Scratch for Kindergarteners

Scratch: defined by its producers at MIT,

 “Programming language aimed at children that let them create their own interactive stories, games, music, and art.”

 Specifically, Scratch is an application that allows students to mix media to create. In the article, From SuperGoo to Scratch: Exploring creative digital media production in informal learning, Scratch is cited as just one of many tools that speaks to urban youth, and meets the goals of media educators.

 Media educators? My first thought was that this article really did not apply to my job as a kindergarten teacher. Likewise, the majority of my cohorts in continuing education at Seattle Pacific University agreed. However, upon reading more into the article, I realized the purpose was to do more than simply suggest that today’s youth are participating in using multi-media; they are producing it! If you can agree that creative, digital media is going to be a large part of our future, than as an educator, you too should realize the importance of educating tomorrow’s future leaders. Yes, teachers and parents alike are responsible for exploring creating ways of gaining your child’s interests, as well as providing them with the early building blocks that will provide them with the skills to produce.

Produce multi-media? Well, it’s about more than producing media mixes. If you can imagine it, you can produce it. If you can produce it, you can share it. Scratch provides a format in which kids are familiar. Using the background knowledge they have acquired in other subject areas, Scratch allows them to create a project that will be both meaningful to you and to them. At the same time, they will be investing in their future, and creating something that will too interest their peers.

Can Kindergarteners really use Scratch? Training students to use a new application can be challenging, though I’ll wager this concern can be resolved easily. Although Scratch is intended for students ages 8 and up, my class of 5 and 6-year-olds could easily use this application. My half-day kindergarteners spend 30 minutes a week, in a computer lab with a 1:1 ratio of computers to students. The first several months of the school year will need to be reserved for exploration, paired with modeling, by the teacher, in class. After viewing the tutorial, and exploring the Scratch website, I began thinking about the different media projects that could be created using scratch, and how I might relate them to my kindergarten classroom.

The Three Little Pigs – scratched The classic story of The Three Little Pigs is one of our first projects at the beginning of the kindergarten year, Our exploration of various versions of the story include comparing the similarities and differences between different author’s versions, as well as the characters’ houses, the characters themselves, and ultimately how the story ends.

 The Scratch Gallery boasts a number of impressive projects containing retells of The Three Little Pigs. Due to the relevant reading age of the story, the majority of the projects I found were too created by kindergarteners or first grade students. The pictures, videos, and sound clips, were all examples of things I am already doing with my students. Scratch, however, provides an avenue for putting it all together, and sharing it with others. Meanwhile, students are developing proficiency in the kindergarten technology standards.

Technology Use in K-12 Schools

A Large Scale Research Study on Technology in K-12 Schools: Technology Integration as it Relates to the National Technology Standards examines two large research studies, in an attempt to determine how technology is integrated in K-12 schools. Furthermore, the article attempts to determine the extend to which the technology being used in schools is making a difference in the education of students.  I pulled away from the article the clear fact that the U.S. is spending a lot of money integrating technology into schools, but to what extent is it helping our students (National Center for Educational Statistics)? Information obtained for the study included research from the NCES, the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Study, conducted by the Center for Research and Information Technology, and reported by Jay Becker, and the Chicago Consortium, with a method of comparing data collected from a research study in large Florida school district, with the TLC study. The flaws between the two comparisons however, suggested some bias. The Florida study, for example, examined teachers in only one school district with self-reported data. The TLC study examined multiple school districts and pre-selected teachers with a high level of technology integration that would purposefully respond. So, not only did the Florida study look at teachers in only one district, but the use of self-reported data is limiting, and as the author even suggests, “those teachers who voluntarily responded to the survey were perhaps more interested in computers than those teachers who did not respond” (page 504). Additionally, the two studies viewed “frequent use” of computers, somewhat differently. The TLC study defined “frequent use as “20+ uses by a typical student per academic year”, while the Florida study defined “frequent use” as “at least once a week” (page 504). Therefore, with the limitations of both studies, I took most of the statistics with a grain of salt. Some information however, was interesting enough to note. Like many of my cohorts, I was surprised that elementary teachers “were almost twice more likely to use computers as problem-solving and decision-making tools than were high school teachers” (page 500). The author suggests that elementary school teachers may have more flexibility in their scheduling, thus more time to complete lengthy projects, such as making a trip to a computer lab might require. As an elementary school teacher, I understand, and appreciate the long blocks of time I have available for lengthy projects, such as making a trip to the computer lab, might require.

Lauren Cartier, a classmate of mine, commented on the issue of technology standards as a graduation requirement:

“Some states [require] students to pass a technology course or technology skills test in order to graduate. Either way I think that it is essential that we assess these skills of our students in some way so that we know that the work we are doing as teachers in this area is working.”

I found myself thinking about graduation requirements, quite a bit as I was reading the article on technology integration as it relates to the National Educational Technology Standards. If shown that technological competencies, specifically the six student standards addressed by National Educational Technology Standards, is a requirement for success in the real world, I would agree that knowledge of technology be a requirement for graduation. However, since very few states are yet requiring students to pass computer skills assessment before graduation, it is difficult to know right now, what areas of technology should be taught in schools, let alone assessed and graded (page 491).

