Generation Web 2.0

I found this weeks article extremely hard going- not due to its intellectual level, but because it was incredibly technical and slightly confusing, and not particularly relevant to me.

I talked about how the digital world is ever expanding; and focused on the development of Web 2.0- things like blogs, myspace, youtube, wiki that allow people all round the world to communicate and connect online; they allow young people to be "producers and consumers of content and services"- in this way, it seems to link to the ideas of child-centred learning and constructivist views from previous weeks.

The article acknowledged that many of these resources are used primarily for socialisation, but believes that there is a huge avenue for integrating these tools into education and learning. A theoretical geography excursion is proposed- instead of going to the place, looking round, filling in a worksheet, and discussing it further when you get back to school perhaps students could "photograph, research and stitch together a presentation about their learning on the site and on the day...". A petty argument to this could be that many excursional places do not allow photography, but I also think that perhaps it is a little complicated for both the students and teachers involved? But that is the pessimist in me talking; I can see the possible educational merits for such experiences, and, even though ionly left high school not two years ago, these "modern" classrooms are still quite a mystery to me- it will be interesting to find out what type of ICT practises are being taken advantage of while we are on prac the nest few years...

"Many young people are already using these technologies at home for socialisation and learning, so they can bring sophisticated skills into the formal learning environment."- sophisticated in terms of their ability to use the technology, yes; but what of their grammar, vocabulary, syntax? these tools are not used to show off your academic writing skills, and I'm sure there must be some sort of educational/literacy-related implications visible in students? Maybe having to use these tools in an educational context will lead to positive developments in terms of these areas, but I feel that these kind of 'Web 2.0s" should, and generally will, only be used on a social basis.

"People are taking advantage of Web 2.0 developments to share resources and generate new knowledge at breath-taking speed." This is a very positive and exciting (well, for some people) statement- that these resources are being used to further understanding and knowledge; that is, essentially, their main purpose. I think this article is more about how teachers can use them to discuss and share with other teachers and educational organisations; but it could also apply to students, in a limited sense. But, again, is this a knowledge that we can integrate into the classroom? This is mainly for older students, not as prevalent in ECE, even primary. Children that young can''t/shouldn't blog, and do not generally have the ICT know-how and developmental readiness to embark on such endeavours. (But, Prensky would no doubt argue, these kids are different)

I liked that they acknowledged also that there are still major challenges involved to adapting Web 2.0 for education (copyright, cyberbullying, etc) and that teachers will need support and education- and more educational resources of this kind available to them. These are being/have been developed (edna)- I tried to access some of these sites, but my computer wouldn't download any of the podcasts.

On one hand, I thought that all these Web 2.0 resources seem like a good way of bringing learning to the youngsters (speak their language etc), but on the other, I found it slightly worrying that it has potential ramifications with regards to the literacy/writing skills of students... But since I think these programs are aimed more at secondary stduents, they will already have a firm understanding of the basic of grammar and such. (Due to their fantasic ECE teachers). But, I don't know, is this the kind of future that we want? This question will not be able to be answered until this future is indeed upon us (by then it will be too late!) (or, maybe, better late then never! Who can say?)

So, the last blog of the unit. It's been emotional, guys.

Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs- The Final Frontier In Our Quest For Technology Integration?

"It's not a problem of resources, but a struggle over core value."

This is the statement that I feel sums up the entire article, or, at least, the statement that had the most impact on me. Ertmer spends a great deal of time really investigating the idea that before teachers will ever be able to effectively and meaningfully implement ICT, especially the computer, use into their classroom, there must be a change in their BELIEF SYSTEM REGARDING COMPUTERS AND THEIR PLACE IN EDUCATION.

She lists 4 conditions that must be fufilled before computers can become valuabel classroom learning tools- teachers must...

- have convenient access to the technology

-be adequately prepared

-have some freedom in the curriculum they implement

-hold personal beliefs in line with a constructivist pedagogy.

Teachers have to change their pedagogical belief system from one that does not value the potential merits of computers and all they offer, to one that recognises the huge potential at their fingertips, before they can fully embrace this ditigal time. I strongly agree with this statement- having computers within reach, knowing how to use them, and having the freedom to do so in the classroom all means nothing if a teacher does not, or cannot, understand or believe that they will benefit learning. It is easy to change the availability and quality of ICT available, much harder to change the mind of a teacher. Many have it firmly ingrained in their pedagogical beliefs what a teacher does, what a student does- it is hard to shake, to allow the computer to somewhat TAKE OVER helping and facilitating student learning it is huge step to take, and needs to be done in baby steps.

Ertmer says how many teachers use computers in the classroom for "low level" work- using the internet to get info, typing up assignments, etc; essentially, developing isolated skills. They are not used for "higher level" thinking (using such tools as spreadsheets or power points) nearly as much. she acknowledges that this may be due to the fact that it takes a few years for teachers to garner enough knowledge and know-how for them to properly integrate higher order thinking ICT activities. Because it is these higher order learning experiences which are more associated with student-centred (or CONSTRUCTIVIST) learning.

