Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
5364 Course Embedded Reflection Teaching with Technology
Our EDLD 5364 group scenario team included Julia W., Lynne B., Vicki Fruge and myself. Our team leader was Julia W. who is a current 5th grade science teacher. She was great at leading our group and coming up with snazzy ideas to “wow” our fictional classroom teacher in the scenario. She also had oodles of material available readily for the rest of the group to use in creating our UDL lessons. We chose to create lessons surrounding a unit of earth science that covered weathering, erosion, earthquakes and the rock cycle.
Personally, I had never learned about the Universal Design for Learning theory before; and I found it very practical in the sense that it gives teachers a method for meeting the needs of diverse learners. The two methods that the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) advances are individualized goals through a variety of media and individualized curriculum embedded with flexible supports. (Rose & Meyer, 2002)
My individual UDL lesson taught weathering and erosion through videos, a kinesthetic, an eBook on weathering, and a lab using TIC TACs to show the process of weathering rocks. After the students completed the lab, they were to create a Photo Story of the lab following a rubric. They could do the minimum requirements or they could expand of the rubric to do a longer and more elaborate Photo Story. “Specific, criterion-referenced rubrics let students know exactly what is expected of them” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 30). In creating the Photo Story, students engage in higher-level thinking. In the book, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, the authors state, “the most engaging learning comes from having the student create the presentation or movie themselves as a part of the learning process” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 104).
I found the theory of the Universal Design for Learning very interesting and yet overwhelming. This feeling partly comes from the current budget crisis our state is facing and witnessing the cost cutting measures already made in our district. I can totally understand why so many teachers leave the field after five years when the expectations to teach such a diverse group of students with varying abilities are so high. (Dana, 2009)
For professional development, the scenario teacher viewed online tutorials for Photo Story 3 and created her own Photo Story as a sample product. It is also useful for the teacher to be familiar herself with the software.
My sons and I contributed cartoons to create my eBook on weathering. I recorded myself reading the text using Audacity to give an alternative to the computer reader. I also put the text into a speaking box for one of the helpers “Monty”, so students could have the text read in Spanish. In the online book, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning, the authors state, “providing multiple representations of patterns through a variety of media, formats, organizations, levels of detail, and degree of depth includes more learners by offering both choice and redundancy.” (Rose & Meyer, 2002) My weathering eBook works to do this through cartoon drawings, photos, and text in English and Spanish with an encouraging penguin along the way.
Our team Google site is quite professional. The layout and the organization are excellent and our topic lent itself to enjoying great visuals throughout our site. We all worked on the pages and added to both our individual work and group pages. We used Skype to communicate with each other and posted these conversations on our site. Instant chat messaging made our work fluid and constant.
Throughout this course, I found myself thinking about the needs of my own children in regards to the UDL framework. I have seven very different children. My fifth child has auditory processing disorder. An EEG at age seven showed the neurons in the left frontal portion of his brain to function at one-tenth the speed of the rest of his brain. Although he learns and gains knowledge, the slower speed of his “strategic” networks are quite noticeable. I could not help but think about how he is successful because of his persistence in school. In addition, I could be more helpful to him by breaking down the steps better.
I also, in some ways, found this course a little overwhelming. There were so many possibilities to fulfill the project scenario. My family believes I spent about fifty hours on this course each of the first two weeks. I began to hear mild then louder protests. It was information overload. I finally had to stop and access what I exactly had to do – not what would be nice to do – and go from there. However, I do appreciate the friendships I have made in this course. Moreover, those relationships make the coursework quite enjoyable.
In the future, I plan to research more on the recognition networks for my seventh son, born premature, who has short-term memory problems. He gets frustrated having to repeat so many things before they pass into long-term memory. I believe the UDL research on the recognition networks will give me ideas of how to meet his needs.
Dana, N. F. (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: the principal as action researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from CAST: http://www.cast.org/teaching everystudent/ideas/tes/
ISTE Standards:
• National Educational Technology Standards: http://cnets.iste.org
Standard II. Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences
o Tech Facilitator II.A - Design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support diverse needs of learners.
o Tech Facilitator II.B - Apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences.
o Tech Facilitator II.E - Plan strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment.
Standard III. Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum
o Tech Facilitator III.A - Facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards.
o Tech Facilitator III.B - Use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students.
o Tech Facilitator III.C - Apply technology to demonstrate students’ higher-order skills and creativity.
o Tech Facilitator III.D - Manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment.
o Tech Facilitator III.E - Use current research and district/region/state/national content standards to build lessons and units of instruction.
