Reflective Post #4: Collective Intelligence and Personal Learning Environments

Article/Video Summaries

In his article, “Collective Intelligence: What It Could Mean For Education”, Shawn Bullock expresses disapproval for Prensky’s well-known article on digital natives and digital immigrants.  He explains that education rarely changes because “we tend to teach as we were taught according to familiar cultural patterns” (45-46). While American society does try to implement new teaching strategies, Bullock is not convinced that education has been changed in any crucial ways.  Although North American education is said to be geared toward individualized education, Bullock believes web 2.0 products have the ability to positively impact learning through social interactions (47).  Technology can help us share information, produce new ideas, and collaborate in a variety of ways.  Not only will technology help us reach new ideas and concepts more efficiently through social networking but it is cost effective and has the ability to change our cultural beliefs about education (47).  Bullock explains it is not helpful or relevant to label people digital immigrants or natives.  Instead, we need to concentrate on our natural desire to be social and work together while using web 2.0 tools to facilitate collaboration. 

Lynn Ilon’s article, “How Collective Intelligence Redefines Education” focuses on the disconnection between the values in our culture, the mannerisms of our current economy, and the teaching methods of our education system.  Ilon explains “collective intelligence”, an online collaborative learning style that has been used to gather and share information efficiently.  Unfortunately, this style of collaboration that is making other industries thrive has not been well accepted in education systems.  While Ilon suspected this was due in part to teacher training and attitudes toward the new concept, she later concluded that education’s disinterest in change is due to its deep roots in the past economy.  She describes the current education system to be run like a business with “top-down management” guided by policies and procedures.  In this system, learning is based on expertise, logic, and trade skills as a result of the Industrial Age.  The Industrial Era valued mass production more than innovation, leading our culture to value an education that focused on skills and information that would create skilled employees.  Furthermore, collective intelligence has not been welcomed into learning environments because the people and resources a student can access on a particular topic are not always experts.  Since our culture and economy are becoming increasingly dependent on technology and social media to propel forward, Ilon predicts that technology will affect the economy, and the economy will in turn finally change the way students are taught.  Ilon describes many advantages to collective intelligence style learning, including increased problem solving skills, social collaboration, and increased communication.  Collective intelligence could eliminate the need for “one expert” and spread knowledge to all learners, helping them become more innovative, adaptable, and capable of critical thought.

The article, “7 Things You Should Know About Personal Learning Environments” (PLEs) describes tools, online learning communities, and resources that help individual students reach their educational goals.  While PLE is driven by the individual, the student still interacts with others while synthesizing information from various resources and requesting feedback from peers or experts. Typically, each student has a blog or website where they can post various digital resources and their own reflections.  It is important that the student be a “self-starter” and aware of their preferred learning styles.    PLE’s create an environment for up to date, constantly evolving information.  They create resourceful, organized learners who are engaged in the learning process and willing to collaborate with others.  PLE’s help students become resourceful and thoughtful about the information they deem authentic.  

The student video on personal learning environments showed PLE’s from a middle schooler’s point of view.  The student presented a dashboard of sorts that held information organized into personal, social, and educational sections.  Resources such as educational games, online note taking, Google Docs, blogging, and collaborative publishing are all part of the learning process.  The student gathers information from various websites and synthesizes the important parts into multimedia presentations.  In an effort to make sure her information is authentic, the student is responsible for contacting experts on the topic of her presentations to give her feedback on the accuracy of the information she gathered.  The student seems happy with the PLE and enjoys having a paperless educational system that is self-paced.  

Reflection

After reading the articles and watching the PLE video, I could relate very much to Bullock and Ilon’s viewpoints.  I agree with Bullock that education does not seem to be evolving much.  I believe the economic changes that Ilon mentioned have caused our cultural values and interests to evolve.  As a result, the students have changed while the education system has not.  The way the current education system was described by both authors seems authoritative and restrictive.  I think these characteristics were rooted in noble efforts to create a strong economic foundation.  However, the rigid structure is inhibiting creativity and innovation, characteristics of many thriving contemporary businesses.  I enjoy watching video lectures on Ted.com.  I once watched one by Sir Ken Robinson, who explains that “Creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status.”  I couldn’t agree more. 

