Creating a lesson which utilizes a number of new technologies to be delivered to my grad school class in twenty minutes or less was a difficult task. Being able to use technologies that would create both concrete and interactive experiences for the class, while having my classmates reflect on the material and increase their level of critical thinking, not to mention including a form of informal analysis...it was tough to fit it all in. All of my different technologies had a specific purpose and seemed to work well to meet many of the objectives, unfortunately there were some things that were still left wanting.
I started with a formative assessment by creating a sort of pretest on Google Forms. This allowed me to grasp what each of the students knew going in. In a situation where I had more time, I could have used that information to focus my instruction on items that people were lacking, or I could have used it to focus on certain individuals who needed more attention. As it was, I wasn’t able to impart a much information, so I wasn’t really able to differentiate things the way i would have liked.
One of the few pieces of instructional input I had was some YouTube videos that I created when I was in high school that showed the origin stories of Judaism and Islam. The purpose of these were to give the students some much needed background information, but also to engage them by allowing them to see me, as the instructor, interact with the material. While this did not do much for increasing the level of thought, it did provide some concrete material for them.
I then had the students reflect on what they had seen, as well as what they could quick research via Google, as far as the commonalities between these two religions and their relationship with Jerusalem. This did not go as I planned. First off, I did not have a hashtag picked out beforehand, which was an oversight on my part and created some confusion. Secondly, this did not create the level of interaction between members of the class and the material as I had hoped. In retrospect, I should have pressed harder for deeper thought because this twitter exercise ended up being mostly useless.
Another thing I was going to do, which would have led to good interaction was to have the students get into groups and create a fake facebook wall for Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, or any other prominent figure they chose. This would have allowed them to create and consider the connections between all of the individuals, and therefore between the religions. This had to be scrapped again due to time constraints, but I think it would have been a fun and very helpful activity for true learning.
Finally, I brought up the Pop v Soda Map to demonstrate the differences in what people believe and call similar things. The idea that people who disagree on this triviality while living together when juxtaposed with the world map displaying the predominant religion seemed to be a huge success. This really seemed to get people making the connections I intended about coexistence and got them thinking more deeply about the effect these sorts of things have on the world as a whole.
I guess as a final analysis, all of these technologies would have been highly useful in attaining the stated objectives had they been implemented correctly. I made a lot of mention about “time” in the beginning of this reflection. In retrospect, you only have a certain amount of time to achieve certain goals. I knew how much time I had before I started planning, and I decided to try and cram everything into to small of a window. I think if I had it to do over again, I’d probably try to cover less material and give the material I did cover a little more depth. That said, I was happy overall with the technologies I used and I’m glad to have learned what I did.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Technology Integration Project #4 - Voicethread
With all of the projects I’ve done so far, I have been focused on how I would use these technologies to promote the teaching of my subject matter. For my final one, I’m going to look at improving the classroom environment and promoting interpersonal relationships in order to enhance learning. This will be done via Voicethread. Voicethread is a website that allows you to upload pictures or PDFs and make comments either via typing or via recording. You create your own pages with pictures and comments and anyone who you invite is free to comment back and talk to anyone else who has shared or commented on the page. In this situation, I created a class welcome page, as well as making a couple comments as a student to display the program’s capabilities: http://voicethread.com/share/2163667/
The original idea behind my use of this technology was to provide a forum for students to get to know me as well as each other. This can go so far as a link to a thread like mine in the summer before school starts so that they can learn something about me before ever setting foot in the classroom. Theoretically, I could also use it to introduce them to the classroom itself so that they can be more comfortable when they walk in on the first day of school. The goal is to start from the beginning by creating an environment where collaboration between myself and the students is encouraged. We know based on Vygotsky’s ideas of social learning that students can increase learning efficiency by collaborating with each other and with the teacher. The idea is that another student may come from a different background and therefore have a different point of view that the first student may have never considered. This will force them consider their initial thoughts more critically and possibly can lead to them accommodating the new idea into their world view. When I first thought of Voicethread as a “get to know you” technique, I thought it would be useful merely in creating a more comfortable environment from which collaboration could occur. The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized that it could be highly useful for discussion and collaboration throughout the year as well. Furthermore, if you can get to the point of students creating their own Voicethreads, not only will they be interacting with each other to discover new things, they’ll also be creating new material for themselves and their classmates which can be extremely beneficial.
Implementation, especially in the summer before school starts, may be quite difficult. The first issue is that Voicethread is not the most user friendly program for beginners. I know the first time I used it, I found it incredibly frustrating as I kept inadvertently doubling up my voice comments. Without proper instruction, it may be difficult for some students to interact properly. Secondly, there seems to be no way that you could require students to involve themselves with this before the year begins. While they would certainly see during the year how collaboration will make class more helpful and more fun, it may be hard to convince them of that before the school year begins. During the year, it would again require the use of computers. The difference with this technology is that it may be difficult to utilize it in a computer lab setting. The voice recording functionality, which is the thing that makes this program special in my opinion, would be nearly impossible to use with 20 students all trying to record at once. So this would likely only be able to be done on personal computers. While there is an option to call a phone number and record voice on there, only the first two minutes are free and then it starts charging, so that again would be a difficult thing to require. In a 1-to-1 setting, Voicethread could be a brilliant tool, but it may be difficult beyond that at this point.
Another issue with Voicethread is that it comes with a number of trade-offs and built in biases. The first is that, while it is intended to be a collaborative tool, it only provides the most impersonal sorts of interactions. With the lack of accountability that the internet provides at times, it may lead to students acting in a way that they wouldn’t in the classroom, so it will be important to focus on the proper use of the program in the classroom (but we’ll get into that in the standards section). A second major issue is that, while I intend it to be a program that helps increase student comfort with both myself and each other, Voicethread lends itself to the outgoing. Those who are more quiet or private may have difficulty becoming involved in the benefits of the program and if they don’t participate, there is the risk that they will end up feeling even more separated.
