Testing is often the most daunting stage of the learning process. Its effects on learners come in many forms. It may either be a booster or a killer of self-esteem. For a highly-driven person, getting full marks in tests is their ultimate goal. For those who do not care, escape becomes their therapy. Still for others, indifference is the way to go.
Testing is often perceived as no less or more than a paper and pencil-based exam. The recognition of the limits of this form of assessment paved the way to the concept of alternative assessment, of which blogs and DST are good examples. Blogging is an opportunity for learners to let their minds speak. This is quite beneficial to timid students with good or advance writing skills. But even for those whose writing is still underdeveloped, this is a good opportunity to hone one’s skills.
DST project offers learning for meaning-making using different modes and semiotic effects. It is a unique exploration and discovery of affordances of multimodalities. More importantly, it taps into and harnesses multiple intelligences. For a DI like me, it comes as a form of a problem that ought to be solved through proper channelling of all the resources, making use of new skills and correct attitude to learn something new.
The road ahead is bumpy but as the saying goes, “It is not only the attainment of goal that counts; the learning journey equally matters.”
Monday, March 29, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Constructivism in the Classroom
According to Dorit Kaufman(2004:303) * “ Constructivism is…a paradigm (which) has coincided with a shift in pedagogy away from teacher- centered information transmission models toward knowledge-centred and learner-centered approaches that focus on cognitive and social processes in learning.”
With the shift to multiliteracies, technology has become instrumental to the framing up of a reconstructivist teaching process.
To fully grasp the underlying principles of constructivism is to scrutinise the learning environment in our class. This I posit is applied in all aspects of our learning:
a.the presentation of course readings- with probing questions to think about and reflect on;
b.the teachers- with two adept ‘experts’ in the field (Vygotzy's term to teachers in the scaffolding process);
c.the learning process- discovery approach, collaborative learning, experiential approach, problem –solving, brainstorming, blogging, and the like; and,
d.the teaching process- dialogic approach as clearly explained using a schematic framework (see course outline)
e.the testing and assessment process- with reference to our experience last session ( Week 10- March 24,2010)
Kaufman (2004:305) enumerated a number of its advantages:
“Learners benefit from multiplicity of approaches and learning experiences as they extract salient information in acquiring new knowledge. They also benefit from assistance by teachers who attend to their interpretations and provide relevant guidance and scaffolding to promote meaningful learning. The constructivist experience from both Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives create opportunities for learners to engage in hands-on, minds-on manipulation of raw data…”
As I see it, the constructivist approach forcefully pushes students to think, to reflect and to construct meanings. It challenges the brain to reach optimal acquisition of the target concepts. It highly promotes discovery learning and evaluation of the tasks and experiences. It defies the traditional way of teaching and learning and testing and assessing… Highly liberating and intellectually challenging indeed!
*Dorit Kaufman (2004) “Constructivist Issues in Language Learning and Teaching”. Annual Review on Applied Linguistics 4:303-319.
With the shift to multiliteracies, technology has become instrumental to the framing up of a reconstructivist teaching process.
To fully grasp the underlying principles of constructivism is to scrutinise the learning environment in our class. This I posit is applied in all aspects of our learning:
a.the presentation of course readings- with probing questions to think about and reflect on;
b.the teachers- with two adept ‘experts’ in the field (Vygotzy's term to teachers in the scaffolding process);
c.the learning process- discovery approach, collaborative learning, experiential approach, problem –solving, brainstorming, blogging, and the like; and,
d.the teaching process- dialogic approach as clearly explained using a schematic framework (see course outline)
e.the testing and assessment process- with reference to our experience last session ( Week 10- March 24,2010)
Kaufman (2004:305) enumerated a number of its advantages:
“Learners benefit from multiplicity of approaches and learning experiences as they extract salient information in acquiring new knowledge. They also benefit from assistance by teachers who attend to their interpretations and provide relevant guidance and scaffolding to promote meaningful learning. The constructivist experience from both Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives create opportunities for learners to engage in hands-on, minds-on manipulation of raw data…”
As I see it, the constructivist approach forcefully pushes students to think, to reflect and to construct meanings. It challenges the brain to reach optimal acquisition of the target concepts. It highly promotes discovery learning and evaluation of the tasks and experiences. It defies the traditional way of teaching and learning and testing and assessing… Highly liberating and intellectually challenging indeed!
*Dorit Kaufman (2004) “Constructivist Issues in Language Learning and Teaching”. Annual Review on Applied Linguistics 4:303-319.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Life in Diaspora (My Conceptual Plan)
After getting a constructive feedback from Dr T and reading some parts of Ohler’s book, in addition to browsing Ohler’s website I came to a realisation on what I ought to do next after writing my storyline: modify some of its parts.
