This week was a challenge to me because I had fallen behind in my classwork. I needed to complete the work I had missed while still attempting to complete the work at hand. And I needed to do all of this while working with a medium that although I was comfortable using, I had serious limitations about how well I could use it. I don't like questioning myself or feeling like what I've done isn't my best work. My relationship with technology has ultimately changed since taking this class, a class that pushed me to my limit at a time that I was at my weakest academically and emotionally. Creating my website and an idea that I could actually use eventually since I am not currently in a classroom was also a challenge. My hope would be to actually use what I have learned, most especially the frustrations I felt to better understand how to incorporate technology into whatever I teach.
After taking this class I can honestly say that incorporating technology into my classroom is not only a desire, but a necessity. This class has proved to me that I need to produce students that can compete in an ever changing and technologically evolving society. It has also taught me that in working with literacy and with my hopes to work teaching composition in lower-income communities, that incorporating technology is even more important to make sure that these students don't fall behind in yet another aspect of literacy. It represents power as well as modernism to me now.
Course homepage
Course homepage
Thursday 12 July 2007
Week 5 Reflection: Wow! There Really Needs to be a Change in the Description of Literacy
This week's reading really took me by surprise. I had definitely thought about how the internet could affect reading, most importantly focusing on how a student would process the information they received online. I thought about both the layout or presentation of the information and the quality of the information. I also considered how hypertext could affect a student's ability to process the information at hand or even feel overwhelmed by too much information. I liked that Kajder provided concrete examples in Chapter 4 of her book about how to best use hypertext in the teaching of writing using technology. Julia’s hypertext project about New York was a great example of how this assignment might actually play itself out in a classroom. I can see how an activity like this would motivate students to use literature and writing. I also appreciated her section on “Reading Skills” because initially the idea of presenting such a task in a lower level reading class seemed impossible to me. I don’t think it could be done without the use of graphic organizers and such because of the non-linear aspect of hypertext.
Yet, after reading K&V's article, my conception of the internet as providing non-linear text has changed. At least from a Western perspective, there is a linear format to the presentation of material, both visual and textual online. Like other forms of literacy, they gave me the impression that there can also be rules online to provide readers with an easier way to process the information they read. Their article also made me think about how the internet is perceived, read, interpreted in other parts of the world. Their article presented the idea of a global language, yet even though the information is perceived differently the internet is one of the closest things to a global language that we have. The information although not interpreted the same can be translated for most viewers to read. This gives us access to others worlds, other forms of thinking, other forms of presenting information. I like the idea that this article presented about the idea of global language and how this relates directly to literacy and literature, both accessible to other cultures and ethnicities. It makes me think of the soul that the internet actually does have, in contradiciton to " what Sven Birkets (1994) refers to as a ‘battle between technology and the soul” (34). Kajder mentions that “Birkherts (1994) cautions that hypertext works to eradicate what we know as literature and literacy, arguing that ‘the premise behind textual interchange is that the author possesses wisdom, an insight, a way of looking at experience that the reader wants…. This is the point of writing and reading’” (34). I think that lookinng at the internet as a global portal almost, a capsule to allow us to travel and explore other forms of literacy, then the idea of the reader still bringing their own background and experiences to the text and the images that they interpret still hasnt' changed. Even the reader's choice about what hypertext to choose will differ depending on the who the reader is and how they encounter the information at hand.
Yet, after reading K&V's article, my conception of the internet as providing non-linear text has changed. At least from a Western perspective, there is a linear format to the presentation of material, both visual and textual online. Like other forms of literacy, they gave me the impression that there can also be rules online to provide readers with an easier way to process the information they read. Their article also made me think about how the internet is perceived, read, interpreted in other parts of the world. Their article presented the idea of a global language, yet even though the information is perceived differently the internet is one of the closest things to a global language that we have. The information although not interpreted the same can be translated for most viewers to read. This gives us access to others worlds, other forms of thinking, other forms of presenting information. I like the idea that this article presented about the idea of global language and how this relates directly to literacy and literature, both accessible to other cultures and ethnicities. It makes me think of the soul that the internet actually does have, in contradiciton to " what Sven Birkets (1994) refers to as a ‘battle between technology and the soul” (34). Kajder mentions that “Birkherts (1994) cautions that hypertext works to eradicate what we know as literature and literacy, arguing that ‘the premise behind textual interchange is that the author possesses wisdom, an insight, a way of looking at experience that the reader wants…. This is the point of writing and reading’” (34). I think that lookinng at the internet as a global portal almost, a capsule to allow us to travel and explore other forms of literacy, then the idea of the reader still bringing their own background and experiences to the text and the images that they interpret still hasnt' changed. Even the reader's choice about what hypertext to choose will differ depending on the who the reader is and how they encounter the information at hand.
Tuesday 10 July 2007
Week 6: Online Resources
One of the pages I checked out online was www.easybib.com an online bibliography writer. I thought that it would be a site that my students might benefit from and one that they might already be using on their own. I could definitely see a site like this attracting not only my students but students in general. In one of my classes last semester I remember there being so much confusion as to how a particular source should have been cited. Someone in the class mentioned that they wished there was a place where they could just fill in the information that they needed and it would create the citation for them. Everyone laughed at the idea of not having to go through the trouble of citing information and avoiding the confusion that it can sometimes cause. I think we all laughed because it seemed so far-fetched. I have to admit that I caught myself smiling while filling in the information because it really did fill it all in for me.
The site was well organized because of how easy it was to follow and to insert information. Although I usually felt hat students need to do things raw, meaning on paper, before using technology to assist them, I think this site could be really beneficial for students. It would eliminate the constant review of rules that many students find themselves doing in order to complete their bibliography page. It might even assist them in retaining the information necessary for their bibliography because they would most likely have to fill out the same information consistently if they had over five sources for example. It cites in both MLA and APA formats. It also allows you to type in the information and later click a button that converts it into a Word document, saving the student the trouble of cutting and pasting or copying the information by hand in order to type it into their document. In terms of ease, this site has it all.
The drawback that it has, however, is that it is only free temporarily. To access all of its features, including the choice of APA or MLA style, you have to pay a fee of $7.99 for the year. Although I thought the cost was affordable, I also think that it is unnecessary considering that you’re simply filling in information that gets automatically reconfigured. In general, I’m a skeptical person about paying for internet programs. Though it did make me wonder how long I could continue using the site without paying for it and continue to receive its major benefit, in my opinion, which is the ease that it provides in creating a bibliography. It never booted me out of the page or limited my creation of my bibliography because I wasn’t a member.
I’d also like to mention another website that I found while in search of information for the easybib.com site. Some of you may be familiar with it, but I wasn’t. The site is called www.enotes.com and works along the lines of Cliff notes, a crutch of mine when I took AP English in high school. The site essentially works the same way but has much more interactive information that what any book could offer. It included a longer summary or quick summary of the story, quizzes, analysis, historical content, topics for further study and bibliography of the text all in the form of hypertext. The site had an overload of information that limited my ability to take it all in. I added it to my favorites because it’s definitely a site that I need to look at with more depth. I saw so many benefits for including it into my classes, yet am not sure if I would want my students using it because it could easily enable able them to use the summary on the site over actually reading the text. However, I can see how it might be beneficial for my own research or even for using it after we read the text as a class. My fear is that they would access it for other classes or other literature we read in class, limiting the actual book reading that they do on their own.
The site was well organized because of how easy it was to follow and to insert information. Although I usually felt hat students need to do things raw, meaning on paper, before using technology to assist them, I think this site could be really beneficial for students. It would eliminate the constant review of rules that many students find themselves doing in order to complete their bibliography page. It might even assist them in retaining the information necessary for their bibliography because they would most likely have to fill out the same information consistently if they had over five sources for example. It cites in both MLA and APA formats. It also allows you to type in the information and later click a button that converts it into a Word document, saving the student the trouble of cutting and pasting or copying the information by hand in order to type it into their document. In terms of ease, this site has it all.
The drawback that it has, however, is that it is only free temporarily. To access all of its features, including the choice of APA or MLA style, you have to pay a fee of $7.99 for the year. Although I thought the cost was affordable, I also think that it is unnecessary considering that you’re simply filling in information that gets automatically reconfigured. In general, I’m a skeptical person about paying for internet programs. Though it did make me wonder how long I could continue using the site without paying for it and continue to receive its major benefit, in my opinion, which is the ease that it provides in creating a bibliography. It never booted me out of the page or limited my creation of my bibliography because I wasn’t a member.
I’d also like to mention another website that I found while in search of information for the easybib.com site. Some of you may be familiar with it, but I wasn’t. The site is called www.enotes.com and works along the lines of Cliff notes, a crutch of mine when I took AP English in high school. The site essentially works the same way but has much more interactive information that what any book could offer. It included a longer summary or quick summary of the story, quizzes, analysis, historical content, topics for further study and bibliography of the text all in the form of hypertext. The site had an overload of information that limited my ability to take it all in. I added it to my favorites because it’s definitely a site that I need to look at with more depth. I saw so many benefits for including it into my classes, yet am not sure if I would want my students using it because it could easily enable able them to use the summary on the site over actually reading the text. However, I can see how it might be beneficial for my own research or even for using it after we read the text as a class. My fear is that they would access it for other classes or other literature we read in class, limiting the actual book reading that they do on their own.
Tuesday 26 June 2007
Response to Kajder Chapters 5 & 7
Kajder begins this chapter with something that I often gloss over in my classroom - preparing students to search the web. Typically, when I bring my students to the media center to use the computers, I provide a brief and usually unsuccessful preparatory lesson for using the internet. I never really thought about it, but why don't I spend as much time preparing students for an online information search as I do preparing students to read a novel set during the Great Depression? as Kajder remarks, "(W)hy don't we empower students before we set them loose?" I think, like Kajder, I just assume that students already know how to search the internet and find appropriate information online. Kajder reminds me that I should never assume. She also reminds me that I really do need to not only evaluate what my students know, but what exactly I am sending them out into the world wide web to research.
This is where I see the value of Webquests. Webquests provide students with a task, process, and most importantly (for me and my young students) resources that are preselected by the teacher. As Kajder explains in Chapter 7, "Flexibility was not an option, simply becuase the search time had already been spent." Students are presented with websites that are provided by the teacher and therefore there is no question about their validity or appropriateness. I like this, especially when I think of my freshman and sophomore students surfing the web, looking for pertinent information.
However, as my students get older, and as I begin designing the curriculum for my 12th graders this fall, I don't want to completely control their online searches. I mean, they are seniors, they will be going to college (hopefully) the following year, and they need to learn how to search the internet and evaluate online texts. While I will probably use a Webquest with my senior writing class, I don't want to neglect the opportunity for my students to learn how to use the web. I like Kajder's search engine activity where she has students in her class team up and evaluate different search engines using the same key words.
One thing that I know I must change for next year is my attitude when entering the computer lab. I definitely need to be a more active teacher while my students are in the lab. I must admit that I am guilty - I bring a stack of tests, plant myself at a table, and grade while my students are searching online. I do remove myself from the pile of grading, ever 10 minutes or so, and do "the walk." I quickly peruse the screens on which my students are working, closing windows with solitaire or google earth or whatever else has nothing to do with what they should be doing. And then I return to grading. Kajder reiterates the fact that lab days are sometimes her busiest days of teaching. I need to remember that.
So...these chapters, along with the other assigned readings for this week really remind me of the fact that technology is not necessarily a tool that will make my life or my job easier. In fact, it may make it more...interesting and time consuming (I don't want to say difficult)...at least in the beginning. But the benefits far outweigh the time is will take to design an effective webquest or class website. Like anything new, it will just take time.
This is where I see the value of Webquests. Webquests provide students with a task, process, and most importantly (for me and my young students) resources that are preselected by the teacher. As Kajder explains in Chapter 7, "Flexibility was not an option, simply becuase the search time had already been spent." Students are presented with websites that are provided by the teacher and therefore there is no question about their validity or appropriateness. I like this, especially when I think of my freshman and sophomore students surfing the web, looking for pertinent information.
However, as my students get older, and as I begin designing the curriculum for my 12th graders this fall, I don't want to completely control their online searches. I mean, they are seniors, they will be going to college (hopefully) the following year, and they need to learn how to search the internet and evaluate online texts. While I will probably use a Webquest with my senior writing class, I don't want to neglect the opportunity for my students to learn how to use the web. I like Kajder's search engine activity where she has students in her class team up and evaluate different search engines using the same key words.
One thing that I know I must change for next year is my attitude when entering the computer lab. I definitely need to be a more active teacher while my students are in the lab. I must admit that I am guilty - I bring a stack of tests, plant myself at a table, and grade while my students are searching online. I do remove myself from the pile of grading, ever 10 minutes or so, and do "the walk." I quickly peruse the screens on which my students are working, closing windows with solitaire or google earth or whatever else has nothing to do with what they should be doing. And then I return to grading. Kajder reiterates the fact that lab days are sometimes her busiest days of teaching. I need to remember that.
So...these chapters, along with the other assigned readings for this week really remind me of the fact that technology is not necessarily a tool that will make my life or my job easier. In fact, it may make it more...interesting and time consuming (I don't want to say difficult)...at least in the beginning. But the benefits far outweigh the time is will take to design an effective webquest or class website. Like anything new, it will just take time.