Standard IV. Assessment and Evaluation
o Tech Facilitator IV.A – Apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment techniques.
Standard V. Productivity and Professional Practice
o Technology Facilitator V. B - Continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning.
o Technology Facilitator V. C – Apply technology to increase productivity.
o Technology Facilitator V. D – Use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.
Standard VI. Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues
o Technology Facilitator VI.B – Apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities.
Standard VIII. Leadership and Vision
o Technology Facilitator VIII.A – Identify and apply educational and technology related research, the psychology of learning, and instructional design principles in guiding the use of computers and technology in education.
Personally, I had never learned about the Universal Design for Learning theory before; and I found it very practical in the sense that it gives teachers a method for meeting the needs of diverse learners. The two methods that the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) advances are individualized goals through a variety of media and individualized curriculum embedded with flexible supports. (Rose & Meyer, 2002)
My individual UDL lesson taught weathering and erosion through videos, a kinesthetic, an eBook on weathering, and a lab using TIC TACs to show the process of weathering rocks. After the students completed the lab, they were to create a Photo Story of the lab following a rubric. They could do the minimum requirements or they could expand of the rubric to do a longer and more elaborate Photo Story. “Specific, criterion-referenced rubrics let students know exactly what is expected of them” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 30). In creating the Photo Story, students engage in higher-level thinking. In the book, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, the authors state, “the most engaging learning comes from having the student create the presentation or movie themselves as a part of the learning process” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 104).
I found the theory of the Universal Design for Learning very interesting and yet overwhelming. This feeling partly comes from the current budget crisis our state is facing and witnessing the cost cutting measures already made in our district. I can totally understand why so many teachers leave the field after five years when the expectations to teach such a diverse group of students with varying abilities are so high. (Dana, 2009)
For professional development, the scenario teacher viewed online tutorials for Photo Story 3 and created her own Photo Story as a sample product. It is also useful for the teacher to be familiar herself with the software.
My sons and I contributed cartoons to create my eBook on weathering. I recorded myself reading the text using Audacity to give an alternative to the computer reader. I also put the text into a speaking box for one of the helpers “Monty”, so students could have the text read in Spanish. In the online book, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning, the authors state, “providing multiple representations of patterns through a variety of media, formats, organizations, levels of detail, and degree of depth includes more learners by offering both choice and redundancy.” (Rose & Meyer, 2002) My weathering eBook works to do this through cartoon drawings, photos, and text in English and Spanish with an encouraging penguin along the way.
Our team Google site is quite professional. The layout and the organization are excellent and our topic lent itself to enjoying great visuals throughout our site. We all worked on the pages and added to both our individual work and group pages. We used Skype to communicate with each other and posted these conversations on our site. Instant chat messaging made our work fluid and constant.
Throughout this course, I found myself thinking about the needs of my own children in regards to the UDL framework. I have seven very different children. My fifth child has auditory processing disorder. An EEG at age seven showed the neurons in the left frontal portion of his brain to function at one-tenth the speed of the rest of his brain. Although he learns and gains knowledge, the slower speed of his “strategic” networks are quite noticeable. I could not help but think about how he is successful because of his persistence in school. In addition, I could be more helpful to him by breaking down the steps better.
I also, in some ways, found this course a little overwhelming. There were so many possibilities to fulfill the project scenario. My family believes I spent about fifty hours on this course each of the first two weeks. I began to hear mild then louder protests. It was information overload. I finally had to stop and access what I exactly had to do – not what would be nice to do – and go from there. However, I do appreciate the friendships I have made in this course. Moreover, those relationships make the coursework quite enjoyable.
In the future, I plan to research more on the recognition networks for my seventh son, born premature, who has short-term memory problems. He gets frustrated having to repeat so many things before they pass into long-term memory. I believe the UDL research on the recognition networks will give me ideas of how to meet his needs.
Dana, N. F. (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: the principal as action researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from CAST: http://www.cast.org/teaching everystudent/ideas/tes/
ISTE Standards:
• National Educational Technology Standards: http://cnets.iste.org
Standard II. Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences
o Tech Facilitator II.A - Design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support diverse needs of learners.
o Tech Facilitator II.B - Apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences.
o Tech Facilitator II.E - Plan strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment.
