Online Learning in K-12 Schools

App4 gauldd

View more presentations from DouglasGauld.

What Is Emerging Technology, and Why Should We Care?

(Image Source:  http://media.photobucket.com/image/robot%20birth/mdudczak/470_robot20.jpg)

Dr. David Thornburg frames two definitions of “emerging technology” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). According to his own definition, emerging technology is that which is new to almost everyone, not yet widely adopted by any significantly large group in any context. He uses the Linux operating system, which is the standard in Brazil, as an example. According to Thornburg’s definition, this technology has matured by virtue of its adoption by a large demographic. But Thornburg also mentions Everett Rogers’ definition, proposed in his 1962 book Diffusion of Innovations, which allows an innovation to be called emergent in any community into which it is first being introduced (1995).


Rogers defines an innovation as “’an idea, practice, or project that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption,’” a definition that recognizes the local and personal character of novelty (Sahin, 2006, p. 14). In his book, Rogers uses the example of a failed attempt by the public health service in Peru to introduce the technology of boiling water to prevent disease to the village of Los Molinas (Rogers, 1995). Although this was common practice throughout much of the world at the time of its introduction to the villagers, this technology was, to them, emergent, new, just as the Linux operating system is currently new to most communities in the United States, where Windows is the standard. While these examples fit Rogers’ definition of an emergent technology, they fail to meet the higher (and, I think, less practically relevant) standard of universal novelty preferred by Thornburg.

Dr. Elliot Soloway’s three criteria for determining when a technology has moved from emergent to emerged—cost, reviews, and essential personal use—could be applied to either a universal or a more parochial context (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). He considers a technology to be mature when the cost has dropped, when reviewers (both professional and amateur) have given their approval, and when it has become widely accepted as required. He sees this as occurring in four phases, separated by chasms that must be vaulted. First, early adopters (insiders and enthusiasts who might make up ten percent of a given population) embrace a new technology. Their reports of positive experiences might inspire an “early majority” to adopt the technology and they, in turn, catalyze adoption by a “late majority.” If the technology becomes ubiquitous, it is likely that some of the last, reluctant ten percent may even feel compelled to accept this new tool. This, according to Sahin (2006), is a variation on the bell curve proposed by Rogers, in which adventurous innovators represent 2.5%, early adopters are 13.5%, an early majority and late majority are 34%, and laggards make up 16% of those who will eventually adopt a fully emerged innovation.

Rogers defines adoption of a technology or innovation as “a decision of ‘full use of an innovation as the best course of action possible’” (Sahin, 2006, p. 14). What compels me and my peers to make this decision? The best reason would be that we see that the innate advantages of the innovation make it the best available choice. Another compelling motive for adoption is that the technology has become the standard. In this case, whether a technology has become a universal standard or merely the local standard in my community of practice, adoption would seem a logical course unless I have compelling personal reasons against it. Similarly, if I have adopted an emerging technology and believe that it should reach maturity as the standard, either locally or universally, my best arguments are based on the merits of the technology itself. For me, then, any innovation that is new to most members of the community of practice in which it is being introduced, and has merits which warrant and make likely its widespread adoption, is emerging. Any such technology that has become the standard in this community of practice can be said to have emerged or matured. Although Thornburg (2009) feels the characterization is unfair to the innovators who first develop and embrace new technologies, I must agree that “’Emergence’” is “in the eye of the beholder” (p. 4).

One technology that is just beginning to emerge in my community of practice is Promethean World’s ActivInspire presentation software (http://support.prometheanplanet.com/server.php?show=nav.19251&changeCountry=United+States). So far as I know, only one other teacher in my school (an innovator or early adopter, depending on whether we use Rogers’ or Soloway’s classification system) is using this tool in daily instruction. Although this software was released in 2009, it will be new to me and most of my colleagues, so I aim for early adopter status. In keeping with the pattern Soloway proposed, a peer’s positive review and demonstration convinced me to try a tool that may one day become the standard for classroom presentation (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). Watching my colleague use this tool with Wacom’s Bamboo tablet and a digital whiteboard, I was able to experience the software’s advantages over what I now see as last-generation presentation software like PowerPoint (http://www.wacom.com/index2.php).

It would benefit my colleagues and me to see this emerging technology advance to maturity in my school and school system. If teachers in my school wish to use this tool now, they must get access to one of three digital whiteboards available in the building or purchase a tablet input device and they must petition our system’s technology department for permission and access codes to install the program on classroom computers. If the system accepts this software as the standard, it, like PowerPoint, will be automatically installed on all school computers and requisite hardware will be provided.

In order to make this happen, however, early adopters must, as my colleague has, promote this software amongst peers with a sort of missionary zeal. Sadly, the administration of our school system could fairly be characterized as technological laggards, so it is unlikely that the early majority, or even a significant portion of the late majority, will have the support they need to make this transition easily, despite the obvious advantages and intuitive nature of the software itself. I was using PowerPoint with an LCD projector (my own) for eight years before the school made enough projectors available, as it currently does, for only half of our teachers, a fact which has discouraged many in our potential late majority from using digital presentation at all.

I believe that a technology is emergent so long as it is on the rise, but not yet the standard, in a local community of practice. In my school, PowerPoint can still be said to be emerging, despite the introduction, among local innovators, of a likely successor application. Understanding the local nature of emergence is necessary to craft an effective strategy for fostering its adoption in a community. Part of this strategy can be a bandwagon appeal. If all other school systems, or the most successful schools, in Maryland are using an innovation, our system’s administration might be more likely to adopt it. However, one should not assume that just because this innovation has fully emerged elsewhere that local authorities will embrace it. The more geographically or sociologically remote the community in which the technology is standard is, the less likely it is that this peer influence will be effective. David Thornburg may assert that Linux is the standard in Brazil, but this fact is unlikely to carry much weight in Baltimore, where this information only adds to the exotic and somewhat frightening prospect of change (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).

