Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:26:28 -0500 Reply-To: CS92-L List <CS92-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU> Sender: CS92-L List <CS92-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU> From: Dave Cade <Dave_Cade@BROWN.EDU> Subject: Teaching...with technology Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"Hi everybody! As y'all know, tomorrow we're going to discuss the second half of Sandholtz et al. Here are some thoughts I generated after reading the last few chapters and after our discussion:
The first few chapters made the project seem like a total success, but CH6 brings out some key points. There are patterns that emerge in how engaged students are in the computers. For instance, working for more than an hour and a half leads to distractions. Should it have been obvious from the start that computers are not the cureall for keeping students interested?
In terms of engagement, Sanholtz suggests that "Drill-and-practice exercies on the computer differ very little from drill-and-practice exercies on paper" (102), yet many of us are basing our projects on the theory that computers can extend traditional teaching methods. Just something to think about.
We talked a lot on tuesday about novelty as the computers' greatest strength. Keeping the kids focused and on task seems like a prevailing theme in all the ACOT classrooms. Maybe what computers provide is a steady stream of novelty. There will always be new software to try and new programs to explore.
In class, someone brought up teachers who try to implement technology outside of ACOT and who may not have the support that ACOT teachers received. A lot of CH7 talks about the collegial sharing of information and strategies that were an integral part of the program. Do you think we're in an era now where technical resources are abundant enough so as not to be a factor?
Keeping in mind that computers can not of themselves "change bad teaching into good" (174), what is necessary to promote good teaching?
One of the things that bothers me about this study is how it tends to assume that things like interdisciplinary studies and visiting other teacher's classes were novelties spawned by participation in the ACOT program. Whenever it suggests something like this as improving education, I can't help but think that implementing these tactics would be just as beneficial without advanced technology. Do computers really act as such a strong catalyst, or is there another way to get teachers motivated about progressive education?
On page 131, Mr. Tate's students' projects using computers were described as "grander" and "more professionally done" than in previous years. Is this a case of students spending too much time on the design of the cover page and other frills of the asignment? Would the students have learned more if they had been encouraged to have more depth to their project and fewer decorative wrappers?
One of the problems faced by the ACOT and other program participants regarded evaluation. Not only did they find it troubling to try and assign grades to students who demonstrated knowledge by teaching others and excelling at group work, but the teachers themselves were poorly evaluated. pg 181 gives the example of the district evaluator who "told the teacher to have him return on a day when he could observe her 'actually teaching.'" Is it possible to come up with objective criteria for evaluation of students who don't learn facts but how to look up facts, and for their instructors?
As kind of a wrap up: many of the things specifically mentioned as advantageous in the book like word processing and spreadsheet use are considered almost common and expected of students now. Is there still a place for educational software in the classroom? Or should computer use be limited to tools like databases?