So here it is, my final post while I am in this program.  On one hand it seems like a long journey since September 2011; on the other hand it seems I have barely blinked, and the time has flown by.  When I look back at the volume of work I have done and more importantly, the knowledge I have gained, I realize I really have come a long way.  As challenging as this course was at times, I know the true challenge lies ahead:  to take this new found knowledge and use it to continue to grow in my profession, and to help prepare those 21st century learners in my care.  I look forward to the challenge.  This will not be my last post on this blog, as my journey is not finished.  To set an example for my students of a lifelong learner, the journey will always continue......... 

Web Conference 9/2/12

        We had a small amount of technical problems in the web conference today.  I could hear Dr. Jenkins loud and clear, but poor Dr. A was a silent partner!  At least she could type to give us her input.   A lot of people are having some trouble transitioning to BlackBoard so we had a lot of necessary technical discussion about where to find things and how to submit items.  We also talked about parental and community involvement in our schools.  My favorite thing about the web conferences is that everyone has such wonderful ideas to share.  Dr. Jenkins even commented on how helpful we are to each other.  Every time I participate in a web conference I feel as if I am in the most wonderful PLC I could ever hope for!  The last thing we discussed is that Dr. Jenkins has changed our assignment submission deadlines to Mondays.  I really like Monday submission deadlines:  Sunday night submissions are difficult for teachers because we spend so much of the weekend getting ready for the week ahead at school.  A Monday night submission deadline takes a lot of the pressure off of us. 

Reflections on EDLD 5345

When I first started this Master's program in Educational Technology Leadership, my main interest was technology. I did not start teaching until I was 36, and there was an old Compaq dinosaur (computer) in my classroom. The only experience I had with computers was back in college when I suffered through a Fortran class. I was terrified of that old computer. I would walk by the computer; I would wave at the computer. My students booted it up for me everyday. I was teaching first grade. That's right: six year olds were booting up a computer for me everyday. How ridiculous. When one of them would finish their work early, I would say, "Great! You can get on the computer and play Math Blaster or Reader Rabbit. Other than the use of an overhead projector, that was the extent of technology integration in my classroom. I wasn't satisfied with that, so I took a course in PC use at the School Board's tech center. That was the beginning of my interest in technology. Two years later, the parish began implementing CBT, Computer Based Training. Every year, one or two grade levels get computer training and at the completion of the program, the teachers are given a new computer with new software they have learned to use. This cycles every few years, so all grade levels are kept as up to date as the budget will allow. I have discovered that teachers my age and older are very intimidated by technology, just as I was. For teachers who are presently graduating from college, technology is all they've ever known. They come with a pre-knowledge that I struggle to learn: they are "digital natives" (Prensky, 2001, p. 4). When I took my first CBT (Computer Based Training) course as part of professional development, I had a wonderful instructor who was so patient and made me confident learning new things on the computer. She was my inspiration for pursuing my Master's Degree in Educational Technology Leadership. I want to do the same not only for my students, but also for other educators who might be intimidated by the challenge of new technology in the classroom.

The point I am getting to is that technology was the main focus of my Master's program. The fact that I would be completing principal competencies was lagniappe for me. I told my boss a long time ago that I have no designs on his job. What a surprise to me to enjoy this class so much! Working on the principal competencies in the last year has taught me a lot about being a principal. I have learned how a principal has to consider a problem from several angles. Situations that have seemed cut and dried to me in the past, were from a teacher's viewpoint and sometimes did not take into account other perspectives. This class has taught me even more. I never thought I was cut out to be an administrator. Reflecting upon the Principal Competencies and Skills and my previous experiences have made me realize that maybe I am administrator material after all. Dr. Creel and Dr. Jenkins have been so down to earth, practical, and supportive; as much as I enjoyed the technology courses, this may be my favorite course I have taken so far! I look forward to my next class with these two talented professors.

 

Reference:

Prensky, M. (2001, September-October). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part one. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 3-6.

Course-embedded assignment: Reflections of 5364

Teaching with Technology has been the most challenging course since the initial course I have taken in this program.  The amount of research and writing alone has been prodigious.  We were also required to complete a complex group project.  Added to the mix is the fact that I have been team leader for this project.  Having the responsibility of others’ grades on your shoulders adds a certain amount of stress, but in the long run also provides a level of satisfaction at the end when you are pleased with the group’s project.

