Digital Blog #E - Chapter 7 - Exploring Problem Solving with Software, Apps, and Games

For the initial concept for review today, I chosen Evaluation Criteria under Selection and Evaluation of Software and Apps in the book by Maloy, et al (p. 162). I find two parts of applying technology to the classroom daunting: 1) Determining what technology to use where there are SO MANY opportunities; and, 2) How to apply the technology to the classroom in a way in which the students can really get involved with it. Because of the importance of technology to students growing up today outside of the classroom, we, as teachers, have a growing need to bring technology into the classroom to foster and maintain student interest and attention; therefore, it is increasingly important to determine what technology to use in the classroom, with so many opportunities out there. Teacher time is a very important high-demand item! So, spending endless hours pouring over all of the opportunities out there seems as though it would be both a difficult and daunting task. I was excited to see that the nonprofit organization, Common Sense Media, offers something called the Learning Ratings Initiative, referenced by Maloy, et al (p. 162), which reviews sites, games, and apps for usefulness centered around main ideas of in-depth learning (active engagement, learning centered around concepts, student-directed (vs. computer-directed) learning, depth of understanding, etc.) They include information such as what platforms the program(s), apps, etc. are available on, expense, parent reviews and more. They have an extensive non-partisan, non-profit team, but seem arranged like a for-profit company. Still, it's a great information center.  I was also excited to read about Edudemic, yet another resource for potential teachers and parents to utilize. In addition to its evaluation options for educational apps, it has news and articles written by educators and specialists in the field of pedagogy.

"Balance is Key" created by Harmony Kuri on Tagxedo

I am not sure I agree entirely with Seymour Papert's definition of what defines poor software vs. good.

For instance, in psychology, we see that the quickest response is often the clearest reflection of the person's psyche, before reflection. It is a valuable tool for that area. I also think that honest, civil, kind competition can generate interest in a subject that otherwise may not be there - children, students, and even parents generate their own competition if it is not present so it would depend on the type of alternatives used rather than the absence of.  I also wasn't sure it was clear what is meant by "the computer dictates the activity", which is a broad statement in programming terms, or what authority he has (my brother is an extensive programmer, designing and implementing new tools, and software for a variety of things.). In short, I didn't feel there was enough information to determine if software is bad simply based on the language in the three criteria.  I really found Bloom's Taxonomy's thinking levels list much more suited to a teacher's evaluation of software, tools, etc. - "knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation", which was simplified/clarified in 2001, only slightly different in terms of word usage, though adding "creating" to the mix. I think, as teachers, the resources mentioned in the book are good (they offer other suggestions), but I think that a parent/teacher must ultimately evaluate the tool, app, software themselves to make sure that it is meeting the Bloom's Taxonomy definitions/typology.

Secondly, as I am a student seeking degrees in Education and Psychology, respectively, my focus is on Science (though I adore language arts and creative writing). I find that Science is incredibly suited to Building, Inventing, and Creating Software, which also seems to be the most engaging over time (to me). For instance, my own experience and preferences aside, my children, aged 14 and 17, both prefer games where they build and create (as well as problem solve) such as Minecraft - which became a sensation with popularity far beyond a cult following. Why? It's simple (blocks on a screen, akin to advanced leggos), and ranges from simple building to expansive engineering and in depth problem solving. It's interesting! in fact, it even has social structures and related problems to deal with. There are different properties to certain building materials, and certain natural rules which can not be broken (except by hacking, which is cheating). Still, watching my children spend hours creating these other worlds, deal with bullies, theft, and other issues shows me that they can practice and learn how to solve real-world problems (i.e. how to get light into a dark corner, with a certain amount and type of material, and limited resources, how to prevent pests, how to plan for barriers, how to deal with theft, how do address or avoid a bully - someone who wants to take what you have - without earning it, or attacks you to take it). The possibilities really are endless. Players even find ways to get around the non-violence premise. I, personally, found the app, Atoms, really interesting -- and I could see an assignment given to middle-school and upper level students that included an app like that when discussing how atoms work, what they form, etc. I really think this is the best type of software for getting students involved - and I think that pairing it with offline hands-on activities, as well as the lower order thinking of knowledge acquiring is very important. I don't think that one can work well without the other.

As my last and final concept discussion point, I would like to address Debates about Games and Gaming. The reason that I chose this topic is because, as an individual who loves games (online and offline, mental and physical), I adore games and game playing actively, though I do not have a lot of time for it. I can see, first-hand, the temptation to make games a huge part of one's life and to allow them to take over an increasing amount of one's time. As a parent, I have seen my children delve into the world of video games and rarely, if ever, come out. Sometimes, I reason, my children are learning valuable concepts before going out into the real world, learning about people and developing social skills with increased control than offline, improving their skills-sets for a 21st century marketplace, and more! On the other side, I see that they wrestle with the temptation in a very real way, and it can easily (often negatively) impact their offline lives, including school, employment, and more. I don't take the side of many who believe that computer games distract people from learning, though some types of games can certainly do that, but I do believe they prevent action in real-world, offline activities for young and old, alike. I have experienced this in my own household, witnessed it in friends and relatives, and see in in the news to the very literal danger of families and family members. This is addressed in our household, and I do the best I can to minimize exposure to the most threatening things, giving my children freedom with which to make their own decisions, while still establishing boundaries. I also am learning how to be a better parent, and gain insight into the very interesting people they are and are becoming. Participating in their video games with them gives me that insight in a way I might not see it outside of that involvement. I really do think, though, that there are neurological and physiological issues with consistent and habitual game play - from damage due to posture, chronic, repeated movements, among other things - to observations where lower order thinking has become more difficult for them in some areas.  I have watched and experienced first-hand how the time and energy one focuses on video games can detract from other opportunities - which includes learning opportunities, social experiences, and function, and increasingly find that it is the balance that is key.
This is why I believe that teachers should harness the excitement, challenge, and interaction of video-games, interactive software, and apps, while balancing them physical and group activities and some teacher-led knowledge sharing. So... now, that I have figured out what I think is the best concept - what is the percentage going to look like? I believe the percentage of each would vary based upon the unit or concepts taught, and the tools available, both off- and on-line. The possibilities are endless, but there are barriers, and that may be one of the biggest challenges: facing technological and financial barriers while achieving a balance of technology in today's classrooms.


Resources

Elliott, A. (2015, January 14). MinecraftEDU and SimCityEDU: Blazing Trails for Interdisciplinary Learning. Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://www.edudemic.com/minecraftedu-and-simcityedu-blazing-trails-for-interdisciplinary-learning/

Hoppock, J. (2008, June 13). Playing to Learn: Video Games in the Classroom. Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5063661&page=1

Maloy, Robert, Verock-O'Loughlin, Ruth-Ellen, Edwards, Sharon A., and Woolf, Beverly Park (2013). Transforming Learning with New Technologies. 2nd Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.