Teaching+With+Technology+Reflections

__ Week 5 __

This week focused in a very minimalistic way on assessment and effort. While the information in this weeks reading was intensely interesting I struggled in a way that I did not expect.

The core reading of the week focused solely on reinforcing effort. In the everyday classroom, I feel that many teachers including myself allow room for effort to be a portion of students grades. I was fascinated by the suggestion of an effort rubric as shown on page 157 in Pitler’s (2007) text. Most notably though is the thought that not only should students be graded in part on effort, but they may also want “to track the effects of effort” (Pitler, 2007, p. 156). While technology may indeed make tracking effort and facilitating feedback easier, I do not know that I feel as enthusiastic about the importance of this topic in comparision to the value of assessment. While I agree with Pitler (2007) in the thought that students can connect effort to achievement when they look at those more successful who have faced various difficulties, I do not believe that tracking effort or the positive behavior support systems that we are putting into place in many of classrooms are what kids—especially in high school—need to reinforce learning. I do not want to place a negative spin on effort-based research, but at the high school level it seems that most of my students are only willing to accept the rewards of effort in private as peer review ranks higher then teacher praise a great deal of the time.

Though I am not totally passionate about the first reading of the week, I was much more intrigued by the second reading which focused on Authentic Assessments. While authentic assessments are not a new concept in the great American classroom, web 2.0 programs have certainly made it easier for educators to create a means of assessing students away from the dreaded test. While testing only truly will give you an assessment at the end of a lesson or unit, authentic assessment can allow educators to “plan their instruction and simultaneously plan ways to evaluate throughout the unit” ( Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p.170). I am particularly fond of the thought of authentic assessment through electronic portfolios. In the high school classroom—particularly speech—this form of assessment is intriguing. Electronic portfolios provide “an environment wehre students can collect their work in a digital archive” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007, p. 171). While the portfolio can be a place of immediate feedback, enhanced learning, and collaboration; I think that the idea of this particular form of assessment opens doors for high school students to truly be better prepared for the workforce. The great thing in particular about eportfolios is that they can be a motivational tool similar to that of social networking sites as stated in Solomon and Schrum’s (2007) text. The idea that eportfolios could motivate students in such a way may help with the ideas presenting in Pitler’s (2007) text covering effort. It would seem that these two separate ideas truly do go hand in hand.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. Kuhn, M. & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. __﻿__ __ Week 4 __

While I may sound a bit repetitive I stand by my discussion reflection this week with my whole heart as the focus was truly on collaborative learning. Technology has provided a path to more than just learning benefits. Indeed, it has provided a means of networking and collaboration that was once unreachable. Educators for generations have utilized the group learning methods, but the groups were limited to the community within the physical walls of the classroom. In today's society, "technology can play a unique and vital roll in cooperative learning by facilitating group collaboration, providing structure for group tasks, and allowing members of groups to communicate even if they are not working face to face" (Pitler et al., 2007, p. 140). In the course of my graduate school work, I have become friends with phenomenal men and women from across Texas and the nation. With very few exceptions, I have never met these people face to face. However, through our course wikis and blogs we have discussed each others work about class, and begun to discuss our jobs at school. Without too much fret, our group of peers and friends have since joined Skype together to complete projects in our courses through text discussion and web conferencing. This cohort has become what Pitler (2007) describes as a base group. (p.140) We have built a camraderie that surpasses the coursework for this degree plan.

To further explain the importance of group collaboration, Solomon and Schrum (2007) explain the vital importance of communities of practice. (p. 103-7) Learning communities have of course long held benifits in the classroom, but through this weeks readings we find a strong recommendation to look into learning communities for professional development. As Solomon and Schrum (2007) further state, "if a community is presented with a problem, then the learning community can bring its collective knowledge to bear on the problem." (p. 104) The greatest benefit to a community of practice is the potential for diverse exptertise and of course shared knowledge and skills (Solomon & Schrim, 2007, p. 104). As has already been shown in our group projects, each individual brings to the group new ways to solve problems based on their various talents and experiences.

