Hi Folks,
Here are the discussion questions for week 3. You can focus on one or two, if not on all. Please voice your ideas/opinions or - just be provocative to make the discussion hot in such bitingly cold weather ;-)
(To Bridget's question: yes, let's try to wrap up the discussion by noon Sunday, ok?)
1. What does “backward design” mean? Why is backward best?
- From Week 3 Reading 1. McTighe, J., and Wiggins, G. (1999). The Understanding by Design.
2. What count as educational technology? What do educational technologies do in support of integrated, inquiry-based learning? Can you find examples of use of educational technology that would engage children in exploring, thinking, reading, writing, researching, inventing, problem-solving, and experiencing the world? Or can you imagine one of such example/design/activity?
-From Week 3 Reading 2. B. Bruce and C. Levin, "Educational Technology: Media for Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and Expression”, p5
3. Did you find any sentence/statement/claim/opinion interesting/ true/ bizarre/nonsense from Neil’s “Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology” ? why or how?
-From Week 3 Reading 3: What Neil Postman has to say…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok so I guess I will take a shot at question number three, the article entitled, “What Neil Postman has to say..”
ReplyDeleteOver all, I thought the ideas within the article were all very interesting, and most of his arguments were valid. Something that did stick out to me was as follows:
“Those who feel most comfortable in Technopoly are those who are convinced that technical progress is humanity’s superhuman achievement and the instrument by which our most profound dilemmas may be solved.” (Section labeled 71-72)
This is a very powerful statement and shows human dependency and long term use of technology. I believe that those who are most comfortable do feel this way. But the real question would be, if technology can be used as an instrument which can solve “our most profound dilemmas.” I know technology can aid in many areas, but I am not sure if it can help solve everything.
Later in the article it goes on to say that the computer would be nothing without the people operating them. There are no great machines, but there are great programs and programmers, so how can the praise be given to technology alone when faith should be put in the people that develop the technology and the endeavors they are using it for?
The purpose of backward design is to plan lessons and instructions based on the results you want from your students. By setting a goal of specific ideas/themes/terms that you want your students to understand at the end of a unit, you can in turn figure out the best possible way to insure their understanding. This reading discusses how teachers spend more time thinking about the process of teaching and how they will present material rather on the outcome of their teaching. Although it is important to pick the best possible route to guide students understanding (whether it be through using a text book, website, primary document or some other form) this step should be secondary. I liked how the author described this method as “Throwing some content and activities to a wall and hoping they stick” (Backward Design, 3)
ReplyDeleteThe way I look at backward design is prior to teaching a unit a teacher needs to identify the most important themes and ideas they want their students to understand. And after doing that, they can choose which activities and content they feel will be most effective in ensuring the understanding of these themes. This is probably the best method of teaching because it is centered on learning and not on teaching.
Good shot, Stephanie. Neil has a lot of bold/spicy statements/opinions there. Technology did contribute a great deal to the development and progress of human society, for instance, arrows and spears are much more efficient than stones and sticks – in hunting for food (any tool – like chalk or board is technology, just as computer is technology – only the latest form or more advanced form of technology). Technology – invention of trains, cars brought fundamental changes in the ways we live our life. Perhaps those who are subject to the power of tools/technology become Technopoly. However, technology/ tools does not replace mind. Back to our teaching/education: you can teach dance without a piano if you know dance, but you cannot teach dance if you do not know how to dance even if you are given a roomful of pianos or other musical instruments. It is the mind vs. the tool… what is your stance in terms of mind vs. tool, folks?
ReplyDeleteBridget made a very accurate summary of Backward Design and I agree with her that Backward Design is good because it focuses on learning and learning outcomes instead of teaching. What do YOU think, folks? Did you notice any examples/scenarios/activities in others’ classrooms or your own classrooms that are interesting and engaging but not really meaningful?
ReplyDelete3. Did you find any sentence/statement/claim/opinion interesting/ true/ bizarre/nonsense from Neil’s “Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology” ? why or how?
ReplyDeleteIn all due respect towards this author, this article did not grab my attention nor did it intrigue me to enjoy reading this. It was difficult to read this article so in conclusion this is what I came up with and I am hoping it makes some kind of sense from the article. If not, then obviously I was misled or did not understand the article. It is obviously clear that Neil Postman’s philosophy on the technological world can be agreed upon or debatable. He states that “Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind.”( pp. 71-72.) This is true to a sense. Technology has taken over the minds of all in order to better or at times limit our abilities. Technology lies within us and the entire world and supplies a ton of information. It is the center focus many of us look up to in order to provide us with valuable information. At times, it can be successful or can be very dangerous. One can easily find how to create such a project to help their own personal income, but at the same time read the instructions on creating a bomb. But, we are entitled to follow our own hearts and decide with our own minds. Therefore, technology does not force or choose for us. We are the decision makers and we decide what keys to hit in our life. This goes along with the comment made by Professor Shi on mind versus the tool. The analogy with the use of pianos is great. The mind is greater than we all think so we do not need a piano in order to teach dance. The music can play in our minds without the tool.