Voicethread meets INTASC Standard #6 as well as ISTE Standards #4 and #5. As far as INTASC #6, it demonstrates “knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.” One of Voicethread’s biggest benefits, in my opinion, are the multiple forms of media that it uses. From the viewing of pictures, to reading and writing comments, to speaking and listening to others, it can cover most of the ways that students ingest information. The fact that it is totally open and interactive is what makes it such a great collaborative tool. We brushed upon ISTE #4 in regards to the promotion of digital citizenship and responsibility, but I think it’s important to give it a little more depth. Since the internetVoicethread allows the opportunity for a safe, small scale demonstration of those freedoms and responsibilities. While you can display any picture you want, or make any sort of comment you want, you must stress how important it is that students use it wisely and that anything that they may divulge, which may depict them in a negative way, is available for public consumption. Finally ISTE #5 talks about engaging in professional growth by demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources. Utilizing all of the different functions of Voicethread demonstrates a very forward use of digital tools. It shows an interest in new technologies and a focus on their positive uses that should pass down to students. I know that when I first come across Voicethread, I was very skeptical, but after I saw all it could do, I became very enthusiastic...and as we all know, enthusiasm is one of the first things that students recognize.
One thing that was unfortunately lacking regarding the technologies I used for my other project was research specific to the program. There have been a number of articles specifically written about Voicethread as it seems to be a “typical” example of a Web 2.0 technology that, while not initially designed for education, has a vast number of educational affordances. The article I focused on was as follows:
Burden, K. & Atkinson, S. (2008). Evaluating pedagogical ‘affordances’ of media
sharing Web 2.0 technologies: A case study. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/burden-2.pdf
Burden and Atkinson go through a number of different functions of Voicethread and the corresponding pedagogical affordances that those functions allow. The matrices they formulate are highly compelling and the arguments they make for these being effective guidelines by which to evaluate other Web 2.0 technologies may create a highly effective tool. In fact, I think it is a tremendous start to the entire analysis. Here’s where it felt incomplete: The article speaks of Voicethread (and most Web 2.0 tech) as not being designed for education, but then clearly having educational value through their affordances. The problem however, is that they don’t then address the potential pitfalls of using this technology for educational purposes. After all, since the tech had unintended educational value, it seems logical that it would also have unintended perils. I think that it would be important for any evaluation tool, like the matrices they created, to include any foreseeable negatives along with all of the benefits. In any event, Voicethread is highly impressive to me and I will likely continue to try and discover new ways that I may use it in my future classroom.
The original idea behind my use of this technology was to provide a forum for students to get to know me as well as each other. This can go so far as a link to a thread like mine in the summer before school starts so that they can learn something about me before ever setting foot in the classroom. Theoretically, I could also use it to introduce them to the classroom itself so that they can be more comfortable when they walk in on the first day of school. The goal is to start from the beginning by creating an environment where collaboration between myself and the students is encouraged. We know based on Vygotsky’s ideas of social learning that students can increase learning efficiency by collaborating with each other and with the teacher. The idea is that another student may come from a different background and therefore have a different point of view that the first student may have never considered. This will force them consider their initial thoughts more critically and possibly can lead to them accommodating the new idea into their world view. When I first thought of Voicethread as a “get to know you” technique, I thought it would be useful merely in creating a more comfortable environment from which collaboration could occur. The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized that it could be highly useful for discussion and collaboration throughout the year as well. Furthermore, if you can get to the point of students creating their own Voicethreads, not only will they be interacting with each other to discover new things, they’ll also be creating new material for themselves and their classmates which can be extremely beneficial.
Implementation, especially in the summer before school starts, may be quite difficult. The first issue is that Voicethread is not the most user friendly program for beginners. I know the first time I used it, I found it incredibly frustrating as I kept inadvertently doubling up my voice comments. Without proper instruction, it may be difficult for some students to interact properly. Secondly, there seems to be no way that you could require students to involve themselves with this before the year begins. While they would certainly see during the year how collaboration will make class more helpful and more fun, it may be hard to convince them of that before the school year begins. During the year, it would again require the use of computers. The difference with this technology is that it may be difficult to utilize it in a computer lab setting. The voice recording functionality, which is the thing that makes this program special in my opinion, would be nearly impossible to use with 20 students all trying to record at once. So this would likely only be able to be done on personal computers. While there is an option to call a phone number and record voice on there, only the first two minutes are free and then it starts charging, so that again would be a difficult thing to require. In a 1-to-1 setting, Voicethread could be a brilliant tool, but it may be difficult beyond that at this point.
Another issue with Voicethread is that it comes with a number of trade-offs and built in biases. The first is that, while it is intended to be a collaborative tool, it only provides the most impersonal sorts of interactions. With the lack of accountability that the internet provides at times, it may lead to students acting in a way that they wouldn’t in the classroom, so it will be important to focus on the proper use of the program in the classroom (but we’ll get into that in the standards section). A second major issue is that, while I intend it to be a program that helps increase student comfort with both myself and each other, Voicethread lends itself to the outgoing. Those who are more quiet or private may have difficulty becoming involved in the benefits of the program and if they don’t participate, there is the risk that they will end up feeling even more separated.
Voicethread meets INTASC Standard #6 as well as ISTE Standards #4 and #5. As far as INTASC #6, it demonstrates “knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.” One of Voicethread’s biggest benefits, in my opinion, are the multiple forms of media that it uses. From the viewing of pictures, to reading and writing comments, to speaking and listening to others, it can cover most of the ways that students ingest information. The fact that it is totally open and interactive is what makes it such a great collaborative tool. We brushed upon ISTE #4 in regards to the promotion of digital citizenship and responsibility, but I think it’s important to give it a little more depth. Since the internetVoicethread allows the opportunity for a safe, small scale demonstration of those freedoms and responsibilities. While you can display any picture you want, or make any sort of comment you want, you must stress how important it is that students use it wisely and that anything that they may divulge, which may depict them in a negative way, is available for public consumption. Finally ISTE #5 talks about engaging in professional growth by demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources. Utilizing all of the different functions of Voicethread demonstrates a very forward use of digital tools. It shows an interest in new technologies and a focus on their positive uses that should pass down to students. I know that when I first come across Voicethread, I was very skeptical, but after I saw all it could do, I became very enthusiastic...and as we all know, enthusiasm is one of the first things that students recognize.
