It's the FINAL TAKEAWAY

This class was essentially my comfort food of the first semester of my education career.
what do i mean by that?

My other two classes were definitely COMPLETELY uncharted territory for me.  they were about teaching strategies in the Science Classroom, and about Educational research, where my background was in Scientific Research all the way from High School.  This class was the one that I had some background in (in using Technology of ANY form), so even that was not much.

I walked into this class thinking that my grasp of technology was mediocre at best, and was SUPER excited about how I could learn about new technology that I'd be able to use in my teaching.

I was NOT disappointed.

It was the first time that I have actually done anything creative with real products from my process.  This was SUPER exciting to create tangible THINGS.

Very glad I took this early on in my educational career, so I could apply this to my future classes and future lessons, as this is a definite PRACTICAL aspect to it.

Thanks for making this class everyone!  It really was a group effort!

Assistive Technology post

I'm really glad that we were able to talk about assistive technology because I really dont have to much of a background on it.  I mean I guess a lot of what I may not have considered assistive technology was actually just that, but I was glad we were able to talk about it in terms of implementing them in your classroom, especially for students with disabilities. 

I am really glad we were shown those websites, and I am sure that I will be able to use those resources in the future.

Chapter 7.

I really liked what Seymour Papert said about, "Will the child program the computer or will the computer program the child."  It almost feels like it would be the maxim of those who wrote the android operating system, and it's ability to be flexible.  It definitely is the way that a lot of my engineering friends think in terms of approaching any situation, where they will write a program to solve a difficult program, as compared to tackling the problem manually.  I guess it is kind of like learning to drive, you control the car, not the other way around.

Also, I could not help but laugh on the little blurb on open source software, because my friends who advocate the use of open source software are the guys that are completely gung ho about it, and thus, the image of some guy feeling super satisfied about writing that section into a textbook as a personal victory popped into my head.  on that topic, I will say this, that while the open source alternatives of the programs are cheaper and more available, I've found that the commercial products more often than not have a bigger financial backing and thus might be a little bit more refined and the production value will be obvious.  I'm curious to know if any body has had experience with using open source software, and if after they've used that, preferred it over the commercial counterpart, and why?

then the chapter went on to talk about video games.  I was surprised to see Civilization 3 on the list of video games, as that was a game I was completely obsessed with.  As a matter of fact, I picked up the latest version of the game (Civ 5) when it came out, and I will give it a run once in a while.  It actually is a pretty complex strategy game.  I thought it was interesting because one game of Civ lasts hours, and I wondered how that would actually translate to a classroom setting.  On that note: I actually just bought SimCity 2 weeks ago as that just came out.  While I havent been able to give that any real play time (with its disaster of a launch not allowing players to play until a week after release due to always online DRM, and maintaining the semi semblance of a life with the time not focused on school and work), the game actually taught a lot in terms of problem solving, and organizational skills.  Once again, playing the game takes a LOT of time, so effective use of time seems like it would be an issue, as we're already short on time with our lessons, so I hesitate even mentioning it in a class setting, but if given infinite time, I dont see why not.

With the complexity of what is taught at the high school level, I think it would be difficult to incorporate a video game into the classroom setting.  My main concern would be time.  Where something with a "sliding scale" like http://freerice.com (where you build your vocabulary AND every correct answer donates 10 grains of rice) could work, I struggle to find something that would be relevant in a Biology classroom, and if I did find something, I'd most definitely try to incorporate it.

While the book does talk about video games, I wonder if we could use this to engage kids by going the opposite way.  The text mentions ways that kids can learn different things from video games, but would there be real merit it approaching it as you can apply what you're learning in class to be a better gamer?  For one, I could see it being a way to reach out to kids who may not have been engaged with the content materials?

Also, how is playing a video game different than playing a game or board game in the class room?  Is there something that video games do better than their analog counterpart?  The only real thing I can think of is simulation, allowing for the addition of the visual component.