Standard III. Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum
o Tech Facilitator III.A - Facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards.
o Tech Facilitator III.B - Use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students.
o Tech Facilitator III.C - Apply technology to demonstrate students’ higher-order skills and creativity.
o Tech Facilitator III.D - Manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment.
o Tech Facilitator III.E - Use current research and district/region/state/national content standards to build lessons and units of instruction.
Standard IV. Assessment and Evaluation
o Tech Facilitator IV.A – Apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment techniques.
Standard V. Productivity and Professional Practice
o Technology Facilitator V. B - Continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning.
o Technology Facilitator V. C – Apply technology to increase productivity.
o Technology Facilitator V. D – Use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.
Standard VI. Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues
o Technology Facilitator VI.B – Apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities.
Standard VIII. Leadership and Vision
o Technology Facilitator VIII.A – Identify and apply educational and technology related research, the psychology of learning, and instructional design principles in guiding the use of computers and technology in education.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Bedside Manners Needed
Ten years ago my last child was born premature. He did not have enough amniotic fluid to float around in so his lungs did not develop properly. His first x-rays showed that his lungs only took up one-third of his chest cavity. Each day was touch and go. The nurses began to call him the “energizer bunny” because he just kept going.
After a few days a C-scan was done on his chest. The radiologist and the lung doctor diagnosed my son with pulmonary lymphangiectasia – of which my NICU docs had never heard. I finally had a chance to ask the lung doctor about this diagnosis one afternoon. As he explained the disease to me, it was very clear that he was quite proud of himself for coming up with this diagnosis. As other parents came into the NICU to see their babies in dire circumstances nearby, this doctor, oblivious to them, continued on to tell me of the horrible outcome that would end the life of my child. He ended his explanation by telling me, “The only decision you need to make for your child is whether he dies at home or the hospital.”
I was reminded of this event in my life the other day, after reading state senators’ comments regarding funding education. When these senators question the intentions of school districts who have maintained fund balances in Dave Ramsey style as if there is something foolish in that, it shows that their ego is in the way and they don’t care who hears. When these senators, who have built their reputations for pushing an accountability system and End of Course Exams on the schools, will not relent even for a year to ease the funding crisis, then their egos are making decisions. When these government leaders refuse to let up on unfunded mandates, knowing full well that these will force the layoffs of certain school positions over others, then they are not for local control and do not believe school boards are capable of making decisions based on their community's interests.
When the doctor above spoke those words to me, my first thought was, “you don’t know the GOD I know.” I knew HOPE. But my second thought was, if my husband and I are going to experience the worst thing that has ever happened to us – the death of our child – it would NOT be with this doctor leading us.
This brings me to my point. If the current politicians, who will vote on the funding of Texas public education, continue to make comments showing their egos are more important than the people they are supposed to be helping – the children of Texas – they may find in the next election cycle that the parents of those children have decided to get a second opinion.
***A lung biopsy proved that my son did not have this horrible disease. He is ten now.
After a few days a C-scan was done on his chest. The radiologist and the lung doctor diagnosed my son with pulmonary lymphangiectasia – of which my NICU docs had never heard. I finally had a chance to ask the lung doctor about this diagnosis one afternoon. As he explained the disease to me, it was very clear that he was quite proud of himself for coming up with this diagnosis. As other parents came into the NICU to see their babies in dire circumstances nearby, this doctor, oblivious to them, continued on to tell me of the horrible outcome that would end the life of my child. He ended his explanation by telling me, “The only decision you need to make for your child is whether he dies at home or the hospital.”
I was reminded of this event in my life the other day, after reading state senators’ comments regarding funding education. When these senators question the intentions of school districts who have maintained fund balances in Dave Ramsey style as if there is something foolish in that, it shows that their ego is in the way and they don’t care who hears. When these senators, who have built their reputations for pushing an accountability system and End of Course Exams on the schools, will not relent even for a year to ease the funding crisis, then their egos are making decisions. When these government leaders refuse to let up on unfunded mandates, knowing full well that these will force the layoffs of certain school positions over others, then they are not for local control and do not believe school boards are capable of making decisions based on their community's interests.
When the doctor above spoke those words to me, my first thought was, “you don’t know the GOD I know.” I knew HOPE. But my second thought was, if my husband and I are going to experience the worst thing that has ever happened to us – the death of our child – it would NOT be with this doctor leading us.
This brings me to my point. If the current politicians, who will vote on the funding of Texas public education, continue to make comments showing their egos are more important than the people they are supposed to be helping – the children of Texas – they may find in the next election cycle that the parents of those children have decided to get a second opinion.
