Tanyaward's Blog

This course has definitely put me out of my comfort zone in terms of challenging the tools and methodologies I use in my classroom.  As a fifth-year teacher, I would still be considered a newbie—yet it is surprising how quickly I have found myself gravitating towards instructional methods which are “tried and true” and which I find have predictable results.  I see now that this approach has been robbing my students of an educational experience which is rich in exploration—which is found more by asking questions than finding answers.   As I write this, I am reminded of a quote  by Brent Davis (2004) from a book I read for another one of my masters courses, “The belief that teaching is mainly a matter of explanation—of flattening things out—continues to prevail in contemporary discussions of education.  Yet the notion has recently given some ground to suggestions that teaching is more about explication than explanation”.   I am a self-declared “flattener”, but I’m working on it.   I see that the richest learning happens in the journey towards knowledge, not in the destination of it.  This is where I see technology integration being so powerful—it gives students so much more autonomy and self-directed ability in terms of their own discoveries.

Many of my previous courses, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels have centered around social justice and anti-oppressive education.  As I have worked through the material of this course, I have nagging questions about how technology integration will perhaps widen the socio-economic divide.  As technology-based pedagogy becomes more prevalent in education, where does this leave students who are from homes without computers or internet access?  Will this divide students into the technologically-rich and technologically poor?  I see the potential for technology to become another disadvantage for students who are already struggling in oppressive situations.

My big plan today was to try incorporating the SMARTboard into my lesson. Not a web 2.0 tool–but I’m trying to incorporate more technology of all sorts, as well as increase my “risk tolerance” for trying new thigns in the classroom.  Things have gotten off to a rocky start—I had to stand up on a desk to manually turn on the data projector because the batteries appear to be dead or on an extended vacation. Picture this, if you will. Me, in heels, crawling up on furniture to angrily stab the power button with the end of a white board marker because, thanks to my 5’4 stature, even on a desk I can’t reach. As I’m silently cursing the A/V department for their shoddy maintenance, Energizer, because their batteries don’t appear to keep going and going, and Mondays in general because things like this always seem to happen on Mondays, my new class of business students sits silently, looking more than slightly horrified. Tomorrow will be a better day. Maybe I will use an overhead projector.

As part of my online PD, I watched a video of a lecture given by Annettte Lamb from the University of Indiana entitled, “Strong Nests, Successful Students: Strategies for 21^st Century Learning”.  (http://www.istevision.org/watch.php?vid=29d06f0ff07fff730a9295f032f416c56a07c034)  In Lamb’s talk, she questions the learning benefits of some of the “cool” web 2.0 tools.  She overviews the necessities of the 21^st Century Learner as provided by the AASL (American Association of School Librarians):

-          Inquire, think critically an gain knowledge

-          Draw conclusions, make informed decisions, apply knowledge to new situations, create new knowledge.

-          Share knowledge and participate ethically and productively as members of out society.

-          Pursue personal and aesthetic growth.

Lamb challenges these standards with her own “test for the standards”:

-          Will they challenge and engage young people in meaningful activities and assessments?

-          Will they motivate young people to go beyond the basics and ask high level questions?

Lamb says she has become frustrated with “techie tools” and is missing simulations and inquiry-based learning.  She says web-quests, which were popular in the 1990’s have gone by the wayside in substitution for some web 2.0 tools, however she says that web-quests offered a great opportunity for students to search for information and evaluate its validity and reliability, which promotes higher level thinking. 

Lamb also says we need to promote practical technology-based skills with our students.  For example:  using electronic databases, uploading/downloading information, non-fiction reading comprehension, skimming and scanning websites to located desired information.

In her presentation, Lamb refers a great deal to ISTE and AASL Standards.  Not being familiar with these, I did a little supplemental research and found that ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education is the premier membership association for educators and education leaders engaged in improving teaching and learning by advancing the effective use of technology in PK-12 and teacher education.   The mission statement for ISTE is Mission Statement:  ISTE advances excellence in learning and teaching through innovative and effective uses of technology (http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_ISTE).  The ISTE has also developed NETS (National Educational Technology Standards) which reflect its belief in the innovative, professional, and authentic integration of technology into education.

Lamb goes on in her presentation to not only offer participants practical ways to integrate technology into various subject areas and give potential assignments and projects—but more importantly how to offer students more collaborative, and creative ways which students can integrate these technology tools in deeper level ways.

For the copyright section in block 6, I chose adventure #3:  The Legal Quicksand of the Internet.  In Marnie’s description of quicksand, she used the term “living”, which I found very appropriate after exploring this section because the nature of copyright law is dynamic and changing in response to its environment—very much like living things.

