Google Apps, specifically Google Docs, is great for students as well as professional development with educators. I have seen students use Google Docs to edit each other's papers and to work on projects together. This is amazing for students because they are so busy in high school with sports and work that they find it difficult to find time and transportation to be able to work together. Google Docs makes it easy for them to work on the same paper or project at different times from different places. It also makes accessing documents from different computers much easier. Students no longer have to worry about bringing their usb drive or emailing it to themselves. They just work online using Google Docs and it automatically saves their work and they can access it from anywhere as long as they have internet. Sites like blackboard can even access their documents on Google Docs if they need to turn them in to teachers. Students can also give teachers access to the document so they don't even need to turn anything in. It really is the best way for students to work to have an easily accessible and usable program for their work.
The benefits for professional development are similar to those for students. Educators can share documents with large groups very easily. They can also work on them at the same time from different places. This allows educators to continue working on something over a longer period of time. It also allows teachers to share their lessons, materials and assessments. Teachers could also share their data in a combined spreadsheet. It really makes things more accessible and therefore easier for educators.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
5-4 Blog
There are pros and cons of using social networking in schools. The best way that I have seen it used is by having the school have a twitter or Facebook page where they post their sporting events, academic events, school accomplishments and student accomplishments. Teachers could also have pages where they post assignments, reminders, or send out notifications. This give the school more of a community feel and encourages students and parents to be involved. Some schools also monitor their students on social media to make sure students aren't bullying each other outside of school.
The cons of using social media in schools is that students tend to misuse it. For example, at my school girls have looked at their Facebook pages during lunch and gotten into a fight because they didn't like what another girl in the school posted. Many schools block social media sites so that students can not use it on their network, but many students use their phones and therefore the school can't stop them unless they don't let me use their phones. I have not heard of any teachers using social media in their classrooms to supplement or enhance student learning.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
2-2 Blog
Digital footprint is the data that we leave behind on the internet when we use it. When I think of this I think of the papers and blog posts I have put online during my graduate school program and then the things I have posted on social media such as Facebook and Instagram. I think this apples to most people as schools are integrating technology more and more. This requires students to put more of their work online and most people use some sort of social media. I personal don't like being required to post things online for school. This is because when employers go to hire people they look them up online. This means that they could be looking at something from my first year of college and be judging me on something they maybe i don't even agree with anymore. They also may judge me based on my writing in that paper which has improved so much since i was a freshman in college. It also bothers me the sites like Facebook will sell your profile because my private life is none of my employers business, but by signing up I know I am agreeing to that.
Digital citizenship is teaching others how to appropriately use technology and the internet. I believe that whoever is giving the child the access to this is responsible for showing them the correct way to use it. This means that if parents are giving their child a laptop or phone with internet access then they should be talking to them about how their using it and if they use it inappropriately then it will be taken away. Unfortunately many parents do not do this. Most schools do a much better job of this though. Many elementary and middle schools have a technology teacher the teaches the students how to use computer and they are responsible for teaching them digital citizenship. If they do not, then their classroom teachers are responsible for this. In my experience schools have done a good job of talking to students about the consequences of social media as well. High school students are even starting to see the consequences of posting mean thing on social media due to things like the Dignity for all students act(DASA). This requires schools to address bullying in all cases regardless of when or where they happen which includes online. Hopefully if we teach digital citizenship before students are given the access to the technology then students will make better choices when using it.
Digital citizenship is teaching others how to appropriately use technology and the internet. I believe that whoever is giving the child the access to this is responsible for showing them the correct way to use it. This means that if parents are giving their child a laptop or phone with internet access then they should be talking to them about how their using it and if they use it inappropriately then it will be taken away. Unfortunately many parents do not do this. Most schools do a much better job of this though. Many elementary and middle schools have a technology teacher the teaches the students how to use computer and they are responsible for teaching them digital citizenship. If they do not, then their classroom teachers are responsible for this. In my experience schools have done a good job of talking to students about the consequences of social media as well. High school students are even starting to see the consequences of posting mean thing on social media due to things like the Dignity for all students act(DASA). This requires schools to address bullying in all cases regardless of when or where they happen which includes online. Hopefully if we teach digital citizenship before students are given the access to the technology then students will make better choices when using it.