Neil states, “There are, for example, no "great computerers," as there are great writers, painters, or musicians. There are "great programs" and "great programmers," but their greatness lies in their ingenuity either in simulating a human function or in creating new possibilities of calculation, speed, and volume.” With this said I understand what he is trying to say, but it is my recognition that it seems to me that he is looking into this topic too deeply. I believe as much as there are great writers or painters, those who have mastered a computer can be known as a so called “great computerer.” I have always believed that one who understands a computer and knows the majority of how it works and the tools that can be used make them a much more powerful and useful person. For example, a painter can master how to use a paintbrush while a student can master a computer keyboard and screen.
1. What does “backward design” mean? Why is backward best?
ReplyDelete- From Week 3 Reading 1. McTighe, J., and Wiggins, G. (1999). The Understanding by Design.
Backward design means: taking the outcomes of what is learned and pursuing that as the focus of a lesson. Teachers provide and create a lesson according to the state standards or school districts needs. When in actuality, the focus of the lesson should be on the results taken from the students. What did the students learn should be the focus, instead of what should be taught today. So the approach is literally a backward design.
Teachers are designers and teachers do create curriculum, experiences, observations, and assessments. Teachers are designers for a particular audience. It is a teachers’ duty to create such a program that will enhance the student. But we are guided to use such restraints simply because teachers cannot just teach anything. It has to be regulated to match the necessities appropriately for a student in a moral and acceptable manner. Student’s developmental stages will all be different therefore the planning from a teacher will be determined on the learners. A teacher must adapt to all circumstances in order to reach the needs. Teachers need to provide activities which are appropriate that should be logically inferred from the results of the students, and not from text books.
I would not consider backward design the best because teachers are designers and are creating new teaching methods and strategies in order to become better equipped with the diversity of learners we suffer from everyday. Teacher are learning at their approaches are good or bad. Some are great or poor. The beauty about learning is that it never stops. “Backward design” is one of the many designs teachers may follow in order to reach progress.
Educational technolgy defined as "the incorporation of Internet and other information technologies into the learning experience"(Whitehead,2005). No matter what email, blog, even microsoft word or powerpoint are counted as educational technology. Technology facilitates our lives easier. Teachers can use technology as a medium to link content or knowledge, student and the real world together making a learning community. Whenever students have questions, they can search information and answer on their own.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the important thing is teachers should teach student how to deal with tons of information they get. Or how to think critically, analyze and synthesize the information. To cultuvate life long learners.
I provide an activity for elementary school students as follow;
In science classroom and there are tons of snow outside, a science teacher asks question Are you cold? Students absolutely say "Yes" The teacher said we dress in layer we still get cold. About penquins or polar bears,do you think they get cold even though they don't have clothes? Some students may say "yes" or "no". How do they survive in the north pole?
Today we will learn about penquins, polar bears or even people in the north pole. Then, the teacher links to kids.discovery.com and all class learn and discuss together.
Whitehead,B.(2005). Educational technology allows for flexibility in learning and teaching. from http://www.web-conferencing-zone.com/4030-educational-technology.htm retrived February6,2009.
From 2. What count as educational technology? What do educational technologies do in support of integrated, inquiry-based learning? Can you find examples of use of educational technology that would engage children in exploring, thinking, reading, writing, researching, inventing, problem-solving, and experiencing the world? Or can you imagine one of such example/design/activity?
ReplyDeleteA warm weekend hello to everyone who are here (Marcus, Punika, any one else here?)!
ReplyDeleteContinue with what Marcus said in his first (7:19am) post (very well said, BTW), true, we do not have to have a piano to teach dance, just as we do not have to use computers to teach a subject matter. But if do, does it make a difference? What differences could it possibly make?
To Punika's post (February 7, 2009 8:07 AM):
ReplyDeleteThat's a wonderful example - the teacher did a very good lead-in and then moved on to the rich resources of internet to explore and discuss. Any other examples of use of technology in classrooms, folks?
