Chapter 3
The generating a topic of study is not always an easy task for a teacher. SOLs and time usually deter teachers from constructing an in depth topic of study that goes deeper into the minds of students than rote memorization. As I am not yet a teacher in a school, I tend to have to really think about how to do this. Broad topics are Wiske’s (2005) answer. This broad topic must also be appealing to the students and can be connected to the subject matter that is required to be taught. The topic should be easy to connect to students' experiences and be approached in multiple ways. This chapter discusses a case study done in math that allowed students to look at math in a way that related it to the world (Wiske et al., 2005). The teacher that was studied designed a Quilt Math project (2005). Starting the first day of school she placed a piece of fabric on the wall that was 5 by 5-inches. The students were asked what they saw. She then asked the students how they could talk about the quilt using math terms. Everyday she added another piece of fabric. She selected fabric that went along with themes and units the kids were studying in other subject areas. Each student had a paper notebook where they would note observations every morning about the quilt. A digital image was taken of the quilt and inserted in the computer. Everyday the students discussed their perceptions on the quilt and two students wrote the comments in Microsoft Word. Students started using advanced numbers and letters to represent the quilt. At the end of the lesson students would predict what tomorrows patch would be. The students created a math quilt photo journal in which they collected the photos and observations from everyday in one book. Students could easily see changes over time (2005).
Wiske (2005) discusses a lot about how important it is to really meet the needs of your students. Designing lessons that are exciting to you, as the teacher, but, will also engage your students are a key part of this chapter. After all, do you think students are going to want to learn about something or complete an activity that the teacher does not really want to do either? In the 180 school year it is difficult to keep a positive attitude, if you and the students are not personally dedicated (not sure that is the right word) to the activities and lessons.
Chapter 4
One of the hardest things about being in a licensure program and not actually teaching is setting goals and purposes for lesson plans for students. I imagine it doesn’t get any easier once there are actual students involved. I try to make them meaningful and hope they will be effective, but at this time I don’t have a real way of gauging this. Technology is a topic that is at the forefront in many school systems currently. It is important for teachers to teach students to learn with technology and not about it. Often teachers use technology as motivators and babysitters (Wiske et al., 2005, p.50). How beneficial is technology in the classroom if it is not being used to increase learning?
The main focus of Chapter four was the Water Habitat Project. Wiske (2005) found that students went to a nearby city park pond for science. Students observed plants, animals, and the water quality of the pond. They took pictures each time they went and kept the information in notebooks and over time students noticed that the water quality was deteriorating. By recording their findings and keeping notebooks that were shared with students in following years the students had become scientists within their own neighborhood (area). They decided to further their research and project by comparing data and collecting resources. They eventually presented their findings and the problem to the City Parks and Recreation Commission and had so much proof they were granted funds to restore the pond (2005).Students used technology to their advantage; they took digital photos and corresponded through e-mail, and the Washington State K-20 video conferencing network to spread their news (2005).
The four dimensions are knowledge, methods, purpose, and forms of expression that are necessary for understanding goals and if these goals are met, it will be meaningful to the students (2005). When I am coming up with lesson plans I try to pretend I am a student learning the material. Because if I do not want to learn it (or teach it), I doubt that a student would want to learn the material either. I think teachers often forget what it was like when they were students. I think this traipses on the argument between education and edutainment. But I think it is a line that can be traveled successfully-school doesn’t have to be boring for students or teachers, so why make it that way? Technology can be extremely useful and meaningful when used appropriately. Wiske (2005) states that it is important to use appropriate technology that will help students learn rather than entertain them. Technology opens the world to a lot of opportunities that can make learning very meaningful if used correctly. It is up to the teacher to find the tools first and then create the goals.
Chapter 5
According to Wiske (2005), in order for students to understand what they are doing they must develop and demonstrate understanding. Teachers need to spend adequate time engaging students and not simply filling their minds with knowledge. Teachers must use technology effectively, which means it needs to aid in the learning process and be beneficial rather than a break for the norm or an incentive to work diligently. Wiske (2005) outlines the following stages in order for students to demonstrate performance of understanding technology. These are,
1) Understanding goals: introductory performance that connects students' interests and beginning levels of understanding.
