Departments

• Digital Literacy
• Miscellaneous Rants
• Story Telling as Teacher Inquiry

Clinicians

• Client Abstract Form
• Tx Plan (sample)
• Therapy Script (form)

Digital Literacy

On Influence#

I'm playing again.  Found a nice addition to Firefox called Sage which is a news aggregator that so far seems to be one of the easiest I've used and visually quite appealing.  In my clicking, installing, fiddling, I ended up clicking on the little "blue thing" at the bottom of one of my pages and was taken to the technorati search engine and ultimately ended up here. To my surprise, I found a whole discussion centered around a posting I made on Sebastian's weblog three years ago (could it possibly be that long ago?).  What strikes me on this morning is how my need to talk about my practice in order to gain a better understanding spread outward to help others think about their teaching practice.  So, this discipline (or lack of, depending upon which day it is) of writing about my work isn't fruitless at all.  In fact, it may bear fruit far beyond the tree in my own yard.  Powerful.

Posted by Karen McComas on 5/6/05; 8:36:30 AM to the Digital Literacy Department
Discuss |

Writing Into the Day: April 16, 2005#

Why did I pick up this invitation to come to Lansing the weekend after I was out of town in Washington DC and the week before the last week of clinic? Multiple reasons...why was this important to me?  I told some of my students the other day that I was going to be spending the weekend with some incredibly smart, creative, and challenging people who have interests similar to mine and readily share their expertise with me.  One of my students quipped, "Oh, so by going to this workshop you can be your geekiest self and still be cool?"  Of course, that's it.  Here I can be a geek and be cool at the same time. Seriously though, I'm going to write with some incredible honesty.  I often feel as though every other site is doing more interesting work than I'm doing, motivating their participants better than I do, and creating more interesting artifacts than I do.  I'm here to learn as much about technology as possible but also to learn from the models of leadership my colleagues will be sharing on an implicit level.  I want to ask them to surface, make explicit, the ways in which they support their teachers.  How, for example, does the Red Cedar Writing Project motivate teachers in Lansing to show up at the MSU Writing Center after school hours?  How do they ignite a desire in their teachers to spend more of their own time developing themselves as teachers than they already spend?  I want to strengthen my own understanding of the multiple (does that word even convey the implication I want to convey?) ways in which technology can support learning but more importantly I need to understand the ways in which other sites support the develoment of their own teachers in developing their uses of technology in their classrooms or contexts.

Posted by Karen McComas on 4/16/05; 8:35:03 AM to the Digital Literacy Department
Discuss |

Pianfetti Notes#

Literacy --> ability to learn, comprehend, and interact with technology in a meaningful way     ...students need the ability to utilize technology as a means of helping them explore, inquire, discuss, and disseminate information...     ...teachers, in general, have less need to teach about computers and a greater need to use technology as a learning tool that is integrated routinely into classroom practice...     ...there is a greater presence of technology in teacher-preparation programs, but little modeling of appropriate uses and little evidence of it being used effectively...      ...although teachers were heralded to be the greatest factor in getting technology into the classroom, their findings suggest that teachers were overlooked in planning ofr technology in the schools...     ...teachers must see links between professional development activity, their existing curriculum, and the fact that student achievement will increase as a result of the teacher's professional development...      ...in classrooms where technology is in use, students and teachers engage in strong communication, collaboration, information access, and expression...     ...5 key elements to successful staff development support (administrative and technical) training (micro and macro) access to resources (at home and at school) recognition (credit, incentives, rewards) time

Posted by Karen McComas on 3/15/05; 2:33:51 PM to the Digital Literacy Department
Discuss |

