EDLD+5364+Teaching+With+Technology

 **Week 5 Reflection- Friday, December 18, 2009** The video this week from Sasha Barab filled me with ideas regarding technology and schools. One idea that he presented was that the tools used in school do not match the ones used outside of school (Edutopia.org, 2009). The refusal of many district level administrators to embrace new technology, especially Web 2.0 ones, is appalling. We are no longer preparing our children for real world computer and job applications. Since I teach at the high school level I spend large amounts of time presenting and teaching the relevance of my course to my students. However I am constantly restrained by an outdated set of beliefs that technology is dangerous for students. In my classroom experience technology is only dangerous when the teacher, students, and district level operations are not adequately prepared. If educators would start using the students as experts in the technology instead of learning every nuance of a program before implementation our curriculum and our technology would be better integrated. Barab says we are “setting teachers up for failure” ( Edutopia.org, 2009). Edutopia.org. (nd). //Big Thinkers: Sasha Barab on New-Media Engagement.// Retrieved on December 18, 2009 from [] Sasha Barab states that "in a game I'm considered significant...I get to feel like I accomplished something." As an educator this feeling is the heart of all of my lessons. I want my students to feel significant. However, how can I make them feel significant and excited about getting all of the vocabulary definitions correct on the quiz? My students will never be as excited about the vocabulary quiz on paper as a leveled vocabulary computer game. I feel that we are at the beginning of a turning point in education. As some of the old guard in education begin to retire we should see an increase in the level of technology integration in the schools. If we do not allow for this shift then as Barab says we are "setting teachers up for failure." My campus continually fights the district level administration for more rights and privileges with our internet filter. We are faced daily with the consequences of decisions made for the classroom environment with little regard for the educational value. Every district superintendent should view some of the videos and read some of the literature contained in this course.
 * Discussion post- **

**Week 4 Reflection- Sunday, December 13, 2009** This week’s learning was centered on creating student-centered learning activities and environments. The videos included in week four were particularly insightful. “Project Learning: An Overview” featured Seymour Papert who supports the idea of project learning and rejects education focused on curriculum (2009). While this sounds like an ideal situation for the learner in practice I would disagree with Papert. His basis for letting students be the “directors and managers of their own learning” neglects the fact that some children lack intrinsic motivation. The typical at-risk high school student does not have the motivation to direct their learning exclusively. I propose a compromise between Papert and the curriculum-driven traditional classroom. Education is missing the balance between letting kids direct learning and not allowing for any choice in learning. If we are to reach all students and differentiate to meet the particular learning style then teachers must allow for some choices in learning. I have found that giving the student a choice in the final product to conclude a unit and/or show learning is the balance. For example, students can chose a multimedia product such as MS Photo Story or a more traditional essay using MS Word. While the teacher is still using the curriculum as a guide, the student is directing some of his/her learning. Edutopia.org (nd). //Project Learning: An Overview.// Retrieved on December 9, 2009 from http://www.edutopia.org/project-based-learning-overview

This week I did not choose a direct quote. Instead, I chose two paraphrased ideas from the Edutopia.org video- “Project Learning: An Overview.” In the video Seymour Papert, a supporter of project based learning says that teachers and administrators should give up the idea of curriculum. Also included in the video is the assertion that kids should be allowed to mimic what scientist do by being directors and managers of their own learning. I am also a proponent of this type of learning; however, the realities of education do not allow for exclusive project learning. The obvious hindrance is the state mandated standardized tests. TAKS test are not designed for assessing students conditioned to project based learning. While these students do have an extensive knowledge base not attainable through traditional learning, they will certainly lack some of the basic test taking skills necessary for a rigorous standardized test. When designing project based learning experiences for the classroom educators need to strike a balance between the desires and interests of the student with the requirements of the state mandated curriculum.
 * Discussion Post**


 * Week 3 Reflections- UDL Book Builder, Lesson Builder and Week 3 Learning**


 * UDL Book Builder**

The electronic UDL Book Builder is a great resource for teachers who need to present information to a classroom with diverse learners. The books allow the teacher to customize information and learning that is not possible with traditional textbooks and worksheets. As a teacher, I enjoyed the capability of writing my own student response prompts, as well as providing encouragement and clarification using the cartoon coaches. I can see the coaches as the first point of reference for a student who is confused. The avatars that represent the coaches are fun for the student to engage. Another positive learning tool in the UDL Book Builder is the ability to have the text read to the student. Since some students learn better in an auditory environment, this capability allows for a real time modification of curriculum to occur. The electronic book enables the teacher to support the three primary principles- provide multiple means of representation, provide multiple means of action and expression, and provide multiple means of engagement (“What is Universal Design”, 2009). Cast.org (2009). //Cast UDL book builder.// Center for Applied Special Technology. Retrieved on December 5, 2009, from http://bookbuilder.cast.org.

