By James Matthews
My GAME Plan for effectively integrating technology into my teaching practices involved letting go of some long-held beliefs about education. It also involved grasping onto newer processes and tools to make me a better teacher. In spite of the way in which I have taught math (rather successfully in many cases), I agree with the authors of our text that “Authentic instruction is based on active, experiential learning” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 31). What is interesting is that even though I understand and truly believe that people learn best through action, I fully subscribed to a combination of insightful lecture and drill-and-kill practice. I used to think that technology is “nice”… actually, often pretty “slick.” But it was primarily a potential add-on to my core instruction practices.
Now, much like NCTM suggests, I believe that “technology enhances mathematics learning” and that it is truly possible that “technology influences what mathematics is taught” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, pp. 255-256). Since I am now open to the learning possibilities offered by existing and emerging technologies, what I teach, how I teach, how much I teach (as opposed to how much I allow students to explore; self-directed learning), and how deeply I will teach it, has been positively affected by technology. Using computers as a tutor and as mindtools are excellent ways to “hook,” motivate, encourage, engage, and lead students to learning. Digital storytelling, for example, allows me to do all of those things while still reserving the opportunity to reinforce 21st Century Skills and effectively assess understanding. I would have never considered that type of assignment as a core teaching (or assessment) tool before this class/ graduate program. I admit that I have been successfully recruited into the educator’s army for educational technology reform; it is not what it used to be and I love it.
James
References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: a standards-based approach. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Using the GAME Plan Process with Students
By James Matthews
Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s GAME Plan outlines “recommendations for self-directed learning” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 3). It offers a tangible guide for teachers to visualize, organize, plan, analyze, and reflect on effective lesson planning. When technology is incorporated into the GAME Plan, the setting is perfect for interesting, relevant, and productive teaching and learning.
I have been a little intimidated by changing the way that I teach mathematical topics; but it is not really about the inclusion of technology (though that is different perspective) that produces the hesitation. I have feared that I may not completely cover the mathematics by including the technology – the old “fluff” versus “substance” excuse. This class (and this graduate program in general) has helped to more confidently envision the widespread use of voice threads, podcasts, wikis, blogs, movies, and presentations in general, in my math classroom. Each of them offers opportunities to gain and apply 21st century skills while digging deeper into the math content through actual real-life application. ISTE standards are all about integrating technology skills with the understanding of the content in a fun and creative way (NETS-T 1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity as noted on page 23 of the text).
The more I can infuse technology into my thinking, the more I will apply it to my planning, the more I have to prepare to use it, the more my students will appreciate it and be more interested in learning what I have to offer.
On many levels, teaching utopia.
James
References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: a standards-based approach. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.
Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s GAME Plan outlines “recommendations for self-directed learning” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 3). It offers a tangible guide for teachers to visualize, organize, plan, analyze, and reflect on effective lesson planning. When technology is incorporated into the GAME Plan, the setting is perfect for interesting, relevant, and productive teaching and learning.
I have been a little intimidated by changing the way that I teach mathematical topics; but it is not really about the inclusion of technology (though that is different perspective) that produces the hesitation. I have feared that I may not completely cover the mathematics by including the technology – the old “fluff” versus “substance” excuse. This class (and this graduate program in general) has helped to more confidently envision the widespread use of voice threads, podcasts, wikis, blogs, movies, and presentations in general, in my math classroom. Each of them offers opportunities to gain and apply 21st century skills while digging deeper into the math content through actual real-life application. ISTE standards are all about integrating technology skills with the understanding of the content in a fun and creative way (NETS-T 1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity as noted on page 23 of the text).
The more I can infuse technology into my thinking, the more I will apply it to my planning, the more I have to prepare to use it, the more my students will appreciate it and be more interested in learning what I have to offer.
On many levels, teaching utopia.
James
References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: a standards-based approach. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Revising My GAME Plan
By James Matthews
Am I making progress towards my stated goals? Should I revise those goals?
