This week my goal is to tell a digital story three different ways.
The first tool I used for telling this story is called Animoto (www.animoto.com). Here's the video:
Click Here
It's cool, but very limited. Basically, it asks you to upload photos and music, and then creates a video for you. It's fast, fun, and free, but unfortunately very limited. It leaves little room for customization, and is therefore hard to use to actually "tell a story"
The next tool I used was Scrapblog (www.scrapblog.com). The embedded story is below, but I recommend clicking here for a bigger version so you can actually read the text.
Scrapblog allowed for a lot more creativity. I actually was able to tell my story this way by putting text on each page. The only thing I would have like to able to add is a soundtrack but this is a minor complaint.
The third storytelling tool is Voice Thread (www.voicethread.com)
Here's what I created with it: (for a bigger version Click here)
Voicethread is innovative not in the way it lets you tell you story, but in the way that it lets people comment on your story. Imagine watching a movie and being able to tell what the 50 other people in the theater thought of each scene. That's kind of what Voicethread lets you do. As you watch the slideshow you can comment on individual photographs by calling from a phone, typing text, drawing things, uploading your voice, or recording video of yourself. It has the potential to be a great interactive educational tool.
I would like to give a major shout out to Callie for continually putting up with my crazy ideas, being the photographer, and providing artistic support. Thanks again, Callie!
Monday, October 6, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Growing up online
PBS's Frontline: growing up online
After watching that video, I can see how it is more important than ever for parents and teachers to be computer literate. So many are not, and it isn't a mystery why. The issue is time. Kids have a lot of free time, but their parents do not. Naturally, a device that lets kids interact with their friends (or strangers with similar interests) without leaving their home is going to have a strong appeal.
I read Paul's entry on this topic and he brings up an interesting point about "e-mail muscles." Basically, he says that people online tend to flex muscles and be more aggressive with words than they would be face to face with someone. It is easier to yell at a computer screen with your fingers than it is to yell at a person with your voice and deal with their response in real time. Online communication allows true one way conversations to take place. This is impossible face to face, because in a two person conversation, even if one does all the talking, the other is still "communicating" non-verbally.
However, Jimmy also brings up a good point in His Blog when he says that the video focuses way too much on the negatives of the internet. I agree with him that parents are responsible for educating their kids about how easy it is to find personal information online and what needs to stay off of the internet. The way some teenagers use the internet is certainly problem, but the solution is not as elusive as you'd think. As a society, we just need to educate kids about what they should and should not do on the internet.
After watching that video, I can see how it is more important than ever for parents and teachers to be computer literate. So many are not, and it isn't a mystery why. The issue is time. Kids have a lot of free time, but their parents do not. Naturally, a device that lets kids interact with their friends (or strangers with similar interests) without leaving their home is going to have a strong appeal.
I read Paul's entry on this topic and he brings up an interesting point about "e-mail muscles." Basically, he says that people online tend to flex muscles and be more aggressive with words than they would be face to face with someone. It is easier to yell at a computer screen with your fingers than it is to yell at a person with your voice and deal with their response in real time. Online communication allows true one way conversations to take place. This is impossible face to face, because in a two person conversation, even if one does all the talking, the other is still "communicating" non-verbally.
However, Jimmy also brings up a good point in His Blog when he says that the video focuses way too much on the negatives of the internet. I agree with him that parents are responsible for educating their kids about how easy it is to find personal information online and what needs to stay off of the internet. The way some teenagers use the internet is certainly problem, but the solution is not as elusive as you'd think. As a society, we just need to educate kids about what they should and should not do on the internet.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Money for Grades
Story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/content/education/chi-money-for-grades-11-sep11,0,4916582,print.story
According to the above news article, Schools in New York are going to begin paying students for getting good grades. Private organizations will give kids 30 dollars for a C, 40 dollars for a B, and 50 dollars for an A. By the end of sophomore year, a student could earn $4,000.
My gut reaction to this is that it's a bad idea. Students shouldn't be learning for the sake of money, they should be learning to expand their horizons, become self reliant, build confidence and competence, and to interact with their classmates and community. Paying kids to get good grades sounds like bribery, and introducing this system could strain the teacher/student relationship.
