Experimentation Phase Reflection
Our group met first after class on Wednesday, June 15 to discuss our experimentation phase and how we would accomplish the goals for the week. We met at 5:30 pm, asked our professor to join us and answer a few questions and ended up working together until 8:00 pm. We worked out the basic plan for our prototype on a google doc and then decided how we would present our prototype for feedback. We decided to combine individual pieces of our prototype into a blendspace. We included our interpretation phase iMovie, we decided to make our main presentation in a powtoon to engage our audience, then we did a screencast of student work samples, a list of resources for teachers to help plan projects, a template for planning and then we created a google form to collect feedback from end users about our prototype. This took quite a bit of time but we all collectively worked on the presentation (that we turned into a powtoon) together. After we decided what we wanted to include in our prototype we split up the responsibilities so each of us would contribute to the final product. My responsibilities were to draft the table on a google doc for the template of our prototype, I typed out a lot of information on our DT process doc of the parts for the experimentation phase, I created the blendspace to add all our resources and I created a list of resources for teachers who will be looking for project ideas. Once we had our prototype finished, we shared it with our cohort mates and some fellow teachers for feedback. We then met on Monday, June 20 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm to discuss the feedback and edit our prototype. We decided to add a rationale as to why students should learn about 21st century skills, we included a suggested timeline for rolling out our plan, more details about how the projects should be linked to CCSS and that teachers should include rubrics. We ended up making a separate blendspace to add our new edited versions of our powtoon video, an additional video and extra resources.
Some of the challenges our group faced this week were finding time to individually complete our parts in a timely manner so we could receive feedback from end users. We all got our parts completed, but with the time constraint we had to set aside time to work on it.
This part of the DT process is exciting because you get to actually put your idea into a presentation and ask for feedback. You get to see how well others receive your idea and get suggestions on how to make it better. I can see this working with students or teachers at my site by having them take their idea and creating an engaging presentation to showcase their idea and ask for feedback. I especially like the questions on our checklist that ask for specific feedback including: What did participants value the most? What got them excited? What parts did they want to change? What did not work? What needs further investigation? These questions are extremely informative and will guide all groups to edit their prototypes no matter how well developed they are in the first draft. I think asking students and teachers to present their findings (whether it’s a project in the classroom or a staff project to enhance the school) and ask for feedback is a great way to experiment with their ideas.
If this process were to be implemented with actual end users there would need to be more time and more explanation of each phase. While working on our DT process I have felt like we are rushing through the assignments and scrambling to make sure we cover everything we should in one week. It is a really difficult process to do through an online class where groups are not sitting together or don’t have designated time set aside to meet and work together. If you are doing it with students you have them all together in one class and can take as much time as you need to complete the work. It would be the same with teachers as end users. If you want teachers to work together, you would set aside time for them to work together after school to accomplish a task so they could have more flexibility with time constraints. Additionally, the process would need to be described in detail before end users begin the process so they know what to expect. Each phase would need to be described in a way that end users can picture the end product and the reason behind each piece of their group work.
Figuring out how to ensure groups are collaborating and not simply working in groups is difficult. If groups are expected to document all of their work and discussions on a running google doc, that helps ensure that more than one person is doing all the work. However, it does not ensure that all group members are engaged. This will always be a struggle, but if all participants are motivated to do well then that helps ensure everyone collaborates. Allowing groups to choose their topic and work to solve a problem that they all are passionate about will keep them motivated to collaborate. It also depends on the group you are working with. Younger students would need more defined roles or more practice working collaboratively before doing a DT process. While older students and adults would be fine working collaboratively with less defined roles. However it is always important that the teacher or facilitator monitor group work to ensure everyone is engaged and collaboration is running smoothly.
Collaboration Discussion
Andrea Currier and I decided to do the first option for our collaborative reflection this week. We agreed to meet on Saturday, June 18 at 10:00 am and discuss the questions we each came up with when reading If I Had a Hammer: Technology in the Language Arts Classroom (Jester, 2002). The questions we discussed were:
For Question 1, we discussed how students can get distracted with formatting their writing using technology instead of focusing on the content. Andrea and I have both seen this in our classrooms with our students. They will focus on changing the font, font size, and font color before they are finished writing their piece. We discussed how teachers should set ground rules before students begin writing using technology. Students will be told they are not allowed to edit the font at all until they are done with their piece and it has been edited. This will keep their focus on the content and away from formatting.
For Question 2, we discussed how this is a challenge for using technology for writing. You cannot see multiple versions of the same piece of writing because the version the student is working on will be the same version they started with. On paper you can compare the first draft to the second. With technology, editing is so simple, which is great, but it makes it difficult for teachers to assess how far the student has come or if they are moving in the right direction. Current writing tools (such as google docs) allows you to look at the revision history of documents, but it isn’t always as accurate as it should be.
For Question 3, we discussed how technology is used more as a tool for production right now than a catalyst for learning. Students still need to learn fundamental skills about how to use technology and how to read and write before they can use technology as a catalyst for learning. It’s similar to how students start out learning how to read and then when they get older they read to learn. When students are younger they will use technology to simply learn how to use it and to use it as a tool for production. As students get older they can begin using technology as a catalyst for learning. This may not be due to student age, though. It may be due to the fact that technology is only recently been added into schools. Maybe in 10 years when students use computers starting at age 3 they will be able to use it as a catalyst for change in younger grades.
For Question 4, we discussed the author’s point that digital presentations allow for natural divisions to help students organize ideas. We didn’t agree with the author on this. We believe students need to be taught how to divide their ideas, convert them into bullet points and organize them to add to a digital presentation. Simply placing an empty presentation in front of students does not ensure they will naturally figure out how to use them.
For Question 5, we discussed how language on computers is more malleable. The author points out that this allows students to edit their language easier than on paper, where they have to cross out or erase their thoughts. We agree it is easier for students to edit their writing, but we don’t think that the simplicity of editing ensures students will edit correctly. Students still need to learn the correct spelling of words and correct grammar to be able to apply it to editing their work online. The responsibility of teaching students editing grammar and spelling is the teacher’s responsibility, but online editing does make it easier.
Andrea and I went onto discuss other key points from the article. Basically, we agree with the author that technology allows students to write and edit their work much easier than on paper. However, some of his points about how technology takes away some of the responsibility of teachers to teach content about editing and writing is something we haven’t experienced yet. Right now we feel that most technology is used as a tool. This is probably because it is still new to have in schools. In order for students to use technology as a catalyst for learning, we need more time with technology being in schools. We don’t see online presentation software as a part of the writing process, we see it as a tool for presentations, and students need to be taught how to do this, it is not a natural occurrence. We do agree with the author that technology allows teachers to check in with students easier, it keeps students engaged, and that technology is a part of students’ everyday lives. We just need to remember that “multimedia can look good without being good” (p. 86).
Here are the notes we took during our discussion
Resources
Jester, R. (March 2002). If I had a hammer: Technology in the language arts classroom. The English Journal, 91(4). p. 85-88
Our group met first after class on Wednesday, June 15 to discuss our experimentation phase and how we would accomplish the goals for the week. We met at 5:30 pm, asked our professor to join us and answer a few questions and ended up working together until 8:00 pm. We worked out the basic plan for our prototype on a google doc and then decided how we would present our prototype for feedback. We decided to combine individual pieces of our prototype into a blendspace. We included our interpretation phase iMovie, we decided to make our main presentation in a powtoon to engage our audience, then we did a screencast of student work samples, a list of resources for teachers to help plan projects, a template for planning and then we created a google form to collect feedback from end users about our prototype. This took quite a bit of time but we all collectively worked on the presentation (that we turned into a powtoon) together. After we decided what we wanted to include in our prototype we split up the responsibilities so each of us would contribute to the final product. My responsibilities were to draft the table on a google doc for the template of our prototype, I typed out a lot of information on our DT process doc of the parts for the experimentation phase, I created the blendspace to add all our resources and I created a list of resources for teachers who will be looking for project ideas. Once we had our prototype finished, we shared it with our cohort mates and some fellow teachers for feedback. We then met on Monday, June 20 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm to discuss the feedback and edit our prototype. We decided to add a rationale as to why students should learn about 21st century skills, we included a suggested timeline for rolling out our plan, more details about how the projects should be linked to CCSS and that teachers should include rubrics. We ended up making a separate blendspace to add our new edited versions of our powtoon video, an additional video and extra resources.
Some of the challenges our group faced this week were finding time to individually complete our parts in a timely manner so we could receive feedback from end users. We all got our parts completed, but with the time constraint we had to set aside time to work on it.
This part of the DT process is exciting because you get to actually put your idea into a presentation and ask for feedback. You get to see how well others receive your idea and get suggestions on how to make it better. I can see this working with students or teachers at my site by having them take their idea and creating an engaging presentation to showcase their idea and ask for feedback. I especially like the questions on our checklist that ask for specific feedback including: What did participants value the most? What got them excited? What parts did they want to change? What did not work? What needs further investigation? These questions are extremely informative and will guide all groups to edit their prototypes no matter how well developed they are in the first draft. I think asking students and teachers to present their findings (whether it’s a project in the classroom or a staff project to enhance the school) and ask for feedback is a great way to experiment with their ideas.
If this process were to be implemented with actual end users there would need to be more time and more explanation of each phase. While working on our DT process I have felt like we are rushing through the assignments and scrambling to make sure we cover everything we should in one week. It is a really difficult process to do through an online class where groups are not sitting together or don’t have designated time set aside to meet and work together. If you are doing it with students you have them all together in one class and can take as much time as you need to complete the work. It would be the same with teachers as end users. If you want teachers to work together, you would set aside time for them to work together after school to accomplish a task so they could have more flexibility with time constraints. Additionally, the process would need to be described in detail before end users begin the process so they know what to expect. Each phase would need to be described in a way that end users can picture the end product and the reason behind each piece of their group work.
Figuring out how to ensure groups are collaborating and not simply working in groups is difficult. If groups are expected to document all of their work and discussions on a running google doc, that helps ensure that more than one person is doing all the work. However, it does not ensure that all group members are engaged. This will always be a struggle, but if all participants are motivated to do well then that helps ensure everyone collaborates. Allowing groups to choose their topic and work to solve a problem that they all are passionate about will keep them motivated to collaborate. It also depends on the group you are working with. Younger students would need more defined roles or more practice working collaboratively before doing a DT process. While older students and adults would be fine working collaboratively with less defined roles. However it is always important that the teacher or facilitator monitor group work to ensure everyone is engaged and collaboration is running smoothly.
Collaboration Discussion
Andrea Currier and I decided to do the first option for our collaborative reflection this week. We agreed to meet on Saturday, June 18 at 10:00 am and discuss the questions we each came up with when reading If I Had a Hammer: Technology in the Language Arts Classroom (Jester, 2002). The questions we discussed were:
- How can students use multimedia during the reading and writing process and focus on the content they are creating without getting caught up with the appearance of it?
- Presentation tools and multimedia software make it easier to edit, however how can one see how far they have come when deleting a word or a sentence is so easily done?
- Are computers more catalysts for learning or tools of production?
- “Multimedia presentations allow for natural divisions to help students organize ideas” But is this always true? Students need to be taught how to organize their ideas into slides. This is not a natural concept for students.
- Language on computers is more malleable compared to on a poster, but do students always correct their grammar when using a computer? I still have students who leave “i” lowercase. Author points out this fact too.
For Question 1, we discussed how students can get distracted with formatting their writing using technology instead of focusing on the content. Andrea and I have both seen this in our classrooms with our students. They will focus on changing the font, font size, and font color before they are finished writing their piece. We discussed how teachers should set ground rules before students begin writing using technology. Students will be told they are not allowed to edit the font at all until they are done with their piece and it has been edited. This will keep their focus on the content and away from formatting.
For Question 2, we discussed how this is a challenge for using technology for writing. You cannot see multiple versions of the same piece of writing because the version the student is working on will be the same version they started with. On paper you can compare the first draft to the second. With technology, editing is so simple, which is great, but it makes it difficult for teachers to assess how far the student has come or if they are moving in the right direction. Current writing tools (such as google docs) allows you to look at the revision history of documents, but it isn’t always as accurate as it should be.
For Question 3, we discussed how technology is used more as a tool for production right now than a catalyst for learning. Students still need to learn fundamental skills about how to use technology and how to read and write before they can use technology as a catalyst for learning. It’s similar to how students start out learning how to read and then when they get older they read to learn. When students are younger they will use technology to simply learn how to use it and to use it as a tool for production. As students get older they can begin using technology as a catalyst for learning. This may not be due to student age, though. It may be due to the fact that technology is only recently been added into schools. Maybe in 10 years when students use computers starting at age 3 they will be able to use it as a catalyst for change in younger grades.
For Question 4, we discussed the author’s point that digital presentations allow for natural divisions to help students organize ideas. We didn’t agree with the author on this. We believe students need to be taught how to divide their ideas, convert them into bullet points and organize them to add to a digital presentation. Simply placing an empty presentation in front of students does not ensure they will naturally figure out how to use them.
For Question 5, we discussed how language on computers is more malleable. The author points out that this allows students to edit their language easier than on paper, where they have to cross out or erase their thoughts. We agree it is easier for students to edit their writing, but we don’t think that the simplicity of editing ensures students will edit correctly. Students still need to learn the correct spelling of words and correct grammar to be able to apply it to editing their work online. The responsibility of teaching students editing grammar and spelling is the teacher’s responsibility, but online editing does make it easier.
Andrea and I went onto discuss other key points from the article. Basically, we agree with the author that technology allows students to write and edit their work much easier than on paper. However, some of his points about how technology takes away some of the responsibility of teachers to teach content about editing and writing is something we haven’t experienced yet. Right now we feel that most technology is used as a tool. This is probably because it is still new to have in schools. In order for students to use technology as a catalyst for learning, we need more time with technology being in schools. We don’t see online presentation software as a part of the writing process, we see it as a tool for presentations, and students need to be taught how to do this, it is not a natural occurrence. We do agree with the author that technology allows teachers to check in with students easier, it keeps students engaged, and that technology is a part of students’ everyday lives. We just need to remember that “multimedia can look good without being good” (p. 86).
Here are the notes we took during our discussion
Resources
Jester, R. (March 2002). If I had a hammer: Technology in the language arts classroom. The English Journal, 91(4). p. 85-88
RSS Feed