Looking Behind and Looking Ahead

In my very first post on January 15 I wrote:

I am drawn to the statement made by Professor Henry Jenkins of USC, when he addressed those who suggest there will be a heavy price to pay for all of our technological gain.  “This is not a new issue,” he said, rather “a period of evolution.  And at the end of the day, as a society we are better off if we approach this with a sense of open mindedness and exploration.”

Eleven weeks into this course and I find myself more open minded and more willing to explore the abundance of technological tools available to classroom teachers.  I’m still a digital immigrant who shies away from using a lot of technology in my personal life.  I don’t have a facebook page.  I don’t tweet except for class.  I don’t text.  But I now know how to create a webquest.  I know how to create a photo story.  I know where to find Glogster and Prezi and Wordle and many other resources which I can use to engage my students in higher order thinking. 

I have to admit that I entered this class with a little fear and trepidation.  I feel like an old dog when it comes to technology and wondered if I really could (or would) learn new tricks?  The answer is a resounding “Yes.”  And more than that, I want to learn those new tricks for the sake of my students and myself.  There is no question that I will integrate technology into my classroom.  I am evolving!      

Literature Review 2: To Differentiate or Not To Differentiate

In the article, To Differentiate or Not to Differentiate: Using Internet Based Technology in the Classroom, Aries Cobb, of Baldwin Wallace College, investigated the Cleveland Metropolitan School District’s (CMSD) use of differentiated instruction with technology based software.  Cleveland Metro is an urban school district with a diverse student population.  It is the largest school district in Ohio with a high percentage of minority students.  The CMSD utilized Compass Learning, an internet based software program designed to enhance the reading achievement of minority students who live in poverty, in conjunction with cooperative learning groups. 

As background information, Cobb reported some sobering figures about student achievement in reading.  "43% of eighth graders who qualified for free lunch scored below the basic level, compared to only 19% of eighth graders who did not qualify for free lunch.  Among African American eighth graders, 48% scored below the basic level, and among Hispanic students, 44% scored below basic.  Only 18% of White student scored below basic in reading (2010, p. 38).”  These findings were evident in the CMSD and they choose to incorporate more differentiated instruction in the classroom as a means of addressing this problem. 

The Compass Learning software could be tailored to fit each individual student’s needs according to their reading, writing, and listening skill levels.  Students worked cooperatively in groups of two to five and were provided with three 40 minute Compass Learning sessions per week.  Each lesson was thematic and included a pre-reading activity to introduce new concepts, a digital presentation of a story, and comprehension exercises.   Studies indicate significant gains in reading comprehension for these students. 

Cobb further reported that teachers benefited  from their participation in CMSD’s use of the internet based software tool.  There was an increase in teachers’ effectiveness using and incorporating technology in the classroom.   Once trained, teachers who formerly expressed discomfort utilizing the software and other digital tools such as web-authoring -software (e.g. e-Portfolios) were much more comfortable and willing to incorporate technology into their instruction. 

While I am unfamiliar with the particular tool the CMSD uses in their classrooms, I was interested to learn that cooperative groups enhanced the learning process.  I would have expected differentiated instruction to focus on individuals rather than groups, especially when it comes to internet based software.  This article also reiterates what we have seen over and over again: the more familiar teachers become with technology and its potential uses in the classroom, the better they are at incorporating it in ways that enhance their lessons and promote higher order thinking.   Clearly we, as educators, need to reach our students, especially minority students and those who live in poverty, in ways that will help them bridge the gap of academic achievement.             

 

Cobb, A. (2010). To Differentiate or Not to Differentiate? Using Internet-Based Technology in the Classroom. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(1), 37-45. 

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=122&sid=89048ed9-d5cb-4c8f-9516-4a06d6f3252c%40sessionmgr15&vid=4

Literature Review 1: Teacher Perceptions of Tech. Integration

In her 2008 article, A Study of Teacher Perceptions of Instructional Technology Integration in the Classroom, Lynette Molstad Gorder examined the degree to which teachers perceived they integrated technology into their classrooms.  Gorder surveyed K-12 teachers who had received advanced training in technology integration at the Technology for Teaching and Learning Academies in South Dakota.  Of the 300 teachers invited to participate in the survey, 174 replied.  Gorder analyzed the data she received according to the gender, age, teaching experience, grade level taught, content area taught, and educational level of said teachers. 