Monday 25 June 2007
On Kinzer and Leander
As interesting as I thought this article was, it left me questioning, if we don't incorporate technology into our classrooms are we producing non-literate students by today's standards of literacy? They noted that "the children who have entered the school since 1990 are being shaped within a world that is not dominated by print in a way that their teachers' and parents' world was" (546). These statistics represent our children and as technologically aware (I won't say savvy) as this twenty-eight-year-old is, I can't compete with the amount of exposure that my students have had. Yet, many times I see that as their downfall. I think that technology brings with it such a rush for things right here, right now. Everything is immediate, including the amount of information that the students get via the internet. In their article they mention that children's literature can't be limited to printed texts, a statement that I completely disagree with (548). There needs to be a base from where literacy is taught. I continue to voice my opinion about the necessity of balance, but even more so when it comes to the younger students. Students need to know the basics, they need to understand printed text before they can fully understand and follow hypertext. In their article, they later talk about the necessity to be able to follow hypertext you need to rely on your linear reading ability (552). How can you develop this ability without first learning to simply read linearly? Even the argument for hypertext, although beneficial in further exploring information, is a tool that begins with basic skills and expands on them. How can you expand on information if you don't have the initial information to begin with? I agree that to produce literate students we need to incorporate technological literacy in our curriculum, but to base their literacy around this median, in my opinion, is dangerous. It creates a constant reliance on technology. The idea of hypertext reminded me of those books when I was a kid that gave you the opportunity to choose the endings. There were multiple endings you could choose for each chapter and depending on what you chose it would lead you to a different ending. It gave you choice and made you feel like you had a say in what happened in the story. Yet, a child that didn't have the ability to foreshadow or even create meaning out what they had previously read, wouldn't be able to understand the concept or the uniqueness of the opportunity that type of book offered - all of which are reading skills that are developed and are considered good reading strategies. I don't believe that you can process information the same online or through a screen as you can in printed text.
"Technology is a clear presence in our schools and in our nation" (546). They talk about the access that schools have to technology in this day and age, but our class suggests that although we all have access to technology and use it to email, receive and respond to memos and parents, create documents to use in class, record our grades, etc., does this count as using technology in our classes? Obviously the answer is no. Kinzer and Leander, alond with Kajder, provide ideas as to how to include technology successfully into our curriculum. But my arguemnt is that to say that by not providing our students with these technological aspects is creating illiterate students screams "WE'RE FAILING!" to me. So many of us in this class, and in classrooms in general, work hard to provide our students with a clear understanding of what literature, composition, and communication in general are that to say that not including technology is doing such a great disservice to them bothers me. I agree that more technology needs to be included in the classroom but to take the weight away from the understanding and working with printed text will be doing an even greater disservice. I think we all agree that our students our technologically capable and that helping them grow in those skills is something we all welcome, yet not at the expense of relinquishing the gift of composing an essay or debating a text that can make an individual or a class grow both intellectually and personally.
"Technology is a clear presence in our schools and in our nation" (546). They talk about the access that schools have to technology in this day and age, but our class suggests that although we all have access to technology and use it to email, receive and respond to memos and parents, create documents to use in class, record our grades, etc., does this count as using technology in our classes? Obviously the answer is no. Kinzer and Leander, alond with Kajder, provide ideas as to how to include technology successfully into our curriculum. But my arguemnt is that to say that by not providing our students with these technological aspects is creating illiterate students screams "WE'RE FAILING!" to me. So many of us in this class, and in classrooms in general, work hard to provide our students with a clear understanding of what literature, composition, and communication in general are that to say that not including technology is doing such a great disservice to them bothers me. I agree that more technology needs to be included in the classroom but to take the weight away from the understanding and working with printed text will be doing an even greater disservice. I think we all agree that our students our technologically capable and that helping them grow in those skills is something we all welcome, yet not at the expense of relinquishing the gift of composing an essay or debating a text that can make an individual or a class grow both intellectually and personally.
Teaching Web Literacy: A New Responsibility
Kajder’s Chapter 5 on navigating the web while doing research was the first of the articles of the course so far that didn’t by its subject urge me right away to think about how I teach my own classes, since I’ve never really asked students to do serious research on the web. I’ve never assigned a research paper in fact. (Sophomore English students do research when writing their essays for the persuasive speech unit, but freshman teachers aren’t encumbered with this job.) Lately, with WebQuests, I’ve been thinking about using the web for guided research, but the guided nature of the activity presumes of course that students aren’t going to asked to dive in on their own. So one question that has come up is, Should I be requiring some level of web research in my course, to strengthen students’ web resourcefulness and savvy, or should I let this area of scholarship be left to the history department (and sophomore English teachers), which yearly requires students to write research papers. (Now whether all history teachers require, or allow, web research, I don’t know, but I am sure that at least one of my colleagues has gone far enough as to disallow public web research for history papers precisely because he has found the sources’ credibility so unpredictable.) But the Kinzer and McEneaney articles suggest that the English teacher’s role in developing web literacy has less to do with skill in pursuing research needs and more to do with the evolving nature of reading itself.
It’s the responsibility for teaching this new shape of literacy that I accept as an English teacher, even if, to be frank, I don’t yet understand its distinction from normal literacy. When I’ve had trouble steering my way through, say, Hamlet websites, and found myself lost after three or four links away from the original site, or when I had known that when I stayed with the best Catcher in the Rye site after several hits, I was only stopping at the first adequate one—I just assumed that this was a reflection of lack of speed or skill and not a fundamental problem with reading the web. It takes time, I thought—I’ll get it. But there are tricks and skills of course to getting what you need more quickly—from, as Kajder’s article shows, choosing the right search engines and the best keywords to finding articles on the Deep Web—that I am beginning to see as a valuable area of study for the English classroom.
One very interesting thing that comes from the McEneany article is the presentation of various ways of reading the same article. Unfortunately, my browser did not let me see the “path” version of the article, but I could clearly envision the difference between viewing an article as a path and working one’s way through the hypertext, which is still a very confusing process for me. The hypertext method of reading still seems to be a scattered and difficult—personalized, yes—means of working through an established idea that courses through an essay or presentation. My old-fashioned preference is still for the hard-copy word document version, although, for the McEneany article, I settled for the Adobe version as a gesture to saving paper.
So where does this put me as classes begin in the fall? I think assigning some sort of small research project, either on authors or on themes related to the works studied, seems a good place to begin embracing this new teaching role. In addition, I would like to look at the availability of literary criticism on the web, not only from JSTOR on the Deep Web (which I have not used in the classroom), but from the public web itself to try to collectively distinguish respectable from specious scholarship, which to me seems at the heart of this emerging form of literacy.
It’s the responsibility for teaching this new shape of literacy that I accept as an English teacher, even if, to be frank, I don’t yet understand its distinction from normal literacy. When I’ve had trouble steering my way through, say, Hamlet websites, and found myself lost after three or four links away from the original site, or when I had known that when I stayed with the best Catcher in the Rye site after several hits, I was only stopping at the first adequate one—I just assumed that this was a reflection of lack of speed or skill and not a fundamental problem with reading the web. It takes time, I thought—I’ll get it. But there are tricks and skills of course to getting what you need more quickly—from, as Kajder’s article shows, choosing the right search engines and the best keywords to finding articles on the Deep Web—that I am beginning to see as a valuable area of study for the English classroom.
One very interesting thing that comes from the McEneany article is the presentation of various ways of reading the same article. Unfortunately, my browser did not let me see the “path” version of the article, but I could clearly envision the difference between viewing an article as a path and working one’s way through the hypertext, which is still a very confusing process for me. The hypertext method of reading still seems to be a scattered and difficult—personalized, yes—means of working through an established idea that courses through an essay or presentation. My old-fashioned preference is still for the hard-copy word document version, although, for the McEneany article, I settled for the Adobe version as a gesture to saving paper.
So where does this put me as classes begin in the fall? I think assigning some sort of small research project, either on authors or on themes related to the works studied, seems a good place to begin embracing this new teaching role. In addition, I would like to look at the availability of literary criticism on the web, not only from JSTOR on the Deep Web (which I have not used in the classroom), but from the public web itself to try to collectively distinguish respectable from specious scholarship, which to me seems at the heart of this emerging form of literacy.
Critical use of internet resources
Some general thoughts:
Yes, students absolutely need to be taught to question the validity and perspective of things online as much as they do anywhere else. I still firmly believe that a broad emphasis on critical thinking/reading will pay large dividends. That doesn’t mean not to focus it on specifics like websites of course. Before I wised up to it I had students saying in a PowerPoint that
I agree that a lot of what we read sounds dated, which emphasizes the importance of the skills we want students to develop over the content. Right now we live in a google-centric world, but it seems likely that google will continue to evolve and/or something else will come along. The point is, five years ago teaching students how AltaVista and Yahoo and Google searched differently was important, now it’s not. What is important is that students find out how these resources do their work.
Likewise, the process of searching for good relevant information is important. One point I’m not sure Kajder emphasizes (enough) is the importance of students knowing what they are looking for. Most of the websites that are easy to find on Othello or Animal Farm are in the SparkNotes mold (more on that later) and will be summaries, possibly with analysis and basic background information. Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure that sending students to find summaries of literature isn’t the best use of the internet.
Assuming that students do know what they are searching for, it’s important to give them some basic practice with things like Boolean operators which will become even more important as they continue their studies (try putting “Shakespeare” into JSTOR, see how useful that is). Searches work so quickly now that knowing how to do some trial and error searches seems like the skill worth developing, as is knowing how to interpret those results. (As a side note, tabbed browsing is one of the greatest things to ever happen to me. You (or students) can just open a new tab, you never need to leave the search results page.)
Our library does a brief orientation for freshmen where they teach them the basics of the library, how to search the online catalogue, where reference books are, etc. One thing they don’t bother with is teaching students about some of the online resources we have. The school subscribes to a student-friendly version of Infotrac and a few resources like that. I haven’t looked extensively at all of these resources, but I do know that they’re intended for high school scholarship, which is more than I can say for SparkNotes.
The hypertext version of the McEnearney article utilizes much of the potential of hypertext as a medium. The setup actively encourages a reading that isn’t necessarily linear. I admire how much he goes out of his way to provide a format that isn’t a simple reproduction of the article (although he puts that up as well) and lets users choose their own path. Checking how the reader is doing so far and including a discussion forum are at the very least productive uses of a website.
Finally, I want to weigh in on SparkNotes. 95% of the time (no, that’s not based on actual scientific research) students use sites like that as a shortcut and nothing more. I don’t believe they have no merit, they just aren’t usually used to deepen understanding. One thing that feeds into our conversation is that students don’t recognize that SparkNotes is not directed at high school readers nor is it directed at people who don’t read the text and think critically about it. It can be helpful as a supplement to reading and interpretation, but fails miserably for anyone who relies on SparkNotes as a substitute for either of those. I generally check out what’s on there for anything I’m teaching both to get ideas and to try to be aware when students are using it. The quality I’ve found is pretty variable. Sometimes the focus is incredibly narrow (ie 1984 is all about Winston’s fatalism – what?!) or they give away the ending in the chapter 1 summary. The point is, I know and recognize that SparkNotes has a useful application, I just don’t believe my, or most, students use it for that purpose.
Saturday 23 June 2007
Grabe's "Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning"
Ok, I can begin this post by agreeing that this article is pretty old-copyright 1998, and there are many parts that are so outdated one can only be amused. For example, Grabe writes about educational access and uses the Clinton Administration to reference the commitment to connect schools to the internet. Grabe even writes of Gore's vision in 1994 for a "different kind of superhighway that can...give every American, young and old, the chance for the best education available to anyone,anywhere."(p.190) Does this reinforce Gore's belief that he created the Internet?
Despite the "old news" about technology in this article, Grabe discusses some of the exact ideas and principals we've been reading in K&L and Kajder. Grabe's "internet resources" segment repeats similar strategies featuring the different types of tools available, email activities, how teachers structure projects to engage students, and how to find "course-relevant"resources on the internet. However, Grabe goes into so much technical detail that he loses me. It reminds me of my television and how it's connected to digital cable, a dvd player, and surround sound but I don't want or need to know how. I just want to be able to turn my tv on with the remote and watch a movie if I want to without knowing which cable and USB connections were needed, etc.... Just reading Grabe's description of the process of transferring files using FTP (file transfer protocol) and the UNIX operating system makes me wonder how obsolete this information is.
Ok, now that I told you what I didn't like, this is what I did: I liked how Grabe s-p-e-l-l-e-d everything out from "browsers" and "home pages" to differentiating links. When reading newer, more up to date texts, some writers assume everyone knows exactly what they are talking about and neglect to define or identify parts. No one can accuse Grabe of doing that because he/she defines everything. On page 209, for example, Grabe goes into graphic detail about web browsers and hypertext mark up language (HTML), helper applications and plug-ins. Again, this information may be so outdated but I found is useful to understand how a webpage was created because I had no clue.
When talking about "searching the web", I found Grabe's description of search engines being fed by "robots" continually roaming the internet and "web librarians" who examine web documents kind of silly.(p210) I imagined little robots and tiny librarians inside everyone's computers running around trying to keep everything functioning properly. But, I liked his breakdown of search engines descriptions; meta-index, concept, index searches, and personal indexes because he goes into detail the different strategies of the different search engines and explains how they produce different results. (p.211) But "Google" is never mentioned, which like Jason said, is the "big Daddy" of search engines, so it does question the information being relevant to today.
Once again, the "boolean" search strategy is mentioned, as in K&L, but Grabe tells of its origins in "Boolean logic in high school math class"(p.214) and goes into a whole page description of how to use boolean operators to refine your search, unlike the newer texts who mention it in one or two sentences. By the time I was done reading, I felt like an expert on Boolean operators. I also learned that typing in lower case letters for a search will find BOTH upper and lower case matches, but using upper case letters will produce only uppercase matches.
One last thing that I found useful and need to keep on file is how to cite internet sources. (p.220) I had a professor last year who had to look up the "proper" way to cite a website so I think including this information in the article is still very beneficial and useful even nine years later. So, even though the majority of the text is pretty outdated, I think there is still some beneficial information included that helps those of us likely to be called, "digital immigrants" to better understand the natives way of thinking.
Despite the "old news" about technology in this article, Grabe discusses some of the exact ideas and principals we've been reading in K&L and Kajder. Grabe's "internet resources" segment repeats similar strategies featuring the different types of tools available, email activities, how teachers structure projects to engage students, and how to find "course-relevant"resources on the internet. However, Grabe goes into so much technical detail that he loses me. It reminds me of my television and how it's connected to digital cable, a dvd player, and surround sound but I don't want or need to know how. I just want to be able to turn my tv on with the remote and watch a movie if I want to without knowing which cable and USB connections were needed, etc.... Just reading Grabe's description of the process of transferring files using FTP (file transfer protocol) and the UNIX operating system makes me wonder how obsolete this information is.
