You are currently browsing diriehl’s articles.
I thought of myself as someone who has been intrigued and comfortable with Technology. I have used technology and educational software with children and teachers for a number of years.
After taking this course, I realize that I have really only scratched the surface in terms of the possibilites with teachnology. I have an opportunity within my role and daily work to challenge teachers to move towards learning with technology.
I feel more equipped with new information and broader perspectives through the readings and discussions in class. The critical analysis of social networking has changed what I now believe was my previously held narrow view of the potential of social networking. I can see the possibilities of this application and even more so with simulations.
I also saw the distinction between computer literacy and fluency. I plan to introduce Prensky and others to some educators next year. We are going to do some teacher research together using digital cameras. The plan is to put the camera’s in the children’s hands and give them opportunities to create and design similar to the project’s Stephanie shared from the Sharple’s article.
Finally, I am also creating a Blog for my department and plan to offer inservice training for educators as we learn together the potential applications for our work with young children.
Ryan’s article and presentation had many connections to my research. I think the strongest connection that I made was the urgency to support the development of critical thinking in relation to using video games/education software. It is striking to look beyond the graphics and violence to analyse race and stereotypes. It is really obvious but do children and youth have the eyes to see it?
I wonder what impact more diversity in game developers would have. Would they move past the stereotypes? I am hopeful and Alex’s point that the tacit infusion of one’s culture and point of view will make the images more diverse.
I was very overwhelmed this week with the work on Full Day Early Learning – the Early Learning Advisor’s Report – With our Best Future in Mind- Implementing Full Day Early Learning in Ontario. So I was very distrated on Wednesday. But in reflection and the interface I am having with the media- transformative change and systems change is very challenging. That is, Ilich’s proposals around deschooling reminded me of the public reaction to the proposals and recommendations in the Early Learning Report.
The vision of deschooling – could there be small changes?- I kept thinking about constructionism and constructivisim… Then I return to reality. For example, there is very clear evidence that young children can’t conceptualize time in relation to the calendar days. There is a long standing practice in child care, Kinderagarten’s and Grade 1 classrooms to do a daily calendar routine. It takes about 15 minutes out of the day. The chidlren are asked to respond to the following questions every day- What is today? Yesterday is? Tomrrow will be? The reserach states that children can’t conecptualize this thinking about time. They can think about the daily schedule for example. Yet, even though reserach is clear teachers are very reluctant to let go of this practice. So our class discussion about deschooling -shifting institutional power and the notion that it is a huge paradigm shift is certainly evident in my work. Although, when educators let go of the calendar routine, for example, it can be the beginning of change…
This weeks readings rasied perspectives that I have found supported in the literacture for my topic. There is an interesting examination of the educators role and the child’s role in technology. The common thread is that the educator or the adult role is an influential part of the process. If the role is examined through constictivism and constructionism than I do not believe the adult must be fluent in the technology in order to support children become fluent in the technology.
The idea’s presented in Lindsay’s article demonstrated the possibiliteis for development of social skills. These ideas presented a challenge to some of the stereotypical images of a person sitting isolated working with technology. This was further illustrated in the Lego technology. I found it illustrated the notion of moving away from learning from technology to learning with technology. It seemed evident that the students were learning skills beyond the lego material that ranged from collaboration, to the computer literacy skills to post their products on Utube.
Lastly, Stephanie’s article is one that I have referenced for my paper. I am referring to digital camera’s as an illustration of children learning with technology. I have foudn it challenging to find research. I think that I need to look in photography journal’s perhaps. Digital camera’s seem to be an aspect of technology that many educators are comfortable using and are beginning to ‘trust’ children using camera’s more indepentdently. It is fascinating to see the process of their changng perspectivies as they learn how the camera can capture images.
I plan to ask children in a classroom next week some questions about taking photographs and what they think about using a camera. I thought I would ask a group of children who’s teacher uses the camera, a group of children who have access to cameras and a group of children who’s classroom does not have a camera available. I am curious to hear what they have to say and I wonder what will emerge from each of the groups.
