Hmm.. There has been long been an educational interest in programming. Clearly, coding can be a vocational skill. If there has been a unique component to my professional skill set, it has been that I can write the code to create online learning environments and collect data on how the environments are used.
What is a little more “iffy” is the proposal that coding experience develops other kinds of skills any more than say working on large writing assignments. In fact, the research tends to show that higher order skills such as problem solving are largely domain specific. This, for example, is how I remember the large volume of research on the LOGO programming boom. The notion that a focus on a specific skill has general consequences makes about as much sense as Chris Bosh contending that Bill Gates should learn to play basketball because it is a great way to stay in shape. Developing the specific skill would certainly not be the most efficient way to accomplish the desired end.
Pro programmers are not actually the experts on the general benefits of developing such skills.
WordPress is one of the most popular alternatives for blogging and web publishing. The software is free to those who want to install it on a server or available hosted by Automattic (the company responsible for WordPress). The software delivering the blog you are reading falls into the first category.
WordPress is adapting its online blogging service to what it describes as “vertical markets.” One of the targeted markets is K-12 education with the focused service called WordPress Classrooms. The idea is to encourage the use of blogging and other formats (static pages) available via the powerful WordPress platform to communicate with other teachers, students and parents. Free services are available to address what can sometimes be unique needs for classroom use; e.g., limiting access to designated participants, turning comments off. There are also paid upgrades that provide additional features.
One issue addressed by some already commenting on this service but not others concerns the required age for use (without documented parental permission):
Please read this Agreement carefully before accessing or using the Website. By accessing or using any part of the web site, you agree to become bound by the terms and conditions of this agreement. If you do not agree to all the terms and conditions of this agreement, then you may not access the Website or use any services. If these terms and conditions are considered an offer by Automattic, acceptance is expressly limited to these terms. The Website is available only to individuals who are at least 13 years old.
Examples offered by bloggers describing potential activities for 3rd graders may be a bit deceptive or uninformed.
I am not a fan of the “chalkboard theme” Automattic is championing. This is too much of a stereotype in my opinion.
The snow is falling making it unwise for me to leave the house. Hence, it is a good time to generate a blog post.
The online education community I follow seems enamored of the “flipped classroom”. Of course and when I am unable to edit my own skepticism, they seem enamored of anything shiny and new that offers them something to talk about. It can be difficult to come up with topics on a regular basis. However, frequent mention of anything should not be considered equivalent to the discovery of an important innovation. Perhaps it has just been a slow news week, year, etc.
Here is my take on what can potentially be “flipped”.
The core idea in the flipped classroom appears to be that class time is dominated by instructor presentations. Some go as far as to claim BORING classroom presentations. The solution it seems is to take advantage of technology to record such presentation and make them available before (and after) class. Hence, students can carefully review this content ahead of time and then come to class prepared to ask questions and engage in deep discussion.
We used to call this expectation “read the textbook before tomorrow’s class”, but perhaps the personal video presentations prepared by the average classroom educator would be superior the content generated by the textbook author.
Here is what I really think. It would seem helpful to consider what is likely necessary for successful learning. I am talking in a practical way here – not how you or your brilliant and self motivated relatives prefer to learn. I have always liked a simple instructional design model proposed by Alessi and Trollip. They suggested that formal learning can be understood as a four stage model:
exposure to information
guided consideration of the information to assure understanding
extended practice to provide fluency and increase retention
assessment
If these stages make sense (I think they do), the challenge is then to determine how the stages will be accomplished by the largest possible members of a learning group. BTW – the stages are sequential only in some instances and feedback loops are frequently a prudent course of action.
You can attach your own labels to the stages. This is a productive exercise. Perhaps stage three might be “homework” to you. Perhaps you believe class time can be used to meet stages 2,3 and 4. My point is that the translation of these requirements into activities and the association of learning time with each activity is how we should be thinking. It is essential to analyze instruction and learning experiences in this way. What is the most efficient and effective way to expose learners to new ideas? Is a recorded lecture the best way to do this? Can we count on learners carefully reviewing prerecorded online presentations? Will tests to be required to generate compliance? What should be done if 50% appear to have reviewed the content and 50% have not made the effort?
