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.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Blog Post #5a: eTips Concept Map
The Dexter eTips article was so chock-full of helpful suggestions and insights that when I was writing my reflection, I struggled with the choice of which principles and ideas to discuss. When I was taking notes on my reading, this was even more challenging. Despite my best efforts to be concise, I took four pages of notes in my notebook. And as I read, I frequently retraced my steps, change the ordering in my outline, etc. This wasn't really a waste of time. It helped me organize my thoughts and review the material carefully. Still....it was somewhat slow-going.
Appropriately, I really think that a concept map (especially one created with this type of software) could've helped. In fact, when I first learned to write an outline (back in fourth or fifth grade), we first started with this sort of brain-storming approach. We then drew lines to indicate connections, etc. And ultimately ended up with our outline.
Inspiration recreates this exact same process! So I was super excited to get to work on my map. I was so sure it would be so fast and efficient...
But I admit it: I got carried away. There were so many options. Images that could relate to the concept. Colors to identify different levels in my outline. Various "links," arrowheads,... Quite simply: I got distracted. And I was reminded of my favorite observation in Dexter's article: technology should support learning objective not distract from them.
The concept map I generated is below:
As you can see, it's a bit convoluted. But I don't think it's all bad. My thoughts are organized here. And even better, the associated outline is even more neatly delineated. That's posted below:
And if I really had used this software WHILE I was reading, I think that it could've have saved me a fair amount of time, allowing me to concentrate more on the content and less on my note-taking. And that's a result I'd expect Dexter to approve of.
Appropriately, I really think that a concept map (especially one created with this type of software) could've helped. In fact, when I first learned to write an outline (back in fourth or fifth grade), we first started with this sort of brain-storming approach. We then drew lines to indicate connections, etc. And ultimately ended up with our outline.
Inspiration recreates this exact same process! So I was super excited to get to work on my map. I was so sure it would be so fast and efficient...
But I admit it: I got carried away. There were so many options. Images that could relate to the concept. Colors to identify different levels in my outline. Various "links," arrowheads,... Quite simply: I got distracted. And I was reminded of my favorite observation in Dexter's article: technology should support learning objective not distract from them.
The concept map I generated is below:
And if I really had used this software WHILE I was reading, I think that it could've have saved me a fair amount of time, allowing me to concentrate more on the content and less on my note-taking. And that's a result I'd expect Dexter to approve of.
Even in my math classes, I think there's room for this sort of software. Describing the close relationships between fractions, decimals, percents, ratios and rates, for example, is sometimes a challenge with a few of my middle school students. I'm toying with the idea of opening this tool next year and updating it as we study each topic, to highlight the relationships and differences. This would only be an aside in my lesson, but I think it could be a useful exercise. And it could provide a visual frame of reference for students to look back on whenever they get confused.
I'll just have to avoid the potential distractions and pitfalls that the software offers, and focus only on the added value it can provide.
Blog Post # 4: Manipulated Digital Image
Before:
After:
I found this exercise more intuitive than I'd anticipated. Photoshop--like other media manipulation software--has always been one of those programs that I thought of as "new" and "too hip" for me. My students use these programs; my little cousins edit photos and email the revised versions to the family; those tech geniuses and "bloggers" out there on the web do this stuff. I manipulate spreadsheets and code computer algebra systems. I've always felt that I was much more "PC" than "MAC"...and this seemed like a decidedly "MAC" assignment.
But the work we did in Photoshop and in Fotoflexer came relatively easily. The multiple layers in photoshop took a little getting used to, but even that wasn't so bad. And I'm pleased with the final image that I generated. I took a picture that I liked to begin with, and did my best to "artsy" it up a bit. It was fun.
Interestingly, I did find myself compelled to over-do it a bit. I was tempted to draw in sunsets, compulsively changed the size and amount of "fade" on my border, played with color and boost for far longer than necessary...but there's a lesson in that, too. Just like with Inspiration, technology is only as efficient as the user. It's easy to get bogged down in the details, and lose site of the learning objective. I need to keep that in mind.
But I look forward to the occasions when I can incorporate this new skill in my classes. I won't be drawing sunsets or adjusting borders. But it is not uncommon at all that I find a geometric figure somewhere in my file library that ALMOST fits my needs. Rather than printing, drawing by hand, scanning, etc., now I hope to use my photoshop skills. I don't know that I'll have the same opportunities for classroom exercises with the students that some humanities instructors may encounter, but this should make my lesson-planning far more efficient.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
My Content Area Standard
While the CT Curriculum website (which Professor Cirino links to on her Schedule ) offers a number of intriguing standards for Upper School mathematics instruction, I've chosen the "Algebra and Functions" option as the focus for my study this summer. The text describing this standard (from the same CT Curriculum site referenced above) is quoted here:
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. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
Blog Post #3b: Thoughts on Blogging / Response to Teddy Bears go Blogging
I found Brenda Sherry’s account of her Teddy Bear Project, “Teddy Bear’s Go Blogging,” to be both encouraging and thought provoking. As reassuring as it was to hear this success story about effective classroom utilization of the internet, though, I was left wondering how I might reproduce this level of success in my seemingly unrelated classes. Blogs never seemed to fit into middle and upper school math classes.
