EDU 6433 Technological Professional Development

Technological Professional Development

The fifth ISTE Standard stresses the importance of engaging in continual professional development, especially that which incorporates practice in effectively using technology. Professional development is a key component of normal educational practice, so how can practice with technology be incorporated? Luckily in this day, technology and digital media and resources are everywhere and constantly evolving. This prolific nature allows for quick and easy use, and simultaneous access to far reaches of the globe, where cultural diversity and the exchange of information allow for collaboration and immense sharing of new and unique ideas.

Technology today allows for an incredible exchange of ideas and information, often for the benefit of the global community. Peterson (2010) discusses various, specific examples of technology that can be used for peer collaboration and professional development. These include but are not limited to, Twitter, blogs, Skype, Youtube, and Glogster. As discussed by Dr. Wicks in the vialogue earlier this module, the networked teacher incorporates the use of theses medias in particular as these allow for two-way sharing of information, in contrast to one-way medias, such as curriculum documents or popular media (although, I would make a case that these would allow for two-way sharing if there was a file exchange or community server in place, which many schools and districts actually use…or teachers could just print extras for their teaching partners).

If educators are in search of content specific technology for professional development, or for bringing the global community into the classroom, they simply need to search out these specific content interests, as many professional organizations exist for special interests that align with K-12 education content and standards. Both the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS, 2017) and the Washington State Council for the Social Studies (WSCSS, 2017) provide professional development opportunities in the form of conferences, seminars, webinars, and numerous peer-reviewed publications and journals, as well as archival material. Even at a more specific, subfield level, the National Geographic Society (NGS) (2017), for instance, provides incredible professional development opportunities for social studies educators that may need to teach components of geography. In addition to peer-reviewed writing for professional development and research use, the NGS offers teachers phenomenal opportunities that bring actual researchers into classrooms via Skype and other video conference call mediums, or connect classrooms to one another across the globe for the community sharing of ideas and collaboration.

As advertised by the organizations discussed above, professional conferences in general allow for much professional development, as well as insider networking. In the vialogue earlier this module I discussed some of the many benefits and excitement of attending, and presenting, at conferences (Image 1). From personal experience, such as in preparing for the 2017 Northwest Anthropological Conference (Image 2), I feel it takes much practice and confidence to present a paper or poster, especially with regard to knowledge of content, and the knowledge of how to effectively use the media by which your information is made visible to the audience (because just listening to papers is boring). Additionally, perhaps even without giving it much thought, presenters regardless of subject area, will likely consider ideas about how best to engage the audience in receiving and retaining pertinent information, and thus integrate teaching pedagogy. 

Image 1: Vialogue comment about presenting at conferences for professional development.

Image 2: I am excited for the 70th NWAC theme of, "Anthropology: Making a Difference in the Real World". My paper and poster will discuss application of archaeology in the social studies and art contexts within the public school system.

Stressed by Koehler and Mishra in the article “What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?”, “The complexity of technology integration comes from an appreciation of the rich connections of knowledge among these three components [technology, pedagogy, and content] and the complex ways in which they are applied in multifaceted and dynamic classroom contexts” (2009, p. 67). Teachers must be masters of all three areas, and be able to use them harmoniously in a variety of contexts. Furthermore, technology does not simply serve as an add-on, rather it should be fully integrated into the teaching, learning, and professional development processes and experiences, in conjunction with the other two components. Regarding professional development and participation with peers for collaboration, planning, and growth, it is essential not just to add the effective practice and use of technology, but to use it to successfully integrate and augment existing content and pedagogy.

Reference List:

Koehler, M. and Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) (2017). http://www.socialstudies.org/professionaldevelopment

 

National Geographic Society (NGS) (2017). http://www.nationalgeographic.org/education/teaching-resources/

 

Peterson, E. (2010). Tech as a Tool for Teacher Collaboration. The Inspired Classroom. http://theinspiredclassroom.com/2010/11/tech-as-a-tool-for-teacher-collaboration/

 

Washington State Council for the Social Studies (WSCSS) (2017). http://www.wscss.org/

EDU 6433 Digital Storytelling with Sway and Snow White

https://sway.com/VhCOYif3C7axRNDm

The link above redirects to a Sway digital storytelling presentation titled "Writing a Summary Paragraph for Fiction Selections". The ability to write a clear, coherent, and concise summary paragraph is a middle school literacy standard, and a foundational building block toward writing essays and research reports. The TSWBSW summary strategy presented helps students maintain clear and focused writing.

Previously, this lesson was taught with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation and an accompanying handout with the sentence starter prompts (as seen in the Sway above) for the summary paragraph component sentences. While the adjustment from Powerpoint to Sway is not incredibly significant, and there are benefits and drawbacks to either, the use of Sway does allow for the use of technology to augment instruction, with reference to the SAMR model for technology integration. When used as a teaching tool for the instruction of writing a summary paragraph, that is, the Sway serves to augment; although, if students were able to use Sway to present their summary paragraphs, this could certainly advance to modification and even possible redefinition. Normal practice would be necessary first, obviously; Sway could serve as a vehicle for final publishing.

