Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

« Older Entries

Reflections

Wednesday, May 1st, 2013

re-flec-tion

noun

4. A thought occurring in consideration or meditation

 

“All we know about our culture, we know through the mass media.”

Niklas Luhmann, The Reality of the Mass Media

 

As today was my last scheduled visit to School One, I thought it fit to reflect on the material that I have compiled over the semester. In the process of reflecting, I realised that putting together a case study (my initial goal in this endeavor) would be impossible without considering the different analytical frameworks at play within the space of the school. “Technology in Education” is too broad a phrase; multiple aspects are involved in the process of technology integration which come with their own methods of analysis. For example, considering the shifting ways in which students are presenting information (through multimodal texts) requires a bit of literary theory, a dash of filmic analysis, and perhaps a brief consideration of the “nuts and bolts” of the digital medium. Of course, this changes depending on project but my example illuminates the different fields this type of analysis draws upon. Broadly examining and discussing technology use in classrooms requires drawing on multiple fields and disciplines; digital technology demands an interdisciplinary approach to its analysis.

Furthermore, I also considered how digital technology fits into the framework of the classroom. Digital “tools” (as I have mentioned previously) are not necessarily appendages to the pre-existing fabric of the classroom. Rather, they integrate themselves into whichever situation they are used in as a result of their user’s social practices. The students at School One especially demonstrate the emergence of a participatory culture, an inherent understanding of media convergence, and a developing sense of what it means to be a “multimodal scholar”. When this is taken into consideration, digital technology is no longer seen as an imposition to students. Rather, digital technology merely reflects the pre-existing social practices of the time. Thus, the question is not why we should incorporate digital tools into our classrooms. Instead, the question is why shouldn’t we?

Though the ideas of media convergence and participatory cultures indicate an increased sense of collaboration and co-creation, my field notes and observations point to the contrary. Leveraging new media promises to augment communication and discussion but from what I’ve come to understand, collaboration and co-creation prove highly contingent on the preexisting physical infrastructure in which they are located (in this case, in education). As Alison Cook-Sather suggests, education can be understood as a constant process of translation — all learners are both translators and the subject of translation. This particular mechanism is already in place within the school and digital technology does not necessarily change this core foundation. Digital technology simply works with what’s already in place, rather than alter it entirely. Certain patterns will always persist.

Consequently, the idea of technology within a school setting cannot be isolated as an active agent. Interdisciplinary approaches, cognizance of our social practices, and an integration of both physical and generative spaces are required in order to fully understood the processes at play when considering the role of technology in education.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Co-Creating? Digital?

Thursday, April 25th, 2013

A lot of my work at School One thus far has led me to consider individual practices and specific activities that students undertake in digitally-driven classrooms. I have not, however, really reflected on the concept of “school” as a whole. I realised this in a process of reflection, whereupon I dug up this snippet from my original independent major proposal:

 

IndependentMajProp

In seeing this, I found a way to rethink Friere’s idea of pedagogy into my work at School One. Friere suggests a method of learning/teaching/growing that positions the individual as the cultivator of her own growth. She interacts with her environment, both physically and virtually, to create her own empowering language that feeds into how she thinks, understands, is. I have considered this as self-motivated learning, but with a component that requires an active remaking and rethinking on the part of the student. However, I can’t help but consider how a digital environment feeds this type of learning. While Henry Jenkins (in Convergence Cultures: Where Old and New Media Collide) speaks to the possibility of discovering new worlds and avenues for learning, how do we encourage students to participate in this generative environment/way of learning?

This question does not only implicate the student; teachers, administrators, and parents play a role in the production of this dialogue as well. To increase the dialogue between all these participants will ultimately equip all participants with their own individualized processes of making meaning in their worlds. But what is the role of digital technology in this?

My initial reaction suggests that digital multimedia provides room for deeper, more intense conversations to occur. Further, given the multiple modes accessed through the interface of the screen, I hypothesize that digital technology also provides the space for conversation/learning to occur outside the boundaries of language. (See this project where I wrote on how alternate modes of presenting information brings greater depth to understanding/learning) But other than email/Google Docs, I struggle to see exactly how digital tools are impacting the communication surrounding student learning. Perhaps this comes with time?

