Prior to entering this program I would not have known how to colaborate with three other people on a project if they were not in the same town. The idea would have been overwhelming and I would have probably only used email and social networking. After collaborating on several projects over the last 16 months, the wiki-based study group and collaborative project was not as stressful. The classes I have taken in this masters program so far had prepared me to collaborate online in a large variety of methods. Even with different work and personal schedules, my group was able to work together without much stress or concern. Distance, schedules, and illness did not hamper our efforts. In fact, I found it was easier in some ways to collaborate online. In an office or school environment we would have spent a significant amount of time just trying to select a date and time to meet that would work with everyone’s schedule. Online that was not necessary. The group project allowed us to get first hand experience about cooperative learning. Instead of just reading about how to incorporate cooperative learning with our students, we participated ourselves and that personal experience was reflected in our group project staff development section. Having experienced what our students would experience with cooperative learning, we choose to ensure that the teachers would experience the same thing in the staff development session we created. One of our readings indicated that for formal groups, “ teachers should intentionally design assignments to include these five basic components: positive interdependence (sink or swim together), face-to-face, promotive interaction (helping each other to learn, applauding efforts and success); individual and group accountability (each of us has to contribute to the group achieving its goal); interpersonal and small-group skills (communication, trust, leadership, decision making, conflict resolution); and group processing (reflecting on how well the team is functioning and how to function even better)” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, Malenoski, 2007, p140). What I found odd was that as an online group we technically did not have “face-to-face, promotive interaction” with the teacher or each other. We did in fact help each other to learn, applauded eather others efforts and successes though. I think that if technology is the key factor in these lessons, the author should have thought about the fact that in today’s world all classrooms are not face-to-face.
Another of our assignments was to create a UDL lesson plan. Though this lesson plan was an individual project, our group worked to keep our projects similar so it would enhance our group project. We were able to combine our ideas from our individual projects into our group project. We combined individual ideas to create a better group project that entailed more diverse ideas than our indivual projects could ever have included. I will admit that this assignment was my biggest frustration. Not that the assignment was difficult. I did learn more about what type of information should be included in my lesson plan as well as what standards should be met. What frustrated me was this class was mainly centered on group collaboration yet in week 3 we were expected to not only work with our groups we were to create our own UDL lesson plan. It was like we were going in too many directions at one time. This is real life, but I do not think we gained as much knowledge from the UDL as we would have had it been our only area of concentration for that week or even for 2 weeks. I think the UDL should have been a group project that reflected our group effort and topic.
Week 3 also consisted of creating an ebook. The ebook was an interesting concept and one I had never conquered before. Unfortunately I felt I was unable to spend the time on the ebook that I wanted to. Due to the excessive amount of work in week 3, I was not able to spend the time experimenting with the ebook. I found it to be a fun way to interact and actually shared the experience with a friend who wanted to write a story for a niece who lived in another state. I realized my frustration on my time constraints when I went to explain the process to her. I was able to give her a brief overview but since I was struggling for time to spend on the ebook myself I was not able to explain in detail how to create and save the book. In fact, at the end of the week I found out that my ebook was saved but not published and I had to go back in to make a revision to it so others could view it. I believe this is something I would have caught earlier if we had not had so many other assignments in one week. I believe if time had allowed I would have been able to put together a lesson quality book rather than just experiment with the ebook.
The experience I gained from this class is valuable to me as an adult training facilitator and will be valuable to me while working on my internship project. Though I have had experience writing lesson plans for adult trainings, I feel that studying the UDL lesson building process has made me take a second look at how my agency creates lesson plans. In our Training for Trainers couse, instructors are told it is essential to include teaching methods that cover all learning styles. However, our lesson plans are not specifically designed to ensure that is completed. “The UDL framework proposes that educators strive for three kinds of flexibility; to represent information in multiple formats and media, to provide multiple pathways for students action and expression, and to provide multiple ways to engage students interest and motivation” (Rose & Meyer, 2002). In my current lesson plans, student interest and motivation have not been addressed at all. Furthermore, multiple media options have been limited due to budgetary issues; however, this program has introduced me to a number of free and inexpensive technology options I can incorporate and share with management. I will be able to take this information and knowledge I have gained to challenge my collegues to step up their game and provide more flexibility and learning opportunities to our employees.