EDIT:  apparently free rice has changed since I've last been there.  Now there are different categories, including chemistry, anatomy, math, etc.  fun!

03/14/13

Still not sold on Webquests.  But that appears that will be my demon to face.

I thought that the web 2.0 conversation was especially interesting.  the rubric definitely does provide a nice building block for future use.  It was curious to see the different perspectives on what every body looked for when analyzing the different.

Also, the way that the class started, and talking about the impending demise of the google reader was surprisingly opportune for this class.  The thought that we must analyze what is good about it, and looking for a replacement was easily looked over, but quite important. 

I still think that I might carry a naive perspective about the real teaching world.  Perhaps a bit romantic in the notion of knowing what will and will not be available.  As we move on in the class and the text seems to be taking more of a technical aspect of the subject rather than the philosophical, I feel like this is why I am here in school, to learn the tools to become a teacher.  This is super exciting and I really think that I'm already a bit more prepared for teaching than I before!

Ch. 4 and 6

Chapter 4 got me really excited about looking forward to my entire teaching career.

I feel that this chapter really provides a framework that educators can use to re-evaluate their curriculum annually, or even constantly.  One of the great things about technology advancing, is that it will provide new ways to attempt new things.  By keeping your head on a swivel at all times, you can really take advantage of the fact that there are new things that a creative educator can attempt year in and year out!

I particularly thought that Table 4.1 will be useful in the future.  This table can really help define the way that class time could be utilized, especially for something like in-class research time.  

Also, figure 4.1 (Key features of a technology- integrated classroom p. 91) is something  think I'll be holding onto for future reference as well.  

If anything this chapter really reminded me that educators really have our work cut out for us, and that technology is very much like Lego's:  New sets constantly come out, and once you're familiar with the new pieces, the more you put into it, the more you will get out of it (creatively).  

Having said all that, chapter 4 also has a bit of a reality check in that it reminds us that we can only use what we have.  But, if we know that the common practice out side of the school setting that we are in uses a specific tech- based component, how much time should we put into discussing that with our students?

Chapter 6 was quite interesting to me as well, as I know for me personally, the way that I organize information (in my head, as well as on pen and paper) has changed since I have become familiar with computers.

I think the importance of information management is greater than ever because of the breadth and depth of information that is available in our day and age.  We must teach students to develop a way to navigate it, whether it is like Theseus and Ariadne's use of a ball of string to navigate the labyrinth of Crete, or Hansel and Gretel's breadcrumbs.
having said that though, how can we teach students about that without deviating from the content that we have to get through?

Having read what the textbook has on webquests, I still am not quite sure if I am sold on the idea of it.  I still dont see how this is a different task than one that students would normally do when given a worksheet.  Personally, I think that if the students were asked to perform the tasks given on any of the webquests we saw in class and werent given a parameter, the students would have been able to get the information on their own any ways, and while doing so, might even learn a thing or two about a few things we've gone over in class ourselves (analyzing the validity of a website, and even inquiry based learning by learning to follow the thread of information).  Am I the only one who doesnt quite see the benefits of webquests beyond the restriction of the area that is considered "in-bounds?"

You! The 21st Century Rock Star

So this video went viral a few days ago, but hopefully it doesnt fizzle out like the Harlem Shake did/ will.

I've mentioned in several posts (if not, then certainly in comments) that the world students will be graduating into is drastically different from even the one we found when we got out of high school.  The amount and speed of information being processed are both being increased exponentially, so how can we expect it not to be different?  But certainly, seeing as technology is also creating new job opportunities that werent present before, there's no reason to not embrace it while we can.  Not only new jobs, but it really is time to wake up and smell the coffee, as ALL careers are changing due to advancements in technology... and to be frank, isnt that why we're ALL in this class?

Also, of no real consequence: Near the end of the video some of the tech rock stars started talking about wizardry and magic, and reminded me of one of Arthur C. Clarke's laws:  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  That coupled with the intro to the video where the interviewees are all saying that coding/ tech might seem intimidating at first, but it really isn't, makes all of this dizzying tech seem more approachable. 