Ok, now that I told you what I didn't like, this is what I did: I liked how Grabe s-p-e-l-l-e-d everything out from "browsers" and "home pages" to differentiating links. When reading newer, more up to date texts, some writers assume everyone knows exactly what they are talking about and neglect to define or identify parts. No one can accuse Grabe of doing that because he/she defines everything. On page 209, for example, Grabe goes into graphic detail about web browsers and hypertext mark up language (HTML), helper applications and plug-ins. Again, this information may be so outdated but I found is useful to understand how a webpage was created because I had no clue.
When talking about "searching the web", I found Grabe's description of search engines being fed by "robots" continually roaming the internet and "web librarians" who examine web documents kind of silly.(p210) I imagined little robots and tiny librarians inside everyone's computers running around trying to keep everything functioning properly. But, I liked his breakdown of search engines descriptions; meta-index, concept, index searches, and personal indexes because he goes into detail the different strategies of the different search engines and explains how they produce different results. (p.211) But "Google" is never mentioned, which like Jason said, is the "big Daddy" of search engines, so it does question the information being relevant to today.
Once again, the "boolean" search strategy is mentioned, as in K&L, but Grabe tells of its origins in "Boolean logic in high school math class"(p.214) and goes into a whole page description of how to use boolean operators to refine your search, unlike the newer texts who mention it in one or two sentences. By the time I was done reading, I felt like an expert on Boolean operators. I also learned that typing in lower case letters for a search will find BOTH upper and lower case matches, but using upper case letters will produce only uppercase matches.
One last thing that I found useful and need to keep on file is how to cite internet sources. (p.220) I had a professor last year who had to look up the "proper" way to cite a website so I think including this information in the article is still very beneficial and useful even nine years later. So, even though the majority of the text is pretty outdated, I think there is still some beneficial information included that helps those of us likely to be called, "digital immigrants" to better understand the natives way of thinking.
Friday 22 June 2007
This posting contains part of a comment to this week's initial posting (by Lucien). Since mine is the last comment to Lucien’s posting (so far), now two pages back, I think it might not get read. In addition, as I have read more texts, I have continued to think about this topic and have expanded quite a bit on my original comment, so that I think it can be its own posting. In fact, I believe my concern touches upon one of the questions Ellie posed for this week's topics: What are critical areas of consideration for a teacher concerned about students' web-focused information literacy and what would you add to the conversation created by the readings?
Lucien (as I think all of us do) praises the internet as a research medium for its convenience, “when approached critically.” That phrase toward the end stuck with me because I think the critical reading is the most difficult aspect of teaching all reading, and that it takes on additional challenges in the teaching of hypertext literacy. As much as, and perhaps more than, with the technical aspects (how to find things and the quality of what we find), I am concerned with how to teach critical reading once we have done all the necessary prep and filter work of making sure the sites and information are reputable and accurate.
Kinzer and Leander cite research (Bolter, 1991) which “claims that the inherent ‘linked’ nature of hypertext leads to critical engagement.” (552) This position, therefore, concludes that “hypermedia must be strongly articulated with critical pedagogy.” (552) Of course, in the sense that "must" can mean "should" this is indisputable. However, Bolter's claim seems also to convey the belief that “reading” hypermedia IS necessarily reading critically, that "[it] leads to critical engagement." I strongly disagree. Although Kinzer and Leander don’t seem to critique this claim in the same section where it is quoted, the entire purpose of their chapter is to make the case for an expansion of the definition of literacy and for the explicit inclusion and provision for hypermedia literacy in English curricula (which I take them to mean critical reading, not just critical research). By “reading critically,” I refer to the ability to read “dialogically”—to identify different ideas and positions within a text (either stated or omitted), compare them, make them dialogue with each other, come up with one’s own thoughts and try these out by entering into dialogue with the text. I am sure that my own ability to do so in a hypertext is limited, although I have some clues because of training with print text...what about the students we teach?
Once we have applied a lot of the research and site evaluation techniques Kajder recommends in Chapter 5 (and I believe these, or their equivalent, to be essential to teaching students an expanded literacy), and we've come up with "reliable" sites/sources, how do we teach students to read these critically? Let me explain why I insist on this: when we do research for a paper in grad school, we tend to use sources such as peer-review journals and books. Nevertheless, good writing goes beyond our choice of sources—it has to do with the dialogical nature of our reading and the resulting dialectical text we put together (that's what sets it apart from a "report"). Thus, the reputable, accurate sources (in this case the sites) are only the beginning of critical literacy: this applies to hypertext as much as traditional print. However, as all the authors we are reading this week indicate, that critical reading takes on added dimension in hypertext. This critical literacy does not come with the dialectical nature of the text. If it did, putting students in contact with good sources would do the job. But, in contrast with the implications of Bolter's statement, "exposure [to an intrinsically dialectical hypertext] does not necessarily result in depth of thought...It also does not guarantee the mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning." (Grabe and Grabe 214-215)
After quoting Bolter, K & L go on to discuss issues of authorship, credibility, power-relations within one site/text, and understanding “a site’s positioning with respect to other sites.” (558) The way in which all of these elements present (or hide) themselves in hypertext is different from how they can be represented in print text. The skills with which to interpret, unfold, and consider the positions in hypertext in relation to one another--the "depth of thought" and "mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning" Grabe and Grabe speak of--are essential to students’ ability to read (and write) critically and they, contrary to Bolter’s claim, do not come hand-in-hand with the hypermedia text; on the contrary, the issues K & L discuss need to be made explicit, brought to the forefront, and analyzed.
I think Kajder’s point at the beginning of Chapter 5 that teachers can make NO assumptions about students’ knowledge of the internet is worth reiterating: "Just because our students are able to cruise the Internet with speed and what looks like skill doesn't mean they know what they are doing." (49) Although all of this might seem self-evident, I can't help but be concerned that the "dialectical nature" of hypertexts (the fact that they appear to have the "dialogue" built into their format--through links, different types of image and text, etc.) might lead readers (and I am willing to take the blame for grouping teachers in with the students here) to believe, as Bolter affirms, that the linked nature of hypertexts "leads" to dialectical, critical, reading. This is an issue that I believe needs to be included in the new curricula we are discussing as well.
Lucien (as I think all of us do) praises the internet as a research medium for its convenience, “when approached critically.” That phrase toward the end stuck with me because I think the critical reading is the most difficult aspect of teaching all reading, and that it takes on additional challenges in the teaching of hypertext literacy. As much as, and perhaps more than, with the technical aspects (how to find things and the quality of what we find), I am concerned with how to teach critical reading once we have done all the necessary prep and filter work of making sure the sites and information are reputable and accurate.
Kinzer and Leander cite research (Bolter, 1991) which “claims that the inherent ‘linked’ nature of hypertext leads to critical engagement.” (552) This position, therefore, concludes that “hypermedia must be strongly articulated with critical pedagogy.” (552) Of course, in the sense that "must" can mean "should" this is indisputable. However, Bolter's claim seems also to convey the belief that “reading” hypermedia IS necessarily reading critically, that "[it] leads to critical engagement." I strongly disagree. Although Kinzer and Leander don’t seem to critique this claim in the same section where it is quoted, the entire purpose of their chapter is to make the case for an expansion of the definition of literacy and for the explicit inclusion and provision for hypermedia literacy in English curricula (which I take them to mean critical reading, not just critical research). By “reading critically,” I refer to the ability to read “dialogically”—to identify different ideas and positions within a text (either stated or omitted), compare them, make them dialogue with each other, come up with one’s own thoughts and try these out by entering into dialogue with the text. I am sure that my own ability to do so in a hypertext is limited, although I have some clues because of training with print text...what about the students we teach?
Once we have applied a lot of the research and site evaluation techniques Kajder recommends in Chapter 5 (and I believe these, or their equivalent, to be essential to teaching students an expanded literacy), and we've come up with "reliable" sites/sources, how do we teach students to read these critically? Let me explain why I insist on this: when we do research for a paper in grad school, we tend to use sources such as peer-review journals and books. Nevertheless, good writing goes beyond our choice of sources—it has to do with the dialogical nature of our reading and the resulting dialectical text we put together (that's what sets it apart from a "report"). Thus, the reputable, accurate sources (in this case the sites) are only the beginning of critical literacy: this applies to hypertext as much as traditional print. However, as all the authors we are reading this week indicate, that critical reading takes on added dimension in hypertext. This critical literacy does not come with the dialectical nature of the text. If it did, putting students in contact with good sources would do the job. But, in contrast with the implications of Bolter's statement, "exposure [to an intrinsically dialectical hypertext] does not necessarily result in depth of thought...It also does not guarantee the mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning." (Grabe and Grabe 214-215)
After quoting Bolter, K & L go on to discuss issues of authorship, credibility, power-relations within one site/text, and understanding “a site’s positioning with respect to other sites.” (558) The way in which all of these elements present (or hide) themselves in hypertext is different from how they can be represented in print text. The skills with which to interpret, unfold, and consider the positions in hypertext in relation to one another--the "depth of thought" and "mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning" Grabe and Grabe speak of--are essential to students’ ability to read (and write) critically and they, contrary to Bolter’s claim, do not come hand-in-hand with the hypermedia text; on the contrary, the issues K & L discuss need to be made explicit, brought to the forefront, and analyzed.
I think Kajder’s point at the beginning of Chapter 5 that teachers can make NO assumptions about students’ knowledge of the internet is worth reiterating: "Just because our students are able to cruise the Internet with speed and what looks like skill doesn't mean they know what they are doing." (49) Although all of this might seem self-evident, I can't help but be concerned that the "dialectical nature" of hypertexts (the fact that they appear to have the "dialogue" built into their format--through links, different types of image and text, etc.) might lead readers (and I am willing to take the blame for grouping teachers in with the students here) to believe, as Bolter affirms, that the linked nature of hypertexts "leads" to dialectical, critical, reading. This is an issue that I believe needs to be included in the new curricula we are discussing as well.
Again, I feel inadequate...
I swear, every time I read a chapter from Kajder, I feel like the worst teacher in the world! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the book because I think I am learning a lot from it, but at the same time I feel as though I am the example of what-not-to-do! I can pretty much point-for-point say that I do the opposite of what she says a teacher should do!
Example 1: Assessing What the Students Already Know
Kajder suggests that we should ask students about their internet history and provide them with an opportunity to assess their understanding of the internet (via a quiz, journal prompt etc.). I do neither of those...it's pretty much just a "Sign on and go!" type of thing in my classroom. Okay, so that is one thing to add to my "Things to Work On" list.
Example 2: Searching Strategies
Kajder mentioned Boolean operators in chapter 7, and I had no idea what they were, so I flipped back to chapter 5 to skim about them, since she mentioned referring to chapter 5. I thought it would be some huge complicated thing, but when I saw that they were words like "and" "or" and "not," I relaxed-- I use those all the time! Yeah...reading chapter 5 made me realize they aren't just simple words, and apparently since I don't capitalize them, I have been doing it wrong all these years!!! And I definitely don't teach my students how to narrow down and filter the information so that it is the most specific and relevant. In addition, I had no idea about things like using the "+" or "-" or "title:_____" to find information-- I just typed in words. So another thing to add to my list-- how to effectively search the internet. Shoot, I thought I already knew that one!
Example 3: Meta-Searches and the Deep Web
I didn't know these existed...I thought the internet was the internet. I had heard of GaleNet before, but I didn't know it accessed all this information that Google didn't. And the deep web sounds like it probably has a ton of great information! That's three "To-Dos" from this chapter alone...
Example 4: Evaluating What You Find
I know I can tell when a source is no good, but I am pretty sure my students have no clue. I think I might try to use the rubric in her appendix with my students next year to help them decide whether a source is good or not. That's 4...
At least I can say that I am pretty good at catching plagiarism in my classroom. Things like "double entendre" have made their way into student writing, and it makes it pretty easy to catch the cheaters. But I am obviously a hugely massive Work In Progress.
Example 1: Assessing What the Students Already Know
Kajder suggests that we should ask students about their internet history and provide them with an opportunity to assess their understanding of the internet (via a quiz, journal prompt etc.). I do neither of those...it's pretty much just a "Sign on and go!" type of thing in my classroom. Okay, so that is one thing to add to my "Things to Work On" list.
Example 2: Searching Strategies
Kajder mentioned Boolean operators in chapter 7, and I had no idea what they were, so I flipped back to chapter 5 to skim about them, since she mentioned referring to chapter 5. I thought it would be some huge complicated thing, but when I saw that they were words like "and" "or" and "not," I relaxed-- I use those all the time! Yeah...reading chapter 5 made me realize they aren't just simple words, and apparently since I don't capitalize them, I have been doing it wrong all these years!!! And I definitely don't teach my students how to narrow down and filter the information so that it is the most specific and relevant. In addition, I had no idea about things like using the "+" or "-" or "title:_____" to find information-- I just typed in words. So another thing to add to my list-- how to effectively search the internet. Shoot, I thought I already knew that one!
Example 3: Meta-Searches and the Deep Web
I didn't know these existed...I thought the internet was the internet. I had heard of GaleNet before, but I didn't know it accessed all this information that Google didn't. And the deep web sounds like it probably has a ton of great information! That's three "To-Dos" from this chapter alone...
Example 4: Evaluating What You Find
I know I can tell when a source is no good, but I am pretty sure my students have no clue. I think I might try to use the rubric in her appendix with my students next year to help them decide whether a source is good or not. That's 4...
At least I can say that I am pretty good at catching plagiarism in my classroom. Things like "double entendre" have made their way into student writing, and it makes it pretty easy to catch the cheaters. But I am obviously a hugely massive Work In Progress.
Response to Chapter 5
I agree with much of what Kajder says in Chapter 5. The internet became mainstream when I was in college, so my high school experience was certainly lacking in technology. As a teacher, I assume my students are much more internet savy than I am. However, Kajder brings up the fact that the web is massive, and although students use it in their daily lives, they don't necessarily have the proper tools. I know that when I assign a research project, the kids automatically head for Google or Wikipedia (a site I have banned from my classroom). It is wrong to assume that students know how to effectively access information on the web. I like the fact that Kajder gives her students an Internet Quiz. Up to this point I have not done that, but I think this is something I will begin to implement. I also like the class activity she conducts where the class decides upon a keyword, searches, and compares their findings.