1. What have I learned so far that I can apply in my instructional practice?
I have learned that I can be flexible. That is, I can be partly traditional math teacher and new-age instructor using more technology and less lecture. Our authors suggest that “Authentic learning is learner-centered” and the emphasis should be “on learning as opposed to teaching” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 248).
2. What goals am I still working toward?
I still need to work on completely trusting that students will gain the understanding they need by using too many social tools. I must work towards the belief that many technologies “offer the promise of supplementing and enhancing abilities and compensating for barriers that diverse learners might experience” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 134).
3. Based on the NETS-T, what new learning goals will I set for myself?
To incorporate the NCTM suggestions of remembering that “technology enhances mathematics learning.” Further, as the teacher, I need to select the appropriate technology uses for student’s learning (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 255).
4. What learning approaches will I try next time to improve my learning?
If I focus on incorporating technology on the front side, then maybe students can be taught better. “Technology influences what mathematics is taught” and using it can allow a much more broad exploration of the topics (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 256). If I try to learn more about technology then I might be able to teach students better math.
I am starting to come around.
James
References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: a standards-based approach. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.
Am I making progress towards my stated goals? Should I revise those goals?
1. What have I learned so far that I can apply in my instructional practice?
I have learned that I can be flexible. That is, I can be partly traditional math teacher and new-age instructor using more technology and less lecture. Our authors suggest that “Authentic learning is learner-centered” and the emphasis should be “on learning as opposed to teaching” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 248).
2. What goals am I still working toward?
I still need to work on completely trusting that students will gain the understanding they need by using too many social tools. I must work towards the belief that many technologies “offer the promise of supplementing and enhancing abilities and compensating for barriers that diverse learners might experience” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 134).
3. Based on the NETS-T, what new learning goals will I set for myself?
To incorporate the NCTM suggestions of remembering that “technology enhances mathematics learning.” Further, as the teacher, I need to select the appropriate technology uses for student’s learning (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 255).
4. What learning approaches will I try next time to improve my learning?
If I focus on incorporating technology on the front side, then maybe students can be taught better. “Technology influences what mathematics is taught” and using it can allow a much more broad exploration of the topics (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 256). If I try to learn more about technology then I might be able to teach students better math.
I am starting to come around.
James
References
Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: a standards-based approach. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Evaluating My GAME Plan Progress
By James Matthews
Let me take a moment to evaluate my progress toward meeting my goals for learning about technology and technology resources. I will do it by answering the following familiar questions.
1. How effective were my actions in helping me meet my goals?
I must admit that (since I have fallen behind in my coursework) I have done work fpr completion and not so much to really glean anything from it. Now, by default, the exercises have forced me to focus on new ideas and perspectives, but I have not truly taken advantage of the information. That will change, however.
2. What have I learned so far that I can apply in my instructional practice?
I continue to gain confidence in the role and potential effectiveness of technology even in the developmental math class I teach. There really seems to be a place for it there.
3. What do I still have to learn? What new questions have arisen?
I still need to learn better ways to incorporate technology into the lessons given the massive amounts of content we have to cover in such a short period of time.
4. How will I adjust my plan to fit my current needs?
I should focus on some of the easier topics I teach when I think of material to which I should try to apply more technology. Instead of focusing solely on the least interesting topics, maybe I should start with the ones that are more conducive to fun technological applications.
We will see where the rest of the class takes me.
James
Let me take a moment to evaluate my progress toward meeting my goals for learning about technology and technology resources. I will do it by answering the following familiar questions.
1. How effective were my actions in helping me meet my goals?
I must admit that (since I have fallen behind in my coursework) I have done work fpr completion and not so much to really glean anything from it. Now, by default, the exercises have forced me to focus on new ideas and perspectives, but I have not truly taken advantage of the information. That will change, however.
2. What have I learned so far that I can apply in my instructional practice?
I continue to gain confidence in the role and potential effectiveness of technology even in the developmental math class I teach. There really seems to be a place for it there.
