You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘lindsaygray’ tag.
Ryan’s presentation really outlined some current issues in terms of race/gender equity and available video games. Thinking about it now, I can definitely say the games I use to play when I was younger and even the ones I watch my cousin play now do not usually include racial diversity and do include various aspects of tokenism which was mentioned today. While it may take awhile for video game developers and creators to involve diverse populations and transfer equity into games for young children, I think we as educators need to ensure children become “critical consumers” (a role we have pointed out in class several times). I am not sure I see a problem with children interacting with specific games that may not be portraying diversity or equity, as much as I see a problem when these games create other equity issues amongst children in the classroom or on the playground. While we have already discussed the lack of presence of the use of video games in classrooms for various reasons, I still think that these issues need to be addressed in classrooms as we are well aware of how all learning environments influence each other. I think it might mean delivering and giving children opportunities to discover an awareness of these issues, while having race/gender equity addressed on an ongoing basis in the classroom.
Another theme throughout this course has been the idea of informal learning or what Illich (1971) might call casual learning. More and more I am seeing this theme fit into my topic for my research paper around connecting parents to curriculum learning and technology’s role in supporting positive relationships between families, teachers and children. I am finding that much of the literature suggests that technology (the use of specific tools) such as cameras, video recorders, and even cell phone technology can be used to support casual learning at home amongst families and then used to connect to learning in the classroom. While both informal and formal learning is important, it has been addressed in class that these types of learning tend to be a part from each other and are disconnected. I think that technology (specific tools) and even introducing new learning about technology as a subject may be a way to engage both students and parents more meaningfully in school curriculum (as well as providing teachers with insight as to the interests of children outside of the classroom and perhaps the resources families have access to at home). These ideas can also connect with our discussion about what it really means to be a teacher. Specific technology and the use of certain tools (such as using technology to share learning and communicate learning done both at home and at school) may help educators become more contructionist partners and facilitators rather than the sole expert of content.
I agree with most of my classmates in thinking that hacking was a startling topic! I am also not to familiar with the topic, but from what I know it seems that hacking can both be used for good (upholding the law and ensuring people’s rights) or bad (invading privacy, theft etc.). I am going to have to agree with Kristen in that opportunities should be present for children and young people to use technology and meaningful ways to support meaningful learning. Like many other tools there are always going to be opportunities for young people to explore diverse ways to use them, but as educators and facilitators I think it is our responsibility to ensure this exploration is coupled with explanations about morals and ethics. Opportunities, environments and space to discover and play with technology have all been reoccurring themes, this last class has added a new layer beyond what might be needed in terms of thinking critically about some of the technologies available and use (such as equity and instances of hacking). I am sure as my digital native status evolves, so will my learning about technology, what it means to my practice, and overall how it influences definitions of learning and understanding.
I think the discussion today definitely related back to what we have been talking about in terms of shifting our ideas towards more innovative concepts of learning, play and changing our notions about literacy. I mentioned in class that I can see it being difficult for some educators to consider computer games as a valuable learning tool, when maybe they are unaware of the benefits and how games can be tied to curriculum learning. Many of the open ended games that were discussed and the programs that were used in the video Kristen showed can be linked to curriculum and different aspects of learning. However what I believe Cathy mentioned was that education still in many ways falls into a banking model, and from my experiences seems to be uniform in terms of what is to be learned and how that learning will take place. Even as I was sitting in class, watching the video and thinking about the Sims game, I can see how those games might even facilitate learning for young children. I know in grade one a part of the curriculum is talking about the community, community helpers as they call it and aspects of community life. I am wondering if open ended games (such as the one where you can build your own city) may give children a different perspective or may support learning about communities in a different way. However the teacher in this situation would have to understand the game and facilitate this process perhaps through a lap top and projector (working together as a group?)
I think Kristen mentioned in her blog about shifting our ideas of learning, from individual learning to more social learning. I am thinking back to when we were talking about children on the computer and “onlookers” or what we thought about children watching others on the computer. I think in many ways games might be a way to tap into both aspects of learning, where children are individually playing, but socially learning through the sharing of strategies, discussing possible outcomes and taking part in other narratives. I am wondering what a classroom would look like where group learning was focused on for certain aspects of the curriculum (instead of solely focussing on individual learning).