The way Ilon described our Industrial Age inspired education system was not at all flattering.  There is a sense of authority that produces few experts of knowledge rather than many people who can collaborate and influence society.  Collective intelligence seems like a fantastic approach to learning that will help people access knowledge and find inspiration in worlds and peers far away from their own.  I recently watched a documentary on Chinese art activist, Ai Weiwei who uses social media to collaborate on projects.  His blogs, Twitter account, and other online resources are constantly blocked by the government, causing him to constantly seek new and innovative online resources for communicating with others.   Online tools and social media have made him an incredibly effective artist and leader.  He is quoted as saying, “Censorship is saying: ‘I’m the one who says the last sentence.  Whatever you say, the conclusion is mine.’ But the internet is like a tree that is growing.  The people will always have the last word- even if someone has a very weak, quiet voice.  Such power will collapse because of a whisper.”      I think the education standards are, in effect, censoring the ways students can learn.  Regardless of whether or not our education system embraces technology as a means of learning, I think it is a matter of time before the students and teachers themselves begin implementing the tools they find valuable from the bottom, up. 

Equitable and Constructivist Art-Technology Lesson Plan

EXPLANATION OF EQUITABLE AND CONSTRUCTIVIST ART-TECHNOLOGY LESSON PLAN

I created the following lesson plan on tessellations inspired by artist M.C. Escher’s lithograph prints.  After viewing some examples of constructivist lesson plans, I got great ideas but struggled to find one that used art and incorporated technology simultaneously.  This lesson is based off of the strengths and “missing pieces” of constructivist lessons from other core subjects that I viewed.  The plan exemplifies equitable instruction because all students will have access to 1:1 computers in a lab with the same software and functions.  This lesson shows the constructivist style because it is largely student led, avoiding lectures and note-taking where students are given explanations of concepts before trying to figure things out on their own.  Students work independently, with a partner, and with small groups to problem solve and discuss determine the meaning of new concepts for the lesson. They eventually present a project they created to the class, explaining the reasoning behind their work to demonstrate their new knowledge.  

Experimentation and reflection are skills constructivist instructors hope to teach their students.  Because of this goal, I have directed students to practice with interactive web-based tessellation programs and troubleshoot issues for their final project.  The project is based on a “real world” situation where as an interior designer, each student must re-design an interior space using more pattern-- Specifically, using organic-shaped translation tessellations.  The act of sharing their project with the class parallels the constructivist belief that student learning is validated through sharing their experiences with the community.  

Paper Tessellation Art Lesson, Grade 7 by Maura Meyers

Theme: Tessellations, Architecture, Math, Perspective Drawing

Product: 1-point perspective interior room drawing that includes an organic-shaped tessellation.  (Tessellation created with a homemade paper pattern). 

Skills: The students will be able to... 

--Identify the characteristics of tessellations and how they differ from regular patterns

--Distinguish the difference between geometric and organic shapes 

--Use the elements of art to discover characteristics of M.C. Escher’s artwork 

--Create an original tessellation and defend their work among peers

--Exercise problem solving skills while determining ways to create an original organic tessellation

--Relate tessellation artwork to real-life situations and arts-based careers

--Collaborate with peers to determine environments where tessellations are used in everyday life

Standards: 

1PE Explore how personal experiences, interest, cultural heritage and gender influence an artist’s style and choice of subject matter.

2PE Identify professions that use artistic skills and problem-solving.

4PE Observe a variety of artworks noticing details, themes and ideas and group them into patterns and categories.

6PE Connect various art forms to their social, cultural or political purposes and include regional examples.