Ms. Sherry’s project represents an ideal integration of blogging and curriculum. While she tells her reader that the her project “aims to promote tolerance and education about other cultures,” her students work clearly achieved much more than that. Aside from exposure to Australian customs, climates, diets and family life, Ms. Sherry’s class improved writing skills, honed collaboration techniques, and developed familiarity with word processing, blogging, and multi-media. This cross-continental endeavor allowed for growth in traditional disciplines—like reading, writing, communication—while fostering comfort with the critical tools of tomorrow that students’ will be required to use in future classes, jobs, and everyday interactions. And most importantly, the kids had fun! They took pride in their work, shared with their family members, showed initiative and ownership of their project, etc. In short, these youngsters exhibited the attitude toward learning that we as teachers hope to see in all our pupils: the love of attained knowledge and achieved goals, rather than obsession with grades and shortcuts.
But until now, my exposure to blogs and blogging has been limited to various sports reporters' and political pundits’ web-based journals. While these online resources offer insightful and timely news, I’ve never considered them as educational aids, and certainly not MATHEMATICAL tools. Even the few friends I have who actively blog seem to concentrate on the social-network or “fun” side of this new form of media. I admit that when I first saw we would be covering blogging on the syllabus, I wondered whether it could serve any real purpose for my math students. Still, the account of Ms. Sherry’s success was undeniable. Thanks to blogging, her students improved their writing, learned some critical computer skills, and found satisfaction in their schoolwork.
This last achievement—joy from one’s learning, pride in one’s work—is what struck me most and what I think I could emulate with my students. Blogging about Australian games and hobbies isn’t applicable to Calculus. But an online forum to communicate with other students is definitely appropriate for my courses. Developing sentence structure and verbal communication skills aren’t desired learning outcomes in my pre-algebra course. But mathematical communication sure is. And I may not want my students to spend substantial time learning about webdesign, but Ms. Sherry notes that the technical knowledge her class gained was secondary to the primary goal. An online project that would “[put] control in the hands of the learners,” could instill pride in a seventh grade math student just as easily as a second grade English class. Ms. Sherry's class showed how a blog could serve this purpose. Students might share their questions, solutions, thoughts, concerns, or comment on my notes--all in a medium they find fun, entertaining...dare I say "cool"? Increased communication and enjoyment can’t be a bad thing. Further, the prospect that these digital interactions could help change their attitude towards numbers is even more enticing.
And if in the process, my students become better writers, more efficient web designers, or effective tutors to their friends, all the better! There would definitely be obstacles to overcome: effective assimilation of a blog-based project into the curriculum would require extensive planning; requisite technical knowledge could substantially increase the time burden placed on the student (although blogger does seem pretty intuitive); and coordinating group work among students often presents logistical complications. Still, the success that the author enjoyed and the ease with which I was able to create my first blog have both inspired me to consider how I might meet those challenges in my classroom. Maybe blogging in math class makes sense after all.
Ms. Sherry’s project represents an ideal integration of blogging and curriculum. While she tells her reader that the her project “aims to promote tolerance and education about other cultures,” her students work clearly achieved much more than that. Aside from exposure to Australian customs, climates, diets and family life, Ms. Sherry’s class improved writing skills, honed collaboration techniques, and developed familiarity with word processing, blogging, and multi-media. This cross-continental endeavor allowed for growth in traditional disciplines—like reading, writing, communication—while fostering comfort with the critical tools of tomorrow that students’ will be required to use in future classes, jobs, and everyday interactions. And most importantly, the kids had fun! They took pride in their work, shared with their family members, showed initiative and ownership of their project, etc. In short, these youngsters exhibited the attitude toward learning that we as teachers hope to see in all our pupils: the love of attained knowledge and achieved goals, rather than obsession with grades and shortcuts.
