What does this perhaps show us about what it means to be literate in the 21st century? What role as teachers do we have in perpetuating such literacies? Just a question to get you thinking...no need to post this week (enjoy the breather!).
Monday, June 25, 2012
Week Six Responses
What does this perhaps show us about what it means to be literate in the 21st century? What role as teachers do we have in perpetuating such literacies? Just a question to get you thinking...no need to post this week (enjoy the breather!).
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Remediation Analysis
Now that you have chosen your text and its five remediations, it's time to think about two things: the analysis component and the medium/s that you will present this project.
In order to conduct the analysis, the following questions may help guide you. Some of these questions may not really pertain to your project or what you are attempting to do, and that's okay--remember these are just questions to help you get started with the analysis. Also, you may have other questions you'd like to address, and that's fine as well. These questions are guides--tools to help you further your own analyses.
The remediation analysis can be written as an overall analysis, an introduction to your piece, in blurbs analyzing each remediation as you go through them, etc. You can audio record the analysis instead of writing it out. You can write a song for the analysis. You can do a combination of techniques for analysis. It's really up to you--and there is no right or wrong here. (Well, it can be wrong in the sense that you don't analyze the remediations in a thorough, thought-provoking manner, or you just throw something together...yeah, that would hurt you a lot...)
As for format, you don't have to use just one medium. You don't have to use more than one. You cannot use the same medium you did for your first project. You will need to explain why you chose the medium/s you did for your project. In other words, don't choose a medium that you consider to be easy that doesn't really make sense with your project. It needs to go with your project, and you need to be able to explain to me how it does (something more than "I really like this site", "I am really familiar with this site", etc. is needed).
Throw questions re: analysis here on this blog, and I'll respond to them asap.
KT
In order to conduct the analysis, the following questions may help guide you. Some of these questions may not really pertain to your project or what you are attempting to do, and that's okay--remember these are just questions to help you get started with the analysis. Also, you may have other questions you'd like to address, and that's fine as well. These questions are guides--tools to help you further your own analyses.
- For each textual remediation, what has changed? How? Why?
- For each textual remediation, what has remained the same? How? Why?
- How does audience interaction vary with each remediation of the text? Why?
- If you have a remediation where audience interaction does not change, why do you think that is?
- Does each textual remediation affect our perception/understanding/interaction with the original text? If so, how and why? If not, how and why?
- What technologies are incorporated with each remediation? How/why does that alter the original?
- Why was each remediation selected for this project? Why were these five specifically chosen?
- What is the value of understanding remediation? (This can be pedagogical value, personal value, etc.)
The remediation analysis can be written as an overall analysis, an introduction to your piece, in blurbs analyzing each remediation as you go through them, etc. You can audio record the analysis instead of writing it out. You can write a song for the analysis. You can do a combination of techniques for analysis. It's really up to you--and there is no right or wrong here. (Well, it can be wrong in the sense that you don't analyze the remediations in a thorough, thought-provoking manner, or you just throw something together...yeah, that would hurt you a lot...)
As for format, you don't have to use just one medium. You don't have to use more than one. You cannot use the same medium you did for your first project. You will need to explain why you chose the medium/s you did for your project. In other words, don't choose a medium that you consider to be easy that doesn't really make sense with your project. It needs to go with your project, and you need to be able to explain to me how it does (something more than "I really like this site", "I am really familiar with this site", etc. is needed).
Throw questions re: analysis here on this blog, and I'll respond to them asap.
KT
Monday, June 11, 2012
Remediation Ramblings
I want to return to Mishra and Koehler once more before discussing remediation, hypermediacy, and immediacy. In the first part of their article, they contend that
"Over time, these technologies achieve a transparency of perception (Bruce & Hogan, 1998); they become commonplace and, in most cases, are not even considered to be technologies" (p. 61).
In other words, certain technologies have become so ingrained in our daily practices that we have been trained to overlook their interfaces. Think about it this way: in a lot of earlier posts, many of you discussed how technologies should not always be a component of lesson plans--what we fail to realize, however, is that technologies are always used in some fashion--some are just more transparent than others (i.e. the pencil and paper we don't necessarily see as technology because we have used them for ages--thus, they just go with writing and communication). And, we see past the interface of the paper and pencil--with those technologies, writing feels "natural", "more intimate", and for many "the correct way of writing--the tried and true method". But why? Why is the paper and pencil considered a more genuine, or natural, writing technology whereas the monitor and keyboard seem less natural, more foreign? And--just to play devil's advocate--where do we do most of our writing today? Wouldn't it seem that digital writing is more "natural" to us given our prolific use of digital technologies? Something for you all to chew on....
