Response Blog #1

Brown and Adler discuss that at the root of Web 2.0 is social learning.

"[U]nderstanding of content is socially constructed through conversations about that content and through grounded interactions, especially with others, around problems or actions. The focus is not so much on what we are learning but on how we are learning."

Web 2.0 allows dynamic interaction with other users and allows learners to construct their own understanding of specific domains. It provides schools with a powerful tool for sparking student interest and opening doors for life long learning. Several faculty members in my building are embracing 21st century learning environments and the positive effects of socially constructed learning. This is a move in the right direction for instructors, however some at the administrative level are attempting to "one-up" teachers by trying to structure entire curricular scope and sequence around social learning. While social learning is a wonderful tool for the classroom I believe it is dangerous to structure an entire curriculum (K-12) around socially constructed understanding. At the end of the day, a public school is expected to graduate seniors with a certain level of content and process proficiency. Colleges expect students to come with certain fundamental skills and we are expected to provide those learning opportunities. We can develop learning environments that allow students to socially construct their understanding of the American Civil War, however, if students socially construct their understanding of "War", they may never develop an understanding of the Civil War or how the Civil War was a product of its time and defined our maturing nation.

We looked at some NY public schools that use thematic approaches to developing curriculum that supports the NY state Regents Test http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/global/global.cfm . The teachers we contacted who are working with thematic social studies curriculum stated that students were very confused at first by a purely thematic approach to history where students created their own understandings of events and their consequences. Schools had to modify the themes so the curriculum looked at regions of the world and examined how the themes played out in these specific areas. Based on these suggestions, we developed a curriculum that will combine thematic inquiry, within the structure of a regional approach, and utilize a combination of social, experiential, and problem-based learning.

CFH reflection

This post is for reflective thoughts about implementing my mindtool:

I was pleasantly surprised how at ease students were when I presented the project. I explained what a Cognitive Flexibility Hyperlink was and how they would approach the assignment. Not a single student in the 3 American History classes blinked! A month or 2 ago, they would have moaned and groaned, rolled their eyes, asked for a lecture instead. I believe they have become so accustom to trial and error, hard work and perseverance when it comes to using technology, that they know they can do it. I also believe that they have finally taken to heart my mantra: "Trust me."

We are only 3 days in to the assignment, but the groups have divided up their responsibilities and begin creating their perspectives. These projects will come out well and students will truly be intellectually engaged in learning. The CFH requires students to reflect on what they are researching and how to synthesize something brand new.

One stumbling block with the project: Google docs! It is a great program for collaboration, but it does not allow you to create slide-to-slide hyperlinks. These links are the heart and soul of the CFH, so we have reverted to only using Powerpoint. Perhaps in the near future, Google will create a presentation program that allows this flexibility.

I know this is a project I will use in the future, because several students who do not consider themselves "tech-savvy" have said they really enjoy this challenge and love creating the perspectives.

Classroom 2.0

I guess you can say we are piloting classroom 2.0 this year. The major difference is that we have all of this technology access but a classroom 1.0 curriculum. We do our best. Below is a Power Point illustrating some student work from one of my classes.

| View | Upload your own

Online courses

Last week's online class was my first experience as a student using online posts and discussions. I was surprised at how my reaction was different as a teacher verse a student. I have used online forums to host student discussions based on what we have done in class or based on their research. I found it to be a great way to get students to express their ideas. Students who rarely/never talk in class have a lot to say online and add valuable information to the discussion.

As a student, it was interesting to read everyone's thoughts about the mindtools and how they would use online lessons such as webquests. However, I found myself focused so much on the number of required response posts and trying to squeeze out a fresh idea for each of my postings that the process was very time consuming. It was also difficult to find a quiet spot where I had computer access and would not be bothered as I reviewed the posts and posted my reflections. I was intellectually engaged, but felt more estranged from the other students than I thought I would.

In Chapter 17, Jonassen notes it is important to keep these things in mind as online discussion boards are developed. He states that good rubrics and a well developed classroom culture go far when using discussion boards. The learning environment must encourage and embracing challenging each other. I would argue the classroom culture must also encourage authentic responses within the discussion board. It will be good for me to keep my own experience in mind and also follow Jonassen's advice when using discussion boards in my classes. While you can get greater responses from some students in online discussion boards, there is an element of communication and social interaction that is missing. Perhaps Web 3.0 will be all about making the virtual world even more lifelike (more than what is offered in secondlife.com).

