Response #12

Shriner, M., Clark, D., Nail, M., Schlee, B., & Libler, R. (2010). Social Studies Instruction: Changing Teacher Confidence in Classrooms Enhanced by Technology. Social Studies, 101(2), 37-45. doi:10.1080/00377990903283999.

            This empirical study examined the perceptions and attitudes of social studies teachers on using technology in the classroom.  Citing previous research about content-specific uses of technology, the authors highlight a particular deficiency within social studies.  They cite research studies which claim that social studies teachers generally worry about their teaching competence and exhibit low confidence without technology, with their concerns being directed towards issues like textbook utilization, instructional strategies, and acquiring resources (37).  This study explored the effectiveness of interventions (technology workshops through a professional development program) on teacher self-efficacy.  Using a 5-point Likert scale inventory of questions in both pre- and post-tests, the researchers assessed the beliefs and attitudes of K-12 teachers that attended three different professional development workshops.  The first workshop (n = 81) focused on virtual field trips and service learning; the second one (n = 39) was on content delivery and assessment, and focused on using PowerPoint, online and local resources for instruction; and the third workshop (n = 46) addressed the teaching of geography and world history, with an emphasis on web resources.  In each workshop, teachers worked with the technologies and produced sample lessons.  The results showed statistically significant effects on the majority of the outcomes which were assessed.  Overall, the workshops provided teachers with exposure to different classroom technologies and allowed the teachers to practice using them; this resulted in positive impacts on their perceptions about classroom technology and increased confidence about using it in the future.

            I think that this article highlighted a simple but important caveat about classroom technology use.  For many teachers, the major obstacle is a problem of proficiency.  If one does not feel confident about their ability to navigate and use technology, they simply will not use it, despite its potential for enhancing student learning.  For example, a common question for social studies teachers (and one that I have asked many times) is, “What are some good sites for finding primary sources for history?”  As someone who is not too “technologically inclined,” I value the occasions where I have time to become familiar with and practice using a technology or form of media.  The training that occurred through the professional development program in this study is something that, I imagine, will become increasingly more common in the years to come (and for good reason).  I have appreciated the opportunities to learn about and bookmark good online resources thus far in my graduate program, both in IT 544 and other classes.  This sort of training and exposure is especially great for pre-service teachers, who can enter the field with some proficiencies and “go-to” instructional activities that involve the application of technology or media.   I feel that the more chances teachers have to learn about and “play” with technologies, the closer we will be to having the sort of classroom that suits the tech savvy kids that we will be teaching.

Response #11

Rosen, L. (2010). Welcome to the iGeneration!. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 75(8), 8-12. Retrieved from ERIC database.

           

            This article was a short read about the characteristics and habits of what the author refers to as the “iGeneration”—the generation of youth who were born in the Internet age/1990s and the new century.  It details the many ways in which technology is integrated into the lives of kids and adolescents today.  I found this rather simple statement from the author to be quite profound: “To put it simply, children have grown up in an environment where technology is everywhere and much of it is invisible” (8).  The article also included a data table which surveyed “iGeneration” youth about the amount of time that they spent consuming various forms of media and technology; the list included the Internet, computers, email, IM/chatting, telephone, texting, video games, music and TV.  The youngest age group (4 to 8 year-olds) spent around five and a half hours consuming media and technology daily, while the oldest group (16-18 year-olds) spent over twenty hours a day.  These surprising numbers are actually in line with other research.  However, all generations are using technology or media with more frequency: Baby Boomers average nine and a half hours of consumption a day, while Generation X-ers clock in at fifteen hours and Generation Y members average around twenty hours.  Overall, the author vaguely advocates for a revamping or “rewiring” (12) of education and classrooms in order to meet the needs of “iGeneration” youth (he actually plugs for his book, which made me cringe).

