5364+Teaching+with+Technology

  ** **Click Here to View our Collaborative Project** **  ** Final Reflection **

 This course definitely helped me see learning from all sides. As an Elementary Technology Teacher, there are times that lessons can be so routine that one may forget the importance of diverse learning. One of the useful tools that I have learned in this course was the basics of what the Constructivist Theory is all about. According to my readings, "... Learners take in information, process it to fit their personal frameworks, and build new understanding. " (Bagely & Hunter). As I began to continue to research how the Constructivist Theory could be used, I started to look for real world applications I could use in the classroom. Sure enough, this past week in my 3rd grade Computer Class, we were introducing spreadsheets, which was a new concept for most of the 3rd graders. Instead of having them just watch the lesson via video, we decided to play "Bingo" in which students would have to get four cells in a row using the cell addresses. As we wrapped up for the day, I thought, "Hey! This is the Constructivist Theory at its best!" Students were taking information they already knew (playing a Bingo game) and turning it into new information (how cell addresses work.)

 Another concept that was introduced was that of UDL. For this course, we as a group had to create a lesson plan targeting different learning groups. For instance, while my task may have to create lessons for a GT students, other members would have to create theirs for below leveled students, special education students, blind students, etc. What UDL helped me understand was that while we were all trying to get the same lesson taught, the way we taught it to our particular group was completely different. The interesting thing about this particular project was the fact that we had to align our lesson with various ISTE Standards to keep us accountable. I can safely say that our group did a wonderful job in working together to achieving our goal.

 Another concept that was of interest to me this semester was the study of technology integration in the classroom. One of the articles I had read this semester was a study to see if technology in the classroom had any effect on student achievement (Page, 2002). What was surprising to see was the fact that they conducted their research in a low socioeconomic part of town. I also in a very low income district, so I was definitely interested to see what this study would find. Sure enough, after the experiment was conducted, Page discovered that there had been a significant improvement in mathematics achievement. Although that this study was done ten years ago, I am certain that if a new study was done in 2012, the results would show that technology integration in the classroom would result in higher scores. As a matter of fact, last week in our monthly Instructional Technology meeting, one of the teachers had said they they opened up the computer lab to classes when it was not being used. That particular classroom teacher had told us that she had seen a major improvement in her student's reading abilities.

 The final week of this course was by far the most engaging for me. It talked a lot about Web 2.0 tools and how powerful they can be. Some of my team for this course had the opportunity to go to the TCEA conference where they stressed various Web 2.0 tools. Although I am all for Web 2.0 tools, my hope is that teachers do not replace internet based lessons for actual teaching. If a teacher is putting their students in front of a computer and expecting them to teach themselves content, it is as if they are giving a student a textbook and expecting them to teach themselves.

 Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, (1999). Learning as a personal event: A brief introduction to constructivism. Retrieved on March 31, 2012 from []

 Page, M.S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34//(4), 389-409. Retreived March 31, 2012 from the International Society of Education at []

** Week 5 Reflection **

One of the major themes of this week’s learning was the focus of Web 2.0 tools. A web 2.0 tool is simply where a student can create, work on, or interact with other peers towards a common goal. One of the main quotes that stood out in this week’s reading was, “…one this is certain: we are at the very beginning of this evolution and many of you reading this book will be creating new ideas and projects that others will want to hear about…” (Solomon & Schrum). I find this to be true mainly because Web 2.0 tools simply provide a gateway to synergized world of student engagement. One of the Web 2.0 tools that I have started using ever since I had returned from TCEA is screencasting. Screencasting is simply recording activity from your computer and sharing it with the world. (In this case, my classes.) I have used screencasting to show students how to put spreadsheets together. Students really enjoy it mainly because they can go at their own pace, and do not have to wait for the teacher to come help them with step by step instructions.

Although Web 2.0 tools can be very powerful, we as educators must be very careful and not let the tool become a replacement for teaching. I have seen many teachers start using games and other “busy work” in the name of Web 2.0 tools. I believe that if use correctly, Web 2.0 tools can help students achieve greater success in the classroom.

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Technology in Education, 168-176.

** Week 4 Reflection **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 150%;">The topic that I learned mostly about this week came out of the article, “ Using UDL to Accurately Assess Student Progress.” When reading the article, I immediately felt as if we have been doing everything backwards, or have veered off track when it comes to assessing student progress. The four main factors that the article tells us that we are facing when it comes to proper UDL assessment are, diverse learning differences, media constraints, lack of appropriate support and lack of integration with curriculum. The greatest concern that I have with UDL is the fact that I think it focuses mostly on a “perfect word” scenario. From my point of view, we do have programs in place to serve the students, however when it comes to assessment, it is normally conducted the same way for each student. Although the ideas of computer aided, text-to-speech, assessments seem ideal, many schools that I know of do not utilize those resources.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 150%;">One of the other factors that did seem ideal, yet can be taken out of context is lack of appropriate supports. The article suggested that teachers may be concerned that students use various devices, (word processors, calculators, electronic dictionaries, etc) as means of cheating on assessments. While I can see how the author sees how one may become dependent on these devices, one should not forget that these devices can be very helpful to diverse learners. Just the other day a student who had terrible hand writing, approached me, asking if they could type their homework due to the fact of their messy handwriting. I told the student that I was okay with that. I also told them to check their spelling using the spell check tool. In the end, both the student and teacher had a win-win situation.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">Rose, D & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Web site. Chapter 7. Retrieved on March 23, 2012, from []

** Click here to view my Cast Book Builder! **



** UDL Lesson Plan Reflection ** The lesson that I worked on was for a second grade class to learn about temperatures and climate. Using technology, (laptops) the goal of the student is for them to look up cities via weather.com and see the differences in different parts of the United States. The lesson also talks about what different symbols mean. For instance, if a student sees a picture of a snowflake, they would know that it is snowing in that part of the country.

