Point/Counterpoint: Shold Schools Be Required to Teach Digital Citizenship?

Author Jason Ohler argues that digital citizenship should be integrated into basic education with teachers encouraging the development of the digital footprints of their students. He proposes to expand the view of digital life past just cyber-bullying and online safety. While these issues are important, Ohler suggests that teaching about them should take place concurrently with studying the impact and scope of students' technology use. Furthermore, Ohler asks for digital citizenship to be infused throughout the day at school rather that just for an hour or two at a computer lab and then back to learning without technology. He concludes with a suggestion that schools and teachers reward exceptional digital citizenship of their students which currently does not occur often enough.

Marianne Malmstrom takes the opposing view but does not entirely disagree with Ohler's arguments. She asks that schools do not teach digital citizenship but rather provide a safe environment for students to learn the best digital practices on their own. For example, Malmstrom points out the absurdity that the same schools that ban access to all social media sites then expect their students to use such sites safely and effectively. I think Malmstrom's approach is to leave more open to the students because like it or not, a large portion of them will get it at home from a young age anyways. So rather being taught directly, students "explore," alongside their educators, the digital world.

I think both authors offer valid points and make some mistakes. I am uneasy with the idea of putting every student in a digital environment before every student has easy access to that world. I know while at school, computers are becoming increasingly available and campus wide wifi keeps everyone online. However at home it is a different situation for many students. Not every student has access to a computer or an internet connection. Poorer students already at a disadvantage may be pushed further down the ladder if these policies are implemented before there is total digital access.

The article best addresses Nets Standard three, "Research and Information Fluency," because that standard involves the application of digital tools as an educational resources.

Apps Without Tablets/Smartphones

Venegas's short article presents the possibility of using apps without the pricey iPad/tablet or smartphone. This is especially good for lower elementary level students where cell phones and tablets are less commonly owned by the students. That is not to say it is not helpful to high school and middle school students as well. Although Venegas doesn't mention it, the ability to use school computers with Chrome could help deteriorate the advantage students with more access to technology have. No doubt the students with iPads and smartphones will still have an edge based on the portability and constant accessibility of their devices but incorporating Venegas's ideas makes app based projects a viable possibility. Teachers could allow students to either use their own devices or the computers owned by the school. This still creates a small issue of whether the students who opt to use the school computers will be ostracized by the students with access to their own devices. From my own classroom observation and discussions with teachers in the Carlsbad Unified School District, I have learned that administrators are no longer speaking up about the presence of technology in the classroom. In one class I observed, nearly every student had their cell phone on their desk while the teacher was talking. One student even asked a history question and the teacher responded by telling him to look it up on the phone on his desk. I mention this experience because I think it just goes to show, no matter what, students are going to bring technology into the classroom. However that does not have to be a bad thing. I think Venegas's idea to incorporate educational apps without the need for every student to own the technology needed to use it offers educators a great opportunity to introduce their students to exciting new educational tools without too much concern about favoring the students with access to technology.

The article best addresses the first ITSE standard because it facilitates and promotes student creativity and learning.

 

Citation:

 
Venegas, Juan C. (2013). Learning Connections: You Don't Need an iPad for These Web Apps! Learning & Leaning With Technology. Retrieved, from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-leading/l-l-march-april-2013/LC

From Degrading to De-grading

http://voicethread.com/share/4277538/

Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for Everyone

By David Barr, John Harrison, and Leslie Conery

I think the authors of this article want to see computational thinking grow and come into wide use within the classroom because they see it as a tool that can go along with other learning to offer a higher standard of learning and the ability to solve more complex problems. The authors seemed to want to garner support for CT by giving a basic overview of what it is and how it can help in schools. From my understanding of the article, CT is like a tool that makes learning more efficient. I could not find a clear definition of the term and it looks like one of the drawbacks to CT is the lack of a clear definition. I saw this as a major weak point of the article, how are the readers expected to have a great appreciation and support for CT if the three authors cannot even clearly explain what it is? Nonetheless, it seems like the authors are trying to say CT is a multitude of computer-based tools dedicated to solving a wide array of problems.

When I read the article I immediately thought of using calculators in school. Getting the basics 2 + 2, simple multiplication and division has real life applications so calculators should not replace the process of working out a problem. That being said, when students get to high school and start working on trigonometric equations, to do the work on paper would be tedious and frustratingly pointless, knowing there is a tool that will complete several minutes of work with the click of a few buttons. I see the use of CT as similar to the use of graphing calculators in education. I think the roadblocks to CT are similar to the roadblocks standing in the way of every student having a calculator at least capable of helping to solve precalculus equations. For one, the cost of CT or advanced calculators seems high at first. I imagine making every school ready for CT would mean purchasing more computers for the classrooms and additional software and time to train teachers how to integrate CT in their lesson plans. Even so, once that initial cost is paid it looks like the benefit to using CT would be exponential.  