Furthermore, Mishra and Koehler assert that we ask the wrong questions when incorporating technologies into the classroom. Whereas most of us naturally think of the "how" questions (for evidence of this, look at last week's postings--most of them focus on the how), we need to retrain ourselves to more so think of the "why". In other words, why did I use edmodo as the platform for this class? What does it offer that perhaps something like Blackboard or even Ning couldn't provide? How does such a platform alter the layout and feel of the course (and, thus, our engagements with the course)? How would it have been different if the course were face-to-face? Could we still have the same course?
So, in a way, I constructed this course to be rooted in hypermediacy. You are constantly reminded of (i.e. hyper aware) the medium (the social networking/communicating site) as you write, upload, and connect. The medium is in your face--as Marshall McLuhan stated, "The medium is the message." Sometimes, that can be uncomfortable for teachers--the medium should be stable, not changing (why we see many teachers run from technologies--because they are always changing, always moving). When we remove the stability of a medium, we have to think differently about how we communicate, the messages we send, and how our audience will receive them. It makes things harder. It makes things less stable. And it can truly be intimidating for teachers and students of all levels (ask me how many emails I received about the first project--some of you were really scared about the openness, and I get it).
Okay, so why did I have you learn about hypermediacy, immediacy, and remediation? (Nope, not answering that one for you;).) What can we do with this knowledge as we move into teaching students how to interpret, analyze, and communicate with and through a multitude of "texts"? What do these things have to do with teaching students in the 21st century? Chew on this as well.....
So, remediation--the movement of messages between and among different media. Here's an example of remediation that should help you a bit.
Harry Potter started as a book, a medium that allows us to get lost in characters, plot lines, excitement, and magic. When we read Harry Potter, are we aware that we are reading words on the page, or do the words transform into a story? Based on its immense following, I would argue that the book is indeed more than words, and that we often forget we are reading (in other words, we get lost in the book, we forget the medium and just enjoy the ride). We, in many ways, can see the reading of a text such as Harry Potter as transparent, immediate. But then, we change the page, or we lose our place in the book, or we get our book soaked in coffee, forever giving the book pages that slightly crunchy/crackling feeling. We fluctuate between the immediacy of the story and the hypermediacy of the medium. And what does this fluctuation do to our engagement/perception/interaction with the text? Chew on that....
Then Harry Potter became something else. It shifted from a story typed onto pages to a visually-based text. When Harry Potter movies came out, Harry Potter became Daniel Radcliffe, and we were provided with a digitally composed compilation of events. Our interaction as audience members changed: we no longer had control to flip the pages (or even read the end)--we sat, watched, and passively consumed the cinematographic adaption. In other words, we could not engage with the medium as we could the books--the film was meant to be immensely transparent, immediate, and we as audience members were to feel as if we were flies on the wall--that what we saw was real. But then, is this truly the case? The special effects of each film make us hyper aware that we are indeed watching a film--not just reading the books. So, in a sense, the film adaptations were simultaneously more immediate and hypermediate than the books. And, again, the shift in medium calls us to interact, to behave, differently with it. We are a different type of audience when we watch the film versus when we read the books, but what are those differences?
Then, something else happened.....
And we interacted with the Harry Potter tale in ways unknown before this point. We were literally thrust into the story--we had become characters in this world. In a sense, we became part of the medium in that we constructed our stories, our tales. We had control, we had access, and there was no medium standing between the story and our engagement. And, it inevitably, made us more fond of, more invested, in this:
*********************************************************************************
Going back to the why versus the how questions (remember all the way at the beginning of this ramble): remediation is more so an understanding, or exploration, of the reasons why texts like Harry Potter are shaped into myriad mediums than the how. Although we need to understand how a text is remediated by tracing its shifts in media, we need to focus on why such shifts come about? Why were they created in the first place? How do these remediated versions alter the ways by which we understand the Harry Potter story/empire? (Okay, I know that's a how question, but I think you get my point)? Why was the Harry Potter series remediated into all of these different forms (I know there are a multitude of Harry Potter remediations--I just chose these three to illustrate my point)?
We need to think about these questions before we ask how we can use such concepts in the classroom. So, that's what you will be doing for the next assignment. You will chose a text (can't be Harry Potter) and trace its shifts in media (i.e. it's remediation) and examine what such shifts offer us/our interactions with it/etc..
Here are the guidelines for this assignment: You must trace the text through five different remediations. You must present this assignment in something other than a MS Word traditional essay. You cannot use the same medium you used for your digital narrative. You must ask your questions now--I will not answer any questions the day before this assignment is due. You must focus on the why.
Put your name below to let me know you've read this blog. Also, place any questions as a comment--you will ALL have questions, so we will use this site as a venue for asking and answering those.
DO NOT WAIT TO DO THIS PROJECT--IT IS DIFFICULT, YOUR BRAINS WILL HURT, AND YOU WILL MORE THAN LIKELY HAVE TO REREAD BOLTER AND GRUSIN FOR HELP. WAITING IS NOT AN OPTION.
"Over time, these technologies achieve a transparency of perception (Bruce & Hogan, 1998); they become commonplace and, in most cases, are not even considered to be technologies" (p. 61).
In other words, certain technologies have become so ingrained in our daily practices that we have been trained to overlook their interfaces. Think about it this way: in a lot of earlier posts, many of you discussed how technologies should not always be a component of lesson plans--what we fail to realize, however, is that technologies are always used in some fashion--some are just more transparent than others (i.e. the pencil and paper we don't necessarily see as technology because we have used them for ages--thus, they just go with writing and communication). And, we see past the interface of the paper and pencil--with those technologies, writing feels "natural", "more intimate", and for many "the correct way of writing--the tried and true method". But why? Why is the paper and pencil considered a more genuine, or natural, writing technology whereas the monitor and keyboard seem less natural, more foreign? And--just to play devil's advocate--where do we do most of our writing today? Wouldn't it seem that digital writing is more "natural" to us given our prolific use of digital technologies? Something for you all to chew on....
Furthermore, Mishra and Koehler assert that we ask the wrong questions when incorporating technologies into the classroom. Whereas most of us naturally think of the "how" questions (for evidence of this, look at last week's postings--most of them focus on the how), we need to retrain ourselves to more so think of the "why". In other words, why did I use edmodo as the platform for this class? What does it offer that perhaps something like Blackboard or even Ning couldn't provide? How does such a platform alter the layout and feel of the course (and, thus, our engagements with the course)? How would it have been different if the course were face-to-face? Could we still have the same course?
So, in a way, I constructed this course to be rooted in hypermediacy. You are constantly reminded of (i.e. hyper aware) the medium (the social networking/communicating site) as you write, upload, and connect. The medium is in your face--as Marshall McLuhan stated, "The medium is the message." Sometimes, that can be uncomfortable for teachers--the medium should be stable, not changing (why we see many teachers run from technologies--because they are always changing, always moving). When we remove the stability of a medium, we have to think differently about how we communicate, the messages we send, and how our audience will receive them. It makes things harder. It makes things less stable. And it can truly be intimidating for teachers and students of all levels (ask me how many emails I received about the first project--some of you were really scared about the openness, and I get it).
Okay, so why did I have you learn about hypermediacy, immediacy, and remediation? (Nope, not answering that one for you;).) What can we do with this knowledge as we move into teaching students how to interpret, analyze, and communicate with and through a multitude of "texts"? What do these things have to do with teaching students in the 21st century? Chew on this as well.....
So, remediation--the movement of messages between and among different media. Here's an example of remediation that should help you a bit.
|
| Harry Potter |
Then Harry Potter became something else. It shifted from a story typed onto pages to a visually-based text. When Harry Potter movies came out, Harry Potter became Daniel Radcliffe, and we were provided with a digitally composed compilation of events. Our interaction as audience members changed: we no longer had control to flip the pages (or even read the end)--we sat, watched, and passively consumed the cinematographic adaption. In other words, we could not engage with the medium as we could the books--the film was meant to be immensely transparent, immediate, and we as audience members were to feel as if we were flies on the wall--that what we saw was real. But then, is this truly the case? The special effects of each film make us hyper aware that we are indeed watching a film--not just reading the books. So, in a sense, the film adaptations were simultaneously more immediate and hypermediate than the books. And, again, the shift in medium calls us to interact, to behave, differently with it. We are a different type of audience when we watch the film versus when we read the books, but what are those differences?
Then, something else happened.....
