Technology

Using technology as part of teaching is becoming more and more encouraged in our school. We have internet access, powerpoint, keynotes, iPhoto, garageband, iWeb, iMovie... but the problem is that majority of us are not tech-savvy-or that we are lagging behind what's been updated or modified. Junior High and High School have their own laptops-as part of the CDL project. The intention of the project is our kids to use technology to help them with "passing" classes, to motivate them to stay in school, blah, blah, blah. Unfortunately, majority of them use the laptop as a toy (vs. using it as a tool) and some teachers use it as a "reward" to allow them to use the internet. My point? As teachers, we have our own ideas as to how our kids use their laptops, and not necessarily for the better of their "education". The readings provide the usual "advantages" but there is no mention of how to guard students' safety when they use the internet. If there are professionals that inform our kids to tell an adult that someone is hurting them, what do they do when someone they don't and can't see is hurting them? As much as there are numerous how-to's in using technology, there should be as many ways to keep our kids protected. In addition, I'm finding myself wanting to use technology to maintain, preserve, save, reinvigorate my Yup'ik language rather than focusing on the "target language"(which is English, of course!). But my question is how?

Chp 9

Even if the chapter was on curriculum evaluation, the information was very much like assessing programs. The questions and issues were very familiar to me too, because I do deal with them on a daily basis but on a smaller scale. In any classes I teach, I am constantly aware as to how I should make better or change the way I do things. Interestingly though, my focus tends to be more on students' learning-are they comprehending the information? are they getting anything out of the lesson? is it relevant, irrelevant? I'd like to know more about "illuminative evaluation". That's a new one for me. The methodology implemented for evaluating curriculum was great! I needed a quick review as I am doing my research-I liked the "advantages" and "disadvantages" included in the explanations. Curriculum evaluation- some of our carnegie curriculum need some serious revision like Personal Life Skills-it should be more relevant to our context rather than outside's ideaology. As I've been involved in the SLATE program, I am finding myself being aware of what I teach, topic-wise. Relevancy, relevancy, relevancy.

Chp 6

While I reading chapter 6, I began to wonder how long/old this system of developing curriculum is. It's like the system keeps recyling itself-same-old, same-old info but with "new" learners. Then these "new" learners still the problems of the previous students. I'm sure I can write beautifully organized syllabus or such, but doesn't mean my kids will be more intelligent because of it. The syllabus types primarily focus on specific skills/tasks which supposedly the students learn, but what about the application aspect of what was learned? They don't seem to make the lessons real (ie authentic). In our previous discussions, we've talked about "engaging, meaningful" lessons that are "relevant" to students' lives. When does that happen in these types? I am amazed at how the
"new" way can be a revision of the "old" way. In education, the pendulum is used metaphorically-so is it swinging back or is it going the other way?

Anna

Chapter 5

I found chapter 5 very dry, boring reading. True, I learned some about the rationale why curriculum are developed. But I get turned off when "objectives", "aims", "goals" are mentioned because I tend to associate them with lesson planning. I'd rather use my time to develop lessons for my students rather than to spend too much trying to find the right verb with the right objective. I find that too time consuming. In addition, I don't pay much attention to the objectives anyway when I'm teaching.

"Nonlanguage outcomes" is new to me. I immediately thought it meant using gestures and such, but apparently, it's not. My thinking is that this has more merit than writing aims and objectives. This seems more along the line of higher order level thinking, or critical thinking.

Anna