2) Guided inquiry lessons: guides students into thinking for themselves
and
3) Culminating performance: allows students to demonstrate the understanding (Wiske et al., 2005, p.65).
Technology can help this process by allowing investigations of new information, assisting students with special needs, making abstract concepts visible, and for personal expression (Wiske et al., 2005, p.65).
The case study in Chapter 5 was A Sense of Caring through iLEARN Global Art Projects (2005). The teacher integrated Social Studies with English into a unit. Students, first, discussed with each other about caring: When they were cared for and when they cared for others. Next the teacher read children's literature books and the students connected the caring themes in the book with their own experiences. The students had to illustrate an act of caring in a picture and then write a piece about their artwork. Finally, the teacher published the artwork and writings on a class web-page. The students were able to use e-mail to discuss “caring” with other students around the world. The students used language translators to meet the needs of other countries so, they would understand their writings. The entire project and process was shared their school and community (Wiske et al., 2005, p.94). Technology helped the students develop, compose, and revise their work. It was also available used for digital images and image editing. This project began as an interesting collaboration within her school. The teacher was able expand the project by not only collaborating with a fellow teacher, in the same building; she eventually was able to collaborate with teachers in other counties, states, and countries.
This case study shows one of the greatest aspects to being a Social Studies teacher in a technology driven era. There are many lessons that would be boring to students, if they were taught in the same old manner, most of us remember from school (If you hated history in school think back to why that was……when it is repetition and memorization it is B-O-R-I-N-G!!!!) Now the possibilities are endless, from collaborating with classes in other areas, to primary documents in electronic files, to virtual field trips to places that are just to far to go (I bet not too many Social Studies students in Virginia ever made it to Salem, Massachusetts to get a first hand look at the area of the witch trials….now you can!)
Wiske, M.S., Franz, K.R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for Understanding with Technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
No Child.....Left Behind?????
NCLB.....every educators favorite four letters! These four letters seem to have caused more headaches and drama while overall being a good idea. It is a good idea to make teachers accountable.....however, it is also a good idea to make students and parents accountable as well. It is a good idea to assess students' growth and education.....however, did I miss the class when we changed philosophies and now one assessment fits every child???? If I did, could someone give me the notes (I'm on campus on Tuesdays!) It is a good idea for there to be consequences for schools continually doing poorly....however, is the best idea to take away FUNDING?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Funding helps pay for teacher training. Funding buys new and up to date computer equipment that teachers can use to reach students. Funding helps create after school programs that more students can attend. All of these are ways to improve the low achieving schools and yet....it is being taken away. How does this tie into a technology class? I have to go back to funding. Without the funding the low performing school may not be able to get up to date equipment or enough equipment for all of the students to use. Without the funding there is no chance of the school having or creating special professional development classes for the teachers. (Moving away from the tech class for again) without the funding the school will probably not improve to the necessary standards.
In another class a letter that was passed around through e-mail was read to us by the professor. I have found it online and included a link to it. When you look at NCLB with this perspective, it is easy to find the flaws in every educators favorite program.
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/nclb_sports.htm
(This editorial blog was brought to you by the letters N-C-L and B and the number 3!!!!)
In another class a letter that was passed around through e-mail was read to us by the professor. I have found it online and included a link to it. When you look at NCLB with this perspective, it is easy to find the flaws in every educators favorite program.
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/nclb_sports.htm
(This editorial blog was brought to you by the letters N-C-L and B and the number 3!!!!)
Friday, February 16, 2007
Chapter 10-Using Technology Appropriately
The school board issues the money, the school buys the computers, the ITRT sets up the computers and everyone is ready to integrate technology into the classroom-AWAY WE GO!!!!-Right? WRONG! There is more to the process. According to Friel (2001) it begins by researching, evaluating, and revising an existing policy and then using the information to write a new policy. Once the policy has been written an School Board’s attorney should read it and make any changes that are necessary, and then the school board will approve the policy, finally the school staff, students, and parents must be updated on the new policy (de Lyon Friel, 2001, p.125).
The American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology (1998) states that, “an important aspect of using computers is the ability to find and use information to promote learning” (de Lyon Friel, 2001, p.126). Students need to be taught the correct method of obtaining information. Every student will not come to school knowing how to search for information electronically. Those that may already have that skill may not be able to determine the difference between authentic, credible sources from non-credible ones.