3. What do I still have to learn? What new questions have arisen?
I still need to learn better ways to incorporate technology into the lessons given the massive amounts of content we have to cover in such a short period of time.
4. How will I adjust my plan to fit my current needs?
I should focus on some of the easier topics I teach when I think of material to which I should try to apply more technology. Instead of focusing solely on the least interesting topics, maybe I should start with the ones that are more conducive to fun technological applications.
We will see where the rest of the class takes me.
James
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Developing My Personal GAME Plan
By James Matthews
The National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS•S) lists important technological indicators for the 21st century learner. If I am to be a relevant instructor, I absolutely need to be more dialed into technology in general.
The two NETS-S indicators on which I really want to work:
1. Indicator #1 - Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity
2. Indicator #3 - Model Digital-Age Work and Learning
Here are my Goals for strengthening my confidence in the above indicators:
1. To introduce and familiarize my class and myself with various technological tools for the classroom.
2. To learn more about technological tools that exist that may be transformed into classroom learning tools (quantitative goal).
3. To incorporate more technology into my daily living.
Here are the Actions I will take to strengthen my and my students’ proficiency in the above indicators:
1. Use problem-based projects to introduce and/or as summative assessment.
2. Include current technologies like iPods, iPads, smart readers (Kindle, etc…), and smart phones (iPhone, etc…) in the design and implementation of assignments.
3. Subscribe to technology eJournals and blogs and participate in technological events.
I will Monitor my success by:
1. Monitoring my students’ growth (understanding, creativity, initiative).
2. Comparing my actions against the quantitative goal (goal #2 above).
I will Evaluate and Extend my learning:
1. Through continued education.
2. By requesting ideas from my students on possible projects (and the tools we might use for those projects).
3. By reflecting on the relevance and overall value of the tools we used in learning the material.
4. Ask myself the following questions to evaluate and extend my approaches (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009).
a. Have I met my learning goals? That is, do I feel comfortable enough with my understanding to teach it effectively?
b. Should I modify my goals or learning strategies? Have I uncovered other, more pressing weaknesses that must be addressed first?
c. What will I do differently in the future? How can I learn more efficiently and completely?
I do believe that at least focusing on incorporating the NETS-T standards will enlighten me and my educational expectations. It may even make me a better-liked and more respected instructor.
The National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS•S) lists important technological indicators for the 21st century learner. If I am to be a relevant instructor, I absolutely need to be more dialed into technology in general.
The two NETS-S indicators on which I really want to work:
1. Indicator #1 - Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity
2. Indicator #3 - Model Digital-Age Work and Learning
Here are my Goals for strengthening my confidence in the above indicators:
1. To introduce and familiarize my class and myself with various technological tools for the classroom.
2. To learn more about technological tools that exist that may be transformed into classroom learning tools (quantitative goal).
3. To incorporate more technology into my daily living.
Here are the Actions I will take to strengthen my and my students’ proficiency in the above indicators:
1. Use problem-based projects to introduce and/or as summative assessment.
2. Include current technologies like iPods, iPads, smart readers (Kindle, etc…), and smart phones (iPhone, etc…) in the design and implementation of assignments.
3. Subscribe to technology eJournals and blogs and participate in technological events.
I will Monitor my success by:
1. Monitoring my students’ growth (understanding, creativity, initiative).
2. Comparing my actions against the quantitative goal (goal #2 above).
I will Evaluate and Extend my learning:
1. Through continued education.
2. By requesting ideas from my students on possible projects (and the tools we might use for those projects).
3. By reflecting on the relevance and overall value of the tools we used in learning the material.
4. Ask myself the following questions to evaluate and extend my approaches (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009).
a. Have I met my learning goals? That is, do I feel comfortable enough with my understanding to teach it effectively?
b. Should I modify my goals or learning strategies? Have I uncovered other, more pressing weaknesses that must be addressed first?
c. What will I do differently in the future? How can I learn more efficiently and completely?
