I apologize for the delay in this posting. I became a new uncle last night, so my Saturday was fairly consumed. You'll see a slightly different tone in our post this week, but we wanted to take this in a more conversational direction.
Imagine this… your typical high-school cafeteria. There’s the jock table. There’s the table of the kids playing Yu-gi-oh or the new trend to take its place. There’s the bad boy table. There’s usually a popular girl table, the Goth kid table, the various club tables, and finally – there’s the special ed table. You can spot it right away. They usually have an inordinate amount of adults sitting with them or at least hovering in the near distance. There will be a lunch room administrator watching them as intently as the “bad boys” table filled with repeat rule offenders. There’s usually not a lot of interpersonal communication between the kids. There’s usually the kids – maybe with CP or other physical needs – who are more focused on the actual mechanics of eating to worry about small conversation. Then there are the others – kids with milder disabilities who have been relegated to the table. They all have that tell-tale look of misery – don’t make eye contact with anyone else at the outside tables for fear of being associated with the “speddies” and unable to socialize with their table-mates for fear of losing their order in the social caste as at least above “that kid.” It’s seen over and over again. Even in full-special education schools – a pecking order will exist. There are variations to its form, but the basic message is maintained: we are different based on our appearances, outward behaviors, our groupings – by choice or not. Yet lest we forget the message of The Breakfast Club, we can all find some common ground if only given the chance. But that was a movie, and in real-life, kids rarely afford one another that chance…until now.
Let’s take another scenario… A group of kids – the jock, the popular girl, the bad boy, the drama queen, and the student with disabilities are all engaging in an ongoing online conversation over IM about their shared interest in anime. They don’t really know one another…they give fake name, fake identities, fake bios, but their conversation is genuine. For once, students are able to move beyond the superficial to engage the core of each others’ personality to find commonality. Is it Utopia?
No, not really. It’s an illusion. The moment one of the disenfranchised reveals their true identity, they are out of the make-believe club house and back to the hard knocks of being an outcast. This phenomenon is so common it has its own name – cyber bullying. And we begin our conversation about the advent of Web 2.0 tools here as a bit of a reality check – technology is fantastic and holds great promise, but it is nothing without accounting for the human factor. And that is the greatest challenge of all.
Video mail, blogging, student created and controlled wikis, all the things listed in Solomon and Schrum, can be an equalizer for communication and access to learning, but they only get the student so far. For example, a student with a writing disability could do a video podcast or Webinar if that was an easier modality for them. That is akin to the old oral report alternative used in classrooms for generations, and it could be argued that learning this computer skill allows the student to be more competitive in the work force than simply presenting an oral account of the assigned reading, but the student who is able to master that tool is probably not the one you need to worry about. In fact, students with disabilities who effectively learn to use any of the 2.0 systems – web publishing, multi-user environments, powerful search engines – are probably doing okay. These are complicated applications to master! There is a motivation issue, and the use of the computer for all students is more authentic to their everyday lives than traditional curricula. But we will quickly see the procrastination that exists when asking a student to turn in a five pager on the Gettyburg Address will exist if that same topic was allowed to be a Webinar, designed webpage, or other innovation medium. Now if we say, turn in a critical analysis of the video-game Halo3 explaining the levels of societal oppression represented in the storyline and compare that to real-life historical accounts, we may get a little more traction. But that’s not technology…it’s pedagogy, and effective teachers have done that long before there was a thought of the computer.
The point is, advances in technology are wonderful, and they can help students to adapt to their environments in some cases, but many times, the kids who need the most help are the ones who are getting as equally left behind with the technology craze as they were with the traditional curriculum. I viewed a Myspace page for a student I used to teach; A young man with a diagnosis of emotional disturbance. He was an average kid, loved video games, was isolated from most of his peers, and was fairly computer savvy. His page was dark… it was angry. He posts numerous blogs. They are mostly rants filled with spelling and punctuation errors. Some were unintelligible. He doesn’t use any real photos, there are pieces clipped from video games and movies. He has a modest number of “friends” by Myspace standards – about 322 – but from their meager comments, none truly know this student. Most have pseudonyms as well, so I couldn’t say positively that none were classmates of this young man, but even if they were, there wasn’t enough of a bond to truly converse. They shared angry postings replete with numerous obscenities and condemnations of “punks.” I read his page, and I felt sad. He’s three years out of high-school. He claims to be unemployed and still living with his grandmother. Most of his messages yearn for a girl, so I suspect he has no companion. He didn’t do college and he has no real future prospects. This wasn’t a young man with a cognitive delay, nor was he a student who just needed a voice device to assist with reading or to keep him organized. He was an average student with poor grades, modest ambitions, but capable of carrying on a decent conversation if you could get him to talk. He was complex, and for all of our technology, and our upgrades, we haven’t built a program that can compensate for the complexity of the human condition. So we can move forward with our tools, and they will make classroom applications more engaging, perhaps more in-line with the demands of future employers, and they may help some students with disabilities compensate for some of their deficits, but until we address the fundamental needs of these students – from a whole learner perspective and in a societal context – it will all be just another thing tried with no real effect.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go twitter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
An excellent commentary about the current state of affairs for students with disabilities. Although the technology presented by web 2.0 is promising, educators still need training so that tools are used effectively. Research shows that many educators remain unaware of the basics of how technology education works and still have limited access to equipment in the classroom. I agree also with the idea that technology does not replace the human factor and educators and parents/guardians still need to find ways that students are not thrown by the wayside. Even for the lucky few that graduate from high school, the question remains: what have schools done to prepare disabled students for the world of work? Unfortunately, I also see the scenario that Chris described to often. I think the ideas that were encapsulated in this blog illustrated well the positives and negatives of outcomes expected out of technology.
