I am doing my review on the Learning Resource:
“Teaching Technology Addiction in a Highschool Classroom”
By: Sinead Swan, Colton Van Camp, and Harleen Parmar.
In today’s technology driven era, a learning resource that helps teenagers monitor their use of technology and understand technology addiction seems more than appropriate. The resource is well organized, with ample references to backup the study, even offering students the tools to reach out anonymously if they suspect that they may have a problem with addiction following the lessons.
The rationales on Learning Design and Theory are clear and concise. I found it easy to follow along with why they chose the methods of teaching that they did. I especially appreciated the way they would define each chosen theory prior to explaining how it correlates to their resource.
It seems to me that the Learning Context could be broadened, in the resource my peers define the learner but not the environment. Through deduction in other paragraphs, such as the Overview, I can tell that the lesson takes place primarily in a classroom setting for Highschool students, but this is not stated directly on the context. I would suggest adding in a section about the environment and target age group as a part of the context description for further clarity. Why are you specifically targeting the lessons to highschool students? I believe this should be included in the context summary.
The Assessment was also easy to understand, I liked that it used tables to help condense and organize requirements into an easy-to-read format. The expectations as to what is required by the students to pass is very clear.
I notice there does not seem to be a technology rational paragraph, at first I wondered if this was because the resource was about limiting exposure to technology, but it uses the internet and video sources to complete the lessons, so I believe the following from the learning resource criteria should still be added: “A rationale for your technology choices.” (Heidi James).
The section on the resource’s design for inclusion was well thought out, the group chose “English Language Learners” (ELL) and “No Computer access at Home” inclusions. I think the solutions this group came up with will be effective at helping these students. I would also add that in regards to ELL video inclusion, that many videos offer subtitles not only in English but through auto-generation into any language through the video settings. Auto-generation is far from perfect, but it may serve to assist ELL students. Furthermore there are tools like google translate which can take an audio sample and translate it for free. For a Ted-talk video this may be an ideal solution to improve ELL inclusion.
In regards to the actual activities and lessons of the course, I thought the ideas were solid and the activities were easy to follow along with. They had good correlation to the subject of the resource and the reasons for doing the activity was clear.
Be careful about marking students on creativity. Creativity is an abstract and highly subjective topic, fueled mostly by each individual person’s biases and life experiences. Someone is ‘creative’ when the viewers expectations are subverted. Asking a student to subvert a teacher’s expectations may be an unfair request. However, I see that its elaborated about being unique to the person, so perhaps play more on making the journals more about individual self-reflection and removing the term creativity, which may otherwise put a lot of pressure on the student and give them the wrong idea about what the teachers are expecting from them.
Regarding their learning goal: “To provide students with knowledge on technology addiction and the effects it can have on young people in a non judgmental, inclusive classroom.” I do have some concerns about privacy on some of these activities. Specifically activities were students are required to share personal data about their time and app usage to their peers. Choosing someone you trust is not always a viable option in a classroom setting, and in my own experience high school students are known for being particularly competitive or abrasive with their peers. The data shared may be considered embarrassing to some students or worthy of gossip to a bad-natured student. This could potentially damage the student’s confidence or social circle and result in opportunities for peer-shaming. My suggestion is to give the student full control over how honest they would like to be about their data, or even give them the option to complete this task without a partner, so that they are able to protect/control their privacy if they feel this is needed. Currently, I feel this activity may go against achieving their learning goal.
The activities seem all about bringing awareness to students, and I believe the activities suggested like group work, self-reflection, and personal evaluation will be effective at achieving the learning outcomes. I like that the pod tries to keep the lessons personal rather than hitting students with large walls of information. By targeting the lessons at the students directly I believe they will be more likely to relate to, and retain the information.
I am a little curious how a lesson like this may be taken by high school students, if it would make them defensive because its another “adult telling them what’s bad for them” or help open them up to helpful life tools. I think the lessons are framed in a way that will help students a lot more than a simple self-help lecture, and the tools learned could aid them for the rest of their lives. After all, the necessity of technology use is consistently on the rise.
Overall, I find this learning resource to be very well written and organized, there is room for student expansion and deep learning which could have a very positive impact on a student’s life. Unlike theoretical learning, this resource offers to teach students skills that could be applied to their lives directly and consistently. Well done!
