wesleyp's blog

Matt did a nice job summarizing this article and coming up with some thought provoking questions. This article was difficult to read, let alone summarize, but I think Matt covered the main points.

I think the best summary of the article is  “Activity is enabled by intelligence, but not only intelligence contributed by the individual agent. When intelligence is distributed, the resources that shape and enable activity are distributed in configuration across people, environments, and situations. In other words, intelligence is accomplished rather than possessed.”

1) Describe your opinion of the “effect of technology” vs. “the effect with technology” on intelligence?
Effects of technology are advanced tools and new software  that aid in learning or provide a platform where learning can take place.

I think Misty hit it on the head when she said “The effect with technology on intelligence is that with these new tools learning potential is endless to what the learner makes it.” The platforms and tools have evolved so much with advances in technology that learning can be more effective and efficient.

2) How do you believe that the “Zone of Proximal Development” theory as described by Vygotsky has evolved with the introduction of technology?

The Zone of Proximal Development has evolved with technology in a way that the learner can seemingly do more with less help.

It was great to review the PLE’s of fellow classmates. I learned a lot about methods others use, and I got to see a lot of similarities, which was reassuring. I also found it interesting to see the same software used by myself and others who are just getting started in the program, and our classmates who are well over a year into the program. It was evident that we will continue to build our PLE’s over time, but it also shows how important it is to get organized early.

I am a PC user, which limited some of the options I have, but I do hope to be a MAC user in the near future when I can afford one. I was very intrigued by the Spaces and Time Machine tools that Aaron demonstrated. I also may consider Drop Box, which both Frank and Aaron use.

Ian & Rachel both showed how in-depth Google Reader can get, so I want to continue to use that and learn more about sorting my feeds and developing a better organization method within Google Reader.

I liked how Ian utilized YouTube to post his video, and as much as I visit YouTube, I’ve only ever posted a couple videos and they were class projects. I hope to use it more in the future.

I enjoyed seeing both Ian and Rachel use TweetDeck. I have used it in the past, but chose to demonstrate CoTweet as I was hoping none of the classmates had seen it yet.

Google Chrome is a browser that I saw in multiple videos, and I may consider giving it a shot again in the future. I used it when it was first released, and I ended up back at FireFox.

Ian demonstrated StumbleUpon, which I’ve visited, but never created an account. I will definitely look into using that in the future as a resource.

As for final thoughts, I am very happy with my PLE, and while I know it will always be changing and evolving, it is nice to see that I am using a lot of tools that my classmates are using. It is reassuring that my methods are also useful to others, and I hope to continue sharing the tools and resources that I use with others to help them organize their “digital lives” and develop their personal learning environments. I will be checking out some of the tools shared by my classmates in the near future (well, the PC and web-based ones at least).

I think that Misty did a nice job summarizing this week’s reading.

“The main argument of this article is that human living systems are open, dynamic, intentional systems and,
therefore, are capable of building ever more complex behaviors through self-organization and self-direction.”

The authors of this article discuss their beliefs on how “giftedness” evolves over time, and is NOT something we are born with. I personally believe that the potential for giftedness may be partly genetic, but like an idea, it means nothing unless put to use. This potential can be revealed with further education, mentors, teachers, experiences, and so on.

—My responses to Misty’s questions—

1.Do you agree that giftedness is made, not born? Why, please explain.

For the most part, I agree that giftedness is made, not born. I agree with some of the other classmates in the sense that some aspects are genetic, but I think the “potential” for giftedness is a large portion of the genetic aspect. I think in the long run, it is utilizing both what you were born with, the skills that you acquire and how you put everything to use.

2.Are Dai and Renzulli onto something with their theory and indication that gifted development and delivery needs further research.? Please support your response.

Again, I agree with my classmates that “giftedness” can be situational unless specifically defined. Further research is definitely needed, but this may be a worthwhile topic.

Hi Everyone –

Here is a two-part screen cast of my personal learning environment! I hope you all enjoy the tour and I look forward to yours.

http://www.screencast.com/t/Bonuv7LFnHKt

http://www.screencast.com/t/widnoZsg