GAME Reflections



(Image Source:  http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mirrors-edge.jpg)


Teachers, by the very nature of their chosen profession, are lifelong learners. Although they seek the perfection of their craft, their satisfaction comes only from progress toward, rather than arrival at, that elusive goal. Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s (2009) GAME plan offers a formula for self directed learning through goal setting, action, monitoring, and evaluation that teachers can use to guide their personal professional development.


At the outset of my own implementation of the GAME plan method, I focused on Standard 2, which encourages teachers to “design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessments incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS•S,” with a particular concentration on indicators “c. customize and personalize learning activities to address students’ diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools and resources” and “d. provide students with multiple and varied formative and summative assessments aligned with content and technology standards and use resulting data to inform learning and teaching” (p. 1). I decided the best measure of my achievement would be the new and effective applications of technology I would employ to enhance and assess my students’ learning experiences. By this measure, I made progress toward my goal.

With goals established, I began to gather information about technological resources available for developing learning experiences and assessments and deciding which would best reflect both content-area goals and my students’ learning needs. I used an array of resources for this, including independent research through Internet and other sources and collaboration with colleagues and students online (through tools such as weblogs, wikis, and listservs) and in person (Prensky, 2008). I have also learned much about digital tools and their applicability to teaching and learning from formal coursework, both through my current course and through review of materials from previous classes (Cennamo et al., 2009; Laureate Education, Inc., 2009; Prensky, 2008). Of course, many of the most valuable learning experiences are far from formal. One productive meeting with a fellow AP teacher even took place in a game of Red Dead Redemption on the Playstation 3 console. Through these avenues, I discovered many exciting approaches to teaching and assessing with technology using both materials specifically designed for teaching and applications originally designed not for school use, but for business, productivity, and entertainment.

Throughout this process, I continued to monitor both my learning and my application of what I had learned to my practice. Along the way, I abandoned some resources that failed to reward my time investment while more deeply exploring those that yielded valuable information. I found that many of the most useful learning and assessment technologies I had not formerly employed had been available to me all along, either as free applications (such as digital storytelling, screencasting, and audio production software) or as features and potentials of programs I use every day (such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint). As I assessed my progress, I adjusted my learning methods to improve the results.

As a result of new learning, my teaching has changed significantly. I now incorporate more student-centered learning methods into my lessons, using digital technologies for support. I am using new digital tools and familiar digital tools in new ways. I have created problem-based learning experiences, collaborative assignments using Web 2.0 technologies, and a digital storytelling assignment that will serve both as profoundly complex learning experiences and as powerful assessments. And I am helping my students to develop independence as self-directed learners by sharing the GAME plan method with them (Cennamo et al., 2009).

It is impossible now to explain the total effect this course has had on my teaching practice. Rather, I expect to reap the benefits of this approach to personal professional development for years to come.



References



Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.



Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore: Author.





Prensky, M. (2008, March). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40-45.

Using the GAME Plan Process with Students

Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s (2009) GAME plan approach can be a valuable guide for lesson planning, as its principles are applicable to any learning experience and, indeed, any endeavor. It stands to reason, then, that teachers interested in helping students develop self-directed learning (SDL) habits would want to give them tools such as the GAME plan for their own use.


Regardless of whether their efforts are directed by teacher mandate or self-motivation, most scholars begin successful learning experiences by setting meaningful and attainable goals. Like the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) (2008) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS•T), their Standards for Students (NETS•S) provide a solid framework that can be used in concert with curricular requirements or self-imposed aspirations to guide this phase of the learning process. Only when goals are clearly established can a focused plan of action be developed and implemented. This stage of the GAME plan process is particularly important for reducing students’ reliance on teacher direction and for developing their independence.

Of course, just as teachers must monitor and adjust their own approaches to teaching and learning, so must young learners, whose plans are often less prescient than those of more experienced scholars, monitor and adjust their self-directed learning. The GAME process can help to formalize such in-process reflection, often allowing learners to gain valuable insights into their personal learning styles and preferences.

The evaluation phase is both an aid to learning technology and curricular skills and content and an important reminder of the ongoing, recursive nature of lifelong learning. Although the word “Evaluation” suggests a final, summative assessment, it is important to recognize that this merely punctuates one phase of a larger, continuous cycle of personal intellectual development.

If this line of reasoning seems to blur the distinction between teachers and students, this is entirely appropriate, as the two roles are inextricably intertwined in the mind of the self-directed learner.

References


Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). NETS for teachers 2008. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2008.htm

Revising My GAME Plan

(Image Source:  http://www.baltimorecitycouncil.com/SchoolSpot.htm, Dunbar High School's late, beloved Coach Bejamin Eaton) 

The focus of my recent efforts toward personal professional development has been the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) (2008) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS•T) Standard 2, indicators c. and d.:


Standard 2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments

Teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS•S. Teachers:

c. design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity.

d. provide students with multiple and varied formative and summative assessments aligned with content and technology standards and use resulting data to inform learning and teaching.


