Chapter 6: Technology and Assessment
The Teaching for Understanding model as well as PBL both focus on using assessments for learning rather than assessments of learning. Although, the later still have merit and value with administrators and school districts.
They also require that teachers assess throughout the learning process (Wiske, 2005). Ongoing assessments are important as well as making sure the assessment or assessments match the objectives for the lesson. Ongoing assessments can be as simple as questioning technique and observations.
But where does technology play a part?
Technology allows teachers to create and use rubrics and other authentic forms of assessment. Wiske says “when students work in captured with digital technologies, revision is less burdensome because learners can change only the parts that need improvement instead of having to redo the entire product” (p.85). She also continues to say “technologies also provide easy means of prescribing digital archives of student work. These may allow teachers and students to create individual portfolios to demonstrate and evaluate a student’s progress over time” (p.85). Assessments are supposed to show growth and mastery of content areas. They should also be done frequently (Wiske, 2005). Technology supports assessments being conducted frequently. Technology also creates opportunities for students to be involved in the assessment process by allowing for reflections and building of rubrics.
Chapter 7: Collaboration and Technologies
Educators know that Vygotsky has always supported learning as a social process. Wiske agrees and states “Engaging students in reflective, collaborative communities of learners is important, not only because it promotes their understanding of academic content, but because such experiences also help students learn how to cooperate in terms to solve problems” (p.99-100). Technologies allow students to express and combine a variety of ideas in creative ways. It also allows them to communicate and collaborate with other learning communities from different parts of the world. This enriches the learning process. Technology allows collaboration and learning to be exciting and meaningful.
Wiske, Martha Stone, et. al. (2005). Technolongy for Understanding. Jossey-Bass. California: San Fransciso. (pp.83-111).
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Technology, Education and Community Partnerships
This chapter was a little weak for me. I found the strategies for community partnerships more like guidelines for building successful partnerships. I was looking for more step by step strategies on how to incorporate technology and partnerships within the classroom effectively. I felt that the reading was more geared to what a partnership should be and should not be.
However, with that said, I was still able to gleam some important ideas from the chapter.
“Successful school-business partnerships are built on an understanding of each other’s needs and constraints, mutual respect and honesty, and projects that are beneficial for all involved” (p.113).
Programs where community businesses can involved will benefit everyone if and only if they are mutual goals and understandings between the companies and the schools. The educators want to show the students basic and real life applications of what they are doing in the classroom. And respectfully, the companies are looking for endorsements and free advertising. When I was in high school, we would partner up with community businesses to provide financially support for our productions. In turn they were given a advertisement slot in our program. I find that it is easier to have successful and meaningful partnerships in high school and perhaps junior high but not so much in elementary. My experience with partnerships in elementary school is limited. One experience that does come to mind however, was the Book It Reading Program with Pizza Hut. We got a free pizza for our class/ourselves when we read a certain amount of books.
That brings me to the next idea. “Schools are looking for project-centered curricia that provides a context for learning and use real-world applications that demonstrate the relevance for the skills that students are learning” (p.114). When I was student teaching, the school brought in a yo-yo man. He was supposed to be a motivational speaker. However, the children were more preoccupied with buying and playing with his yo-yos then what he was talking about. Also, the yo-yos were a week long distraction in the classroom. We, as teachers, did not see the relevance for the children in that assembly accept for the students to buy over priced yo-yos. A yo-yo was 15.00-60.00. Talk about exploiting the students. Most of the students can even afford to buy lunch or a pair of gloves, but here they are encouraged to spend money on a yo-yo… that was too expensive in my mind and broke constantly in addition. Richards sums it up nicely when he says “ Schools are places were students need to feel safe… and where they will not be exploited. It [Businesses] is in the nature of their world to identify and exploit marketing opportunities . Schools are a prime target for products allowed into the school receive implicit endorsements” (p.115).
It was hard to follow the BBN and CO-NECT design. However, the one partnership that I did gleam a lot from was the Cable in the Classroom Partnership. The website was very useful. http://www.ciconline.org.
At our school, we also have the Navy come in and mentor to our students who are struggling in reading. The Marines also come in and advertised the importance for healthy live styles with their marathon in October.
Richards, John. (2001). Stratgies for creating successful corporate partnerships. In LeBaron & Collier (eds.). Technology in its place. Jossey-Bass, CA: San Franisco (p.113-124).
However, with that said, I was still able to gleam some important ideas from the chapter.
“Successful school-business partnerships are built on an understanding of each other’s needs and constraints, mutual respect and honesty, and projects that are beneficial for all involved” (p.113).
Programs where community businesses can involved will benefit everyone if and only if they are mutual goals and understandings between the companies and the schools. The educators want to show the students basic and real life applications of what they are doing in the classroom. And respectfully, the companies are looking for endorsements and free advertising. When I was in high school, we would partner up with community businesses to provide financially support for our productions. In turn they were given a advertisement slot in our program. I find that it is easier to have successful and meaningful partnerships in high school and perhaps junior high but not so much in elementary. My experience with partnerships in elementary school is limited. One experience that does come to mind however, was the Book It Reading Program with Pizza Hut. We got a free pizza for our class/ourselves when we read a certain amount of books.
That brings me to the next idea. “Schools are looking for project-centered curricia that provides a context for learning and use real-world applications that demonstrate the relevance for the skills that students are learning” (p.114). When I was student teaching, the school brought in a yo-yo man. He was supposed to be a motivational speaker. However, the children were more preoccupied with buying and playing with his yo-yos then what he was talking about. Also, the yo-yos were a week long distraction in the classroom. We, as teachers, did not see the relevance for the children in that assembly accept for the students to buy over priced yo-yos. A yo-yo was 15.00-60.00. Talk about exploiting the students. Most of the students can even afford to buy lunch or a pair of gloves, but here they are encouraged to spend money on a yo-yo… that was too expensive in my mind and broke constantly in addition. Richards sums it up nicely when he says “ Schools are places were students need to feel safe… and where they will not be exploited. It [Businesses] is in the nature of their world to identify and exploit marketing opportunities . Schools are a prime target for products allowed into the school receive implicit endorsements” (p.115).
It was hard to follow the BBN and CO-NECT design. However, the one partnership that I did gleam a lot from was the Cable in the Classroom Partnership. The website was very useful. http://www.ciconline.org.
At our school, we also have the Navy come in and mentor to our students who are struggling in reading. The Marines also come in and advertised the importance for healthy live styles with their marathon in October.
Richards, John. (2001). Stratgies for creating successful corporate partnerships. In LeBaron & Collier (eds.). Technology in its place. Jossey-Bass, CA: San Franisco (p.113-124).
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Professional Development
Collier offers four approaches for professional development to teach teachers about technology integration.
The first approach is to use technology mentors. The concept is to pair a teacher with someone who is an expert in technology and have the expert show the teacher what are the best ways to use the technology in the classroom, very much like student teaching. Collier (2001) suggests that the school could then use these mentors to lead several professional development activities within the school. Ideally this would be cost effective because then the school would not have to pay an expert from the community to come in and do a presentation.
The second approach focused on student involvement. “Technology-savvy teachers are no the only resources a school can draw on for staff development for technology integratetion. Many Students are also experts in some aspects of technology use” (p.65). I think it would be hard some teachers to take directions or guidance from a student. In my school, professional development is considered a full day of workshops or meetings with the principal. I don’t think that staff would consider students helping in class with technology how-tos staff development. Collier suggests, “teachers can count on student experts to get a printer working or answer an unexpected technical question that arises during instruction” (p.65). I don’t think my principal would allow that to be defined as professional development. He would term it as part of instruction. Collier also suggests having two student experts in the computer lab for each class. What happens when both of those students are absent? There would also be a great deal of extra time needed from the teacher and the student to train and educate these “mentors”.
The next approach talked about using the standards and developing curriculum plans that would incorporate technology across all subject areas. “Toward this end, districts may create teams of teachers to lead the effort to map standards to local curriculum and classroom practice” (p.67). In my mind, this may be the most beneficial way to show and teach educators how to integrate technology. I would not mind sitting though presentations or workshops on how to apply technology standards across the curriculum.
The last approach was research how well these different ideas work. “Designing and developing technology-integrated projects and units is not the end of the story. Assessing how well these units work in practice in an important step in effective, wife-scale technology integration” (p.68). So using assessments with technology would be another area for professional development.
I think it would also be important to have the professional development activities where everyone could participate. I feel that we are required to go to the sessions that are least beneficial. Then when a program is offered that would be useful, it is given at a time that most teachers cannot participate in. For example: We were offered a staff development session on how to use the smartboard in our classrooms. The principal brought someone from out of the school staff to teach use about them. However, the smartboard training was during parent conference. The only people who were able to attend were their specialists. The principal then said that it was a waste of time and money and that there would not be another session. How frustrating is that?!
Collier, Catherine. (2001) Staff development for techhnology integration in the classroom. In John F. LeBaron & Cathering Collier (eds.), Technolgy in its place. (pp. 61-72). Jossey-Boss, CA: San Franciso.
The first approach is to use technology mentors. The concept is to pair a teacher with someone who is an expert in technology and have the expert show the teacher what are the best ways to use the technology in the classroom, very much like student teaching. Collier (2001) suggests that the school could then use these mentors to lead several professional development activities within the school. Ideally this would be cost effective because then the school would not have to pay an expert from the community to come in and do a presentation.
The second approach focused on student involvement. “Technology-savvy teachers are no the only resources a school can draw on for staff development for technology integratetion. Many Students are also experts in some aspects of technology use” (p.65). I think it would be hard some teachers to take directions or guidance from a student. In my school, professional development is considered a full day of workshops or meetings with the principal. I don’t think that staff would consider students helping in class with technology how-tos staff development. Collier suggests, “teachers can count on student experts to get a printer working or answer an unexpected technical question that arises during instruction” (p.65). I don’t think my principal would allow that to be defined as professional development. He would term it as part of instruction. Collier also suggests having two student experts in the computer lab for each class. What happens when both of those students are absent? There would also be a great deal of extra time needed from the teacher and the student to train and educate these “mentors”.
The next approach talked about using the standards and developing curriculum plans that would incorporate technology across all subject areas. “Toward this end, districts may create teams of teachers to lead the effort to map standards to local curriculum and classroom practice” (p.67). In my mind, this may be the most beneficial way to show and teach educators how to integrate technology. I would not mind sitting though presentations or workshops on how to apply technology standards across the curriculum.
The last approach was research how well these different ideas work. “Designing and developing technology-integrated projects and units is not the end of the story. Assessing how well these units work in practice in an important step in effective, wife-scale technology integration” (p.68). So using assessments with technology would be another area for professional development.
I think it would also be important to have the professional development activities where everyone could participate. I feel that we are required to go to the sessions that are least beneficial. Then when a program is offered that would be useful, it is given at a time that most teachers cannot participate in. For example: We were offered a staff development session on how to use the smartboard in our classrooms. The principal brought someone from out of the school staff to teach use about them. However, the smartboard training was during parent conference. The only people who were able to attend were their specialists. The principal then said that it was a waste of time and money and that there would not be another session. How frustrating is that?!
Collier, Catherine. (2001) Staff development for techhnology integration in the classroom. In John F. LeBaron & Cathering Collier (eds.), Technolgy in its place. (pp. 61-72). Jossey-Boss, CA: San Franciso.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Technology and Urban Schools
Urban schools have tons of challenges. I hate to be negative, but my experience tends to lend itself to the fact that these schools are usually more concerned with safety and test scores than with obtaining the newest and latest technology with regards to student education. With that said, Gallagher makes some good points. Technology although important, is expensive (p.31). When I was teaching kindergarten, 64% of my class was on free and reduced lunch. Why do I know this—besides its obvious who brings and pays for lunch and who does not---I had to ask the PTA for funds for these children so that they could go on the fall field trip.
Technology also competes with programs that are deemed more important and which also provide immediate results. “Technology must compete with these programs and other, such as preschool education, for the limited funds available for the district. All of these programs are important and many produce more immediate, quantifiable results than technology, so they are more likely to get funded” (p.33). However, couldn’t there be a line item note for technology in each of these programs. Take the head start program, and after the funding for food is calculated, couldn’t administrators and community leaders tag on a technology expense as well?
I love the idea that one of the suggestions was to rearrange the class schedule. When I was teaching kindergarten, it was dictated when my core subjects would be taught. It was more effective in my mind to teach science and math together in the afternoon than to teach Language Arts and Science in the morning. I would have rather taught Language Arts and Social Studies together and therefore having opportunities to extend the teaching block. Since I tend to integrate Social Studies and Language Arts together anyways. My Kindergarten class always was scheduled to go to the computer lab right before lunch at 12:45. That was a pain because despite having snack before the lab, the students were focused on lunch and not on being productive in the lab. I would have much rather preferred an earlier lunch, recess and then lab after recess to settle them down and get them focused back on learning. I don’t think that many class schedules use time effectively for technology, but I also understand it is hard to coordinated a large number of classes for specials and lunch.
LeBaron, John F., et al. (2001). Technology and its place. Successful technology infusion in schools. Jossey-Bass, California: San Francisco. (Chapter 3).
Technology also competes with programs that are deemed more important and which also provide immediate results. “Technology must compete with these programs and other, such as preschool education, for the limited funds available for the district. All of these programs are important and many produce more immediate, quantifiable results than technology, so they are more likely to get funded” (p.33). However, couldn’t there be a line item note for technology in each of these programs. Take the head start program, and after the funding for food is calculated, couldn’t administrators and community leaders tag on a technology expense as well?
