T-and-T_Weekly_Reflections

Return to Teaching and Technology = Week 1 Reflections on Learning =

Constructivism Theory
Earlier in our Lamar masters courses the constructivist theory of learning was introduced. Its premise intrigued me and I was glad to have the opportunity to read more about it in this week's articles. This theory basically says that students need to construct their own learning through project-based activities. That is, they use technology and other tools to complete an assignment and they learn different things on an as-needed basis along the way. I like this idea because I know that students retain much more learning when they dig it out on their own. However, as a computer applications teacher, it is the nature of my class to teach students how to use the tools, so the "as-needed" basis causes me some problems. Perhaps the answer lies in collaboration. If I could collaborate with the core teachers to do a project that would be relevant for each of their classes and yet would be teaching students the skills they need to be proficient in various software applications, we could double up on student learning. In theory, this would be a wonderful idea, but, to be honest, it would be very difficult. I have students of every grade level in my classes. I would have to coordinate a project with every core teacher on campus in order to create relevant projects. It would be worth researching, however.

Connectivism Theory
This theory says that all learning is connected to something else in a network of learning. In our class video George Siemens says "Knowledge is really abaout the distribution that occurs across an entire network." He goes on to say that one network is the internal neuro-network, or how our minds create learning itself. The other one is external and it happens when we make connections with others; this is a more controlled kind of network because we have the ability to choose those connections. Siemens goes on to say that "it is not just what we know today that's important but our ability to stay current as knowledge changes." Our connections with other individuals are what allow us to stay current with learning. In this context, then, it would seem that learning would occur best in a collaborative environment in which students are working together to solve a problem. In examining this approach for use in my classroom in which students are expected to achieve the objectives of the Texas TEKS, I think it would be used sparingly. Learning computer applications is a hand-on task and the kind of group work I am familiar with does not successfully address hands-on learning in groups. Perhaps collaboration would take a different approach than traditional groups, however. Sometimes I can envision how the process might occur, but I don't seem to be able to put it into practice. Siemens, G. (nd). The Changing Nature of Knowledge. Youtube.com. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from []

Cyborg Learning Theory
My first thought about Cyborgs--may I please inject my own chip into the students I teach? Please???? That isn't very professional, but sometimes I would love to be able to push an ON button for those who are disinterested no matter what I do or don't do in my class. Then others I long for an OFF button when their hormones and social side kick in. As far as education and learning, I'm sure that eventually there will be chips that can be implanted to enhance learning, retention, and communication. However, I'm afraid they will have add-ons that we might not want implanted in us, much like the computers we buy that have extra programs installed that we didn't ask for. Truthfully, the prospect of cyborgs is very scary to me.

Return to Teaching and Technology = = = Week 2 Reflections on Learning = I teach technology classes and it has been my observation that when students think they are doing well in a class they tend to work even harder. Recently one of my most unlikely students made the highest grade on an assignment and I told the whole class he got the highest grade. He absolutely beamed and from that day on all his work showed improvement and so did his attitude. Michael Page (2002) addresses the issue of self esteem and technology when he says that research shows “significant evidence was found to indicate that self-concept and achievement were strongly related.” (p. 391) He goes on to say, “Because students tend to prefer computer learning over traditional instruction. . ., and because they appear to perceive technology as a tool to increase the likelihood of school success. . ., a logical conclusion can thus be made that computers and self-esteem are complementary.” (p. 392) Our digital native students see computers and technology as the home field advantage and their attention to tasks is improved when technology is involved. Schacter’s (1999) research also indicates that technology and self esteem are related: “Students like their classes more and develop more positive attitudes when their classes include computer-based instruction.” (p. 4) It seems to be a given that students like to use computers and other electronic gadgets, but I have not seen research relating technology to students' self esteem before and I found it very interesting.

