Reflection - EDUC 6713

Reflecting on the GAME plan developed and followed throughout the course provides an opportunity for me, as an educator, to be self-directed as I continue to be a lifelong learner. Through the GAME plan I was able to think about and take steps to direct my learning process. More specifically, I focused on two indicators from the National Education Standards for Teacher (NETS-T) that I did not feel as confident or proficient in at the time of the assignment. These included “engaging students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tool and resources and collaborating with students, peers, parents, and community members using digital tools and resources to support student success and innovation (International Society for Technology in Education, 2008, p. 1).

In summarizing the new learning that resulted from following the GAME plan is two-fold. First, I have compiled a plethora of different authentic instructional practices gained within the educational technology classes I have attended while at Walden. Likewise to further the repertoire of resources on authentic instructional practices, I conducted independent research via the web. Second, I have approach standards by scaffolding each standard into sequential skills. This will aid instruction by supporting and extending various levels of student’s proficiency.

This new learning will impact my instructional practices by refocusing my efforts on implementing formative assessments to find students’ present level of performances and then ensuring that scaffolding is occurring starting at the students’ instructional levels. Here, I can implement different authentic instructional practices through the use of different technological tools. For example, databases and concept mapping software can enable students to “help students understand the organization of a range of content areas” and teach thinking skills (Cennamo, Ross, Ertmer, 2009, p. 57).

This plan may need to be revised based on the progress made within the technological arena, the learning that I will incur over the next year, and the students I serve and their needs. Another modification will occur to the GAME plan as the state of Ohio transitions from state standards to common core standards.

An immediate adjustment needed to the instructional practice regarding technology integration in mathematics as a result of the learning from this course includes implementing more technology within the classroom. Instead of using traditional means of instruction with the use of paper and pencil, using digital tools to support students’ learning is warranted.  Integrating technology within problem-based learning, social networking/online collaboration, and digital storytelling can occur within each standard taught, whether it be a state standard or a common core standard.

I am more than ever invested in the GAME plan as a means to implement NETS-S within the classroom setting. Through the use of the GAME plan I can grow professionally within my career as a teacher by setting goads, taking action, monitoring my progress, and then evaluating and extending the plan.

References

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

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education standards for teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved August 10, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/Libraries.PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

Monitoring the GAME Plan (EDUC - 6713)

Three weeks ago I created a GAME plan. Through this plan the decision was to look at the content standards and how technology can be integrated throughout the teaching/learning process. Continuing to strengthen the confidence and proficiency of the GAME plan entailed gathering information and resources, reflecting on the information and resources gained, and the modifying the action plan.

Some success has occurred in finding information and resources needed. The focus is on the content standard of number, number sense. The power standard for this particular area has been tasked analyzed down to the Kindergarten level.  Next a review of the OAA questions that pertained to that specific power standard has been viewed. Now, looking for authentic learning activities that will compliment this power standard is where the GAME plan is at this time.

Modifying the action plan in a large fashion may need to occur. A 6^th grade math position has been posted at Adena. This may be an opportunity for me to make a positive change in my professional career. With this beginning said, the students entering into 6^th grade continue to have deficits in number, number sense and will need intervention to gain the knowledge required of 6^th graders.

As the GAME plan continues to evolve, an important component of my learning has centered on formulating formative assessments. Continuing to monitor the learning process of students and evaluate the effectiveness of the authentic learning opportunities will be critical in the teaching/learning process. Formative assessments, according to Cennamo, Ross, and Etmer (2009, p.113), will not only provide necessary feedback for the teacher but for the students. They can then be actively involved in “their own growth and determine where they may need extra help or enrichment” (Cennamo, Ross, and Etmer, 2009, p.113).

New questions that have arisen during this GAME plan process centers on the changes the state of Ohio is making within the next year. Ohio is adopting the common core standards. This change will effect how instruction is approached in the 2012-2013 school year. Moving to such a universal approach to learning may impede on the individuality teachers experience within their classroom.

Cennamo acknowledged that “critical thinking is of critical importance in today’s world in order to solve the problems that are facing us here in the 21st century” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).  As educators anticipate the start of a new school year in August, developing, implementing, and modifying a GAME plan is an important aspect of continuing to grow within the teaching profession.