I havent personally checked out code.org yet, but I've had some fun playing around with codeacademy.com.

I mean if we can start programming some of our own materials and implementing it in our classroom in a way that complements the content and engages the class, there's no point in waiting any longer to try and learn it... especially if its available to us for free, right? 

Wikipedia?

I appreciate where we ended up in class.  A part of me was asking why we were talking about this because I always felt that this was never a novel issue, but one that I had learned to traverse in middle school while doing research.

Also, the way to evaluate website authenticity with who, what, when, where, and why seems to reinforce my thoughts mentioned before about this issue not being a novel one.  This seems to be an example where old principles hold up even with the introduction of new technology!

Plus, am I the only one who is always never satisfied with what is found in Wikipedia?  Once I find any sort of interesting bit, I want to know more about it.  Thus, it allows for the development of inquisitive-ness.... maybe.  But, it certainly did for me.

Quick Follow up on the twitter question.

So from the comments and questions raised there from my previous post, I decided to take things into my own hands and see what I could find.

I found this article on CNN talking about how at Johns Hopkins, they were actually following tweets to track the flu that hit hard earlier this year.

As mentioned in the article, this completely circumvents the issue of "lag" from getting reports from hospitals from across the country where the CDC gives out 2 week old information in its monthly Flu-reports.

This use of twitter in research actually makes a lot of sense.  The issue with tweets is that they're limited to 140 characters, so there really is a limit to the amount of content via tweet.  But its value could be when analyzed in volume.  The small size of each post allows for one to go about a larger number of tweets as compared to reading full articles.  Also, when something is viewed in volume, researchers are hoping to find trends and correlations.  Twitter has already taken advantage of this aspect of its mass use via Hashtags.  Hashtagging allows for the organization of information so that "trends" could be followed.

If this is the case, I can very easily see a new job being developed in PR departments where someone is following current trends to work that into their companies.  To me, it seems like the skills required to do that sort of a job would be very strong organizational skills, and an understanding of the technology.  Could this be the a development of a "twitter librarian?"

Now this is only one article and one example of how twitter is being used, but I mean if I was able to find that in 5 minutes, I'm certain this is something that is happening more often.  This actually got me pretty excited as this seems to be an example of how being creative can really give you something from... well not quite nothing, but 140 characters.

ch. 5

This chapter reminded me of an article I read in Wired magazine about a year ago.  Since then it has been something on my mind.  Is this really a novel issue or is it just something that we deal with everytime there is a major change in medium?  It seems like the ability to differentiate between a bogus source and a credible one is contingent upon the individual's prior understanding.  If students do not know about what they searching for, they will not be able to disregard some sources that have no credibility.

This is the very same issue that bioinformatics deal with.  While the engineers and the programmers write the scripts that are necessary to parse through the huge amount of information coded in RNA sequences, it is the biologists who know what the sequences mean biologically, and thus tell the engineers what they are looking for.  This is also an example of how one can get around this issue: collaborating with others in your community.  What are some other ways we can show students that there are non technological ways to solve issues that arise from using technology?

Also, understanding how search engines work has helped me in my endeavors in the bioinformatics lab.  Where we used BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) to analyze sequences, it definitely helped to understand that when you were doing a google search, you werent searching for full sentences or phrases, but rather, for the computer, all it saw was a sequence of characters.

This makes one wonder.  Twitter seems to have made its mark and it appears that it is here to stay (seeing as the mass media has bought into it, and all newscasters, reporters, and journalists have their twitter handles shown on the news and in articles), when will it be okay to start citing twitter for research papers, and how do you teach how to differentiate between a valuable tweet as compared to one that is not as valuable?

02/14/13 reflections.

The lesson today was interesting.  It was all very reminiscent of High School psychology, where our lessons were divided up into different perspectives (biological, psychodynamic, etc), and the two I am somewhat familiar with were the cognitive and the behaviorist.

