Photo Stories

I definitely liked working with Animoto the most. It took only a few minutes, and it looked like I put in so much effort based on the results. Although it was more or less out of my control, the finished product still looked great. The scrapbooking one definitely highlighted the pictures more and allowed each of them to be viewed individually, telling less of a story and appearing more like a photo album. The ready-made templates were a nice touch, though. The voicethread program worked well, too, but I felt it was a little boring overall. I think the final product looked the least polished out of the three.

Growing Up Online

Link:
Brittany's blog


After viewing the Frontline special, I formed my own ideas and opinions regarding the
arguments made. For the most part, I believe that the Internet has both negative and positive side effects on today's youth. What I believe we all can agree on, no matter what our opinions regarding whether or not the Internet is a "good" thing, is that the Internet's influence on kids today is inevitable, and that we must learn, as both teachers and parents, to adapt to its presence in all of our lives. Just as teachers and parents teach kids not to talk to strangers on the street nor accept candy from anyone they don't know, they can also teach them to be wary of online strangers. Just because there are potential dangerous persons who prey on children at parks and even school playgrounds doesn't mean that parents ban their kids from going to those places. It's all about being responsible. It comes to the point that you need to allow your children to prove that they can apply what they've learned from you in a safe, responsible manner.

In her blog, Brittany stated, "And, to be honest, with how accessible the internet has made information in general, and how important we as a society has helped to make it, we have to take the good along with the bad." I think this illustrates the point that the Internet has provided us with so much that we use on a regular basis, and like other, older institutions that are significant presences in our lives, it has its positives and negatives. Completely blocking off access to the Internet, placing too many restrictions, or basically invading children's privacy is not a responsible nor effective way to deal with it. This is a rather lazy route that doesn't take the time to teach students how to find the good among the bad on their own. As stated in Ch. 4,
"we need to stop thinking of our children as victims and start thinking of them as participants."

"Earn an A? Here's $50"

Do you think this is a smart idea?

In a word, no. I do not think that this program is a smart idea.


Why not?

Like many critics, I believe that this is the wrong way to motivate students. It encourages them to work for the money, rather than to engage with the curriculum due to a natural curiosity and eagerness to learn. To me, this seems to follow the similar principle that accompanies spanking a child for punishment. While it may be a quick fix, and the child will most likely discontinue the behavior you're punishing (at least for the time being), the child will not know why he is being punished because spanking doesn't teach a lesson that's relevant to the behavior. A grading scale that relies on letters and numbers is already, arguably, a reward system that sometimes interferes with the true purpose of learning. Often, students become rote learners who learn information just for the test so that they can get good grades. Rote learning would probably increase even more if students were given another motivating factor on top of that one. Reward systems like these are merely mopping up the blood of a problem without addressing the actual wound. In her blog, Susan Ohanian expresses her opinion that the curriculum should be fixed at the source, stating, "Why don't they advocate changing the curriculum? Offering children curriculum that is enticing and engaging, instead of advocating that children be paid for doing well on tests that promote a curriculum of test prep?" Students should learn for the sake of learning, not because of monetary rewards. If a school system can do nothing but bribe their students to do well, then obviously there's something wrong with the school itself and its lack of ability to motivate their students through a meaningful, interesting learning program. Those who are convinced that this idea is a good one based solely on the enthusiastic reactions of the students should consider the these students are being cheated out of a good education. While the school keeps its standards up by proving to the government that they can keep test scores up, taking the easy way out by handing out bribes instead of improving the curriculum, the students suffer in the end. They aren't learning, they aren't engaged, they're just trained to care only about money.

Additionally, the argument that offering cash incentives to students in impoverished areas is merely "leveling the playing field" is a gross generalization of the dynamics of middle class families. Growing up in an upper middle class suburb myself, I only knew of a few of my peers who received good grades for doing well in school. Most of these students were those who received below average or mediocre grades, whose parents had reached a point of desperation in their attempt to motivate their children, finally giving into cheap bribes. Most of my peers who did receive good grades in school, including me, did well because we were interested in the subjects, or because we didn't want to disappoint the teachers who delivered the curriculum in an engaging, meaningful way. We cared about learning because the academic standards were high, and the curriculum was constructed in a seemingly thoughtful way. Schools in impoverished areas should improve their curriculum, because that's the real way to motivate students to do well. Believing that students in impoverished areas need money to learn is an oversimplification and general disregard of their complex psychology and an insult to their potential to become quality learners. Speaking of a program that doles out cash to students in New York, Sol Stern, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan institute, said the mayor was being "a sucker for the market system," meaning that he was too readily applying the seemingly logical concepts of economy (more money = more motivation) to the reality of students being failed by their school's broken, irrelevant curriculum.

Does your position change depending on your viewpoint as a parent or a teacher or a taxpayer?

