In my first blog post on my starting technological comfort level, I noted my familiarity with various MS tools and common applications but discussed how intimidated I felt about applicaitons that I viewed as "new" digital media. For all my familiarity with Excel, Mathematica, blogs, personal websites, podcasts, or "photoshopped" images were technologies that I always felt I SHOULD understand...but really didn't These were the technologies that my students seemed to familiar with, but that I avoided. I was hopefully that learning more about these tools would offer an opportunity to communicate and connect more effectively with my pupils.
Looking back, I feel a little silly for my reservations. Manipulating an audio file in Audacity or a jpeg in Photoshop or Fotoflexer isn't really all that different than editing an Excel sheet or PowerPoint presentation. With the help of Blogger.com, the creation of this blog wasn't much more challenging than opening a new word file. The interfaces well novel. The instruction and crucial advice I received was requisite for efficient use. But it came a lot faster than I expected. Even technologies that I thought would never apply to my discipline--like word bubbles or concept maps--offered new, fast, easy ways to communicate concepts. I'm proud and excited about all of the new skills I'll bring with me back to campus in September.
But the assignment asked us to reflect also on our biggest challenges...and there were challenges. The biggest for me (as I've noted repeatedly) is planning and decision-making. These tools offer option. At times, there are so many options, it's dizzying. When developing my website or working on my interactive PowerPoint, I would come across a new tool or application and want to use it. Sometimes, I found that these were very good ideas. Sometimes...they really didn't add much value. And sometimes, the ideas were fine--but probably not worth all of the time I had to spend on it. The only way to improve efficiency and make the correct choices in these circumstances is to practice, plan, and learn through experience. I think my favorite tenet of UDL is the requirement that digital aids add value towards the stated goals of a class. That's a challenge, but after working with these tools, reading about best practices, and discussing with the class, I honestly feel prepared to meet that challenge.
Thanks to everyone in the class (especially Professor Cirino and Dan) for your help and collaboration. I had so much fun!
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Blog Post #11: The Computer Delusion
This reading was the perfect way to end this course. Of course, I acknowledge the value of educational technology. Even before this course, I attempted to incorporate various technological tools into my lessons. This month, I've gained new confidence with web-based tools, web 2.0 applications, websites, blogs, concept maps. And probably most importantly, this class has offered insights into best practices for technology use and proper choice of objectives. But our intuitive hesitation to "throw out the baby with the bath water" has presented itself as a recurring theme in our class discussions. And I think it's healthy to hear some objections to (or at least warnings about) tech use in the schools.
While Oppenheimer raises many concerns about digital education, the central thesis seems to be that computer use is not by its very nature effective--and that it could potentially be detrimental. Oppenheimer makes fair and important observations about the sacrifices made when educators concentrate on PC-based learning: time spent with "real world" tools; field trips; discussions. All of these important and vital educational experiences could fall by the wayside And perhaps even more harrowing, Oppenheimer discusses the implicaitons that computer obsessed administrators can have on funding and curriculum development (an issue we investigated in previous issues as well). UDL reminds us that we must regularly assess the effectiveness of our teaching methods, and this article at least attempts that assessment. The author's points about a lack of sound data to support claims of improved achievement is enlightening, and appealing to a math teacher like myself. (I'd be very interested to see that data and analysis!) Even more relevant is his argument about whether the "computer skills" that students are learning are really those that would be valued (and empowering) in the work force.
But similar to my response to earlier readings in this course, I have my reservations. I really appreciate the author's point of view. But none of this really flies in the face of the technology implementation we've discussed in this class. It's not news that technology can be overused or can distract from learning outcomes. Oppenheimer argues against anecdotal evidence for the value of these technologies...but then offers primarily anecdotal evidence to refute that value. And probably most importantly, this article was written in 1997. In the digital age that's a generation or more. His discussions about technologies are not really up to date, and major strides have been made in the development of educational technology and the philosophy of tech implementation. Certainly, ineffective technology use and computers-for-computers'-sake exercises exist in today's schools. But I'm not sure how relevant 14-year-old evidence is to today's classroom.
Ultimately, I'm pleased I read this article because I think it solidifies the position I arrived at on my own (and that it seems we as a class agree on): technology offers options. We have greater flexibility, can reach a larger audience, and we'd be remiss if we ignored the possibilites of these amazing aids. But it is not a magic educational bullet. Sitting a child in front of a computer can be useful, just as sitting them in front of a television can. But both can also be foolhardy. Like all of the applicaitons we used in class--even PowerPoint--all educational software offers is a tool. A "glamorous tool," but just a tool. As such, it can't be serve as our exclusive means for instructing students. But it can't be shunned either.