A post entitled “ The flipped classroom is a way TO the answers” offers somewhat similar in analysis. I would suggest a different title – The flipped classroom is a way to the questions.
The annual Project Tomorrow Speak Up report is out. This year’s focus describes the digital experiences and expectations for tomorrow’s teachers. The report summzrizes what preservice teachers describe themselves as knowing about technology, how well prepared they feel they are to use technology in their future classrooms, and what present school administrators want and see in the new practitioners coming to work in their schools.
Let me begin with this observation. Part of what I understand my job responsibilities to be involves the preparation of teachers (practicing and preservice) to use technology in their classrooms. If what I do were a business, I would regard this report as good for business. The report would indicate that there was an unmet need and the report would indicate that the skills I happen to believe would be helpful to future and practicing teachers are the skills that are requested by those who hire these individuals.
Quite a few years ago now there was a series of years in which the federal government put money into higher education to encourage a focus on teaching with technology skills (PT3 – Preparing Tomorrows Teachers to Use Technology). The present report could have been used as the background justifying that funding program of long ago. The logic justifying some type of change, then and now, goes something like this. Preservice teachers have an interest in technology, but do not see meaningful educational use of technology in their college classes or in their observations in K12 classrooms. They may learn about technology in a stand alone college course, but this experience in combination with other preparatory experiences does not translate into instructional ideas or methods.
Here is the thing. My background may be focused on technology integration, but my background also encourages careful consideration of data and educational research. As much as I would like to believe that future teachers have this wealth of personal experience justing waiting to be redirected and as much as I would like to believe that school administrators support a much heavier emphasis on podcasting, blogging, etc. in the classroom, I am not certain that I do. My concern is that the survey methodology employed was more likely to attract “true believers” rather than a representative sample of preservice teachers and school administrators.
I do not believe that 20% of preservice teachers and 11% of practicing teacher have an active blog. I do not believe that 30% of preservice teachers and 10% of practicing teachers use Twitter on a regular basis (my wife disagrees on Twitter and suggests someone ask about SnapChat). I am inclined to believe that 80% of preservice teachers update a personal social networking site (Facebook). It also surprises me that 25% of administrators expect new teachers to be able to teach an online class or that 65% expect them to be able to create and use podcasts (not certain if this was in reference to the teachers or their students). All of this does seem to represent the logic and the experiences of those who might take advantage of an uncompensated opportunity to comment on technology in schools – not a representative sample in my opinion.
I constantly scour the literature for data related to K12 classroom uses of technology. I am not saying I have not added the Speak Up survey to may database. I keep track of whatever data I can find. While I like the summary, I think there is some danger in accepting some of the data at face value. I agree that college faculty members involved in all aspects of teacher preparation have a responsibility model what they believe are important instructional practices. I am less inclined to accept that college students have a wide range of technology skills that should be repurposed into instructional methods. I still believe these skills and related instructional strategies need to be developed.
I am reviewing the assigned reading for this evening’s grad class. Sometimes, you pick up something on a second or third review that you miss the first couple of times through. One of the assigned readings for tonight is a recent summary of what basic research on memory would suggest for study strategies (Rohrer & Paschler). So, how should students review content so they will optimize their long term retention?
Contrary to what some might assume, researchers have many practical suggestions for students. Often, most of the techniques suggested are ignored. Nearly every study skills course I know of teaches some variant of SQ3R and I have never found a student in one of my classes using this technique. We keep offering the suggestion and the students continue to ignore it. Situations like this are frustrating to those in my line of work. The claim there are no practical suggestions is just to accurate.
Anyway, the multiple readings of the Rohrer and Paschler article led to an insight. These authors purposefully focused on suggestions that are known to improve performance, but do not take additional time. Beyond offering concrete suggestions (I ask my students to consider how the suggestions might be applied to the common practice of using flash cards), the authors openly wonder why students have not recognized these strategies. If no additional time was required, why would students not figure out that certain methods of study were more productive than those they tend to use?
What seems to happen is that the more productive strategies produce a higher error rate. It seems we often select tasks that are less challenging even if these tasks are less productive. We seem to have a capacity for self deception based on the time we put in.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