The problems teachers face with teaching students to search, retrieve, and analyze electronic information are minute, compared to the issue of copyright laws and plagiarism. It is important that students understand the gravity of plagiarism and copyright infringement. Friel (2001) makes the argument that teachers and students should assume that all information on the computer is copyrighted; the U.S. copyright law includes a fair use provision that allows copyrighted material to be used for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research regardless of whether copyright notices are in place or not. When using this provision, de Lyon Friel (2001) discusses four criteria that must be addressed: the purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount of information used and the effect on the work it will have. A lot of the problems with plagiarism can be solved by teaching students proper citation methods.
As adults most of us understand that all of the information found on the internet is not always reliable. It is important as teachers that we convey this message to our students. Because students do not all come to school with skills for finding information electronically, it would be absurd to believe that they all have the skills to distinguish between reliable and unreliable electronic information. In every subject area, at the beginning of the year, it might be a good idea to have a review on research methods and analysis-whether it is done in the classroom or by grade level, as an assembly. This would also be a good time to discuss the fact that the Internet and e-mails are public documents that anyone can access and request, as well as, the dangers that are truly a part of the Internet. de Lyon Friel (2001) discusses the use of expensive internet filters to block inappropriate sites from the students. I am partially torn on this issue, not because of the money, but because I believe that these filters, on occasion, block credible material that would be beneficial to the students. If the network is school property and is searchable when necessary (like the lockers), as de Lyon Friel (2001) suggests, then why would the search history and electronic copies of e-mails not be enough? I have a feeling I am about to answer my own question but, as adults we would be able to tell if a student(s) are accessing questionable websites on accident or if there is a pattern present. If an acceptable use policy is in place and parents, students, teachers, and community are aware of it, its consequences, and the guidelines used to oversee computer usage-why would this not be enough? This could very easily be printed in the student handbooks as de Lyon Friel (2001) suggests, and could be a required signature and return-before computer usage was allowed. While I am sure this would not stop every parent from causing a commotion, if their child was in trouble-it most certainly would be a benefit for the school to have on file. I see more up sides than down sides to using computers and the Internet in the classroom. I simply believe that precautions are necessary for the School Boards, the school, the teachers, and the students for everyone to use this tool correctly and safely.
Reference:
de Lyon Friel, L. (2001). Using Technology Appropriately: Policy, Leadership and Ethics. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc..
The American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology (1998) states that, “an important aspect of using computers is the ability to find and use information to promote learning” (de Lyon Friel, 2001, p.126). Students need to be taught the correct method of obtaining information. Every student will not come to school knowing how to search for information electronically. Those that may already have that skill may not be able to determine the difference between authentic, credible sources from non-credible ones.
The problems teachers face with teaching students to search, retrieve, and analyze electronic information are minute, compared to the issue of copyright laws and plagiarism. It is important that students understand the gravity of plagiarism and copyright infringement. Friel (2001) makes the argument that teachers and students should assume that all information on the computer is copyrighted; the U.S. copyright law includes a fair use provision that allows copyrighted material to be used for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research regardless of whether copyright notices are in place or not. When using this provision, de Lyon Friel (2001) discusses four criteria that must be addressed: the purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount of information used and the effect on the work it will have. A lot of the problems with plagiarism can be solved by teaching students proper citation methods.
As adults most of us understand that all of the information found on the internet is not always reliable. It is important as teachers that we convey this message to our students. Because students do not all come to school with skills for finding information electronically, it would be absurd to believe that they all have the skills to distinguish between reliable and unreliable electronic information. In every subject area, at the beginning of the year, it might be a good idea to have a review on research methods and analysis-whether it is done in the classroom or by grade level, as an assembly. This would also be a good time to discuss the fact that the Internet and e-mails are public documents that anyone can access and request, as well as, the dangers that are truly a part of the Internet. de Lyon Friel (2001) discusses the use of expensive internet filters to block inappropriate sites from the students. I am partially torn on this issue, not because of the money, but because I believe that these filters, on occasion, block credible material that would be beneficial to the students. If the network is school property and is searchable when necessary (like the lockers), as de Lyon Friel (2001) suggests, then why would the search history and electronic copies of e-mails not be enough? I have a feeling I am about to answer my own question but, as adults we would be able to tell if a student(s) are accessing questionable websites on accident or if there is a pattern present. If an acceptable use policy is in place and parents, students, teachers, and community are aware of it, its consequences, and the guidelines used to oversee computer usage-why would this not be enough? This could very easily be printed in the student handbooks as de Lyon Friel (2001) suggests, and could be a required signature and return-before computer usage was allowed. While I am sure this would not stop every parent from causing a commotion, if their child was in trouble-it most certainly would be a benefit for the school to have on file. I see more up sides than down sides to using computers and the Internet in the classroom. I simply believe that precautions are necessary for the School Boards, the school, the teachers, and the students for everyone to use this tool correctly and safely.
