"Let it go, let it go!" Yes, I got my Frozen reference in for the day, I'm quite obsessed. But the song fits the purpose of today's blog, or at least that part of the chorus does. We are talking about letting go of some of that control we have as educators in feeling the compelling need to guide students too much.
Wait a minute, guide them too much? Can it be so? Absolutely. In far too many classrooms, we are overwhelmed by spoon fed kids. Now, I'm not saying there are a plethora of bad teachers out there, but what I am saying is that it is very difficult for teachers to allow their students time to work through a problem before they jump in and save them. I get it. I see it too. Your kids get frustrated, they get upset, because they can't figure something out and they want you to just tell them. They are used to that. They are used to just being given what they need rather than being made to think through a problem and work for the joy of achieving a solution on their own. Now, I'm not advocating we throw the kids into the deep end and wait until they figure out how to swim, but the idea of inquiry learning is that instead of spelling things out for students, we teach them the skills they need to figure out something new for themselves. We teach them some of the content, key vocabulary and understandings, and then give them opportunities to use that information and apply in a way that makes sense to them. In his blog, Grant Wiggins discusses how learning is like a game of soccer, and proposes the question of whether or not students really understand what they are preparing for in the classroom, when they are learning content and skills and strategies. I was so proud the other day, of my own first graders, when the assistant principal came into the class. We were doing centers, and I was working with some small groups. She called several of my students over throughout the time she was there and asked them about what they were doing, and *gasp* why they were doing it. You can imagine my bated breath as I watched this going on from my spot with my students. At the end of the period, the AP came to me and said, "I'm glad they were able to tell me what they were doing, and why. I constantly heard from them 'in the real world...'" and she said this with the little flair my first graders said it, with the same inflection that I use when I'm talking with them. Inside I screamed "Yes! They get it!" I strive to get my students, as young as they are, to understand why they are here, in school, learning about why when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking. We talk about what their parents do, and what they need to know to be able to do those things, and relate them to what we are doing in school.
This is the beginning of inquiry learning. Recognizing the need and application of skills learned. As Chris Lehmann said in the webinar, "it's not about control, it's about support." We shouldn't want to control every aspect of what students learn, but rather guide them to the content and let them make sense of it themselves. In first grade, that's done by letting them experiment, and play, and observe their surroundings, and then talking about it. Teachers ask guiding questions, and lead them in thinking about what they do and see. When they are working through problems, instead of telling them the answer or what they need, ask questions that make them think about what they have already learned, and guide them to apply that to the new situation. As students get older, you relinquish more and more control over what you provide to them, and the classroom should become more Socratic, problem based, and independent, where the teacher acts as a support, a discussion leader, and a guide. Wiggins also suggests this in his blog. He says this type of classroom "should be the norm for schools, not the exception." Unfortunately, the latter is true, though schools across the country are moving in the right direction.
I really loved something Chris said in the webniar I viewed, where he stated "Inquiry, at its root, is the idea of intellectual play. The idea that we can get our hands dirty, we can ask powerful questions, we can seek out answers, and we can really add that time and space to play with our ides." Children are born inquiry learners. It's exactly how babies, toddlers, and preschoolers learn, by being curious, and trying things. Somewhere along the way, however, the world teaches them that no, that is not the way we learn, you are given what you need to know. As educators, we need be conscious of this occurrence and seek to prevent it from happening, and in every grade, and every class, constantly encouraging that "intellectual play" and supporting inquiry.
