Basic suite software (word processing, spreadsheet and presentation software) is ubiquitous in business (Robyler, 2016). In education, software not only helps to manage classrooms effectively, it extends learning 21st century skills to students. Yet teachers must be purposeful with choosing the software to best meet the instructional needs for learning. With the proliferation of new digital tools, basic suite software “offers more student-centered learning experiences and allow students to better meet their diverse learning styles, working strategies and abilities” (Crompton, 2014). Specific learning goals drive the method of delivery and learning activities. Despite the basic suite of software tools being widely used for their utilitarian purpose, advances in technology promote applications that possess advantages for increased student learning. BASIC SUITE SOFTWARE
The traditional benefits of the basic three software tools include increased productivity, appearance, and accuracy. While these remain a valued benefit of using the basic suite of software, new technology offers better support for personalized learning and group collaboration. Word processing permits dynamic group processes, spreadsheets support the organization of information including visual aides, and presentation programs offer full interaction that help organize student learning in a purposeful learning environment. References
Crompton, H. (2014). Know the ISTE standards for teachers. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/articledetail?articleid=15 Howton, R. (2017). Turn your classroom into a personalized learning environment. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=416&category=Personalized-learning&article=Turn+your+classroom+into+a+personalized+learning+environment Robyler, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
2 Comments
The 2017 K-12 Horizon report identifies two trends that are currently influencing my teaching including coding as a literacy and measuring student learning. As the reports contends, coding as a literacy is a short term trend which is “driving technology adoption in K-12 education for the next one to two years” (p. 2). In fact, a year ago, teachers in my school district were provided an opportunity to attend a one-day training with code.org. In 2017, the code.org website boasts that it has reached 20% of US students and 600,000 teachers. I am one of 40 educators from the district that has been trained. While coding may be influencing technology adoption, I suspect that the implication of coding as a practice is beyond a mid-term trend (more than 5 years away).
Case in point, our middle school continues to limited students to a choice of traditional electives such as drama, cooking, sewing, speech and debate, video production, yearbook, ASB and Spanish. At the local area high schools, students may be offered 1 or 2 computer based electives. Meanwhile, my local high school does not offer any computer programming. One argument the NCM made for coding to infiltrate K-12 education is to make “a case to embed coding into K-12 curricula” (Freeman et. al, 2017, pg. 11). Yet, as a teacher of a STEM subject, I am unclear where I would find extra time to devote to coding. Moreover, science is soon receiving their own set of new standards and curriculum. While I agree that coding initiates learning including structure and logic, I do not believe that they are completely transferable to learning mathematical concepts. In my opinion, the best case for increasing computer literacy is to offer coding as language similar to what is being implemented in Florida. I believe students can be provided a choice of which language they choose to learn, whether it is Spanish, French or coding. Measuring learning is another identified trend that is a current focus in my content area. We refer to this district led initiative as PLC or Professional Learning Communities. While NMC classifies this as a mid-term trend, IUSD has already begun its' 2nd year of a three-year plan towards full implementation. NMC comments that one key attribute of successful data collection is that it is both timely and accessible. While teachers are inundated with timely and accessible data, I believe the real issue is how to make sense or interpret the data. In my math classroom, I easily collect over 1,000 pieces of data from students each week. As teachers, we all try to support measuring learning targets using technology support tools like zipgrade and socrative. In my classroom, I utilize the online quiz functions in Canvas by offering homework online. As the NMC (2017) report suggests, blended and hybrid courses may be our best case for initializing innovative data collection and analyzation. These courses have technology embedded in them that affords practical data analysis techniques. Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., and Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. For more than 40 years, efforts to close the educational achievement gap have been largely unsuccessful (Haycock, 2001). As recently as 2015, The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) estimate that 7% of students between the ages of 16 to 24 fail to graduate each year (U.S. Government NCES). My mission is to utilize technology to engage at-risk students. Research points to this as the key to reaching our most vulnerable populations by motivating, supporting and preparing students for future learning (Darling-Hammond, Zielezinski & Goldman, 2014; Roblyer, 2016).
In mathematics, technology supports three learning goals. First, it is important for students be active in their acquisition and consumption of factual knowledge. Second, students must attain procedural mathematical fluency. Lastly, students must have an opportunity for inquiry to gain conceptual knowledge. Access to technology provides equality to information, allowing for efficiency in skill practice, and supports learning of abstract concepts through the use of technology to model abstract concepts. For the at-risk student, technology also serves to engage unmotivated students through gaining attention, illustrating real-world relevance, and encouraging high-levels of learning by supporting lower-level skills (Roblyer, 2016). My vision is to utilize technology to support and engage all students in learning, while remaining focused on our most vulnerable student populations. By using educational technology in a constructivist learning environment, students gain knowledge by participating in the experience (Roblyer, 2016). References Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M., Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE). Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11. Roblyer, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2015). The condition of education (NCES 2015-144), Status Dropout Rates. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015144.pdf |
Archives
November 2017
Categories |