Learning in the Digital Age

Education reform calls for an inclusive curriculum where all students have equal access to education and technology. Educators must decide what skills are necessary in order to develop a curriculum that will meet students’ needs and satisfaction. We want all our students to become fluent in all subject areas with the intention of making better citizens out of them and preparing them to be successful as they progress through education and life. With this fluency, comes the digital fluency. Resnick (2001) further suggests that “digital fluency will become a prerequisite for obtaining jobs, for participating meaningfully in society, and for learning throughout a lifetime” (p. 49). According to McGrath (2004) four skills that are essential for students to be successful in the digital age are: digital age literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high productivity. One of the ways to achieve these skills is by implementing a project-base learning (PBL). Project-base learning employs discovery through real-life application. This constructivist approcah to teaching has gained much attention in many subject areas especially in mathematics.

The amalgamation of PBL is also very effective with at-risk students as well as high achieving, wealthy students. The effectiveness for this model is due to both the equitability of material presented and the high expectations from the educators. As Resnick (2001) explains when discussing Computer Clubhouses in his article, making use of the students’ personal experiences become a great asset in creating a meaningful digital environment. Similarly, the results of PBL and the integration of technology for at-risk students were: increase engagement, work on cognitively complex tasks, and a shift from route learning to inquiry and all the higher order thinking skills (McGrath, 2004).

What can be learned about Computer Clubhouses and PBL? Both build on previous knowledge through meaningful, relevant application; both use technological tools in order to understand and communicate effectively; both present a product to an audience who can give students constructive criticism as well as a sense of satisfaction.

Student achievement is what’s at stake. We recognize that there is a need for changing the curriculum in order to revolutionize learning in the digital age. New approaches to education and learning as well as new technology to support the changes is essential to ensure that the goals of equitability are achieved. In addition, revolutionizing learning would encourage educators to learn about students’ cultural, personal experiences; hence creating a more inclusive, inviting educational environment.

References

McGrath, D. (2004). Equity revisited: Three recent reports provide insight for teaching with technology to benefit all learners.(PBL and The Digital Divide). Learning & Leading with Technology. 32(2), 36-39.

Resnick, M. (2001). Revolutionizing learning in the digital age. Publications from the forum for the future of higher education. Boulder, CO: Educause.Available online at http://www.educause.com/reources.

Assessment

When developing good instructional design, it is best practice to provide quality assessment. Often times, assessment is juxtaposed with traditional paper pencil testing. This misunderstanding is in much need of attention. Many policy makers view assessment as standardized tests that every child must exceed. If this is not achieved then the teachers are held accountable for such “failure”. However, to integrate a well-balanced curriculum one must make sure that alternative assessment tools are available. These alternative assessment methods are often backed by criterion-referenced standards (National Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL), 1997). Such assessments help educators gain a deeper and better understanding of student learning.

In addition to this discovery educators need to be aware of the equity issues involved with assessment. It is important to recognize that equity will never be reached as long as everyone involved in educating children sees assessment tools as the only means to ensure fairness (Ferrara, personal communication, 1995). Ferrara (1995) further suggests that assessment should be a collective effort involving teachers, parents, policy makers, and community leaders with the end goal of becoming advocates for appropriate alternative assessment.

As well as alternative assessment is in need of reform, motivation also plays an important role in reaching the assessment equity proposed by Ferrara. African American, Hispanic and Native American students show differences from White middle-class students in motivation in academia (Valenzuela, 1999). To that end, many minority students are then placed into lower-track curriculum and viewed as low achievers. Such students will not get adequate access to challenging curricula (Kornhaber, 2004). The question still remains, how can assessment be improved in order promote equity? I would also add that if students’ cultural learnings and personal experiences are tied to their academic growth, then it is unfair to not incorporate them into their educational realm.

References

Critical issue: Ensuring equity with alternative assessments. (1997). Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as800.htm

Kornhaber, M. L. (2004) Appropriate and inappropriate forms of testing, assessment, and accountability. Educational Policy. 18(1), 45-70.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press

Bloom’s Taxonomy
Teachers, in general, have a level of expectation from their students. Educators strive to provide best practices in their teaching in order to improve student achievement. They are responsible for developing and/or implementing effective curriculum and instruction (Tomlinson, 2004). It is always a challenge when many students lack basic skills which prevent them to succeed in subsequent courses. Student readiness has been an issue for the past decade especially in the fields of English and Mathematics. Much research has surfaced in order to understand the disparities in achievement gaps. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 under President George W. Bush, challenges educators, policy makers and students to answer the fundamental question “Can all children learn?” with the immediate response of “Yes, they can.” (Davison, Seo, Davenport, Butterbaugh, & Davison, 2004). The central issue here is not whether all students can learn, but “How will low-income and minority students, as appropriate, make up for years of low achievement competence?” There has been a push in higher education to closing the achievement gap between these two groups. For instance, The Achieving the Dream Initiative (ATD) was established by the Lumina Foundation, among others foundations, to increase success for students attending community colleges. The initiative is particularly concerned about student groups that traditionally have faced obstacles in succeeding, including low-income students as well as minority students (Achieving the Dream, 2005).

One might suggest that a theoretical approach to remedy this situation is to promote mastery learning. Bloom (1968) suggested five variables for mastery learning strategies: 1) aptitude for particular kinds of learning, 2) quality of instruction, 3) ability to understand instruction, 4) perseverance, and 5) time allowed for learning. When all these variables are taken into consideration then the level of abstraction or synthesis has been reached. However, in a world where technology has permeated all aspect of our lives, mastery for learning is slowly fading away. This was a topic of concern with Tarlow and Spangler (2001) as they explored the risks of compromising higher level thinking with the presence of technology. Bloom did not foresee this major trend, but the fact remains that we live in a technologically driven society that hungers for more technology.

Will students achieve the level of abstraction suggested by Bloom (1968)? In my opinion, it is very difficult for some students to mastery learn a subject. There are many external factors that will impede this from happening. We, as educators, like to think that all students will leave our classrooms as experts, but in reality we are satisfied with a level of understanding to the extent that they are able to recognize some aspects of the subject matter if stumble upon it in the future.

References

Achieving the dream (2005, September). Retrieved November 4, 2006, from http://www.achievingthedream.org/default.tp.

Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1 (2), 1-12.

Davidson, M. L., Seo, Y.S., Davenport, E.C., Butterbaugh, D., & Davison, L.J. (2004). When do children fall behind? What can be done?. Phi Delta Kappan. 85 (10), 752-762.

Tarlow, M.C., & Spangler, K.L. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply?. The Education Digest, 67(3), 23-27.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review. 26(4), 188-190.