Computational Thinking is Fun!

After having read through all of the articles, I must say that this past week’s topic of computational thinking was my favourite.  I am not sure if I love computational thinking because most of my career I’ve been a math teacher, or whether I’ve been a math teacher for most of my career because I love computational thinking! ;)

Each of the presentations were particularly engaging this week.  I appreciated the analogies for the definition of computational thinking that Kim used to start her presentation.  I must admit I was frustrated a couple of times going through the Dr. Evil activity, but enjoyed the challenge.  The video that showed how to use an algorithm for passwords could be life changing for me…..we will see how it goes. 

I was happy (and embarrassed) to finally learn what CAPTCHA means.  I never really gave the acronym much thought before. 

After reading these two articles, I had to share the content with my two boys, as they enjoy computational thinking problems as much as I do.  They grew up playing chess, Rush Hour, doing brain teaser games, Rubik’s Cube, Sudoku, Mastermind, Minesweeper, etc…  I’m not sure if you have ever played Rush Hour, but we have 3 versions in our home – junior, regular and deluxe.  (Actually, I have the junior game in my office for my students to play).   After now completing two years of science at UM, my older son has decided he does not want to continue in sciences but he wasn’t sure what he wants to take.   I was excited to tell him that Computer Science might be for him (because it is NOT computer programming) and that he should definitely take a course in the fall to see what he thinks. 

I spent some time yesterday looking at the apps we have on our school ipads, and Scratch Jr and Tynker are both there!  My plan to integrate more computational thinking into our classrooms next year is already started!  I will spend some time this summer getting familiar with them before I try to get my teachers on board.  I fully agree with Wing (2006) that “we should add computational thinking to every child’s analytical ability” and that “computational thinking is a fundamental skill for everyone”. 

Check this online game out....

Computational thinking fun

If you haven't played these games - you are missing out!

Week 5 - Lots to think about

This week’s articles were dense, to say the least.  In particular, the one by Emejulu and McGregor (2016) It was a slow read, then reread, kind of article, but worth putting in the time.  The idea of radical digital citizenship should not have felt so foreign to me, but it was.  I had many eye-opening moments reading that article.  I had never taken time to think about the resources needed to build all of the technology that we consume, nor about who was doing the labour.  And the example of Robert Moses and how he planned the freeways and bridges to exclude minority groups – never in a million years would I think that someone would think and act like that. 

I noted a couple of the quotes that Jeremey used that really made me reflect, “We know too much, but understand too little” and “When we use these sites, we’re not the consumer, we’re the product”.  Powerful.   The article by Emejulu and McGregor concludes with a comment that they are “sceptical about the possibilities of developing a radical digital citizenship in digital education”.   I believe that this is true for now, but I remain hopeful that we are making steps in the right direction.

I absolutely loved how Kimberley and Kristy provided us for the framework to use for video analysis.  What a great tool to use with students.  I would love to show them a real video and then a fake video and see how their answers compare.   We must teach children to think critically about what they see, and to look for bias.  As this article https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/opinion/fake-news-and-the-internet-shell-game.html from the New York Times shares, years ago when we heard something “outrageous” we would have ignored the information, knowing that if it were true, we would surely have heard about it from a credible source.  Nowadays, people happily retweet or repost very outrageous things without fact checking.   Our students are doing this at an alarming rate when they hear news/gossip about their peers. 

We were left with the question about how to apply this digital literacy in our classrooms, since it does not have its own curriculum.  Off the top of my head, I am thinking that it would fit nicely under the Social Studies “Research and Communication” or “Critical Thinking and Citizenship” strands, as well as the “Critical Thinking” strand in Language Arts.   We just need to be creative with the “big idea” that we are presenting to students, and dig a bit deeper into these topics. 

This Ted Talk, relates well to the template shared by Kimberley and Kristy, and speaks to the importance of helping students think critically about media literacy, and how to give them the “golden lasso” of truth.

This talk also speaks to how in social media "we are the product".  A bit of doom and gloom, but then talks about the positive aspects as well.

Week 4 Digital Identity & Being Connected

The trials and tribulations we experienced during class on Thursday helped me understand the reticence that some teachers have for using technology in the classroom.  When technology fails us, it is frustrating, but as our presenters showed us last night, we persevere and find a work-around. 

When I read the Visitors and Residents article, I found myself making connections to my own life.  I was particularly intrigued when I read, “Visitors and Residents typology should be understood as a continuum and not a binary opposition”.  After the class discussion on GroupBoard, I could see how different aspects of my life (personal vs professional) would place me in different areas on the continuum.  

I appreciated our breakout room discussion when we discussed the use of technology among the younger generation and how their “conceptions of privacy and the notions of friendship” (White and Le Cornu, 2011) is a factor in their use of technology.   