I love the idea that one of the suggestions was to rearrange the class schedule. When I was teaching kindergarten, it was dictated when my core subjects would be taught. It was more effective in my mind to teach science and math together in the afternoon than to teach Language Arts and Science in the morning. I would have rather taught Language Arts and Social Studies together and therefore having opportunities to extend the teaching block. Since I tend to integrate Social Studies and Language Arts together anyways. My Kindergarten class always was scheduled to go to the computer lab right before lunch at 12:45. That was a pain because despite having snack before the lab, the students were focused on lunch and not on being productive in the lab. I would have much rather preferred an earlier lunch, recess and then lab after recess to settle them down and get them focused back on learning. I don’t think that many class schedules use time effectively for technology, but I also understand it is hard to coordinated a large number of classes for specials and lunch.
LeBaron, John F., et al. (2001). Technology and its place. Successful technology infusion in schools. Jossey-Bass, California: San Francisco. (Chapter 3).
Friday, March 2, 2007
Lebaron et. al (Technology in its Place) Chapters 2 and 4
It took me a couple days to wrap my mind around the readings for this week. LeBaron is very wordy, much like Dewey. Basically, LeBaron points out that before a teacher can begin planning, that teacher needs to examine their philosophy and the nature of their classroom (types of students, types of learners, resources, etc.) He supports a constructionist approach to planning. “A curriculum dedicated to optimizing human potential will find comfort in a learning theory that stresses individual differences” (p.21). He goes on to say that “Technologies for this approach would be integrated throughout the learning environment supporting research and knowledge construction through local databases worldwide networks, data manipulation, software, and multimedia production” (p.21).
LeBaron also gave importance to collaborative planning where all resources (equipment and specialists) can be explored and shared. Jarvela’s article also focused on collaborative planning. My experience with collaborative planning has been a very positive and successful one. When I was student teaching, the kindergarten team would plan together and invite specialists on certain days to collaborate across the curriculum. When the children went to music, library, PE and computer lab, they would continue to learn about the things in class… such as Groundhogs day, Columbus Day, shapes, numbers or colors. At the planning sessions which would be one hour each morning, all of the teachers would bring their own resources on the SOLs that was the topic of instruction for that week. One day would be dedicated to planning for social studies and science, another for math and a third for language arts. (Day four was for a meeting with administrators and the last day was open for personal planning like photo copying.) It was very useful and a very productive use of time.
LeBaron, John F., et al. (2001). Technology and its place. Successful technology infusion in schools. Jossey-Bass, California: San Francisco. (Chapter 2 and Chapter 4).
LeBaron also gave importance to collaborative planning where all resources (equipment and specialists) can be explored and shared. Jarvela’s article also focused on collaborative planning. My experience with collaborative planning has been a very positive and successful one. When I was student teaching, the kindergarten team would plan together and invite specialists on certain days to collaborate across the curriculum. When the children went to music, library, PE and computer lab, they would continue to learn about the things in class… such as Groundhogs day, Columbus Day, shapes, numbers or colors. At the planning sessions which would be one hour each morning, all of the teachers would bring their own resources on the SOLs that was the topic of instruction for that week. One day would be dedicated to planning for social studies and science, another for math and a third for language arts. (Day four was for a meeting with administrators and the last day was open for personal planning like photo copying.) It was very useful and a very productive use of time.
LeBaron, John F., et al. (2001). Technology and its place. Successful technology infusion in schools. Jossey-Bass, California: San Francisco. (Chapter 2 and Chapter 4).
Sunday, February 25, 2007
NCLB
NCLB is a very sensitive and political subject. For every argument, there will always be pros and cons. It is also important to remember that we are all allowed to have an opinion and express it, something I think most politicians have forgotten. With that said, this is what I have to say about NCLB.
As our society continues to pull responsibility away from the children and the adolescents, they become less accountable for their learning and their behavior. So the question is—who becomes accountable for their education? Where should accountability fall? Should it be the teachers’ responsibility or the parents? Should students be held accountable for their test scores, or is it a reflection of the teacher’s success or failure in the classroom? Accountability and the effectiveness of testing are part of the great debates behind the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law.
Christy Guilfoyle (2006) states that “If you asked a roomful of educators which word or phrase best sums up No Child Left Behind, some educators would say accountability,” (p.8). She also goes on to mention that “the focus on holding schools accountable for student achievement on standardized assessment sets NCLB apart from previous versions of the law,” (p.9). I believe there is a need for accountability. The question is where should it be placed? Accountability on high stakes tests is a sensitive topic. If internalized, the results essentially places blame on teachers and educators for the failure of students. However, there should be a way to hold teachers, administrators, parents and students accountable at the same time.
Accountability pushes teachers to become highly qualified. In Iris Rotberg’s (2006) she states that the United States is the only nation that holds its teachers accountable for student learning (p.58). One reason for NCLB was because we were academically low compare to other countries such as Japan. However, Rotburg is quick to point out, that Japan like many countries only tests the cream of the crop. These countries also fail to assess the quality of education for its low-income students, minority students and students with disabilities (Rotburg, 2006, p. 58). NCLB requires that teachers reflect and modify their lessons and interpret data. Interpreting the data allows educators to build a strong school improvement plan which in turn helps these sub groups succeed where they would likely fail.
Accountability does carry its consequences. Having a national accountability system does limit educators to using high stakes tests only. This pressures teachers to teach to the test. Schools that fail to bring their students to a proficient level of learning over an extended amount of time, risk losing funding and being taken over by state governments (Guilfoyle, 2006). NCLB does give funding to schools that are at risk; however, in order to keep their funding schools must show improvement. If the school was not held accountable for success, what would prevent them from not succeeding and just allowing the system to provide them with extra funding?
NCLB has improved curriculums across the nation. Heather Zavadsky (2006) points out in her article that NCLB has supported teachers by providing curriculum guides and pacing charts, aligned curriculum between grades and monitored curriculum implementation. She also states that “many states are continually improving their core subject curriculums in response to NCLB,” (p.69). The curriculums now have increased meaning and motivation for students and their learning. Requiring the school systems to be accountable for their curriculum is just as important if not more important that accountability on tests.
Guilfoyle and Zavasky’s articles state that there are aspects of NCLB that are working. They see NCLB as a move in the right direction. These two articles also show that NCLB has been great for at risk students in city schools who have neglected to make sure that all students have the basic skills. NCLB demands that the teachers and administration of these schools provide additional help to these students. All three articles show a need to apply the principles of accountability to education. However, Rotberg disagrees with Guilfoyle and Zavasky as to where to apply the accountability. Rotburg wants to eliminate the accountability to teachers, since no other country in the world holds their teachers accountable for student learning. However, other job markets hold their professionals accountable such as military officers, politicians, and engineers. No Child Left Behind provides the accountability that allows all players in the education process to nurture the expectation that all children can and need to succeed.
