So, it is fairly obvious that the point Kadjer (and CEHD for that matter) is stressing is this: Technology in the classroom is great! According to Kadjer, a lot of our students interact with many different technological models outside of the classroom (think video games, blogs, social networking, etc) and find this platform for communication to be extremely engaging. Technology provides students with endless options for expressing their opinions and ideas (photos, videos, graphics, etc) in tandem with traditional textual descriptions. The little personal experience snippets in the article that document how teachers saw drastic improvements in student engagement once technology was introduced was a little bit motivating, but I still found myself wondering...
How am I supposed to incorporate technology into my middle school classroom on the North side? Many of my students don't have access to the computers at home and reserving the computer lab at school appears to be quite difficult. How are we supposed to weave technology into our lessons when we don't have access to computers and we have no money to buy "the new tools that will help us produce new things" (Kajder, 8)?
I think Kajder's assertions are spot on; I do think integrating technology in the classroom would increase engagement and also expose students to new ways that they can express themselves and construct their work. I just don't think this idea is extremely realistic. I wish it was different and that educators had the appropriate technology in the classroom to participate in such projects as classroom blogs, websites, imovies, etc. But many of us don't. So I understand that technology is great and all, but I really wish articles that stress the importance of technology in the classroom would tell us how exactly we should weave technology into the classroom when we only have limited, if any, access to it.
I liked this Washington Post editorial. The author agrees that technology is useful in the classroom, but points out that it is currently only accessible to the rich.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2010/05/technology_may_change_all_scho.html
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Fourth Reflection: CI 5461
The article "Awesome, dude!" clearly states two main points essential to teaching students how to revise writing constructively. One: Teachers must model the revision process and how, when done succesfully, it can greatly develop a story. Two: Students need scaffolding when learning the importance of revision. We as teachers cannot simply tell them that revising and providing constructive criticism will make the story stronger without actually teaching them the process of revising. We also cannot expect students to know how to revise critically just because they are in advanced courses or have been participating in workshops for X amount of time.
While I agree that modeling and scaffolding are good approaches to take when teaching a lesson, the author of this article (in my opinion) seemed to think that the problem in most writing workshops is that students don't know how to critique papers effectively. Therefore, he demonstrates how we as teachers can teach this process to students to help sharpen their writing skills. But I am not sure that the problem is that students don't know how to give peer reviews. It may be that the idea of reading and critiquing schoolmates papers is cso onstantly driven into them that they have completely lost interest in it over the years. In my high school, we had to do peer reviews ALL the time. Although we had learned how to critique papers, the majority of us would rather talk than take time to closely read our peers work. So although VanDeWeghe makes the argument that students just don't know how to critique peer essays, I would debate that students do--they simply are sick of the traditional process of peer reviewing. Instead of teaching the basics of peer reviewing again to students, I think we should come up with more creative approaches to structuring peer review workshops in the classroom.
Resource Link: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Gibson-PeerReview.html
If you scroll down to the procedure step in this article, you will see a more creative and interactive way to structure peer reviewing workshops. It deviates from the traditional model of swapping papers and provides (in my opinion) a much more engaging approach.
While I agree that modeling and scaffolding are good approaches to take when teaching a lesson, the author of this article (in my opinion) seemed to think that the problem in most writing workshops is that students don't know how to critique papers effectively. Therefore, he demonstrates how we as teachers can teach this process to students to help sharpen their writing skills. But I am not sure that the problem is that students don't know how to give peer reviews. It may be that the idea of reading and critiquing schoolmates papers is cso onstantly driven into them that they have completely lost interest in it over the years. In my high school, we had to do peer reviews ALL the time. Although we had learned how to critique papers, the majority of us would rather talk than take time to closely read our peers work. So although VanDeWeghe makes the argument that students just don't know how to critique peer essays, I would debate that students do--they simply are sick of the traditional process of peer reviewing. Instead of teaching the basics of peer reviewing again to students, I think we should come up with more creative approaches to structuring peer review workshops in the classroom.
