Hyperlearning

In Lewis Perelman’s article, “School’s Out” (1993), he proposes that conventional academics be replaced with “hyperlearning”. Perelman describes hyperlearning as any new technologies that are connected and used to promote learning. One point that I am not quite sure about is whether he is suggesting that ALL schooling be changed to hyperlearning, or just higher learning. He makes a point in saying that the socializing factor of schools is not necessarily a positive one. However, oftentimes, the classes that a person learns the most in are not the 50-minute lectures, rather, they are the 50-minute discussion classes. How can you create a “just-in-time” discussion on the effects of a constructivist teaching style being implemented for the first time? I am not sure how some of the interactive learning will take place through hyper-media. As Perelman himself mentioned, there are several different learning styles. How will hyperlearning satisfy the multiple intelligences mapped out by Howard Gardner? It would seem like technology could assist in fostering the naturalist intelligence, but those students really learn best through hand-on experience with their environment, not by sitting in front of a computer regardless of how “real” the experience seems to be (Campbell, 1997).

On the other hand, I do believe that Perelman has a point when he says that people are having to continually go back to school and complete a degree when all they may need is one missing skill set to be qualified for a job. I think the cost of academics is getting out of control and this is making it harder and harder to keep it a level playing field. Even when taking the cost out, grades are fairly arbitrary and merely a single indicator of one’s abilities. If a person is only missing a few skills to be qualified for a job, I agree that they should be able to acquire those skills and then show competence in them without having to go back to school and complete an entire degree.

When it comes to the Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) debate, I feel like my thoughts towards hyperlearning fall right in the middle. As Kozma contests, hyperlearning, thus media, will definitely change learning and if it is implemented effectively and the results could be tremendous. It would cut back on time sitting in classrooms listening to lecture after lecture and dive right into the actual learning. Furthermore, when it comes to higher learning or continued learning, one can target exactly what they need to know and not waste their time learning information they will never use. On the other hand, I agree with Clark that this is still only one form of a solution. I think it is very naive to think that everything that needs to be learned can be learned through technology. As Perelman himself says, most of what people learn is from experience. That is, actually DOING something, not working your way through a technology tutorial. Moreover, in my experience it is much easier to learn a program like Dreamweaver or PhotoShop from a person rather than from a “wizard” or “cue card” that is built into the program. In short, I do not see how hyperlearning can ever be the only method implemented in education reform.

References:

Campbell, B. (1997). The naturalist intelligence. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from New Horizons for Learning http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/campbell.htm

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Perelman, L. (1993). School’s out: The hyperlearning revolution will replace public education. Wired Magazine, 1(1), March/April. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/hyperlearning.html.

21st-Century Skills & Assessment

Including 21st-Century Skills in a student’s curriculum could make a big difference in the education of many students, especially those who do not go on to pursue a higher degree. Teaching students how to think, create and collaborate is vital to their success later on, but how do we measure their progress in these subjective areas? How a student thinks, creates and works with other students would almost need to be based on where an individual starts and where he or she ends up. The assessment cannot be as regimented as a multiple-choice science test. Speaking of multiple-choice tests, is this really the way to know if a student has learned a piece of information rather than just memorized it? 21st-Century skills emphasize that a student will not just memorize, but use what they learn and apply it (Bond, L., 1995). Again, there are many ways to apply a single concept. Limiting students to one or two ways to apply a piece of information, as many rubrics do, is very stifling.

Last summer I graded the written part of state standardized tests in all subject areas. The rubrics we were given were very vague and this resulted in a grading system that seemed inconsistent. The rubrics always wanted me to look for one or two specific things but in some cases, like when I was grading an interpretation of a poem, this seemed to be detrimental to some students. If they had three main points, which was what was needed to receive the highest score, but one of them was not about the personification in the poem, then they were not given the highest score. In fact, if they only had two points but one was personification and both were really well developed, you could consider giving them the highest score. What was it about the personification that made it so much more important than the other aspects of the poem? Why did they all have to interpret the poem in exactly the same way? I think this is why I had always hated poetry. I was always asked to interpret what the author was saying but it was not up to me to interpret it, rather, it was up to me to figure out how others interpreted it.

