Course Reflection

            The GAME plan I originally developed has helped guide me in developing my technology skills as a teacher.  This plan encouraged me to think beyond the philosophies and skills I believed were most effective, and consider implementing new learning opportunities in my classroom that revolve around the use of technology.  As a result of my GAME plan, I am no encouraged and motivated to follow through with the instructional practices I hope to integrate in the coming school year.    

A slight modification may have to be made to my updated GAME plan.  I am considering integrating an electronic portfolio as opposed the paper-based student portfolio that I originally considered in my GAME.  Through this course I have discovered many wonderful activities that require the use of technology, and I would like for my students to display all of the portfolio activities electronically.  I will have to consider possible sources to use for storage and display.

I do not believe I would modify the GAME plan process in any way because I think it is very effective in its current state.  Dr. Katherine Cennamo explains that self-directed learners plan, monitor and evaluate their actions, and she presents the GAME plan technique as a means to help students develop into self-directed learners by setting their own goals, taking action, monitoring their progress, and evaluating the effectiveness of their learning processes (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010).  However, one change I would consider is consistently reviewing the original goal of the GAME plan throughout the process.  I think it is important for students to maintain focus on the goals that they established at the beginning of the processes. 

I will immediately make adjustments to my instructional practice regarding technology integration into my content area by incorporating more technology on a daily basis.  Part of this integration will appear through the use of an interactive white board that I will be added to my classroom next year, and the other part of the technology integration will be through student projects.  While teachers can develop authentic, learner-centered instruction without the use of technology, it is a power tool to help increase students engagement and motivation in the learning environment (Cennamo, Ross & Ertmer, 2009).  New tools I have discovered and become more comfortable with as a result of this class.  Student projects that utilize problem-based learning (PBL), social networking/online collaboration, and digital storytelling will be added throughout the school year. 

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). (2010). Promoting Self-Directed Learning With Technology [Webcast]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Monitoring My GAME Plan

My main focus has been on achieving my goal for ISTE Standard 1:. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity.  Indicator c. “promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students’ conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes” (ISTE).  However, due to technology restrictions in my school I will have to refocus my GAME plan on my goals for ISTE Standard 2: Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments.  Indicator b. states that teachers “develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress” (ISTE). 

Originally I wanted to incorporate a technology enriched assessment for each unit plan I teach and to develop a list of creative, technology-based assessments for students to choose from.  After becoming inspired by the course text this week, I have decided to develop a student an on-going portfolio project that incorporates each of the above assessments.  John Ross explains that assessments provide valuable data and help teachers support student learning by understanding their individual needs (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).  Students will document and reflect on various portfolio projects of their choice.  Student contributions to their portfolio will include a combination of assessments of personal choice along with required pieces. 

            It will take time to develop project-based assessments for each unit plan that incorporate technology.  I understand that this process could be several years in the making.  As with all lesson plans and projects, I will have to edit and revise my new projects based on successful implementation and issues that arise throughout each project’s process.  The projects will be developed based on content standards and students will be expected to show mastery of the required standard.  These projects will serve as documentation of each student’s mastery of coordinating content standards.

            I have begun the process of creating a list of creative assessments to add to the portfolio.  I would like the list to be extensive enough that students would complete two or three projects each school quarter.  By the end of the school year, students would write reflections of their experiences while creating each project.  I have reflected on my experiences in undergraduate school and I have contacted a teacher from a different school district to give me ideas of suggestions while developing my list.  If anyone has creative, project or problem-based assessments, I would love to hear them!

            Even though my original plans to incorporate a blog into my classroom fell through, I have decided to refocus my goals.  The portfolio will serve as a combination of a documentation portfolio I which students “demonstrate growth by incorporating work samples that show a range of student proficiency over time” (Cennamo, Ross & Ertmer, p. 151) and a showcase portfolio which “contains samples of exemplary work” (Cennamo, Ross & Ertmer, p. 151).  Developing student portfolios to document student work will help students take more responsibility in their work and also show mastery of content standards. 

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.

Carrying Out My GAME Plan...

In order to achieve my GAME plan I must begin to act on the goals I set.  Fully engaging students in my classroom will require me to let go of some of the control through collaborative technology and technology-based assessments   As I am one week into the GAME plan process, I have begun the process of becoming a well-rounded teacher, but I still have a long way to go. 