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Goodbye Stranger Danger?

Wednesday, April 17th, 2013

When I was taught about “Internet safety” at school, I was given an entire list of rules to follow:

1. Don’t talk to strangers.

2. Only use the computer where an adult can see what you’re doing.

3. Don’t upload any incriminating information, photos, or videos.

4. Never share your personal details with anyone.

5. Keep certain things private

… and the list continued on and on.

 

I was told to follow these rules in fear, else face the drastic consequences that a random online interaction could have on my “real” life. But in my work at School One, I have found that the attitudes towards these rules have relaxed over time. Conversations with students at School One indicate that the younger generation is not only aware of the mistakes that my generation made. They also demonstrate critical reflection on, and consequent internalization of the rules that govern “safe” Internet use.

The group of students that I spoke with today came from a variety of backgrounds: I had a self-taught hacker in my group, students from both levels of computer science offered at School One, and students with a vague interest in technology. Further, the use of social networks differed greatly: there was the self-proclaimed Tumblr addict, the student whose parents prohibited her use of social media, and the student who simply used social media to see what they hype was about. Even with such a diverse group of students, however, I found that their awareness of “Internet safety” remained consistent.

I began the discussion by asking the students how they used Facebook. All students demonstrated awareness of the controversy that the social networking site has caused, but said that this did not stop them from using the site. Most of the students in the group mentioned that they seldom posted anything of a truly personal nature; students said that they limited their interactions over the site, aware that anyone could be “listening” in on private conversations. But perhaps most salient was one student’s response that she deliberately manipulated each of her posts to only be accessible to particular audiences. This demonstrates a heightened awareness of audience and speaks to a sophisticated process through which these students mediate their identities. Students (in this focus group anyway) are aware of who their audiences are and how to manipulate them. In essence, they become gatekeepers to their online identities.

The conversation then led to a discussion about how students interacted with people that they met online. The students did not seem to have any inhibitions about meeting people online. In fact, a student pointed out that she had joined special interest groups online to explore issues inaccessible in her physical environment. But the ways in which the girls acted on these interactions differed. Some students created boundaries around themselves, ensuring that their conversations were limited just to the subject at hand. Others embraced full-on mediated experiences, explaining that they felt freer to express themselves on online spaces. But the consensus remained the same: students were unafraid to meet people online, and were smart enough to stay out of unsafe situations.

These discussions indicate that we need to reconfigure the “rules” surrounding safe Internet practices? Should we keep telling students the same things about online strangers, posting, and mediating identities to set up a framework? Or do we let the structures that seem to be slowly (but surely) forming to do their work?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

“It’s like watching a movie on mute….”

Wednesday, April 10th, 2013

 

In my last post, I touched on the fact that the skill set for the future of the institution (as Cathy N. Davidson and David Theo Goldberg) cannot be made into a set of “hard” objectives. Rather, the qualities needed in the production of digital, multimodal texts, and involvement in the participatory culture that surrounds it involve more abstract concepts which I seek to articulate in this post. Formulating my ideas around this has been a difficult task  — much of the discourse around the production of “new media” texts involves experimentation in some way, shape, or form. Nevertheless, my work at School One has helped me start to develop my thinking about being able to list out several skills that I believe are necessary in a student’s “toolkit”.

1. Flexibility

With digital platforms constantly evolving and changing at a rapid pace, the specific skills involved in learning say, Microsoft Word, become obsolete after a short period of time. However, without a basic understanding of platforms and interfaces, students are at a loss in terms of learning how to use new technologies. This leaves students in the dark in terms of adapting to new digital platforms. Thus, I think it integral to familiarize students with certain functions but encourage them to be flexible in terms of considering the tools that they have at hand. The skill of learning to be flexible and playful about digital interfaces allows for easier adaptation of newer tools/delivery technologies that as Henry Jenkins puts it, “come and go”.