            Given that technology is such an integral part of young people’s lives, I have wondered about how their learning and development will be different when I finally start teaching.  For instance, the wealth of information available on the Internet is something that is entirely natural to today’s youth.  Though I am in my early twenties, I certainly remember what life was like before the Internet.  But even today, when it comes to something like historical or academic research, it is the place where we all begin.  It is dawning on me that teaching my future students certain skills—for example, how to evaluate the credibility of resources—will look very different in some respects compared to how it used to be (e.g., with a book in front of you as opposed to a web page).  Still, the fundamentals do not change.  Kids will learn to look for things like biases within a source, how information about the author and context affect understanding of the source, and so on.  The bigger challenge will be in keeping pace with the rate at which new technologies become apart of student lives and learning—something that will become increasingly important as our lives become more “wired.”  While it is hard (though somewhat amusing) to imagine now, I will very likely hit a point in my career where students begin to regard me as a “dinosaur” when it comes to technology.  The kids will always be miles ahead of their teacher in this respect.  But as long as they are learning, this needn’t matter.

Response #10

Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus Quality: A New Approach to Examine the Relationship between Technology Use and Student Outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 455-472. Retrieved from ERIC database.

            This empirical study examined the relationship between technology use and student outcomes.  Despite massive investments in educational technology around the world ($66 billion over a ten-year period in the US), research has produced mixed findings when it comes to student outcomes: some studies claim that it helps achievement, while other studies found no effect (456-457).  The author attributes this discrepancy to a question of quality—that is, what kinds of technology and how are they used.  Too often, the author writes, technology is regarded as a monolith and researchers view it in terms of quantity.  Through a 5-point Likert scale survey, this study assessed middle school students in the northwestern US (n=133) and their use of different technology media, which were broken into five categories: subject-specific, social communication, construction, exploratory/entertainment, and general technologies. The study measured four student outcomes: academic performance (GPA), technology proficiency, learning habits, and developmental outcomes (e.g., self-esteem).  Interviews were also conducted with students and teachers.  Most notably, the study found that quantity of technology use had no significant relationship to any of the student outcomes, while quality of use impacted all outcomes.  Additionally, specific technologies affected different areas.  For instance, social communication technologies were positively associated with developmental outcomes, while exploratory/entertainment technologies had a positive association with student learning habits. Interestingly, the study found that technology had no statistically significant effect on academic achievement, or GPA.

            I like the distinctions that this particular author drew about approaching technology.  Different technologies have different purposes, with some providing a broader range of functions compared to others (e.g., you can do many things on the Internet, while a document camera only projects an image).  In the debate over the role of technology in the classroom, it is important to clarify what exactly is being referred to, as well as the objective to which a particular piece of equipment or medium would lend itself.  More importantly, though, is whether a technology is being used well—or, as the author might say, whether there is quality use of the technology.  For instance, it would be a waste of precious class time to have students working on a poorly designed Webquest.  The fact that they are spending time on computers—even significant amounts of time—has no bearing on whether or not they are engaged in good learning or practicing sound historical thinking.  I have come to realize that a technology, like any other instructional tool or method, must be held up to the same basic litmus test: does it promote effective and interesting learning?

Response #9

Ming-Chou, L., & Jhen-Yu, W. (2010). Investigating Knowledge Integration in Web-based Thematic Learning Using Concept Mapping Assessment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 25-39. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

            This qualitative study examined the effect of Web-based, thematic learning on the learning and attitudes of 40 fifth grade students.  Working in groups and utilizing the Internet, the students engaged in thematic learning for natural sciences unit, where the theme was “Stars and Sun” (25).  Thematic learning consists of five stages: 1) selecting a theme; 2) finding a focus of interest related to the theme; 3) finding materials related to the focus; 4) integrating knowledge about the focus/theme through collaboration with peers; and 5) publishing/sharing the knowledge (26).  The researchers found that the approach had a positive effect on students’ concept learning and knowledge integration, as well as their attitudes about learning.  They regarded the activity as fun, with many of them expressing how they enjoyed working with other students.

While this article dealt with elementary school students, it was still an interesting and useful read.  To me, the Web-based thematic learning process described in the article seemed to contain the scaffolding approach, with students going through distinct stages as they acquired, produced and shared knowledge.  It also seemed constructivist, as students were collaborating with one another to build their body of knowledge, which they then shared with the large group.  I could see myself designing an age-appropriate version of this activity for a middle or high social studies class, with the assignment based around a particular historical period, event or debate.  Additionally, having just completed a curriculum & instruction course this quarter, I am more familiar with what planning lessons/units actually looks like.  I also know more about the different kinds of teaching methods and instructional strategies in the field.  As a result, this will allow me to be both more creative and pragmatic when it comes to incorporating technology into a lesson, and to have a better “feel” for how different forms of technology or media contribute to the ends of a given strategy.