I choose to see NCLB for what it is. To me that means I see it as a goal for all of my students to be successful. Standards do not limit me and my instruction. They guide my instruction. They are the guidelines that help me to be my full potential when I am teaching as well as to help me achieve the goals set fort by NCLB.
Guilfoyle, Christy. 2006. NCLB Is there life beyond testing. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 8-13.
Rotburg, Iris. C. 2006. Assessment around the world. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 58-63.
Zavadsky, Heather. 2006. How NCLB drives success in urban schools. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 69-73.
As our society continues to pull responsibility away from the children and the adolescents, they become less accountable for their learning and their behavior. So the question is—who becomes accountable for their education? Where should accountability fall? Should it be the teachers’ responsibility or the parents? Should students be held accountable for their test scores, or is it a reflection of the teacher’s success or failure in the classroom? Accountability and the effectiveness of testing are part of the great debates behind the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law.
Christy Guilfoyle (2006) states that “If you asked a roomful of educators which word or phrase best sums up No Child Left Behind, some educators would say accountability,” (p.8). She also goes on to mention that “the focus on holding schools accountable for student achievement on standardized assessment sets NCLB apart from previous versions of the law,” (p.9). I believe there is a need for accountability. The question is where should it be placed? Accountability on high stakes tests is a sensitive topic. If internalized, the results essentially places blame on teachers and educators for the failure of students. However, there should be a way to hold teachers, administrators, parents and students accountable at the same time.
Accountability pushes teachers to become highly qualified. In Iris Rotberg’s (2006) she states that the United States is the only nation that holds its teachers accountable for student learning (p.58). One reason for NCLB was because we were academically low compare to other countries such as Japan. However, Rotburg is quick to point out, that Japan like many countries only tests the cream of the crop. These countries also fail to assess the quality of education for its low-income students, minority students and students with disabilities (Rotburg, 2006, p. 58). NCLB requires that teachers reflect and modify their lessons and interpret data. Interpreting the data allows educators to build a strong school improvement plan which in turn helps these sub groups succeed where they would likely fail.
Accountability does carry its consequences. Having a national accountability system does limit educators to using high stakes tests only. This pressures teachers to teach to the test. Schools that fail to bring their students to a proficient level of learning over an extended amount of time, risk losing funding and being taken over by state governments (Guilfoyle, 2006). NCLB does give funding to schools that are at risk; however, in order to keep their funding schools must show improvement. If the school was not held accountable for success, what would prevent them from not succeeding and just allowing the system to provide them with extra funding?
NCLB has improved curriculums across the nation. Heather Zavadsky (2006) points out in her article that NCLB has supported teachers by providing curriculum guides and pacing charts, aligned curriculum between grades and monitored curriculum implementation. She also states that “many states are continually improving their core subject curriculums in response to NCLB,” (p.69). The curriculums now have increased meaning and motivation for students and their learning. Requiring the school systems to be accountable for their curriculum is just as important if not more important that accountability on tests.
Guilfoyle and Zavasky’s articles state that there are aspects of NCLB that are working. They see NCLB as a move in the right direction. These two articles also show that NCLB has been great for at risk students in city schools who have neglected to make sure that all students have the basic skills. NCLB demands that the teachers and administration of these schools provide additional help to these students. All three articles show a need to apply the principles of accountability to education. However, Rotberg disagrees with Guilfoyle and Zavasky as to where to apply the accountability. Rotburg wants to eliminate the accountability to teachers, since no other country in the world holds their teachers accountable for student learning. However, other job markets hold their professionals accountable such as military officers, politicians, and engineers. No Child Left Behind provides the accountability that allows all players in the education process to nurture the expectation that all children can and need to succeed.
I choose to see NCLB for what it is. To me that means I see it as a goal for all of my students to be successful. Standards do not limit me and my instruction. They guide my instruction. They are the guidelines that help me to be my full potential when I am teaching as well as to help me achieve the goals set fort by NCLB.
Guilfoyle, Christy. 2006. NCLB Is there life beyond testing. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 8-13.
Rotburg, Iris. C. 2006. Assessment around the world. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 58-63.
Zavadsky, Heather. 2006. How NCLB drives success in urban schools. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 69-73.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Chapters 3,4,and 5
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of Teaching for Understanding with Technology all have to deal with planning and execution.
Before you beginning planning, you want to make sure what you are going to teach is worth teaching for understanding. As I read through the chapter, teaching for understanding requires A LOT of time for planning. It is important that the topic and the lesson allows for students to make self to text connections as well as self to world connections.
“In each case, the topic was significant because it related to several important ideas in the subject matter was easily connected to students; experience and interests and could be approached in multiple ways through a range of curriculum materials and entry points” (p.27). Each topic also opened doors to explore other ideas and questions. Planning for understanding seems to really support planning across the subject areas.
I love the following sentence. It really seems it all up for me. “Students are more likely to become engaged in studying a topic if they are able to approach the material in a variety of ways that particularly pique their interests and suit their preferred ways of learning” (p.28). That is my educational philosophy in one sentence.
My question is—it would be nice it all lessons followed this design; however, it is necessary for all lessons to do that? I know my ultimate goal should resemble something about a day filled with teaching for understanding, but wouldn’t the students get tired of it after awhile? It’s also harder and harder for me to distinguish between inquiry based learning and project based learning. I also LOVE the iearn website! It has some great ideas that I can’t wait to try. I’m glad that I do not have to completely reinvent the wheel when it comes to my instruction. The site is http://www.iearn.org. Also, in the questions for reflection at the end of the chapter, I think that within the fourth grade curriculum there are four big topics that are important for students to understand, but hard for them to understand. These topics are physics (force), democracy, cause and effect, and manipulation of numbers such as multiplying digit numbers by three digit numbers.
Chapter 4 focuses on understanding goals and objectives. “Teachers may incorporate technology into lessons in ways that provide some catchy entertainment with little or no contribution to learning” (p.42). I admit, I’m guilty of doing that. Some days you just have to give into the entertainment value of things just to make it to the end of the day. There have been a few times that I have stuck a video in that has no connection to what the students are learning in class or allowed them to play a game. Sometimes we all just need those mental breaks. I also agree with the authors’ statement of “teachers rarely are encouraged to articulate these underlying goals, to link them directly with more specific learning objectives, or to share them publicly with students, parents, and administrators” (p.42). When I was student teaching, I was required to have weekly goals, but I was never required to reflect or apply them throughout the week. I also LOVE the website for web quests. It really helped me to understand how to focus the use of the internet for meaningful learning in the classroom. The url is: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/.