One thing that was unfortunately lacking regarding the technologies I used for my other project was research specific to the program. There have been a number of articles specifically written about Voicethread as it seems to be a “typical” example of a Web 2.0 technology that, while not initially designed for education, has a vast number of educational affordances. The article I focused on was as follows:
Burden, K. & Atkinson, S. (2008). Evaluating pedagogical ‘affordances’ of media
sharing Web 2.0 technologies: A case study. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/burden-2.pdf
Burden and Atkinson go through a number of different functions of Voicethread and the corresponding pedagogical affordances that those functions allow. The matrices they formulate are highly compelling and the arguments they make for these being effective guidelines by which to evaluate other Web 2.0 technologies may create a highly effective tool. In fact, I think it is a tremendous start to the entire analysis. Here’s where it felt incomplete: The article speaks of Voicethread (and most Web 2.0 tech) as not being designed for education, but then clearly having educational value through their affordances. The problem however, is that they don’t then address the potential pitfalls of using this technology for educational purposes. After all, since the tech had unintended educational value, it seems logical that it would also have unintended perils. I think that it would be important for any evaluation tool, like the matrices they created, to include any foreseeable negatives along with all of the benefits. In any event, Voicethread is highly impressive to me and I will likely continue to try and discover new ways that I may use it in my future classroom.
Technology Integration Project #3 - Google Forms (Survey)
I started my graduate education program here at Drake in January. During the spring semester, the two classes I took were Foundations of Education and Educational Psychology. One of the things that was discussed most often was that of formative assessment. Formative (or informal) assessment can include nearly all checks of understanding throughout a lesson. I decided to focus on a technology that would assist in my study of actual “pre-testing.” The original idea was to use Survey Monkey to set up a test, but upon Jerrid’s suggestion, I opted to look into Google Forms instead. Google forms allows you to set up a test/quiz/survey, email it to a group, and then it feeds the results into a spreadsheet: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoFh1QlpZkR1dEp0N2o3TlhKZWk2SkhOWnpiOU5ZZEE&hl=en_US
This sort of initial assessment allows you to focus your lesson on the areas in which the class is struggling as a whole. When I delivered my lesson in my practicum, I used a similar sort of worksheet pre-test. I then compiled that information and split the classroom into three levels of initial understanding. I then took one person from each group to create groups of three so that the students could work and help each other learn. Of course this was all done blind, and it was highly effective in having the students kind of teach each other. The one thing it really lacked, however, was the true sort of differentiation I was looking for. To me, the purpose of formative assessments is to be able to differentiate your lesson and your classroom in a way that targets each individual. Using the Google Forms survey application, I think I can do that. While I was able to create a sort of aggregated data with the paper form, the fact that Google Forms outputs to a spreadsheet that splits the results both by question and by individual allows me to quickly see where one student may need extra help. So while all formative assessments allow you to more quickly get students to higher level thinking (by eliminating redundant instruction) Google Forms allows me to build on each students prior knowledge on a more personal basis, which will allow them to assimilate the new data more efficiently.
I see very few issues with implementation regarding this technology. Obviously the main issue with this is the same as almost all of the other technologies we’ve discussed; the open access to computers by students. The thing that makes this specific technology easier as it comes to this is that students would not have to fill this out during class. If you can get an email address from every student, you can email it to them and they can fill it out as homework. If a student does not have an email account, you can link them to a webpage that has the survey on it. In that situation, they may have to access a computer lab to fill it out, but they should still be able to complete the task in no more than ten minutes outside of class.
Trade-offs or biases with the Google Forms version of surveying was a little tough to come by for me. In thinking about it over the past number of days, I had difficulty coming up with a way that the paper copy was better than the online version. When I did the paper version in the classroom, “grading” the quizzes and compiling the data in any meaningful fashion took three to four hours. When I used the Google Forms for my lesson plan in class yesterday, I had the data at my fingertips in five minutes. One problem that I ran into on Google Forms was that if you edit the survey by adding questions or changing the order, there doesn’t seem to be a way to quickly or easily delete the old survey results... but that is hardly different than having to write a new pretest if you wanted to change the paper form. The only major trade-off I found where the paper copy would be beneficial would be the ability to again use the test again later in the lesson. When I did my lesson last semester, it seemed to be very beneficial to the students when, after some instructional input, I handed back the pre-tests and allowed them to work in groups and correct their mistakes. Being able to see where they went wrong and actually fix it seems to give students a deeper level of understanding, and then being able to have a tangible copy of their work allows them to go back and review what they’ve learned. This is something that Google Forms does not provide. I could print out a paper copy of the questions at a later time for them to fill in, but I don’t think it would have the same impact. This is something I will have to continue to consider. There is another issue of bias that I did not consider until just now. Some students can better express their thoughts, answers, or ideas through other forms than writing. Since a survey on Google Forms would likely be done outside the classroom, it would not give students the freedom to answer the questions in other ways. If you give them a piece of paper, they may be able to write out their thoughts or they might be able to talk through things and tell you what they are thinking. The online form wouldn't give them that freedom, so while I may think I am assessing a students knowledge of the topic, I may instead be merely assessing their ability to read and properly comprehend the question.
Regarding standards, Google Forms’ Surveys meets INTASC Standard #8 and ISTE Standard #2. INTASC #8 discusses using “formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of the learner” while ISTE #2 requires a teacher to “design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS•S.” These standards are similar in a lot of ways in that they focus on the creation of meaningful assessments that utilize technological advances. Google Forms certainly achieves those goals in a way that will allow me to differentiate within the classroom in a way that would have been incredibly difficult in the past. This will allow me to ensure the continuous development of my students. It will also allow me to maximize content learning by making it so I am not wasting time that could be better spent in other ways. Instead of wasting my time manually “grading” quizzes that are meant solely for student development, I can instead use that time to develop new ways of getting through to individual students. Instead of wasting the students’ time teaching them information they already know, I can dig deeper into the information and get them to consider the connections that these ideas have to their world as a whole. Overall, saving this time can allow students to become more intimately involved with the material, which I think is a major focus of the NETS•S.