John Henry v Steel Hammer

As we approached the next unit in Modern American history, I decided to have students input information about each president covered in the unit by using wikispaces. As I discussed the project with a colleague, I decided to test the age old question: is technology more efficient than god old human hard work? Can John Henry lay track faster or can the Steel Hammer. Does technology help students reach learning goals more efficiently or is the "old school" way still more tried and true?

Both techniques require students to collect the same type of information about each president: Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson. Students must examine each president's domestic and foreign policy, and research specific aspects such as party politics, legislation.... The "John Henry" version of the assignment is what I have done the last 2 years: using the textbook to fill in a presidential report card for each leader. "John Henry" students may only work in groups of 2 and may only use the textbook. As a side note, the information on these presidents is spread out over 5 chapters! There are a specific number of events that must be included in each category. The "Steel Hammer" students may collaborate with all other Steel Hammers but may not use the textbook. There is no minimum require for points in each category.

Students were told of all these restrictions and, while the process was different, the assessment would be the same. One class chose their groups. The room was divided with 18 John Henry's and 11 steel hammers. More to come as kids choose their groups and get to work.

Course work reflection: I chose to structure the assignment using wikispaces because the wikis provided a collaboration tool for students to construct their understanding of the three U.S. presidents. The NETS standards for students emphasize:

1) Creativity and Innovation
2) Communication and Collaboration
3) Research and Information Fluency
4) Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making
5) Digital Citizenship, and
6) Technology Operations and Concepts.
http://ets.tlt.psu.edu/1to1/node/46

The research side of the assignment emphasizes standards 3 and 4, which also happen to be part of the national and PA state social studies standards. The inclusion of the wiki introduces standards 2, 5, 6 and opens the door to standard 1. I offered the option of collaborating with the wiki verse using the textbook/packet method to compare the impact of technology and collaboration on student learning. The choice was also intended to address a concern many students had regarding previous assignments. Students have experienced a very constructivist classroom since the beginning of the year. Many of my honors students have expressed concerns that indicate they have been trained in a more cognitivist manner throughout their high school careers. They are good at writing the number of facts, lines, and pages required by an assignment. They are also comfortable controlling their own final product and not having to collaborate with others. My hope is we will be able to compare the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 processes. The purpose of this pilot 1:1 classroom is to critically consider the impact 21st century technology and pedagogy has on our 20th century curriculum. Student reactions to this modified assignment will be key in our overall assessment of the program.

Wiki reflections

Wikispaces is a valuable tool for collaberating on material and creating sites that can be endlessly updated. I reference wiki sites frequently in my personal live and have just begun using them with my classes. The educational benefits of wikis are students can collaberate on developing sites that can act as repositories for information. Students can also use wikis to develop presentations and to collect research. The downside of using wikis is when it comes to work with specific due dates, students can feel frustration in collaboratively completing work.

For instance, if responsibilities and editing benchmarks are not clearly defined, students become concerned about meeting all of the requirements and are unsure whether their partners will step in. Another stumbling block is when students procrastinate. As the due date approaches, all the members begin to modify the wiki synchronously. The program works better when students modify the wiki asynchronously, but the combination of due dates and, in my case, high school students leads to synchronous activity.

I feel wikis work best if students take on clearly defined roles within the wiki and/or are provided an extended time period to complete the work.

Concept Mapping

The first three chapters of Jonassen encouraged me to think how I could use mindtools to engage my students in processing concepts in history and politics. Since the beginning of the year, we have been intensely project driven in all of my classes: creating web sites, posting to forums, creating graphic novels, PPt.... My concern is that some of the learning associated with the content/instructional goals is being over-shadowed by the steep learning curve associated with the programs. The semantic organizational tool of concept mapping meets my goal of dropping the "program barriers" and will help students build their own reality.

My Political Science course is coming up on an important but difficult chapter regarding the federal nature of our government. Past experience tells me students have a difficult time comprehending how studying concurrent, delegated, and reserved powers has any impact on their daily lives. Using concept mapping to examine some of these connections might help students see the connections between the textbook material and current issues such as marriage rights, access to medicine, abortion rights and so on. Students can use the mindtool to construct their own understanding of federalism. After constructing the maps, students will compare each other's maps to see how others structured the same material. These comparisons would lead to a larger group understanding.

I could use some feedback about the following: I would like students to draw connections to current issues that express the nature of federalism, but also to incorporate the detail points about U.S. federalism: interstate compacts, federal grants to states, FEMA, supremacy clause....