Regarding the first ISTE technology standard, or the need to facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity, this presentation and associated direct instruction fulfills the standard requirements. While it is a bit ironic to use digital storytelling as a means to present and teach how to summarize fictitious stories, or story-tell, it is also quite engaging for students. Not only does the concept of the narrative captivate audiences and students alike, whether in book, movie, poetry form, etc., the use of technology in conjunction with instruction to further draw attention allows for further student engagement. Furthermore, the presentation is set up to have scaffolded, explicit instruction regarding each component sentence of the summary. Then, there is a practice example that incorporates the use of Disney's Snow White, a well-known story that most students know, thus broadening active engagement through common background knowledge. The final portion of the presentation and associated learning activity allows for students to practice - accompanying direct instruction would emphasize the practice can be with another, well-known Disney movie, another fiction movie, or any fiction book of interest. This choice allows for inspirational and creative thinking, especially since the topic of choice is one actually known and desirable to the student. After students write their own summary paragraphs, they may pair or group share. Alternatively, sharing may also be done sentence by sentence. Either of these sharing strategies adds a final component to the learning experience to incorporate each part of the "I do, we do, you do" sequence.

While I feel the experience I have thus sustained with Sway to still be quite rudimentary, I do feel I could pass this knowledge on to students. As said above though, using Sway to publish work, for example, would be a final step, only after pencil/paper practice. As a digital storytelling aid for use in conjunction with instruction, it does seem useful, and could likely be used in various ways to inspire student learning and creativity.

EDU 6433 #ya #technolugy

#ya #technolugy

Cool! A hashtag, bro! … Here's one, bro: #Spellcheck. Alas, I SO judge thee...and you, dear reader, judge thee (and so would Shakespeare)… 

It’s wonderful to begin to incorporate the new digital age technology around us into education, such as blogging, tweeting, and a cornucopia of other shiny apps, downloads, and magical web-unicorn glitter poop, but the bottom line remains - as discussed in the second blog post – that “old literacy” should never be simply replaced by “new literacy” with technological [doodad] emphasis, even as has been alluded, as in Richtel’s “Blogs vs. Term Papers” (2012). Foundational, so-called “old literacy” is necessary. Without it, even with the best technological advances, students will not be able to put these to good use with technology throughout their educational career, and later in life as productive citizens. Everybody laughs, for instance, when the President of the United States has to retweet because of glaring typos.

Such critical analysis is necessary when learning of the bountiful new technologies before us. Are they simply just dazzling doodads, meant to entertain and maybe learn from, as discussed by Su and Rodriguez (n.d.) regarding educational games, or are they actually promoting higher-level thinking and cognitive development? Are these new technology bandwagons actually promoting the deepest of the SAMR model levels? Are they incorporating various combinations of all three important ideas of the TPACK framework? Or are they just bright, fancy entertainment (engaging nonetheless), but lacking actual educational purpose? There is certainly no need for such technologically advanced beings such as humankind to go acting like lowly Procyon lotor now is there (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkTzDh8IKNU )? And in all of this fancy new technological innovation, where is the direct instruction? Some of these examples seem to simply provide activities to do, and doing is good, but teaching kids good is good to do too. With technological integration obviously, but the mash-up is key. Finally, as brought up in class discussion before, there is always the important issue of access. Without 100% student access to technology in school and at home, as many examples for engaging school technology activities (Jackson, 2013) or communication devices (Knutson, 2016) promote, there will still be major flaws to simply embracing new technology in education.

This is all important to consider, such critical analysis and questioning, when dissecting standard three, modeling digital age work and learning, which contains four key ideas summarized below:

1.       Demonstration of fluency in incorporation and transfer of new digital technologies.

2.       Collaborate with school community using digital tools to promote student success.

3.       Communicate relevant information and ideas effectively to school community using various technologies.

4.       Model effective use of technology to aid in student research and learning.

Regarding the second idea, it should be addressed first and foremost that it would be foolish to assume 100% student and overall school community (the collective students, teachers, administration, support staff, parents/guardians, and various levels expanding from local community) access to any digital tools in question. Collaboration and communication with technology cannot happen without access to technology. Regarding the fourth idea, now here lies a tie to direct instruction, as well as an opportunity for growth in incorporating technological innovation in education. Are there technology standards that are employed to provide a scaffolded incorporation of technological skills and research strategies for students to practice at each grade level for what is necessary of them in the real world, evolving as fast as current technologies?

