Reflections+for+EDLD+5364,+Teaching+with+Technology

** Undoubtedly, technology is changing the world—not only how we do business and interact socially, but also how we learn. The engaging content and social connections available in cyberspace force schools to compete for students’ attention. Students expect to learn as they play; that is, interactively. Therefore, simply to engage more students in the learning process, schools must harness for educational purposes Web 2.0 tools, which are the natural communication media of our current generation. Moreover, if schools are to prepare students adequately to thrive personally and professionally in the 21st century, our educational system must adopt new learning standards along with new instructional methods. According to Solomon and Schrum (2007) in //Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools//, employers increasingly demand creativity and collaboration rather than blind obedience within a chain of command. Citing Daniel Pink (2007, //A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future//), Solomon and Schrum identify the ability to synthesize information and create new knowledge (as opposed to the ability to analyze and break down old knowledge) as the skill that will drive progress in the 21st century. ** 
 * Elizabeth A. Pressler**
 * **Sunday, November 22, 2009 **
 * Much of the reading during the first week of this course emphasizes technology use, with appropriate instructional strategies, as a means of reaching a broader range of students (with various abilities and learning styles) and improving the quality of learning for all. Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) in //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works// tout technology as a key tool in creating constructivist (student-centered) learning environments because it removes emphasis from the teacher as dispenser of knowledge, promotes higher-order thinking, gives students more choice, and engages them more deeply in their learning processes. However, teachers must avoid the mistake of believing that technology alone can solve all problems. Bransford, Brown, and Cockling (2000) in //How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School// warn that technologies can actually disrupt learning if used incorrectly. Technology certainly has the potential to distract and isolate, as McPheeters (2009, March, Social networking technologies in education) acknowledges, rather than focus and connect learners. It is up to educators to embed technology tools in sound pedagogical practices and lead students toward academic and career applications. Teachers must show students that technology goes beyond entertainment. Technology is determining our economic future and, according to Kevin Warwick’s cyborg theory, even influencing our evolution as a species. Educators carry the responsibility of preparing students for a lifetime of learning and adapting to change. **
 * As one who formerly thought of computers as little more than improved typewriters, of the Internet as a mega-encyclopedia, and of collaboration as “sort of cheating,” I look forward to delving into Web 2.0 technology to complete our group project. I know that I will be proud to have created an original, “real” product using completely free technology resources. What better way to prepare educators to usher in the new wave in learning than to let them experience it themselves! **

__References__

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). //How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school// (Expanded edition). Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press. Online at []

McPheeters, D. (2009, March). Social networking technologies in education//. Tech and// Learning. Retrieved from []

Pilter, 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.

Warwick, K., (n.d.). Cyborg life//.// [Video file]. Retrieved from [] || Sunday, November 29, 2009 ** **Before learning can begin, learners require direction, focus, goals they want to achieve. Who sets these objectives for learning? National and state standards certainly specify skills and knowledge that are essential for success, and educators bear responsibility for guaranteeing all students access to instruction that will help them acquire these assets. However, in student-centered learning environments of the 21st century, instructional goals are not rigid, one-size-fits-all prescriptions. Rather, goals for learning, though specific, must be flexible enough to allow students to personalize them to fit their specific interests and needs. Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) cite research affirming the motivating power of student participation in goal-setting and recommend a variety of technologies to assist in this purpose--word processing, software to aid organizing and brainstorming, online surveys, communication tools such as email and blogs, and a multitude of instructional Web resources. These tools can help teachers formulate and communicate objectives based on both student input and prescribed standards. Rose and Meyer (2002) identify the pressure to address increasing student diversity while reaching ever-accelerating learning standards as the major challenge 21st century educators must confront. According to Rose and Meyer, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides the framework for meeting this challenge by redesigning** **curricula to reflect brain research and employing the flexibility of digital technologies to individualize instruction. Though UDL is just beginning to take hold in U.S. classrooms, research suggests the promise technology offers for reaching all learners. Page (2002) reports increased achievement and self-esteem levels among at-risk and economically disadvantaged students with educational technology integration; additionally, technology in classrooms promoted more student-centered instruction and collaboration among learners. Finally, Schacter’s (1999) survey of earlier research identifies design and programming technologies, simulations and software that teach higher order thinking, and collaborative networking technologies as among the tech tools that correlate highly with achievement as well as affective gains. All of the readings cited above reiterate the principles that must guide our group’s planning to devise solutions for our classroom scenario: student-centered instruction, embracing diversity, identifying and adhering to high learning standards, flexibility, individualization and differentiation, higher order thinking, affective as well as cognitive factors in learning, collaboration, and above all, using technology to optimize learning for all. Besides addressing each of these principles and sifting through the plethora of research and technology options, a major challenge for our group is collaborating effectively. The Web 2.0 tools we are using to accomplish this goal are new to us, and only one member of our group has experience teaching in the content area we selected—science. Despite having only one science expert on board, we chose this discipline because it will allow us to utilize a wide variety of activities in art, writing, and math, each of which represent the expertise of other group members. We have found plenty of model units and lessons on the Internet, and one site called The Futures Channel offers a multitude of science activities and experiments that we could easily adapt to incorporate technology. I hope that investigating UDL in more depth and experimenting with the model UDL lessons from the Center for Applied Special Technology will help our group solidify our plan.** __ References __ Center for Applied Special Technology. (2009). //Model UDL lessons//. Retrieved from []
 * **