The one key point in chapter 5 that I found the most useful was understanding the key features of performances of understanding. There is a text box at the top of page 64 with three points related to understanding the key features of performances or projects. These are:
“They develop and demonstrate understanding of target goals”
“They required students to stretch their minds—to think beyond what they have been told, confront their usual ideas and attitudes with a more critical perspective and combine or contrast ideas in ways they have not done before.
“They build up understanding through a sequence of activities that gradually transfer autonomy and responsibility of learners.”
By the time I was done reading chapter 5, I was and still am completely overwhelmed! How does the teacher in the example manage to do it all, and do it successfully every time?! I’m sure it gets easier over time, but it is very daunting. I need a break before I start to wrap my mind around NCLB and it relates.
Wiske, Martha Stone, et. al. (2005). Technolongy for Understanding. Jossey-Bass. California: San Fransciso. (pp.27-82).
Before you beginning planning, you want to make sure what you are going to teach is worth teaching for understanding. As I read through the chapter, teaching for understanding requires A LOT of time for planning. It is important that the topic and the lesson allows for students to make self to text connections as well as self to world connections.
“In each case, the topic was significant because it related to several important ideas in the subject matter was easily connected to students; experience and interests and could be approached in multiple ways through a range of curriculum materials and entry points” (p.27). Each topic also opened doors to explore other ideas and questions. Planning for understanding seems to really support planning across the subject areas.
I love the following sentence. It really seems it all up for me. “Students are more likely to become engaged in studying a topic if they are able to approach the material in a variety of ways that particularly pique their interests and suit their preferred ways of learning” (p.28). That is my educational philosophy in one sentence.
My question is—it would be nice it all lessons followed this design; however, it is necessary for all lessons to do that? I know my ultimate goal should resemble something about a day filled with teaching for understanding, but wouldn’t the students get tired of it after awhile? It’s also harder and harder for me to distinguish between inquiry based learning and project based learning. I also LOVE the iearn website! It has some great ideas that I can’t wait to try. I’m glad that I do not have to completely reinvent the wheel when it comes to my instruction. The site is http://www.iearn.org. Also, in the questions for reflection at the end of the chapter, I think that within the fourth grade curriculum there are four big topics that are important for students to understand, but hard for them to understand. These topics are physics (force), democracy, cause and effect, and manipulation of numbers such as multiplying digit numbers by three digit numbers.
Chapter 4 focuses on understanding goals and objectives. “Teachers may incorporate technology into lessons in ways that provide some catchy entertainment with little or no contribution to learning” (p.42). I admit, I’m guilty of doing that. Some days you just have to give into the entertainment value of things just to make it to the end of the day. There have been a few times that I have stuck a video in that has no connection to what the students are learning in class or allowed them to play a game. Sometimes we all just need those mental breaks. I also agree with the authors’ statement of “teachers rarely are encouraged to articulate these underlying goals, to link them directly with more specific learning objectives, or to share them publicly with students, parents, and administrators” (p.42). When I was student teaching, I was required to have weekly goals, but I was never required to reflect or apply them throughout the week. I also LOVE the website for web quests. It really helped me to understand how to focus the use of the internet for meaningful learning in the classroom. The url is: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/.
The one key point in chapter 5 that I found the most useful was understanding the key features of performances of understanding. There is a text box at the top of page 64 with three points related to understanding the key features of performances or projects. These are:
“They develop and demonstrate understanding of target goals”
“They required students to stretch their minds—to think beyond what they have been told, confront their usual ideas and attitudes with a more critical perspective and combine or contrast ideas in ways they have not done before.
“They build up understanding through a sequence of activities that gradually transfer autonomy and responsibility of learners.”
By the time I was done reading chapter 5, I was and still am completely overwhelmed! How does the teacher in the example manage to do it all, and do it successfully every time?! I’m sure it gets easier over time, but it is very daunting. I need a break before I start to wrap my mind around NCLB and it relates.
Wiske, Martha Stone, et. al. (2005). Technolongy for Understanding. Jossey-Bass. California: San Fransciso. (pp.27-82).
Friday, February 16, 2007
Chapter 10-- Technology Use (ethics)
Chapter 10 Summery—Using Technology Appropriately: Policy, Leadership and Ethics
How do we teach our students to use technology in a responsible and appropriate way? This is the running theme throughout the article. Before even supplementing instruction with technology, it is important to educate them in regards to values and appropriate uses of technology.
The first value that needs to be taught is the value of respect of ownership. The servility of plagiarism is very hard to get across to the younger students. I had two fourth graders copy vocabulary sentences from the text book. They did not see the harm it their behavior at all until I gave them zeros for the assignment and did not allow for them to redo their work. Temptation to copy, cheat or plagiarize is all around us, and we need to understand that the students live in this pressure as well. “Today’s technology allows students access to mountains of information, and this access can make it tempting and easy to appropriate information and then pass it off as original work” (p.128). de Lyon Friel explains that it is important for teachers to model and teach how to cite all forms of information from e-mail to blogs. I must admit, I have not given any of my students’ citation information for e-mails, blogs, listservs and other web media. It did not occur to me that my students, being fourth graders, could plagiarize from these sources because I don’t think of them as using these sources. I think a lot of teachers show students how to cite and give credit concerning sources that they think the students will use such as books, magazines, newspapers or websites. Temptation to copy or plagiarize is heightened when asked to regurgitate facts. “Fact finding encourages students to copy and paste material from electronic sources—a new form of plagiarism.” (p.129). Therefore, de Lyon Friel states that “if students are taught to synthesize information and construct their own answers and meanings, the temptation to appropriate others’ ideas as their own is minimized” (p.129). I agree. Once you teach them how to construct their own meaning from information, then you can model for them how to cite all electronic sources. As technology evolves and information takes on new forms, we as teachers should not be naive to think that students would not use or access those new sources and should teach them how to give credit where and when credit is do.
Students should be taught how to respect the technology. de Lyon Friel states that “a well developed AUP (acceptable use policy) should cover Internet and intranet use, outline the appropriate and ethical behaviors that are expected from users of the network, and provide consequences for policy violations” (p.133). I know in Fairfax County that all students are required to fill out, sign and have their parents sign two acceptable use forms. Both forms outline the County’s policies on proper use of the computers and the equipment as well as what is appropriate behavior when using the internet. The forms also address consequences.
Teaching students to respect their privacy and others is also valuable. It is important to teach the students to be safe and responsible while surfing the net. While my husband is deployed, the battalion commander has told us not to post any personal information including photos. I think this is great advice regardless if my husband is deployed or not. Sites such as myspace and facebook offer a unique venue for expressing one’s creativity, however it is also important to be aware the dangers that accompany them. One way we can keep the students safe is to monitor their activities on the internet and show them where the appropriate sites are. I encourage my students to use yahoo kids for an appropriate search engine. The website is . We as educators need to incorporate discussions of these important values as children and young adults use technology at home and at school.