Response #8

Starcic, A. (2010). Educational Technology for the Inclusive Classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 9(3), 26-37. Retrieved from ERIC database.

            The topic of this article was about ICTs (information and communication technologies) and the training of pre-service teachers.  More specifically, the author focused on ICTs and their application for creating inclusive classrooms—that is, successfully integrating students with special educational needs into the general education classroom.  The author contends, “Teachers are not aware of e-learning environments and their potentials for individualized instruction, exploratory environments, collaborative learning and facilitating social skills, individualized study plans, classroom management for accommodating students with disabilities in the inclusive classroom” (27).  The particular ICT examined in this descriptive study was called the SEVERI e-learning system, which emphasizes student-centered learning.  The program allows students to engage in discussions, check messages, use an electronic calendar, work on assignments, and study using an e-library application.  For students with special needs, the student interface of the program includes large fonts, pictures/graphics, colors, and audio in order to assist them.  Teachers can plan lessons and organize activities using the program.  The pre-service teachers who participated in the study responded to questions after working with the program in an educational technology course (much like IT 544).  Overall, their attitudes about it were positive.  They considered SEVERI to be a pedagogically effective tool, as well as conducive to promoting an inclusive classroom.

            This research article highlighted the important point of providing equal opportunity in education.  In my middle school practicum, I observed an eighth grade social studies course with a significant number of IEP students, most of whom had learning disabilities (e.g., ADHD) and/or reading problems.  They were integrated into a general education class, as the school had discontinued its special education program several years ago.  The inclusive classroom recognizes that the social dimension of learning is important for a special needs student’s cognitive and affective development.  However, teachers still face the challenge of planning for and meeting the needs of these students—something which is rather daunting, considering that the majority of teachers have minimal training (formal or otherwise) in special education.  Here, the benefits of learning with technology seem particularly helpful.  I agree with the sentiment of the author that the ICT training of teachers needs to be geared towards “professional needs and cultures” (27), rather than acquiring the technology skills for their own sake.  This is especially true when one reflects upon learners with special needs.

Response #7

Akintunde, O. (2006). Diversity.Com: Teaching an Online Course on White Racism and Multiculturalism. Multicultural Perspectives, 8(2), 35-45. Retrieved from ERIC database.

            This article discussed issues pertaining to a multicultural education course and online learning.  This piece highlights the main concepts and premises of multiculturalism, which include (but are not limited to) respect for and sensitivity to diversity; integrating multicultural content into curriculum; and identifying and correcting White ethnocentric biases in content and methods of instruction.  The latter half of the article includes sample work and online discussion board postings from the author’s own course (the author is a university professor).  The author uses the term “epistemological racism” (36) to refer to how curriculum, instruction and educational research are, generally speaking, informed by narratives and perspectives that are racially biased or Eurocentric.  More importantly, the author emphasizes constructive student dialogue about issues of racial justice as fundamental to the goals of multicultural education.  The article illustrates how the design of the online course allowed for such dialogue, which in turn helped students achieve those important attitude and values transformations that are apart of multicultural education.  On one hand, the author concedes, the teacher faces the challenges of overseeing an online course, including frequent checking of email and high student expectations for prompt feedback.  With respect to multiculturalism, I found this passage to be quite insightful: “In a course that deals with race, class, and gender where outcomes are not quantified and correct answers are not a ‘given’ and students are expected to make tremendous shifts in attitudes, paradigms, as well as intellectual and political positions, the challenges and demands on the online professor are increased exponentially” (44).  Nevertheless, such shifts in attitudes, values and intellectual positions occurred in this online class.  The nature of the online course lent itself to the type of dialogue that is necessary for the successful teaching of multiculturalism. 

