Reflection EDUC 6714 Reaching and Engaging All Learners Through Technology

For some reason, this reflection is very difficult for me to write.  I think the reasons are multifold.  Three come to immediate consideration in responding to this reflection.

First, UDL and DI are not by any means new concepts.  I have resources referencing CarolAnn Tomlinson that go back as far as 1999 (Tomlinson, 1999), and the CAST website references 1984 as a founding date (http://www.cast.org/about/index.html).  However, the use and inclusion of both practices are relatively new to the mainstream classroom.  There tends to be a lot of buzz about both, but relatively little demonstration of either.  This is addressed by Dr. Tomlinson when she stresses that teachers need to bring DI slowly and methodically into their classroom practices to feel comfortable and competent in the change.  The reason this becomes topical for this reflection is that there truly are not many resources that are clearly defined as “differentiated instruction” or “UDL” and teachers have to apply some ingenuity to available resources to utilize them toward both frameworks.  Having said that, my instincts tell me that I look at the resources on our Differentiation Station Ning (http://yippeeyoyo.ning.com/) with some skepticism and insecurity in my abilities to apply them to my classroom for the purposes of DI and UDL applications. 

Next, I believe that since this is the first offering of this course and many of its nuances have yet to be addressed, some of the directions of the social network postings were vague and obtuse.  The result is that none of its members, myself included, were particularly profuse in either offering additional resources on an on-going basis nor commenting on those posted as a result of trial and error.  There did not seem to be the interaction on the Ning that I have experienced in past cohort discussions using social networking applications.  Simply stated:  I am not sure we knew enough of what we were doing to really take a serious look at what we were offering and how it could play out in a DI activity or its use in UDL.

Lastly, the resources posted on the Ning ((http://yippeeyoyo.ning.com/) are going to require some experience to increase my level of expertise and subsequent comfort utilizing them.  As an example, one of the members of the cohort was very comfortable with video productions and posted some great resources to that end.  I, other the other hand, am going to have to take some time and learn what Mr. Lollis has seemingly already mastered.  I am confident that I will make progress to this challenge in the same manner that I did with podcasts and voice threads, both of which I intend to use to convert text to audio  and for students to utilize as an alternative means of transforming their knowledge to assessment products (Smith and Throne, 2007).

In conclusion, I believe I will be “attempting” more innovative activities in my classroom utilizing technology as a result of this course.  I wish I could say that the purpose would be entirely to differentiate my instruction and to remove barriers to learning for all of my students.  Truly, I will get there.  However,  in the beginning, it will probably be a little haphazard and certainly not without  a few stumbling blocks, but it will be ultimately to provide a wider variety of learning resources for all students in my classroom.  More importantly, I will be providing an environment whereby my students and I will be learning in concert with each other, rather than I as the deliverer of knowledge (Laureate Education, 2009).

Marsha Headrick 

 8th ELA, MSEd. ALT 

References:

Laureate Education Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program: 19. Managing the differentiated classroom. [Motion Picture]. Reaching and engaging all learners through technology. Los Angeles: Solution Tree.

Smith, G., & Throne, S. (2007). Differentiating instruction with technology in K-5 classrooms. Belmont, CA: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Tomlinson, Carol Ann. (1999) Differentiated Classroom : Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, 1999. p 106. Retrieved June 17, 2010 from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/waldenu/Doc?id=10115178&ppg=106

Once again, I am amazed at the swiftness that two months can seemingly pass when I am struggling with keeping pace with my own classroom students and my classmate students.  Sometimes,  I really wonder if I am out of my element and out of my zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) as I try to increase my own multimodal literacy (NCTE, 1996).   However, what I have to remember is that the feelings of doubt, frustration, and ineffectiveness are the same feelings many of my students feel when confronted with pages of tightly printed text without any visual cues and lacking any congruence to the authenticity of their own lives.  To further my benevolent observations  paralleling  those of my own students as I tumble through these courses, I then think of the struggles I face as I try to demonstrate my accomplishments of course content mastery in a medium that is totally foreign to me. Thus I struggle not only with the demonstration of mastery of content but also mastery of the medium by which I am required to demonstrate my knowledge and/or skills.  The task becomes a multiple test, not a multiple choice.  Again, a major brain slap of what my students must often feel when they have to demonstrate their comprehension of complex concepts through the selection of one of four choices again without any visual cueing or connection to their own background or culture.  It becomes more significant when I think of the struggling learner who has difficulty comprehending and composing traditional text dealing with a timed writing essay test.  They are not only struggling with demonstrating a higher order cognitive skill but they must use a medium that is as foreign to them as Skype and podcasting is to me! 

