My initial thought when seeing our blog assignment this week asking us to describe the most recent staff development we implemented made me think of the “whole” staff. I haven’t presented a *true* professional development that lasted more than a demonstration since September!
Most of the “staff development” is pushed out by me instead of formal sessions with the hope of someone being interested enough to grab on. I do this through resource guides such as the “20 Ways to Web 2.0 your Classroom during Black History Month” document I created for the faculty and my weekly Wednesday Web blog posts centered around specific topics. I’m able to push out ideas more specifically to the grade levels that blog their lesson plans as well. I’ve presented to classrooms, but does that count as “staff” development?
Another road block to implementing staff development falls under the “its tech so its part of your job” category such as Scantron Testing, creating weekly bulletins, Study Island, tech repair, etc.
So…based on all of that nonsense the last true staff development I gave was to the 2 second grade teachers in one on one sessions. One of them had recently attended a CPS after school workshop on the Web 2.0 tools wikis and Vokis. She now wanted to know about blogging. I was able to give her copies of blogging tutorials I had created and help her set up a class blog.
The next teacher wanted to make a blog as well only her intent was to begin blogging the second grade lesson plans. As with the first teacher we were able to set up a site easily with the one-on-one format.
Both sessions went well. Both teachers were enthusiastic and thought that they would be able to incorporate this into their classrooms easily. There isn’t anything major I would change, except possibly to have formal follow up sessions with them (which I still may do). Being a former classroom teacher I understand how busy the day becomes so I hate to force myself on them, so to speak. But…the downside of that is sometimes when teachers are not nudged a little it becomes easier to push things like this to the backburner in favor of skill sets they already have mastered. In my role as Lead Technology Teacher I am still trying to find the balance between being too hands off and too much of a pest.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Reflecting on a Problem Solving Lesson
This week’s blog assignment asked for us to reflect on the experience of creating and implementing a problem-based lesson and what I might do to improve the learning experience. When I first thought about what I would do for this lesson I began by logging on to Google and conducting a search for “problem solving lesson plans”. I learn best by looking at an example of what someone else has done and then developing my own from there.
As I searched, nothing stood out. I thought about how in my 15 years in a 4th grade classroom I had developed some lessons that I truly felt were solid in the problem solving/critical thinking department (not just one or two, but you get the picture).
Then I started to focus my thoughts on my National Board Certification experience. My mind settled on a social studies entry that I had to complete that showed evidence of a sense of “community” within my classroom, centered around a social studies topic. I chose to highlight opportunity cost.
Social science is usually difficult to teach in elementary school. Not the content so much, but of all subjects, it gets pushed to the back burner (social studies is not on the test- enough said). So…when I had to create a lesson that would help the students work together I tried to do something they would show an interest in. In my classroom my students were exposed to many different genres, many different read alouds. I found that if I tried to teach them using these materials they seemed less intimidated than if I used the basal reader.
For this lesson I used the read aloud Uncle Jed’s Barbershop by Margaree King Mitchell. Told from the point of view of a young girl named Sarah Jean, the main character makes several important decisions in the story that shape the way the plot develops. After reading the book aloud to the class the students were asked to brainstorm a list of decisions that Uncle Jed had made (students were taught prior about opportunity cost and judgments & decisions). The student responses were typed up and placed on strips of paper. The next task was to have students in small groups (of 4) rank order Uncle Jed’s decisions (with the most important 1st, and so on). The group needed to come to a consensus on the order. Next, students were asked to remove 1 decision Uncle Jed made and discuss the changes to the plot based on this.
As stated earlier, this lesson was videotaped. I was able to go back and reflect with the students on how they showed a sense of community by listening to the perspectives of the group members and working together to form one opinion. The lesson was not only successful in meeting the objective of teaching opportunity cost, but also in the sense that it provided the students with a solid example of how the decisions we make (or give up) affect those around us and our own character as well.
