EDLD+5364

=Teaching with Technology= ==

Week 1 Post-Conference Reflection

This week's web conference was very much like many web conferences that I have experience during this program, a lot of confusion and very little instruction. I am sad to say that I am disappointed in the technology being that I am here to learn about technology. I think if instructions about the conference would be given in advance there would be less confusion. Despite the fact that it was repeated over and over for everyone to mute their mic, many participants were still using there mics and talking making it impossible for Dr. Cummings to speak. Maybe if we were not even given mic privileges it would help. Participants also rambled on and were not discussing any pertinent information to the week's assignments.

Week 1 - Part 1

This week’s assignment was to explore how technology enhances learning and described three different views of learning. Constructivism says that all ideas are based on the collective ideas of others and then the new idea is built into the old ones with a larger framework. Connectivism is a network model of learning. Knowledge is based not only on what you are learning but also based on what others are learning. Continual learning must be ongoing to stay current. Cybernetics is connecting humans with machines by allowing the human nervous system to communicate directly with computers Nervous impulses picked up senses not normally experienced like sonar. I think this has a great advantage for the future, not that I want to become a Cyborg but I think the technology will make it possible for people with handicaps to be able to function better.



Week 2 - Part 1

This week I learned about a variety of technology strategies that positively impact diverse learners and ways to communicate with students through technology to assess learning. Schacter (1999) in the Kulik’s Meta-Analytical study found that on average student’s scores were 14% higher when they received computer based instruction, they were able to learn more in less time and they liked their classes and developed a more positive attitude toward learning. Schacter (1999), also found in the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow study found that students experienced new learning experiences requiring higher level reasoning and problem solving skills. Page (2002) says, “Numerous studies have demonstrated that young children’s self-esteem or self-concept directly affects their academic performance.” He suggests that using computers in the classroom raises the self-esteem of students and therefore increase their academic performance. This is significant for low socioeconomic students and students with disabilities. Learning with technology seems to be an important step forward in education and one that needs to be meet by teachers with a positive attitude. It is up to teachers to embrace the task of finding technology and incorporating the appropriate strategies for diverse learners to use in the classroom.

Page, M.S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journel of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 389-409. Retrieved on March 11, 2012 from []

Schacter, J. (1999). //The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the research has to say//. Santo Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. retrieved on March 11, 2012, from [].



Week 3 - Part 1

Today’s students are highly varied in their response to instruction. A one-size-fits-all lesson does not meet the needs of all students in the classroom. We must be able to design lessons to reach the kids “in the margins” like the gifted and talented or disabled students while still meeting the needs of “average” students who have differing learning needs. The Universal Design for Learning, UDL, is a flexible framework to meet the primary goal of education in the 21st century; mastering the learning process, not merely mastering content.

UDL operates on 3 primary principles to provide flexibility and reduce barriers in instruction while providing appropriate accommodation, support and challenge. The first is to provide multiple means of representation allowing us to reach all types of learners and allowing the learner to make connections within and between concepts. The second principle is to provide multiple means of action and expression. Just as learners perceive material differently, they also are able to express themselves differently. Some students may be able to express themselves better in written text while others may express themselves better orally. The third principle is to provide multiple means of engagement. Learners differ greatly in the way they can be engaged or motivated to learn. Some students thrive with spontaneity and novelty while it may disengage or even frighten others who prefer strict routine.

Advances in powerful digital technology has made individualizing curriculum possible in practical, cost effective ways, however, it is important to understand that simply using technology does not necessarily enhance learning. Technology should be carefully planned into the curriculum as a way to implement the three principles in a way to achieve the goal of mastering the learning process.

Wakefield, M. (2011). CAST. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines. Version 2.0. retrieved March 17, 2012 from []

Week 3 - Part 2 UDL

e-Book:[| http://bookbuilder.cast.org/view.php?op=view&book=58375&page=1]



Week 4 Part 1

In this week’s readings, Pitler (2007) focused on the use of cooperative learning to help students gain new knowledge through working in groups. Some things I learned were; when placing students in groups is to avoid homogeneous grouping, keep the groups small and varied, and that group work should not be overused. When a teacher creates formal groups for a project, five important components should be included in the assignments: Positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, interpersonal and small-group skills and group processing.

In Chapter 7 of Rose and Meyer’s online UDL book, Rose and Meyer (2002) state, “the precision and accuracy of an assessment tool is reliable only to the extent that extraneous factors are removed from the equation.” Their research has shown that four factors greatly affect the value of student assessments. These are: individual learning differences, media differences, missing supports, and evaluations that are detached from the curriculum. This was an eye opener for me because as much as I use technology in my classroom I still use paper and pencil as end of unit assessment. This is not however by choice but because we have adapted to creating our test to match that of the state testing as closely as possible. Maybe the powers that be should be reading some of this research.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). U//sing technology with classroom instruction that works//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. retrieved on March 22, 2012 from []



Week 5 Part 1

This week’s readings and videos focused on the opportunities that students have through using technology. Technology provides students with the ability to receive immediate feedback. This helps the students to know what they did wrong and they can correct their misunderstandings before the learning become permanent and it helps the teachers to know if their lesson is on target or needs to be adjusted. Pitler (2007) states, “Technology makes it easier for students and teachers to track the effects of effort and facilitates more immediate feedback” (p. 156).

This week’s we also focused of the use of Web 2.0 tools. Solomon (2007) says, “Perhaps the most obvious use of Web 2.0 tools for assessment would be for students to be able to show what they know in a wide variety of media” (168). It seems rather pointless to teach students with all the technology of today then expect them to be tested over the material using paper and pencil. There are so many new and exciting Web 2.0 tools that can excite and encourage students to create and authenticate new ideas and the best part about it is that many of them are free to use.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M. Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 41 – 58, 155 – 164. Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, new schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 168-176.

EDLD 5364 - Course Embedded Reflections

In EDLD 5364 my group scenario team included Cherie Stanley, Jeff Hattrup and myself. Our team leader was Jeff Hattrup who is a current 5th grade science teacher. He was a great leader and had many great idea about our science lessons and the technology that went along with it. Cherie Stanley worked very hard as our technical support for our group setting up the Google site and Google docs. Being a science teacher myself we had a lot of material available readily for the group to use in creating our UDL lessons. We chose to create lessons surrounding a unit of physical science that covered matter.

Personally, I had never learned about the Universal Design for Learning theory before but my school has been struggling this year to find a lesson plan that works for everyone and I found this one very practical in the sense that it gives teachers a method for meeting the needs of diverse learners. The two methods that the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) advances are individualized goals through a variety of media and individualized curriculum embedded with flexible supports. (Rose & Meyer, 2002) My individual UDL lesson taught mixtures and solutions through a variety of videos, an eBook on solutions, and a lab using everyday mixtures and solutions found in the home. After the students completed the lab, they were to create a multimedia presentation of the lab following a rubric. “Specific, criterion-referenced rubrics let students know exactly what is expected of them” (Pitler, 2007, p. 30). In creating the presentation, students engage in higher-level thinking. In the book, //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works//, the authors state, “the most engaging learning comes from having the student create the presentation or movie themselves as a part of the learning process” (Pitler, 2007, p. 104). Bransford (2000) say, “An important use of technology is its capacity to create new opportunities for curriculum and instruction by bringing real-world problems into the classroom for students to explore and solve.” As a science teacher this is so true. Much of science depends on students making connections to the world around them. Working closely with a group on this project has changed the way I look at collaborative work and will not only change the way I teach in the future but will also change the way I learn in the future from those I work with.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R., (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_9853&page=206.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works. // Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. // Retrieved March 28, 2012, from CAST: []**. **