While Oppenheimer raises many concerns about digital education, the central thesis seems to be that computer use is not by its very nature effective--and that it could potentially be detrimental. Oppenheimer makes fair and important observations about the sacrifices made when educators concentrate on PC-based learning: time spent with "real world" tools; field trips; discussions. All of these important and vital educational experiences could fall by the wayside And perhaps even more harrowing, Oppenheimer discusses the implicaitons that computer obsessed administrators can have on funding and curriculum development (an issue we investigated in previous issues as well). UDL reminds us that we must regularly assess the effectiveness of our teaching methods, and this article at least attempts that assessment. The author's points about a lack of sound data to support claims of improved achievement is enlightening, and appealing to a math teacher like myself. (I'd be very interested to see that data and analysis!) Even more relevant is his argument about whether the "computer skills" that students are learning are really those that would be valued (and empowering) in the work force.
But similar to my response to earlier readings in this course, I have my reservations. I really appreciate the author's point of view. But none of this really flies in the face of the technology implementation we've discussed in this class. It's not news that technology can be overused or can distract from learning outcomes. Oppenheimer argues against anecdotal evidence for the value of these technologies...but then offers primarily anecdotal evidence to refute that value. And probably most importantly, this article was written in 1997. In the digital age that's a generation or more. His discussions about technologies are not really up to date, and major strides have been made in the development of educational technology and the philosophy of tech implementation. Certainly, ineffective technology use and computers-for-computers'-sake exercises exist in today's schools. But I'm not sure how relevant 14-year-old evidence is to today's classroom.
Ultimately, I'm pleased I read this article because I think it solidifies the position I arrived at on my own (and that it seems we as a class agree on): technology offers options. We have greater flexibility, can reach a larger audience, and we'd be remiss if we ignored the possibilites of these amazing aids. But it is not a magic educational bullet. Sitting a child in front of a computer can be useful, just as sitting them in front of a television can. But both can also be foolhardy. Like all of the applicaitons we used in class--even PowerPoint--all educational software offers is a tool. A "glamorous tool," but just a tool. As such, it can't be serve as our exclusive means for instructing students. But it can't be shunned either.
Note: Blog Posts #9 & #10 are completed on class sites
Blog Post #9 (my response to the Edward Tufte artcile "PowerPoint is Evil") was posted on the class blog.
Blog Post #10 (technically multiple posts on equity issues) can be found on the class Blackboard page.
Blog Post #10 (technically multiple posts on equity issues) can be found on the class Blackboard page.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Blog Posts #8: Oh, We're Halfway There! (reflections on my experience thus far)
I can't believe half of this class is behind us. It feels like we just started! But, forever the optimist, I choose to remember that half of the course is still ahead of us...
So far, I think the class divides nicely between the material I expected to study and the topics that I either didn't know about or didn't think we'd work with. For example, web design, blogging, and digital image manipulation seem like basic technological tools that I had hoped to learn more about, and sure enough I have. These are the types of "new technologies" I wrote about in an earlier post that I have always intimidated me. C++ or JAVA coding were formulaic, logical exercises for me. Excel and Mathematica offered computational aids that I was always comfortable with. But these net-based tools felt like the sort of things my students used that I would never quite master. What strikes me most about these technologies is how intuitive and easy to use they are. Blogging in particular isn't really any different than keeping a journal or sending an email. And although the website development we've studied required some newly acquired knowledge about various file types or new applications (like Nvu or Kompozer), the basic building blocks fit together rationally. I'm encouraged by how quickly I've learned these new skills and grateful for the clear, accessible manner these topics have been presented.
But like I said, some of the concepts we've studied were totally new and unexpected to me. The Inspiration concept maps, for example, were completely novel to me. But I was really impressed to see how versatile they were--probably even more so for the lower / middle school or humanities teacher, but for math / science teachers like me, too. Photostory 3 offered another new application that I never anticipated studying. I was obviously familiar with those "Ken Burns-style" documentaries, but I was amazed to see how easy they were to produce. I'm not sure that this will translate as directly to my classroom, but it offers one more interface that I can use to tailor my lessons to a wide variety of students.
Probably the topic I least expected to investigate in this class was the educational philosophy offered in the UDL readings. More than any other concept or skill, I think that this theory will help inform my teaching style. The basic tenets of adding value, implementing technology towards specific goals, and striving to cater to various learning styles are universally important notions that every instructor should strive to incorporate. I'm really grateful for the exposure to those readings, and strongly encourage you to continue using them--and maybe spend even more time on them--in the future.
