Mind Tools- response

Mindtools

I personally really enjoyed the article Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking by Johassesn, Carr, & Yueh. I found the article very interesting because it makes a clear definition between instructional technologies being used as media for delivering instruction wherein the technologies attempt to instruct learners to technologies being used as mindtools. The authors define a mindtool as computer applications, which allow learners to interact, organize, and construct personal knowledge so that the learner acts as the designer. The computer functions as the mindtool and allows for the learner to engage in critical thinking about knowledge. Besides setting the distinction between instruction tools and mindtools the authors give some great and innovative computer application, which have been designed as or can be repurposed to fulfill the definition of being a mindtool.

I feel the main difference is the idea of supporting vs. engaging. The use of mindtools seems to fall best in line with Clarks view on media and constructivist thought (Clark, 1994). The instructional method behind/integrated in the way students use the technology creates a learning environment where students construct their own personal knowledge.
The authors elude that the use of mindtools supports one of my personal favorite pedagogy practices, which is having students teach material to foster deeper understanding and retention. In this case mindtools allow the learner to work with material and in essence teacher the computer. This concept falls in line with Papert’s idea that students learn more when they have deep interaction with materials realizing learning is not always easy or quick (Paper, 1993).

In my experiences with teaching in today’s modern classroom one of my biggest stumbling blocks is the fact that many students don’t want to think for themselves. Students are so used to teacher directed learning that they want someone to tell them the answer or how to think instead of thinking on their own. Students have a hard time with high order thinking skills specifically the application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The students are pretty good at the knowledge and comprehension because of the constructs of their learning environments. Further practice is needed in higher levels thinking skills and I believe methods behind mindtools can fulfill an educational need by giving students opportunities to practice and develop these skills. The biggest obstacle I feel is in the aspect of time. Using technologies to support learning takes only a fraction of time compared to using the methods related to mindtools.

References:

Bloom, B.S., (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research
& Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh. (1998, March). Computers as mindtools for engaging
learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.


Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking schools in the age of the computer.
New York: Basic Books

Response to Seymour Papert and a word for learning

The world according to Papert seems a bit unrealistic. If I had to summarize this chapter I would say that Papert (piggy backing on Polya and Peck) believes that education should be focused on the art of learning and modern education should be adjusted so that learners have the opportunity to spend relaxed time with problems (“play with problems”) and that good discussion promotes learning. At the root of Papert’s discussion is a valid cause and I find worth in the idea of further focus on teaching learning principles, time to work with task and discussion. But it just seems that the example professed in the work are far-fetched (the link to the Victorian’s and sexual thoughts, - come on), loose in research and hard to link to the real demands of educating a student as a whole.

I found so many problems with this article not because of what I eventually figured out to be the premise but because I feel teachers use so many solutions in today’s classroom to fix or fit all of the examples the author discussed. Which I feel from a teacher’s standpoint means that we have placed an emphasis on the art of learning. Within every page of the chapter (except the long winded discussion of flowers) I found myself writing in the side bar teacher practices that can combat or allow for the problem the author addresses. I walk away from this article only with a realization that a teacher faced with the parameters in which they face, must employ a wide variety of approaches, skills, and methods and that they must be multi-faceted in order to meet the needs of the learner.

After review of the notes I took during reading this chapter on proper/positive learning environments, social learning, inquiry, Blooms taxonomy, homework, parental influence, problem solving, school constraints, life long learning, assessment, active learning, direct instruction, standards based learning, clear objectives, construction of knowledge, motivation, learning modalities, linking/chunking, long and short term memory, play, problem solving, and research, I feel that the best teaching practice that can help teachers and students with the art of learning is called modeling. In quick review on the topic of modeling within a text I turn to quite a bit during teaching called the Skillful Teacher, modeling was actually labeled in the text as “modeling: the principle of learning”(Saphier, & Gower, 1997). A brief introduction to modeling is teachers enhance learning by thinking aloud for students; teachers go though the act of thinking (can be from a variety of methods to solve the problem) step-by-step role-playing the thought processes involved in solution of a problem. Teachers include being puzzled, making mistakes, self-correcting, and checking themselves along the way. This can be transferred even further by a concept with-in modeling called Say-Do where the students are provide an opportunity to explain how they solved a problem to the class or to a group of students. Modeling allows teacher to promote the act of learning including giving time to play with problems and good discussion. I think that the proper use of modeling can help teachers practice actively use the art of learning.






References:

Saphier, J., & Gower, R. (1997). The skillful teacher (5th ed.). Acton, MA: Research For
Better Teaching, Inc.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking schools in the age of the computer.
New York: Basic Books

Reaction: Will High-tech Kids Still Think Deeply?

Reaction: Will High-tech Kids Still Think Deeply?

