Thursday, September 27, 2012
Embed a form
This is a great way to get to know your students. They can fill this out on the first day of class and you can read through them to add to what you know about your students. Some of the information could be information that you would eventually find out on your own, but it would be awesome to know all this information right from the start! It will help you connect more quickly with your students.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Google Apps
Google Apps is very useful in the classroom. There are so
many different options for teachers and students. Google apps is very user
friendly, a plus for student (and some teacher) users. A few of the many
options Google apps offers you is an email account for teachers and students to
use. When you create a Google account, Google does not have the right to your
information. If you delete your account all of your information is also
deleted.
Google apps is free for all non-profit education
organizations. Google is very secure and it will also protect your privacy. A
really impressive application in Google apps is that you can work online with
others on projects such as: documents, presentations and spreadsheets. Google
apps also gives your school the option to set up a video portal inside the
school.
If you familiarize yourself with Google Apps, there are many
opportunities to engage your learners in a new and exciting way. Just a few of
your options are learning how to send surveys and quizzes online (and collect
them as well) and how to work with others online. The possibilities are
endless!
Here is the link to the Google Apps website.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Marc Prensky
I recently read two articles written by Marc Prensky. The first article is titled Before Bringing in New Tools, You Must First Bring in New Thinking and the second article is titled Using Cell Phones for Exams.
I did my best to read these articles with an open mind, tossing all of
my previous thoughts and opinions to the wind. While reading the second
article, however the wind blew them back in my face.
Prensky’s article, Before Bringing in New Tools, You Must First Bring in New Thinking, provides the reader with pointers and ideas for integrating technology into the classroom. One of Prensky’s suggestions was setting up a video chat with a professional on a topic that the class is learning about. This could either go really well or not well at all. Assuming that the technology works perfectly (which one can never assume) this could be a wonderful opportunity for students to talk to professionals all around the world. This is something that students would not have access to without technology. On the other hand, if the program quits working or if there is a problem with the connection, the students will be disappointed and the teacher will have to try to get them to pay attention to a completely different exercise (which will not be easy if it involves reading out of the book).
Prensky wants educators and students to think about what they want to use their technology for before making any purchases; this way schools will not end up with technology that goes untouched. This is a valid point, because why waste money on one piece of technology when you could have added so much more to your students’ learning experience with a different type of technology? The thing about technology is that it is almost instantly outdated and easily broken. Books last forever and do not run the risk of being dropped and ruined. If a laptop or iPad is dropped it runs a high risk of being destroyed. Will schools have to provide a student with a second iPad or computer if they break it? Will the child’s family have to pay for the broken piece of technology? What if the family cannot afford it? What if the school replaces a broken laptop only to have the second one destroyed as well? There are many questions to think about when deciding how much technology should be integrated in the classroom.
Prensky’s second article, Using Cell Phones for Exams, was more far-fetched than the first article. It is true when he states that education needs to change with the times in order for our children to be able to function in the world when they are adults, but I just cannot get over the fact that he wants to allow cell phones in the classroom for tests. Prensky defends his point by saying that adults are able to consult others and look up information if they do not know something. Do you want your doctor googling how to remove an appendix? I sure don’t. Prensky also says that we do not need to know multiplication facts or where countries are located because we have calculators and maps readily at our disposal. This is true in part, but if that information was already in our heads it would be much quicker to access than having to look up the answer. I know because I am not very good at memorization and it is not hard to tell how much quicker I could solve a math problem or find a country without having to look it up.
Technology is becoming more and more a part of our daily lives, but how much is too much technology? Is it really that much more beneficial that we need to use iPads instead of books? Although technology can become a great aid in the classroom, we need to make sure that we are examining all the positives and negatives for our students.
Prensky’s article, Before Bringing in New Tools, You Must First Bring in New Thinking, provides the reader with pointers and ideas for integrating technology into the classroom. One of Prensky’s suggestions was setting up a video chat with a professional on a topic that the class is learning about. This could either go really well or not well at all. Assuming that the technology works perfectly (which one can never assume) this could be a wonderful opportunity for students to talk to professionals all around the world. This is something that students would not have access to without technology. On the other hand, if the program quits working or if there is a problem with the connection, the students will be disappointed and the teacher will have to try to get them to pay attention to a completely different exercise (which will not be easy if it involves reading out of the book).