The result of the first GAME plan that I put together for this course is the realization that I must be sure that regardless of what assessments I use FOR and OF learning, my assessments must be varied and sensitive to the innate learning styles of my students.  I am looking for demonstration of content knowledge not demonstration of testing ability or accommodating my teaching style.  My first GAME plan stated, “If I can accurately determine whether a targeted instructional goal has been met, needs further instruction, and how to best instruct, I will know that I am successful in the application of this indicator.” (Headrick, 2010).  I learned through this course that my concept of how to assess my students must be first within their comfort zone to determine if instructional goals have been met.  If I use a new technology to assess their content, then I am testing two abilities:  content knowledge and adaptability to new testing formats which might include technology.  In other words, I must ensure that I find assessments that are fair to my students learning styles, and then I must ensure that my students become comfortable with the assessment formats before I can accurately use them to assess learning.  I am referring specifically to my use of “clickers.”  I intended to use them for formative assessments, initiating discussions,  spontaneously guiding instruction, and eventually for summative assessment.  The use of the “clickers”  was as novel to my students, and in some cases confusing, as many of the new technologies are to me.  I realized that there are no magic bullets, there is only consistency until confidence and capability.  The clickers become a novelty and did not enhance instruction, therefore defeated the purpose of adding technology to my instructional practices (Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer, 2009).

The result of the second GAME plan I proposed for this course is actually being realized tomorrow.  I intended to “demonstrate fluency in technology systems and the transfer of current knowledge to new technologies and situations.” (ISTE, 2008). I am giving a professional development presentation on 21^stcentury literacy skills to my building colleagues.  My GAME plan stated, “I will know that I am successful in this indicator if I continue to maintain dialogue with my students and colleagues regarding technology applications and developments.”(Headrick, 2010).  My presentation is digital, multi-modal, and requires the participants to become self-directed learners in a problem-based authentic learning situation in ten minutes focusing on digital storytelling and on-line collaboration (Cennamo, et al, 2009).  I am presenting the material using a Promethean board and without a piece of paper.  Lastly, I am connecting my colleagues to resources that I have become comfortable using and to ideas that challenge their views of their role in the classroom and instructional practices.  Oh yeah…

References:

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach (Laureate Education custom edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Headrick, M.  (2010, January 14).  Message posted to blog for Educ 6713:  http://mheadrick.edublogs.org/2010/01/14/two-game-plans-for-technology-in-content/

International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. (1996).  Standards for the English language arts. United States: Author.

National Education Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) located at http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

I decided it was time to strike out and look for some credible research on the use of classroom response systems, or clickers.  I have much to thank my professor, Dr. Wolsey, for his suggestion regarding last week’s article (Bruff, 2009).  It gave me the momentum to look beyond the Ning and manufacturer’s blog regarding the potentials of clickers in the classroom.  A cursory search resulted in an immediate homerun!  I found a research article by Winograd and Cheesman (2007) regarding the use of classroom response systems. This article included much background information regarding the development and increasing uses of clickers.  However, the real bonus for me in this article (Winograd & Cheesman, 2007) was two-fold: it had suggestions on using the clickers for student-generated open response questions and it actually had examples of such questions.  What I learned is that I do not have to be the sole generator of questions.  Students frequently are the best source of discussion questions in class.  As an example, a student might ask a clarifying question while discussing a literature selection, and instead of my offering a response, I will put the question to the class for discussion and response.  What Winograd & Cheesman (2007) suggest is to use these types of questions as discussions with the class voting on its position before the discussion and then after the discussion, vote again.  This would be a similar use to an anticipation guide as an activating strategy; however, the questions could be spontaneous and more of a higher-order analysis comprehension level and critical thinking.  Most importantly, the questions would be spontaneously generated based on the students’ thoughts instead of teacher prepared in advance which may or may not be on the mark for the focal points of the class discussion. 

I do believe I have come upon a natural and formative on-going use for the clickers in my classroom.  I would use them anonymously encouraging participation from those students otherwise reluctant to share their understanding and opinions regarding literary selections and topical interpretations.  My students are not available to me this week to try these strategies, but I am really excited about their use next week and look forward to posting some results in my blog.

Thank you, Dr. Wolsey, for the kick!

Reference:

Bruff, D, (2009). Classroom Response Systems  (”Clickers”).  Center for Teaching, Vanderbilt University.   http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_resources/technology/crs.htm

 Winograd, G. and Cheesman, E. (2007).  Using Classroom Response Systems. University of Colorado, Colorado Springs.  Retrieved February 16, 2010 from: http://www.uccs.edu/~coe/documents/Winograd%20and%20Cheesman%20(2007).pdf

Update based on further reading and considerations:

Okay, so I have done more reading, gone to some blogs, and queried the more experienced “clicker-savvy” teacher on my hall.  I suppose it is time to simply start the swim to the next buoy, to extend the metaphor further.   What I have discovered in my pursuit of a safe-haven in terms of using my classroom response system, or “ clickers,”  (Bruff, 2009),  is that  there is a learning curve like introducing most classroom technology (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009) until a level of confidence is obtained.

 The article supplied by Professor T. Wolsey (Bruff 2009) guided me to the conclusion that the clickers can be used for a variety of purposes beyond formative and/or summative assessment.  I read that clickers can be used for something as basic as attendance to something as complex as initiating discussions regarding controversial topics that do not result in conclusive answers, for example an anticipation guide to activate a lesson (Bruff, 2009).  The article also addressed some of the classroom “management” type concerns that I am considering (Bruff, 2009) specifically.  The article had suggestions as solutions to these concerns:

“Some teachers have responded to this challenge by relying on pre-class reading assignments to convey portions of course material. Others use the time limit function of a CRS (where students are given only so much time to respond to a given question) to help manage class time. Others feel that students need to master certain material before moving on, and using clickers to ensure that mastery is worth the extra time. Others feel that using clickers to get feedback on student understanding actually allows them to progress through material more quickly by determining what topics they can safely omit.”

(Bruff, 2009, Using a CRS in class takes up class time)

Where that leaves me is that I must develop questions that I can use in my instructional delivery that are somewhat scripted until my own style begins to incorporate formative questions naturally.  Additionally, I need to give more time to the development of multiple choice questions as part of my quizzes and or lesson summarizing strategies.  Lastly, I regret that I had not spent more time learning the intricacies of forced-choice test item creation when I took my course on assessment as a pre-service teacher.  

This being said, I  have decided that beginning week after next, I will begin to use a standardized-test coaching book  as bellwork.  The coaching book is all multiple choice in the same format and presentation as the state standardized tests in late April.  The class set of books can be stored under each desk; students can obtain an anonymous CRS/clicker upon entering the classroom, read printed passages in front of them, and prepare their responses for whole class response and discussion.  The bellwork discussions will not only focus on content but also on test-taking strategies, with which many struggling learners need additional support.  As we progress closer to the state exams and spontaneous formative assessment becomes even more critical, my expertise in question development and “on-the-fly” interpretation (Bruff, 2009) should improve as the students’  familiarity with both the devices and the question format increases.   In essence, it’s time to jump in and get wet. 

 Reference:

Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach (Laureate Education custom edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

Bruff, D, (2009). Classroom Response Systems  (“Clickers”).  Center for Teaching, Vanderbilt University.   http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_resources/technology/crs.htm

This week seems like I am treading water out in the middle of the ocean.  I keep reading how wonderful classroom response systems are and how they work perfectly for formative assessment.  However, there is nothing in what I read that addresses how special needs students and/or struggling learners can keep up the pace with reading on-line text as a whole group class and then answering in a timely fashion with the whole class.   The second issue I am facing is the classroom managment  in terms of getting the activotes out and back in quickly so as not to lose valuable instructional time.    My professor for the class for which I write this blog gave me a link to a very informative website and I fully intend to take a few minutes this weekend to catch up on some on-line reading.  This posting is just the beginning of what I believe I will be bringing back in a few days.