Like last week's article, Ertmer is big on child-created knowledge. Basically, what she suggests is as long as teachers keep on using computers, the longer that is spent with them in the classroom, the better education via ICT will be. I agree with this- it seems a little unfair all the pressure on teachers to use ICT now now NOW- we need to be able to wrap our minds around it, and know what we are doing. For isn't it better to have waited a few years, so we really know that we are teaching meaningful, relevant computer-based lessons, and are "experts" as such, rather than just throwing ourselves into it, and creating learning experiences that are potentially detrimental to a child's education, in that we are not entirely sure of what we are doing? Teachers must feel confident and competent in their knowledge and practise of computers before they can successfully use them in their teaching; the teacher and the computer cannot just be shoved together and expected to make babies. Figuratively speaking.

A social constructivist learning approach

Bradshaw's article had some interesting points about the link between the educational theory of social constructivism and ICT use in the classroom- but I felt that she did not provide enough concrete examples of this integration, and was slightly harsh on existing school and teaching structures. (example: "This contrasts greatly to the isolated, out of context educational practices in today’s schools." Oh, burn.)

Yes, many schools and educators do use relatively old-fashioned methods, and teachers who spend entire lessons talking while students listen (or, often, don't listen) are generally not as effective or motivating- but the elements of social constructivism can still be successfully applied in a classroom without an overwhelming amount of ICT use. But I'm starting to realise how anti-ICT I always sound (even though my posts are too long for anyone to actually bother with reading them to find this out)- if meaningful learning can occur through such things as "online collaborative learning projects", then props to the teachers who are savvy enough to integrate them into their programs.

"...the process of construction is dynamic in nature as hypertext allows for discovery of knowledge in a non-linear manner"- I actually had to look up a definition of 'hypertext' (Ah! I'm secretly an immigrant who snuck over the digital border only posing as a native), but, for those playing at home, I learnt she means text with links to other pages/sites, visuals, sounds etc. I agree that this can be really conducive to learning- having all this information at one's fingertips. But sometimes, it can be a bit of an overload, so a teacher has to be careful with the sites/projects they assign to students- there is such a thing as too much information and too many options.

I liked that she acknowledged that many teachers are quite in the dark in terms of IT related things, and offers some support programs they can use. also, that availability of resources is another big problem in many areas. But i agree with her when she says that, with all the pressure on teachers to have concrete, tangible learning to show, many avoid ICT learning experiences.

Essentially, though I think that such computer/internet-based projects are potentially useful and social-constructivey, surely the same objectives could be reached in other ways, not just by sittign at a computer screen? At least not in the early primary years- children shoudl learn how to live in the real world, how to interact and cooperate, as well as learning the curriculum. But, i suppose, many would argue that ICT IS the real world now, and list the various benefits of such a lot of computer time. But I'm still not totally sold.

Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Critical Thinking

Although initially OVERWHELMED by the amount of information in this article, once I'd finished reading, I was surprised to find that I generally agreed with most of what Jonassen said. I think he summed it up with...

"Our goal as technology-using educators, should be to allocate to the learners the cognitive responsibility for the processing they do best while requiring the technology to do the processing that it does best."

By using Mindtools, teachers are encouraging students to think about and expand upon what they know, using the computer programs not as an easy cop out (in that they do all the work), but as a tool to do basic organizational things (retrieval, storage of info etc), allowing students more time to think about the topic at hand, with a clearer head. When you construct something yourself, you are forced to really think about what you are doing- when you make the text boxes, create the links or whatever- rather than simply filling in a pre-constructed worksheet.

The descriptions of the various Mindtools available to teachers were kind of scary-sounding at first- SEMANTIC ORGANIZATIONAL TOOLS, DATABASES, DYNAMIC MODELLING TOOLS... But once Jonassen gave examples of what these were, I realised I had used many of them- Inspiration, spreadsheets and that. Admittedly, as a student, I never really felt that the computer was helping me that much... sure, it was handy, but did it really advance my learning and thinking? Maybe it was just second nature, suing those technologies, and I was used to it. Nevertheless, this article definitely has convinced me of the fact that teachers should, when possible, harness these Mindtools and introduce them in the classroom.

One thing I had a problem with was the subheading of "conversation tools"-

"Online communication presumes that students can communicate, that is, that they can meaningfully participate in conversations. In order to do that, they need to be able to interpret messages, consider appropriate responses, and construct coherent replies"

Obviously, this guy has never been on MSN.

“Cultural change needed to exploit ICT in schools”

I agreed with a lot of what Elliot said in her article- in many (likely, most) schools in Australia, there is an abundance of ICT resources, especially computers; but these are more often than not being ignored and more ‘traditional’ teaching methods and practices are still reigning supreme. What she said about education being “…notoriously slow to innovate” is, I think, quite true- education, essentially, has followed the same mould for many years (read: decades)- but is this necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps the reason education and teachers themselves are slow to embrace new ideas and technology is that the old ways are still effective?

