The first video with Linda Darling-Hammond stresses the importance of social and emotional learning. The students learn the skills necessary for after school when entering the real world. She stresses project-based learning and how students come together as teams to accomplish a major task, which are all beneficial for the real world. A lot of the videos and readings highlight project-based learning, which gives students opportunities to mimic what scientists actually do instead of sitting in a classroom with four walls listening and memorizing. I enjoyed watching the students building the Electron Marathon race cars. There are eighth graders learning single-cell organisms like they are scientists in the lab. Seymour Papert stresses that standard thinking is different and why project-based learning is advantageous. This type of learning is more interesting to students. I enjoyed seeing Seymour Papert on the video because I share a lot of beliefs he possesses. I have one of his quotes as the signature on my email: “If you can make things with computers, then you can make a lot more interesting things.”
I enjoyed watching how the teacher who has a class that blogs doesn’t give definitions for everything. Students have to Google it to find out the answer. She has the mindset of what I like teachers to have, which is a I don’t know everything, I am learning with students or they are teaching me state of mind. These students create videos for students in other parts of the world. It’s all about empowering students. “Integration is key” is why High Tech High has high percentage of graduates. You’re wedding the pedagogy of technology with the content of academics. Parameters are set for use of video games. There are longer blocks of time for students to produce projects instead of 45 minutes. I like how this school leader would start conversations with teachers asking them their most memorable learning experiences in high schools and most of them would reply with projects utilizing technology. Then he asks them if that conforms to what they are teaching. That is huge! Something I will think about in professional developments with teachers.
There is a connection between the last two videos, which they both show the benefit of having teachers from different content areas “team teach” to get the most bang for their buck. They have regular meetings with each other to make sure they are on the same page. Not only are students collaborating but teachers are, as well!
I like the Cast reading that says the supports that are there for students throughout the year must be available during testing. I couldn’t agree more. Digital tools and media make it possible to prepare ongoing assessments that support individual differences in recognition, strategic and affective networks (UDL) giving the educator a more precise measurement of students’ achievement in reference to the goal of that student. Having a digital curriculum with an assessment makes it easy to track progress and informal/formal feedback to assist student performance while they are learning.
The McREL Technology Initiative (MTI) was developed because there was an obvious lack of resources and professional development for educators. To address this, McREL created and tested a research-based model of professional development that helps teachers integrate technology into their classroom instruction and help students achieve challenging content standards. The research behind MTI developed into a model of professional development called McREL Technology Solutions (MTS) program. I like the article that addresses the “whys” of teachers finding it difficult to move from their traditional ways of teaching to the digital way. The MTS program makes a lot of sense and seems to be very beneficial in schools having successful technologically-infused classrooms. I think a school leader could get teachers on board with this type of training if teachers are shown the data from having the program implemented in other schools and the success with its implementation. In addition, teachers need that continued on-site support. As stated in Web 2.0: New tools, New schools book, “Furthermore, brief classes or workshops without ongoing support seem to create few substantive changes” (Cuban, 2001; Pelligrino, 2004; Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 2000; Schrum, 1999). This struck a chord with me because I realized why I do what I do every day. Since I am a Campus-based Instructional Technology Specialist, I am on our campus all day every day for our teachers. After I deliver professional development, I am there to follow up with my teachers to find out how the lesson went with the technology they leaned in my class. I can also touch base with those teachers and ask if I can be in their class and assist them with the technology during classroom instruction with their class. It never is a one-time training and never see the teachers again scenario. Many times all of us are in those types of trainings where our school hires somebody to come in, show us some cool things we get really excited about and then leave – never to be heard or seen again. I understand more and more why teachers need the support to carry out strategies learned in professional developments.
References:
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology 1980-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Edutopia.org (December 10, 2007). The Collaborative Classroom: An Interview with Linda Darling-Hammond. Filmed at the CASEL forum in New York City. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/linda-darling-hammond-sel-video
Edutopia.org. (nd). Harness Your Students’ Digital Smarts. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-teachers-vicki-davis
Edutopia.org (nd). High Tech High Taking the Lead: An Interview with Larry Rosenstock. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from http://www.edutopia.org/collaboration-age-technology-larry-rosenstock-video
Edutopia (nd). Team Teaching: Two Teachers, Three Subjects, One Project. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from http://www.edutopia.org/collaboration-age-technology-blood-bank-video
Pelligrino, J.W. (2004). Designs for research on technology and assessment: Conflicting or complementary agendas? In B. Means & G.D. Haertel (Eds.), Using technology evaluation to enhance students learning (pp. 49-56). New York: Teachers College Press.
Pitler, H. (2005). McRel technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program final report (Contract Number ED-01-CO-0006). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED486685) Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED486685&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED486685
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chapter 7. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Web site. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
Sandholtz, J. H. Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (2000). The evolution of instruction in technology-rich classrooms. In The Jossey-bass Reader on Technology and Learning (pp. 255-276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D), 47(4), 83-90.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, New schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment