This week's readings gave us a chance to learn about valuable and meaningful ways to integrate technology into our classrooms, with an emphasis on early childhood. The readings gave me a chance to reflect on the rest of the course, and read about how real classrooms are currently integrating technology.
Beginning with "Meaningful Technology Integration in Early Learning Environments," from NAEYC's Young Children, we were able to learn about a classroom using technology along with the project approach. The project that was being explored in this classroom was dinosaurs, with an emphasis on bones and fossils. No matter what additional resources were used for this project I feel like students would be completely engaged just due to the topic. In this classroom they used a great number of digital tools to enhance students' learning, like digital cameras, online encyclopedias, interactive whiteboards, and a multi-media book making center. I think that they made a really good point in this article, that lots of technology is not always necessary, rather, the technology chosen should be for a specific purpose. They gave reasons for using specific technologies like using the digital cameras to see different perspectives of the fossils, and emailing paleontologists because they would receive a faster response. The article about the digital photo journal project seemed like a fun project for students that could definitely be done easier now with more access to cameras and software. Allowing the students to choose what they wanted to document and how they wanted to caption them in their journal was a great way to give students autonomy and explore with the technology. I was impressed that most of the students set the camera down to play, and picked it back up to take pictures on their own time. Giving the students the opportunity to create their journal and think about the meanings of the photographs that they took really allowed for self-reflection and individual metacognition. Along with this, I think it also gave the students a chance to think about what their classmates might have been doing in the moment or what they were thinking. This is high-level cognitive processing for these students. The third article, about the "iGeneration" was very interesting and seems to bring up more modern questions about technology and school-age students. One of the most relevant examples, I thought, was that students were given brand new android phones to use for school purposes. Students were excited for the new technology, but immediately disappointed when they realized they couldn't be used for texting or other entertainment purposes. This is one of the biggest challenges in today's age, due to the fact that outside of school the students almost always have access to technology that can be used for entertainment purposes and instant engagement. How do we find educational technology that has this same effect, and drives students to use it in and out of the classroom? Another extremely important point brought up in this reading is that the context of the technology used is more important than the tool being used. Giving students a shiny new android may be cool, but if they are being used for mindless tasks or non-engaging activities, the students will soon lose interest. Last, the Ted Talk from Mitch Resnick was really exciting for me to watch! I actually have a Raspberry Pi 3, which is a mini pc that is used mostly for coding and education. Scratch is one of the most used programs on Raspberry Pi's, so I was already familiar with this program! I think it is an amazing program that should be more widely known about and used in schools. It has many aspects that can be positive for students like creativity, digital literacy, problem solving, collaboration, and many more. I think that if a teacher can become fluent with a program like Scratch, they can pass on skills to their students, and have lots of fun creating projects in Scratch. When we think about alternative assessments, like posters, portfolios, and presentations, why not add "coding" or "programming" to the list?
3 Comments
I really loved learning about science and technology in this week's readings. I feel like a lot of times, science is the,"lost" subject when it comes to core studies. With so much emphasis being on math and ELA, teachers and schools might forgot about the value of science and exploration in their classroom and schools.