Congratulations Chris on becoming an uncle!
Web 2.0, new and faster computers and instance twitter communication-
But, >>>>>>>> what have we learned?
After a decade of computers in the school, after billions of dollars spent on the promise of reinventing education, the answer is …
very little.
Research studies have shown that technology can improve education, but not without s-e-r-i-o-u-s planning from schools and in the classroom with teachers.
Computer loyalists in education like Seymour Papert once thought computers and their applications like Logo might replace teachers and everybody would need to become a technology coordinator that was well versed in Hypercard programming. But it turns out that today's computers are pretty much useless unless a teacher intervenes, carefully crafting lesson plans and guiding students along the way.
Part of the problem is that even teachers who know how to use computers have never been taught how to teach with them. Indeed, even younger, more computer-savvy educators learned teaching methods by observing classrooms where computers are hardly used.
This is all in contrast to-----Students love computers.
Indeed, many schools say attendance improves and discipline problems drop when computers are available in classrooms. "Kids don't miss school," says Giulia Cox, laptop project coordinator for a New York school that experimented last year with giving every child in a class a laptop. "We had 100% attendance for 40 consecutive days."
What is happening here beyond just using technology?
I would say, “engaged learning”.
Technology whether we label it 2.0 or 3.0 is only part of the answer, we know from our other classes that new views of meaningful learning have led to new instructional models that share the following features
Active Engagement
Real World Experiences
Communication
Collaboration
Problem Solving
Critical Thinking
Independent Exploration
Authentic Assessment
Tool Use
But still as an educational administrator,
I don’t have a FaceBook page,
don’t Twitter and
don’t spend time with an avatar in Second Life—
Yet, I too *feel* the pressure if you don’t participate in the technology sweep—if your not Web 2.0- you don’t really get it.
To quote Tom Peters author of searching for excellence
“Anyone who’s not confused, obviously isn’t paying attention.”
Wow Kim and Chris...let the truth unfold. On one hand, we all acknowledge that Web 2.0 tools positively impact the learning of able students. When used properly, these tools can increase learning and achievement, enhance motivation to learn, and increase critical thinking and problem solving skills. However, use of these tools requires a set of higher level skills that make access and usage a challenge for the less-abled students. Consider the prerequisite skills required for blogging, podcasting, digital storytelling, gaming, etc...Students must have solid skills in reading, comprehension, following directions, writing, speaking, listening, summarizing, note-taking, applying, analyzing, evaluating, charting, graphing,data collection...just to name a few. Further, users must have some command of the English language as the highly specialized vocabulary defies all the rules of grammar. A web address or a URL is a combination of more than 10-30 (or more)letters,numbers and symbols divided by more symbols making it difficult to accurately copy. Copying and pasting is an option unless the student has fine motor issues. Basic vocabulary includes terms such as JavaScript, application, browser, asynchronous and on and on. These are only some of the cognitive processes that the less-abled students must develop if they are to participate in this technological revolution.
The able students claim that "its' all good" while the less-abled students' are asking "is it good for all?" Although Web 2.0 tools will greatly enhance the learning for some students, teachers who attempt to integrate technology into instruction will be required to differentiate instruction much more effectively to provide true access for all students.
We're glad that others see the need for the human factor. Technology is fantastic and should be employed to assist all types of individuals, but we must be cautious, as Pam points out, to not assume something is "good for all" when it's not.
That being said, developers should continue to push the envelope for students with disabilities, but the paradigm needs to shift. Instead of developing the mega-complex world of Second Life - with all of its bells and whistles, that holds promise but requires so much multi-tasking and manual dexterity that it is not accessible to all kids - perhaps the first go-around should be a more simplistic platform with a feasible user interface. Unfortunately, like many other inititiaves in special education, the first release will be for the broader audience and then things will be modified and adapted for our students. It would just be nice to have it go the other way around.