And we interacted with the Harry Potter tale in ways unknown before this point. We were literally thrust into the story--we had become characters in this world. In a sense, we became part of the medium in that we constructed our stories, our tales. We had control, we had access, and there was no medium standing between the story and our engagement. And, it inevitably, made us more fond of, more invested, in this:
*********************************************************************************
Going back to the why versus the how questions (remember all the way at the beginning of this ramble): remediation is more so an understanding, or exploration, of the reasons why texts like Harry Potter are shaped into myriad mediums than the how. Although we need to understand how a text is remediated by tracing its shifts in media, we need to focus on why such shifts come about? Why were they created in the first place? How do these remediated versions alter the ways by which we understand the Harry Potter story/empire? (Okay, I know that's a how question, but I think you get my point)? Why was the Harry Potter series remediated into all of these different forms (I know there are a multitude of Harry Potter remediations--I just chose these three to illustrate my point)?
We need to think about these questions before we ask how we can use such concepts in the classroom. So, that's what you will be doing for the next assignment. You will chose a text (can't be Harry Potter) and trace its shifts in media (i.e. it's remediation) and examine what such shifts offer us/our interactions with it/etc..
Here are the guidelines for this assignment: You must trace the text through five different remediations. You must present this assignment in something other than a MS Word traditional essay. You cannot use the same medium you used for your digital narrative. You must ask your questions now--I will not answer any questions the day before this assignment is due. You must focus on the why.
Put your name below to let me know you've read this blog. Also, place any questions as a comment--you will ALL have questions, so we will use this site as a venue for asking and answering those.
DO NOT WAIT TO DO THIS PROJECT--IT IS DIFFICULT, YOUR BRAINS WILL HURT, AND YOU WILL MORE THAN LIKELY HAVE TO REREAD BOLTER AND GRUSIN FOR HELP. WAITING IS NOT AN OPTION.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Week Three Responses
So, this week I am changing things up a bit. Instead of responding individually to you all, I am compiling a post where I take the most interesting, thought-provoking points from each you. After you guys review it, send me a comment at the bottom of the blog telling me what you think. What is most interesting/thought-provoking? What would you add to it? What do you disagree with?
I think we may be the lucky ones who will be able to find just about anything to be able to integrate technology into our classroom. Ongoing professional development is the only way to ensure teachers receive the tools they need to deliver content and implement practices. Teachers must also be willing to make those adjustments to the curriculum as well as more formative assessment to test the strategies they use. Having a lot of technological knowledge is great, but if a teacher cannot make it relevant to the classroom discussion it does not enhance anything. Concurrently, if a teacher does know the subject and the content area but not the technology they cannot enhance the students learning. I definitely agree that I do become entranced with new technologies as I am playing with them. I am usually much more concerned about finding the cool shortcuts or learning how I can show off my skills with the program instead of seeing the ways that the program or technology can be used to enhance our classroom and our curriculum. First and foremost, a teacher needs to set content as priority number 1. Many teachers have no idea how to use technology in their curriculum because they have not been taught to use these different techniques, and not just that, but the actual technology like computers, overheads, and smart boards are more of a problem than an actual program.. . . So, I think that technology, if it is going to be used in the classroom, needs to fit the needs of the teachers just as much as the students, because a teacher using technology just to use it, without knowing how to, takes away completely from the content and pedagogy. When planning a unit if you, as a teacher, don’t know the content how can you even hope to begin a unit on material you aren’t intimately aware of and able to use? For this reason I would pick content to start with, but without the pedagogical knowledge of teaching and learning you wouldn’t have a unit or lesson plan, you would have a mess. I appreciated that it noted how, at times, the technology aspect is treated as an “add-on.” As if a teacher had something in mind already for their lesson and realized there was no technological element. . . . Not using these great resources to their full potential is like handing Leonardo Da Vinci a flower pot and asking him to paint it red. . . . It really does go back to the harmonies of all of these Knowledges. A weakness in one area disrupts the basis of the principle. Unfortunately, the technology aspect is often what is lacking. Everyone always has a friend that is “good with computers,” and we come to rely on those people to deal with these opaque technologies. In order for students (and teachers) to