I felt that this was a successful lesson (as did the testers for National Boards). I don’t know that there is anything I would have changed, except possibly to have more students share additional personal antidotes. The lesson itself is solid enough that it could easily be taught to a class today, as opposed to the class I taught in 2005.
View my Presentation:
As I searched, nothing stood out. I thought about how in my 15 years in a 4th grade classroom I had developed some lessons that I truly felt were solid in the problem solving/critical thinking department (not just one or two, but you get the picture).
Then I started to focus my thoughts on my National Board Certification experience. My mind settled on a social studies entry that I had to complete that showed evidence of a sense of “community” within my classroom, centered around a social studies topic. I chose to highlight opportunity cost.
Social science is usually difficult to teach in elementary school. Not the content so much, but of all subjects, it gets pushed to the back burner (social studies is not on the test- enough said). So…when I had to create a lesson that would help the students work together I tried to do something they would show an interest in. In my classroom my students were exposed to many different genres, many different read alouds. I found that if I tried to teach them using these materials they seemed less intimidated than if I used the basal reader.
For this lesson I used the read aloud Uncle Jed’s Barbershop by Margaree King Mitchell. Told from the point of view of a young girl named Sarah Jean, the main character makes several important decisions in the story that shape the way the plot develops. After reading the book aloud to the class the students were asked to brainstorm a list of decisions that Uncle Jed had made (students were taught prior about opportunity cost and judgments & decisions). The student responses were typed up and placed on strips of paper. The next task was to have students in small groups (of 4) rank order Uncle Jed’s decisions (with the most important 1st, and so on). The group needed to come to a consensus on the order. Next, students were asked to remove 1 decision Uncle Jed made and discuss the changes to the plot based on this.
As stated earlier, this lesson was videotaped. I was able to go back and reflect with the students on how they showed a sense of community by listening to the perspectives of the group members and working together to form one opinion. The lesson was not only successful in meeting the objective of teaching opportunity cost, but also in the sense that it provided the students with a solid example of how the decisions we make (or give up) affect those around us and our own character as well.
I felt that this was a successful lesson (as did the testers for National Boards). I don’t know that there is anything I would have changed, except possibly to have more students share additional personal antidotes. The lesson itself is solid enough that it could easily be taught to a class today, as opposed to the class I taught in 2005.
View my Presentation:
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Are Computer Games Educational Tools
Conduct a Google Search for “educational computer games” and no less than 27.7 million entries appear.
Are all of these educational? Who decides? Is a game that teaches a child how to manipulate a mouse considered educational? This debate has as many answers as the Google search engine has links. Educational games are activities that teach people something; a concept, an understanding, a skill. They are not new, even if the format is. For example, growing up we played the board game Monopoly. Today you can play the same game…on the computer. Does it suddenly become more educational because its on the computer, or does it become more isolating because no one else needs to be there in order for you to play?
When deciding if a computer game is educational it is important to look at the reason for the game. Is it solely to entertain the user? Is it teaching the user a concept or skill, or is it reinforcing problem solving and critical thinking in a new format?
Since there are literally thousands of titles available selecting educational computer games takes work on the part of the adult in charge. It is important to keep in mind what the overlying goal is: are you looking to teach a concept or skill or simply to occupy a student during some spare time?
The following are some examples of games I have found to have educational value.
Big Brain Academy for Wii
The Oregon Trail
Quest Atlantis
Are all of these educational? Who decides? Is a game that teaches a child how to manipulate a mouse considered educational? This debate has as many answers as the Google search engine has links. Educational games are activities that teach people something; a concept, an understanding, a skill. They are not new, even if the format is. For example, growing up we played the board game Monopoly. Today you can play the same game…on the computer. Does it suddenly become more educational because its on the computer, or does it become more isolating because no one else needs to be there in order for you to play?
When deciding if a computer game is educational it is important to look at the reason for the game. Is it solely to entertain the user? Is it teaching the user a concept or skill, or is it reinforcing problem solving and critical thinking in a new format?