Five Steps to an Accessible Classroom Website

Lisa Amundson's article offers a quick list of suggestions aimed at making websites run by teachers for their classrooms more accessible. By accessible Amundson means for a wide array of potential visitors, from the hearing impaired, to disabled, to blind, or even color blind. Methods to create such a webpage are outlined in a five step process. First, a webpage should be organized with headers and broken down like an outline. In addition, the colors on the page should be easily discernible in gray scale. Second, the page should be navigable without a mouse by pressing tab to roll through headlines and links on the page. Third, images should have text explanations to describe what the images are to someone who cannot see the images either because of a vision impairment or due to problems with the writing of the image. Fourth, page creators should make sure their links are clearly labeled, so that the text of the link that someone clicks on reflects the content that will follow. Fifth and finally, web validators should be used to detect any accessibility problems. As a final check, Amundson suggests going to the newly created page with sound turned off, images turned off, and with a gray scale color scheme selected. If the webpage is still navigable even when the window is resized, then it is probably ready for use by students and parents alike.

Amundson wrote this article to inform teachers of the many things to consider when creating a class webpage. Some of her suggestions came as a surprise to me, like avoiding the colors red and green which are difficult for colorblind people to discern. I found some of her suggestions overly tedious though. Maybe that was the way I saw it because I do not have experience with webpage design. So I might have a hard time figuring out how to implement her suggestions without additional assistance. I mean I would not want to spend hours pouring over a webpage to make an altercation that may not even benefit any of my constituents. I personally would want to first find out which impairments need addressing and then make a page accordingly to avoid wasting time. My feeling might change if she offered an additional article that presented easy ways to implement her five steps or once I had enough experience with webpage creation to quickly figure in these five steps myself.

Journal Article #2

Doug Johnson wrote the article "By Computing in the Clouds" to educate K-12 teachers and administrators about the benefits of cloud computing. The biggest benefit of the cloud, cost reduction of computing for the classroom, could revolutionize school life for students and teachers alike. In addition to reducing the cost of bringing technology to the classroom, Johnson suggests cloud use could increase the effiency of schools. In making the argument for his case, Johnson informs his readers that he completed all of the work for his article on the cloud. By using the article and other examples of cloud use to cover nearly every situation a student would need a computer for, Johnson makes a case that schools could raise the standard of modern learning while, decreasing their budget over time. Because cloud computing puts the burden of running an endless number of software programs for nearly any situation on outside servers rather than the specific computer accessing that software, computers do not need to be as powerful. That is, cheaper computers with slower processors and less memory, could be as effective as their more expensive counterparts. This would enable students to use either inexpensive netbooks, as Johnson advocates, or extremely inexpensive home computers. Johnson seems to favor the portability of netbooks that he explains sell for as little as 250 dollars but I do not think he should ignore the possibility of cheap, bare bones desktop computers, which I have personally assembled spending under 100 dollars. Whatever the case though I think Johnson forgets to mention one major cost, the cost of Internet. Blanketing a school with Wi-Fi is not cheap. Furthermore, is Johnson suggesting students will be able to access all their content at home? If so add in a monthly charge for parents to maintain a connection for their little learners. Sure Johnson explains some work could be saved to run when offline but I doubt the inexpensive netbook would not be able to save many memory intensive projects. That puts a damper on Johnson's theory that asking a parent to buy a netbook would be too much more to ask for than buying a graphing calculator. Plus, I doubt any current "cloudware" can accomplish the tasks of a graphing calculator so it is not like the netbook cost will negate the cost of a graphing calculator, it will exist in addition to that cost.
On a more optimistic side, Johnson's idea of integrating netbooks would allow teachers to easily satisfy all five Nets standards. Also as time goes on, the cost of capable netbooks will only decline and the number of cloud-based software programs will only increase. Therefore, I think Johnson's conclusion that a combination of cloud computing and inexpensive student computers will transform education is not too far off, but it will take time.

Blog at your own risk.

The two opinions on blogging presented in the article "By Point/Counterpoint is Blogging Worth the Risk?" each have some merit. On the side of James Maxlow, the author admits there is a risk present in blogging or any social media activity done online. That risk however, is determined to be less than rewards that can be achieved by blogging for personal or professional reasons. While, Maxlow attempts to say a company would have a hard time firing an employee for "personal communication,"if that communication is posted on a blog then it is no longer personal. The nature of a blog gives many people access to the author's thoughts rather than just a select individual as in a written letter, email, or phone call. So although Maxwell makes the point that companies should not terminate or punish their employees for such "personal communication" it might be proactive as an employee to prevent the company from ever having a chance to look into your personal life.

I think Lisa Nielson makes a more compelling argument in her description of how starting a blog created issues that spiraled out of control. Nielson suggests that most bloggers in the world of education start out with a righteous intent but are bombarded by criticism for taking a new approach to teaching. A majority of teachers, like many people are afraid of change, even when that change has the potential to offer a big benefit. Then what are bloggers like Nielson and Maxwell to do about their blogging situations? They both felt blogging was helpful activity but they both admitted it carried severe risk. They both seemed dedicated to carrying on despite the risk. However, I find that it just would not be worth the headache at this day and time.

ahtehsgj

This is my first post.