I have approached this goal using Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s (2009) GAME plan, in which I decided goals upon which to take action, monitored my progress to make adjustments, and evaluated the results. This is only the first phase of a cycle of goal setting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation that I expect to continue throughout my career—not only for these indicators, but in all aspects of my professional development.



During this time, I have learned about new technologies and applications and have learned new ways to implement these and more familiar tools in ways that reflect pedagogical best practices. One of the greatest areas of growth has been in developing technology-supported problem and project-based learning experiences for students (Cennamo, et al., 2009). Another important lesson of this experience has been a reminder that authentic learning experiences and assessments need not be separate. In fact, formative assessments, both formal and informal, fully integrated into these learning experiences, can increase the quality of learning for both students and teachers. The vast and growing variety of possible learning experiences and tools to support them precludes the notion of complete expertise. My long-term goal is to keep up with changing technology and improve my acumen in implementing these in accordance with sound learning theory.


Of course, the two NETS•T indicators upon which I have concentrated in this particular round of professional growth represent only a small part of my technological professional development plan. I hope to reflect all of the technology standards for teachers and students in my practice, even if, like Benjamin Franklin in pursuit of his thirteen virtues (http://www.sfheart.com/FranklinsVirtues.html), I focus on just a couple at a time. I certainly hope to employ technology to “Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity,” to “Model Digital-Age Work and Learning,” and to “Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility” (ISTE, 2008). Because these goals, and good pedagogy in general, are interrelated, I have already demonstrated some of their indicators in my practice. Nevertheless, I recognize the value of deliberate attention to each in its turn. I expect that my familiarity with technological tools and their roles in creating meaningful learning experiences that I am developing through this process will continue to grow as I collaborate with colleagues both in-person and remotely, investigate best practices through regular research, and continue formal university coursework. These approaches have served me well in the past, and will continue to aid my growth as technology, learning theory, and my practice evolve.


References


Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.


International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). NETS for teachers 2008. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2008.htm

Evaluating My GAME Plan Progress

(Image Source:  http://www.globalgiants.com/archives/fotos3/HARRIS-CORPORATION-INSTANT%3DREPLAY-01.jpg )

            For the past few weeks, I have been developing and carrying out a plan to create authentic learning experiences tailored to individual students’ learning styles, strategies, and abilities and to employ a wide variety of formative and summative assessment strategies to inform instruction, employing the most effective available tools, in accordance with the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) (2008) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS•T) Standard 2, indicators c and d.  Following the steps of Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s (2009) GAME plan, I set goals, took action to meet those goals, and monitored my progress in order to adjust my plan in progress. Although this is an ongoing process that I do not foresee ending any time soon, I will take a moment here to evaluate my progress and the plan in general. 

            So far, the efforts I have made toward meeting my goals have proven effective.  I have secured technological tools to help me implement my plan and, where access to these was limited, have designed strategies, such as collaboration and staggered assignments, to ensure that all of my students have access to the resources they need.  Another important resource for implementing my plan is information.  I have found information through the formal instruction of Walden coursework, through Internet research, and through in-person and remote collaboration using Web 2.0 tools such as weblogs, wikis, Google Docs, RSS feeds, and the College Board’s Electronic Discussion Group (ELG) at AP Central.   (http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/homepage/7173.html). 

            More and more, I have found myself in the role of facilitator as my students take control of their learning experience.  Students work the keyboard attached to the LCD projector computer in order to create outlines and concept maps of text content that will later populate the course wiki as the class collaboratively constructs meaning from texts.  As my students develop independence in literacy skills and content knowledge required for authentic learning experiences and become accustomed to the rituals of this more collaborative classroom culture, I have been able to subtly remove some of the scaffolding I used to help them set up the routines that now stand on their own (Ertmer & Simons, 2006).  One important lesson I have learned is that relinquishing control often fosters students’ self-discipline.  When learners take on adult roles, they tend to manifest adult behavior.  This, alone, is a compelling argument for authentic instruction.

            I have developed and implemented ideas for using a wide variety of digital information, communication, and collaboration technologies in my classroom.  But the most important skill I and my students must continue to develop is the ability to adapt to new tools and new environments.  I can only imagine what technologies will define the classrooms and working environments of the next two decades, but I am determined that I and my students will be among the first to use them in accordance with pedagogical best practices to achieve curricular and technology standards.  So this evaluation is really more of a formative assessment.  I must continue to monitor and revise my personal professional development and the practice it informs.  I must constantly ask, “What new technological tools and applications will help my students prepare for college and the workforce next week, next month, next year, and in the years to come?” and “How can I use these tools to realize the most effective learning theory?”  This means that this iteration of my GAME plan is only the first of a perpetual process of goal setting, acting, monitoring, and evaluation that will continue throughout my career. 

References

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Ertmer, P., & Simons, K. (Spring 2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 40-54. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=ijpbl.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). NETS for teachers 2008. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2008.htm