achieve the highest possible levels of success, we have to take it upon ourselves to acquaint ourselves with these technologies so that they will cease to seem so complex and incomprehensible. I believe it is definitely important for teachers to familiarize themselves with technology in order to incorporate it more effectively in the classroom. I don’t think that understanding HTML has much to do with this though. Harris and Hofer mentioned that an issue for teachers was knowing how to use technology in conjunction with their lessons; not just using it for the sake of using it to meet standards. When you talk about this in an education standpoint those are two things that never happen at a rapid rate. For the most part funding is minimal and gets schools by, so buying everything when it comes out is probably not going to happen. Secondly, whenever something new is bought it must first be learned by the technology people at a school who then instruct the teachers on how to use it. And even then we have all had that teacher that still has no idea how to work that piece of technology. So I would say, find a piece of technology that teachers enjoy using and works for students and stay with it until it is absolutely necessary to replace it or something so much better has been released that it can not be done without. I don’t think that teachers should have so much technology in their classroom that it distracts their students and defeats the purpose of purchasing the equipment. I think that teachers need to know their students, know how to keep them focused on the proper usage of the technology, and have great classroom management if the class is going to be decked down in technology. Part of TPACK’s main ideas is using technology properly for your educational needs. So, my suggestion is to put those cell phones and laptops to work. If you can’t get them off facebook have them create a page for a character and make it a requirement that they must write on other character’s walls, post pictures, pick out quotes and those character’s favorite songs. If you can’t get them off their cell phones have them use online polls where they have text in an answer. Technological knowledge is not a hiring requirement (for most schools), nor is it a classroom requirement - so you cannot be held accountable for it by the school. I believe if we are wanting to be /great/ teachers, the kind that make us stand out, the kind we say we want to be now (but may forget about in 5 years), then we need to go that extra step. Teachers are learners as well so there should not be the issue of how adept they are in the different technologies available – just that they have more practice in some areas. But if we are not accountable to teach students technology knowledge then who is? The students? Should all and/or more schools have classroom or technology tutoring programs? Technology is one of the driving forces in the advancement of our world, in order to tap into that force it must begin in a classroom. These students are coming to school from homes where technology has been the forefront for as long as they remember. When they come into the classroom and the teacher isn't teaching up to that speed he/she will lose their student's attention very quickly. The problem with attempting to introduce digital tech in schools, as with integrating anything new in schools, comes from the idea that whatever the new thing is, it must take over totally, completely, and will require tons of painstaking time to training those unfamiliar in its use. I understand that some teachers put so much information online that their students could stay home and get just as much out of the course. But the solution to this is still making class time valuable, not eliminating all technology from the classroom. I’m not saying that teachers should not make resources available to students; I strongly believe they should, but as a teacher you should be using your knowledge of content and pedagogical knowledge to provide something in your class beyond the technological resources, something that students could not get elsewhere. I feel like our students would be a perfect idea for helping us and updating us about new tools, updates, and technologies that are out there; since they are the ones that will be most exposed to it. I also feel like having a nice community within the school with the teachers would be very beneficial. As a student, there are many downsides to having such a teacher. They feel much less accessible than your other teachers. First, it’s tough to get into contact with them as they only check their email once every other solstice, and second, you feel a personal disconnect because they cannot relate to your natural inclination to technology. We need teachers to stick to lectures once and a while so students learn to take proper notes, and we need students to have to go to office hours to ask questions and not always rely on email and expect instant response. I would definitely let my students know that I am human, I am still learning, and I want to work with them, not against them, for each assignment.
So, my questions after reading this are the following. You don't need to answer them, but I do want you to think about them (because we will return to them a few more times): What is technology? If we believe that technology includes items such as pencils (i.e. Pencils to Pixels) or even bound books, can we ever truly teach without technology/tools? If so, how? What would that look like?