Assembly and Production#

In Technology and Literacy Education in the Next Century:  Exploring the Connection Between Work and Schooling, Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna present five key concepts surrounding digital literacy in the context of the workplace and as a consequence, in the context of education as a way to prepare individuals for the workplace.  The fourth of these concepts is: Digital literacy requires critical knowledge assembly and production. The authors say that the Internet requires the "ability to be a critical consumer and producer of various forms of information."  I'm not quite certain I agree with the word requires and I'm not quite certain I even think tha tpeople have to produce information.  I am, at this point, quite firm in the notion that people using the Internet must be critical consumers of information (implying that this occurs as a result of a conscious decision on a user's part to engage in certain processes).  I know that this process requires me to craft an effective search, identify reliable sources, and organize their thoughts in a clear and organized manner.  This process is nothing more than the familiar research process (utilizing different resources and tools).  While I'm always enamored with processes, in this instance I'm more interested in the outcome(s) of that process. For me, research is a means to an end and that end is the production of knowledge.  I know of no other reason to engage in research and believe this is true of all research activities regardless of whether or not the investigator is even conscious of the outcome of the research.  And while the authors of this article suggest that the production of information is an important outcome, they also take care to say that information can (and should) take a variety of forms.  The knowledge itself is important but the knowledge in the most appropriate form becomes the most important part of the process.  This requires researchers to carefully consider the purpose of their research and the audience (or ultimate recipient of the information) in order to determine what form (and what symbol system) is the most appropriate for conveying the information.  No other person in the world has a greater responsibility to be a producer of various forms of information than a teacher does.  In fact, to say, "A teacher is a producer of information in various forms." is to state a linguistic truth.  To teach means to produce information.  We do this by creating curricula, extracting information to present to our students, engaging in research, and so forth.  The information we produce is local knowledge and given a wider audience has the capacity to influence on a broader scale.  Given the amount of influence teachers have, at just a local level, we should also be using the most approriate symbol systems to share the information we produce.  In this way we can teach by content and by example. There's another aspect to this that I may want to pursue at another time.  That is, what are our ethical and moral obligations to make our local knowledge more general?

Posted by Karen McComas on 10/29/04; 7:16:27 AM to the Digital Literacy Department
Discuss |

Isolation or Socialization?#

In Technology and Literacy Education in the Next Century:  Exploring the Connection Between Work and Schooling, Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna present five key concepts surrounding digital literacy in the context of the workplace and as a consequence, in the context of education as a way to prepare individuals for the workplace.  The third of these concepts is: Digital literacy occurs in social contexts. I quite distinctly remember closely fitting the stereotype of the scientist sitting alone in front of a flashing computer screen or sitting alone surfing the Internet all night but I don't recall having a sense of feeling alone or lonely.  I threw myself into the whole world of the Internet with a carelessness I rarely demonstrate and a brazenness I probably haven't shown since that time.  I remember learning about Ermel Stepp's electronic journal (The Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture) and talking to him about that.  When the call came out for new editors, I brazenly sent an application and Ermel rather quickly appointed me to the position of editor of the feature section called The Cyberspace Monitor.  I still remember him coming here to my office to see me and though how respectful that was of him as I should have gone to him. What happened to me as I sat in front of that flashing screen and as I surfed the Internet late into the night was that my world grew exponentially.  I began meeting all of these people online and in person (as with my opportunity to meet and work with Ermel Stepp who was on my campus but someone with whom I had limited contact).  This is what the authors of the article suggest.  Digital literacy, they say, "...necessitates various kinds of social interaction." True.  Already this morning I have interacted with my husband (IM), with my pharmicist (web), with a student (email), and my work has also produced an internal dialogue as I review this article and compose and revise my thoughts on this weblog.  I look through my sent file and see that this week I have had social interactions with my whole faculty (the Tuesday teaching meeting banter, the clinical issues), part of my faculty (undergraduate advisors, the small group in charge of digitizing clinic records), individual students, family members, officers of Golden Key, and so on.  This shows what the authors mean when they say that "digital work-related communication occurs ideally in a collaborative and flexible environment in which participants are viewed as molecular components that can be combined in countless ways to execute projects."  Each of my interactions shows that flexible arranging of molecular components the authors speak of.  Each of the combinations of molecular components are described as "project teams" and the authors say that by maintaining flexibility in constructing these work teams we achieve our greatest work because we create a "dynamic culture that is goal oriented, synergistic, and mutually supportive."  Another observation made by the authors was that the success of these project teams relies upon the ability of the group to use the symbol systems of a digitally literate culture.  That is, the authors suggest that people who are digitally literate with regard to the symbol systems of the digital culture are those who know how to "initiate communication, represent their point of view, participate in an exchange of communication by providing relevant details, and pose questions that are understood across geographic or economic distances."  These particular skills represent a pragmatic skill set required (?) for successful digital communications.  That is, digital literates know how to introduce new topics in a way that encourages discussion.  They observe the maxim of manner by clearly expressing their point of view when the only communication tools at their disposal are words (primarily) and images and sound (to a lesser extent).  They observe the maxim of quantity by giving just the right amount of information.  They observe the maxim of quality by participating according to their own experience and ina truthful manner.  Suprasegmental aspects of speech, such as those denoting sarcasm, are absent, therefore ditial literates recognize the need to speak directly and literally.  Finally, those who are digitally literate understand the need to keep conversations focused an on-topic (to some extent) and have the skills to ensure that these conversations move forward in a relaxed and inviting manner thus observing the maxim of relation.  It is through attention to the discourse requirements of a digital environment that we are able to successfully participate in the opportunities for social interaction that the digital world presents to us, thus reinforcing the notion that digital environments promote socialization, not isolation.  Furthermore, by attending to the discourse requirements of a digital environment we are able to be relevant, productive, and participatory in a digital culture.  Unless we contribute to our students' development as digitally literate citizens, we are dooming them to be irrelevant, unproductive, and non-participatory:  silenced.