Resources:

            A variety of resources are required in order for me to follow my GAME plan.  Internet access and a computer are necessary as I continue to research possible lesson plans and assessments that integrate technology.  An additional resource, and probably the most important, is my technology coordinator as she holds information that is key to advancing my (and my students’) connectivity to the web.  While my school is behind the times in technology integration, the technology coordinator is able to give me insight into what new technology resources will be available for next school year.  The final resources that I can use to help me carryout my GAME plan are the remaining courses I have in my Walden program.  The courses along with my peers have proven to be great resources in developing my skills while teaching me about new programs and software.

Information:

            The key source of information that could limit my success in carrying out my GAME plan is my school district’s/principal’s policy on incorporating social collaborative technology.  If social collaborative tools are not permitted in my school district, my choices of assessments and my creativity in my assessments will be limited.  An additional source of information that could impact the development of my future assessments is the schedule for the computer lab next year.  While it may seem silly to some people, the restricted amount of computer lab time significantly affects my lessons and assessments. 

Steps Taken So Far:

I have not contacted my technology coordinator or principal about the technology restrictions within the district because I want to fully educate myself on the functions that I will utilize in the social collaborative technology.  My first step in this process has been becoming more familiar with the possible functions on a blog along with the security functions.  As I am the first teacher in my district (that I know of) to include a blog into my classroom, I want to be prepared to explain my goals for using this technology before I take the idea to my principal and technology coordinator. 

Developing a GAME Plan

The indicators I chose from the ISTE website clearly show my struggle to give up control in the classroom.  Many people believe new teachers are creative risk-takers that push others to move forward in the education field.  While I possess many of the common attributes of a new teacher, I struggle to break down walls that restrict me from fully engaging my students.  Creating GAME plans will allow me to develop into the well-rounded teacher I set out to become.

The first indicator that I struggle with falls under Standard 1:. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity.  Indicator c. states that teachers “promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students’ conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes” (ISTE).  While students have multiple opportunities to communicate and collaborate in my classroom, none of these experiences utilize technology.  Peggy Ertmer (2010A) explains that a teacher’s first priority is to teach content, and technology allows teachers to do that in a more effective way.  Due to my inexperience with collaborative tools in the classroom, I struggle in developing collaborative projects because I am intimidated by the risk that is involved in giving students the freedom to collaborate online. 

In developing my GAME plan for strengthening my confidence in this indicator I will start by setting goals.  My first goal is to become comfortable with at least one collaborative tool so that I can incorporate it into consistent classroom practice.  My second goal is to develop a weekly assessment in which students would consistently use the collaborative tool.  With my goals set, I will develop actions to achieve my goals.  First, I will familiarize myself with the technology restrictions within my school district in order to choose the collaborative tool I will focus on.  With the tool in mind, I will then develop one weekly assessment that my students will collaborate in.  I would like this assessment to be engaging for students so I would like to provide a great deal of student choice in the assignment.  I will monitor my progress by completing monthly reviews on the collaborative experience.  I also think it would be beneficial to discuss the assessment with students in order to gain an understanding of ways that it could be improved.  Finally I will evaluate and extend my learning by incorporating an additional collaborative learning tool into my routine.

The second indicator that I struggle with falls under Standard 2: Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments.  Indicator b. states that teachers “develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress” (ISTE).  While teachers can develop authentic, learner-centered instruction without the use of technology, it is a power tool to help increase students engagement and motivation in the learning environment (Cennamo, Ross & Ertmer, 2009).   I struggle with this indicator because I am inexperienced in allowing students to take control of their learning.

In developing my GAME plan for strengthening my confidence in this indicator I will start by setting goals.  My first goal is to incorporate a technology enriched assessment for each unit plan I teach.  With limited technology in my classroom, achieving one assessment per unit is realistic.  My second goal is to develop a list of creative, technology-based assessments for students to choose from.  The list of assessments will range from creating newspaper headlines for a novel to creating a soundtrack play list that represents a novel.  Students will have the opportunity to choose which assignments they would like to complete as well as have the ability to be creative.  My first action to achieve my goal is to work on creating or adapting existing lesson to incorporate technology.  I understand that it is important to enrich my lessons with technology, not develop my lessons to meet technology (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010b).  I will also begin creating a list of assessments that can be used for a variety of novels and themes.  I will monitor my progress on these goals as students complete the assignments.  I will gain a better understanding of student engagement during and after the learning process.  Finally, I will evaluate and extend my learning by at the semester break to determine the extent to which these assessments are successful.  I could extend my learning by allowing students to develop their own assessments.

Resources:

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.

ISTE.  (11 May, 2011).  NETS for teachers 2008.  retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers/nets-for-teachers-2008.aspx

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010A). Enriching Content Area Learning Experiences With Technology Part I [Webcast]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Author

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010B). Enriching Centent Area Learning Experiences With Technology Part 2 [Webcast].  Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas.  Baltimore, MD: Author

Final Reflection

During this course I have discovered instructional strategies that incorporate educational technologies that I have not been exposed to.  Also, I now understand how the brain works and the impact that a student-centered classroom has on student learning.  As a result, I have analyzed my personal learning theory and how the educational learning theories are incorporated into classroom.  I have also analyzed adjustments that need to be made in my classroom in order to foster an engaging learning environment.  Finally, I have developed two long-term goals that will help me continue on the path of improving as a teacher. 

In my personal theory of learning I developed in the first week, I described learning as an individual process based on personal experiences, background, and preferences.  I also stressed the significant role that the constructivist perspective, the communication process, and individual learning styles in the learning process.  However, after advancing through six more weeks of this course, I have discovered the significant impact that all learning theories and educational technologies have on the facilitation of learning.  I believe I primarily focused on the importance of the constructivist perspective, communication process, and individual learning styles in learning because I am most comfortable with these concepts.  However, as my knowledge of other theories and educational technologies has expanded, I hope to incorporate them into my personal learning theory as well.  “Teachers want to transfer the knowledge and skills they currently possess to their students so that they too can embrace, enjoy, and use that knowledge academically, personally, and professionally (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008, p. 10).  After considering various learning theories, exploring educational technology tools, and studying the role of the brain in the learning process, I have a deeper knowledge and understanding of their impact on student learning, and I hope to incorporate them into my classroom.

The most immediate adjustment I plan to make in my instructional practice is to incorporate more constructive/construction learning activities using technology.  The constructive/constructionist learning theories had the biggest impact on me during this course.  Dr. Orey (2010) explains the constructionist learning theory states people learn best when they build an external artifact or something they can share with others.  Constructionist learning experiences enhance student learning by creating an active learning environment.  Two technologies that I intend to incorporate into my classroom are VoiceThread and a Weblog.  These educational technologies makes engaging in project-based, problem-based, or inquiry based assessments more accessible by providing a resources to help teachers develop active learning environments where students collaborate through cooperative learning.  Cooperative learning enhances student learning because they are able to construct new knowledge through interactions with their peers (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007).   

I have developed two long-term goals in relation to my instructional practice regarding technology integration.  My first goal is to eventually integrate technology-based culminating assessments.  Presently, I have a mixture of project-based assessments along with traditional paper-pencil tests.  I hope to only use technology-based assessments for a final project in a unit.  I understand this process is very time consuming, but I must start somewhere.  I will slowly begin developing new assessments during the summer vacation months.  My second goal is to develop a professional learning committee (PLC) within my school to help teachers collaborate and share ideas regarding educational technology tools.  One major advantage of this course was discovering creative projects and assessments that teachers are currently using in their own classrooms, and I would like to develop a similar environment in my school.  I plan to develop the group through word of mouth with my grade level PLC.  After creating a group, I will need to create a meeting schedule and develop an agenda for the group to follow during meetings.

            Through this course I have discovered new strategies that are rooted in various learning theories.  I am excited about the new educational technologies I have been exposed to during this course, and I hope to incorporate them into my classroom in order to better facilitate and support learning.  After this course, I believe it is important to update my repertoire of instructional and learning strategies that I currently use in order to challenge my 21^st century learners.

References:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Program Number One: Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical foundations (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.).  Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Pitler H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Social Learning Theories

This week we have focused on the role of social learning, the idea that students learn through collaborative interactions with others, in the classroom.  Social learning is supported by various theories, instructional strategies and technology.  We have discovered a variety of ways to support social learning in our classrooms.

