5 “Teachers create and maintain safe and challenging learning environments”, essentially maintains that it is the teachers duty to establish routines and practice that creates a classroom of respect that encourages learning. This is true across all disciplines, and, as I have found in both my English and Humanities classrooms, without this prior establishment of a learner centered environment, no higher order thinking can take place. There seems, to me, to be a deep correlation between this aspect of the VELS and the VIT standards, one that perhaps assumes prior actions taken by the teacher.

That being said, ICT used properly can allow for far more complex thinking and interaction from students with discipline content. This is particularly evident in the case of the humanities discipline, which essentially functions of an inquiry model base and allows for students to effectively conduct their own research, carry out multi-modal projects, and to embrace the higher order levels of thinking such as creating and evaluating more effectively. However, the key idea here is that the students have to be scaffolded, both in understanding of the technology in question, and in attitudes towards it, in order to reach this level.

As is present in the previous entries in my blog, such as, Mouse Difficulties and Distracted Students, ICT is a medium that is heavily dependent upon reliability and accessibility. Assuming that these conditions have been met, that the teacher has managed to establish a classroom conductive to learning and that the students have developed a rudimentary understanding of the technologies that they will be expected to utilize, then, and only then, can ICT be effectively extend a students education and allow them to safely feel they can take risks and develop a deeper understanding of the topic.

The question of risks and safety is a key one to the student mindset. In my experience students only feel safe to explore new approaches to an idea, and a technology, if they feel that they have enough understanding of the task at hand and if they feel that the environment is conductive to that exploration. In other words, they have to have time, be anonymous, and be taught the basics. This is supported by the ZPD, the idea that the learning needs to be aimed at the right level for the students needs. If a task asks too much of the student then that student will not feel safe to explore it and make mistakes. What we, as teachers, can often forget is that the learning of the uses of the technology that we expect the students to use is in itself a task. If a student doesn’t know how to use word processor, or PowerPoint, or the Internet to research things, and these are at the most basic levels of ICT interaction, then you cannot expect them to be able to satisfactorily complete an inquiry based research task using the ICT because you have threatening environment where the student feels alienated and overwhelmed.

The key to this entire discourse I that ICT is a versatile tool, but that it is a tool only. If the teacher doesn’t know how to use or present it, if the students don’t understand what they are expected to do with it and if the task doesn’t lend itself to the ICT use, then that use of ICT is more likely to threaten students and cause harm rather then learning. In the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, ICT is an invaluable asset that can open up worlds of possibilities for those teachers’ students. However, we, as teachers, need to be wary of that trap that is thinking that ICT, alone, is the solution. The VELS statement only touches on the possibilities afforded by ICT, but only if its use is scaffolded correctly.

Reality

Lil Hackerz

It seems like we, as educators, may be fighting a loosing battle in our attempts to censor or control the virtual world. We place all these controls upon the internet, 'filters' to keep students away from the sort of information that we deem 'undesirable'. However, this opens two distinct discussions that need to be addressed. The first, maybe most obviously, is the need to decide who is in control of what is censored and what is not? Who gets to make these decisions? The second question, and the one I wish to explore here, is whether or not we are even capable of this endeavor?

Students these days have been brought up in a digital age, and, therefore, are quite comfortable and capable at using the technology. That is not to say that they are more comfortable then we are with the technology, but, and this is important, that they are at least as capable as us at using the technology in ways that interest them.

They may not be very good at using excel or powerpoint, but that could be a direct result of having no desire to. One of the wonders about the internet and the digital world is that once you have the basics, then you can literally use the internet itself to learn about it. You can teach yourself anything you want to be able to do just by persevering, and this is something that our students excel at. They teach themselves all the intricacies of these social networking sites because they want to know it. Likewise, when we block sites from them, they teach themselves how to get around them.

One of my students, frustrated by his inability to play games on the computer due to the restrictions placed upon it, proceeded to restart the computer in safe mode, created a brand new administrator account, restarted the computer as the administrator, and then proceeded to play Halo for the rest of the lesson. While this may be a relatively simple way of getting around the security on these computers, it is non the less ingenious, and, most importantly, it is effective. And that is the message here, if they want to get around the restrictions, they will. So maybe we shouldn't be fighting this, but rather educating students as to how to judge the legitimacy of  the things they are inevitably going to encounter in cyberspace?

MyFace or FaceSpace?

In an increasingly electronic world it is apparent that our identities have become more and more attached to out corresponding digital representations. This is especially true in when we look at our students. Without even going into the detail of their, for lack of another word, 'addiction' to the technology, the constant checking and updating on their phones within class, we can still, just through anecdotal conversation with them understand the importance that these young people place upon it.

But the question I wish to pose is this: Is Facebook a social medium or is it an anti-social medium? In other words, is it self reflective, vanity driven, and indulgent or is it a legitimate form of communication and sharing? Despite the apparent bias of that statement I really am not sure as to which side I fall on the discussion. The relevance of this debate, I feel, is VIT standard 3, know your students. If we do not properly understand how our students identify themselves, and how they, therefore, relate to their world in terms of the subject and the object, how can we then presume to be able to impart anything, intentionally, onto these complex personalities?