And based on everything I've learned about copyright laws over the past few weeks, it should scare you too. As our professor emphasized in class, while none of us are likely to face a lawsuit if we play John Lennon's "Imagine" in a presentation for our students (because no one is going to tell or care), we need to be prepared to face the consequences if we're caught or if a music exec's kid is sitting in our class. Don't forget about the teacher who showed "Shrek" from a bad DVD and got fired. That kid's father was such a jerk, by the way. I'd have given that teacher a nice, stern warning and confiscated the DVD at the next parent-teacher conference.
Anyway, the biggest implication I see copyright laws having on every day teaching involves websites and computer programs. Putting random online photos, videos or music clips on a website (a personal or class website) is something I will never do now. I will also never install another program onto any computer in my classroom unless I read over the copyright laws, thoroughly, and follow them to a T.
Since I'm not crazily dependent on using technology and since most materials can be used if its for an educational purpose, I don't see copyright having huge implications on my future teaching. But it certainly feels nice knowing what the rules are. I don't like messing with the government...
Monday, October 17, 2011
Ask questions, ask lots of questions!
Inquiry-based learning has a place in every classroom, and it will certainly be part of my English class. Some of my best memories from high school English are simply of me and my classmates sitting in a circle in our desks, a poem in front of us, answering questions like, "do you like this poem?" "what's this poem about?" and, "why is it important?" So many times before, I had taken as gospel what my teachers said was important about a certain text. Of course, we were asked to discuss the text but usually we were asked specific questions that had only one or two correct answers. We were expected to discern, for example, that "Lord of the Flies" is about primal human instincts and the degradation of society. Well sure; that certainly has a lot to do with it, but what makes learning extra effective, fun and meaningful is allowing kids to make those conclusions themselves, rather than telling them first. My favorite quote from an article on constructivist or inquiry-based learning is:
...Schools must change from a focus on "what we know" to an emphasis on "how we come to know."
Students in my English class will not be told why Shakespeare's language is effective. They will be provided the opportunity to ask why, and then given guidance on how to figure it out through research, discussions, writing and reading activities. Of course, teachers cannot create lessons that are 100% inquiry-based. That would be too frustrating for students. However, my goal as an English teacher is to create learners who constantly ask why and how, rather than create learners who recite what.
One of the most important reasons for this is in today's world, students are constantly bombarded with information from multiple sources. How do they know which news article to trust, which politician to vote for, which charity to donate to? These seem like basic tasks, but not for a student who never learned how to ask his or her own questions and find reliable answers. That's what I want my kids to learn, above all.
...Schools must change from a focus on "what we know" to an emphasis on "how we come to know."
Students in my English class will not be told why Shakespeare's language is effective. They will be provided the opportunity to ask why, and then given guidance on how to figure it out through research, discussions, writing and reading activities. Of course, teachers cannot create lessons that are 100% inquiry-based. That would be too frustrating for students. However, my goal as an English teacher is to create learners who constantly ask why and how, rather than create learners who recite what.
One of the most important reasons for this is in today's world, students are constantly bombarded with information from multiple sources. How do they know which news article to trust, which politician to vote for, which charity to donate to? These seem like basic tasks, but not for a student who never learned how to ask his or her own questions and find reliable answers. That's what I want my kids to learn, above all.
Loving Technology but Ignoring Content
After reading this article from the Washington Post, I can safely say I agree with the sentiment that filling a school with iPads and laptops will not guarantee an improvement in student performance. The author asserts that the reason students are doing so poorly in schools is that content, or what we're teaching kids and why, is poor and that giving schools money for technology improves nothing. Content needs to be addressed first. The problem, as the writer points out, is that great technology is easy to measure and fund. Determining great content can be tricky. This country is full of exceptional teachers who are just as frustrated as this writer is, and while these teachers may share views on the most effective teaching pedagogies (constructivist learning for example), many will disagree with each other on which content should be used to teach reading, writing and literature, and why this content is important. Each teacher has his or her own unique teaching goals and objectives.
We can all agree that American kids are flailing like dying fish on a dock in our schools, and we all want them to stop flailing, focus and just do better. So when departments of education see a school in a better socio-economic neighborhood rife with technological resources produce better student performance, they assume A directly led to B (more technology directly lead to better performance) and the non-sequitur the writer describes is created.