The book Challenging the Whole Child edited by Margaret Scherer is a compilation of articles that encompass a number of ideas about whole-student education. A number of the articles discuss the use of formative assessment versus summative assessment. One article, called “The Best Value in Formative Assessiment” (pp.219-226) by Stephen and Jan Chappuis, discusses the confusion that comes with the modern day understanding of formative assessment. It delves into the idea that many educators, especially since the advent of NCLB, have started to confuse formative assessments with “mini-summative assessments” and are using them to gauge how students will perform on the upcoming high-stakes tests. It’s thesis revolves around the idea that “assessment for learning” is the type of assessment that has “value” and that using these assessments as a way to adapt your teaching style will best assist student learning. I think this is correct. It is certainly true that using these informal assessments throughout the process can focus your teaching towards what is currently deficient within your classroom. I guess the problem I have with this article is the same as I’ve had with almost every current thought, article, or textbook regarding assessment, goals, objectives, and achievement. They are all high on rhetoric without any satisfactory solution. It makes sense to say that assessing in order to help students learn better is more effective for learning than assessing in order to make students do well on tests. It makes sense to say that achieving well on a test does not necessarily work as an effective measure of how much was learned. The problem is that learning is an abstract idea that, in a lot of ways, is wholly undefinable. If schools were free, or simply paid for by individuals and their families, then trying to achieve the higher ideal of learning would be a noble goal, but the fact that these things are paid for by the government and by society as a whole means there has to be some sort of measure by which they can see if they’re “getting their money’s worth.” If how we perform on achievement tests versus how other countries perform is not a valid measure, then what is? How do we define it?
I think that it is important to impart all of these high-minded ideals into new teachers. I truly see the value in all of this theory and psychology. I believe it helps us become better teachers, and therefore helps us create better students. That said, I also understand why teachers fall back into traditional roles once they enter the classroom. All of the current goals within education seem opposed to the things we are learning and no one seems to have an implementable solution as to how we can change that. So, after that long rant, I’ll try to quickly get back to the point. While I agree with most all of the points included within the article, it seems that it was designed to speak to those who already agree with it. While it makes a distinct clarification between types of assessment, it does not provide any sort of compelling evidence that shows why formative assessment is better, or what “better” even means in this situation. I’m a solutions oriented person. That’s why I loved what Google Forms provided for me. But I truly can not see the end game with all of this, which I why I struggle with many of these articles and discussions.teaching style will best assist student learning. I think this is correct. It is certainly true that using these informal assessments throughout the process can focus your teaching towards what is currently deficient within your classroom. I guess the problem I have with this article is the same as I’ve had with almost every current thought, article, or textbook regarding assessment, goals, objectives, and achievement. They are all high on rhetoric without any satisfactory solution. It makes sense to say that assessing in order to help students learn better is more effective for learning than assessing in order to make students do well on tests. It makes sense to say that achieving well on a test does not necessarily work as an effective measure of how much was learned. The problem is that learning is an abstract idea that, in a lot of ways, is wholly undefinable. If schools were free, or simply paid for by individuals and their families, then trying to achieve the higher ideal of learning would be a noble goal, but the fact that these things are paid for by the government and by society as a whole means there has to be some sort of measure by which they can see if they’re “getting their money’s worth.” If how we perform on achievement tests versus how other countries perform is not a valid measure, then what is? How do we define it?
I think that it is important to impart all of these high-minded ideals into new teachers. I truly see the value in all of this theory and psychology. I believe it helps us become better teachers, and therefore helps us create better students. That said, I also understand why teachers fall back into traditional roles once they enter the classroom. All of the current goals within education seem opposed to the things we are learning and no one seems to have an implementable solution as to how we can change that. So, after that long rant, I’ll try to quickly get back to the point. While I agree with most all of the points included within the article, it seems that it was designed to speak to those who already agree with it. While it makes a distinct clarification between types of assessment, it does not provide any sort of compelling evidence that shows why formative assessment is better, or what “better” even means in this situation. I’m a solutions oriented person. That’s why I loved what Google Forms provided for me. But I truly can not see the end game with all of this, which I why I struggle with many of these articles and discussions.
This sort of initial assessment allows you to focus your lesson on the areas in which the class is struggling as a whole. When I delivered my lesson in my practicum, I used a similar sort of worksheet pre-test. I then compiled that information and split the classroom into three levels of initial understanding. I then took one person from each group to create groups of three so that the students could work and help each other learn. Of course this was all done blind, and it was highly effective in having the students kind of teach each other. The one thing it really lacked, however, was the true sort of differentiation I was looking for. To me, the purpose of formative assessments is to be able to differentiate your lesson and your classroom in a way that targets each individual. Using the Google Forms survey application, I think I can do that. While I was able to create a sort of aggregated data with the paper form, the fact that Google Forms outputs to a spreadsheet that splits the results both by question and by individual allows me to quickly see where one student may need extra help. So while all formative assessments allow you to more quickly get students to higher level thinking (by eliminating redundant instruction) Google Forms allows me to build on each students prior knowledge on a more personal basis, which will allow them to assimilate the new data more efficiently.
I see very few issues with implementation regarding this technology. Obviously the main issue with this is the same as almost all of the other technologies we’ve discussed; the open access to computers by students. The thing that makes this specific technology easier as it comes to this is that students would not have to fill this out during class. If you can get an email address from every student, you can email it to them and they can fill it out as homework. If a student does not have an email account, you can link them to a webpage that has the survey on it. In that situation, they may have to access a computer lab to fill it out, but they should still be able to complete the task in no more than ten minutes outside of class.
Trade-offs or biases with the Google Forms version of surveying was a little tough to come by for me. In thinking about it over the past number of days, I had difficulty coming up with a way that the paper copy was better than the online version. When I did the paper version in the classroom, “grading” the quizzes and compiling the data in any meaningful fashion took three to four hours. When I used the Google Forms for my lesson plan in class yesterday, I had the data at my fingertips in five minutes. One problem that I ran into on Google Forms was that if you edit the survey by adding questions or changing the order, there doesn’t seem to be a way to quickly or easily delete the old survey results... but that is hardly different than having to write a new pretest if you wanted to change the paper form. The only major trade-off I found where the paper copy would be beneficial would be the ability to again use the test again later in the lesson. When I did my lesson last semester, it seemed to be very beneficial to the students when, after some instructional input, I handed back the pre-tests and allowed them to work in groups and correct their mistakes. Being able to see where they went wrong and actually fix it seems to give students a deeper level of understanding, and then being able to have a tangible copy of their work allows them to go back and review what they’ve learned. This is something that Google Forms does not provide. I could print out a paper copy of the questions at a later time for them to fill in, but I don’t think it would have the same impact. This is something I will have to continue to consider. There is another issue of bias that I did not consider until just now. Some students can better express their thoughts, answers, or ideas through other forms than writing. Since a survey on Google Forms would likely be done outside the classroom, it would not give students the freedom to answer the questions in other ways. If you give them a piece of paper, they may be able to write out their thoughts or they might be able to talk through things and tell you what they are thinking. The online form wouldn't give them that freedom, so while I may think I am assessing a students knowledge of the topic, I may instead be merely assessing their ability to read and properly comprehend the question.