***A lung biopsy proved that my son did not have this horrible disease. He is ten now.
5364 Week Five Literature Review
In Chapter 8 of Pitler et.al.’s (2007) Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, the authors write, “the instructional strategy of reinforcing effort enhances students’ understanding of the relationship between effort and achievement by addressing their attitudes and beliefs about learning” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 155). How necessary it is for students to understand this basic principal of life. So often, we spend our time labeling students by their deficiencies and meeting their weaknesses with accommodations. We forget to remind them that their goal is to overcome their learning deficiencies as best they can and if possible, turn their weakness into strength.
Pitler et.al. (2007) go on to say that countless students believe that their achievements or failures are a result of their heritage, genetics or economic status (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). However, students need to know the power of their thinking and effort can have over their circumstances. The doctors at the Mayo Clinic website state, “Practicing positive self-talk will improve your outlook. When your state of mind is generally optimistic, you’re able to handle everyday stress in a more constructive way” (Staff, 2009). When we spend time teaching kids the value of effort, we are also giving them lifelong skills for tackling the problems they will face in the years to come.
In the book Web 2.0: New tools, New Schools, the Solomon and Schrum (2007) state “can assessment be authentic and simultaneously prepare students to succeed in the standardized testing that they will face? Absolutely!” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 168). Yes, authentic assessment will determine whether students learn the standard based materials required by the state. But the question remains, is the standardized testing in its paper and pen mold – the best option for assessing the most students? In addition, I have to wonder about standardized testing in this way – why such a huge focus on minimum knowledge needed.
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.
Staff, M. C. (2009, May 30). Stress Management. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/positive-thinking/SR00009/NSECTIONGROUP=2
ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., II.E., III.C., V.B., VI.B., VIII.A.
ELCC: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
TExES: Competency 2, 5 & 6
Pitler et.al. (2007) go on to say that countless students believe that their achievements or failures are a result of their heritage, genetics or economic status (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). However, students need to know the power of their thinking and effort can have over their circumstances. The doctors at the Mayo Clinic website state, “Practicing positive self-talk will improve your outlook. When your state of mind is generally optimistic, you’re able to handle everyday stress in a more constructive way” (Staff, 2009). When we spend time teaching kids the value of effort, we are also giving them lifelong skills for tackling the problems they will face in the years to come.
In the book Web 2.0: New tools, New Schools, the Solomon and Schrum (2007) state “can assessment be authentic and simultaneously prepare students to succeed in the standardized testing that they will face? Absolutely!” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 168). Yes, authentic assessment will determine whether students learn the standard based materials required by the state. But the question remains, is the standardized testing in its paper and pen mold – the best option for assessing the most students? In addition, I have to wonder about standardized testing in this way – why such a huge focus on minimum knowledge needed.
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.
Staff, M. C. (2009, May 30). Stress Management. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/positive-thinking/SR00009/NSECTIONGROUP=2
ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., II.E., III.C., V.B., VI.B., VIII.A.
ELCC: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
TExES: Competency 2, 5 & 6
Friday, March 18, 2011
5364 Week Four Reading Review
The reading in the Pitler (2007) book focused on the use of cooperative learning to help students gain and construct new knowledge through working in groups. Some things to remember when placing students in groups is to avoid homogeneous grouping, keep the groups small and varied, and that group work should not be overused. When a teacher creates formal groups for a project, five important components should be included in the assignments.
Pitler, et. al. (2007) write,
1. Positive interdependence (sink or swim together)
2. Face-to-face, promotive interaction (Helping each other to learn, applauding efforts and success)
3. Individual and group accountability (each of us has to contribute to the group achieving its goal)
4. Interpersonal and small-group skills (communication, trust, leadership, decision-making, conflict resolution)
5. Group processing (reflecting on how well the team is functioning and how to function even better) (p. 140)
Cooperative learning requires detailed rubrics for students to follow for both the final product and the different roles students will play in the multimedia production. In addition, access to online sources greatly enhances the learning process (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski, 2007, p. 143).
In Chapter 7 of Rose and Meyer’s online UDL book, the authors state, “the precision and accuracy of an assessment tool is reliable only to the extent that extraneous factors are removed from the equation” (Barriers to Accurate Assessment, para. 4). Their research has shown that four factors greatly affect the value of student assessments. These are: individual learning differences, media differences, missing supports, and evaluations that are detached from the curriculum. To increase the accuracy of student testing, the UDL approach (Rose and Meyer, 2002) believe that “technology enables teachers to provide multiple representations of content in the context of ongoing assessment” (Increasing Assessment Accuracy, para. 2).