De Lyon Friel, Linda. (2001). Using Technology Appropriately: Policy, Leadership and Ethics. In Lebaron, John F. & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey-Bass, California: San-Franciso. 125-137.
How do we teach our students to use technology in a responsible and appropriate way? This is the running theme throughout the article. Before even supplementing instruction with technology, it is important to educate them in regards to values and appropriate uses of technology.
The first value that needs to be taught is the value of respect of ownership. The servility of plagiarism is very hard to get across to the younger students. I had two fourth graders copy vocabulary sentences from the text book. They did not see the harm it their behavior at all until I gave them zeros for the assignment and did not allow for them to redo their work. Temptation to copy, cheat or plagiarize is all around us, and we need to understand that the students live in this pressure as well. “Today’s technology allows students access to mountains of information, and this access can make it tempting and easy to appropriate information and then pass it off as original work” (p.128). de Lyon Friel explains that it is important for teachers to model and teach how to cite all forms of information from e-mail to blogs. I must admit, I have not given any of my students’ citation information for e-mails, blogs, listservs and other web media. It did not occur to me that my students, being fourth graders, could plagiarize from these sources because I don’t think of them as using these sources. I think a lot of teachers show students how to cite and give credit concerning sources that they think the students will use such as books, magazines, newspapers or websites. Temptation to copy or plagiarize is heightened when asked to regurgitate facts. “Fact finding encourages students to copy and paste material from electronic sources—a new form of plagiarism.” (p.129). Therefore, de Lyon Friel states that “if students are taught to synthesize information and construct their own answers and meanings, the temptation to appropriate others’ ideas as their own is minimized” (p.129). I agree. Once you teach them how to construct their own meaning from information, then you can model for them how to cite all electronic sources. As technology evolves and information takes on new forms, we as teachers should not be naive to think that students would not use or access those new sources and should teach them how to give credit where and when credit is do.
Students should be taught how to respect the technology. de Lyon Friel states that “a well developed AUP (acceptable use policy) should cover Internet and intranet use, outline the appropriate and ethical behaviors that are expected from users of the network, and provide consequences for policy violations” (p.133). I know in Fairfax County that all students are required to fill out, sign and have their parents sign two acceptable use forms. Both forms outline the County’s policies on proper use of the computers and the equipment as well as what is appropriate behavior when using the internet. The forms also address consequences.
Teaching students to respect their privacy and others is also valuable. It is important to teach the students to be safe and responsible while surfing the net. While my husband is deployed, the battalion commander has told us not to post any personal information including photos. I think this is great advice regardless if my husband is deployed or not. Sites such as myspace and facebook offer a unique venue for expressing one’s creativity, however it is also important to be aware the dangers that accompany them. One way we can keep the students safe is to monitor their activities on the internet and show them where the appropriate sites are. I encourage my students to use yahoo kids for an appropriate search engine. The website is . We as educators need to incorporate discussions of these important values as children and young adults use technology at home and at school.
De Lyon Friel, Linda. (2001). Using Technology Appropriately: Policy, Leadership and Ethics. In Lebaron, John F. & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey-Bass, California: San-Franciso. 125-137.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
FIve Key Points on "The Computers are Here!" By Perry and Areglado and on "Building Public" Support by Zimmerman
Once the computers arrive at the school, they are not ready for immediate use. Plugging them in does not mean that the school has now integrated technology effectively. I think George Perry and Ronald Areglado hit it right on the nose in their article entitled The Computers are Here! Now what Does the Principal Do? On page 87, they state, “the fact is that investments in equipment have not always been accompanied by changes in teaching. Each school’s experience with technology is different.” How true this is!! Just in our class discussions, we know that we each have had different experiences with technology and classroom instruction. Some experiences have been positives, while others have been frustrating. My experience in Prince William County Schools is completely different than my experience with technology in Fairfax County Schools. When I needed an alpha smart for one of my students it was unavailable to me in Prince William, where in Fairfax County I had my own class set.
Just having the computers in the school is not enough. The authors claim “principals should have three sources of instructional leadership available to their schools: (1) Importing leadership by selecting and deploying external experts; (2) leading institution by training and planning with teachers, and observing instruction regularly; and (3) organizing staff to provide leadership for one another” (p.91). I think that my experience at Triangle Elementary mirrors this goal. There was once a month planning sessions with the Principal and the Assistant Principal. Every two weeks, both principals would do what the called “walk throughs” and they would come in and observe the classroom and the instruction informally. Twice a year they would do a formal observation. Collaboration was expected not only among grade level teachers, but also with other grades and specialists. I felt that I had a lot of support from my peers, as well as from the administration.
I also agree with the point that Perry and Arglado make about having a common goal. Effective collaboration and technology integration starts before the computers arrive and lasts well after they have been plugged it. It is important for the school to have a common goal about technology and its use in and out of the classroom.
How interesting it was to read Zimmerman’s article, Building Public Support: The Politics of Technology Transformation. Right from the beginning of the article she says “ you need different strategies for different folks.” This really hit home to me. I differentiate my instruction and I accommodate for modifications all of the time. It only makes sense that we take what we know works in the classroom and transfer it to how teachers learn and differentiate the support they need to integrate technology effectively in their instruction. I am a visual and auditory learner. I do better when I can it and hear it being done. I struggled with the written directions on how to use a smart board. However, when I went to the training offered by the principal, then I understood how to use it and how to set it up for use in the classroom. I used the written directions as a reference. I think it is important to realize that not all teachers learn the same why and require different methods of support.
She takes collaboration further and challenges schools to collaborate with businesses, the community and the state government. This collaboration will provide the funding needed for technology integration in the schools. “Education school communities is essential to ensure a steady revenue stream for technology in the appropriate budget, in addition to whatever grants and gifts the schools receive” (p. 100). This echoes what is taking place currently with Virginia and the state budget to cut funding for technology. She claims that simple grassroots efforts are effective such as “keeping a list of the senators and representatives handy, with their email addresses and telephone numbers so they can be easily advised” (p.102). Dr. Coffman had us do contact our representative within the last week. Zimmerman’s article is very relevant to current issues. The timing for reading this article could not have been any better.
Perry, George S., Jr & Areglado, Ronald J. (2001) Computers are here! Now what does the Principal do? In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey Bass. California: San Fransico. 87-98.
Zimmer, Isa Kaftal. (2001). Building public support: The politics of technology transformation. ? In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey Bass. California: San Fransico. 87-98.
