Edie+Freudenberger



Hi Everyone! My name pops up as "Yehudit" on blackboard, but I go by the nickname Edie (for obvious reasons--though people usually read it as "Eddie." Sigh.). I am close to completing my MEd in Curriculum and Instruction in the IDT (Instructional Design & Technology) program. As I shared in class, I am most interested in the realm of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), with an emphasis on technology. I believe that children are not taught to bridge the gap between in-person and online socialization. I think that merging the two, especially for many 21st century tech-savvy students, can have positive effects on self-esteem, peer relationships and productive citizenship.

Personally, I have been married five years to my terrific husband and am the mother of four great children. I adopted two older children (now 14 & 9) and recently had two more babies (3 and 1-1/2). I have spent many years flip-flopping between social service work (outdoor education, life skills training, working with the homeless, working as a case manager for individuals with developmental disabilities) and in the computer-centered graphic design and typesetting business. I ran my own business for the past five years but, now that the little ones are [somewhat] grown, I am back in school to combine my experiences and make a difference in the world.

A GREAT resource for learning more about SEL is: @http://www.casel.org/


 * Reflective Blog #1**

I had a couple reactions to these articles. The first, a form of "duh." The other, more of a sigh of relief. Life is not black and white (in terms of objectivism or constructivism!); there must be a gray area...even in the fundamentals of instruction. I particularly liked what Jonassen wrote in his conclusion, "the intent of this article is not to suggest that designers adopt constructivism as they have so many other potential panaceas" (p. 13). I am a believer in integrating learner-centered design into instruction and, to me, this statement makes the task so much more reasonable. It is not simply a matter of a cure-all that will fight the supposed evils of standardized testing and other effects of No Child Left Behind. Instead, it is an approach that can balance the "lean, mean—and efficient" (Cronjé 2006) objectivist methods. The two views can be merged and will, most importantly, create a much more effective lesson that can also escape much scrutiny from both philosophical camps.

Of course, being more of an constructivist myself, I found the term "injection" in Cronjé's article uproariously funny. The image this quadrant conjured was that of instruction being injected into students—which I thought was both hilarious, accurate and at times (sigh) necessary. As a mother of four, I also have the association of taking my children to the doctor for their shots. I stress before hand, during but usually breath easy after. The children take their lumps and then they move on, quickly. I like the idea of relating these experiences to parenting children int eh public school system. I definitely have my moments where I swear I will move them to private schools or, better, home schooling. After the fact, I usually calm down and we all move on. There is nothing I hate more than watching my children work hard in their learning and then not have the grades to show for it. We all leave discouraged and the fact they actually learned something, or were at least participating int he process, is lost. As with their shots, the memories of the negative stay with them a bit longer than the positive. It seems shameful.

I am lucky that my future instructional goals are not 100% dictated by subject or school standards. Still, I like the idea of constructing my lessons somewhere in the happy medium between ideals. My subject matter is much more conducive to constructivist design, but will be balanced well by some very scientific lessons. For example, there are facts about social networking that are simply non-negotiable when it comes to children. The age limit for Facebook is now 13. The technicalities of budgeting a cell phone plan are just that, technical. Again, as a parent, some of these items must be dictated to the learners. HOW to negotiate these technologies and systems, within those boundaries, is a much more democratic process and would be served well by a learner-centered approach to learning.

1. How can technology help bring these two worlds together in the classroom? 2. Does technology seem to favor one ideal or the other?
 * Questions:**


 * Reflective Blog #2**

I have to say that I did not find these two readings as refreshing or even helpful as the previous two. The clever title of the Anderson article had my attention from the start but could not hold it. In fact, I think the title concept [of a computer not being akin to a drinking fountain] is great, except the article seems to miss the boat on this very concept. Overall, I felt the suggestions offered in the two articles were weak and, more importantly, not terribly unique to a technology issue. In fact—not to be too harsh—I felt some of the suggestions to be slightly insulting: "Plan ahead" (Anderson 2002) and " Planning and Organizing are Essential" (Chaika 2003) ...really? Is that really the best advice we can offer teachers with few technology resources? All of that said, I see a couple reasons why these articles may not quite be up to par—or, at least offer the tech-savvy I had hoped for. First, the articles were written nearly ten years ago. The one-computer classroom of the early 2000s would have a very different look. The possibilities with the software and hardware of today, I imagine, would lead to many more exciting options in such a room. Second, I assume there are teachers who have such a low comfort level with technology that maybe they need to be re-focused on the basics when talking tech.

As for me, I would really like unique solutions to more than just a resource issue, but rather a tech resource issue. I feel like this is a different type of problem and should draw different answers. For example, maybe highlight the fact that the one computer in the room is not simply a tool to be used as a word processor or internet browser (those these uses are, of course, legitimate), but could be used for a unique language arts lesson on email writing or to help teach students how to build a class wiki. Then the logistics of how to do this on one computer can be addressed—which I believe is very doable. The computer is NOT a drinking fountain, but it is also not another workstation in the room. It is a portal to an online world and an extension of technology that kids are experiencing all around them, in particular at home. It is also an asset that can help teachers further prepare students for their future, which NO DOUBT, will include technology.