So far, the biggest challenge for me has been the same obstacle I anticipate encountering with classroom technology: efficiently identifying the useful attributes of a tool while avoiding the less-helpful, more time-consuming facets. Inspire was very helpful in organizing my thoughts on some of our readings. But the preponderance of options, images, connections, etc. were enough to distract from my ultimate goal and I got a bit carried away. This is the same trap that I have observed other teachers fall into: technology for technologies sake detracts from education rather than add to it. Inefficient, poorly planned implementation of these tools violates the UDL system and inhibits learning. This experience has served as a reminder that the power of technology brings with it an additional obligation on the user: time in planning and frequent self-assessment of the effectiveness of use.
Going forward, I hope that I have the opportunity to investigate more discipline-specific technologies (perhaps in the context of the "links" I will include on my website), and I look forward to receiving feedback from my instructors on my progress, so I can continue to grow and improve. But the first half of the summer has been more informative and more intuitive than I had ever hoped. Our class discussions have been friendly, constructive and collaborative. And you and Dan have been extremely helpful, encouraging, and approachable. It's been a lot of fun...can't for the second half!!
So far, I think the class divides nicely between the material I expected to study and the topics that I either didn't know about or didn't think we'd work with. For example, web design, blogging, and digital image manipulation seem like basic technological tools that I had hoped to learn more about, and sure enough I have. These are the types of "new technologies" I wrote about in an earlier post that I have always intimidated me. C++ or JAVA coding were formulaic, logical exercises for me. Excel and Mathematica offered computational aids that I was always comfortable with. But these net-based tools felt like the sort of things my students used that I would never quite master. What strikes me most about these technologies is how intuitive and easy to use they are. Blogging in particular isn't really any different than keeping a journal or sending an email. And although the website development we've studied required some newly acquired knowledge about various file types or new applications (like Nvu or Kompozer), the basic building blocks fit together rationally. I'm encouraged by how quickly I've learned these new skills and grateful for the clear, accessible manner these topics have been presented.
But like I said, some of the concepts we've studied were totally new and unexpected to me. The Inspiration concept maps, for example, were completely novel to me. But I was really impressed to see how versatile they were--probably even more so for the lower / middle school or humanities teacher, but for math / science teachers like me, too. Photostory 3 offered another new application that I never anticipated studying. I was obviously familiar with those "Ken Burns-style" documentaries, but I was amazed to see how easy they were to produce. I'm not sure that this will translate as directly to my classroom, but it offers one more interface that I can use to tailor my lessons to a wide variety of students.
Probably the topic I least expected to investigate in this class was the educational philosophy offered in the UDL readings. More than any other concept or skill, I think that this theory will help inform my teaching style. The basic tenets of adding value, implementing technology towards specific goals, and striving to cater to various learning styles are universally important notions that every instructor should strive to incorporate. I'm really grateful for the exposure to those readings, and strongly encourage you to continue using them--and maybe spend even more time on them--in the future.
So far, the biggest challenge for me has been the same obstacle I anticipate encountering with classroom technology: efficiently identifying the useful attributes of a tool while avoiding the less-helpful, more time-consuming facets. Inspire was very helpful in organizing my thoughts on some of our readings. But the preponderance of options, images, connections, etc. were enough to distract from my ultimate goal and I got a bit carried away. This is the same trap that I have observed other teachers fall into: technology for technologies sake detracts from education rather than add to it. Inefficient, poorly planned implementation of these tools violates the UDL system and inhibits learning. This experience has served as a reminder that the power of technology brings with it an additional obligation on the user: time in planning and frequent self-assessment of the effectiveness of use.
Going forward, I hope that I have the opportunity to investigate more discipline-specific technologies (perhaps in the context of the "links" I will include on my website), and I look forward to receiving feedback from my instructors on my progress, so I can continue to grow and improve. But the first half of the summer has been more informative and more intuitive than I had ever hoped. Our class discussions have been friendly, constructive and collaborative. And you and Dan have been extremely helpful, encouraging, and approachable. It's been a lot of fun...can't for the second half!!
