5364+-+Reflections+on+Teaching+with+Technology


 * EDLD 5364 - Reflections on Teaching with Technology **

**Week 5 Topic: //Reflecting Upon Teaching with Technology//**  The final week has arrived. In Chapter 8 of //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works // (2007), Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski discuss the topic of “reinforcing effort.” They mention a old saying that “success comes in cans; failure in can’ts.” Teaching students to rely on their own effort, which they can control, and instructing them to track effort against achievement or success may help them see the correlation. In Chapter 8 of Solomon and Schrum’s //Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools // (2007), the authors discuss some possible ways that assessments can be “authentic and simultaneously prepare students to succeed in the standardized testing they will face“ (p.168). They point out that ongoing, dynamic, and formative evaluation can be utilized through many Web 2.0 solutions.

This week’s videos focused on new methods of incorporating technology into the classroom. Specifically, I enjoyed the //Big Thinkers’// insights: · James Paul Gee discussing the utilization of games · The ending to Howard Gardner’s brief thoughts when he spoke of the hope of an “edutopia” versus an “edu-nightmare” · Sasha Barab speaking about new media engagement and how failure can be motivating to students if they are allowed to “tinker” and apply new theories.

All in all, it was a light week for content.

Reflecting on this course and the content presented, it has definitely been a whirlwind of information. The primary focal point was the UDL framework. Ensuring students have various methods, materials, assessments, and curriculum brings about more equitable and fair environments in our classrooms for students of all learning levels and abilities. The CAST website has great theories and resources for students and teachers. The UDL Book Builder, UDL Lesson Builder, and UDL Curriculum Self-Check have guided me through lesson planning and design. Of course, putting the UDL theories in place and applying them will take a great deal of effort by our teachers.

Looking way back, the learning theories of constructivism and connectivism have been underlying every aspect of this course. Project-based learning and allowing students to create meaning and knowledge from their experiences was apparent in most readings, videos, and our group project. In addition, learning as a process of connecting information nodes and maintaining those connections for continual learning held true throughout the course, especially when Web 2.0 solutions were brought into the picture. It’s no wonder that classrooms that are applying these theories are more successful at integrating technology. 

====The fourth week was challenging, to say the least. Our group project was at its height requiring various projects, lesson plans, rubrics, and presentations to be created by all of our team members. The videos were amazing. I especially enjoyed the Eduphoria series including the interviews with [|Linda Darling-Hammond] and [|Larry Rosenstock]. As always, our readings were very informative and applicable to our group project and our professional careers. In Chapter 7 of //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works// (2007), Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski discuss cooperative learning. I loved the quote on page 143 which states that “cooperative learning is not so much learning to cooperate as it is cooperating to learn.” In Chapter 5 of Solomon and Schrum’s //Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools// (2007), the authors discuss the disappointment that is today’s educational technology professional development results and how to implement better programs. In //Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning// (2002)//,// Rose and Meyer further discuss applying the UDL framework, but this time relating it to assessments. Finally, Pitler contemplates and shares his viewpoint on technology professional development in //McRel Technology Initiative: The Development of a Technology Intervention Program Final Report// //(Contract Number ED-01-CO-0006)// (2005) in which he states that “curriculum comes first, technology comes second.” ====
 * Week 4 Topic:** //**Designing Student-Centered Learning Activities with Technology**//


====Looking back across the sleepless nights and [|TokBox] video conferences with my team, I will say that the last two weeks have been the busiest in my graduate school career. I am fortunate to have been able to work with dedicated and conscientious professionals. They have truly assisted me with grasping the UDL concepts and the lesson planning activities. ====

====The only concept that I took issue with this week was the Rose and Meyer chapter. The UDL framework and this particular chapter on its application in assessment generated my own considerations. I agree that there are many confounding variables to traditional assessments such as the media, the content, individual learning differences, lack of supports, etc. However, even with the suggested flexibilities, I do not believe it is simple or straightforward to design a universally fair, equitable, and dynamic assessment. Should we infer an individualized assessment for each student? I also agree that embedded, dynamic assessments throughout a lesson eliminate stress and emotion surrounding the conventional “test time” at the end of each unit. However, students will be faced with these type of assessments in the business world: performance evaluations, reports, presentations, certification renewals, etc. While the UDL model levels the playing field in scholastic environments, does it lessen the competitive edge that seems to be necessary in global business and industry? You decide…  ==== <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">