George Siemens described the three roles that a learning theory must have: 1. explains how learning occurs, 2. allows us to create future models of learning, and 3. helps us make sense of the present (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010b).  Social constructionism is a social learning theory that occurs when students are actively engaged in conversations about the building process of constructing an artifact (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010a).  Additionally, teachers can focus in on a students’ zone of proximal development easier when using social learning.  With the assistance from a teacher, parent, peer or technology, students have more support and perspective to learn from (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010a).  While critics continue to discuss its validity, connectivism has and will continue to impact social leaning theories.  Siemens explains that connectivism revolves around the idea that knowledge resides in the patterns or networks (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010b).  All of the social learning theories support learning through interactions with others.

Many of this week’s resources touched on use of instructional strategies and technology to support social learning.  Cooperative learning enhances student learning because they are able to construct new knowledge through interactions with their peers (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007).  Social learning strategies such as a jigsaw activity provide students the opportunity to teach their peers about new concepts.  Cooperative learning instructional strategies are being transformed by technology.  “Technology can play a unique and vital role in cooperative learning by facilitating group collaboration, providing structure for group tasks, and allowing members of groups to communicate even if they are not working face to face” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, p. 140).  Just a few classroom technologies that support social learning theories include multimedia, web resources, keypals, webquests, shared bookmarking, collaborative organizing.  However, I have to spotlight the significant role that communication software plays in collaborative learning.  This software “allows students to collaborate on project without the constraints of time or geography” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, p. 153).  With these programs, students have the opportunity to communicate and share ideas without boundaries.

I developed my own project through the use of collaborative technology this week.  I developed a voice thread as an instructional tool to introduce a potential research project for my language arts class.  After using this program I discovered that I could require students to create their own voice threads for the project.  This project goes above and beyond a Power Point presentation because students are able to interact with on another to improve their projects.  Click on the following link to access my voice thread: http://voicethread.com/share/1893742/

Amanda Skilliter

References:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010a) Program Number One: Social Learning Theories [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b) Program Number Two: Connectivism as a learning theory [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Pitler H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Cognitivist/Constructionist Learning Theories

This week we have focused on the role that the constructivist/constructionist learning theories along with various educational technologies play in today’s classrooms.  Dr. Michel Orey explains that constructivism is “a theory of knowledge stating that each individual actively constructs his or her own meaning” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010).  Students make connections in the learning process based on their own schema.  Dr. Orey also explains that constructionism is “a theory of learning that state people learn when they build an external artifact or something they can share with others” (Laureate Education, Inc, 2010).  The various instructional strategies described this week clearly support the knowledge and learning theories we have focused on.

While reading about this week’s instructional strategy, “Generating and Testing Hypothesis”, I discovered that a variety of technology tools assist in the generating and testing hypothesis process by allowing students to spend more time analyzing data as opposed to collecting and organizing data (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  Spreadsheet software can be programmed to allow students to be interactive.  In the interactive state, “students will be able to manipulate it, consider graphical patterns, and test their predictions by receiving quick feedback on multiple scenarios” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, p. 204).  Data collection tools such as a USB connectable data probe allow students to spend more time analyzing data as opposed to graphing and collecting data (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  Web resources and gaming software such as interactive applets and simulation software provide the opportunity for students to participate in learning environments that allow them “to use background knowledge, make decisions, and see the outcome of their hypothesis” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, p. 212). 

While the “Generating and Testing Hypothesis” technology tools mentioned above create interactive learning environments they also correlate with the constructivist/constructionist learning theories.  Each strategy allows students to reflect on their individual schema to understand meaning, which is rooted in the constructivist learning theory.  Each strategy also allows students to create new products while participating in each activity.  However, the real learning occurs when students share their artifacts with others (Thurmond, 1999).  Dr. Orey discussed the significant role that Power Point presentations can have in the classroom due to the opportunity that it provides for students to orally present their findings (Laureate Eduation, Inc., 2010).

While constructivism is a theory of knowledge, constructionism is a theory of learning.  In combination, these theories require active learning experiences that engage learners in a way that helps them “understand, apply, and retain information” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010).  The “Generating and Testing Hypothesis” technology tools and Power Point software assist learners by providing active learning experiences by building on individual schema’s and encouraging students to create and share new artifacts.

References:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Program Number 7: Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories [Webcast]. Baltimore: Author

Pitler H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Thurmond, AnnMarie. (1999, May)  Seymour Papert and constructionism.  ITEC 800 Final Project. As retrieved from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~foreman/itec800/finalprojects/annmariethurmond/defconstructionism.html