Reference:
de Lyon Friel, L. (2001). Using Technology Appropriately: Policy, Leadership and Ethics. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (Eds.). Technology in its Place: Successful Technology Infusion in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc..
Friday, February 9, 2007
Chapters 7 and 8
In these two chapters, a lot of different quotes stood out at me, and made me think….duh! Being the second post out of this text, I have had a number of these “Well duh!” moments when reading the required chapters. These are moments that either from other classes or readings, I am sitting there thinking that this information has been addressed before, and while the solutions may not be completely the same, I know what they are (so why don’t school officials). This is not necessarily a big deal, except I am not a teacher and do not currently work in or around education. And then I think, maybe that is my problem, while I am studying to be a teacher, I don’t necessarily look at these issues through a teacher’s perspective, instead I use my business background.
“Investments in equipment have not always been accompanied by changes in teaching” (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001, p.87). Anytime I read a quote like this, I tend to think that someone, somewhere either was given a GREAT sales pitch, a GREAT discount, or did not ask enough questions about the product-to figure out how valuable it would actually be for a school or schools. It seems that almost everyone would agree that technology needs to be incorporated into schools, and more importantly into daily classrooms. The issue seems to be that no one can agree how to implement it. The text argues that we need to align the goals of school leaders, politicians and other stakeholders to promote learning and restructuring of our educational system (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001; Zimmerman, 2001). When I think of restructuring there is a plan in place that everyone must follow, starting from the top-down. This is not the case in education as the national government, state government, county government, school board officials, principals, and classroom teachers all interpret standards and work within the standards differently. This could at least be part of the problem.When discussing technology the problem seems to be even greater, I believe, because there are people who do and do not embrace technology. It is at this point that school leaders need to set the standards and work with the schools to get everyone on board when using technology. The statement, “Leaders believe that when it ‘ain’t broke may be the only time you can fix it’” (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001, p. 89), was another Duh moment for me. This time however, I believe my business experiences are similar to the experiences talked about in the text and by teachers (classmates and my wife and her friends). Anytime I have seen or heard of this happening, it tends to be harder on those that are forced to make the changes, because the first decision is not necessarily the best, and it will not necessarily be the only change required. I think (and I know I am not the only one who thinks this way) that it would be most beneficial, if everyone involved in education looked at schools and figured out how we can improve and use technology better, instead of leaders buying hardware or software and then letting teachers figure out how it can be used to enrich the classrooms. Buying hardware is not enough; we need to all take an active role in implementing it into classrooms (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001).
The integration of technology is not only important the pedagogy behind it is just as important (Zimmerman, 2001). Unfortunately politicians hold the purse strings for our schools and they need to see results and involvement in order to support any project. If we want them to open up the purse for schools, there needs to be complete school and community support. This takes many forms: letters, petitions, grant requests, phone calls and other forms of communication to political figures (e-mails especially as the Commonwealth of Virginia tries to remove the ITRT position out of the state’s schools). Good old fashioned grassroots support starts with each school employee (Zimmerman, 2001). However, communication and grass roots campaigns are not enough, teachers must show definitive proof that technology improves instruction. This is where SOL scores and AYP become an important factor-even though they are probably considered a little more important than they should be. However, the politicians like them, so if the politicians hold the purse strings and they like SOL scores and AYP data that is what teachers MUST give them.