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Blog Post #7: Implications of Copyright Issues for Educators
I hold intellectual property and its creators in high regard. The creative process is a painstaking one, and I feel strongly that the artists, scholars, and other individuals that spend their time, effort and passion to create a work should control their finished product. Not only is their creation an important personal accomplishment with sentimental value, but it's often times the means by which they make their living. Even when I was in school and Napster and other music sharing sites were increasing in popularity, I remained opposed to unfairly attaining an artist's hard work without compensating them or attaining their permission. And I'm pretty sure that as educators and academics, many of my peers and colleagues agree.
As such, I would never want to plagiarize in my classroom or set the example for my students that "borrowing" intellectual property was acceptable. So I was pleased to have the opportunity to learn more about fair use and copyright restrictions. After reading the article by E. Langran, R. Langran, and G. Bull, the issue seemed simple enough. If we as educators use materials for education only and consider the four-factors of fair use (purpose, nature of the work, amount of use and effect on the market), we could safely avoid copyright violations.
But in completing the copyright exercise and considering some examples, the complexity of the issue became apparent. What do we do when two of the factors suggest we may use the work and two suggest we cannot? If we personally own a DVD and use it for educational purposes, we may show it, but what if we taped it off air? Well then additional restraints about the time in which we show the program apply. Questions about playing music as part of a presentation or including a cartoon on a slide seem innocent and simple enough. But these questions sent me scouring through the various web resources provided, and I quickly grew frustrated. It seemed so COMPLICATED!
Luckily, the resources provided along with some additional searching of my own eventually elucidated all of these issues. But the issue is clear: even with the best of intentions, it's easy to violate these laws. A simple image aimed at grabbing attention or spicing up a presentation might be a violation of some artists creative rights. An online program or applet that serves the needs of our students might be in the best interest of their learning...but that doesn't mean we're allowed to use it!
In the end I take away a similar lesson to that I gained from our UDL reading. To adhere to these standards properly, careful consideration is required in planning. Grabbing an image, sound file, or program off the internet at the last second could lead to unintended transgressions. And at an academic institution, none of us want to disrespect creativity. So we must take our time, do our research, and consider the choices we make in preparing our presentation. And by doing so, hopefully we encourage our students to do the same.
As such, I would never want to plagiarize in my classroom or set the example for my students that "borrowing" intellectual property was acceptable. So I was pleased to have the opportunity to learn more about fair use and copyright restrictions. After reading the article by E. Langran, R. Langran, and G. Bull, the issue seemed simple enough. If we as educators use materials for education only and consider the four-factors of fair use (purpose, nature of the work, amount of use and effect on the market), we could safely avoid copyright violations.
But in completing the copyright exercise and considering some examples, the complexity of the issue became apparent. What do we do when two of the factors suggest we may use the work and two suggest we cannot? If we personally own a DVD and use it for educational purposes, we may show it, but what if we taped it off air? Well then additional restraints about the time in which we show the program apply. Questions about playing music as part of a presentation or including a cartoon on a slide seem innocent and simple enough. But these questions sent me scouring through the various web resources provided, and I quickly grew frustrated. It seemed so COMPLICATED!
Luckily, the resources provided along with some additional searching of my own eventually elucidated all of these issues. But the issue is clear: even with the best of intentions, it's easy to violate these laws. A simple image aimed at grabbing attention or spicing up a presentation might be a violation of some artists creative rights. An online program or applet that serves the needs of our students might be in the best interest of their learning...but that doesn't mean we're allowed to use it!
In the end I take away a similar lesson to that I gained from our UDL reading. To adhere to these standards properly, careful consideration is required in planning. Grabbing an image, sound file, or program off the internet at the last second could lead to unintended transgressions. And at an academic institution, none of us want to disrespect creativity. So we must take our time, do our research, and consider the choices we make in preparing our presentation. And by doing so, hopefully we encourage our students to do the same.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Blog Post #6: Discussion of my Content Area Standard
As I discussed in my earlier post, I've chosen the following content standard as my focus in this class:
This standard applies to both my upper and middle school classes, since both deal with various algebraic concepts and strive to relate them practical applications. Even better, the focus on modeling, relation to real-world examples, graphing, and technology (see f above) all lend themselves nicely to the content of our course.
Visual learning is key to understanding these concepts. Although I aim to instill the notion that graphical representations are just a TOOL for understanding algebra (ideal for visual learners, but not for others), many students struggle to grasp the notion of derivative without visual aids. Integration (typically defined as area under a curve) is even more challenging without a graph or picture. And these graphs are often painstaking to create, and impractical to generate accurately. But tools like TI calculators or CAS emulators allow for easy interface and effective visualization.