Sources:
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, p140.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Web site. Chapter 6. Retrieved march 27, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Week 5 Reflection
This week we read and discussed effort. At first the topic surprised me. After doing some reading, I found that when it comes to effort we do not actually teach about effort. I see the effects of this everyday from an employment standpoint. Working with adults in a training environment, I find that we often expect adult students to take control of their own learning and make an effort to participate and learn. However, I have found that this is not always the case. My adult learners are very similar to school aged students in that a few of them want to be there to learn, a few are there because they have to be and a few even think of training as a mini vacation from work. As a result, their efforts are reflected as such. Some students put forth a significant amount of effort, a few put a minimal amount of effort and the last group puts forth no effort at all.
This lack variety of effort and the readings has caused me to re-evaluate my training classes and make suggestions for improvement. Students, regardless of age, should be held accountable for participation and effort. I especially liked the effort rubric (Pitler, Hbbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007, p157). Spelling out effort expectation normally would seem to me to be something that is common sense and not have to be shared. On the other hand, I now understand that it is difficult to expect a student to understand class expectations unless those expectations are outlined. If the student has not taken responsibility for their own learning and efforts, they need to learn somewhere. It is not different than employee feedback. Employees and students need to know what is expected and how to self-evaluate. If we do not explain or discuss efforts and expectations than a student or an employee will often do the least amount possible. If the only feedback you provide is negative they will do just enough to keep from receiving negative feedback. The effort rubric still requires the student to take responsibility; however, the chart helps them to evaluate themselves and determine what is acceptable and what is expected. Clear guidance and communication has always been the goal of my training sessions. This rubric will now assist not only my students (employees) but also myself.
Source:
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 155-164.
This lack variety of effort and the readings has caused me to re-evaluate my training classes and make suggestions for improvement. Students, regardless of age, should be held accountable for participation and effort. I especially liked the effort rubric (Pitler, Hbbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007, p157). Spelling out effort expectation normally would seem to me to be something that is common sense and not have to be shared. On the other hand, I now understand that it is difficult to expect a student to understand class expectations unless those expectations are outlined. If the student has not taken responsibility for their own learning and efforts, they need to learn somewhere. It is not different than employee feedback. Employees and students need to know what is expected and how to self-evaluate. If we do not explain or discuss efforts and expectations than a student or an employee will often do the least amount possible. If the only feedback you provide is negative they will do just enough to keep from receiving negative feedback. The effort rubric still requires the student to take responsibility; however, the chart helps them to evaluate themselves and determine what is acceptable and what is expected. Clear guidance and communication has always been the goal of my training sessions. This rubric will now assist not only my students (employees) but also myself.
Source:
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 155-164.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Week 4 Student Centered Learning and Professional Development
During week four we concentrated on technology based student-centered learning and professional development. I can say that the courses we have taken in this masters program has utilized each of the examples. We have worked independently and collaboratively using online classes, wikis, blogs, instant messaging, social media, audio and video. In this class particular we have worked collaboratively. This online class has us working collaboratively with websites, blogs, and collaborative word processing (Google docs). As a group we have taken it upon ourselves to also communicate through email, instant messaging, and social media. Even though many miles and conflicting personal schedules would normally cause serious roadblocks; technology brings us together to make an effective team. As a team we seemed to have a passion for a more effective staff development session for the teachers.
Solomon & Schrum (2007) tells us that “Unfortunately, even though massive amounts of money have been spent on training educators, we have not seen a real difference in the ways technology has been integrated into the classroom (Cuba, 2001: Lafey, 2004; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot & SOlloway, 200; Williams & Kingham, 2003)”. Our group took on a professional development idea that I think would assist with implementation. First, if each technology related topic would have it’s own staff development session. Second, if the teacher could provide proof of ability, they would be exempt thus saving money and the teacher’s time and frustration. Teachers that do attend would create a similar technology exercise to what they would use in the classroom based off an assignment from the staff development facilitator. Then the teacher would take this information back to the classroom and utilize it. The classroom technology would also be shared with the principal to ensure that the teacher did have an understanding and so the principal could evaluate not only the teacher but also the training. Our particular assignment requires the teacher to provide examples for students ensuring the teacher understands the technology as well as then showing the students a sample of what they could be creating. Practicing what you preach is sets a great example to the students.