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

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Integrating technology across the content areas. Baltimore, MD: Author.

EDUC 6713 - Carrying out the GAME plan

Carrying Out the GAME Plan (EDUC 6713)


The GAME plan is a four step process for self-directed learning. The process begins by setting goals, then taking action to meet those goals, monitoring the progress toward achieving the goals, evaluating whether the goals were achieved and extending the learning to new situations (Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer, 2009, p. 3). After setting up a framework last week concerning how I would develop a GAME plan on two indicators from the National Education Standards for Teachers (NETS-T), this week requirements involve carrying the plan to its next level by taking action.


After reviewing my GAME plan, the resources I will need include researching different authentic learning strategies via the web. Likewise, I will review the current and previous Walden University course work that includes authentic learning strategies.


At this point I have created a portfolio with the power standards as they are taught in the curriculum map. Here, I will begin to write different authentic learning strategies for the first power standard I will be addressing during the first few weeks of school. The concept encompasses number, number sense, in the area of place value. The portfolio doesn’t seem to be as organized as I would like in its appearance. I am thinking about have different sections for each power standards. The sections will be labeled according to the multiple intelligences by Howard Gardner (Wikipedia, 2011).


While progressing through this experience I need to remember to take into account the low tech technology I already have knowledge of and access to at this time (Wahl & Duffield, 2005, p. 2). This technology will be integrated with the new technology and then matched with a multiple intelligence that allows for its optimal usage.


As I take action on my GAME plans, Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2009, p.4) noted that researching online or in books, asking others, or taking classes is a valid approach and “encourages lifelong learning journey”. Establishing the framework last week provided a simple beginning. Now, actively taking action is where the learning is set in motion.

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

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education standards for teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

Wahl, L., & Duffield, J. (2005). Using flexible technology to meet the needs of diverse learners: What teachers can do. Retrieved July 11, 2011 from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/kn-05-01.pdf

Wikipedia. (2011). Theory of multiple intelligence. Retrieved July 11, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#The_multiple_intelligences

(EDUC 6713) My GAME Plan – Strengthening Confidence in NETS-T

My GAME Plan – Strengthening Confidence in NETS-T

For this assignment I was required to develop a GAME plan on two indicators from the National Education Standards for Teacher (NETS-T) that I did not feel as confident or proficient in at this time. Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2009) developed the GAME plan as a tool to use to help guide self-directed learning activities. Simply stated, each of the letters that make up the word GAME notes a step in the process, from setting GOALS to taking ACTIONS to meet those goals, MONITORING progress toward achieving the goals, and finally EVALUATING  whether the goals where achieved and EXTENDING the learning to new situations (Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer, 2009, p. 3).

After reviewing the NETS•T, the indicators that I do not feel as proficient as I would like to be in are as follows:

1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity

Teachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments. Teachers:

b. engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tools and resources

3. Model Digital-Age Work and Learning

Teachers exhibit knowledge, skills, and work processes representative of an innovative professional in a global and digital society. Teachers:

b. collaborate with students, peers, parents, and community members using digital tools and resources to support student success and innovation

To address the first indicator, my GAME plan will require me to actively self-reflect on what my specific roles and responsibilities are within the classroom setting. The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (1999) affirmed “changing to a learner-centered classroom does not demand the abdication of the teacher's classroom authority. While responsibility for learning is shifted to the student (something most teachers welcome), the teacher is still the leader, organizer, arbiter, planner, and classroom manager”. Likewise, instead of seeing the teaching/learning process as a linear movement through an established curriculum deemed through book companies, I need to continue to “develop the attitudes and dispositions necessary for creative thinking” (Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer, 2009, p. 25).

My GOAL to “engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tools and resources” is to learn and purposefully implement four authentic learning experiences within the 2011-2012 school year (International Society for Technology in Education, 2008, .p 1).

The ACTIONS I need to take is two-fold. First, I need to learn more about the different authentic instructional practices through the classes I am attending at Walden University and conduct independent research via the web. I will need to look at the 5^th grade curriculum and locate those skills that lend themselves for such practices.

