Prensky Response 2.1

This post is part of an ongoing discussion of Marc Prensky’s book, Teaching Digital Natives. This response covers chapters 6 and 7.

Question 1. Give one Partnering example of each component of CReaTE and justify each example.

I interpreted this question to mean that we should consider each column of the instrument on its own and come up with a partnering example that shows students working at a high level within that component, whether or not they were working at high levels in the other three components. My examples come from different content areas and are described below:

Cognitive Complexity: Museum of Legislative Landmarks (Social Studies)

Students plan and create an exhibit for a museum showcasing decisions made by the local government that have made a significant impact on their quality of life. Students would decide how to research their topic, how to document and display it in a museum, and which technologies they would use for both. By having to develop their findings into museum-quality displays, they would be thinking like content experts and working at the CREATE level of Bloom’s. This may not qualify for a 5 on the CReaTE scale, because students do not generate the project themselves, so it may only get them to a  4 on the instrument. To keep this work true to the definition of “partnering,” the teacher would need to give students a lot of choice in terms of which technologies they use to do their research and document it. They would also be encouraged to follow their passions when selecting laws that directly impact the way they are able to pursue their own interests.

Real-World: Petitioning Your Representative (Social Studies)

Students research bills that are coming up for a vote by the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. Each group of students chooses one bill to focus on. They research the background and implications of the bill, consulting with at least one expert in the field. Students will then compose an e-mail to their senator or representative, including a link to their own student-created multimedia presentation (using the technology of their choice) that documents their research. Because this work attempts to influence a vote at the federal level, it presumably impacts a national or global issue (Level 5). Students also collaborate with experts in field, another requirement for a level 5 on this component.

Technology Integration: Creating a Helpful Phrases Website (Foreign Language)

This would be a year-long collaboration project between students in two different countries (with each country speaking a different language). Using Google Docs, Google Hangouts, and a website creation platform like WordPress, students in both countries will develop and maintain a website that provides helpful phrases and other language tips for students in both languages. Google Docs will be used for actually working on the items before they are posted on the site, and Google Hangouts will be used to practice the phrases “live,” to be sure both sides approve the pronunciation, and to create videos that can be embedded on the site showing native speakers in both languages using the phrases. This work would fall at a Level 4: the technology is integrated and essential to project completion, it promotes collaboration among students, and helps them solve authentic problems at the Create level (This last one is debatable, though, because in many cases, students are simply reporting translations. However, they will have to conceptualize and design the organization of the website, make lots of decisions about what to include, and will also choose topics for recording and posting the hangouts, so ultimately, they are creating a new product). In terms of partnering, students would be given ultimate control of what information needs to be included, and would be encouraged to add other kinds of multimedia to their site to enhance user understanding of the languages.

Engagement: Product Testing (Science)

The teacher challenges students to test and report on the effectiveness of any product used by people they know. It could be laundry detergent, lip gloss, deodorant, sticky notes, anything that has several brands competing for consumers in the same market. Students would choose the product, use the scientific method to design the testing methods, and report on their findings. This would be at a level 4 on the CReaTE instrument, because students partner with teacher to define the content and process, their research takes an inquiry-based approach, and the group work and research requires collaboration among students.

Question 5. What is the role of technology in “partnering”? Use at least two other expert opinions about technology integration to support your response.

Technology is just a tool — a set of “nouns” — for accomplishing the “verbs” of school — problem-solving, communication, analysis, investigation. In the partnering relationship, where the teacher sets the guiding questions and students determine how they will answer them, technology offers students a garage full of vehicles which they can take toward those answers. Although partnering can happen in a low-tech environment (imagine students using textbooks, encyclopedias, and magazines to unlock information, and one another as tutors for developing skills) it has far greater potential with technology. And because this technology has really taken over the world students currently live in and the world they will work in when they leave school, the ability to navigate that world with finesse is essential. One of the speakers in the video, “Learning to Change–Changing to Learn,”  describes the need for this finesse this way: “The coin of the realm is not memorizing facts that they’re going to need to know for the rest of their life; the coin of the realm is going to be Do you know how to find information? Do you know how to validate it? Do you know how to synthesize it, how to leverage it, how to communicate it? Do you know how to collaborate with it? Do you know how to problem-solve with it? That’s the new 21st century set of literacies. And it looks a lot different from the model that most of us were raised with.”

Using technology does not come without complications, however. As we welcome more technology into our classrooms, we must proceed with caution. One significant aspect of that caution concerns digital citizenship — responsible and ethical behavior in social and digital media. Both Jim Steyer of Common Sense Media and multiple-intelligence pioneer Howard Gardner emphasize the need to teach students clear concepts of digital citizenship, so that we are using technology for good, not to harm others or ourselves.

Another aspect to consider is how disruptive a new technology can be when we don’t know how to use it. Marsha Ratzel, a contributor at Powerful Learning Practice, warns us that for any technology to succeed with our students, our use of it has to be regular enough for students to get good at it: “Without persistent engagement, any new learning tool will fail to leverage student learning the way you hoped it would.” She describes a kind of chaos that ensues when a new device or software is introduced without sufficient context or practice:  “The classroom management issues are HUGE when you only pull out this kind of tool once in a while. Kids want to play and explore. And who can blame them?” Although we want our students to be stimulated and interested in what they’re doing, it’s just this kind of potential chaos that deters teachers from trying new technologies in their teaching. Especially for a teacher who is just beginning the shift toward partnering, giving some thought to how a new technology will be introduced, and how to build in enough time for the tool to become useful for students, will be time well spent.

Finally, while we are considering the possibilities that technology offers for partnership with students, we should not overlook its capabilities to solve more practical matters of instruction. Edutopia contributor Beth Holland suggests a number of these capabilities, such as apps that help us differentiate for students’ individual needs. Using apps that can read text out loud can allow us to differentiate for students with decoding problems or those for whom English is a second language. “We would all like to provide constant, individualized support to our students 100% of the time; however, that is far from reality in the classroom,” Holland says. “(Technology) has the potential to personalize learning and differentiate instruction where it might otherwise be impossible.” If teachers rely too heavily on these tools, however, they might convince themselves that they are actually partnering when in fact they’re not. They could, however, take this process one step further and actually teach their students about available apps that can differentiate for learning needs. Imagine meeting a student at the beginning of a school year who has already learned how to self-advocate for their own unique learning profile: “Would it be okay for me to use Speak Selection for this assignment?” they might ask. “I remember reading better if I can hear it.” This is a different kind of partnering, which does not utilize technology as a creative tool but helps students develop better metacognitive skills – to become directors of their own learning.

References:

floyda007. (2008, May 15). Learning to change — changing to learn. Retrieved on September 24, 2013 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tahTKdEUAPk

Google. (2009, December 3). Breakthrough learning in a digital age — Session 1. The next revolution in learning. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GKl_uj_LlU

Hansen, S. (2009, July 30). Big thinkers: Howard Gardner on digital youth. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9GSj3Hi8y8

Holland, B. (2013). iPads: From pedagogical crutch to education innovation. Retrieved from Edutopia website: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/ipads-pedagogical-crutch-education-innovation-beth-holland

Ratzel, M. (2012). Good classroom tech is like a sweet old softball glove. Retrieved from Powerful Learning Practice website: http://plpnetwork.com/2012/06/08/good-classroom-tech-sweet-softball-glove/