I completely agree with my classmate, that technology standards needed assessment as part of a graduation requirement. The assessment of technology standards for graduation should be different however, than are for a teacher assessing her/himself. I don’t believe we can assess ourselves and force our students’ gradations to be dependent upon whether we have succeeded in our teaching or not. I find it a little odd that we have standards in technology, though we do not assess student knowledge of them. As a kindergarten teacher, I find myself teaching the skills, but not assessing them, because there isn’t a grading standard for technology on the kindergarten grading report, in my district. Given that adequate knowledge and use of technology is a prerequisite to success in the post-high school years, a basic operation and social/ethical issues competency exam seems mandatory for candidacy of a high school diploma.

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher Beliefs Vs. Technology Integration

Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration? is an article examining teacher beliefs concerning technology. The author attempts to reflect upon teachers’ beliefs and make connections between their comfort level of technology, and use (with students) of incorporation in the classroom. Varieties of surveys examined teacher beliefs, though the nature of a belief is something that in and of itself is often immeasurable. Nevertheless, the author truly tries to form a link between teacher beliefs and practice, with the result being that technology incorporation is on a low-level scale. Low-level is referred to in the article as using computers to express oneself through written language (i.e.: word processing), using the internet for research purposes, and/or using computers for incentives/rewards, and drill/practice activities (i.e.: use of language, math software). In sum, the author’s conviction is that teacher beliefs need to change, before practice can change. In a surprising twist, professional development is not the answer (according to the author). Overall, the majority of my cohorts felt that the article was a breath of fresh air, after which the majority of technology-centered articles seem

“to cast scorn on teachers for not jumping into new tech like it was a pool of happiness” (Ted Vasel, SPU discussion).

I think the majority of people assume, as I once did, that teachers fail to incorporate higher levels of technology into their curriculum because they are either uncomfortable or don’t know enough about it. Several of my classmates saw this as the veteran teachers’ dilemma. Therefore, young, fresh-out-of-college teachers know technology, feel comfortable with it, and therefore use it, right? Wrong!

As the article continues, we find the disparity between lower-level technology skills and higher-level technology schools parallels a continuum of teacher-centered and student-centered learning. Therefore, we can conclude that teachers incorporate lower-level uses of technology into their curriculums, not because it is easier to use, but because teachers are in control (teacher-centered). A few statistics from the US Department of Education supports this claim. In 2003, well over 83% of teachers surveyed felt prepared enough to use technology in their classrooms. Furthermore, 80% felt as though they were ready to learn more in terms of incorporating higher levels of technology into their classrooms.

If this is all starting to add up, take it with a grain of salt. Because, according to Michigan Virtual University, only 1 in 9 teachers are tech-savvy enough to create a multimedia presentation, and work with spreadsheets & digital software. Moreover, of teachers interviewed, those that do consider themselves tech savvy (the 1 in every 9), feel the pressures of time constraints, lack of resources, and parental complaints.

This leaves me with an important thought on standards, specifically technology standards: we have standards; yes, but are they graded? Can I, as a teacher, justify the use of technology in my curriculum if I am not required to grade students, in their skill level, in this area?

Digital Citizenship

Digital Citizenship: Addressing Appropriate Technology Behavior describes nine standards established by the Instructional Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), referred to as the National Education Technology Standards. Specifically designed to be exercised by students, they really are a set of common knowledge principles with which anyone having access to technology should be familiar. For those with particular curiosity, I’ll list them, though you’ll easily be able to assume the particulars embedded within them:

1. Etiquette: electronic standards of conduct or procedure

2. Communication: electronic exchange of information

3. Education: the process of teaching and learning about technology and the use of technology

4. Access: full electronic participation in society

5. Commerce: electronic buying and selling of goods

6. Responsibility: electronic responsibility for actions and deeds

7. Rights: those freedoms extended to everyone in a digital world

8. Safety: physical well-being in a digital technology world

9. Security (self-protection): electronic precautions to guarantee safety

I should note that modeling (the appropriate behaviors) was a recurrent theme among each of the standards, and rightfully so, was also a hot topic within our SPU online discussion.

Of particular interest to me, was the area of ‘Safety’, and its focus on ergonomics. For the purpose of my online discussion with classmates, I reviewed a few articles and found a bit of conflicting information. For example, according to the ISTE, ergonomics, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, eyestrain, and posture are major medical issues that can be linked to computer use. However, according to an article in Wired.com, “In addition to finding a relatively low rate of carpal tunnel syndrome in computer users,” J. Stevens, neurologist, said that there is “no significant differences between computer users who developed the syndrome and those who did not”.

I also explored UCLA’s ergonomics site, for information on general workplace (school place) ergonomics, and discovered on online self-assessment, for anyone who may be physically suffering from technology strains.

Of particular interest in my online conversations was the topic that school districts, (so it seems), are less interested in the issue of ergonomics, as they are with security (i.e.: antitheft). In other words, a hot topic on the discussion boards was the sentiment that school districts are quicker to purchase technology, than they are to fund the cabinets, tables, and chairs that will house the technology. Stationary pieces, such as furniture with anti-theft devices, tend to be more favorable to district personnel funding the decision-making.

Lastly, while it is obvious that varieties of forms of technology are still new, as is our ability to use it appropriately, many schools are finding themselves in the dilemma of the too-much-too-soon syndrome. They are simply unable to keep up with establishing the necessary barriers to make using technology safe.