Sunday, April 1, 2012
EDLD 5364: Final Reflection
This course definitely helped me see learning from all sides. As an Elementary Technology Teacher, there are times that lessons can be so routine that one may forget the importance of diverse learning. One of the useful tools that I have learned in this course was the basics of what the Constructivist Theory is all about. According to my readings, "... Learners take in information, process it to fit their personal frameworks, and build new understanding. " (Bagely & Hunter). As I began to continue to research how the Constructivist Theory could be used, I started to look for real world applications I could use in the classroom. Sure enough, this past week in my 3rd grade Computer Class, we were introducing spreadsheets, which was a new concept for most of the 3rd graders. Instead of having them just watch the lesson via video, we decided to play "Bingo" in which students would have to get four cells in a row using the cell addresses. As we wrapped up for the day, I thought, "Hey! This is the Constructivist Theory at its best!" Students were taking information they already knew (playing a Bingo game) and turning it into new information (how cell addresses work.)
Another concept that was introduced was that of UDL. For this course, we as a group had to create a lesson plan targeting different learning groups. For instance, while my task may have to create lessons for a GT students, other members would have to create theirs for below leveled students, special education students, blind students, etc. What UDL helped me understand was that while we were all trying to get the same lesson taught, the way we taught it to our particular group was completely different. The interesting thing about this particular project was the fact that we had to align our lesson with various ISTE Standards to keep us accountable. I can safely say that our group did a wonderful job in working together to achieving our goal.
Another concept that was of interest to me this semester was the study of technology integration in the classroom. One of the articles I had read this semester was a study to see if technology in the classroom had any effect on student achievement (Page, 2002). What was surprising to see was the fact that they conducted their research in a low socioeconomic part of town. I also in a very low income district, so I was definitely interested to see what this study would find. Sure enough, after the experiment was conducted, Page discovered that there had been a significant improvement in mathematics achievement. Although that this study was done ten years ago, I am certain that if a new study was done in 2012, the results would show that technology integration in the classroom would result in higher scores. As a matter of fact, last week in our monthly Instructional Technology meeting, one of the teachers had said they they opened up the computer lab to classes when it was not being used. That particular classroom teacher had told us that she had seen a major improvement in her student's reading abilities.
The final week of this course was by far the most engaging for me. It talked a lot about Web 2.0 tools and how powerful they can be. Some of my team for this course had the opportunity to go to the TCEA conference where they stressed various Web 2.0 tools. Although I am all for Web 2.0 tools, my hope is that teachers do not replace internet based lessons for actual teaching. If a teacher is putting their students in front of a computer and expecting them to teach themselves content, it is as if they are giving a student a textbook and expecting them to teach themselves.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, (1999). Learning as a personal event: A brief introduction to constructivism. Retrieved on March 31, 2012 from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/tech26/intro2c.html
Page, M.S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 389-409. Retreived March 31, 2012 from the International Society of Education at http://www.itse.org/am/template.cfm?section=number_4_summer_20021&template=membersonly.cfm&contentfileid=830
EDLD 5364: Week 5 Reflection
Week 5 Reflection
One of the major themes of this week’s learning was the focus of Web 2.0 tools. A web 2.0 tool is simply where a student can create, work on, or interact with other peers towards a common goal. One of the main quotes that stood out in this week’s reading was, “…one this is certain: we are at the very beginning of this evolution and many of you reading this book will be creating new ideas and projects that others will want to hear about…” (Solomon & Schrum). I find this to be true mainly because Web 2.0 tools simply provide a gateway to synergized world of student engagement. One of the Web 2.0 tools that I have started using ever since I had returned from TCEA is screencasting. Screencasting is simply recording activity from your computer and sharing it with the world. (In this case, my classes.) I have used screencasting to show students how to put spreadsheets together. Students really enjoy it mainly because they can go at their own pace, and do not have to wait for the teacher to come help them with step by step instructions.
Although Web 2.0 tools can be very powerful, we as educators must be very careful and not let the tool become a replacement for teaching. I have seen many teachers start using games and other “busy work” in the name of Web 2.0 tools. I believe that if use correctly, Web 2.0 tools can help students achieve greater success in the classroom.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Technology in Education, 168-176.