Resources:
Lehmann, C. et al. (2013). Inquiry; The Very First Step in the Process of Learning. Connected Learning TV. retrieved from: http://connectedlearning.tv/chris-lehmann-inquiry-very-first-step-process-learning
Wiggins, G. (2014) Great Teaching Means Letting Go. Te@chThought. retrieved from: http://www.teachthought.com/learning/great-teaching-means-letting-go/
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Reflective Searching
I find myself to be an eclectic and reflective searcher. The way I search depends highly on what I'm trying to find, and why I'm trying to find it. If I am just looking around for areas of personal interest, I try to select the best keywords, and I will in effect, "just Google it." From there I will select pages and artifacts that mean something to me, and from there choose new search terms, or explore the sources that come up. Often, in this type of casual searching, something will catch my eye, and I'll end up searching that next, looking for more information. If I am doing a more informative search, I may start with Google to get an idea of what's out there, or I may find myself in Galileo, looking up scholarly articles on the subject matter. As mentioned in "Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future," there are two types of search processes, horizontal and vertical. Horizontal searching is a type that is often associated with today's "Google generation," as the study calls it, where searchers, both young and old, skim and flip between pages or tabs of information, trying to seek out a specific "answer," and not really digging deeper into content. A vertical search, on the other hand, is more reflective and analytic, reading thoroughly for understanding and application. I actually tend to be both, as stated before, depending highly upon the purpose of my search.
The problem with today's searchers, however, is that they lack the discrepancy to decide when to do which. More often than not, most searching is done horizontally, and not vertically. According to the study just mentioned, viewers spend only an average of 4-8 minutes on any given webpage, which, for the average reader, is not enough time to read an article in its entirety. Also, with the overwhelming amount of content out there, searchers spend just as much time in the actual process of searching, finding, and navigating content as they do actually studying the information found. This, in itself, I believe, is actually a factor that contributes to searcher's lack of desire to spend an considerable amount of time studying content once found. Once you finally find what you are looking for, so much time has already past just in the process of finding it. I too am guilty of this, as by the time I finally sift through results and sources and settle on something of use to me, I'm too tired to go through it effectively. To combat this, I will often break up my research into 2 or more sessions, where the first session is spent solely identifying, saving, and collecting the sources I wish to review in depth. At the subsequent sessions is when I will take the time to review and study the resources, giving them their due allowance.
The strategies listed above, however, are not reflective of most of our "Google generation" searchers. They are seeking instant gratification, as is the norm for our culture today. Students lack the reflective aspect of searching, which makes them evaluate what they are seeking out in a meaningful way. Purcell and others, of "How Teens Do Research in the Digital World," hit upon this as well in their study. The study summarized both pros and cons of digital "Google" searching based on the experience of teachers' observations of their students. There were some definite pros given in the study, such as the access to greater depth and breadth of information, the availability of such information, the variety of formats available, all of which encourages self-reliance. (of course, Terry Heick will argue that there is an "illusion" of accessibility because of the quickness of "answers," with no synthesis taking place) Piggy backing off that idea, though, is the cons, which are over dependence on search engines, students' inability to accurately judge content for reliability, and the increasing distractions the digital world creates, along with a diminished amount of critical thinking from students. Students over-rely on search engines to produce everything they need, when in fact, that is not always the case, and when they do find it, they do not have the skills they need to adequately study, process, and analyze the content. The rather scary thing to this, is two fold. First, this particular study was completed using AP teachers and National Writing Project teachers, which means their students were the cream of the crop. If these students are having difficulties maneuvering the digital world effectively, how much more difficult is it then, for your average and below average students? Secondly, as pointed out by Debbie Abilock, in "True or Not," why are we surprised that students are having this difficulty, when even in today's society, educated adults are also being duped by scams and false information every day? How many times do we hear of credit card fraud or theft by deception on the news because some slick website designer created a reputable looking site and then robbed its supposed customers?