Is there an easy answer for restructuring schools so that technology is implemented efficiently in every classroom? If there was, I doubt that it would be an area that is discussed so much, and certainly would not create Duh moments for me. It would be nice if every school had the same opportunities for technology, but since some do not even have working heat, I doubt that new (or even working) computers are the highest priority. At least for the time being, it seems it is going to have to continue the way it is, those schools that have the funding will get the technology first and those that do not will have to wait. While I believe this should be reversed; so the schools that are behind get MORE funding, which I will go out on a limb and say that I am not the only person who feels this way. However, we do not control the funding. It would be great if every student had their own laptop for use in school, and every school was wired for internet access. It would even be acceptable if each department in every school had a mobile computer lab. This would at least cut down on the competition that is signing up for computer lab times. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and probably will not be the case, anytime soon. Instead every teacher must work within the parameters set by their schools and try to find their own way to implement technology so it is complementary and enriching to the classroom lessons.
References
Areglado, R.J. & Perry Jr., G.S. (2001). The computers are here!: Now what does the principal do?. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (eds.) . Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA:Jossey- Bass Inc.
Zimmerman, I.K. (2001). Building public support: The politics of technology transformation. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (eds.). Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
“Investments in equipment have not always been accompanied by changes in teaching” (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001, p.87). Anytime I read a quote like this, I tend to think that someone, somewhere either was given a GREAT sales pitch, a GREAT discount, or did not ask enough questions about the product-to figure out how valuable it would actually be for a school or schools. It seems that almost everyone would agree that technology needs to be incorporated into schools, and more importantly into daily classrooms. The issue seems to be that no one can agree how to implement it. The text argues that we need to align the goals of school leaders, politicians and other stakeholders to promote learning and restructuring of our educational system (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001; Zimmerman, 2001). When I think of restructuring there is a plan in place that everyone must follow, starting from the top-down. This is not the case in education as the national government, state government, county government, school board officials, principals, and classroom teachers all interpret standards and work within the standards differently. This could at least be part of the problem.When discussing technology the problem seems to be even greater, I believe, because there are people who do and do not embrace technology. It is at this point that school leaders need to set the standards and work with the schools to get everyone on board when using technology. The statement, “Leaders believe that when it ‘ain’t broke may be the only time you can fix it’” (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001, p. 89), was another Duh moment for me. This time however, I believe my business experiences are similar to the experiences talked about in the text and by teachers (classmates and my wife and her friends). Anytime I have seen or heard of this happening, it tends to be harder on those that are forced to make the changes, because the first decision is not necessarily the best, and it will not necessarily be the only change required. I think (and I know I am not the only one who thinks this way) that it would be most beneficial, if everyone involved in education looked at schools and figured out how we can improve and use technology better, instead of leaders buying hardware or software and then letting teachers figure out how it can be used to enrich the classrooms. Buying hardware is not enough; we need to all take an active role in implementing it into classrooms (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001).
The integration of technology is not only important the pedagogy behind it is just as important (Zimmerman, 2001). Unfortunately politicians hold the purse strings for our schools and they need to see results and involvement in order to support any project. If we want them to open up the purse for schools, there needs to be complete school and community support. This takes many forms: letters, petitions, grant requests, phone calls and other forms of communication to political figures (e-mails especially as the Commonwealth of Virginia tries to remove the ITRT position out of the state’s schools). Good old fashioned grassroots support starts with each school employee (Zimmerman, 2001). However, communication and grass roots campaigns are not enough, teachers must show definitive proof that technology improves instruction. This is where SOL scores and AYP become an important factor-even though they are probably considered a little more important than they should be. However, the politicians like them, so if the politicians hold the purse strings and they like SOL scores and AYP data that is what teachers MUST give them.
Is there an easy answer for restructuring schools so that technology is implemented efficiently in every classroom? If there was, I doubt that it would be an area that is discussed so much, and certainly would not create Duh moments for me. It would be nice if every school had the same opportunities for technology, but since some do not even have working heat, I doubt that new (or even working) computers are the highest priority. At least for the time being, it seems it is going to have to continue the way it is, those schools that have the funding will get the technology first and those that do not will have to wait. While I believe this should be reversed; so the schools that are behind get MORE funding, which I will go out on a limb and say that I am not the only person who feels this way. However, we do not control the funding. It would be great if every student had their own laptop for use in school, and every school was wired for internet access. It would even be acceptable if each department in every school had a mobile computer lab. This would at least cut down on the competition that is signing up for computer lab times. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and probably will not be the case, anytime soon. Instead every teacher must work within the parameters set by their schools and try to find their own way to implement technology so it is complementary and enriching to the classroom lessons.