            Upon reading this article, it reminded me of a course that I took from James Banks on multicultural education and curriculum as an undergraduate at UW.  It was an eye-opening experience and especially memorable because of the profound, thoughtful discussions that we engaged in; I both witnessed and personally made some of those “tremendous shifts” of which the author speaks about in the article.  Multiculturalism is something that informs my approach to studying history and, consequently, my educational philosophy.  At first, I felt hesitancy about the effectiveness of a distance learning course on multicultural education; based on my personal experience, I found it difficult to imagine the types of conversations for which multicultural education calls occurring in an online setting.  But the sample postings included in the article sounded just like the kind of reflective discussions which occurred in the course that I took on-site at the U.  The author cites how some critics of the Internet see it as perpetuating inequality and white privilege which, on some level, I can see.  However, the author identifies the irony of how this technology, which some consider an oppressive tool, actually functions as a tool of liberation when we use it to broaden our perspectives.  Ultimately, I like this statement from the author when it comes to multicultural education and technology/the Internet: “Let’s not kill the messenger, let’s change the message (44).”  I will remember to ask how technology might lend itself to the sorts of meaningful conversations that I want to encourage in my future social studies classes.

Response #6

Clemons, S. (2006). CAD Skills Increased through Multicultural Design Project. Technology Teacher, 65(4), 19-23. Retrieved from ERIC database.

            This article was about a case study of a semester-long, college-level CAD course and how computers worked in conjunction with the pedagogical approach of constructivism.  The author claims that, in recent years, “secondary and post-secondary institutions are requiring better teaching efficiencies, larger class sizes, and less support in their technology-driven classes” in order to respond to the demand for technology literacy in education (19).  This piece examined how software in a CAD course facilitated the learner-driven approach called constructivism.  In constructivist learning, students often observe/record data, actively interact with content, collaborate with peers, and self-regulate as they learn; the emphasis is on experiential learning.  The study found that students’ technological problem-solving skills and knowledge of CAD/technical drawing improved over the course of the semester.  Students also expressed more positive attitudes compared to the direct instruction approach previously used in the class.

            Constructivism is an approach that can provide a rich learning experience for students.  In this particular case study, the course allowed for each student to move at their own pace (the constructivist idea of self-regulation), which I considered a major plus.  Given that students possess varying proficiencies with technology, I appreciated this aspect of the course, and it reminded me of a drafting class that I took in high school.  From the teaching side, it is arguably more important for the teacher to be clear with expectations and how they will assess in constructivist learning, compared to a more traditional approach like direct instruction.  Because students, in a sense, are the “builders” of the knowledge, the teacher’s role becomes more like that of a guide or monitor of student learning.  Accordingly, teachers employing constructivism need to be able to track and measure learning effectively.  I like how the teacher in this study included a self-reflection journal as a component of the course.  This “marriage” of paper and computer learning seemed to be effective and supported the aims of the course; I will try and remember this idea when I consider planning a constructivist project or activity.

Response #5

Hammond, T.C., & Manfra, M. M. (2009). Digital history with student-created multimedia: Understanding student perceptions. Social Science Research and Practice, 4(3), 139-150. Retrieved from http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/4.3.14.pdf

            This article was a qualitative research piece that examined the practice of digital history in the classroom.  The authors defined digital history as “the study of the past using a variety of electronically re-produced primary source texts, images, and artifacts as well as the constructed historical narratives, accounts, or presentations that result from digital historical inquiry” (139).  Researchers observed student use of Power Point and PrimaryAccess (a program for creating digital documentaries) in two different urban schools in Virginia.  For their assignment, students constructed presentations in the character of someone living during a particular period or event (e.g., a northern white abolitionist during the Civil War) (142).  Ultimately, the researchers wanted to explore student perceptions about the technology and the effect of those perceptions on their learning, and paid special attention to the teaching of content.  They concluded that students exercised some agency over the curriculum through their creativity with the unique aspects of the assignment.  Students generally did not view the technology as innovative: the researchers noted that PowerPoint was like a “cultural norm” with students, and that many kids referred to the digital documentary software as “glorified PowerPoint with sound” (147).  Nevertheless, they engaged the assignment and even contradicted the expectations of their teachers.  For instance, many students searched for images outside of the collection provided, and prompted the teacher to supply more images for the documentaries.  Similarly, one middle school teacher expressed surprise when more students than expected worked on their projects outside of class (146-147).