Regarding standards, Google Forms’ Surveys meets INTASC Standard #8 and ISTE Standard #2. INTASC #8 discusses using “formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of the learner” while ISTE #2 requires a teacher to “design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS•S.” These standards are similar in a lot of ways in that they focus on the creation of meaningful assessments that utilize technological advances. Google Forms certainly achieves those goals in a way that will allow me to differentiate within the classroom in a way that would have been incredibly difficult in the past. This will allow me to ensure the continuous development of my students. It will also allow me to maximize content learning by making it so I am not wasting time that could be better spent in other ways. Instead of wasting my time manually “grading” quizzes that are meant solely for student development, I can instead use that time to develop new ways of getting through to individual students. Instead of wasting the students’ time teaching them information they already know, I can dig deeper into the information and get them to consider the connections that these ideas have to their world as a whole. Overall, saving this time can allow students to become more intimately involved with the material, which I think is a major focus of the NETS•S.
The book Challenging the Whole Child edited by Margaret Scherer is a compilation of articles that encompass a number of ideas about whole-student education. A number of the articles discuss the use of formative assessment versus summative assessment. One article, called “The Best Value in Formative Assessiment” (pp.219-226) by Stephen and Jan Chappuis, discusses the confusion that comes with the modern day understanding of formative assessment. It delves into the idea that many educators, especially since the advent of NCLB, have started to confuse formative assessments with “mini-summative assessments” and are using them to gauge how students will perform on the upcoming high-stakes tests. It’s thesis revolves around the idea that “assessment for learning” is the type of assessment that has “value” and that using these assessments as a way to adapt your teaching style will best assist student learning. I think this is correct. It is certainly true that using these informal assessments throughout the process can focus your teaching towards what is currently deficient within your classroom. I guess the problem I have with this article is the same as I’ve had with almost every current thought, article, or textbook regarding assessment, goals, objectives, and achievement. They are all high on rhetoric without any satisfactory solution. It makes sense to say that assessing in order to help students learn better is more effective for learning than assessing in order to make students do well on tests. It makes sense to say that achieving well on a test does not necessarily work as an effective measure of how much was learned. The problem is that learning is an abstract idea that, in a lot of ways, is wholly undefinable. If schools were free, or simply paid for by individuals and their families, then trying to achieve the higher ideal of learning would be a noble goal, but the fact that these things are paid for by the government and by society as a whole means there has to be some sort of measure by which they can see if they’re “getting their money’s worth.” If how we perform on achievement tests versus how other countries perform is not a valid measure, then what is? How do we define it?
I think that it is important to impart all of these high-minded ideals into new teachers. I truly see the value in all of this theory and psychology. I believe it helps us become better teachers, and therefore helps us create better students. That said, I also understand why teachers fall back into traditional roles once they enter the classroom. All of the current goals within education seem opposed to the things we are learning and no one seems to have an implementable solution as to how we can change that. So, after that long rant, I’ll try to quickly get back to the point. While I agree with most all of the points included within the article, it seems that it was designed to speak to those who already agree with it. While it makes a distinct clarification between types of assessment, it does not provide any sort of compelling evidence that shows why formative assessment is better, or what “better” even means in this situation. I’m a solutions oriented person. That’s why I loved what Google Forms provided for me. But I truly can not see the end game with all of this, which I why I struggle with many of these articles and discussions.teaching style will best assist student learning. I think this is correct. It is certainly true that using these informal assessments throughout the process can focus your teaching towards what is currently deficient within your classroom. I guess the problem I have with this article is the same as I’ve had with almost every current thought, article, or textbook regarding assessment, goals, objectives, and achievement. They are all high on rhetoric without any satisfactory solution. It makes sense to say that assessing in order to help students learn better is more effective for learning than assessing in order to make students do well on tests. It makes sense to say that achieving well on a test does not necessarily work as an effective measure of how much was learned. The problem is that learning is an abstract idea that, in a lot of ways, is wholly undefinable. If schools were free, or simply paid for by individuals and their families, then trying to achieve the higher ideal of learning would be a noble goal, but the fact that these things are paid for by the government and by society as a whole means there has to be some sort of measure by which they can see if they’re “getting their money’s worth.” If how we perform on achievement tests versus how other countries perform is not a valid measure, then what is? How do we define it?
I think that it is important to impart all of these high-minded ideals into new teachers. I truly see the value in all of this theory and psychology. I believe it helps us become better teachers, and therefore helps us create better students. That said, I also understand why teachers fall back into traditional roles once they enter the classroom. All of the current goals within education seem opposed to the things we are learning and no one seems to have an implementable solution as to how we can change that. So, after that long rant, I’ll try to quickly get back to the point. While I agree with most all of the points included within the article, it seems that it was designed to speak to those who already agree with it. While it makes a distinct clarification between types of assessment, it does not provide any sort of compelling evidence that shows why formative assessment is better, or what “better” even means in this situation. I’m a solutions oriented person. That’s why I loved what Google Forms provided for me. But I truly can not see the end game with all of this, which I why I struggle with many of these articles and discussions.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Technology Integration Project #2 - Poll Everywhere
Since my goal is to teach high school government, I decided to look into a technology that could be easily and directly related to politics. Poll Everywhere is a free online polling service where results can be voted on via text message, Twitter, or the pollev.com website. This allows students to be active members within the polling process and thereby gain a more complete understanding of how polling works. I made a couple of different polls, but the one I have included for this project is a poll regarding the use and legality of stem-cell research: http://www.polleverywhere.com/multiple_choice_polls/LTExOTI5ODMzODU. This is a major social issue facing this country’s politicians in the modern era and I thought it would be especially poignant due to our conversations regarding ethics in technology.