1PR Improve craftsmanship and refine ideas in response to feedback.

2PR Manipulate materials, tools and technology in conventional and unconventional ways to create a work of art.

3PR Represent depth and volume in their two-dimensional works of art

2RE Compare and contrast diverse viewpoints about works of art.

3RE Interpret selected artworks and synthesize their interpretations with the interpretations of others.

6RE Develop and use criteria to guide reflection and assessment of selected personal artworks.
7RE Assess one’s own work and working process and the work of others in relation to criteria and standards.

New Vocabulary:Tessellation, organic shape, geometric shape, interior designer,

Old Vocabulary: 1-point perspective, vanishing point, orthogonal line, architecture

Product Materials: 1 12”x18” paper per student for final copy, 1 9”x12” paper per student for practice, ruler, pencil, eraser, scissors, tape, 3” square cardstock, markers, 1:1 computer access, pattern blocks, printed examples of tessellating and non-tessellating patterns

Technology Use: 

--1:1 computer lab access

--Students use the internet for M.C. Escher and tessellation research

--Students use interactive websites to practice creating geometric tessellations

Teaching Activities

Part 1: Group Tessellation Characteristics Activity.  Each table in the classroom is set up with two items: a picture or design made from pattern blocks labeled “non-tessellating”, and a picture or design made from pattern blocks labeled “tessellating”.  The students work in small groups and rotate through each table to try to distinguish the characteristics of tessellating and non-tessellating patterns. 

Part 2: Share Your Ideas.  Each group shares their ideas to make a large collaborative list of characteristics  for tessellating and non-tessellating patterns.  Students then work in groups to create their own examples of tessellating and non-tessellating patterns with pattern blocks.  They share their designs with other groups and defend why each design is a tessellation or not a tessellation. 

Part 3: Connection to Art History.  View the artwork of M.C. Escher through google search for “M.C. Escher Tessellation”.  

http://www.google.com/search?q=M.C.+Escher+tessellation&safe=active&client=firefox-a&hs=8jI&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=5XveUpaqFsybrQGXp4GQBA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1145&bih=564&surl=1

Use the elements of art (Line, shape, color, texture, value, form) to compare and contrast tessellations made in class to those of Escher.  Share conclusions in small groups. 

Part 4: Connection to Technology. Use various sites given to create interactive geometric tessellations.  

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/tess/sqtile.htm

http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/activities/Tessellate/

After creating a successful tessellation, view websites with tutorials on ways to create an organic “translation” tessellation designs. 

http://www.scienceu.com/geometry/articles/tritile/tiling.html

http://www.tessellations.org/methods-diy-papercut.shtml

http://www.cleanvideosearch.com/media/action/yt/watch?videoId=JriMIOYd90w

 Go over student research and conclusions about ways to make translation tessellations as a class. 

Part 5: Hands On Tessellation Practice.  Apply knowledge from translation tessellation video tutorial to practice making a tessellating shape with a 3” square piece of cardstock, scissors, and tape.  Peer Evaluation:  Have students pair off and check to make sure their shape was created correctly and tessellates successfully.  Discuss as a class any issues and frustrations to work on. 

Part 6: Real-World Tessellations Connections.  Prompt given to students: You are an interior designer who has been asked to re-design a space by incorporating more pattern into the rooms of your choice.  Create a drawing using 1-point perspective to represent an interior space you will design.   Fill the drawing with items that hint to the customer the purpose of the room and what kind of building it might be in (The purpose of the room and the type of building it might be in are your choice).  Create an organic translation tessellation to include in the room.  After researching real-world tessellations, pick an appropriate surface to put your tessellation on.  Defend your choices during a presentation to your clients (the class).  

Part 6: Work time and Critique.  After reviewing perspective drawing, tessellations, and finishing their projects, students will present their artwork in small groups.  Individuals will share how they created a specific building, interior space, how their pattern is a successful tessellation and why they positioned it in its specific location.  Peers will interact with the individual to discuss the strengths and areas of improvement for the individual’s project. 