References
Areglado, R.J. & Perry Jr., G.S. (2001). The computers are here!: Now what does the principal do?. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (eds.) . Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA:Jossey- Bass Inc.
Zimmerman, I.K. (2001). Building public support: The politics of technology transformation. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (eds.). Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Teaching for Understanding with Technology by Wiske, Franz, and Breit-Chapters 1 and 2
Below is my interpretation of the key ideas in chapters one and two of Teaching for Understanding with Technology by Wiske, Franz, and Breit.
Chapter one defines what it means to "understand" in the context of both education and technology. It also explores how the process of understanding is an active process, and how teachers can assist their students in achieving an understanding of the course content.
Civic preparation, cultural assimilation, economic development, individual achievement as well as academic achievement are all historic purposes of education (Wiske, Franz, and Breit, 2005) however the most important purpose of the traditional teacher and student relationship is to pass on knowledge. This purpose has become increasingly complex and difficult due to the ever changing nature of society, technology, and educational philosophies. While it is becoming more difficult to come up with strategies for understanding, it is still the duty of every educator to figure out how to get students to understand and how to assess each individual student’s understanding.
The authors define "understanding a topic" as "being able to perform flexibly with the topic - to explain, justify, extrapolate, relate, and apply in ways that go beyond knowledge and routine skill" (Wiske, et al., 2005, p.5). When I think about this definition, I think back to my college years, not so much my high school years. In college you had more freedom to interpret information and come to your own conclusions-this was not the case in high school, where you spent most of your time trying to figure out what the teacher wanted you to find in the research. This definition of understanding is bringing the freedom to the high schools and not only giving freedom to students to show understanding but giving teachers more freedom in assignment creation and grading for understanding. While the idea of teaching for understanding is an easy concept for educators and future educators to grasp; it is not so easy to put into practice. There is a lot of work for the educators, especially on the front end of implementing such a process. Teachers need to reflect on their own teaching and lesson and determine what is worthy of understanding, they need to define what students need to grasp from a topic, and come up with an ongoing assessment that can authentically demonstrate their understanding (Wiske, et al. 2005). The chapter closes by outlining the framework for the Teaching for Understanding model, to which there are five steps:
1) Generative topics: connected to multiple ideas in multiple subject matters, authentic,
accessible, and interesting for the students, fascinating and compelling for the teachers,
have a variety of entry points, and have a “bottomless” quality that rewards continued
inquiry.
2) Understanding Goals: clearly defined and publicly stated, focus on big ideas-NOT
memorization and routine skills, address multiple dimensions, and are connected to lesson
level goals
3) Performances of Understanding: develop and demonstrate understanding of
target goals, require active learning and creative thinking, build understanding through
sequenced activities, engage a rich variety of entry points and multiple intelligences
4) Ongoing Assessment: explicit, public criteria directly related to understanding goals,
conducted frequently and generates suggestions for improvement, includes informal and
formal structures and products, uses multiple sources(self, peer, and teacher assessments)
5) Reflective Collaborative Communities: support dialogue and reflection based on
shared goals and common language, take into account diverse perspectives, promotes
respect, reciprocity, and collaboration among members of the community on communal,
as well as, individual accomplishments.
-(Wiske, et al. 2005, p.10)
I, unfortunately, do not have much in the way of experiences at this point in time, as I do not currently teach. In looking at the five steps outlined in the chapter, I feel I have applied some of the concepts into the lesson and unit plans I have created for my courses at UMW. I generally try to use the vast topics provided in curriculum guides (generally Spotsylvania County Schools) when I am creating lesson or unit plans. I begin by looking at what topics the County feels are important as well as what skills the students should display and then add in a smidge of my own personality-trying to make it accessible for the students and compelling for me(I could easily see myself getting bored if I simply followed their plan and suggestions).
Once I have an idea of the topics and the “final project”. I typically try to figure out how I am going to get from the beginning to the end with the students. In most cases I enjoy group work, where I can have access to more than one student at a time and still act as a guide. I believe it also allows the students to help each other out, especially if I am working with another group at the time. I believe that this approach, along with a rubric, which would be explained at the beginning of the project, allows me room to differentiate or customize a lesson if a student is having trouble while also customizing for those students who want to and can go above and beyond what is being asked of them.
