Screencasts

Here are my screencasts!

Powerpoint - Animations

Basic Excel Functions

Microsoft Word - APA Style

Mad Technology

This idea of a flipped classroom is something that I find to be crazy. Students go to school to learn at school. I think it would be wrong to expect students to have computers and Internet access at home in order to do their homework/watch lectures. The kids who would have Internet access would be the rich kids; the poor kids would be left behind yet again. Khan mentioned that by watching the lectures at home, the teacher could plan more meaningful lessons that way with project and game based learning. I know that their type of learning is great for students, but teachers can still do this in a normal classroom. A good teacher will find the time to do all sots of differentiated instruction. Plus, the Common Core State Standards are going to require teachers to be more creative that they will probably be adding new types of instruction into their repertoire. The one good thing I see from the Khan lectures is that they could be a resource and only a resource. Teachers could recommend students to watch them as review or to help them understand something better. I do not think that they should be used as instruction though. I agree with all the concerns that Miller had in his article. They are all legitimate.

Finally, Grantham's article was interesting, but I did not like it. Some of the aspects of the technology like the biometrics was interesting, but do we really want to have students electrodes on them every day? It seems unethical to me. Students are people not lab rats. I find that some of these technologies are going to make teaching robotic. I have always wanted to be a teacher because I like helping others, am passionate about my subject area and am a people person. The key words there are people person, not robot person. I just think that heading down this road that is full of "mad technology" is the wrong one. I see something like a scene from The Terminator. Are robot overloads going to take us over someday? It sounds ridiculous, trust me, I know, but I do think that too much technology, and technology that is too advanced is a bad thing. We are already a lazy country, if we add more and more technology to our world and implement it every which way, we are soon going to turn into the fat people in hovercraft chairs that can be seen in Wall-E.

Review of Copyright Trackstar

I found that the first website listed on this Trackstar was broken. 

For the second site, the answers to the four questions were found pretty quickly by clicking on Copyright Basics. From there, I scrolled down to visibly find the answers. The questions are basic, but they do help you to understand copyrights, what is protected and how to get a copyright.

1. A copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to the authors of "original works of authorship."
2. Works that are not protected include works that have not been fixed in tangible form of expression like choreographic works that were not recorded, titles, names, short phrases and slogans, ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries or devices, and works consisting entirely of info that is common property with no original authorship, like a tape measures. 
3. A copyright is secured automatically when the work is created and fixed in a copy or phono record for the first time.
4. Registration is not required, but highly recommended. It is considered to be a legal formality, but it has advantages. 

For the third site that was listed, the link was not found.

For the fourth site, it did in fact show up. Off to a good start there. All of the answers could easily be found on the page. 

1. After April 1, 1989.
2. Some older works have lost their copyright protection without warning, but nowadays copyright is never lost. 
3. The symbol is a circle with a c in it. Other forms are (C), Copyright, or All Rights Reserved. 
4. PD means non-commercial use.

For the fifth site, it is built for children which would be helpful for elementary school teachers. The questions that were asked are redundant. The author should have tried to ask different questions, or have used this website as the first website. 

1. Copyright is the law of the United States that protects the works of authors, artists, composers, and others from being used without permission.
2. Fair use allows you to use a limited amount of copyrighted material for educational purposes.
3. I did not find a definite answer to this question on the website. They did mention that you could email the owner of a copyright to request permission to use it. One could also look to government sites for copyright laws.
4. For music and lyrics, you can use up to 10% but no more than 30 seconds of copyrighted song.

Overall, this Trackstar was just okay. The questions were very repetitive even on the sites that did not work. If the author wanted people to learn more about copyrights, they should have looked at other issues associated with them. That would have made it a stronger WebQuest.

Chemistry Trackstar

Here is my Trackstar!

Periodic Table of Elements Trackstar

Response to Alan November Article

In the beginning of the article, the dad talks about being a paper guy. I would have to agree with him. I do love technology and use it daily, but there is still something about having a hard copy of something in front of me. Many people have Nooks or Kindles, and I just could not use one of those devices; I enjoy holding a book. Plus, I already have bad eyes and stare at a screen for enough hours a day, that I do not need to add another screen into the mix. Going back to the article, though. I don't know if I would have looked on the Internet as a parent for ways to improve the race car. I would have followed the instructions and then try to come up with my own ways with my child on how to improve it. It would be more beneficial for my kid that way, then jumping onto Google and doing a quick search.

I do think it is very important that students have technology and know how to use it correctly. The example of the boy not believing in the Holocaust shocks me. How could you not believe it?! Just because the Internet says it does not exist, does not mean that it doesn't. The boy should have heard about the Holocaust at some point in his life. The fact that he didn't know how to tell if the site was credible or not is besides the point; he should have known that it did exist from a history class. With that said though, I think that a technology class should be required of all students. They should have one in elementary school, middle school and at least one or more classes in high school. For high school, it should be a graduation requirement. For the students who go onto college, they cannot make a mistake like that boy did in the example. Students do need to know about the dangers of the Internet, from blasphemous websites to protecting their privacy. In this digital age, simple skills like this are needed just to survive.

I do not know how I feel about live video cameras in the classroom. As a plus, it does force teachers to constantly reevaluate themselves. I think though that this technology could get out of control with parents. I feel that if parents could watch the class, they will complain too much about the teacher. Ms. Johnson doesn't pick my son enough. Ms. Johnson was mean to Stacy. Ms. Johnson doesn't know what she is doing. These are just some things that parents could say about the teacher. Parents want to believe that their child is the best and brightest, so they could take these biases out on the teacher. I see more problems right now then benefits. I think that what Iowa is doing is weird as well. These technology either needs to go or it needs to be improved first.

The fifth section has a lot of interesting points, but one of the most interesting ones was that if we gave technology to all students, then we are increasing the achievement gap between the rich and the poor. This may sound harsh, but the poor do not have the resources to take care of the technology like the rich do. If they were given a laptop, would they even have Internet access at home? Most likely, the rich are involved with their child's schoolwork. If a rich student doesn't know how to do something, a parent would be able to help them. I doubt that the same could be said for the poor. Poor parents might not have had enough schooling to help their child out. These are just generalizations though. Who knows, maybe the opposite could be true. Maybe technology could actually close this achievement gap.

In the end, I think that collegiality is extremely important. Teachers should work with each other to help improve each other and how to help their students. These teacher-teacher relationships should not just be within their own department; teachers should work with teachers in other disciplines to see if there could be any crossover in order to reinforce material for the students. I also think that idea that students should go to teachers to technology seminars is important. I think a lot of teachers, especially older ones are stuck in their ways. They may go to the seminar, but not add in the technology they learned about. If students are there, they can give their feedback to the teacher. They can help them decide if what they were taught would be worthwhile to introduce into the classroom. If the teacher didn't like the technology, but the students did, it would put pressure onto the teacher to use the technology. Overall, I think that technology should be used in the classroom, but there should be some caution with it. It should not cause more harm than good.

Today is my first day of TCPCG and I am currently in my technology class learning how to use my Mac and how to integrate technology into the classroom. My Mac still scares me a bit, but I'm learning. We've done a Powerpoint presentation on technology standards, have set up wikis and of course this blog. So far so good.