Technology: A Catalyst for Teaching and Learning in the Classroom

LINK: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te600.htm

DISCUSSION: This article kind of picks up where the last article left off. It restates several times the importance of careful planning and implementation for technology to be successful. This is an idea that is described in the roles for everyone from school board members to teachers and students. Any program implemented without clear goals and direction will flounder, no matter how good. This is an issue that shows up in the challenges of making technology a useful tool in the classroom. Are teachers trained properly? Do they know the reasons for making changes? Do the software and hardware line up with expectations for student use and learning? Does the community at large understand how technology can (and is) being used? In my own experience it's very rare that all these concerns are being met, thus the ongoing, superficial issue of whether or not technology really vital for student learning.
In reading, I had two specific questions from this article. First, it states that part of the problem we have in measuring the impact of technology is that the classroom is rarely the "optimal" location for technology use. If that is the case, and in my experience it can be very difficult to actually use a computer in a class of 27 students, how do we make the classroom a more conducive environment to technology use? Or, how do we make technologies more classroom friendly? One option is to just have more of everything (ie computers, printers, scanners, digital cameras, etc...). However, very few classrooms are actually equipped to house these types of hardware, and the cost would be somewhat prohibitive. Smaller classes? Different technologies? This question leads us back to the idea of comprehenive planning prior to implementation, and certainly merits more investigation. My second question had to do with access. This article states that there is little difference in access between poor and rich districts at this point in time. I can't speak for the national trends, but I know that my experience in a Title 1 school showed both limited access and a very remedial use of technology. Again, this comes back to planning. If you simply looked at access, then maybe yes our school was up to date by having two computer labs and at least one computer in every class. However, one lab was strictly used for teaching technology classes. The other lab, supposedly open, could only be used when a technology person was present, and the computers in this lab were old with unreliable connections. All classrooms had one computer with internet access, but often doubled as the the teacher station. Even with more space, only two computers per room could be hooked to the internet. In classes averaging 30 students, lasting 50 minutes, this made using technology as part of a content area nearly impossible. So while technically the access is there, the other issues of planning not only for how to use but how to maintain and update remain.
My other concern at this time has to to with testing and evaluations. This article states that paper and pencil tests are almost a thing of the past. While certainly in teacher training and schools the importance of multiple and authentic evaluations is taught or expressed, at the same time the importance of standardized, paper and pencil tests continues to rise. With the recent re-election of Tom Horne as state superintendent, this is not going to change in Arizona anytime in the near future. To be able to really fight this, teachers, schools, and researchers must find ways to prove, empirically, that authentic assessments are as valid as standardized test scores.

Using technology to improve student achievement

LINK: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm

DISCUSSION: This article resonated with a lot of my own personal experience. First of all, it shows how, when used in the right way, technology improves student achievement and learning. Technology allows teachers to approach content in an entirely new way, even if it simply means projecting a larger than life image from the internet to get student attention. Enabling students to use technology to develop their own ideas creates an energy of its own, which I've seen in the time and care students take in the work. However, the difficulty is in getting to this point.
As is mentioned in the article, for technology to really make an impact it must be carefully planned for. This happens far too rarely, at least in my own experience. No school I've ever taught in has provided careful, consistent professional development for the use of the technology in my classroom. Also, it seems too often that schools just want to put computers into classrooms, without really thinking about how they will be used. This shows up in the things we don't have (from programs to hardware) that would make the computers useful to an entire class. Additionally, this also meant that quite often older computers would be installed that had no real value as they could not run many of the software available. In my previous school, there was generally one computer in each classroom, which also doubled as the teacher station (meaning email, grades, and a number of other functions that should be off limit to students could be compromised). Priority computer access was given to reading teachers so they could have students take Accelerated Reader tests. In fact, the district required all students to regularly take AR tests, greatly compromising the use of computers for other purposes. With the lack of a clear vision as to how technology could really make an impact in a generally low-income district, computers were confined to a very narrow, remedial use rather than for advancing knowledge. Which is exactly the criticism this article makes of low income districts-using technology for remediation. Clearly, a large part of the reason for this type of use lies in the importance put on standardized test scores. In the schools I've been at, so much focus is put on raising these scores quickly (since if that doesn't happen sanctions are imposed) there is very little long-range planning done. Precisely the very thing needed to implement technology the right way.

