Week 14 Response

I thought Nichole Pinkard's study on Rappin' Reader and Say Say Oh Playmate was really interesting, not only because of the culturally responsive aspect to the programs, but also because of the way the programs were designed around specific theories of learning to read. For instance, because word repetition is essential to learning new words, the fact that Rappin' Reader used repetitive lyrics makes perfect sense. It seems like this is a kind of "drill and kill" software in which the repetitive drills are actually grounded in what we know about how our brains process and learn language. This made me think back to our discussions about drill and practice software for math education, and made me wonder whether math software is grounded in the same kind of knowledge -- how are brains understand math. I also liked that these were tested in after school programs in order to consider whether kids would really choose to play with the programs when other activities are offered. Since we know that student interest and motivation is a key piece to student learning, this aspect to the study seemed to me to be a really good way to gauge real student interest.

Week 13 Response

I found the Edelson, Gordin, and Pea article particularly interesting because (I think) it is the first article that we've read in which we've looked at a single learning technology as it has been adapted and changed through a couple of editions. It was interesting to read what the creators learned throughout their process. I was surprised and amused by their decision not to design any curriculum for the first version of their program, Climate Visualizer. They simply said, "we did not feel predesigned curricula were appropriate because we were hoping to foster an entirely student-driven form of inquiry-based learning in which student would generate and pursue their own research questions" (Edelson et al., 1999, p. 404). Of the many changes they made to their program throughout its four (or so) reincarnations, this seems to be the one they changed most significantly. Later (and this is the part that amused me) they developed a five-week curriculum comprised of structured activities, lessons, and even a culminating mock conference. And throughout all of this, the actual software seemed to play only a small part! That is a far cry from a "predesigned curricula" they initially felt would be "inappropriate." This leads me to two thoughts. First, that in creating this wonderful tool that students were supposed to dive into and explore, they were expecting students -- novices -- to behave like experts. The authors acknowledge the difficulties they had in creating an "authentic" tool for students to use that is similar to what experts would use while still making it accessible to students. But the very premise of this idea, the expectation that students should behave like experts, seems faulty to me. Students know they're students, not experts, and they aren't fooled by technologies that are only disguised as "real" tools that "real" scientists use. While I appreciate the authors' motives -- that by adapting these tools for student use, the developers are trying to increase student learning by providing an experience close to the ways in which professionals work -- I am still skeptical of their (or anyone's) ability to create a balance between accessibility and authenticity. I suppose I think that their end product was better because it gave students a taste of working with an expert-like tool, pushing them to new understandings, but took place within a well-designed and quite structured (and perhaps more traditional?) curriculum. The second thought I had related to this is that once again we see in this article the theme of imposing a really cool and advanced technology on classrooms with teachers who aren't comfortable with either the technology component of the program or the domain knowledge required to teach it . . . and then the learning technology fails to be used to its full potential. I would love to read something that describes teachers coming together with technology experts to design a tool that solves a real problem or fills a genuine void that teachers actually have in their classrooms. Now that would be authentic!

Week 11 Response

The Corbett readings this week really gave me a sense of what it means to pay attention to the social contexts of environments for which one designs or implements learning technologies. In many of our readings, the authors have made mention of the importance of doing so, but these readings for today go into explicit detail about what this really means. For instance, Corbett & Koedinger discuss the theories of human cognition on which cognitive tutors are based, and they describe the ways in which the application is designed to mimic human tutoring and instruction as best as they are able. Because of this, this technology seems unique among some of the other learning technologies we have considered. Though many of technologies that we have looked at are indeed based on theories about learning or instruction – which are both important, of course – this article seems to be the first of what we’ve read that really hones in on what it is that people and brains do well, and then designs a technology to behave in the same way. In other words, this seems to be the starting point for developing the cognitive tutor, rather than a mere consideration or adaptation along the way in designing. By using theories of human cognition as a starting point, the designers were able to look carefully at underlying assumptions about how students learn math (e.g., students learn decimal and fraction problems well in problem situations, but learn factors and multiples well in abstract problems [Corbett & Koedinger, 72]). This seems key to me not only in designing a learning technology, but for educators in selecting them for use in schools as well; it is crucial that we make choices about learning technologies based on facts and evidence, rather than what we assume to be true regarding how students learn best. While I was convinced throughout these chapters that the designers based both their design and assessment of the cognitive tutoring software and curriculum on understandings of how students think and learn and how human tutors behave, I was not as convinced in their assessment of increased student motivation in the classroom. Their conclusion that students who use the cognitive tutor not only demonstrate achievement gains (though it seems to remain to be seen if such gains are sustainable) but are also more engaged in general just seemed to be fluffy – an observation made in passing, rather than one bases on empirical data. This made me think it would be helpful to have in depth knowledge about what students enjoy and what motivates individuals (perhaps this is how economics might fit, but . . . ugh!) in order to design even better and more effective technologies.

