Sunday, February 14, 2010

update: model for integrating technology into the literacy classroom

I've upgraded.

As part of an ongoing assignment for a course I'm taking called Computational Technologies in Educational Ecosystems, I've been designing and modifying a model for the role of technologies in the classroom. A previous version, a cellphone picture of a drawing on a sheet of notebook paper, looked like this:
Well. This is for a class on computational technologies, so a hand-drawn model would never do. Besides, one of the more useful affordances of new design technologies is the ease with which designs can be modified--not the case with hand-drawn designs.

So I upgraded. The upgrade looks like this:


(You can click the image to enlarge it; if it's still too small, you can open a powerpoint version here.)


As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm focusing in on the English / Language Arts classroom--what I've begun to call the "literacy sciences" classroom. I'm calling it this to reflect my vision for the kind of learning that can happen in the ideal ELA classroom. It's a community where class activities reflect the real-world practices of people engaging in authentic, valuable and valued reading and writing practices. In the real world, reading and writing practices cross multiple media and platforms; and they're all bound up in the context for which they're necessary and useful.

Which is why this version includes one tiny but important addition: The open door leading to other content areas. This addition was inspired by reading I've done this week on participatory simulations and wearable computing. Vanessa Colella's 2000 piece, "Participatory Simulations: Building Collaborative Understanding through Immersive Dynamic Modeling," describes one aspect of these types of simulations: That they treat the classroom as what she labels a "cognitive system." Colella describes the cognitive system as one comprised of all people, tools, data, and discourse that are both part of and a product of class activities.

What Colella doesn't point out is that the simulations she describes call for a cognitive system not bound by any specific content domain. Her simulation is of a fast-spreading virus similar to HIV or influenza, and though students' primary goal is to solve the problem of how the virus spread and to whom, related social and cultural implications are hinted at and have educational potential.

Indeed, the real-world literacy practices of literacy science are not bound to any domain. It's hard to imagine what "pure" literacy science would look like: A solitary reader, engaging in literary analysis in a room by herself, without any tools other than her eyes and her mind and her memory? Though the cognitive systems that surround literacy performances are not always clear and not always stable, one thing we can say is that they extend far beyond the domain of English / Language Arts.

We must, therefore, prepare learners for this reality by opening up the doors and letting content bleed across boundaries, and letting readers move between contexts. The problems learners must be prepared to address--the deep, thorny problems of our time--call for a breaking down of content silos.

One other addition here is the citations around the borders. These are linked to varying extent to course readings; I've added a few other names where relevant. Upon completion of this project, I'll post a list of all relevant resources, in case you're interested in perusing them.

6 comments:

technotera said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Melissa said...

"Though the cognitive systems that surround literacy performances are not always clear and not always stable, one thing we can say is that they extend far beyond the domain of English / Language Arts.

We must, therefore, prepare learners for this reality by opening up the doors and letting content bleed across boundaries, and letting readers move between contexts."

Those two sentences are my favorite and, I think, most important. I think you're onto something here with 'literacy sciences'. I mean, like in a really big way.

Changing perspectives. That's the key to change.

Ironicus Maximus said...

Literacy science? You wound us madam.

signed

Ironicus, B A, M A, Ph. D.

OK, not art in that last degree, but we only got it so we could meet chicks.

Jenna McWilliams said...

Yeah, join the club.

signed

jennamcjenna, B.A., MFA, headed for Ph.D

Just because we call it art doesn't mean it's not also a science.

Maggie Ricci said...

I love the open door; it is absolutely key for just about everything, not just ELA. We need to take our discipline-specific knowledge and try it out in other disciplines. We've become pretty good at separating out people who think in particular ways (not as good as the Europeans, thank goodness) and sending them off to study in particular disciplines. If we keep going, no one will be able to have an original thought.

I found the Colella paper really interesting. It really dealt with the willing suspension of disbelief more than other things we have read so far, and it is moving us in the direction of games. The activity they described was kind of like a stripped-down ARG - not quite as embedded all over the real world, but it seemed to evoke the same sense of urgency that you get from an ARG.

The safe with lots of money is quite the pragmatic touch. I probably won't ever get that practical with my model.

Anonymous said...

This model impresses me as a physical, more than a conceptual integration of technology and a classroom (substitute: "education"). Or are you being purely symbolic? I mean, this looks like an actual floor plan. (Not a criticism--just an observation). Maybe this classroom is an "embodied concept model"?
--Lisa from P574

 

All content on this blog has been relocated to my new website, making edible playdough is hegemonic. Please visit http://jennamcwilliams.com and update your bookmarks!