This week's readings covered a range of subjects, but the primary focus was on alternative methods of running an English classroom, either through innovative usages of technology or using technological innovations as a subject. During every one of these readings, I found myself questioning the validity of the content, not for the purpose of criticism, but as a means to understand how I (or any teacher) could successfully use the methods and philosophies described. In several cases, my own experience and classroom observation informed my response. At present, I am quite skeptical about some of these readings, as is my nature, but I am curious to see the subjects develop as class continues.
The first of the primary texts, Cockrum's Flipping Your English Class, confused me at first, as it did not define flipping, but through internet research I was able to put the pieces together. I think my reaction, one of initial disbelief, was probably shared by many of my peers. Conceptually, the idea of a flipped classroom is sound: students do assignments at the bottom of Bloom's before coming to class so that we can focus on more challenging material. technology is obviously a large factor here, and is what makes such a classroom possible these days. Realistically, I am deeply skeptical about this concept. I believe that many high school students are simply not ready for the level of independent learning expected of this model. I can recall my sister flunking through a similar online Algebra class, as well as the constant warnings from my instructors that many students will not do any work away from class. How does one begin to ensure that students 'attend' the asynchronous class sessions? The narrative of such a classroom almost reads like "students do the boring stuff alone, while I do the fun stuff with them in class." The independent assignments would have to be extremely engaging to motivate most students doing them in isolation, and the teacher is limited to very few methods of assessment. In fact, the book claims that flipping leads to more individualized assessment, but it lists no examples of why this is the case (17). From a time management perspective, I have to imagine that the process would lead to an increase in the amount of time spent on assessments with only comparable value to the students. My own experience with online courses has also mostly been negative--I struggle to learn from reading, and tend to learn the material "for the test" instead of learning practical applications. I suspect many students share my learning type, and I feel this environment does them a disservice. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of a flipped classroom, but I need to see more real-life examples of it being successful with data supporting it is the move to make before I consider its incorporation in my own classes.
Most of the other readings were more descriptive and practical in their content, which was appreciated after reading the Cockrum text. I had read about news cast projects similar to the one described in Teaching Literacy in the Digital Age, but it was nice to see a fairly direct description of how such an activity works. From past coursework, I know this type of practical assignment can be very rewarding for students and help prepare them for careers. Similarly, the Cyberbullying article suggested having students make real efforts in facing a social problem in their generation. These types of assignments should raise engagement while 'stealthily' addressing several educational standards.
"An Alternative to Teaching the Research Paper" contained an idea that I think would be hugely beneficial for many students: replacing the research paper with something akin to a wiki format (the FAQ). This writing model is more versatile and easier for audiences to digest, so I agree that it is in many ways superior to the essay, which has its roots in rhetorical practice rarely seen today outside of academia. However, as teachers we must face the reality that our students are going to be tested on their ability to write in the essay format, and will in fact require it in college. I think replacing the research paper entirely is out of the question in our present environment, though the strategies used to write the FAQ could certainly make an effective pre-writing strategy. Similarly, the article on multimodal research had students thinking outside the box using many different forms of media. The internet has made various mediums far more accessible than they once were, and students are generally ready to engage and make comparisons. In order to keep English education current, I think it is important for teachers to incorporate the different forms of media and show how they are all forms of human expression instead of telling students "TV is bad" like they did when I was in grade school.
The "Keeping it Current" article was the most fascinating read to me. The idea of using games in the classroom is somewhat close
to my heart as a game designer, and I yearn for the day when enough of society has accepted games
as a storytelling medium to be able to help students deconstruct this form of
media. The use of Darfur is Dying and games like it specifically is something I am conflicted
with, though. On one hand, I like that is has a particular relevance to the
course’s subject and that students are having a reader response based on their
interactions in the game. This does demonstrate the unique power of games to involve the player. On the other hand, well, Shakespeare didn’t write his plays
specifically for the purpose of education. "Romeo and Juliet" does not teach an educational concept, yet it is still studied in schools. By saying “only these types of games
are usable in the classroom,” we are restricting one of the most current, growing methods of storytelling and saying only games that were made for education have
value in the eyes of the establishment. Furthermore, the example used (Darfur is Dying) is a flash browser game with no critical backing. Flash is a format that browser developers are desperately trying to remove support for, as it is an insecure language that has been improved on by HTML5, Javascript, Unity, etc. This means the lesson will probably only be usable for a short amount of time. All that said, if playing the game raises student engagement, then
it is clearly a useful tool in some capacity, but I hope we can do better in the future. This assignment as it stands is functionally equivalent to playing Oregon Trail in computer lab in the 90s: it's a distraction meant to get kids to concentrate, delivering an educational 'experience' to justify its place in the school day. I think this type of activity rides a fine line between being effective and missing the point. As an example, in my classroom observations in EDSE 547, I witnessed students playing a geography game where they needed to guess where something was based on a picture using Google Earth. While the students were invested in the game, the only thing they could have actually been learning was how to use Google Earth. There is certainly value in that, but the teacher could have found a game that more directly tested a measurable understanding of geography (which seemed to be the purpose to begin with). Even a simple trivia quiz with students in class might have been a more effective tool. I have gone on way too long on this subject, but in short: I think teachers should only incorporate an innovation with a clear purpose and an understanding of the innovation.
No comments:
Post a Comment