It seems like a logical place to start to define “copyright”.   Well, according to copyright expert Wanda Noel and posted on the ‘Net Know How website (http://www.netknowhow.ca/nkhcrquestions.html):

Copyright law was created to protect creators of original material, and Copyright law protects the person or groups of persons who create original material — it establishes ownership.  When copyright is broken (known as copyright infringement), there are legal repercussions which could result in claims for damages.

It is certainly not an unusual occurrence to receive from students an assignment of some sort which has evidently been copy-and-pasted from a website.  (I’ve even had students not even bother to change the font. <sigh>).  Being that I teach at the post-secondary level, I assumed (there was my first mistake) that students were familiar with the concept of copyright—and while they may not be entirely clear on how to give in text citations or footnotes, or maybe weren’t even clear on how to properly document a bibliography—they would at least be aware that copy-and-pasting without giving any credit to sources or original authors was, quite simply, wrong.  On that regard, it was me who was, quite simply, wrong.

For that reason, I appreciated the article, also on the ‘Net Know How website which gave tools for teachers on how to teach students how not to plagiarize—how to properly quote, document, and credit sources. (http://wblrd.sk.ca/~teachlib_dev/info_lit/info_plagiarism.htm).

While I certainly wouldn’t make the argument that copyright laws are archaic and should be entirely tossed to the wayside—I have at times questioned whether they could use a more liberal and allowable approach as technologies have offered us so many opportunities to integrate and collaborate content.  Without a deliberate motivation to either profit from or defame content, I sometimes have wondered why content—particularly what is available on the web can’t have more flexible copyright guidelines.  Furthermore, I question the real ability of the law to enforce such strigent guidelines—that perhaps everyone’s efforts would be better used to target those who are pirating work, rather than using it for educational or entertainment purposes.

I therefore found the presentation by Larry Lessig entitled, “How Creativity is Strangled by the Law” very thought-provoking.  He speaks about how we have moved from a read/write to a read-only culture and this is prohibiting users ability to generate content and be inhibitively creative.  (Which to me, also appears to be in direct contrast to the movement in web 2.0 tools).  Lessig questions the logic behind some copyright laws and thinks that perhaps the laws aren’t as progressive on this issue as they could/should be.  He uses the example from the early days of aviation when land owners claimed that pilots which flew over their land were trespassing and must get permission every time they wanted to fly within the landowner’s airspace.  While at that time, the number of planes was extremely limited, so this didn’t seem so unreasonable.  But put that in relation to today, and it appears absolutely preposterous.  It would be completely unrealistic for pilots to obtain permission from every land owner to fly within his/her airspace.  If these laws were in place today, air travel would be impractical.  So laws had to change.  Progress with the times.  It raises the question—perhaps copyright laws do too.  Maybe copyright laws of today will be looked back on by our successors as antediluvian and primitive.

In following The FischBowl—the opinionated and zealous educational technology blog of Karl Fisch, I came across an article “How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning” http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/2009/01/best-of-fischbowl-2008.html.  This article struck interest in me particularly because I teach at the post-secondary college level—but also because I find I have distinct views on assessment, which are sometimes opposing to that of my colleagues.   Because Karl Fisch, based on the blogs which I have followed throughout this semester, appears to be a proficient educator with a multitude of experiences in the education field, but also definite views on the profession, I was curious what his take was on assessment at the post-secondary level.

His blog is based on a study he came across where From November 8 to December 12, 2007, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., interviewed 301 employers whose companies have at least 25 employees and report that 25% or more of their new hires hold at least a bachelor’s degree from a four-year college. Respondents are executives at their companies, including owners, CEOs, presidents, C-suite level executives, and vice presidents.

Prior to providing some of the results of the survey, Fisch provides the following disclaimer:

1. I don’t believe that all we’re about in education is preparing future employees.
2. Just because Business says something is good doesn’t necessarily make it so.
3. I don’t know enough about the methodology of this survey to judge bias.

Highlights of the survey results are: http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/2008_business_leader_poll.pdf\

“While recent graduates are seen to demonstrate solid skills in the areas of teamwork, ethical judgment, and intercultural skills, employers are less convinced of their preparedness in terms of global knowledge, self-direction, and writing.”

“When it comes to the assessment practices that employers trust to indicate a graduate’s level of knowledge and potential to succeed in the job world, employers dismiss tests of general content knowledge in favor of assessments of real-world and applied-learning approaches. Multiple-choice tests specifically are seen as ineffective. On the other hand, assessments that employers hold in high regard include evaluations of supervised internships, community-based projects, and comprehensive senior projects.”

