Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Harris: Chapter 1 Replacement

Harris start off by saying make a list of all the things that I can do on the internet:

(1) Chat
(2) Create a personal website
(3) Write e-mail messages
(4) Read my news
(5) Surf to my favorite websites
(6) Download various media files
(7) Play games
(8) Type on this blog!

Harris explains in this article that there needs to be a structure of the use of "tools" of technology in order to maximize learning. He highly suggest that instructors move to a creative apporoach of learning, rather than a recycle version of the information.

"I can hear what some of you are thinking now: "I donít have time or space in my curriculum to be an artisan!" It's true that as the years pass and our schools and communities change, preparation time for teachers dwindles, while demands for additions to our curricula increase in number and complexity. So, I won't be suggesting that you "reinvent the wheel" or add anything more to your already-crowded program. Instead, I will propose the use of some "wetware tools," or thinking apparatus, that will help you to engage in the important design processes that we know are essential to powerful, regular use of new tools in our classrooms. These thinking tools are created in such a way that they can assist your design work in a time-efficient, energy-conserving manner." (Harris, 1998)

Harris challenges the current use of technology in the classroom (esp. internet.)
  • Will this use of the Internet enable students to do something that they COULDN'T do before?
  • Will this use of the Internet enable students to do something that they COULD do before, but better?
If the honest answer to both of these questions is "no," there is no reason to use Internet tools or resources in the way that we are considering. Our time, effort, and resources would be better used in another way. In any particular instance, if using traditional tools and approaches can allow students to learn just as well or better than using new tools and approaches, it doesnít make sense to use new tools in traditional ways. It isn't "worth it" to do so, for students or for teachers." (Harris, 1998)

Then he presents one of his lessons in the form of a word activity that she does with her students in which students create new words by combining them to form a meaning.

"
Now...how might educators typically classify that activity? As a Language Arts activity? A vocabulary activity? A middle-level activity? Letís study this example quite differently, so that you can understand what an activity's structure is. Let's "extract" both the content and the grade level from our description of the activity, and see whatís left. In this "vocabulary sniglets" example, students individually used units of meaning as building blocks in combinatorial action, then deduced definitions from the playfully-formed concatenations according to what they knew about the meanings of the individual units, and their placements with reference to each other. (Can you see how this description of the activity depicts only what what the students do, without reference to the content area or level of learning occurring?)" (Harris, 1998)

"How might the structure described above be used in a
different content area, and at a different instructional level?" (Harris, 1998)

Harris finally provides examples and a general framework a teacher can use to create this structure of learning.

No comments: