Learning in the Digital Age

Education reform calls for an inclusive curriculum where all students have equal access to education and technology. Educators must decide what skills are necessary in order to develop a curriculum that will meet students’ needs and satisfaction. We want all our students to become fluent in all subject areas with the intention of making better citizens out of them and preparing them to be successful as they progress through education and life. With this fluency, comes the digital fluency. Resnick (2001) further suggests that “digital fluency will become a prerequisite for obtaining jobs, for participating meaningfully in society, and for learning throughout a lifetime” (p. 49). According to McGrath (2004) four skills that are essential for students to be successful in the digital age are: digital age literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high productivity. One of the ways to achieve these skills is by implementing a project-base learning (PBL). Project-base learning employs discovery through real-life application. This constructivist approcah to teaching has gained much attention in many subject areas especially in mathematics.

The amalgamation of PBL is also very effective with at-risk students as well as high achieving, wealthy students. The effectiveness for this model is due to both the equitability of material presented and the high expectations from the educators. As Resnick (2001) explains when discussing Computer Clubhouses in his article, making use of the students’ personal experiences become a great asset in creating a meaningful digital environment. Similarly, the results of PBL and the integration of technology for at-risk students were: increase engagement, work on cognitively complex tasks, and a shift from route learning to inquiry and all the higher order thinking skills (McGrath, 2004).

What can be learned about Computer Clubhouses and PBL? Both build on previous knowledge through meaningful, relevant application; both use technological tools in order to understand and communicate effectively; both present a product to an audience who can give students constructive criticism as well as a sense of satisfaction.

Student achievement is what’s at stake. We recognize that there is a need for changing the curriculum in order to revolutionize learning in the digital age. New approaches to education and learning as well as new technology to support the changes is essential to ensure that the goals of equitability are achieved. In addition, revolutionizing learning would encourage educators to learn about students’ cultural, personal experiences; hence creating a more inclusive, inviting educational environment.

References

McGrath, D. (2004). Equity revisited: Three recent reports provide insight for teaching with technology to benefit all learners.(PBL and The Digital Divide). Learning & Leading with Technology. 32(2), 36-39.

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Publications from the forum for the future of higher education. Boulder, CO: Educause.Available online at http://www.educause.com/reources.

Assessment

When developing good instructional design, it is best practice to provide quality assessment. Often times, assessment is juxtaposed with traditional paper pencil testing. This misunderstanding is in much need of attention. Many policy makers view assessment as standardized tests that every child must exceed. If this is not achieved then the teachers are held accountable for such “failure”. However, to integrate a well-balanced curriculum one must make sure that alternative assessment tools are available. These alternative assessment methods are often backed by criterion-referenced standards (National Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL), 1997). Such assessments help educators gain a deeper and better understanding of student learning.

In addition to this discovery educators need to be aware of the equity issues involved with assessment. It is important to recognize that equity will never be reached as long as everyone involved in educating children sees assessment tools as the only means to ensure fairness (Ferrara, personal communication, 1995). Ferrara (1995) further suggests that assessment should be a collective effort involving teachers, parents, policy makers, and community leaders with the end goal of becoming advocates for appropriate alternative assessment.

As well as alternative assessment is in need of reform, motivation also plays an important role in reaching the assessment equity proposed by Ferrara. African American, Hispanic and Native American students show differences from White middle-class students in motivation in academia (Valenzuela, 1999). To that end, many minority students are then placed into lower-track curriculum and viewed as low achievers. Such students will not get adequate access to challenging curricula (Kornhaber, 2004). The question still remains, how can assessment be improved in order promote equity? I would also add that if students’ cultural learnings and personal experiences are tied to their academic growth, then it is unfair to not incorporate them into their educational realm.

References

Critical issue: Ensuring equity with alternative assessments. (1997). Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as800.htm

Kornhaber, M. L. (2004) Appropriate and inappropriate forms of testing, assessment, and accountability. Educational Policy. 18(1), 45-70.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press

Bloom’s Taxonomy
Teachers, in general, have a level of expectation from their students. Educators strive to provide best practices in their teaching in order to improve student achievement. They are responsible for developing and/or implementing effective curriculum and instruction (Tomlinson, 2004). It is always a challenge when many students lack basic skills which prevent them to succeed in subsequent courses. Student readiness has been an issue for the past decade especially in the fields of English and Mathematics. Much research has surfaced in order to understand the disparities in achievement gaps. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 under President George W. Bush, challenges educators, policy makers and students to answer the fundamental question “Can all children learn?” with the immediate response of “Yes, they can.” (Davison, Seo, Davenport, Butterbaugh, & Davison, 2004). The central issue here is not whether all students can learn, but “How will low-income and minority students, as appropriate, make up for years of low achievement competence?” There has been a push in higher education to closing the achievement gap between these two groups. For instance, The Achieving the Dream Initiative (ATD) was established by the Lumina Foundation, among others foundations, to increase success for students attending community colleges. The initiative is particularly concerned about student groups that traditionally have faced obstacles in succeeding, including low-income students as well as minority students (Achieving the Dream, 2005).