I think we may be the lucky ones who will be able to find just about anything to be able to integrate technology into our classroom. Ongoing professional development is the only way to ensure teachers receive the tools they need to deliver content and implement practices. Teachers must also be willing to make those adjustments to the curriculum as well as more formative assessment to test the strategies they use. Having a lot of technological knowledge is great, but if a teacher cannot make it relevant to the classroom discussion it does not enhance anything. Concurrently, if a teacher does know the subject and the content area but not the technology they cannot enhance the students learning. I definitely agree that I do become entranced with new technologies as I am playing with them. I am usually much more concerned about finding the cool shortcuts or learning how I can show off my skills with the program instead of seeing the ways that the program or technology can be used to enhance our classroom and our curriculum. First and foremost, a teacher needs to set content as priority number 1. Many teachers have no idea how to use technology in their curriculum because they have not been taught to use these different techniques, and not just that, but the actual technology like computers, overheads, and smart boards are more of a problem than an actual program.. . . So, I think that technology, if it is going to be used in the classroom, needs to fit the needs of the teachers just as much as the students, because a teacher using technology just to use it, without knowing how to, takes away completely from the content and pedagogy. When planning a unit if you, as a teacher, don’t know the content how can you even hope to begin a unit on material you aren’t intimately aware of and able to use? For this reason I would pick content to start with, but without the pedagogical knowledge of teaching and learning you wouldn’t have a unit or lesson plan, you would have a mess. I appreciated that it noted how, at times, the technology aspect is treated as an “add-on.” As if a teacher had something in mind already for their lesson and realized there was no technological element. . . . Not using these great resources to their full potential is like handing Leonardo Da Vinci a flower pot and asking him to paint it red. . . . It really does go back to the harmonies of all of these Knowledges. A weakness in one area disrupts the basis of the principle. Unfortunately, the technology aspect is often what is lacking. Everyone always has a friend that is “good with computers,” and we come to rely on those people to deal with these opaque technologies. In order for students (and teachers) to achieve the highest possible levels of success, we have to take it upon ourselves to acquaint ourselves with these technologies so that they will cease to seem so complex and incomprehensible. I believe it is definitely important for teachers to familiarize themselves with technology in order to incorporate it more effectively in the classroom. I don’t think that understanding HTML has much to do with this though. Harris and Hofer mentioned that an issue for teachers was knowing how to use technology in conjunction with their lessons; not just using it for the sake of using it to meet standards. When you talk about this in an education standpoint those are two things that never happen at a rapid rate. For the most part funding is minimal and gets schools by, so buying everything when it comes out is probably not going to happen. Secondly, whenever something new is bought it must first be learned by the technology people at a school who then instruct the teachers on how to use it. And even then we have all had that teacher that still has no idea how to work that piece of technology. So I would say, find a piece of technology that teachers enjoy using and works for students and stay with it until it is absolutely necessary to replace it or something so much better has been released that it can not be done without. I don’t think that teachers should have so much technology in their classroom that it distracts their students and defeats the purpose of purchasing the equipment. I think that teachers need to know their students, know how to keep them focused on the proper usage of the technology, and have great classroom management if the class is going to be decked down in technology. Part of TPACK’s main ideas is using technology properly for your educational needs. So, my suggestion is to put those cell phones and laptops to work. If you can’t get them off facebook have them create a page for a character and make it a requirement that they must write on other character’s walls, post pictures, pick out quotes and those character’s favorite songs. If you can’t get them off their cell phones have them use online polls where they have text in an answer. Technological knowledge is not a hiring requirement (for most schools), nor is it a classroom requirement - so you cannot be held accountable for it by the school. I believe if we are wanting to be /great/ teachers, the kind that make us stand out, the kind we say we want to be now (but may forget about in 5 years), then we need to go that extra step. Teachers are learners as well so there should not be the issue of how adept they are in the different technologies available – just that they have more practice in some areas. But if we are not accountable to teach students technology knowledge then who is? The students? Should all and/or more schools have classroom or technology tutoring programs? Technology is one of the driving forces in the advancement of our world, in order to tap into that force it must begin in a classroom. These students are coming to school from homes where technology has been the forefront for as long as they remember. When they come into the classroom and the teacher isn't teaching up to that speed he/she will lose their student's attention very quickly. The problem with attempting to introduce digital tech in schools, as with integrating anything new in schools, comes from the idea that whatever the new thing is, it must take over totally, completely, and will require tons of painstaking time to training those unfamiliar in its use. I understand that some teachers put so much information online that their students could stay home and get just as much out of the course. But the solution to this is still making class time valuable, not eliminating all technology from the classroom. I’m not saying that teachers should not make resources available to students; I strongly believe they should, but as a teacher you should be using your knowledge of content and pedagogical knowledge to provide something in your class beyond the technological resources, something that students could not get elsewhere. I feel like our students would be a perfect idea for helping us and updating us about new tools, updates, and technologies that are out there; since they are the ones that will be most exposed to it. I also feel like having a nice community within the school with the teachers would be very beneficial. As a student, there are many downsides to having such a teacher. They feel much less accessible than your other teachers. First, it’s tough to get into contact with them as they only check their email once every other solstice, and second, you feel a personal disconnect because they cannot relate to your natural inclination to technology. We need teachers to stick to lectures once and a while so students learn to take proper notes, and we need students to have to go to office hours to ask questions and not always rely on email and expect instant response. I would definitely let my students know that I am human, I am still learning, and I want to work with them, not against them, for each assignment.
So, my questions after reading this are the following. You don't need to answer them, but I do want you to think about them (because we will return to them a few more times): What is technology? If we believe that technology includes items such as pencils (i.e. Pencils to Pixels) or even bound books, can we ever truly teach without technology/tools? If so, how? What would that look like?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)