Lastly, there is something else to consider, of which I found myself most involved in, and that is the idea of a "filter bubble." After watching the TED talk, "The Filter Bubble," I found I was fascinated by Eli Pariser's thoughts and evidence surrounding the concept that Google's algorithms for searching based on our "click" history can highly affect our search results. I knew something of the idea, as when scrolling down Facebook, I often find "suggested" articles or sites on my feed that are eerily similar to not only things I have clicked on within Facebook, but also shadow things I have searched for with Google, outside of Facebook. I knew there was a degree of click counting going on, but I had no idea that it extended to the way I received results in a search. This TED talk was created and published in 2011, and I am interested to know if the powers and creators responsible for these search algorithms have worked to improve this, and give unbiased and unfiltered results based solely on the relevance to search terms, and based less on our own click history. Since watching, I have been trying to get others to participate with me and search a specific term from their search engines and post the results, so I can see the broad range of results we could potentially get, but have yet to see much on that yet. I wonder if 4 years has made a difference. If I find out, I'll let you know in a follow up.
All of this evidence and research leads me to believe that is vital in today's education to teach students how to properly search and analyze information found digitally. They must become reflective and evaluative searchers, and know the difference between when it is time to search horizontally and vertically. They must develop these skills early and practice them often so they do not drown in the sea of information that is floating around the digital world. And how can we expect them to be able to do this if we also do not know and practice it regularly?
Resources:
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble. retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles
UCL. (2008). information behavior of the researcher of the future. CIBER study
Purcell, K, et al. (2012). How Teens do Research in the Digital World. retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/01/how-teens-do-research-in-the-digital-world/
Heick, T. (2014). How Google Impacts the Way Students Think. retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/featured/how-google-impacts-the-way-students-think/
Abilock, D. (2011) True -- or Not. Educational Leadership. 70-74.
The problem with today's searchers, however, is that they lack the discrepancy to decide when to do which. More often than not, most searching is done horizontally, and not vertically. According to the study just mentioned, viewers spend only an average of 4-8 minutes on any given webpage, which, for the average reader, is not enough time to read an article in its entirety. Also, with the overwhelming amount of content out there, searchers spend just as much time in the actual process of searching, finding, and navigating content as they do actually studying the information found. This, in itself, I believe, is actually a factor that contributes to searcher's lack of desire to spend an considerable amount of time studying content once found. Once you finally find what you are looking for, so much time has already past just in the process of finding it. I too am guilty of this, as by the time I finally sift through results and sources and settle on something of use to me, I'm too tired to go through it effectively. To combat this, I will often break up my research into 2 or more sessions, where the first session is spent solely identifying, saving, and collecting the sources I wish to review in depth. At the subsequent sessions is when I will take the time to review and study the resources, giving them their due allowance.
The strategies listed above, however, are not reflective of most of our "Google generation" searchers. They are seeking instant gratification, as is the norm for our culture today. Students lack the reflective aspect of searching, which makes them evaluate what they are seeking out in a meaningful way. Purcell and others, of "How Teens Do Research in the Digital World," hit upon this as well in their study. The study summarized both pros and cons of digital "Google" searching based on the experience of teachers' observations of their students. There were some definite pros given in the study, such as the access to greater depth and breadth of information, the availability of such information, the variety of formats available, all of which encourages self-reliance. (of course, Terry Heick will argue that there is an "illusion" of accessibility because of the quickness of "answers," with no synthesis taking place) Piggy backing off that idea, though, is the cons, which are over dependence on search engines, students' inability to accurately judge content for reliability, and the increasing distractions the digital world creates, along with a diminished amount of critical thinking from students. Students over-rely on search engines to produce everything they need, when in fact, that is not always the case, and when they do find it, they do not have the skills they need to adequately study, process, and analyze the content. The rather scary thing to this, is two fold. First, this particular study was completed using AP teachers and National Writing Project teachers, which means their students were the cream of the crop. If these students are having difficulties maneuvering the digital world effectively, how much more difficult is it then, for your average and below average students? Secondly, as pointed out by Debbie Abilock, in "True or Not," why are we surprised that students are having this difficulty, when even in today's society, educated adults are also being duped by scams and false information every day? How many times do we hear of credit card fraud or theft by deception on the news because some slick website designer created a reputable looking site and then robbed its supposed customers?
