- ED665: Small Projects: Software/Electronic Resource Evaluation: Mediator 6
- TappedIn Sessions: Multiple Approaches to Understanding & Howard Gardner
Introduction
PC smoke
When I began this project I had just sent in a series of purchase orders for my school totally over $14,000 and of course I had been given a bit over a week to decide on these purchases. The thing is that over the course of a school year dozens of technology vendors and catalogues vie for my attention and my school’s small pile of money. Part of my reason for picking this “small project” is that I was hoping that there would be some way to cut through all the “buy now!” noise without having to demo every single product.
Eventually I found a web page put together by someone in the San Juan Unified School District [link no longer works] who was asking the same questions: “Who should review software and what skills are needed?” and “What are appropriate methods of review?” This persons links were okay, but didn’t have the depth that I felt was needed
Then I was looking at resources that I’d gathered over the last Trimester and found the “Kathy Schrock’s Guide for Educators” page [link no longer works]. Wow, talk about depth. Most of her information was about evaluating Web Resources. Here is a list of other resources available on the Internet:
- The Snorkel [link no longer works]
- Journal of Technology Education
- Computer Strategies [link no longer works]
One of the products that I was evaluating is a html/multimedia application called “Mediator” from a company called MatchWare. I was looking for a web-publishing/multimedia program that was more net-friendly than HyperStudio.
Appearance/Format
In terms of a software package, my interpretation of this evaluation category has to do with the program’s visual user-interface. The first consideration is that how consistent is the user interface. Does it consistently use visible toolbars, for example? Is knowledge on using multimedia software a prerequisite for using this application? How well did the designers balance “ease-of-use” with a full-featured application?
In the case of Mediator 6.0 Pro it seems that the designers created an application with a relatively low entry requirement. Most of the multimedia/web creation process is “drop-and-drag” from visible toolbars with option/dialogue windows to guide the user through the process. Someone with some experience with a multimedia application such as HyperStudio would be able to quickly adapt to Mediator’s method for multimedia/web creation
Activities
N/A. Because this is a general purpose multimedia application it is up to the teacher teaching the students how to use this product (lab teacher) and the classroom teacher to design the “activity” aspect of this application. I’m sure that if this product becomes popular with the educational market that “activity” books and lesson examples will become available. Also, the company that created Mediator has a discussion and exchange forum to promote and support the application (http://www.matchware.com/en/).
Feedback
Unlike HyperStudio, for example, Mediator offers a “check document” and “check page” function to catch interactive/programming errors. It also has a “run page” and “run document” function for the designer to “test run” his design. These features are part of the main menu/toolbar and clearly labeled.
Narration
This program is not just a “graphics/web” product but also has basic sound and recording capabilities (just like HyperStudio). Besides the basic sound capabilities it also has streaming video and sound. This feature makes it possible for the designer to create a more emersive multimedia experience.
Issues to consider when using software/electronic resource
Expense and purpose; An unlimited site license for Mediator is just over one-thousand dollars. Upgrading my school’s copies of HyperStudio (38) and buying new copies for the classrooms that didn’t have a copy (31) cost over two-thousand dollars. More basically, what’s the purpose behind teaching students how to use this application (or any other multimedia application).
On the “low end,” today’s students need technical skills and basic computer skills if they are going to ready for the future job market. Elementary students going to Middle School or High School without basic computer skills are at a definite disadvantage to their peers who will be turning in reports researched and created with computers and computer technology. Using a multimedia application, such as Mediator, is just another means to equipping our students for that reality.
On the “high end,” learning about technology and its eventual role in our students’ lives is more than word processing and web-browsing. Using a product like Mediator (or HyperStudio) engages the learner in content creation that is more than typing and more than filling in the blanks. It also can be a means for the learner to demonstrate understanding and application of lessons learned.
Checklist for Technical Considerations
This program is a “Windows-only” application, requiring a Pentium 166 or better, Windows 95 or better, 32 MB RAM, 80 MB disk space, sound card, CD-ROM drive, and mouse.
The role of the teacher
The lab teacher or teacher who will teach this application needs to step students through the introduction and process of content creation. But more importantly, the application learning process should be connected to topics and research that the classroom teacher has already begun with the learners. One should teach technology in isolation. It really isn’t about all the bells and whistles of a given application, but enabling the learners to use those bells and whistle to demonstrate understanding.
Checklist of Social-Psychological Considerations
Learning the application is, more or less, an individual endeavor that can be done in the communal classroom or as an individual tutorial. The projects that are done with the application can also be individual or small group. The learner and teacher can determine the best means for using this application in terms of individual or small group use.