These graphical tools satisfy many of the requirements of this standard. But I think that there is room for technology in the simple, everyday organization of my classroom. As I noted in an earlier post, inspiration could serve as a means of relating ratios, rates, and percents--a topic that confuses some students. Even the complex notions of limit, derivative, and integral (with their respective applications) get confused. A simple outline relating these topics and noting their differences might help the students maintain their grasp on the proverbial forest, despite the trees.
Inspiration would not really lend itself well to analyzing algebraic transformations or parametric changes, but this organization could prove useful. And were I to ever teach a combinatorics or probability course, the tree-building functionality could prove quite appropriate for problem-solving.
In short, the more technology I can utilize to convey concept visually, the better. Whether these concepts are basic notions of arithmetic or advanced topics in Calculus, the new graphical and imagining tools I've encountered offer additional options for shaping my curricula.
Algebra and Functions | |||
| Content Standard 9: Students will use algebraic skills and concepts, including functions, to describe real-world phenomena symbolically and graphically, and to model quantitative change. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
This standard applies to both my upper and middle school classes, since both deal with various algebraic concepts and strive to relate them practical applications. Even better, the focus on modeling, relation to real-world examples, graphing, and technology (see f above) all lend themselves nicely to the content of our course.
Visual learning is key to understanding these concepts. Although I aim to instill the notion that graphical representations are just a TOOL for understanding algebra (ideal for visual learners, but not for others), many students struggle to grasp the notion of derivative without visual aids. Integration (typically defined as area under a curve) is even more challenging without a graph or picture. And these graphs are often painstaking to create, and impractical to generate accurately. But tools like TI calculators or CAS emulators allow for easy interface and effective visualization.
These graphical tools satisfy many of the requirements of this standard. But I think that there is room for technology in the simple, everyday organization of my classroom. As I noted in an earlier post, inspiration could serve as a means of relating ratios, rates, and percents--a topic that confuses some students. Even the complex notions of limit, derivative, and integral (with their respective applications) get confused. A simple outline relating these topics and noting their differences might help the students maintain their grasp on the proverbial forest, despite the trees.
Inspiration would not really lend itself well to analyzing algebraic transformations or parametric changes, but this organization could prove useful. And were I to ever teach a combinatorics or probability course, the tree-building functionality could prove quite appropriate for problem-solving.
In short, the more technology I can utilize to convey concept visually, the better. Whether these concepts are basic notions of arithmetic or advanced topics in Calculus, the new graphical and imagining tools I've encountered offer additional options for shaping my curricula.
Blog Post # 5b: UDL
The reading on UDL was so jam-packed with helpful and inter-connected ideas that I found the webspiration software to be incredibly helpful in note-taking. Attached below is my concept map:
UDL Reflection:
After all of our discussion about the various advantages of educational technology, I have to admit I was feeling a growing sense of guilt. Don't get me wrong: I use technology in my classroom. But, as the CAST website suggests, I frequently re-use the same tools repeatedly. Either because I feel that they are the best aids available (perhaps because they are the most effective for me personally?) or because of the ease and efficiency gained from my familiarity, I definitely rely on a few bits of technology (SmartNotebook, Mathematica, Sketchpad, some JAVA applets, TI graphing calculators, Google Sketch-up, Wolfram Math, Mathworld.com...), and I rarely search for additional options unless I find the class (as a whole) struggling. But I don't think any of us deny the potential benefits of incorporating more varied software or given the students more options. The versatility and ability to transform highlighted in the CAST article (even more than the "mark"-ability and "network"-ability) would be particularly beneficial to students who frequently grow frustrated when they "just can't see it," in Calculus or Advanced Algebra.
But I've grown frustrated because those steps seem implausible...or at least very difficult. Identifying additional options for disgraphic students after hours--even days--of planning a unit on integration is not only daunting; it's nearly terrifying. The UDL framework encourages specific approaches for achieving recognition learning (more varied and flexible means of presentation), strategic learning (more flexible apprenticeship), and affective learning (more flexible engagement). And--especially when specific classroom examples were offered--it's difficult to deny the value of these endeavors. I just didn't see how I could realistically adjust my curricula to achieve those lofty goals.
That's why I appreciated CAST's discussion of proper implementation more than any other portion o this very dense and informative introduction to UDL. Aside from offering broad guidelines for rethinking our practices (clearly stated goals, implementing individualized technology, and frequently assessing our progress), the author makes a crucial and compelling distinction between assistive technology and true UDL. Assitive technologies are add-ons, band-aids. Like the make-shift ramp tacked onto a side entrance to allow for wheel chair access, these tools are ungainly, often costly, and inefficient. And they ONLY serve the disabled learner--often in a way that singles them out or awkwardly differentiates them from the larger group. True, elegant UDL must begin in the planning stages. Like the futuristic, sleek elevator at the Louvre, UDL must be a basic, central component of the syllabus--not an after-thought.
