No, really...

I know this is late, mostly because I was going to take a pass this week, but this article has been gnawing on me for a bit and reading comments on others, I have to.

Large Hadron Collider

Ok, you all know I hate technology, but maybe not the reasons why. This article felt like a good idea, like the particle accelerator
at CERN, but also what happens when that power gets into the wrong hands or is used the wrong way? Even the good guys could accidentally create a black hole with that thing, and then what?

Here are my questions/problems with this idea of implementing technology:

How can people be taught to communicate and interact when they're staring at a screen and tapping messages out? I am a Facebook un-fan. Yes, I do have a page and in my defense, it has been good in communicating with a specific group of people I see once a year. I have 29 friends there. One is my mom, one my sister, and only because my sis lives soooo far away. What I hate about it, is people put things on there they would never dare say to another person face to face. It makes them bold and opinionated, without the consequence of seeing the look of disappointment on their conversational partners. When did it become so hard to actually make time to get together with our friends and neighbors and how will children know how to do that if they are never taught to get away from their screens, even at school? Will the cafeteria be filled with children staring at screens while eating as they text the person sitting next to them?

Which one?

How many platforms are going to be utilized? Will they be compatible  Will we have interface wars like Google and Apple? In four classes I have taken so far from WSU, I have had to learn how to use three different platforms to participate. As far as I can see, no data from each transfers to the other, plus, dummy me, I have to spend hours at each one figuring out how it works before I even start the class. I know kids are smarter than I in that regard, but my questions still stand.

How will information transfer when students move? This one is kind of related to the one above. We all know kids move between school and between districts. How can we transfer their data between platforms? Do students take their tablets with them when they move? What happens when they go from the super-awesome-everyone-has-a-tablet school, to the regular one that can't yet afford that program? What happens to their data? And what use is it to the new school?

Screen time for kids should be limited! That's not a question. I have no research quotes to back this up, but I am sure that many kids have spent too much time being overstimulated by a screen, be it tv, computer or video games. I truly think this has contributed to the rash, nay, epidemic of ADHD that has been running rampant in our youth. I know this is a bold statement and I have done very little research on it. My own children get less than two hours of tv a week. When they get more than that, they get antsy and overactive. Instead, they go outside and play or create things with their toys.

Well, are you?

When the power goes out...? While this is a highly unlikely scenario, we only have three power grids in the US, one of them shared with Canada (Texas actually has its very own!). With the
increasing demand for electric to power our new cars, new gadgets and all the regular stuff we've been using power for forever, the grids become stressed. Some cities have experience rolling black-outs and brown-outs. How is this good for an electrically based education system. (No, I'm not a Prepper, but I do believe in being prepared). One of the funniest things I ever get to see is what happens when a store's cash register stops thinking for the clerk. I end up having to count my own change back to myself. Yes, I have a sardonic sense of humor, but why are people relying on a machine to do math for them when they have the most sophisticated computer on the planet? Teachers have this computer available to them as well, and many use it and use it well!! Why use a sub-par computer in competition to this one?

That being said...
I really do think technology can help to improve the education of children. They are so used to using tech already, it would only be a small step for most of them from texting and web browsing to classroom blog discussion and educational games. Teachers must learn to adapt and use the resources available.

Nook or Kindle?

Putting text books onto tablets is a great idea! Saves paper, updates can be done automatically, speech
readers can talk the student through the book if they have trouble with reading (though, we have to remember, the kid still needs to know how to read!), kids can even take notes right there on the screen.

Will the tech of our education follow us digitally in the next 50 years? I hope not, actually. We should all get to start again, anew, when we age out of school, but it could be handy, if used correctly.

Parity

Hmmm...Where do I even begin? While each article discussed the multitude of ways students are/can be different from each other, they were all a more in-depth rehashing of what we've been learning. Of course, they will all contain examples on differentiation, that is the class we are taking, after all. Amusingly, the lesson that stuck out most to me was not how kids can discreetly ask for help without feeling they look stupid (Tobin, 2005) or how some seemingly genius math students can also be in the Vulture reading group (Winebrenner, 2003), but the lesson of "parity issues" in Tobin (2005) which really had nothing to do with students at all.

With the mention of the word "parity", which is an unusual word to use, (and to use it twice!), I considered the possibility that this author was dissatisfied with her choice of study and/or setting in which it took place. Did the parity issue of Tobin not getting a say in curricular decisions (as specifically mentioned) color her results? Even the recorded statements of the children mentioned in the article were ambiguous and I did not see much evidence that this study proved anything except that more time and equality was needed for concrete results.