“Employers’ emphasis on integrative, applied learning is reflected in their recommendations to colleges and universities about how to assess student learning in college. Again, multiple-choice testing ranks lowest among the options presented, just below an institutional score that shows how a college compares to other colleges in advancing critical thinking skills. Faculty evaluated internships and community-learning experiences emerge on top.”

“Most employers indicate that college transcripts are not particularly useful in helping evaluate job applicants’ potential to succeed at their company.”

“. . . Few employers believe that multiple-choice tests of general content knowledge are very effective in ensuring student achievement. Instead, employers have the most confidence in assessments that demonstrate graduates’ ability to apply their college learning to complex, real-world challenges, as well as projects or tests that integrate problem-solving, writing, and analytical reasoning skills.”

While educators at the K-12 level may not feel entirely satisfied with the methods and policies surrounding assessment provided by their school boards—I think it can be fairly agreed upon that assessment in public schools has progressed and evolved in the last 25 years.  Whether it be in response to progressions in educational research or development in teaching methods—while some attributes have certainly stayed the same—there has been progression in others. 

I’m afraid the same can’t be said for post-secondary education as a whole.  While, some assessment at my institution is at the discretion of the individual instructor, the majority of students’ final grades are determined by, you guessed it, standardized exams.  And unfortunately, at least the way I see it, that a significant amount of marks allocated on these exams are by multiple choice questions. 

To me it is not at all surprising that employers feel that these methods are not yielding results which are indicative of a student’s future performance at his/her job.  But what continues to baffle me is why, with all the advancements in research, methodologies and technologies which clearly have resulted in better practices being not only available, but proven effective, we are still assessing with such archaic methods?

It is ironic, really, that at institutions providing themselves on innovation and research, they are still contributing to educational methods which don’t reflect the most current research or innovation.

As part of my “playing in the sandbox”, I experimented with Google Wave.  Although Wave is in its infancy—still a beta version being listed as a “preview” by Google, I was able to use this program to evaluate its potential and usefulness.  The program is designed to be a collaboration tool, so users can collaborate and participate collectively on a project or have a discussion in real time. 

I am certainly onboard with this concept—if I can avoid long strings of email forwards and replies then I’m all ears.  However, in action, it was a little difficult to follow who was saying what—and this was with only three people in the wave.  The screen appeared disorganized and I found myself almost getting dizzy trying to follow. 

So my conclusion?  Great concept, excellent potential, however more design work is needed to increase the user-friendliness and make this a tool which is truly beneficial in professional and educational applications.

If you’re interested in learning more about Google Wave, I’ve attached a couple of videos which provide more explanation and a demo.

In the early stages, technology held a lot of promise—‘it will transform education’ is what was widely said, written and genuinely believed.  Fifteen-odd years later and classrooms look, feel, and function very much the same.  Technology has not had the transformative effective so many thought it would.  What happened?

As Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn and Curtis Johnson point out in their book, Disrupting Class:  How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns,

“In the end, both supporters and critics of school technology (including researchers) have claimed that powerful sot ware and hardware often get used in the limited ways to simply maintain rather than transform prevailing instructional practices.”

Computers, software, and all other ICT (Information Communication Technology) tools have been treated as “add ons” to the current system.  Web tools are used as another form of teacher-directed activities.  To borrow from the  LoTi Digital-Age Framework (http://loticonnection.com/lotilevels.html), integration of technology (where it has been done at all) has very often stayed at Level 2:

LoTi Level 2 – Exploration
At a Level 2 (Exploration) the instructional focus emphasizes content understanding and supports mastery learning and direct instruction. Teacher questioning and/or student learning focuses on lower levels of student cognitive processing (e.g., knowledge, comprehension) using the available digital assets.

Digital tools and resources are used by students for extension activities, enrichment exercises, or information gathering assignments that generally reinforce lower cognitive skill development relating to the content under investigation. There is a pervasive use of student multimedia products, allowing students to present their content understanding in a digital format that may or may not reach beyond the classroom.

Teachers who have moved beyond this to more advanced forms of use—higher order thinking, communicating with other students, or collaborating with other classes, have done so almost exclusively on their own initiative.  While integration of technology is often encouraged, there isn’t a board policy I am aware of that has mandated its use. 

So the big question then is how to change this current usage of technology in schools to authentically transform teaching and learning.  

I’ve struggled with this question as I’ve journeyed through this course, and the truth is—I’m not entirely sure.  I have certainly gained a greater awareness of the tools that are available which will support my learners and allow them to make much broader connections and authentic understanding of concepts that I don’t’ think would be otherwise possible. 