In this case, the virtues of the technology itself are more likely to be persuasive. Recognizing that, despite its establishment elsewhere, Linux is alien to the local powers-that-be, we must consider the intrinsic advantages of local adoption. Our promotion should consider the values and priorities of the target community. Most American school systems today are plagued by crippling budgetary constraints. This seems more compelling than mere pedagogical concerns in determining system policies. Here, the advantages of free, open-source software are evident. How much could we save by eliminating software costs on Microsoft’s Windows and Office software alone, simply by using free, open-source alternatives? Of course, this rapier cuts both ways. If the system has already invested in a mature technology, it becomes more difficult to sell an innovation that would render the former investment obsolete, especially if we must convince those who recommended and authorized the previous investment.

The fact that Promethean World offers its ActivInspire presentation software free of charge is a selling point. On the other hand, support hardware, such as digital whiteboards and tablet input devices, are costly. Perhaps selling the schools on the free software first would get a camel’s nose under the proverbial tent. Once they had installed the software on our computers, it would be easy to argue that we were losing value by not having the hardware necessary to fully exploit it. Then, those who supported installation of the software would have a political stake in promoting purchase of the hardware. This, along with the vaunted intrinsic advantages of digital whiteboards and the bandwagon appeal of their growing adoption by county systems and innovative city schools, might be enough to make standard the tools my colleague has struggled to assemble in his classroom.


References


Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.


Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). New and Emerging Technologies. Baltimore: Author.

Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 14–23.

Thornburg, D. D. (2009). When is a technology emergent? Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.

Godfrey Gauld (my father) on English and the Future

ENGLISH AND THE FUTURE
Words are the primary tools used for human thinking and for communication with others. If I use a wood chisel to drive screws it does not do the job well and it is no longer satisfactory for shaping wood. If I persist in this carelessness with tools it becomes difficult to do any work at all and impossible to do accurate work. If I persist in using the wrong word, because it comes easily to the mind, is popular, is novel, or is impressive, it is not long before real thought becomes exceedingly difficult and accurate thought, impossible. What is important for both thinking and communicating thought is that no word has more than one meaning and that the meaning be precise.

There are two kinds of English used to day. The difference is the understanding of the meaning of the verb “will”. In the more rational form of English the verb “will” has only one meaning. It is used to express the subject’s decision or intention. I call this form of English 1will English. In the other form of English the verb “will” has three meanings: the decision or intention of the subject, the command of the subject by the speaker, and to form what has been called “simple future”. I call this form of English the 3will English.

Both forms of English have past and present tenses. These are indicated by inflection of the verbs. There are special forms of every verb that signal the hearer or reader whether the action or condition described is occurring in the present or occurred in the past. In neither form of English is there a verb form (inflection) to indicate the future. In 3will English the verb “will” is used instead of inflection to indicate that an action or condition is to be thought of as certain to occur in the future.

In 1will English the future is dealt with by stating present and past conditions and actions that may influence the future. It is left to the reader or hearer to decide what the future may be. The future is not determined by fate or by the speaker. The verb “will” expresses only the will of the subject. The meaning of the verb “will” is consistent with the meaning of the noun “will”. There is a word, shall, that expresses the will of the speaker for the actions or conditions of the subject. That is, the speaker assumes control over the actions and conditions of the subject. Notice that the control is only assumed. The future is not fated nor is it determined by the speaker. The will of thinking beings is recognized. Because our experience is that present or past conditions are, at least in principal, knowable and future conditions are not, 1will English corresponds to the situation in which we must make our decisions. In 1will English there is no confusion about the meanings of “shall” and “will”.

In 3will English the future is what the speaker says it is. Because our experience is that the future is unknowable, 3will English does not represent the situation in which we must make decisions. Furthermore, it suggests that we are not responsible for our future because our future is as the speaker, or fate, or God has decided: our wills are not important. There is also the problem of having three meanings for the same verb, two of which are inconsistent with the meanings of the noun “will”, the adjective “willing”, and the adverb “willingly”. For example: "He will go but he will not." This can mean that in the future he does go but not willingly. It can also mean that the speaker has the authority to order that he go but “he” is determined not to. In 1will English the second idea is rendered as, He shall go but he will not. Shall expresses the will of the speaker regarding the behavior of the sentence’s subject. In this case the subject is “he”.

There are situations in which intent is not involved. The 3will English treats these situations by using “will” to form a future tense of the verb. For example, “The tree will fall.” The tree, of course has no will. Things with out wills are treated the same as beings with wills. In 1will English the expected falling of the tree might be expressed as, “I think that the tree is going to fall.”, “It looks as if the tree is going to fall.”, or simply “The tree is going to fall.” The possibility of the tree falling in the future is expressed by stating present facts or referring to current observations.

The 3will form of English dominates today. It is this English that is used most consistently on radio and television. Advertisers, media personalities, and politicians prosper in situations where their visions of the future are not questioned. Furthermore more information and thought is involved in using 1will English and this can result in a pause in their pronouncements that might be interpreted as uncertainty. Because languages with future tenses often do not indicate the past or present conditions upon which their predictions are based, a translator may have to guess what the author meant in order to translate into 1will English because this English deals with the future by stating present or past conditions.

The most effective use of language, as is true of the use of any tool, cannot be learned entirely by observation; some instruction and study is essential. Today this is not happening because most educators do not realize, and have never been taught, that realistic English does not have a future tense.