Posted by Karen McComas on 10/8/04; 6:55:19 AM to the Digital Literacy Department
Discuss |

Accidental Digital Literacy?#

In Technology and Literacy Education in the Next Century:  Exploring the Connection Between Work and Schooling, Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna present five key concepts surrounding digital literacy in the context of the workplace and as a consequence, in the context of education as a way to prepare individuals for the workplace.  The second of these concepts is: Digital literacy acquisition and development often occur in the pursuit of other goals. The authors wrote:  Digital literates in the workplace seldom study computer programming or devote themselves to studying the use of technology applications as an end unto itself.  ...solve problems related to their communication goals... ...a tool that can augment thought... ...students may be provided with increasing opportunities to engage in processes of digital composing and reading that will aloow them to discover their ideas, to realize communicative goals, and to develop digital fluency.  ...computers should be viewed as thought processors... ...permit fingertip recursive revising and editing promote a fluid movement among ideas, enabling authors to take new perspectives and have unique encounters with their own thoughts. We believe that educators need to create opportunities for students to digitally encounter, discover, and articulate their thoughts through digital composing and problem solving. According to the authors, people who are digitally literate and fluent acquired those skills by using technology to solve problems.  This isn't a novel idea at all.  We know that most true learning arises out of questions that articulate problems.  It is in the solving of these problems, the answering of these questions, that we have the potential to become digitally literate. What fascinates me about this section of the article is not that we learn when we have a need, or that we become more digitally literate by using digital technologies in functional ways.  No.  What fascinates me about this section is the notion of computers as thought processors.  The suggestion here is that by being digitally literate and by using computer tools to solve problems, our thought processes can, and do, change.  The ease with which I can change my words (thoughts) on the computer screen or surface multiple thoughts suggests a way of thinking that wasn't easily accomplished with traditional tools of words and thought (pen and paper) and therefore I can become much more fluent in moving my thoughts around in various ways to suit myself.  I can look at them, discard them, move them to the bottom of the page to examine later, or keep them.  The fluidity I find in my writing (typing) of my words (thoughts) translates ultimately into fluidity of thought.  I'm must more creative in my thinking now than I used to be.  I'm much more fluid and flexible, being able to immediately grasp numerous perspectives and "see" them.  I know that the way I think, how and what, is different as a result of technology and this is something I'd like to explore even further.  Another aspect of this section of the article that I'd like to explore is simply the notion that in the using of the technology we become experts with the technology.  Not a novel idea at this point (although I most likely was at the time of the article's printing) but certainly one well worth remembering.  I didn't set out to become an "expert" in anything.  I just wanted to first understand the whole organizational scheme of the Internet, then the organizational scheme of the MOO, and so forth.  It strikes me now as I sit here and write this that I have demonstrated this tendency, no - it's more than a tendency - it's a need, to dissect things in order to understand their organizational schemes my whole life.  When I clean even, I begin by dismantling the space I want to clean.  Then, I put everything (almost) back in...sometimes in the same order, other times in a very different order (this happens when the current organizational scheme isn't really making sense to me).  Ultimately, everything gets touched and re-arranged, even if some of it ends up back in the same place.