But I’ve also realized how deeply engrained traditional methods of teaching and learning are—and these methods don’t often correspond with new and innovative practices.  While we can (and should) discover new ways of working with students and allow them to guide their own learning, we are still under the heavy umbrella of a curriculum which is very much content-driven.  While I can (and will) use my newfound skills and knowledge about ICT tools into my classroom to transform my practice—until some much bigger and broader changes happen, I don’t believe ICT has the ability to reach its full potential in benefitting our learners.

In following Karl Fisch’s educational technology blog, the fischbowl, I came across a blog entitled, 180 Days? (http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/2007/04/180-days.html).  Fisch and company has created a short PowerPoint uncovering a much more realistic model of the number of days in a semester than the 180 day model that our semester is so often based on.  As I watched the PowerPoint, I could almost hear a collective “amen” from teachers everywhere.

Lack of time has been an ongoing frustration for me this year—it seems like more content is trying to get squeezed into fewer instructional hours every year.  In the constant educational question of breadth versus depth, my teaching philosophy consistently falls to the latter, and I feel perturbed when teaching introductory or survey courses that seem to want to cover so much ground that both the students and I can’t catch a breath until final exams are over.  And rather than the satisfactory feeling of completing another course, I often feel more of an uneasiness because I’m not sure if the course has been much more than a perpetual blur for students from day one. 

I did a mental breakdown of my own courses.  Designed as 45 hour courses, I lose 10 minutes per course before we’ve even left the gates because our instructional hours in our timetables are only 50 minutes, not 60.  Then there’s another couple classes lost due to career fairs or other school activities.  Then there’s a staff PD day, and then of course this year we had a snow day.  A course jam-packed with content to begin with has now become almost impossible.  The solution would be easy—give notes and read PowerPoint slides in class and I’ll fly through the content—maybe even have time to spare.  However, if our goal is for students to learn (rather than for us to teach—a very clear philosophical distinction) then incorporating group work, class discussions, project-based learning, etc. is very necessary.  But where is the time?

Relation to this course, as we are all thinking of ways to transform our traditional classroom activities and ways of teaching by incorporating technology and the web, one of the main barriers is classroom hours.  When a course is product not process driven, I find myself on a constant treadmill from start to finish.  Any hiccup could run us short on time.  I consider this very carefully as I think about how I am going to incorporate these new tools.  Curricular changes need to be made so teachers can have a breather, get off the treadmill, and really engage with students much more deeply and use technology tools to do that.

This has been my first year teaching in the Business Certificate Program.  As with any new position, it has had its learning curve.  A major part of my teaching load has been Microsoft Office and Simply Accounting.  With students working at various speeds and having varying background experience with the software, I typically do a short demonstration to the whole class on a new skill or concept, then allow students to work through practices individually and I monitor and troubleshoot. 

I have found that attendance has been a major problem.  With students having various other commitments, at least a few would consistently miss the lesson portion of the class and then be lost when they returned.  While I do feel that attendance is a responsibility the student needs to take on, I also was really seeing the division in achievement between those students seeing the lesson, and those not.  I was becoming really frustrated because I didn’t want to hold back those students attending regularly, nor did I want to give 15 individual lessons.  Jing (www.jingproject.com) was the answer to my instructional difficulties.  Recording some instructions with screen captures to illustrate my point on a few different types of transactions in Simply Accounting and then emailing to students who weren’t in attendance so they could either catch up at home or when they got back really seemed to be helping.  This is something I really just mobalized part way through this semester, so I don’t think I can completely evaluate its effectiveness.  However, I do have big dreams for next year.  As part of my ‘summer prep’ I hope to set up a website or wiki for each of my courses and incorporate a jing on each new concept.  This would be a lot of work, but I think would really be an investment for students and to lower my frustration levels for next year.

Being involved with the Saskatchewan Business Teachers’ Association (special subject council through the STF) for about a few years now, this year I’ve found myself at the helm of calling, organizing and chairing meetings with teachers around the province.  I soon became frustrated with a long email list and disappointing turn out at meetings.  Upon venting my frustrations, a colleague suggested that I try out an online tool known as “Meeting Wizard” (www.meetingwizard.com).  This program allows you to add users, give a few options for meeting dates/times and allow users to indicate which times they would be available or not.  You can also send messages either for the entire group, or individuals and posts can be made for members to contribute to. 

Setting up an account was easy, and you added members very much like you would an email address book.  I set up the particulars for the meeting (three alternate meeting times) and then an email was generated to the members with the link to meetingwizard.com.  Once members had filled out when they were available, an email was generated back to me and I could view the results.  It was a really easy way to assess when the best time to hold the meeting to optimize attendance. 

I did have a bit of difficulty with the emails not going through to uregina.ca email accounts, which was my only “gliche” with the tool.  Anyone in a position of trying to plan meetings, I would definitely recommend this tool.