Week 10 Response

While reading Larry Cuban's _Teachers and Machines_, I couldn't help but think of the circumstances that librarians and media specialists find themselves in today in relation to technology. Cuban discusses the ways that film, radio, "microcomputers," and in particular TV have entered the educational field, posing as panaceas, and threatening to become "surrogate teacher[s]" (Cuban 37). In discussing the tension between change and constancy in American classrooms, Cuban explains why technology simply can not and will not replace the teacher as the head of the classroom. Yet for librarians and media specialists, fear of being replaced by machines (or Internet and Web technologies) is a reality. For example, in the professional practices course I took last semester, we frequently took up the issue as to how to convince the public of the librarian's importance and role in an increasingly informationally-overloaded world. It seems to me that we were forever talking about and reassuring ourselves that librarians are even more important today given the ubiquity of informational technology and heavy reliance on the Web. But the question was - how to make the public and patrons see and appreciate this fact? And, I think for school librarians, replacement is more than a fear -- it is an actuality as school districts cut these positions. Since Cuban's central argument as to why machines can not replace teachers relates specifically to the nature and structure of schooling, it is not as though his book completely maps onto the difficulties that librarians wrestle with. Furthermore, it is only my assumption that media specialist positions are cut by tight school budgets because administrators don't value the work that media specialists do, or see their role in education as an irreplaceable one (I suppose there are other reasons). However, insofar as one of the school media specialist's roles is being a teacher, Cuban's work applies. Perhaps it would help school media specialists to identify the elements of the job that fall into the "constant" category as opposed to the "change" category (such as continuing to emphasize the importance of reading for pleasure and accessing books), and to capitalize on these things, while working to prove to administrators, fellow teachers, parents, and the broader community that seeking, finding, evaluating, and using information are not mechanical processes that children can engage in without the help of a teacher/media specialist.

Week 8 Response

Let me begin with a disclosure: due to midterm preparations, I haven't read all that I should have. However, I plan to forge ahead, and make a few comments, at least, on Andee Rubin's paper for today's class. Rubin argues for taking a close look at current (though I see this paper is from '99) school environments before implementing learning technologies for math. He also begins with curriculum standards as a jumping off point for a discussion on a handful of effective math computer programs in use in schools. What I liked most about Rubin's discussion was its acknowledgement of the importance of situating math instruction with technology in a social context -- recognizing that real people will be using the technology in real environments, which can throw a lot of variables into the mix. This also has an element of situated cognition to it. That is, Rubin points out that teaching students math by using a program such as Fathom allows students to experience and learn from "tools that are actually used by statisticians" (Rubin, 1999, p. 7). Another observation that struck me was that the Web can provide an audience and a community for students doing math (Rubin, 1999, p.9). I like this idea because there is potential to connect an individual student's experience with math to a larger community (a community of practice?) of people who use math - real mathemeticians, or other students exploring similar concepts.