One can infer that the language ability evolved because that ability was a help in surviving long enough to reproduce. We use language to make decisions that affect our survival and chances of reproducing. This is not now the only use to which we put our language ability but it is very important. The way we make decisions is to tell ourselves stories. The starting place of these stories is present conditions. The story line is based on our experience of how things have happened and on the decisions we are making. The best decisions are those resulting fro thorough review and criticism of the stories we use to make them. The structure of the language in which we tell our stories may have an important influence on the quality of our decisions.

If the story is told in a language that treats future events as being certain to happen, the planner may be led to believe that the story is the only possible outcome of the contemplated decisions. The planner may not recognize faults in the story because the language treats the future as being as certain: as certain as the past. These languages have future tenses. They assume that time is like a book where that which has not yet been read is written just as that which has been read was written before it was read.

If the story is told in a language that treats future events as expectations based on experience, present conditions, and expected future conditions, the planner is led to recognize the faults and uncertainties in the story. In these languages the book is only written up to the present and it is the responsibility of the planner to write the most plausible ending possible. English was such a language. Misuse of the word “will” is destroying this advantage.

Until the early twentieth century the word “will” was used to show decision or intent. In “Today’s English” and the “anything goes” dictionaries it now has three uses. It is used to indicate the “simple future” as in “The package will get there.” It is used to give a command as in “You will report for K.P.” It is still used to show the decision or intent of the subject as in “He will run for public office.” I call this misuse of the word because it results in false and self contradictory statements. In ancient times we would have said, “The package is going to get there.” and “You shall report for K.P.” There was no confusion and we preserved the advantages of understanding that the future is not determined by fate.

Evil has been defined as anything that cause a person to be thought of as a thing. Because our wills are inseparable from our sense of self, using the word “will” to describe the future of things is to treat people as things and to deny the importance of our wills?

If one expects a return to the English where the future is expressed by stating present expectations they are going to be disappointed but it can do no harm to adopt this form. Among other considerations is that if the future is described as if it were inevitable, there is not enough information to say why the future events are expected. A translator must infer what decisions and events resulted in the future described in the fatalistic language.

One can learn to use a language by observation but, as is the case with most tools, some instruction by one skilled in the use of the tool is necessary to get the best results. English is a popular language because, unlike many other languages, most users of English listens for what is meant, not what is said. It is popular to ignore or even adopt uncommon meanings for words and language structure in the name of cultural diversity or as a fad. Ignorance on the part of educators is also important. Precision of communication and thought have suffered.

You can read this only because you have language. There would have been no evolutionary advantage in an organism having language, or thought, or any kind of consciousness if all events, present past, and future, had been fixed in the beginning. The Greeks and Romans believed in fate. The idea of fate is very useful to those who’s prosperity depends on the idea that their underlings wills don’t matter. A future tense suggests that the future has been decided by fate and since this is a useless, and even dangerous idea, it is better that English does not have a future tense.

Using the word “will” to indicate a fated future event leads to misleading and often false statements. An example is, ”he will go but not willingly”. If his will is not to go, how can he go willingly? What is happening is that when we learned English we associated the word “will” with future events and no one explained to us that the speaker was saying what they expected to happen and giving the reason for the expectation. They were not saying what was inevitable. Note that one must use a Latin root to express the idea of fated. Eventually those that did understand died and there are few to explain to us. If “will” is accepted as an “auxiliary” to form an English future tense we have no way of telling if the speaker is indicating the subjects decision or the subjects fate. All confusion is easily eliminated when we realize that the way that the future is dealt with in English is to say what is expected and why it is expected. The expectation is in the present and the reason for the expectation is in the present.

In ”Today’s English” people are treated as things. For example, “It will rain tomorrow” and “He will travel tomorrow”. Either “It” has a will or “He” doesn’t. If we expect rain, we can state our expectation by saying “It looks like rain.” or “It is going to rain.” If “He” is compelled to travel by some authority we should say, “He shall travel” or if “He” is compelled by circumstances, “He must travel”. If we know “He”s’ mind it is accurate to say “He will travel”.

Many times we find the word “will” used where it serves no useful purpose. An example is “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. Why not “Trespassers are prosecuted”. I have trouble understanding why any trespasser would decide (will) to be prosecuted. He may have changed his mind by the time he is caught and decided not to be prosecuted.

Reflections on Reaching and Engaging All Learners through Technology



My senior English class has begun reading William Shakespeare’s Hamlet as part of their second unit, entitled “Shades of Grey: In-between Good and Evil” (MSDE, 2009). The curricular goals for this unit require students to apply appropriate during and after reading strategies (SC 1.1.4/ ECLG1.1.2, SC 1.1.3/ ECLG 1.1.3), identify and explain the implications of major themes (SC 1.2.2/ECLG 1.2.5), and effectively present particular perspectives on an idea or topic (SC 3.1.5/CLG 4.3.3) (MSDE, 2009). My unit plan was designed to accommodate my students’ diverse interests, learning profiles, and readiness in order to help them achieve shared curricular goals (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).

The most important way this unit differentiates instruction is by employing multiple methods of content delivery (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003; Laureate, 2009). It is important for any content, but especially for Shakespeare, to address students’ readiness, so I had students record and share their prior knowledge of Shakespeare’s language, life and times, and Elizabethan drama on KWL charts, first alone, then paired, and finally as a class, as I recorded on the overhead (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003). Predictably, my students’ prior knowledge in these categories varied widely, but needed development for most. The class then shared ideas for things to look for, recorded in the “Want to Know” section, before viewing a series of video clips on these three topics from the Discovery Education Streaming site at http://streaming.discoveryeducation.com/, during which they gathered information for the “Learned” columns on their personal charts. After each clip, student volunteers shared what they had learned as I recorded in the “Learned” column of the whole class KWL chart. This process was designed to appeal to the receptive strengths and affinities of learners’ diverse recognition networks while building their readiness for Shakespeare reading through examples (provided in the video clips), highlighting of critical features (both in the films and on the KWL chart), and presentation through multiple media forms (film, still images, KWL chart (Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner, 2006; Rose & Meyer, 2002).

To address students’ common discomfort with Elizabethan English, I paired them to trade playful slurs in original argument skits using a Shakespearean Insult Kit (http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/shake_rule.html). Most found this enjoyable, as it was designed to engage both interpersonal intelligence and exploit the appeal of humor (Moran, Kornhaber, & Gardner, 2006; Rose & Meyer, 2002). I even heard a few Elizabethan jibes in the hallway between classes.

We used a number of methods to establish purposes for reading. One was to introduce the main premise of the play through a drill question: “How would you react if your mother remarried, just two months after your father’s death, to your uncle?” Students reacted passionately to this question in discussion and, once its purpose was revealed, made predictions (which I posted on the wall for future reference and revision) about how the play would turn out—some surprisingly prescient.

Our second method of establishing purpose for reading was the development of a character map showing all major characters in the play and their important interactions and relations. The class map used Cmap Tools on the projection computer, while students could use pencil and paper, a computer, or a foam board with post-it notes and yarn to produce their own. One student chose to use Prezi (http://prezi.com/), which should produce an exciting result. Students were also presented with a short list of traditional questions to answer for each scene because many of my students request them, perhaps because they appeal to their strategic networks and scaffold comprehension (Rose & Meyer, 2002).

Students were also given a cumulative purpose for reading, preparation of a final group presentation of an act from the play using media and presentation forms they select, such as PowerPoints, digital stories, prose narratives, animated shorts, songs, or graphic novels. Groups will use modern language and radically alter some aspect of the setting to show how themes in the play apply to contemporary issues, but they must retain the basic plot. Groups were allowed to select the type of products they will create, but not the acts their groups will rework, which will be revealed after the class reading of the play. During the introduction of this assignment, students proposed additional ideas for presentation formats, which we listed and included as options for the assignment. Periodic collaboration in groups arranged to pair complimentary learning styles should help to compensate for differing attitudes toward each purpose for reading method.

With these purposes in mind, students began reading Hamlet after introduction of a few important, and likely unfamiliar, Elizabethan words. First, we viewed a film clip of Act I, scene I available on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hamlet+Act+I&aq=f). We will use the great variety of productions available on this site to examine various models of skilled performance as we switch from scene to scene (Rose & Meyer, 2002). In our discussion after viewing the scene, we evaluated and revised our predictions and discussed students’ questions. One question that the video clip we viewed left unanswered was whether the ghost of Hamlet’s father was real. When asked how we could find out, students proposed a number of Internet resources designed to provide easy answers, but agreed, based on advice from one of the pre-reading videos used to establish background, to consult the original text. Students opened their texts to Act I while I used the LCD projector and computer to present a multimedia version of the play on a CD Rom entitled Shakespeare Interactive: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (1996) that, in addition to the full text of the play, includes hyperlinks for difficult vocabulary and characters’ names, modern English explanations in the margin, and an audio track of a professional reading. During the reading, students were allowed to call “Stop!” to request a pause to read the margin notes, follow hyperlinks to definitions, replay portions of the program, and ask questions.

After the class reading, students set to work on questions, character maps, and notes for presentations, first individually, then in group debriefings with peers whose learning profiles differ for the purpose of scaffolding (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003). During this time, I had the opportunity to observe and interact with students for formative assessment, and was gratified to find that comprehension levels were higher than I have seen in traditional readings, and that students were engaged in higher level thinking and debate about issues in the play, and even about Shakespeare’s craft as a playwright.

We began the next session with three questions highlighting critical features of the first scene (“1. What do Francisco and Bernardo see on the battlements? 2. Why have they summoned Horatio? 3. What do they decide to do next?”) (Rose & Meyer, 2002). We then continued reading the play in this manner, ready to vary our method to accommodate students’ needs and interests.

After our reading of Act V, we will enjoy the One Minute Hamlet performed by the Famous Last Nerds troupe (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGPes8KWE0s), and other unusual treatments of the play’s content on YouTube in order to provide additional models of skilled performance to help students prepare final presentations. We also may attend a live performance or view one of the great contemporary film versions of the play before going to workshop on final projects.

As I expected, there were groans and imprecations when I announced that our next reading would be a Shakespeare play. Now that we have worked our way through the first iteration of our scene cycle, however, I am seeing a complete recovery of morale. In fact, I now hear groans when we pause at the end of the scene for debriefing. Through the power of digital information technology to differentiate content delivery for by readiness, interests, and learning profiles, my students are learning to love Shakespeare as they achieve curricular goals.



References



Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstructudl.html





Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Reaching and engaging all learners through technology. Baltimore: Author.



Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). (2009). Voluntary state curriculum for English: Grades 9-12. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.bcpss.org/webapps/cmsmain/webui/institution/CURRICULUM/English/English%20IV?action=frameset&subaction=view&uniq=-2q4gra&mask=/institution/CURRICULUM/English



Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating Multiple Intelligences. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 22-27. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.



Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/



Shakespeare Interactive: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [Software]. (1996). New York: Santa Fe New Media.

Synthesizing UDL and DI

Universal Design for Learning: An Introduction

View more presentations from gauldenglish.

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/HP_Owner.YOUR-AE066C3A9B/My%20Documents/Walden/EDUC-6714I-3%20Reaching%20and%20Engaging%20All%20Learners%20Through%20Technology/App4GauldD.mht

Student Profiles: Gathering Information about Students to Inform Instruction

(Image Source:  http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Education/Pix/pictures/2008/05/12/graduates460x276.jpg )


Carol Ann Tomlinson (2009) stresses the importance of understanding students’ interests, intelligence preferences, and learning styles in order to design learning experiences that will make the most of their strengths. One way to begin to understand new students as individuals is to employ surveys or inventories to gather information about their interests, learning styles, intelligence preferences, and other traits and conditions that may affect how they learn.


As I looked for interest surveys, I began to understand that one must have some understanding of the students for whom it will be used. For example, surveys should be age or grade appropriate. They should also be designed in a way that does not reflect false assumptions about the range of students’ interests. Many of my students, for example, probably would not know how to answer a question about which weekly news periodicals they prefer, but might give revealing responses to a more open-ended question about how they get their news. Interest surveys should also yield information that will be useful. I am not sure how I could use information about a student’s favorite color (although students inevitably share this in their September autobiographical essays or biographical essays about peers), but as an English teacher, I am certainly interested in the movies, stories, music, and even video games they prefer. As I browsed through search results, I found a couple of surveys that seemed fairly appropriate for my needs, but none was a perfect fit. Scholastic has a good general interest survey in PDF form at http://teacher.scholastic.com/LessonPlans/unit_roadtosuccess_invent.pdf. I could use this, but I might reword some questions, such as “My favorite book is…” to reflect a broader range of interests that might inform my decisions regarding literature we will read and our approaches to it. A group of English teachers from Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom who host a site called EnglishClub.com posted an interest survey for English language learners at http://edition.englishclub.com/tefl-magazine/student-interest-survey/ that asks some questions that I might use to enhance my own version. There were prompts I really liked on the Scholastic survey, such as “If I were surprised with a gift of $1,000 cash, I would use it to…,” and I really liked some of EnglishClub.com’s questions like “Go back to yesterday for a moment. What was the best part of your day?” I can imagine that students’ answers to these questions could reveal much about what they value and enjoy and this, in turn, could inform my planning. All of the interest surveys I liked allowed students to respond in their own words. Although information from these may be harder to tabulate, the individual responses are likely to be much more revealing.

To get specific information about how my students learn, I can administer a learning styles survey. I found that these tend, more often, to be forced-choice format. Again, I found I liked prompts from a couple of surveys, particularly North Carolina State’s Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire authored by Barbara Soloman and Richard Felder at http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html and The Center for New Discoveries in Learning’s The Personal Learning Styles Inventory for Students at http://www.howtolearn.com/lsinventory_student.html. The first, from Solomon and Felder, presents opposing pairs of learning styles, asking students to choose between them. The second, from the Center for New Discoveries in Learning, presents a list of learning preferences and asks students to check all that apply. I would like to use some questions from the first, but prefer the format of the second, so that students need not feel forced by either-or pairings to choose between options.

For assessing intelligence preferences, I liked the questions on the survey presented by the Learning Disabilities Resource Community at http://www.ldrc.ca/projects/miinventory/mitest.html, but am concerned that, by grouping prompts according to intelligences, it may unduly influence students’ responses. So I think my inventory will emulate more the style of Literacyworks’ survey at http://literacyworks.org/mi/assessment/findyourstrengths.html, which does not identify the intelligences associated with prompts until after all responses have been completed.

Carol Ann Tomlinson (2009) explains “learning profile” as a collective term used to refer to learning style, intelligence preference, gender, culture, and other factors influencing learning. This seems to indicate that a good learning profile survey should include, among other things, elements of the surveys I have previously discussed. Gender, culture, and other differences also have an influence on how students approach learning and respond to different types of learning experiences, so in addition to the information about interests, learning style, and intelligence preference that I will gather with prompts I have already found or created, and determinations about readiness I will make from analysis of diagnostic assessments, I will add to my comprehensive student survey prompts designed to elicit biographical information that may be influential in designing learning experiences (Bray, Brown, & Green, 2004; Tomlinson, 2009). Searching for an appropriate learning profile inventory is challenging because, as Tomlinson (2009) warns, many use the terms “learning style,” “intelligence preference,” and “learning profile” interchangeably. The Webster Groves School District in Webster, Missouri posted a fairly comprehensive learning profile inventory at http://schools.webster.k12.mo.us/education/page/download.php?fileinfo=NGxlYXJuZXJwcm9maWxlcy1tb2QtdHJpLU1JLXRyaS5wZGY6Ojovd3d3L3NjaG9vbHMvc2MvcmVtb3RlL2ltYWdlcy9kb2NtZ3IvMTkyM2ZpbGU5MjAxLnBkZg. Although this clearly reflects a more holistic approach to understanding students, and may be a model for my overall survey, it still seems to neglect potentially important information such as family culture, socio-economic status, access to resources, and gender.

None of these documents alone can reveal everything I will need to know about new students. Perhaps this goal is too lofty for any one survey, but I have attempted to create an inventory, hosted by http://www.surveymonkey.com/ and incorporating elements of all of the surveys I have examined, that will help me design learning experiences to meet my students’ learning needs. I have embedded this as a pop-up on my blog, 3sty Minds at http://3styminds.blogspot.com/2010/11/student-inventory-survey.html.


References


Bray, M., Brown, A., & Green, T. (2004). Technology and the Diverse Learner: A Guide to Classroom Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


Tomlinson, C. (2009). Learning profiles and achievement. School Administrator. 66(2), 28–33. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

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

Monitoring My GAME Plan Progress

Last week, I discussed steps I was taking toward carrying out my plan to implement the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) (2008) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS•T) Standard 2, indicators c and d, which call for teachers to create authentic learning experiences that cater to individual students’ learning styles, strategies, and abilities and to employ a wide variety of formative and summative assessment strategies to inform instruction, using the best tools currently available. Using Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s (2009) GAME plan, I started by setting goals which would inform actions, the results of which I would monitor in order to make adjustments throughout the process, which I would later evaluate.



In order to affect this change, I needed certain information and material resources. For example, I wanted to make sure that I had access to good ideas for using current technology to enhance instruction and assessment, and hoped to use colleagues’ experience to help me sort through the nearly infinite options available. During the past week, I have met with fellow AP teachers to exchange ideas. This in-person conversation, begun at a Saturday professional development meeting, continues now in the chat feature built in to a Google Docs document in which we are developing a collaborative plan for our AP classes. This Saturday, I plan to meet with other English teachers from around the city, who I hope to tap for ideas and invite into our online conversation. Another valuable collaborative environment has been the College Board’s Electronic Discussion Group (ELG) at AP Central (http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/homepage/7173.html).


I was also confronted with material shortages, particularly a dearth of available computers. Fortunately, by creating flexible assignments with a multi-stage development process, I have created circumstances where students, working individually at their own pace in composing and cooperatively in revising and proofreading, naturally reach different stages of their composition process at different times. While some students are weighing their options for choosing writing topics, others are planning using graphic organizers. Those who have finished this phase have moved on to drafting (some on paper, some on PCs, and still others on their phones) while classmates who have pulled ahead are receiving peer response from classmates who may be ahead in the process or waiting for a computer to become available. After those who have had peer response have finished revising using the computers or handheld devices, they can receive grammar editing on their revisions (either on a printed copy or using Track Changes on Microsoft Word) from peers at any stage of the process, after which they will compose a second revision and become available as advisors to students in earlier stages of the process. My students know that they have to produce quality work, because these writings will be posted online for a global audience. So far, allowing students to work at their own pace has created a mutually beneficial environment, where human and technological resources are shared and available to all.

Throughout this process, my students are conducting self and peer-assessments to inform their own revisions of their work and of their personal writing methods and skills. The conversations they have about their own and peers’ work will help them to reflect on their own learning styles, abilities, and needs and how these apply to their development of writing and their development as writers. They know that their work will be evaluated by their teachers, their peers, and a potentially limitless audience of people they have never met. This seems to be generating both enthusiasm and seriousness of purpose.

Throughout this process, I have learned that potential problems can inspire creative solutions that enhance the quality of the learning experience both for teachers and students. I have also learned that teachers need not solve all problems or remove all obstacles for students. To the contrary, given the opportunity, students often learn more by solving problems on their own.

My enduring question regarding pursuit of this goal is “What else can I do?” Although this question is not entirely new, it somehow stays fresh. Every time I discover a new way of making learning and assessment experiences more authentic and relevant through contemporary technology, I become more convinced that there are rich opportunities that I have not yet discovered.



Reference

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

Carrying Out My GAME Plan

Last week, I posted an outline of my GAME plan for personal professional development (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009). To implement my GAME plan in order to realize 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” of the ISTE’s (2008) NETS•S Standard 2, 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,” I will need a variety of resources (p. 1). I have been learning a great deal about the software and Web resources available to support this pursuit, but am still not able to provide computer access to every student in my classroom simultaneously. Unfortunately, I only have two computers in my room, my desktop computer and the presentation computer attached to the LCD projector. I also have access to a couple of computer labs in the building, each of which can accommodate about forty percent of my largest class. I could make use of the handheld devices my students carry if they weren’t strictly forbidden by the school system and my school’s “Don’t ask; Don’t tell” policy. Of course, teachers have always been able to find clever ways of working around limited access to materials, such as stations in rotation and small work-groups, and I have become fairly skilled at coordinating this sort of compromise. Having secured access to the necessary hardware, I will need software. Fortunately, the Internet provides free access to nearly infinite resources. But this, in itself, poses a problem.



With so much available, I need to gather information about what resources are appropriate to support my learning and assessment goals and how these can be used. These may take the form of materials specifically designed to support the curriculum I teach, or English instruction, or teaching in general, but it is equally likely that I will find valuable tools among applications never specifically intended for school use, including business, productivity, and entertainment applications. Microsoft Word, for example, has features such as built-in spelling and grammar highlighting and checking, Track Changes, translation, and thesaurus and dictionary features. YouTube, blocked at my school as a time waster and source of prurient content, is also a really valuable resource for instruction in the study of almost anything. Project Gutenberg at http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page provides online versions of public domain texts, many of which are in our curricular canon. The trick is finding the diamonds of useful material in the vast desert of data that is the Internet. To find the best resources and how they can be applied, I can get a great deal of information from coursework and formal professional development, but I can also learn much by consulting with colleagues. I can do this in person, talking to fellow teachers in my building or in professional development meetings, and I can take advantage of the collaborative potential of online tools such as weblogs, listservs, social media, and other Web 2.0 applications (Prensky, 2008). This sort of collaboration is one of the great pleasures of my current approach to personal professional development.