I also had no idea how "young" the constructivist theory was.  I had just done reading about it the other day in one of my other classes (EDU 7297 with Prof. Thomas) so I was somewhat familiar with it, but it definitely makes more sense now after the discussion about it in the classroom setting.

It is interesting to note that those three theories of education are very much co-current.  Certainly makes me think about different ways to approach teaching.

I must admit, I might need a refresher course about negative reinforcement.  It still is a bit dicey, but I am confident that I'll have a firmer grasp on it once I start reviewing it.

Bill Gates on Education

So Bill Gates was on Reddit answering questions of the general Reddit community earlier today (2/11/12).  Reddit is "a social news and entertainment website where registered users submit content in the form of either a link or a text ("self") post" (-Wikipedia).  Essentially, Bill Gates said he was going to be fielding questions at a specific time from the online community and did so.

One of the questions he took the time to respond to was someone who asked a specific question about technology and math education.  Considering this man was a trailblazer of the digital era, and has since focused his efforts on his philanthropy (including funding for Education), I really was interested in what he had to say on the subject.

Also, Bill Gates' response to a student who wrote to him for class in 2001 (and his advice specifically talks about education and technology?!)

For those who are interested, here is the link to the full AMA (Ask Me Anything). 

also, he currently uses a Perceptive Pixel (which apparently is a massive Windows 8 Touch Whiteboard).
...
because I know I was not the only one who wanted to know.

A Rude Awakening (Chapter 3 Reflections)

This being my first semester in the Education program, I have to admit, I think I am a bit naive when it comes to teaching.  As was probably evident in some of my responses in the classroom, I am definitely more familiar with the philosophy of education than real world practices.  Thus, the end of last class and this chapter was a definite rude awakening of sorts.

This chapter definitely introduced some more real world considerations into the classroom.  on that note, i'm really glad we had the lesson we had on thursday.  The concept of being a designer, and learning the tools to be able to really do that, that is exactly why I wanted to get back to school in the first place.  That lesson seemed really appropriate considering the material in the reading this week.

1.  Should we consider testing on digital interfaces now (assuming the ability to do so)?

2.  How difficult is it to actually implement different technologies into the classrooms?  With all of the standards and what not, how difficult is it to really change these things?  For example, there is a HUGE gap between technology and the law, as so much of the law is dealing with precedence.  Also, the validity of the new technology is a huge factor.  These can be arguments against change in the classroom, and thus, I couldnt help but wonder how difficult change of that sort would be in the classroom setting

3.  We keep talking about the overlap of pedagogical, content, and technological content.  There are sometimes when we are faced with technical difficulties.  Should you be prepared to carry out your lesson should a technical difficulty arise?  Could you be prepared?  Do you handle the content knowledge in a different way because you have technology available?

Response to the first readings (Ch. 1 and 2)

I may be a bit biased about this, but as someone who is hoping to teach biology, I cant help but see technology and the classroom going hand in hand.  This is especially true because of my experience of working in a Bioinformatics lab where most of our work was done by writing scripts for programs and utilizing databases to compare RNA sequences of different bacteria that ran thousands of sequences.

This being the case after reading the chapters i guess I am a bit curious as to what the text meant by becoming an E-teacher.  It sounds like just by using technology in our processes makes us e teachers?  While I could see that one could help usher in the new era of technology via the "lead by example" route, is that enough?  

Also, as specific subject teachers, is it our duty to be teaching specific technology?  I mean I could see us incorporating technology our lesson plans, and showing classes examples of how technology is utilized in their field of study (i.e. BLAST in biology, photoshop for designers, etc).  Even at the university level, we only really got to learn to perform techniques used in contemporary biology labs in lab classes.  How do we divide the time committed to content vs. technique?  Can it be argued that technique should be content taught in the classroom?

