Response to Point/Counterpoint: Multitasking

Hi Class,

I decided to read the Point/Counterpoint article in the latest issue of ISTE’s magazine (March/April 2012).  The topic, Multitasking, particularly caught my eye because it is something I am horrible at!  I was curious to see what “the authorities” had to say on it, and to some degree, I was hoping to stroke my bruised un-multitasking ego a bit with reading the Bane response.

In the end I actually appreciated both the Boon and Bane responses.  Chris Stefanski, who wrote the Boon section, made some good points about the need for us to develop our multitasking abilities.  I hadn’t thought much about actively training and developing my multitasking abilities previously.  In fact, I figured I was just mono-tasking person by genetics.  It’s true that life in general, and our future jobs, in particular, are places where we will need to have a strong ability to jump from one task to another and then back again.  It’s a luxury to be able to do each task in a linear fashion, so developing an organizational system and some mental flexibility could help mono-taskers like me cope with the real world.

The Bane response was given by Dennis McElroy, who did manage to stroke my ego a bit by stating the simple fact that human brains just aren’t designed to tackle multiple tasks at one time.  The key seemed to lie in the complexity and magnitude of the tasks.  Few people can do several complex tasks at one time or even do one complex task while being distracted by powerful noises, aromas, or visuals.  However, doing one complex task with minor background stimulants can actually be beneficial. 

It seems like the key is to be well organized, exercise your ability to switch from task to task and back again, and use background stimulants to aid but not overpower.  Then we can try to get things done and not just have a heap of half-hearted and partially completed multi-tasked tasks!

Melissa

Reflection on Common Core Standards

Hi Everyone,

Even though I understand the positive aspects of states' abilities to set up their own standards for credentialing, certifications and licensing, it always seemed like mobility in the U.S. is made difficult by these varying standards.  You can teach or practice medicine, for example, over the course of decades in one state, but once you move to another, you'll most likely have to pass the new state's exams to work.  The same goes for education; if you excel in school in one state then move to another, you may be lacking competency or credits and be delayed in the new state.  These Common Core Standards provide an excellent way to teach minimum competency across the country and give all students the opportunity for a rich and well-balanced education.  In addition, there's the added benefit that textbooks could be produced for a universal curriculum at every grade level because the same material would be covered in every state.  Cutting down on textbook costs would put money back in the school districts' wallets to pay teachers' salaries and cover other supplies and expenses.  I see these Common Core Standards as being very beneficial, and definitely worth the effort needed to execute on them!

Melissa

Response to "Assessment Rubric"

Hi Class,

I had heard of rubrics before, but somehow missed the point that they were meant as an alternative grading tool until reading this synopsis.  The idea of assessing students’ learning in the classroom through a more rounded approach, as opposed to standardized multiple-choice tests, seems like a fantastic way to pinpoint students’ strengths and weaknesses.  The student may be brilliant in one aspect of the assignment, but not quite making the connection in another aspect.  By narrowing down the points the student is stuck on, the teacher would be able to focus on those areas for improvement.  Besides that, the students could also feel a sense of accomplishment and pride in the points they excelled at. 

The rubrics also give students a concise layout of expectations for their work, which is something many teachers’ assignments lack.  How many times have we been assigned a project or paper where the teacher gave a minimum word count as the only requirement, and we were completely confused about the grading criteria when we received back our graded assignment?  Rubrics seem like a great way of laying out expectations, but also giving students the freedom of creativity within those expectations. 

Melissa

Hi Everyone,

In addition to my formal degree, I have a certificate in Computer Science, but that didn’t help me enjoy this article one bit.  I found it to be a frustrating read with all the core ideas left in the abstract.  There were lots of big words and long sentences, but the end result felt like not much had been said at all.  I got the big picture: we should prime K-12 students to collect, analyze, and present data with computers.  This point could have been brought forth in a fraction of the space.  The table on “Core Computational Thinking Concepts and Capabilities” did present some solid examples of their fuzzy theoretical arguments, such as “Use Excel” or “Do Matrix Multiplication.”  Most of the items in the table are already used in schools -- I know most of my teachers have used them.  However, I don’t see how the “increased use by both teachers and students of computational vocabulary” (p.52) will necessarily help students learn them any better.   It seems like Valerie Barr and Chris Stephenson, as Computer Science advocates, are trying to pawn off “computational thinking” as a brilliant new-fangled idea.  Okay, now I’ll get off my soap box J

Melissa