Evaluation: 

	EXCELLENT	GOOD	FAIR	NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
EFFORT & PARTICIPATION	Class time used effectively Worked independently when Ms. Meyers was working with others	Used most of my class time effectively.	Tried to stay on task but did not use my time as well as I could have.   Trouble working independently	Off task and distracted most of the time.    Kept others from getting work done.
	Engaged in meaningful discussion with peers	Offered helpful comments to discussions and listened well to others’ ideas.	Participated in discussion but did not relate comments to the themes of the peer review	Did not offer reflection discussion to peers, small groups, and presentations
	Project presentation seemed well-planned  Gave meaningful explanations of decisions made in art project	Presentation was engaging and focused well decisions within the art project.	Presentation seemed ill-prepared.  Presentation lost focus on the main questions of why the artwork was made.	Project presentation was disorganized.  Student did not treat presentation in a “professional” manner.
CRAFTSMANSHIP:  My project is...	Project planned lightly in pencil Old pencil lines erased	Some visible pencil marks	Many visible pencil marks	Pencil lines were not erased or were too dark to erase.
	Colored neatly Colored in 1 direction	Most areas are colored neatly in 1 direction	Some areas aren’t colored in 1 direction Colored outside of the lines	Coloring appears rushed.  Did not color in 1 direction
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS	Created a room using 1 point perspective	Attempted to use 1 point perspective Did not use a ruler every time	Attempted to use 1 point perspective Did not use vanishing point correctly.	Did not use 1 point perspective to create interior room
	My shape tessellates with no gaps and no overlaps.	Some gaps or overlapping visible	Many gaps and areas of overlapping visible	My shape does not tessellate.
	Added details and elements to the interior room to hint at the type of building and purpose of the building	Added objects to hint at the purpose of space but could have invested more time and detail.	Added details but they do not hint at the type of building and purpose of the space.	Did not add any details or elements in the interior room to hint at the type of building or its purpose
NAME ON PROJECT	Name and period on project	No period on project		No name on project.

RP#3: Technology-Related Best Practices For All Students And Teachers

This week’s readings highlighted debates over the effectiveness of technology, the best ways to avoid the “digital divide”, and methods of facilitating a constructivist learning environment that welcomes the use of technology. The first two articles discuss different viewpoints on the use of technology as a learning tool.  

Richard E. Clark, “Reconsidering Research on Learning From Media” 

Richard E. Clark makes his opinions known through evidence gathered in his article, “Reconsidering Research On Learning From Media.”  Clark feels that forms of media such as TV and computers are “delivery devices” that have the potential to reduce instruction costs but not improve retention of information (446).  While Clark does admit that some media are used more efficiently for certain learners and sometimes temporarily increase learning if the user views the media as a “novelty”, he attributes authentic learning to good teaching methods (447).  Clark determines through research of case studies that media can be successful depending on how a teacher uses it and what they are teaching with it (449).  However, Clark insists that “the methods conveyed by the media... probably account for different levels of achievement....” (456).  

Robert B. Kozma, “Learning With Media” 