Readings for week 9

LINKS:
1. http://caret.iste.org/index.cfm?StudyID=337&fuseaction=studySummary

2. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/math/ma200.htm

REFLECTIONS:
While the content of these two articles focus on the use of technology in teaching math, they remind me of two broader issues in education. The first is the importance of the teacher in the classroom. The second is the issue of access to technology for both students and teachers.
"The internet is a tool," states the second on article. As with an tool, users must be taught how to use it appropriately. Technology is certainly a valuable tool, but simply putting students in front of a computer will not by itself lead to higher achievement. As the article warns, especially in math, students can achieve desired outcomes of the software without actually understanding the concepts. The tool is only as useful as the teacher's ability to integrate it into the curriculum and make it meaningful. The first article asserts that technology increases student achievement, motivation, positive attitudes, and behavior. I would say that a teacher who understands students and finds ways to reach them (i.e. through the directed use of technology) are the biggest factors in these areas. The importance of the teacher becomes clear when you look at the first article, which states that the use of technology, in order to be effective, must be used with, "clear, measurable objectives," with, "teacher support," and be, "systematically incorporated."
I do like how the article from CARET explains some of the benefits of technology. It allows for cooperative learning in new ways. Not only can students now work with others in their own class, but with those in other classes and other schools. The use of technology also helps prepare students for job, career, and college expectations.
The second broader issue I was reminded of involves access. By access, I mean not only actually having the hardware and software available, but the ability to use them. Two effective software programs mentioned in the article are found in only 70 schools nationwide. In my own experience, it is rare to find classrooms that have ample computers for the numbers in the classroom, and software access is limited to those who, "need," it. As the second article warns, technology also has the capability of, "creating educational inequities." "Because of its complexity anc cost, the internet could bypass urban and rural areas." This is not to say that since not all can have it, none should. However, it is important to make sure we are not creating class-based opportunities (or limits). Tools are only useful if you have them, and until we are sure everyone has equal access, how can we create standards for technology we expect everyone to achieve?

Readings for week 7

LINKS
1. http://news.com.com/Mapping+a+path+for+the+3D+Web/2100-1025_3-6069459.html?tag=cd.top

2. http://www.edutopia.org/magazine/ed1article.php?id=Art_1451&issue=feb_06

RESPONSE
The two articles for this week do continue to build on the idea of constructivism, though each in it's own way. The first article, "Mapping a path for the 3D Web," reports on a conference held to discuss the future of the internet. Individuals with experience in technology and other related fields were invited to work together at this conference to figure out just what a 3D web (or metaverse) might look like. While there seemed to be a lot of disagreement about how this metaverse would operate and what it might look like, a quote by one of the organizers is key. "We are identifying areas to explore. We're seeing mountains in the distance and saying, 'There's something there, someone should go investigate it."' The important thing was not so much to establish a definite plan to be passed down, but rather to stimulate discussion and possible action.
The second article, "Lead, Don't Lecture," continues right on the same path as our earlier readings about constructivism in the schools. This particular article focuses on several teachers and what they are doing to create active learning situations for their students while moving away from a lecture-notes-test class format. It also includes the reflections of these teachers, explaining why they work as more of a coach with their students as opposed to being a lecturer. Again, the value of allowing students to explore on their own, stimulate discussion, and have students create their own plans for learning is re-emphasized. As the article wraps up, it also points to why this type of teaching is becoming more difficult today, with the furtherance of standardized testing and the required test preparation. As standardized tests are used more and more to evaluate schools and teachers, it's harder for teachers (and schools) to allow students the freedom to explore, because if they explore, they may go off the curriculum path. If they are off the path, will they pass the test (no matter what else they will have learned). For the teacher, this may mean it looks as if their students aren't learning. Thus the pressure.
While these two articles report on two very different things, their underlying message is the same. People learn by sharing and discussing. There may not always be agreement, but there is always progress. When they say in the first article that someone should go investigate the mountain, they are expressing the same concept found in the second article when one teacher says, "I try to never say to a student, 'That was wrong.' I'll say, 'That's interesting. Can we build on that?"' Essentially, both articles are showing how learning is a collaborative, active process, whether it is at the elementary level or at the highest levels of business and technology.

