Classcraft

After surfing the Internet for different simulation games I came across a “suggested” post on Facebook: Classcraft. At first, I was a bit hesitant to try it out because it can be extremely daunting when you’re not literate on the platform. But, in due time I began clicking around and tried to make sense of the simulation game. As an educator, I’m not entirely sold on the game just yet- as it is extremely confusing to set up and figure out. I’m still learning and finding out new things months into “attempting” to use it. I think, if trained properly on the platform it could very well be an interesting addition to the classroom setting. The game allows you to embody an avatar that your teacher chooses for you- there are three options: healer, mage, and warrior. I have yet to truly understand the difference in these three roles but, I’m still learning. It truly frustrates me that I cannot comprehend the platform. I feel that if I were a gamer the platform would be more accessible and easier to be understood because most gaming platforms appear similar. If anyone else has used this platform please let me know, I want to love it because I think it could be a really interesting tool to gain student interest but, I’m still not entirely sold on it because it is so incredibly difficult to understand. 

https://game.classcraft.com/signup/tnoG4qgyGYXYW5xL4

Technology Interview

The questions I posed during my interview with these three students were:

1.     How is technology integrated into your everyday life?

2.     How long would you say you spend using social media/technology during the day? And then, during the week?

3.     Do you enjoy using technology in the classroom?

4.     What is your favorite technology or social media platform and, why?

5.     What technologies do you like that teachers use in the classroom?

6.     Would you include any new technologies or social media platforms into the classroom?

7.     Do you find technology to be distracting?

8.     Is technology a positive or negative addition to the classroom setting?

9.     Why do you use technology?

After having the opportunity to interview these three teenagers (one in 9^th grade and two in 10^th) about their technology and social media usage I was left with the following findings:

Of the three, two of the teens were males and one was a female.

All three students stated, they enjoyed technology but felt it to be more of a nuance when the teachers tried to incorporate it into the classroom. They felt this way because many times, the teachers were not adequately trained in the technology and were forced to learn on their own and at times the teens felt they were more well versed than the teacher was in that particular technology.

All three felt that the integration of technology into the classroom could be both a positive and negative. Each commented on the negative aspect first (which I found interesting) they felt as though many students were more distracted when teachers asked them to use their cell phones, ipads, or computers during class. They mentioned the positive side to technology usage was that not all students learn the same way and that by using technology it allowed those students who might have struggled to become successful within the classroom setting.

All the students said they spent on average, 4-6 hours on social media/technology/video games per day and, a whopping 30-43 hours a week. Surprisingly enough, I find this number to be slightly low and it might be because they are not including the time they are in school where technologies such as the projector, apple t.v. or mimio have become so commonplace.

After conducting this interview, I found that the amount of technology used on a daily basis may infact vary depending on the area in which the school district resides. Many students who live in rural or urban areas may not be able to afford internet access / the area in which they live might not allow them to gain internet access (wifi). It might be interesting to conduct this study with students across several grade levels and see how the results of technology integration would vary. I wonder if students at younger grades would say they enjoyed the integration of apps and games into the class because it makes the class more engaging. 

Annotated Bibliography: The construction of the self in a digitalized world

Topics of Interest: 

Self v. Digital Self
Constructing the self in a digital world
Reality v. Hyper Reality in relation to the digital world
Creating a false sense of the self
Virtual Reality and Public Sphere

These topics interest me the most because I would like to further understand the notion of ‘the self’ vs. ‘the digital self’. In what ways does this impact our student’s thoughts, interests, and lives as a whole? As educators, we are surrounded by students on a daily basis, in order to better understand the students and the lives that they live we must first understand who they are and the means by which they represent themselves both on and offline. Delving into this topic will hopefully deepen my understanding of the personas students create in order to embody someone they could only ever dream of being like. The hidden world of online personas is a topic few scholars have written about but, I believe pushing the research even further will help me better understand the underlying driving force behind the ‘why’.

Questions:

Why do people (students) represent themselves one way online and then another way in person?
How/what does our online persona tell us about who we are as individuals?
How does the way in which we represent ourselves online reciprocate the way we represent ourselves offline?

*My apologies, when I copied my citations over from Microsoft word the formatting got weird and has spaces in places that shouldn't have extra spaces! Thanks for understanding :) 

Annotated Bibliography

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere. New Media &           Society, 4, 9-27. doi: 10.1177/14614440222226244
This article discusses the internet as a public sphere and the information accessed on this platform is thought of as ‘public’ and by no means private. The author goes on to further explain anonymity online and how the absence of face-to-face communication allows for freedom of expression and allows users to omit information about themselves they do not feel truly “represents” who they are.