Robert B. Kozma feels that Clark’s stance on educational technology is wrong.  In his article, “Learning With Media”, Kozma reviews items such as books, TV, computers, and multimedia environments to determine their impact on learning.  After defining learning as the creation and storage of new meaning based on existing knowledge, Kozma explains that a learner’s environment, including media, impacts their thought process (180).  He concludes that it is possible for media to influence the way learners “represent and process information”, therefore possibly enhancing or changing conventional learning (179-180).  Kozma believes forms of media have the ability to facilitate the learning process and carry out tasks that the learner is not capable of (182).  The ways we decide to use media and factors such as age and prior knowledge also change how effective it is in helping us retain new information (181, 187).  Kozma gives examples of media we use in everyday life, such as a book.  He examines studies performed that compare the retention level of learners who read text with and without pictures.  While the reader who views pictures finishes the article faster, they did not retain as much information as the reader who read slower without pictures (186).  Kozma also highlights studies on the use of TV for educational purposes.  He agrees with Salomon’s conclusion that retention relies more on an individual’s amount of invested effort (AIME) rather than the ability of the media to perform educational services (190).  However, Kozma did find evidence that certain media may slow down processing for some learners if it provides information at a pace different from the learner’s pace (195).  Kozma wants to eliminate Clark’s idea that media and instructional method are separate entities, explaining that the two work together: Media can enable or restrict teaching methods, and teaching methods can inspire new uses of media (205). 

David H. Jonassen, “Thinking Technology”

In his article, “Thinking Technology”, David H. Jonassen explores the idea of constructivism as a successful approach to learning.  Constructivism involves learners “constructing their own reality” based on personal experiences and beliefs (35).  He admits that helping teachers design constructivist instructional methods is difficult because this learning theory is based upon the student’s individual needs (35).  It is difficult to find one way to service all learners since they have unique experiences and beliefs.  Jonassen explains that constructivist-style learning happens in environments that are hands-on and do not oversimplify instruction. The environment must support reflection and collaboration rather than competition (35).  Learning is largely initiated by the student through experimentation and interaction with others in the constructivist environment.  Jonassen purposely avoids providing an outline for constructivist instruction because the whole purpose of the constructivist learning style is to let the learner lead their own path.  Planning out a method of instruction and predicting possible outcomes for learning would go against the foundation of the constructivist education style (35). In an effort to help interested educators support a constructivist environment (which would be conducive to technology implementation), Jonassen suggests that the environment is more important than a specific sequence for learning (36).  He reiterates the fact that sharing, debating, use of prior knowledge, experimentation, reflection, case-based issues, problem solving, modeling of learning, and collaboration between the teacher and learner are all characteristics of various constructivist learning environments.  

Robin Chapman, Redefining Equity: Meaningful Uses of Technology In Learning Environments

Not to be confused with constructivism, Robin Chapman describes the constructionist educational theory as a method of learning through the creation of projects and sharing them with the community.  Engaging with others over content learned is expected to help students connect new concepts to existing knowledge and help learners become more self-motivated.  Constructionist styles as well as constructivism are very supportive of learning environments that include technology.  Chapman emphasizes that technology needs to be 1:1 in an effort to properly provide educational opportunities in a constructionist setting.  1:1 technology would also break down e the “Digital Divide” among students who have not previously had access to educational technology, or those populations that our culture deems less tech-saavy.  Chapman reminds readers that technology is only useful for educational purposes if it is used to “design, create, or share content that is culturally relevant and representative of [students’] views and values.” Students have to be encouraged to relate technology use and educational content to their personal experiences.  Teachers have to be willing to switch roles with students and allow students to share their incites.  Chapman believes providing more community technology centers (CTC’s) will help support students who do not typically have access to technology and increase the opportunity for learners to use computers and applications as tools for learning.  

Reflection

After reading these articles on the media debate, equitable technology, and constructivism/constructionism in the educational technology learning environment, I tend to relate most to Kozma.  Kozma generally believes that media and technology, when used in an educationally appropriate way, can be helpful to the learner (179).  However, he is not blind to the fact that sometimes media can slow down or limit processing.  While decreased learning pace is definitely a cause for concern, I start to wonder if this really is a huge problem or not.  If multimedia presentations using technology engage a learner and motivate them intrinsically to continue to absorb new knowledge, does it really matter if the rate of retention is slightly decreased?  Kozma also explains that he discovered through the analysis of studies that the learner usually presents the information they learned most successfully when using the same method they learned from (192).  In other words, if the student learns new information through a video, they might share their information best through a verbal or recorded presentation.  It appears to me that the success of technology in education is dependent on determining the individual’s best learning style to absorb, present, and express information.  