But then I read a blog entry at http://mises.org/Community/blogs/duffmann808/archive/2008/09/12/paying-students-to-get-good-grades.aspx and completely changed my mind on the matter. The author here states that "These people [parents receiving government money] have children who end up going to the Chicago inner city schools, and have no incentive to work hard. The reason they have no incentive to work hard? Their parents have no work ethic, because they have been bred on the belief that things will be given to them for free." Basically what he's giving his readers is a nature vs. nurture argument, saying that students raised by parents with no work ethic will also have no work ethic because they observe rewards being given for laziness. I personally think this argument is flawed because, even though these children see their parents getting money, they still must have some sense that they are living in poverty and that the money they receive is only what they need to get by. Children are not necessarily comfortable in this setting.
The author then somehow twists and bends this flawed argument until it turns into a new one: "Money created this problem, and the cause of a problem is never a solution." Really? Homer Simpson once said that beer is the cause and solution to all of the world's problems. A blog author calling himself "Duffman" should know better. If you ask me though, money didn't create the problem. A lack of money created the problem! Chicago students living in poverty could certainly benefit from an extra $4,000. It could show students the connection between working hard and earning money.
So why not try it? It could really work. We won't know if students really retain the information they learn with money as an incentive until we actually try it and document the results. That's what the study is accomplishing right now and I'll be interested in hearing the results.
Other related news articles:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-01-27-grades_N.htm
http://www.edutopia.org/pay-prizes-reward-student-performance
Other related blogs/opinion articles:
http://parents.berkeley.edu/advice/school/grades.html
According to the above news article, Schools in New York are going to begin paying students for getting good grades. Private organizations will give kids 30 dollars for a C, 40 dollars for a B, and 50 dollars for an A. By the end of sophomore year, a student could earn $4,000.
My gut reaction to this is that it's a bad idea. Students shouldn't be learning for the sake of money, they should be learning to expand their horizons, become self reliant, build confidence and competence, and to interact with their classmates and community. Paying kids to get good grades sounds like bribery, and introducing this system could strain the teacher/student relationship.
But then I read a blog entry at http://mises.org/Community/
The author then somehow twists and bends this flawed argument until it turns into a new one: "Money created this problem, and the cause of a problem is never a solution." Really? Homer Simpson once said that beer is the cause and solution to all of the world's problems. A blog author calling himself "Duffman" should know better. If you ask me though, money didn't create the problem. A lack of money created the problem! Chicago students living in poverty could certainly benefit from an extra $4,000. It could show students the connection between working hard and earning money.
So why not try it? It could really work. We won't know if students really retain the information they learn with money as an incentive until we actually try it and document the results. That's what the study is accomplishing right now and I'll be interested in hearing the results.
Other related news articles:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-01-27-grades_N.htm
http://www.edutopia.org/pay-prizes-reward-student-performance
Other related blogs/opinion articles:
http://parents.berkeley.edu/advice/school/grades.html
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Oh my god! They killed creativity! You b...
Ken Robinson's Speech on how schools have been killing creativity
An interesting video and viewpoint. Do schools really kill creativity? And if so, do they also place too much emphasis on the subjects of math, science, and literature?
One of the main arguments coming from supporters of arts in our schools is that music, visual, and performing arts help students perform better in other subjects (for instance, the subdividing of notes and timing issues that any student in a school band manipulates in their head on a daily basis has been shown to increase math scores.) However, this should not be the reason schools have strong art programs. If we only incorporate art into our curricculum as a means of improving cognitive abilities in other subjects, art becomes secondary to these other subjects.
But do schools really kill creativity? My high school certainly didn't kill mine. I had many opportunities to participate in the arts back in Rolling Meadows. I played in the band for two years, took an excellent photography course, ran track and cross country (which Steve Prefontaine would argue involves an element of creativity) and still had plenty of time left over to listen to music, organize poster projects, make videos, and occasionally write for enjoyment rather than for a grade.
However, I know that this is not the case in schools across the nation. Music programs are disappearing, extracurricular activities that run on creative minds are being dropped, and the overall focus of education has shifted toward producing robots that make money (people). Imagine how boring life would be if this trend continued. Nobody would learn how to dance, Football games would have no halftime shows, and nobody would ever crack a joke in class. In my opinion, wedding receptions are a lot more fun when you can see your parents dancing to Baby Got Back and My Humps, football games are more entertaining when the school band recreates Fantasia between endzones, and the only way most students can get through class without falling asleep is with a little bit of humor.