The UDL lesson builder site allows for teachers to build lessons that include aspects of the three UDL networks. The use of the template housed at the site enables the teacher to have a guide throughout the lesson planning phase. The ability to choose whether to build the lesson on the site or in a MS Word document is convenient. I found that many of the network aspects were ideas that are usually included in any effective lesson. However, the template and the network descriptions encouraged me to add some activities that I might have overlooked. In particular I added a guided practice activity that I might have omitted otherwise. Many times teachers have strong teacher led activities and independent practice activities, but sometimes the guided practice aspect is overlooked. As a classroom teacher the Affective Network practices of choice of rewards and adjustable levels of challenge are the most troublesome to include in lessons. These aspects require a larger shift in teaching than some of the others. In conclusion, the UDL lesson builder site is helpful in assisting teachers with including the various teaching methods found in the UDL model.
 * UDL Lesson Builder**


 * Saturday, December 5, 2009**

The UDL model of network appropriate teaching methods includes offering choice of content and tools and flexible opportunities for demonstrating skill (Rose & Meyer, 2002). As a classroom teacher it is imperative that we embrace these practices. As we attempt to differentiate the curriculums for an increasingly diverse student population, we must integrate these two key concepts into best practices for the classroom. In my own classroom experience I have found that students thrive in an environment where choice in delivery of content is given. Technology has made the choice of content and tools easier than in the years before technology integration. Most districts have made concerted efforts to purchase and support a wide variety of hardware, software, and network systems to support classroom learning and differentiation. The examples provided by Solomon and Schrum- blogs, wikis, podcasting, and digital storytelling, showcase some of the various tools available to classroom teachers even with limited technology budgets (2007). As teachers we can no longer allow students to fail our classes because their particular abilities and strengths do not match the old standards and norms of education. Offering flexible opportunities to demonstrate classroom skill positively effects the motivation of the student (Rose & Meyer, 2002). The podcasting activity used in Cheryl Oakes’ class illustrates the effectiveness of providing these flexible opportunities (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). Even though podcasting can be seen by some educators as nontraditional, these students embraced the challenge and addressed a state curriculum standard- “being a self-directed lifelong learner and a clear and effective communicator” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). 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 Website. Chapter 6. Retrieved on December 4, 2009, from [] Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, New schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 77-98.

Week three discussion post- "Its use of collaborative and project-based learning was the first priority, and they looked at technology to support the pedagogy and philosophy second. For true reform to take place, according to proponents of the New Tech High model, pedagogy and technology must find a proper balance." //Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools//

In explaining the New Tech High model, Solomon and Schrum stated that the primary focus is collaborative and project based learning. The technology is second. I think this model should be studied by all district technology departments. The philosophical focus of what the students learn and the educational method of conveying the material is the priority. In my experience technology departments tend to be interested in the "wow" factor of technology rather than the pedagogical worth. Obviously from the tremendous success of the New Tech High graduates this model for school technology integration is valid. The decisions of what students learn and the strategy should be made by the district curriculum departments with assistance from the technology professionals. I think that as more classroom teachers become the technology professionals in districts, instead of the technology guru with no education degree, we will see a better alignment of the technology with the curriculums.

Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, New schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 77-98.

This week I discovered that research is supporting my decisions as a teacher in a one-to-one environment. I see the use of laptops and other technologies as an essential part of education for all students- especially low income ones. Michael Page states that “computers appear to be especially productive with children designated as nontraditional” (2002). In many instances classrooms are composed of a diverse group of learners in the areas of academics and economics. For some students the technology found at school is the student’s only exposure to computing. We teach students whose parents do not own a home computer and do not have access to the basic technology services such as email. For example, I have had to explain to some of my low income students that the computer itself does not have internet. While these conversations seen inconsequential, they reflect a larger societal problem. We have a duty to these students. We must provide instruction in the basic curriculums along with technology. As educators we must be willing to reach out to a segment of the population that could be potentially at a grave disadvantage in the workforce because of a lack of basic technology skills. I am encouraged that as technology is further embraced by school districts and classroom teachers the low socioeconomic students will make significant gains. Technology also aids the classroom teacher in meeting the needs of diverse learners. Rose and Meyer state that “ digital technologies can adjust to learner differences, enabling teachers to (1) differentiate problems a student may have using particular kinds of learning media from more general learning problems and (2) draw upon a student's other strengths and interests that may be blocked by the exclusive use of printed text” (2002). My curriculum supervisors and principals require that all classroom teachers differentiate the basic curriculum for special populations. Technology has eased the burden of differentiation at the classroom level. I now have access to assistive technologies such as Kurzweil Reader. I also assign a variety of learning projects that can allow students with talents other than traditional to shine in my class. As technology continues to evolve the traditional teaching methods used in classrooms will evolve. 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 http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Number_4_Summer_20021&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&ContentFileID=830
 * Sunday, November 29, 2009 **

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. Chapter 1. Retrieved on October 5, 2009, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

Week one of EDLD 5364 reinforced my philosophy of education that has developed over the course of my career. I was excited to learn that my view of student learning was backed by research and has a name- constructivism. I learned through several readings this week that constructivism allows for student-centered learning in the classroom. My students use laptops to facilitate the research and discovery learning activities I develop for my World History curriculum. While my classroom would still involve discovery learning without the laptops, the computers are an invaluable tool. Solomon and Schrum (2007) state that a constructivist approach engages students and brings relevance to their lives. One of the cornerstones of teaching any subject should be relevance. If the students cannot see the relevance of your activities, they will only see your class as something to check off on the list of required subjects. For example, by allowing my students to explore the Palace of Versailles website and view video clips of the motion picture //Marie Antoinette// I engaged my students in a study of how life circumstances are sometimes out of our personal control. They now see Marie Antoinette as a real person and teenager like themselves instead of a motionless painting in a textbook. As a culminating project, the students created venn diagrams with an event in their lives compared to Marie Antoinette. This product and lesson is a great example of constructivism. Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, New schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 39.
 * Sunday, November 22, 2209**