The only thing I will add to my overall reflection is my concern about how the readings do not address group conflict of interests or basic group communication for that matter. Group work when well designed leads to collaboration, camaraderie, and even friendship. However, group work that is too loosely or underdeveloped without a since of direction or agenda can cause greater conflict and be unproductive. I feel that now may be a good time for all of us as teachers of all levels to reflect on the lessons we have designed, or borrowed from others, and correct the rubrics and overall expectations so that creativity is not stifled, but so that organization and communication at any distance is maintained.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L., (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR:International Society for Technology in Education. __ Week 3 __

This week’s reading and video seemed very much a repeat of a workshop I went to last summer. Reflection has been a particularly hard task that I have put off until the last moment for that very reason. I can, I suppose, post two interesting items that seemed to stick out to me. The first thought comes from Pitler (2007) in which it is suggested that students—including ourselves—need repetition to have approximately 80% mastery of a subject. It is stated specifically that “students need to practice a new skill 24 times on average” to reach that level of mastery (Pitler et al, 2007). Before reviewing this week’s readings I was incredibly inept at repetition—see I am a G/T student myself. I often forget as a teacher that my class—even speech—is sometimes hard for students to grasp.

The second new item to me this week was the UDL information. Though it is a continuation of last weeks readings, chapter 6 of Rose & Meyer’s (2002) book provides powerful insight into providing lessons that suit every learner through the various learning networks. I was particularly interested to learn ideas for focusing in recognition and strategic networks. Furthermore, Pitler’s (2007) thoughts seems to support the work magnified by Rose and Meyer (2002). It is incredibly important in teaching toward recognition networks that students have repetition to truly learn and understand the materials they are learning.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M. & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works//. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Website. Chapter 6. Retrieved on 2/2/2011 from []

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0 new tools, new schools//. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

__ Week 2 __

In this weeks readings we explored the effects of technology on student learning and reviewed an introduction to a form of lesson planning to address a diverse classroom. While I have always had an appreciation for technology in the classroom, lesson planning for diverse learners has not been a strong point of mine. I was truly excited to learn about the Universal Design for Learning. I was also glad to look into the implecations of technology on our students.

There is no doubt what effect technology has had on society, and “although the advantages of computers in modern society are quite evident, it may be that technology, if only in educational circles, has failed to fully prove itself” (Page, 2002). While Page identifies this incredibly large problem with concern of technology in education, several sources over the past 20 years have sought to increase technologies use and prove its worth in the classroom. His article goes on to further explain that technology truly can benefit our students specifically those of a low socioeconomic status. While technology can benefit students regardless of their families’ income, Page’s research suggest that it has a particularly strong effect on our students of low socioeconomic status especially where these students are able to gain access at both home and in school. The major effect: students with access to technology show greater levels of self-esteem. While the results may seem astonishing, “technology enriched classrooms appeared to score significantly higher in mathematics achievement than their peers in the non-technology-enriched classrooms” (Page, 2002). Furthermore, this achievement and higher self-esteem can “be seen as an important step for low socioeconomic citizens to rise up from that poverty,” and “encourage lifelong learning habits” (Page, 2002).

With classes including an increased number of students, not only of regular and high achieving levels, but of special needs, this weeks learning was a great look at a new form of lesson design for me. Universal Design for Learning is a lesson format that allows us as teachers and administrators to use technology to increase the opportunities to learn for //every// student. While we have all been told to differentiate instruction in oru classrooms and even had professional development sessions on the Multiple Intelligences, it is easy to see that a teachers biggest challenge is to reach and teach every student regardless of their ability. UDL recognizes that “because of their inherent flexibility, digital technologies can adjust to learner differences, enabling teachers to” differentiate and utilize a student’s strengths and interests (Rose & Meyer, 2002). With a look at the possiblilty of truly reaching every student, I excitedly read ahead to find out more information on the UDL model. I am excited about next weeks readings and activities to see where that may take me in my own classroom. While I already know that UDL will be a tool in my kit for helping other teachers, I look forward to the benefits of this form of planning and what technology can do in my classroom.