In Week 3 of my course, I was provided with many resources that described planning strategies for using technology in the classroom and portrayals of learners in the digital generation. In Chapter 6 of [|Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning] (2002), Rose & Meyer explain the many aspects of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. They detail the definitions and examples of the three brain networks of learning: recognition (the what of learning), strategic (the how of learning), and the affective (the why of learning). On the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) website, I read about useful teacher tools such as the online [|UDL Book Builder] software and the [|UDL Curriculum Self-Check] utility. In Chapter 2 of //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works// (2007), Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski insightfully encourage educators to provide formative assessments to students in various forms of feedback. They also further describe the planning questions:
 * Week 3 Topic: //Planning for Student-Centered Learning With Technology//**
 * //What will students learn?//
 * //W////hich strategies will provide evidence of student learning?//
 * //Which strategies will help students acquire and integrate learning?//
 * //Which strategies will help students practice, review, and apply learning?//

Solomon & Schrum introduce us to many Web 2.0 solutions in [|Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools] (2007) Chapter 4: New Tools in Schools. Finally, I reviewed short documentaries of students taking part in the Digital Generation Project and the Kansas Technology Rich Classrooms initiative.

All of these resources spawned many reflections and questions for me and my classmates this week: Particularly, I keyed in on Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski who make a simple, but excellent point on page 217 of //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works// (2007):
 * When is technology use appropriate?
 * All teachers need more time and additional training if we, as educational technology leaders, expect them to use it effectively. In my opinion, if educational systems are to successfully implement pedagogical practices such as the UDL framework, governmental entities such as state education agencies and local school boards have to change the way curriculum is designed and how students are assessed. But how?
 * Beginning two years ago, school districts were required to submit the percentage of 8th graders who are “technology literate.” I believe that the next NCLB data to be collected and submitted will be technology proficiency of our teachers. Shouldn’t we be focusing on applicable and effective technology integration in the classroom rather than mere technical skills and abilities?


 * “Using technology for technology’s sake isn’t a good application of instructional time or funding, and it is unlikely to improve student achievement. It is essential that teachers design a quality lesson plan first and then select the most appropriate technologies to support that lesson.”**

So many school districts fall into this trap. Funds are spent to obtain technology. Sometimes training is even made available on how to use the new hardware or software. Unfortunately, the “norm” is that the training is more technical and does not apply the technology solution to classroom instruction. Additionally, even if the technology is research proven as an effective instructional tool, using for its own sake rather that when appropriate is foolish. Technology collecting dust is bad enough, but educators who use technology without relating it to the lesson will not usually produce student learning gains. A prime example is a teacher who brings her students to the computer lab once a week to fulfill a mandatory requirement on an administrator's schedule. Computer lab time should be related to the content that is being taught in the classroom. In the December 2008 edition of //The Journal//, Jolene Dockstader authored an article entitled “ //[|Teachers of the 21st Century Know the What, Why, and How of Technology Integration].”// She stated that “t rue integration comes when students learn through computers, not about them. There is no value of learning word processing unless it is used to further content comprehension.”

Technology can be the "equalizer" for many students to overcome barriers to their learning. Hopefully, we are on the path to understanding this. <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">