My use of this technology in the classroom will certainly be a modeling activity. When discussing the use and effectiveness of polling in general, we will discuss sample sizes and margin for error, as well as the idea of sampling different sets of individuals in order to get the most random sample possible. After seeing examples of these different concepts, which provides scaffolding for the purpose of polling in general, this will allow students to see a concrete example of how the technology works, and allow them to interact with polling in a way that will help them analyze the pros and cons, as evaluate polling’s effectiveness as a means of gathering public opinion. This would feed from Piaget’s ideas of constructivism, wherein students will have to accommodate for some new criticisms of polling which they likely had not considered in the past.
As far as implementation in the classroom is concerned, Poll Everywhere mostly depends on text messaging as a means of voting in the poll. This would require students to have cell phones with text messaging capabilities. While this is becoming more and more prevalent as time goes on, it is likely that there will be a least a few students who will not have cell phones. Furthermore, there may be a situation where the school I work in prohibits the use of cell phones in class. If that cannot be overcome, students can vote using the pollev.com website and this activity can be done in a computer lab. If the latter issue of school prohibition can be overcome, the former problem of students not having phones can be overcome with the purchase of Trac Phones. Since they would stay in the classroom, I’d likely not need more than five or ten, and it is probable that at least a portion of the cost could be picked up by a department budget. Obviously I would have to ensure that all phones are being used for their appropriate purpose, but that is no different than any other technology.
There are a couple of notable trade offs that come with this technology. The first one I have noticed every time I’ve seen people use Poll Everywhere. The program allows you to see results as they are coming in. If you allows this in the classroom, or in any polling situation, the results themselves can be self propagating. It can lead to mob rule wherein the people want to “vote for the winner.” It can also lead to people “trying to be different” and choosing a low-percentage choice to express their individuality. The great thing about that though, is that this sort of thing happens in real life too! Seeing such things occur will allow them to conceptualize the real bias that occurs in polling. Furthermore, it will lead to discussion of the legitimacy of polling in general and whether or not it should be allowed before elections due to the influence it can have. This will bring up discussions about France and how pre-election polling is illegal there for the exact reason. The other major trade off I discovered while playing with this program is the fact that the “answers” or “options” need to be very short. Due to the font on the website, you can only visibly fit about sixty (60) characters. This was very frustrating to me, especially for the stem cell question. When you have complex issue like that to deal with, it is important to be able to effectively explain them, and 60 characters does not always allow for that.
Standards wise, this technology meets ISTE standards #3 and #4. Standard #3 discusses exhibiting “knowledge, skills, and work processes representative of an innovative professional in a global and digital society.” What really was so exciting to me was how this technology would allow students to interact with the material and how Poll Everywhere, by its very nature, would force them to ask many of the questions and issues that we struggle with politically as a society in the modern day. Effective teaching does not occur in a vacuum. Being able to display how the concepts we are teaching effect global society is vastly important in order to keep students engaged in both the current material as well as polling they see after they leave school. Standard #4 talks about teachers understanding “local and global societal issues and responsibilities in an evolving digital culture and (exhibiting) legal and ethical behavior in their professional practices.” When asking questions using Poll Everywhere, it is important to ask students questions that matter in the modern landscape. This shows an understanding of current events. It is also important to ask questions in a way that avoids any sort of editorializing. That’s where we get into the ethics of such matters. When I use this technology, we will discuss “push-polling” and talk about different unethical ways in which polling is used, but it is vitally important that I avoid any of those traps when I have students interact with the program.
Livening up the Classroom: Using Audience Response Systems to Promote Active Learning. http://think.stedwards.edu/computerhelp/sites/webdev1.stedwards.edu.computerhelp/files/clickers/media/Collins2007.pdf The article speaks specifically of using handheld clicker devices to give responses throughout a lecture. It discusses how students were more engaged in the material because they felt involved, and furthermore there was a sense of anonymity which allowed more shy students to be more free with their opinions. Poll Everywhere could be used in the same way...but more so, it could be a merging of these two ideas. It can keep students involved and create lively discussions by allowing them to opine on controversial topics, but it could also provide material with which to create new lessons. Overall, I was impressed with the functionality of Poll Everywhere, but I was more impressed in the long run with how many ways I thought of to use the technology in the future!
My use of this technology in the classroom will certainly be a modeling activity. When discussing the use and effectiveness of polling in general, we will discuss sample sizes and margin for error, as well as the idea of sampling different sets of individuals in order to get the most random sample possible. After seeing examples of these different concepts, which provides scaffolding for the purpose of polling in general, this will allow students to see a concrete example of how the technology works, and allow them to interact with polling in a way that will help them analyze the pros and cons, as evaluate polling’s effectiveness as a means of gathering public opinion. This would feed from Piaget’s ideas of constructivism, wherein students will have to accommodate for some new criticisms of polling which they likely had not considered in the past.
As far as implementation in the classroom is concerned, Poll Everywhere mostly depends on text messaging as a means of voting in the poll. This would require students to have cell phones with text messaging capabilities. While this is becoming more and more prevalent as time goes on, it is likely that there will be a least a few students who will not have cell phones. Furthermore, there may be a situation where the school I work in prohibits the use of cell phones in class. If that cannot be overcome, students can vote using the pollev.com website and this activity can be done in a computer lab. If the latter issue of school prohibition can be overcome, the former problem of students not having phones can be overcome with the purchase of Trac Phones. Since they would stay in the classroom, I’d likely not need more than five or ten, and it is probable that at least a portion of the cost could be picked up by a department budget. Obviously I would have to ensure that all phones are being used for their appropriate purpose, but that is no different than any other technology.