Another item of interest to me is from Howard Pitler, et. al. (2007). They challenge traditional teaching methods by proposing that students write some of their learning objectives. "Research shows that when sudents are allowed to set some of their own learning goals, their motivation is higher than when they pursue only teacher-set goals." (p. 18) Of course, the teacher guides their goal-setting by providing the classroom learning objectives and helping the students organize their thoughts using a KWHL chart. This gives students ownership in their education and allows them to add a twist in their learning objectives that suits their interests. Students are much more likely to be engaged in learning when they are pursuing their own interests.

Page, M.S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 389-409. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from the International Society of Education at [].

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved from [].

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Return to Teaching and Technology

= Week 3 Reflections on Learning = Our educational system sometimes seems to think that if we can throw enough technology or money at a difficult situation it will right itself. However, Pitler et.al. (2007) says, “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.” (p. 217) Both Pitler and CAST offer training for teachers in planning lessons with the appropriate use of technology. I have been impressed with the way CAST has developed the UDL. It almost makes it easy to individualize instruction for every student we teach! CAST says that “Establishing goals is the first step. The next step is to plan instruction so that students have multiple pathways for achieving their goals.” The teacher then selects technology applications that best help the students reach their goals. Students choose their own paths to reach the objectives, allowing them some ownership and control in their learning.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Center for Applied Special Technology, (2009). http://www.cast.org/index.html

Return to Teaching and Technology

= Week 4 Reflections on Learning =

Rose and Meyer (2002) state that one of the key ideas in teaching every student is that “Testing separately from teaching and without the supports that students normally use provides an invalid perspective on what students know and can do” (Chapter 7, p. 1). I teach technology classes (web technology, digital media, office applications, etc.) and the assessments that come with the curriculum are all paper and pencil tests that stress vocabulary or concepts discussed in the text and so on. I have never felt that these were appropriate assessments for my students. I much prefer them to apply the concepts and techniques we have learned to produce a document, web page, or digital image. When they take the test I also allow them to use the textbook or other reference material we have been using in class because I feel that in the “real world” they will have access to reference materials when they working on a project.

“Cooperative learning is not so much learning to cooperate as it is cooperating to learn” (Pitler, et. al., 2007, p. 143). In high school, students generally have the social skills they need to work together cooperatively; however, they don’t necessarily have the skills they need to learn together. The videos we have watched show groups of students at various ages engaged in projects and apparently working together to find the solutions to their project problems. However, it has been my experience with group projects that a few do the work and others are on the fringes, either because they have been excluded or because they don’t want to participate. I think that school culture has something to do with this because there //are// ways to do group work to avoid the previous scenario, but if students have not experienced good group work in the past they are likely to continue in bad habits. Cooperative learning doesn’t necessarily mean group work, either. Solomon and Schrum recommend cooperative learning strategies for foreign languages, saying that “cooperative learning activities were shown to have a positive effect on the academic achievement of English language learners” (2007, p. 161). These cooperative learning activities included interaction with a native language speaker through a blog, chat or video conference.

I like the project approach and the constructivist theory; I appreciate the concept of collaboration. However, I think we are trying to push everyone into the collaborative mold saying that it is the method that everyone needs to use, just as we have used blanket assessments and teaching methods without taking into consideration individual needs and differences. Some people work better alone, yet we are insisting on their working in a group. If we don’t force students into certain molds that don’t fit their learning styles, why do we force them into social situations that don’t fit their personality traits?

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology web site, [].

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, new schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Return to Teaching and Technology

= ﻿ Week 5 Reflections on Learning ﻿  =

As a high school technology teacher who was raised and educated in the old school ways, I still struggle with assessment. Solomon and Schrum (2007) are familiar with teachers like me and remark, “teachers may frequently fall back to the traditional ways of figuring out how well students have learned. However, it makes much more sense to have ongoing assessment—the way evaluators do that is known as ‘formative evaluation.’ All this means is that we don’t wait until the ‘unit’ is over to determine how well the students and we as educators are doing!” (p. 168) I still find it difficult to translate the kinds of assessment we have seen as examples into numerical grades that I am required to give my students. Say that I am doing a formative assessment in my computer applications class. If I look at Ivan’s work on his computer screen and see that he has accomplished the task, what grade do I assign him? Does he get 100? How closely do I look at the details? If his neighbor Fabian has finished the task but I know he received help from Ivan, what grade does he get? I often use rubrics for assessments, but my general understanding of formative assessment is that the teacher is simply walking by and observing. In a system in which I am expected to post a certain number of daily grades and tests, I find it hard not to fall back into the old school habits.

