A Reflection on Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas

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.

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.

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.