As Kajder says, "As English teachers, we never expect students to select a book and work their minds through it without first preparing them with strategies, expectations, and tools for inpacking what they might find
As Kajder says, "As English teachers, we never expect students to select a book and work their minds through it without first preparing them with strategies, expectations, and tools for inpacking what they might find
Week 4: In Defense of Kinzer and Leander...
I am starting this post with a bit of a disagreement with Dan’s complaint about the datedness of the Kinzer and Leander chapter. (Dan, it just helps me get started to consider a text in regards to another’s thoughts.) I take the point that some of the data K & L site translates into widely known concepts—like the fact that true and usable accessibility to the internet is subject to the same inequities that exist in the socio-economic tiers in our society. I also agree that the case study of Tara seems a bit oversimplified (and, yet, I could not easily follow the search steps narrated in the scenario). Nevertheless, there is an important point to the K & L chapter, which I really do think is quite relevant today: the call for renovated, updated, expanded, revolutionized (?) literacy curricula (to go with a new definition of literacy)—curricula which include the hypertext literacy.
In my limited experience working in a public high school where I have repeatedly been told what is included in the English curricula (I have not used it myself) and having attended undergraduate and graduate studies focusing on English and literacy for the past seven years, I have not seen any significant incorporation of hypermedia literacy—neither how to read/interpret sites/texts, nor how to teach their interpretation. Rather, my understanding of the elements outside of the main, explicit “text” on a website—the obscurity of authorship and sponsorship, the overt and covert interests represented on a web page, the possible added meanings revealed in the choice of links, and others—all of my own understanding stems from my studies of traditional printed text. As a graduate student of English, I should hope that I can transfer some of my knowledge to a “different” type of text. However, whether the teachers themselves are capable of this or not, the curricula certainly does not seem to include it—and at least four years have passed since the publication of this chapter. Furthermore, there are many things which Kinzer and Leander mention, for which I, personally, have no training, nor any idea what to do with: “What does page color, image color, and font color signify, and when does it signify?” (557)
I think another important point raised by K & L is the need to think of the goals teachers have for their students’ use of hypermedia: “educators’ goals may well include the ‘mining’ and ‘retention’ of resources, but they also want children to share, manipulate, play with, imitate, critique, oppose, and become increasingly curious about resources that they encounter.” (557) Given that there is no way out of including hypertext literacy, it will have to be taught (because I really don’t think it is yet) in schools, how do we make sure that it doesn’t just become a source for research, in the sense of information scouring? How do we ensure that such a readily available overload of information does not take the place of students learning to “ develop their own categories, relationships, and understandings?” (557)
Again, I understand that K & L’s text is necessarily dated because of the nature of the unbelievably fast growth and change of the internet. I am also aware of the fact that students (and many teachers) are very comfortable and quick with hypermedia. However, that does not translate into informed and critical use. I really have not seen around me evidence that Kinzer and Leander’s call for a redefinition of literacy and English curricula is any less relevant now than it was four our five years ago.
In my limited experience working in a public high school where I have repeatedly been told what is included in the English curricula (I have not used it myself) and having attended undergraduate and graduate studies focusing on English and literacy for the past seven years, I have not seen any significant incorporation of hypermedia literacy—neither how to read/interpret sites/texts, nor how to teach their interpretation. Rather, my understanding of the elements outside of the main, explicit “text” on a website—the obscurity of authorship and sponsorship, the overt and covert interests represented on a web page, the possible added meanings revealed in the choice of links, and others—all of my own understanding stems from my studies of traditional printed text. As a graduate student of English, I should hope that I can transfer some of my knowledge to a “different” type of text. However, whether the teachers themselves are capable of this or not, the curricula certainly does not seem to include it—and at least four years have passed since the publication of this chapter. Furthermore, there are many things which Kinzer and Leander mention, for which I, personally, have no training, nor any idea what to do with: “What does page color, image color, and font color signify, and when does it signify?” (557)
I think another important point raised by K & L is the need to think of the goals teachers have for their students’ use of hypermedia: “educators’ goals may well include the ‘mining’ and ‘retention’ of resources, but they also want children to share, manipulate, play with, imitate, critique, oppose, and become increasingly curious about resources that they encounter.” (557) Given that there is no way out of including hypertext literacy, it will have to be taught (because I really don’t think it is yet) in schools, how do we make sure that it doesn’t just become a source for research, in the sense of information scouring? How do we ensure that such a readily available overload of information does not take the place of students learning to “ develop their own categories, relationships, and understandings?” (557)
Again, I understand that K & L’s text is necessarily dated because of the nature of the unbelievably fast growth and change of the internet. I am also aware of the fact that students (and many teachers) are very comfortable and quick with hypermedia. However, that does not translate into informed and critical use. I really have not seen around me evidence that Kinzer and Leander’s call for a redefinition of literacy and English curricula is any less relevant now than it was four our five years ago.
Thursday 21 June 2007
Week 4: McEneaney
Well, the first thing I have to be up front about with this article is that I was totally overwhelmed as I began reading it! It took me up until about the 5th page before I really understood what was going on!
McEaney states that "The objective of this article is to describe (and, in one version, to illustrate by example) how new web technologies can be applied to assist readers both in integrating content and in maintaining a process focus as they navigate complex expository text. The central concept behind the approach described is that of the learner's “path.” I enjoyed the way he literally put you on a "path" to illustrate the use of them. I found each page to be very clear and focused, which is important when you are talking about assisting students with new web technologies.
I also found it interesting to then go back and use the "traditional hypertext" to look at the same reading in a more typical form. After first feeling frustrated with the path, I realized that I preferred it to the traditional text. As McEneaney stated, when you don't have to focus on choosing where to go on the internet, comprehension becomes much easier! I enjoyed that "path" clearly guided me to what was next.
I also found that the "notes" for each page were helpful. This feature would be fantastic to use if you were discussing a novel in a class. "Sidenotes" are great ways to help clarify information for students and to add ideas to generate new discussions. Again, I must admit that at first I was a little hesitant and confused about the path and the notes, but once you get into the swing of it, it really is quite simple!
What I liked the most about this article, however, was that McEneaney seemed to look deeply into the pros and cons of web related learning. I appreciated his honesty about the internet having some downfalls. The ones that I particularly related to were problems with 1. access to the web, 2. locating relevant and quality material, and 3. lack of structure on the web.
Access to the Web: I always worry about integrating technology into my class because of the rather high number of students who do not have it. However, I was surprised to see that this was not what McEneaney was referring to at all. He feels that there is too much "overaccessibility", where it is too easy for students to move around the internet and lose focus. I can absolutely see that as a major problem......let's be honest, I am guilty of it myself!
Locating Relevant and Quality Material: We all know, as discussed in class on Tuesday, that students will read anything and believe anything, as along as it gives them some type of answer they think they are looking for!
Lack of Structure: Again, lets be honest, this lack of structure, with the overaccessibiltiy factor, can make using the web a MAJOR TIME CONSUMER.....and it is not always time well spent! I can only imagine how much work it must take to keep students on task and focused when they know they have access to so much that they want to explore (that has nothing to do with your class!)
In the end, I do feel that McEneaney believes that the use of the web to help students outweighs the "cons" of the internet. Allowing students to be interactive as they learn can only help them in the long run.
McEaney states that "The objective of this article is to describe (and, in one version, to illustrate by example) how new web technologies can be applied to assist readers both in integrating content and in maintaining a process focus as they navigate complex expository text. The central concept behind the approach described is that of the learner's “path.” I enjoyed the way he literally put you on a "path" to illustrate the use of them. I found each page to be very clear and focused, which is important when you are talking about assisting students with new web technologies.
I also found it interesting to then go back and use the "traditional hypertext" to look at the same reading in a more typical form. After first feeling frustrated with the path, I realized that I preferred it to the traditional text. As McEneaney stated, when you don't have to focus on choosing where to go on the internet, comprehension becomes much easier! I enjoyed that "path" clearly guided me to what was next.
I also found that the "notes" for each page were helpful. This feature would be fantastic to use if you were discussing a novel in a class. "Sidenotes" are great ways to help clarify information for students and to add ideas to generate new discussions. Again, I must admit that at first I was a little hesitant and confused about the path and the notes, but once you get into the swing of it, it really is quite simple!
What I liked the most about this article, however, was that McEneaney seemed to look deeply into the pros and cons of web related learning. I appreciated his honesty about the internet having some downfalls. The ones that I particularly related to were problems with 1. access to the web, 2. locating relevant and quality material, and 3. lack of structure on the web.
Access to the Web: I always worry about integrating technology into my class because of the rather high number of students who do not have it. However, I was surprised to see that this was not what McEneaney was referring to at all. He feels that there is too much "overaccessibility", where it is too easy for students to move around the internet and lose focus. I can absolutely see that as a major problem......let's be honest, I am guilty of it myself!
Locating Relevant and Quality Material: We all know, as discussed in class on Tuesday, that students will read anything and believe anything, as along as it gives them some type of answer they think they are looking for!
Lack of Structure: Again, lets be honest, this lack of structure, with the overaccessibiltiy factor, can make using the web a MAJOR TIME CONSUMER.....and it is not always time well spent! I can only imagine how much work it must take to keep students on task and focused when they know they have access to so much that they want to explore (that has nothing to do with your class!)
In the end, I do feel that McEneaney believes that the use of the web to help students outweighs the "cons" of the internet. Allowing students to be interactive as they learn can only help them in the long run.
Week 4, Kinzer and Leander
As Lucien points out in his piece, there is some issue of dating in this article. I think that is the bane of research in matters of technology; it moves too fast for the research to be any good on it. One example that stands out a bit, even though it is from earlier in the article, is the bit about how much $500 dollars can get you: “As we write this, $500 will purchase a package including a 750 megahertz computer with a monitor, a CD-ROM drive, a 57k modem, a 60 megabyte hard drive and a basic printer” (Kinzer and Leander, 547). Given that this was written in 2003, I really hope that information is wrong, or that there is a type, at least with the hard drive size. Anyway, $500 dollars can get you a lot more than that.
The example with Tara is also rather interesting. For the sake of the article, they assume a student who has no idea about how to surf the web, and at least as far as the students I have worked with, even the ones without a computer at home, they are all much more advanced than she is – and again, you wonder about the dating and the resources the school has. Lots of school libraries have databases that the students could use, as well as normal web pages. Still, this was a rather hard working, inquisitive student – if only all of them were like her. She even felt guilty about being on a web page that would help her with her research! In this section they also mention the plagiarism problem, but like Lucien says, I also feel rather comfortable catching online plagiarism; a little googling of a phrase here and there and you can usually catch it. (On a side note, my previous school used Turn-it-in and I actually rather liked it. I had my students turn in their receipt with the paper. It seemed to be a very useful tool.)
So, the steps Tara has to take on her project that K&L discuss:
Information searching: K&L bring up several questions: “How might students be guided at the outset of a search?” (556) and offer some advice. They say that “often, students are not taught that the web employs two types of tools:...an information index ...[and] a search engine.” These two devices are very different, and provide different resources. The former is “an information index made up of lists of subjects with each subject divided into subcategories containing lists of web sites with their abstracts and addresses.” The results from search engines “return only sites that are relevant.” K&L do not provide any answers, but only suggest certain areas need to be researched: “In teaching students processes of searching, how can the goals of searching to facilitate true inquiry be left intact? How might some degree of scaffolding or oversimplification of processed for the sake of learning be achieved while nurturing students' desires to inquire about the world around them? (557).
Multimedia interpretation: In this section, they again bring up questions that need to be addressed: What should Tara do with the film clip? How should she interpret the picture with the text? What form of interpretation is most meaningful? What do you do with the different methods of navigation? Etc (557). Again, these are all good questions to ask, but also again I feel like they are rather rudimentary, and that at least for myself, most of my students are all set in these regards. If this were being written before any research at all is being done, then these are appropriate questions to ask, but in 2003?
Information evaluation: This part seems to be rather important as K&L talk about how to evaluate information. They say that “a significant amount of work on curriculum and pedagogy needs to be done to translate these preliminary resources into effective educational practice” (557), and this certainly makes sense – is the information accurate? Is really the bottom line question here, and how can we teach students to evaluate it. These methods exist in libraries and classrooms, but by the time students are there, they have probably already figured out their own means of assessment, and they could be wrong. How can we correct them? There is so much out there written by just about anybody who wants to and we have to teach students to separate fact from fiction from bias, etc. Kajder discusses this in her chapter.
Assessment of literacy in hypermedia environments: How do you assess students? Should Tara's reading of that one page be compared to another student's reading of the same page? New rubrics need to be created, argue K&L, and again I think this is a rather straight forward point. Any time there is a new assignment, or a new medium for an assignment, or anything new, for that matter, you need a new rubric. Rubrics are not static and should be constantly evolving anyway.
K&L have a discussion about the availability of computers and online access, and they break it down across economic levels, and at this point I think most of us are aware that some people in certain demographics are less likely to be online.
Overall, I think K&L do a decent job raising questions that we as teachers need to think about, but their article is strangely too dated - it almost felt like a mid 90's article, not something written in 2003 – to really provide us with something profound to think about. (I'm assuming it is from 2003 because that is the copyright date, is that wrong?) I'm not really left with any questions because I am not entirely sure I learned anything from this: should we be inquisitive about this information, as they suggest? I think the answer is an obvious yes, and that, at least for us, because we are already in this class, we already were inquisitive. They call for research on this information, and again, that should obviously be done; I would hate to be teaching, or using a teaching tool, that no one had researched the benefits, or lack there of, of. Should we be aware that students have different backgrounds and availability? I think, again, that we all have already addressed those differences that students have. Regardless of the medium, a good teacher is going to be cognizant of and act on those differences.
