This week I read a few articles about copyright laws and education, this subject is not foreign to me. Being a music major and also having made multiple albums, I have had to deal with copyrights before. But I have to admit that I still am fuzzy on what infringes on other peoples rights when it comes to this, maybe even more so now.
The articles I read had to do with "fair use" within the copyright laws. Fair use is when a copyrighted piece of work can be used for educational purposes as long as these four factors are weighed in and accounted for: 1. purpose of use 2. nature of work 3. amount used 4. effect on the market. The tricky part is assessing whether any of these four factors have actually been infringed on. For example, amount used; you're not allowed to show a whole piece of work but how much is too much? Or purpose of use: who's to say it wasn't for educational use or personal use?
I took a test after reading these articles to see if certain examples were infringing on copyright laws and I did quite poorly. This makes me not want to use any intellectual property out of fear of breaking the law. It seems to me that what is defined as breaking a copyright law changes from one case to another and that scares me.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Technology Integration Matrix
For this weeks blog I will be talking about the technology integration matrix, which is a tool for teachers that illustrates how teachers can use technology to enhance learning for K-12 students. It incorporates five interdependent characteristics of meaningful learning environments: active, constructive, goal directed (i.e., reflective), authentic, and collaborative.
Today I would like to talk about one of the specific squares in the grid, collaborative at the transformation level. You can find their example here collaborative transformation level.
This example has the student typing a description of their home city in word, then reciting it in garage band (adding sound effects where necessary) and making it into a podcast for students all over the world to hear. Then they see how their counterpart does, if they have a problem guessing the city, the student adds more details to their description.
After viewing this example and reading the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers NETS for teachers, I found that a lot of these standards are incorporated in the lesson. For example, standards 1a, promotes creative thinking and 1b, engaging students in solving authentic problems using digital tools. Also 4d, develop and model cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with colleagues and students of other cultures using digital-age communication and collaboration tools, can be seen in this lesson.
This lesson does not seem to be that engaging for the teacher, they are more of a monitor in this lesson. Personally, I believe I am at the adaption/infusion level of integrating technology in the classroom. This is much higher than when I started this class, so I'm headed in the right direction. I feel that I can easily communicate with parents, students or colleagues over the internet in a comprehensive way, thus expanding the walls of my classroom.
Today I would like to talk about one of the specific squares in the grid, collaborative at the transformation level. You can find their example here collaborative transformation level.
This example has the student typing a description of their home city in word, then reciting it in garage band (adding sound effects where necessary) and making it into a podcast for students all over the world to hear. Then they see how their counterpart does, if they have a problem guessing the city, the student adds more details to their description.
After viewing this example and reading the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers NETS for teachers, I found that a lot of these standards are incorporated in the lesson. For example, standards 1a, promotes creative thinking and 1b, engaging students in solving authentic problems using digital tools. Also 4d, develop and model cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with colleagues and students of other cultures using digital-age communication and collaboration tools, can be seen in this lesson.
This lesson does not seem to be that engaging for the teacher, they are more of a monitor in this lesson. Personally, I believe I am at the adaption/infusion level of integrating technology in the classroom. This is much higher than when I started this class, so I'm headed in the right direction. I feel that I can easily communicate with parents, students or colleagues over the internet in a comprehensive way, thus expanding the walls of my classroom.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Podcast
Podcast Powered By Podbean
In my podcast, I have given examples from four different time periods: Baroque, Classical, Romantic and 20th Century. The students will be able to listen to and compare the different styles. It's their assignment to think about these differences and come to class prepared to discuss them. If they do so, it will save time in the class and I will have extended the walls of my classroom.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Teaching Creativity
I am a musician so selling me on nurturing creativity in our schools is not difficult. I believe there are benefits that go way beyond learning a specific art that you are studying. I always refer people to this link why we teach music. Studies have also shown that when someone is playing music, it is one of the only activities that uses both the left and right side of the brain, connecting the logical and creative side. So studying music (or other arts) can help someone in other subjects or everyday life, it doesn't mean they are studying to be a musician.
Sir Ken Robinson brings up the story Schools Kill Creativity about the choreographer for Cats and other Broadway plays, going on to say that when she was a girl, she didn't pay attention in school and was fidgety. So her teacher recommended dance school and she grew up to be a successful Broadway choreographer and millionaire entrepreneur. This is a bit misleading. What if she went to dance school and became a mediocre dancer? Would she have any other skills to fall back on?
