A couple of months ago I wrote about my philosophy on learning, and while I did include technology, I did so with very little information about how I would use it. Now that we find ourselves at the end of LDT467, I have much more to add to my philosophy about technology and the role of the learner. I am calling this my Learning Philosophy 2.0.

In my original learning philosophy, I described learning mainly as the exposure to something new and the way the learner remembers that new information. What I know now is that it also has to do with the way the learner interacts with information and with others. Communication and collaboration are big components of learning, as students can construct knowledge based on both of those things. Learning also encompasses the presentation of student knowledge in various forms and mediums. While this is primarily decided by the teacher, it can also be determined by the student depending on how the class is designed. Learning also includes the teacher as a facilitator and source of knowledge.

Teachers are often the source of information in a classroom, but they can be much more than that. The role of the teacher is also to introduce students to new ideas and means of creating a product or project using their newfound knowledge. For example, if a teacher wants a student to create a project that includes a new type of technology that students haven’t learned about or used before, teachers have to show students how to use that application and how to create something with it. Teachers are also important for showing students how to appropriately communicate and collaborate to enhance their learning.

My philosophy has changed a lot in regards to the relationship between the student and knowledge acquisition. In my initial philosophy, I was very focused on students constructing knowledge in a very old-fashioned way. For example, I mentioned repetition and studying to learn new material. There isn’t anything wrong with that, but I didn’t mention using technology for knowledge acquisition, just as a means of research and enrichment. My philosophy has also changed in regards to the way that students show they have learned something. When using technology students are sometimes learning, teaching, and creating all at the same time. Obviously, with such a complex way of learning, students need to be evaluated differently than the couple of ways I described in my initial philosophy.

Learning happens when students are engaged, interested, and having fun. It also happens when students are given the opportunity to act as a teacher or creator and show what they already know. In this instance, they are learning to communicate and collaborate more than anything else, while reinforcing prior knowledge about a topic. Learning is also happening when students are able to take their knowledge about a topic and create something with it. This could be a Powtoon video, a sculpture, or a design for a 3D printed item. While technology doesn’t always have to be a part of creating and constructing knowledge, in today’s classroom ecology it should definitely at least be where a decent chunk of their time is devoted.

While I mentioned some of this already, teachers should act as facilitators and sources of knowledge and guidance. While sometimes this may mean that the teacher is lecturing or working through a worksheet with students, it may often mean the teacher is stepping back and letting students construct knowledge on their own (but with guidance and scaffolding). The role of the teacher is also to help students build skills in the areas of communication and collaboration. This could be by means of a hands-on project, where students have to communicate with each other, or a Skype session with students in a classroom halfway around the world. I also think the teacher should be a source of enrichment material in some way, even if students access that material themselves.

I would not necessarily change anything from my original learning philosophy when it comes to knowing when students are learning, I would add to it, however. I still think that students who can correctly apply information in an assessment or project are showing that they learned something. I also think that students are showing that they are learning when they ask questions because they are actively engaged. I still think that the best way for students to show that they are learning is through a hands-on project or activity. I would add that students can show they are learning when they teach another student how to do something. Students should have the opportunity to create, instruct, and share their ideas with their classmates in some way. For example, when a student is working on a presentation using any application that is set up for this (Powtoon, PowerPoint, Animoto, etc.) they can learn as much from their peers while using it as they can through creating with it. They do this by communicating and sharing ideas with each other. They might see something really neat that a peer is doing and ask how to do it on their own presentation, or vice versa.

While I still think that technology is a good source for students to play around with additional enrichment resources and for research, I now see it even more so as a way for students to demonstrate what they have learned, work together, and communicate their ideas. I can definitely see myself using something like Skype in the future for students to learn about an artist or art form. While I have had thoughts of doing something like this for my art club, I had forgotten about its potential in the classroom. This would be a great option for a school with a limited budget because they wouldn’t have to pay an artist to come to the school and speak, they could just compensate them for their time and invite them to video conference with students over Skype. I would also like to work at a school that has a 1:1 ratio of Chromebooks for students to use. This way I could have a digitally formatted classroom with reading resources (InsertLearning or another tech tool to help students who might struggle with reading), project choices (with videos to show students the steps they need to complete projects), and supplemental applications to enrich student learning. Finally, if I were in a school with a 3D printer, it would be great to use something like Tinker Cad with students so they could design and create a 3D printed project.

First of all, I would just like to say that I found this reading difficult. The author seemed to jump around a lot and spent more time on describing comparisons to situations in education than to the actual issue in education itself. It also seemed that the topics of discussion jumped around between chapters where something discussed in chapter 1 might come up multiple times again in the following chapters. There were also a ton of lists of adjectives in this book that reminded me of reading family names at the beginning of the Odyssey. Very tedious.

Chapter one of this book talked a lot about the definition of the institution. The main focus was about how you can no longer use the traditional meaning of institution in the context of the Web 2.0 ecology. The author begins discussing the implications of the institution as a mobilizing network and focuses on “…the fluid networks that operate within, through, around, across, and outside traditional boundaries of even the most solid and seemingly unchangeable institutions.”

Chapter two focuses on participatory learning and customized education. The author finds that it is difficult for educators to come up with a way to meet the individual needs and interests of all students while getting students to collaborate with others who have an entirely different set of individual needs and interests. His solution to this problem is using social media in the classroom. The author also spends time in this chapter talking about plagiarism, fair use, and authoring. He finishes chapter two by briefly talking about classroom gamification.

Chapter three is about the results of interacting with these technologies, with a large emphasis being on trust. Probably the biggest takeaway from this chapter is “In short, learning is shifting from learning that to learning how from content to process.” This chapter talked a lot about ideas we have discussed in depth during our week 8 and week 9 readings.

I would agree with most of the author’s notions of how institutions and pedagogies must respond to emerging technologies and practices. I think more time could have been spent on discussing these ideas in the book rather than discussing ideas of things to compare them to. While this may be discussed in later chapters in the book, I thought the author should have spent more time talking about inequalities and how they impact obtaining and using this technology in the classroom or university.

I think that changes we should be attentive to as educators and learners are how institutions that are already using these new technologies are faring. For example, there was The School of the Future from Philadelphia, PA. What happened to that school? Did they fare well in their approach? I understand that this book is around 10 years old, but I’m sure at the time there had to be some data from the school? There were also the NYC Museum School and the Institute of Play. How are they doing now? Are they still even open? Did their educational model work? I also think we could follow individual classrooms and teachers in our own communities, not just huge institutions, to see their successes and failures. These educational trends have been around long enough now that there are people out there applying them to the educational setting. I think we should be attentive to these institutions and individuals to see what changes they are bringing to their classrooms and communities.

I think that this is the first time during this course where I don’t really think the topic of discussion is conducive to a positive learning experience. I see the positives of using popular culture as a ‘hook’ to catch students’ attention when learning a new topic. For example, a physics teacher could use Pokémon as a way to teach gravitational force on a moving object and compare that to the Poke ball being thrown at a Pokémon. In my own field, I could have students create their own trading cards about art principles or artists much in the same way that children create their own Pokémon cards. However, in terms of augmented reality, I feel like someone would need to come along and design a new application or program that used augmented reality for a specific topic. This is one of the major drawbacks to using augmented reality as an emerging educational technology – it isn’t easily accessible to the average classroom teacher. While someone could spend hours and hours programming software for a history game that used augmented reality to ‘meet’ famous historical figures in their everyday world… most of us don’t have the time or know-how to do such a thing (although it would be pretty awesome if we did!). Also, there is the issue of student accountability. Would students be using augmented reality inside the classroom, or would they need to traverse the school and campus in order to find new items/people/topics in the same way that people traverse their communities in order to find new Pokémon? What if there was a fire drill or emergency situation? How would the teacher know where their students were? In a K – 12 setting this obviously wouldn’t work, but in a college setting, perhaps it could. It would be really neat to have freshman engage in a Pokémon Go style orientation where students found and learned about different places on a college campus. However, in general, it doesn’t seem like a good use of technology in an educational setting for most applications.

In his blog article, Wiki’s: Communities Collaborating to Create, Michael Ponza approaches the use of Wikipedia from a variety of angles including academic and emotional. He begins by addressing the 5 W’s of Wikipedia; First in the form of a detailed list and second in the form of a questioning essay. He follows this with a well-designed chart that documents different examples of how Wikipedia can be used in a classroom setting. Finally, he finished with his own thoughts on several case studies, and on Wikis in general. What I found most striking about his response was the emotional attachment he placed on certain ideas. The reasoning behind teachers and older generations’ distrust of Wikipedia as a source was fear. I never really thought of it that way before, but in essence, I would agree. There is definitely a fear of inaccuracy when using Wikipedia – even in myself. It has been so ingrained in many generations of learners to mistrust sources that are not in a well-established print form, that it isn’t surprising that we fear things we feel might be untrue. Well done, Michael!

In Ravan Magrath’s blog post she began with her overall impressions of the articles we read. I must say I agreed wholeheartedly with her opinions when I had to write my own blog article. However, just as Ravan I found a lot of useful information in those articles, to the point that it changed my mind about the use of Wikipedia as a reliable source. In her blog article, Ravan talks about the ideas of internalization and externalization and how they apply to Wiki articles. She also says that she feels the Wiki is a good platform for novices to become apprentices through the creation of articles by individuals with more mastery over a topic. Overall, I think Ravan’s deductions were spot on and well-stated. Great work, Ravan!

In Alex Good’s blog article, How Tricky is Wiki? she starts off sounding the most opposed to using Wikipedia as a source. However, it was clear that the reading from the week swayed even her opinion of Wikis. I think this was solidified by her own research into a topic that she was an expert in herself, and seeing that the article she looked up was verified by a team of experts who worked for WikiHow. I would agree with her assertation that she connected more with the articles that provided practical classroom applications for Wikipedia. Personally, I am always looking for ways to incorporate things into my own classroom and instruction, so reading about Wiki applications in an elementary setting was definitely beneficial. Alex finished her article with her review of a few examples from the readings and her thoughts on those articles. Awesome job, Alex!

Some consistencies I found between all three articles were that they all felt some kind of caution towards Wikis in terms of their accuracy. By the end of each blog post, all three bloggers talked about how the weekly readings had changed their minds about Wikis. I would also lump myself into that grouping as my opinion was changed as well. I also think that as individuals who either teach or work in an educational setting, we all (myself included, again) felt the most useful information came from the article that described situations that were applicable to our everyday situations in our careers. While it is important to have a solid background in research and analysis of each topic we cover, I think it is just as important, if not more so, that we have examples that are tied to academia. It was also interesting to see everyone’s different writing styles even though they all discussed the same topic. All in all, great work everyone!

This week’s readings and videos were especially helpful in seeing ways that students and youth engage in a participatory culture. Henry Jenkins gives his own take on what constitutes a participatory culture in his video and as cited in “Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21^st Century”. Basically, all of his 11 constituents boil down to different groupings of ways people interact with the online community. Most are ideas that we have read about in detail in previous weeks’ readings, but others such as networking, have barely been touched on.

In terms of learning and teaching, I think the most important aspect of participatory culture is collaborating with others. No matter what job or career our students choose in their futures, they are going to have to work with others. They will be hired by someone, have coworkers, or be their own boss and have to communicate their ideas to sell their product or service. Programs such as Scratch and games such as World of Warcraft are just two ways cited in previous readings that both youth and adults can collaborate together. Scratch has online communities of individuals who upload their creations for public review. World of Warcraft is a massively multiplayer online game in which your character can interact with other characters in both chat and activities in the game. By participating in either of these online communities, you are building skills in collaboration.

Another important aspect of participatory culture is creativity. As an art teacher, I feel I know a lot about teaching students to be creative. However, the coursework we have done so far has really opened my eyes to the fact that there are many more tools out there that are teaching students to be just as creative as they would be in art, and in some cases even more so. In the art room, we create works of art using a specific set of tools with a specific set of guidelines. In the digital world students have limitless programs and tools at their disposal to create with what they choose. There are still guidelines and sets of tools depending on what they are doing, but otherwise, the possibilities are limitless.

