Sunday, March 27, 2011

EDLD 5364 Teaching w/ Technology Embedded Course Hours 2 of 2

Sharron Bills, Jeron Ricks, and I, Shannon Copeland, chose each other based on differing specialties. Sharron is a federal programs director, with a principal’s certification and several other endorsements. Jeron is a computer teacher and school technologist, while I am District TAKS/Technology Coordinator, computer teacher and taught special education for 14 years. Based on these areas of expertise, we chose to create a 7th grade ELA lesson using the contemporary novel, Hunger Games. I chose my activities based on the multitude of apps for a cutting-edge adaptive technology source, the iPad. My activities were completed as pre-teaching activities in the content mastery class by the special education teacher, while my team created lessons for the special population of students they were assigned. I plan to use iPads with "Hunger Games" loaded on a Kindle app for the hearing impaired student and the low level readers so that the large print and colored backgrounds features can be used if needed. The Kindle app has the built-in feature of allowing unknown words to be highlighted and defined immediately on the reading screen. I will use the iPad as an audiobook reader for the visually-impaired student. As noted in one of my discussion posts, special education teachers rely on methods outlined in the Rose and Myer (2002) text when planning for and teaching students with learning disabilities. The recognition, strategic and affective networks outline how learners plan, understand and evaluate new concepts and special ed. teachers know this even if they cannot attribute them to Rose’s and Meyer’s specific terms. Special ed. teachers teach learning disable students to identify patterns of previous knowledge to link with new concepts, identify goals and create a plan to achieve them and because all students have different interpretations of what they see, their learning styles will be different. (Rose and Meyers, 2002)

Professional development will take the form of one-on-one training between the special education teacher and the technology coordinator. The teacher must have an iPad with these apps loaded so she can become comfortable with using them. She will be instructed on the uses of the Kindle and audiobook apps in a short professional development. Also, StoryPatch, GlowDraw and Dragon Dictation will be loaded for the students and teacher.

The URL for my book is http://bookbuilder.cast.org/view.php?op=view&book=40656&page=1 It was a little confusing in that after creating the cover that you couldn't just choose another page and begin. I found after a little frustration that "new page" must be chosen and then a dialogue box will ask what content is desired on the page. This program isn't as intuitive as some that I have used. I was able to add html titles from flamingtext.com to create some flashy titles instead of simply using the font tools provided. One drawback of this is that the pages with html take too long to load. I was able to locate and upload free mp3 sounds to enhance the project. My topic is The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan and I was able to find free thunder and lightning sounds for background audio. The steps to actually upload images and sounds were straightforward and worked easily. This could be used a teaching tool for students to "read" an eBook instructing them how to complete an assignment or it could be a tool they used to "compose" a summary of a book they've read. We saw examples of both while perusing the examples in the model books section. It was interesting that model books were created to help visitors create their own books, as well as, example of books that teachers and students had created.



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 7, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes

EDLD 5364 Teaching w/ Technology Embedded Course Hours 1 of 2

II. Plan, design and model effective learning environments and multiple experiences supported by technology. In my portion of the lesson, the intent was to tie the constructivist learning theory and CAST’s 3 brain networks together (Rose and Meyer, 2002). My team wanted to concentrate on the recognition network with activities addressing fact gathering, the strategic network to show the planning and organizing of ideas and the affective network showing that the students would be engaged and challenged. Constructivism lends itself well to these network activities. The UDL philosophy allowed us, as educators, to rethink materials, methods, goals and assessments using its multiple means of introducing and learning concepts. The team also modeled an effective learning environment by doing multiple professional development activities with the classroom teachers and a rubric was developed by Sharron Bills to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development. I provided the teachers in my charge with multiple hands on experiences to become familiar with the iPad apps before they were to present the lessons to the students.



III. Model, design, and disseminate curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. In the lesson that my team created, we modeled, designed and disseminated curriculum plans that addressed the needs of several special populations, as well as, general education learners. The curriculum plans were designed during online Skype brainstorming sessions among my team members. We constructed the lesson using guidelines provided by the course material. The plans were disseminated on our group wiki site and emailed regularly to the IA. The modeling aspect of this performance standard is present in the construction of the lesson itself. Our assignment reflected what the classroom teacher would have to create for herself. The lesson was constructed around cutting-edge technology that could accommodate all of the special populations presented to us. The design was brainstormed extensively by my group in the first two weeks of this course and is stored on our team Google Doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zpA9tfFc31i8VO_QNjZOyhTdyzxoQvyVmj8oh-ZJBq8/edit?hl=en&authkey=CLTijZgK#


IV. Communicate research on the use of technology to implement effective assessment and evaluation strategies. In our preliminary planning for this project, we researched the use of Kurzweil readers, Visiograph equipment, and ereaders, among other things. Skype was very beneficial to the brainstorming sessions that we posted to our Google Doc as evidence of our collaboration. I have had experience using all of these devices in my capacity as a special education teacher. Sharron knew of several devices being used in her district as well. She was also able to research some of the items she viewed at TCEA.

V. Design, develop, evaluate, and model products created using technology resources to improve and enhance their productivity and professional practice. The Pitler text went to great lengths to present ways that teachers could use “computing devices and software designed to help users complete specific tasks.” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 102) Technology training and learning is not always for students. A school with highly trained teachers will be more productive and better. Pitler’s activities using word processors and spreadsheets give specific tasks that could not be achieved without technology. The chapter discussing effort being a teachable skill gives examples of using a spreadsheet to compare extra effort with increased grades could not have easily be done without technology. (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 158)

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 7, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.


Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. International Society for Technology in Education.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Week 5 Discussion

Effort is the only controllable source of success and students who truly believe that they can be successful have more motivation and initiative than other students(Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 155). Even if the task outcome isn’t a success, the reinforcement of it is and students will continue to work towards achievement of goals. Tracking will actually show students the correlation between effort and achievement. The spreadsheet example displays clearly to the student that increased effort translates in to higher grades. A teacher’s goal should be to train students to, not only, believe in the effectiveness of effort, but also, to have them track effort and achievement (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 156). I’ve seen this defeatist attitude that Pitler refers to in many children in my district. During my 14 years as special education teacher, I taught many children who didn’t put out any effort because they detected no correlation between it and positive outcomes. This permeated their lives, in school and out. We are striving to improve our positive attitudes toward overall school climate. The principals are looking for ways to improve and increase parent and community involvement while training staff to better understand differing cultures represented in our school.

So, how do we tie effort, motivation, collaboration, and assessment together? If the overall theme of all of these master’s courses combined point to technology; then technology is the answer! Page’s (2002) article about students in low socioeconomic populations referred to how technology integration strategies impact student motivation and self-esteem. This seems to be proven not only in all student demographics, but also in non-traditional students and minorities, including low socioeconomic status (SES) groups. The studies presented showed that positive self-concept and achievement were strongly related to increased use of technology. The studies also seemed to show that students benefitted positively from exposure to technology by gaining a sense of accomplishment and a higher sense of worth. The students engaged more with peers resulting in increased collaboration and interactions.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenosksi, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

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 October 5, 2009 from the International Society of Education at http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Number_4_Summer_20021&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&ContentFileID=830

Friday, March 18, 2011

EDLD 5364 Teaching with Tech Week 4 Assignment 4 Part 2

1.Provide evidence each team member contributed to the solution and learning activities. (5pts.)
Each member uploaded documents to the group wiki and is identified on the action plan Skype conversations by their individual names.

2.Team Google site/doc link sent to the instructional associate, shared with team members, and professor(s). ( 5 pts.)
https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/

3. Learning Activities mirror the team action plan and include evidience of the following components.(5 pts.)
https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/
Components:
Design of the integration/intervention program:

What grade level and content area(s) will you address to meet the unique needs of 30 students?(5 pts.)
https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/lesson-artifacts-and-samples

Implementation of the integration/intervention program:

Examples of learning activities/units to address each unique set of needs in the scenario.
https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/lesson-artifacts-and-samples

https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/udl-lesson-builder-group/copeland-udl

Evidence of a way to address the professional development needs of the teacher in the scenario.
https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/lesson-artifacts-and-samples

https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/udl-lesson-builder-group/professional-development-udl

https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/udl-lesson-builder-group/copeland-udl

Evidence of the use of 21st Century technology trends.(10 pts.)
21st Century Learning Tools
The following Web 2.0 tools are included in the lesson cycle: Wordle cloud computing, Animoto video, CAST online teaching modules, iPads and associated applications, web teaching videos, class wiki and online gaming simulations.
https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/lesson-artifacts-and-samples
Evidence of ways to meet individual differences of:

Gifted and talented, online users, disabled, blind, hearing impaired, and multiple achievement levels.(10 pts.)
https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/lesson-artifacts-and-samples


Assessment of the integration/intervention program:

Evidence of assessment for each learning activity.
https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/lesson-artifacts-and-samples

Evidence for some type of assessment which might include observations/reflections regarding how you might determine whether the teacher has an understanding of how to teach with technology to benefit student learning.(10 pts.)
https://sites.google.com/site/lamartexaswyomingconnection/udl-lesson-builder-group/copeland-udl
Assessment:
Formative/Ongoing Assessment: The special ed students will discuss the novel in chunks with the teacher to ensure they are following the story. The use of a wildy popular contemporary novel with graphic situations will help to motivate, challenge and whet the reading appetites of the students.
Summative/End Of Lesson Assessment: The students' portfolios based on their research projects, discussions, written and/or photo essays and computer projects will be assessed at the end of the unit. Constructivism is about student led and student centered learning so the assessments should reflect this. A 25 question true/false, multiple choice and fill in the blank tests isn't student centered

(Total =50 pts.)

EDLD 5364 Week 4 Knowledge

Linda Darling-Hammond (2007) expressed in a video this week that school teachers and leaders need training to be emotionally and socially intelligent in order to educate the whole child. I believe this would allow children to handle the stress in their lives and to relate well to a variety of peers. I have students in my district from under-privileged homes and strong, positive and continued relationships at school could be a source of confidence and strength for these students. Many students have no stable authority figures and staying with a teacher longer than one school year could make their educational experiences better. Teachers and leaders must be prepared for social and emotional learning to help kids from these challenged homes.
Schools that have fewer blocks that integrate subjects such as art and science by having them produce books or videos about their science projects instead of every 45 minutes having them go to another class. Have teams of teachers of different disciplines teach 50 or so kids a day instead of 1 teacher seeing over 100 kids par day.
She also speaks of less than optimal schools with large numbers of people and students who are grouped by age and move to a new teacher every year and with older kids, every 45 minutes. She said that we need to have smaller numbers of people where teachers and kids stay together and teams of teachers work together with groups of kids for longer periods of time.

Darling-Hammond also mentions that teachers need to work together well to solve hard problems. Project-based learning, performance and exhibition learning take time to plan, but are the most effective learning activities. Collaboration among students requires a lot of socially intelligent work, such as relating to one another, dividing work assignments, and redirecting plans when dead ends occur. These skills assist students in being intellectually capable to work on student-centered projects.

New school designs have teachers staying with kids for about 2 years and each student having an advisor and each teacher having about 15 kids to advise.

I have heard for years, after joining the teaching community, that we should steer non-college bound students toward vocational programs similar to some other countries, but Rosenstock (n.d.) conveys in his video interview, that we shouldn’t have programs for non-college bound students because at a certain point, they’ll be segregated from other students based on their parents education and their socio-economic station thereby excluding them from programs that could help them be the first generation college graduates in their families. These strong, academically integrated schools that have multiple teachers with smaller groups of students for a longer period of time could indentify students who could be first generation college graduates. All teachers had a planning period that was deemed indispensible at the beginning of the day and meeting was crucial to planning for the students’ learning.
The most memorable HS learning experiences most people recall are projects involving community, it had fear of failure and recognition of success, it had a mentor and a public display of work.

I worry just as much about professional development that takes place during the workdays before school starts as I do about “just in case” training. We always provide band-aid training for special education modifications, gradebook use, CSCOPE, Eduphoria and a few more. There is no way that teachers will remember all of that information in a meaningless setting. On the occasions that the ESC provides training, everyone receives learning that occurs naturally through activities, context and cultures (Solomon and Schrum, 2007), but lacks the practice to make it meaningful at the time that it’s needed. It is frustrating for me, as the district technology coordinator, to retrain everyone individually when the time comes actually use the applications.

As an educator, I am excited by Darling-Hammond’s and Rosenstock’s visions of collaborative classrooms. The examples they give in their respective videos are also bittersweet in that teachers have very little or no control over how they’re assigned. Public schools are bound by prohibitive regulations that make these utopic schools impossible. Funding excludes multiple teachers of differing specialties from leading smaller “pods” of students for more than one school year. We have so many mandates that must be met and with the looming budget cuts, we’re just struggling to have things remain status quo. I understand that these changes must be made from the top down and our current training is an attempt to cultivate a legion of “new age” administrators who can make this vision reality.


Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Edutopia.org (December 10, 2007). The collaborative classroom: an interview with linda darling-hammond. Filmed at the CASEL forum in New York City. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from http://www.edutopia.org/linda -darling-hammond-sel-video

Edutopia.org (nd). High tech high taking the lead: an interview with larry rosenstock. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from http://www.edutopia.org/collaboration-age-technology-larry-rosenstock-video

Monday, March 14, 2011

EDLD 5364 Teaching w/ Tech Week 4 Ramblings...

Week 4 began today... the first day of spring break. I've been so ready for school to be out for a while.

Week 1 occurred while my son was out of school for a week after breaking his back in a motocross accident while competing in Portales, NM. Thankfully the week that he was in the hospital after surgery was an off week for this program. Week 2 of this course was smack in the middle of TAKS testing for 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and exit retests. Week 3 happened during the pack and ship portion of my TAKS duties and, now, Week 4 is during spring break. I know I’ve let my team down a bit during this course being spread so thin with Cade’s injury and being the District TAKS Coordinator in my district and the only one who handles any part of the TAKS tests.

My group partner, Sharron, and I have been in contact using Skype along with members, and friends, who are also in our cohort. The collaboration that occurs among of group of this type is invaluable. We alert the Skype group to any new emails and are in contact virtually nightly hashing out questions and problems we may be having with our own work. I continue to marvel at the Web 2.0 tools available for use in the kind of work we’re doing. I hesitate to say that these tools have become a comfort to me knowing that I’m only a text away from an answer to any question I have. We’ve also become friends, discussing our children, jobs, husbands, and future plans.
I’m currently negotiating a plan with my husband to take me to the lake where Sharron has a house to “work” on completing our group project. I’ll bring the wine!

Sunday, March 13, 2011

EDLD 5364 Teaching w/ Tech Week 3 Discussion

It occurred to me while reading this week that the challenge of providing our students with the technology tools they need to successful in the world, both today and tomorrow, isn’t an isolated problem. I sometimes feel like West Texas is in a fishbowl looking out at everyone else making leaps and bounds with technology, but it seems from reading Solomon and Schrum, I noted that they mention to readers that “you will notice that there are not a lot of examples as of yet in which an entire school system has reconceptualized itself to incorporate technology…” (Schrum & Solomon, 2007) It seems that the same obstacles abound in many areas and there are many reasons for this. We have administrators who don’t want to try any new technology due to fiscal or logistical issues or to competing demands on time and resources. Solomon and Schrum go on to say, however, that some schools are taking the first steps in the process of including full integration of technology into their classrooms. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a major contributor that helps to sponsor a great many of these full integration schools. It’s frustrating to see and read about the schools that use technology seamlessly in their everyday lessons and know that other schools are just struggling to pay for the unfunded mandates being meted out by our state.

Recently, I called our special education coop to ask about adaptive technologies being used with the more severe special ed students. Rose and Meyer put into writing what lots of special education teachers have practiced for years. Students need lots of examples and practice to attach new learning to prior knowledge as they explain in their recognition network material. This tact works for all students. I was disappointed in the lack of technological devices. I was told about pencil grips and manual sentence strips. I really thought that I would learn about some more cutting edge devices; such as text to speech devices or, perhaps, the wheelchairs with the electronic boards available for students without speech to use to communicate with others. I’ve read that it’s a very exciting time to be in education, but knowing what’s out there and not being able to use it is trying.

Schrum, L., & Solomon, G. (2007). Web 2.0 new tools, new schools. Eugene, OR..: International Society for Technology in Education.

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 7, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes

Final Word

Guarded administrators can derail many technology advances in schools. As Melissa mentioned, her principal won’t allow technology that he doesn’t understand and I’ve had experience with that in my own school. I can’t say that I don’t understand this mentality because the buck does stop with the principal if a problem occurs in their buildings, but it is our responsibility to research and educate them if we want to use innovations in our classrooms. There are products available to have closed blogs and wikis that are only accessible inside a school network and this is the type of information principals need to make decisions about whether or not to allow technologies in their schools. Also, CIPA must be considered by teachers and principals to ensure that students are safe from outside threats if the school district is accepting eRate monies. Rose and Meyer express that teaching methods should support diverse affective networks by several means, one of which being that adjustable levels of challenge should be presented along with choices of content and tools. (Rose & Meyer, 2002) What better way to offer this than with computers and the many resources they provide in schools today?


To Michelle’s point about administrators ignoring the larger picture of producing college ready students, rather than just students who’ve passed the TAKS assessment, well, most take the path of least resistance. That includes refusing to take note of what they don’t understand and focusing on what they’re immediately responsible for in their districts. Principals are assessed on how many of their students pass the TAKS tests, not how many of them stay in college. Many principals will not take the time and expend the effort to learn about these new tools available (and important) for 21st Century learners, so it becomes the job of the technology teachers and coordinators to educate them.


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 7, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes


Many teachers in my school use or have used document cameras and clickers in class. Some people associate document cameras with the brand name, Elmo. These cameras are similar to overhead projectors, but much more sophisticated. A teacher can not only project what they are writing onto the whiteboard screen, but they can also record an image of the notes they are giving, the math problems they are demonstrating or the specimen they may be showing for science class. These images can then be printed for students who were home sick or for students who need note taking assistance. The document cameras we’ve ordered can also be used as web cams and as simple video cameras. In addition to the cameras, the district recently purchased 3 sets of “clickers” to use in class. “Clickers, or student response systems, are a technology used to promote active learning. Clickers provide a mechanism for students to participate anonymously… clickers integrate a “game approach” that may engage students more than traditional class discussion.” (Martyn, 2007)

Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: an active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/ClickersintheClassroomAnActive

Julia, your example of students learning the relationships of values in a table in different ways smacked of the three brain networks in the Rose and Meyer online text. You gave textbook examples of how children learn concepts with differing examples and formats. You mentioned the various approaches of using both real-life items such as mittens and fingers, video games and dollars and finally the algebraic expressions of A and B. I, too, struggled with finding the “magic bullet” that would flip on the light switch for the special education students that I taught for 14 years. It was always surprising to see what finally worked for the different students. I taught 7 through 12 special education for 14 years and had many children from the same families over the years. As mentioned by Rose and Meyer, many examples and methods of delivery are very important in helping all students, not only those in special ed, to attach new knowledge to prior learning. Also, students need many opportunities to practice new concepts and have immediate and appropriate feedback available.
Many of the web-based, subscription, educational tools available, such as Study Island present learning with the 3 three brain network characteristics. I’ve been thinking about how Study Island presents lessons and gives immediate feedback if a question is missed. Also, it offers opportunities to practice concepts and to demonstrate the skills with a reward of playing a “game” after an acceptable score on the practice portion. These software companies follow the lead of education experts, learning theories and proven teaching tools to sell their products.

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 7, 2011 from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes

Friday, March 4, 2011

EDLD 5364 Teaching w/ Technology Bookbuilder Week 3

I began yesterday (March 3, 2011) working on the bookbuilder activity. The URL for my book is http://bookbuilder.cast.org/view.php?op=view&book=40656&page=1 It was a little confusing in that after creating the cover that you couldn't just choose another page and begin. I found after a little frustration that "new page" must be chosen and then a dialogue box will ask what content is desired on the page. This program isn't as intuitive as some that I have used. I was able to add html titles from flamingtext.com to create some flashy titles instead of simply using the font tools provided. One drawback of this is that the pages with html take too long to load. I was able to locate and upload free mp3 sounds to enhance the project. My topic is The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan and I was able to find free thunder and lightning sounds for background audio. The steps to actually upload images and sounds was straighforward and work easily.
This could be used a teaching tool for students to "read" an eBook instructing them how to complete an assignment or it could be a tool they used to "compose" a summary of a book they've read. We saw examples of both while perusing the examples in the model books section. It was interesting that model books were created to help visitors create their own books, as well as, example of books that teachers and students had created.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

EDLD 5364 Teaching w/ Technology Week 2

Monday, February 28, 2011

My group decided to divide the work up as follows: Jeron, general education students, Shannon, special education students and adaptive technology, while Sharron could be in charge of G/T and professional development for the teachers. To identify responsibilties, we gave each person a different color font in which to type his/her contributions. Sharron created the wiki and posted the UDL's, TEKS, planning pages, and the scenario. She also pasted all the assignment questions in the wiki for us to each fill in our portion. I created and shared the Google Doc with my team. We began working on Week 2 this past weekend (Feb. 26-27) Sharron Bills and I were able to do quite a bit of brainstorming about how we wanted our lesson to look. Several of our cohort attended the web conference on Saturday, February 26 at 11:00am. We discussed the idea of using the Jr. High level contemporary bestselling novel, Hunger Games. We discussed novel content, technology that could be used, adaptive devices for the special ed students and research projects for the G/T students. We dicussed using Google Maps to research countries affected by poverty, wikis to make a collaborative site for G/T to work with, or perhaps creating a bookcast, a recorded audio podcast about the book. There were a number of different composition methods discussed, such as Animoto, PhotoStory, CAST Bookbuilder, Powerpoint presentations and Dragon Dictation speech to text software. I also suggested watching a short video titled, The Lottery to help the students understand the concept of irony. We could even conduct a mock "reaping" or "lottery" in which a student could "win" the "prize" of doing some unpopular classroom task.

Sharron located a lot of materials that can be used with the novel we chose, as well as, a UDL Template and a presentation rubric. I created additional pages on the group wiki and attached these two documents.

The constructivist learning theory lends itself nicely to the CAST brain network research. We began labeling our activities and materials with this research. We plan to have all the students read the first two chapters on the iPads provided for all Jr. High students and then to have students in need of adaptive technology use multiple apps to compose their assignments. The special needs student can also use online research tools such as dictionaries and encyclopedias. The iPad Kindle reading app also has a feature that allows any word that is clicked to immediately produce a dictionary definition so students wouldn't have to go to a separate app to find the meaning of word. The Dragon Dictation app would allow students to simply tell the iPad the story they wish to compose and it will automatically compose it complete with a pop keyboard that can be used to correct any misheard words. This can then be emailed to a computer that has MS Word for more editing. The iPad allows for many outlets to publish a work. Draw apps make it possible for students to draw a picture rather than typing or speaking if those are limiting factors for the student.