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 from International Society of Education, []

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 web site, [] Schacter, J. (1999). //The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say.// Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved from [] 6th grade science activities. (2009). Retrieved from [] || **Sunday, December 06, 2009 ** Though our world has undergone drastic transformation—cultural, economic, and technological—over the past century, our schools have changed very little. Many schools in the 21st century still issue tattered textbooks containing dated information and expect students to demonstrate the full extent of their learning largely with pencil and paper. Educators lament the dearth of technology on their campuses, knowing that the same old materials and methods are inadequate to prepare students for productivity and responsibility in the new millennium. Nevertheless, even when computers, interactive whiteboards, and sophisticated software are available, schools often fail to take advantage of these tools’ potential for increasing students’ learning. Optimal integration of technology and instruction has yet to become the norm in our educational system. In //Web 2.0: New Schools, New// Tools, Solomon and Schrum (2007) note this delayed progress: “Since the early 1900s technology proponents have claimed that this or that technology would fundamentally change education; so far, we haven’t changed much—other than the fact that some of the tools are new” (p. 78).
 * 

In light of its limited impact on education, conservative voices question the value of investing in new technology, calling instead for a return to “the basics” and an increased emphasis on standardized testing. However, we cannot recapture the “good old days” when a few foundation skills would provide citizens with the means to obtain a stable livelihood. Today’s classrooms are full of learners with diverse needs who must develop creativity, critical thinking, and collaborative skills to cope in an unpredictable marketplace. Differentiated teaching and flexible media can broaden possibilities for all learners, and technology offers an array of tools to fulfill this imperative. Therefore, teachers need direction and support in their efforts to master new technology and implement it effectively.

Fortunately, organizations like the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) provide standards, research, and resources to promote a new vision for education. My experience this week working with the CAST UDL Book Builder and Lesson Builder online software has helped me rethink my approach to instructional planning. These tools have supplied me with a structure for including flexibility, choice, and multiple media, thus opening learning to a wider range of abilities and scaffolding success for all. Reading //Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age:// //Universal Design for Learning// (Rose & Meyer, 2002) has provided me with concrete examples demonstrating how CAST’s UDL principles and brain network-appropriate teaching strategies (recognition, strategic, and affective) operate in real classrooms. Following such models, teachers must no longer accept that some students will fail while others succeed. Rose and Meyer describe the ideal of UDL based instruction: “While pursuing a common goal, each student in the classroom can follow his or her own path and obtain a level of performance that represents personal progress” (Ch. 6, The Value of UDL in Instructional Design).

__References__

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2009). //CAST UDL Book Builder// [Online software]//.// Retrieved from []

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2009). //CAST UDL Lesson Builder// [Online software]. Retrieved from []

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology web site, []

Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, new schools//. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. ||
 * **Sunday, December 13, 2009 **
 * Nearly a decade into the new millennium, educators still endeavor to define the ideal classroom for our digital age. During the past four weeks of study, several essential characteristics have emerged: 21st century teaching must be student-centered, follow primarily connectivist and constructivist models, accommodate individual differences, incorporate technology, and—perhaps most importantly—engage students in cooperative learning. Citing Thomas Friedman’s //The World Is Flat// (2005), Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) identify the need to prepare students for a “fast-paced, virtual workplace” in which success depends on the capacity to “learn and produce cooperatively” (p. 139). These authors offer useful guidelines for organizing and managing cooperative teams, selecting projects that allow members to share responsibility for creative and critical thought, and devising appropriate rubrics that account for the project as a whole as well as the members’ individual contributions—all of which are facilitated through technology. The projects, activities, and tools suggested—multimedia presentations, Web quests, Web site creation, shared bookmarking, shared calendars, game simulations, and communication software—provide multiple means of expression (an important UDL principle) and free participants from limitations of distance and time. Cooperative learning, enhanced by technology, extends learning beyond the classroom so students may interact with peers and experts across the globe, thus preparing them to function effectively in the increasingly “flat” world Friedman foresees. **