Elliot is right when she says that many teachers are not confident or comfortable with modern technology, and this is why they do not integrate it into their curriculum as much as they could; I think this factor has more to do with it’s relatively limited use on the classroom, as many of these teachers probably recognize the potential positive aspects of ICT, but have no idea where or how to begin to introduce it into their lessons.

Despite so many schools in Australia being equipped with computers and other IT paraphernalia, the studies Elliot quotes show that a large percentage of these are not often used, and students do not have free access to them. Just because a classroom may have a few computers in it does not mean that they are being USED, and used effectively. When I was in primary school, we only used computers for playing games when we were good. (But when I was in year 6, we got a new principal who banned all the fun games and only let us play the boring, ‘educational’ games, like FRACTION ATTRACTION!! I think what adults see as Educational-Yet-Fun and what children see are often two completely different things, and this gap really needs to be bridged in order for me to be more won over by the prospect of greater IT use in schools.)

I’m kind of skeptical about her linking the fact that many teachers who use ICT in their classrooms for longer periods of time are more often described as “creative” or “fantastic” or “great organizers”. This seems like some slightly dodgy logic; how does high amounts of ICT use in the classroom correlate with good classroom management skills?
I understand teachers’ reluctance to fully embrace the ICT available to them; sometimes computers do not seem as ‘real’ as paper or books or boards- when reading over this article, I had to fight the urge to print it out and highlight with a real highlighter, but I guess we all have to accept that ICT is something that will definitely not be a passing phase, and must be harnessed and used for meaningful learning experiences.

But with great power comes great responsibility…

"Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants"

Marc Prensky's article "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants" raised the pertinent issue of the ever-expanding Computer Age and it's effect on the students of today, how they learn, and how this impacts on educators and the education system itself.

As it was written seven years ago, based on US 'natives' and 'immigrants', I don't think this article is as up-to-date (as, in the Digital World, seven years is a LONG time, technology is developing at even faster rates) or 100% relevant to us, as Australian teachers; as America has always been ahead of us in this development; but there are definitely some good arguements raised. Good as these points are, I still found myself getting annoyed at Prensky (I bet he's the kind of person that laughs at his own jokes)- he seemed to be making some gross generalisations about the younger generations; "Digital Natives"- we do not read books, we spend all our waking hours absorbed in various technologies, we want things now now NOW... Are basically a group of selfish youths, unable to learn in "old school" ways, that WE are the immigrants of the Pen and Paper, the textbook. I think I'm getting side-tracked from what I'm meant to be writing about, but I really resented being lumped in this category. (Granted, while typing this, I am updating my ipod, listening to my stereo and awaiting a text. But that's by the by.)

In terms of how this relates to TEACHERS, I'm not so sure that the situation is as dire and THE-WORLD-WILL-END-IF-WE-DO-NOT-MAKE-LEARNING-INTO-COMPUTER-GAME-FUN!! as Prensky seems to make it; but I agree that some changes need to be made in how we teach. This technology is an accepted and permanent part of our world, and the fact that this is what children are now growing up with has to be accommodated for in education. (But what about all the ghetto kids that do not have access to this? In many parts of the world, Western or not, computers and such are still a relatively foreign concept. Will these students then be disadvantaged? I don't know. Think I'll save that one for Bono or Geldoff.) Teachers should most definitely make room in their classroom and curriculum for computers, the internet, smart boards and other forms of IT that are available to them. But they should not let them Take Over. Children still need to learn to read and write (did anyone else feel that Prensky was a bit TOO computer obsessed, and slightly neglected the importance of the "Old Country" teaching methods, and the incredible importance of producing literate and numerate students??), and while computers and the like can be used, and used very effectively, to assist such skills, they should not be the main focus. Yes, young people have changed from their predecessors, in terms of the way they think and how they approach education; but at the end of the day, I do not believe that this change is so extreme that the whole education system needs to be re-jigged; just adjusted and modernised. He says,

"Digital Immigrant teachers assume that learners are the same as they have always been, and that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work for their students now. But that assumption is no longer valid. Today’s learners are different."-Most of us in this class are part of this generation, and I think that we all still learn effectively (or, have the potential to do so) from our lectures and tutorials, from the prescribed readings, from these 'old school' methods. But technology, particularly computers, do help a lot in our learning; I still think that these technologies are an important secondary learning aid, but not The major way kids are going to learn.

It also has to be remembered that we are, primarily, TEACHERS- hopefully, we will all leave uni with an acceptable and practical amount of ICT knowledge- but it is not the be-all and end-all of our job. Despite all my NEGATIVITY, I do agree with the essential arguements he presents- we have to keep up with the ever-changing digital world, in order to accommodate for our students. But I think that they will still be willing to "slow down" for other, less high-speed learning.
And all day i've been thinking...

Gotta catch em all! Gotta catch em all!
Articuno Jynx Nidorina Beedrill
Haunter Squirtle Chansey... Pokemon!

(It was 2000, it was catchy, it was cool at the time.)

But the capital of Albania? No idea.
Score 1 for Prensky.