The example with Tara is also rather interesting. For the sake of the article, they assume a student who has no idea about how to surf the web, and at least as far as the students I have worked with, even the ones without a computer at home, they are all much more advanced than she is – and again, you wonder about the dating and the resources the school has. Lots of school libraries have databases that the students could use, as well as normal web pages. Still, this was a rather hard working, inquisitive student – if only all of them were like her. She even felt guilty about being on a web page that would help her with her research! In this section they also mention the plagiarism problem, but like Lucien says, I also feel rather comfortable catching online plagiarism; a little googling of a phrase here and there and you can usually catch it. (On a side note, my previous school used Turn-it-in and I actually rather liked it. I had my students turn in their receipt with the paper. It seemed to be a very useful tool.)
So, the steps Tara has to take on her project that K&L discuss:
Information searching: K&L bring up several questions: “How might students be guided at the outset of a search?” (556) and offer some advice. They say that “often, students are not taught that the web employs two types of tools:...an information index ...[and] a search engine.” These two devices are very different, and provide different resources. The former is “an information index made up of lists of subjects with each subject divided into subcategories containing lists of web sites with their abstracts and addresses.” The results from search engines “return only sites that are relevant.” K&L do not provide any answers, but only suggest certain areas need to be researched: “In teaching students processes of searching, how can the goals of searching to facilitate true inquiry be left intact? How might some degree of scaffolding or oversimplification of processed for the sake of learning be achieved while nurturing students' desires to inquire about the world around them? (557).
Multimedia interpretation: In this section, they again bring up questions that need to be addressed: What should Tara do with the film clip? How should she interpret the picture with the text? What form of interpretation is most meaningful? What do you do with the different methods of navigation? Etc (557). Again, these are all good questions to ask, but also again I feel like they are rather rudimentary, and that at least for myself, most of my students are all set in these regards. If this were being written before any research at all is being done, then these are appropriate questions to ask, but in 2003?
Information evaluation: This part seems to be rather important as K&L talk about how to evaluate information. They say that “a significant amount of work on curriculum and pedagogy needs to be done to translate these preliminary resources into effective educational practice” (557), and this certainly makes sense – is the information accurate? Is really the bottom line question here, and how can we teach students to evaluate it. These methods exist in libraries and classrooms, but by the time students are there, they have probably already figured out their own means of assessment, and they could be wrong. How can we correct them? There is so much out there written by just about anybody who wants to and we have to teach students to separate fact from fiction from bias, etc. Kajder discusses this in her chapter.
Assessment of literacy in hypermedia environments: How do you assess students? Should Tara's reading of that one page be compared to another student's reading of the same page? New rubrics need to be created, argue K&L, and again I think this is a rather straight forward point. Any time there is a new assignment, or a new medium for an assignment, or anything new, for that matter, you need a new rubric. Rubrics are not static and should be constantly evolving anyway.
K&L have a discussion about the availability of computers and online access, and they break it down across economic levels, and at this point I think most of us are aware that some people in certain demographics are less likely to be online.
Overall, I think K&L do a decent job raising questions that we as teachers need to think about, but their article is strangely too dated - it almost felt like a mid 90's article, not something written in 2003 – to really provide us with something profound to think about. (I'm assuming it is from 2003 because that is the copyright date, is that wrong?) I'm not really left with any questions because I am not entirely sure I learned anything from this: should we be inquisitive about this information, as they suggest? I think the answer is an obvious yes, and that, at least for us, because we are already in this class, we already were inquisitive. They call for research on this information, and again, that should obviously be done; I would hate to be teaching, or using a teaching tool, that no one had researched the benefits, or lack there of, of. Should we be aware that students have different backgrounds and availability? I think, again, that we all have already addressed those differences that students have. Regardless of the medium, a good teacher is going to be cognizant of and act on those differences.
Wednesday 20 June 2007
Week 4, Kajder, Chapter 5 on Information Literacy
Kajder stresses the importance of teaching strategies for finding, understanding, and dealing with the overwhelming amount of information – some accurate, much that is not – at students’ fingertips, via the Internet. She tells us she learned this, “the hard way” and shares a story about a shy girl in her eight grade class that opened a porn site by typing titanic.com into the browser. “I lost Carrie that day,” she writes, “Her confidence and willingness to share aloud in class was shattered by her embarrassment (pg. 49).” The story is cautionary and well taken. However, students are resilient, and my guess is that the rest of Carrie’s educational career was not destroyed by that one moment. Clearly the Internet is littered with such garbage, and stories like this have become commonplace; from observing students where I teach, many are now able to filter the vulgar garbage out (in a classroom context, anyway). The bigger issue at stake here, as Kajder goes on to suggest, is the one of finding information relevant to one’s research, and having confidence that the information is accurate.
I’m going to focus on two things Kadjer brings up in this chapter:
1) Internet Access – “The most recent federal research finds that more than 98% of
Kajder also notes that students “download study tools such as Cliffs Notes, Monarch Notes, and study guides (pg. 50). SparkNotes should be added to that list. SparkNotes was, I believe, originally created by Harvard students – here’s their self-description: “Created by Harvard students for students everywhere and geared to what today's students need to know…” and they also claim to “love teachers.” It is the most popular “study guide” being used by students at Xaverian (for English class). Some progressive thinking teachers may see SparkNotes as a legitimate study tool, as a friend (and they may have a point); but I see them as the enemy. They are free and easily accessible, and they do a very good job in breaking down – in an impersonal, generic fashion – themes, symbols, plot summaries, etc. In essence, they do all the thinking for the student. On page 61, Kajder cites a quote from Jim Burke’s The English Teacher’s Companion: “Internet thinking is not inherently reflective; it’s hard to think too much about where you are going when you are driving a hundred miles an hour as many do on the Internet.” SparkNotes contributes to this reckless driving.
2) Search Engines – To me, this section of Kajder’s chapter feels dated. The book was published in 2003, which means she was writing in 2002 – around five years ago. So I’ll throw this question out there – Is there really that much difference between search engines anymore? On pages 57 and 58, she describes a search she did on “Othello AND Shakespeare.” I tried this same search on google, dogpile, metacrawler, and yahoo – C4 looked shady, and profusion is out of business. The results were, more or less, the same each time: SparkNotes and Wikipedia listed in the top five, other less known study sites like enotes were pretty high up there, on two of searches an advertisement for boating equipment came up (?), and frankly, some of the sites on Shakespeare appeared a little dubious (shakespeare-literature.com). I had to sift through to find urls connected with a university (which, I know Kajder says those aren’t necessarily more accurate, but I’ll take mit.edu over a site where I have no clue who authored it).
So – students need to delve deeper when researching on the Internet. They need to be aware of the pitfalls and/or mirages that exist in the barrage of information flying on the screen before them.
One last idea – they need to know how to use the library. There’s no going back at this point – students will always use the Internet for research. One of the Internet’s great benefits when approached critically is its convenience.
But taking a class to the library is usually a positive initiative. Yes, it does require a lot of planning and coordinating, but it’s good for students to see that a library is not really confusing or intimidating – and information can be just as easily found there, you just have to walk around a little more. Internet and library research could complement each other well.
Sunday 17 June 2007
On Kajder Ch.8: Excitement and Caution
For the past two weeks, I’ve spent almost all of my course-related time experimenting with and envisioning using in the classroom all of these web-related tools. Ellie’s question on Chapter 8 from Kajder, “(C)ould you imagine using any of them with your students?”, gets me thinking that I’m cursed with being able to imagine everything. Every tool we’ve looked at, from wikis to webquests, I’ve thought about applying to both the freshman and senior English classes I’ll have next year. Two weeks ago, with wikis and blogs, I forsook almost all of my discussion board time playing around with these two tools.
This week, more tools to think about and explore, and I again used the time meant for constructing an initial response for the discussion board in order to take a virtual tour through the Dickens museum and play around with The Catcher in the Rye webquests. Everything goes on the list of things to set up this summer for use in the fall, but realistically, I’ll wait until the end of the course to make a short list of things I’d certainly like to get in next year. Here’s what such a list might look like. For the use of emails, I’d like to arrange collective class email lists for sending weekly assignment sheets (and do away with paper?). Discussion board—this is a very exciting idea for an evening homework assignment and an opportunity to see what kind of discussion about literature comes about. I used Kajder’s advice and played around with QuickTopic.com to see that it was very easy to set up a board. With webquests and virtual museums and field trips also piquing my interest, I surfed around to see all sorts of sites already available. The wiki, or a new website (we haven’t gotten that far yet), and I do see a place for blogs, too, although I can’t yet distinguish a blog from a discussion board. In addition to already being dedicated to beginning to receive some papers electronically—and responding to them so—there’s plenty electronic stuff on my plate for next year.
So, yes, these are exciting ideas and tools on my horizon that no doubt may yield important results for students also, but I also can’t help but think that there is still so much of the more traditional tools that, if I improve on them, will yield equally important results. I think it’s fair to ask, just how substantial, fundamental, are these technological innovations in the classroom? For me, literature is still about a person with the book, and teaching it is still about providing ways for students to have an experience with a book and its characters, creating forums for students to struggle with and wonder about the decisions that characters make. Technological tools can advance these goals, sure, but some very dynamic traditional classroom discussions can come from the right question being asked with the right discussion format. And writing, too—still about this solitary activity of being alone with a pen (okay, the keyboard—but still solitary), and teaching writing—academic writing, really—is still about emphasizing unity, clarity, and voice. Does this writing experience change with electronic responses over handwritten ones? Kajder’s recommended question for the teacher near the beginning of the chapter—“ask whether a tool enables students to do something they couldn’t do before, or could do before but now do it better” (98)—is the right one to ask. I’m inclined to say that the only way to know is to try it and see what happens.
I am excited about these different tools, perhaps, selfishly, more for the newness it offers to my own school day than for the certainty that these tools will advance students further than they would be if they remained in those dark ages of the neatly bound novel, some lined paper, and just their thoughts, mouths, and a pen to use for exploring.
This week, more tools to think about and explore, and I again used the time meant for constructing an initial response for the discussion board in order to take a virtual tour through the Dickens museum and play around with The Catcher in the Rye webquests. Everything goes on the list of things to set up this summer for use in the fall, but realistically, I’ll wait until the end of the course to make a short list of things I’d certainly like to get in next year. Here’s what such a list might look like. For the use of emails, I’d like to arrange collective class email lists for sending weekly assignment sheets (and do away with paper?). Discussion board—this is a very exciting idea for an evening homework assignment and an opportunity to see what kind of discussion about literature comes about. I used Kajder’s advice and played around with QuickTopic.com to see that it was very easy to set up a board. With webquests and virtual museums and field trips also piquing my interest, I surfed around to see all sorts of sites already available. The wiki, or a new website (we haven’t gotten that far yet), and I do see a place for blogs, too, although I can’t yet distinguish a blog from a discussion board. In addition to already being dedicated to beginning to receive some papers electronically—and responding to them so—there’s plenty electronic stuff on my plate for next year.
So, yes, these are exciting ideas and tools on my horizon that no doubt may yield important results for students also, but I also can’t help but think that there is still so much of the more traditional tools that, if I improve on them, will yield equally important results. I think it’s fair to ask, just how substantial, fundamental, are these technological innovations in the classroom? For me, literature is still about a person with the book, and teaching it is still about providing ways for students to have an experience with a book and its characters, creating forums for students to struggle with and wonder about the decisions that characters make. Technological tools can advance these goals, sure, but some very dynamic traditional classroom discussions can come from the right question being asked with the right discussion format. And writing, too—still about this solitary activity of being alone with a pen (okay, the keyboard—but still solitary), and teaching writing—academic writing, really—is still about emphasizing unity, clarity, and voice. Does this writing experience change with electronic responses over handwritten ones? Kajder’s recommended question for the teacher near the beginning of the chapter—“ask whether a tool enables students to do something they couldn’t do before, or could do before but now do it better” (98)—is the right one to ask. I’m inclined to say that the only way to know is to try it and see what happens.
I am excited about these different tools, perhaps, selfishly, more for the newness it offers to my own school day than for the certainty that these tools will advance students further than they would be if they remained in those dark ages of the neatly bound novel, some lined paper, and just their thoughts, mouths, and a pen to use for exploring.
On the topic of "discussing"
Despite my criticism of Krause in my previous posting, I am going to add that I completely see his point that blogs do not foster discussion (as compared to electronic mailing lists). I have to force myself to post this text with which I am uncomfortable, because it is short and only makes a passing comment, rather than analyzing a text. I am doing this to “attempt” the discussion mode which I was able to engage in the previous 2 weeks. Nevertheless, I think that the awkward look this will have on the thread of postings in this blog supports Krause’s point. Also, the steps that have to be taken to read from the first to the latest posting is counterintuitive and (I think) discourages dialogue: to follow the order of the posts, we must read from the bottom up and from the back forward (“older posts” to “newer posts”), and then we must again scroll down to get to the next page (because the top of the page does not offer the option to go to a newer page)—all of this in order to follow and enter into the discussion. Another hindrance is that it is necessary to read every single post (and remember what each one says) in order to see if there is a discussion at all—that is, if there is anyone “responding” to anyone else. For me, reading a list of often disconnected texts on different articles (of course, with a common theme), does not encourage responding to anyone. Rather, I am inclined to continue posting my own individual contribution. What I have read (and written) so far really does not feel like a discussion to me. Thus, despite my earlier disparaging of his article for other reasons, I agree with Krause that this medium lends itself more to “publishing” rather than interactive discussion.