Resource Link: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Gibson-PeerReview.html
If you scroll down to the procedure step in this article, you will see a more creative and interactive way to structure peer reviewing workshops. It deviates from the traditional model of swapping papers and provides (in my opinion) a much more engaging approach.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
And again, I forgot to post my link...
This link describes different methods that teachers can use to teach the revision process to middle school students:
http://www.learner.org/workshops/middlewriting/images/pdf/W7ReadPeer.pdf
http://www.learner.org/workshops/middlewriting/images/pdf/W7ReadPeer.pdf
Third Reflection: CI 5461
I haven't had much experience teaching revision in a classroom setting, but I certainly am familiar with the process from the perspective of a student. My high school constantly had us participate in writing workshops where the importance of revision was stressed, and being the apathetic student that I was, I demonstrated the exact behavior that Harper's students did prior to learning how to properly reflect and revise. I simply changed a few sentences around, found synonyms for a number of words, and printed a clearer copy before submitting it as a draft. My high school never taught me how to properly revise a paper and as a result, I found this designated class time in high school to be a total waste.
When I first saw the title of Harper's piece, "The Writer's Toolbox: Five Tools for Active Revision Instruction", I immediately thought it would be a snooze. To this day, I am still skeptical about the revision process because for me, it has never been a useful step in the process of writing. Since I still don't really know how to properly revise, I figured her tips for instruction were going to be absolutely expendable. But during my reading, I was exposed to her students work as they began to utilize her five tools for revision (question, snapshots, thoughtshots, exploding a moment, and making a scene). Her five tips seemed to drastically improve her students writing and as I began to consider their place in the revision process, I could see how they could be extremely useful tools to teach young writers about composition.
I think this approach to teaching the process of revision would be especially effective in a middle school setting, which is the level that Harper teaches. Her steps are pretty engaging, and I believe that students at this age would really enjoy drawing out their ideas and collaborating with one another to further flesh out their individual memories. I also feel that this process is most appropriate at the middle school level because as students enter high school, I believe it would be beneficial to already have mastered the process of revision. If they receive instruction on how to effectively revise during middle school, then as they enter high school they will be able to produce much more detailed narratives.
Harper's article exposed me to five easy steps writers can take to better illustrate their stories. Thinking back to my own high school experience, I really wish that a teacher had taken the time to teach me that revision, when done properly, is a useful tool that often further develops and strengthens a student's written work.
When I first saw the title of Harper's piece, "The Writer's Toolbox: Five Tools for Active Revision Instruction", I immediately thought it would be a snooze. To this day, I am still skeptical about the revision process because for me, it has never been a useful step in the process of writing. Since I still don't really know how to properly revise, I figured her tips for instruction were going to be absolutely expendable. But during my reading, I was exposed to her students work as they began to utilize her five tools for revision (question, snapshots, thoughtshots, exploding a moment, and making a scene). Her five tips seemed to drastically improve her students writing and as I began to consider their place in the revision process, I could see how they could be extremely useful tools to teach young writers about composition.
I think this approach to teaching the process of revision would be especially effective in a middle school setting, which is the level that Harper teaches. Her steps are pretty engaging, and I believe that students at this age would really enjoy drawing out their ideas and collaborating with one another to further flesh out their individual memories. I also feel that this process is most appropriate at the middle school level because as students enter high school, I believe it would be beneficial to already have mastered the process of revision. If they receive instruction on how to effectively revise during middle school, then as they enter high school they will be able to produce much more detailed narratives.
Harper's article exposed me to five easy steps writers can take to better illustrate their stories. Thinking back to my own high school experience, I really wish that a teacher had taken the time to teach me that revision, when done properly, is a useful tool that often further develops and strengthens a student's written work.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Of course I forgot to post my link for week 2...
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/636
This article provides ways for middle school teachers to structure their student led debates and also reasons why debates are good learning tools in the classroom. It also provides a mock debate rubric, debate etiquette, ways to ensure student participation, ways to structure student research, and a number of other details essential to a successful in-class debate.
This article provides ways for middle school teachers to structure their student led debates and also reasons why debates are good learning tools in the classroom. It also provides a mock debate rubric, debate etiquette, ways to ensure student participation, ways to structure student research, and a number of other details essential to a successful in-class debate.
