5364+Teaching+With+Technology

=5364 Teaching with Technology= =Lamar University - Educational Technology​= When I began this course, I was so excited because teaching with technology and using it in the classroom is why I decided to pursue a degree at Lamar University. I wanted to learn how to integrate technology into the curriculum so that students’ engagement levels would increase. I also wanted to learn what activities were appropriate for the children. I am concerned with the availability of technology on the campus level. I am also concerned with the knowledge level of the teachers and children using technology.  In this seemingly short period, I have not only learned effective teaching strategies, but with the guidance of Pitler (2007), appropriate teaching strategies for the different learning styles and suggestions on how to begin planning lessons. This class has also included activities and technologies that are suitable for elementary such as spreadsheets for rubrics, data collection tools like Excel, Inspiration/Kidspiration for setting goals and graphic organizers, and wikis and blogs for online collaboration. I had the opportunity to design many activities with my teammates to use this year at my campus. This course it the one that I was most excited in taking, and the learning experience has exceeded my expectations.
 * Final Assessment**

My teammates and I, when planning our Universal Design of Learning Unit, choose a topic that would be relevant to all three of our particular situations. We designed a unit using the UDL model that each of us will use in our district with our teachers even though we have different jobs. We will incorporate the science unit in the Life Science section, and I really feel that the students will learn so much more from these lessons as it addresses the recognition network, the strategic network, and the affective network that Rose and Meyer (2002) explain. As we divided the unit, we also addressed the different networks when choosing our strategies. This class came at a time where, at my school, we have just finished our curriculum-based assessments and are reviewing data and teaching. Our lack addressing the networks to individualize instruction of the students is really showing with the scores. With the guidance of the brain networks, we can use that information to solidify the new knowledge gleaned from this class to choose the strategies that will accommodate the learning style of each of the students.

For all I have learned in the five short weeks, there is so much more to learn, practice and apply as an instructional specialist just as we are modeling for the teachers and the students. Therefore, I speak of time as preventing the achievement of one outcome I still wish to accomplish. One of the areas that I need more practice and application with is building capacity for the children to understand their efforts have an effect on their learning. Pitler (2007) explained how the children built a rubric on effort to make that connection using a spreadsheet. Then the teacher can compile the rubric and ensure student understand the criteria. The student collected data on themselves by using a spreadsheet and make inferences from that data. I am going to suggest that my science team try this effective strategy with their students. I believe it will allow the students to make those connections.

The course assignments were designed to build a final Universal Design for Learning unit. Each week we learned of different aspects of digital learning, digital tools, effective teaching strategies and brain networks. Rose & Meyer (2002) explained that because we have three brain networks that behave differently in people; teachers must explore different techniques in order to reach all the children to individualize instruction. As we built our unit, we had to keep a scenario in mind that contained 30 diverse students. Ten of the students were gifted and talented, one vision impairment, another hearing impairment, and the rest of the students ranged in ability level. The challenge, of course, was to create lessons that would address all of the students’ abilities, disabilities, and learning styles. To achieve this, technology is a crucial component but we had to start with the curriculum we chose and keep effective teaching strategies in mind to accomplish our task while integrating technology so that each of the brain networks were addressed. The Universal Design for Learning unit created by my collaborative team was in my opinion a success.

This course allowed me to grow as a person. I know that there are certain skills that I have and so much more that I do not. I call those my “wholes”. I love technology, but have not explored as much as I would like to explore. Having two wonderful people to collaborate with, allowed me to learn from them without having to read or study or spend countless hours (as I have done in the past) in after school staff development. When we had ideas, we would get online and explore those ideas together in Google sites, documents, and chat. If someone did not understand, we would explain or show examples through the documents. James Gee called it “just in time” learning. As Pitler (2007) said, reinforcement and constructive feedback allow learners to grow and gain more knowledge. My team and I gave feedback to each other. As Gee said in //Big Thinkers: James Paul Gee on Grading with Games//, “certain times you are being mentored and sometimes you are the mentor”.

 Edutopia.org (nd). //Big thinkers: James Paul Gee on grading with games.// Retrieved on Dec. 13, 2009 from [].
 * References: **

Pilter, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malinowski, 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. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Web site. Ch. 6. Retrieved Dec. 13, 2009, from []

I believe the message this week was to start thinking of all the ways schools could integrate technology in a way that would be most beneficial, engaging, exciting and still meet standards in education.
 * Week 5 Big Thinking and Visions for Technology Teaching **

On the discussion board and around the workroom, we all hear why things won’t work, why the children can’t learn, how the administration won’t support technology, etc. These are all excuses. I feel that it starts with one. Will there be road blocks? Yes! But, if you focus on the road blocks, you will never begin to move forward.

