- Digital assistants (computers, PDAs) are different than "tools". Tools typically support one activity whereas digital assistants support broader thinking and learning.
- Digital assistants have more functionality than a Swiss Army knife.
- The world requires flexible, adaptable synthesizers of information to solve problems, connect ideas, make decisions, etc.
- Today's students are innately multi-taskers ("Millenials" - born between 1982 and 2000) and teachers are unitaskers. Should we hold students back and make them learn as we did?
- If we recognize and accept that students learn at their own pace, why are we asking them to wait for/share computers when we wouldn't think of asking them to share other resources/tools such as pencils, paper, books, etc.?
- Does genuine technology integration require 1:1 access?
- The two examples of "getting to thinking" faster mentioned by using digital assistants: Maine students studying the ships used by Christopher Columbus on his voyage to America and gathering and charting temperature data and getting to the "what ifs" of an increased temperature change.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Readings for November 8th Meeting
After reading the introduction to Pamela Livingston's book 1-TO-1 Learning: Laptop Programs That Work, these are some ideas/statements that stood out as "jumping off points" for comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I recently reviewed the software that will be installed on the OLPC - One Laptop Per Child initiative, out of MIT. This is a program to bring access to children in depressed economies. All of the software is Open Source and the emphasis is on communication and creativity tools. The OLPC goal is to bridge the global digital divide and to enhance creativity, innovation and collaboration. I think the OLPC will also promote broader thinking and learning, as the digital assistants. I hope to have one of these laptops later in the fall to share with the group.
"Ubiquitous Computing" was the section of Pamela Livingston's introduction that struck me. Students are prepared for the ubiquitous presence of computers in their lives, more so than most teachers are. Laptops have provided opportunities for students to teach one another, allowing the classroom teacher to assume the role of facilitator, making students responsible for the bulk of their learning. The amount of time that can be saved through having the laptops readily available is huge. Providing students the information they need at their fingertips allows students to learn much more than they would through a visit to the computer lab or the library.
I feel that the "tools" that students should be using to learn should be current with the technology that is available. It is not a question of what tools are more functional, but what tools are best for the job. If "digital assistants" allow students to learn better, acquire information, solve problems, make decisions etc. then students need to have access to those tools to help them. I also feel that the question of whether to have 1:1 learning should not make us "throw out the baby with the bath water." Let's have a marriage of what works. Different learners need different tools. Let's have a toolbag that supplies tools for all learners.
I agree that 1:1 access does allow students to think, process and generate information at an independent pace. 1:1 learning has a deeper meaning outside of the laptop and software. It allows the student to break out of the concept of the classroom and, especially, grade structure. This will become the teacher's biggest (and possibly most rewarding) challenge.
The ability synthesize data and produce results will eventually happen in and outside the regular school rooms and hours. The role of the teacher will change. Although teaching will continue, I can see our role expanding to advising and consulting our students...
The notion of the computer as an assistant - whether in the context of a 1:1 discussion or other - seems to be one that should be "elementary" in terms of a discussion when one talks about technology, teaching and learning. However, we know that it is not for many people (i.e. it is a 'thing' to have kids make 'glitzy' finished products). Of course this is far from what it should be in terms of the accepted utility of the computer as an assistant. In some ways then, I see our efforts here addressing the question posed in the article: should we let some teachers hold back other teachers (i.e. those who get and understand the concept of a digital assistant) or do we collectively come to terms with the fact that a very clear way of moving everyone and every program forward is by adopting 1:1 as a school; a grade?
I liked the notion of the assistant rather than tool idea about the laptops.
Clearly that article was very pro the complete 1:1 laptop implementation and seemed to be saying it was not effective to partially implement.
However, I felt that the introduction was a bit rosy tinted - almost too enthusiastic - or at least an example of how you might feel as you start to implement -- later in the process I am sure the number of management, training and maintenance issues could challenge this rosy view.
I am also not sure I agreed with the dichotomy of adults being uni-taskers and kids being natural multi-taskers. That is not how I see them in the classroom. Sure they can put on headsets and do internet research but then we had radio music as background to typewriters so that is not new. I see kids needing to do one thing at a time in the classroom, to focus on new or unfamiliar information and that requires different skills from them multitasking over social and known issues out of school. I would say teachers and many other adults have had to become instinctual multitaskers as much as or more so than kids.
It seems to me that the laptops CAN prepare kids for the future --- if it is thought to be something that is leading the economy, major corporations use, private schools and colleges do --- institutions that set trends and norms for the next generation to follow -- then schools do need to follow in that wake to prepare them for the future workplace. I also agreed that kids can work at their own pace and so on ---
I read in the NYT that some schools in NYC have rescinded their laptop programs amongst high schoolers for a variety of reasons. So I think it would be helpful to have really targetted research and information about implementation in middle schools first and foremost. The theory sounds great and of course, it is a huge income generator for the industries and businesses that give these laptops to the schools - just like the textbook lobby gained power and strength --- how would that work in the equation, I wonder?
I think we need to think of implementation in order to reflect on the goals --- it is so expensive and requires such an overhaul of tradidtional style that asking what it would mean in pragmatic terms and the practical costs and problems seems critical to me, even at this stage.
I think we need to hear from both industry and also a school system who went down this route.
Today's students are innately multi-taskers ("Millenials" - born between 1982 and 2000) and teachers are unitaskers. Should we hold students back and make them learn as we did?
No, I don't think that we should hold children back. I think that we should make the effort to find a common middle that is effective in class. I think that's important that students learn how to focus when it's necessary ( become unifocused) on some tasks; but as a whole, we need to think outside the box re: technology and find ways to intergrate;that means, we have to move to becoming more multi-tasked driven.
Post a Comment