Second Reflection: CI 5461
I really enjoyed this weeks readings that addressed the pros and cons of the five paragraph essay. Prior to reading the Wesley and Novick articles, I really had no idea that this was such a heated topic. I can understand both sides of this argument, but as I have experience with both types of assignments, I have strong opinions on what method of composition and argumentation is more beneficial for the student.
Wesley states that students have become accustomed to think that an excellent essay MUST fit into the five paragraph format. While the five paragraph style is a good organizational tool, I do agree with Wesley that it may stunt creative work. I think that an essay consisting of five paragraphs really limits the amount of analysis that a student could express through writing. If the first paragraph must be the introduction and the last is the conclusion, that only leaves three paragraphs to unwrap a question or issue that is generally very broad in nature. Her examples of student papers that focused on great questions but failed to address it fully due to the paragraph limitation really demonstrated to me the ill effects of using this approach to essay writing.
I really liked Wesley's idea of creating debates within the classroom. Debates often stir up a bit of anxiety among students because they are forced to defend their idea in front of classmates instead of silently on paper. Because of this style of presentation, they will most likely prepare a better argument so as to not appear 'stupid' in front of classmates. Utilizing debate in the classroom also exposes students to different perspectives. By witnessing debates, students may develop more of an understanding for a perspective that they had previously viewed as 'wrong' or 'stupid'. In my response to Megan D's post, I addressed my own person experience debating abortion in a high school classroom and later writing about the perspective that I argued against. Writing a paper about the opposing side forced me to listen to my 'opponent' instead of blindly arguing strictly because I thought I was right. I learned a great deal about an issue that I had previously only viewed from one side. This sort of collaborative learning environment could never be accomplished in a five paragraph essay. I think debate is an exceptional way to create an interactive classroom that focuses on unpacking big topics that could be interpreted very differently among students.
Although I can understand why certain teachers weave the five paragraph essay into curriculum, I am not interested in using this approach to composition. I think it being an easier assignment to grade may appeal to certain teachers, but I find it less beneficial for student learning. In my future teaching, I plan on avoiding the 5 paragraph essay and instead will provide students with a more creative platform in which to express their opinions.
Wesley states that students have become accustomed to think that an excellent essay MUST fit into the five paragraph format. While the five paragraph style is a good organizational tool, I do agree with Wesley that it may stunt creative work. I think that an essay consisting of five paragraphs really limits the amount of analysis that a student could express through writing. If the first paragraph must be the introduction and the last is the conclusion, that only leaves three paragraphs to unwrap a question or issue that is generally very broad in nature. Her examples of student papers that focused on great questions but failed to address it fully due to the paragraph limitation really demonstrated to me the ill effects of using this approach to essay writing.
I really liked Wesley's idea of creating debates within the classroom. Debates often stir up a bit of anxiety among students because they are forced to defend their idea in front of classmates instead of silently on paper. Because of this style of presentation, they will most likely prepare a better argument so as to not appear 'stupid' in front of classmates. Utilizing debate in the classroom also exposes students to different perspectives. By witnessing debates, students may develop more of an understanding for a perspective that they had previously viewed as 'wrong' or 'stupid'. In my response to Megan D's post, I addressed my own person experience debating abortion in a high school classroom and later writing about the perspective that I argued against. Writing a paper about the opposing side forced me to listen to my 'opponent' instead of blindly arguing strictly because I thought I was right. I learned a great deal about an issue that I had previously only viewed from one side. This sort of collaborative learning environment could never be accomplished in a five paragraph essay. I think debate is an exceptional way to create an interactive classroom that focuses on unpacking big topics that could be interpreted very differently among students.
Although I can understand why certain teachers weave the five paragraph essay into curriculum, I am not interested in using this approach to composition. I think it being an easier assignment to grade may appeal to certain teachers, but I find it less beneficial for student learning. In my future teaching, I plan on avoiding the 5 paragraph essay and instead will provide students with a more creative platform in which to express their opinions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)