SS 9 Human Rights in Action
In the process of completing the task of creating a website, I was able to familiarize myself with using some programs that I had not used much before. First, to design the logo for our student organization I searched the web to find a suitable image. Next, I used Microsoft Paint to edit the image and give it a personalized touch. Believe it or not, I had never used Paint before. Also, I used www.delicious.com to locate the links on our website. I had been exposed to Delicious by Mr. Stephenson during his presentation and took advantage of this opportunity to explore this useful website. In terms of actually authoring the webpage, I got the opportunity to collaborate on the design of the webpage using Iweb.
The use of technology was meaningful in a very obvious and relevant way with this task. One of the most important aspects of this task was to move the students to take action. Creating a website, and by extension using other media in the process, was a meaningful use of technology because it is the primary way that students access information. The goal of the website was to spread the message amongst the student population, so the use of a webpage was relevant and the skill of web-authoring will continue to be useful for students both in and outside of the classroom.
Web page authoring allows for easy collaboration because there are many different, specific tasks that go into the creation of a page. Students can experience uploading content onto the page while choosing different formats that may require different skills. In this way, it is easy for everyone to share the experience while still allowing students to focus on particular areas of interest or to emphasize unique personal strengths.
The main challenges we encountered as a group were philosophical disagreements concerning assessment practices. Although I think that the rubric developed for this task was good, I personally disagree with giving marks simply for completing requirements (for ex: 1 mark for name, 1 mark for logo). I also feel that some of the criteria described in the rubric were too subjective. That being said, I feel as though all group members were very determined to collaborate and accommodate others. In the end, I think we produced a good task.
In the process of completing the task of creating a website, I was able to familiarize myself with using some programs that I had not used much before. First, to design the logo for our student organization I searched the web to find a suitable image. Next, I used Microsoft Paint to edit the image and give it a personalized touch. Believe it or not, I had never used Paint before. Also, I used www.delicious.com to locate the links on our website. I had been exposed to Delicious by Mr. Stephenson during his presentation and took advantage of this opportunity to explore this useful website. In terms of actually authoring the webpage, I got the opportunity to collaborate on the design of the webpage using Iweb.
The use of technology was meaningful in a very obvious and relevant way with this task. One of the most important aspects of this task was to move the students to take action. Creating a website, and by extension using other media in the process, was a meaningful use of technology because it is the primary way that students access information. The goal of the website was to spread the message amongst the student population, so the use of a webpage was relevant and the skill of web-authoring will continue to be useful for students both in and outside of the classroom.
Web page authoring allows for easy collaboration because there are many different, specific tasks that go into the creation of a page. Students can experience uploading content onto the page while choosing different formats that may require different skills. In this way, it is easy for everyone to share the experience while still allowing students to focus on particular areas of interest or to emphasize unique personal strengths.
The main challenges we encountered as a group were philosophical disagreements concerning assessment practices. Although I think that the rubric developed for this task was good, I personally disagree with giving marks simply for completing requirements (for ex: 1 mark for name, 1 mark for logo). I also feel that some of the criteria described in the rubric were too subjective. That being said, I feel as though all group members were very determined to collaborate and accommodate others. In the end, I think we produced a good task.
No comments:
Post a Comment