However, the main thrust of the article was that while the use of technology piqued student creativity, their creative energies were geared more towards the aesthetics of their presentations rather than more substantive engagement with content.  Student repetition or reiteration of the teacher’s instruction was the general pattern, with little exception.  The assignment may have had students constructing their own narratives, but the learning of the content was not “constructivist”—rather, it resulted in the rehashing of information with minimal critical thinking (147).  The study affirmed the view of the researchers that technology “cannot lend itself to a particular outcome” (147).  In other words, classroom technology is a valuable tool that can guide students towards critical thinking about content, but it does not guarantee this.

This article was good reminder of the danger of being too didactic as a teacher.  I imagine that it is fairly easy for a history teacher to be concerned with covering curriculum and, consequently, to overemphasize getting the “facts” right at the expense of higher-level, critical thinking.  One of the interviewed students described history class as “just purely facts that you memorize” (146).  This is the last thing I would want to hear as a history teacher.  Of course, learning inevitably requires some degree of memorization, or a basic ability to recall information—whether it is dates and events in history, the plot of a novel in English class, or the formula needed to solve a math problem.  But in the case of history, such memorization is secondary to the goal of providing students with ways to think thoughtfully and critically about the past.  “Good” history teaches one how to interrogate a source; ask meaningful questions; synthesize information; and how to construct and judge arguments by harnessing the “facts.”  It is an active process that involves doing.  For teachers, it seems that one of the major challenges is to maintain a balance between curricular obligations and dynamic approaches to presenting the curriculum.  Technology is certainly an excellent tool that an educator can use to guide students into practicing good history (or, more broadly, higher level thinking).  It is important to remember, though, that technology does not necessarily translate into better student engagement with content, and that the teacher’s challenge lies in combining the two.  Put another way, the use of technology should help students become better “doers” of history.

Response #4

Hillis, P. (2008). Authentic Learning and Multimedia in History Education. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(2), 87-99. Retrieved from ERIC database.

            This article was about the use of technology (a particular CD-ROM program) in British history classrooms and how well it promoted authentic learning.  Among its attributes, the authors characterize authentic learning as having “real-world relevance” and focusing on complex problems with multiple solutions (88).  Students also utilize a variety of resources and account for varying perspectives during the learning.  It often involves the creation of a final, tangible product; provides opportunities for student collaboration; and integrates reflection and assessment into the activity.  In this qualitative case study, students created PowerPoint presentations on how the poor were treated in Victorian Glasgow.  The activity was structured around a scenario where they were archaeologists in Glasgow in the year 2081; houses built in the 1970s had been removed to reveal a collection of 19^th century artifacts.  Working in teams, the students were to select two artifacts and design a presentation to persuade an expert panel on why their team’s artifacts best represented 19^th century poverty and should belong in the Glasgow Museum.  The CD-ROM software contained an interactive database pertaining to the Barnhill Poor House, an actual 19^th century site.  The program allowed students to learn about the artifacts, read the personal stories of some of its inhabitants, and examine other historical information; it also included questions to guide student inquiry.  Overall, students reacted favorably to the activity: they expressed feelings of interest and greater understanding about what a life of poverty was like in Victorian Glasgow.  They also practiced research and information gathering, communicating with others, and presentation skills.  In short, the computer activity allowed for students to “mirror the methodology” of historians (87).

            This combination of authentic learning and technology reminded me of the Oregon Trail and Alaskan Gold Rush computer games that I played when I was in elementary school; such games were not exactly designed for meaningful historical learning, however.  Authentic learning projects require extra amounts of time, effort and planning on the part of the teacher in order for them to be successful; but their potential to provide rich learning experiences for students is huge.  I am curious to see how relevant CD-ROMs are with respect to educational activities.  Given the influx of new kinds of media, CD-ROMs seem a little dated, and I wonder if they are still being produced and used by consumers in any significant way.  I also wonder if kids would regard CD-ROMs in this way, or if they would even notice or care.  Above all else, my foremost concern with educational media is whether or not it facilitates good learning and the objectives of a lesson/unit.  It is not enough to provide students with an engaging and interesting activity, although this something we always need to consider and strive for; the use of classroom technology needs to always be oriented towards helping students achieve realistic, assessable learning goals.