This process started long ago and will continue throughout my career. From the first time I used computer word processing to generate lesson plans and handouts for my students, I was finding ways to exploit technology in the interest of customizing learning experiences to meet their individual learning and assessment proclivities and needs. Back then, I was excited about creating customized graphic organizers with illustrations designed to guide my students’ transactions with assigned texts. As new digital technologies —Windows, Microsoft Word, the Internet, search engines, LCD projectors, PowerPoint, wireless input devices, portable computers with wireless Internet, DVD videos, handheld computers and communication tools, online image searches, streaming video, Web 2.0 tools--have become available and evolved, I have been able to find innovative ways to employ them to enhance the quality of my students’ learning experiences. In recent months, I have begun making more use of free concept mapping software to support collaborative analysis of texts. My students collaborated to construct a class wiki as an artifact of their learning in my AP Language course. I have built rubrics using tables in Word and based on models shared by colleagues on the Internet to support complex assessments of student learning taking many forms based on students’ interests and abilities—including PowerPoint presentations, videos, podcasts, and sophisticated musical productions. For years now, nearly every lesson has included a multimedia presentation in which students engage curricular content through images, audio, video, manipulable text, and a wide variety of note-taking, organization, and collaboration tools. Every day, I find a new way to help my students connect with and apply content in complex ways that reflect their individual learning styles. Since committing to the goals of my GAME plan, I have sought out colleagues and other expert digital technology users, both locally and remotely, to see how current technology is being applied in their classrooms and businesses to meet the diverse needs of learners. I have also benefitted from ideas presented in my coursework, particularly regarding easily accessible, web-based applications and features of productivity software already installed in computers at my school (Cennamo et al., 2009; Laureate Education, Inc., 2009; Prensky, 2008). And I have immediately applied much of what I have learned to improve my students’ learning experience. Just today, I presented my English IV students with an online version of the text they are reading, Herman Hesse’s Siddhartha, at http://www.archive.org/details/siddhartha_ap_librivox. I played the first chapter in my classroom, and demonstrated how to download the MP3 chapter files to their digital music players. Yesterday, my AP Language students were sharing their reflections on a chapter in the text to construct collaborative notes in a table on PowerPoint. When a student asked how to spell a word, classmates pointed out the right-click option built into the program.


Although integrating technology into my instruction to meet today’s (and future iterations of) ISTE’s (2008) NETS•S Standards is an ongoing process that I expect to continue throughout my career, I am enjoying every small step.



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


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.

Developing My Personal GAME Plan

(Image source:  http://macalchemist.com/wp-content/uploads/Game-Plan-300x199.jpg)

A teacher’s craft can never be fully perfected. Even in earlier generations, when the pace of technological change was so slow as to be practically imperceptible, good teachers would continually develop and refine their practice through research, collaboration, reflection, and revision of their methods. But the proliferation of digital information and communication technology in recent decades has both facilitated and necessitated a more rapid pace of personal professional development. Having a systematic method for self-directed learning such as Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s (2009) GAME plan assists both students and their teachers in this ongoing process of relentless adaptation.


The first step of any successful voyage is establishing a destination, so it is appropriate that Cennamo et al.’s (2009) GAME plan begins with goal setting. Although I am pleased with the progress that I have made in many areas of professional development in the realm of technology integration in my teaching, it would be easy to become overwhelmed by ever-growing inventory of technological resources available. I cannot envision a time when I will be satisfied that I have fully realized any of the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) (2008) National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. But I can choose a destination for the next leg of my lifelong journey. Mindful of room for growth in each of the ISTE’s (2008) NETS•S Standards, I believe I and my students could most immediately benefit from my focus 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,” specifically, 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). Although I have addressed these goals to some degree, the vast and growing wealth of technological resources and research available for realizing effective pedagogical theory necessitate constant attention. Therefore, my benchmark for success must be one of progress rather than completion. I will consider each new and effective application of technology to enhance and assessing my students’ authentic learning experience evidence of achievement.



With these goals in mind, I can go about developing and implementing a plan of action (Cennamo et al., 2009). In order to achieve my goal, I must first gather information about technological resources available for crafting learning experiences and assessments and discover which best reflect both my content-area goals and the learning needs of my students. Doing so requires an array of approaches, including formal coursework, independent research through many resources available on the Internet and elsewhere, and collaboration with colleagues and students both in person and online through tools such as weblogs, listservs, and even online gaming servers (Prensky, 2008). An early focus of this research can be on investigating technologies and methods that I am aware of, but that I have not yet fully exploited. Further research can investigate technologies that are either wholly new or entirely new to me.



As I learn about new technologies for promoting learning and conducting effective assessment, it will be important to consider whether and how they can be implemented to create innovative and authentic learning experiences. In order to effectively monitor my learning, I should consider whether what I have learned meets certain criteria, including whether it is appropriate for my students’ needs and interests and for content goals, whether it is practical in consideration of resources available, and the degree to which it is reflective of sound learning theory (Cennamo et al., 2009; Prensky, 2008). As I notice patterns indicating the effectiveness of different learning strategies, I can refine my approach to personal professional development to make more use of those resources that have provided the greatest benefits.



As I enter the evaluation stage of my GAME plan, I must be cognizant that, while I may be able to measure some progress toward my goals, any ultimate hope of full integration of all of the most appropriate technologies in my pedagogy must, as technology expands the cosmos of possible learning experiences, continually recede ahead of me. With that in mind, I may consider my efforts successful if I have created new, personalized learning experiences that address my students’ diverse needs, learning styles, abilities, and interests, and if I have crafted assessments that both inform and evaluate my teaching using a variety of appropriate methods and technology reflecting the ISTE’s (2008) standards and curricular goals.



As I plan and progress toward greater and more effective integration of digital technology in creative learning experiences for my students, I must keep in mind one caveat: that any technology is only a tool. To be effective, technology must be employed in a way that reflects sound learning theory, curricular goals, and individual students’ needs (Laureate, 2009).







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



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.

Reflection on Supporting Information Literacy and Online Inquiry in the Classroom

Image retrieved June 22, 2010, from https://eee.uci.edu/programs/humcore/images/Antigone/faust.jpg

In most courses I have taken during my twenty-three years of higher education, the exciting new ideas, if there were any, came mostly from the course content. But in this course, the most striking revelations have not come from the course content itself, but from my and my students’ experiences as I applied what I learned in my classroom. What I discovered is that inquiry-based learning can be a pleasure for both the students and the teacher. When we move beyond the traditional research report into more authentic and purposeful investigation, beyond the communication model of teaching into the one that prepares students to learn on their own, beyond traditional literacy into a more comprehensive understanding of modern literacies, we break down the often stifling boundaries of the classroom walls and step into a wider world where ideas and action are powerfully interrelated (Laureate, 2009; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008; Richardson, 2006). This course provides a rationale to justify the ways my students want to learn and I want to teach in terms of the goals we are obligated to achieve.



I have a very successful colleague, beloved among the students, who often talks about “putting a mask on the monster.” By this, he means turning a learning activity into a game or project that is more immediately meaningful, fun, or rewarding than the traditional learning task at its root. His room often appears chaotic to outsiders who cannot easily discern the focus of learning. In fact, it often takes them a minute to locate the teacher in the seemingly chaotic swarm of independently active learners. Teachers who misunderstand this as, at best, merely adding sugar to the medicine or, at worst, wasting time sometimes criticize his methods on the grounds that students must be prepared for a “real world” where serious work is not a game and where you do not expect rewards for good performance. They feel his methods are deceptive, juvenile mollycoddling that ultimately undermine students’ development of the ability to stoically put their noses to their proverbial grindstones, and that immediately undermine other teachers’ ability to carry on business as usual without students complaining and comparing their methods to his.


What this course reveals, particularly through the application of its principles in the classroom, is that meaningful, fun, rewarding assignments where students learn about what interests them and immediately apply learning to a personally consequential tasks are better preparation than many traditional assignments for students who will enter a world where serious work is often very much like a game (as games have become very much like serious work) and where you do, in fact, receive sweet rewards for successful efforts (Laureate, 2009). Teachers routinely assure their students that the seemingly pointless drudgery of their classwork, homework, and projects is necessary preparation for the (presumably seemingly pointless) drudgery of higher learning and the world of work. Perhaps this represents the experience of these teachers, but it somehow fails to represent the greater purpose of education, to produce happy, productive citizens.


As I worked throughout this course to produce an inquiry unit plan to use in the future, I began to apply its principles to the classes I was already teaching. What I discovered is that students are motivated by an authentic purpose to fully engage in independent learning and the processes of inquiry. By proposing to my students that they create a wiki-based text to help other students prepare for the AP Language and Composition examination, I gave them a real purpose, with socially significant consequences, for their application of the inquiry process outlined by Eagleton and Dobler’s (2007) QUEST (Questioning, Understanding Resources, Evaluating, Synthesizing, Transforming) method. Consequently, my students, rather than groaning as I imposed instruction and assignments for each stage of a research report only their teacher would see, sought my guidance as they worked to produce a quality product for a wider audience.


As they worked to understand the wiki medium, refine their Internet research skills, and synthesize and transform information to serve their shared purpose, they constructed an understanding together, using me as a consultant on technology, information retrieval, and legal issues. In that role, I shared with them the stages of Eagleton and Dobler’s (2007) QUEST inquiry method, the critical thinking skills represented in November’s (2008) REAL (Reading the URL, Examining the Content, Asking about Authors and Owners, Looking at the Links) evaluation system, and the legal, ethical, and practical issues associated with intellectual property and fair use of source material. Through this experience, they transformed from a classroom of reluctantly cooperative students to a corporation of enthusiastically cooperative and collaborative learners.


My learning from this course will have a profound effect on my future teaching. First, I do plan to use the inquiry-based unit plan I developed in a universal themes inquiry unit to replace the traditional research report assignment with my seniors next year. Moreover, I expect that my new, broader understanding of what literacy means will influence my teaching throughout my career (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007; November, 2008). And, although I enjoy unusual autonomy in my classroom, I feel better prepared to justify my novel approach to literacy learning if it is ever challenged. From now on, neither I nor my students will ever need to dread the research project that has haunted scholars for as long as I can remember. Rather, I fully expect the inquiry unit to be the highlight of my courses, the talk of the school, and a source of pride for my students.

For me, as for my students, the best way to learn is by applying the knowledge I have, and developing the knowledge I need, to accomplish a meaningful task (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007). In that spirit, my primary professional development goal is to apply the knowledge I have gained through this course in my own teaching and inquiry, and to augment and refine that knowledge through its use. This means making information literacy and inquiry a central part of the curriculum of every course I teach. I can imagine no more effective way to prepare my students and myself for an uncertain future than to teach and practice the skills of purposeful questioning, locating and evaluating information, and synthesizing and transforming it into something new that others can experience and appreciate (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007, Laureate, 2009; Leu et al., 2004).



I once believed that the goal of education was to become “learned”—a past-tense verb used as an adjective to describe a condition of final achievement. I am beginning to realize, however, that this state can never be finally reached. My goal for future learning no longer includes one day resting on my laurels. Rather, I now see continuing education as a goal in its own right. Of course, learning can serve the purposes of production, of creating something new and valuable to improve one’s life and the world. But, at the same time, these products may ultimately serve the cause of learning for its own sake. Like Faust, I want to know everything. But, unlike Faust, I and my students no longer have to make a deal with the Devil, because I am beginning to understand that a good teacher does not have to cover the face of the monster of learning with a mask. Instead, I need only remove the monster mask that has, for too long, disfigured the truly beautiful face of inquiry learning.

References



Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the web: Strategies for internet inquiry. New York: The Guilford Press.



Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Supporting Information Literacy and Online Inquiry in the Classroom. Baltimore: Author.



Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In Ruddell, R.B. & Unrau, N.J., (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.). (pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.



Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations. In Teaching and Learning with Technology (3rd ed. pp. 2–35 ). Boston: Pearson.



November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousands Oaks: Corwin Press.



Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Male Pregnancy, Head Transplants, and Nanodocs! Oh my!

Evaluating the RYT Hospital Dwayne Medical Center:  A Think-aloud Evaluation

http://www.rythospital.com/2008/