In the fifth chapter of Solomon and Schrum’s text, Web 2.0 Tools: New Tools, New Schools (2007), the authors discuss what effective technology focused professional development should entail. Many schools provide the four-hour session crammed with new information and do not provide the teacher the ability to utilize the newly gained knowledge in a monitored and supported environment. This approach leaves teachers to take what they have learned and venture out on their own to implement the ideas. (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, pp. 100-101)
The newest idea to support the integration of technology into the classroom is communities of practice. A learning community is where “there is a culture of learning in which everyone is involved in a collective effort of understanding” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 104). Four distinctive qualities of this learning community should be “diversity”, “shared objective”, “emphasis on learning how to learn”, and “mechanisms for sharing” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 104).
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., II.E., III.A., III.B., III.C., III.D., III.E., IV.A., V.B., V.C., V.D., VI.B., and VIII.A.
ELCC Standards: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3
TExES: Competency 2, 5 and 6
Pitler, et. al. (2007) write,
1. Positive interdependence (sink or swim together)
2. Face-to-face, promotive interaction (Helping each other to learn, applauding efforts and success)
3. Individual and group accountability (each of us has to contribute to the group achieving its goal)
4. Interpersonal and small-group skills (communication, trust, leadership, decision-making, conflict resolution)
5. Group processing (reflecting on how well the team is functioning and how to function even better) (p. 140)
Cooperative learning requires detailed rubrics for students to follow for both the final product and the different roles students will play in the multimedia production. In addition, access to online sources greatly enhances the learning process (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski, 2007, p. 143).
In Chapter 7 of Rose and Meyer’s online UDL book, the authors state, “the precision and accuracy of an assessment tool is reliable only to the extent that extraneous factors are removed from the equation” (Barriers to Accurate Assessment, para. 4). Their research has shown that four factors greatly affect the value of student assessments. These are: individual learning differences, media differences, missing supports, and evaluations that are detached from the curriculum. To increase the accuracy of student testing, the UDL approach (Rose and Meyer, 2002) believe that “technology enables teachers to provide multiple representations of content in the context of ongoing assessment” (Increasing Assessment Accuracy, para. 2).
In the fifth chapter of Solomon and Schrum’s text, Web 2.0 Tools: New Tools, New Schools (2007), the authors discuss what effective technology focused professional development should entail. Many schools provide the four-hour session crammed with new information and do not provide the teacher the ability to utilize the newly gained knowledge in a monitored and supported environment. This approach leaves teachers to take what they have learned and venture out on their own to implement the ideas. (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, pp. 100-101)
The newest idea to support the integration of technology into the classroom is communities of practice. A learning community is where “there is a culture of learning in which everyone is involved in a collective effort of understanding” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 104). Four distinctive qualities of this learning community should be “diversity”, “shared objective”, “emphasis on learning how to learn”, and “mechanisms for sharing” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 104).
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., II.E., III.A., III.B., III.C., III.D., III.E., IV.A., V.B., V.C., V.D., VI.B., and VIII.A.
ELCC Standards: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3
TExES: Competency 2, 5 and 6
Sunday, March 13, 2011
UDL Lesson Building Reflection
Building a lesson plan based on the Universal Design for Learning is quite interesting. The CAST website and explanations to go with each part of the lesson are complete with examples and samples of possibilities. Our group had chosen earth science fifth grade for the project. We chose the unit on weathering, erosion, and the rock cycle. Julia, our group leader, teaches fifth grade science and she provided us with many materials and activities to develop our lessons. The CAST template is simple and straightforward. Filling in the TEKS is simple, but on the parts that I was unsure of I used the CAST website help characters to determine what was best to fill in the table.
The activity selected present the information through video, a kinesthetic, teacher presented information, and reading an eBook. Through the activities “student tie their background knowledge to new patterns and help fill in gaps by providing related information” (Rose and Meyer, 2002). After filling in the activities, I went back and labeled them based on what brain network utilized during each activity. I also color-coded the words – recognition, strategic and affective – so they are easy to spot.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002).Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., III.A., III.B., III.E., IV.A., VI.B., & VIII.A.
ELCC: 2.2, 2.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
TExES: Competencies 2 & 6
The activity selected present the information through video, a kinesthetic, teacher presented information, and reading an eBook. Through the activities “student tie their background knowledge to new patterns and help fill in gaps by providing related information” (Rose and Meyer, 2002). After filling in the activities, I went back and labeled them based on what brain network utilized during each activity. I also color-coded the words – recognition, strategic and affective – so they are easy to spot.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002).Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., III.A., III.B., III.E., IV.A., VI.B., & VIII.A.
