Reflections+on+Teaching+with+Technology

EDLD 5364 - Teaching with Technology Weekly Reflection Journal  Week One - Technology in a Constructivist Classroom Understanding how learners access, contextualize and retain knowledge is the Holy Grail for educators. Teachers are driven to find the techniques that most effectively connect students to knowledge. In 2001 Robert Marzano, Debra Pickering and Jane Pollock offered to educators nine categories of strategies that have been found over a wide range of studies to have a significant effect on student achievement (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, pp. 6-8). Commonly known in education as ‘Marzano’s High-Yield Strategies’, these techniques create the foundation of a constructivist classroom. In constructivist theory, learning is shown to be a personal, intimate relationship between student and knowledge: “Constructivists consider learning to be an individual and personal event.” (Laboratory, 1999) Students drive the learning in a constructivist classroom through inquiry and cooperative learning strategies.

It is in the effort to create a truly student-centered classroom that technology can prove so powerful. At the very outset of our text, the authors remind us that “integrating technology into instruction tends to move classrooms from teacher-dominated environments to ones that are more student-centered” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 3). This sentiment is echoed by authors Debra Sprague and Christopher Dede: “When one integrates student experiences with technology into the curriculum, the role of the teacher changes. The teacher no longer has to be in charge every minute, but can give some of the control over to the students and the technology.” (Sprague & Dede, 1999, p. 7) Twenty-first century students live in a world filled with the means to find information, use that information to create ideas, and express those ideas compellingly. Creating a classroom ripe with these opportunities is the goal of both the constructivist teacher and the technology facilitator.

Works Cited Laboratory, S. E. (1999). //Learning as a personal event: a brief introduction to constructivism.// Retrieved February 26, 2011, from [] Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sprague, D., & Dede, C. (1999, September). Constructivism in the classroom: if I teach this way, am I doing my job. //Learning and Leading with Technology// //, 27// (1), pp. 6-17. Week Two - Using Technology to Facilitate Student Involvement in the Learning Process When I began my coursework in education in the mid 1990’s, technology was only reaching classrooms on the most limited basis, and then mostly as productivity tools for teachers. The idea of using technology as the centerpiece of a constructivist classroom would have been unthinkable for most. What had already arrived in my university classrooms was the idea that student learning could be more than students scripting the droning lectures of a teacher at the front of a classroom. A professor once asked us to think back on the most meaningful moments of our time in elementary school. She then asked us to write down the remembered experiences. What we remembered rarely involved some riveting lecture, and never involved the completing of a worksheet. Her message was clear: students experience not simply recall, but memory.  Although the tools and scope of learning have changed dramatically in the last 15 years, the need to create resonance in students remains as powerful as ever. David Rose and Anne Meyer describe how a task as straightforward as signing a birthday card involves a complex combination of neural processes that govern not only the physical task, but the mental and emotional context required for completion (Teaching every student in the digital age: universal design for learning, 2002, Chapter 2). A teacher committed to best practices for students must take into consideration all of the various components that contribute to, or detract from, successful learning. This need forms the basis of the UDL, or Universal Design for Learning, movement. Donna Palley, an expert in the implementation of UDL out of Concord, New Hampshire, defines the overarching idea in this way: “The concept of UDL is the intersection where all our initiatives, integrated units, multi-sensory teaching, multiple intelligences, differentiated instruction, use of computers in schools, performance-based assessment, and others come together.” (Rose & Meyer, 2002, Chapter 1)

A cornerstone of effective educational practice involves setting goals for learning. Encouraging students to play an active part in forming learning objectives increases their commitment to attaining those goals (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 18). From this starting point, a constructivist teacher can guide the class to use these student-created goals “to drive lessons, shift instructional strategies, and alter content” (Sprague & Dede, 1999, p. 8). Students will bring to this process their unique backgrounds, insights, and learning patterns. Technology furthers the teacher’s ability to draw on the unique skills, knowledge, and challenges of her classroom. Through the integration of word processing technology, the KWHL chart, a classic example of accessing students’ prior knowledge, experiences, and conceptions, transforms into not only a tool of analysis for the teacher but a means of communication between school and home (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, pp. 18-19). This real-time qualitative data takes an additional leap forward with the use of interactive whiteboard technology or online collaborative products such as Google Docs, where students can contribute in parallel to a class document.

In my own classroom and on my own campus, I work to convey this idea of student ownership compellingly to parents, colleagues and administrators alike. This is no mean feat in an academic climate governed by state assessment, district curriculum, and teacher performance measurement defined by student outcomes. That is not to say that I believe these conditions are counterintuitive; rather, I believe that students have a valid sense of what is needed and valuable insight when given the opportunity to think critically about their learning. In the groundbreaking series, //Cosmos//, Carl Sagan advises the world, “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe” (Druyan, Soter, & Sagan, 1980). In his lovely, poetic way, Sagan reminds us that each moment of learning builds of the shoulders of the knowledge of the past. When students participate in setting goals for learning, they accept the challenge of building the framework on which to hang their new body of information.