Source:
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, New schools. Eugen, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 99-116.
Solomon & Schrum (2007) tells us that “Unfortunately, even though massive amounts of money have been spent on training educators, we have not seen a real difference in the ways technology has been integrated into the classroom (Cuba, 2001: Lafey, 2004; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot & SOlloway, 200; Williams & Kingham, 2003)”. Our group took on a professional development idea that I think would assist with implementation. First, if each technology related topic would have it’s own staff development session. Second, if the teacher could provide proof of ability, they would be exempt thus saving money and the teacher’s time and frustration. Teachers that do attend would create a similar technology exercise to what they would use in the classroom based off an assignment from the staff development facilitator. Then the teacher would take this information back to the classroom and utilize it. The classroom technology would also be shared with the principal to ensure that the teacher did have an understanding and so the principal could evaluate not only the teacher but also the training. Our particular assignment requires the teacher to provide examples for students ensuring the teacher understands the technology as well as then showing the students a sample of what they could be creating. Practicing what you preach is sets a great example to the students.
Source:
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, New schools. Eugen, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 99-116.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Week 3 UDL Lesson Builder
This week we were tasked with creating a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) lesson using the CAST Lesson Builder. This lesson was a challenge as the lesson plan format was significantly different from what I am accustomed to utilizing. In my job as a Human Resources Manager for a criminal justice system, we use the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) lesson plan format. This keeps our format consistent throughout our agency and the various staff development departments.
After reviewing the UDL format, I was a bit confused but managed to slowly work my way through the format. I found that school lesson plans are not as detailed in some ways and more detailed in other from the business lesson plans I write. First, NIC formatting includes a word for word lesson plan that is scripted. This ensures that all trainers cover the same material and our trainings are legally defendable. The UDL format includes an overview but not a script. This was difficult for me as I continually had to revise the information and summarize. On the other hand, UDL's detail is on teaching and learning styles. UDL ensures that a variety of formats are presented and encompasses as many learning styles and disabilities as possible. Both lesson plan styles encouraged repetition to increase learning understanding and retention.
For my UDL lesson plan, I chose to create an 8th grade English Research/Personal Narrative assignment on the recent Tsunami in Japan as the topic. This tied in with my group's topic as well as recent events. I had a bonus with this assignment as it opened conversation with my high school aged son and what he is doing at school in relation to the Tsunami.
lesson plan
After reviewing the UDL format, I was a bit confused but managed to slowly work my way through the format. I found that school lesson plans are not as detailed in some ways and more detailed in other from the business lesson plans I write. First, NIC formatting includes a word for word lesson plan that is scripted. This ensures that all trainers cover the same material and our trainings are legally defendable. The UDL format includes an overview but not a script. This was difficult for me as I continually had to revise the information and summarize. On the other hand, UDL's detail is on teaching and learning styles. UDL ensures that a variety of formats are presented and encompasses as many learning styles and disabilities as possible. Both lesson plan styles encouraged repetition to increase learning understanding and retention.
For my UDL lesson plan, I chose to create an 8th grade English Research/Personal Narrative assignment on the recent Tsunami in Japan as the topic. This tied in with my group's topic as well as recent events. I had a bonus with this assignment as it opened conversation with my high school aged son and what he is doing at school in relation to the Tsunami.
lesson plan
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Week 3
Several times throughout the various videos, I heard statements from parents and teachers indicating to get out of the student’s way and let them learn (Edutopia, nd, np). I believe if we give students basic information, guidance and the right tools, they will in fact learn on their own. If teachers will stop shying away from group collaboration due to fear of cheating, students will typically far exceed your expectations. As a student myself I start out preferring to not work in a group; however by the end of the assignment I typically have learned so much more than I would have on my own. So be prepared to learn something new yourself through your students’ assignments.