ELCC: 2.2, 2.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
TExES: Competencies 2 & 6
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Reflection on making an eBook 5364
Before starting my eBook, my group had met on Skype and decided what topics each person would cover in their individual UDL and what learning challenge their lesson would address. I was assigned the task of preparing a lesson on weathering, so I emailed the fifth grade science teacher at my son’s school and asked to borrow materials. She gladly sent me the Activities Integrating Math, Science & Technology Education Foundation’s (AIMS) earth science book. It is filled with hands-on activities and booklets. I chose one of the booklets on weathering and used the text for my book. It had cartoon drawings in it and I decided to change it a little and have my sons’ contribute drawings. I recorded myself reading the text using Audacity to give an alternative to the computer reader. I also put the text into a speaking box for one of the helpers “Monty”, so students could have the text read in Spanish. In the book, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning, the authors state, “providing multiple representations of patterns through a variety of media, formats, organizations, levels of detail, and degree of depth includes more learners by offering both choice and redundancy.” (Rose & Meyer, 2002) My weathering eBook works to do this through cartoon drawings, photos, and text in English and Spanish with an encouraging penguin along the way.
AIMS Education Foundations. (2008). Earth science: Texas 5th grade. Fresno, CA: AIMS Education Foundation.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
NETS/ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., III.A., III.D., III.E., V.B., VI.B., & VIII.A.
ELCC Standards: 2.2, 2.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
TExES Standards: Competencies 2 & 6
AIMS Education Foundations. (2008). Earth science: Texas 5th grade. Fresno, CA: AIMS Education Foundation.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
NETS/ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., III.A., III.D., III.E., V.B., VI.B., & VIII.A.
ELCC Standards: 2.2, 2.3, 6.1, 6.2, & 6.3
TExES Standards: Competencies 2 & 6
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
eBook on Weathering
http://bookbuilder.cast.org/view.php?op=share&book=d2e22bc963ca51c70a8387c931049deb&sid=3987.
EDLD 5364 Week Three Literature Review
This week’s videos and readings focused on preparing for student-center learning that includes technology. The new information presented this week is vast and I found myself constantly thinking about what child would benefit from each new blog, website, online tool and internet source listed. The videos included followed students as they used technology in their schools.
The Pitler reading focused on meeting the needs of diverse learners through answering question two in the lesson planning queries. The second question is “which strategies will provide evidence of student learning?” (Pitler, 2007, p. 39) This question is answered in two ways – by giving formative or summative feedback. In Chapter 2 of Pitler’s book, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, the author outlines multiple ways to give formative feedback to students. Feedback, in general, should be timely, precise to a measured standard, corrective and often generated by the students themselves. Some of the suggested ways to give feedback are the use of word processing tools, grammar and spelling checkers, and readability assessments. Students’ knowledge can also be measured through classroom response systems such as “clickers” used with Smart Boards and grading software. Web resources are also available such as www.brainpop.com and www.bbc.co.uk/skillwise. Communication software can also be used to evaluate students’ writings through blogs, wikis, email, instant messaging, and video conferencing (Pitler, 2007).
Our readings from the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) focused on the three brain networks that research has identified that are utilized in the learning process. The recognition networks learn and retain the patterns in our world – whether that is letters, numbers or picture elements. Recognition networks are engaged in students when we provide multiple examples of the materials that must be learned. “Much of the art of teaching patterns lies in selecting and presenting numerous, effective examples” (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Digital forms, pictures and resources provide numerous ways to meet students’ needs. Secondly, “good teachers make this process easier by highlighting the critical features of a pattern as a way of directing students’ learning” (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Emphasizing key features can be done through voice volume, face, pitch and tone; italics, bold, and enlarged text; as well as musical lessons. Thirdly, teachers who offer redundancy by presenting multiple representations of patterns give choices to students to find the best way for them to learn. Finally, connecting the new information to knowledge already attained can be done by reflecting and reviewing vocabulary (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Strategic learning networks are the areas of the brain which support the “how” of learning. Teaching methods suggested for helping students develop these skills are – giving multiple models of a process, providing opportunities to over-learn the steps, offering many forms of feedback through various media types, and providing accommodating opportunities to prove the skill has been attained (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Affective learning networks are what make students engaged, motivated, and attracted to learning. Choice is key to tapping into a student’s affective learning processes. Decisions in content, difficulty, context and rewards all stimulate the affective learning networks in students (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
NETS/ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., II.E., III.A., III.B., III.C., III.D., III.E., IV.A., V.D., VI.B., & VIII.A.