Posted by Karen McComas on 9/30/04; 6:55:44 AM to the Digital Literacy Department
Discuss |

Digitally Literate Lifelong Learners?#

In Technology and Literacy Education in the Next Century:  Exploring the Connection Between Work and Schooling, Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna present five key concepts surrounding digital literacy in the context of the workplace and as a consequence, in the context of education as a way to prepare individuals for the workplace.  The first of these concepts is: Digital literacy requires the ability to be a lifelong learner.  In this article I am reminded that so many people today are doing jobs that were not even in existence when they were born.  Also, most individuals just beginning their work life will have six or more career paths throughout their lifetime.  This is a tremendous change from the careers chosen and adopted by my parents and their parents.  An interesting question about this information is what is meant by a career path?  If I remain a speech-language pathologist throughout my professional life am I on the same career path even though our scope of practice continually changes?  At any rate, it is abundantly clear that now, more than ever, receiving an education (training) for one career path is simply unacceptable and irresponsible.  Our duty, as educational institutions is to prepare individuals for their futures, not our futures.  The future of students today is one in which they may adopt a career that we have no current knowledge about or they may follow anywhere from 1-6 different career paths.  We cannot expect people to return to school for specific training each and every time they change career paths.  We have to prepare them to make those changes as part of their education. How can educators accomplish this?  How can we prepare our current students for the futures they are going to have?  I know their futures are varied, some will work in nursing homes, some in neonatal intensive care units in highly specialized hospitals, and some will work in school systems.  In spite of these differences, I recognize that there are numerous similarities my students will share.  First, each of my students will be entering a workforce that is digitally dependent.  Next, each of my students will at least once (but probably more) encounter changes in our scope of practice over the course of their professional life.  Finally, each of my students will encounter, over the course of their professional lives, external forces that have an impact on the ways in which they conduct their professional practice.  As an educator, my curriculum seems clear.  I must prepare my students to be functionally literate in a digital society.  I must prepare my students to be able to adapt to changes in our scope of practice in an ethical manner.  I must prepare students to be advocates for themselves, for their clients, and for the discipline they have chosen.  Of course, I refer to the concept of 'lifelong learning,' a phrase I resist using because of its reputation as an educational buzzword but a concept that I heartily embrace because of its compatibility with my fundamental beliefs about learning.  The difficult and perplexing part of teaching is figuring out how to facilitate the development of lifelong learning skills in my students.  And, of course, attempting to facilitate the development of lifelong learning skills in my students presupposes that I know what those particular skills are.  For the time being, let me suggest that while I recognize there are a number of particular skills and habits of mind, the ability to recognize and solve problems seems paramount for individuals who are lifelong learners.  Having said that, it follows that I believe that my responsibility as an educator is to facilitate the ability of my students to solve problems, whatever those may be and in whatever ways that prove to be ethical, moral, and successful for them.  There are numerous aspects to my teaching practice that indirectly demonstrate my conviction to this belief.  I set high standards and challenge my students to meet them.  I utilize a variety of teaching methods.  I model the habits of mind and discpline that a solver of problems must have.  I do know that the ability to generalize what we learn from one instance to another instance is a critical component of being a successful problem solver.  If we continue to see each and every problem as a unique problem requiring a unique solution we will never become successful problem solvers.  Our success as problem solvers lies first in our ability to find the ways that problems are alike.  Once we are able to make connections between old problems and new problems, we have a history to draw upon that should ultimately make us not only effective problem solvers but more efficient problem solvers.  If, in our education, we are not presented with new problems and guided through understanding those problems so that we might make those connections to old problems, we will not become effective or efficient problem solvers.  This has been my argument with the university regarding its policy on E-courses.  People with more decision making power than I have believe it essential to have a common interface for our courses so that students don't have to spend time learning a new interface.  I contend that the time students might spend learning how to negotiate with and navigate through a new interface is time well spent in that it contributes to their development as problem solvers.  That is, learning how to solve problems in one area contributes to being able to solve problems in other areas.  I am completely baffled as to why certain pockets of people on this campus continue to believe our students incapable of negotiating a variety of interfaces.  We ask them to accomplish this every day as they move from this teacher to that teacher and from this class to that class.  In my classes, students learn rather early that they should spend most of their time learning to ask "how" and "why" instead of "what."  I am adamant that throughout their educational experiences, today's students must be continuously exposed to different ways of thinking and different ways of working (different interfaces would be a good way to promote this) in order to develop efficient and effective problem solving strategies.  This ability to generalize then is what Labbo, et al. raise in their article.  Students must learn how to use computer programs, not how to use this computer program.  In our teaching then, we need to be showing students how to find similarities and differences so that they might know what is common to most.  Being able to know what is common to most becomes a perfect starting place for learning this one. My question then becomes:  Are we teaching students how to solve problems or are we simply teaching students the solutions to problems?