Yet taking technology out of the equation is not the solution, and that's what this article suggests. At least, that's what I got from it. Yes, content needs to change but we cannot blame technology funding on weak pedagogies and content. And we should not halt this type of funding either. Kids need technology in schools; it's important, especially when that technology is used to its best advantage by teachers and staff. Just as more technology does not lead to better performance, more technology does not necessarily lead to worse performance. Computers, iPads, smartboards, laptops with photoshop and Microsoft Word can improve learning, it absolutely can. I wish the writer would acknowledge this. Even if content remains the same, technology can make a book like "Animal Farm" more accessible and fun for students. Kids can create artwork based on the book on Photoshop, conduct research for essays on computers, or simply have access to the text itself. As Kelly Gallagher points out in "Readicide" many, many schools lack this basic resource. So if a school receives funding to give kids books on iPads or Kindles, I say hallelujah. At least the kids are getting books.
The problem I therefore have with this article is the writer seems to use technology funding as a scapegoat for weak content in our schools. Is this true? Maybe, but I would bet a week's paycheck that one of the real culprits for poor performance and weak content is standardized testing. We need to reconsider how we measure student performance and how tests are holding kids back. But that's a whole different conversation, a conversation that unfortunately moves in circles amongst teachers, administrators and the big dogs in DC who make the laws (and, of course, have never stepped foot inside a classroom as an educator.)
We can all agree that American kids are flailing like dying fish on a dock in our schools, and we all want them to stop flailing, focus and just do better. So when departments of education see a school in a better socio-economic neighborhood rife with technological resources produce better student performance, they assume A directly led to B (more technology directly lead to better performance) and the non-sequitur the writer describes is created.
Yet taking technology out of the equation is not the solution, and that's what this article suggests. At least, that's what I got from it. Yes, content needs to change but we cannot blame technology funding on weak pedagogies and content. And we should not halt this type of funding either. Kids need technology in schools; it's important, especially when that technology is used to its best advantage by teachers and staff. Just as more technology does not lead to better performance, more technology does not necessarily lead to worse performance. Computers, iPads, smartboards, laptops with photoshop and Microsoft Word can improve learning, it absolutely can. I wish the writer would acknowledge this. Even if content remains the same, technology can make a book like "Animal Farm" more accessible and fun for students. Kids can create artwork based on the book on Photoshop, conduct research for essays on computers, or simply have access to the text itself. As Kelly Gallagher points out in "Readicide" many, many schools lack this basic resource. So if a school receives funding to give kids books on iPads or Kindles, I say hallelujah. At least the kids are getting books.
The problem I therefore have with this article is the writer seems to use technology funding as a scapegoat for weak content in our schools. Is this true? Maybe, but I would bet a week's paycheck that one of the real culprits for poor performance and weak content is standardized testing. We need to reconsider how we measure student performance and how tests are holding kids back. But that's a whole different conversation, a conversation that unfortunately moves in circles amongst teachers, administrators and the big dogs in DC who make the laws (and, of course, have never stepped foot inside a classroom as an educator.)
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Tech Programs in the Classroom
One of the great things about the programs we've been learning about in this class is that they involve texts, images and sound. Kids who have trouble reading or don't like reading can still be engaged in class projects that include taking photos, re-designing those photos (in photoshop) or typing in poems to a computer. Some programs however, like Photoshop, might be too advanced for developmentally challenged kids - and thats what I feel UDEL emphasizes, creating classroom materials that are accessible for kids of various developmental backgrounds.
The Wonders of Photoshop
I've seen a former boss of mine do incredible things with Photoshop. He could create beautiful and eye-catching posters with just a few photos. He could twist cherry blossom branches around words on a poster, advertising a poetry reading, and he could make an old face look young again. I therefore always viewed photoshop as a great tool for people in advertising, marketing and PR as my boss created posters and promotional materials for university events.
He taught me a few things, but I was still rusty when I tried making the above photo. It started off as a simple winterscape, and I inserted my golden retriever Riley into the scene. I did this using the lasso cut and paste technique. I wanted to master cutting, pasting and moving objects around in a photo, so my third "layer" became the tree on the right hand side. It's a copy of the tree trunk on the inner left-hand side. Once that was done, I experimented with the magic wand. Highlighting the grass on which Riley was sitting on in his original photo, I turned the snow into grass using the magic wand. To make the grass look more realistic, I tried to vary the color to create a shade effect. I also used the smudge tool to blend the grass into the snow. The magic wand was also used to put more fluffy snow around Riley so it looks like he's sitting in a snow bank. Flowers that were cut, pasted, shrunk then copied and text were the final touches.
I'm pretty happy with the final result - it's certainly amateur but that's okay. Photoshop is a great way for kids to create book covers, posters and artistic images for class projects or extracurricular activities, like drama club or student council. Teachers often like to play with images when reading poems or narratives, so it could be fun to challenge students to create a metaphorical background for a poem through photoshop. Teachers should reach out to school tech professionals for tutorials, and for extra support when teaching kids how to use photoshop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)