In response to question #3. I found the passage in Neil Postman's "Technolopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology" about how the computer and technology can't solve human problems. I agree with his statement "If families break up, children are mistreated, crime terrorizes a city, education is impotent, it does not happen because of inadequate information." (Postman, 118-120), however I don't feel that as a society we are looking to technology to solve these problems. Personally I feel that technology should be used to enhance your life or make it easier, not to get rid of any problems that arise in your life.
ReplyDeleteI look at how I use technology in my classroom and I don't use it instead of teaching. I pick programs that correspond with my teaching to reinforce the things I have already taught and exposed my students to. I don't think any kind of technology can replace human kind and human response, we need only take from technology what we want, each individual has to choose for him or herself what is right for them.
I wanted to further discuss a comment that Marcus made that talked about backwards planning and diversifying instruction toward different learning levels. Although Marcus does not agree that backward design is the best teaching method, I wanted to create an argument that it could ensure that all students, despite learning levels, would end up with the same understanding of themes/ideas/content that are taught in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was student teaching I often had teachers tell me that I needed to make actvities easier for students who were working at a lower level. Looking back I don't think that these teachers were thinking about the effect this would have on learning. Instead it seemed that they wanted to ensure the students had an activity to do and were learning something even if it wasn't what the rest of the class was learning.
If teachers use backward design and create a goal for where they want ALL students to be and THEN create actvities (even if there are several different ones for each class) they can make sure that the lower level learners are walking away with the same knowledge that their fellow classmates have. This is why I feel very strongly about backward design.
I would have to agree with Marcus on question number three. I feel that this article was very confusing and could have been written a lot simpler than it was, but Mr. Postman is probably a glorified thinker.
ReplyDeleteFor example from his book on pp, 71-72 "One way of defining Technopoly, then, is to say it is what happens to society when the defenses against information glut have broken down. It is what happens when institutional life becomes inadequate to cope with too much information. It is what happens when a culture, overcome by information generated by technology, tries to employ technology itself as a means of providing clear direction and humane purpose. The effort is mostly doomed to failure. Though it is sometimes possible to use a disease as a cure for itself, this occurs only when we are fully aware of the processes by which disease is normally held in check." Does that make any sense to anyone?
Technology is controlled by humans, not by technology. I feel that Mr. Postman may be a little afraid of technology itself. If humans control technology then it is only as confusing and complicated as the person using it. What technology is he even talking about, and why would we look to technology for direction and human purpose, is he trying to compare technology to a psychic?
I feel that in the classroom technology should be used as a compliment to the subject matter. Technology should not be the main source of information. However, it is imperative that students know how to use technology in our ever technological world.
In regard to the Neil Postman article, I would have to agree with Marcus. The article was all over the place and hard to grasp. This is what happens when you are only given only tidbits of the book (things can be taken out of context...no offense Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine). Postman says that Technology (the computer) is information and that information can't stop hunger or the abused child, but seriously, what is he talking about? This article was published in 1995, before the Internet. This article is entirely out-dated. He says that in schools there is a battle of technology, and that television is the tech which always wins out with children. This is causing them to be attention deficit, slow, and unable to write a coherent thought. Oh boy... sounds like my classroom! All jokes aside, Postman is wrong, technology motivates children. It makes learning easy and fun. Even back in 1995
ReplyDeleteBackward design is an approach to create a curriculum that promotes students’ “understanding” of “big ideas.” McTighe and Wiggins believe that students need to have a deeper understanding of the main concepts or big ideas that are underlined in a curriculum. They claimed there are two sins in educational designs. One, teachers teach too much hands-on and not enough in-depth understanding. Two, teachers lecture too much and don’t provide enough practice and active learning of material. The problem they say is that there are no big ideas guiding the teachers and no plans on how to assess that the students are fully understanding these ideas. This design wants to make students really understand what they are learning. By understand they mean they want students to be able to use and apply what they learn in practice, not just recall facts for a test. This design works backward, meaning they start with what big ideas or main concepts they want the students to understand at the end, and then find ways to try to help their understanding. They start with their desired results and work their way towards achieving them, or redesigning them in order for students to succeed. They believe the students will understand better if they have a goal in mind and know where they are going.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of their statements. Teachers need to find a way to incorporate many different strategies in their teaching and not use only one way, such as only lecturing or only hands-on. They need to be able to reach all learning styles in order to achieve students’ understanding. Students learn and understand in different ways and teachers need to consider all the different ways their students will understand the material best. I don’t completely agree with the idea of looking at the end result to guide your curriculum. Students will guide the teaching to where they need to go and are able to go. What happens if students reach the “desired results” quickly and want to take it further in a different direction? Well, according to their design, the students would be lost if they went off course. I don’t agree with that. I think that students are creative, and critical thinkers and should be able to have some control of the direction they are taken. If they are constantly told where to go with their thinking (desired result), they will not be able to critically think for themselves.