Classroom communities & how to best use a wiki
I liked the idea that Kadjer presented in Chapter 8 about the communities that can be formed through the internet. It seems such a simple idea - use what the kids are already using to promote their academic growth! Wow! So, simple, yet I've never done it. She says that "we strive to create meaningful spaces for student learning," which is absolutely right, but I think I've been trying too hard (98). The wikis and blogs that we've experimented with this week have planted a seed in my head of the possibilities that can arise using the internet. She refers specifically to email in the beginning of her chapter. "E-mail is appealing to students (and teachers) because of its speed, efficiency, ubiquity, and accessibility" (99). Although I personally love the speed of the internet, I still feel that it takes away some of the interpersonal connection that an in class discussion has. Yet, using these programs only reminds me that my students communicate in this form daily. Many of them text each other frequently instead of calling each other (something I hate when people do to me - for example sending me an invitation to go out as a text message instead of calling me directly!). Although I may think that it's impersonal, my students don't. My class needs to be interesting for them, not necessarily for me. If this will keep them engaged then this is what I need to include in my class to be a successful teacher. Which brings me to my reactions to "When Blogging Goes Bad: A Cautionary Tale About Blogs, Email Lists, Discussion, and Interaction". Krause begins by quoting that " "Content Delivery in the 'Blogosphere,'" Richard E. Ferdig and Kaye D. Trammell claim that the benefits of blogs in classrooms include giving students a "legitimate" space to participate in discussions and to share diverse perspectives with readers in and outside of the classroom," - my own initial reaction to what blogging could promote in a classroom. Yet, Krause's article also seems very reasonable. He talks about people feeling disengaged, lack of a dynamic, and lack of participation. I appreciated this article because of its honesty. It presented many of the concerns that I have had in the previous weeks but it also leads me to think that the use of blogs and wikis in a class have their place, as long as they are only a small portion of the class. For example, the professor who came to our lab last week (and I apologize for not referring to her by name), I think had a successful experience with her wiki project because it was simply a project that the class did to help their grade, not a substantial part of the course. If the class really reacts well to the project, then there could be a possibility of expanding its use. Yet, I think the idea behind including these programs in class should be to attempt to talk outside of class, to expand thier use of technology, to add another dynamic to the class, and to provide for mulitple communciation levels. What do you think?
When Blogging Goes Bad
After much frustration, I have now managed to post on the google group and also on the class blog(twice by mistake...does anyone know how to delete?). Despite this, because of my discomfort with blogs, I still feel like an outsider in this discussion (see my previous posting on Kajder chapter 4 & 8). Therefore, I think it appropriate to discuss Steven Krause’s “When Blogging Goes Bad: a Cautionary Tale About Blogs, Email Lists, Discussion, and Interaction.” In case someone hasn’t read it, the gist of it is that Krause asserts that, for the purposes of teaching writing, blogs are a forum for “publishing,” while email mailing lists are a means of “communication.” Krause analyzes the reasons for the failure of an “experiment” with blogs in his advanced writing class: “There was very little writing that could be described as reflective, dynamic, collaborative, or interactive...almost no exchange or conversation...it wasn’t even clear if the students were reading other posts. Individuals made their posts in an erratic and inconsistent manner, and they moved on.” (5) In his essay, Krause makes the case that despite the shortcomings in his own assignment, a good part of the reason for its failure was the decision to use blogs rather than email as a site for discussion. Along the way, he makes a series of statements, which I’d like to explore as a student of writing also attempting to use blogs for a class.
Krause purposely gives few prompts or direction as to what should go on his class blog, or how much each student should contribute. His intention is to create a space for spontaneous intellectual interaction, “where [his] students would simply just want to write.” The students’ failure to “want to write” disappoints Krause and, despite his reflection on the objective reasons and his understanding that his own lack of structure for this assignment was greatly to blame, he still feels disappointed by the fact that, when given the opportunity to write without restrictions, advanced students of writing do not use that opportunity.
Krause attributes his disappointment to the “idealistic” misconception of much writing theory, which claims that “writing teachers ought to focus on fostering and nurturing an atmosphere where...students can write not because they are being required to do so by some sort of ‘teacherly’ assignment, but because they want to write.” (5) Krause concludes that students are never going to want to write about anything without “a reason—and generally a personal reason.” (6) I will take the chance that my comment on all of this might seem self-evident or off-topic. Krause’s view of students strikes me as reductive. One basic fact which Krause neglects to mention is that posting on blogs (or anywhere, for that matter) involves a great deal of work. From his description of his class requirements, it would seem he expected students to hold this online discussion in addition to the regular work of his course. He does not seem to have incorporated this new form of writing in his own syllabus.
I think that one of the dangers of incorporating computer technology into our teaching is that, often, it is added to the traditional print work, not instead of some of the other class requirements. Because some people often spend a great deal of time on their computers doing personal tasks (emailing, blogging, surfing, etc.), it is easy to equate these online writing forums to relaxed, stress-free activities, when, in fact, the personal tasks to which people devote their time are recreational. It is the nature of the task, not the medium, which promotes free and, often, exploratory communication, such as that which Krause hoped for. In reality, students are aware that they are students when they are doing any communication for a class (blogs, email, or paper and pencil). There might not be any forum in which students can feel that class-related work is recreational. In contrast with Krause’s implications, I do not think this means that student writers do not become truly interested, even invested, in what they write. This does not mean that students will not reflect and discuss on paper or online in the way Krause envisioned. It does mean, however, that students are aware that there is a teacher expectation—the proof is in Krause’s disappointment, which was great enough to write about in an article, stating that he had hoped that his students would take the opportunity to write without being obligated because they were “grown-ups.” (5) It is hard to think of more condemning judgment than that.
Perhaps Krause has a point when he argues that “email posts to mailing lists are drafts or works in progress, and more often than not, they demand a literal response....and that [b]log posts are more finished...and while readers might ‘respond’ in some sort of metaphoric way, they are not as likely to write a direct response to the writer.” (9) In fact, if we can forget my inability with blogs, I have posted single, non-conversational texts this week myself, just as Krause suggests this medium encourages. So, Krause’s theory might hold some truth. However, I think his analysis of the failure of this technology in the classroom leaves out something that all teachers need to consider when incorporating technology into their teaching: class work is just that, work for a class. It can lead to rich and fruitful dialogue and reflection, but students will (and should) always be aware that it has standards by which to abide.
In her chapter on “Creating Community,” when discussing online discussion, precisely what Krause wanted his students to engage in, Kajder talks about the “clear dividing line between [her] professional and personal worlds,” and how she expects, and takes measures to ensure, the same from her students. I think teachers need to hold the same understanding when thinking of the purposes for class writing in contrast with those for personal writing. I believe the reason for the failure of Krause’s experiment lies in the fact that he believed the technology he was incorporating (blogs) would change the nature of the work the students were doing—so that they would “simply just want to write.” Because they were graduate students, and adults, he seemed to expect them to write as if his were not a class, a graduation requirement, one that they probably took concurrently with others, perhaps in addition to working and/or taking care of their families. The fact is that there are concrete reasons why his students weren’t going to want to “‘just want to write’ in a blog space (or anywhere else, for that matter, just because they were given the opportunity.” (5-6)
When referring to high school students, Kajder makes a very important point in relation to the use of online discussion tools: “It’s [giving an assignment] only different online insofar as it asks us to think and respond in a different medium... [i]t’s easy for the teachers to think that the technology itself will lead students to high-level thinking. Not true.” (103) Kajder’s point on higher level thinking in high school students, applies to Krause’s situation in that the medium will not change the fact that the discussion is part of a class, to be read by members or that class, including a professor.
At the time of writing his text, Krause planned to use blogs in a graduate class the following semester, hoping that the students would “come to see their class blog space as a useful research and prewriting tool.” I hope he was successful, but I can’t help but think that, again, he was overlooking the fact that posting writing on a blog, would not make it any less of a required assignment. As a graduate student, I would, personally, not present all of my prewriting and research writing for class or instructor reading. Instead, I would consider the expectation to post on a blog another class assignment, in addition, to my research and authentic prewriting work (to be re-worked over and over again before posting), making the blog an added assignment in my eyes.
Krause purposely gives few prompts or direction as to what should go on his class blog, or how much each student should contribute. His intention is to create a space for spontaneous intellectual interaction, “where [his] students would simply just want to write.” The students’ failure to “want to write” disappoints Krause and, despite his reflection on the objective reasons and his understanding that his own lack of structure for this assignment was greatly to blame, he still feels disappointed by the fact that, when given the opportunity to write without restrictions, advanced students of writing do not use that opportunity.
Krause attributes his disappointment to the “idealistic” misconception of much writing theory, which claims that “writing teachers ought to focus on fostering and nurturing an atmosphere where...students can write not because they are being required to do so by some sort of ‘teacherly’ assignment, but because they want to write.” (5) Krause concludes that students are never going to want to write about anything without “a reason—and generally a personal reason.” (6) I will take the chance that my comment on all of this might seem self-evident or off-topic. Krause’s view of students strikes me as reductive. One basic fact which Krause neglects to mention is that posting on blogs (or anywhere, for that matter) involves a great deal of work. From his description of his class requirements, it would seem he expected students to hold this online discussion in addition to the regular work of his course. He does not seem to have incorporated this new form of writing in his own syllabus.
I think that one of the dangers of incorporating computer technology into our teaching is that, often, it is added to the traditional print work, not instead of some of the other class requirements. Because some people often spend a great deal of time on their computers doing personal tasks (emailing, blogging, surfing, etc.), it is easy to equate these online writing forums to relaxed, stress-free activities, when, in fact, the personal tasks to which people devote their time are recreational. It is the nature of the task, not the medium, which promotes free and, often, exploratory communication, such as that which Krause hoped for. In reality, students are aware that they are students when they are doing any communication for a class (blogs, email, or paper and pencil). There might not be any forum in which students can feel that class-related work is recreational. In contrast with Krause’s implications, I do not think this means that student writers do not become truly interested, even invested, in what they write. This does not mean that students will not reflect and discuss on paper or online in the way Krause envisioned. It does mean, however, that students are aware that there is a teacher expectation—the proof is in Krause’s disappointment, which was great enough to write about in an article, stating that he had hoped that his students would take the opportunity to write without being obligated because they were “grown-ups.” (5) It is hard to think of more condemning judgment than that.
Perhaps Krause has a point when he argues that “email posts to mailing lists are drafts or works in progress, and more often than not, they demand a literal response....and that [b]log posts are more finished...and while readers might ‘respond’ in some sort of metaphoric way, they are not as likely to write a direct response to the writer.” (9) In fact, if we can forget my inability with blogs, I have posted single, non-conversational texts this week myself, just as Krause suggests this medium encourages. So, Krause’s theory might hold some truth. However, I think his analysis of the failure of this technology in the classroom leaves out something that all teachers need to consider when incorporating technology into their teaching: class work is just that, work for a class. It can lead to rich and fruitful dialogue and reflection, but students will (and should) always be aware that it has standards by which to abide.
In her chapter on “Creating Community,” when discussing online discussion, precisely what Krause wanted his students to engage in, Kajder talks about the “clear dividing line between [her] professional and personal worlds,” and how she expects, and takes measures to ensure, the same from her students. I think teachers need to hold the same understanding when thinking of the purposes for class writing in contrast with those for personal writing. I believe the reason for the failure of Krause’s experiment lies in the fact that he believed the technology he was incorporating (blogs) would change the nature of the work the students were doing—so that they would “simply just want to write.” Because they were graduate students, and adults, he seemed to expect them to write as if his were not a class, a graduation requirement, one that they probably took concurrently with others, perhaps in addition to working and/or taking care of their families. The fact is that there are concrete reasons why his students weren’t going to want to “‘just want to write’ in a blog space (or anywhere else, for that matter, just because they were given the opportunity.” (5-6)
When referring to high school students, Kajder makes a very important point in relation to the use of online discussion tools: “It’s [giving an assignment] only different online insofar as it asks us to think and respond in a different medium... [i]t’s easy for the teachers to think that the technology itself will lead students to high-level thinking. Not true.” (103) Kajder’s point on higher level thinking in high school students, applies to Krause’s situation in that the medium will not change the fact that the discussion is part of a class, to be read by members or that class, including a professor.
At the time of writing his text, Krause planned to use blogs in a graduate class the following semester, hoping that the students would “come to see their class blog space as a useful research and prewriting tool.” I hope he was successful, but I can’t help but think that, again, he was overlooking the fact that posting writing on a blog, would not make it any less of a required assignment. As a graduate student, I would, personally, not present all of my prewriting and research writing for class or instructor reading. Instead, I would consider the expectation to post on a blog another class assignment, in addition, to my research and authentic prewriting work (to be re-worked over and over again before posting), making the blog an added assignment in my eyes.
Thoughts on Blogging and Wikis
Thoughts on Blogging and Wikis
First, I’ll start with the genre that interested me least- the wiki. I read “Making the Case for a Wiki,” and I have to say that it really didn’t persuade me to start using it as a tool in my classroom. I have to say that I did go into reading the article with a bias, my only experience with a wiki being Wikipedia, which I feel is an unreliable source. I hate it when my students use that as a reference (even when I tell them not to), but I know that when they type something into Google or whatever, that Wikipedia entries are one of the first things to pop up. They don’t understand that they could create or edit an entry, or that they could be getting their information from someone who really knows very little about the subject, or has posted incorrect information.
But to get off of my own personal feelings about wikis, and onto the article, I think it actually reinforced my issues with wikis. Reading about the “edit wars” that take place over controversial issues only confirmed to me that there are serious issues with wikis— as far as I know, no one can delete your blog, or change your words. I suppose if the wiki had a page locking system as Tonkin suggests, then it would improve the authenticity of the wiki, and a reader could see the natural flow and progression of an idea as it is shaped. I do think the “mapping” that can take place with a wiki could be useful as well, but overall I don’t think that I will be using wikis in my classroom.
On a more positive note, I do think that blogging could be something I utilize in my teaching. I read both ”When Blogging Goes Bad…” and “New Jersery High School Learns the ABCs of Blogging,” and they both started to get the ball rolling in terms of what I could do with my students next year. I think that Krause’s story was really helpful in that he modeled what not to do, and I was able to pick up some pointers for blogging with my students. I think his biggest mistake was that the assignments and expectations were not clear to the students, and I believe he knows that. That is one thing I learned very early on in teaching— you have to spell it all out for them, or else you’ll be disappointed in the results. He also assumed that because the students were graduate students, they would be more internally motivated to do work voluntarily— well, we all know what happens when you assume. When I do use blogging in my classroom, I now know I need to be very clear about the expectations— what I want posted, how frequently, responding to the postings of other students etc.
So even though his article was about blogging gone awry, it was still very helpful to me. The article about the New Jersey high school was pretty simplistic, a cheerleader of sorts for blogging— since I read it after Krause’s article there wasn’t anything terribly new or informational about it. It was simply an example of an effective way to use blogging in your classroom that echoed what Kajder said in Chapter 8, and is an example to follow. I would have liked to hear more about how the teacher set it up, student opinions, assignments (i.e. what the study guide assignment looked like), how he got the students motivated etc. I think he could have done a lot more with that article.