There are a couple of notable trade offs that come with this technology. The first one I have noticed every time I’ve seen people use Poll Everywhere. The program allows you to see results as they are coming in. If you allows this in the classroom, or in any polling situation, the results themselves can be self propagating. It can lead to mob rule wherein the people want to “vote for the winner.” It can also lead to people “trying to be different” and choosing a low-percentage choice to express their individuality. The great thing about that though, is that this sort of thing happens in real life too! Seeing such things occur will allow them to conceptualize the real bias that occurs in polling. Furthermore, it will lead to discussion of the legitimacy of polling in general and whether or not it should be allowed before elections due to the influence it can have. This will bring up discussions about France and how pre-election polling is illegal there for the exact reason. The other major trade off I discovered while playing with this program is the fact that the “answers” or “options” need to be very short. Due to the font on the website, you can only visibly fit about sixty (60) characters. This was very frustrating to me, especially for the stem cell question. When you have complex issue like that to deal with, it is important to be able to effectively explain them, and 60 characters does not always allow for that.
Standards wise, this technology meets ISTE standards #3 and #4. Standard #3 discusses exhibiting “knowledge, skills, and work processes representative of an innovative professional in a global and digital society.” What really was so exciting to me was how this technology would allow students to interact with the material and how Poll Everywhere, by its very nature, would force them to ask many of the questions and issues that we struggle with politically as a society in the modern day. Effective teaching does not occur in a vacuum. Being able to display how the concepts we are teaching effect global society is vastly important in order to keep students engaged in both the current material as well as polling they see after they leave school. Standard #4 talks about teachers understanding “local and global societal issues and responsibilities in an evolving digital culture and (exhibiting) legal and ethical behavior in their professional practices.” When asking questions using Poll Everywhere, it is important to ask students questions that matter in the modern landscape. This shows an understanding of current events. It is also important to ask questions in a way that avoids any sort of editorializing. That’s where we get into the ethics of such matters. When I use this technology, we will discuss “push-polling” and talk about different unethical ways in which polling is used, but it is vitally important that I avoid any of those traps when I have students interact with the program.
Livening up the Classroom: Using Audience Response Systems to Promote Active Learning. http://think.stedwards.edu/computerhelp/sites/webdev1.stedwards.edu.computerhelp/files/clickers/media/Collins2007.pdf The article speaks specifically of using handheld clicker devices to give responses throughout a lecture. It discusses how students were more engaged in the material because they felt involved, and furthermore there was a sense of anonymity which allowed more shy students to be more free with their opinions. Poll Everywhere could be used in the same way...but more so, it could be a merging of these two ideas. It can keep students involved and create lively discussions by allowing them to opine on controversial topics, but it could also provide material with which to create new lessons. Overall, I was impressed with the functionality of Poll Everywhere, but I was more impressed in the long run with how many ways I thought of to use the technology in the future!
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Technology Integration Project #1 - My Fake Wall
I decided to spend the last week doing a lot of research into many different new technologies. I did that so that I could get a good grasp on which ones would be good for projects, but more importantly, I did so to discover which ones would be good for my future classroom. At first I had very little idea where to get started, but Jerrid directed me towards the Social Studies Chat hashtag on Twitter (#sschat) and within five minutes, I had a plethora of ideas! The first one I came across was a program for creating fake historical facebook accounts called MyFakeWall.com. I spent the rest of the day setting of a “Fakebook” account for Abraham Lincoln - http://www.myfakewall.com/wall/edit/134843 . The options and detail were astounding. You could upload pictures, create a list of “friends”, include biographical information, and even post comments and create conversations between the historical figure you are writing about and other people who may (or may not) have had interactions with them during their lifetimes.
There are multiple ways in which this technology can assist student learning. For starters, by creating essentially as Facebook page for their historical figure, students are able to interact with the material in ways that would not be possible in a traditional style. While students will still have to do independent research to obtain the necessary information to fill up the page, they will have a lot more freedom as to how they implement and express the things they’ve learned. In a history or government class, any figure that I would assign research on would likely have such a “full life” that it would be impossible for the students to include all of the data. This makes it so the student has to analyze everything they’ve learned and determine which parts of their lives they want to focus on. In this way, there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer, which will foster a deeper level of critical thinking.
In considering this project for use in the classroom, two immediate issues and concerns with implementation come to mind. The first is how to make the project equal or fair for all students. If they are all creating pages for different historical figures, it is likely that some people will be more difficult to write about than others. Some may have more available information. Some may have more pictures or more “friends” which make it easier to make the page look complete. An easy way to create equality would be to have every student create their own page on the same historical figure. That way, they are all starting out with the same information set and it is simply their creativity that makes the differences. The problem I see with that is that you lose the potential to learn a lot about a number of different people. That is untenable to me, so I think the focus has to be on ensuring that any figure I select has plenty of material to work from. The second problem is that of grading the “Fakebooks.” Clearly I will have to create a rubric of some kind that includes all of the different aspects of the page creation, but what features or aspects are the most important? Since each page will involve the different “characters”, how will I set the standards? These are things I will have to continue to reflect on.
The big trade off that I think we’ll run into with this technology is that there will be the tendency for these pages to lack depth. Just like with an actual Facebook page, these will provide a “snapshot” of the historical figure, but it will be difficult to address their importance with a lot of depth. Just as if someone looked at my Facebook page, they wouldn’t really understand who I am, so to will it be difficult for students to truly understand the figure by reading the “Fakebook” pages created by their classmates. I think a good way to solve that issue is to have each student also write a small biographical paper on the person for whom they are creating the page. While this wouldn’t allow every student to have the same depth of knowledge for every historical figure, it would create a situation where each student becomes intimately knowledgeable about one figure, while getting a breadth of knowledge about many others.
This project meets INTASC Standard #4 and ISTE Standard #1. For INTASC #4, this project certainly enhances critical thinking, problem solving, AND performance skills. Critical thinking comes from researching the figure from multiple sources and then determining what information is most important and should be included on the page. Problem Solving comes from playing with the website itself and discovering out to make comments, upload pictures, add friends, etc. Performance skills are encouraged by the simple creativity of the project in general. While there will be little as far as explicit presentation or performance, students will know that their page creation will be for consumption by their classmates and will create their pages accordingly. This will encourage them to be funny, or witty, while still being respectful to the material. For ISTE Standard #1, I would begin by using my knowledge of the subject and the technology to support their learning. I would have already created a page that would provide a proper example of what I would look for in their “Fakebook.” Then, while they are working, I would be up and walking around assisting them with any problems they may be having with the technology itself, or perhaps with finding proper research for to fill in the necessary information. The fact is that this technology just screams creativity and innovation. Students are being encouraged to create something completely new involving a person of historical significance who people have known about for a long time.