Page, M. S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 389-409. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from the International Society for Technology in Education at []

Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002) Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Website. Chapter 1. Retrieved on February 22, 2011 from []

__ Week 1 __

This week I have felt encouraged to learn that my teaching style resembles that of the constructivist theory. I was not aware before that “in a constructivist classroom, students are more actively involved…they are sharing ideas, asking questions, discussion concepts, and revising their ideas and misconceptions” (Sprague & Dede, 1999). The best definition I found for constructivism basically states that students best learn by building on to their prior experiences. Technology in the classroom is a great way to allow students to add to their current leave of knowledge! I better understand now why we are encouraged to cluster units of knowledge around questions of discussion or in my classroom activities or projects. While I never particularly understood my teaching method, I have found in this week’s lessons that my teaching method, while encouraged by my administration, is not my philosophy or personal style of teaching.

This week we also discovered the theory of connectivism created by George Siemens. I have found that this closely relates to the philosophy that have believed in since I was a student teacher. In his theory, Siemens notes that connections between ideas or concepts is vital and should be viewed as a core skill. (Solomon &Schrum, 2007) I personally find it absolutely necessary to teach my students decision-making skills in my classroom. More importantly, I value and encourage students to discover information beyond their confort zone and outside of our little world in West Texas. Technology provides a means to transport our children into other worlds without leaving their own room. The internet has given students a pathway to so deeply expand their knowledge that my classroom has a tough time keeping up with the speed of potential learning. However, intrigued I am to connect my philosophy to my teaching, I am amazed and most deeply curious about the Cyborg theory of learning.

My final new experience in education and most thought provoking debate this week was on the Cyborg theory. While technology eliminates the gap for men and women who have lost or were born missing limbs or the ability to utilize what they were given, cyborg technology allows them to control their body with the bodies strongest muscle, the mind. In our reading, one of the authors even suggests that technology advance is not “separate from human but rather…on par with human evolution; both one and the same” (McPheeters, 2009). While I know that technology is ever-chaging and truly a fantastical sort of creature, is it truly on par with human evolution? I ask because technology has exponentially changed in the time since I graduated high school. As we speak, a computer has beat the most well versed men in the world at Jeopardy, and there is already technology being developed that we will not see in our homes for another decade. The idea of Cyborg theory is interesting, but also very scary. Perhaps I have spent too much time in the science fiction world with my father, but weren’t cyborgs bad? “Assimilate or die,” was the montra of the Borg in //Star Trek the Next Generation//, remember “resistence is futile.” Yet, McPheeters suggests that “this adaption to Cyborg learning theory will allow the next generation to assimilate their destiny and be educated to bear their responsibility as stewards of their culture for the sake of future generations” (McPheeters, 2009). Connect me to the world. Allow me to construct my viewpoints on what I know and where I have been, networking should be left to the social aspect of life not linked to our learning.

Technology is not the central point of our lives, rather it is a tool to lead students on journeys outside of the text. It can connect us to worlds apart or help us dig deeper in our own backyard, but perhaps it is not the manner of education. I say this while sitting at my computer for an online course, but there is such a missing element in technology being the central force of teaching or learning and that is the human connection.

McPheeters, D. (2009, March). Social Networking Technologies in Education. //Tech and Learning//. Retrieved February 22, 2011 from []
 * Perhaps I went in a direction that was not planned by our professors or even seen by my classmates, but I understand why McPheeters speaks of the polarizing debate between students and teachers. However, I truly believe that constructivism or connectivism can bring technology to the classroom to create an environment for all levels of learners without taking over our lives or our education.**
 * (Special thanks to the scifi nerd and the debater in me for the direction I have gone today!)**

Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools//. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Sprague, D. & Dede, C. (1999). If I Teach This Way, Am I Doing My Job: Constructivism in the Classroom. //Leading and Learning//, 27(1). Retrieved February 22, 2011 from []