So why did this allay my guilt? This level of preparation and careful planning demands even MORE work, right? Well, sure. But it also makes it clear that correct UDL-implementation can't possibly be achieved overnight. Or even over the course of a few weeks. And it really shouldn't be undertaken alone. Just as Dexter noted for us earlier, technology implementation should be approached not just as a solo teacher, but as a grade level, a department, a division, or a full faculty. Of course I'm intimidated by trying to change my integration unit to incorporate other types of learners. That change needs to be debated with my peers and framed in the context of a school-wide technology philosophy--which hopefully incorporates these UDL principles.
I still feel the need to change some practices and allow for more flexibility. I don't feel as though I've been dismissed from any obligation to work in more options and more flexibility. But I can make a start of it, and pursue a faculty-wide initiative to make the BIG changes. That rather intuitive observation helps make this whole idea seem more attainable...even if it still sounds like a lot of work! But like Lisa Lingo suggests in her article, we can start small, aiming to incorporate just one of the broad goals of UDL, and build from there.
UDL Reflection:
After all of our discussion about the various advantages of educational technology, I have to admit I was feeling a growing sense of guilt. Don't get me wrong: I use technology in my classroom. But, as the CAST website suggests, I frequently re-use the same tools repeatedly. Either because I feel that they are the best aids available (perhaps because they are the most effective for me personally?) or because of the ease and efficiency gained from my familiarity, I definitely rely on a few bits of technology (SmartNotebook, Mathematica, Sketchpad, some JAVA applets, TI graphing calculators, Google Sketch-up, Wolfram Math, Mathworld.com...), and I rarely search for additional options unless I find the class (as a whole) struggling. But I don't think any of us deny the potential benefits of incorporating more varied software or given the students more options. The versatility and ability to transform highlighted in the CAST article (even more than the "mark"-ability and "network"-ability) would be particularly beneficial to students who frequently grow frustrated when they "just can't see it," in Calculus or Advanced Algebra.
But I've grown frustrated because those steps seem implausible...or at least very difficult. Identifying additional options for disgraphic students after hours--even days--of planning a unit on integration is not only daunting; it's nearly terrifying. The UDL framework encourages specific approaches for achieving recognition learning (more varied and flexible means of presentation), strategic learning (more flexible apprenticeship), and affective learning (more flexible engagement). And--especially when specific classroom examples were offered--it's difficult to deny the value of these endeavors. I just didn't see how I could realistically adjust my curricula to achieve those lofty goals.
That's why I appreciated CAST's discussion of proper implementation more than any other portion o this very dense and informative introduction to UDL. Aside from offering broad guidelines for rethinking our practices (clearly stated goals, implementing individualized technology, and frequently assessing our progress), the author makes a crucial and compelling distinction between assistive technology and true UDL. Assitive technologies are add-ons, band-aids. Like the make-shift ramp tacked onto a side entrance to allow for wheel chair access, these tools are ungainly, often costly, and inefficient. And they ONLY serve the disabled learner--often in a way that singles them out or awkwardly differentiates them from the larger group. True, elegant UDL must begin in the planning stages. Like the futuristic, sleek elevator at the Louvre, UDL must be a basic, central component of the syllabus--not an after-thought.
So why did this allay my guilt? This level of preparation and careful planning demands even MORE work, right? Well, sure. But it also makes it clear that correct UDL-implementation can't possibly be achieved overnight. Or even over the course of a few weeks. And it really shouldn't be undertaken alone. Just as Dexter noted for us earlier, technology implementation should be approached not just as a solo teacher, but as a grade level, a department, a division, or a full faculty. Of course I'm intimidated by trying to change my integration unit to incorporate other types of learners. That change needs to be debated with my peers and framed in the context of a school-wide technology philosophy--which hopefully incorporates these UDL principles.
I still feel the need to change some practices and allow for more flexibility. I don't feel as though I've been dismissed from any obligation to work in more options and more flexibility. But I can make a start of it, and pursue a faculty-wide initiative to make the BIG changes. That rather intuitive observation helps make this whole idea seem more attainable...even if it still sounds like a lot of work! But like Lisa Lingo suggests in her article, we can start small, aiming to incorporate just one of the broad goals of UDL, and build from there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)