James Paul Gee (n.d.) maintained that our educational system is creating students who know facts but have no clue how to solve problems. Every single data session that I facilitate, the teachers express that students know their facts but can’t seem to solve the problems. “They know the information” the teachers exclaim, “but not asked that way”. I feel it is because students do not solve problems. They are taught and tested. Gee also said it is “risky” for schools to use technology because they have become “test prep academies”. I totally agree with this statement. It is all about the test. But those are road blocks and we want to move on.

In this day and age where district are trying to compensate and ensure that every child has the same opportunity to learn by developing scripted curriculum guides where new teachers have the same resources as every teacher, the districts as Gee said are taking the professionalism out of teachers. There is no life in teaching. Teachers pick up a curriculum guide and don’t understand what to do if the children need re-teaching or tutoring. Because they had no design in the curriculum taught, they don’t know what to do if the information didn’t take with the students. **Reference:**

Edutopia.org (nd). //Big thinkers: James Paul Gee on grading with games.// Retrieved Dec. 13, 2009 from []

Edutopia.org (nd). //Big thinkers: Sasha Barab on New-Media Engagement.// Retrieved Dec. 13, 2009 from []

 This week covered so much information. Learning should continue, as we know, with the teachers. Learning communities should be collaborative, interactive, trust among the members, and meet on a regular basis (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). The readings and videos stated that without the support of administration to allow for flexibility with curriculum, teaching, grouping, and assessments, we maybe be assessing our students, but we are not evaluating them or their knowledge and skills. Without flexibility, we will have data but it is skewed and not reflective of what students really know (Rose & Meyer, 2002). One way to encourage teachers and administration is through staff development. But not traditional staff development where teachers sit for extended periods of time after a long day at school and listen to the experts espouse their information. But rather a new type of staff development where teachers might work in collaborative groups to make a product that they could take back and use in the classroom. Staff development should model what we expect the teachers to do which is use technology in appropriate situations. The evaluations of the development should be an online survey. Pitler (2005) suggest that staff development should begin with curriculum or a project and then integrate the technology into the curriculum or project. Much like the technology TEKS aren't mean to be separate or taught in a stand-alone technology class but integrated into all of the curriculum areas.
 * Week 4 Technology Interventions, Staff Development, Cooperative learning, and Assessments**

My "aha" moment this week happened when I watched "High Tech High Taking the Lead: An Interview with Larry Rosenstock". I found myself setting on the edge of my seat waiting for the next epiphany to occur. The information that students were engage and actively learning about things they chose to learn was music to my ears. I found myself talking with my husband, explaining why I wanted to find a project based school where students, teachers, and the community cared about the outcome of the students’ education where my own son could attend. If I can't find that school, I want to help create something similar with the teachers I coach. The number one complaint of the teachers is the students do not care about school. After this class I believe this is because they have no so say in what they are learning and how they are going to learn it. And then we assess them in a paper, pencil multiple choice format that is reflective of very few students learning styles or accommodations.  Edutopia.org (nd). //High Tech High Taking the Lead: An Interview with Larry Rosenstock.// Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from http://www.edutopia.org/collaboration-age-technology-larry-rosenstock-video
 * References:**

Pitler, H. (2005). //McRel technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program final report// (Contract Number ED-01-CO-0006). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED486685) Retrieved from __ [|http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED486685&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED486685] __

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. Chapter 7. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Web site. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from [] Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, New schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

**Week 3 Student Centered Learning Activities with Technology and Feedback**

This week focused on planning for student centered learning. Educators can provide individuals with the appropriate instruction for their levels by using Universal Design for Learning (UDL). This model begins with the end in mind. The guiding factor to planning should be the students learning. Rose and Meyer (2002) explain that the goal of UDL is to provide each student with a tailored learning experience that adjusts and moves with their needs.

As Pitler (2007) suggest, feedback is a key component in the progression and growth of students learning. Technology is a vital component in timely and constructive feedback. Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007), explain different types of technology available and the effective use of that technology so that each and every educator can use what is available to them. The area I am most interested in is the use of student-student feedback and utilizing that component in the classroom. The use of wikis and blogs are the two the catch my eye the most as a way to have students evaluate each other and explain their thinking.