 * While connecting with other learners is a central aspect of 21st century education, recognizing the needs of individual learners carries equal importance. Since assessment provides the data that should drive design of curriculum and instruction, differentiation of assessments is especially important. Rose and Meyer (2002) stress that single-medium, inflexible testing without appropriate supports undermines the purposes of assessment: to measure students’ achievement levels on specific learning objectives; and to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction so teachers may adjust as needed. According to these authors in chapter seven of //Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning//, “Any test that relies on a single medium inevitably . . . evaluates talents that may not be relevant to instructional goals—talents that are bound up in the medium or methods being used” (Barriers to Accurate Assessment). In addition to employing flexible media, embedding assessments throughout a course of instruction (rather than relying on a single summative evaluation at the end) allows for ongoing adjustment and improvement of learning. The discussion offered in this chapter suggests the need for 21st century education to minimize the role of high-stakes testing and turn to formative assessment as the primary means of continual monitoring and adjustment. Though Rose and Meyer (2002) acknowledge the value of standardized tests in “evaluating trends and information about groups,” they find these tools to be “severely flawed” indicators of individual student achievement (The Value of UDL in Assessment). The authors point to the potential of technology for building accurate, barrier-free assessments that track student learning and continually enhance curriculum. **

 __References__
 * Finally, if technology is to become an integral part of teaching and learning, teachers require effective professional development. Solomon and Schrum (2007) suggest strategies for realizing this goal; most notably, they recommend that educators participate in “communities of practice” using Web 2.0 communication tools (p. 103). To support these learning communities, these authors indicate that administrators must model technology use themselves and hold teachers accountable for their own technology growth. The //McREL Technology Initiative: The Development of a Technology Intervention Program, Final Report// (Pitler, 2005) describes a two-year initiative in which McREL consultants worked with selected campuses to initiate technology integration by training teachers to use technology in the classroom and monitoring their progress. Rather than offering sporadic, single-day workshops, schools and districts must adopt a similar comprehensive program if technology use in schools is to meet 21st century standards. **

Friedman, T. L. (2005). //The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century.// New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Pitler, H. (2005). //McREL technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program, final report// (Contract Number ED-01-CO-006). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continental Research for Education and Learning. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED486685). Retrieved from []

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 web site, []

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, new schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. || Schools are slowly but surely evolving in the 21st century, shifting focus (from teacher- to student-centered), adopting new theoretical models (constructivism and connectivism), employing new resources (Web 2.0 tools and digital texts with built-in supports), and implementing new methods (collaborative, project-based learning). If these changes are to gain public support and funding necessary for their continuation, results must be swift, obvious, and documentable in everyday teaching practice. Even when schools and teachers deliver 21st century instruction of the highest quality, it takes the full engagement of students in learning to deliver optimal results, and educators need valid instruments to measure those results.
 * **Friday, December 18, 2009 **

Despite Sasha Barab’s (Edutopia.org, 2009, May 27) assertion that the attractiveness of new media compared to traditional text-based instruction will reverse dropout trends, rising expectations and increased demands on students for self-regulation will cause many to continue struggling and performing below their potential. Piltler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) offer suggestions for using technology to help students understand the relationship between effort and achievement, and hence monitor their own learning: effort rubrics help students define what it means to try, effort/achievement spreadsheets generate graphs to make the connection visual, and surveys candidly reveal data to explain how peers achieve success. Once students participate to their fullest capacity, educators must have valid means of measuring achievement. Solomon and Schrum (2007) recommend e-portfolios, created with a variety of media and Web 2.0 tools, as an alternative to traditional testing. Authentic assessments like e-portfolios not only allow students to avoid barriers inherent in one-size-fits-all tests, but they also require students to exercise critical thinking and creativity to solve problems and produce original products that showcase all they have learned (rather than the small sample of learning most tests reveal). Solomon and Schrum claim that replacing tests with e-portfolios will prepare students for the inevitable standardized, high-stakes exams that (supposedly) measure the overall effectiveness of teaching and learning. However, these authors offer no data to support their claim. As standardized tests exist today—without choices of media or supports for individual learner needs—I doubt that even the most relevant, student-centered, technologically integrated instruction will yield the stellar performance administrators, state education officials, and legislators expect to see. Either the nature of state assessments must change, or they must be considered only along with other measures of student achievement, such as e-portfolios.

A complete “back-to-basics” movement—one that would cut funds and quash efforts for technology implementation—would be tragic now that we have glimpsed the potential of technology for extending learning beyond the classroom, for making learning a journey fueled by curiosity. The students in the Microsoft video ask, “What if learning came to life? What if school became an adventure?” (MSFTEducation, 2008, Sept. 26). Personally, I would like to help make this vision a reality in K-12 and post-secondary education. Although it is far from perfect, the learning unit I designed with my team has prepared me to take the first steps toward this goal. I will continue to explore the already overwhelming and continually increasing options available for learning with Web 2.0 tools. These same tools—blogs, wikis, and social networking software—will help me share my new knowledge with colleagues and fellow educators.

References: Edutopia.org. (2009, May 27). //Big thinkers: Sasha Barab on new-media engagement// [Video file]. Retrieved from []

MSFTEducation. (2008, Sept. 26). //Vision for technology in K-12 education// [Video file]. Retrieved from [] <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; msobidifontfamily: Arial;"> Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;"> Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, new schools//. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. ||