It is interesting to compare my own content area with all of the Web 2.0 tools we have learned about thus far and make connections to new ways I could be teaching my students using an entirely new approach of digital learning and learning communities. I have mentioned before, just as the teacher referenced in chapter 7 from “Making Projects, Making Friends” (Brennan et al.), that critique groups would be a great way to use Web 2.0 tools in my classroom. However, with this most recent pairing of articles and videos, I realized I could expand that idea even further to critique and share artwork with other students and classrooms in other parts of the country or world. Fantastic! I look forward to reading my classmates’ blogs in the coming days and hope they are all making as many new connections to their content area as I have been.

After reading and listening to the resources for this week’s blog post, I get the sense that creativity is the biggest key to using wikis in the classroom. There were many different examples given of everything from wikis about video games to wikis about laboratory research findings. All focus on collaboration and a community of learners and educators. It would be an easy way to include group work for a project in a setting where all students had a laptop or computer access at home and at school. In the article The Power of Wikis, the author described something that I would have loved while I was in school, and that is the ability for shy people to have a voice in a project and to feel ownership as a contributor. I think everyone has had an experience in school when they had to work in a group with at least one person who wanted to do everything and one person who contributed very little because either they were shy or lazy. I get the feeling that wikis could help to solve this issue in some ways because it would allow all parties involved to contribute on their own time and in their own way. The applications of such group work would only be limited by the creativity of the teacher.

In terms of validity, I think that that too is in the hands of the teacher. There could be very shallow or very complex uses of the wiki in collaborative and community instruction. I think that the key is using it in a way that the communication and sharing of ideas add to the education of each party involved. For example, a wiki used as part of a group assignment where students need to plan something out or share research for the benefit of the group would be two valid ways a teacher could include a wiki in their lesson or unit. In my personal field of art, there could be a sharing of ideas about the intent of an artist, either famous or up and coming. Students could discuss their own feelings and thoughts about what an artist is trying to accomplish and the quality of their work on a wiki. They could then be required to respond in much the same way that we do in our blogs each week. This could open them up to different ideas and viewpoints in a much shorter time than just lecturing and sharing in a classroom. It would also be interesting to see students handle a wiki critique about their work. Each student could share an image of their artwork in response to a prompt or assignment. They could then critique each other’s works in the form of a wiki and share ideas in that way.

In summation, I think that a wiki is a good tool for use in a collaborative learning environment. It seems as though its limitations lie mostly within the creator or instructor and that with good guidance would come good responses and discussions. However, as with most of the Web 2.0 tools we have looked at thus far, they are a good tool to accompany traditional classroom instruction and not meant to replace it.

The person I interviewed for this podcast is a teacher at the building I work at. She is currently taking grad classes in ESL and recently had to use Web 2.0 as part of her classwork. I chose her because she was the colleague who had most recently used Web 2.0 in both collegiate and professional settings.

The interview process was fairly simple and the application I used on my phone to do the recording was free and easy to use. This posting is late, so obviously I would give myself more time to plan questions out next time. I mostly used the provided questions but added a few of my own as we went through the interview.

It is interesting that my interviewee has used Web 2.0 not only in a collegiate setting but also in her own classroom. She discussed using a program called PawToons in her classroom. She said that students were more engaged with the content and loved the presentation. She told me that she offered to let students use PawToons for their animal presentations and they were extremely excited about the prospect of using the program themselves. I think that this program would be great if it were incorporated into the art history portion of my profession to help with student engagement. She also described the use of Facebook by a fellow teacher to keep parents in the loop about her classroom and work. I think this is something else that I could use in my own professional context because I could upload student artwork to share with parents. That paired with Artsonia could be a great fundraising opportunity!

