Blog #2 Having Students Use Word Processing to Construct Meaning

#2 Word Processing to Construct Meaning

Tell us the level of students with whom you plan on teaching as well as your content area or the content area you have chosen for the newsletter. Tell us the standard you are working with. Then, explain the benchmark and/or grade level indicators you used for the Newsletter assignment.

Most importantly, reflect on how your newsletter activity represents a learner-centered activity where your future students (on their own or with younger children, working with the teacher) would be able to construct meaning regarding the benchmark or grade level indicators by using word processing.

The Newsletter I would have my Eleventh Grade English students create would focus on the Research Standard. There are seven (7) specific grade level indicators with the research process and I could take two different approaches. I could have students work in pairs and each pair would create a newsletter to cover one of the seven aspects and then each pair would share their newsletter. Or, I could have students work in groups of four and create a newsletter that would provide an overview of all seven. I chose the latter approach, but after using this approach, I now believe it would be better to employ each approach in the same class. By doing that, I could have some students work in groups of four, and others work in pairs. That would be advantageous because not all students enjoy working in groups. Also, this approach would provide both an overview of the Research Standard as well as specifics on each of the seven grade level indicators for the Research Standard for grades 11 & 12. Briefly, the seven concepts covered are a) open-ended questions that also narrow the scope; b) identifying appropriate sources; c) determining accuracy of sources; d) analysis of the complexity and diversity of information acquired; e) importance of and how to integrate quotes; f) the need to use style guides and appropriate citations; and g) the need for a variety of delivery mechanisms.

Ultimately, my goal as a teacher with these benchmarks is for my students to be able to effectively use these skills when engaged in research and functioning as citizens in a democracy. As such, it is important to me that students not only understand these standards, but they are also able to use them while doing research. For these reasons, I wanted to take an approach that accomplished several important things. First, my students needed to discover for themselves what the terminology means (constructing their own meaning). I know that different students would find slightly different meanings, but for me that is critical because that is an important characteristic of the research process. Not all information in this area is absolute, some of the information is relative. Plus, since multiple students will be looking at the Research Standards and 7 grade-level indicators, I believe all the important aspects would be covered. Second, I want my students to retain this information, and as such, it was important that they were engage in finding its meaning. If they just read about these standards or took notes on them, they would not be as likely to retain or understand the information. Finally, I want my students to realize that process of research means a lot of different things - it is composed of several different steps. Either approach -- having students work in groups to cover all seven characteristics or breaking it down into seven separate tasks and having different pairs of students cover each aspect -- would accomplish these three goals.

Blog #1 Wikipedia: Blessing or Burden

Blog # 1: From an educational perspective (as a both a current student and a future teacher) is Wikipedia a blessing or a burden? As a teacher, what would you tell your future students about Wikipedia's role in education?

A journey begins with one step ...True knowledge is knowing what you know and knowing what you don't know ...In the context of the above two somewhat famous quotations, I would say that Wikipedia offers more positives than negatives WHEN you accept it for WHAT IT IS!And, what is it? It is an encyclopedia. Back in the late 50's when I was in elementary school, every class had a set of encyclopedias. It was where little tykes, like myself (yes, I was actually "little" once), could go to learn something about something we didn't know. We could not go to the library every time we had a question. As such, the classroom encyclopedias were accessible, convenient, and a BEGINNING! People of my age can certainly remember using information from the encyclopedia and trying to change things so that you weren't copying. That was not easy because encyclopedia language is already "freeze dried." In summary here, theses encyclopedias were the "first step" or a beginning, just like Wikpedia is a first step or a beginning. Wikipedia is accessible, convenient, and YES - a BEGINNING!One undeniable advantage any online encyclopedia has over the old-school encyclopedia (in addition to cost) is that as information changes (and let's be honest here -- it frequently does) the information on Wikipedia can easily be changed - at no cost.One of the most common complaints leveled at Wikipedia is that it is unreliable because it can be changed by ANYONE! While there is some truth to this, anyone who has followed Wikipedia since it's inception knows that they have found ways to improve reliability. While it is not 100% reliable (what sources are), they do have some safeguards in place. First, you have to create an account. Second, your IP address is noted and recorded. This means, that if you are an unreliable contributor your account will be shut down and/or your IP address will be blocked. Hence, you are no longer a contributor. Also, the WikiNews article pointed out the hierarchy Wikipedia uses to monitor contributors: Administrators, Bureaucrats, and Stewards.In the one article that compares Wikipedia to a city, I especially liked this paragraph:"It is this sidewalk-like transparency and collective responsibility that makes Wikipedia as accurate as it is. The greater the foot traffic, the safer the neighborhood. Thus, oddly enough, the more popular, even controversial, an article is, the more likely it is to be accurate and free of vandalism. It is the obscure articles — the dead-end streets and industrial districts, if you will — where more mayhem can be committed. It takes longer for errors or even malice to be noticed and rooted out. (Fewer readers will be exposed to those errors, too.)"In closing, there is a lot more that I don't know than I do know. As such, I am a frequent user of Wikipedia. I usually start there, and while it helps me improve my KNOWledge, I am always cognizant it is still the same as those dusty old encyclopedia's in Mrs. Underhill's classroom (my first grade teacher).