Team 1 discussion
From Instructional Technology Wiki
Paper Two comments below:
Start paper 2 comments here:
Comments by Kelly Roper-Massey
This paper made me think about many different issues including religion, security, law and future trends in technology. I also really liked the scenarios. Concerning security, I think it is important for all of us, but to what expense. I cannot imagine having a camera watch my every move all day long. I think it is appropriate for administrators to check in on all teachers everyday to make sure they are doing their jobs. But micro-managing under the guise of what is best for the children is not the answer.
When thinking about religion, I cannot help but associate any kind of technology under the skin with the book of Revelations. It's frightening and I think it will challenge all of our freedom at some point in time. Another piece of current technology that bothers me concerning security is the GPS in cell phones. Think about how many people have their cell phones on their hips almost 24 hours a day. Also, look at the latest waterproof technology & how that can possibly change our morning showers. I would hate to accidently turn on my cell phone's camera in the shower.
One of the scenarios talked about it being the first time a machine's testimony was admissible in court. Could this really happen? It has me thinking.
Finally, I was glad that the scenario had such a happy ending & I am also not going to Disney in 2011. If I do, I will definitely not drink the water.
Comments by Rhonda Griffith
In reading this paper, I think it does bring up some valid points about security in our schools. The experiences we have have throughout our country over the past few years have forced us to look at the free process of education in a totally different light. We now have to suspect almost every student that walks through the door, each one we discipline, or the ones we have the most conflict with daily. Where did the innocence go?
The school I teach in is in a small, rural area that still unfortunately feels nothing will happen within its safe, confining walls. However, I see in some of the troubled eyes ticking time bombs just waiting to explode. Few of the administrators, central office staff, board members, or even community members refuse to acknowledge to world in which we live today.
I don't want to be paranoid about every student that walks down the halls, but I do want to acknowledge the possibility of the situations as they arise.
Comments by CJ Flay
When I read between the lines I see paranoia and a great deal of fear permeating from the paper. Education is in a constant state of flux. Change is good and neccessary. If someone doesn't like change they should get out of the profession. If you keep doing things the same way you should expect the same results. With change comes mistakes, that is to be expected, however with change comes breakthroughs that raise the bar.
Technology is only a tool to aid in good instruction. No matter what form that tool takes it is all it will ever be. There will always be outside forces that try to enforce their will in the classroom. It is in are role as teachers in a democratic society that we should try to balance those forces. We need as a profession, to stop whining about how tough our job is, role up our shirt sleeves and make the most of the time we have available to us during our 180 class days each year. Remember we are there for our students, to help mold there learning as they transition into adults. Anything else is superflous and in my mind a hindrance to my mission.
Comments by Chad Parker
What an interesting approach this team took. During the research process for my team's second paper, I also found information on predictions that parents and the outside community may very well be able to "tune in" and monitor what is happening in their children's classroom. As Team 1 stated, the reasoning behind it may likely be disguised by other stated reasons. I also agree with the possible movement towards increased programmed learning. Simulations, scenarios, and all that technology can provide is great, but I think it will be accepted by administrators only if it fits snuggly within the curriculum guide, raises test scores,and is compatible with NCLB. I also worry about security, privacy, etc. and how it might change in the future. One thing for sure...it will only get more intrusive since most anything can be tracked by technology. OnStar, chips on dogs, and GPS chips in cell phones are already here. How much longer until a chip is a common component of a human?--Ceparker526 12:43, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Comments by Marianne Lore
The "Anywhere, USA" info is a great addition! Little scary to think as a teacher (professional), we may have security cameras in my room. I would love to see cameras in lawyer, doctor, and administration offices. Education should be working on developing curriculum for the 21st Century, not checking up on a teacher's day in the classroom. Nice job, Team 1. --Mlore 22:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Comments by Kim Poole
What a gloomy perspective! It was obvious that the purpose was to evoke emotion and it did for me. I do believe f2f human interaction is important in teaching and in life. Humans are social beings and I do not believe that will change. Yet, I am an advocate for technology too. While reading, I thought about two things. First was the news report today about a family that was being stalked through their cell phones. Disguised calls making threats and making descriptions of the receiver's immediate surroundings. It was incredibly scarry to think about. But, that same technology will be reversed to find these criminals. Secondly, it reminded me of the pandemonium created as we headed into the 21st century. People were panic-ridden over what computers would do with all of the vital information and the systems that they controlled. Those people that had to solve this problem, focused on improving technology for those technology served. --Kimapoole 22:07, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Comments by Dean St. Louis
I will be all for it if the focus of technology leans toward security. I dont know that a camera in the room would make me feel safe, but it definitely would make me feel like Im on Big Brother. The time has come to seriously address security. I had several days this year that felt like something was going to happen. We had a few threats and scares in our county, and its only a matter of time before someone follows up on those threats.