          It is interesting to me how, with all of the new technology and new education theories I am learning about, some things either do not change, or just come back around, renamed and revamped.  Examples of this are the theories of constructivism and connectivism.  Years ago, when I was student teaching, it was brought home to me how important it was to provide background knowledge for students, to ask probing questions and to utilize tools such as K-W-L charts.  Now this is called constructivism.  The root word of constructivism, construct, means to “to make or form by combining or arranging parts or elements: build,” according to the Merriam-Webster  (2012) website.  It makes sense because when you use the above tools you are building learning; hence, the term “constructivism,” which includes using the above tools with technology. (Sprague & Dede, 1999).   Connectivism is a theory I use every day in my classroom, as I teach Social Living across the curriculum, connecting math, language, and reading, with science and social studies.  Now I am learning to do so with “technology as a key factor.” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 40).

          Extensive reading was required in this course; some of it has been useful in ways I would not have expected.  In The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievements (Schacter, 1999), it was interesting to read studies conducted over ten years ago, on technology that was considered cutting edge at the time.  So much has changed, just in the last five years, let alone over a decade.  My two favorite books in this course have been our textbooks, Using technology with classroom instruction that works (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007), and Web 2.0: new tools, new schools (Solomon, & Schrum, 2007).  Both of these books are so full of resources, real life situations, and examples of technology integration, I think they will both be two of my major resources on my desk for a long time. 

          I have learned about many new types of technology in this class. I was familiar with e-books, but I certainly never thought I would be writing one.  This amazing technology is already going to solve a dilemma for my first grade colleagues and me.  Our state is adopting the CCC Standards next year, and we will have neither textbooks, nor the books on the reading list with which to teach reading.  So, e-books may come to our rescue.  A few of the books on our list are already in the CAST library site.  We will spend the summer making more.  Some of the projects we had to complete in this course were very frustrating at the time, but in the end I was always proud of the end product.  Solomon & Schrum (2007) make the point,

          “One of the most successful [ways to learn to use technology] is to use the technology to learn how to use the technology, or some might say, not just talk the talk, but truly walk the walk.” (p. 111)

It seems using the technology to learn the technology works best for me.  When I stop and look back at where I was in my technology knowledge when I started this program, and where I am now, I realize that I have come so far and learned so much.  At the beginning, I had trouble with simple Word commands; now I know how to make e-books, digital stories, and Google documents. 

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this course has been the collaboration with my group members.  They are so creative and knowledgeable; they are very different from me, from different places, with very different lives, but all of our strengths seem to bring out the best in each other.  If it works for adults who are set in their ways to some extent, imagine how working collaboratively will benefit children.  Professor James Gee perhaps said it best in Big Thinkers: James Paul Gee on Grading with Games,

“Next [in the education system] will be schooling that stresses the

ability to solve problems, but not just to solve problems. To be able

to do it collaboratively. That you could work in a group that is smarter

than the smartest person in the group.” 

I am grateful and honored to have been associated with my group members.  I look forward to our next adventure in technology.

References:

Construct. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/construct

Edutopia.org (n.d.). Big thinkers: James Paul Gee on grading with games. Retrieved March 30, 2012, from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-james-gee-video

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

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 on March 30, 2012, from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf

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

Sprague, D., & Dede, C. (1999). If I teach this way, Am I doing my job: Constructivism in the classroom. Leading and Learning, 27(1).  Retrieved         March 30, 2012 from http://imet.csus.edu/imet9/280/docs/dede_constructivisim.pdf

Week 5 Reflection

         Of the readings this week, the one I really enjoyed was Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Really Works, by Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski (2007).  This chapter discussed the importance of teaching students that increased effort leads to achievement.  The effort spreadsheet was an excellent example of Excel use; I was very impressed that the teacher discussed in the chapter was teaching fifth grade students how to use Excel (pp. 157-159).   Not only was she helping them visually track their improvement in achievement, she was teaching them how to use a versatile and useful tool. 

            All of the videos were very informative this week, but the video that I found the most significant was Big Thinkers: James Paul Gee on Grading with Games.  Many parents and educators feel that video games have no place in the classroom, except as a tool for drilling math facts, or perhaps as a reward when work has been complete successfully.  Video games can, in fact, be teaching tools.  Professor Gee makes the point,

 “All a video game is, is problem solving…If you think of it in some weird way, a video game is just an assessment.  All you do is get assessed, every moment while you try to solve a problem.”

         This point is reiterated by Professor Sasha Barab in Big Thinkers:  Sasha Barab on New-Media Engagement (nd), when discussing how video games can bring about new levels of thinking for children:

“In a game, I’m considered someone who has a really powerful role to do something significant with my time.  And that significance requires that I learn a bunch of things, so that I can do that thing even better.”