Also, the section in chapter 2 about creativity caught my attention.  I've always viewed technology to be like learning a new language, another way to do things, and thus, I suppose in art terms, a different medium.  This section in the text makes it seem like utilizing technology actually changes the creative process in individuals.  The text even went so far as to questioning redefining creativity?  Im not sure that I can really agree with that.  That would be like saying that without technology, some people who are artists would not be artists?  The process of creating something new is still the same.  The tools at your disposal now may be different than what was there even 5 years ago.  This is why we have the youtube generation, where anybody can post anything they create online.    Two of my roomates in college were dancers, and that is how I came about this ted talk, but the sharing of ideas has revolutionized the way that we share information and that barriers are broken down, but can we honestly say that the creativity needs to be redefined?

02/07 reflections

 If I am a designer (as an educator) who am I designing for?
-designing for a better world/ global community
What am I designing?
Designing a part of the basic foundation in a safe envi.
What is the final product for the design?
better world via production of innovators?


Teach them well and let them lead the way


 one of the "hats" of the teacher is that of the instructional designer.
when this hat is on, you are only concerned with the production of lessons via the PIE model
Plan->
Implement->
Evaluate and edit. ^^^
repeat.

The biggest take away from this lesson is probably the understanding of what role technology has in terms of the instructional designer.
Content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge intersecting is where we strive to be.

I also appreciate the fact that by being an instructional designer, it stresses creativity.  Also, by admitting to striving to the intersection, we MUST get over the fact that technology is here.  We just have to get used to it, and use it to help us.

All the world is a twitter?

Kudos to this English teacher for using Twitter in the classroom.  They had students fix NFL athletes' tweets.

The Times They are A Changing.

A quick introduction before we really get going.
I am the most technologically challenged Asian guy I've known.  While my peers were building gaming rigs (mind you, back home in Korea, Pro Gamers get paid more than Pro Athletes, and where companies like Samsung sponsor Pro Gamers with alarming amounts of money) and what not by middle school, I was like Michael Bolton and the Printer (seen in the image to the left).  Thus, I feel like I am an Analog Clock in a steamrolling Digital World.

Now this is by no means an admission of saying that I'm not internet savvy.  The amount of time I spend perusing the internet can be attributed to the fact that I was a huge sports fan living in Korea.  The only way for me to keep tabs on my favorite teams was by following them over the internet.  That was the moment where it all clicked.  To quote Doc Ock from Spiderman 2, "The power of the sun, in the palm of my hands..."
...
Maybe not, but still, my passion for following the '02 New Jersey Nets really allowed me to fine tune my internet surfing abilities, and I havent looked back since.  Thus, I may be an Analog clock, but I believe I can serve the same purpose as those Digital Clocks too.  Perhaps learn a trick or two while we're studying them.

All analogies aside.
I believe that learning should not be limited to classroom settings.  Call me naive, but as I am just getting my feet wet in the Education department, I really believe it.  Personally, I've always been kind of a geek for utilizing knowledge learned in the Classroom in real life contexts (ex. the moment I realized that the reason we put soda in the fridge is not only for it to be icy cold and refreshing, but because at room temperature, the solubility of Carbon Dioxide is much lower, and thus the soda will go flat quicker).  How better to bridge the gap between the classroom and the real world than to utilize computers and clickers?

Seeing as most people cant go a day without utilizing technology, it seems foolish to not use this powerful tool in preparing students for the real world.  While the content matter to be taught in classrooms is at the crux of our jobs, if given the opportunity, we should prepare our students to be innovators.  And in whatever field they may pursue, the cutting edge will very likely require them to be technologically literate.
Thus, I hope to be given the tools to be able to assist future students, so that my technological handicap may not hinder students.  As Prof. Chen was saying, this class can ONLY help us become better educators, by giving us another way to teach, and that is pretty exciting.

Also, even outside of the physical class room, seeing things like Khan Academy or even Code Academy gets me really excited about how students now have access to a seemingly infinite amount of information, and how we as educators can use it to teach in truly innovative fashions.

Here's to learning to taking on a bit more of a multifaceted approach to education guys.
Cheers!