There are more questions than answers when it comes to media literacy and its impact on education. In the journal by David Buckingham titled, “Media education goes digital: an introduction” I found many ideas that I found to be new and interesting in terms of how technology can be incorporated in the classroom. Buckingham reviewed some points that created what he called the “new digital divide” and the “old digital divide”. Basically, what divides our students in terms of their knowledge about digital media and its use in their lives. The “old digital divide” refers to the differences students have in experience with technology based on their socioeconomic status’. The “new digital divide” relates to the vast differences between each individual student and their use and understanding of technology. These ‘new’ differences are fueled primarily by personal interest and social media, as no two individuals will use technology the same way and/or have exactly the same interests. He uses this as one of many arguments for why technology and digital media education are important to its effective use in future classrooms. In years past, your access to technology was limited to the socioeconomic status of your family and your community, but now that the thrill of all this new technology has worn off to some degree, most people have ‘access’ to technology. The new inequity is how much experience and education each individual has with technology. This, he argues, poses a huge problem in implementation. As a teacher, I would 100% agree with this. I have seen so many students who seem technologically proficient enough to use a computer for schoolwork, fail to figure out how to log in, fail to be able to do research, and fail to be able to use, what I consider in an academic setting to be, standard software. I have also seen students who play on their cell phones all day, but don’t know how to talk on a cell phone without the speakerphone on. Contradictory and frightening indeed.

In the article by Danah Boyd titled, “Did Media Literacy Backfire?” and the article by Carole Cadwalladr titled “Google is not ‘just’ a platform…” there is further discussion about the importance of media literacy and ways that it appears to have failed some in our society. Boyd focuses the discussion more on sources that are used for information and an idea I will refer to as, “the experience vs. expertise dilemma”. It is obvious to anyone who has gone through the public education system in the last 20 or so years that you need to use credible sources for any type of research you do. What is called into question is the fact that not everyone sees the same sources as being credible. For example, some might say that Wikipedia is credible, while others do not. A number of examples are outlined in this article that backs up the points made by the journal written by David Buckingham: digital media education is the crux of future classrooms in terms of implementing digital media. Another one of Boyd’s main points is that people often use their own research and self-entitled ‘expertise’ to make decisions that should be left to professionals with experience. Hence, the experience vs. expertise dilemma. The push for years has been for individuals to do their own research and to question anything that their gut tells them isn’t quite right. Unfortunately, that trend has resulted in some fairly significant groups of conspiracy theorists. Additionally, Cadwalladr points out that some sources that are supposed to be neutral, are actually not. Google is put on the stake here and demonized for its supposed underlying right-wing agenda.

It is clear through the iterations of these three authors, as well as my own experiences with students and technology in the classroom, that much more thought and energy must be put into digital media education in all schools across the nation, and the world. Even though there are some things I’m sure all educators will agree need to be taught in such a curriculum, as Boyd phrased it: “No simple Band-Aid will work.”

As someone who grew up around technology, I feel that the ideas shared in this week’s reading and viewing materials are definitely heading down the right path for integrating learning and technology. The idea that individuals learn best when they are allowed to incorporate their passion and interests, is fascinating. I think innately, I already knew this to be true, but would never have been able to articulate it without hearing someone else describe it as they did in “Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design”, and the videos by James Gee and Henry Jenkins. Obviously, the ideas in these resources are geared more towards our learners who are in middle school and beyond, as one would need a solid elementary education in order to know what to research and how to look for it. I think that Henry Jenkins said it best in his video when he said that we can’t have ‘feral children of the internet’ who are allowed to learn everything on their own. Most children would, as he put it, be left behind. I also think this reinforces the ideas that we have all shared in the past few weeks that, technology, while a valuable resource, is just that – a resource. It will not and can not replace a primary level education.

As an extension of these ideas, James Gee related the way learning occurs in video games to the idea of connected learning. As an avid gamer, I also found this fascinating! I had never thought about the fact that a video game teaches you how to solve problems and win, and that it has to be good at it in order for the company that produced it to be successful. I can parallel this idea to what happens in my classroom since my lessons are very production-based. Students are given a set of tools and/or information pertaining to a project that I would like them to complete. Then, their goal is to find a way to solve the ‘problem’ (project) while often incorporating their own ideas.

