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.

Creating an e-book

          Creating an e-book was quite an adventure.  I tried to find a book that I could adapt for my purposes, providing background knowledge about World War II and what life was like for different cultures during that time, but I could not find anything short enough or on an upper elementary level.  There may be some books out there that would have worked, but I could not find them.  So, I made up my own book.  Interestingly, writing the book itself was not the difficult part.  Keeping it short enough to be an effective teaching tool was a challenge for me.  I also spent a lot of time trying to find good pictures that could be used with permission.  The resources on the book builder suite were very helpful in that regard, especially the Creative Commons site.  The Flickr site was not particularly good for this project for me, as the pictures I wanted were really too old to be found there.  Using the book builder site itself was very easy.  The instructions were clear, and the help site was very valuable.  It actually took longer to find the pictures and to edit myself than anything else.  The only problem I had with the website itself was with the Table of Contents.  Since my e-book was nonfiction, I wanted to use a Table of Contents.  The tool itself was not difficult at all: all you had to was click a box at the top of each page with the title, & the Table of Contents was created for you, with the names of each section, as well as a hot link on the page number to take you to the page.  The problem I ran into was that for some reason the spacing on my Table of Contents page was off, so the titles of the pages were not lined up at all.  I tried for quite a while to correct it, but I finally just deleted the page.  If I had chosen to make my book longer, I think a Table of Contents would have been a more necessary component. 
          The purpose for my e-book was to use it as a teaching tool to support background knowledge.  This teaching method is part of instruction designed to support the recognition learning network. (Rose & Meyer, 2002)  The lesson I will be teaching is about point of view; this story is also designed to introduce to the students the fact that different cultures had different experiences during World War II, even though everyone in the world was affected by the war.  I used a glossary, so that students would begin to become familiar with terms they might read in their chosen books.  I really like the glossary feature, even for gifted and talented students.  Many times students become discouraged when reading a story that may have words above their grade level.  Instead of looking the word up in a dictionary or using context clues, many of them just put the book down.  The interactive glossary feature on an e-book can inspire them to keep reading.  I also used the picture feature on the glossary units I created, to ensure understanding and to make the glossary visually interesting. The coach feature was fun; I used mine to tell more about the pictures I used in the story.  This particular feature could have a myriad of applications.  I did not take time to record my voice reading the story, but I like the fact that I can if I wish, or students can listen to the computer read it if necessary.  This would certainly overcome a curriculum barrier for students that are visually impaired or with a limited vocabulary or reading ability.  (Rose & Meyer, 2002)  I think the use of e-books in a classroom is an answer to many of the curriculum barriers our students face.

References: 

Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved on March 16, 2012, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

Link to my e-book: http://bookbuilder.cast.org/view.php?op=share&book=cb53673db19cf75059bdf698d5efddb5&sid=7792

Web Conference March 11, 2012

     Wow, our web conference tonight had a LOT of information. We basically covered two weeks tonight, since our next one will not be until after the Week 3 assignment has been turned in. I feel like we have a pretty good handle on what is expected from our group assignment, although I was kind of concerned when one group said their collaboration document ran over 40 pages! (How many people are in their group?) One thing that is kind of annoying is when people come late to the web conference and ask the same questions over and over again. Can't they scroll back and read what has already been asked? It wastes a lot of time. Tonight we were having some pretty bad weather, so maybe they had trouble getting into the conference. This week there was a discrepancy over the assignment. Although we had gotten a heads up over the issue and a clarification from Dawn, once again, we submitted our assignment after the web conference. Anyway, we received a lot of critical information tonight concerning our UDL, so once again, I am grateful for the opportunity to connect with my teachers and IA's in this manner.

Marianne Wallace EDLD5364/ET8038

Week 2 Reflection

     This week was a very busy one.  Of the four readings, my favorite was from our textbook, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  I enjoyed reading about the different tools, some of which I have used in the past and some that were new to me.  I like having a book with hands on references that I can use in my assignments and in my work.  It is interesting to me that the two readings that discussed the effects of technology in the classroom, Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status (Page, 2002) and The impact of education technology on student achievements (Schacter, 1999), although only about ten years old, were really out of date when you consider how far technology has progressed in the last five years.  While both articles had valid information, these articles cited studies from the 1980’s and early 1990’s, and even some studies conducted in the 1970’s.  Cell phones were considered science fiction in the 1970’s, and tools such as interactive whiteboards were not even dreamed of yet.  I always enjoy reading the discussion boards and seeing the different opinions people have.  Sometimes my classmates highlight items in an article that I completely missed, or they present an entirely different perspective about an issue that never even occurred to me.