Ohler wrote:
“The story understanding process always begins with a story core…which contains three basic elements:
1. The central challenge that creates the story’s tension and forward momentum
2. Character transformation that facilitates the response to the challenge
3. The response to the challenge that resolves the tension and leads to story closure” (jasonOhler.com)
This is how my DST entitled, “Life in Diaspora” (LiD) is restructured now.
LiD narrates my journey that began after I left my homeland to reside overseas. At the same time, it looks into the driving forces and how they negotiate with my struggle to rationalise my ‘destiny’. In pensive mood all throughout, my DST will combine a reflective essay accompanied by music that, I hope, will set the viewers in a contemplative mood.
With an aim to reach a wider audience, LiD will also indirectly show the disquieting plight of overseas Filipino workers who painfully resolve to work away from their loved ones with the hope of attaining better life for their family. Since the country’s economy is constantly struggling, money is difficult to earn in the Philippines. No wonder about 10% of over 90 million total population of Filipinos are overseas. It is huge by global standard.
To facilitate the meaning- making affordances of multimodality, I plan to use a combination of abstract, symbolic and real images to let deliver my mixed message of pain, excitement and hope as we make the most of our life in diaspora. Brooding and introspective in tone all throughout, I intend to project an “open diary”- like DST. To attain this, I will probably use a font which looks like a handwriting.
I am having difficulty finding relevant images to my DST especially that I have been moving from one place to another since 2001. I thought my pictures in other countries would be useful but my brother sought for them in vain. However through my sister’s and friend’s help, I have some real images of my family, my home and friends. I gathered some images that depict some problems my country face. Some symbolic images that I found relevant to my DST are an aeroplane to suggest the act of leaving my home country; 2 masks in one image which may connote two personas; and an eye with a tear to mean sadness and parting. I have found this stage of the project comparatively more challenging than creating a storyline.
Ohler wrote:
“The story understanding process always begins with a story core…which contains three basic elements:
1. The central challenge that creates the story’s tension and forward momentum
2. Character transformation that facilitates the response to the challenge
3. The response to the challenge that resolves the tension and leads to story closure” (jasonOhler.com)
This is how my DST entitled, “Life in Diaspora” (LiD) is restructured now.
LiD narrates my journey that began after I left my homeland to reside overseas. At the same time, it looks into the driving forces and how they negotiate with my struggle to rationalise my ‘destiny’. In pensive mood all throughout, my DST will combine a reflective essay accompanied by music that, I hope, will set the viewers in a contemplative mood.
With an aim to reach a wider audience, LiD will also indirectly show the disquieting plight of overseas Filipino workers who painfully resolve to work away from their loved ones with the hope of attaining better life for their family. Since the country’s economy is constantly struggling, money is difficult to earn in the Philippines. No wonder about 10% of over 90 million total population of Filipinos are overseas. It is huge by global standard.
To facilitate the meaning- making affordances of multimodality, I plan to use a combination of abstract, symbolic and real images to let deliver my mixed message of pain, excitement and hope as we make the most of our life in diaspora. Brooding and introspective in tone all throughout, I intend to project an “open diary”- like DST. To attain this, I will probably use a font which looks like a handwriting.
I am having difficulty finding relevant images to my DST especially that I have been moving from one place to another since 2001. I thought my pictures in other countries would be useful but my brother sought for them in vain. However through my sister’s and friend’s help, I have some real images of my family, my home and friends. I gathered some images that depict some problems my country face. Some symbolic images that I found relevant to my DST are an aeroplane to suggest the act of leaving my home country; 2 masks in one image which may connote two personas; and an eye with a tear to mean sadness and parting. I have found this stage of the project comparatively more challenging than creating a storyline.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
TPCK: The Answer to the Thorns?
The articles of Dr Nelson(2006) and Dr Paige(2008) foreground the complexities of the process and the results as multimedia infiltrate into ELL/ESL classrooms. Dr Towndrow wittily labeled them as “thorns.” They include the following: (a) absence of consensus as to what specific media skills should be taught to specific groups and purposes; (b) absence of guarantee to promote multiliteracies even among experienced teachers; and, (c) dependence of technology on other social and economic factors.
I reckon that consensus has yet to be reached among stakeholders—curriculum planners, teachers and researchers of multiliteracies-- as to what specific skills should be taught in specific levels, subjects and groups of learners without neglecting the contexts. However, it seems that they are getting there.