comments by Joy Knight
Although "Anywhere, USA" rings "futuristic" and dark to most of us, I believe that your team has surmised the future as it could be. Currently, there are already multiple uses of monitoring worldwide. Robots and smart environments will improve care and independence for the elderly. Intelligent walkers will help seniors get around while sensors on the handlebars monitor their vital signs. Handheld devices will track senior citizens' movements and guide them around town, keeping people mobile and independent. Remember in April with the confusion caused by the BlackBerry outage? The outage caused eight million BlackBerry users to miss their emails. Users were also unable to send any messages. Were you affected? The Israelis have fashioned a "bio-computer" using the DNA of living cells instead of silicon chips. This development may soon allow a computer to connect directly with a human brain. The convergence of genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics will allow humans to change their bodies in profoundly new ways. In the next 15 years, people may be able to rearrange their genes to change their physical features, extend their lifespan, merge their brains with computers and their bodies with robots, among many other remarkable developments. --Travelingdoxies 21:42, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Comments Paper 2 Crystal Padgett
My roommate from college has cameras in their classrooms where she teaches. Of course, it is for their safety, so they say. When we talk about freedom, we need to think about teacher freedom. There are so many constraints coming about each year. You have to use pacing guides, course of study, etc. With video cameras, they could make sure that every second of every day is adhered to "their" plan. What about teachable moments? Engaging students in research or a project of their interest...The paper talked about the computers being used with preprogrammed information and that it might soon happen that the Internet is off limits. It would be about like the history of schools to use technology against us.
Comments by Becky Chappell
I enjoyed doing this paper. Just by watching the videos in Yahoo email and watching some tech involved movies, there are obviously some serious changes being made to make life very different. I still have the first reaction of "wow", but then I start to see how this will replace the human contact in life too. Ordering from a surface top will make things easier, don't need the waitress, no paper wasted, etc., but we won't meet a person either or exchange social conversation. Will we become more intolerant of imperfection? What will happen to mankind without "connection" to one another?
Comments by Sara Rhyne
Interesting perspective. We techies especially tend to think how much cooler and more curriculum relevant the technology toys of the future will be without giving much thought to abuses such as the ones presented here. Surveillance cameras are not even futuristic!
Comments by Randy Colbert
Like Grayson said our paper painted a bleak future. But I also think there is some reality there. Computers or AI is absolutely going to figure more prominently in education. I think that we as educators have to learn to use the technology to best serve our students and their needs.
Comments by Grayson Beane
I'm really not as pessimistic about the future as our paper sounds. In light of our first paper and the current political climate I see this as one possible future among many. The scary future for teachers is that by accepting more teaching programs they are participating in their own defamation. Everything I read about the future of education continues to point out that the real difference maker is a good teacher regardless of whatever technology being used. Teachers don't minimize yourself into just another tool in a classroom; continue to be THE tool.