Through my presentation this week I must say I encountered some new learning in terms of being introduced to Positive Technological Development (as a learning and development theory), as well as looking at what it means to be computer literate and fluent. In general we have been talking about the use of technology in the classroom (and perhaps the lack of learning opportunities present for both children and teachers). Since children are not given many opportunities with computers in the classroom, I am still curious as to where this literacy and fluency learning comes from? I think some of the ideas that were mentioned in relation to these questions were children learning through play, social interactions with other children and of course from activities they engage with at home. It seems that it is a reoccurring theme in this course that many experiences children encounter outside of the classroom are disconnected from many of their opportunities and experiences in classrooms. I am still thinking that educators may be able to tap into children’s resources at home, connect with parents and other educators in order to establish a relationship amongst children’s learning environments. I am hoping to gain more insight as to how this can be done and how technology tools may be able to facilitate this process (through reading literature for my final paper). We revisited the idea of virtual communities this week and how these environments can help support young people in their unique experiences, giving them a forum to discuss, relate and engage in meaningful learning. I came across more discussion about virtual communities in my research related to parent involvement and engagement. In one particular article Beghetto (2001) examines the implementation of virtual communities as an alternative means to engage parents in a communicative process with other parents and educators, as well as a way for parents to be involved in their children’s schooling without infringing on student autonomy. Beghetto (2001) suggests that building this type of community, having the option for online conferencing and providing other communicative tools through the use of the internet, can support a reflective and collaborative learning environment. As a way to enhance parent involvement through innovative new programs in connection to existing parent engagement models at school, the creation of a virtual community involves extensive planning, revising, consideration, understanding, maintenance and effort from all stakeholders (Beghetto, 2001). While this source is from 2001, I am finding it interesting (in reflecting on my own experiences in schools) that technology is still rarely used as means to engage families. I am still also curious about the families and parents these virtual communities might target. Like the ZORA community suited young people going through similar unique health situations, would virtual communities for parents also only suit a certain group or be beneficial for all?
After seeing some of the creations and watching the videos, I officially want to go out and buy Lego Mindstorms. As a visual learner and someone who learns best through practical applications or experiences, I think this technology brought to life contructionist pedagogy and what some of these learning experiences for children might look like. Today’s discussion around learning theory and adopting constructionism into our own practice truly reinforced the idea that we as educators should be in constant states of experimenting, questioning, playing (with and amongst children) as well as being innovative. Seems like a lot, but I think taking these risks would not only support an environment for children to also engage in this type of meaningful learning, but may also create opportunities for other educators and families to take the same sort of risks (benefiting children’s learning). Relating back to the presentation on engaging children in photography, I can remember these ideas coming up frequently in ECE undergrad lesson planning. Taking pictures seemed to be a way to document learning, getting children to make decisions about their work and building discussion around different parts of a project. Using cameras was also a common theme throughout the literature I have been reading related to technology and engaging parents in classroom life and student learning.
Reference
Beghetto, R.A. (2001). Virtually in the middle: Alternative avenues for parental involvement in middle-level schools. The Clearing House, 75(1), 21-25.
This week we discussed some of our thoughts about playing games, how video games might be connected to classroom curriculum for children and if we thought specific computer games might be able to facilitate aspects of social development. I think one of the key themes from both presentations this class was introducing the idea of children as “multi-taskers” and questioning old notions of “attention” or what it means to be attentive. I have heard educators refer to specific definitions of attention during circle time, where children are expected to sit still and quiet until they are asked to share their ideas. While I often questioned why children might not seem to be “paying attention” at certain times, I am now questioning what these definitions might mean for children who are used to be immersed in several activities at a time or who are familiar with games which require thinking and acting in many different ways at one given time. I’m also wondering how video games might be used as a resource in classroom settings or at least be considered in bridging together what children like in terms of engagement and feel comfortable with in using games, with learning taking place in classrooms. Another idea was mentioned today which related to the use of these technologies in the classroom. It was said that we (as practitioners and educators) need to get past the fact that certain technologies might be distracting. I am thinking here that technology and our ideas about video games may be considered distracting if children are steered away from teacher goals, routines and curriculum learning. I think the video that was presented showed that these technologies (when implemented in terms of meeting the needs of both teachers and students) were not distracting but a way to enhance engagement and learning between home and school.
I am thinking about using some of the ideas in this video in connection with my topic for the final paper. I have been looking at how technology and the use of technology can help support relationships amongst parents, students and teachers. Some of the questions I have been considering are: how can technology help teachers and parents communicate? How can technology and its use connect families with learning taking place in the classroom? How can technology support parent engagement and collaboration within daily classroom life? The use of the PSP in the classroom seemed to connect to some of the themes which I will be exploring in my paper. The PSP acted as a bridge between classroom learning and learning at home, was portable in terms of sharing learning amongst these settings and acted as both a communication tool and collaborative tool in connecting parents to classroom curriculum.
