Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Visual Learning
My learning styles analysis seems very imprecise. One thing I noticed was that often either answer would be correct – picking out which one was correct more often could be very difficult. It would have been better if there was some way to account for this.
Regardless, the result suggested my learning styles are for the most part fairly balanced. The one very clear exception to this was on the verbal vs. visual scale, which was totally skewed to the visual side. However imprecise the test may be, I think it was quite correct in this assertion. According to the site’s explanation, most people are more visually oriented, which really is not surprising. We learned to read books with pictures before we read books with text, and than with all text. I do not know if it is common to be on the far left of that scale, like my result was. It does imply that I would be much better operating in visual medium as opposed to an audio one, and that I should seek to use multimedia tools that emphasize visual presentation and avoid the use of those that emphasize audio presentation. There are plenty of projects and activities in education which involve operating in the visual medium, or in both the visual and audio mediums. There seem to be fewer that involve only the audio medium. A exercise that presents infomation in a exclusively audio format would probably be harder for me to follow. Both audio and written text require me to construct images from them in my mind; in a visual format, the images are constructed for me. do other people try to construct images, or do they not need them, either inside their head or out?
Visual elements, besides being appealing to the eye, can convey much more information than text can in a comparable space. However, visual elements can be more than just supplemental, they can also be a central and fundamental part of a course. One example of this from my own experience is when I took a GIS class from a geography department. This course centered on using ESRI’s program ArcView to study and present geographical information, be it economical or social factors, physical geography, or anything else. The imagery was more closely integrated with the technology – it was not just easier to do it on the computer, it had to be done on the computer. And the advantages of the program (and the maps and figures we generated using it) when it came to not just displaying but also analyzing information were enormous.
Visual images (actually, just what other kind of images are there?) are made more interesting by movement – and so video is becoming an increasing common tool in education. The most basic use of this is the presentation of films or videos in class in a traditional method, mainly with a VCR (or, less frequently a movie projector). This has been around for quite awhile. Jerome Bruner’s 1960 book the Process of Education (which we have been reading for 522) discusses it (while stressing it should not replace the teacher). Videos do not have to be shown to inform about a particular subject; they can also be used to generate discussion in general. One person I know who teaches an English composition class recently showed them the documentary movie Flock of Dodos, not so much to teach them about science education, but to provide a subject around which they could write. It would be much less stimulating to attempt this in a different format.
Increasingly, films have shifted from video to online. One example from my current experience here at Drexel is a couple of films we have been viewing online for 520. One is an hour long clip on science education, that provides not only a view of a science exercise, but subsequent analysis of it by a panel of teachers. Another is a series, The Education of Mrs Groves, that consists of several short clips of life at a middle school. The use of films online makes it easier for students to watch them at a more convenient time – freeing up class time.
Watching videos and films is one thing. But what about making them? This has been a much less frequent activity for me, both in high school and in college. When it has been done, it was not really to present information, but rather as an artistic project (often for a Spanish class). Furthermore, it was always done using conventional VCR technology.
In reviewing this, I find two visual tools that attract the most interest from me. One is spatial infomation software, like ArcView. Using this to present infomation in more visual and interactive ways make it attractive. The other would be using computer (as opposed to older video technology) to create short films - and not just for an artistic purpose, but also to present infomation that would normally be presented through static words or images. A project that could make use of both of these would be very attractive to me I think.
Regardless, the result suggested my learning styles are for the most part fairly balanced. The one very clear exception to this was on the verbal vs. visual scale, which was totally skewed to the visual side. However imprecise the test may be, I think it was quite correct in this assertion. According to the site’s explanation, most people are more visually oriented, which really is not surprising. We learned to read books with pictures before we read books with text, and than with all text. I do not know if it is common to be on the far left of that scale, like my result was. It does imply that I would be much better operating in visual medium as opposed to an audio one, and that I should seek to use multimedia tools that emphasize visual presentation and avoid the use of those that emphasize audio presentation. There are plenty of projects and activities in education which involve operating in the visual medium, or in both the visual and audio mediums. There seem to be fewer that involve only the audio medium. A exercise that presents infomation in a exclusively audio format would probably be harder for me to follow. Both audio and written text require me to construct images from them in my mind; in a visual format, the images are constructed for me. do other people try to construct images, or do they not need them, either inside their head or out?
Visual elements, besides being appealing to the eye, can convey much more information than text can in a comparable space. However, visual elements can be more than just supplemental, they can also be a central and fundamental part of a course. One example of this from my own experience is when I took a GIS class from a geography department. This course centered on using ESRI’s program ArcView to study and present geographical information, be it economical or social factors, physical geography, or anything else. The imagery was more closely integrated with the technology – it was not just easier to do it on the computer, it had to be done on the computer. And the advantages of the program (and the maps and figures we generated using it) when it came to not just displaying but also analyzing information were enormous.
Visual images (actually, just what other kind of images are there?) are made more interesting by movement – and so video is becoming an increasing common tool in education. The most basic use of this is the presentation of films or videos in class in a traditional method, mainly with a VCR (or, less frequently a movie projector). This has been around for quite awhile. Jerome Bruner’s 1960 book the Process of Education (which we have been reading for 522) discusses it (while stressing it should not replace the teacher). Videos do not have to be shown to inform about a particular subject; they can also be used to generate discussion in general. One person I know who teaches an English composition class recently showed them the documentary movie Flock of Dodos, not so much to teach them about science education, but to provide a subject around which they could write. It would be much less stimulating to attempt this in a different format.
Increasingly, films have shifted from video to online. One example from my current experience here at Drexel is a couple of films we have been viewing online for 520. One is an hour long clip on science education, that provides not only a view of a science exercise, but subsequent analysis of it by a panel of teachers. Another is a series, The Education of Mrs Groves, that consists of several short clips of life at a middle school. The use of films online makes it easier for students to watch them at a more convenient time – freeing up class time.