Lastly, there is something else to consider, of which I found myself most involved in, and that is the idea of a "filter bubble." After watching the TED talk, "The Filter Bubble," I found I was fascinated by Eli Pariser's thoughts and evidence surrounding the concept that Google's algorithms for searching based on our "click" history can highly affect our search results. I knew something of the idea, as when scrolling down Facebook, I often find "suggested" articles or sites on my feed that are eerily similar to not only things I have clicked on within Facebook, but also shadow things I have searched for with Google, outside of Facebook. I knew there was a degree of click counting going on, but I had no idea that it extended to the way I received results in a search. This TED talk was created and published in 2011, and I am interested to know if the powers and creators responsible for these search algorithms have worked to improve this, and give unbiased and unfiltered results based solely on the relevance to search terms, and based less on our own click history. Since watching, I have been trying to get others to participate with me and search a specific term from their search engines and post the results, so I can see the broad range of results we could potentially get, but have yet to see much on that yet. I wonder if 4 years has made a difference. If I find out, I'll let you know in a follow up.
All of this evidence and research leads me to believe that is vital in today's education to teach students how to properly search and analyze information found digitally. They must become reflective and evaluative searchers, and know the difference between when it is time to search horizontally and vertically. They must develop these skills early and practice them often so they do not drown in the sea of information that is floating around the digital world. And how can we expect them to be able to do this if we also do not know and practice it regularly?
Resources:
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble. retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles
UCL. (2008). information behavior of the researcher of the future. CIBER study
Purcell, K, et al. (2012). How Teens do Research in the Digital World. retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/01/how-teens-do-research-in-the-digital-world/
Heick, T. (2014). How Google Impacts the Way Students Think. retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/featured/how-google-impacts-the-way-students-think/
Abilock, D. (2011) True -- or Not. Educational Leadership. 70-74.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Response to Module One Resources
The resources we were given this week to explore all revolved around the new way in which the 21st Century creates information, accesses information, and uses information, and then shifted that focus into the question of how are we preparing our students for this new way of information travel. The first video, "InfoWhelm and Information Fluency" was a great start because it succinctly described how the world has changed and become digital, particularly by sharing just how MUCH content has been created and shared digitally. I think it was funny too, because I had viewed this video right after writing my first post, where I had mentioned being overwhelmed by resources and wanting to discern the good from the not so good. So I chuckled at the coincidence. It is a fact though, that there is just far too much content out there for anyone to explore completely. The video made what in my opinion was a profound statement, saying "We can't be experts at anything anymore." In a way, that is completely true, because there is no way one person can explore all content related to a particular topic in order to become an expert.
Now of course, not all content out there is reliable or accurate, for that matter, and that is where the idea of information fluency and inquiry comes in. We have to be evaluators of content, and not just users. Bryan Alexander, in his blog post, referenced a process by Jane Hart that he had catered for his own purposes, where you first seek information, then make sense of what you find, and finally share what is good and useful. This is the process of the world now in the digital age. This is what people are doing, though I think I would add a step that is often, (though not always) used, and that's "shape." Many times, as users of information, once we have sought and made sense of content, we shape it to become our own. We change it, add to it, create something new from it, adding our essence to it, before we share it with the world. Even when you do as little as quote a work in your own paper, you have shaped that bit of information into yours, to make new sense from it.
This is what we want and need from our students in order for them to become effective learners in this new age, and that is what all the resources led to, the idea that as educators, we have to lead the way to this change, adjusting the way we "have always done it," because the world is no longer the same as it once was, whether we like it or not. Students must learn these valuable skills of HOW to seek, make sense of, shape, and share content in a way that is meaningful and useful to their own learning and knowledge base. To build off of this, becoming successful in this new age is more than just knowing how to use the tools out there, but it becomes the difference from being digitally "literate" to being digitally "fluent." Karen Lirenman said that "being digitally fluent means using the tools of technology to do things completely differently than I've ever done before. It's less about using technology to make a routine more exciting, and more about transforming how I think about teaching and learning with technology and how it applies to my students." It means "thinking" digitally, rather than just knowing how to use it. Many of us are still learning fluency, while at the moment being very literate. How many teachers use the digital board to project content that they would have previously shown in the book, or created a prezi instead of a PowerPoint to teach information? There is nothing wrong with this at all, and these are powerful tools, but we need to move even beyond that and begin to think about how these technologies can literally transform the way we are doing business in school.
