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. Advantages of game play have been documented as a tool for improving students’ academic performance and engagement in learning (Garneli, Giannakos, & Chorianopoulous, 2017). One relative advantage is that games provide individualized instruction which can be used for remediation or enrichment to reach all students. Moreover, games offer varied teaching techniques compared to traditional lecture style lessons. This approach to learning can motivate and engage students in the learning process (Garneli et.al, 2017). Notably, games provide a remedy for motivating low performing students with curriculum that have been largely unsuccessful with traditional classroom strategies.
Game play can simulate real world problems while assessments can measure and track growth in learning. Positive outcomes have been recognized in the subjects of social science, science, and for language skill acquisition. More recently, studies have been used to understand the role of games for learning mathematics. However, results have been largely inconclusive (Chang et. al, 2015). Specifically, Chang et. al (2015) questioned if low, middle or high achievers benefit similarly from game play? His research found that a student’s math proficiency level correlates to learning performance in the game. His opinion is that this may be due to a less intimidating setting than the classroom. So that begs the question, what kind of games are right for students? In a research study, Jenkins (2014) discusses the “flood of “edutainment” games entering the market” and the difficulty in determining what games you should be employing for your students (p.60). More recently, in 2017, Garneli determined that the type of game play can and should vary. For example, narrative games, which Garneli defines as serious games, are promising to promote learning in STEM contexts. Yet, he found students preferred games to work on procedural math practices was more enjoyable without a narrative story. Lastly, the relationship between gender and game type can also play into game preference. However, the gender/game preference debate is still undecided since there is difficulty isolating many variables. Games should be offered in a math curriculum as purposeful instruction. The advantage is that it offers yet another learning method for student choice. References Chang, M., Evans, M., Kim, S., Norton, A., & Samur, Y., (2015). Differential effects of learning games on mathematics proficiency. Educational Media International, 52(1), 47-57. Garneli, V., Giannakos, M., Chorianopoulous, K., (2017). Serious games as a malleable learning medium: The effects of narrative, gameplay, and making students’ performance and attitudes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 842-859. Jenkins, B., (2014). Don’t quit playing: Video games in the STEM classroom. Techniques, 89(1), p. 60- 61. “Whether (hate) is on the playground or virtually, peer cruelty doesn’t seem to have any limits or boundaries”
Access to technology in classrooms has encouraged many schools to adopt an acceptable use policy (AUP). These policies serve as rules and guidelines for individuals to follow for the continued permission to use school networks. Educators are tasked with balancing access to technology and learning 21st century skills and offering a safe learning environment (Common Sense Media, 2017) . While an AUP’s is often the first step to frame rules and procedures, they are generally presented to protect the school district from legal action. Robyler (2016) suggest that a comprehensive AUP contain 5 central components including:
Yet educators are often tasked to enforce AUP’s in an environment that is not policeable. While filters are use to safeguard against accessing unacceptable websites, the highest risk for young adolescents is protecting online identity and reputation. According to the Cyberbullying Research Center and their 2017 report at https://cyberbullying.org/facts, approximately 27% of students have been cyber bullied at some point in their lifetimes. Strickland (2017) states that “As technology has become more ingrained at increasingly younger ages for children, cyberbullying has become a serious issue that teachers and parents are trying to combat.” Due to health implications, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2017) has recognized bullying as a serious public health issue. Cyberbullying has a “major effect on their (student) academic performance as well as their mental and physical health."
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services suggests the following rules and integrating internet safety into a school culture based on their site stopbullying.gov (2017):
It has been reported that zero-tolerance policies don’t work (Strickland, 2017) and an AUP is only as strong as your commitment to enforce it (Common Sense Media, 2017). Fortunately, public campaigns such as stopbullying.gov and the Kind campaign have begun to educate both students and parents on appropriate online behavior called netiquette. Meanwhile, many schools promote appropriate behaviors through school wide initiatives such as Positive Behavior, Intervention & Supports (PBIS). Alternatively, PBIS relies on teaching students to use technology responsibly, just as you would teach students any other subject in school. References
Common Sense Media, Inc. (2017). 1-1 Essentials - Acceptable use Policies. Retrieved on October 3, 2017 from www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/1to1/aups National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (CDC), Division of Violence Prevention (2017, May 22). Technology and youth: Protecting your child from electronic aggression. Retrieved October 3, 2017 from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention Robyler, M.D. (2016). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Scheff, Sue (2013, November 20). Cyberbullying: There is a way out [web log post]. Retrieved October 3, 2017 from http://www.suescheffblog.com/cyberbullying-there-is-a-way-out/ Strickland, Ashley (2017, June 21). Bullying is a ‘serious public health problem’, experts say. Retrieved on October 3, 2017 from http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/health/bullying-public-health-zero-tolerance/index.html U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Stopbullying.gov [website]. Retrieved on October 3, 2017 from https://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/at-school/rules/index.html Website Links:
http://blog.mrmeyer.com http://mr-stadel.blogspot.com http://www.byrdseed.com http://www.101qs.com 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. 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. |
Archives
November 2017
Categories |