One might suggest that a theoretical approach to remedy this situation is to promote mastery learning. Bloom (1968) suggested five variables for mastery learning strategies: 1) aptitude for particular kinds of learning, 2) quality of instruction, 3) ability to understand instruction, 4) perseverance, and 5) time allowed for learning. When all these variables are taken into consideration then the level of abstraction or synthesis has been reached. However, in a world where technology has permeated all aspect of our lives, mastery for learning is slowly fading away. This was a topic of concern with Tarlow and Spangler (2001) as they explored the risks of compromising higher level thinking with the presence of technology. Bloom did not foresee this major trend, but the fact remains that we live in a technologically driven society that hungers for more technology.

Will students achieve the level of abstraction suggested by Bloom (1968)? In my opinion, it is very difficult for some students to mastery learn a subject. There are many external factors that will impede this from happening. We, as educators, like to think that all students will leave our classrooms as experts, but in reality we are satisfied with a level of understanding to the extent that they are able to recognize some aspects of the subject matter if stumble upon it in the future.

References

Achieving the dream (2005, September). Retrieved November 4, 2006, from http://www.achievingthedream.org/default.tp.

Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1 (2), 1-12.

Davidson, M. L., Seo, Y.S., Davenport, E.C., Butterbaugh, D., & Davison, L.J. (2004). When do children fall behind? What can be done?. Phi Delta Kappan. 85 (10), 752-762.

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

Tomlinson, C.A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review. 26(4), 188-190.

Technology and its effect with critical thinking
Effective technology is best described as a tool to guide the learning rather than being the learning instrument. Jonassen, Carr & Yueh (1998) argue that technology should be engaged as a tool that constructs knowledge for which students learn with, rather than learning from it. This has been the primary concern of mathematics teachers at the elementary and secondary levels throughout the United States with the use of calculators in their classrooms. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has advocated for the use of technology at the primary grades as well as the use of graphing calculators starting with middle school age children. Technology, over all, is essential in teaching and learning mathematics for all students but should not be utilized as a substitute for basic understanding (NCTM, 2005). The use of calculators in the classroom can enable students to complete more complex and interesting mathematics problems that would otherwise be omitted. It can also increase problem solving skills that are increasingly critical for standardized tests.

Regardless of the technology that is used in any classroom, it should be integrated as part of the curriculum and not as a stand-alone entity. This is the underlying idea for the use of calculators in mathematics classrooms. The attitude associated with teachers who avoid its usage is due to the misuse of calculators (Smith & Shotsberger, 1997). When students use calculators for basic mathematical computations, then it seems obvious that the emphasis is not on problem solving but rather on regurgitating meaningless problems. Generally, when technology is used as a knowledge construction tool it promotes better understanding of the content because students are creating their own learning rather than completing routine drill and practice problems. The construction of such learning generates a higher level thinking skill. Therefore, when determining if technology will enhance learning, it is important to mediate between its effectiveness and its appropriateness. Effective teachers understand what students know and challenge students to keep learning. Therefore, it is their responsibility to ensure which technology makes a greater impact in teaching and learning without compromising student success.

References

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

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2005). Principals and standards for school mathematics (4th printing). Reston, VA: Author.

Smith, K. B., & Shotsberger, P. G. (1997). Assessing the use of graphing calculators in college algebra: Reflecting on dimensions of teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics, 43, 25-30.

Learning to Learn
Learning comes in many different ways and in many styles. Some students prefer to learn by means of communicating and observing, others by exploring and hands-on, while many enjoy lectures. Our classrooms are very diverse and being able to accommodate many of these learning styles without compromising the learner perspectives is increasingly important as we try to create an environment conducive to learning. To that end, I conduct my classes as inclusive as possible yet having high expectations of all students. I try to employ all kinds of delivery methods in order to include the varied learning styles when I present the material. For instance, I lecture, I get the students in cooperative groups and have them communicate mathematics in both written and oral language. In a sense I integrate multiple pedagogical methodologies to enhance learning. Papert (1993) criticizes the lack of term when referring to learning. Colleges and universities make explicit connections to the art of teaching and collectively call it pedagogy. Although pedagogy is important, preferred attentions should be given to the learners. After all, the learners are the ones who benefit, or not, from the information presented. Effective way to communicate the material is also essential to the learning outcome. What is it that we, as educators, are trying to convey in order to engage all participants as active learners? This is, in my opinion, the fundamental question that all educators should incorporate in their learning objectives if capitalizing the learning experience is a priority. Much of this can be accomplished if increased attention is given to problem solving.

Interestingly enough, Papert (1993) made mention of George Polya. In his book, How to Solve it, Polya (2004) makes reference to four steps for problem solving that are integrated in mathematics and can be integrated in other subjects. These steps are: 1) understand the problem, 2) devise a plan, 3) carry out the plan, and 4) look back (Polya, 2004). As the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics advocates the importance of problem solving in K-12 curriculum, teachers need to consider implementation of Polya’s steps and how they can help improve the desired outcomes. Students often fail to complete a task, be it in mathematics or not, simply because they try to “solve the whole problem all at once” (Papert, 1993, p. 86). Considering all these theoretical approaches to teaching and learning, imagine the how much learning would occurs if technology were incorporated as well. Hence, when we think of information processes and the use of technology to enhance teaching and to improve learning the options are limitless. In an age where technology plays an important role in learning and dictates methodologies in teaching inclusiveness of all learning styles, it is imperative to make learning a primary goal regardless of whether or not there is a term that describes it.