Robinson, L. (2007). The cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the     digital age. New Media & Society, 9, 93-110. doi: 10.1177/1461444807072216
This article goes in depth with an explanation about the ‘looking-glass’ theory and its direct connection to ‘the self’. The author demonstrates a postmodernism approach to understanding the creation of the cyber ‘I,’ ‘me,’ and ‘other’. This article will help further my research because it will add an interesting perspective in relation to ‘the self’ vs. ‘the online self’. This will further my research because this understanding of the cyberself will allow me to explore the concept of the digital selfie and how the online self is a fabricated version of the offline self.

Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We Are What We Post? Self-Presentation in Personal Web Space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 385-404.

This article raises the awareness of consumer identities and how computer-mediated environments (CMEs) have emerged through the creation of virtual worlds. This article will be useful in my research as I explore consumer identities and the affiliative relationships students foster with others and social groups. The creation of a consumer identity is the intention to want what we choose not to have and through the virtual CMEs one is able to create an identity that reflects who they are and who they believe themselves to be.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved October 28, 2015, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.
This article presents an explanation of the Connectivism theory and how technology impacts this theory. The learning theory is further broken down into three focuses: Objectivism, Pragmatism, and Interpretivism. This article will be useful in my research when looking at the ways in which technologies have begun to rewire and reshape the ways in which we think.

Zhao, S. (2005). The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others.           Symbolic Interaction, 28, 387-404.
This article looks at the impact telecopresence has on individuals and its direct connection to ‘the self’ along with the differences between the “digital self” and the disembodiment of ‘the self’ in the online world. The author explores the “looking glass” theory and the three stages teenagers go through in order to establish this notion of ‘the self’. This article will be particularly helpful in my research when further exploring adolescence and this particular stage in a teenager’s life and its direct connection to the representation of ‘the self’ vs. ‘the digital self’.

Here is a list of (potential) references that will be used for my research*

References

Ackermann, E. K. (2004). Constructing Knowledge and Transforming the World. Chapter             published in: A Learning Zone of one’s own: Sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments, 1, 15-37.

Belk, R. (2013). Extended Self in a Digital World. Chicago Journals: Journal of Consumer           Research, 40, 477-500.

Clark, E. J. (2010). The Digital Imperative: Making the Case for a 21^st- Century Pedagogy.             ScienceDirect: Computers and Composition, 27, 27-35.

Garcia-Montes, J.M., Caballero-Munoz, D. & Perez-Alvarez, M. (2006). Changes in the self      resulting from the use of mobile phones. Media, Culture & Society, 28, 67-82. doi: 10.1177/0163443706059287

Hull, G. A. (2003). At Last: Youth Culture and Digital Media: New Literacies for New Times. National Council of Teachers of English, 38, 229-233.

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere. New Media &           Society, 4, 9-27. doi: 10.1177/14614440222226244

Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We Are What We Post? Self-Presentation in Personal Web   Space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 385-404.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved October 28, 2015, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of     Communication 4, 73-92.

Suler, J. (2002). Identity Management in Cyberspace. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 4, 455-459.

Thomas, A. (2004). Digital Literacies of the Cybergirl. E-Learning, 1, 358-382.

Zhao, S. (2005). The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others.          Symbolic Interaction, 28, 387-404.

Technology Refusal

“Technology refusal” two words that made me cringe at the slightest thought of its existence. I had to take a step back and seriously think about this because I have been so engrossed in technology for the last six years I could not imagine a classroom where technology was not incorporated and/or was refused. Understanding the difference between the abuses of technology in the classroom versus a successful incorporation and infiltration of technology into this setting is vital in understanding how to use technology to guide students to become successful in a digital age. As quoted in Chapter Three: You Won’t Be Needing Your Laptops Today by: Kevin Leander, “[…] technologies reduce the physical labor of teachers to communicate written information, and they enhance the teacher’s authoritative position” (p. 58-59). Some educators may argue that the usage of technology creates a clear divide between teacher and student. Unlike the whiteboard and overhead projector that offer a common surface for both students and teachers alike, the usage of technology can be thought of as a power differential because these devices are typically controlled by the teacher in charge. However, classroom sets of iPads and laptops I believe will dismantle that power divide within the classroom that technology may create.

Taking a look at the larger picture, there are times when technology incorporation can lead to failed lesson(s) and as educators it is important to take a step back and evaluate how we choose to use technology within the classroom setting. For example, I had created a power point presentation for one of my classes and had emailed it from my home computer to my school computer. I got to school the next day and we just so happened to have lost power during that school period and I was left to think on my toes. I alternated the lesson from what I had originally planned and did something a little different with my classes but, as much as I am an advocate for technology infiltration in the classroom there are moments like these that make me regret relying so heavily on these technologies. Anything at any point in time can occur and can cause these technologies not to work, and because of that we as educators must always have a plan b to fall back on.

