Grabe and the Big Six

Grabe, in his article, describes the "Big Six" (No, not those weird guys above). Grabe's Big Six are actually skills for problem solving. He defines them as:

1. Task Definition - Knowing not only that you need information, but also recognizing what information you really need.


2. Information Seeking - Realizing where to look, brainstorming, and recognizing that sources can be varied and not everything comes from an Encyclopedia (Or Wikipedia)


3. Locating and Accessing - Finding specific resources, whether thru card catalogues or Google search.


4. Use of Information - Processing Information, deciding what is useful, and retrieving those elements, often from extensive data. Also documentation of sources and bookmarking to "find information again"


5. Organizing and Communicating - Using upper learning skills to synthesize information, put it together, and organize into a whole


6. Evaluation - Make judgments about completion of task, effectiveness of solution and process, and anticipation of "grade"

The internet has opened up a different realm of possibilities for Grabe's "Big Six." Research, particularly, can now be done with a few simple key strokes. Further, the anaylsis and determination of information and its reliabiality has become a trickier and larger task. Helping student know what they can use is as important as helping them eliminate false or unnecessary things. (Further making sure that they do not use Wikipedia).

In essence, the "Big Six" are guidelines for learning and instruction. They also walk nicely along Maslow's hierarchy of learning, requiring both basic level skills, as well as higher-order tools to be implemented. When there is difficulty at one stage, students can "back track" and focus on the area they "went wrong." What Grabe, I believe, is really trying to point out, is how the internet can be used to meet, satisfy, and even amplify educational goals.

CPB Article and Television in Schools

Not long ago Jared posted on his blog a survey about how television should be used in schools. One of my frustrations was that there was no "multiple selection" option with that poll. After all, as the CPB article points out, television (and video media) have a wide range of possibilities and potential in our classrooms. Yes, it can be used (like the "ideal" poll choice) to underline and emphasize content. And it still remains true that it is often a "Friday free time" activity that is used to keep students calm while we grade tests or plan other activities. It's also used as a reward for good behavior, to replace traditional lecture, and to show students how PG-13 "Romeo and Juliet" really is.

So are these tools wrong? And whi isn't video more prevalent in classrooms? I think the problem is how such videos HAVE been used, and not how they COULD be used. For example, I don't think schools need more "Friday free time." We do not need more teachers turning on PBS's free American History series to lull students to sleep for an hour. We don't need more Romeo and Juliet. What we need is video to be used more effectively, and if not, than perhaps less. After all, if not used to its potential, why have it at all. Surely there are more worthwhile activities? Like a teacher using a computer merely to show students images from picsearch, a television being used for only the above could be better used in another room, class, faculty lounge, or school.

What we need is more video that is used while "teaching" in the form outlined in the article. Teachers who give background information and context. Teachers who make clear expectations and outlines with videos. Teachers who set length and preview the content, using curriculum standards or lesson plans to justify use. And finally we need more videos that are shown by teachers who connect footage to the real world. Helping students piece together glimpses of their world, so that they may make judgements and analysis on what they have seen is the "higher level thinking" we are aiming for.

As was examined in class, when students can connect sound, image, text, and information all together, they are more likely to retain, understand, and utilize information. Thus the First Amendment, as taught by School House Rock, may be more effective in helping students remember its Five Basic Rights better than the characters on the Simpsons.

Judy Harris and Activity Structure

Judy Harris, in her article, identifies 18 telecollaborative activity structures. Unfortunately the links she gives to their detail is broken (I guess she's no longer at the Universtiy of Texas) She does group these "activities" into three categories, however. These categories are:

1) Interpersonal Exchanges - Individuals talk electronically with other groups, or groups do so with each other.

2) Information Collection and Analysis - Students collect, compare, and compile different types and forms of data electronically.

3) Problem Solving - Students use critical thinking, collaboration, and problem-based learning.

In terms of current usage, one need only go into any Middle or High school where students are being assigned research projects to see that #2 is constantly being used. What is lacking, however, are the deeper elements and meaning that such projects may have. Students use the internet to "google search" a topic, and then copy and paste much of that information. The first category seems to mostly be used only in terms of email or a student myspace account. I have never seen or experienced a classroom (in K-12) where experts on a given topic are contacted or utilized to teach. Likewise the third category seems reserved for "extra time," after students have finished work, so that they may play any host of electronic games, even though they may not understand the reason or lessons such games offer.

In short, I believe such categories are extremely lacking in secondary schools, particularly in Utah. In part this may not be a fault of teachers or schools, for without certain resources such learning isn't even possible. However those schools that DO implement "technology" into their curriculum tend to see it merely as a better way of doing old things, rather than what it truly could be - an entirely new area of learning, exploration, and education.

Kauchak and Questions

Kauchak lists three functions of teacher questioning -

1) Assessing Current Understanding
2) Increasing Learner Motivation
3) Guiding New Learning

In the broad sense, technology is not necessary nor a factor in examining these three functions. After all, effective teaching has been going on, along with effective questioning, for many many years (How long has Jared been teaching anyway?). However, a closer look at technology-assisted learning in classrooms also reveals ways that these "old questions" can be tranformed and helped with new advances.

Take the first function - assessing current understanding. In a technology-assisted classroom this can be as simple as using computers to take a multiple choice test. However, a more effective example may be one in which technology creates entirely new scenarios to test understanding. Drivers Ed students may now drive an imaginary course in the comfort of the classroom. Science students may dissect a variety of animals in a virtual world. Social Studies students can play role-playing games that transport them to the Battle of Waterloo. Seeing how well they understand such scenarios and situations helps the "computer questioning" become something both unique and effective.

The second function, increasing learner motivation, is also illustrated by the examples above. Particularly when certain topics are of interest to students, technology opens them up to limitless possibilities. Gone are the days of saying "Here's a book you might like," and they are replaced with "Check out this youtube video," and "Look at this strategy game." Research papers have more available to them than is located in a card catalogue (even if teachers DON'T allow Wikipedia). Google can find off-shoots of topics, games, models, and related links to everything from the Holocaust to Lego construction.

The final funciton of teacher questioning, guiding new learning, is perhaps the most affected by technology. Imagine Science students being able to take a virtual journey through the solar system, complete with sight and sound. Now imagine that such a journey was designed, implemented, and constructed by students themselves. Imagine again that a video of an "interview" with Napolean is placed alongside interactive maps of his battles, where one may click on any region and gain more information, pictures, and view personal diaries. Technology is no longer limited to "studying the same old things in new ways," but has opened up the realm of learning to include new topics, new possibilities, and new programs. Like the TEAMS projects themselves, a techno-classroom opens students to the world beyond textbooks, as well as the topics that such a world may hold.

Reiser Post and working in TEAMS

One of the reoccuring thoughts I had while reading through Reiser's article and examining the sample final projects was "Wow... if only." That is to say, many of these ideas and linked subject-units appear worthwhile, well planned, and would help foster lasting and more productive learning environments. However, all of that is in a "perfect world," where computers are in every classroom, student dynamics are calm and social, and all resources a teacher may need are readily available.

Instead what most schools I have taught and been a tracker in experience is not enough computers (even in computer labs.) Further, the lack of knowledge in technical realms by teachers themselves creates a larger barrier than that of students (most middle school kids have more computer training than an adult over 40). Even though I currently teach at a private school with a lot of funding and resources, I can easily see how difficult such units would be to offer and use in an inner-city or poor school. Without the computers and other technology-driven resources needed for these units (or the funding to provide them) a teache may be left with repetitions of the same activities, namely lectures and quiet reading. And if such "stations" were filled only with reading assignments and tests, I am not sure they would be any more productive than current "whole class" formats.

Another concern is that of students themselves. Although many of the younger generations now are exposed earlier to technology, many still do not have regular access. Thus, before many of these wonderful ideas can be implemented, students need be taught general skills to help them navigate the computer world. Further, it seems to be for lasting "learning" to take place, a "perfect world" would give children such access OUTSIDE the classroom as well. The wonders of Google Earth, the information (whether correct or not) on Wikipedia, and podcasts on any topic can hardly be examined at length during classtime (or on school servers). If we recognize that the "best" learning takes place outside classrooms, than it seems to me our techonology must also leave those same walls.