Just having the computers in the school is not enough. The authors claim “principals should have three sources of instructional leadership available to their schools: (1) Importing leadership by selecting and deploying external experts; (2) leading institution by training and planning with teachers, and observing instruction regularly; and (3) organizing staff to provide leadership for one another” (p.91). I think that my experience at Triangle Elementary mirrors this goal. There was once a month planning sessions with the Principal and the Assistant Principal. Every two weeks, both principals would do what the called “walk throughs” and they would come in and observe the classroom and the instruction informally. Twice a year they would do a formal observation. Collaboration was expected not only among grade level teachers, but also with other grades and specialists. I felt that I had a lot of support from my peers, as well as from the administration.
I also agree with the point that Perry and Arglado make about having a common goal. Effective collaboration and technology integration starts before the computers arrive and lasts well after they have been plugged it. It is important for the school to have a common goal about technology and its use in and out of the classroom.
How interesting it was to read Zimmerman’s article, Building Public Support: The Politics of Technology Transformation. Right from the beginning of the article she says “ you need different strategies for different folks.” This really hit home to me. I differentiate my instruction and I accommodate for modifications all of the time. It only makes sense that we take what we know works in the classroom and transfer it to how teachers learn and differentiate the support they need to integrate technology effectively in their instruction. I am a visual and auditory learner. I do better when I can it and hear it being done. I struggled with the written directions on how to use a smart board. However, when I went to the training offered by the principal, then I understood how to use it and how to set it up for use in the classroom. I used the written directions as a reference. I think it is important to realize that not all teachers learn the same why and require different methods of support.
She takes collaboration further and challenges schools to collaborate with businesses, the community and the state government. This collaboration will provide the funding needed for technology integration in the schools. “Education school communities is essential to ensure a steady revenue stream for technology in the appropriate budget, in addition to whatever grants and gifts the schools receive” (p. 100). This echoes what is taking place currently with Virginia and the state budget to cut funding for technology. She claims that simple grassroots efforts are effective such as “keeping a list of the senators and representatives handy, with their email addresses and telephone numbers so they can be easily advised” (p.102). Dr. Coffman had us do contact our representative within the last week. Zimmerman’s article is very relevant to current issues. The timing for reading this article could not have been any better.
Perry, George S., Jr & Areglado, Ronald J. (2001) Computers are here! Now what does the Principal do? In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey Bass. California: San Fransico. 87-98.
Zimmer, Isa Kaftal. (2001). Building public support: The politics of technology transformation. ? In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey Bass. California: San Fransico. 87-98.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
New Technologies--Chapter 2
Teaching for Understanding – Chapter 2: Using New Technologies to Teach for Understanding.
1. Wiske defines new technology as much more than the newest electronic device that’s on the market. She terms it as “any new tools for information and communication beyond the ones traditionally used for teaching and learning” (p.15).
I love this definition. I always thought of new technologies as the newest gadget or electronic that is on the market. This explanation is more user friendly. It can be a wide range of items such as the internet, digital photography, software or such items like alpha smarts. The broader definition allows new technology to be anything that will aid understanding, like math manipulatives. I am very familiar with base ten blocks, however, some teachers are not. I showed a teacher how to use the base ten blocks to help students visualize long division. For that teacher, those base ten blocks can be considered a new technology when considering this definition. Again, the important thing to keep in mind is that the tool is used in a meaningful way.
2. A great resource for teachers is the technology specialist.
On page 17, Wiske gives four ways that technology specialists are vital to the effective integration of technology in the classroom. These four ways are “Technology Integration Specialists can help teachers define goals, identify suitable technologies, plan ways to connect the use of technology with the curriculum and assist in class as students use new tools”. I think it is important to point out that in order for all teachers to use the specialists effectively, that there needs to be the support for the specialists. I doubt that one technology specialist can serve the entire school body. At least, it has been my experience at Triangle Elementary that one tech specialist can not met the demands of the teachers, students, administers, and the state standards. I would have liked to have collaborated with the specialist, but she never had the time to meet in order to team teach or show me the resources that were available.
Wiske, Martha Stone. (2005). What is teaching for understanding. In Teaching for understanding with technology.(pp. 15-23). Jossey-Bass, CA: San Francisco.
http://learnweb.harvard.edu/ALPS/tfu/
1. Wiske defines new technology as much more than the newest electronic device that’s on the market. She terms it as “any new tools for information and communication beyond the ones traditionally used for teaching and learning” (p.15).
I love this definition. I always thought of new technologies as the newest gadget or electronic that is on the market. This explanation is more user friendly. It can be a wide range of items such as the internet, digital photography, software or such items like alpha smarts. The broader definition allows new technology to be anything that will aid understanding, like math manipulatives. I am very familiar with base ten blocks, however, some teachers are not. I showed a teacher how to use the base ten blocks to help students visualize long division. For that teacher, those base ten blocks can be considered a new technology when considering this definition. Again, the important thing to keep in mind is that the tool is used in a meaningful way.
2. A great resource for teachers is the technology specialist.
On page 17, Wiske gives four ways that technology specialists are vital to the effective integration of technology in the classroom. These four ways are “Technology Integration Specialists can help teachers define goals, identify suitable technologies, plan ways to connect the use of technology with the curriculum and assist in class as students use new tools”. I think it is important to point out that in order for all teachers to use the specialists effectively, that there needs to be the support for the specialists. I doubt that one technology specialist can serve the entire school body. At least, it has been my experience at Triangle Elementary that one tech specialist can not met the demands of the teachers, students, administers, and the state standards. I would have liked to have collaborated with the specialist, but she never had the time to meet in order to team teach or show me the resources that were available.
Wiske, Martha Stone. (2005). What is teaching for understanding. In Teaching for understanding with technology.(pp. 15-23). Jossey-Bass, CA: San Francisco.
http://learnweb.harvard.edu/ALPS/tfu/
Teaching for Understaning Chapter 1
Wiske explains technology integration as an “educational process”. In order for integration and technology to be effective, it must be understood in relation to its importance in education. There are no quick fixes.
As stated by Wiske on page three, “Integrating new technology into educational practice is not just a matter of learning how to use the technology. It is also a process of reflecting on how technology –enhanced practices challenge assumptions about what and how to teach and how students can learn most.”
I think that technology education is much more than the tool itself. In fact, that has been the main idea of the readings from the following two weeks. It is important for teachers to use technology in meaningful ways for themselves as well as for the students. You should make all of your instruction meaningful. It is great to give notes to students using PowerPoint, but it is more meaningful if that presentation is interactive and includes links to primary sources and pictures. It is important for them to see it as a tool that can open doors and making learning more engaging and fun. Part of this educational process Wiske discusses is making meaning experiences for all involved and doing so across the subject areas.
Teaching for understanding should be a goal for all teachers. It is a practice that requires teachers to reflect and examine which topics are worth understanding, which aspects need to be understood and how students can apply this understanding.