As a result of the readings and videos, I opted not to give one basic assignment. Instead I gave the students several options that will allow them to choose how they would like to complete the assignment. Giving the students a variety of means allows them to find the style that best matches their learning style and allows them to take the project a step farther. The student with visual disabilities and the students who learn more in an auditory fashion may opt for the podcast assignment. The student with the hearing disability and the students who are more visual learners may choose the blogging or diary option. Interest also makes as,o I am attempting to show the students how something that seems a million miles away could actually affect them.
Sources:
Edutopia.org (nd). Digital Youth Portrait – Luis. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-profile-luis-video.
Edutopia.org (nd). Digital Youth Portrait – Cameron. RetrievedMarch 12, 2011 from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-profile-cameron-video
As a result of the readings and videos, I opted not to give one basic assignment. Instead I gave the students several options that will allow them to choose how they would like to complete the assignment. Giving the students a variety of means allows them to find the style that best matches their learning style and allows them to take the project a step farther. The student with visual disabilities and the students who learn more in an auditory fashion may opt for the podcast assignment. The student with the hearing disability and the students who are more visual learners may choose the blogging or diary option. Interest also makes as,o I am attempting to show the students how something that seems a million miles away could actually affect them.
Sources:
Edutopia.org (nd). Digital Youth Portrait – Luis. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-profile-luis-video.
Edutopia.org (nd). Digital Youth Portrait – Cameron. RetrievedMarch 12, 2011 from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-profile-cameron-video
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Week 2
I was a bit surprised this week to find that two of the readings covered research from the 1980’s and 1990’s. I would have expected more current research. Michael Page discussed how technology impacts low-income students. The information was interesting, but with the fast access to technology I would have preferred to see what effects technology currently has on low-income students. Page (2002)specifically states, “Children in technology-enriched classrooms appear to score higher on standardized tests in mathematics, to take control of their own learning environment,to work well in cooperative groups to accomplish a common task, and to place worth in their ability to be productive students and citizens” (p 403). This may have been the case in 1998; however, with the availability of technology in the classroom and even at home for many low socioeconomic students, would the research be consistent in 2010?
John Schacter also compiled a report based on “current research” yet the various state and national studies took place between 1994 and 1999. The positive findings for technology usage definitely outweighed the negative findings in each of the studies. I believe the most beneficial information Schacter provided was the reference to the Milken Exchange. “To assist educators and policymakers in putting education first, the Milken Exchange serves as a clearinghouse of research and information on learning technology. To facilitate policy development and planning, the Exchange has developed its Seven Dimensions of Learning Technology. By paying attention to the learner, the learning environment, professional competency, system capacity, community connections, technology capacity, and accountability, technology will be kept in service to learning” (Schacter, 1999, p10). This was a great reference for teachers, technology teachers, curriculum writers, and principals that saves them time and provides the research information needed. Once again, we need to always ensure that the technology enhances the lesson and is not the center of attention.
Sources:
Page, M.S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms; Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 289-409. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from the International Society of Education at http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Number_4_Summer_2002&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&ContentFileID=830
Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf.
John Schacter also compiled a report based on “current research” yet the various state and national studies took place between 1994 and 1999. The positive findings for technology usage definitely outweighed the negative findings in each of the studies. I believe the most beneficial information Schacter provided was the reference to the Milken Exchange. “To assist educators and policymakers in putting education first, the Milken Exchange serves as a clearinghouse of research and information on learning technology. To facilitate policy development and planning, the Exchange has developed its Seven Dimensions of Learning Technology. By paying attention to the learner, the learning environment, professional competency, system capacity, community connections, technology capacity, and accountability, technology will be kept in service to learning” (Schacter, 1999, p10). This was a great reference for teachers, technology teachers, curriculum writers, and principals that saves them time and provides the research information needed. Once again, we need to always ensure that the technology enhances the lesson and is not the center of attention.
Sources:
Page, M.S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms; Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 289-409. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from the International Society of Education at http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Number_4_Summer_2002&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&ContentFileID=830
Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)