There are very few moments in my classroom that I choose not to use technology, all of which I can probably count on one hand but, these days are intended to bring out skills in which technologies have not been able to assist students in developing. The more research and professional development classes I’ve taken based off of various technologies, I’ve found that these technologies actually increase student engagement giving them a sense of ease and comfort. For example, I’ve begun incorporating Google Docs into my classroom on a daily basis. I find that giving students the opportunity to write on a laptop, iPad, or desktop computer allows them to feel a sense of unity and gives them a step up upon exiting high school- everyone is for a lack of a better word, equal. This Google Docs platform changes the dynamic of the classroom, allowing the teacher access to student work at the click of a button from anywhere that has Internet access. One of the upsides to Google Docs is that you can see all the revisions students have done since they began the document, essentially you can watch it transform before your eyes and this is an amazing experience. If you’ve never incorporated Google Docs into your classroom, I would look to do a research project or writing assignment where students use that platform instead of Microsoft word.

For the sake of this assignment, the computer becomes the center of the lesson creating a means of unity amongst the students.  Leander expresses, “This experience of being “with” the teacher is central to the discourse of the laptops interfering with the classroom interaction space, as is the idea of “unity” (p.67).  There are moments in the classroom when I do wish students had longer attention spans and could focus on one thing instead of multitasking. One of the downfalls of technology is that students are not able to focus as well and continuously struggle with the constant desire to be hooked, having their interests sparked- receiving instant gratification. We as educators struggle on a daily basis trying to figure out how to spark their interest and grab their attention for the duration of the entire lesson. At times, it is increasingly difficult especially when students are caught up with something that occurred outside of the classroom. They lose interest, then focus, and then they become disruptive and there is no way to pull them back in to the lesson.

“The idea that teachers might, “keep doing what [they’re] doing,” and that technology might “enhance” or be an “outgrowth” of the curriculum, is essentially a guarantee  that the social space of schooling will be saturated by the relations set forth in current curricular practice, […]” (p. 73). But, most importantly it is essential that we as educators “keep on, keepin’ on” and do what we do best- teach. To leave you all with some powerful words, the best teachers are those who tell you where to look, but don’t tell you what to see.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (Eds.). (2013). New Literacies Reader: Educational Perspectives (pp. 57- 98). United States: Peter Lang Publishing.

Journal #3: Multimodal Pedagogies and Trajectories of Remixing

After reading through Chapters 1 and 2, I found myself familiar with some of the terminology being used. The discussion that blogs and other social media usage in the classroom are platforms that should be incorporated into everyday usage is not all that new. Through my few years of teaching I’ve learned to incorporate blogging, social media, Google and a variety of other technologies into my classrooms. As quoted in Chapter One: Multimodal Pedagogies by: Lalitha Vasudevan, Tiffany Dejaynes, and Stephanie Schmier express, “blogging is more exciting than a journal because people can appreciate writing more if it’s in a book” (p.30). This quote seems to hold some truth to it especially with the younger generations. We are finding that students do not necessarily enjoy reading books but, are more inclined to choose shorter reading passages- magazine articles, newspaper articles or even a blog posts online. Students are hooked because these pieces of writing are relevant to their lives; they can feel a sort of connection and it allows them to be engaged in what they are learning.

Within Chapter One: Multimodal Pedagogies, Section: Multimodal Play we find a discussion about making our space by engaging MySpace and YouTube. This section raises an interesting point, “[…] youth of his generation- are more inclined to share online profile information than phone numbers” (p. 31). This shift that is occurring is so small in the large scheme of things but, it is interesting to point out that this shift is happening. There are times that I too find myself saying to people, “Find me on Facebook” instead of simply passing out my phone number. In a way, I too am placing myself in a virtual reality always having to rely on technology as a means of escaping a phone or face to face interaction. It is rather interesting to think about how many of us now-a-days are more likely to share our online profiles- profiles that contain photos, thoughts, and people we hold dear to our hearts. Why is it that we feel comfort in these social networking platforms and are not afraid of what they could do to us if placed into the wrong hands?