One of this week’s readings focused on how technology integration strategies impact student motivation and self-esteem. This seems to be proven not only in all student demographics, but also in non-traditional students and minorities, including low socioeconomic status (SES) groups. The studies presented showed that positive self-concept and achievement were strongly related to increased use of technology. The studies also seemed to show that students benefitted positively from exposure to technology by gaining a sense of accomplishment and a higher sense of worth. The students engaged more with peers resulting in increased collaboration and interactions. This seemed to produce significantly more creative projects from which they drew higher self esteem and better attitudes toward school overall. Computer –aided instruction (CAI) in math showed evidence of math achievement increases with the most profound positive difference in elementary aged students. Authors Swan, Guerrero, Mitrani , and Schoener “ conclude that the less threatening environment, along with immediate feedback, individualized diagnostics, and greater academic support contribute to greater productivity among such populations” (Swan, Guerrero, Mitrani, & Schoener, 1990)

Overall, children’s attitudes regarding technology were significantly different from adults. Students seemed to prefer computer learning over more traditional methods and stakeholders tend to feel that tech makes sense and makes positive educational differences. The article was a bit dated in that adults may no longer think of technology as simply a means to an end, but as a way of teaching and students, today, expect computer learning to help them create and succeed. Why does technology seem to positively impact student learners of non-traditional groups, which include low achieving, at risk, learning disabled, ESL, etc?Computers seem to be especially popular and productive with children defined as non-traditional for several reasons. Problem-solving activities showed to increase logical-thinking tasks for some disabled students who were previously more susceptible to failure. Also, studies showed that the recognition and support these students garnered translated into higher self confidence and self esteem. One result of students having higher self esteem was that they stayed out of the at-risk category the leads to more dropouts. CAI also has been shown to enhance attitudes towards school and learning in some minority population, thus keeping them in school and eliminating some instances of dropouts. Computers can be a great equalizer in the classroom. Students who tend to work and/or struggle alone, are able to “shine’ in some situations where traditional students may have difficulties using computers and technology.

Swan, K., Guerrero, F., Mitrani, M., & Schoener, J. (1990). Honing in on the target: who among the educationally disadvantaged benefits most from what cbi?. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22, 381-403.

Page, M. S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 389-409. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from the International Society of Education at http:/www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Number_4_Summer_20021&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&ContentFile=830



I thought Page’s article this week was very effective in describing some of the reasons that technology integration improved student attitudes and self-concept. Computers seem to improve a student’s sense of accomplishment by creating more opportunities for collaboration and interaction with peers. More group projects were created that could feature the strengths of students who may not have the same level of achievement as others in the class. This recognition helps to increase student self-esteem and self-confidence. Students who tend to work and/or struggle alone, are able to “shine’ in some situations where traditional students may have difficulties using computers and technology.
Page, M. S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 389-409. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from the International Society of Education at http:/www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Number_4_Summer_20021&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&ContentFile=830

Student-led learning is obviously becoming a major factor in today's schools with technology leading the way, but I agree with Sharron that the reality is that teachers are required to teach the state expectations for state assessments. My school started using CSCOPE this year and the teachers aren't enthusiastic. Virtually everyday is scripted and there is little time for other activities. This time of year, almost every available minute is used for tutoring the students who are feared to fail the state assessments. A few years ago, one of the curriculum directors at our ESC began telling workshop attendees that the TAKS left no room for those "love units" that they loved to teach and that assessments are becoming more rigorous and our teaching has to be also. I am a technology teacher and love showing the students new free/open source tools that they can use at home to create, ut the self-contained classes of elementary students don't have the time or professional development to do it.

Final Word

Paula, I agree that educators tend to “power down” students the moment they enter a classroom. Marc Prensky mentions that “our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.”(Prensky, 2001) Today’s students have fundamentally changed from students of the past. With the arrival of all encompassing technology that most adults didn’t grow up with, sometimes it’s difficult to realize that today’s student don’t ever remember a time without digital games, toys and communication. It’s difficult for schools to compete with the computers, video games, mp3 players, iPods, cell phones video cameras and all the other digital tools available to today’s youth. It is very hard for schools to stay on the cutting edge to teach students with tools with which they’ve become accustomed.


Prensky, M. . (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-%20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf