Resnick

Computers and “finger paint” (Resnick 2001) is not the analogy that most of us would make. Most of us see computers as a tool used to accomplish specific tasks. In reality, they are both. They can be used for simple tasks like research or word processing. They can be used for making movies and as an artist’s canvas. They can be used to build new programs and new ways of accomplishing old tasks. The possibilities are endless when we talk about computers. It is our job as educators to showcase these possibilities and educate our children with the skills they need to make the technology work for them.

This may not be as easy as it seems. As we have discussed throughout this semester, technological advances come very quickly today. Quite frankly, we are struggling to keep up. Our technology teachers need to constantly be learning the newer products and systems so they can teach effectively. Alleviating this problem requires a constructivist approach to education. By putting our students in a situation where they can build their own knowledge, we lessen the pressure on our teachers. We move away from teaching literacy in a program such as Word or Excel, to teaching how to solve problems using the tools at hand.

When it comes to using technology in the classroom, the goals should be to incorporate computers into every curriculum (Ferguson 2001). By doing so, we allow our students to use the computer as a different tool each time. In a physics lab, the computer may have an integrated probe and the lab uses Logger Pro to measure the results of an experiment. In the math classroom, the computer may help with complex computations or better graphing as we saw in the presentation a few weeks back. A WebQuest might be a perfect activity for a class on ancient civilizations. We could allow our students to become archaeologists right in the classroom.

These examples show how technology can be integrated into any subject to allow the students to use the computer. I cannot think of one subject where technology could not be used as a constructivist tool. So many school districts are focused on putting the technology in the classroom but we fall behind when we are asked to utilize what we are given. The technology is here. We have supplied the tool. We now need to redesign our curriculum to use what has been provided.

References

Ferguson, D. (2001). Technology in a Constructivist Classroom. Information technology in childhood education annual. 45-55.

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Publications from the forum for the future of higher education. Boulder, CO: Educause.Available online at http://www.educause.com/resources

Assessment

Proper assessment helps to steer our schools in the right direction. Assessments allow us to track our progress as we make changes to the curriculum. In many cases, assessment results drive those changes. They provide the measuring stick on the wall that we measure our progress against. Assessments and standards go hand in hand. Since No Child Left Behind, the standards are defined by the state. In this manner, I felt some of the article was out of date. We need to prepare our students for a world very different than we have now. If we follow the same level of advancements we’ve had in the last ten years for the next ten years, the global landscape could be very different. Our students need to master tasks we were never presented with. They also need to be able to master the basic tasks that we learned years ago. With this changing landscape comes changing curriculum. As Simmons and Resnick express, “We have a curriculum…that is more in touch with the 1920’s than the modern day “(1993, p.11).
In an effort to perform better and meet the standards, many school districts have made changes to their curriculum. In most cases, these changes help our students perform better. In some cases though, we need to be mindful of what long term effect these changes have on our students. All too frequently the changes that are made focus on the core subjects such as Language Arts and Math or Science. The electives end up suffering with smaller numbers and lass offerings. Eventually, these programs get cut all together. In my district, we are experiencing this problem now. Family Consumer Science, Business Ed, Tech Ed and Music are all suffering from smaller numbers. Our cooking program has all but been eliminated. As a student that lived off campus, I would have been lost without some cooking experience. Now we rely on these tasks being learned outside the school walls. I have heard some educators say that these are things that can be taught at home, outside of school or that they can be optional after school programs. They can be, but should they be? How focused are we at teaching the standard? What do we lose along the way?
Assessments are good measuring tools. They measure what we predefine as the important things, the standards. How well we teach the standards directly impacts how well we perform on the assessment. We can’t allow our educational system to get into the trap of just teaching the standards. We can’t sacrifice other important programs just to make sure we perform well on the standards. At some point, the standards will change. How do we measure our education then?

References

Simmons, W. (1993). Assessment as the Catalyst of School Reform. Educational leadership, 50(5), 11-15.

Bloom

While reading the Bloom article, I could not help but think of some of Dr. Michael George’s statements in class on October 17. In the opening of the article, Bloom describes the expectations of a standard class. One third will fail no matter what you do. Another third will pass even if you don’t teach. The final third is the group you need to teach. Dr. George talked about this same topic during his lecture. He was furious that we aren’t really teaching all our students, only the middle third. Both Bloom and Dr. George agree that this manner of teaching is flawed and needs to be corrected. The critical issue however, is that their statements are separated by thirty eight years. How much has changed during that time period? Bloom sets out describing the five variables of the Carroll model to promote mastery. Evidence shows that the Carroll’s model has been accepted and that Carroll is responsible for focusing the educational community to how learning is affected by time (Carroll 1989). Mastery learning on the other hand has become a topic of some debate.

Robert Slavin authored Mastery Learning Reconsidered in 1987 and questions some of the principals of Bloom’s theory. Since that article, both authors have responded to each other with additional thoughts and justifications. One of the primary principles Slavin takes issue with is the idea that all students need to be at the mastery level before they can continue learning. He continues by illustrating how this requires a change from the traditional model of set time on task with variable achievement to a mastery model where time is the variable and achievement is set (Slavin 1987). Slavin further illustrates the problems associated with time being a variable. What happens to the students that do achieve mastery after the initial instruction? They can’t move on to the next lesson so long as some students are still working. In addition, how long do does the teacher continue to work with the students needing extra attention?

Once answer that Bloom did highlight in his original paper is the idea of students working at their own pace. When I was in high school, I was able to put this theory into practice. My high school had an Algebra 2/Trigonometry class that allowed students to work at their own pace. There were only 15 students in the class and one teacher. There were minimum guidelines set that each student had to master in order to get credit for the Algebra 2. If you were able to move quickly through the material, you could get credit for Trigonometry as well. The teacher did a brief instruction once a week highlighting where you need to be to keep on track and the rest of the time was spent on one-on-one teaching. If you were having difficulty, you could request additional time with the instructor. If you were not having difficulty, you progressed quickly through the material. It was one of the most unique learning experiences I have been involved in.

While this method is not practical for all types of instruction, for math it was a good fit. There are ways to make mastery learning work. It is our job to find out how and implement those ways. We must remember, just because something isn’t easy doesn’t mean we can’t do it. Our goal is to provide the best education for all “thirds” of our students.

References

Bloom, BS. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1.

Carroll, JB. (1989). The Carroll Model: A 25-Year Retrospective and Prospective View. Educational researcher, 18(1), 26-31.

Slavin, RE. (1990). Mastery Learning Re-Reconsidered. Review of educational research, 60(2), 300-02.