First, I’ll start with the genre that interested me least- the wiki. I read “Making the Case for a Wiki,” and I have to say that it really didn’t persuade me to start using it as a tool in my classroom. I have to say that I did go into reading the article with a bias, my only experience with a wiki being Wikipedia, which I feel is an unreliable source. I hate it when my students use that as a reference (even when I tell them not to), but I know that when they type something into Google or whatever, that Wikipedia entries are one of the first things to pop up. They don’t understand that they could create or edit an entry, or that they could be getting their information from someone who really knows very little about the subject, or has posted incorrect information.
But to get off of my own personal feelings about wikis, and onto the article, I think it actually reinforced my issues with wikis. Reading about the “edit wars” that take place over controversial issues only confirmed to me that there are serious issues with wikis— as far as I know, no one can delete your blog, or change your words. I suppose if the wiki had a page locking system as Tonkin suggests, then it would improve the authenticity of the wiki, and a reader could see the natural flow and progression of an idea as it is shaped. I do think the “mapping” that can take place with a wiki could be useful as well, but overall I don’t think that I will be using wikis in my classroom.
On a more positive note, I do think that blogging could be something I utilize in my teaching. I read both ”When Blogging Goes Bad…” and “New Jersery High School Learns the ABCs of Blogging,” and they both started to get the ball rolling in terms of what I could do with my students next year. I think that Krause’s story was really helpful in that he modeled what not to do, and I was able to pick up some pointers for blogging with my students. I think his biggest mistake was that the assignments and expectations were not clear to the students, and I believe he knows that. That is one thing I learned very early on in teaching— you have to spell it all out for them, or else you’ll be disappointed in the results. He also assumed that because the students were graduate students, they would be more internally motivated to do work voluntarily— well, we all know what happens when you assume. When I do use blogging in my classroom, I now know I need to be very clear about the expectations— what I want posted, how frequently, responding to the postings of other students etc.
So even though his article was about blogging gone awry, it was still very helpful to me. The article about the New Jersey high school was pretty simplistic, a cheerleader of sorts for blogging— since I read it after Krause’s article there wasn’t anything terribly new or informational about it. It was simply an example of an effective way to use blogging in your classroom that echoed what Kajder said in Chapter 8, and is an example to follow. I would have liked to hear more about how the teacher set it up, student opinions, assignments (i.e. what the study guide assignment looked like), how he got the students motivated etc. I think he could have done a lot more with that article.
Saturday 16 June 2007
Some criticism of K&L and a blogging idea
As I type this, my spellcheck keeps finding blog and its derivatives as misspelled words. It feels great to be ahead of the spellcheck curve and continues to validate my belief that my students should be able to spell despite the existence of such tools. Anyway, Knobel and Lankshear make a decent point about the power dynamics of blogging, but it seems relatively obvious to me. Blogging, like any other form of media, will have an unequal distribution of popularity and I don’t think anyone should be surprised. I also don’t think it should taint the medium in any way. While the blogosphere itself may not be very democratic, its existence is. That is, bloggers who have been denied access in more traditional mediums have found an audience or ways of amplifying their voices. There might be gatekeepers when it comes to success or popularity, but at least they aren’t named Rupert Murdoch. In the classroom, any student can create and develop a blog. The same cannot be said for a book or newspaper. I guess one point I’m most intrigued with in this whole technology discussion is the access students have to creating media. A student with some time, tech savvy, and resources (whether through school or a middle-class family’s income) can make his/her own CD, DVD, podcast, online radio station, etc. It’s entirely possible and likely that no one will notice or care, but the restrictions on such enterprises used to be more material things like access to a studio or studio time. Now the limits on success have much more to do with finding an audience. Of course, even if a blog has no audience, a studio is not going to shut it down
In some ways I feel like I’m back at square one and Kajder’s mantra about the right tools for the right purpose keeps echoing. I think blogs are great; there are several I read regularly (and
Blogging seems well-suited to documenting a process of some sort. In the film class at my school each film crew was required to blog about their progress (http://whsfilmfestival.com/Walpole%20High%20School%20Film%20Festival/Blog%20Main%20Page.html) as they went along. It was a new idea this year and in my evaluation had only limited success. The idea is a strong one, and the potential is there for students to blog about their film influences, post short clips of their work writing, filming, and editing, write about and comment on problems, etc.
A more universally practical idea is using a blog as a companion to a long-term project like a research paper. Students could document process work, which would utilize the blog’s chronological format, try using the blog to test ideas, connections, and so on, and get feedback from other students in the comments section. Students could link to or review other resources for whatever their topic is as well. I think this idea is feasible and could pay real dividends in the students’ work. It could give students another reason to be invested in their project, force them to try out and write about some different ideas before they go into the paper, and allow them to see others’ process.
That’s the closest I can get to satisfying the two most intimidating conditions K&L have; purpose and well-defined point of view. The point of view is something I believe students could really start to develop through blogging. I’m not sure these blogs would hold much interest to people outside the school, but I’m also not convinced they need to.
That’s what I have so far. Happy blogging!
Friday 15 June 2007
Blogging In the HS English Classroom...
...Can it be done? I am really interested in using a class blog for my 12th grade writing class next year. I knew coming into this class that I wanted to incorporate technology into my syllabus. I knew that this 12th grade class would be my guinea pig. And when I got to play with blogs, I thought I knew that this was how I would integrate technology.
Let me rewind. I tried the wiki. I hated it. I tried the blog. I liked it. I got excited and immediately decided that this would be my technological integration. Then I read Kajder Chapter 8 and Knoble and Lankshear's article. I am a little less excited and a little more apprehensice about using a weblog in my classroom.
At the beginning of Kajder's Chapter 8, she states, "We ask whether a tool enables students to do something they couldn't do before, or could do before but now do it better. Only if the answer is yes do we reinvent...Time and learning are too precious to force-fit a technology tool into a lesson or activity if it won't lead to that rigorous, deep experience we are looking to construct" (Kajder 98). This statement, along with the fact that she does not include weblogging in this chapter on "Creating a Community," placed a bit of fear/anxiety in my heart about using a blog in my classroom. It caused me to think about why exactly I was considering a blog. Is it because it is new and exciting and different from my usual teaching strategies? Is it just a fad that seems like a good idea now, but that will get old as soon as I encounter some difficulties? Or could I actually manage to use a blog in my classroom in an efficient and interesting manner that both engages my students and causes them to think about English class and our topics in a different way? I, unfortunately, do not have the answer for this at this time. My zeal for blog usage in the classroom reminds me of a year when I started each class with a journal - they were going to write in it every Friday and I was going to read them all (100 or so) every weekend and write thoughtful comments. This lasted around two months. The comments became less and less thoughtful, and the entries less and less frequent. I don't want this to happen with blogging - if it is blogging that I choose to incorporate.
So, a little apprehensive and questioning my motivation for blog usage, I decided to read Knobel and Lankshear's article. This did not reassure me! Most of this article is about personal blogging. I enjoyed this but questioned what it had to do with use in the classroom. Then I came to the connection...or lack thereof. "Many student posts to school-endored blogs look more like being compulsory requirements and/or linked to student grades for the course rather than artifacts born of intrinsic interest" (88). They write this like it is a bad thing...but most of what I do in my classroom, especially with low level students, i s compulsory. Even with this blog entry...would I be entering it if it were not for the grade...I hate to admit it, but probably not. It's not that I do't like blogging. It's more that this isn't exactly the "stuff" that I would be blogging about if I had the choice. So...I am my students. Is it right of me to then force them to enter blogs discussing topics they might not necessarily be interested in discussing?
I think it is. Why not? Blogging is a form of discussion, right? I disagree with Knobel and Lankshear...so what if a blog seems compulsory. I compel my students to think everyday. They resist, I compel. By the end, some of them don't even need me to compel them!
I think that blogging in the classroom can develop into a thoughtful and useful element in a student's learning. Sure, at the beginning, they may resist. They may not. I may fail with my guinea pigs...but I can try it again with a new set the next semester (although if it fails twice I may relinquish my steadfast hold to blogging). I do think that it would be a disservice to not try to incorporate blogging in my classroom, despite Kajder's lack of discussion concerning this type of web community and Knobel and Lankshear's warnings concerning the crossover into the classroom. I think weblogging can become a useful tool in the classroom...just look at all of these fantastic blogs!
Let me rewind. I tried the wiki. I hated it. I tried the blog. I liked it. I got excited and immediately decided that this would be my technological integration. Then I read Kajder Chapter 8 and Knoble and Lankshear's article. I am a little less excited and a little more apprehensice about using a weblog in my classroom.
At the beginning of Kajder's Chapter 8, she states, "We ask whether a tool enables students to do something they couldn't do before, or could do before but now do it better. Only if the answer is yes do we reinvent...Time and learning are too precious to force-fit a technology tool into a lesson or activity if it won't lead to that rigorous, deep experience we are looking to construct" (Kajder 98). This statement, along with the fact that she does not include weblogging in this chapter on "Creating a Community," placed a bit of fear/anxiety in my heart about using a blog in my classroom. It caused me to think about why exactly I was considering a blog. Is it because it is new and exciting and different from my usual teaching strategies? Is it just a fad that seems like a good idea now, but that will get old as soon as I encounter some difficulties? Or could I actually manage to use a blog in my classroom in an efficient and interesting manner that both engages my students and causes them to think about English class and our topics in a different way? I, unfortunately, do not have the answer for this at this time. My zeal for blog usage in the classroom reminds me of a year when I started each class with a journal - they were going to write in it every Friday and I was going to read them all (100 or so) every weekend and write thoughtful comments. This lasted around two months. The comments became less and less thoughtful, and the entries less and less frequent. I don't want this to happen with blogging - if it is blogging that I choose to incorporate.
So, a little apprehensive and questioning my motivation for blog usage, I decided to read Knobel and Lankshear's article. This did not reassure me! Most of this article is about personal blogging. I enjoyed this but questioned what it had to do with use in the classroom. Then I came to the connection...or lack thereof. "Many student posts to school-endored blogs look more like being compulsory requirements and/or linked to student grades for the course rather than artifacts born of intrinsic interest" (88). They write this like it is a bad thing...but most of what I do in my classroom, especially with low level students, i s compulsory. Even with this blog entry...would I be entering it if it were not for the grade...I hate to admit it, but probably not. It's not that I do't like blogging. It's more that this isn't exactly the "stuff" that I would be blogging about if I had the choice. So...I am my students. Is it right of me to then force them to enter blogs discussing topics they might not necessarily be interested in discussing?
I think it is. Why not? Blogging is a form of discussion, right? I disagree with Knobel and Lankshear...so what if a blog seems compulsory. I compel my students to think everyday. They resist, I compel. By the end, some of them don't even need me to compel them!
I think that blogging in the classroom can develop into a thoughtful and useful element in a student's learning. Sure, at the beginning, they may resist. They may not. I may fail with my guinea pigs...but I can try it again with a new set the next semester (although if it fails twice I may relinquish my steadfast hold to blogging). I do think that it would be a disservice to not try to incorporate blogging in my classroom, despite Kajder's lack of discussion concerning this type of web community and Knobel and Lankshear's warnings concerning the crossover into the classroom. I think weblogging can become a useful tool in the classroom...just look at all of these fantastic blogs!
Reflections on discussion boards and communities-Kajder ch. 4 & 8
6/14/07
I think that in order to teach with technology, it is essential to experience what it is like on the other end, “learning with technology.” In that sense, I think that the idea of offering this class partly on-line is valuable, because it reveals what happens to the student once the assignment has been “given” and the student is at home (or wherever) trying to complete it. Therefore, although I set out an hour ago to respond to complete assignments and respond to prompts, I have instead decided to reflect on the process that I am going through as a student “learning” with technology.
The technology introduced this week is completely foreign to me. I have never used blogs, discussion boards, or wikis. Since our introductory class on these tools, I have gotten several emails from different blogs and from a “googlegroup.” I don’t know what to do with each of these. They don’t contain any (understandable) message or instructions in the body of the email, just (multiple) links. Once I click on these, I am asked to sign in and I am shown a list of people (some of whose names I don’t recognize because they are enigmatic email addresses), or several blogs (2 of which are mine, because I accidentally set 2 up and don’t know how to delet one). I click once again and I am taken to blank spaces profiles or blogs (Are other people having as hard a time as I am, or have they just written somewhere else?). I wish I had some phone numbers—I am desperate for a human voice to bombard with questions, anxiety, and frustration.
All of this clicking back and forth takes away not only precious time, but my confidence in my ability to use this technology. Then I am left deflated, confused, and feeling like I don’t have anything productive to respond or contribute on how this technology can be used benefially. This week, as a student, I feel completely “unbenefitted.”
In contrast, the two previous weeks, I felt emboldened and encouraged to find ways to introduce computer technology into future teaching. I participated quite a bit in the discussion board on WebCT and on the UMB Lit and Writing website. After those two weeks of relative success, when reading Kajder’s Chapter 8 for our class last Tuesday, I underlined with enthusiasm, “The twist that technology provides is to amplify our resources, allowing students to dialogue and collaborate with writers, thinkers, students, and communities across the globe in real-time interactions.” (98) The benefit in this is so self-evident, that all I could do was underline it with an exclamation point on the side. Yes, of course, it is wonderful to be able to collaborate with other writers. These two weeks of on-line discussions had proved it (and that is without even introducing anyone outside our course into the conversation). Although they lacked the immediacy of face-to-face contact, the written discussions on those sites offered the opportunity for a more reflective dialogue, one in which I had time to review material, re-read the previous postings, and call on authors I recalled from outside this course.