Peer Review: Teaching Technology Addiction
I am doing my review on the Learning Resource:
In today’s technology driven era, a learning resource that helps teenagers monitor their use of technology and understand technology addiction seems more than appropriate. The resource is well organized, with ample references to backup the study, even offering students the tools to reach out anonymously if they suspect that they may have a problem with addiction following the lessons.
The rationales on Learning Design and Theory are clear and concise. I found it easy to follow along with why they chose the methods of teaching that they did. I especially appreciated the way they would define each chosen theory prior to explaining how it correlates to their resource.
It seems to me that the Learning Context could be broadened, in the resource my peers define the learner but not the environment. Through deduction in other paragraphs, such as the Overview, I can tell that the lesson takes place primarily in a classroom setting for Highschool students, but this is not stated directly on the context. I would suggest adding in a section about the environment and target age group as a part of the context description for further clarity. Why are you specifically targeting the lessons to highschool students? I believe this should be included in the context summary.
The Assessment was also easy to understand, I liked that it used tables to help condense and organize requirements into an easy-to-read format. The expectations as to what is required by the students to pass is very clear.
I notice there does not seem to be a technology rational paragraph, at first I wondered if this was because the resource was about limiting exposure to technology, but it uses the internet and video sources to complete the lessons, so I believe the following from the learning resource criteria should still be added: “A rationale for your technology choices.” (Heidi James).
The section on the resource’s design for inclusion was well thought out, the group chose “English Language Learners” (ELL) and “No Computer access at Home” inclusions. I think the solutions this group came up with will be effective at helping these students. I would also add that in regards to ELL video inclusion, that many videos offer subtitles not only in English but through auto-generation into any language through the video settings. Auto-generation is far from perfect, but it may serve to assist ELL students. Furthermore there are tools like google translate which can take an audio sample and translate it for free. For a Ted-talk video this may be an ideal solution to improve ELL inclusion.
In regards to the actual activities and lessons of the course, I thought the ideas were solid and the activities were easy to follow along with. They had good correlation to the subject of the resource and the reasons for doing the activity was clear.
Be careful about marking students on creativity. Creativity is an abstract and highly subjective topic, fueled mostly by each individual person’s biases and life experiences. Someone is ‘creative’ when the viewers expectations are subverted. Asking a student to subvert a teacher’s expectations may be an unfair request. However, I see that its elaborated about being unique to the person, so perhaps play more on making the journals more about individual self-reflection and removing the term creativity, which may otherwise put a lot of pressure on the student and give them the wrong idea about what the teachers are expecting from them.
Regarding their learning goal: “To provide students with knowledge on technology addiction and the effects it can have on young people in a non judgmental, inclusive classroom.” I do have some concerns about privacy on some of these activities. Specifically activities were students are required to share personal data about their time and app usage to their peers. Choosing someone you trust is not always a viable option in a classroom setting, and in my own experience high school students are known for being particularly competitive or abrasive with their peers. The data shared may be considered embarrassing to some students or worthy of gossip to a bad-natured student. This could potentially damage the student’s confidence or social circle and result in opportunities for peer-shaming. My suggestion is to give the student full control over how honest they would like to be about their data, or even give them the option to complete this task without a partner, so that they are able to protect/control their privacy if they feel this is needed. Currently, I feel this activity may go against achieving their learning goal.
The activities seem all about bringing awareness to students, and I believe the activities suggested like group work, self-reflection, and personal evaluation will be effective at achieving the learning outcomes. I like that the pod tries to keep the lessons personal rather than hitting students with large walls of information. By targeting the lessons at the students directly I believe they will be more likely to relate to, and retain the information.
I am a little curious how a lesson like this may be taken by high school students, if it would make them defensive because its another “adult telling them what’s bad for them” or help open them up to helpful life tools. I think the lessons are framed in a way that will help students a lot more than a simple self-help lecture, and the tools learned could aid them for the rest of their lives. After all, the necessity of technology use is consistently on the rise.
Overall, I find this learning resource to be very well written and organized, there is room for student expansion and deep learning which could have a very positive impact on a student’s life. Unlike theoretical learning, this resource offers to teach students skills that could be applied to their lives directly and consistently. Well done!
soals
November 17, 2020
edci335
addiction, comments, EDCI335, highschool, peer, resource, review, teaching, technology