Response #3

Jacobs, G. (2008). We Learn What We Do: Developing a Repertoire of Writing Practices in an Instant Messaging World. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(3), 203-211. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

This article discussed the use of instant messaging (IM) and cell phone texting by youth, as well as the concern of some teachers and parents on its potentially negative effect on the development of writing skills.  The author discusses both “in- and out-of-school” forms of literacy (i.e., IM and traditional/standard English writing), and how a “moral panic” arose in the late 1990s among adults because they feared that IM would stunt the development of traditional reading and writing skills, despite the lack of empirical evidence to support such a notion (204).  The main thrust of the article was to better understand the significance of IM to young people through a two-year case study of a teenage girl from New York, a high-achieving student and self-described “hardcore” IM user.  The author emphasizes the importance of context—including audience, purpose and community expectations—for successful communication in a given situation, from an IM conversation to a biology paper.  The girl’s proficiency in both IM and academic genres of writing was meant to illustrate the ability of youth to cultivate “separate worlds” and to suggest that IM, when understood and addressed appropriately, can be a positive factor in adolescent writing development (207).  The author maintains that teachers should view IM as an opportunity to reinforce student awareness of writing across genres and the different conventions associated with different forms of writing; they also should consider engaging with both IM and traditional writing on their own in order to better mentor their students and help them navigate both “old” and “new” literacies (204).

            While it was an interesting read, the article is intended to be only a thoughtful and brief entry into the issue of IM and academic learning, rather than an in-depth or authoritative research piece.  For example, the author’s use of “I” statements and allusions to her personal teaching experiences make the article feel more like an anecdotal case study than a meaningful qualitative inquiry.  Nevertheless, the author highlights a valid discussion about adolescent use of instant messaging and its relationship with the classroom and teachers.  Instant messaging and personalized forms technology are the ways that young people communicate today.  This type of communication is becoming more integrated into their daily behavior, modes of thinking and learning, and is showing no sign of stopping; if anything, it will accelerate in the years to come.  Rather than looking down on adolescent use of instant messaging or being too adversarial about its use, teachers and parents should attempt to understand its significance to youth culture in their eyes—what purpose it serves them and why it is so important.  The article did a good job conveying that IM is an important part of identity formation for young people going through the changes of adolescence, noting how most teenagers consider it “talking” and not writing (Jacobs, 2008, p. 207).  Given its importance to young people in cultivating thoughts, values and meaningful peer relationships, I think it is useful as a teacher to acknowledge this aspect of IM.  It is also important to recognize that such identity formation—however “unorthodox” one might consider the method—is crucial to healthy adolescent growth.  In turn, a healthy sense of self informs and enriches a student’s approach to writing.  The perspectives and voice s/he brings to a paper or assignment can be an asset to his/her writing.  Especially for humanities and English teachers, I imagine it is irksome to see errors and habits associated with messaging in students’ writing.  However, it seems that approaching youth use of IM constructively can help address the more negative byproducts of its practice.

Response #2

Palumbo, A., & Loiacono, V. (2009). Understanding the Causes of Intermediate and Middle School Comprehension Problems. International Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 75-81. Retrieved from ERIC database.

