This course permitted the opportunity to explore experimental lessons in my content area that are founded with informed use (Robyler, 2016, p. xxii). Understanding the usefulness of these strategies helped me to make sound pedagogical decisions using technology. In conclusion of this course, I feel that I am according to Robyler (2016), “enlightened” (p. 9). This enlightenment has occurred through a comprehensive approach to analyzing technology tools for learning and teaching. I am completing this course better prepared to employ strategies to address the differing needs of my students. The alignment of this course with the AECT standards permitted me to complete this coursework with an increase in content knowledge and improved focus on student learning, performance and engagement. Lesson plans were created to utilize technology within my subject and content area (AECT Standard 1, 2). I focused on relative advantage of each use of technology and ensured that it met the rigors and challenges of the common core state standards in mathematics. While AECT Standards 3 and 4 were beyond the scope of this course, they are key to achieving professional growth. In my case, I was afforded the opportunity to apply newly created lessons into my actual learning environment. Moreover, lessons afforded me the opportunity for personal reflection, informal interviews with students, and formal data collection. This implementation and reflection ultimately improved future lessons which will be shared outside the walls of my classroom. An enhanced understanding of my role as a teacher in choosing technology has given me more confidence to be recognized as a leader and help shape the school environment. I have always envisioned that it must be hard specifically for math teachers (such as myself) to embrace technology. The discipline of math consists of rigorous pacing, high stakes testing and centuries of prescribed ways of teaching and learning math. However, in reading the blog posts on obstacles, teachers of all disciplines have more in common than differences. It was common to cite that schools lack the proper infrastructure for implementing technology (both hardware and software) due to budget constraints. While a major overarching concern is the idea that technology forces change and adds a complexity to teaching. A large source of teachers may not be quite ready or prepared to embrace this change. These commonalities of our shared experiences provides me comfort as I often consider myself a disrupter - mostly working alone in an effort to embrace my ideas. Roblyer (2016) states that “Educators may not be able to predict the future of educational technology, but they know that it will be different from the present; that is, they must anticipate and accept the inevitability of change and the need for a continual investment of their time" (p. 9). When I began teaching, I asked my curriculum coordinator if I could only accomplish one thing, what is most important? I will never forget that he said I would be successful if I could learn to get students excited and engaged in math. Since then, my personal catalyst for managing change is grounded on the theory that technology can help gain learner attention, improve student motivation, and increase engagement. This is an example of how Robyler suggests that theory enforces more than just using and knowing technology, it supports the “why?”. My personal viewpoint remains that technology helps to overcome obstacles. The most valuable aspects of the use of technology and my key takeaways from this course are how technology directly supports student learning in math through:
Robyler, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
0 Comments
In mathematics, calculators are the most ubiquitous accessible technology for students with cognitive disabilities. Almost all of my students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) specify that they may use calculators on assessments. However, it is my belief is that if calculators as a technology benefit some students, then this benefit should extend to support all students. This aligns with the criteria of inclusive classrooms stated by Roblyer (2016) that “supports access and engagement of diverse learners” to all students (p. 405). Accessibility should be thought of as supports which enable students to reach their highest level of classroom engagement and learning. Supports available with technology include supporting motor skills and writing, reading with text-to-speech, organization with mind maps, and auditory with note taking. As a 1:1 math classroom, my students typically work using chromebooks. Chromebooks are ideal for setting up accessibility features because individual user accounts and accessibility settings are saved at the account level. Chrome has included web accessibility to make websites more usable through the use of screen readers, large images/low vision, color blindness, and navigation through the use of a keyboard only. Moreover, chrome extensions can be further individualized and incorporated into any device automatically with a student log-in. For example, EquatIO can type or dictate a math problem directly onto a google doc. This doc can then be saved, printed or submitted into google classroom by the student. Until now, I had limited understanding in the availablity of accessibility features and therefore a limited role to support students. I’ve only found some accessibility features by coincidence when some students make keyboard strokes that suddenly invoke a large arrow, enable a screen magnifier, or bullseye pointer. However, knowing that there are built-in tools that can be offered to all students is a great place to begin. Chrome allows for enable and customization of accessibility features through accessibility settings.
References
Mason, Amy (2017). Google in the Classroom Chromebooks and G Suite App. Future Reflections -Special Issue: The Individualized Education Plan (IEP). American Action Fund for Blind Children and Adults, 36(3). Retrieved from https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/fr/fr36/3/fr360308.htm Robyler, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. In 2013, the State of California (alongside 41 states according to Wikipedia) adopted a set of mathematical standards and practices aligned to the common core. The overarching design of common core was to promote a deeper mathematical knowledge by teaching fewer standards. However, four years after full implementation, course pacing in 8th grade math courses remains rigorous.The common core mathematical standards represent approximately 50% to procedural knowledge, and 25% for conceptual understanding and abstract reasoning, respectively. Each of the standards requires specific understanding of knowing how to integrate technology to enhance student learning.