I wish we could develop an assessment process that is more like a video game. As James Paul Gee describes it: “all a video game is is problem solving. In some weird way a video game is just an assessment. All you do is get assessed every moment as you try to solve problems and if you don’t solve it the game says you fail, try again, and then you solve it. . .” We play video games over and over again until we beat the level and think nothing of it. If we asked our students to do something repeatedly until it was perfect we would be called all kinds of bad things and would meet with hard-nosed resistance and rebellion!

Solomon, G., and Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education Edutopia.org (nd). Big thinkers: James Paul Gee on grading with games. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from [].

Return to Teaching and Technology

= Final Reflection =

Knowledge Gained from the Assignment
Teaching with Technology is a course that has brought together several concepts that we have covered in other courses such as curriculum, assessment, design, and multimedia, to name a few. Working with Leanne Knight and Patty Odom was an excellent experience; their expertise in technology and teaching stretched me and gave me a lot of new ideas to ponder and implement as we created a solution for the project scenario. James Paul Gee said in the video Grading with Games, “Next will be schooling that will address the ability to solve problems, but not just to solve problems, but to be able to do it collaboratively, so that you can work in a group where the group is smarter than the smartest person in the group. . .” Our group functioned in this manner and it was very beneficial for me as a learner. Pitler (2007) says, “Cooperative learning is not so much learning to cooperate as it is cooperating to learn” (p. 143) and I felt that our group accomplished this objective.

ISTE Standards
Our course assignment was to help a teacher develop student-centered lessons using appropriate technology and meeting the needs of each of the 30 students in her class, including a blind student and a hearing impaired student. The assignment also included creating professional development for the teacher. As we developed the strategies to solve this scenario we were also meeting several of the ISTE/CATE standards such as applying technology to maximize student learning and to implement effective assessment and evaluation strategies, as well as to model the use of technology in professional practice. Developing the solution for the assignment allowed us to explore different kinds of technology activities that would allow students to showcase what they’ve learned. It also afforded the opportunity to explore the best ways to assess student learning. As Solomon and Schrum point out, “it makes much more sense to have ongoing assessment. . . known as ‘formative evaluation’” (p. 169). We tried to incorporate this kind of assessment into our lesson strategies.

Relationship between New and Old Learning
As a technology and computer applications teacher, I am quite computer literate. However, there were several software programs that we used that I have never used before. Creating the e-book was a new experience, as was using glogster to make a digital poster and VoiceOver to create a voice thread. I find it exciting to discover new—and free—programs that students can use to put their learning into a sharable format. While I have been creating lesson plans for thirty five years (I began at 18 months) I have never used Universal Design for Learning, but I found it to be a sensible approach to helping individuals learn, as opposed to class learning. Rose and Meyer say that “Successful learning experiences challenge and support each learner appropriately and adjust as the learner changes over time. The goal of UDL is to provide every student this kind of customized and responsive experience” (p. 1, Chapter 6). Students of various ability levels and learning styles are placed in our classes. It is obvious that the “stand and deliver” style of teaching is not going to reach all these individuals. UDL gives us tools to customize teaching so that each student can learn what he is capable of learning.

**References**

Edutopia.org (nd). Big thinkers: James Paul Gee on grading with games. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from [].
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007).Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Solomon, G., and Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Rose, D., and Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Web site. Chapter 6. Retrieved on October 5, 2009, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

Return to Teaching and Technology