Comments by Josh Carver
To add to what Grayson is saying here, I couldn't agree more that society tends to use technology as control instead of discovery. Especially in schools, if the people can't control a site it simply gets blocked completely rather than talked about and discussed with kids how to use it responsibly. Also, consider the amount of money dumped into NCwise by the state of North Carolina. Instead of taking these millions of dollars (or is it 10s of millions) and putting it into relevant technology for students it went into a database programs that tracks every student. In our county we cannot give a child a login name to our system until they have been processed in NCwise. Soon (if not already) children will be identified on school lunch number, login names, test scores, etc by their NCwise ID number.
Comments by Lee Ann Luman
I found this paper very disturbing. I know you didn't intend to scare your audience, but it sure does make you think. I think out of fear of what we sometimes do not feel we have control, fear creeps in and takes over. I saw children in our cafeteria purchasing lunch each day and of course some were so young and could not remember their lunch numbers. The ladies in the cafeteria knew them by their numbers- NOT their names. We have to control the technology with respect, creativity and responsibility.
Coments by Evan Herreid on Futures Paper
I have to say that I agree with the security aspect of technology. As there are more people out there in the world that are trying different things wither by public access oor through internet or telecomunications. We have to think how to secure these avenues to make everyone safe, with wht has happened recently and in the past. I see more and more companies creating large security departments, and I am not talking about guys with guns. Information Security teams are being formed in a lot of companies to counteract any intrusions or attempted intrusions through the "wire" as my brother, an ISE, tells me from his perch in the terminal office of a bank. There has been a lot of talk about using people having microchips to allow them to purchase items faster in stores. Why don't we use them to keep track of our inmate populations, deviants and other major offenders. I have heard on several occasions that people generally want to be told what to do, but when it differs from their point of view they revolt. Lets see what happens if we tell them we are going to put a chip in them and see what coincides on the "Mall" in DC.
Comments by Sheila Richardson
Very interesting perspective. I had not thought technology being used in this way in the future but it is definitely a possibility. I do think that we should use technology in a constructive manner to increase safety on our campuses. With all the curriculum guides and pacing guides being used today I could see how computers could be used to control what is taught/not taught on a daily basis.
Comments by Karon Hughes on Future Paper
I agree with Grayson that this paper paints a bleak future. I had not thought about the use of the security cameras being used to monitor teachers in the classroom. Sounds like teachable moments will become distinct if the government continues to put pressure on schools to increase test scores...Students will need to be drilled to death so they can pass the test...so much for a world of thinkers...it is scary but people will be controlled by an elite group and techology.
==
Comments by Carolyn Query
Wow that was scary. I do think that security will become as intrusive as the paper said. I already don't want to be tracked every day. My kids fuss at me when I don't take my cell out to work in the garden. Of course, we have to remember that just recently authorities had leads on missing women due to chips in their cell phones. Hopefully, future technology can be used in positive ways.
Start Paper One comments Below
==
Comments by Sara Rhyne
This type of learning is applied today in the large remediation software that is used currently in education today. I think that it is interesting that just as with Skinners machine, students learned how to move through the exercises by manipulating the box, I have watched kids learn the click in just the right way until they get the answer and are able to move through the software. So much for 30 years and a $1500.00 per student “advantage.”
Comments by Chad Parker
Although I had heard of Skinner and was somewhat familiar with his studies, I learned quite a bit from this well-written paper. Skinner apparently believed positive reinforcements were more effective than punishment, although the later had its place. During my coursework at ASU while working towards my teacher licensure, I noticed that reinforcements were more often used over punishments. I understand the SRA, but am uncertain what the acronymn SRA stands for. In his time, I can see that this would be deemed a big improvement in education. It was a way of making sure students grasped the material and could prove this by correctly answering questions...and at their own pace to a large degree (programmed instruction.) We grin about this mode of delivery, but maybe we shouldn't since it's used in schools quite often still today. I still think it can be effective, depending on what is being taught, and depending on HOW the questions are written that the programming instructional technique is measuring. Programmed instruction is similar to computer tutorials that are used today. I use them some in my classes, but they are very interactive, a step above programmed instruction in its purest form. Afterall, we do learn from our mistakes!
