---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Memory Fellows <AMFELLOWS@RS8.LOC.GOV>
Poster: Marilyn Frenz <mcfrenz@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Re(2): Applying New Knowledge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- "Monica R. Edinger" <edinger@DALTON.ORG> wrote:
> Randy,
>
> Thanks so much for your response. I was just
> incredibly thrilled when the
> kids went on their own to American Memory and felt I
> had to let those who
> could appreciate it know about it. When I suggested
> they go to the
> Internet I had thought more in terms of public
> domain clip art, but they
> headed right for American Memory. Then I was worried
> they would spent lots
> of time searching to no avail and I was completely
> wrong. So, what was so
> amazing, was that the kids led me into seeing a new
> way to use American
> Memory! I truly underestimated what they had
> learned in January and could
> apply now to a totally different task.
>
> They easily used the search techniques they had
> acquired back in January
> to search throughout the site, in collections they
> didn't know at all. I
> only had to guide them to those that had images.
> It showed me so many
> things. For one, how quickly kids this age pick up
> search techniques. When
> I suggested they search the Internet I was afraid
> they would inefficiently
> search and spend a whole period finding an
> insignificant images such as a
> flag. That was exactly the sort of thing I had
> observed a few years ago
> with some students and which inspired the History
> Firsthand lesson in the
> first place. However, that didn't happen. The kids
> went on their own to
> American Memory and then were able to find stuff
> quickly. I was just
> floored.
>
> We teachers are always looking to see how learning
> "takes." That is, do
> kids really deeply learn something sufficiently to
> use it from then on?
> Or do they learn it for the lesson and then forget
> it afterwards? I can
> tell how some of what I teach takes, but much is
> more subtle and difficult
> to assess. Then they go to the next year and the
> teacher complains that
> they never learned whatever I thought they had
> learned! So here was an
> unexpected situation to show me they had indeed
> learned well (even better
> than I had hoped) something I wanted them to learn.
> I mean we create
> performance assessments (that is what History
> Firsthand partly is) and
> tests at the end of a study, but how often do we get
> to see kids using the
> tools and techniques after a hiatus as has happened
> here? Especially
> technology skills such as those my students acquired
> during the History
> Firsthand lesson back in January?
>
> I also was pleased to see your reference to teaching
> for understanding
> having just read this past weekend Howard Gardner's
> new book _The
> Disciplined Mind_ in which he recommends a focus on
> teaching and learning
> for understanding -- less topics done in depth.
> Gardner's thinking
> resonates with me. I found his book _The Unschooled
> Mind_ from a few years
> back equally thought-provoking. In this one he
> writes about the potential
> of new technology to help (and hinder) deep
> understandings.
>
> Interesting that even at the college level there is
> a difficulty in seeing
> how to merge new technologies with deep thinking.
> I always thought that
> the older the student the less technologies were
> used in a simplistic way.
> After all colleges have far better resources than
> elementary schools.
>
> Again, thanks so much for your response.
> Monica
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 12:24:22 EST