I do believe that at least focusing on incorporating the NETS-T standards will enlighten me and my educational expectations. It may even make me a better-liked and more respected instructor.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
EDUC 6712 Reflection Blog
By James Matthews
As a part of my graduate studies, participation in EDUC 6712 has led me to the realization that the way that I teach is very similar to the process used in applying new literacy skills in learning. When preparing to teach a topic, I first define the issue (the new content) and collect information (using a combination of standards I need to cover and internet ideas for teaching it). I verify the information for accuracy and relevance and discern the validity of the information in terms of its origin and writers. Only then will I combine (synthesize) my findings with the existing cache of information already used in class so that I can truly internalize it; internalizing the topics allows me to better teach it to others. Then I prepare to communicate the information to the students in an interesting, relevant, and accurate way.
Like Deborah remarked in our text, I now believe that “…research projects don’t have to be a big dinosaur – that big scary thing that is overwhelming because no one can do it” (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007, p. 277). I have further learned that inquiry based learning can be as or more productive, fun, and relevant as the traditional teaching methods to which I have grown accustomed. In fact, I now see that I do not have to replace those methods in order to benefit from the new literacy skills. Projects are excellent ways to include group learning and to promote better mathematical communication. I could even include more than one topic in a single project in order to better illustrate the connections that exist between much of the math content I teach and the “real world.”
One professional goal that I now have is to eventually have an inquiry based project for each major topic I cover. They give students something to look forward to, emphasize the importance of good research, and re-emphasize a solid focus on communicating effectively (accurately and creatively). I could focus on one topic at a time to incorporate new literacy skills so that over a short period of time I could develop a solid math course based on inquiry learning. This type of course encourages students to be more receptive to the math topics as their collective level of interest will be higher. I believe that interest leads to expectations and expectations leads to achievement.
References:
Eagleton, Maya B & Dobler, Elizabeth. (2007). Reading the web: strategies for internet inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
As a part of my graduate studies, participation in EDUC 6712 has led me to the realization that the way that I teach is very similar to the process used in applying new literacy skills in learning. When preparing to teach a topic, I first define the issue (the new content) and collect information (using a combination of standards I need to cover and internet ideas for teaching it). I verify the information for accuracy and relevance and discern the validity of the information in terms of its origin and writers. Only then will I combine (synthesize) my findings with the existing cache of information already used in class so that I can truly internalize it; internalizing the topics allows me to better teach it to others. Then I prepare to communicate the information to the students in an interesting, relevant, and accurate way.
Like Deborah remarked in our text, I now believe that “…research projects don’t have to be a big dinosaur – that big scary thing that is overwhelming because no one can do it” (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007, p. 277). I have further learned that inquiry based learning can be as or more productive, fun, and relevant as the traditional teaching methods to which I have grown accustomed. In fact, I now see that I do not have to replace those methods in order to benefit from the new literacy skills. Projects are excellent ways to include group learning and to promote better mathematical communication. I could even include more than one topic in a single project in order to better illustrate the connections that exist between much of the math content I teach and the “real world.”
One professional goal that I now have is to eventually have an inquiry based project for each major topic I cover. They give students something to look forward to, emphasize the importance of good research, and re-emphasize a solid focus on communicating effectively (accurately and creatively). I could focus on one topic at a time to incorporate new literacy skills so that over a short period of time I could develop a solid math course based on inquiry learning. This type of course encourages students to be more receptive to the math topics as their collective level of interest will be higher. I believe that interest leads to expectations and expectations leads to achievement.
References:
Eagleton, Maya B & Dobler, Elizabeth. (2007). Reading the web: strategies for internet inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Evaluating Research Methods
By James Matthews
Scenario 1: Ten students are available for in-depth interviews. Participants will be selected based on their involvement with the peer mediation program. They will be observed over three weeks. Analysis will attempt to determine issues concerning peer mediation.
