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.