2. Creativity and Critical Thought About Media Presentation

In my fieldwork, I have noticed that when asked about their production of multimodal texts, students are at a loss in terms of thinking through the methods in which they present their information. Students aren’t sure of what they are doing exactly, and take on digital projects for the novelty factor that digital tools bring (see my post on using iMovie for an English class). While students generally produce products that function the way in which they were intended, students are limited to the immediate effects that the tools provide. In order to push students to think out of the box and be more creative about their work, they need to be able to apply a critical lens to the way in which information is communicated. Questions that spring to mind are: what will this tool allow me to do that is different from written text? What are the other functions that this tool will afford me? Can I think of a better mode to convey what I am trying to communicate?

3. Fearlessness

In order to become part of the increasing conversations that occur on the Internet, students need to be able to learn to jump in and navigate through the endless amounts of information available at their fingertips. Given the overwhelming amount of information available, it becomes difficult to figure out how and where to delve in and join the conversation. I say this in the context of both my conversations with students as well as my own personal experiences — as a young student, it is difficult to find enough validation in what you want to say to be able to put it on a public forum. Tenacity and fearlessness are essential qualities involved in joining these conversations. These qualities are what students need to be able to join a public forum and make it benefit them.

At this point in time, these are three competencies that I can articulate to some degree. Through thinking through and framing my fieldwork within the questions that these skills now pose, I hope to work through 1) a more thorough definition of “media literacy”, 2) articulate what skills students need to be learning and how to address them within the medium of the school, and 3) present information that will ease the fear/confusion that currently surrounds the implementation of the one-to-one laptop at School One.

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Digital Toolkits

Tuesday, April 9th, 2013

While attending the Re:Humanities conference at Bryn Mawr College last week, I had the great pleasure of listening to Tara McPherson’s talk, “Feminist in a Software Lab”. McPherson highlighted several projects that allowed for humanities scholars to reconceptualize the ways in which they pose, research, and formulate scholarly questions through the use of digital technology. Coupled with “The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age” by Cathy N. Davidson and David Theo Goldberg, I turned back to one of my driving questions behind this Praxis: What skills and competencies are needed by students to succeed in a learning environment that will be increasingly shaped by digital technologies.

In setting out to answer this question, I turned to Davidson and Goldberg’s vision of the future of the institution. In their ten principles for the future of education, Davidson and Goldberg clearly articulate shifts in media social practices and how they relate to learning. The rationale for exploring their work proves primarily to position their findings as an “end goal” of sorts in order to consider the competencies required by students in order to succeed at an institution that Davidson and Goldberg predict will evolve with our changing methods of accessing information.

According to Davidson and Goldberg, the future of learning will be much more participatory, collaborative, and generative with the increased integration of technology into the process of education. Through McPherson’s projects as well as the observations that I have made at School One, I have definitely begun to see these shifts. However, I don’t believe that the participatory culture involved in digital media usage comes naturally. Rather, a certain unspoken, abstract skill set is involved in the production of digital media projects. And as I am seeing at School One, either the student has it or she doesn’t.

The project of articulating this skill set proves to aid teachers in considering how to teach their students that don’t “get it” naturally. Rather than throw students into digital media projects assuming that they will be able to, metaphorically speaking, swim, teachers should be carefully considering the methods through which they frame their assignments so as to provide students with a gentle nudge towards utilizing their tools to the maximum capacity. Thus, I aim to come up with a set of competencies and skills that students may need if Davidson and Goldberg’s vision comes into fruition. By doing so, I hope to provoke greater dialogue about the process through which both students and teachers alike conceive of their multimodal projects.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

What’s In A Tool?

Friday, March 29th, 2013

Since School One is on their spring break this week (which means that I did not have the opportunity to work in the field), I wanted to take a quick break from my regular posting to talk a little bit about role of tools within the space of the classroom. As such, I want to begin by examining what the term “tool” suggests. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “tool” is defined as “a thing (concrete or abstract) with which some operation is performed; a means of effecting something; an instrument.” This definition insinuates that the tool is a separate entity (a “thing”), but as I have found in my fieldwork thus far, what we consider “tools” never exist purely in a vacuum.

My reason for making this point is that the implementation of a one-to-one laptop program at any school (not just School One) requires a rethinking of the function that the laptop serves. In a lot of the material I’ve read, laptops (and consequently, digital tools) are described as mere tools in the classroom that leverage the participatory nature of our present culture. However, the laptop does not necessarily prove just a tool; it integrates itself into the learning and growing that an educative space seeks to demonstrate as exhibited by more “mature” programs. Thus, my question proves to be: why do computers (or any type of technology) seem to enter into the space as a foreign object, subject to harsh criticism?