The second action I need to take is developing students’ self-directed learning (SOL) skills. Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2009, p.30) noted that one effective way students can take full responsibility of their learning is through scaffolding. The process of scaffolding will be a learning experience not only for the students but for me as well. A positive aspect of providing scaffolding is the technology pieces that are designed to help scaffold student learning. Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2009, p. 31) noted that these tools allow students “to highlight or organize material, to schedule tasks and receive reminders, as well as tools designed specifically to support various levels of student proficiency”.

MONITORING will have to be two-fold as well. First, I will keep a portfolio concerning the different authentic instructional practices that I learned through the classes at Walden University and the research I conducted using the web.  This portfolio will be divided into sections according to the types of methods. Since I have 8 weeks until I am back into the swing of educating students, I can chose one method per week to research. The second monitoring aspect of my GAME plan is ensuring students are learning skills and moving up the hierarchal ladder to master the indicator at grade level. This can be accomplished through formative and summative assessments.

To EVALUATE and EXTEND my learning I will use a self-reflective approach at the end of each week. This will entail me writing my thoughts in the portfolio that specifically addresses what I have learned and what additional learning needs to take place. Likewise, I will use the reflective approach after I have implemented an authentic learning experience. This will include my own self-reflection as well as students reflections on their learning and the support they will need in future endeavors.

The second indicator’s GAME plan is as follows: 

My GOAL to “collaborate with students, peers, parents, and community members using digital tools and resources to support student success and innovation” will include establishing a technology piece to math club in which the participants are collaborating to support student success and innovation  (International Society for Technology in Education,2008, .p 1). Students, peers, parents, and community members will be invited to attend and collaborate using digital tools and resources to support student success and innovation during math club.

The ACTIONS I need to take involves making connections with students, peers, parents, and community members. This communication will need to take on the form of face-to-face encounters, through school and personal email, letters via the post office, and telephone calls.

MONITORING will occur on a weekly basis. There will be a calculation on the number of participate and their roles in the school system and within math club. Likewise, monitoring will be in the form of analyzing the digital tools and resources and their effect on student success and innovation.

EVALUATING and EXTENDING the plan will be to first continue to make connections with students, peers, parents, and community members. Then, I will need to evaluate what collaboration supported or interfered with the students’ success and innovation. This will guide me as I make necessary changes to future math club meetings.

Creating the GAME plan is a means to implement NETS-S within the classroom setting. Through the use of the GAME plan I can grow professionally within my career as a teacher by setting goads, taking action, monitoring my progress, and then evaluating and extending the plan. The students, in turn, will reap the rewards.

References

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

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education standards for teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (1999). Using technology to enhance learning. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/tec26/classtech.html

EDUC 6713 - Introduction

Integrating Technology Across the Curriculum Areas

As I am in the full swing of summer, I am excited about expanding my focus of technology use within my classroom. I need to continue to explore various instructional strategies and digital tools to facilitate content area literacy and learning and ensure that all students are making adequate yearly progress. This course description notes that “teachers will learn how to design technology-infused projects that will motivate students and help them meet specific curricular standards” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). It further states that teachers will “explore developmentally appropriate ways of using multimedia and Internet technologies to bring discipline-specific concepts to life and foster interdisciplinary connections that enhance learning across the curriculum” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). This course will assist me as I prepare students to be successful in the 21^st century.

Laureate Education, Inc. (2011) EDUC 6713: Integrating technology across the content areas. Retrieved June 30, 2011, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/

EDUC 6711: Reflection

Reflection: Personal Theory of Learning

Step 1: Reflection on Week 1

            Reflecting on the personal theory of learning I developed in Week 1, I am convinced more than ever that educators must have an understanding of the teaching/learning process and the influence of learning theories on student academic, social, and emotional development. To balance the advancements in technology and preparing students with 21st century skills, it is imperative that educator’s mindset of teaching in isolation changes to a learning environment that is dynamic, interactive, and global in perspective and deed.

The modifications I have made as a result of my learning in this course is forthright. I am continually changing and becoming holistic in my implementation of the different learning theories to ensure that I am meeting the diverse needs found within my classroom. As I mentioned in the assignment in Week 1, my views of learning were taken from the behaviorist perspective, with some influences from the constructivist standpoint.  Ultimately, though, my way of thinking when I began teaching four years ago was to be the sole deliverer of information. I saw the students as passive sponges that would soak up the knowledge I was trying to impart. I heavily relied on positive and negative reinforcement as a means to enhance learning.