      My favorite part of this week’s work was collaborating with my group.  Both of my partners have lots of creative ideas about how to approach our assignment, and with their input, we are going to have a far superior product than I could ever have created alone.  I really like working on a Google document, especially when someone else starts working on it at the same time as you are.  It’s very funny to see my computer just start typing away when my hands aren’t even on the keyboard!  I feel very satisfied with our work this week, and think we have a good plan for our unit we will complete this coming week.

References:

Page, M. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of research on technology in education, 34 (4). Retrieved October 5, 2009 from http://www.iste.org

 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 11, 2012, from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf

Marianne Wallace  EDLD5364/ET8038

Web Conference March 4, 2012

Our web conference got off to kind of a rocky start this evening, what with the audio continuing to be problematic, and then Dr. Cummings being kicked off in the middle of the conference. However, when she returned things ran smoother, and although we are still resorting to chat only, lots of important information was once again gleaned from the conference. While I was still needing information concerning Week 1’s assignment (I do wish we could have had a conference earlier in the week), most of the questions were concerning Week 2 and Week 3 assignments. These conferences are really vital for me, as I sometimes misunderstand the week’s assignments, and the conferences often save me from grave mistakes! Tonight is a perfect example. All three of our group members thought that for this group project we could just add pages to the existing website we had created in the last class, not realizing we had to create an entire new one. So, after the conference, I simply created a new one, and we all adjusted our assignments accordingly. We have gotten into the habit of not submitting our assignments until after the web conference; I believe it is a trend we will continue. The web conferences continue to be a very important clarification process for me. I feel lucky we have them, in spite of technical difficulties!

Marianne Wallace

EDLD5364/ET8038

EDLD5364: Weekly Reflection

Weekly Reflection, March 4, 2012

     This week had a new term for an education method that I was taught as a student teacher fifteen years ago: constructivism. Discussing background knowledge, asking probing questions, and good old K-W-L charts are all examples of constructivism I have been using in my classroom for years, only without the help of technology. I am also familiar with the theory of connectivism, but we referred to it as teaching across the curriculum. This is what I do every day in my Social Living class: when I teach a lesson, I am not just teaching Science or Social Studies to first graders, I am also teaching Reading, Language, Spelling, Handwriting, and sometimes Math as well. The Cyborg theory was a little out in left field for me. I know that this type of surgery (computer chips implanted in the nerves) is used in the medical field, especially with people who have suffered nerve injuries, but implanting chips with knowledge is a new one to me. It’s a little like Star Trek, and I’m afraid I can’t really get into human beings becoming a sub-species. I found the readings very interesting when they discussed that using technology as part of the learning process actually stimulates the students to further their own learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 208).  I have seen this in action when we began using interactive whiteboards in our classrooms. I am looking forward to using more technology to apply these theories with my first grade students.   

      Another interesting thing that drew my attention was the discussion concerning the prevalence of the use of MySpace (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p.21).  This is another example of how much the Internet has changed in a very short period of time; in the five years since this book was written, MySpace has been so eclipsed by Facebook as to become almost obsolete. 

      Our team got together again, although one of our members, Casey, is not in our class this time. We will miss her input and working with her. I am team leader, and I hope I do well by my team. We are to choose our subject and target audience this week for our lesson, so it looks like a busy week ahead.

      All in all, I feel as though this is going to be a labor intensive course, really utilizing all of our knowledge we have gained in our courses so far and connecting them with future learning, as well as a tremendous amount of collaboration with other members. Hey, that sounds like constructivism and connectivism to me! However, no chip implants for me, please.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000).  How people learn; Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded edition). Ch. 9, pp. 194-218. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.  Retrieved on March 1, 2012 from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9853&page=208

Solomon G., and Schrum, L., (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools.  Eugene, OR:  International Society for Technology in Education, pp. 7-44.