Works Cited Druyan, A., Soter, S., & Sagan, C. (Writers), & Oyster, D. (Director). (1980). The Lives of the Stars [Television series episode]. Wells, R. (Producer), //Cosmos //. Studio City, CA: Cosmos Studios. Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 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. Sprague, D., & Dede, C. (1999, September). Constructivism in the classroom: if I teach this way, am I doing my job. //Learning and Leading with Technology// //, 27// (1), pp. 6-17. xxx Week Three - A Reflection on UDL and Best Practices When I look over the various facets of United Design for Learning (UDL), I find in the words, instead of fear or trepidation, comfort. Much is made of this ‘new’ approach to designing effective learning experiences for students; when, in fact, these techniques are essentially long-accepted best practices of teaching and best standards of pedagogy. Rose and Meyer exhort teachers to individualize teaching strategies to encourage students’ various cognitive networks (Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning, 2002). In my university coursework almost 20 years ago, my professors encouraged the educational strategies of cooperative learning, of using meaningful literature to teach fluency and story structure, and of allowing students to find their own voice in creating responses to learning. Even more to the point, the darkness of my vague memories of a largely uninspiring elementary education in the 1970’s sparkle with a precious few shining moments of greatness: a teacher who allowed me to write a play instead of illustrating a picture book: a teacher who took the class out into the field behind the school to show us layers of soil; a teacher that talked to me about grocery shopping and creating a restaurant menu to teach me about mathematical concepts. These teachers understood a fundamental truth of the constructivist theory: “Rather than providing didactic instruction and expecting students to repeat facts on a test, teachers encourage students to think about what they already know about a topic. . . and derive new understanding” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). Our trip into the 21st century arms these warriors of my academic past with a whole new arsenal of materials and resources to individualize instruction. In 2011, the teacher who recognized my frustration with creating hand-drawn illustrations could offer to me Kidspiration to help me create beautiful models or Microsoft Office tools to help me to add multimedia life and vibrancy to my writing. In 2011, the teacher that took us out to view soil samples could show three dimensional models of soil core samples or have students take digital photos and create their own eBook. In 2011, the teacher that used my interests to access my number sense and mathematical understanding could help me create a wiki and invite classmates from around the world to develop a ‘world-wide restaurant’ grocery list and menu, allowing me to learn not only money concepts and making change, but budgeting, currency exchange rates, costs of living in various countries, and the culture of food and eating around the world. 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” (2002). So I walk into the classroom laden with the memories of how truly great teachers reached inside me and found my inner learner, the standards of great pedagogy offered by my professors and colleagues, the tools of 21st century technology, and the firm belief that all of these gifts can come together to create a classroom where my students will not simply receive teaching, but learn. The next step is up to me.

Works Cited 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. Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: new tools, new schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Week Four - The Collective Nature of Learning: Learning Communities and Project-Based Learning This week was filled with high ideals of education; some attainable, some less so. Throughout the materials, learning as a collective endeavor took center stage. Solomon and Schrum (2007) touted the benefits of appropriate professional development in creating authentic change in the level and effectiveness of technology integration in classrooms. In particular, they discussed the benefits of “situated cognition, which defines learning as a process of participation in communities of practice” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 103). Essentially, this idea of professionals learning through interactions in their pursuit of common goals (Solomon & Schrum, 2007) mirrors the concept of student-centered described in “Project-Based Learning: an Overview” (Edutopia.org, 2001). In the accompanying article, “Why Teach with Project-Based Learning: Providing Students With a Well-Rounded Classroom Experience”, the benefits of project-based learning read similarly to the purposes of professional collaboration: “In the process of completing their projects, students also hone their organizational and research skills, develop better communication with their peers and adults, and often work within their community while seeing the positive effect of their work (Edutopia staff, 2008). To this point, I found myself in complete agreement with the ideals of these models. My own experience has led me to the conclusion that the sharing of goals and approaches fosters communication, creativity, and authentic learning. However, I reached a moment of divergence when Seymour Papert contended that the first step to a true revolution in American education is to move completely away from standardized learning goals: “The first thing you have to do is give up the idea of curriculum; ‘curriculum’ meaning you have to learn this on a given day. Replace it by a system where you learn this where you need it.” (Edutopia.org, 2001) The idea of completely retooling the educational system to a project-based model, while certainly appealing in some respects, is not to my view wholly realistic. The focus of student evaluation in the United States has moved inexorably towards standards-based assessment. The literature review provided by McREL in support of their study on technology intervention programs speaks directly to the need for direct standards: “The evidence clearly indicates that to achieve successful learning through technology, the learning objectives need to be clear and the application of such technology unambiguous” (Pitler, 2005). I am a staunch proponent of the Core Knowledge philosophy originated by E.D. Hirsch. In his book //Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know//, Hirsch warns, “Cafeteria-style education, combined with the unwillingness of our schools to place demands on students, has resulted in a steady diminishment of commonly shared information between generations and between young people themselves” (Hirsch, 1988, pp. 20-21). I believe that we have an obligation to students not only to make information available to them, but to act as leaders in creating the framework for learning. The most effective classroom environment, in my view, strikes a balance between allowing students to chart their course for learning and providing students guideposts along the way in the form of clear, measurable learning objectives. ... Works Cited Edutopia staff. (2008, February 28). //Why teach with project-based learning: Providing students with a well-rounded classroom experience//. Retrieved March 18, 2011, from Edutopia: [] Edutopia.org. (2001, November 1). //Project-based learning: An overview.// Retrieved March 18, 2011, from Edutopia.org: [] Hirsch, E. D. (1988). //Cultural literacy: what every american needs to know.// New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Pitler, H. (2005). //McREL technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program.// Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. 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 [] Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: new tools, new schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. ...  <span style="color: #471000; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">Week Five - e-Portfolios and Formative Assessment: The Web 2.0 Model <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">So much personal and academic growth occurs in fits and starts rather than a smooth continuum of progression. The growth and learning of tomorrow are, in large part, dictated by the work of today. When I previously investigated the action research model, I found that one of the most significant benefits of this framework of inquiry and adjustment stemmed from its flexibility, which allowed the researcher to adapt more nimbly to current circumstances. Dr. Gary Small at UCLA, who completed a pioneering study on the effects of internet use on brain activity, was asked by Rachel Dretzin of //Frontline// why more research had not been completed in this area, when his conclusions clearly articulated the need for more study. Dr. Small responded, “By the time you design a research study, apply for funding, implement the study, and you publish the results about the technology, what has happened? The technology is obsolete. We’ve moved beyond it. And so technology and the practices that go with the new technologies keep outdistancing the research” (Dretzin & Rushkoff, 2010).