This is what parents will be asking when more emphasis is put on the arts and creativity in schools.
The point of that story, I think, is that if the girl stayed with her regular schooling, then she may have continued to misbehave and not do well academically. Whether or not she was going to be a dancer, she need that outlet of creativity and movement.
Will education shift to emphasize creativity and the arts? Not any time soon. It's too risky of a proposition for both parents and educators to see the value in it. They must understand that we are not teaching the arts so our kids will grow up to be musicians or artists or painters or dancers, we teach the arts so that our kids will grow up to be better people
Sir Ken Robinson brings up the story Schools Kill Creativity about the choreographer for Cats and other Broadway plays, going on to say that when she was a girl, she didn't pay attention in school and was fidgety. So her teacher recommended dance school and she grew up to be a successful Broadway choreographer and millionaire entrepreneur. This is a bit misleading. What if she went to dance school and became a mediocre dancer? Would she have any other skills to fall back on?
This is what parents will be asking when more emphasis is put on the arts and creativity in schools.
The point of that story, I think, is that if the girl stayed with her regular schooling, then she may have continued to misbehave and not do well academically. Whether or not she was going to be a dancer, she need that outlet of creativity and movement.
Will education shift to emphasize creativity and the arts? Not any time soon. It's too risky of a proposition for both parents and educators to see the value in it. They must understand that we are not teaching the arts so our kids will grow up to be musicians or artists or painters or dancers, we teach the arts so that our kids will grow up to be better people
21st Century Skills ....Friend or Fad
I started my graduate career at MSU in Sept of 2010 and since then, 21st Century Skills have been incorporated into the lesson plans being taught to me and in the lesson plans that I've been making for my students. But it never occurred to me that these new standards in teaching weren't here to stay. After reading several articles that were both for and against these new skill sets, there was one thing that I was sure of, fads do happen in the education world.
This was something that I hadn't realized, but the word fad came up in about 80 percent of the articles leading me to believe that it has happened before. According to Diane Ravitch article, "Criticle Thinking? You Need Knowledge", it's been happening since the early 1900's. And just like 21st Century Skills these "fads" emphasized hands on learning and real world skills.
The question has been asked if I think that this is a fad, and to me that means do I think this will last or revert back to emphasis on fundamental knowledge (the 3 R's); it is asking me to predict the future. If I make my prediction based on the past, then yes, I believe this doesn't have enough steam to keep moving. There seems to be too much opposition to the movement.
People like Jay Mathews who is calling it a pipe dream and Daniel Willingham who says that Partnership for 21st Century Skills has overstepped their bounds by not just setting goals but suggesting methods, assessments and professional development that have not themselves been assessed and shown to be affective are both fighting this movement for various reasons. Although if you read their articles, you will see that both of them find value in what the 21st Century Skills are teaching.
The problem seems to be not so much the content, but how its delivered and there needs to be a balance (that everyone can agree upon) between the hands on, critical thinking, communication and people skills offered by 21st Century Skills and the fundamental knowledge of the core disciplines. Until teachers find a happy medium, this will continue to be a fad.
This was something that I hadn't realized, but the word fad came up in about 80 percent of the articles leading me to believe that it has happened before. According to Diane Ravitch article, "Criticle Thinking? You Need Knowledge", it's been happening since the early 1900's. And just like 21st Century Skills these "fads" emphasized hands on learning and real world skills.
The question has been asked if I think that this is a fad, and to me that means do I think this will last or revert back to emphasis on fundamental knowledge (the 3 R's); it is asking me to predict the future. If I make my prediction based on the past, then yes, I believe this doesn't have enough steam to keep moving. There seems to be too much opposition to the movement.
People like Jay Mathews who is calling it a pipe dream and Daniel Willingham who says that Partnership for 21st Century Skills has overstepped their bounds by not just setting goals but suggesting methods, assessments and professional development that have not themselves been assessed and shown to be affective are both fighting this movement for various reasons. Although if you read their articles, you will see that both of them find value in what the 21st Century Skills are teaching.
The problem seems to be not so much the content, but how its delivered and there needs to be a balance (that everyone can agree upon) between the hands on, critical thinking, communication and people skills offered by 21st Century Skills and the fundamental knowledge of the core disciplines. Until teachers find a happy medium, this will continue to be a fad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)