Marsha

8th ELA

As I move through my “GAME” plan (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009), I find that I am beginning to pull pieces together. I owe this principally to the networking I have recently experienced through English Companion Ning.  I have long belonged to a technology blog on this site, however I have not taken advantage of really using it until this past week.  We were required to reach out to colleagues to help resolve some of the obstacles and challenges encountered in our GAME plans.  As a result, I posted a question on this blog and was very gratified with the responses that I received.  I have received suggestions on ways that I can utilize remote response devices with vocabulary instruction, but more importantly with reading passages.  That was one of my greatest concerns:  trying to figure out a way to utilize these devices effectively with some sort of reading comprehension. 

Unfortunately, I have not received any guidance on the classroom management concerns of distributing and collecting  the devices efficiently.  I believe like most new practices or strategies utilized in a classroom (e.g. c ollaborative pairing, reciprocal teaching, portfolios, learning stations, etc.) , setting the stage with preparation and detailed expectations along with continual practice will lead to the desired results.  So, with that in mind, it is time to move into the action, monitoring, and evaluating stages of my GAME plan.  Next week I will have four other ELA teachers’ classes rotate into my classroom for instruction in the research process and I will be using the remote response devices to assess their learning.

Reference:

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach (Laureate Education custom edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

I have to admit that I have been having a difficult time feeling a part of my own GAME plan.  It never occurred to me until this week’s reading and resources that the reason for my disconnectedness was that I was “out of context”.   My GAME plan focuses on the indicators of formative and summative assessments, and the application of current knowledge to new technologies.  I feel as though I finally got some substance in this week’s readings regarding the different types of assessment formats, the benefits and uses unique to each, and ideas for each particular type and application to purpose.  Of particular help or inspiration was the information regarding the use of data from forced-choice assessments, specifically remote response devices.  The use of my “Activotes” with my Promethean board is a particular goal for my GAME plan.  However, I don’t want to simply have the students use these instead of a traditional Scantron.  In fact, I’m an English teacher with a preferred assessment format of either open-ended response formats, performance assessments, or project-based assessments.  Frankly, Scantrons go against my “left-brain” grain.  As much as I would like to save trees and use the building Scantron reader for a boat anchor, I have to accept that using these to establish base-line data to 1) drive instruction, 2) differentiate student-learning, and 3) monitor teacher-effectiveness are currently in my present and will remain in my future.  I need to learn to live with them as best as I can “use” them. 

I am actually lucky in that I have an interactive whiteboard and I have the remote response devices which emulate the same assessment format as the Scantrons.  Short of testing the test, I need to design ways to use my “Activotes” to my students’ and my advantage.  The obvious is to find test bank resources for multiple choice questions (did I say that?).  According to Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, (2009), forced-response format assessments are more difficult to design than open-ended response format assessments and I can attest to that personally.  I am making use right now of the flipcharts that I find on the Promethean website (PrometheanPlanet.com), and many of them include formative assessments in the form of quick check quizzes.  However, I am reluctant to use the Activotes because I am uncomfortable with the management of getting them out to the students and getting them back in without taking up a tremendous amount of class time.  I have used them anonymously (not assigning a device to each student) , which is better than nothing.  Yet, this does not provide any opportunity for data recording or using the data to guide instruction.  I might as well be using my little paper “flippies” for formative assessment (flippy is a term I coined for notebook paper quartered with multiple-choice responses whereby students can respond immediately to formative assessment questions during instruction).  It never occurred to me that perhaps I need to investigate how to manage using the Activotes so I can begin to feel comfortable using them, thereby defining more of a purpose for them, and then creating more formative assessments.  Again, I find that my two NETS-T indicators (i.e. assessment and application of current knowledge to new technologies) are crossing paths.  I know that formative assessment is critical to informing my classroom instruction, and I know that my new technologies are the key to that.  I need to research and resolve the problem of feeling comfortable and confident (Cennamo, et al, 2009) utilizing a different formative assessment format (forced-choice response)  and throwing little technology devices ”out there” to my students to see how it all can work. 

 I suppose it’s time to put away the slate and chizel.  My first step after reviewing and reconsidering my GAME plan is to visit PrometheanPlanet.com and look for a teacher-assistance blog.  Perhaps there will be other technology novices that have had similar shifts in their pedagogical foundations, and they can offer advice (and consolation).  Do you have any suggestions?