One school that is making changes to the standard way of teaching and assessing is The King Center Charter School, in Buffalo, NY. This school caters to inner-city Buffalo students, many of whom are identified as being at risk– ninety-three percent of the students qualify for reduced or free lunch. It is a K-4 school with 105 students and each grade has a full-time teacher and assistant teacher. The school works with local colleges, museums and programs to offer the students unique opportunities. The board of the school works closely with teachers, students and parents to assure that all of the students’ needs are being met. There is a strong focus on each student’s social and emotional needs, as well as their personal academic needs. Social and emotional needs are monitored just as closely as learning needs. King’s School uses the most up-to-date technology to provide students with distance learning and hands-on learning opportunities, and there is a full-time technology coordinator to oversee the proper integration on technology into the curriculum. To remain open as a charter school, King’s School has to comply with state standards, meet a certain requirements on standardized tests and are evaluated intensely after three and five years. Even with their strong focus on all of these different needs of the students- social, emotional, hands-on opportunities etc., the school has significantly improved the test scores of the students from the first year they were open, 2002, to 2005 (Massey, C. P., Szente, P., & Stewart, C. A., 2005). This just goes to show that students can be successful on the current standardized tests and still have other needs met. When a school is able to focus on the student as an entire person, and meet the needs of the entire person, a student is likely to perform better academically and at the same time strengthen their 21st-Century Skills that are so necessary to develop.

References:

Bond, L. A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm.

Massey, C. P., Szente, P., & Stewart, C. A. (2005). Creating a charter school to meet students’, teachers’ and parents’ needs. Childhood Education, 82, 1.

Technology and Diversity

In Thomas C. Reeves article, “An Evaluator Looks at Cultural Diversity,” (1997), he emphasizes the fact that when developing programs for students to use in school, the software needs to be culturally sensitive to anyone who might use it. I thought it was poignant that he said that it is naïve of a person to think that they can detect cultural insensitivities on their own. I wonder if having a more diverse development team would be a starting point to help relieve some of this problem. I would not be very surprised if most developers currently have similar backgrounds.

I thought the example of Johnny going home to meet his mom’s new boyfriend was interesting. I can definitely see how it could offend some people. I think it could offend some people in the US just as much as the people in China– I am sure you will find many people in the US who stress the importance of the traditional family. At the same time, you will also find many people in the US who have never experienced a traditional family. What would be the right answer to this? Should the question have two options? Should the topic be avoided altogether? I feel like there are always going to be some fundamental life situations that either are going to offend someone or someone will not be able to relate to it. Maybe the questions need to be broader and allow students to express their own situations without have to specifically suggest what they are. On the other hand, would it be useful to introduce the different situations to the students to make them aware of other cultures? I do not know.

In depth multicultural research and consultation are obviously extremely important when it comes to developing technology for schools. Next to that, perhaps the most important factor is to make sure that questions do not inadvertently put down other insult other cultures. Moreover, if there is a controversial question or situation introduced, the teacher should take the time to address it with his or her students (Banks, J. A. & McGee Banks, C. A., 2005).

References:

Banks, J. A., McGee Banks, C. A. (Eds.) (2005). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Reeves, T. C. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.

Mastery Learning

In Benjamin Blooms’s article “Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum” (1968), he addresses an issue that I have been having with grades for a while now, that is, the curve. I don’t see the point of telling a class at the beginning of the year that only a percentage of them will leave with an A, another percentage with a B, then a C etc. It is not only discouraging, it makes no sense. As Bloom pointed out, an A from one year may be equivalent to a C from the next year. Why are students graded against each other, and not simply on what they do or do not know?

A second idea that Bloom mentioned that I have been thinking about is cumulative grading. He said that perhaps during the semester, teachers should use tests as a guideline to see what the students know and what they still need to learn to reach the mastery level. If a student receives Cs on the first two tests, it is likely that they will not work as hard for the rest of the semester knowing that they already have a lower grade. However, if teachers give students the opportunity to show that they have mastered the material at the end of the semester, what difference does it make if the student received a C early on? If the student who received straight As during the semester and the student who received two Cs know the exact same material at the end of the semester, in terms of letting that student know that they have reached a “master level”, shouldn’t they both receive the same mark?

Acknowledging that most students can reach a mastery level, or at least a proficient level, if given enough time and the proper instruction should not be so difficult for schools and administrators to handle. The schools that push the hardest for even grade distributions seem to have lost focus. They are not worried about the students’ successes or failures; they are worried about how their school looks on a piece of paper. When this becomes the focus, many students are left out who could have succeeded if given the chance. A note left for one middle school teacher after a student graduated from high school said simply. “Thank you for believing in me when no one else did” (Williams-Boyd, Skaggs, & Ayers, 2000, p. 36). Clearly, by allowing students to make mistakes or take the time they need to master a subject, they are not left feeling inadequate.

