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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)