1-4 Blog
A technology integration specialist is someone who works with administrators and teachers to get teachers to use technology in their lessons. They are responsible for working with administration to make sure technology is up to date and to get more technology into the classroom. They also work with teachers to show them how to integrate technology as well and how to use different types of technology. This means individually helping teachers as well as giving many hours of professional development.
Technology is much more prevalent outside of the classroom than it is inside of the classroom. Pew research(2013) says that “78% of teens now have a cell phone, and almost half (47%) of those own smartphones”(p.1). Whereas I don’t believe that 78% of students in all schools are using technology in all of their classes. Also, I think that some classes lend themselves to technology better than others. There are many ways that English and Social Studies teachers can use free common technology in their classes like blogs, word processors, and online classrooms. This is more difficult for math and science as the websites and programs need to be specifically made for math or science. For example, Edmodo is an online classroom that many teacher use. You cannot type in equations so it’s not useful for math teachers. They need more specific programs that tend to cost much more money. This is something that technology integration specialists needs to work on and become familiar with but should not stop them from working with all teachers in the building.
Resources:
Madden, Mary, Xlenhart, Mary, Duggen, Meave, Xcortesi, Maeve, and Grasser, Urs. (2013). Teens and Technology 2013. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/teens-and-technology-2013/
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Reflection
Education is a forever changing field. As Meltzer says "What was once good enough for grandma, or even mom and dad, is not good enough for our children"(2012, pg. 1) It seems natural that the technology we use is our everyday lives, all too often, is creeping into our classrooms and changing the way we teach. We need to prepare our students for the future and the future is bound to have more and more technology. We therefore work on effective and safe ways of integrating technology into our schools and our classrooms. For this purpose we needs things like the ISTE NETS standards and a technology integrator. These two things were familiar to me before this class but I have since become much more familiar with them and the role that they play in technology integration. The plan that Meltzer outlines in her book has made me very familiar with the different necessary parts of integrating technology that I did not think about before such as setting short and long term goal. I had always just thought of the broad goal of technology integration rather than more specific and measurable goals.
I also had not thought about how much administration matters with regards to technology integration. My former administration spent time and resources on giving us professional development on technology and also pushed us to integrate it. My current administration has barely touched on it at all and it's easy to see in the classrooms that it isn't happening very often. It's not surprising knowing that my former Dean of academics know about the ISTE NETS standards and integration and my current Dean does not. It shows that providing professional development and resources make a great difference. Because of this class I will push for more technology focused professional development from my administration so that I have the support to work on increasing how often I integrate technology into my classroom.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
DYOD
Some of the cons that a school faces when they have a BYOD policy is that there is a increased chance of theft. Students must be made aware of this possibility and asked to keep their devices on them at all times. It also puts a responsibility on the family to afford a device. Many families may already have devices but some will not want their child to bring it into school. This depends on the class of students you are serving though. If the majority or a large portion of your students live in poverty than you may be asking too much of families. This also leads to inequality between students. Some students will have high end technology while other will not which may lead to students feeling insecure or getting made fun of which obviously no one wants but is sometimes difficult to stop.
In the class there pros and cons as well. Some of the pros are that students are already familiar with their own devices. They therefore need less training on using their operating system and the programs they already have. Also, Wainwright says that "With BYOD students are more likely to continue learning outside of schools hours"(Wainwright, http://www.securedgenetworks.com/strategy-blog/20-Pros-and-Cons-of-implementing-BYOD-in-schools). Students can continue their work when they go home if necessary. Some of the cons in the classroom are that students may be responsible for downloading new software that they don't have which takes class time. Also, the large numbers of devices on the network can be a strain and therefore it may be hard for all the students to be online at once. The biggest problem would be if some students didn't have a device to bring from home. The school would hopefully have loaner devices that some students could use if they needed.
I am for a BYOD plan with the school providing for the few students who can't afford it in schools that serve the majority of students who are middle class or upper class. I feel that asking families that are struggling financially to provide their student with such an expensive investment is thoughtless. I think that this will generally work better with high school students as they are more mature and responsible. One of the difficult parts of this policy is that teachers needs to be trained on the different types of devices they allow. I would suggest this include laptops and full size tablets and smart phones are difficult to do things like word processing with. The school also needs a network that can handle all the devices on it. The school's policy will have to have a detailed description of the protocol for student's who violate the policy. This would include students who are not on task and students who are doing inappropriate things. Students are to be always on task and using the technology in the way the is instructed by their teacher. If they are not then they can lose the ability to use the technology. All of the policies will be presented to teachers before school during a PD and to all the students during their 1st class by their teacher. The students will be sent home with the policy to be signed by their parent or guardian and will not be allowed to use their device until it is signed.