The first article about using Augmented Reality to teach physics was awesome to read. For my science class last semester, I actually designed a unit about forces and motion, so it was cool to be able to see a whole different way of teaching this topic. One of the biggest reasons I loved this program was the way it involved active student participation. The way students were able to "model" objects across the room, which would then show up on the screen was really cool. It seemed like even when one student was the one modeling, other students would have been engaged in the lesson to see what happened. It also seemed like it involved active and abstract thinking from the students to predict and assume what was going to happen before it was shown. I think this is a great way to challenge students, and hook them into a topic so that when they are shown the actual outcome they will have a better understanding. It was impressive that 97% of the students had increased performance. Wouldn't it be great if we could all have a chance to use programs like this! The article titled "Emergent Science And ICT in the Early Years," was interesting to read. I think the emergent science curriculum is very similar to the model we learned to use in my science class last semester. This model was the EPE model - Experiences, Patterns, and Explanations. This model allowed students to explore and experience phenomena at the beginning of a lesson, discover and think about patterns themselves, and then find an explanation for these patterns. Allowing students to explore like this using technology is a new idea, but I think it can definitely be an effective way of teaching science. In the article they use examples like interactive games about temperature and weather, planting flowers, and even animal sounds. I think it is important to remember that hands-on and tactile experiences are often key for science lessons, but there are some exceptions where this isn't possible. ICT is a great way of working around these exceptions and giving your students meaningful experiences. Similar to the previous article, "The Impact of ICT on Primary Care" talked about the specific examples of how ICT can be used to meet standards of science education in primary school. It got me thinking more about the supplemental uses of technology that might enhance science lessons, rather than replacing those physical or hands-on experiences. For example, they talked about using spreadsheets and word processing as tools to help students plan, organize, and log data during lessons and experiments. I think that this would be an amazing use of technology during science lessons and experiments. Even thinking about previous presentations from this class, it would be really cool to have all the students use a class wiki to take notes about their experiment in the class, so then the group can revisit this as well as the teacher and other students. Other supplemental tools like digital cameras, interactive whiteboards, and powerpoint can be great tools that are reasonably accessible and can add a lot to a science lesson. Finally, the video about BeeSim was fun to watch. I feel like this would be an extremely tough topic to teach about in a traditional sense. I feel as if students would be uninterested in the topic and might not have a good understanding, if they just heard an explanation or completed worksheets about it. Using BeeSim allowed the children to not only visualize how bees gather nectar, but were actually able to participate as a bee themselves. Since they got to have this experience in an unrestricted setting, the children were able to experience this idea first hand through play. It was really cool that the materials guided the students to learn about this topic, and it seemed like they would have fun doing it. The article titled "Classroom Technologies as Tools not Toys," was well written even though it is kind of outdated. I am glad that the authors used NCTM as their basis for a lot of their statements and standards, since this is the most credible source when it comes to current mathematics education at this level. One of the most important take-aways from this article is the focus on technology as a tool and enhancement, not a replacement. Like many other topics we have studied throughout the course, mathematics software and technology should not replace face-to-face instruction, instead it should be used to enhance this instruction. I liked the activity that was used in this article because it was an example of project-based learning, where students were exploring and problem solving, communicating with group members, and creative thinking. By using projects like these, we can help students learn math content that they might not be interested in otherwise. Along with this, giving students tasks where they can create a product that is displayed gives them ownership of the product and tends to increase their commitment and engagement.
The article by Nansen et al. about "Mathletics" was cool to read about. Basically, its social media for students that motivates them to learn about math and operations. This seemed like a program that students would enjoy using. It is a competition against students from different countries and allows for rewards and customization. It was interesting to read quotes from the parents that said their children only played the easy games so they could win coins and buy more items. This is something we always have to think about when instructing mathematics, that the easy way out isn't always the most helpful thing for our students. We need to make sure that our students are engaged and having fun, but also being challenged. Along with this, it seemed like there were other problematic aspects to the website, like the fact that students were finding ways to hack and get free credits and coins. To be honest, I thought the study about using ICT to teach music and angles was hard to follow. With 4 & 5 year olds, I thought that there was way too much going on for it to be effective. Should they focus on teaching students about angles or about music? Also, should the researchers just chosen to use ICT or movement, rather than both? I always like the idea of integration as well as multiple representations, but I feel like this lesson could have been very overwhelming for the students. I could barely process how they were teaching certain ideas. Anyway, I think that some of the ideas used can be helpful and effective like using Scratch programs or different movement activities to teach mathematics. Dr. Doug Clements' presentation from EETC was great to watch, and he provided much information that reflected a lot of ideas that I have learned in my math education courses. I thought that the Building Blocks program that he presented about is a great tool that teachers could use in their classrooms while teaching math. This software included activities, drills, and tools/free explore. I particularly liked the last category, where students are given the opportunity to explore and and use tools to experience different ideas they have previously learned or wondered about. I love activities that allow for this type of exploration, and I think it is often forgot about when it comes to mathematics. This also relates to the idea that our mathematics instruction should be more student-centered rather than teacher centered, so students aren't just copying and practicing but actively thinking and problem solving. This week's readings about digital texts and technology brought new insight to my understanding on the topic. I have heard many things about the pros and cons of e-texts, but have never really heard substantial arguments for and against before, including research.