On page five, Wiske defines understanding as “being able to explain, justify, extrapolate, relate and apply in ways that go beyond knowledge and routine skill”. In short, I can say that understanding is synthesizing and applying information. I think that this should be a goal of all teachers. All teachers should aim their instruction for this acquisition of higher learning in all of their students. The SOLs are, in my opinion, just a guideline for instruction. I do not let them restrict my instruction and therefore, I do not teach to the test. I do make sure that the essential knowledge is covered. However, I have found that I can not talk about acceleration with my fourth graders without talking about velocity. I can not talk about friction as a force without talking about gravity. Gravity and velocity are not considered essential knowledge for the fourth grade curriculum. I believe that if I teach for understanding, then my students will be more prepared for the SOLs and should not have a problem doing well on them. They will understand the information and how it all relates, rather than just knowing facts.
The framework for teaching understanding to all students is flexible and encourages on going assessments.
Its flexibility allows teachers to use a variety of instructional strategies and encourages them to use a wide range of tools, assessments, and modifications. This opens doors to teachers and students for more meaningful experiences in learning. On-going assessments allow for more student friendly assessments such as rubrics, portfolios, observations and reflections.
In my classroom, I use a lot of rubrics, reflective questions, and observations. However, I have to admit that the occasional pop-quiz is much more time effective. At the end of each unit, there is a formal assessment. Triangle Elementary administration supports the use of Flannigan tests.
I think I would like to guide my teaching more towards the performances of understanding and a more balance of assessments between formal and informal methods of testing. I would also like the students to reflect more on their assessments and tests, rather than just asking provoking questions and assigning reflective writings.
Wiske, Martha Stone. (2005). What is teaching for understanding. In Teaching for understanding with technology.(pp. 3-13). Jossey-Bass, CA: San Francisco.
As stated by Wiske on page three, “Integrating new technology into educational practice is not just a matter of learning how to use the technology. It is also a process of reflecting on how technology –enhanced practices challenge assumptions about what and how to teach and how students can learn most.”
I think that technology education is much more than the tool itself. In fact, that has been the main idea of the readings from the following two weeks. It is important for teachers to use technology in meaningful ways for themselves as well as for the students. You should make all of your instruction meaningful. It is great to give notes to students using PowerPoint, but it is more meaningful if that presentation is interactive and includes links to primary sources and pictures. It is important for them to see it as a tool that can open doors and making learning more engaging and fun. Part of this educational process Wiske discusses is making meaning experiences for all involved and doing so across the subject areas.
Teaching for understanding should be a goal for all teachers. It is a practice that requires teachers to reflect and examine which topics are worth understanding, which aspects need to be understood and how students can apply this understanding.
On page five, Wiske defines understanding as “being able to explain, justify, extrapolate, relate and apply in ways that go beyond knowledge and routine skill”. In short, I can say that understanding is synthesizing and applying information. I think that this should be a goal of all teachers. All teachers should aim their instruction for this acquisition of higher learning in all of their students. The SOLs are, in my opinion, just a guideline for instruction. I do not let them restrict my instruction and therefore, I do not teach to the test. I do make sure that the essential knowledge is covered. However, I have found that I can not talk about acceleration with my fourth graders without talking about velocity. I can not talk about friction as a force without talking about gravity. Gravity and velocity are not considered essential knowledge for the fourth grade curriculum. I believe that if I teach for understanding, then my students will be more prepared for the SOLs and should not have a problem doing well on them. They will understand the information and how it all relates, rather than just knowing facts.
The framework for teaching understanding to all students is flexible and encourages on going assessments.
Its flexibility allows teachers to use a variety of instructional strategies and encourages them to use a wide range of tools, assessments, and modifications. This opens doors to teachers and students for more meaningful experiences in learning. On-going assessments allow for more student friendly assessments such as rubrics, portfolios, observations and reflections.
In my classroom, I use a lot of rubrics, reflective questions, and observations. However, I have to admit that the occasional pop-quiz is much more time effective. At the end of each unit, there is a formal assessment. Triangle Elementary administration supports the use of Flannigan tests.
I think I would like to guide my teaching more towards the performances of understanding and a more balance of assessments between formal and informal methods of testing. I would also like the students to reflect more on their assessments and tests, rather than just asking provoking questions and assigning reflective writings.
Wiske, Martha Stone. (2005). What is teaching for understanding. In Teaching for understanding with technology.(pp. 3-13). Jossey-Bass, CA: San Francisco.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Summary of Debbie Abilock's Article: Using Technology to Enhance Student Inquiry
I have numbered the key points to this article as I have percieved them to be.
1. Collaboration and team teaching is key to integrating technology in the classroom. Using resources such as the librarian or the computer lab teacher opens lessons and learning to a wide range of technology tools and mediums.
“Fundamental to the collaboration between librarians and other educators is the design of curriculum for active, authentic student learning.” (Abilock, 2001, 3)
“Collaboration between librarians and content-area teachers produces a rich environment for student investigations.” (Abilock, 2001, p. 14)
2. Simulations and project based learning are great ways to incorporate technology across the curriculum. Lessons should focus on investigations and creating solutions to student centered problems.
“A series of on-line research investigations supported students’ acquisition of knowledge and helped them locate the visual materials and develop the written texts for their project scrapbooks.” (Abilock, 2001, 13)
3. Technology has an essential role in the research and learning process.
“Students developed visual literacy skills (Abilock, 2000b) to understand artifacts and used the primary record, including digital libraries, to formulate historical questions for further research.” (Abilock, 2001, 14)
Abilock, Debbie. (2001). Using Technology to Enhance Student Inquiry. In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. Jossey-Bass. CA: San Fransico.
1. Collaboration and team teaching is key to integrating technology in the classroom. Using resources such as the librarian or the computer lab teacher opens lessons and learning to a wide range of technology tools and mediums.
“Fundamental to the collaboration between librarians and other educators is the design of curriculum for active, authentic student learning.” (Abilock, 2001, 3)
“Collaboration between librarians and content-area teachers produces a rich environment for student investigations.” (Abilock, 2001, p. 14)
2. Simulations and project based learning are great ways to incorporate technology across the curriculum. Lessons should focus on investigations and creating solutions to student centered problems.
“A series of on-line research investigations supported students’ acquisition of knowledge and helped them locate the visual materials and develop the written texts for their project scrapbooks.” (Abilock, 2001, 13)
3. Technology has an essential role in the research and learning process.
“Students developed visual literacy skills (Abilock, 2000b) to understand artifacts and used the primary record, including digital libraries, to formulate historical questions for further research.” (Abilock, 2001, 14)
Abilock, Debbie. (2001). Using Technology to Enhance Student Inquiry. In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. Jossey-Bass. CA: San Fransico.
Welcome!
Welcome to my blog. I will be posting my comments and thoughts about readings and research for my ITEC 545 class entitled: Leadership in Education Technology. Please commment freely. I am open to suggestions and ideas from many different points of view. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)