         Rather than just requiring students to learn for the purpose of ingesting facts and spitting them back out, this type of game requires that students learn information for a greater purpose: to actually use that information, students must think deeper, apply the concepts, and find solutions that require them think creatively and extend their learning.  When a teacher gives a student a failing grade, it usually results in feelings of dejection for the student.  Most students do not regard the pick up the gauntlet and  regard the failing grade as a challenge.  However, in a game, the student is on safe ground; he is in his element and is comfortable.  Failure does not mean the game is over; it just means it’s time for a new start. 

References:

Edutopia.org (nd). Big thinkers: James Paul Gee on grading with games. Retrieved March 30, 2012, from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-james-gee-video

Edutopia.org (nd). Big thinkers: Sasha Barab on new-media engagement. Retrieved March 30, 2012, from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-sasha-barab-video

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

Week 4 Reflection

            The readings this week covered quite diverse topics:  cooperative learning, professional development, “fair” assessment, technology integration.  Judging from the discussion boards, these are topics that most of the class feels very strongly about.  “Giving the same written test to all students is neither fair nor accurate.” (Rose & Meyer, 2002)  This quote elicited a large number of comments.  The point was made that fair does not necessarily mean equal.  Students of different learning styles and levels need different teaching methods because they face different academic barriers to learning.  Ongoing assessments that support differences in the three learning networks will make it possible to give a fairer, accurate assessment of students’ learning.  Unfortunately, standardized tests do not provide the supports many of these students need, and teachers have no choice where standardized tests are concerned.

         Professional development was another important topic covered in the readings this week, regarding technology integration into instruction.  It seems from the research in the book Web 2.0: new tools, new schools  (Solomon & Schrum, 2007), many of the professional development methods used are ineffective.  Administrative support for a technology program is vital, as is positive support from the teachers themselves. “Once the goal of enhancing teaching and learning through technology is agreed upon, there are many ways to accomplish it.  One of the most successful is to use the technology to learn how to use the technology, or some might say, not just talk the talk, but truly walk the walk.” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 111)  I feel like this exactly describes the method we have been using in these classes.  Sometimes I get so frustrated trying to figure out how to use a program; I think to myself, “How can I use this to teach children when I can’t even figure it out?”  Then it all comes together.  When I stop and look back at where I was in my technology knowledge when I started this program, and where I am now, I realize that I have come so far and learned so much.  During the first course I actually spent hours trying to get my name at the top of a paper (duh, header!) and line things up on the page.  Another source of frustration came during the very first week when I could not add my name and e-mail address to the Cohort document.  My daughter listened to me fuss for a couple of days, then finally walked over to the computer, looked at it, laughed, and said, “It helps if you sign in, Mom.”  Now I know how to use Google documents, make digital movies, and e-books.  I’ve come a long way in less than a year.  As frustrating as “using the technology to learn how to use the technology” can be, it is the method that works for me. 

References:

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chapter 7. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Website. Retrieved March 23, 2012 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

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

Week 3 Reflection

This week was quite exhausting, probably the most exhausting since the very first class.  Our group completed our Action Plan, and individually we created e-books, and a lesson plan aimed at our target groups using the UDL method, in addition to various readings and reflections.  It makes me kind of tired just listing all of those items.  I learned all about the three different brain networks, but more importantly I learned what methods and strategies work the best for each one.  (Rose & Myer, 2002)  The e-book was a lot of fun to create, although it was very time consuming.  It is also one of those things that you can edit and re-edit continuously.  I kept finding things to change in the text or the layout.  I would like to go back later and record my voice reading the story; this week I simply did not have the time.  I think a human voice reading the story would be more compelling than a computer voice to students.

       My two favorite books each week continue to be our class textbooks, Web 2.0: new tools, new schools (Solomon & Schrum, 2007) and Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski, 2007).  Both books are filled with examples of software and applications for planning technology integration in classroom instruction.  The Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) textbook even goes so far as to list actual websites.  The four planning questions listed and expounded upon in this text are invaluable assistance when planning for technology integration.

       Completing our Action Plan did not take as long as to finish as the individual lesson did.  We had most of it fleshed out already, and with the whole group contributing, it goes so much faster.  Our group elected to design a 5^th grade level Reading unit, with cross-curricular connections to Social Studies, since Tim and I both teach it.  The background topic of the Reading Unit was World War II.  Tim chose to target hearing impaired students, and Allicia’s choice was to design for the multilevel learners.  My target group was comprised of the gifted and talented students in the classroom.  I deliberately made my e-book a bit more challenging than the average 5^th grade reader, and designed the learning activities, the independent practice, and the culminating activities all on an accelerated level. My group members continue to inspire me; I could not pick a better group of people with which to work.

References:

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. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chapter 6. Retrieved on March 16, 2012, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

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