I read through Ryan’s blog from Monday night’s class. Ryan I found your perspectives intriguing. Do you think that the focus of the discussion is on the pervasive violence because it is hard to ignore. The gender stereotyping or presentation of normative roles is perhaps more subtle. What might be the long term impact of the messages that are for more subtle?
I see some connections to the reading I am doing for my paper. My focus is on how we can move educators away from learning from technology to learning with technology. I am wondering what the research will show in relation to both the role of the educator and supporting children in being ‘critical’ consumers of technology.
I mentioned in class on Monday that it might be interesting to ask young children what they like about the facets of gaming or video games that raise concern in adults. What would this reveal? Would it be the noise or making something dramatic happen (thus having control) rather than only being drawn to the violence. As Ryan mentioned there are valid concerns about the violent aspects to gaming but if we only focus on that aspect do we miss some other issues that require dicussion and debriefing.
Another possibility, granted it may be slightly naive, might be desigining a game or software where the reward or the adrenaline rush coms from rescuing or escaping the environment through non-violent methods e.g., riddles, mazes etc..
One of the article pointed out the attraction for the children with the Magic School Bus edutainement was the bodily function noises that were made. I previewed the software before it was loaded on the classrrom computer. There is a control feature that you can turn of the sound. There may be ways of rethinking how some of the edutainment is utilized.
I keep thinking that just as we need to be critical consumers of media literacy it is important that critical thinking skills can and should be enagaged in the gaming, edutainment environment.
Last nights class began to bring some clarity to constructivism and constructionism. It seems to be about context and power. However, this is a major component of the foucs for my major paper. I still have many unanswered questions and further reading to do.
One could argue that giving up ‘control’ and moving towards constructionism may be an easy sell with some educators who make statements like “A four year old knows more about computers than I do.” Also in many classroms that I work in the computers for example are off to the side of the room and the teacher engages in very little interaction with the child. It is often seen as a reward.
I think the concerns and critisims about the social enviroment we explored last night are valid. It will be important for educators to model critical thinking and believe that children are capable of thinking critically. For example, most four year olds can tell you why there are toys in cereal. However, I am really inspired by the role educators can play in creating spaces for children to use technology to create their own games, social words and virtual realities.
I am planning to give a camera to a group of children next week in a class I am visiting to see what they do.
I have been trying to narrow my research question. I am reading and thinking about the implications of using technology to measure learning. I have been reading about how using technology e.g., mapping of data, publishing of data, and thinking about the implications. I have found the most information in relation to the Early Development Instrument, a population based measure used to determine children’s readiness to learn in school. This has many implications from my experience and I have found evidence (both positive and negative) in the research.
I have also been thinking about the course readings and one of the threads in the discussion and the readings is the premise that the technology is the tool and that it is the intellectual relationship with the tool that leads to more meaningful learning, I am thinking that this is an important consideration for my major paper. For example, the EDI data needs to be critically examined so it is not just accpeted without exploring the story behind the data. As you can hear in my loosley connected thoughts I am finding the readings in the course very interesting and I am not sure if there is enough of a connection to the topic I am interested in researching.
I was reflecting on this evening’s discussion in relation to the OLPC. Patrizia showed a couple of videos that featured the OLPC. The last one she showed where it discusssed some of the possibilities with the OLPC software began to open up the idea that the computer is the tool for the learning to be shared. It still requires the learner to be actively engages. In other words it is not the lap top that is creating the education rather it is the child using it as a tool to learn.
What is Meaningful Learning?
The article the I was able to present this evening had multiple connections for my work. This article really broadened the perspective of the characteristics of meaningful learning. Upon relfection, I wondered if I have thought of the characteristics from the article (e.g., active, authentic) as engaging in and of themselves. This reading has resulted in my thinking about the characteristics as interdependent and more powerful when they are synergistic. It reminded me of the framework from last weeks article in relation to e-learning. Where the e-learning environment ends up in intellectual convergence.