I would classify this situation as a Phenomenological study. In this type of study the researcher “collects data on how individuals make sense out of a particular experience or situation” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 26). The in-depth interviews following the 3-week observation will offer the requisite of access.
Scenario 2: Two classrooms of students are selected. There are 30 students in each class; each group will have similar demographics—age, sex, race, socio-economic background, etc. Classes will be randomly divided into two groups of 15 students. Of these two groups, one randomly selected group will get training on peer mediation and the other group will not. Thus in each classroom there will be one group that is trained in peer mediation and one that is not. Analysis will occur on which groups have the fewest office referrals.
I would classify this as a True Experiment because of the random assignment of groups. In general, the goal of these types of experiments is “to investigate cause –and-effect relationships between interventions and measured outcomes” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 24). In this specific case, the application of the stimulus of training on one group and not the other is the basis of the analysis.
Scenario 3: A school counselor is interested in knowing how student attitudes affect the value of peer mediation to decrease the number of office referrals that are being filed for inappropriate interactions.
This is an Ex Post Facto experimental design. A counselor is trying to find a possible relationship between the number of office referrals and the existence of peer mediation. Further, the “possible causes are studied after they have occurred” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 25).
Scenario 4: Peer mediation has become widely used in many schools. The feelings of those involved in the process are little known—either from those doing the mediation or those receiving it. The ZASK-R Acceptance Preference Survey will be given as pre- and post-tests to 40 students participating in mediation. Follow-up interviews will be conducted on a bi-monthly basis.
This is a Mixed-Method Explanatory design since it will collect quantitative data first and then gather subsequent data to “elucidate, elaborate on, or explain the quantitative findings” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 28). Specifically, a sample of students will be given surveys in order to try to determine their collective thoughts on the effectiveness of peer mediation. There will also be follow-up in subsequent months.
References:
McMillan, James H & Schumacher, Sally (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Scenario 1: Ten students are available for in-depth interviews. Participants will be selected based on their involvement with the peer mediation program. They will be observed over three weeks. Analysis will attempt to determine issues concerning peer mediation.
I would classify this situation as a Phenomenological study. In this type of study the researcher “collects data on how individuals make sense out of a particular experience or situation” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 26). The in-depth interviews following the 3-week observation will offer the requisite of access.
Scenario 2: Two classrooms of students are selected. There are 30 students in each class; each group will have similar demographics—age, sex, race, socio-economic background, etc. Classes will be randomly divided into two groups of 15 students. Of these two groups, one randomly selected group will get training on peer mediation and the other group will not. Thus in each classroom there will be one group that is trained in peer mediation and one that is not. Analysis will occur on which groups have the fewest office referrals.
I would classify this as a True Experiment because of the random assignment of groups. In general, the goal of these types of experiments is “to investigate cause –and-effect relationships between interventions and measured outcomes” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 24). In this specific case, the application of the stimulus of training on one group and not the other is the basis of the analysis.
Scenario 3: A school counselor is interested in knowing how student attitudes affect the value of peer mediation to decrease the number of office referrals that are being filed for inappropriate interactions.
This is an Ex Post Facto experimental design. A counselor is trying to find a possible relationship between the number of office referrals and the existence of peer mediation. Further, the “possible causes are studied after they have occurred” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 25).
Scenario 4: Peer mediation has become widely used in many schools. The feelings of those involved in the process are little known—either from those doing the mediation or those receiving it. The ZASK-R Acceptance Preference Survey will be given as pre- and post-tests to 40 students participating in mediation. Follow-up interviews will be conducted on a bi-monthly basis.
This is a Mixed-Method Explanatory design since it will collect quantitative data first and then gather subsequent data to “elucidate, elaborate on, or explain the quantitative findings” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 28). Specifically, a sample of students will be given surveys in order to try to determine their collective thoughts on the effectiveness of peer mediation. There will also be follow-up in subsequent months.
References:
McMillan, James H & Schumacher, Sally (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)