Resources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWkQq5qmdmc
http://bryanalexander.org/2013/12/26/my-daily-info-wrangling-routine/
http://www.reading.org/literacy-daily/classroom/post/engage/2012/04/23/the-journey-from-digital-literacy-to-digital-fluency#.UtBlfrTs0gE
http://www.reading.org/literacy-daily/classroom/post/engage/2012/04/23/the-journey-from-digital-literacy-to-digital-fluency#.UtBlfrTs0gE
Now of course, not all content out there is reliable or accurate, for that matter, and that is where the idea of information fluency and inquiry comes in. We have to be evaluators of content, and not just users. Bryan Alexander, in his blog post, referenced a process by Jane Hart that he had catered for his own purposes, where you first seek information, then make sense of what you find, and finally share what is good and useful. This is the process of the world now in the digital age. This is what people are doing, though I think I would add a step that is often, (though not always) used, and that's "shape." Many times, as users of information, once we have sought and made sense of content, we shape it to become our own. We change it, add to it, create something new from it, adding our essence to it, before we share it with the world. Even when you do as little as quote a work in your own paper, you have shaped that bit of information into yours, to make new sense from it.
This is what we want and need from our students in order for them to become effective learners in this new age, and that is what all the resources led to, the idea that as educators, we have to lead the way to this change, adjusting the way we "have always done it," because the world is no longer the same as it once was, whether we like it or not. Students must learn these valuable skills of HOW to seek, make sense of, shape, and share content in a way that is meaningful and useful to their own learning and knowledge base. To build off of this, becoming successful in this new age is more than just knowing how to use the tools out there, but it becomes the difference from being digitally "literate" to being digitally "fluent." Karen Lirenman said that "being digitally fluent means using the tools of technology to do things completely differently than I've ever done before. It's less about using technology to make a routine more exciting, and more about transforming how I think about teaching and learning with technology and how it applies to my students." It means "thinking" digitally, rather than just knowing how to use it. Many of us are still learning fluency, while at the moment being very literate. How many teachers use the digital board to project content that they would have previously shown in the book, or created a prezi instead of a PowerPoint to teach information? There is nothing wrong with this at all, and these are powerful tools, but we need to move even beyond that and begin to think about how these technologies can literally transform the way we are doing business in school.
Resources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWkQq5qmdmc
http://bryanalexander.org/2013/12/26/my-daily-info-wrangling-routine/
http://www.reading.org/literacy-daily/classroom/post/engage/2012/04/23/the-journey-from-digital-literacy-to-digital-fluency#.UtBlfrTs0gE
http://www.reading.org/literacy-daily/classroom/post/engage/2012/04/23/the-journey-from-digital-literacy-to-digital-fluency#.UtBlfrTs0gE
Learning Goals
In this course, I trust that I will enhance my skills in information fluency, learning new tools and strategies that will help me become more fluent, as well as help me teach students. I expect to explore inquiry learning in more depth, learning how to complement hands-on tasks and digital learning. I would like to learn the best way to network with other teachers to get new strategies without feeling like I don't have time to do so. Throughout my program, I have learned of the many, many different resources out there, and it can be overwhelming at times, as having so many resources can sometimes be as frustrating as having no resources at all. In taking this course, I hope to become discerning about resources given and explored, to be able to determine which ones would best suit me in my learning and my students in their learning, so no one becomes overwhelmed; or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, so no one puts in a lot of footwork without getting a lot of meaning from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)