I thought that the first reading about electronic books gave good examples of how e-books can be used in the classroom, and their potential benefits. To me, it seems like almost everyone who has an opinion on e-books just says "I like real books better because I can hold them and flip the pages." There never seems to be real arguments for or against these types of books, so I thought it was good that this article presents research-based examples of how e-books can compare to traditional books. Examples of the benefits presented by the researchers included: ability to explore e-books without adult assistance, highlighted text to promote print awareness, and increased reader engagement. I can see where people argue against using these e-books, because adults can read to the children, point to the words, ask questions, etc. But what if this isn't an option for the child? What if an e-book is their only way to explore literature when they're at home? I think we need to look at these e-books as a tool, improve them, and use them to bridge the gap between disadvantaged students and students who have adults at home to read to constantly read to them. I really thought that the second article about Digital Text Selection was really helpful in pointing out high-quality electronic texts compared to low-quality electronic texts. First, they had some great examples of features that some e-texts can include, like personalized names/characters, caregivers recording their own voices, and customizable stories (like fill in the blank). I thought that these were great ideas and would be engaging and fun for most students. I think it is important to be able to evaluate e-texts (and real texts) based on their writing, graphics, and engagement. I know that there are a lot of e-texts and apps out there that might be flashy and colorful, but might not provide students with valuable writing, vocabulary, narration, etc. Like all tools for the classroom, it is important to be critical when choosing e-texts that we want to make available to our students. I third article, a research study about multimodal literacy practices, brought up a really important aspect of this topic. When it comes to technology in literacy, you need to examine to views of parents and others who don't read these studies or do research about the topic. It seems like there are two main views about the increased use of technology for children, and specifically with literacy. Shown in the reading, one view is that said technology can be harmful to the children, because it is taking away from family time, social interaction, and communication. On the other hand, it seems like theres a different view where people realize that this change and technology is not going away, so children should learn how to use it and become familiar with it before they are left behind. I think it is important that we respect and think about these views (as well as others) and make sure to always be specific when using new technology in our classrooms and with our students. We can use these readings and studies to explain what specific benefits students can receive when using these technologies. I think another important take-away from this reading is the comparison of interactions during activities like jigsaw puzzles vs. computer games like "match it." While computer programs still allow for communication, it is worth noting that most of the time the people communicating will be talking to each other while looking at the computer screen. On the other hand, when completing a real jigsaw puzzle, participants can communicate verbally as well as non-verbally using gestures, movement, and eye-contact. This week's readings about iPads, apps, and interactive whiteboards were all extremely interesting to learn about. I am, and have been for a while, extremely interested in apps and apple products. I own a lot of apple products like the MacBook, iPhone, and apple watch. Recently I have been trying to learn Swift, which is the programming language for iOS (spoiler- it's really hard). So I am always excited to read about ways I can use some of these products and apps in the classroom.
The iLearn reading focused on educational apps in the app store, and gave me a new perspective on educational apps available today. First, I thought that it was good that they addressed the "app gap" right away in this article. This is one of the biggest problems with today's technology surge in education. Simply, as technology becomes an integral part of education, certain students are at a disadvantage due to less access to this technology. Next, it was great to see that children's apps are such a growing market. On the other hand, it was kind of troubling to see that there are much less specific content based apps available for students. With math accounting for 13% of the available apps and all other subject areas lower than that, it might be hard for a student to find an app that could help them with a specific topic that they are struggling with. Last, I completely agree with the authors when they suggested that standards should be made for apps that consider themselves educational. Some "educational apps" might be top sellers for certain reasons, but they might not be as developmentally appropriate as us teachers would like to see. If a set of standards were created, we might help address similar problems to this. The next reading, Learning, Is There an App for That, built upon these ideas from the previous reading and talked about the aspects of learning that come along with mobile technology rather than the apps themselves. First, I think that the pass back effect will be really evident in the near future, more so than today. Currently all of us and our peers are collecting all of these mobile phones, tablets, and computers that could easily be passed down to children at some point, or at least be available to the children. Next, I was not surprised that 60% of children surveyed said that they used mobile devices mostly to play games. I honestly thought this number might be higher. This is a huge reason that supports the idea of creating and using developmentally appropriate education games for children. Accordingly, the authors provided suggestions based on their research. I thought it was great that they said to design content that is relevant to what the students are already learning. Almost like homework which can be used to extend students' learning outside of the classroom, appropriate apps could do the same. Another great point they made was to give the students incentives to keep interest and invest in the learning. Like they said, high scores and narratives can be great ways of doing this. The third reading about interactive whiteboards was beneficial, because I have used them before and heard a lot about them but have never studied research behind their use. I was kind of surprised at the results, which showed some things that go against what I have been learning in most of my classes this year. For example, higher order