Comments by Kelly Roper-Massey
I can't help but agree with Skinner concerning positive reinforcement. Whether it is learning or any other part of human nature, punishment is not always the answer. These learning machines built back in the early 1900's seemed to be invented a little before their time. I think if I was a teacher during this time period with a large classroom or diverse group, I would have welcomed their arrival. Programmed learning has many positives in allowing students instant feedback & to progress at their own rate. The part about these machines having more patience than teachers is definitely true more often than not, especially with handicapped children. Today, the Internet has definitely taken computers out of the realm of programmed instruction, at least in comparison to Pressey's & Skinner's machines. Kids are no longer confined & a wealth of knowledge and communication is theirs for the taking.
Comments by CJ Flay
Using the Skinner method ie. SRAs I couldn't help but thinking that the higher order of thinking was being replaced by simply regurgitating facts similar to the testing NC is notorious for currently. What happened to creativity in learning? I am a product of those types of testing. I am a brilliant test taker, but ignorant in ingunity (And my spelling ain't so hot either). Some where in school I learned how to take tests and to take tests well as my 1260 on my SATs would attest to. However, I always stumped the teachers because in the classroom I performed mediocrity at best. Even entering Grad school when i had to take the MATs I used my test taking skills which helped me score above average though I didn't always know about the material being covered.
I think teacher facilitated learning is still the best method of instruction in the classroom.
Comments by Kim Poole
As I read this article, programmed instruction seems far to flat and one-dimensional. To some degree, this concept mirrors state standards specified in the standard course of study. Fortunately, that is something that can be varied in direction and scope, unlike programmed instruction. Another thought that comes to mind are the educational computer programs sold in the stores.How to play guitar, learning other languages, basic math and reading are available to learn via CDs. These are best for individual learners and have a specific programmed direction.
Comments by Terri Ferguson
I agree with you Kim. I suppose just like anything else there are good and bad issues involved in the use of any technology. Some things work for certain types of learners while other things do not. Programmed instruction does seem very limited, but could be great for building foundations in certain areas.
Comments by Sheila Richardson
I do not think that programmed instruction should be the "norm" in education but I certainly think there is a place. I am a firm believer in higher order thinking but students have to know basics in which to apply and evaluate. I could see where certain PI programs could be useful. We are supposed to be differentiating instruction which is very difficult to do if you have these high fliers that already know the material and then these other kids who don't know the basics. Programmed instruction can be used for the drill instruction for the kids who can't move on. Plus, sometimes just the presentation method of PI is a motivator for some kids.
Comments by Evan Herreid
In reading both the team paper and the discussion responses I have to agree with some of the other statements that programmed instruction does seem to be similar to our current testing practices of the NCLB. To dry a topic to really discuss but yet has been given to us to make sure that we deal with it. In this method how do you deal with your higher level students, do you need to keep them grounded and in line with the rest of the group. I never really was a fan of Skinner so I do have a little bias when it comes to his ideologies.
Comments by Jamie Branch
After reading the paper and the other comments I wonder what the standard is for the developing of these programs....arte they designed to instruct the averagae child and if so then have they done research to see how long the programs should be, what colors, graphics,etc. to use to reach these children. Which leads into my thoughts on the higher level students Evan spoke of I think in the main stream of public education often these children are left behind....in terms of high school eoc's we should the least amount of growht with our higher order thinking chindren. We have permit if not passivly encouraged them to be complacent and not prefrom at their optinmal level because we teach to the "norm".
Comments by Grayson Beane
When we statrted working on this paper, some of us didn't even know what an SRA kit was. The warning here is that as teachers become more and more dependent on scripts and computers to delivery and monitor classrooms, they are perpetuating the stereotype of the lazy teacher. Teachers need to understand that the majority of the research says that the most important feature of the classroom is still the human teacher. Even virtual classroom students usually need a facilitator to make sure the experience is maximized. Teachers do not get so infatuated with technology that you devalue your own contribution to education.
Comments by Lee Ann Luman
Even Skinner had the vision to see that teachers would not be able to replace a teacher's value in the classroom. A "machine" would be able to assist in the teacher's absence and enhance the curriculum, but will never replace the teacher.
