Reflection on Teaching a Lesson

Last Friday I had the opportunity to teach a lesson plan of my own design to three students from the class which I observe as part of learning to be a teacher.  (If you are interested in reading the lesson I taught from, it is available as a document here and is labeled “Tech Lesson Plan,” but don’t confuse it with the “Lesson Plan Idea” linked on the side, the idea I started with is not really at all related to where I ended up for a variety of reasons.)  The lesson was designed to allow students to explore probability and bar graphs.  I used the bar graph and spinner provided free by the National Library of Virtual Manipulatives from here and taught the students in the computer lab.  One note, I intended to amend my lesson plan to allow for a culminating wiki where students could compare their observations and learning with that of other students to create and continuously building probability resource.  However, I was faced with the “problem” of my group being so engaged by the spinner and initial portion of the lesson plan that it became apparent that I was better off letting them experiment with spinner variables than trying to introduce another technology.  They were so engrossed that they asked to skip lunch to keep manipulating the spinner and when I told them they had to eat they instead demanded the url of the site so that they could go home and use it.  They even enjoyed creating the bar graph, although I only had them do this initially; it didn’t make sense to me for them to continue to create and alter a manual bar graph when the spinner creates its own bar graph automatically.  That way the students could work on graphing skills initially and then focus only on probability for the rest of the lesson.

While teaching I noticed that having one computer per child was ideal and allowed for individual exploration and customized learning.  (I went to teach and saw that I wrote 4-8 per computer on my lesson plan and couldn’t believe my own audacity, more than 2 would probably bee undesirable.)  I also became uncertain as to how much a wiki would really augment their learning; as much as I want them to collaborate, the limitations of probability knowledge for third graders no longer seems enough to fill a wiki.  Maybe if the wiki was school wide and covered different levels it might work but my focus turned out to be rather limiting.

In summary, this lesson was really helpful in allowing me to see how technology affects students and to discover the limitations imposed by only sporadically using technology instead of incorporating it seamlessly into the curriculum for the year.  And it was really exciting to see students so engaged.

“Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts”

I just finished reading “Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms” by Will Richardson.  It was an easy and engaging read and I would recommend it for anyone interested in the internet, even if you are not a parent, teacher, or student.  Richardson aptly walks the reader through the what, how, and why of collaboration and web publishing from an educational stand point (again, this book is appropriate for anyone, the educational tie-ins are interesting in their own right and the tools and methods are for everybody).

However, one aspect particularly caught my attention while reading, and that was the shoddy editing.  Ever since I have been in college I have been highly disappointed by textbook authors who take the time to tweak the material in their books enough to require a new edition which costs amazing amounts and yet has flagrant spelling, punctuation, formatting, grammar, and/or usage errors.   I will give some examples from Richardson’s book:

“Export as MP” instead of “MP3″ on page 121.   “the file resulting file size will be bigger” where “the file” at the beginning does not belong page 123.  There are sporadic examples of misplaced commas etc… but there are also more glaring problems with the text, such as using RSS as “Rich Site Summary” in the introduction and as “Really Simple Syndication” in the chapter on RSS (both are correct but refer to different versions, see wikipedia for more).  This is a problem because the book is aimed at those who are less than savvy with technology, it shows a gap in his awareness of his audience.   And audience awareness is something he preaches frequently in the book.

To the point.  I enjoyed the book and though poor editing pains me, I recognize that it could be worse than a few clumsy sentences and points of confusion.  I am using Richardson’s book to encourage wikis to be used in all aspects of writing.  For instance, Richardson could, for future editions of his book maybe, put his book in a wiki (dividing it up by chapter or page or whatever) and have either the internet community or a select group of peers come in and edit his book.  Maybe he’ll even let me edit it.  The changes could be clarification questions and grammar/spelling/punctuation fixes or they could be contributions and supplementation by others with experience in the edu-tech field.  Ideally, in terms of wiki purity, the book could be started by Richardson and then continuously written by others and be an open, editable, free resource for everyone.  However, the book is designed for people who are not using the tools already and who would probably be more comfortable using a hard copy book (vs. ebook) to learn about it, so a traditional book makes sense.  Also, I recognize that Richardson is a teacher and might like to have some spare income for food.

WOT

WOT is a social networking device designed to enhance internet safety and reliability. I downloaded Wot yesterday as a browser extension for Firefox and am intrigued. WOT allows you to check the reliability of a website based on user feedback, so that when you go to a website the WOT icon shows whether or not other users view the website as safe and reliable based on a general trustworthiness meter, reliability as a business partner, as a keeper of personal information, and as a safe destination for children. WOT also integrates with search engines such as Google so that you can choose the best site and not waste your time with unreliable sites. There are other features and security measures to avoid manipulation of the system, and you can read about those on WOT’s website: http://www.mywot.com/en/wot/home/.

For education purposes, this is a great tool. First, it makes the internet safer to browse. If your school has not blocked a site, WOT can notify students and teachers who are browsing that the site is unreliable and IT can be notified. It can also help teachers creating lesson plans at home who don’t have time to peruse an entire site which may have a questionable area, such as editorials which are less wholesome than the part which the teacher explored. Teachers will be able to see immediately whether the site is safe for kids. Finally, it can be used as a way to bring both educators and students into technology. The internet is a lot less scary and mythical when you are able to leave feedback and know that others are doing the same. It serves as a way to “tame the beast” and make the resources and technology your own instead of allowing them to alienate.