thinking, problem solving, and open-ended questions were left out of most lessons resulting in what seemed like fairly boring/traditional lessons from the students' perspective. In addition, while collaboration was widely used throughout the classrooms, only 3 out of 60 included support of communication and collaboration! One of the points that stuck out to me was the fact that these IWB's seemed to be used more as a tool for teaching rather than a tool for learning. By this, it seemed like the IWB's were basically a toy for the teachers that made their lives easier and more enjoyable, but may not have influenced or helped the students as much. In response to this, I think it is safe to say that a lot of the teachers currently using IWB's in their classrooms did not necessarily learn about the research behind them. Like they said in the reading, providing these teachers with similar studies or knowledge along with tech trainings could be very beneficial for both them and the students. The online webinar about using iPads and Smartboards was very helpful and informative, and I hope that I am given the chance to use these tools in my future classroom! It was cool to see all the possibilities when using iPads with Smartboards in the classroom. I never thought about the possibility of using an iPad with a projector, let alone being able to write on a mirrored image of an iPad using a Smartboard! It makes sense that this is easy enough to do, since I do similar things with my MacBook, when hooking it into a projector or TV. I think that the airplay apps were really good tools for a teacher to have if they are able to obtain it, so they're not restrained by the connection to the screen. The iPad lesson that she showed where the students were able to interact with the content would be a really great idea to use, if your class is lucky enough to have an iPad available for each student. I thought it was great that there was an app where you could access the Smartboard notebook content. I think that if a class is using a Smartboard and the notebook, having this app on the iPads to go along with it would be a very helpful tool. The first article by F. Gomez et al. was about collaboration between early childhood students while using technology. This was a very interesting study to me because although it is clear that collaboration is an extremely important aspect of early childhood education, I had never thought about collaboration while using technology. To be honest, throughout this class I have thought more about upper elementary level classrooms and technology integration. At the preschool which I currently work at, we do not integrate technology at all besides listening to music and audio books. That does not mean that this is an unimportant topic. I am glad that I was able to learn more about technology in early childhood education this week. In the study itself, I thought that the use of these single display groupware activities were a very cool idea. I really liked how during the activities, the students needed to work together to complete the tasks properly. Along with this, success was only achieved when every student reached their goal, resulting in joint rewards. The results of the study were very clear and showed that the students who were in the experimental group benefitted greatly in both logical-mathematic skills and social skills.
The second study by G. Gelmini-Homsby et al. is similar in the fact that it studies students' collaboration, but this study focuses on story telling and the tool KidPad. This study was interesting because it gave children the chance to create stories based on KidPad, a digital drawing tool. Using the tool, the children could move around pictures that were already on the screen, and draw to add. What the researchers wanted to know was if the children's stories would chance if they were given prompts with questions about their story. Well, their hypothesis was dead on. It was clear that the students who had the prompts during their first story were more coherent, and overall "better storytellers." It seems like the GRPQ script is a good model to use when guiding students in story telling activities. My favorite part about this idea is that it engages students in meaningful conversation, but also allows for their creativity while coming up with their own story. The third research study was from Dr. Wang from UB, along with Dr. Ching. Their study focused on children gathering and working together on one computer, similar to the first article. Reading this article made me think of the experiences that I have had in early childhood education when the students have "choice time." Like the article, how many students gathered at the computer even if it wasn't their turn, students almost always tend to go where the other students are. If 3 students are already playing with legos, then there is a very good chance other students will want to join in. Based on knowing this from experience, it makes sense that students were very interested in the computers even if they were not the ones playing. One of the most interesting results from this study were the individual and collective goals of the students using the computers. Rather than winning the game, it seemed like getting a turn or keeping their turn at the computer was the biggest concern for the students. I wonder how this would have changed if the students had more access o the computers, or if there were more computers available for them? I really liked the researchers' suggestions to teachers at the end. They said that students have a desire to collaborate while using the computer and that this should be encouraged by the teachers. I think this is definitely true and should be focused on more by teachers, based on this study and the other studies from this week. Students should be given as many chances as possible to work together while using technology. I began this week's readings with the multitasking piece from NPR. The reason I did this is because I am ALWAYS trying to multitask. Whether it is texting while studying, listening to podcasts while cooking, or drawing while watching T.V., there are not many times in the day where I am doing one thing by itself. I would say that I am decent at multitasking, but that I get distracted very easily. This is one thing that I think is very common in today's technologically advanced world. How can I concentrate on my readings when something is constantly buzzing on my wrist or in my pocket? So reading about the research that has been done showing that multitasks the most are the least capable of doing this was kind of eye-opening for me. On a brighter note, I wanted to point out how funny it was that the term "twittering" was used during this interview. From this interview, I think one of the biggest take aways is just being conscious of your ability to get things done, and being disciplined. For example, instead of having my phone out while I'm studying, I can turn it off so I can focus on my studies only.