** Week 3 Reflection ** One of the many re-occurring messages that appeared in this week’s reading was that of differentiation and individualization of learning. In the reading of, “Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age” it talked about various methods for helping students learn. (Rose and Meyer, 2002) The first method would be to offer choices of content and tools so it could better suit the student’s learning abilities. As a Elementary Computer Teacher, I can personally relate to this first method because as with any class, each student has their own preferred learning style. As a first year teacher, I would simply give students a screen shot of what they need to copy, that way it could, “look like the teacher’s.” However, being more experienced I have learned to give students options to help them learn. Some of the options include: pairing up with a high level student, watching a screen cast of how a certain concept is done, or simply working one-on-one with the teacher. Students do appreciate these methods and in the end students do understand the concepts that are introduced. From experience, methods two and three work hand in hand. Method two is “providing adjustable levels of challenge” while method three is, “offering a choice of rewards.” In class, when I introduce something, I normally break it down into two or three levels. For instance, if I am showing a first grader how to change the color of a font, I will say something like, “Students, your level one task is to change the color of the font. If you finish that, level two is to have two letters with two different colors. If you can do that, level three is to write out your first and last name using two different colors.” While the level three task seems much harder to do, each student is still working on changing the color of the font without feeling pressured that they have to reach level three. Method three is often the best part for the student (from my experience.) When finished with a lesson in my class, especially one that is very challenging, students normally often have a high sense of self worth because they had accomplished something. For certain classes, that is a high enough reward. However, there are times that I will create different levels of rewards based on which group or individual finishes first. I do let them know that just because they are the first one(s) finished, they may not receive the reward. Work must be done correctly and show what they have learned.

Rose, D & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Web site. Chapter 6. Retrieved on March 17, 2012, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

** Week 2 Reflection **

Upon reflecting in what I have learned in Week 2, the use of technology in the classroom is becoming more apparent to the overall success to students. Of all of the week’s readings, the article on the, “Effect of Technology in a Low Socioeconomic Area” stood out the most to me. I teach in a Title 1 school district and can relate greatly to what the experimenter was trying to do. After this particular study was completed, it was concluded that, “Participants in the technology-enriched classroom appeared to score significantly higher in math than peers in non-technology enriched classrooms.” (Page, 402) That quote should be a wake up alarm to districts around the United States that in fact, funds contributed to technology are in fact not being wasted, but instead being invested to help students achieve success.

While getting technology into the classroom can be a powerful tool, there are still a number of challenges that we face once we do start using technology. According to one of this week’s articles, one of the main problems in teaching in the Digital Age is that of Learner Diversity and High Standards. (Rose & Meyer, 2002) In a way, I can see where the author is coming from. Surely we as educators must do our best to meet the needs of diverse learners, however these are challenges that teachers, administrators and districts will have to tackle regardless if there is technology or not in the classroom.

Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (n.d.). Chapter 1: Teaching Every Student TOC: Information & Ideas. //CAST: Center for Applied Special Technology//. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from []

Schacter, J. (1999). //The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the research has to say.// Santa Monica, CA; Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved on March 7, 2012, from []

**Week 1 Reflection**

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 150%; text-align: left;"> This week's knowledge focused mainly on three types of learning styles: Constructivist Theory, the Connective Theory and the Cyborg Theory. Being a Technology Teacher, the Cyborg Theory was of great interest to me. Upon watching the Cyborg Theory YouTube video, I was impressed on how scientists want to level the playing field for both humanism and technology. To support what the video was saying, an article that I had read described the Cyborg Theory as, “…not view(ing) technology as other or separate from human but rather see technological advance on par with human evolution; both, one and the same.” (McPheeters, 2009) As an educator I believe that technology should be a part of the classroom, and that educators should always use the most recent technology. However, sometimes I think that we can get a bit ahead of ourselves when it comes to how powerful technology can be. For instance, on the Cyborg Theory video, Mr. Warkwick tells about his experience of having an RFID chip as well as another type of chip implanted into himself. He goes on to tell that he could sense various signals with the chip that he had not experience with out the implant.

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 150%; text-align: left;"> The other two learning theories seemed similar. I could heavily relate to the Constructivist Theory mostly because this is the way that I try to run my classroom. As an elementary teacher, my goal is to utilize the Constructivist Theory by laying a solid foundation of knowledge, and then building upon that foundation. I am always asking students to use any prior knowledge to help them understand a new concept that they may be encountering. Once the student bridges the connections of the two, students are able to understand and recognize how they used their foundational knowledge to accomplish more advance concepts.

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 13.3333px; text-align: left;"> McPheeters, D. (n.d.). TechLearning: Social Networking Technologies in Education by Dallas McPheeters. //Classroom Tech Learning, Education, PC, Mac, iPad, Bloom’s Taxonomy – Techlearning.com//. Retrieved March 4, 2012, from http://www.techlearning.com/article/social-networking-technologies-in-education-by-dallas-mcpheeters/45734