Comments by Karon Hughes
It surprises me there are still SRA kits out there in for students to use. Many, many years ago when I was a student I found the lessons boring and when I did have a question the teacher did not really want to help me. The usual response from the teacher was "reread the selection". Since programmed instruction was written for the average student the slowest student would indeed struggle and the brightest students be bored and become disinterested in the material. Unfortunately, the education of the brightest children is watered down because of EOCs - the teacher has to teach to the average students to cover all the material. It is hard for teacher to teach higher order thinking skills when they have to cover all the material for the EOCs. Teaching is still programmed instruction. I do think there is a need for programmed instruction to help students learn or master new objectives.
Comments by Carolyn Query
I wholehearted agree with CJ in that teacher facilitated learning is the best method of instruction, but as Karon said, PI could be used to help students learn or master material. I'm a huge fan of using lots of different teaching styles to keep students on their toes and PI is another one. Students tire of the same thing day after day, even the teacher's voice. At that point, any new approach will more than likely appeal to them. Many have already commented that high-level students bore easily with PI. However, lower level students enjoy progression at their own pace, receiving immediate feedback, and succeeding - something many don't experience often enough. I, also, have observed students who seemed so grateful to be away from the group of students working one-on-one with the computer. It's their down time.
Comments by Josh Carver SKIINNNNERR! (sorry Simpson's reference). Not coming from an educational background this material is new to me. I enjoyed reading the paper and discussion about it. When I think about Programmed Instruction it does bring to mind the mundane drill and kill sessions I see going on before end of grade tests. It seems that whenever May rolls around SMART Boards are turned off, creativity is stifled and teachers feel the pressure of making sure the children know every last thing on that test. PI like Karon mentions above seems to cater to the people in the middle of the Bell Curve and leaves out those that are behind and those that need to move because they are gifted or grasp the material. Do students in classrooms (in general) follow the Bell Curve? or is the distribution more skewed?
comments by Dean St. Louis
Wow! I've got to say hearing about SRA has brought back some repressed memories. Although it may be used to teach reading in my experience I have never seen it used in that way. When I was in school it was used as an "early finisher's" activity. When I started teaching I was at the same school that I attended. When I opened the closet there was the same box of SRA activities. Some of the more experienced teachers to say it nicely, still used them. They were used as a supplement to their Reading program.
Comments by Patty Ramsey
When I think of SRA, it brings AR and AM to mind. I think SRA has a place in learning but should certainly not be abused (as was mentioned as a con in the paper.) I do believe that there are many teachers who abuse the use of SRAs and pawn off learning totally to the student. I remember SRAs being used when I was in school and actually enjoyed it because I was one of those who was a sponge and liked working individually. It does take self-motivation to use these programs for what intended. I am not a big proponent of this as there are too many who do not like/respond to this style of learning. I think the abuse is too big.
Comments Becky Chappell
In doing this paper I was struck by the Skinner video and how genuine and sincere Skinner was in his delivery. Our gifted program stresses that no two students should have to be at the same level of learning if that is not their learning level. This is called differentiation. When Skinner spoke, one of his statements was that each child could learn at their own pace. Some of what happened with his programs was good in that it did recognize that students need to move ahead at their own rate. To me it is the drill and kill aspect that leaves a lot to be desired.
Comments Crystal Padgett
Comments Crystal Padgett
I too can remember the skill kill and drill of these programs. We use Rosetta Stone at our school and it seems to me that it is the same way. The teacher doesn't really make sure they are getting the correct answer, just that they sit and do it. they jsut choose an answer and hope it is right. Eventually, they figure out the correct answer, but when you ask them to speak some Spanish they learned...some how its not there.
Comments by Terri Ferguson
Wow, kinda of sad. I really hope this is not what the future of education holds. As for security cameras I can see the positives as well as the negatives. I have definitely had a few students I would have liked to have had videotaped so the administrationa and the students' parents could see how they really behaved. Very interesting perspective.