The other excerpt which struck me was that making contributions through computer technology “allows [students] to communicate their ideas, no matter how shy they might be.” (100) To this, I would like to add that it not only allows them to do so, it FORCES them to do so. I find this important when working at the high school level, where so many students feel they can keep quiet and stay under the radar: these students often do long-term written assignments and homework, but are not willing to view the classroom as a learning community, to which all members contribute while they are there. In contrast with these silent students, there are also commonly students who believe that if they simply talk (regardless of the relevance or thought exhibited in the contribution), this counts as participating in class. In her section on discussion tools in Chapter 4, Kajder states that they “establish a low-stakes entry point for those students who might traditionally be reluctant to enter into a whole-class discussion.” (37) This reiterates the idea that students who are traditionally silent now have a forum from which to participate without the looks and immediate reaction of their peers or their teacher, either because these are inimidatin to them or because they are uninterested. On the other hand, a different angle to Kajder’s low-stakes assertion is that it creates a specific entry point with topics, and prompts or questions. Students are forced to dialogue ABOUT THE TOPIC. The fact that their comment is in writing gives them both the opportunity to reflect on what they want to say, and the obligation to make their contribution meaningful and relevant, one that continues the conversation.
So, how does this description of my previous enthusiasm for discussion boards connect to my deflatedness with blogs and googlegroup emails this week? Perhaps it has to do with discourse communities: I’ve never been on a blog or a member of one of these email groups, and this week’s tasks don’t call on any of the skills I master in one of the discourse communities I belong to. Instead, I am an outsider to this discourse community—there is too much shared knowledge I don’t possess. I find it useful to reflect on why I am feeling discouraged this week, resisting the temptation to turn off the computer, and trying to translate this experience into something I will use in my teaching. When talking about online communities, Kajder points out that “we [teachers] need to get the initial community built.” (102) I now relate this to discourse communities—these need to be established or taught as well. Thinking of the use of technology in the classroom as a task of building a discourse community will help me as I teach with technology.
I think that in order to teach with technology, it is essential to experience what it is like on the other end, “learning with technology.” In that sense, I think that the idea of offering this class partly on-line is valuable, because it reveals what happens to the student once the assignment has been “given” and the student is at home (or wherever) trying to complete it. Therefore, although I set out an hour ago to respond to complete assignments and respond to prompts, I have instead decided to reflect on the process that I am going through as a student “learning” with technology.
The technology introduced this week is completely foreign to me. I have never used blogs, discussion boards, or wikis. Since our introductory class on these tools, I have gotten several emails from different blogs and from a “googlegroup.” I don’t know what to do with each of these. They don’t contain any (understandable) message or instructions in the body of the email, just (multiple) links. Once I click on these, I am asked to sign in and I am shown a list of people (some of whose names I don’t recognize because they are enigmatic email addresses), or several blogs (2 of which are mine, because I accidentally set 2 up and don’t know how to delet one). I click once again and I am taken to blank spaces profiles or blogs (Are other people having as hard a time as I am, or have they just written somewhere else?). I wish I had some phone numbers—I am desperate for a human voice to bombard with questions, anxiety, and frustration.
All of this clicking back and forth takes away not only precious time, but my confidence in my ability to use this technology. Then I am left deflated, confused, and feeling like I don’t have anything productive to respond or contribute on how this technology can be used benefially. This week, as a student, I feel completely “unbenefitted.”
In contrast, the two previous weeks, I felt emboldened and encouraged to find ways to introduce computer technology into future teaching. I participated quite a bit in the discussion board on WebCT and on the UMB Lit and Writing website. After those two weeks of relative success, when reading Kajder’s Chapter 8 for our class last Tuesday, I underlined with enthusiasm, “The twist that technology provides is to amplify our resources, allowing students to dialogue and collaborate with writers, thinkers, students, and communities across the globe in real-time interactions.” (98) The benefit in this is so self-evident, that all I could do was underline it with an exclamation point on the side. Yes, of course, it is wonderful to be able to collaborate with other writers. These two weeks of on-line discussions had proved it (and that is without even introducing anyone outside our course into the conversation). Although they lacked the immediacy of face-to-face contact, the written discussions on those sites offered the opportunity for a more reflective dialogue, one in which I had time to review material, re-read the previous postings, and call on authors I recalled from outside this course.
The other excerpt which struck me was that making contributions through computer technology “allows [students] to communicate their ideas, no matter how shy they might be.” (100) To this, I would like to add that it not only allows them to do so, it FORCES them to do so. I find this important when working at the high school level, where so many students feel they can keep quiet and stay under the radar: these students often do long-term written assignments and homework, but are not willing to view the classroom as a learning community, to which all members contribute while they are there. In contrast with these silent students, there are also commonly students who believe that if they simply talk (regardless of the relevance or thought exhibited in the contribution), this counts as participating in class. In her section on discussion tools in Chapter 4, Kajder states that they “establish a low-stakes entry point for those students who might traditionally be reluctant to enter into a whole-class discussion.” (37) This reiterates the idea that students who are traditionally silent now have a forum from which to participate without the looks and immediate reaction of their peers or their teacher, either because these are inimidatin to them or because they are uninterested. On the other hand, a different angle to Kajder’s low-stakes assertion is that it creates a specific entry point with topics, and prompts or questions. Students are forced to dialogue ABOUT THE TOPIC. The fact that their comment is in writing gives them both the opportunity to reflect on what they want to say, and the obligation to make their contribution meaningful and relevant, one that continues the conversation.
So, how does this description of my previous enthusiasm for discussion boards connect to my deflatedness with blogs and googlegroup emails this week? Perhaps it has to do with discourse communities: I’ve never been on a blog or a member of one of these email groups, and this week’s tasks don’t call on any of the skills I master in one of the discourse communities I belong to. Instead, I am an outsider to this discourse community—there is too much shared knowledge I don’t possess. I find it useful to reflect on why I am feeling discouraged this week, resisting the temptation to turn off the computer, and trying to translate this experience into something I will use in my teaching. When talking about online communities, Kajder points out that “we [teachers] need to get the initial community built.” (102) I now relate this to discourse communities—these need to be established or taught as well. Thinking of the use of technology in the classroom as a task of building a discourse community will help me as I teach with technology.
6/14/07
I think that in order to teach with technology, it is essential to experience what it is like on the other end, “learning with technology.” In that sense, I think that the idea of offering this class partly on-line is valuable, because it reveals what happens to the student once the assignment has been “given” and the student is at home (or wherever) trying to complete it. Therefore, although I set out an hour ago to respond to complete assignments and respond to prompts, I have instead decided to reflect on the process that I am going through as a student “learning” with technology.
The technology introduced this week is completely foreign to me. I have never used blogs, discussion boards, or wikis. Since our introductory class on these tools, I have gotten several emails from different blogs and from a “googlegroup.” I don’t know what to do with each of these. They don’t contain any (understandable) message or instructions in the body of the email, just (multiple) links. Once I click on these, I am asked to sign in and I am shown a list of people (some of whose names I don’t recognize because they are enigmatic email addresses), or several blogs (2 of which are mine, because I accidentally set 2 up and don’t know how to delet one). I click once again and I am taken to blank spaces profiles or blogs (Are other people having as hard a time as I am, or have they just written somewhere else?). I wish I had some phone numbers—I am desperate for a human voice to bombard with questions, anxiety, and frustration.
All of this clicking back and forth takes away not only precious time, but my confidence in my ability to use this technology. Then I am left deflated, confused, and feeling like I don’t have anything productive to respond or contribute on how this technology can be used benefially. This week, as a student, I feel completely “unbenefitted.”
In contrast, the two previous weeks, I felt emboldened and encouraged to find ways to introduce computer technology into future teaching. I participated quite a bit in the discussion board on WebCT and on the UMB Lit and Writing website. After those two weeks of relative success, when reading Kajder’s Chapter 8 for our class last Tuesday, I underlined with enthusiasm, “The twist that technology provides is to amplify our resources, allowing students to dialogue and collaborate with writers, thinkers, students, and communities across the globe in real-time interactions.” (98) The benefit in this is so self-evident, that all I could do was underline it with an exclamation point on the side. Yes, of course, it is wonderful to be able to collaborate with other writers. These two weeks of on-line discussions had proved it (and that is without even introducing anyone outside our course into the conversation). Although they lacked the immediacy of face-to-face contact, the written discussions on those sites offered the opportunity for a more reflective dialogue, one in which I had time to review material, re-read the previous postings, and call on authors I recalled from outside this course.
The other excerpt which struck me was that making contributions through computer technology “allows [students] to communicate their ideas, no matter how shy they might be.” (100) To this, I would like to add that it not only allows them to do so, it FORCES them to do so. I find this important when working at the high school level, where so many students feel they can keep quiet and stay under the radar: these students often do long-term written assignments and homework, but are not willing to view the classroom as a learning community, to which all members contribute while they are there. In contrast with these silent students, there are also commonly students who believe that if they simply talk (regardless of the relevance or thought exhibited in the contribution), this counts as participating in class. In her section on discussion tools in Chapter 4, Kajder states that they “establish a low-stakes entry point for those students who might traditionally be reluctant to enter into a whole-class discussion.” (37) This reiterates the idea that students who are traditionally silent now have a forum from which to participate without the looks and immediate reaction of their peers or their teacher, either because these are inimidatin to them or because they are uninterested. On the other hand, a different angle to Kajder’s low-stakes assertion is that it creates a specific entry point with topics, and prompts or questions. Students are forced to dialogue ABOUT THE TOPIC. The fact that their comment is in writing gives them both the opportunity to reflect on what they want to say, and the obligation to make their contribution meaningful and relevant, one that continues the conversation.
So, how does this description of my previous enthusiasm for discussion boards connect to my deflatedness with blogs and googlegroup emails this week? Perhaps it has to do with discourse communities: I’ve never been on a blog or a member of one of these email groups, and this week’s tasks don’t call on any of the skills I master in one of the discourse communities I belong to. Instead, I am an outsider to this discourse community—there is too much shared knowledge I don’t possess. I find it useful to reflect on why I am feeling discouraged this week, resisting the temptation to turn off the computer, and trying to translate this experience into something I will use in my teaching. When talking about online communities, Kajder points out that “we [teachers] need to get the initial community built.” (102) I now relate this to discourse communities—these need to be established or taught as well. Thinking of the use of technology in the classroom as a task of building a discourse community will help me as I teach with technology.
I think that in order to teach with technology, it is essential to experience what it is like on the other end, “learning with technology.” In that sense, I think that the idea of offering this class partly on-line is valuable, because it reveals what happens to the student once the assignment has been “given” and the student is at home (or wherever) trying to complete it. Therefore, although I set out an hour ago to respond to complete assignments and respond to prompts, I have instead decided to reflect on the process that I am going through as a student “learning” with technology.
The technology introduced this week is completely foreign to me. I have never used blogs, discussion boards, or wikis. Since our introductory class on these tools, I have gotten several emails from different blogs and from a “googlegroup.” I don’t know what to do with each of these. They don’t contain any (understandable) message or instructions in the body of the email, just (multiple) links. Once I click on these, I am asked to sign in and I am shown a list of people (some of whose names I don’t recognize because they are enigmatic email addresses), or several blogs (2 of which are mine, because I accidentally set 2 up and don’t know how to delet one). I click once again and I am taken to blank spaces profiles or blogs (Are other people having as hard a time as I am, or have they just written somewhere else?). I wish I had some phone numbers—I am desperate for a human voice to bombard with questions, anxiety, and frustration.
All of this clicking back and forth takes away not only precious time, but my confidence in my ability to use this technology. Then I am left deflated, confused, and feeling like I don’t have anything productive to respond or contribute on how this technology can be used benefially. This week, as a student, I feel completely “unbenefitted.”
In contrast, the two previous weeks, I felt emboldened and encouraged to find ways to introduce computer technology into future teaching. I participated quite a bit in the discussion board on WebCT and on the UMB Lit and Writing website. After those two weeks of relative success, when reading Kajder’s Chapter 8 for our class last Tuesday, I underlined with enthusiasm, “The twist that technology provides is to amplify our resources, allowing students to dialogue and collaborate with writers, thinkers, students, and communities across the globe in real-time interactions.” (98) The benefit in this is so self-evident, that all I could do was underline it with an exclamation point on the side. Yes, of course, it is wonderful to be able to collaborate with other writers. These two weeks of on-line discussions had proved it (and that is without even introducing anyone outside our course into the conversation). Although they lacked the immediacy of face-to-face contact, the written discussions on those sites offered the opportunity for a more reflective dialogue, one in which I had time to review material, re-read the previous postings, and call on authors I recalled from outside this course.
The other excerpt which struck me was that making contributions through computer technology “allows [students] to communicate their ideas, no matter how shy they might be.” (100) To this, I would like to add that it not only allows them to do so, it FORCES them to do so. I find this important when working at the high school level, where so many students feel they can keep quiet and stay under the radar: these students often do long-term written assignments and homework, but are not willing to view the classroom as a learning community, to which all members contribute while they are there. In contrast with these silent students, there are also commonly students who believe that if they simply talk (regardless of the relevance or thought exhibited in the contribution), this counts as participating in class. In her section on discussion tools in Chapter 4, Kajder states that they “establish a low-stakes entry point for those students who might traditionally be reluctant to enter into a whole-class discussion.” (37) This reiterates the idea that students who are traditionally silent now have a forum from which to participate without the looks and immediate reaction of their peers or their teacher, either because these are inimidatin to them or because they are uninterested. On the other hand, a different angle to Kajder’s low-stakes assertion is that it creates a specific entry point with topics, and prompts or questions. Students are forced to dialogue ABOUT THE TOPIC. The fact that their comment is in writing gives them both the opportunity to reflect on what they want to say, and the obligation to make their contribution meaningful and relevant, one that continues the conversation.
So, how does this description of my previous enthusiasm for discussion boards connect to my deflatedness with blogs and googlegroup emails this week? Perhaps it has to do with discourse communities: I’ve never been on a blog or a member of one of these email groups, and this week’s tasks don’t call on any of the skills I master in one of the discourse communities I belong to. Instead, I am an outsider to this discourse community—there is too much shared knowledge I don’t possess. I find it useful to reflect on why I am feeling discouraged this week, resisting the temptation to turn off the computer, and trying to translate this experience into something I will use in my teaching. When talking about online communities, Kajder points out that “we [teachers] need to get the initial community built.” (102) I now relate this to discourse communities—these need to be established or taught as well. Thinking of the use of technology in the classroom as a task of building a discourse community will help me as I teach with technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)