Both Kozma and Clark seem open to faults in their arguments, it is interesting that Clark is so adamant about the ineffectiveness of media in education.  After saying “media do not influence learning under any conditions”, he later admits that media does have the ability to temporarily increase learning if the learner views the media as a “novelty” (445, 450).  Based on this assumption, Clark’s conclusion that media does not typically influence learning might be proved wrong if the educator constantly seeks new media that the learner considers a “novelty”.  Tracking down novelty media could be relatively easy since technology is constantly evolving!  

In both Clark’s and Kozma’s arguments, it appears that allowing the learner some ownership over the media used in their learning process results in successful retention.  This evidence greatly supports Jonassen’s theory that constructivism is the most appropriate method for incorporating technology into core teaching.  However, it is still a rather unfulfilling conclusion to reach because the solutions for creating a constructivist classroom are rather vague.  As a teacher, it even seems confusing to write a lesson plan in the constructivist style because most lesson plan formats follow a sequence of events.  Constructivism does not want the instructional designer to predict the outcome of each event in the learning process, yet there needs to be some structure to learning that holds the instructor accountable for student progress.  As educators who use technology to improve classroom learning, we need to attempt to cut cultural stereotypes that might describe a person of a certain gender or socioeconomic background as less likely to use and succeed with technology.  Chapman says we need to provide students with 1:1 technology whenever possible to make learning equitable.  If some students do not have their own device, a computer lab is a great option to sustain equal opportunities for all.  Additionally, we need to allow students to explore a concept first before explaining it to them.  They need to be given an opportunity to share their ideas and design something (presentation, model, movie, etc.) that represents a culmination of their new knowledge.  If we follow these broad guidelines, constructivism can be a very productive environment for the successful use of technology in the classroom.  

My Experience With DemoX

After going through the demo course work for DemoX, I think it has many pros and cons.  One of its most valuable assets is its ability to cater to the individual learner.  Courses cater to multiple intelligences through the use of diagrams, videos, readings, and more.  I was impressed to find that you can slow down and speed up videos, add closed captioning, and change the size of the video screen.  The closed captioning even highlights the words as they are being spoken in the video!

I found the demo course to be similar to one taken in Blackboard in many ways.  It provides access to an instructor, an FAQ section for navigational or hardware questions, links to your grades and progress, etc.  After participating in a variety of assessments based on different topics, I feel that there are certain classes that might still be more successful in a physical environment where learning would be hands on.  Chemistry and physics, for example, still seem like good candidates for physical classrooms.  While the videos of experiments and methods of constructing chemical equations were manageable, students would benefit from interacting with the activities and peers in person.  Reading and writing classes seem very efficient in EdX.  Professors are able to breakdown excerpts of literature through videos and provide feedback on student writing with great efficiency. 

Some methods of evaluation seemed ineffective to me.  The peer and self evaluations were not impressive because they were too open-ended.  As a student, I was not able to see how I would be evaluating myself or peers ahead of time.  There was no rubric to help gauge student success.  Additionally, some of their questioning methods were not accurate.  There was a visual identification question that I got wrong and read from the discussion boards that many other students were marked wrong as well.  It seems that there might be a few glitches to work out. 

While MOOCs might become an educational trend temporarily, I do not think they will be the future of higher education because they currently do not offer credit hours toward degrees of any kind at this point.  It will be hard to determine how to create degree programs because no business model exists to help MOOCs sustain themselves.  As Basdevany and Brannon mention in the article, “Most current [MOOC] users are people who have the luxury to learn for the sake of learning, which not everybody can afford.”  While it might be nice to learn more about a topic of interest, the lack of formal accreditation and degree would not help people seek employment opportunities through acquired education.  Employers who did not grow up in the digital age might not be very accepting of MOOCs as an adequate method of obtaining higher education. 
   