But until now, my exposure to blogs and blogging has been limited to various sports reporters' and political pundits’ web-based journals. While these online resources offer insightful and timely news, I’ve never considered them as educational aids, and certainly not MATHEMATICAL tools. Even the few friends I have who actively blog seem to concentrate on the social-network or “fun” side of this new form of media. I admit that when I first saw we would be covering blogging on the syllabus, I wondered whether it could serve any real purpose for my math students. Still, the account of Ms. Sherry’s success was undeniable. Thanks to blogging, her students improved their writing, learned some critical computer skills, and found satisfaction in their schoolwork.
This last achievement—joy from one’s learning, pride in one’s work—is what struck me most and what I think I could emulate with my students. Blogging about Australian games and hobbies isn’t applicable to Calculus. But an online forum to communicate with other students is definitely appropriate for my courses. Developing sentence structure and verbal communication skills aren’t desired learning outcomes in my pre-algebra course. But mathematical communication sure is. And I may not want my students to spend substantial time learning about webdesign, but Ms. Sherry notes that the technical knowledge her class gained was secondary to the primary goal. An online project that would “[put] control in the hands of the learners,” could instill pride in a seventh grade math student just as easily as a second grade English class. Ms. Sherry's class showed how a blog could serve this purpose. Students might share their questions, solutions, thoughts, concerns, or comment on my notes--all in a medium they find fun, entertaining...dare I say "cool"? Increased communication and enjoyment can’t be a bad thing. Further, the prospect that these digital interactions could help change their attitude towards numbers is even more enticing.
And if in the process, my students become better writers, more efficient web designers, or effective tutors to their friends, all the better! There would definitely be obstacles to overcome: effective assimilation of a blog-based project into the curriculum would require extensive planning; requisite technical knowledge could substantially increase the time burden placed on the student (although blogger does seem pretty intuitive); and coordinating group work among students often presents logistical complications. Still, the success that the author enjoyed and the ease with which I was able to create my first blog have both inspired me to consider how I might meet those challenges in my classroom. Maybe blogging in math class makes sense after all.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Blog Post #2: Response to Dexter Article
Sara Dexter’s article “eTIPs—Educational Technology Integration and Implementation Principles,” discusses guiding principles for effective implementation of educational technology. Dexter divides these basic axioms between classroom maxims and school-wide principles. In reading the article, I found that I was instinctively comparing my own teaching and my own school environment to Ms. Dexter’s guidelines. This reflection on helped me to frame my understanding of how technology should work in the classroom and focus my attention on areas for improvement during this course and once I return to teaching next year.
I was pleased to observe that many of the guiding principles that this expert in the field offered were consistent with my personal approach to technology in the classroom. Dexter’s first principles states that desired learning outcomes or classroom objectives should “drive the selection of technology.” As self-evident as this maxim appears, I appreciate its simplicity and importance. It’s easy to become content with whichever application we’ve used most recently in the classroom, and to attempt to fit that technology to a new topic or project. For example, I grew very comfortable with the Smart Notebook software this year. When beginning a Geometry Unit with my seventh grade class, my first instinct was to use that applications graphing and figure-drawing capacities for my lessons. But I soon recognized the restraints of this approach. My lessons were far better served by Geometer Sketchpad and Google Sketch-up—applications that I needed to learn about but which led to far greater success and more effective visual learning for my students. Dexter goes on to note that technology should provide added value to teaching and learning. I think that this seemingly simple statement is perhaps the most important concept for effective implementation of classroom technology. In observing lessons, I have frequently observed that teachers are tempted to utilize technology for the technology’s own sake. The versatility of the Smartboard, power of the Youtube and other media, and even the entertainment value of various images and gifs are undeniable. To forsake these modern day tools in favor of more traditional means seems like a waste of potential. But when these tools are not implemented towards a specific, carefully chosen goal, they distract from the lesson and complicate the subject matter. Dexter writes that proper use of technology, “makes possible something that otherwise would be impossible or less viable to do.” And when I have successfully utilized JAVA applets to help communicate the complex concept of derivative or used graphing software to allow visualization of three dimensional objects, I’ve recognized this “added value” that Ms. Dexter references. The temptation to use these tools regularly can sometimes distract from the ultimate object of the curriculum.
The author also discusses the potential of technology to aid in assessment—an area where my teaching can definitely improve. I frequently incorporate online games or quizzes to allow students to self-assess or to review near the end of classes or units. But Dexter discusses in depth the opportunities for both formative and summative assessment offered by various programs. She mentions software that collects formative data in use by students—tools which I am have not used and which I am not even familiar with. The article also highlights the value of multi-media or presentation projects that require understanding, mastery of interface and communication of concepts. This sort of assignment would require a fair amount of planning, but would be an ideal fit for my advanced mathematics class for gifted twelfth graders. I have also considered the use of Moodle quizzes, in class “clicker” questionnaires, and other frequent assessments to gauge student understanding. After reading about the importance of these techniques, I am further motivated to pursue these technologies.