Jumping in

Not sure what Tobin was thinking, jumping into a class like that and expecting to be considered an equal when she had no repertoire with the teachers or the students. I feel like the students did not trust her to give her "real" answers when she asked questions and when they did not ask for her help. Did her mere presence disrupt the learning flow of the lower achievers mentioned? Would they have done better if Tobin only observed and did not participate? Apparently, more time and further study are needed.

This being said, Winebrenner's and Tobin's other article (2007) did give some good advice on what some kinds of differentiation look like and how to implement them. Winebrenner gives a great how-to guide for teaching "twice-exceptional" students. I like how the methods can be used for any of the students in the room and all are given the opportunity to test out. This sounds like a classroom of true differentiation. Is it possible for this classroom to exist? Is it possible on top of all the other teacher requirements?

Tobin's (2007) article was differentiation as it applies to literacy. I see a lot of practical ideas and I'm relieved that it took Rachael two years (with more to go, I'm sure) to develop her practices. So many times, I've been feeling like all of the things I'm learning, I should just be able to jump in and do. I know this is not so. As with anything, it takes experience and practice. Now, I have a written and published validation of this.                    

Back to "parity," these articles all have a common theme (to me). That is, equal doesn't mean the same and we all need to accept, embrace the differences we see in each other.

Found this in a teacher's classroom.   This is a link. It is supposed to be purple!

Differentiating differentiation differently

So, first, I want to respond to each of the articles separately, and then I have a few on-going questions about studies in general. Here goes...

Hertzog's article gave an overview of open-ended activities and how they can be beneficial to all learners, but especially to those identified as gifted. This article was the most informative to me. I did not even know such a thing as open-ended activities existed. Open-ended activities (OEA) can be accessible to general ed students as well as gifted. My favorite quote from this article was that of one of the teachers: "This is what the task is. What are you going to do?" That sums up open-ended in  a nutshell. Here's the problem, tell me how you're going to fix it. This gives students the control and the teacher is truly and advisor/coach.

Devin's art :)

I also liked that Hertzog pointed out that the gifted students are not all gifted in all areas. In fact, drawing is pointed out specifically that general ed and even lower achievers, excel at drawing and are better at it than the gifted students. I think this can be helpful for both ends of the spectrum: It helps the lower and general education students see that they can excel at something, it helps with discouragement if they compare themselves to the higher kids AND helps higher achievers retain some humility - they can't and won't be great at everything all the time.

Werderich's article described what and how dialogue journals can be used. Separating student responses into categories can help a teacher determine what response type to use depending on where the student should be guided. I'm not sure separating them into 150 categories is practical, but maybe three to five would be useful. The "real conversation" in the
journals lets students know the teacher is not giving everyone the same canned response, that the teacher is actually reading and paying attention to what the students say. Having that written record can also help both teacher and students see progress of reading and insights, be reminded of previous conversations or see changes in interest and let parents see how their children are using the learning they are acquiring

One might also compare these journals to texting, something more and more students (and people in general) are doing. My dad once asked me what was the point in texting. I told him it was a perfect way to communicate non-urgent information that could be looked at at one's convenience, like putting a note in a mailbox, only digitally. The journals seem to function a little like this. Students and teacher alike can leave each other "notes in the mailbox" and communicate over time when it is good for them.

This one was easy to read and the process of journaling seemed more practical in use and less part of one of those "ideal" classrooms that feel impossible to achieve.

Umm...

Lastly, the Dalton article. I honestly couldn't read the tables and all the numbers made absolutely no sense to me. Apparently, my brain prefers anecdotal information. Can this article be translated into English with one of the ICON programs it mentions? I had to sift through a bunch of numbers and references to get any information. I see that computer scaffolding is helpful when used in a combination of comprehension and vocabulary and it seems to work best for monolingual English speakers. Is this because this is who the program is geared toward or because this demographic is the most familiar with digital technology already?

I most liked how the ICON program was similar to how a real web page works. It had hyper-links and lots of scaffolding. If a web page is not easy to navigate, no one will go back and the kids seemed to like this one. I kind had another duh moment when I read that a combination of comprehension and  vocabulary worked best. The two kind of go hand in hand.

That being said, here are my questions:

Does the ethnicity of a student matter? Why does every research article feel the need to separate people into groups "of color"? If a student is gifted, then she's gifted. Who cares what her heritage is?

We have "pull-out" and "push-in" programs for lower achievers. Why not the same benefits for high achievers? For that matter, why not separate all students by achievement level rather than age? It would be more beneficial for the students and easier for the teachers (hoping not to offend anyone, just questioning here)? Factory model again.

The Werderich article mentioned that teachers may possibly be influencing how students responded in their journal. Aren't teachers supposed to influence their students? Isn't that part of their job description?