Next, Calvert et al.'s study about children's attentiveness while using computer software was very interesting. It makes sense that they found that children were less attentive to the story when the adults were controlling to mouse/interactions. It makes complete sense that, on the other hand, the children were more attentive when they were in control of the technological interaction. Although, I was skeptical of this data due to the fact that by the last session (when adults controlled) the children might have been bored of the story. They did address this in their study, but I think it could have had a significant effect on the data. The next reading that I will reflect on is the chapter titled: "Discovering Familiar Places: Learning through Mobile Place-Based Games." This was a very interesting reading for me because I love new technology, especially when it comes to video games, AR, and VR. This stuff fascinates me and I always want to try the newest system, game, etc. Before this chapter though, I thought of Augmented Reality as a tool for entertainment or practical use, rather than educational use. When I think of AR I think of Pokemon Go and the Microsoft Hololens, not something I might be able to use in the future as a teacher! It was very cool to read about MIT's program, and the games that they have designed which bring that educational aspect that I hadn't previously considered. How cool is it that they created a game that was specific to their own city, allowing them to travel around to landmarks, buildings, and other spots to learn about the environment and climate change? It is clear that AR games and other similar video games can be extremely useful in the field of education, especially when it comes to science and social studies. Last, was chapter two of High Tech Tots which talked about play and the new trends in early childhood education. Play is one of the most important concepts in today's world view of early childhood education. Specifically in NAEYC's Developmentally Appropriate Practice, play is a huge component which drives students' creativity, social skills, cognitive development, etc. This chapter provided great insight on the rapidly changing views of early childhood, and how we must adapt our definitions of play to keep up with new technology and media. I think that currently and certainly in the future, it is hard to find that balance between classic toys and games that we know can be effective, with new and flashy toys and games that might get all of our students' attention. This is why we must try to be aware of many different options for both types of materials, allowing us as teachers to choose what we think will benefit our students the most. I think that it is great that we have the opportunity to become teachers in a time where new educational tools and toys are being created on a daily basis. Thinking about the "hot new toys" of the past, army figurines, lite brites, beanie babies, furbies, etc. were all hits when they came out. Today, if those toys came out, there is a good chance they would be significantly different in the way that they were used. In most cases, these changes are due to the advanced technology that is available to us and make many things interactive. I also want to say that I am jealous of the kids that get to grow up playing with all these fun toys.... I am beginning this week's reflection with the article from Mediashift.org. I think that the most impactful part of the article for me (disregarding the statistics) was the fact the 84% of teachers agreed with the following statement: “Today’s digital technologies are leading to greater disparities between affluent and disadvantaged schools and school districts.” I think that this quote sticks out to me so much because I love using technology to my advantage, and it is extremely sad that in reality many school districts, teachers, and students, do not have much access to technology. To think about it in more specific terms, I imagined a less fortunate student who does not have many resources at home and attends a school with mostly low SES students. The school also has low funding, and is low achieving. On the other hand, there is a student in a school 10 miles away, who comes from an apple class home with many resources. They attend a school that has SmartBoards in every room, and iPads on hand. Most students already come to school at a high proficiency level. To begin with, these students have an advantage, just based on support and resources outside of school. On top of this, they are lucky enough to go to a school which has the latest technology and puts them ahead even further.