Three weeks ago I encountered a book entitled, “Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators.”(2008). The book “accentuates knowledge and skills teachers need in order to meaningfully integrate technology into instruction in specific content areas.” (AACTE Committee, 2008) According to Kohler and Mishra, TPCK is a framework containing knowledge teachers should be equipped with as they integrate technology in education. (2008:3) The framework puts together the three types of knowledge (content, pedagogy and technology) which Kohler and Mishra describe as “existing in a state of dynamic equilibrium (2006:1029 as cited in AACTE Committee 2008:10) It underscores the simultaneous interaction of these knowledge in order to reach a state of a meaningful synergy between teaching with technology. The book also advances the idea that all technologies have pedagogical affordances and constraints (ibid: 19-20) that teachers should be aware of.
The second ‘thorn’ identified by Mills (2008) emphasises the difficulty of teachers, even experienced ones, to translate multiliteracies theory into classroom practice. This is a call to ‘reboot’ the teachers’ minds and to equip them with TPCK, which entails understanding the interrelationships among content knowledge (their subject matter and the curriculum), pedagogical skills (teaching methods), pedagogical content knowledge (teaching methods suitable for the subject matter), technological knowledge (understanding of the representation of technological concepts) in order to dexterously respond to the a multiliteracy- grounded learning environment.’ (Kohler and Mishra, 2008: 12-17) In other words, it is not enough that teachers excel in one domain as the influence of technology on pedagogy and content is multidirectional.
In summary, the book describes how a technological ground in teaching may be practiced.
However, as Warschauer (2007) noted, “…technology does not transform learning and literacy by itself, but only in conjunction with social and economic factors.” In my opinion, this thorn bites as it superimposes itself above all other thorns. It foregrounds the importance of the context; each situation is unique and case-specific. No matter how progressive or backward a country is, the role of technology would be dictated by the needs, current situation in the place and culture prevalent in specific situations such as a group of learners. Of course the curriculum is designed based on the types of learners and learners ’needs. But then, teachers in the situation have to train themselves according to the call of the time: a TPCK- grounded educator. It is a tough call, no doubt, but it is doable.
I reckon that consensus has yet to be reached among stakeholders—curriculum planners, teachers and researchers of multiliteracies-- as to what specific skills should be taught in specific levels, subjects and groups of learners without neglecting the contexts. However, it seems that they are getting there.
Three weeks ago I encountered a book entitled, “Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators.”(2008). The book “accentuates knowledge and skills teachers need in order to meaningfully integrate technology into instruction in specific content areas.” (AACTE Committee, 2008) According to Kohler and Mishra, TPCK is a framework containing knowledge teachers should be equipped with as they integrate technology in education. (2008:3) The framework puts together the three types of knowledge (content, pedagogy and technology) which Kohler and Mishra describe as “existing in a state of dynamic equilibrium (2006:1029 as cited in AACTE Committee 2008:10) It underscores the simultaneous interaction of these knowledge in order to reach a state of a meaningful synergy between teaching with technology. The book also advances the idea that all technologies have pedagogical affordances and constraints (ibid: 19-20) that teachers should be aware of.
The second ‘thorn’ identified by Mills (2008) emphasises the difficulty of teachers, even experienced ones, to translate multiliteracies theory into classroom practice. This is a call to ‘reboot’ the teachers’ minds and to equip them with TPCK, which entails understanding the interrelationships among content knowledge (their subject matter and the curriculum), pedagogical skills (teaching methods), pedagogical content knowledge (teaching methods suitable for the subject matter), technological knowledge (understanding of the representation of technological concepts) in order to dexterously respond to the a multiliteracy- grounded learning environment.’ (Kohler and Mishra, 2008: 12-17) In other words, it is not enough that teachers excel in one domain as the influence of technology on pedagogy and content is multidirectional.
In summary, the book describes how a technological ground in teaching may be practiced.
However, as Warschauer (2007) noted, “…technology does not transform learning and literacy by itself, but only in conjunction with social and economic factors.” In my opinion, this thorn bites as it superimposes itself above all other thorns. It foregrounds the importance of the context; each situation is unique and case-specific. No matter how progressive or backward a country is, the role of technology would be dictated by the needs, current situation in the place and culture prevalent in specific situations such as a group of learners. Of course the curriculum is designed based on the types of learners and learners ’needs. But then, teachers in the situation have to train themselves according to the call of the time: a TPCK- grounded educator. It is a tough call, no doubt, but it is doable.
In Fairness to Piaget
In as much I highlighted Vygotsky’s theory, I would not want to undermine Piaget’s premises in the learning process.
Dorit Kaufman wrote, “Piaget’s developmental theory advocates a holistic approach. Learning is a developmental process that involves change, self-generation, and construction, each building on prior learning experiences. Learning for the child occurs through construction of new understandings through reading, listening, exploration and experience. This involves three distinct but interrelated processes of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibrium.” (2004:304)
With his emphasis on the cognitive process and human capacity, Piaget underlines the complexity of the learning process where the individual learner bears much greater responsibility. He underscores the never ending processing of prior knowledge as new ones become part of it.