Marshall Mcluhan would be very proud of these two authors. It seems as though they have accepted Mcluhan’s challenge for society to evaluate both the positives and negatives associated with the use and development of new technologies. They have, without making specific mention to it evaluated the obsolescence side of Mcluhan’s Laws of Media tetrad (Mcluhan & Mcluhan, 1988). In essence Tarlow and Spangler in the (2001) article entitled “Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply?” have begun to evaluate how the addition of technology has/will/could affect positively and negatively our literacy and thinking skills. The authors chose to look at literacy because they believe; literacy is the one thing, which has proven to have the greatest impact on the way people think. In evaluation the authors are left questioning weather or not the addition of new technologies will in fact make some of what they feel to be fundamental in the development of literacy and thinking skills obsolete.

I agree with the authors and share a fear that the use of technologies may in fact lead us in the wrong direction related to literacy. I am not a reading or literacy expert so I found the information related to how we develop thinking skills during traditional literacy activity very interesting. I can see how the use of technologies that “replace” traditional literacy activities may have a great effect on the way students develop thinking skills not to mention the learning models needed to develop the skills to read and write. Even in the section entitled “Beneficial?” the authors seem to berate the usefulness of technologies in literacy and thinking for all age groups. This all relates to the idea of obsolescence, with the incorporation of new medium and technologies we must question-what do we loose?

Although I feel the authors did a nice job of evaluating the obsolescence side of technology related to literacy. I feel they fell into a pitfall within Mcluhan’s tetrad. They only became conscious of the effects the technology may have, they never really came up with an answer to fix the effects. They only leave the reader with the warning that if we don’t use the tools well and create a new literacy that incorporates all they types of literacy (circular, linear, and multidimensional) then we are hastening the deterioration of our society. Well thanks a lot for that warning but what is the best way to develop this idea of new literacy?

I am left realizing that we as educators have our work cut out for us and that we will need to address the obsolescence factor in relation to many different technologies that have or may come along. I also see the importance of having experts in certain content areas so that we can use their knowledge of the subject matter to help point the positive and negative effects new technologies.

References:

McLuhan, M. & McLuhan, E. (1988). Laws of media: The new science.

University of Toronto Press.

Tarlow, M., & Spangler, K. L., (2002). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids

still think deeply? The Education Digest. 67(3), 23-27.

Blog #4- Reeves Article

Blog ReflectionReeves Article
An Evaluator Looks at Cultural Diversity

Cultural diversity as defined by Reeves (1997) is “sensitivity and attention to the values, orientations, learning styles, language factors, and traditions of learners from diverse cultural and ethnic background as well as those with special needs” (p.27). Reeves, states his belief that the concept of cultural diversity should be included in the evaluation of instructional programs and dismisses the argument of some that the attention to multiculturalism in today’s evaluation of instructional programs is just a “fad”. Reeves feel that sensitivity to cultural diversity should influence every aspect of human activity including instructional systems design and evaluation.

Modern evaluators of instructional design have begun to place more interest on the concept of cultural diversity and cultural sensitivity in evaluation of instruction. The creation of evaluative tools to judge cultural diversity has been slow coming and many within the field question the ideal way to assess instruction for cultural diversity. The focus on cultural sensitivity in instruction is based on the diversity issues of life in today’s modern world and because of growing commercial and academic institutions seeking global markets though distance learning and the World Wide Web.

I agree with Reeves that cultural diversity should be addressed and assessed in the evaluation on instructional design. But the question still remains HOW? I was enlightened by the examples the author used to demonstrate the cultural insensitivity that has been found in some instructional designs and I see how it can be very difficult to realize something is offensive to another culture. Like the example he used related to the ESL program and the Chinese culture where in the program has a question that is sensitive to Western society but insensitive to the traditional family value in Chinese culture.


Strategies for creating culturally sensitive evaluation:
From a teachers perspective I look at this problem and relate it to a fundamental concept within teaching- KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. If a company wishes to market a program to a particular group they must collaborate with a wide range of representatives from target audience. Companies should be careful to consider the micro and macro cultural levels of the instructional design (McLaughlin & Oliver, 2000). The collaboration with representatives should be done if the program is to be marketed internationally or if it is to be used locally. The wide range of representatives can evaluate the program for insensitivity to all the different facets of cultural diversity (race, culture, values, language etc…). Unfortunately this is not an absolute solution; culturally bias things may slip past the evaluating phase. It is then the job of the teacher (the person who knows the particular audience the best) to adjust the program to the best of there ability so that it will not be bias. (Surprise, surprise teachers have been doing this for years.)


I leave this reflection with a question sparked by this article: Are we as a culture and internationally becoming hyper- sensitive toward cultural diversity? Are we really breaking down wall of diversity, just building them higher or are we all losing our own cultures by attempting to be so culturally sensitive?



References:

McLoughlin, C. & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural
inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58-72.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/aject16/mcloughlin.html.

Reeves, T. (1997). An educator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology,
37(2), 27-31