To answer this question, I turn to the introduction of Elisabeth Ellsworth’s “Teaching Positions”. Ellsworth provides an example wherein she describes the introduction of glassware into her science classroom. When she asked her teacher about what to do with, he replied that “if [she] could think of something [she] wanted to do with [the glassware], [she] could use it” (3). This suggests the viewing of these “tools” as foreign and somehow separate from the curriculum instituted within this particular space. Consequently, this anecdote exhibits the way in which we view tools in the classroom: they are viewed as separate from the classroom space when they are first introduced — they are treated as foreign objects, and as novelties within the established confines of the classroom.

But as glassware has been accepted as part of the construct of the science classroom, I anticipate the laptop becoming an integral part of the classroom (at least at School One). In my opinion, the biggest struggle that any new technology within the classroom faces, proves to be the categorization of it as a “tool”. Thus, the issue is then how to make the process of assimilating a “tool” into the space of the school much smoother? How can we restructure the frameworks at place in the creation of this space to acknowledge the function of the laptop past its categorization as simply a “tool”?

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Developing Online Identities

Wednesday, March 20th, 2013

 

 

 

After engaging in discussions with students and their teachers, I’m getting the sense that digitally-native youth have an inherent awareness of online identity presentation that students their age a couple of years ago did not. I’ve already mentioned how middle school students make me feel old and dated in their use of digital tools, but I’m also starting to realize that today’s youth demonstrate a higher level of sophistication in terms of presenting themselves online.

I say this because I went through an archive of blogs, comments, and websites that I and my friends created just a mere eight years ago. I did this with the purpose of comparing how middle school school students a couple of years back presented themselves online, versus how current students present themselves today. Though I cannot post examples of work from the students that I spoke to on this blog, I have summarized the information that I gleaned from them.

Here is a sample of the way in which I expressed my own online identity  at the age the students that I spoke to:

x_mirella_x (1)

 

Here is a comment on the site left by one of my peers:

 comment (x_mirella_x)

Though the content material seems to be the same (friends, family, boys, pop trends), the way in which students write now suggests a level of sophistication that my own “txt language” does not. Though I was educated to write properly at an international school, I recall the thinking process I undertook in producing incorrect words as this was how I was taught to “write online” to come off as “cool” to my peers. Though this might be a mere reflection of the trends during this time, I did not expect my college-age self (or anyone else really) to be reading this material.

But in contrast to my ignorance about online writing at that age, current students at School One demonstrate a sophisticated level of thinking with regards to the creation of their online identities. The students that I talked to would never put up a post like the example up top. They  are aware of their audience; they know that their parents, further college peers/professors/employers, and current teachers have access to whatever they put online. They are also aware of the permanence of whatever they put on a blog or social network. Though (for the most part) they still seek to present themselves in a light that reflects well on them socially, they already know the basics of how to create and curate an identity that presents them in a positive light.

Though I’m in the process of thinking about how to examine this idea further, I think that we need to reconsider the way in which we teach students about their online identities. It seems as though we’re constantly telling students things they already know, and using lessons learned from previous generations that were not as well-versed as current students are now.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Double, Double, Toil and Trouble!

Monday, March 18th, 2013

This week, I had the opportunity to assist in an English classroom for upper school sophomores. The students were given the opportunity to either perform a scene from Shakespeare’s Macbeth, or record and edit a video of it. Before the class, Teacher D briefed me on the exercise and explained how she had already chosen the groups and the scenes that the students were to act out. She also mentioned that students in the past had always chosen to make videos, even though she believed the live performance to be easier given the time frame. (Students had two lessons to complete their work.)

And she proved correct in her prediction of what the students were going to pick. The vote for creating video projects proved overwhelming; students were enthused by the idea of making a movie. But in helping students plan out their projects, I also found that Teacher D was right with regards to her assumption that the live performance would have proved an easier task.