In researching the trigger question pertaining to ways for using technology with collaboration of the school community to increase student success it became clear that many suggestions simply seem to provide razzle-dazzle, dime-a-dozen, downloadable apps and programs for potential communication, but remember, however decent: 100% access! Then, even if access weren’t an issue, are the programs educationally stimulating? There is no use in employing a whoop-de-do, new technology if it actually does not engage on a deep, cognitive level – no matter the bells and whistles! And even those games that do promote educational growth rather than simple engagement (Su and Rodriguez, n.d.), do they provide actual direct instruction? Does any game provide direct instruction? It’s not listed as a benefit in the literature review by Su and Rodriguez (n.d.), for example. That’s a major drawback to suggestions such as, “One hot trend is “flipped” classrooms…” (Jackson, 2013). While it may be engaging to watch a video for class, is that really the same as direct, explicit instruction? And what was that about requiring students to pre watch a video or pre reading? Remember access to resources! Not to mention…all students actually reading for homework so that engaging class activity can then be collaborative? How does student collaboration work if half the students didn’t pre read/watch for the collaborative activity prep?

Figure 1: While the "flipped" classroom provides, “time engaged in projects” (Jackson, 2013)...well, that's all there really is. Do all students do pre reading? Do all students have access to the technology base necessary for the video process described here? A resounding NO and NO…Maybe in the school districts where there are E pluribus unum Abies procera, or the elusive Noble Fir laden with guilded bars struck with “E pluribus unum” – context is important. 

Furthermore regarding the trigger question, it must again be noted that the ideas of the “old literacy” (Richtel, 2012) should be emphasized when incorporating technology to promote engaging student activities and school community collaboration and communication alike; it’s great we have twitter, but it’s not great to not teach children proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, sentence fluency, writing structure, and countless other foundational skills needed to not tweet like a tw…POTUS… Here is exactly where there must be direct instruction, where simply relying upon new technologies and/or games to “teach”, communicate, and collaborate with students and communities will fall far short. Instead of having students simply whip out cell phones (remember: access, and actual educational utility) and tweet discussion about the latest 7^th grade literature reading (context), perhaps a simulation of tweeting with white boards and dry erase, as described by Marcinek (2013) as the fun and engaging “Post on my Wall” activity, could be a foundational strategy leading up to actual technological use and application. With this hands on activity, students emulate the sparkly technology (that they already may know how to use or not even have), but gain the benefit of direct instruction, practice both written and vocally as they may engage in discussion, and editing/revision practice. Alas, those are but simple “old literacy”. Bottom line is, we need that foundation, old or not, to make generations of literate students to inevitably gather up a crumbling civilization.

#FoundationFirst #IntelligibleEvidenceBasedTweetingSecond

 Reference List:

Jackson, Sarah (2013). How Technology Can Encourage Student Collaboration. Common Sense Education. https://www.commonsense.org/education/blog/how-technology-can-encourage-student-collaboration.

Knutson, Jeff (2016). 6 Tech Tools That Boost Teacher-Parent Communication. Common Sense Education. https://www.commonsense.org/education/blog/6-tech-tools-that-boost-teacher-parent-communication.

Marcinek, Andrew (2013). Building Classroom Community Amongst the Machines. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/building-classroom-community-amongst-machines-andrew-marcinek.

Richtel, Matt (2012). Blogs vs. Term Papers. The New York Times.

Su, Bude and Rodriguez Cathi (n.d.). Effective Features in Computer Learning Games. California State University Monterey Bay.

EDU 6524 META-REFLECTION

EDU 6524 META-REFLECTION ASSIGNMENT       IAN LEWIS                 AUGUST 14, 2016

Prior to beginning this course at Seattle Pacific University (SPU) my experience in curriculum design was minimal. The experience I possessed was rather specific, tailored to the anthropology/archaeology department. To that extent, it was quite contextually limited. Because the curriculum was related to a very specific area of archaeology practice and research, it was aimed at a small, distinct audience. In contrast, I have also worked in the public school system, where curriculum design occurs across multiple subjects and diverse populations. In that setting, however, I was an emergency certificated substitute. This role does not require creating a curriculum, or even lessons. Lessons were normally carefully (and about equal parts haphazardly) provided to be quickly debriefed and put to use with a new population of learners daily. This exposure to a vast array of styles and levels of plans, across many varied students, has impacted my knowledge of lesson and overall curriculum design to a degree. With limited knowledge of current pedagogical literature and practice, the view of varied plans did provide certain examples of common pedagogical best practices, many of which are related to the various program standards at SPU.