Teachers need to set high expectations for their students without setting half of them up for failure. This is done by setting overarching goals for the students, and at the same time, being flexible as you go about attaining them. Students learn differently, and this may mean that the same lesson could be taught differently from one year to the next. A lesson that took one day the year before may take three days the next year ” (Williams-Boyd, Skaggs, & Ayers, 2000). When teachers are in tune with their students’ needs and abilities, and use their students’ abilities to drive the lessons, I think that it is much more likely that a majority of the class will reach a proficient or mastery level by the end of the term.

References

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Instruction and curriculum. Evaluation Comment, 1, 2.

Williams-Boyd, P., Skaggs, K., & Ayers, L. (2000). Marriage in the middle: The art and craft of teaching early adolescents. Childhood Education, 76, 4.

Computers as Mindtools

I find it very exciting that more teachers are using computers in classrooms as a tool, rather than activity in itself. People use computers as a tool every day; yet, many schools have taken a long time to do this. Students can only sit and play a math blaster game for so long before they grow bored of it. On the other hand, semantic software such as Kidspiriation, Inspiration, PowerPoint, databases and iMovie, to name a few, have endless possibilities. No two students will use the program in exactly the same way.
More importantly, computers as Mindtools allow for creative and critical thinking in students’ work. Computers offer more flexibility of expressing oneself than ever before and therefore, creative endeavors are more abundant in the classrooms. When students are able to use semantic networking tools like Inspiration, they are able to analyze their ideas and draw conclusions (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh 1998).

Nancy Hertzog and Marjorie Klein (2005) share their experiences with integrating computers as Mindtools into a class for gifted students ages three through six. Students regularly use the software programs Kidspiration, PowerPoint, iPhoto, Simple Text and Photoshop along with digital cameras, digital camcorders and scanners. The choices in software and technology allow the students to express themselves in many different ways and construct their own learning to fit their style. Since many students are still mastering the fine motor skills it takes to write at this young of an age, Simple Text allows them to create a story without the interruption of having to concentrate on letter formation. They are able to concentrate on their ideas and the content, and edit or add to the story easily. In these classrooms, using technology as Mindtools are the driving force behind learning and exploration, and it is clear that they are making a difference in the students’ learning.

Perhaps one reason for the slow start on using computers as Mindtools is because, as Hertzog and Klein (2005) point out, teachers and parents are “digital immigrants”, while the students are “digital natives”, that is, they will grow up in a world where computers are used as a tool everyday. It seems to be taking some time for teachers to incorporate computers as tools simply because this is new to them. One way to speed up this process may be to offer workshops where the teachers themselves are using the computers as Mindtools in order to demonstrate the opportunities that this will give the students. Teachers should always be looking for a way to increase students’ critical thinking skills, and using computer programs as a tool to enhance these skills is an opportunity that should not be taken lightly.

References:

Hertzog, N., & Klein, M. (2005). Beyond gaming: a technology explosion in early childhood classrooms. Gifted Child Today. 28(3), 24-32.

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H.-P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.

The Art of Learning

In Seymour Papert’s “The Children’s Machine”, (1993) he brought up the question of whether students should be learning specific material or learning to learn. I have been thinking about this lately myself and it does seem that schools don’t spend enough time teaching students to be able to recognize how they each learn best. Upon reflection, I know that I am a very visual learner and need to see and do things to understand them better. This would have been very helpful to realize in my calculus class in high school where the teacher rarely used the chalkboard to teach. I knew that I was having more trouble than other years in math but I figured it was because it was my senior year so I was not trying as hard and calculus is just harder. However, I do know that when my teacher would actually show me how to work a problem on paper, I would understand it very quickly. I think that it definitely could have made a difference in my success in calculus if I understood how important it was for me to see the problems worked out, rather than just talk about them. Teachers are being taught to recognize different learning styles in their students, but why should not they teach the students directly? This may not apply as well to younger learners, but it could make a big difference once the student is given more responsibility for their own learning.