Goal
As I stated in the introduction, my goal was to find a multimedia application to replace HyperStudio. As of this writing, I’ve decided to purchase the product for my school site. How well it will work is yet to be determined. JBB
EDC665 – TI Session: Reigeluth “Multiple Approaches to Understanding” by Howard Gardner (Feb. 19, 2002)
Somewhat late in the game I discovered that we weren’t going to talk about our small projects but we could go over any of the chapters that we read in mid-January. Oh boy. Well, I was greatly intrigued at many of Gardner’s comments (in the chapter and in articles in NG) The quotation that really piqued my interest was: ” . . . the findings of cognitive research over the past 20-30 years are really quite compelling: students do not understand, in the most basic sense of that term. That is, they lack the capacity to take knowledge learned in one setting and apply it appropriately in a different setting. Study after study has found that, by and large, even the best students in the best schools can’t do that.” (Educational Leadership, April 1993).
That was the foothold for my “TI.” I had decided that one of the things that’s been missing from our TI sessions was adequate structure to help us “cover” or discuss a certain amount of information so that at the end of our hour we can feel that we’ve accomplished something. In previous sessions the “whiteboard” function was used to direct the discussion but because the whiteboard uses the same conversation “stream” as the ongoing chat it’s difficult to look at the whiteboard and continue to follow the conversations. So I thought that creating a web page would serve that function better (and also a webpage would allow for something a bit more “meaningful” to the eye). In all I think that the idea and the night went over well. JBB
Online Class Sessions & Staying Connected (April 19, 2002)
Class Sessions were conducted using TappedIn, a web-based text chat platform. During & between class sessions we remained connected via AOL Instant Message and email.
Sometimes we were called upon to conduct TI (TappedIn) sessions and the following was a webpage I created for one session that I led.
My TappedIn Session: “Multiple Approaches to Understanding” by Howard Gardner (Reigeluth pp69-90)
The “Why” of Education
idea2
Howard Gardner centers this article around several compelling ideas. The first is:
“I do not think that it is possible to talk intelligently about how to teach unless one has taken a stand on what one should teach and why.” (p. 72)
In our teacher training methods courses we were taught skills on curriculum delivery and probably the university’s pedagogical philosophy. As new teachers we were probably given the district curriculum binder to follow. But there probably was very little discussion on why we teach Ancient Civilizations in 6th grade and Colonial America in 5th grade, for example. Gardner begins by challenging us that it’s pointless to talk about the “How” unless we have an answer to the “Why” of teaching.Do you agree? And how would you take this discussion from sideline speculation to an active belief?
Community Responsibility
Gardner goes on to write that “Education in our time should provide the basis for enhanced understanding of our several world” (p. 72). But that traditional educational goals: “to get along with others, to acquire personal discipline, to become well rounded, and to prepare for the workplace” is the “responsibility of the broader society, ranging from parents and families . . . to religion, the media and community institutions” (p. 73). Orange School District is now bringing legal charges against parents whose children have excessive absences. If a school or school district can be “punished” for low test scores, what is the community’s responsibility? How should parents be held accountable for the performance of their children? And how do we, as educators, bring this to the public debate without sounding like we’re resorting to finding fault?
The Goals of Education
As a follow-up to Gardner’s belief in Understanding as the crux of learning, in an article given to us in Newsgroups he is quoted as saying:
“It’s what I call the “correct answer compromise”: students read a text, they take a test, and everybody agrees that if they say a certain thing it’ll be counted as understanding. But the findings of cognitive research over the past 20-30 years are really quite compelling: students do not understand, in the most basic sense of that term. That is, they lack the capacity to take knowledge learned in one setting and apply it appropriately in a different setting. Study after study has found that, by and large, even the best students in the best schools can’t do that.” (Educational Leadership, April 1993).
Is it enough that our students can recall names and dates? And, is it “reasonable” to push for Understanding? How would you address the parental concerns that a curriculum designed to address “Understanding” would not leave their children “behind” the other classrooms that are using more traditional curriculum materials.
Points of Entry
About midway through the article Gardner lists six approaches, based on MI, that are designed to “engage the students and to place them centrally within the topic” (p. 81). What kinds of approaches have you used to begin a lesson or unit that have “taken advantage” of your students MI? For you, what has worked and why?
Technology and Individualized Services
In the last section of the article Gardner comments how technology really makes MI possible in the classroom. He also says:
“In the past, it might have been possible to argue that personalized or individualized instruction, though desirable, was simply not possible.That argument is no longer tenable.” (p. 88)
Do you agree with Gardner? Is it realistic to expect individualized or personalized instruction in classes with 35 students or for Middle School/High School teachers who have well over a hundred students?
Click Here to Return to: EDC665 Technology and Curriculum | Pepperdine MA 2001-2002 | Joe Bustillos’ Academic Portfolio | Joe Bustillos’ Resume
JoeBustillos.com (website) by Joseph Bruce Bustillos is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
