Parallels Between Literacy and Media Literacy

There are three core flaws with the laissez faire approach.The first is that it does not address

the fundamental inequalities in young people’s access to new media technologies and the

opportunities for participation they represent (what we call the

articulate what they learn from their participation (what we call the

third problem with the laissez faire approach is that it assumes children, on their own, can

develop the ethical norms needed to cope with a complex and diverse social environment

online (the

participatory culture must begin by addressing these three core concerns. (Jenkins 12)participation gap).The second is that it assumes that children are actively reflecting on their media experiences and can thustransparency problem).Theethics challenge).Any attempt to provide meaningful media education in the age of

When I read this section, it reminded me of the research on how children's print literacy skills develop.  When students' literacy skills are behind those of their peers at certain points in their educations, the factors that have been determined to effect their delays are very similar to the flaws indicated above.

We know that young children who do not have access to liteacy experiences early in life (before age 2 even) do not have the vocabularies to read and understand  in ways that are typical to what their peers who have enjoyed access are able to accomplish.  Research has also shown that when young children and adolescents are asked to reflect on their literacy experiences, even as simply as drawing a smiley or frowny face in a reading journal, their understanding of and connection to the text is deepened.  Finally, in expressive literacy, an important element of students' growth is developing ethical norms that will inform their decisions about writing or communicating appropriately for a specific audience.

By granting students access, asking them to reflect often and in varied ways, and teaching them ethical norms, we have improved literacy instruction.  I hope we can recognize early on in the digital literacy world that incorporating these same strategies in our approaches to digital literacy are for more effective than hoping our students just pick it up on their own (like we did with reading and writing for a long time). 

UDL

I think the part of UDL that most informed and transformed my teaching to this point has been the emphasis on using assessment to inform instruction.  Previously, I had put a lot of thought, time and effort in creative lessons that aligned with state standards.  I taught my lesson, kept students engaged, hoped they learned the content, assessed and usually moved on if a majority were getting it.  What what about the minority?  The students who weren't getting it.  Honestly, usually I just hoped they'd jump on board at some point or that another teacher some other year would be able to communicate to them more effectively.

The idea that content being taught should be guided by my classroom assessments- by how students were performing- changed everything.  It also brings a whole new set of challenges like how to assess fairly and consistently and how to meet individual learner needs when the valid assessment yields results that show lack of understanding.  I would still like to have more training and practice in the assessment for teaching process.

Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge AH HA!

Technocentricity VS Student-centered approaches to learning

I just wanted to say, "YES!... Absolutely!... Exactly what I've experienced!" all the way through the Harris and Koehler article.  I excerpted so many meaningful statements from this article that I couldn't you wouldn't want me to discuss them all in one blog post. 

Overall, what resonated with me is the confirmation that there are concerns about the difference between having technology in education and implementing educational technologies effectively.  So often in my own experiences I've seen technologies with great educational potential introduced to teachers who may make every effort to learn the technology, but who ultimately are unable to effectively, efficiently, frequently use the technology to impact student learning to any great degree. 

Harris and Koehler write that, "the greatest weakness of such technocentric approaches is that they have typically given short shrift to two key domains: content and pedagogy." (3)  I see those who are keenly aware of their new technological product's features (the salesman) extolling the virtues of their product to teachers, and teachers struggle to really grasp the depth of the impact on their content or teaching.  The typical product salesman I've experienced is not trained to illuminate the pedagogical or content area connections to his/her product. 

"Underlying truly effective and highly skilled teaching with technology, we argue, is technological pedagogical content knowledge." (9)  YES!  A deep understanding of all three areas has to be present or the entire model becomes lopsided and less effective.

"Learning about technology is different than learning what to do with it instructionally. Teaching technology skills (the T in the model above) in isolation does little to help teachers develop knowledge about how to use technology to teach more effectively (TPK), its relationship to disciplinary content (TCK), or how to help students meet particular curriculum content standards while using technologies appropriately (TPACK) in their learning." (10)  Again, YES!  How many times have I watched teachers learn about technology, but ultimately remain unsupported as they navigate the relationships between that technology and their content or teaching.

"...we suggest that an important first step is creating awareness of the range of possible learning activity types (Harris & Hofer, 2006; Harris, 2008) within a particular content area, matching them to multiple ways that both digital and nondigital technologies can be used to support each type of learning activity." (11)  I wonder from the research done, who in most schools is most often responsible for the steps identified here?

"The acknowledged focus in this approach to planning instruction is on content-based (and content-specific) pedagogy, which is facilitated by judiciously selected and implemented technologies. This emphasis is in accordance with the situated, event-structured, and episodic nature of teachers’ knowledge (Putnam

& Borko, 2000)." Again, too often I feel like schools' use of technologies is governed by what is funded and how it is funded instead of by implementing technology based on the needs of the learners and teachers using the tools.  Misuse of teachers' time on a technology that isn't applicable to their learners or their content area then reinforces in that teacher's mind any insecurities or frustrations they may have about other new technologies in the future.  "Judicious selection" is essential! 

And I could go on.  The steps delineated in this article were so interesting.  I would love to see them applied in an educational setting. 

Learning Theories concept mapping

Constructivism Disillusionment

I remember first learning about constructivist theories in undergrad education classes, thinking that it was the bee's knees.  "Why didn't my teachers in high school use more student centered learning?" I wondered.  Personally, I still love project-based learning where I'm free to explore, make mistakes, ask questions and make meaning on my own to some extent. 

However, after this week's readings and ten years of education under my belt, I'm learning about constructivism with a new lense.  I'm still a huge proponent of students-centered and inquiry based instruction, but some of the criticisms of constructivism mentioned on the Educational Broadcasting Corp article resonated in a way that is new since the first time I heard this information.  I have seen students from low-income, non-parentally involved families truly struggle with constructivist approaches to their learning.  I've also seen differences among my own three children, one of whom really struggles with learning that isn't very structured and routine in nature.  I don't believe in a purely traditional approach either.

I think where I land at this point is that there is value in progressive approaches to education, absolutely, but one needs to take a careful look at not assuming that one approach meets all students' needs in all communities at all stages of the learning process.  I'm interested to know more about what has been done to assess what approaches to learning are more appropriate for academically, culturally and economically diverse learners.

Week One- Tech Experience

Prompt:  Discuss your views on classroom technology use. Drawing on your own experience learning with technology, briefly discuss a classroom situation in which technology was used to help you, the student, learn. Describe the classroom situation, the subject being taught, the other students, the technology/ies (for example, computer/computer software, weblogs, SmartBoard, etc.) being used, and how the technology was integrated within the instruction. Tell us whether you felt this was a good way to integrate technology into the classroom to improve your learning, and your rationale for why you felt it was worthwhile or not. 


Technology can certainly be used to enhance or facilitate learning at deeper levels, but it can also be used as a gimmicky add-on that serves more superficial purposes.  We've probably all experienced both types of uses.  I'll share a positive learning experience using technology.  


I was a graduate student at U of L for a while, and in a class there, the professor not only used power point, but often demonstrated how she added meaningful elements to her presentations such as screen shots, links to online resources, charts and graphs that she created and embedded media like timers, videos and music.  


After brief demonstrations of these elements over a number of weeks, we were asked to create power point presentations that included interactive elements and would teach the rest of the class about our research topics.  The additional expectation of media embedded in the power points made the presentations more informative and engaging for classmates.


For those of us presenting, the practice of finding video or music to include in the presentation forced us to think more deeply about teaching our topics using creativity and engaging some of the more often neglected intelligences of learners.   


In this example, the real challenge was to use technology in ways that deepened learning and didn't just add entertainment value.