The other notion that I continue to think about is the “intellectual partnership” between the learner and the technology. This suggests a relationship between the learner and the technology. How can professionals build that capacity in my case with teachers? I found the groups suggestions very insightful and helpful to take forward into my work with teachers.
What happens when technology is linked to achievement or to measure learning? I want to futher explore this from the point of view of the child, the parent and the educator.
Firstly, it was great read Canadian reserach. The historical perspective in the Harasim article made me think of the discussion last week where Alex talked about us just being at the very beginning of this shift to technology. One thing that really stood out for me in the latter part of the chapter was the summary of the reserach. Not only did the reserach reveal the learning gleened from e-learning it also forced instructors to think about their face-to-face learning environments.
One of the frameworks in the Harasim I found had direct implication to my current practice was the three phases:idea generating, idea linking, and intellectual convergence. The way the author described each one of those phases I could see using them as I design on-line learning for teachers. It became evident how those phases came together to move learning forward in a synergistic way as described in the design goals of e-learning.
The Prensky article broadened my perspective on just how pervasive the use of technology is with the Digital Native. This was a new term for me and I was particularly struck by the author’s quote that not only are the Digital Natives using Technology differently but they organzie their lives differently because of it. Then I could begin to think about some of those ways that my life had changed somewhat but I still keep a paper calendar along side my electronic calendar. I do email friends now to plan a meeting but the location is predetermined. I wonder if the idea of deciding a locaiton to meet and coming to consensus or a decision using the technology different is corelated to age more than how we use the technology?
Blog Entry May 20th, 2009
The topics or ideas discussed in this weeks class or such areas of passion and commitment for me. Firstly, as I mentioned in class, I believe it is critical that when early years professionals are discussing play, we need to use language and examples that are more current. Play, as described in the article, needs to be linked to overall health and well- being or as part of a social determinant of health that leads to better child outcomes. One question raised was the notion that due to the fact that a pediatrician was the author the article my have more credibility. My feeling is that if all the professionals work together with children and families it could have more positive outcomes for families in terms of more possible access points for information. If pediatricians, early childhood professionals and families share information then perhaps it could keep the discussion moving forward.
In our view, learning is not merely situated in practice—as if it were
some independently reifiable process that just happened to be located
somewhere; learning is an integral part of generative social practice in
the lived-in world.
(Lave & Wenger, 1991: 35)
This concept discussed in class “Communities of Practice” was very intriguing and a broader perspective then I had previously thought. In my daily work with Kindergarten teachers I try to provide models that give them a community of practice but if I am really reflective some of the professional learning communities were only situated in practice. I am going to think more deeply about this and try to move the earning into the generative social practice in the lived-in world.
Reflections on Video and Class Discussion
As I listened to Randy Pausch discuss childhood dreams I wondered how would technology impact childhood dreams. If you believe that dreams are emulating an experience or desiring to achieve something then I think that Technology has a significant impact on childhood dreams. I imagine that children can have access to images and ideas through technology e,g., the Internet that they did not know existed.
As I reflected further on the video and the class discussion, issues of equity of access to technology may influence the possibilities of what children can dream. I also wonder if children who have less dream more?
The class discussion that resonated with me was how does your social and cultural context influence your childhood dreams. It was agreed in the discussion that Randy Pausch was encouraged to achieve his dreams. It was intriguing to think about the technology connection. It seemed that Randy was encouraged to achieve his dreams and he ended up creating technology that didn’t even exist at the time of his childhood. This same notion plays out when Randy is discussing how this plays out in an institution. They were able to completely circumvent and were given the freedom to work outside of institutional hierarchies and bureaucracy.
Lastly, another premise that was discussed was the notion of the “head fake.” I had some reservations about this notion. In my role with young children and teacher one of the messages that is a key part of professional development I facilitate is that children should be aware of what they are learning and what helps them specifically learn best (metacognition). So I took issue with not letting children in on what they are learning. I connected with the perspective raised in the class discussion that the “head fake” is really more about engagement and motivation than manipulating children into learning.
Children, Learning and Play 