Watching videos and films is one thing. But what about making them? This has been a much less frequent activity for me, both in high school and in college. When it has been done, it was not really to present information, but rather as an artistic project (often for a Spanish class). Furthermore, it was always done using conventional VCR technology.
In reviewing this, I find two visual tools that attract the most interest from me. One is spatial infomation software, like ArcView. Using this to present infomation in more visual and interactive ways make it attractive. The other would be using computer (as opposed to older video technology) to create short films - and not just for an artistic purpose, but also to present infomation that would normally be presented through static words or images. A project that could make use of both of these would be very attractive to me I think.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Marc Prensky
Marc Prensky’s uses of the terms “Digital Immigrants” and “Digital Natives” is in many ways appropriate given the considerable differences technology has made in how people learn and what they experience. Inevitably, one question that I have to ask myself is, which group do I belong to? I was born in 1979, so the answer is not as obvious as it would be if I were born in 1950 or 1990.
In many ways, it seems as though I am a Digital Native. My family got a PC when I was very young, and I cannot really remember life without one. I started using computers for educational purposes in elementary school. I grew up playing video and computer games, listening to CDs, and watching TV (and too much of it). I made considerable use of computers for high school classes. In college, I used the internet as my main source of world news, and I started shopping on it. Neither of these activities seemed exotic or difficult to master. I am quite accustomed to using computers and digital databases for research – using their older paper equivalents to find something would almost seem daunting. By the time I was taking math classes calculators had become common. To perform complex functions using tables or other older methods seems archaic and cumbersome. My math teachers brought tables out to show how they had to use them when they were students, back in the “dark ages.” If asked to perform calculations in that way now, I would be unable. I generally do not carry out actions like the “Digital Immigrant Accents” that Prensky describes. Perhaps the biggest single activity indicative of being a native is that I do not think twice about going to the internet to get information – it is where I usually go first. It does not seem strange or novel to read a news source from another part of the world. When some organization calls me on the telephone, I tell them I will check out their website for more information. When I am trying to figure out how to get somewhere, I will often use an internet site like Mapquest rather that use a traditional street map.
However, I am very clearly much less of a digital native than children born later. I was not born into a world that was saturated with digital technology to the extent that it is now. I did not use the internet in any significant capacity until high school. The computers and programs were very crude by today’s standards – I grew up with DOS, not Windows. I listened to walkmans and portable CD players, not Ipods. While I made extensive use of computers in education, for much of the time that was restricted to word processing. Many people younger than me are much more proficient with technology. I often feel like a clumsy oaf compared to them. I may have been born into a digital word, but that world was far less static than it had been in the past. As I was growing up, technology was changing both education and society in general. I was not born into the world those changes created. Instead, the world I was born into, although already filled with technology, would be very different by the time I reached college.
This fact was demonstrated recently when I visited an elementary school. I helped several children to use the internet site Yahooligans to do a research exercise on Martin Luther King, and two things became apparent because of it. One was that the second graders were using the internet, something I did not do until high school. The second was that I thought it was odd they told me that they had not used the internet before, even though I was years away from doing so when I was their age. So perhaps on closer examination splitting people into either Digital Immigrants or Digital Natives is too simplistic. As for the idea that the brains of Native and Immigrants are different, I am not sure that I like it. It might mean that my brain is something of a missing link.
In many ways, it seems as though I am a Digital Native. My family got a PC when I was very young, and I cannot really remember life without one. I started using computers for educational purposes in elementary school. I grew up playing video and computer games, listening to CDs, and watching TV (and too much of it). I made considerable use of computers for high school classes. In college, I used the internet as my main source of world news, and I started shopping on it. Neither of these activities seemed exotic or difficult to master. I am quite accustomed to using computers and digital databases for research – using their older paper equivalents to find something would almost seem daunting. By the time I was taking math classes calculators had become common. To perform complex functions using tables or other older methods seems archaic and cumbersome. My math teachers brought tables out to show how they had to use them when they were students, back in the “dark ages.” If asked to perform calculations in that way now, I would be unable. I generally do not carry out actions like the “Digital Immigrant Accents” that Prensky describes. Perhaps the biggest single activity indicative of being a native is that I do not think twice about going to the internet to get information – it is where I usually go first. It does not seem strange or novel to read a news source from another part of the world. When some organization calls me on the telephone, I tell them I will check out their website for more information. When I am trying to figure out how to get somewhere, I will often use an internet site like Mapquest rather that use a traditional street map.
However, I am very clearly much less of a digital native than children born later. I was not born into a world that was saturated with digital technology to the extent that it is now. I did not use the internet in any significant capacity until high school. The computers and programs were very crude by today’s standards – I grew up with DOS, not Windows. I listened to walkmans and portable CD players, not Ipods. While I made extensive use of computers in education, for much of the time that was restricted to word processing. Many people younger than me are much more proficient with technology. I often feel like a clumsy oaf compared to them. I may have been born into a digital word, but that world was far less static than it had been in the past. As I was growing up, technology was changing both education and society in general. I was not born into the world those changes created. Instead, the world I was born into, although already filled with technology, would be very different by the time I reached college.
This fact was demonstrated recently when I visited an elementary school. I helped several children to use the internet site Yahooligans to do a research exercise on Martin Luther King, and two things became apparent because of it. One was that the second graders were using the internet, something I did not do until high school. The second was that I thought it was odd they told me that they had not used the internet before, even though I was years away from doing so when I was their age. So perhaps on closer examination splitting people into either Digital Immigrants or Digital Natives is too simplistic. As for the idea that the brains of Native and Immigrants are different, I am not sure that I like it. It might mean that my brain is something of a missing link.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)