I do think that MOOCs will be the future of employee training.  It is a great opportunity for companies to match employees with skills and environments that will help them perform well.  It is also a great way to certify an employee in a new skill or renew licensure for a previously learned skill.  For example, we use a program called Safeschools on an annual basis in my district to learn about copyright laws.  It is an efficient way for employees to review information and employers to avoid liability. 

K-12 schools will also benefit from MOOCs.  As teachers look for ways to create differentiated instruction, online open classes will be a great way for students to work at their own pace.  Students on the ends of the learning spectrum could especially benefit:  Lower students would not fall behind because they could control the pace of their learning, and gifted students could work ahead instead of being inhibited by the pace of the average student. 

At this point in time, MOOCs still seem to be in an experimental state.  Basdevant and Brannon explain that MOOCs have no definitive business model at this time and need to find ways to sustain their education. They grew out of a need for quality higher education, but the programs seem to be too new to acquire any substantial data comparing MOOCs and classroom-based learning.  Until MOOCs can compare success rates and teaching quality in a scientific way, they will remain more of a supplement to classroom learning rather than a primary source of educational content.

Reflection Post #2: MOOCs and BYOD in Education

This week I read about MOOCs in Adrien Basdevant and Julia Brannon’s article, “Will The Future of Education Be Online, Open, And Massive?”.  MOOC stands for “Massive Open Online Course”- A concept that I was not familiar with.  It is free to anyone with internet access and intends to support lifelong learners and self-motivated individuals.  MOOCs have become a more popular resource for students due to the rising cost of a campus-based higher education.  MOOC platforms like Coursera, edX, and Udacity do not offer degrees or credit hours for their classes but still provide graded feedback and often certificates of completion for their classes.  They are great resources for employees to brush up on specific skills and for students to obtain higher learning for free.  Additionally, MOOCs are putting pressure on campus-based higher education to find new ways to cut costs and offer more distance learning opportunities. They challenge existing colleges and universities to improve the quality of teaching and student success rate. 

Another new tool for learning in the education field is BYOD, (“Bring Your Own Device”.)  In the article, “Technology in Education: BYOD & Equitable Access”, Deborah McCallum explains how employers and schools are making choices about whether or not to let students bring their own cell phones, laptops, ipads, etc. to increase the use of technology in work and school settings.  BYOD encourages the use of 21st century skills that will help students be prepared for future employment.  It makes learning interactive and offers many opportunities for peer collaboration.   Students can work at their own pace on devices they are navigationally familiar with.  Furthermore, it cuts technology costs for schools who provide computer and internet access.  BYOD does have some downsides, though.  According to McCallum, it can cause a “digital divide” among students who do not have proper resources or a familiarity with technology.  It can also be difficult to control viruses and updates on such a wide variety of mobile devices.  Schools and employers have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages to decide on whether BYOD is a logical choice for them.

Technology is providing learners with exciting ways to gather information and teachers with new methods of connecting to students.  It’s fantastic to read that institutions like MIT are able to provide quality classes for students free of charge.  I think MOOCs will be most useful to students in search of continuing their education or brushing up on old skills.  MOOCs would also be beneficial for teachers and employees in areas of business that require license and certification renewals.  Classes could be developed based on the needs of a company or district and provided to employees to prepare them for license and certification renewal.  While I don’t think they have the business model or experience yet to develop degree programs, I do think MOOCs take positive risks in education to determine the best ways to improve learning access and student comprehension. 

BYOD is another great way to improve student learning in physical as well as online classrooms. Students can bring in a device that is within their financial means or purchase a device for a low cost from their district.  In theory, students would navigate efficiently with their device because they are familiar with it outside of school.  Our district lets teachers decide whether or not they want to allow devices in the classrooms, but unfortunately we do not have extra devices of any kind that can be loaned or purchased for students who do not have one. 