White and Le Cornu (2011) mention that some people who operate entirely as Visitors, may never leave a digital footprint behind.  This comment brought me back to the time that I created my own Twitter account.  I was at a COSL conference where the importance of protecting your reputation by creating a positive digital footprint was being discussed.  This ties in to the conceptions of privacy.  I found a great Prezi presentation that also contains three short videos.  One has a Ted Talk by Michelle Clark where she shares a powerful spoken word poem about Digital Footprints  https://prezi.com/jijoyq-jkdrr/the-importance-of-a-positive-digital-footprint/

As a mother of two teenage boys who would be considered Residents, the oversharing that happens on their phones is an on-going concern for me.   Although I am constantly met with an, “I know” response when I bring up the topic of being careful on what you keep or share on your phone, I also know that they are not yet fully aware of the possible future ramifications from a poor or impulsive choice.  My experience as a MY administrator opened my eyes to the ignorance that exists among young teenagers of the permanence of what is posted via social media.  When Jurgenson (2012) comments on the fact that "social media promises an audience" as it relates to the Occupy protests, this also applies in other contexts.   Too often, when being asked about an inappropriate post/comment/text/photo, I have heard a student say that they deleted "it" right after because they realized it was a mistake.  Unfortunately, "it" had often already been captured on someone else's phone, and shared, and so on.   Often, young students think that once "it" has been deleted from their phone, that it is gone.  It is heart-breaking to inform them that this is not true.  I am hoping that we are beginning to include more frank class discussions on leaving digital footprints these days.  I know that it is not yet happening in my K-4 school, but it may be something to explore for next year with our grade 3 &4 team.  If we can start that conversation before they get their hands on a phone, maybe we can make more of a difference.   

 

Week 3 thoughts

Once again, lots of food for thought in the articles for week 3.  I was drawn to the wording offered by Fullan for the criteria for integrating technology and pedagogy (which then made me remember last week's article that talked about "minding our language and buzz-words".) 
Irresistably engaging seems to be key for any type of teaching.  A quote that I used to use under my email signature (until we weren't allowed to have quotes added there), by Alfred Mercier, was "What we learn with pleasure, we never forget".  Although teachers aren't expected to "put on a show", presenting new learning in an engaging manner can make all of the difference for some students.
Elegantly efficient and ensuring that the addition of technology does not complicate our lives seems to be a given as well.  Keeping in mind, that there will be a learning curve while learning the technology.
Technologically ubiquitous - technology does seem to be "the norm" and is available to many of us (students and teachers) 24/7.
Steeped in real-life problem solving is a work in progress, from my perspective.  This is where the real learning happens.  I will be bringing this point back to my staff so we can think about ways that we can offer authentic and purposeful learning opportunities to our students, even at a young age.  I know it is doable, we just need to think outside the box of what we currently do. Problem-based learning seems to be a great way to get started on this.


I liked how Fullan referred to Hattie's work about the effect size of instructional practices.  If you haven't read any of his Visible Learning books, here is a link to at least see all of the practices that he rated https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/  I was happy to see that Jesse talked about the "low floor, high ceiling" tasks.  This has been a focus in my building this year for lesson planning and learning activities. 
When Jesse mentioned the Literacy with ICT framework, I remembered receiving a copy of the continuum in one of my first years of years of teaching in Manitoba, possibly when it had first come out.  There was a big push for a couple of years to refer to that document regularly, but to be honest, I haven't thought or heard about it in the last 7 years or more.
  
If you aren't able to read the entire Stratosphere book by Fullan, I found a link to a good review that summarizes the entire book https://mindsharelearning.ca/book-review-stratospher-by-michael-fullan/


The Learning First, Technology Second article seemed to reinforce many of the ideas we had previously read about.  The quote that resonated with me was, "Teaching with technology is about the learning first and the tool second".  I found the Triple E Framework to be interesting to read and I appreciated the table that connected the framework to the ISTE standards for students. 
Our division has jumped on the SAMR model bandwagon, and one of my favourite graphics to share with teachers provides detailed information on the types of apps, activities and action verbs that teachers can use as a guide.

I found a great article that made me think about what type of technology we should have in our classrooms to provide creative spaces that better support student learning and engagement in the 21st century  https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/8-high-tech-gadgets-that-are-making-classrooms-sma/  A couple of the quotes that spoke to me were, “Stuffing schools with high tech tools isn’t the answer to offering dynamic learning experiences,” and “new learning needs new environments.”  Flipped classrooms is one of the topics mentioned.

Week 2: So Now What?

I really enjoyed the content in this past week's readings because there were many of the points that I could easily relate to, and there were other points that gave me pause to think.

