The world we live in

WebQuests provide an authentic, technology-rich environment for problem-solving, information processing, and collaboration! In a world where students are increasingly cynical and unmotivated, WebQuests provide an engaging, challenging learning environment.

According to Annette Lamb and Berhane Teclehaimanot, WebQuests inspire students to “see richer thematic relationships, to contribute to the real world of learning, and to reflect on their own metacognitive processes.”

I have recently realised the benefits of using a WebQuest. I wasn’t very confident in using computers, so this project was proved to be challenging and exciting. Rebecca and I chose to look at Howard Gardner’s’ Multiple Intelligence theory as we both agreed it was vital for all teachers to be aware of.

It was also great to read other WebQuests and see the creativity of their tasks. One WebQuest I thoroughly enjoyed and recommend reading is Bridie’s and Victoria’s. Their WebQuest, ‘Discover with Me’, looked at an internet based collaboration program between Ireland and Australia.

Click to view WebQuest

Created on ‘Inspiration’

Lamb, Annette & Teclehaimanot, Berhane (2005). A Decade of WebQuests: A Retrospective. In M. Orey, J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch, (Eds.). Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol 30). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Microsoft Paint became a useful tool to fostered students’ creativity in ‘Creative Art’. My cooperating teacher believed that students’ should explore various mediums and materials in art education, and using the computer was one of them. With this experience, children were using Paint to create their own pictures and explore the software in their own time. I found that this digital drawing tool provided an appropriate canvas for children to express themselves and their ideas.

Their interactions with the different drawing tools and their reaction to their finished product indicated they enjoyed the experience. The teacher also recommended a website, ‘Art Education Page for K12′, that teachers use to aid the integration of technology with art education. I found this very useful for both prac and the university subject, Creative Art Education.

 This artwork was created on Microsoft paint.

This table demonstrates the roles of the cognitive tools. I found this useful when planning lessons on prac as it helped me decide on the best program to support the lesson content and studnet knoweldge. It was taken from ‘Cognitve Tools’ by Brent Robertson, Laura Elliot and Donna Washington.

Having taken E-Learning as a subject, I have come to realise the dramatic changes within the classroom and the school, and the best tools to use.

The article ‘Cognitive Tools’, by Brent Robertson, Laura Elliot and Donna Washington, looks at the application of technology as a cognitive tool, “…the appropriate role for a computer is not that of a teacher/expert, but rather, that of a mind-extension ‘Cognitive Tool’”. The article states that Cognitive technologies are tools that may be provided by any medium and that help learners “transcend the limitations of their minds, such as memory, thinking, or problem solving limitations”.

To my amazement I realised many cognitive tools have multiple roles. These roles enable students to interact with information in order to acquire, synthesize, create, and share new knowledge. By examining their roles, educators can consider their implementation and impact on student learning.

The authors state “when students work with computer technology, instead of being controlled by it, they enhance the capabilities of the computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning”. In agreement, these tools allow students to effectively seek information, present, organise, integrate and generate their knowledge. Not only are they designing and constructing their own knowledge, but they are representing it in a meaningful manner that mirror cognitive skills and strategies employed through the interaction of information.

However, the article poses some challenges that teachers may encounter. They believe that it can be difficult to measure how students actually use the tools and process information. They say time constraints accompanied by the difficulty of providing feedback to large numbers of students in a timely manner can be challenging to manage. In my opinion, they may be a challenge but are easy to overcome and should not be an excuse to avoid using the software.

I believe technology is imperative to students’ education as they learn “with”, as opposed to “from”, computers. Equipping students’ with these computer skills, training them in software applications, and ensuring they have the ability to navigate the new forms of media will become an essential skill in the 21^st century.

Constructivism was brought to my attention in my recent class. What is? What does it mean? These were questions that instantly sprang to mind. Looking into it, I found that it was a theory that has been around for awhile.  John Dewey encouraged it at the turn of the century. Jean Piaget developed the theory based on his view of psychological development of children, as did Jerome Bruner, and Vygotsky with the social constructivism.The reading, ‘Building Software Beats Using it’ By Idit Harel, explores this theory and experiments it with fourth graders in the US. From the paper, I gathered two important points:

1.      Constructivism is child-centered. The learning environments should support multiple perspectives or interpretations of reality, knowledge construction, context-rich, experience-based activities. “Children (and grown-ups) learn best when they actively engage in playful exploration in which they design and build their own projects, try ideas out and tinker with notions — their own and those of others.”

2.      Constructivism focuses on knowledge construction, not knowledge reproduction. It is a belief that one constructs knowledge from one’s experiences and beliefs that are used to interpret objects and events. “Constructionism holds that learning can happen most effectively when people are actively making things in the real world”.

The paper recognises constructivism and using technology. They say, “kids can design and build their own software rather than just use software someone else created. They can produce their own webpages filled with ideas and designs, develop their own digital activities and games for other kids on the Web, create their own animations and special effects and publish and share their own stories.” With new digital tools the children are able to accomplish tasks like these. I agree to the idea of children designing and building their own software, and as well, exploring their peer’s production. I believe that children should be exposed to such experimental learning in order for them to understand their information. As knowledge continues to increase over the years, and since it also has a shelf life, students should learn the content not memorise it.

“We don’t describe the world we see;
we see the world we can describe.”

One of our literature readings was an article highlighting how we have “pushed” technology integration onto teachers without first making sure that it was a worthwhile endeavor. This thought provoking piece was constructed by Jamie McKenzie, the author who I wrote about recently. His opinons have personally inspired the way I approach the curriculum and how to teach children. The point he is making is actually quite simple. He says we should emphasize learning goals and strategies when planning lessons. We should then select tools that match this point. He continues by saying that to “unstuff” the curriculum we should expect that “curriculum planners within the areas of social studies, math, science, language arts and the fine arts will make smart choices of technologies as they might blend naturally and comfortably into the content areas.”

Are we cramming too much junk into subjects that let children miss out on what is important?
Are we keeping up with our advancing society?
Are we making smart choices?

His article is great. It is, however, the picture attached to the article that says a thousand words.
Article- Stuffing Technology into the Curriculum

The Sunday Herald recently brought out a article concerning the future of our classrooms. It highlights the new techonolgy advancements that will be brought into the schools. However, reading the article has put me into two minds. The computer-connected microscopes, touch-screen technology, integrated video projectors, digital cameras and infra-red hand-held devices would be great to initate every student in the room to take part of their learning electronically. However I believe that when students are text-messaging their questions and answers instead of putting up their hands is taking technology too far, both a waste of time and money. Within the article, Respected US education commentator Jamie McKenzie states that it’s vital that “educators don’t fall into the trap of adopting new technology for technology’s sake”. I agree with his views in saying that teachers should focus on the childrens learning and not be caught up with the “frivolous, fun, fanciful, trendy, cool, neat stuff that does not contribute to intellectual rigour and thinking.”

How far is too far?
Article- Time to reboot the class