I am going to respond to the question about "Backward Design". First of all I do agree that "backward" is best. The author of this article was right on when he stated that when used at first it feels "unnatural". Instead of thinking we will do this lesson and then this project to try to reach an expected outcome, with backward thinking your more focused on the outcome. The main goal is here is your target or outcome, now what do I have to to make the students reach it. I have used this method in creating writing assessments at the elementary level, it does take more time but to me it seems to offer a more student based education.
ReplyDeleteBackward design is simply stating your expected outcome first, and then planning your route to get there next. While trying to reach your expected outcome you need to decide on your method of making sure everyone is still with you (assessments). Then finally write your lesson around your expected outcomes.
My question is, are we really working backwards or are we developing our curriculum the way we should be?
I have just a quick comment about the articles written by Neil Postman. When he stated that technology will create a new type of writing as printing did to handwritten manuscript. Printing has been in a sense taken over by e-mail and texting and has in a sense created a new type writing and also language some how. Technology has also created a "new" way of reading with one of the newer items out called the Kindle. You can download books and subscribe to magazines with this little hand held device and read it "on the go".
ReplyDeleteResponse to Neil Postman article:
ReplyDeleteI suspect that part of the problem here, that "shoot from the hip" quality of the writing, is that Nancy Kaplan has excerpted bits and pieces of Mr. Postman's book to use as a jumping off point for her own arguments, which have not been included here. He also seems to write in absolutes, which can be rather off-putting. I assume that as Professor and Director of the School of Information Arts and Technologies at the University of Baltimore Ms. Kaplan is in large part opposed to his thinking. Did she select and arrange these excerpts with the intent of making them sound extremist and not thoroughly thought through? I am not accusing, merely speculating.
I have not read Postman before, but am vaguely aware of his controversial reputation, mostly in relation to television, which he felt trivialized information. Television breaks information down into fragmented, often superficial bits (think “sound bites”) that can be misleading (…like the treatment of his book by Kaplan?). I can only imagine that he felt the same way about the Internet.
My reservations about the manner in which his book has been presented aside, I find many problems with Postman’s thinking. In particular, I don’t see a stark line between his three types of culture. The development of new tools has always been a culture changing force – this is nothing new. The development of simple weapons allowed groups to hunt more efficiently, to deplete the supply of game, to attack the other group over the hill and expand hunting territory. The invention of tools for crafts in the middle ages led to guilds, a major reorganization of social structure – a new socio-economic class. It all segues more or less smoothly through the industrial revolution into today’s culture of electronic tools.
Of course, that tools have always been agents of cultural change, does not negate some of Postman’s more important points. The phenomenal onslaught of poorly vetted information proffered by television and the Internet may lead to consumption of (dis?)information with a lack of critical analysis. Certainly the children in our classrooms are different learners than those of a few decades ago. And a large part of this is due to affects of information technology.
Are the changes positive or negative in balance? I think the jury is still out – either way, we may well have to develop new ways of teaching to take advantage of the new strengths (e.g. enhanced ability to multi-task) of our students learning styles.
“School teachers, for example, will, in the long run, probably be made obsolete by television…” [Postman Neil, 1990. “Informing Ourselves to Death”; as quote in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman]
The Neil Postman article was not an easy read at all. There were many parts that i have read a few times and still have no idea what he was trying to get at. I tend to agree with Guy, this article is outdated. So much more new technology and information has been introduced since this book has come out in 1993. If we just think about his one statement about how TV is influencing children, and changing how they think. At the time he wrote this book there wasn't digital cable with hundreds of channels available at any minute of the day. This is a huge source of information that has been added. In regards to his idea that "future computers will emerge as a new kind of book," it has already happened. Electronic copies for books are available to download to your i-pods and a large percentage of newspapers are available online to read at anytime. I am curious to know what he thinks about the idea of blogging. There is information being added at every minute of the day, with very little "control mechanisms."
ReplyDeleterespond to Neil Postman and focus mostly with technology creating a new language.
ReplyDeleteTechnology sets a tone to language creation. It may not be noticeable right now within the academics but sooner or later the language of texting will take over what is perceive to be now standard language.
words are contracted when texting. what use to be Laugh out loud is now (LOL) and we do have the verb (to LOL). Due to this new technology written is english (words) are being contracted and new words are being created and it will lead to a new language.