            This article examined the issue of reading comprehension with intermediate and middle school students, and in both general and special education.  The authors begin by citing some rather startling statistics: from 1992 to 2005, only 30% of fourth-grade students read at or above proficient level, while around 36% were reading below the basic level (75).  Additionally, a 2002 Carnegie report found that almost half of all 17-year olds read at or below ninth-grade reading level (75).  The authors identify many factors that affect student reading comprehension, including vocabulary knowledge, decoding ability (e.g., using contextual “clues”), and knowledge of the subject.  The authors contend that problems with reading comprehension become especially pointed after the fourth grade, when curriculum involves material related to specific subject matter (social studies, math, science, etc.).  They argue that reading comprehension problems are exacerbated by a lack of subject-specific reading material in the intermediate curriculum, which carries over into middle school and beyond.  Moreover, students with learning disabilities, which often take the form of reading problems, are impacted more so than other children.  As they struggle to develop proficiency with basic narrative and informational texts, they also fall behind and wrestle with subject-specific reading because they have not worked enough with subject-matter vocabulary and concepts.  In short, the authors claim, deficiency in subject matter knowledge translates into poorer comprehension.  As a solution, the authors advocate for a program called Instructional Cloze, which is available as a free Internet download or as in software version.  They write, “Instructional Cloze…can engage students in subject matter knowledge, help with word recognition problems, teach subject vocabulary, and improve reading skills” (77).  It allows a teacher to design exercises based on reading material, with students filling in blanks where words have been deleted.  Cloze exercises also include a “word bank” that the teacher can create for students to use, and which the teacher can go over to check for understanding of content before they attempt the exercise.  The idea is to have students practice both literacy skills and subject learning at the same time.  Here’s a sample passage from the article (78):

           

After the Battle of (__________) British soldiers started landing on (____________________) July 3, 1776, one day before the (________________ ____________________) was signed.

             While the article felt sort of like a plug for a product, the authors’ advocacy for connecting literacy learning with subject matter learning made sense to me.  Once students start studying specific subject areas, they are encountering terms and concepts that are foreign to them; even with proficient readers, there is much new learning to be done simply because each discipline is rich with its own vocabulary, meanings and ways of thinking.  Technology like Cloze seeks to address this problem.  I think I will look into it to see what it is like; if anything, Cloze worksheets seem like an easy way to make review worksheets for lower-level recall and comprehension knowledge.  For students with learning disabilities, having to learn and master subject-specific knowledge must make their reading difficulties all the more frustrating.  At my middle school practicum, I observed a class that contained a rather high number of IEP students, most of whom faced challenges with reading proficiently.  Similarly, a friend of mine grew up with a condition called sensory integration disorder, which was a major challenge in his early schooling.  Overall, this article reminded me of how important it is for a teacher to empathize with students and work actively to address their individual needs.  Moreover, technology can function as a tool that can aid struggling students when other methods do not work.

Response #1

Lee, J. and Doolittle, P. (2006). Social Studies and History Teachers’ Use of Non-Digital and Digitial Resources.  Social Studies Research & Practice, 1, 291-311.

This article was about a qualitative research study that examined teacher attitudes towards technology use in the classroom.  Surveying 104 social studies teachers of various grade levels, the study focused particularly on how often teachers utilized web-based or digital primary sources, and whether the use of these sources aligned with the goals of pursuing a more inquiry-based learning approach in the classroom.  The study found that while teachers highly valued the use of primary sources, several difficulties prevented them from using primary sources more.  These included lack of computers with web-access, curricular restraints, and having to teach to standardized tests.  The study also revealed, however, that teachers generally were uncomfortable and less than proficient in locating digital primary sources and reliable history web sites.  For example, many of the teachers relied on “culturally popular websites” (e.g., the History Channel) rather than digital historical libraries and archives on the web that would be more useful (e.g., the Library of Congress American Memory).  Moreover, the study also highlighted that even when digital or non-digital primary sources were used, it remained unclear whether teachers used those sources to foster higher-level historical thinking and richer learning experiences, or if they simply reinforced the learning of facts, events and ideas.

While there are certainly external obstacles that might keep teachers from using primary sources in the history classroom, I think the issue lies more with the ability of teachers to locate and use web-based primary sources properly.  Helping students develop their historical thinking skills is something that all social studies teachers value, and primary sources have a unique—and I would say central—role in this process.  If this is to remain one of the standards which we strive towards, being proficient on the web is essential.  The primary source materials in textbooks, for instance, are most often excerpted and taken out of context—in other words, they are insufficient with respect to good historical inquiry.  But more importantly, I think it’s important to remember that even when the web or technology is being utilized, it does not guarantee effective teaching.  Technology can pique student interest and engage kids in ways different from traditional book and lecture-based learning—a wonderful reason for teachers to become comfortable with the web or certain software programs.  But it does not necessarily translate into effective teaching or meaningful engagement of the content—one can still fall into the trap of teaching names, dates and the “facts.”