EDLD 5364: Week 4 Reflection

Week 4 Reflection

The topic that I learned mostly about this week came out of the article, “ Using UDL to Accurately Assess Student Progress.” When reading the article, I immediately felt as if we have been doing everything backwards, or have veered off track when it comes to assessing student progress. The four main factors that the article tells us that we are facing when it comes to proper UDL assessment are, diverse learning differences, media constraints, lack of appropriate support and lack of integration with curriculum. The greatest concern that I have with UDL is the fact that I think it focuses mostly on a “perfect word” scenario. From my point of view, we do have programs in place to serve the students, however when it comes to assessment, it is normally conducted the same way for each student. Although the ideas of computer aided, text-to-speech, assessments seem ideal, many schools that I know of do not utilize those resources.

One of the other factors that did seem ideal, yet can be taken out of context is lack of appropriate supports. The article suggested that teachers may be concerned that students use various devices, (word processors, calculators, electronic dictionaries, etc) as means of cheating on assessments. While I can see how the author sees how one may become dependent on these devices, one should not forget that these devices can be very helpful to diverse learners. Just the other day a student who had terrible hand writing, approached me, asking if they could type their homework due to the fact of their messy handwriting. I told the student that I was okay with that. I also told them to check their spelling using the spell check tool. In the end, both the student and teacher had a win-win situation.

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. Chapter 7. Retrieved on March 23, 2012, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

EDLD 5364: Week 3 Reflection

One of the many re-occurring messages that appeared in this week’s reading was that of differentiation and individualization of learning. In the reading of, “Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age” it talked about various methods for helping students learn. (Rose and Meyer, 2002) The first method would be to offer choices of content and tools so it could better suit the student’s learning abilities. As a Elementary Computer Teacher, I can personally relate to this first method because as with any class, each student has their own preferred learning style. As a first year teacher, I would simply give students a screen shot of what they need to copy, that way it could, “look like the teacher’s.” However, being more experienced I have learned to give students options to help them learn. Some of the options include: pairing up with a high level student, watching a screen cast of how a certain concept is done, or simply working one-on-one with the teacher. Students do appreciate these methods and in the end students do understand the concepts that are introduced.

From experience, methods two and three work hand in hand. Method two is “providing adjustable levels of challenge” while method three is, “offering a choice of rewards.” In class, when I introduce something, I normally break it down into two or three levels. For instance, if I am showing a first grader how to change the color of a font, I will say something like, “Students, your level one task is to change the color of the font. If you finish that, level two is to have two letters with two different colors. If you can do that, level three is to write out your first and last name using two different colors.” While the level three task seems much harder to do, each student is still working on changing the color of the font without feeling pressured that they have to reach level three. Method three is often the best part for the student (from my experience.) When finished with a lesson in my class, especially one that is very challenging, students normally often have a high sense of self worth because they had accomplished something. For certain classes, that is a high enough reward. However, there are times that I will create different levels of rewards based on which group or individual finishes first. I do let them know that just because they are the first one(s) finished, they may not receive the reward. Work must be done correctly and show what they have learned.

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. Chapter 6. Retrieved on March 17, 2012, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

EDLD 5364: Week 2 Reflection

Upon reflecting in what I have learned in Week 2, Of all of the week’s reading, the article on the effect of technology in a low socioeconomic area stood out the most to me. I teach in a Title 1 school district and can relate greatly to what the experimenter was trying to do. After this particular study was completed, it was concluded that, “Participants in the technology-enriched classroom appeared to score significantly higher in math than peers in non-technology enriched classrooms.” (Page, 402) That quote should be a wake up alarm to districts around the United States that in fact, funds contributed to technology are in fact not being wasted, but instead being invested to help students achieve success.

While getting technology into the classroom can be a powerful tool, there are still a number of challenges that we face once we do start using technology. According to one of this week’s articles, one of the main problems in teaching in the Digital Age is that of Learner Diversity and High Standards. (Rose & Meyer, 2002) In a way, I can see where the author is coming from. Surely we as educators must do our best to meet the needs of diverse learners, however these are challenges that teachers, administrators and districts will have to tackle regardless if there is technology or not in the classroom.

Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (n.d.). Chapter 1: Teaching Every Student TOC: Information & Ideas. CAST: Center for Applied Special Technology. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/chapter1.cfm

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the research has to say. Santa Monica, CA; Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved on March 7, 2012, from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf

EDLD 5364: Week 1 Reflection

This week's knowledge focused mainly on three types of learning styles: Constructivist Theory, the Connective Theory and the Cyborg Theory. Being a Technology Teacher, the Cyborg Theory was of great interest to me. Upon watching the Cyborg Theory YouTube video, I was impressed on how scientists want to level the playing field for both humanism and technology. To support what the video was saying, an article that I had read described the Cyborg Theory as, “…not view(ing) technology as other or separate from human but rather see technological advance on par with human evolution; both, one and the same.” (McPheeters, 2009) As an educator I believe that technology should be a part of the classroom, and that educators should always use the most recent technology. However, sometimes I think that we can get a bit ahead of ourselves when it comes to how powerful technology can be. For instance, on the Cyborg Theory video, Mr. Warkwick tells about his experience of having an RFID chip as well as another type of chip implanted into himself. He goes on to tell that he could sense various signals with the chip that he had not experience with out the implant.

The other two learning theories seemed similar. I could heavily relate to the Constructivist Theory mostly because this is the way that I try to run my classroom. As an elementary teacher, my goal is to utilize the Constructivist Theory by laying a solid foundation of knowledge, and then building upon that foundation. I am always asking students to use any prior knowledge to help them understand a new concept that they may be encountering. Once the student bridges the connections of the two, students are able to understand and recognize how they used their foundational knowledge to accomplish more advance concepts.

McPheeters, D. (n.d.). TechLearning: Social Networking Technologies in Education by Dallas McPheeters. Classroom Tech Learning, Education, PC, Mac, iPad, Bloom’s Taxonomy – Techlearning.com. Retrieved March 4, 2012, from http://www.techlearning.com/article/social-networking-technologies-in-education-by-dallas-mcpheeters/45734