References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach (Laureate Education custom edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

As I progress in my GAME plan integrating technology into my content and targeting NETS-T performance indicators in formative and summative assessment and the application of current knowledge to new technologies, I find that these two indicators are not separate; rather they are concurrent in their development and application.  I stated in my previous posting of 1/14 that my resources for this task will be content test banks, weblogs and discussion boards for English teachers, my interactive whiteboard and remote response devices, past assessment tools and data, and electronic data-base and spreadsheet software.  Additionally, I will collaborate with my co-teacher who specializes in exceptional education, the media specialist who has an interest and background in student-centered technology, and our technology instructor who also has an interest in developing technology enhanced performance assessments.  Further, I will maintain on-going dialogue with my administrative team to ensure that I will have the computer lab availability, administrative support in terms of responsible student internet usage,  and parental feedback.  I will investigate the experiences of other 8^th grade middle school ELA teachers to learn from their experiences what potential positive outcomes to expect and what possible hazards to avoid.  Lastly, in the area of spontaneous formative assessment, I will focus initially on remote electronic response devices which complement my interactive whiteboard.  This will require investigating the whiteboard website (Promethean Planet) for packaged lesson plans to use as models for my own flipchart development.  This will be no easy task since the software can be rather daunting.  Perhaps, as I become more familiar with the software and my students become more familiar with the content, we can collaborate to develop flipcharts for future classroom instruction, resulting in still another form of summative assessment of my student’s learning: creating instructional materials based on their own knowledge and problem-solving.

Welcome to the latest chapter of my pursuit of digital literacy to keep pace with my students and their education. I am now challenged with targeting and formulating my own plan for digital growth and outcomes.  After much review and reflection of the ITSE National Educational Technology Standards (NETS•T) and Performance Indicators for Teachers (ISTE, 2008),  I have decided that my focus should be on assessment and transference of current knowledge to new technologies. Using the model prescribed by Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2009), I have formulated the following GAME plans for two of the ISTE indicators.

The first GAME plan is based on Standard 2, indicator “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 (ISTE, 2008). What I want to be able to do is determine if my instructional plans in content and technology are successful and if learning, my own included, is occurring. What I know is that this is only done through assessment, both formative FOR learning, and summative OF learning. If I can accurately determine whether a targeted instructional goal has been met, needs further instruction, and how to best instruct, I will know that I am successful in the application of this indicator. The actions I will take will be to design instructional plans with spontaneous opportunities for formative assessments that can also be student-centered and student-directed. I will also research and collaborate to design reliable and valid summative performance assessments. My resources for this task will be content test banks, weblogs and discussion boards for English teachers, my interactive whiteboard and remote response devices, past assessment tools and data, and electronic data-base and spreadsheet software. I will monitor my progress in this plan by using the district curriculum pacing guide to determine if I am in keeping with overall instructional timing and goals while initiating innovative assessment tools and strategies. I will evaluate my success in this indicator by determining if my formative assessments in content and technology improve my students’ summative assessment results, and ultimately if their scores improve on state standardized tests in content technology.

My second GAME plan (Cennamo, et al, 2009) focuses on indicator “a” of Standard 3: “demonstrate fluency in technology systems and the transfer of current knowledge to new technologies and situations” (ISTE, 2008). What I want to be able to do is confidently move about the world of technology to utilize it to enhance my pedagogical practices and maintain a high-level of life-long self-directed learning (Cennamo, et al, 2009). What I know is that the more I learn, the more I realize how much there is to learn and that this will not end. I will know that I am successful in this indicator if I continue to maintain dialogue with my students and colleagues regarding technology applications and developments. The information I need to meet my goal will be up-to-date educational and technological digital literacy professional articles and research and current applications as they develop. I will utilize self-directed learning to maintain a high level of information and data. Resources for this indicator will change as technology continues to develop. The most influential resource will be ICT’s to maintain contact within the venue of application. I will establish regular pacing and evaluation points to monitor my commitment, progress, and success. These pacing and evaluation points will also serve as my evaluative process to determine if I need to modify my actions or change my focus.

References:
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach (Laureate Education custom edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
National Education Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) located at http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf.

Welcome! This is the next chapter in my blog experience and learning to learn in the world of technology.