Finally, I was happy to see in “Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design”, that the authors talked about equality in education and the impacts that technology, or a lack thereof, impact our more sensitive populations. They referred to these populations as ‘non-dominant youth’, but in essence, they encompass many of the students in our urban and rural populations. Students who are growing up in poverty and/or who are from minority groups. These students often face inequalities right down to a lack of parental interaction and influence. I thought it was interesting that this publication discussed how increased technology use in more ‘dominant’ or privileged schools, widens the success gap between dominant and non-dominant youths. It also stated that in order for reform to happen, questions need to be asked about issues of equality. Many of my students have phones, but just as many don’t have a strong support system at home that would promote growth and success in a connected learning environment. In the particular school, I teach in, our technology resources are severely limited, especially when compared to our nearby suburban counterparts. Our students are definitely not benefiting from connected learning and would need much more support for this type of learning theory to work for them.

All in all, I think that the ideas discussed in the two publications and in the videos were interesting and show opportunities for positive change in education. However, I agree that we need to make sure we are addressing quality in our more sensitive schools to make sure that implementing these ideas wouldn’t be a flop.

Change isn’t always good, but in the case of education – change is necessary. Any teacher will tell you that there are problems with the education system. While many of these problems surround funding and a lack of resources, there are some problems with education that may not be immediately obvious. One of the largest issues with education today is that learners are changing the way they think and process new information due to the highly technologized world we live in. The technology we use is literally rewiring the way our brains think and process information, according to the article by George Siemens titled, “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age”. It is time for education to catch up with this trend.

In addition to the change in our brains, there are other trends in learning that are cited in the article “Connectivism…” such as the fact that much of learning is becoming an informal process as opposed to a formal one. People use technology and social media to access information immediately and sometimes even add their own knowledge or expertise to what they find. This makes learning more of a lifetime process and may be part of the reason that people are more likely to change careers at least once in their lives. It also points to these information systems being similar to ecological systems because they are not static and are able to be changed by those who access them.

Perhaps the most important summation of these new trends in learning is stated in the article as, “Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the understanding of where to find the knowledge needed).” The author summarizes some of the more traditional learning theories and comes to the conclusion that a new theory of learning is needed, as opposed to the ‘knee-jerk’ reaction of simply modifying the older theories. He calls this new theory ‘connectivism’ as it focuses on the learner as being connected to many sources of information in a variety of ways, creating a complex network of sorts.

With this new theory in mind, you may be wondering, ‘How would this apply to the classroom? We can’t simply expect students to acquire new information on their own without guidance, can we?’ Of course, the answer to this question is: no. Teachers are still an important and integral part of the student’s educational experiences. What may need to change is the type of scaffolding students receive from their teachers, how they will make meaningful connections to new material, and how that information is delivered.

Another article by Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown, titled “A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change”, describes what they feel is a key component in this new, more fluid educational infrastructure. That component is imagination. As an art educator, my interest was sparked at this word because it is also a key component in the arts. My students use their imagination almost every class to incorporate the material I teach them with their life experiences to create an individual work of art or product. The article continues to highlight examples where imagination is shown to be a key component in the new ecology of learning. Essentially, in each example, learners are shown to communicate in a social network related to their interests. This social learning allows ideas to be exchanged, enhanced, and shared. Since these same ideas are key components of online gaming, it is no coincidence that there are references to MMOs (massively multiplayer online) in this article. Again, my interest was sparked by this, as I am an avid gamer and play World of Warcraft almost every day.

The ideas discussed in these two articles really resonate with me as an artist, art teacher, and gamer. Some of them, I already implement in my own classroom such as trying to cultivate imagination. Others, such as social networking as a resource for learning, are more foreign. As someone who has already seen firsthand the social implications of using technology on a daily basis, I believe that these new learning ecologies would fit in well with the way that I teach and think about learning. My struggle in an inner-city school will, of course, be funding and resources. However, since many students have their own technology that they bring with them each and every day, perhaps it is just a matter of using what is already there and transforming it to meet educational purposes and not just social purposes.