OK, Chris and Kim, you must have been to the Bates cafeteria before.....I spent 45 minutes today in the very place you described. Then I was called to the gym, where kids were getting their pictures taken. Marcus and Julio (both very SLD) were having a fight. It stemmed from lots said on MySpace pages last night......these kids have SO much difficulty not personalizing everything on the pages. When I pass the cafeteria table that houses the kids from our ED room, I wonder if MySPace is making their journey easier or harder....I suspect that it brings them pain, and adds to the social clutter that brought them to that table.
Just as we heard in the webinar last week, educators could play a real role in working through this with our kids......if the "friends" group with Mr. P., our school psychologist, could view actual pages and talk about how to be cyber pals, that would be beneficial. The social world of middle schoolers is largely technological now, and we don't go near it. We had a fatal shooting this weekend of a 17 year old in Annapolis, maybe random, probaly not. Imagine the traffic that took place between then and now on MySPace, etc. Imagine our kids with Asperger's, trying to figure this all out. I think we are being short-sighted and naive to think that blocking all this technology is the way to go for school systems. We should be setting up controlled, safe places where kids can learn from responsible adults what real benefits can come from sharing information in this way.
Diane, I agree that blocking the use of particular Web 2.0 tools in schools is probably not a good choice. Many teachers and schools are already using these tools to enhance their instruction. My fear is that students' with special needs will once again have to contend with the horrors of exclusion. We are all familiar with it, we know how it happens and we have read about its' negative impact. To ensure that our students have an awareness of and experience with some of the basic Web 2.0 tools, I would suggest incorporating instruction in the use of Web tools into the curriculum, just as character or sex education has been incorporated. Teachers would have an opportunity to introduce and teach students how to navigate through " the safe places".
I like the analogy that using Web 2.0 tools can be a possible equalizer for students with disabilities being included with their non-disabled peers through multimedia technology. Today I observed a traditional Algebra I class where the teacher did not use any technology outside of a calculator. Some students completed their assignments while listening to music on iPODs and MP3 players. Two students with disabilities in this class seemed to focus better while listening to the music. They were not causing any problems and were relatively attentive. The teacher wanted them to remove the devices and was more distracted during the lesson than the students wearing the earphones. I am not condoning the use of earphones or disrespect on the part of students but I do believe that the teacher should be willing to meet the students half way and incorporate technology into the learning process. The teacher needs to be open to student learning styles.
What a great time the students would have had by communicating by using podcating. The teacher could have delivered the same lesson through podcasts. It would allow the students to communicate and have information accessible. This would be particularly useful in this school setting where students require review and catch up (e.g. attendance problems, need for repetition of directions). The implications of podcasting as a method of communication are far reaching for students who like using iPODs and MP3 players.
Solomon and Schrum (2007) described three basic web 2.0 tools: blogs, podcasts and wikis. Blogs promote open dialogue and encourage community building in which both the bloggers and the commenters exchange opinions, ideas and attitudes. Blogging is extremely popular. It is an excellent way to express oneself just as we are doing now. For students this can promote writing and exchanging ideas.
As previously noted podcasts give students a way to express themselves through the audio. Students spend a great part of their day listening to audio productions. Why not capitalize off of this and transfer information from the teacher and peers using podcasting.
The ways young people communicate is different today. Many tools used on the web 2.0 are free and accessible to administers and teachers. Students are tuning out learning and communication less with teaching staff. The more text oriented schools must make the paradigm shift and become technology ready in order to communicate and teach the students of the 21st century. Teachers and administers are responsible for communicating with each other and agreeing on the best tools to create a positive learning community.
Congrats Chris on becoming a new uncle! I agree with Matilde, Mark and Pam in terms of making sure that educators and administrators are properly trained to use the Web 2.0 tools and that Web 2.0 tools be incorporated throughout instruction. Pam raised a strong point in term of making sure that students with disabilities are not excluded but included. It seems like the age range of students that are being discussed throughout this BLOG are middle to high school aged students. Where do elementary level students with/without special needs fit in in terms of making sure that they are exposed to and lean how to communicate with Web 2.0 tools?
Utopia? No, but it is a beginning to access the world that students with disabilities typically are not allowed into. The human factor definitely is a factor for the students that are not savvy enough to circumvent the inevitable discovery of their true identity.
I agree with Diane, schools have to begin to teach students with disabilities the ins and outs of the Web 2.0 in a controlled environment. The advantages are great and the pitfalls are many.
The interesting thing about face to face interaction is that it is difficult for the general education student and the student with disability in the school peer setting. However, outside of school in the neighborhood or even family, these people can find a friendship that is not influenced by “the cool factor” of the school community. This is where the web can have its biggest impact. The accessibility to instant communication with another peer is priceless.
Safety and understanding for the student with disability to participate is the key factor. As educators it becomes our job in this time of technology to teach our students how to be part of that world. If we don’t we will contribute to their further isolation from their peer group.
Post a Comment