[References]
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Higher Level Thinking and Technology

Each generation has its own characteristics. For instance baby boomers, born between 1943 and 1960, possess the willingness to put forth maximum effort, are rated as highly results-driven, very likely to retain learned material, and need low to no supervision (Lindenberger, Stoltz-Loike, 2005). The population born between 1961 and 1981 are known as the Generation-X. Gen-X parents are protective of their children and family, and a bit skeptical about school and other public institutions (Strauss, 2005). Millennials, born since 1981, are more technologically driven. By the end of this decade they will outnumber other generations in law and business school as well as most graduate programs including medical school. To this end, educators are concerned about literacy skills that are paramount in education. As technology development increases, fewer children are reading literature-like books and hence a decline in writing or creating original thought. Tarlow and Spangler (2001) contribution to this topic manifest in the fact that if books are replaced by audio-visual technology then the students will lack the “written model to promote their understanding of the systems which they are required to learn in order to write for themselves” (p. 27). What should educators do in order to establish a connection to technology and literacy? Educators know what methods are effective. Therefore, they should take advantage of new technologies as they become obtainable to enhance these effective methods. Moore (2000) has designed a seven-step effective instructional acquisition as it relates to classroom performance and higher level thinking skills. These steps are: 1) identify teaching goals and objectives, 2) identify required student assessment, 3) identify resources to meet the objectives, 4) allocate appropriate student time, 5) sort and match possible students activities to objectives, 6) monitor student progress and 7) evaluate and revise.
Recognizing the audience’s strengths and weaknesses is essential when trying to implement effective instructional methods in order to improve higher level thinking. Teachers are expected to address individual differences and to teach higher level thinking skills. When these two instructional quandaries are accomplished the students will have a greater appreciation for the content and its delivery. Juxtaposed with technology enhances a better understanding of the material at hand. Therefore, it is necessary to accommodate the technologically savvy students who are at the receiving end. In conclusion, making use of appropriate assessment tools, like portfolios and presentation, and using the students’ knowledge of technology and the instructors’ expertise, a higher, deeper level of thinking can be achieved without compromising the basic skills required to be competent readers and writers.


[References]

Lindenberger, J., & Stoltz-Loike, M. (2005). Mentoring and baby boomers. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from Business know-how, Web site: http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/mentoring.htm

Moore, B. (2000, January). Higher level thinking skills and individual differences: Bridging gaps with technology. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 3, 74-79

Strauss, W. (2005). Talking about their generations: Making sense of a school environment made up of Gen-Xers and Millennials. School Administrator, 62(8), 10-14.

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

Diversity and Technology

Diversity and multiculturalism are sensitive issues that must receive special attention, whether or not it relates to a school setting or a workplace. Even as important as inclusion is in these areas, is the issue attached to new technology development. Reeves (1997) explains the importance of evaluating technologies and their cultural sensitivity. He further gives explicit examples of technology that is acceptable for American society but not for many other cultures. What are some of the aspects that one needs to consider when developing new technologies? In my opinion, it is important to stress the level of English proficiency of the audience for which the technology is being developed. The use of slang words should be eliminated and more proper English be employed. As a non-native English speaker, I did not learn slang words, but rather the proper way of expression, both written and spoken. Accessibility to the technology plays a central role when adopting it to curricula or the workplace. How accessible this technology is, has become a buzz word for researchers known as “digitally divide”. This digital divide describes the discrepancies in accessibility of computers and the internet due to certain social or cultural identifiers (Clark & Gorski, 2001). The number of people who physically have access to the internet or even a computer is much higher than it was about 10 years ago. However, Whites and Asian/Asian American have a higher rate of access to technology in school or their homes than African Americans and Hispanics (Gorski, 2002). Readiness to have training and supplement manuals of the technology available in other languages promotes inclusiveness.

Reeves (1997) further suggests that the development of new technology within cultures is not a one-size-fits-all design. Therefore, creating an environment that is conducive to learning and enhancing the culture's unique characteristics are intrinsic in making the technology relevant to its needs. Awareness of such characteristics will also enable an atmosphere of inclusion and respect. After all, isn’t time that we as (future) educational technologist take an initiative to create innovative technology that will benefit, not only the targeted culture, but also the dominant culture? When this happens we have then achieved a level of understanding and tolerance that goes beyond technology.

[References]
Clark, C. & Gorski, P. (2001). Multicultural education and the digital divide: Focus on race, language, socioeconomic class, sex, and disability. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(3),39-44

Gorski, P.C. (2002). Dismantling the digital divide: A multicultural education framework. Multicultural Education, 10(1), 29-30.

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