Student learning supported through the use of instructional software, drill-and-practice, tutorials, simulations, and games has been shown to have relative advantages (Robyler, 2016). The relative advantage of any new technology can be answered by considering the benefits, time, and expense. In other words, “Is it likely to be worth it?” (Roblyer, 2016, p. 57). Unfortunately, answering this question often forms an obstacle in implementing technology, while compounding the problem of getting through rigorous standards coupled with high stakes testing. Teacher leaders or early adopters of educational technology often ran into more issues caused by high band useage resulted in buffering with video integration or walled gardens restricted access. These problems promotes teachers attitudes to keep traditional lessons sans-technology. the adventurous teachers which implement technology are asked to make tough pedagogical choices managing unknown outcomes with course requirements. Frequent problems often include a lack of availability of hardware, issues aligning technology tasks to meet standards, excessive time required for students to perform the task, and most importantly, teacher knowledge and comfort in using technology. Fortunately, one obstacle of the availability of hardware has diminished as technology has infiltrated the classroom. Nowadays, chromebooks, ipads and byod devices are more readily available. It seems as if schools have found a balance between purchasing the latest technology (such as in “What went wrong with L.A. Unified i-Pad Program?”) and training teachers to meet technology demands. Still teachers find obstacles to technology implementation due to issues of aligning a task using technology to meet math standards and/or excessive time required for students to perform the task. Finding or planning content aligned to the Ca. Common Core Mathematical Standards which supports the rigorous content pacing can be overcome with time and dedicated teacher professional development. Continuous professional development will promote developing lesson plans with technology whose relative advantage is clear and undoubtedly better than traditional teaching methods. There are many websites available (free of charge) for continuation of professional learning about technology use in education. Some of the best ones I have discovered are:
References Robyler, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Extracurricular activities such as music, drama, art or yearbook club are engaging activities for all students. According to Csikszentmihalyi (2002), engagement diminishes in a hierarchy from classes which involve team projects, independent projects, and then lastly, lecture-based classes. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) defines high engagement (1975) as “flow”, which is the balance between a task that is challenging and the possession of skills to carry out that task. Vygotsky’s similarly refers to optimal learning while in a zone of proximal development (ZPD) which is the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she cannot do. Unfortunately mathematics usually resides at the bottom of places a student would choose to be in school. Not only are most math classes defined by a lecture-based instructional format, students also find math challenging which makes it one of the least enjoyable activities in schools. In 2016, I was awarded an innovation grant to turn my middle school mathematics classroom to 1:1 with chromebooks. My first year was spent learning to manage the physical devices. The simple integration of technology was desirable to students which led to increased student engagement. However, after a year of instruction using technology, my traditional classroom has shifted from a utilitarian use of technology to more engaging, relevant, and authentic instruction. Engagement through Differentiation In mathematics, the relative advantage in using of technology is to capitalize on the ability to differentiate instruction. Differentiation supports student engagement by providing flow and supporting a student's’ level of ZPD. With the incorporation of technology, my role as a teacher has naturally shifted to that of a facilitator of information. Technology offers the ability for independent choice which is important for providing every student a learning pathway. For example, rather than completing a worksheet for procedural practice, students can use games, or complete formative assessments utilizing technology which supplies feedback to encourage self-monitoring of learning. Authentic Experience An authentic experience is one that offers an opportunity to engage in a real-world situation. In mathematics, technology can support students’ authentic experience by integrating simulations into lessons. Simulations or real-world problems can be initiated through situated videos, apps to help students visualize difficult mathematical concepts. Use of social media can present opportunities to investigate real-world situations that are only solvable through problem-based inquiry and collaboration. “Students who feel passion for a subject willingly invest time and energy in it” Relevance Teaching 21st century relevant skills is ubiquitous across all disciplines. Technology offers students the opportunity to write both independently and collaboratively. The U.S. Department of Education (2014) reports a positive relationship between use of technology for writing and student performance. In a study of eighth-grade students’, the frequency of use of technology for drafting and revising assignments positively correlated with student test scores. Through the use of blogs, wiki’s and basic-suite type of software, students can elaborate on their mathematical ideas and connect meaning and understanding to difficult concepts. Moreover, technology offers an advantage to write, collaborate, and publish their thoughts and ideas to an audience. Useful Resources Differentiated Instruction: Content
References
Harmer, A., & Cates, M. (2007). Designing for learner engagement in middle school science, Computers in the Schools, 24(1), p.105-124. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002, April 11). Edutopia - Motivating People to Learn. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/mihaly-csikszentmihalyi-motivating-people-learn#graph2 U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Technology. (2014). Learning technology effectiveness. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/learning-technology-effectiveness/ Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind and Society (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. |
Archives
November 2017
Categories |