Four Elements of Successful Historical Role-Playing in the Classroom
Kathryn N. McDaniel
The History Teacher
Vol. 33, No. 3 (May, 2000), pp. 357-362
Published by: Society for History Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/495033
This article actually addresses some of the concerns I had with the trade-offs regarding the lack of depth. It discusses that, while knowledge gained through these exercises may be superficial, that does not have an effect on the success of the project. The focus and importance of the project is based on its memorability and, while it would always be good for students to learn as much as they possible can about a subject, it is more important that they remember the things that they have learned. I think this is right. In the current day and age, where as teachers we are being required to cover more in less time, some of the depth may have to be left to student independent learning. What we need to focus on is ensuring that the things we do teach...the things they do learn, stick with them in the future.
There are multiple ways in which this technology can assist student learning. For starters, by creating essentially as Facebook page for their historical figure, students are able to interact with the material in ways that would not be possible in a traditional style. While students will still have to do independent research to obtain the necessary information to fill up the page, they will have a lot more freedom as to how they implement and express the things they’ve learned. In a history or government class, any figure that I would assign research on would likely have such a “full life” that it would be impossible for the students to include all of the data. This makes it so the student has to analyze everything they’ve learned and determine which parts of their lives they want to focus on. In this way, there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer, which will foster a deeper level of critical thinking.
In considering this project for use in the classroom, two immediate issues and concerns with implementation come to mind. The first is how to make the project equal or fair for all students. If they are all creating pages for different historical figures, it is likely that some people will be more difficult to write about than others. Some may have more available information. Some may have more pictures or more “friends” which make it easier to make the page look complete. An easy way to create equality would be to have every student create their own page on the same historical figure. That way, they are all starting out with the same information set and it is simply their creativity that makes the differences. The problem I see with that is that you lose the potential to learn a lot about a number of different people. That is untenable to me, so I think the focus has to be on ensuring that any figure I select has plenty of material to work from. The second problem is that of grading the “Fakebooks.” Clearly I will have to create a rubric of some kind that includes all of the different aspects of the page creation, but what features or aspects are the most important? Since each page will involve the different “characters”, how will I set the standards? These are things I will have to continue to reflect on.
The big trade off that I think we’ll run into with this technology is that there will be the tendency for these pages to lack depth. Just like with an actual Facebook page, these will provide a “snapshot” of the historical figure, but it will be difficult to address their importance with a lot of depth. Just as if someone looked at my Facebook page, they wouldn’t really understand who I am, so to will it be difficult for students to truly understand the figure by reading the “Fakebook” pages created by their classmates. I think a good way to solve that issue is to have each student also write a small biographical paper on the person for whom they are creating the page. While this wouldn’t allow every student to have the same depth of knowledge for every historical figure, it would create a situation where each student becomes intimately knowledgeable about one figure, while getting a breadth of knowledge about many others.
This project meets INTASC Standard #4 and ISTE Standard #1. For INTASC #4, this project certainly enhances critical thinking, problem solving, AND performance skills. Critical thinking comes from researching the figure from multiple sources and then determining what information is most important and should be included on the page. Problem Solving comes from playing with the website itself and discovering out to make comments, upload pictures, add friends, etc. Performance skills are encouraged by the simple creativity of the project in general. While there will be little as far as explicit presentation or performance, students will know that their page creation will be for consumption by their classmates and will create their pages accordingly. This will encourage them to be funny, or witty, while still being respectful to the material. For ISTE Standard #1, I would begin by using my knowledge of the subject and the technology to support their learning. I would have already created a page that would provide a proper example of what I would look for in their “Fakebook.” Then, while they are working, I would be up and walking around assisting them with any problems they may be having with the technology itself, or perhaps with finding proper research for to fill in the necessary information. The fact is that this technology just screams creativity and innovation. Students are being encouraged to create something completely new involving a person of historical significance who people have known about for a long time.
Four Elements of Successful Historical Role-Playing in the Classroom
Kathryn N. McDaniel
The History Teacher
Vol. 33, No. 3 (May, 2000), pp. 357-362
Published by: Society for History Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/495033
This article actually addresses some of the concerns I had with the trade-offs regarding the lack of depth. It discusses that, while knowledge gained through these exercises may be superficial, that does not have an effect on the success of the project. The focus and importance of the project is based on its memorability and, while it would always be good for students to learn as much as they possible can about a subject, it is more important that they remember the things that they have learned. I think this is right. In the current day and age, where as teachers we are being required to cover more in less time, some of the depth may have to be left to student independent learning. What we need to focus on is ensuring that the things we do teach...the things they do learn, stick with them in the future.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Project Link List
http://www.myfakewall.com/wall/edit/134843
http://www.polleverywhere.com/multiple_choice_polls/LTExOTI5ODMzODU
http://technologyineducation.grouply.com/
http://www.polleverywhere.com/multiple_choice_polls/LTExOTI5ODMzODU
http://technologyineducation.grouply.com/
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Class 1 - Twitter can be educational?!?
Greetings to you all. Taking a moment to reflect on what we all learned today. My blog title is somewhat in jest, but I have been on Twitter for about three years. My interest in it began as a way to get quick updates on the Iowa Hawkeyes, as I am an Iowa alumnus and I live and breathe Hawkeye football. As I progressed in my discovery of the technology, it became a source for quick chuckles and later as a source for real news. Finally, it became a networking tool as I have met a number a good people through Twitter, and many have been very helpful in answering questions or thoughts I've had on a plethora of topics. I think that ends up being the key focus of what I learned today; while Twitter has a number of useful functions, one that I had not greatly considered was that of professional development and its use as an educational tool in the classroom. As we discussed 'trade-offs' today, one of the biggest one I've found with Twitter is that of the proliferation of false information. I expect that is something we'll discuss in the future as something with which to be cautious, but for tomorrow, I simply look forward to learning a little more depth on Google Reader and Blogger, two programs that were totally foreign to me before today. This is already a fascinating start to the class!
Lee
Lee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)