1. How can we help teachers with few tech resources make the MOST of what they have—not just re-teach them how to run a low-resource classroom?
 * Question:**


 * Reflective Blog #4**

I felt these articles were extremely relevant to my current courses, my future teaching and the YMCA program I am building (so, thank you for the resources!). The videography curriculum seems very similar to the path we are taking in the Advanced Multimedia course, where we are currently building games. There is so much learning going on behind the scenes—group work, writing, editing, project planning, budgeting, etc. Both offer authentic and real-world projects that feel very relevant in today's uber-techy workplace.

I think this comment on pedagogy sums up how I feel about these two artciles and their relevance to teaching: " classroom teachers of almost any grade or age level can easily...discover exciting and novel ways to engage and motivate their students" (Sweeder, 2007). At its core, isn't that what technology can bring to education? Yes, we need to communicate with students in ways that are relevant and, yes, we all know I am a HUGE advocate of preparing children for lives in cyber-space. But, ultimately, as we teach children any number of subjects, we can use these tools to enhance their learning. I don't think incorporating podcasts or making movies (or games) is about keeping up with the times or even about impressing students. These tools exist, people are using them and, to put it mildly, they can be mind-blowing. Why not make an effort to add this excitement and these possibilities to the classroom? I think it only makes sense.

Honestly, as i read the articles, I was torn between feeling the possibilities of the media and cringing at how complicated the steps sounded. I grew up on the fence between 20th and 21st century technologies. I have worked in IT and I understand how complicated some of this can be t those who do not find it intuitive. I am not sure the steps (though they were intended to be simple) in the articles will be simple enough for some educators. Of course, this feels very relevant to me as I enter the realm of teaching technology. I feel my wheels are spinning...how can the excitement of these technologies be transferred to those who are not "feeling it..."

1. Why do some teachers resist these technologies? Is it about discomfort? Do they feel threatening? Is there not enough exposure in teacher education?
 * Question:**

http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=ShowRubric&rubric_id=2053803&
 * Rubric** (Math: Graphing)


 * Reflective Blog #5**

Maybe this is fairly common at this point in the term, but I am going to be very repetitive in this reflection. I suppose I can start with a new[er] thought based on this quote, in the article on interactive whiteboards: "IWBs are least effective and have limited impact on teaching and learning when teachers ‘fail to appreciate that interactivity requires a new approach to pedagogy’" (Armstrong et al, 2005). Agreed. In fact, I was just in Florida with my parents. They both work at a private school that has just purchased a number of whiteboards. In typical veteran teacher/school employee fashion, they spend a lot of time criticizing the school's administration for poor choices. The latest diatribe was all about how the school will have this new equipment but is not taking the time or money to enrich the teacher-users. Will these boards become glorified whiteboards or even just big-screen projectors? New technologies, new ideas, new materials designed for these boards and, most important, new digital resources available OUT of the classroom—how could the current pedagogy even remotely suffice? I think teachers who claim that technologies are integrated into the classroom just because they are the newest thing are probably the ones who use old[er] methods with newer equipment. The entire picture needs to change in order for "new" to be meaningful and relevant.

The points I feel the need to reiterate are these: 1. The Rochelle (mobile) article was dated. Interesting but so very dated. I read this line and chuckled: "A frequent caution among educational experts, however, is that merely having computers or connectivity is not enough — appropriate applications are essential." The term "applications," of course conjured the image of my iPhone or iPad and its many "apps." They did not exist back in 2003. Mobile platforms have changed exponentially since the early days of my sad-, albeit color-, screened Nokia 2100 cell phone. Rochelle (2003) also questions how much can really be done on such small screens. Again, I immediately thought of my mobile devices. I check blackboard on both. Not so inconceivable anymore.

2. I found the Rochelle article to be too filled with too much tech-speak. I can tolerate it to an extent and then it has me drifting off-topic. It was much more research oriented (versus instructional), so tech-talk made a little more sense. Still bridging the gap between the avid computer magazine reader and, perhaps, less-than-tech-proficient teacher may be smarter with some simpler terms and concepts. I think one of the biggest transitions for schools is to move technology use away from just the IT specialist and integrate it into each classroom. This article seems geared at that IT specialist—let's give him some simple "speak" to share and entice his staff.

What is the best way to keep teachers up-to-date in technology training? There is hardly enough funding to keep most teachers enriched in core subjects. Technology, without tech-specific grants, will most certainly take a back seat. If technology manufacturers get aggressive enough, will this system start to look something like drug company peddling? Gaps in systems and market-motivated choices could lead to fancy lunches, branded pencils and slick pamphlets in the schools. Too far fetched??
 * Question:**