Next, the video on assistive technology was very informative. It is amazing to think about how helpful technology has been to certain students, especially exceptional students. Assistive technology was shown in the video to also help a teacher use a universal design for learning for their class. Through AT, teachers can provide students with engaging lessons, a change of pace from teacher instruction, multiple means of representation, and multiple means of expression. The last program shown in the video, Kurzweil 3000, is an incredible program that could help tons of students. With today's technology where you can scan anything into a PDF by just using your cell phone, this program could pretty much read anything to a student! If there is a paper document in the classroom that you think would be useful for the student, you could scan that and then have the program read it to your student. I thought that this was awesome, and would be a great tool for students learning to read, or students with difficulties while reading. Building off of this video, I read the whole article talking about assistive technology, and its benefits for students with learning difficulties. I think it is very important to clarify that AT is used to compensate for students needs, rather than just a learning tool for all students. For example, the reading program that I spoke about earlier - instead of being used to read to students who can read on their own - should be used to read to students who have a learning difficulty in the reading domain. Another big thing to understand about AT is the fact that these tools could be used outside of school as well. Focusing on the specific tools available, it is truly amazing how advanced some of these tools are. For example, portable OCR systems which can do the same thing as the Kurzweil 3000, but by simply pointing a pen sized camera at single words on a paper. Last, I think something extremely important that they brought up is how assistive technology can not only help a child with their weaknesses, but can take advantage of their strengths as well. I think that the "Tech Savvy" article was great to read because it provided a truly modern view on information technology. I specifically thought that the key recommendations section was extremely beneficial. The first recommendation is to compute across the curriculum and I could not agree more. Technology should not be a separate entity in schools anymore, it should be integrated within all subject areas. Preparing tech savvy teachers is another thing that is extremely important, and I think that in the next ten years or so we will see a great shift in technological literacy from our teachers due to the new teachers going into the workforce. Supporting efforts that give girls and women a boost into the pipeline. I think that this is a very important issue, as girls and women are sincerely underrepresented in not only technology but science, engineering, and mathematics. Based on the Web 2.0 reading for the week, the school in the reading sounds a lot like the setup of our course! Weekly blogs, collaborative wikis, and the use of Web 2.0 tools. It was cool to read about these tools being used directly in classrooms, and it seemed like they were all very positive. It was especially nice to read about the stories of teachers using podcasting in their classrooms, which was my groups tool. Some teachers used them for assessment purposes while others used them as supplemental resources for their students. I really liked how we were able to hear about specific teachers using these tools in classes that were content-specific. The math teacher using a blog and a "problem of the week" was a great example of how a teacher can promote higher level thinking within their curriculum by using technology and Web 2.0 tools. Starting with the "Kaiser Report," it is clear just how exposed our youth is to media and technology. Over seven and a half hours of media use per day for 8-18 year olds is a crazy number to me. I think the biggest surprise to me was the average television content viewed per day, which was just about four and a half hours. First of all, this seems like way too much media usage for children, and second, this was still only 2009. 8 years later, I can't imagine the numbers haven't increased even more. I am extremely curious as to my media usage during this age range. In my house, the TV was never left on, and I did not watch that often. On the other hand, I played a lot of video games, listened to music frequently, and used mobile media. If I had to guess, my usage would have been below the average, but I might be wrong. I found it to be very interesting that physical activity was fairly constant when comparing children with heavy, moderate, and light media usage. I assumed that there would be a relationship between the two. One thing that does show a relationship is media usage and grades. According to the study, students with heavy media usage tend to have worse grades than students with moderate or light media usage. This is important to know going forward as teachers. Another very interesting part of the study is the demographics predictors of media usage. I would have never thought that there would be a clear disparity between media usage based on a child's race. Overall, I think that it is important to know just how much media exposure and usage our students have, and how we can help them make responsible choices while using media and technology.