Since there are literally thousands of titles available selecting educational computer games takes work on the part of the adult in charge. It is important to keep in mind what the overlying goal is: are you looking to teach a concept or skill or simply to occupy a student during some spare time?
The following are some examples of games I have found to have educational value.
Big Brain Academy for Wii
The Oregon Trail
Quest Atlantis
Defining Professional Development
The National Staff Development Council does a good job defining the term “professional development” as a comprehensive, sustained, and intensive approach to improving teachers’ effectiveness in raising student achievement. It’s within its subsections where there is room for debate.
Section (A) states that professional development fosters “collective responsibility” for improved student performance. The flaw in this statement doesn’t lie in the hope of the statement; indeed all professional development should foster collective responsibility. The flaw lies within the reality of the teaching profession and individual school climate.
The majority of professional development that takes place is top down. The school (or Central Office) administration determines what the weaknesses are of the school (or the system) and therefore decides what professional development should take place. Professional development in general already has a set agenda; it is not negotiated by the faculty for most individual schools. Once the agenda is passed down many schools scramble to find someone to conduct these sessions; usually in-house, and usually last minute. When this top down approach takes place many teachers have already begun to “tune out”. They see these sessions as a waste, when they have so many other things they could be doing. In some instances they begin to resent the presenter if it is someone in-house who is asked to present on a consistant basis.
Section A, part 3 states that professional development should take place “several times per week”. When? Most school days are jammed with activities already. Teachers may have 4 planning periods for the entire week. Not nearly enough time to gather resources or grade assessments that may help their instruction improve or provide a consistent flow in their classroom. Several times per week sounds like a goal to reach, not to start with.
The NSDC’s definition isn’t without fault, but it is a good one to work off of. I would like to see language included that allows teachers to be able to decide *what* professional development they need. If schools are looking for genuine involvement and growth in regards to professional development and achieved student learning they need to let the teachers have more of a voice in deciding what the needs are. After all, it is the classroom teacher that has the greatest understanding of what the students need.
Understandably, school administrators have pressure to improve weaknesses in the school. But imagine if a principal listed a goal for improvement and allowed individual grade levels to decide how they would achieve that goal. Chances are it would result in more buy-in from the stakeholders. It may even result in achieving the desired goals of the school. It is important that the goal not be stated and then not revisited. There should be (at a very minimum) monthly follow ups, perhaps by individual grade levels sharing how they are achieving their goals. This would allow the grade levels a sense of individuality while at the same time allowing for overall growth of the entire student body. It would also allow for best practices to be shared by colleagues in the same building.
Section (A) states that professional development fosters “collective responsibility” for improved student performance. The flaw in this statement doesn’t lie in the hope of the statement; indeed all professional development should foster collective responsibility. The flaw lies within the reality of the teaching profession and individual school climate.
The majority of professional development that takes place is top down. The school (or Central Office) administration determines what the weaknesses are of the school (or the system) and therefore decides what professional development should take place. Professional development in general already has a set agenda; it is not negotiated by the faculty for most individual schools. Once the agenda is passed down many schools scramble to find someone to conduct these sessions; usually in-house, and usually last minute. When this top down approach takes place many teachers have already begun to “tune out”. They see these sessions as a waste, when they have so many other things they could be doing. In some instances they begin to resent the presenter if it is someone in-house who is asked to present on a consistant basis.
Section A, part 3 states that professional development should take place “several times per week”. When? Most school days are jammed with activities already. Teachers may have 4 planning periods for the entire week. Not nearly enough time to gather resources or grade assessments that may help their instruction improve or provide a consistent flow in their classroom. Several times per week sounds like a goal to reach, not to start with.
The NSDC’s definition isn’t without fault, but it is a good one to work off of. I would like to see language included that allows teachers to be able to decide *what* professional development they need. If schools are looking for genuine involvement and growth in regards to professional development and achieved student learning they need to let the teachers have more of a voice in deciding what the needs are. After all, it is the classroom teacher that has the greatest understanding of what the students need.