I believe that my interaction with each group would be a form of assessment. It would allow me to look for participation and activity, while being a reference point at the same time. Also the groups themselves would be able to assess each other, within the confines of the group. I would also assess my students on their final projects, based on the rubric that they would have had as a reference from the very beginning of the assignment.
As far as reflection, while I have never implemented it, into a lesson plan, I think it would be easy to ask the students to confidentially reflect on the assignment, wither in a paragraph form or by creating a short worksheet with questions about the project I would have them individually answer. I generally put room at the end of a lesson plan for my own reflections, where I can make notes about what worked well or did not work at all, and I will hopefully be able to change the lesson to work with the next group of students.
Chapter two defines "new technology" in the schools and what the "new technology" classroom looks and feels like.The authors define new technology as "any new tools for information and communication beyond the ones traditionally used for teaching and learning" (Wiske, et al., 2005, p15). The authors note that the classroom that utilizes this type of technology is quite different from the classroom of old, visually and procedurally, as the focus turns from textbooks and worksheets to the students' experiences and interests (Wiske, et al., 2005, p. 18-19).
Chapter two, in my opinion, gives justification to those teachers who do not use the textbook in their classrooms, whether it is, because it is outdated, not well written, or there simply is not enough for every student. To me textbooks are becoming more of a hindrance on students, rather than a tool for them to use. Granted they are still more cost efficient than rewiring every school and getting enough computers for every students to have one to use-but they simply do not get the job done anymore. In a day and age when educators realize that students are individuals and learn differently, it is hard to believe that a twenty-five chapter textbook is the primary tool for each student. I have seen very good resources for teachers to use with the textbut I do not believe it should be used than anything more than a jumping off point for discussions or short readings. With most classrooms at least having a computer that the teacher can control and students can watch on the TV or a screen, there are many resources to use. In the field of social studies, it is very easy to have a class in Fredericksburg tour Jamestown, Gettysburg, Congress, the White House, or view The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and The Bill of Rights, without leaving the classroom. I pray that I will use these sources when I actually get a class of my own, because I believe they are easy to find and relatively easy to use, and it is a great way to make sure that the lessons are authentic and accessible to the students and compelling for me, the teacher.
Reference:Wiske, M.S., Franz, K.R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for Understanding with Technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chapter one defines what it means to "understand" in the context of both education and technology. It also explores how the process of understanding is an active process, and how teachers can assist their students in achieving an understanding of the course content.
Civic preparation, cultural assimilation, economic development, individual achievement as well as academic achievement are all historic purposes of education (Wiske, Franz, and Breit, 2005) however the most important purpose of the traditional teacher and student relationship is to pass on knowledge. This purpose has become increasingly complex and difficult due to the ever changing nature of society, technology, and educational philosophies. While it is becoming more difficult to come up with strategies for understanding, it is still the duty of every educator to figure out how to get students to understand and how to assess each individual student’s understanding.
The authors define "understanding a topic" as "being able to perform flexibly with the topic - to explain, justify, extrapolate, relate, and apply in ways that go beyond knowledge and routine skill" (Wiske, et al., 2005, p.5). When I think about this definition, I think back to my college years, not so much my high school years. In college you had more freedom to interpret information and come to your own conclusions-this was not the case in high school, where you spent most of your time trying to figure out what the teacher wanted you to find in the research. This definition of understanding is bringing the freedom to the high schools and not only giving freedom to students to show understanding but giving teachers more freedom in assignment creation and grading for understanding. While the idea of teaching for understanding is an easy concept for educators and future educators to grasp; it is not so easy to put into practice. There is a lot of work for the educators, especially on the front end of implementing such a process. Teachers need to reflect on their own teaching and lesson and determine what is worthy of understanding, they need to define what students need to grasp from a topic, and come up with an ongoing assessment that can authentically demonstrate their understanding (Wiske, et al. 2005). The chapter closes by outlining the framework for the Teaching for Understanding model, to which there are five steps:
1) Generative topics: connected to multiple ideas in multiple subject matters, authentic,
accessible, and interesting for the students, fascinating and compelling for the teachers,
have a variety of entry points, and have a “bottomless” quality that rewards continued
inquiry.