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; text-align: left;">The problem described by Dr. Small reflects the inadequacy of using only standards-based assessment to evaluate students: a single glance at an end product does not allow for ongoing feedback, adjustments in plan and approach, or recognition of real-time growth in a student’s knowledge base or critical-thinking skills. If we hope to instill in our students a sense of value for the growth and development of an idea or a skill, and not just its outcome, we must model for them how to respond and adapt at each stage of the learning process. It is only through a systematic process of connecting effort to learning that students can realize the correlation between their immediate efforts and the long-term effects (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). Such metacognitive experiences take a commitment of time and resources, to be sure. Nancy Dana (2009) advises professionals, “One way to help ease the tension of time is to make inquiry a part of your daily practice rather than a separate part in it. This can occur by reshaping already existing structures in your work” (2009, p. 16). An ‘effort to outcomes’ rubric offers an example of how to integrate classroom instruction with student metacognition (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). Additionally, an e-portfolio serves not only as an archive of work product, but as an opportunity for authentic assessment (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). However, like many instructional and assessment tools, not all e-portfolios are created equal. The original form of e-portfolio, one using traditional Web resources, reflects a more traditional form of assessment: the portfolio is more static, providing little opportunity for ongoing development of artifacts; the artifacts themselves are mandated by the evaluator versus the student or the student’s selected target audience; and the portfolios are generally outcome-driven, used to make high-stakes decisions about a student’s learning (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). To my estimation, this description perfectly mirrors the TK20 portfolio application that my colleagues and I have been required to purchase. I find it an unfortunate realization that this ‘new’ initiative actually reflects outdated concepts, resources, and goals in developing and utilizing a digital portfolio. Solomon and Schrum (2007) propose a much different view of the e-portfolios: that of ‘Web 2.0’ models, or “wiki-folios” that “have the potential to change with the pedagogy of interaction, especially as used within a paradigm of assessment for learning” (p. 173). As I used this interactive template for the development of my original professional portfolio, I experienced many of the benefits stemming from its use: its time flexibility offer more regular use; the artifacts offer a view of a more personal learning journey; and interactions with colleagues and mentors offered ongoing opportunities for learning and growth. Overall, the autonomy of this e-portfolio format works specifically toward supporting affective and strategic learning networks (Rose & Meyer, 2002). I found my own level of interaction and engagement with the work product vastly more metacognitive and authentic than with the stilted, one-sided composition of the TK20 format. It is with no small amount of disappointment that I watch the program move in what I believe to be a significant step backwards. I will continue to work diligently to update my “wiki-folio” and academic blog as I move through the coursework in the remainder of the program, and I will use it as the springboard for true collaboration between me and my colleagues, my mentor, and my administrator. <span style="color: #471000; display: block; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;">Works Cited <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;">Dana, N. F. (2009). //Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as action researcher.// Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Dretzin, R. (Writer, Producer, & Director) & Rushkoff, D. (Writer). (2010). Digital nation [television series episode]. In D. Fanning (executive producer), //Frontline//. Boston: WGBH.Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; text-align: left;">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.Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: new tools, new schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.