Each of the eight program standards could certainly be discussed with regard to curriculum design, but based on much emphasis in certain areas, and in relation to the discourse and practice offered by this class (through literature review and evaluation, peer discussion, and creation of a curriculum), the four standards of Instruction, Differentiation, Content Knowledge, and Assessment will be addressed. Instruction refers to the ability of a teacher to effectively present information to students via research-based pedagogical practices in a way that all students’ needs (cultural, developmental, cognitive, etc.) are met. In order to meet the needs of all students, especially exceptional learners, teachers must practice effective differentiation, which entails knowing students on a deeper, culturally competent, embracing, and integrative level so that classroom instruction may include the unique background knowledge of many diverse students. Donovan, Bransford, and Pellegrino (1999, p. 10) discuss how if students’ initial perceptions of how the world works are not engaged they may fail to grasp new concepts and ideas, or they may learn simply to pass assessments/meet standards. Thus, teachers must also engage students. There is much literature regarding research-based, pedagogical practices and associated cognitive and development processes (Marzano, 2007; Medina, 2008; Pressley and McCormick, 2007) aimed at engaging students. In order to demonstrate content knowledge, a teacher’s practice will show an adept knowledge of content and pedagogy by putting successful teaching methods and strategies into practice in order to craft and teach to meaningful learning targets, design scaffolded, integrative, and engaging learning activities, and create coherent lesson and units. Finally, assessment also includes the competent practice of various pedagogical techniques in order to plan, inform, and modify classroom instruction and evaluate student comprehension of learning targets.

Throughout this curriculum design course the unit assignments provide examples of much pedagogical understanding put to practice. Additionally, the course discussion offered much time for self-assessment, reflection, and revision. As we begin to construct curriculum, first it is important to acknowledge what makes quality curriculum. Ritchhart (2007) details seven R’s of quality curriculum. One that is valuable for creating citizens for tomorrow is the idea that curriculum must be Real, or embody the work of actual adults in a discipline/profession. For example, as discussed online, one idea that was receptive among our group was the inclusion of comparing students to historians, and phrasing learning targets as what historians practice (Figure 1). Use of such a practice not only demonstrates competency in the content knowledge standard, but also the instruction standard. Through literature evaluation, we know it is ideal to prepare students by creating real, lifelike learning experiences for them to be engaged, so incorporating the use of terms for professionals in the learning target creates a parallel for the students to aspire to.

Figure 1: Screenshot of discussion module; aligning student learning targets with tasks of historians demonstrates creation of Real curriculum. 

With regard to constructing lessons, as practiced in the learning targets and lesson plans assignments, Whitehorse (2013) and Schuhl (2012) discuss how similar to lessons, learning targets should be engaging, but simple enough to remain within students’ zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962). Also, they should be scaffolded, as originally detailed by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), so that one learning target aligns and builds into the next, the language function and demand of which may possibly be higher than the previous with regard to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956). Cognitive development, brain function, and basic evolutionary principles also dictate that people lose attention after approximately ten minutes (Medina, 2008, p. 74-75), thus, it is effective for teachers to construct lessons with distinct, direct parts that are related, but linked via entertaining and/or multi-sensory hooks that continue student practice of the learning target while transitioning to the next lesson segment or assessment portion. A major revision to my lesson plans came about based on the literature evaluation, discussion, and critique/feedback pertaining to segmenting lesson plans and learning targets.   

Additionally, while crafting lessons and receiving feedback for lesson improvements and revision, a stress toward constantly engaging students, especially exceptional learners through differentiation, and assessment were noted. Both common and accepted pedagogical practices, differentiation and assessment are quite closely related to each other, and an overall understanding of prior student knowledge and perception. For example, the benefits of creating engaging preassessments allows for a deeper understanding of the individuals within a class, and that knowledge can be used to craft a curriculum tailored to the needs of the student population. Continued assessment (informal and formal) and assessment of student voice, or understanding of the learning target, is essential for keeping account of student progress, which can then be used to further modify or reevaluate lessons. Keeping track of student data, or better – encouraging students to track their own data, allows for reflection and revision of lesson plans when necessary to allow for differentiation.

While the experiences in this class were but one lens for viewing curriculum design, in practice, upon entering an internship, the experience may be different, especially since we will have actual teaching resources at our disposal. However, from this course comes a deeper understanding of research-based content and pedagogical best practices for creating curriculum, the process of which includes achievement in the program standards of Instruction, Differentiation, Content Knowledge, and Assessment. 

References:

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Walter, H., and Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives.

Donovan, Suzanne M., Bransford, John D., and Pellegrino, James W. (1999). How People Learn.

National Academy of Sciences, Chapter 2, 18-23.

Marzano, Robert J. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Medina, John (2008). Brain Rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

Pressley, Michael and McCormick, Christine (2007). Child and Adolescent Development for Educators.

New York: The Guilford Press.

Ritchhart, Ron (2007). The Seven R’s of Quality Curriculum.  Education Quarterly Australia.

Schuhl, Sarah (2012). How Do We Write Learning Targets to Assess Students. Solution Tree.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wood, S.S., Bruner, J.S., and Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of

Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Whitehorse, Lindsey (2013). How to Create a Learning Target. (youtube).