2) Understanding Goals: clearly defined and publicly stated, focus on big ideas-NOT
memorization and routine skills, address multiple dimensions, and are connected to lesson
level goals
3) Performances of Understanding: develop and demonstrate understanding of
target goals, require active learning and creative thinking, build understanding through
sequenced activities, engage a rich variety of entry points and multiple intelligences
4) Ongoing Assessment: explicit, public criteria directly related to understanding goals,
conducted frequently and generates suggestions for improvement, includes informal and
formal structures and products, uses multiple sources(self, peer, and teacher assessments)
5) Reflective Collaborative Communities: support dialogue and reflection based on
shared goals and common language, take into account diverse perspectives, promotes
respect, reciprocity, and collaboration among members of the community on communal,
as well as, individual accomplishments.
-(Wiske, et al. 2005, p.10)
I, unfortunately, do not have much in the way of experiences at this point in time, as I do not currently teach. In looking at the five steps outlined in the chapter, I feel I have applied some of the concepts into the lesson and unit plans I have created for my courses at UMW. I generally try to use the vast topics provided in curriculum guides (generally Spotsylvania County Schools) when I am creating lesson or unit plans. I begin by looking at what topics the County feels are important as well as what skills the students should display and then add in a smidge of my own personality-trying to make it accessible for the students and compelling for me(I could easily see myself getting bored if I simply followed their plan and suggestions).
Once I have an idea of the topics and the “final project”. I typically try to figure out how I am going to get from the beginning to the end with the students. In most cases I enjoy group work, where I can have access to more than one student at a time and still act as a guide. I believe it also allows the students to help each other out, especially if I am working with another group at the time. I believe that this approach, along with a rubric, which would be explained at the beginning of the project, allows me room to differentiate or customize a lesson if a student is having trouble while also customizing for those students who want to and can go above and beyond what is being asked of them.
I believe that my interaction with each group would be a form of assessment. It would allow me to look for participation and activity, while being a reference point at the same time. Also the groups themselves would be able to assess each other, within the confines of the group. I would also assess my students on their final projects, based on the rubric that they would have had as a reference from the very beginning of the assignment.
As far as reflection, while I have never implemented it, into a lesson plan, I think it would be easy to ask the students to confidentially reflect on the assignment, wither in a paragraph form or by creating a short worksheet with questions about the project I would have them individually answer. I generally put room at the end of a lesson plan for my own reflections, where I can make notes about what worked well or did not work at all, and I will hopefully be able to change the lesson to work with the next group of students.
Chapter two defines "new technology" in the schools and what the "new technology" classroom looks and feels like.The authors define new technology as "any new tools for information and communication beyond the ones traditionally used for teaching and learning" (Wiske, et al., 2005, p15). The authors note that the classroom that utilizes this type of technology is quite different from the classroom of old, visually and procedurally, as the focus turns from textbooks and worksheets to the students' experiences and interests (Wiske, et al., 2005, p. 18-19).
Chapter two, in my opinion, gives justification to those teachers who do not use the textbook in their classrooms, whether it is, because it is outdated, not well written, or there simply is not enough for every student. To me textbooks are becoming more of a hindrance on students, rather than a tool for them to use. Granted they are still more cost efficient than rewiring every school and getting enough computers for every students to have one to use-but they simply do not get the job done anymore. In a day and age when educators realize that students are individuals and learn differently, it is hard to believe that a twenty-five chapter textbook is the primary tool for each student. I have seen very good resources for teachers to use with the textbut I do not believe it should be used than anything more than a jumping off point for discussions or short readings. With most classrooms at least having a computer that the teacher can control and students can watch on the TV or a screen, there are many resources to use. In the field of social studies, it is very easy to have a class in Fredericksburg tour Jamestown, Gettysburg, Congress, the White House, or view The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and The Bill of Rights, without leaving the classroom. I pray that I will use these sources when I actually get a class of my own, because I believe they are easy to find and relatively easy to use, and it is a great way to make sure that the lessons are authentic and accessible to the students and compelling for me, the teacher.
Reference:Wiske, M.S., Franz, K.R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for Understanding with Technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)