Though the majority of students were familiar with using iMovie (they had created personal projects prior to this one that involved video-editing software), it did not seem as though they were aware of filmic conventions — essential in the production of a short, narrative film. The planning stage had the majority of students thinking about who was to play each character, what the props were going to look like, and how they were going to costume themselves. But was missing from this planning was the consideration of how to actually shoot the sequences. Upon asking the students about what kinds of shots they were going to use and how they were going to put the narrative together, I received a lot of blank stares.

This made me consider why the students chose to use the filmic medium to present their scenes. It seems as though the idea of using new technology proved a novelty to them. The students seemed to be excited because making the movie seemed, in the words of one student, “really cool and fun… better than doing a boring performance… I hate acting”. Further, I think that making a film project seemed less serious than a full-on performance — not the case at all, but because films are “exciting” for them, they just seemed more fun to do.

But what are the implications? Personally, I think that it is essential to explain the construction and conventions of a medium before pushing students right in. Though I did not get the chance to watch the students actually create these films, I anticipate that they could have struggled to think about what shots to use and how to put them together. Given the one period that was allotted to them to shoot the film, the projects could have gone either way.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Information Overload!

Friday, March 8th, 2013

This week, I managed to find time to speak in depth with Jane, my supervisor at School One. We talked about her students’ use of social media and digital tools, and it definitely helped me to really understand the experience that students go through everyday. I’m scheduled to speak specifically to a group of them next week but before that, I want to articulate what my thoughts are as of right now in relation to technology in the classroom.

There’s nothing that makes me feel older than being in a classroom with middle school students. During my time at School One, I’ve seen them navigate Instagram, Snapchat, Youtube, Meograph, Twitter,  Google Docs, Email, Scratch, to name just a few digital platforms that I have seen students use in relation to both school and their own personal relationships. It’s interesting to note as well that the tools that I use, differ quite greatly from tools that students who are not much younger than I am use. In the middle school,  there exists information overload; students have to constantly learn not just new concepts and ideas, but also, how to work through different approaches to presenting and finding information.

These 11-13-year-olds have to cognitively process a tremendous amount of information in such a short period of time. Even though I am only about seven years older than some of them, I find that their ability to switch between media and learn how to use them is much more developed than even my own. But I’m also getting the sense that there is no stop to this advancement. Every generation will begin using digital tools at a much younger age and consequently, their ability to navigate between media will be much more developed.

This leads to my thinking about the one-to-one laptop program at School One. By requiring ninth graders to have their own laptops, will there need to be further instruction on HOW to use them effectively as the current discourse insists? Because from what it seems like, students seem to have everything down pat.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

Writing and Composition in the Digital Age

Saturday, March 2nd, 2013

I want to diverge a little from my fieldwork at School One and write a little about my thoughts on media. I use the term “media” rather than “medium” as I have come to realise that all media suggests an inherent multiplicity and as such, media can never really be singular. The production of this claim comes primarily from Marshall McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message” where he posits that the content of any medium is always another medium. Our systems of communication have evolved around this particular claim. Digital technology merely creates shifts in the way we present information, rather completely reinvent it.

As such, I find this to unsettle what we consider “new media”. The “new” in “new media” insinuates that this type of media has never been seen before. However, this is not necessarily the case. To take the concrete example of digital writing and composition (here is a link to some of my own explorations), it would seem as though the new media project completely reinvents the way in which we communicate information. However, the project still comprises of certain media that we are familiar with. Only the technology itself changes.

This line of thinking has made me consider the “new media projects” existent in the English classroom at School One. In a conversation with the high school teacher, she mentioned that her students were daunted by the idea of producing a “video project”. In examining a couple of past projects, I came to find that the students made use of media such as text and photographs — media that students are already familiar with. It was interesting then to consider why the students felt so overwhelmed. Perhaps it was the idea of producing something that contained so much? Or using iMovie — a technology that not many of them had tried before?

Nevertheless, this made me consider thinking about how to teach students to become literate with “new” media. Perhaps it is just a matter of teaching students the components that comprise the greater project. By being able to recognise that these type of projects are made up of elements that students are already familiar with, the fear surrounding the creation of this type of a project could be quelled.

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

« Older Entries