Here are some resources that have similar views.
Chadband, E. (2012, July 19). Should Schools Embrace "Bring Your Own Device"? Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2012/07/19/should-schools-embrace-bring-your-own-device/
Wainwright, A. (n.d.). 20 PROS AND CONS OF IMPLEMENTING BYOD IN SCHOOLS. Retrieved from http://www.securedgenetworks.com/strategy-blog/20-Pros-and-Cons-of-implementing-BYOD-in-schools
What is the K-12 Blueprint? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.k12blueprint.com/about
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Technology Reflection
Technology integration is becoming more and more necessary in education because of the enhanced engagement and learning it provides. When students are in a one-to-one technology classroom it is easy for teachers to create situations for students to create a product that shows their understanding. Teachers can ask students to write a comparison essay based on two articles they find on a topic. Without computers the teachers would have to give students the articles but by the students finding the articles the teachers are assessing their ability to evaluate articles as well as comparing them. It also gives students a plethora of ways to create. Students can easily create images, videos, documents, blogs, and websites. This easily assesses the student's ability to synthesize. Creating way for students to quickly do these things on pen and paper is much more difficult and many students are less likely to try with pen and paper. This can be a little more difficult if the one-to-one is with the students own technology as not every device they bring will be have the ability to run all the programs the teacher wants to use in order to ask the students to evaluate, synthesize, and analyze.
If the classroom has enough computer for a group of students to work together on one the teacher can still create these opportunities for students but they students may not be held as accountable for their knowledge because the students are creating something together and it may be easy for some group members to not contribute very much or at all. This is not ideal but is better than if students has no access to a computer. In this case it is much more difficult for teachers to create activities that engage students and allow them to create a product that shows their higher order thinking.
The budgeting aspect of the matrix was eye-opening because I have used different types of technology during my teaching career but I did not realize how expensive they are. The most surprising to me was the laptop cart. I expected it to be able half of the price it is. It also made me curious about how much a SmartBoard is, which is one of my favorite types of technology for the classroom.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Tools
LINK to data.
The Data Assessment tool that I used was Google Docs spreadsheet. The great part about this tool was that I was able to show data both horizontally and vertically. Vertically I showed how each student did on each question or standard and then their overall performance. I did this by putting their answer in black if it was right and in red if it was wrong. Horizontally it showed how each student did on each specific standard and then how the class did on each standard. In another table I was able to show two groups of students. I listed the students who passed the standard in black and then students who failed the standard in red. This is beneficial to have with the first chart because it is a more visual to see which standards the students did or did not do well on, rather than just looking at percentages. This visual is so effective because of the use of different colors. By putting wrong answers in red it's very easy to identify problem areas for each student and for groups of students. This saves time for the teacher and makes it easier for decision making.
The disadvantage of this tool is that any new analysis or data has to be created one by one. The teacher would have to create the new charts for each new assessment. Ideally the assessment and the display of the data can be linked together. Programs like Scantron do this for you. Our school bought Scantron for our larger assessments and the program can give you an analysis of how each student did on each standard or how the classes did on each standard and much more. It can even do this if there are multiple questions addressing one standard. We all use this and have meeting based on our results. This is a great way of applying Web 2.0 tool functionality to authentic classroom and school-wide scenarios.
It is great that this teacher is looking for help to analysis their student's performance. "As always, teachers should use the data to monitor and evaluate their own personal teaching performance, looking for key trends that identify where they may need assistance from others to help improve their craft." (Module 5) When looking at the second chart it's easy to see that all but one student got question 6 wrong and then conversely that all students but one got number 7 right. This should tell the teacher that the standard for question 6 needs to be taught to the whole class again, while the question for standard 7 can be taught to that one student outside of class and they are the only one who needs it. You can also see that questions 3 and 4 are almost a 50/50 split and that most of the students are in the same group for both. The teacher could therefore group the students who got both together and give them a more difficult task on the material and the other students a more remedial task, or the teacher can group a student who is proficient with one that is not and have them all complete a similar task that is structured so that the stronger students helps the weaker student learn the standard. I would suggest trying both methods as the teacher should go over standards 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, in class since so many students were not proficient in them. Standards1, 2, 7, and 10 I would suggest going over before or after school with the specific students who are struggling with them.