Prensky wants educators and students to think about what they want to use their technology for before making any purchases; this way schools will not end up with technology that goes untouched. This is a valid point, because why waste money on one piece of technology when you could have added so much more to your students’ learning experience with a different type of technology? The thing about technology is that it is almost instantly outdated and easily broken. Books last forever and do not run the risk of being dropped and ruined. If a laptop or iPad is dropped it runs a high risk of being destroyed. Will schools have to provide a student with a second iPad or computer if they break it? Will the child’s family have to pay for the broken piece of technology? What if the family cannot afford it? What if the school replaces a broken laptop only to have the second one destroyed as well? There are many questions to think about when deciding how much technology should be integrated in the classroom.
Prensky’s second article, Using Cell Phones for Exams, was more far-fetched than the first article. It is true when he states that education needs to change with the times in order for our children to be able to function in the world when they are adults, but I just cannot get over the fact that he wants to allow cell phones in the classroom for tests. Prensky defends his point by saying that adults are able to consult others and look up information if they do not know something. Do you want your doctor googling how to remove an appendix? I sure don’t. Prensky also says that we do not need to know multiplication facts or where countries are located because we have calculators and maps readily at our disposal. This is true in part, but if that information was already in our heads it would be much quicker to access than having to look up the answer. I know because I am not very good at memorization and it is not hard to tell how much quicker I could solve a math problem or find a country without having to look it up.
Technology is becoming more and more a part of our daily lives, but how much is too much technology? Is it really that much more beneficial that we need to use iPads instead of books? Although technology can become a great aid in the classroom, we need to make sure that we are examining all the positives and negatives for our students.
Brad Flickinger
This is a photo on Brad Flickinger's website
Brad Flickinger’s Educational Technology Bill of Rights for Students is both realistic and unrealistic. I agree that students should be able to use their own technology if they already own it (like many of the VCSU students already owned a computer before being issued a school computer) and being able to use WiFi at school for academic reasons. Students should also be taught how to use technology in the classroom setting because this would be extremely helpful for the students in the future. Instant feedback is also a plus; Flickinger has a point when he says that grading by hand can be extremely slow and frustrating for students. It is also a good idea for students to be taught how to be safe online. Although Flickinger has made some valid points, there are still some areas that I do not agree with. I do not believe that students should use Wikipedia to find information; there are plenty of other more reliable websites for students to use for research. Teachers could provide students with a list of possible websites to use for certain research projects. I also do not believe that it would be a wise decision to allow students access to facebook during school, as this would prove more a distraction than an aid to their learning.
There was both positive and negative feedback to Flickinger’s Educational Technology Bill of Rights for Students. Some thought his list was spot on and agreed with what they believed, while others were quite angered by his statements. Among those who were angry with Flickinger’s Bill of Rights were those who commented on his grammar. I do believe that he should have proof-read his article before posting it on the internet. One comment stated that students providing their own technology would make the classroom more unequal, which is something that I had not thought about. If there is a student who has less money than the majority of the class, this would become apparent if students used their own technology. Someone else wrote that education is not a right. I totally disagree, because up until high school, education is a right and required of every U.S. citizen. It amazes me that someone would even think that education is anything other than a right of the people. Another comment made a suggested change from Flickinger’s original statement, “I am smart enough to verify what I find online to be the truth.” to her revised statement, “Teach me how to verify what I find online is from a reliable source.” I think this person is making a good statement because children do not know if a website is reliable or not unless they are taught how to determine that.
Brad Flickinger is working to make a difference in students’ education. He has created the Badge program which helps students learn at a more effective rate. Flickinger says that instead of him teaching the whole class at one time and waiting for students to try to follow along, he records the lesson in a step by step program in which each student can follow at his/her own pace. Students receive badges for completing lessons and once they receive a badge they can move on to the next lesson. The last lessons are elected badges (i.e. movie making), which provide students with motivation to complete the required badges. He also has different stations with equipment for the students to work with, this way he does not have to purchase 30 microphones, 30 video cameras, etc. but can teach effectively with 5 or so of each set of equipment. I think that is a good way to save money and not harm the effectiveness of the program itself.
http://www.schooltechnology.org/
Use stations to maximize use of minimal equipment.
Let students learn at their own pace.
Do not make a quick learner wait for the rest of the class; let them move on to the next assignment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)