Comments on: #edchat Pre-game: Spock & Vger ROFL

By: Big Paradigm Shifts | Reflections of the TZSTeacher

Big Paradigm Shifts | Reflections of the TZSTeacher — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:36:18 +0000

[...] weeks ago, Matt Guthrie and I decided to pre-load #Edchat with entries on our blogs. Last week Chad Sansing and I did the same. They each call it the pregame show, so I’m going to begin to use that [...]

By: ‘SNOW WAY (to keep up with #edchat!) | Reflections of the TZSTeacher

‘SNOW WAY (to keep up with #edchat!) | Reflections of the TZSTeacher — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:39:21 +0000

[...] top two topics and while folks read both, not much conversation occurred this time on the blogs. (Chad’s and [...]

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:37:30 +0000

Thank you, Greg, for such a terrific and helpful comment. I’m especially interested in the location, identity, and goal aspects of prior knowledge. If we think about how students learn what they want to learn, they start with this kind of knowledge already in mind – where do I look, how does this relate to me, and how will I know when I’ve learned what I want? Sometimes we classroom teachers pre-teach this kind of information for school work via models, rubrics, and the like. Sometimes we just take it on faith that students have this knowledge, or we don’t think about providing it. It seems to me like a before-during-after structure would help build these crucial types of prior knowledge you mention and out them to use in a targeted manner for work.

It’s also great to hear from CT – are you a native Nutmegger? I grew up in Glastonbury.

Best,
C

By: Greg McVerry

Greg McVerry — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:17:55 +0000

I tend to think the role of prior knowledge maybe evolving as our literacy practices shift from page to pixel.

First off I believe you are spot on about the role interests plays in leaning. There is such a strong linear relationship between interest and prior knowledge. I think, though, for educators the Internet may change this relationship because teachers now have access to unlimited texts. You can match students ans interests very easily.

One problem with with authentic interests and texts is critical thinking. Students rarely evaluate an argument (see Stahls work on reading in history)or consider other perspectives when they are entrenched in interests. If you spend anytime trolling through the comments of politics or sports (a shame they have the same discourse) you can see this reality play out.

I also believe the Internet may reduce the dependency of prior knowledge on making meaning. Skilled online readers may in face be able to quickly compensate for a lack of prior knowledge.

I also think that the Internet requires new types of prior knowledge to move to the forefront. Paris, Wasik, and Turner identified three types of PK declarative (knowing what) procedural (knowing how) and conditional (knowing when. More recently Hartman and his colleagues have suggested three new types of knowledge just as central to literacy: location (knowing where), identity (knowing who), and goal (knowing why). There maybe some credence to this theory.

I do agree with your methods for teaching students the social practices of online literacy. Learning online requires strategy exchange through collaborative authentic tasks. We have tried to build this into our Internet Reciprocal Teaching model .

Learning activities that encouraged tlevel of y exchange often fall into three categories: modeling through online communication, collaborative problem challenges, and content creation. I see these fitting within the pedagogy you describe.

Does the Internet change the role of prior knowledge. Maybe. Does it change ow we teach literacy. Definitely.