Week 4 readings: Standards in math, science, and technology

Links:
1. http://newton.nap.edu/books/030907276X/html/17.html

2. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/nj_math_coalition/pguide/pguide.html

Response:
These two articles are directly related to standards in math, science and technology. The first article discusses how the national standards in these three areas came about and lists some of the main points in each. The second article is a direct application of these standards, written to help parents in New Jersey, where many of these standards were adopted, understand what these mean to their students and how they can help. The two articles, while closely related to each other, are also very much tied into last weeks readings on constructivism.
Previously, the articles we read made a very good case for the use of constructivist methods in teaching. These two articles take the next step in show how this idea can be applied. Article one details how the principles of constructivism were written into the content standards for math, science, and technology. Some of these basic principles, which are explicitly stated in the standards, include equity (relating to student opportunities), active learning, and meaningful application. These ideas are found, in one form or another, in the standards of all three areas. The second article discusses direct application of these constructivist ideas. It lets parents know that their students will be, "actively learning," evaluated in multiple ways, involved in group work and discussion, doing meaningful activities, and working with every day types of problem solving. It then extends the standards to discuss what can be done at home, reinforcing the constructivist idea that learning is a lifelong, everyday process and should intergrate all areas of one's life, not just the hours spend at school.
Articles like the second are important because the constructivist concept is still a new approach. For it to work, parents need to understand both the reasons for a change, as well as what their students will be doing. In my experience, when parents understand why something is being done they are much more supportive and involved. Also, since constructivism encourages a community aspect to learning it is important that schools give parents to the tools to be part of the process.

Constructivism and Webquests

Links:
1. http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/

2. http://www.sedl.org/work/historical/tap.html

3. http://www.west.asu.edu/achristie/construct/Characteristics%20of%20Constructivist%20Learning.pdf

4.http://www.west.asu.edu/achristie/675wq.html

Summaries and critique:

In the first three articles a good, basic summary of constructivism is presented. Article 1 gives a broad overview of constructivism, supplying a definition, giving examples of classroom activities, the history, as well and criticisms and benefits. The second article presents findings of how technology can support constructivism, while the third selection summarizes many of the main ideas presented in the first two. Together, the three articles give a good starting explanation of constructivism and make a good case for its use in education.
One key idea in the first reading reads that in a, "well-planned classroom students learn how to learn," using constructivism. Obviously, management is the key to any class, but especially one in which a teacher is trying to implement this theory. As a truly constructivist classroom is very different from most traditional classes, it is important to remember it will demand more time and effort from students, especially when getting started. Students will need plenty of support, encouragement, and modeling to feel comfortable with this approach. This type of effort on the part of students is mirrored by the effort the teacher will have to make in ensuring the supports are there when the students need them. Of course, support doesn't only apply to students. As noted in the second reading, teachers who had specific training in constructivist methods, especially as it pertained to technology, used it more often in their classrooms. As administration became proactive in the use of technology and constructivism, its use grew. The more teachers a school had using constructivism, the more fully implemented it became. This applied not only to a single school site, their study found, but to entire districts. So just as teachers are supported by their colleagues and administrators, so teachers support the learning of students. What this also shows is that constructivism doesn't happen accidently. Indeed, it is something that must be well-planned to be truly implemented.
Just two more short points. First, it would seem the next logical step in this progression of readings would be to look more specifically at what goes into creating a constructivist class. What preparations does a teacher go through? How is it applied at different grade levels? How is it applied in different subject areas, including, "special" areas like art, music, and physical education? Secondly, the SEDL article indicated that a ratio of 5 students to every 1 computer was optimal for using technology with constructivism. I personally have never taught in, nor seen, a classroom with that sort of a ratio. At best I've had two computers to about twenty students, and the last two years I had single computer (which was also my teacher workstation) to classes of about thirty. So more discussion needs to happen on how to get resources out to teachers. Remember well-planned and supported?
The final article is an overview of webquests. It lists the learning goals webquests help meet and the basic parts of a webquest. This type of activity seems to fit in very well with the idea of constructivism that is presented in the first three articles. They are well-planned investigations that support students each step of the way (without giving them pat answers). Webquests ask students to asses and interpret information, rather than just repeating it. The group aspect of the webquest allows students to learn, support, and push each other. Finally, the creation of an authentic, original work gives students the opportunity to be original. To create new ideas.
Constructivism is a theory that calls for students to learn by doing and exploring. While it requires much from both students and teachers, it also gives much back in terms of success, real learning, and motivation. Assuming they have the tools, webquests are one tool teachers can use in implementing constructivism in their classroom.

Test

Hi! I'm blogging!!