Help WantedHow do you organized and annotate lists of tools, apps and websites for future use? Kathy’s videos and website provide great information about Web 2.0 tools. And I have lists and lists of other suggestions I've gathered. But I have yet to find the perfect way to keep track sites and annotations. Symbaloo comes close – in fact I have all of our classmates’ Weebly sites in this one. (Thanks to ktitraci for that idea!) Do you have a method you use?
Introduction to Web 2.0The introductory video and articles about using Web 2.0 tools really made me stop and think. I thought I was pretty techie, but I realize I don’t question nearly as much as I should. I’ve been hearing ‘Web 2.0’ for years and assumed it simply referred to the next generation of Internet tools. I never realized we were talking specifically about collaborative web-based tools and those that allow users to create content. Also, I never before considered the origin of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002). It is fascinating to think of the taxonomy being developed and what went into it being accepted.
Daniel Light’s article (2011) gave me a little perspective on blogging in the classroom. I’ve collaborated with a few teachers in the last couple of years to help them get their students blogging. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Those that don’t are of great concern as my district is not exactly on the cutting edge of technology at the elementary school level and any perceived ‘failures’ set us back. The guidance this article provides as to what types of lessons and subjects work well with web-based writing projects and which do not will be quite valuable. I don’t think of myself as an old fuddy-duddy but I have to admit I don’t agree with some of the suggestions made in Burp, Chatter, Tweet (Galagan, 2010). I do believe keeping my students engaged is key to their learning. But I also feel we need to address some basic understandings regarding the responsibilities of the learner. Especially in elementary school, students do have to study and learn specific subjects even if those subjects may not be of interest to them. They also have to learn what constitutes appropriate behavior. Students must realize that there is a correlation between their behaviors and rewards or consequences. I need to continue to draw out, highlight and expand my students’ strengths while helping them learn that we aren’t all the same, things aren’t always fair, and they cannot argue or tune out if things don’t go their way. It is my job to reach all of my students but it is their job to come to school each morning open to the experience. I read a story to my students this week where the mother says “Now Steve, school isn’t going to go away. I know you can find a way to make this work.” (Chapman. 2015). Participating in a variety of lessons as both student and teacher has shown me the value of using personal devices in classroom settings. I’ve also seen the disruption it can cause. I’ve decided to save my reflections on tweeting, texting and backchannels in the classroom for another time :-) Chapman, J. (2015). Steve, raised by wolves. New York: Little, Brown Books for Young Readers. Galagan, P. (2010). Burp, Chatter, Tweet: New sounds in the classroom. T & D. Retrieved from https://live.wilkes.edu/content/enforced/202665-31362.201530/disruptive_behavior.pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=u0tGPjk6kYPhglTWxGojs9AYb&ou=202665 Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Retrieved from https://live.wilkes.edu/content/enforced/202665-31362.201530/krathwohl.pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=7EMfkYOhhUxatFuBSrwxTmsen&ou=202665 Light, D. (2011). Do Web 2.0 right. Learning and Leading with Technology. Retrieved from https://live.wilkes.edu/content/enforced/202665-31362.201530/web20_classroom.pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=7EMfkYOhhUxatFuBSrwxTmsen&ou=202665 Web 2.0 PedagogyTeaching in an elementary school library offers many opportunities that my colleagues in the classroom might not have. In Pennsylvania, we are a non-tested subject and we are not mandated (although in my opinion we should be) to follow any specific state or national library standards. Please understand that we do follow a standards-based approach and have clearly defined learning objectives for our students, but we have a bit more leeway in how we deliver our content.
Over the last few years, as the standardized test craze has hijacked the classroom teachers, I’ve tried to develop library programming that provides students with opportunities to learn and explore technology that they might not have in their general education classrooms. In addition, I assist the classroom teachers whenever I can as they add technology to their teaching. (We have no tech ed or computer ‘special’ – teachers have 5 classroom desktops, and our building has 1 shared notebook cart and 1 shared iPad cart.) Therefore, the SAMR model has provided the best way for me to integrate as many 21st century skills and lessons as possible. It allowed me to take small steps at first as I began my efforts to reach and teach my students. After reading about several other pedagogical models, I’m planning to move my thinking and lessons from SAMR more towards TECH. The TECH model, as outlined by Jen Roberts (2013), more accurately reflects my goals. And it provides a teacher/student centered positive viewpoint. I’ve read a lot of different opinions lately regarding non-techie teachers – much of it negative. The TECH model seems to bypass that negativity through wording and action – adding technology supports to traditional methods has a progressive feeling, substituting technology leaves me feeling like the least I can do is get rid of some of these old ideas and make a switch to the ‘new’ new thing. The second step of the TECH model can also guide educators – enhance the learning experience. I paired a fictional panda story with a visit to the National Zoo through a panda cam and then had the 2nd grade students manipulate words on a Venn diagram on the SmartBoard to compare and contrast what they read and saw. I’m not exactly sure whether that constitutes functional improvement, SAMR step two, but it definitely fits TECH step two. Our readbox project (pictured here in progress) gave 4th grade students three choices for sharing literature with classmates and provided a venue to share their movies and posters with a wider audience – TECH step 3. Each new project or altered lesson requires so much on my part – research and study, planning and rehearsal. Moving my practice through these steps is an ongoing challenge, whether using the SAMR or TECH model. But the TECH model leaves me feeling like I’m accomplishing something where SAMR makes me see how far I still need to go. Additional thoughts Two specific ideas from other pedagogical models resonated with me, and I will consider them when planning lessons and units as well. I feel I can use the TPACK framework (Koehler, 2009, p. 63), not the whole methodology, to quickly consider my lessons and whether I’ve touched the relevant areas. Do I have appropriate Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) in this lesson? Have I sacrificed Content Knowledge (CK) when adding Technological Knowledge(TK)? Similarly, using the Taxonomy Table (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 217) to view lesson objectives can also point out areas of need. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Retrieved from https://live.wilkes.edu/content/enforced/202665-31362.201530/tpack.pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=7EMfkYOhhUxatFuBSrwxTmsen&ou=202665 Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Retrieved from https://live.wilkes.edu/content/enforced/202665-31362.201530/krathwohl.pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=7EMfkYOhhUxatFuBSrwxTmsen&ou=202665 Roberts, J. (2013, November 30). Turning SAMR into TECH: What models are good for. [web log]. Retrieved from http://www.litandtech.com/2013/11/turning-samr-into-tech-what-models-are.html |
|