It was interesting that Papert went into such detail about how he learned the names of the flowers because what seemed to be the driving force was his desire to figure out how to unlock this part of his brain. Providing context as he suggests can certainly make a big difference, but if a student is not interested in a particular subject, giving them a greater context will not be the only solution. In a study testing whether an interactive lesson in a computer-based learning environment enhances learning, Evans and Gibbons (in press) found that while there was not a significant difference in the overall retention rate, there was a significant difference in the performance on the transfer questions. For example, this lesson was on how a pump works so a transfer question was “What could be done to make the pump more reliable, that is, to make sure that it won’t fail?” (Evans & Gibbons, in press). They also found that the students who used the interactive lesson completed all of the questions on the test faster than they completed those who used the non-interactive model. From this study, using interactive material seems to let the student work through the lesson at their own rate. This coupled with the fact that the cognitive load for each student is self-regulated can help the students gain a greater understanding of certain components of a lesson.

Clearly, I agree with Papert’s ideas about the importance of the art of learning. If students gain more insight into how they learn, their school career could be much more successful. If this strategy is combined with what teachers already know about making learning more meaningful, then the students’ should be leaving school with the universal skill of learning that can be applied to whatever environment they choose to enter.


References

Evans, C. & Gibbons, N. (in press). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education.

Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: BasicBooks.

Will High-Tech Kids Still Think Deeply?

I find it interesting that the article “Now More than Ever: Will High-Tech Kids Still Think Deeply”, by Mary-Claire Tarlow and Katherine L. Spangler (2001), addressing technology replacing critical thinking was written in 2001 because the last five years seem to have gone even further in producing efficient technologies and perfecting communication. Yet, there has hardly been a dent in how most schools use technology in the classrooms. Computer usage is often a 30-minute-a-day type of activity that is simply another lesson.

One thing that the authors were afraid of is movies or audio replacing books because it is faster. For a while now, books have been made into movies. Sometimes they are shown in classrooms, but usually after reading the book first to show the students another person’s interpretation of the story. Using multiple mediums to present information, such as a book and video, reinforces a lesson, not detracts from it. This alone can lead to a more in–depth look at an author’s work as well as reinforce the ideas for the students that may not read as well. Teachers certainly do not excuse the students from reading the book and skip right to the movie, although, in some cases, students may generate more ideas after seeing the movie than reading the book. This does not mean that critical thinking or reflection has gone away, it is just a different way of getting to it. Moreover, this method has been prevalent in schools for years.

Even if the use of technology creates a slight shift in critical thinking, is this always a bad thing? At a study conducted in the UK, students at four different grade levels were put in groups and given a writing task to complete using a word processing program. In general, students spent more time working out the graphics for their writing than they spent on the actual writing itself. Since they could manipulate the size, fonts, and images readily, students did so until they were completely satisfied (in some cases never satisfied) with the results. At first, this may lead one to think that Tarlow and Spangler are right, this new technology is taking away from the students’ writing performance. On the other hand, it could be argued that now students are thinking even more critically about their compositions. Not only are they responsible for the writing aspect, but for the design as well. The ones who were not satisfied with their final product were those who did not feel like their design enhanced their composition.

Using a word processing tool gave students a greater flexibility and form of expression when it came to their writing. The teachers were having a problem keeping students focused simply because they were not teaching composition with the tools available. They were teaching it in a very linear fashion where only word choice and sentence structure mattered. Now, students are capable of adding design as another element. This visual element makes composition more appealing to students. So, instead of holding them back and teaching just word composition, why not use the tools to their full advantage, and teach presentation and design as well? If teachers meet students' needs, students will feel less frustrated with the outcome (Matthewman and Triggs, 2004).

In this one example, word processing technology could be seen as a distraction to students, which takes away from critical thinking in composition. If the students spend half of their time playing with the fonts, how are they learning anything? However, if teachers recognize that composition with a word processing tool merely gives students even more areas to think about, e.g. visual, then catering to that need could lead to critical thinking that encompasses more than ever before.

In short, as long as teachers recognize the changes that technology may bring to standard activities like composition, and embrace these changes rather than stifle them, students will stay focused on the task and more than likely, have an even richer experience. Technology is not meant to replace a students’s brain. It is simply giving students the opportunity to express themselves in more ways than ever. The only cause for concern is if teachers do not recognize the changes that technology brings and try to resist it creating a gap between what students are doing on their own time with technology and what they are doing in school. Using standard methods to teach when students are used to the fast pace and choice that comes with technology is what could create a gap between teacher expectation and student performance. It is not that students are not capable of thinking critically– they are just bored.

References:

Matthewman, S. and Triggs, P. (2004). ‘Obsessive compulsive font disorder’: the challenge of supporting pupils writing with the computer. Computers & Education, 43, 125-135.

Tarlow, M. and Spangler, K. L. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest, 67,3, 23-27.