Resources:
Module five: Reaching All Students (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2014 from https://bb.snhu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4766913-dt-content-rid-9925253_1/courses/EDU-641-15TW2-MASTER/EDU-641-14TW4-MASTER/edu_641_module5_overview.pdf
| Students | RED=WRONG | BLACK=RIGHT | |||||||||||
| Question/Standard | Zoran B. | Zyntar. C | Zup. C | Zancy D. | Zinvis E. | Zuitar F. | Zirii G. | Zhield H. | Zorelda L. | Zamsung K. | Zucy S. | Zon D. | Percent Correct |
| 1-M:01:NO:6.2 (S) | D | A | C | C | C | A | C | C | C | C | C | C | 75% |
| 2-M:02:GM:6.3 (S) | B | C | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | 83% |
| 3-M:02:GM:6.6 (S) | D | D | D | B | B | B | B | C | D | D | B | C | 42% |
| 4-M:02:GM:6.7 (S) | B | C | C | D | C | B | C | D | C | D | C | C | 58% |
| 5-M:03:FA:6.1 (S) | D | C | D | D | A | C | C | D | A | B | C | C | 42% |
| 6-M:01:NO:6.4 (S) | D | A | C | C | A | A | A | D | B | D | A | A | 8% |
| 7-M:03:FA:6.2 (S) | B | D | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | 92% |
| 8-M:03:FA:6.3 (S) | C | B | D | C | C | C | C | B | C | B | C | C | 67% |
| 9-M:03:FA:6.4 (S) | D | D | D | C | D | D | A | C | D | C | D | C | 58% |
| 10-M:04:DSP:6.2 (S) | C | C | D | C | C | C | C | D | C | A | C | C | 75% |
| SCORE | 40% | 40% | 50% | 60% | 80% | 70% | 80% | 30% | 80% | 30% | 90% | 70% | |
| Standard | Passing Group | Not Passing Group | |||||||||||
| 1-M:01:NO:6.2 (S) | Zup. C | Zancy D. | Zinvis E. | Zirii G. | Zhield H. | Zorelda L. | Zamsung K. | Zucy S. | Zon D. | Zoran B. | Zyntar. C | Zuitar F. | |
| 2-M:02:GM:6.3 (S) | Zup. C | Zancy D. | Zinvis E. | Zuitar F. | Zirii G. | Zhield H. | Zorelda L. | Zamsung K. | Zucy S. | Zon D. | Zoran B. | Zyntar. C | |
| 3-M:02:GM:6.6 (S) | Zancy D. | Zinvis E. | Zuitar F. | Zirii G. | Zucy S. | Zoran B. | Zyntar. C | Zup. C | Zhield H. | Zorelda L. | Zamsung K. | Zon D. | |
| 4-M:02:GM:6.7 (S) | Zyntar. C | Zup. C | Zinvis E. | Zirii G. | Zorelda L. | Zucy S. | Zon D. | Zoran B. | Zancy D. | Zuitar F. | Zhield H. | Zamsung K. | |
| 5-M:03:FA:6.1 (S) | Zyntar. C | Zuitar F. | Zirii G. | Zucy S. | Zon D. | Zoran B. | Zup. C | Zancy D. | Zinvis E. | Zhield H. | Zorelda L. | Zamsung K. | |
| 6-M:01:NO:6.4 (S) | Zorelda L. | Zoran B. | Zyntar. C | Zup. C | Zancy D. | Zinvis E. | Zuitar F. | Zirii G. | Zhield H. | Zamsung K. | Zucy S. | Zon D. | |
| 7-M:03:FA:6.2 (S) | Zoran B. | Zup. C | Zancy D. | Zinvis E. | Zuitar F. | Zirii G. | Zhield H. | Zorelda L. | Zamsung K. | Zucy S. | Zon D. | Zyntar. C | |
| 8-M:03:FA:6.3 (S) | Zoran B. | Zancy D. | Zinvis E. | Zuitar F. | Zirii G. | Zorelda L. | Zucy S. | Zon D. | Zyntar. C | Zup. C | Zhield H. | Zamsung K. | |
| 9-M:03:FA:6.4 (S) | Zoran B. | Zyntar. C | Zup. C | Zinvis E. | Zuitar F. | Zorelda L. | Zucy S. | Zancy D. | Zirii G. | Zhield H. | Zamsung K. | Zon D. | |
| 10-M:04:DSP:6.2 (S) | Zoran B. | Zyntar. C | Zancy D. | Zinvis E. | Zuitar F. | Zirii G. | Zorelda L. | Zucy S. | Zon D. | Zup. C | Zhield H. | Zamsung K. |
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Technology surgery
Here is the LINK to my survey or see below.