Ken Robinson's solution to this problem involves a worldwide reconsideration of what it means to be human. I say we just clone Jack Black a few million times and have him teach Rock History in every school ever.
An interesting video and viewpoint. Do schools really kill creativity? And if so, do they also place too much emphasis on the subjects of math, science, and literature?
One of the main arguments coming from supporters of arts in our schools is that music, visual, and performing arts help students perform better in other subjects (for instance, the subdividing of notes and timing issues that any student in a school band manipulates in their head on a daily basis has been shown to increase math scores.) However, this should not be the reason schools have strong art programs. If we only incorporate art into our curricculum as a means of improving cognitive abilities in other subjects, art becomes secondary to these other subjects.
But do schools really kill creativity? My high school certainly didn't kill mine. I had many opportunities to participate in the arts back in Rolling Meadows. I played in the band for two years, took an excellent photography course, ran track and cross country (which Steve Prefontaine would argue involves an element of creativity) and still had plenty of time left over to listen to music, organize poster projects, make videos, and occasionally write for enjoyment rather than for a grade.
However, I know that this is not the case in schools across the nation. Music programs are disappearing, extracurricular activities that run on creative minds are being dropped, and the overall focus of education has shifted toward producing robots that make money (people). Imagine how boring life would be if this trend continued. Nobody would learn how to dance, Football games would have no halftime shows, and nobody would ever crack a joke in class. In my opinion, wedding receptions are a lot more fun when you can see your parents dancing to Baby Got Back and My Humps, football games are more entertaining when the school band recreates Fantasia between endzones, and the only way most students can get through class without falling asleep is with a little bit of humor.
Ken Robinson's solution to this problem involves a worldwide reconsideration of what it means to be human. I say we just clone Jack Black a few million times and have him teach Rock History in every school ever.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Technology in the Classroom
Given the realities of our modern age and the demands of our children's future, is it really ok to allow teachers to choose whether or not they incorporate modern technologies into their instruction?
Yes, it's ok to let teachers choose, but they should only do so after being instructed on how to incorporate modern technologies. For instance, if an english teacher at a high school decides the best way to introduce the topic of poetry is to have students read from a textbook, it should only be because he or she truly believes this method of introducing the topic is not better introduced by posting a clip of "Dead Poet's Society" to a blog or something similar.
English teacher's also need to be aware of information made available on the internet about the books they have their students read. Cliff's notes, bookrags, Spark Notes, Grade Saver, etc. Teachers need to know what kind of information is available online and be able to guide their students on what to avoid if they really want to get out of the class what they are supposed to.
Another issue is the use of calculators in math classes. On one hand, students need to learn how to use advanced calculators (like TI-89's) if they want to be productive and time efficient. On the other hand, the TI-89 allows students to perform some complex mathematical tasks (like evaluting integrals) without truly understanding the material or methods involved.
Yes, it's ok to let teachers choose, but they should only do so after being instructed on how to incorporate modern technologies. For instance, if an english teacher at a high school decides the best way to introduce the topic of poetry is to have students read from a textbook, it should only be because he or she truly believes this method of introducing the topic is not better introduced by posting a clip of "Dead Poet's Society" to a blog or something similar.
English teacher's also need to be aware of information made available on the internet about the books they have their students read. Cliff's notes, bookrags, Spark Notes, Grade Saver, etc. Teachers need to know what kind of information is available online and be able to guide their students on what to avoid if they really want to get out of the class what they are supposed to.
Another issue is the use of calculators in math classes. On one hand, students need to learn how to use advanced calculators (like TI-89's) if they want to be productive and time efficient. On the other hand, the TI-89 allows students to perform some complex mathematical tasks (like evaluting integrals) without truly understanding the material or methods involved.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Hello!
Who I am:
Louie Klein
Where I came from:
Arlington Heights. I'm a 2005 graduate of Rolling Meadows High School.
Why I'm here:
This seems like a pretty good place to be. I think I'll stay!
Where I'm headed:
Off to a high school somewhere to teach high school physics and be a cross country/track coach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