Neil's prediction will take new route with this new texting phenomena.
More on Postman:
ReplyDeleteI know it's past the deadline, but I thought I would continue this thread anyway.
Postman died, I think about five years ago, so I doubt there there is much he could have written about blogging. We might expect him to rail against the enormous amount of absolute inanity batted back and forth on many blogs. Not only is much of it meaningless, but a great deal of it is very badly written. I am not speaking about the new language of texting that Stephanie mentions above, but rather the inability (or unwillingness to attempt) to convey a coherent thought. I know I soound like an old fart complaining about that new generation, but if communication is your goal, shouldn't you make every effort to be clear?
P.S. I am speaking about popular and technical assistance blogs I have read, not academic ones like this one, which tend to have higher standards.
Enough kvetching - it's off to soccer.
Hey, glad to see you are back here,Phil - I agree, i still have things to say - deadline or not ;-) Have fun in soccer (you playing or coaching or a soccer daddy?)
ReplyDeleteI agree that it’s hard to understand the Neil Postman article – as Philip (hey, you are quite a writer ;-)) said, what in this piece of reading are excerpts. Postman’s writing was old, but his ideas are not out-of-date – any kind of new invention/technology, chalk and board, television, computers… even new hunting tools of ancient times had/has or is still having strong effects on the society. I picked this article as our readings intentionally (it was actually quite an influential piece) – for its provocative nature (hey, you noticed the recent music “last night the moon dropped its clothes on the street" (might not be accurate but close) – I guess some ideas/opinions become noticed for reasons – not necessarily being judged right or wrong – but more of being provocative – brought some food for thoughts, if not only amusing).
Another intention to put a piece of excerpts here is to expect that you might become intrigued – or confused and that you would want to explore more on that topic. Did you? When I was intrigued or confused and might not find much from Google (surprised), I would go to Wikipedia.com (hey, he was an SUNY alumni (I can never remember the right single/plural form of this word) – did you notice which campus he went to for his undergrad?):
Search Neil Postman and see what you find out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman
From there, you can find Neil Postman online:
http://www.bigbrother.net/~mugwump/Postman/
We set Sunday noon as a deadline for posting – but you are still welcome to post if you like. Have a restful Sunday!
Sorry I missed the deadline? I was not clear that the deadline began this week.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1-
I have used Understanding by Design in 2/3 school districts I have worked in. It forces the teacher or department to determine what is essential information for students to understand. This process is much more difficult than one would imagine. I found that developing essential(open ended questions) was most difficult for me. I have had great success using Understanding by design and it is the best way for me to design/craft lesson. I provide my students with concept maps(my unit design) and tell students that that is the information they will be assessed on. We even discuss the vocabulary and actvites and why we are doing certain activities for that unit.
Question 3-
I found the artlicle to be interesting but perhaps the most interesting aspect for me would be that technology was like the "brave new world"- Although the author has a point about the distruction of culture and skills to a certain degree this claim is a bit over the top and grandious, with little evidence to support such a claim.
I also found this related to the technology debate. Two links with very different views.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/sharedgen/blogs/dayton/education/entries/2006/03/28/does_google_mak.html
and
http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/2008/10/does_google_make_you_smarter.php
Both examine the impact og google on our society. One side states that it makes us smarter because""Our most striking finding was that Internet searching appears to engage a greater extent of neural circuitry that is not activated during reading, but only in those people with prior Internet experience," the study author Gary Small told USA Today.
The other link states that google makes us dumber because, In a recent New York Times Op-ed, a technology author suggests the ease of search engines has weakened the research skills of students.
Some argue that technology could be used as an extension of our brain, like any tool we use, so with the vast possibilities technology allows us our knowledge and understanding could grow much quicker with it than with out it. Anyway, at least it is another example of how many people debate the use of technology as a teaching tool or a obsticle to over come as a society.
Good to see you here, Dan!
ReplyDeleteAbout deadlines - and other parts of the Blog discussion, this week we just try to practice/simulate what we would do in the following weeks starting from Week 4. Good to see you response to previous postings by sharing your own teaching experience. And good points for the Postman article. Good discoveries of the debates and controversial viewpoints (the two links). Perhaps we can look at those in our in-class further discussion. Have a good night.
hmm, the posting time is not accurate - it's 11:14pm now instead of 8:13pm - I'll check the setting.
ReplyDeleteOk, timing was straightened up now - we used the Pacific time earlier instead of Eastern time.
ReplyDelete