Week 7 Response

Even though I'm not a big math/science person (probably because I never got to program with Turtles in grade school), I still enjoyed this week's readings. Other than our very first readings (when I was temporarily convinced that technology is the bane of education), I haven't been altogether convinced of the place of technology in instruction or the merit of it in learning. But this week . . . this week I'm feeling more convinced. The Klopfer et al. paper, "Complexity and Biology," demonstrated in very concrete and practical ways how technology - in this case, computer simulations - can actually build student learning. Being a School of Information student, and having read so much about information technology and information literacy skills, I have this feeling that I've read too many arguments about the role of technology in learning -- that technology helps students think more critically, build new understanding, and apply their knowledge in new ways -- that have left me feeling unconvinced. I feel like I just haven't really seen the evidence of precisely how technology can achieve these goals. Or, at least, I haven't really been able to grasp the connection between the purported outcomes and what technology does differently than what a good teacher can do. However, the authors' discussion of using computer simulation programming as part of an ecology unit on population made the benefits of technology real to me. They point to the way that computers allow for running quick and repeated experiments and help students collect data instantly. After reading this, I felt like: Yes, that makes sense. This is what computers are good at and how they should be used. I think the key is incorporation, rather than replacement. When technologies are worked in carefully with traditional (and proven) methods for teaching content and high-level thinking, then they are helpful and useful. For example, because the computer simulation was just one activity among many, and because it was situated after the students gained field experience and used a tactile exercise to experiment, I think that it was able to have a greater impact on student learning than if it had been used as a stand-alone (like Jasper) or follow-up activity (such as drill-based software or educational games). One more comment - in Klopfer & Yoon's "Developing Games" article in Tech Trends, they mention their goal of moving beyond helping students simply manage information. Sometimes I feel as though this is what we (as in, the SI people) focus so much on - how to deal with, navigate, and evaluate the vast information spaces of today. This is boring sometimes. (I feel guilty admitting this.) The really interesting stuff, I think, is using all the information that we absorb and creating with it. (I suppose that's why i like reading and writing and art - because these are creative activities that can build on each other.) Reading this week's articles made me wonder (and I don't have an answer) how I, with my LIS and school media training, can realistically incorporate learning technologies in a school media classroom environment and/or lesson to push beyond just managing information. What can I do to help students not just acquire information literacy skills (which will be a huge part of my job), but actually use what they learn to make and create and write and think new things altogether?

Week 6 Response

On learning technologies for social studies and history . . . I really enjoyed this week's readings, and kept thinking about all the ways they are applicable to the activities that media specialists engage in. For example, the O'Neill paper discussed the authors' creation of a "library of practice," a collection of digital media designed to show students of history how actual scholars and historians do their work. For schools that aren't able to purchase such software, the school's media specialist could be a resource for putting students in touch with the work of real practitioners. This also made me think some about how one aspect of my future career as a school media specialist will be collection development, and in selecting and purchasing materials for the library, it will be important for me to acquire materials that reflect the real work of real practitioners, whether they are historians or scientists or writers, and so on. In Scardamalia's paper on the CSILE project, I was very interested in the 11 principles of cognitive-based design the authors outlined. For one, the principles they identify are informing my thinking about my "conceptual framework" for this course. Since I want to develop some kind of checklist or index that will help me evaluate learning technologies that I come across in the future, I think that the concise principles in this paper will help me focus my thinking. (Same goes for the Bass paper - the questions the authors pose about using technology for teaching social studies will be equally useful for me.) But I also liked the Scardamalia paper and its 11 principles because I was really excited reading about the CSILE project - it sounds like such a neat program. So many of the software programs that come to mind when I think of "learning technologies" - as well as a few of the programs we've explored in the class so far - just haven't appealed to me that much, because they don't seem to do anything all that differently from or better than what a capable teacher can do. But the CSILE project seems like something that actually augments student learning and teacher instruction because of the way that it focuses not on the task and the individual, but on the process and the group. The way in which students post, tag, share, and edit each other's notes is not too far off from some of the most exciting things happening on the web now. While the paper focused on the cognitive aspects and benefits of CSILE, I found its social aspect to be really exciting, because I expect that the social dimension is an excellent way to motivate students to engage with the technology.