I asked my class to do a similar experiment to that of Mr. Norman’s (p. 32); I handed out iPads to the students and asked them to pull up any online profile of themselves that they wished to share. After doing so, I asked students to create a t-chart- on the left they were to describe their online persona, on the right they were to describe their real life self. After students completed those two tasks, I asked them to jot down the similarities and differences they found between their two personas. Did they represent themselves differently online?  After closely analyzing our online v. offline personas many students came to find that the way they represented themselves online was different than the way they conducted themselves in real life. I asked students to think closely about if the way we portray ourselves online accurately represents who we are, what we believe in, and what we stand for. This was an interesting experiment and I would encourage you to try something similar in your classrooms.

            Having students blog in class is an interesting means of teaching- many educators do it, including myself and it allows for me to teach my students how to become digitally literate all the while teaching them how to become active participants in a world that teaches them to be passive. Within the two chapters we read, I found there to be a disconnect between the educators and students. The educators seem to be lacking the necessary skills needed in order to be digitally literate in the cases provided in Chapter 2: Trajectories of Remixing. If we are to teach students the necessary skills needed to succeed, we too must be literate in what we are teaching them.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (Eds.). (2013). New Literacies Reader: Educational Perspectives (pp. 23- 56). United States: Peter Lang Publishing.

Journal #2: Literacy Debate- Online, R U Really Reading?

In a world that is ever changing, we find that literacy comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. Literacy can be thought of as a multimodal means of connectivity amongst people -a form of expression, that one must be knowledgeable within in order to understand its complexity. Literacy is the foundation for underlying success within education and it bridges the gap between those who can, and those who choose not to. New media literacies act as a culture created to spark the everyday creativity of its participants. To be actively engaged is to have a voice in a world that is no longer authentic and trivial, it is now creativity that has been shaped and molded from previous generations.

According to David McCullough quoted in the New York Times, “It’s not on call at the touch of a finger. Learning is acquired mainly from books, and most readily from great books” (p. 3). As the need for digitally literate educators is on the rise, we find that students are learning and absorbing more information on a daily basis than ever before. To argue that learning is “mainly acquired from books and most readily from great books” would be the furthest from the truth. Although students may not be reading novel after novel, they are spending hours on the Internet reading fanfiction, blog posts, newspaper and magazine articles that are of high interest to them, therefore, making them more actively engaged in what they are reading. They are becoming active participants in the online community because they are engaged in the content, digitally literate in the technology, and have an array of platforms at their disposal. 

            As new content is created on a daily basis, different ideas can lead to a revolution. A revolution of thoughts, creativity, voice and expression, and a revolution can lead to change. These changes can already be seen before us in the shift of digitally literate students. We, as educators, have our primary duty of helping students learn. If the content is being absorbed, what difference does it make if it’s through a bound book or an iPad?             

Bibliography

Rich, M. (2008, July 27). The Future of Reading- Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading? New York Times, p. 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Journal #1: New Literacies as a Social Practice

As our society changes and becomes more technologically advanced, we as educators are forced to adapt and implement these new technologies into our classrooms. These sources and means of which we were once familiar and literate with are now ever changing. As we become a more digitally literate society we find that this social practice has become a norm in our everyday lives. It is a means of escaping reality and exploring creativity in a world that we are not all that familiar with quite yet. This week’s assignment asks us to look at the following quote:

"The distinctive contribution of the approach to literacy as social practice lies in the ways in which it involves careful and sensitive attention to what people do with texts, how they make sense of them and use them to further their own purposes in their own learning lives"(Gillen and Barton, 2010, p. 9).

Having been raised in a technologically sound generation, I too find myself engrossed in technology in a virtual reality that lures me away from the norm- the world is at my fingertips only a click, a tweet, a post away. As an educator, I face the constant struggle of captivating my students on days when I choose to stray away from the incorporation of technology into my classroom, whether that be by iPad, Apple TV, Reminder apps, projectors, etc. I find that students are digitally literate but, lack the essential skills to be paper literate. They are constantly in need of a digital fix and through that fix, it enables them to find a purpose to their own lives or should I say, a means of escaping a reality only to be stuck in a realm of disconnect.

If we approach digital literacy as a social practice, we find that when teaching students to become digitally literate we are also teaching them a means of digital fluency. Working in a rural school district, I’ve found that many of my students own cell phones and iPads that they bring to school with them but, many of them do not have Internet connection or a computer at home. I find it increasingly important to promote digital literacy within my own classroom setting because it is essential to the overall success of the student both in and outside of the classroom. Gillen & Barton (2010) state that “Each learner is an amalgam of diverse experiences, capabilities and understandings affected by the entirety of their personal history including experiences of physical strength and weaknesses” (p. 17). The article discusses how learning opportunities can be made through personal experiences and history and because of that, it provides the students with a sense of comfort and ownership because they are familiar with these technologies and feel a sense of pride with the work they are completing.