ELCC Standards: 2.2, 2.3, & 6.3
TExES: Competency 2 & 6
The Pitler reading focused on meeting the needs of diverse learners through answering question two in the lesson planning queries. The second question is “which strategies will provide evidence of student learning?” (Pitler, 2007, p. 39) This question is answered in two ways – by giving formative or summative feedback. In Chapter 2 of Pitler’s book, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, the author outlines multiple ways to give formative feedback to students. Feedback, in general, should be timely, precise to a measured standard, corrective and often generated by the students themselves. Some of the suggested ways to give feedback are the use of word processing tools, grammar and spelling checkers, and readability assessments. Students’ knowledge can also be measured through classroom response systems such as “clickers” used with Smart Boards and grading software. Web resources are also available such as www.brainpop.com and www.bbc.co.uk/skillwise. Communication software can also be used to evaluate students’ writings through blogs, wikis, email, instant messaging, and video conferencing (Pitler, 2007).
Our readings from the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) focused on the three brain networks that research has identified that are utilized in the learning process. The recognition networks learn and retain the patterns in our world – whether that is letters, numbers or picture elements. Recognition networks are engaged in students when we provide multiple examples of the materials that must be learned. “Much of the art of teaching patterns lies in selecting and presenting numerous, effective examples” (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Digital forms, pictures and resources provide numerous ways to meet students’ needs. Secondly, “good teachers make this process easier by highlighting the critical features of a pattern as a way of directing students’ learning” (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Emphasizing key features can be done through voice volume, face, pitch and tone; italics, bold, and enlarged text; as well as musical lessons. Thirdly, teachers who offer redundancy by presenting multiple representations of patterns give choices to students to find the best way for them to learn. Finally, connecting the new information to knowledge already attained can be done by reflecting and reviewing vocabulary (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Strategic learning networks are the areas of the brain which support the “how” of learning. Teaching methods suggested for helping students develop these skills are – giving multiple models of a process, providing opportunities to over-learn the steps, offering many forms of feedback through various media types, and providing accommodating opportunities to prove the skill has been attained (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Affective learning networks are what make students engaged, motivated, and attracted to learning. Choice is key to tapping into a student’s affective learning processes. Decisions in content, difficulty, context and rewards all stimulate the affective learning networks in students (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
NETS/ISTE Standards: II.A., II.B., II.E., III.A., III.B., III.C., III.D., III.E., IV.A., V.D., VI.B., & VIII.A.
ELCC Standards: 2.2, 2.3, & 6.3
TExES: Competency 2 & 6
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Assignment Week Two – Part One EDLD 5364
EDLD 5364 Teaching with Technology
This week, the focus was on tech strategies that positively impact students in their learning, their data collecting and their communication and organization. Dr. Mason’s lectures covered the highlights of the research of John Schacter and Michael Page. She also discussed Universal Design for Learning developed by Richard Jackson. This learning theory is based on the Universal Design architectural principal (create buildings that can be accessed by all). When applied to a classroom lesson, the lesson and the knowledge to be gained, becomes accessible to all students, regardless of ability.
The Center for Applied Special Technology, or CAST, is a nonprofit group which promotes the UDL design in education. It’s premise is based on the new brain research that holds “more recent theories, such as Multiple Intelligences theory, are consistent with what we are now discovering about the learning brain-namely that students do not have one global learning capacity, but many multifaceted learning capabilities, and that a disability or challenge in one area may be countered by extraordinary ability in another” (Rose & Meyer, 2002) The CAST research believes that there are three networks that work within the brain: the recognition networks – the “what” of learning, the strategic networks – the “how” of learning, and the affective networks – the “why” of learning. By recognizing that each brain is different and learns differently, teachers can create lessons that allow students several access points to the knowledge and/or skill that they need to acquire.
In John Schacter’s 1999 report on the correlation of technology use on student achievement, the author writes of various studies done and research compiled through meta-analysis to validate the results. Some of the conclusions reached in this study included: students learn more in less time when given access to technology, students’ attitudes improved toward learning and positive achievement gains were made, simulations and higher order thinking software (HOTS) helped improve the math scores of eighth graders, and “Although the relative disadvantage of girls is a regularity in the technology literature, girls and boys did not differ in achievement, access, or use of computers” (p. 6).