The Oblinger and Hawkins (2006) article was a very easy read.  When I asked myself the question that they posed, "Difference in what?", it made me think of the SAMR model, that was also referenced during the presentation.  When we look at way that teachers are using technology, it can show us the depth of the difference we are making.  When we are only using the Substitution and Augmentation levels of the model, we are enhancing the learning.  What we really need to strive for is the transformation of the learning, which corresponds to the higher levels in Bloom's taxonomy. 

To be honest, I found the Selwyn (2015) article much more challenging to process.  I did enjoy the questioning of the "buzz words" and "tag lines" because this language is so prevalent in our everyday discussions about technology.  I doubt I will change the terms I use right now, but I will give it some thought.


I very much enjoyed digging into the Zhao et al. (2016) article, which is why I choose to present that one.  The article justified my own thinking that computers or technology can never "replace" teachers.   When I reflected on how technology has changed since I began my teaching career, there are many areas where technology has been able to save me much time: booking parent/teacher conferences, report card writing, grade tracking, communication with families, attendance keeping, etc...  None of this has actually changed the "learning" for the student, but it does allow me more time to focus on my students and their learning. 


One of the takeaways from the article was when I read, "In an ecosystem, each organism has its own role to play" (pg. 13). I realized that I need to remember what my niche is, and to focus my efforts there and allow technology to take over in areas that would be considered in the niche of technology.

This report by Winthrop, Williams and McGivney (2016) https://www.brookings.edu/research/skills-in-the-digital-age-how-should-education-systems-evolve/  on Skills in the Digital Age discusses how the education system must evolve in order to transform education.  These authors would agree with Zhao et al. who stated that, despite all of the advances in technology, the impact on education has been extremely limited, "650 million—The number of children globally who have not reached key developmental and learning milestones".


So what do we do? We (as in each individual teacher) need to take a critical look at what we are doing, and why we are doing it.  What is it that our students need in order to grow and learn, and in what ways can we use technology to support them?  Let's take one step at a time and work up way up that SAMR ladder.

Thoughts from week 1

Here goes my real first blog post....

I found the article by Postman much easier to read and digest than the readings by Morris and Stommel.  One quote by Morris and Stommel did make me think a bit more deeply about how we demonstrate what we value at school.  "Educators and students alike have found themselves more and more flummoxed by a system that values assessment over engagement, learning management over discovery, content over community, outcomes over epiphanies."  This quote makes me think of the differences between EY, MY, HS and university experiences for students.  In my EY school, I must say that we do a great job of focusing on engagement, community and discovery.   In my son's Intro to Bio class last fall, his classes consisted of a video lesson that replayed every hour.  We must remember to keep the joy in the learning experiences of all students. 

I appreciated the thoughts shared in the article by Postman.  His ideas mainly resonated with me on a personal level, but it did make me think about how to better serve my students at school.

"Culture always pays a price for technology".  When I think of my two sons, currently aged 16 and 19, they had very different experiences growing up.  For my oldest son, Connor, he had very little technology available to him so he often had buddies over to hang out in the evenings or on the weekends.  My younger son bought his own smartphone at age 13.  At this point, he pretty much stopped hanging out “irl” with friends and all communication seemed to be done on Snapchat.   As for me, shopping trips to the mall with a girlfriend are far and few between now.  With online shopping, I can “save time” by orderng everything I need without getting off my couch.  Let's not even talk about SkipTheDishes...

The analogy of the red food colouring used to explain how technological change is ecological made me realize how true this is.  We cannot turn back the clocks to how things used to be and we must be mindful of the impact this change is having on us.  Students are going to have cellphones, and they are going to bring them to school.  We need to choose how to respond to this reality.  The experiment that took place in this article https://www.macleans.ca/society/technology/should-schools-welcome-cell-phones/ would be an interesting one for more schools to try.  I know that when I impose a temporary "family ban" on cellphone/technology (family nights, trips down south), my boys always comment on how much fun they had and are surprised that they "survived" without their phones, Netflix, etc...


I firmly believe in the statement, “technology is not part of God’s plan… and that its capacity for good or evil rests entirely on human awareness of what it does for us and to us.”  As educators, we must be able to put our personal views of technology aside and ensure that we teach our students the skills of digital citizenship and prepare them with the critical thinking skills needed for the 21^st century so that they can “use technology rather than be used by it”.   As I am currently in a K-4 school, I will need to put some thought into how to best sow the seeds in these young children.  It is nice to know that there are resources out there https://savvycyberkids.org/ to help get us started.

Test blog

Hi all,


This is a test post to see how Blogger works.  I look forward to learning so many tech tools during this course. 


Let's see how this goes.


Happy Saturday!


Brenda