Understandably, school administrators have pressure to improve weaknesses in the school. But imagine if a principal listed a goal for improvement and allowed individual grade levels to decide how they would achieve that goal. Chances are it would result in more buy-in from the stakeholders. It may even result in achieving the desired goals of the school. It is important that the goal not be stated and then not revisited. There should be (at a very minimum) monthly follow ups, perhaps by individual grade levels sharing how they are achieving their goals. This would allow the grade levels a sense of individuality while at the same time allowing for overall growth of the entire student body. It would also allow for best practices to be shared by colleagues in the same building.
Technology Integration in the Classroom
This week’s blog assignment asked us to talk about what the best way is to get others at our schools to use more technology in their teaching and student learning. HA!! Can someone tell me how?? One of the biggest obstacles I have found is in the teacher’s thought process. Many see this as another task- they do not see it as something that will benefit them, but something else to do. The next obstacle is the actual technology itself. In my particular setting the technology is old and in many cases not functioning properly. This does indeed make technology integration more difficult, but not impossible.
If teachers are going to infuse more technology into their classrooms they have to see a purpose to doing so. It is not enough to tell them it will engage their students; they have to see it to believe it, so to speak. I have found that when I take time to work with teachers who are eager to incorporate technology others catch on. They see another *teacher* enjoying and benefiting from it- not the lead technology teacher or an administrator. For some reason this seems to deter them- even if the LTT is a former classroom teacher.
The next task is to expose teachers to what is available to them. Recently I taught a Web 2.0 workshop to high school math teachers. They were all required to be there. Many of them had minimal exposure to what was available to them (out of 15, maybe 3 had blogs and none had ever made a wiki). During the two all-day workshops they were exposed to many Web 2.0 concepts: blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, video, screencasts, podcasts, and more. I also threw in a “cool tool exploration” component. These were websites that offered “quick wins” so to speak- something quick and easy that they could embed in a blog or wiki.
They left overwhelmed the first day. When they returned the second Saturday some were eager to show me what they had done the week before. Believe it or not, no one focused on showing me a wiki or a blog- they were more excited about the “cool tools” and had played with those. If I had to guess why they focused on the cool tools as opposed to the big concepts I would say it was because these required a short amount of time to both learn and implement. I explained to them that they wouldn’t be able to take everything out of the workshop and incorporate it into their classrooms- some of the concepts wouldn’t fit easily into a math high school classroom. Rather my intent was to expose them to a number of applications and to let them ultimately decide what was best for their situation. I try to do this with my own faculty as well through my Wednesday Web blog.
With technology integration my belief is this. The most beneficial learning/implementation will take place when a teacher finds something that sparks their interest. When they do, they will begin to explore that application. Soon, they are spending more time on that application and it becomes easier. Next, the application becomes mastered and begins to filter down to student use/exposure. At this point the educator becomes more open and comfortable with technology. Chances are great that they will then want to explore what else is available. Then and only then will the technology become *truly* integrated.
Now if I can only convince my own faculty……
If teachers are going to infuse more technology into their classrooms they have to see a purpose to doing so. It is not enough to tell them it will engage their students; they have to see it to believe it, so to speak. I have found that when I take time to work with teachers who are eager to incorporate technology others catch on. They see another *teacher* enjoying and benefiting from it- not the lead technology teacher or an administrator. For some reason this seems to deter them- even if the LTT is a former classroom teacher.
The next task is to expose teachers to what is available to them. Recently I taught a Web 2.0 workshop to high school math teachers. They were all required to be there. Many of them had minimal exposure to what was available to them (out of 15, maybe 3 had blogs and none had ever made a wiki). During the two all-day workshops they were exposed to many Web 2.0 concepts: blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, video, screencasts, podcasts, and more. I also threw in a “cool tool exploration” component. These were websites that offered “quick wins” so to speak- something quick and easy that they could embed in a blog or wiki.