Although I was not present to engage with the class discussion, I thought I would share my experiences and insights with the online pet craze! Firstly I didn’t even know what neopets were, thanks Joyce for introducing me to something new. When I first looked into this world, I was definitely confused and overwhelmed. It was the same feeling I had when I was given a webkinz for my birthday from my eight year old cousin and expected to sign this little puppy up online. This is another community where you can collect points, share, play and communicate with other users. I still haven’t figured out the neopet site or the webkinz site, but I have a new found interest as to the learning involved and give children credit for their ability to navigate effectively and efficiently through these sites. While I have read from several sources the importance of considering multiliteracies and accounting for the multiple ways children understand and interpret information, it is in these online communities where I am able to visualize this philosophy and its importance in providing meaningful learning opportunities for all children.
I am not sure how or if these types of experiences are considered in looking at children`s knowledge about the world around them. As a practical example, my cousin a seasoned technology user (as I would like to call him at the age of eight) can read and interpret data, direct even myself where to go on a site to find specific information and can figure out how to play games on these sites within seconds. When I recently sat down and read a short story with him, I realised some of his minor weaknesses with reading. I am very confused at this disconnect, but am wondering if meaningful context or the way text is presented (or both) might relate. I think it is important to consider these technology strengths and the ways children are able to demonstrate their learning (I guess this might relate to thinking about the ways we present information to children but also how technology could be used to support learning assessments ).
It was interesting to revisit some of the projects which I was introduced to last year in Jason Nolan’s technology class (in the ECE undergraduate program). It was meaningful to learning more about Song Child, the learning theories behind this project and perspectives behind the creation of this project in terms of meaningful learning for children and using technology as a way for children to support each other’s learning. As a contributor to the project along with my peers last year, I can honestly say we became a part of this philosophical shift in the learning and teaching process. We were able to produce a project which was meaningful to our own practice (for example the topics we chose) and our own curriculum areas of interest. We were a part of a process where putting this project together required a sharing amongst each other (from how to code our site to planning ideas and how to use certain technologies). We were also a part of a learning experience where the materials were provided but information was not specifically taught. While of course it was stressful to write, sing your own song, design this page online and make meaningful connections to the curriculum and learning process, I can now appreciate the overall learning which came from this creative experience and how this project would facilitate meaningful learning in the same way for children. It was amazing what we came up with as educators to share with each other and the creative ways in which music was created, and I can only assume the amazing things to come in the future when this community becomes filled with child initiatives.
As a way to provide tools for supporting learning and education, the OLPC project seems like a way to foster numerous opportunities and environments for children and their families. There was a great discussion today around the presence of these laptops in developing countries and if these tools were the best for supporting education. I`m in support of one of the major implications of these tools which we discussed in class: the ability of this technology to not only provide meaningful learning for children but also for families to find ways to use this technology for their own purposes (supporting not only learning but daily life). I mentioned an article which I came across last year when reading about the OLCP project. The article was a reflection based on an experience researchers had in Uruguay (South America). The observations made were based on how the computers were impacting children’s lives and their families. Apparently there are some problems using the computers such as connectivity and other malfunctions, but their findings suggest children had high levels of motivation in reading and writing activities on the computers. The researcher’s findings also suggested that children were more likely to engage in social interaction than without (which I found interesting since I assumed that having a computer would maybe limit conversations). More importantly, the findings revealed that parents were positively affected by the implementation of the computers and they were used at home to find information, maps and even create a schedule for milk pick up. It seems that this technology may provide opportunities to create a learning community, where parents along-side children are able to access information and share their learning.
Diane’s presentation today really helped provide some descriptive language and terms to answer this question: what is meaningful learning? From the model presented in the readings meaningful learning seems to be active, intentional, constructive, authentic, cooperative and conversational. Coming from experiences where technology and the use of computers did not support these types of learning, exploring several pictures showing play and environments helped shape ideas around the way technology might be used to provide meaningful experiences for children. One of the major reoccurring themes throughout these presentations seems to be having a sense of “balance” in the materials we use with children, the types of environments and learning activities we create for children and which children create themselves. For example Diane showed a program for manipulating shapes on the computer. To say that this experience is meaningful for all children would be favouring specific learning styles, however providing the opportunity and option (along with physical manipulative) not only supports different learners, it allows children to play with their own learning and strengths. An interesting idea came up in terms of the notion of communities of practice. It was mentioned that social media might help educators build communities of practice in relation to sharing resource materials. I thought this connected to previous class discussions around teacher’s limited resources. Perhaps this is something which we may see in the future with a younger generation of teachers?