Week 2 of my Teaching with Technology course has uncovered many new perspectives and methodologies. These were introduced with some very informative articles such as //[|Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning]// by Rose and Meyer. In this article, the authors discuss Universal Design for Learning as a structure for opportunities to increase learning in all students, especially those in diverse populations. Another insightful article was //[|The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement: What The Most Current Research Has To Say]// by J. Schacter. This article briefly looks at the conclusion of over 700 research studies and the possible correlation between access to certain technology solutions and student achievement. Also, I want to note the research study by Michael S. Page, //[|Technology-enriched Classrooms: Effects on Students of Low Socioeconomic Status]//. As stated in the Discussion section, “This study indicated that technology-enriched elementary classrooms are conducive to higher levels of mathematics achievement, higher levels of self-esteem, and student-centered environments among low socioeconomic status elementary children. Finally, I read Chapter 1: Setting Objectives in our textbook, //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works// by Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski. This chapter discussed how technology can be utilized to support students and teachers with setting goals. Some examples are word processing applications, organizing and brainstorming software, data collection tools, web resources, and communication software. In addition to the above readings, I was directed to some videos on the following website: [|www.cast.org]. The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) is an influential, non-profit organization that promotes the UDL framework for learning.
 * Week 2 Topic:** **//Technology// Strategies that Positively Impact Student Learning**

The flexibility of the UDL framework allows for more universal methods, materials, assessments, and curriculum. If educators are to take advantage of UDL, we may have to re-evaluate our current strategies for presenting curriculum. We will have to abide by the CAST principles by providing multiple means for students to acquire knowledge, offering various presentation choices to express what they have learned, and motivating and challenging them by associating lessons to their interests.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again - "ENGAGE students!" I have read many research studies and analyzed data indicating that technology increases student achievement. The conclusions vary as to the reason why. Some say it motivates. Some say it increases self-esteem. Personally, I believe that technology education solutions work because they reach today’s students in a way that pulls them back from the boredom. As Marc Prensky stated in //Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants// (2001), “today’s students are no longer the people our education system was designed to teach.” He goes on to say that “if digital immigrant educators really want to reach digital natives (i.e. their students), they will have to change.” Great point! We need to change our instructional tactics and techniques to match our changing student population.

Our first week’s activities have exposed me to learning theories such as constructivism, connectivism, and cyborg theory. Constructivism is defined in many of our readings, but can be summarized as the following: “Students learn by taking in information from the world and constructing their own meaning from the experience as opposed to someone telling them bits of information” (//[|If I teach this way, am I doing my job: Constructivism in the classroom]//, Sprague & Dede, 1999).
 * Week 1 Topic: //Learning Theories and Implications for Teaching with Technology//**

Most of our readings dealt with the theory of constructivism. Constructivist classrooms employ project-based activities versus “drill and kill” lessons. Students are not bombarded with informational lectures, but move beyond traditional education methods by incorporating new learning with what they already know. Students connect the lesson with their previous knowledge and experiences and then either accept or reject the new information. “These classrooms have the most promise for successful technology integration” (//[|Learning as a Personal Event: A Brief Introduction to Constructivism],// SEDL, 1999).

The learning theory of connectivism is credited to George Siemens. He believes that “learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions; learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources; the capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known; nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning; the ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill; and decision-making is itself a learning process” (//Web 2.0: New tools, new schools//, Solomon & Schrum, 2007).

Cyborg learning theory is a little more futuristic. Inventor Ray Kurzweil foresees “the melding of humans and technological devices will have tremendous implications for education” (//Week 1 Video Script//, Mason, 2009). Keven Warwick, a professor at the University of Reading in Great Britain, portrays this theory by expediting the human-technological “evolution“ by studying the effects and results of computer chips implanted in his nervous system.

After studying these theories, I have to say that Cyborg theory caused me the greatest amount of reflection. I am having a great deal of trouble grasping how this is a theory of learning. Current human memory is biological and electro-chemical. The physical process of how learning occurs and is stored in memory is still somewhat of a mystery to most physicians and psychologists, but I do not see how introducing circuitry to expand memory would be considered “learning.” I think of learning as knowledge, understanding, or behavior obtained through habit, conditioning, or development due to experience. How imprinting in the brain occurs and how something similar could be achieved with a machine seems impossible without artificial intelligence or fully integrating the brain with a computer. If this is how learning will be achieved, I predict there will be serious ethical and religious obstacles to overcome. I think we are not far from introducing a memory chip that could be accessed by the human brain. Warwick has already proven that the brain can receive signals from implanted circuitry. I just don’t see how this is “learning” by traditional definitions.