They left overwhelmed the first day. When they returned the second Saturday some were eager to show me what they had done the week before. Believe it or not, no one focused on showing me a wiki or a blog- they were more excited about the “cool tools” and had played with those. If I had to guess why they focused on the cool tools as opposed to the big concepts I would say it was because these required a short amount of time to both learn and implement. I explained to them that they wouldn’t be able to take everything out of the workshop and incorporate it into their classrooms- some of the concepts wouldn’t fit easily into a math high school classroom. Rather my intent was to expose them to a number of applications and to let them ultimately decide what was best for their situation. I try to do this with my own faculty as well through my Wednesday Web blog.
With technology integration my belief is this. The most beneficial learning/implementation will take place when a teacher finds something that sparks their interest. When they do, they will begin to explore that application. Soon, they are spending more time on that application and it becomes easier. Next, the application becomes mastered and begins to filter down to student use/exposure. At this point the educator becomes more open and comfortable with technology. Chances are great that they will then want to explore what else is available. Then and only then will the technology become *truly* integrated.
Now if I can only convince my own faculty……
Thursday, March 4, 2010
21st Century Literacy Skills
Princeton University’s Wordnet website defines literacy as “the ability to read and write”. Throw the phrase “21st Century” in the front and the definition becomes more complicated.
So much in fact that Wikipedia, which contained over 3 million articles by August 2009 does not have an article titled “21 Century Literacy”. Anybody game?!
There are countless websites devoted to developing 21st century literacy skills in students centered on the 3 R’s and the 4 C’s: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. This blog breaks down the categories into basic literacy, visual/media literacy, information literacy, as well as 3 others.
So which is the most important aspect? If you were given the task of choosing only 1 21st century literacy skill, what would it be? While critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity are essential to a student’s progression into a professional setting what stands out to me is a student’s understanding of how to evaluate media in the 21st century. Back in the 20th century information was much more limited. Students received information from a central source such as a teacher, a parent, a textbook, or a television. In today’s society students can still turn to those sources for information, but also have exposure to millions of opinions from around the world. What’s more so, this information doesn’t have to be accurate. No longer can a student (or adult for that matter) simply take what someone states as truth in the hopes that their intent is positive. Students need to be taught to evaluate media and the source of information more than they are being taught now. They need to be able to dissect a print ad or television ad to determine what the author’s intent is.
Teaching students to evaluate media is a form of 21st century literacy that is a mashup of critical thinking and communication. Having these skills will allow students to more easily navigate media and increase their collaboration and creativity. Much of technology education today evolves around learning how to manage and master an application instead of inferring and evaluating sources. Unfortunately, I am just as guilty of this as many other technology educators today.
Below are some resources that I’ve found to be helpful for educators looking to increase their knowledge of 21 Century Literacy Skills.
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/
http://networkedteacher.wetpaint.com/ 21st Century Skills for Teachers
http://www.medialit.org/pdf/lit2105.pdf The Center for Media Literacy’s excellent resource kit
So much in fact that Wikipedia, which contained over 3 million articles by August 2009 does not have an article titled “21 Century Literacy”. Anybody game?!
There are countless websites devoted to developing 21st century literacy skills in students centered on the 3 R’s and the 4 C’s: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. This blog breaks down the categories into basic literacy, visual/media literacy, information literacy, as well as 3 others.
So which is the most important aspect? If you were given the task of choosing only 1 21st century literacy skill, what would it be? While critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity are essential to a student’s progression into a professional setting what stands out to me is a student’s understanding of how to evaluate media in the 21st century. Back in the 20th century information was much more limited. Students received information from a central source such as a teacher, a parent, a textbook, or a television. In today’s society students can still turn to those sources for information, but also have exposure to millions of opinions from around the world. What’s more so, this information doesn’t have to be accurate. No longer can a student (or adult for that matter) simply take what someone states as truth in the hopes that their intent is positive. Students need to be taught to evaluate media and the source of information more than they are being taught now. They need to be able to dissect a print ad or television ad to determine what the author’s intent is.
Teaching students to evaluate media is a form of 21st century literacy that is a mashup of critical thinking and communication. Having these skills will allow students to more easily navigate media and increase their collaboration and creativity. Much of technology education today evolves around learning how to manage and master an application instead of inferring and evaluating sources. Unfortunately, I am just as guilty of this as many other technology educators today.
Below are some resources that I’ve found to be helpful for educators looking to increase their knowledge of 21 Century Literacy Skills.
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/
http://networkedteacher.wetpaint.com/ 21st Century Skills for Teachers
http://www.medialit.org/pdf/lit2105.pdf The Center for Media Literacy’s excellent resource kit
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Evaluating Students' Use of Technology Tools
Our assignment for class this week called for us to share our opinions on evaluating students’ use of technology tools. When doing so the first thing a teacher needs to determine is what is being evaluated. Is it the technology tool itself, in terms of the student mastery of the tool or is it the actual information that is being presented? (feel free to refer back to my post on teaching technology in isolation). Is the technology simply ‘taking the place’ of another presentation modality or is it giving students access to things they wouldn’t be able to access otherwise?
In the case of evaluating the “tool” there are many rubrics currently available for assessing multimedia projects. Kathy Schrock has an entire page of rubrics to choose from as well as additional links. Learn NC a program within the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill offers up a guide to evaluating multimedia presentations as well. Here's even one more link, just for fun.
If you are evaluating the presentation of information through the use of technology, however, you need to become even more selective. There is an excellent article in Edutopia (which subsequently is the focus of a blog on Evaluating Technology Use in the Classroom ) that breaks down evaluating students’ use of technology into 3 categories:
1. Doing Old things in Old Ways (typing a paper in Word as opposed to writing it out)
2. Doing Old things in New Ways (instead of reading about MLK’s famous speech, students now listen to it or watch a video clip of it)
3. Doing New things in New Ways (does the use of technology allow the students to reach audiences they would not be able to reach without it?)
Within my experience many educators are currently in the old things/old ways and old things/new ways categories. That’s ok. It’s a starting point. Technology is not going to become a permanent teaching tool for these teachers if they are suddenly forced to do new things in new ways. A good starting point is to have them move their students away from the old methods of presenting (be it lecture or powerpoint). To see examples of this see a handout I made for our 8th grade students. I say this because a new way of presenting something may spark an interest in the student. They may then become open to learning other new things as well. One difficulty however is getting teachers and students beyond the oooo and ahhh of the bells and whistles and to evaluate the content of the presentation. Here’s a link to an educator’s guide to evaluating the use of technology in schools.
In the case of evaluating the “tool” there are many rubrics currently available for assessing multimedia projects. Kathy Schrock has an entire page of rubrics to choose from as well as additional links. Learn NC a program within the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill offers up a guide to evaluating multimedia presentations as well. Here's even one more link, just for fun.
If you are evaluating the presentation of information through the use of technology, however, you need to become even more selective. There is an excellent article in Edutopia (which subsequently is the focus of a blog on Evaluating Technology Use in the Classroom ) that breaks down evaluating students’ use of technology into 3 categories:
1. Doing Old things in Old Ways (typing a paper in Word as opposed to writing it out)
2. Doing Old things in New Ways (instead of reading about MLK’s famous speech, students now listen to it or watch a video clip of it)
3. Doing New things in New Ways (does the use of technology allow the students to reach audiences they would not be able to reach without it?)
Within my experience many educators are currently in the old things/old ways and old things/new ways categories. That’s ok. It’s a starting point. Technology is not going to become a permanent teaching tool for these teachers if they are suddenly forced to do new things in new ways. A good starting point is to have them move their students away from the old methods of presenting (be it lecture or powerpoint). To see examples of this see a handout I made for our 8th grade students. I say this because a new way of presenting something may spark an interest in the student. They may then become open to learning other new things as well. One difficulty however is getting teachers and students beyond the oooo and ahhh of the bells and whistles and to evaluate the content of the presentation. Here’s a link to an educator’s guide to evaluating the use of technology in schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