Dexter goes on to discuss her school level principles. Since I’m fortunate enough to teach at a financially affluent private school, budgetary restraints on resources are a rare occurrence. I frequently comment on how lucky we are to have such support from the administration and parents’ association. Any time I have made a request for laptops, computers or other devices, my technology department has been completely accommodating. This sort “convenient and flexible access to” technology is a key requirement of a healthy technology policy, according to Dexter. Furthermore, instructional sessions introducing tools like campus email, Moodle, FAweb gradebook and other tools are commonplace at the beginning of the academic year. I had always taken for granted that my school was providing exceptional support for my technology needs and upon initial inspection it would appear that they are satisfying both of Dexter’s requirements: easy access and ready support.
But the article is careful to note that broad training sessions are not a sufficient means of “support.” It’s also important to reflect on the amount of trouble-shooting assistance available to teachers. A lack of timely assistance with hardware or software problems could (or should) preclude curriculum that rely heavily on high tech aids. Delayed response time to rather urgent problems is definitely an issue at my school—as it would be at any large institution—and this should give me some pause when planning future syllabi. If my entire lesson, unit, or course could be derailed by relatively simple errors, the risk of such a plan far outweighs the rewards. And further, Dexter discusses the critical nature of reflection, discussion, and feedback
So this paper, which at first seemed to highlight some obvious requisite principles for successful education technology implementation, spurred me to quite a bit of reflection. Personally, I am proud of many of my applications of software in my classroom—mostly as a tool to reinforce understanding and allow mastery of complex concepts through visualization and “scaffolded” learning. But I have plenty of room for improvement, particularly in terms of both formative and summative assessment. At the school level, I am blessed with ample financial and hardware support, with critical training sessions available to all. But the threat of inefficient trouble-shooting and the lack of effective reflection and feedback from our personal represent areas where the institution can progress. I look forward to further investigating these concepts and principles this summer and sharing my conclusions with my students and colleagues in the fall.
Blog post #1: Current Level of Technological Knowledge and Comfort
While I consider myself a generally-informed, internet savvy technology user, I recognize that there's a lot I can learn from this class. After years working in the financial services industry, I am confident in my mastery of many MS Office Applications like Excel, Word and PowerPoint. With a year's teaching experience, I have grown comfortable with some educational tools like Smart Notebook and Moodle. And I even have some limited exposure to more subject-specific programs like Mathematica and Geometer Sketchpad.
However, during our first class, I created my first ever blog post. Similarly, the prospect of creating a personal website from scratch is both daunting and intriguing. I've already observed that many of my students are more familiar than I with certain technologies, social networking mediums, and web-based applications--like media development, recording and posting youtube videos, blogging, social networking, etc.
My classroom incorporation of various videos, JAVA applets, interactive games, and computer-generated graphs have all proved rewarding and effective. But I admit that I could adopt increased online communication, digital story-telling, and interactive websites to better engage my students. My knowledge of many educational tools (e.g. Moodle) are sufficient to communicate assignments and share review sheets or solutions with my class. But if I allow myself to grow content with my limited mastery of these resources, I risk depriving myself and my students of the full array of technological advantages at our disposal.
I view this class as an opportunity to improve my comfort level with tools I have already used and gain exposure to new, exciting applications. Webdesign, wiki development, and nonlinear PowerPoint files are all new concepts to me, but they seem to offer powerful, effective technologies that I look forward to learning about and using in my future syllabi. I hope that I will leave this class as a more effective, more engaging, more informed teacher.
However, during our first class, I created my first ever blog post. Similarly, the prospect of creating a personal website from scratch is both daunting and intriguing. I've already observed that many of my students are more familiar than I with certain technologies, social networking mediums, and web-based applications--like media development, recording and posting youtube videos, blogging, social networking, etc.
My classroom incorporation of various videos, JAVA applets, interactive games, and computer-generated graphs have all proved rewarding and effective. But I admit that I could adopt increased online communication, digital story-telling, and interactive websites to better engage my students. My knowledge of many educational tools (e.g. Moodle) are sufficient to communicate assignments and share review sheets or solutions with my class. But if I allow myself to grow content with my limited mastery of these resources, I risk depriving myself and my students of the full array of technological advantages at our disposal.
I view this class as an opportunity to improve my comfort level with tools I have already used and gain exposure to new, exciting applications. Webdesign, wiki development, and nonlinear PowerPoint files are all new concepts to me, but they seem to offer powerful, effective technologies that I look forward to learning about and using in my future syllabi. I hope that I will leave this class as a more effective, more engaging, more informed teacher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)