ISTE+Standard+III+Reflection

ISTE Standard III: Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum

It came with disappointment, but not surprise, the realization that few of my campus colleagues had any knowledge of the TEKS for Technology Applications and that none were actively pursuing mastery of those TEKS in their instruction. My school district, like many, has sacrificed focus on technology applications on the altar of STAAR-tested core content areas. This failure comes despite the knowledge that without a verifiable curricular alignment, many teachers will continue to rely on more outdated instructional and assessment styles (Williamson & Redish, 2009, pp. 62-63). I know this to be true from my own experiences in the classroom: even with a personal background in technology applications literacy, the path of least resistance led to a default of pencil and paper. Over the years, I have seen my classes grow increasingly frustrated with an educational environment that does not meaningfully reflect their technology, collaboration, or problem-solving skills (Prensky, 2001, p. 4). I found that even I became increasingly disengaged with my content, not because the information had lost its vibrancy, but because my instructional strategies had.  Along with the information regarding effective curriculum development gleaned from Standard II, I began investigating how my internship activities could foster true change in day-to-day technology integration on my campus. In their research study, //Collaborative Research Methodology for Investigating Teaching and Learning: the Use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology//, authors advise that teachers play the majority role in including technology in pursuing the content aims of lessons and in using the technology to promote quality engagement and student/content interaction (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson, 2005, p. 468). Because many classrooms were receiving interactive whiteboard technology for the first time, I focused my energies on making this technology the gateway for campus-wide integration. After attending my own training on the interactive whiteboard software and the remote response system, I believed that my faculty would benefit from a more segmented approach to the information (Elmore & City, 2007, p. 2). As I developed the material for this session, I considered the strengths that my faculty already possesses. In particular, my colleagues have consistently show agility and creativity in customizing research-based strategies to meet the needs of our learners. In “Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning” (2002), Rose and Meyer recognize the power that our 21st century tools give to the committed teacher: “Flexible methods and materials—the heart of the UDL framework and its implementation—make this [individualization] feasible in the real world” (Chapter 3). To that end, I offered not simply training on the software and hardware, but a variety of collaborative opportunities, including team-teaching, peer coaching, open laboratory sessions, and lesson collaboration. Such interactions afforded me the opportunity to reflect not only on how my colleagues were able to master the resources and the teaching strategies, but on how my own instructional techniques and promotion of adult learning theory affected the effectiveness of the technology integration. Throughout my internship, the advice and ideas of my Lamar colleagues offered new perspectives on how they saw teachers creating Web 2.0 based opportunities for students to problem-solve and express ideas in a compelling manner. I can take these insights, along with those I have gained from collaboration with my campus peers, and further develop a new framework for facilitating technology standards within other core curriculum areas. I believe my district can benefit greatly from a more integrated approach, and I hope to introduce this new paradigm of technology professional development as a district technology leader.

References: Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. //Educational Review// //, 57// (4), 457-469. Elmore, R., & City, E. (2007, May/June). The road to school improvement. //Harvard Education Letter// //, 23// (3), pp. 1-3. Prensky, M. (2001, September/October). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. //On the Horizon//, pp. 1,3-6. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/ Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards: What Every K-12 Leader Should Know and Be Able to Do.// Washington: International Society for Technology in Education.