This week’s readings concluded with a chapter on helping students to understand and create their own objectives for learning. “Setting goals or objectives is a skill that successful people have mastered to help them realize both short-term and long-term accomplishments” (Pitler, 2007, p. 17). Word processing applications are useful for creating KWHL charts and learning contracts for students. Organizing and brainstorming software help students both to organize their thoughts for an essay and to organize their learning in a unit. Data Collections tools allow teachers to do quick online learning assessments and to also survey student interests as to match the lessons planned with the learning objectives their students would like to achieve. Rubrics are also a helpful tool with allowing students to clearly understand the expectations for a classroom assignment. My favorite rubric I recently saw came home with my high school junior courtesy his physics teacher. In the portion of the rubric that said zero points would be given, comments included “I cannot tell if you did this for my class or social studies” and “Looks like your little brother did it while eating Cocoa Puffs” (Anderson, 2011). Pitler’s chapter concludes with the mention of both blogs and email as ways for teachers to help students set and achieve objectives through active communication.
Anderson, S. (2011) Thermodynamics lab. Personal communication.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 24, 2011 online at the Center for Applied Special Technology web site, http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/.
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 http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf.
ELCC Standards: 2.2 & 2.3
Technology Facilitator Standards: II.A. , II.B., II.E., III. B., III. E., V.C., V.D., VI.B. & VIII.A.
TExES Standards: Competencies 2, 5, & 6.
This week, the focus was on tech strategies that positively impact students in their learning, their data collecting and their communication and organization. Dr. Mason’s lectures covered the highlights of the research of John Schacter and Michael Page. She also discussed Universal Design for Learning developed by Richard Jackson. This learning theory is based on the Universal Design architectural principal (create buildings that can be accessed by all). When applied to a classroom lesson, the lesson and the knowledge to be gained, becomes accessible to all students, regardless of ability.
The Center for Applied Special Technology, or CAST, is a nonprofit group which promotes the UDL design in education. It’s premise is based on the new brain research that holds “more recent theories, such as Multiple Intelligences theory, are consistent with what we are now discovering about the learning brain-namely that students do not have one global learning capacity, but many multifaceted learning capabilities, and that a disability or challenge in one area may be countered by extraordinary ability in another” (Rose & Meyer, 2002) The CAST research believes that there are three networks that work within the brain: the recognition networks – the “what” of learning, the strategic networks – the “how” of learning, and the affective networks – the “why” of learning. By recognizing that each brain is different and learns differently, teachers can create lessons that allow students several access points to the knowledge and/or skill that they need to acquire.
In John Schacter’s 1999 report on the correlation of technology use on student achievement, the author writes of various studies done and research compiled through meta-analysis to validate the results. Some of the conclusions reached in this study included: students learn more in less time when given access to technology, students’ attitudes improved toward learning and positive achievement gains were made, simulations and higher order thinking software (HOTS) helped improve the math scores of eighth graders, and “Although the relative disadvantage of girls is a regularity in the technology literature, girls and boys did not differ in achievement, access, or use of computers” (p. 6).
This week’s readings concluded with a chapter on helping students to understand and create their own objectives for learning. “Setting goals or objectives is a skill that successful people have mastered to help them realize both short-term and long-term accomplishments” (Pitler, 2007, p. 17). Word processing applications are useful for creating KWHL charts and learning contracts for students. Organizing and brainstorming software help students both to organize their thoughts for an essay and to organize their learning in a unit. Data Collections tools allow teachers to do quick online learning assessments and to also survey student interests as to match the lessons planned with the learning objectives their students would like to achieve. Rubrics are also a helpful tool with allowing students to clearly understand the expectations for a classroom assignment. My favorite rubric I recently saw came home with my high school junior courtesy his physics teacher. In the portion of the rubric that said zero points would be given, comments included “I cannot tell if you did this for my class or social studies” and “Looks like your little brother did it while eating Cocoa Puffs” (Anderson, 2011). Pitler’s chapter concludes with the mention of both blogs and email as ways for teachers to help students set and achieve objectives through active communication.
Anderson, S. (2011) Thermodynamics lab. Personal communication.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved February 24, 2011 online at the Center for Applied Special Technology web site, http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/.
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 http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf.
ELCC Standards: 2.2 & 2.3
Technology Facilitator Standards: II.A. , II.B., II.E., III. B., III. E., V.C., V.D., VI.B. & VIII.A.
TExES Standards: Competencies 2, 5, & 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