This course has changed and deepened my knowledge and understanding of the learning theories and the use of educational technologies. First, and fore most, I have learned that I cannot abandon my original perspective on the ideology behind the behaviorist approach to learning. Using this approach along with technology programs, such as Study Island, can reinforce and strengthen academic skills students have been exposed to but haven’t mastered. This repetition will aid in the transfer of knowledge and skills to long-term memory.

            Instead of relying heavily on the behaviorist learning theory, I have taken on the viewpoint that learning is a combination of the theories. Therefore, it is my responsibility to implement the appropriate theory for each individual student and ensure the technology I use enhances the teaching/learning process. Each technological piece has to be strategically implemented, used within its own parameters, and monitored for appropriateness. Using this new found approach will ensure my teaching is not stagnant and limited to my classroom but dynamic building blocks on what students have gained and will gain in the years to come.

Step 2: Immediate Adjustments

One of the adjustments that I have made in my instructional practice regarding technology integration as a result of my learning in this course is encompassing. Instead of relying solely on power point presentations on the Smart board as the main modality of teaching, I have used other technology, such as a Virtual Fieldtrip, voice threads, blogs, wikis, and concept mapping via Webspiration to help me transfer into my new found role as a facilitator of learning. I have slowly integrated at least one of these technology pieces with every skill I have taught over the past few weeks. This process of slowing integrating technology into the classroom setting, I believe, has taken out the feeling of being overwhelmed, both for the students as well as myself. This approach has provided a smoother transition into implement a particular technology piece into the classroom setting.

The two technology tools I would like to use with my students would be to continue to use the Smart board but use it more in an interactive manner and use Prezi to enhance the power points I have already created. These tools will support learning by engaging the students in an active manner. This, along with the repertoire of instructional skills I have learned as a result of this course, will foster student’s learning. To be more specific on one of the instructional skills I learned during this course is the concept of using appropriate clip art when given a visual presentation. Instead of inserting clip art to have clip art, the course taught me to use visual pictures that have meaning to the skill to help students connect prior knowledge to the new knowledge.
Step 3: Two Long-Term Goals

My first long-term goal change I would like to make to my instruction practice regarding technology integration would be to use a variety of technology pieces for each skill I am covering in my curriculum. A strategy for achieving this goal would be to approach this task over the next few years. Instead of trying to create a plethora of technology pieces for each skill this year, I plan on focusing on one technology piece for each of the learning theories. If I continue to approach integrating technology in this manner, each year I will have at least one more technology piece for each of the learning theories than the previous year.

The second long-term goal change would be to have a repertoire of homework options for students. A strategy for achieving this goal would be to approach this feat with realistic expectations for myself. Instead of having one homework assignment for each night, I plan on having two options for homework on Mondays for the remainder of the 2010-2011 school year. Next year I will work on having two options for homework twice a week, and the following year, two options of homework three times a week.

Social Learning Theory

Albert Bandura is considered to be the mind behind social learning theory. His thought patterns behind social learning theory were very basic. Learning, as he understood it, occurs while in the social setting. He believed people learned through observing the behavior of others, and more importantly, the behavior outcomes.

Imitation and modeling were key ideas on how people learn while engaged in social activities. This can be seen with the when groups of people wear certain clothing to be with the “in-crowd”.

I have to say that in researching social learning theory I did not find many different instructional strategies that fit into this category. The research centered on collaborative learning. Collaborative learning focuses more on the students working together to construct meaning and produce a product.

I do believe students learn academically and socially from each other. But, to engage the students at higher levels of cognition, they must be afforded the opportunity to interact with strategic supports to extend their understanding. I agree with Kim (2001) following statement:

The nature of the learner’s social interaction with knowledgeable members of the society is important. Without the social interaction with more knowledgeable others, it is impossible to acquire social meaning of important symbol systems and learn how to use them. Young children develop their thinking abilities by interacting with others.” (p. 3)

We, as teachers, cannot assume a student is learning the skill designated while engaged in a social setting with his/her peers. Likewise, we cannot assume a student is learning the skill to the level of depth we hope to achieve. Instead, we must be crafters of the learning occurring within the social activity and provide targeted feedback and pinpointed questions.

Kim, B. (2001) Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.) Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/