With all that being said, the key is in planning and implementation. I am a curriculum writer for my district. After reading this week’s assignments, the authors and each of the articles stress that student centered activities and learning along with feedback is the key to retention and understanding. Giving students choices allows for different levels of knowledge, different types of learning styles, different interests, and different abilities. This includes, according to Rose and Meyer (2002), different learning methods of recognition, stategic and affective networks. The link to the UDL that I created this week is []  The only problem I see is time. The UDL is much more time intensive in creating lesson plans. I can see how an educator would balk at the idea of making a UDL for each and every lesson they are going to work with that day. Planning is necessary in order to reach all students. My suggestion would be to start with one unit and build a UDL for that unit. Have teams (as we are doing this week) work on different parts of the unit. Then build another unit for the next 6 weeks and so on adding to the curriculum throughout the year. The more you use the UDL, the easier planning will become as you think about what types of technology and choices should be given for each part.


 * 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, pp. 15-38

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 November 30, 2009, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/  Week 2 Technology Strategies that Impact Diverse Student Learning Populations **

<span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">This week focused on effective instructional strategies in conjunction with technology used to guide instruction for diverse learners. Guiding instruction one of the key concepts. Students need to determine their goals and objectives so that they have ownership of their education. This process of setting goals helps encourage student engagement and success in accomplishing learning (Pilter, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski, 2007). The authors recommend setting goals that are flexible to permit individualization of student education which allows for the diverse populations that are in the classrooms today.

Items that are already used in effective learning classrooms which can also be incorporated to include technology are KWHL charts, rubrics, document templates, graphic organizers, and data collection tools such as online surveys. When I first began to read //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works//, I didn’t see why we couldn’t fold the paper and make the KWHL charts or draw the graphic organizers on paper and so on. I can now see that the motivation and accomplishing task on the level of the students increases the student’s self esteem which increases motivation which increases learning. Rose and Meyer (2002) suggest using the Universal Design for Learning which include flexible methods, materials and curriculum and will help reach diverse learners in this continually increased accountability era of education.

As I teach in a school with 84% students that are economic disadvantaged, I agree with the concept that effective teaching strategies help all students. Research shows that effective teaching with technology increases scores for students of economic disadvantages (Page, 2002). As I began this master’s degree, I was looking strategies that would help with engagement and motivation. I can see that we were not far from the source. In order to have that level of engagement and retention of knowledge, students will have to set learning goals and be an active participant in their education. Technology will help with achieving both of those goals. One part of this equation I hadn’t thought of was the increase in self esteem and confidence of the children. This is definitely a win-win situation.

<span style="color: #0033cc; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> 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. Retrieved November 26, 2009 from the International Society of Education at []
 * 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, pp. 15-38

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 1. Retrieved on November 26, 2009, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">**Week 1 Constructivist, Connectivism, and Cyborg Theories**

Constructivist theory, according to Pitler, is best served in a student-centered classroom where students collaborate and have choices and as a result learning is increased. Feedback and interaction with peers allows for construction of knowledge to happen. Constructivist theory believes that student come with a set of knowledge gathered from information around them. Then build new knowledge from information while deciding what information fits into with what you already have so that knew knowledge can occurs happens with constructivism. (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1999)

Connectivism, according to Siemens, is where students make connections to information they already have. The author believes having the knowledge of what and how things work will not, if not now in the very near future, be as important to be able to master as having the knowledge of where to look for the information will be.

The cyborg theory according to Warwick will increase human’s ability to sense items unattainable now with the help of computer chips. Since he himself has experienced this ability, for instance sharing his wife's nervous system, he feels all humans will want to be cyborgs some day. No matter the theory that you orient yourself with, you must still translate the theory into learning in the classroom. What will that learning look like in the 21st Century? What jobs will be available? What skills will students need by the time they graduate and for their working years? These questions do not have answers. All three theories have merit. All humans come with knowledge that is use to understand the new information being gathered. The gathered information is then rejected or accepted into new knowledge. Connectivism is also viable because people all make connections with what we have learned and must no matter the source understand where to find information, be it the library in a book or magazine or online. The cypborg theory could be benefit and is definitely intriguing. Warwick’s assumption that everyone will want to become a cyborg so they can enhance their sense abilities is yet to be proven. Not everyone will want to be connected to a computer with a chip (Warwick, 2009). <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-themecolor: text1;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Introduction, pp. 1-14.
 * References**

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Siemens, G. (nd). //The Changing Nature of Knowledge.// Youtube.com. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from __ [] __

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, (1999). //Learning as a personal event: A brief introduction to constructivism//. Retrieved on October 4, 2009 from []

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Warwirk, K. (nd). //Cyborg Life//. Youtube.com. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from []