Posted by Karen McComas on 9/26/04; 9:01:45 AM to the Digital Literacy Department
Discuss |

A Peek at Digital Literacy#

This morning I begin to take a look at digital literacy.  The source I begin with is: Teachers and Technology:  Digital Literacy Through Professional Development by Evangeline S. Pianfetti As Pianfetti describes and defines digital literacy ("...the ability to learn, comprehend, and interact with technology in a meaningful way...") she also introduces five key concepts associated with digital literacy (from Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna).  Digital literacy (according to Labbo, et al.): produces the ability for lifelong learning often occurs in pursuit of other goals occurs in a social context requires strategic competencies requires critical knowledge of assembly and production This list has me intrigued, so I move past the Pianfetti article and locate the original source for the list.  These characteristics of digital literacy are presented in:  Technology and Literacy Education in the Next Centruy:  Exploring the Connection Between Work and Schooling by Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna.  This article immediately captures my attention because the very second reference in the paper is Seymour Papert.  The introduction to the article is comfortingly familiar.  The authors introduce readers to the idea that technological advancements have created conditions that challenge our traditional notions of literacy and, I might add, our traditional notions of education.  No longer can we rely upon our ability to read and write (things we may not be doing all that well either) to be literate.  No longer can we rely upon our ability to read and write in order to participate fully in society.  Now we have to be able to communicate in different ways, research in different ways, and work in different ways.  And these new ways go far beyond being able to read and write.  It occurs to me that another, possibly overlooked, aspect of the technology-education relationship is the source of the change.  Historically, changes in educational practices were controlled in a top-down manner.  When the priests needed converts to the Catholic Church they instructed those converts in the catechism.  Hundreds of years later, when industries needed millions of workers who were albe to read and write and who had a vocational skill set, education was delivered to more people for the express purpose of filling society's needs.  As technological advancements have pushed society into an information age, the educationl system has failed to respond in a timely fashion.  At a time when new technologies are almost always obsolte in 5-10 years (and some obsolete in 1-2 years), the educational system has failed to respond appropriately to the needs of society.  At a time when so many businesses and home already have computers, educational institutions are scrambling to barely keep up.  For possibly the first time in history, students know more than their teachers and educational practices are being modified from the bottom-up.  While initial attempts to utilize computers in the classroom were sufficient in placating those who wished students to become more computer literate (which means something different from digitally literate), we basically saw teachers using new tools in old ways.  The example given in the article is how a surgeon uses a scalpel to perform delicate eye surgery and an expensive piece of laser equipment to cut bandages instead of to make incisions.  The authors say that practitioners continue to approach their work in traditional ways that reflect their training,  suggesting that not only do we have to learn how to use new tools, we have to learn how to use them differently which means we have to learn different ways of working. In this article, the authors make important distinctions about digital text; pre-requisite to understanding, I suspect, the key concepts associated with digital literacy.  These distinctions are based upon the notion of the non-linear nature of digital text and suggest that: because digital text is non-linear, readers are required to construct their own meanings of the text as they navigate and negotiate that digital text because digital text is non-linear and dynamic, it can be altered, creating a situation where the reader can interact  and engage differently with the text - have a conversation with the text - and this requires that readers adopdt new ways of working, specifically, new ways of reading.    Having given the preview, tomorrow I'll pursue the first concept associated with digital literacy:  Digital Literacy Requires the Abililty to Be a Lifelong Learner.

Posted by Karen McComas on 9/25/04; 8:46:48 AM to the Digital Literacy Department
Discuss |