In my case, my new experiences like blogging, evaluating a website and interpreting a digital story would have to be adapted and incorporated into my prior knowledge so that reconstruction of my schema would materialise. Once the new and the old learning are integrated, I would arrive at new realisations and understandings.
Learning is central in the brain; therefore, negotiation of meaning is within the individual. This is where Vygotsky and Piaget largely differs as the former views the individual with multiple identities while the latter views the learner as the only channel through which knowledge is formed and meaning-making is attained.
The nature of instruction and the role of environment are other aspects where their theories differ but I will have to tackle them later.
Dorit Kaufman wrote, “Piaget’s developmental theory advocates a holistic approach. Learning is a developmental process that involves change, self-generation, and construction, each building on prior learning experiences. Learning for the child occurs through construction of new understandings through reading, listening, exploration and experience. This involves three distinct but interrelated processes of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibrium.” (2004:304)
With his emphasis on the cognitive process and human capacity, Piaget underlines the complexity of the learning process where the individual learner bears much greater responsibility. He underscores the never ending processing of prior knowledge as new ones become part of it.
In my case, my new experiences like blogging, evaluating a website and interpreting a digital story would have to be adapted and incorporated into my prior knowledge so that reconstruction of my schema would materialise. Once the new and the old learning are integrated, I would arrive at new realisations and understandings.
Learning is central in the brain; therefore, negotiation of meaning is within the individual. This is where Vygotsky and Piaget largely differs as the former views the individual with multiple identities while the latter views the learner as the only channel through which knowledge is formed and meaning-making is attained.
The nature of instruction and the role of environment are other aspects where their theories differ but I will have to tackle them later.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
E- Learning and Vygotsky’s Views
E-learning is a problem-solving task in which learners like me are immersed in the mediating experience. In the process, learners utilise schematic knowledge and culture, as Vygotsky suggests. To quote, for him “…human mental processes recognise the essential relationship between these processes, and the cultural, historical and institutional settings.” (Wersch, 1991:6 as cited in Block, 2003:99)
Viewing learners as having multiple identities that afford different opportunities to learning, Vygotsky perceives learners to have personal histories that affect their creation of meaning.
Vygotsky also underlines the importance of cultural factors like technological tools in cognition or problem-solving. He views language, signs, and symbols as psychological tools that are mediated in the higher-level mental processing. This principle takes into account Vygotsky’s “genetic approach” to the study of mental activity wherein he emphasizes the role of culture, context, interaction and personal development in meaning formation.
No wonder Dr T and Dr N requires a reanalysis and reexamination of the digital stories of other class members as interaction( or the social) provides support for development.
Viewing learners as having multiple identities that afford different opportunities to learning, Vygotsky perceives learners to have personal histories that affect their creation of meaning.
Vygotsky also underlines the importance of cultural factors like technological tools in cognition or problem-solving. He views language, signs, and symbols as psychological tools that are mediated in the higher-level mental processing. This principle takes into account Vygotsky’s “genetic approach” to the study of mental activity wherein he emphasizes the role of culture, context, interaction and personal development in meaning formation.
No wonder Dr T and Dr N requires a reanalysis and reexamination of the digital stories of other class members as interaction( or the social) provides support for development.
On my Brother's Addiction to Ran Online
I strongly detest my brother’s playing of Ran Online. I have already confronted him about it a number of times but he just shrugged his shoulders and told me, “It is engaging. Maybe you ought to try yourself.”
I peeped on it one day and I was fascinated by the captivating images. I witnessed the intricate battles between characters and realised that various techniques should be employed in order to survive and win. The game is no ordinary. It challenges players to strategise in ways I am not familiar with. It also engages the players through its visual images and artefacts. I was impressed but I felt that it was not my liking and it seems to be beyond my level of comprehension... Or, maybe I am not endowed with the skills to play such kind of game.
Having just read a news days ago about a Korean couple whose baby died due to negligence of parents who were addicted to an online game, Gee’s article( 2003) makes me view online games in a different light. With an assumption that online gamers practise self-regulation, online games can be very useful tools to enhance spatial and visual intelligence and interpersonal intelligence, two (2) of the seven (7) types of intelligences theorised by Howard Gardner. I wonder if players see the world in a new light as they immerse in the virtuality of online games, seeing, feeling, hearing, manipulating, experiencing an active interaction and learning through it. It also seems to me that the players enact new meaning of social skills when they work with their online teammates as they may not know them personally.
And of course, as educators aim for multiliteracy, online games can serve as a good resource.
Last night, I saw Apple’s s iPad promotional video. Another fascinating innovation, huh. But that’s a topic for another blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