The introduction to Second Life is an experience in which I am still trying to figure out how it might be meaningful to my own learning. I know for sure that it has given me a new awareness about the types of online communities and environments which people are a part of and which are meaningful to individuals in various ways. As a newcomer to this sort of environment and social practice, I related mostly to the “hand holding” theory which we talked about in the last class. When I first landed as an avatar I was nervous as to what was going on, what information I should be giving people and how the system worked. I was much more relaxed exploring the environment when others I knew were around me in this new world and who were experiencing new learning as well.
I think this class discussion significantly emphasised this major shift which is happening in terms of how we examine learning, what is considered and involved in the learning process and what styles of learning are supported in different contexts. I know from my previous experiences within several education based courses around supporting children’s learning and developing curriculum plans which support various learning styles, “E-learning” and these types of environments rarely were accounted for. I think a great question was asked, how do teachers figure out how to build online communities, facilitate learning online or use technology to support new modes of learning? While the issue of time and resources was mentioned, I definitely agree that teachers should be thinking about their relationship with children from various technological backgrounds, as well as children’s relationships with specific technology in their lives. As I think about it now, technology was introduced more to me as a student when I reached grade six and continuing into grade seven and eight (perhaps this is due to the current innovation beginning at the time). These years were filled with mini projects requiring the use of several technologies, but also incorporated learning theories attached to the use of technologies such as collaboration, sharing and peer supported learning. I am wondering why these types of opportunities were not available for younger children in the classroom placements I have been in over the past couple of years. I could probable answer this question with several of the ideas which were presented in class, but I think it is the idea of “hand-holding” (and a lack of this support) which relates to teacher’s limited use of technology in the classroom. Lesson plans are often derived from the year before, are collected from previous teachers and are shared collectively amongst the same grade teachers. Starting something new requires a new sort of support (ideas need to be discovered, introduced, shared and taught to each other amongst teachers).
Well I think I am a digital native (although I may argue that I am not technologically savvy in some instances), I am still trying to contemplate what this means to my learning and how this status has or might in the future influence my work with children. I think one of the major points which Cathy discussed was the sort of learning which arises from the communities and environments of technology (as informal learning contexts). I have been thinking about my final paper and wanted to maybe investigate how technology can help facilitate and support home/family/school/classroom partnerships (or parent involvement). I have been starting to research some articles and from what I have found so far technology can be used to help bridge learning in informal contexts (such as at home) with learning in the classroom.
I think I am a user of social media and am probably a part of this culture and really didn’t even realise. The short lecture this week on social media helped in gaining the larger perspective of what social practices are involved and how these practices shape communities. When I was listening to the key ideas and getting a sense of the shifts in how information is being passed and being shared, I thought about children being a part of these practices. There was a commercial which I caught last weekend (it has probably been out for awhile) which really connects to why understanding social media practices and new ways of sharing knowledge and experiences (especially in ECE are critical). The commercial was created by Microsoft and showcases a four year old girl taking a picture of her fish, fixing the photo to “make it much better” as she says and sending it to her family. It seems as young as four (probably even younger) children are motivated in many ways (ones which are meaningful to them) to use technology to share information and their understanding about the world around them. For an early childhood education perspective, this means children may be a part of classrooms and learning environments with extensive previous experiences using the computer, cameras and other forms of technology. How can these experiences be used to build new learning activities? How might children’s previous experiences with technology and information sharing affect their engagement in other classroom activities?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtilWL4mnhI
The presentation and class discussions about the importance of play related to some of the initial benefits talked about in the Pausch video. I found it interesting that family as the home for children can be argued as disappearing with more hours spent at school and around peers. While this may be true (children spending longer hours in care and in classrooms) it is important to consider the unique families children are a part of, what the concept of play might mean or what play might look like in different family contexts, in order to create a learning environment built on the previous experiences of children. While we looked at play in terms of supporting meaningful learning, the discussions this week reflected the importance of play to several developmental domains, including cognitive, physical and social/emotional well-being.
The topic of constructionism connected significantly again to situated learning, meaningful learning, engagement and the sharing of knowledge or learning (the social component). The significance of understanding different theories about learning and how to create or facilitate learning environments not only relates to the inclusion of all learning styles in the classroom, but also to the messages which are sent to children about what knowledge is important. For example we discussed the shift to emergent curriculum and how much children’s interests are often accounted for in programming (the differences between early childhood education settings and school settings). This topic really connected to a lot of the reading I did last term on the strategies being suggested in terms of the inclusive practice for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Jim Cummins is a major researcher in this field (as some of you may already know), but the ideas this week related to his ideas about multiliteracy and the use of technology to support multiple ways of knowing. I thought I would comment on the question posed before the end of class this week relating to BIG (beyond the information given) and WIG (without the information given). Would it be safe to say that a balance of both situations for learning would be beneficial for children to be exposed to?