I think that the article by Wang et al. shows great representations of children who are involved and exposed to useful and educational technology, like Jessica. In the article, Jessica is exposed to various technology in school (cameras, smart board, internet searching, live streaming), at home (computer, video editing, Skype), at the museum (camera, 3d virtual tour), and in cyberspace (Panwapa). All of this technology was used in productive or educational ways. She used technology at home to further her knowledge about projects which she did at school, and even connected with someone from another country based on this knowledge. Other than examples of technology-enhanced activities, the authors bring up a great point about technology in the classroom that I haven't really considered before, shown in the following quote. "If teachers limit the use of technology to drill and practice activities... or restrict technology to an extra activity once the 'real' work is completed, children may view technology for learning as meaningless and distinct from their technology experiences outside of class." By this, the authors mean that if the only technology in the classroom is not interactive or engaging to the students, it will seem very boring compared to the technology they use at home like smartphones and video games. I think this is extremely important to think about, especially as technology and media exposure is growing rapidly. It's as if we are competing with this technology to grab our students' attention. Because of this, we must be mindful, and try our hardest to provide students with experiences using technology that they will enjoy and benefit from. As for the last reading about Media Ecologies, I think that it is extremely important for us as educators to know how our students are communicating with each other outside of the classroom. Even if it with other friends their age, or someone not in the same school or class, we should at least have an idea on how our students are communicating with others. In this reading they focused on things like MySpace and AIM which were big when I was growing up, yet today there is so much more like snapchat, FaceTime, twitter, and even House Party (group video chat). Keeping up with technology that our students might be using can be helpful when creating lessons and communicating with students. NAEYC's stance on technology in Early Education was interesting to read about, and reflects ideas that I have seen in centers with accreditation from NAEYC. The reading titled "Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age Eight" describes how technology and digital media can impact a child's early development, and how it should and shouldn't be used around or with young children. From my experience of working in two early childhood centers, I have only seen appropriate use of technology according to NAEYC. In one center, there is no digital media or technology used. All centers, activities, and play are designed around interaction with others, and with the materials provided in the classroom. In the other center, there was a computer available for students to use, but was used almost as if it was an art center. The students were able to draw pictures, use different colors, play with different stamps, therefore creating pieces of digital artwork. My beliefs strongly align with NAEYC's beliefs, in that it should only be used to support students' learning, and not to replace any type of social or educational interaction.
Our second reading by Lee S. Shulman, "Those Who Understand: Knowledge and Growth in Teaching" was a very empowering and informative read for perspective teachers. The author begins his article with a quote from George Bernard Shaw stating: "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches." Then, throughout the article, Shulman gives a great overview on how intensive the knowledge of teachers must be to actually have success in the profession. He talks about training that teachers must go through for certification and training. He talks about the difficult situations some teachers find themselves in, when asked to teach subjects they might not be experts in, or might be new to. Also, he talks about the extensive content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge teachers must know to be effective. As teachers going through school and certification currently, I can definitely say that there is much more to it than other people may think. A lot of people look at teaching as a fairly easy profession which is mostly "babysitting." This is simply not the case, and Shulman clearly shows this throughout his article. In the end, the author reforms the quote from Shaw, stating: "Those who can, do. Those who understand, teach." I love this quote, and I think it is a much more accurate representation! The article from Clements and Sarama critiquing the "Fool's Gold" article gave great background knowledge on the effects of computers and technology on children, specifically within the classroom. The articles of "Fool's Gold" jump to conclusions about computers in classrooms, based on little to no evidence. Basically, they argue that technology such as computers prevent social interaction with classmates and teachers, and therefore it is harmful educationally and developmentally. While they might have a stronger case if talking about very young children who are developing more rapidly, Clements and Sarama clearly show that there are proven benefits to technology within the classroom for children. When given developmentally appropriate tasks on the computer, children can benefit cognitively, socially, and emotionally. Along with this, computers and technology can actually enhance students' creativity. The authors actually use computer drawing software as an example, just like the software which I spoke about earlier int he blog, which was used in the early childhood center. One of the real strengths of this article was its authors' ability to agree with "Fool's Gold" on certain topics like screen time should be limited, there are inappropriate justifications for early computer use, and that we should support meaningful whole development and learning for children. In the end, I think the authors were very knowledgeable on the topic, and I agree with them when they said: "We know materials and media are frequently misused or used ineffectively in education. Let us not call for technological prohibition... Instead, let us work together to use technology well." |