Our district has also piloted the use of 1:1 Chromebooks this year for certain grade levels, but I wouldn’t say it has been 100% successful.  The internet restrictions have been increased dramatically and students cannot access many harmless educational websites.  The server has gone down several times due to the impact of so many new devices on the network.  Most of the teachers were trained on how to use the Chromebooks but were not given Chromebooks to keep for themselves in the classroom.  Consequently, the teachers are confused and unsure of what the students are capable of accomplishing on their Chromebooks.  While 1:1 technology provided by the school seemed like a great idea, there is a lot of room for improvement.  

The level of success with the Chromebooks in our school leads me to think that BYOD would still be worth trying if there was an option to purchase a discounted device for students in need.  BYOD would allow many students to use their own data plans, freeing up space on the server.  Using their own data would prevent sites that can be used for educational purposes, such as Cleanvideosearch.com, from being blocked.  Regardless of whether students or schools provide technology, it is important that teachers and students are expected to obtain a certain level of comprehension in technology.  Each population should go through classes (maybe a MOOC?) to review ways to complete common tasks such as cutting and pasting, sending emails, opening files, and sending attachments.  Taking time to review basic tech skills periodically would decrease the "digital divide" among students and teachers, allowing more time for learning in other content areas.

Reflective Post #1: Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants

Before reading the articles for Module 1, I felt that current students are definitely fundamentally different than those of the past.  Current and future students are taught a different set of values and skills to survive in the digital age that weren’t relevant in decades past.  They are also equipped with more technology-based tools to find information quickly.  Current students can work independently with these tools efficiently.  As a result, I believe they are good at locating informative resources but struggle to think critically about the answers they find.  I also think social interactions in team activities can be challenging because they are used to working independently more than students of the past.  

Prensky’s article, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” describes the current state of teaching and curriculum to be ineffective and borderline irrelevant to current students.   It was interesting to read because I didn’t notice until reading DT Quin’s blog post that Prensky’s article is already over ten years old!  At the time the article was written, Prensky believed that teachers were digital immigrants-- People who were not brought up to be familiar with digital devices.  These digital immigrant teachers’ lack of comfort around technology leads them to teach as they have been taught-- From reading books, writing on paper, and listening to lectures.  Students, Prensky says, are “digital natives”-- People who have been born into this world surrounded by forms of technology.  Like a new language, they slowly assimilate and understand to the tools around them.  They feel comfortable processing information quickly and multi-tasking.  Prensky believes that the digital immigrant methods of teaching do not cater to multi-tasking and efficient processing, therefore stifling the potential of the digital native learner. 

DT Quin’s article, “Response to Prensky’s Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” acknowledges that many of Prensky’s opinions about learning may have been true at the time, but teachers are now evolving to assimilate more into the digital environment.  While Quin believes that learners continue to be efficient technology users, he believes that the line between digital natives and digital immigrants is not so clear.  Teachers young and old are being trained to respond to the need for multimedia.  Incoming teachers are more and more familiar with technology over the course of their lifetime as well. Instead of moving forward to only teach for the future as Prensky wanted, Quin states that the best lessons from the past are still relevant and must continue to be taught.    He believes that we are not necessarily teaching students very many new concepts but instead teaching them new methods of learning old concepts.  

After reading both articles, I still feel that students methods of learning have fundamentally changed.  They have new tools to get many forms of information faster.  Many prior methods of obtaining knowledge seem ineffective in comparison to using the internet and wifi-read devices for research.  After realizing that students have fundamentally changed, I think it is also important to consider the fundamental changes in teaching styles.  Quin’s article begins to touch on this idea near the end.  He expresses support for Prensky’s ideas that education must keep up with future jobs and technologies but also expresses a need for students to learn traditional concepts as well.  Therefore, if we are going to consider students as fundamentally changed, I think it is due to the technology that is available to them and also the evolving methods and curriculum that we teach.