Gorder divided her survey into three phases of technology integration.  Phase one measures a teacher’s perceived use of technology for his or her professional productivity.  This includes activities such as using technology to manage files, communicate, and locate educational resources.  Phase two measures a teacher’s perceived use of technology to facilitate and deliver instruction.  This includes such activities such as managing student learning activities and demonstrating strategies to assess the validity and reliability of information gathered with technology.  Phase three measured a teacher’s perceived use of technology for integration into teaching and student learning.  This phase includes activities like using technology with students to solve authentic problems and engaging learners in the development of electronic portfolios.        

Based upon the responses she received, Gorder found little difference in perceived integration of technology based upon the aforementioned demographics and personal attributes.  The only difference worth noting is that High School teachers tend to integrate and use technology more often that Middle School or Elementary School teachers.  Gorder’s research does indicate that, overall, teachers are more comfortable in the first two phases of technology use (for professional productivity as well as to facilitate and deliver instruction) than they are with the third phase (integration into teaching and student learning).  She recommends that teachers seek further opportunities for professional development to enhance the ways they integrate technology into their classrooms as well as collaborate with their colleagues to share ideas and strategies for better utilizing technology.  Administrators also can help by providing teachers with more time and resources to enhance their knowledge and skill levels as they pertain to technology integration. 

This study both surprised me and reinforced what I had already thought.  I was surprised to learn that age, in particular, was not a factor when determining a teacher’s perceived use and integration of technology in the classroom.  The 60 year-olds were on par with the 25 year-olds.  Prior to reading this study, I assumed that digital natives would have a much higher percentage of utilization and integration in their classrooms than digital immigrants.  I was wrong. 

The study did reinforce what I thought would be true of most teachers.  They are more comfortable using the technology for professional productivity and delivering instruction than they are integrating that technology into their teaching and their students’ learning.  Teachers know how to use their technological tools in the classroom but they don’t always know why they are using them.  The why question is essential and one teachers must learn to address when engaging their students in the classroom.

Gorder, Lynette Molstad.  Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, v50 n2 p63-76 Spr-Sum 2008. 14 pp.

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=14&sid=84215260-37fa-4c92-9cb0-d8b23ebe5ace%40sessionmgr14&vid=6

About Me

Ok, it’s been a few weeks.  I’ve added some posts.  And you know a little about me.  But now it’s time for an “about me” post.  As I mention in my little blurb, I am a parent (two wonderful boys, 4 and 1), a partner (married 8 years—how time flies), a student (at SNHU and everyday out in the world), and a teacher (my official job title is Pastor and Teacher of a mainline protestant church).  I am a digital immigrant who did not own a computer until I left for college or a cell phone until a year after I graduated from seminary.  I have purposefully avoided technology.  I do not have a facebook page.  I do not text.  I don’t even have cable television.  I am pretty content being out of the loop and unplugged.  However, I do want to teach students in a public school.  So I’m learning.  I’m plugging in.  And I’m having fun. 

Equal Access

Right now we do not have a level playing field when it comes to technology and our learners’ access to the digital world.  Some folks have and some folks don’t.  For example, some have high speed internet access, some have dial up, and some don’t have any connection at all in the home.  While everyone should have access to a public library where the internet is available, it’s not always that simple.  In the current economic environment, we know that staff positions and library hours are being reduced (thus affecting access!).  This doesn’t even address the question of whether a family has a computer in the home on which they can use the internet.     

Knowing that our students do not have equal access in their homes begs the question, what does it mean for  teachers to provide equal access in the classroom.  And, just as importantly, how do teachers accomplish it.  First and foremost, I believe it is essential for teachers to know their students and understand their life situations.  In the case of a student whose parents are divorced, having access to a computer at one parent’s house does not mean they have access at the other.  A student who relies on public transportation may have certain limitations around doing homework at the library.  And some students might not understand how to use the tech tools that are available to them.  Learning about student needs will help a teacher prepare, plan and develop lessons designed to engage all of their learners.   

Once a teacher knows what s/he is dealing with in terms of student access and knowledge, s/he can begin to integrate technology into the classroom in ways that enhance all of their students’ education.  They can provide adequate time for projects and assignments if they are to be completed outside of class time.  They can properly teach students how to use tools, programs, websites, etc. in an effort to acquaint those students for whom such things are new.  They can participate in professional learning communities to pick up new ideas and best practices from their colleagues.  They can advocate for broader access to technology within their school and their district.  And they can fully utilize the technology that is already available within their school (sign up for all the tech goodies and use them when they enhance your lessons!).