As a parent, I would certainly not want my children to be bribed by the schools to do well. To me, this would be just as harmful as doling out meaningless, irrelevant punishments for misbehavior. As a teacher, I certainly wouldn't want my students to be bribed by the schools, because it would undermine the content of my subject. Out of my control, the school would create an army of rote learners. As a taxpayer that supports public schools, I would not want my money going to an institution that was taking the easy way out by enlisting a private company to bribe the students to do well. I would hope that my money would go to improving the curriculum of the school system, rather than finding shortcuts for academic progress. Critics of similar systems implemented in New York have said, "It's unconscionable what they're doing, and it makes it very clear that testing has become a curriculum and there isn't any real learning going on," commented Jane Hirschman from timeoutfromtesting.org. A chemistry student, commenting on a program in the Washington D.C. area that offers cash rewards for good behavior, sums up the root of the problem with this program, simply stating, "My middle school had a similar program, actually, so I mentioned that this only teaches people to do what's right for money, rather than doing what's right because they are supposed to."

http://www.susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=8232
http://shoutwire.com/comments/full/187380/Cash_Incentives_For_Students
http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/06/20/nyc.student.cash/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/nyregion/19schools.html

"A Vision of Students Today"

Links:

Emily's Blog
Brittany's Blog
Stephanie's Blog

Most of the blog posts regarding this week's videos agreed that while capturing students' attention is obviously important, and technology is a major reason that students are distracted in today's climate, making a classroom revolve completely around technology is not the answer. For instance, in her post, Brittany says, "While I can understand how helpful technology can be in the task of engaging students, I do not think it is the only avenue, nor do I believe it to be the best avenue." I agree with this statement, believing that technology belongs in the classroom on a certain level, but it certainly shouldn't be the basis of teaching and learning. I also believe that technology stunts the growth of creativity within students, and that increasing the amount of technology incorporated into the classroom will merely amplify this effect. In her blog, Emily writes, ". . . it is still an issue that technology may be taking over the creative flows of students." She precedes this by commenting on the problem of students being "smarter" than their teachers in terms of technology. However, I agree that although teachers should still be more knowledgeable than their students in many areas, this does not mean that technology should then overwhelm the curriculum. In her blog, Stephanie suggests a balance between new and old ways, which I think is the best way to approach the problem of increasingly distracted students. She states, "They will greatly help to reach students who might not normally be interested, but I feel teachers should incorporate both new and old ideas. It is just up to them to find creative ways to combine the two."

Do schools kill creativity?

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

In his talk, Kevin Robinson asserts that schools inadvertently "kill" creativity by discouraging students from thinking beyond the usual restrictions and expectations of a given subject. Teachers are often so focused on teaching the curriculum that they don't allow students to grow beyond the curriculum, stifling their creativity by telling them they're "wrong" when they give an answer that doesn't precisely follow the format of the curriculum. Teachers have to remember to teach to their students by nurturing their ability to think outside of the box.

When I was in school, especially in my math and science classes, I felt that I wasn't allowed to do anything that the teacher didn't tell me to do specifically. Even when doing projects that allegedly allowed for a little more creativity by design, we were given samples of the teacher's expectations for the project, and any variation would most likely result in a reduced score. Only in English class did I think that my opinion and creative input were valued by the teacher. As a student, I only felt comfortable stepping out of the rigid box of curriculum when guided by a teacher who respected my potential to grow and learn in my own way.

When teaching my students, I plan to encourage rather than stifle their creativity. Although I want a certain amount of structure to my class, I'd like to supply my students with the tools to create their own opinions and analysis rather than provide them with a design from which I'd like them to copy exactly.

Given the realities of our modern age and the demands of our children's future, is it really ok to allow teachers to choose whether or not they incorporate modern technologies into their instruction?

I think it is okay for teachers to choose, to an extent. Although I agree that modern technologies are an inevitable part of a student's future in the "real world," I do believe that the integrity of a school subject can be compromised if it is overwhelmed by these technologies. I would hate to live in a world where no one read books anymore, and where no one used a pen and pencil to write. Don't get me wrong. I'm the first person to admit that I wouldn't be able to survive without my laptop, and I honestly check my email about every twenty minutes. However, I believe that there can be a balance between new technologies and the older, traditional ways of teaching.

Starting from scratch . . .

So, I think I'm going to re-introduce myself for the purposes of CI 335.

My name is Clarice, and I'm originally from Lincolnwood, which is a North shore suburb of Chicago. I want to be a high school English teacher for a lot of reasons. I loved English all throughout grade school, middle school, and high schol, and I believe that teaching is the best way for me to deal with the subject that I like so much on a daily basis. Also, in my junior year of high school, I was inspired by my English teacher to make a difference in the lives of students the way he made a difference in mine. I'm not sure where I want to teach yet, exactly. I think I want to experience teaching in an inner city school for a while before possibly teaching in the district where I used to go to school.

CI 335

Looks like I'll be starting up on this old, forgotten blog again!

Whoa, what happened to the summer?

I'm moving down in five days and I must say I am starting to freak out a little bit. I still need to buy a couple of things, yes, but mostly I just have to understand that I am not going to live in this house anymore. Legally I will, but I will spend most of my time living in a square room with cement-block walls and eating my meals in a cafeteria. Or else microwaving some Easy Mac. When did this happen?