Please answer each of the following:
Please answer each of the following:
| Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Not Applicable | Comments | |
| You are proficient with Microsoft products(i.e. Word, PowerPoint) | ||||||
| You are proficient with an Internet Browser(i.e. Explorere, Chrome) | ||||||
| You feel comfortable creating a WebQuest | ||||||
| You use technology in the classroom on a daily or almost daily basis | ||||||
| You would like help integrating technology in your lesson plans | ||||||
| You would like help finding online resources in you content area | ||||||
| You would like someone to assess your use of technology in the classroom | ||||||
| You could giving a presentation to your department on the content specific technolobgy you use in your classroom | ||||||
| You feel there are enough technology resources available to you and your students | ||||||
| The technology in the school is reliable | ||||||
| The technology in the school is up to date | ||||||
| In the comments section please leave one goal you have in regards to using technology in your classroom |
Sunday, December 7, 2014
TPACK
The TPACK model is looking at technology integration in terms of a teacher's knowledge and planning. It breaks teacher knowledge into three different categories. These are Content, Pedagogy, and Technology. It then identifies that these different types of knowledge are not always independent of each other. They each overlap there therefore there is Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Technological Content Knowledge, and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge. There is also the intersection of all three types of knowledge which Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge which is known as TPACK. TPACK is using a teacher's knowledge of their content, their best teaching practices, and effective and engaging technology to create the best possible learning experience for students.
The TPACK model would be used during the planning process for a teacher. For a given lesson the teacher would select the content and the learning objective, or what they want the student to learn and then be able to do. This is their content knowledge. The teacher would then select the activities that the student would experience during the lesson and how the teacher would be assessing if the students were meeting the objective. This is the pedagogical knowledge. Lastly the teacher would choose technology that would support and enhance the activities in the lesson. The most difficult part of this is finding technology that enhances activities, but specifically finding available technology that enhances the activities. Many teachers have not been exposed to the different technologies they can use in their classroom. They therefore find it easier to not integrate technology, rather than spend a lot of time searching to maybe find a technology they can use. Also, there may be a technology that a teacher may want to use but if it is not a free program their school probably does not have the budget to buy it.
One great technology that teachers can use in the classroom is the virtual tour or virtual field trip. This is a video of a tour through a place like a museum. These are generally free and save the school the time and money of actually traveling. Students can do this in the classroom or can do it for homework as well depending on their internet access. Other great technologies are googleDocs and wikispaces. Both of these allow students to publish their work, but also they allow multiple students to share and work on a document at once. This is especially great for group work that takes an extended period of time. There are numerous other types of technology that can be used in a classroom. Enough that most likely no one teacher can in cooperate all of them into their classroom.
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).
The TPACK model would be used during the planning process for a teacher. For a given lesson the teacher would select the content and the learning objective, or what they want the student to learn and then be able to do. This is their content knowledge. The teacher would then select the activities that the student would experience during the lesson and how the teacher would be assessing if the students were meeting the objective. This is the pedagogical knowledge. Lastly the teacher would choose technology that would support and enhance the activities in the lesson. The most difficult part of this is finding technology that enhances activities, but specifically finding available technology that enhances the activities. Many teachers have not been exposed to the different technologies they can use in their classroom. They therefore find it easier to not integrate technology, rather than spend a lot of time searching to maybe find a technology they can use. Also, there may be a technology that a teacher may want to use but if it is not a free program their school probably does not have the budget to buy it.
One great technology that teachers can use in the classroom is the virtual tour or virtual field trip. This is a video of a tour through a place like a museum. These are generally free and save the school the time and money of actually traveling. Students can do this in the classroom or can do it for homework as well depending on their internet access. Other great technologies are googleDocs and wikispaces. Both of these allow students to publish their work, but also they allow multiple students to share and work on a document at once. This is especially great for group work that takes an extended period of time. There are numerous other types of technology that can be used in a classroom. Enough that most likely no one teacher can in cooperate all of them into their classroom.
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).
Koehler, M. (2014, July 23). TPACK.ORG. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from http://www.tpack.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)