In order for staff development and technology integration to be successful, you “need a vision of technology…hands-on experiences with technology” (LeBaron & Collier, 2001, p. 61). This quote summarizes Collier’s article well and also forms the foundation of a strategy schools and faculty should build upon.
Looking at the bulleted list on page 62 and employing such a list in the promotion of staff development is very effective (LeBaron & Collier, 2001). For faculty to have a chance in viewing real lessons, get involved in staff development exercises and be instructed upon strategies and new technologies to use in the classroom is invaluable to the educational process (LeBaron & Collier, 2001).
Technology mentors are also invaluable to the educational process. Mentors help teachers create or “see” the vision; then those teachers can begin to foster that vision in their classroom and lessons. Awareness becomes a large portion of the vision, almost born from the vision and the awareness helps technology become part of a daily routine in instruction. With assistance, the daily routine is easier (of course) and those that are skilled in technology use can be a tremendous help in carrying out our lessons and making technology part of everyday use.
Students are also a vital part of technology integration/use and success, as they are often very familiar with many technology tools. Greenhow, a researcher cited in Collier’s article, employed a great idea that involved technology, the writing process, teachers and students (LeBaron & Collier, 2001). Preparation in technology use, training, student participation, tremendous teacher involvement, were all part of Greenhow’s plan, which successfully involved the community as well (LeBaron & Collier, 2001). She had great ideals and carried her ideals out effectively, making another great stride in technology integration.
The above paragraphs summarize some great information found in Collier’s article. I only wish I could say my school applies the same strategies when it comes to professional development and awareness/vision. Coughlin, another researcher mentioned in Collier’s article, makes great sense: ‘Bringing technology-enriched opportunities to students…requires that schools be intentional in their implementation of technology, that they have clear and defensible student learning goals that they will support through a specific and well-designed use of educational technology’ (Coughlin, 1999, p.23). If everyone was “on-board” with such thoughts, technology integration would be a guarantee but these plans take a lot of work and support.
It all goes back to vision. We, as teachers, do not have much time to spare. But some technology allows for more efficiency and will actually give us more time. We just need to share the vision and start making the vision come alive within our lessons, among our students, faculty and community. Then technology integration will naturally become part of the professional development and our learning communities.
References:
Collier, C. (2001). Staff development for technology integration in the classroom. In LeBaron, J.F. & Collier, C. (eds.) Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Couglin, E. (1999). Professional Competencies for the Digital Age Classroom. Learning and
Leading with Technology, 27(3), 22-27.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Friday, March 16, 2007
Technology for Urban Schools Ch. 3 - Eileen Gallagher
Gallagher's article titled, Technology for Urban Schools: Gaps and Challenges, was short but concise, made good sense. As far as challenges, there are many schools face on a daily basis, especially urban and rural schools.
Wiring remains a large problem in urban and rural schools. Within rural schools, location, funding, and out-of-date buildings are large obstacles. The article states that even small school districts will not see "completions of wiring until 3-5 years later" (LeBaron, 2001, p. 33). Look at how much technology has changed just within 3 years - Smart Boards, Projector use in classroom, teacher web pages, etc.! The article also discusses the diverse populations among school districts and that technology actually collides with programs dedicated to many levels of education (preschool, elementary & secondary) (LeBaron, 2001).
In rural areas Local Area Networks (LAN) and Wide Area Networks (WAN) are difficult to implement. The cost becomes great, as it is difficult to run specific wires/cables to vast areas. Often times, too, the resources are not readily available and again the cost becomes outlandish. Then schools end up using the same equipment for years and years, never upgrading and basically the school becomes obsolete both technologically and educationally.
And because districts often focus upon standards and tests, teachers do not always want to dedicate any time to learning about new tech. tools and strategies (LeBAron, 2001). New technology and its implementation, according to some teachers, takes away time they could spend teaching. Technology, however, can achieve both means: curricula material can be taught with ease using technology tools and the students can still be successful test-takers, if not more successful (LeBaron, 2001).
Working at a brand new school has given me ample opportunities to integrate technology into my lessons being taught. We are well-wired, well-equipped and the staff is very savvy. The problem lies within the schools surrounding us. They are not new and they have not been equipped like new schools often are; there are not as many staff or student computers to use and the technological tools we have far outweigh those found at area schools. And that is just not fair. Can you imagine, and I have said this before, if there was a national agenda for such resources? It is just not fair for some schools to have loads of technology and others are just barely scraping by. Technology is instrumental in effectively educating students and if the district must build another school, well then at the time of wiring for the new school, and equipping the new school, why not look at other schools and try to efficiently supply enough technology among the schools. Educationally, this is the only fair solution. This is the technological generation; it needs to be reflected in our teaching.
Chicago seems to be completely aligned with successfully integrating technology. I realize Chicago has hundreds of schools and a large, organized plan is necessary but their plan is very effective in terms of integrating technology into the educational system. Separate departments have been created such as, the Dept. of Information Technology Services (ITS) and the Department of Learning Technologies (LT) (LeBAron, 2001). These departments have been set up solely for teachers and schools to help integrate and assist schools in many capacities, especially that of tech. integration. In-services are conducted frequently, set up by these departments and teachers seem like they are continuously learning new strategies they can use in the classroom the very next day. These teachers have embraced the concept and have a great deal of help. With pressure and duties relieved from administrators and staff, technology integration is much more effective, useful, easier and successful.
References:
LeBAron, J.F. & Collier, C. (Eds.). (2001). Technology in its Place. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thornburg, D. Education, Technology and Paradigms of Change for the 21st Century. Monterey, Calif.: Starsong Publications, 1991.
Wiring remains a large problem in urban and rural schools. Within rural schools, location, funding, and out-of-date buildings are large obstacles. The article states that even small school districts will not see "completions of wiring until 3-5 years later" (LeBaron, 2001, p. 33). Look at how much technology has changed just within 3 years - Smart Boards, Projector use in classroom, teacher web pages, etc.! The article also discusses the diverse populations among school districts and that technology actually collides with programs dedicated to many levels of education (preschool, elementary & secondary) (LeBaron, 2001).
In rural areas Local Area Networks (LAN) and Wide Area Networks (WAN) are difficult to implement. The cost becomes great, as it is difficult to run specific wires/cables to vast areas. Often times, too, the resources are not readily available and again the cost becomes outlandish. Then schools end up using the same equipment for years and years, never upgrading and basically the school becomes obsolete both technologically and educationally.
And because districts often focus upon standards and tests, teachers do not always want to dedicate any time to learning about new tech. tools and strategies (LeBAron, 2001). New technology and its implementation, according to some teachers, takes away time they could spend teaching. Technology, however, can achieve both means: curricula material can be taught with ease using technology tools and the students can still be successful test-takers, if not more successful (LeBaron, 2001).
Working at a brand new school has given me ample opportunities to integrate technology into my lessons being taught. We are well-wired, well-equipped and the staff is very savvy. The problem lies within the schools surrounding us. They are not new and they have not been equipped like new schools often are; there are not as many staff or student computers to use and the technological tools we have far outweigh those found at area schools. And that is just not fair. Can you imagine, and I have said this before, if there was a national agenda for such resources? It is just not fair for some schools to have loads of technology and others are just barely scraping by. Technology is instrumental in effectively educating students and if the district must build another school, well then at the time of wiring for the new school, and equipping the new school, why not look at other schools and try to efficiently supply enough technology among the schools. Educationally, this is the only fair solution. This is the technological generation; it needs to be reflected in our teaching.
Chicago seems to be completely aligned with successfully integrating technology. I realize Chicago has hundreds of schools and a large, organized plan is necessary but their plan is very effective in terms of integrating technology into the educational system. Separate departments have been created such as, the Dept. of Information Technology Services (ITS) and the Department of Learning Technologies (LT) (LeBAron, 2001). These departments have been set up solely for teachers and schools to help integrate and assist schools in many capacities, especially that of tech. integration. In-services are conducted frequently, set up by these departments and teachers seem like they are continuously learning new strategies they can use in the classroom the very next day. These teachers have embraced the concept and have a great deal of help. With pressure and duties relieved from administrators and staff, technology integration is much more effective, useful, easier and successful.
References:
LeBAron, J.F. & Collier, C. (Eds.). (2001). Technology in its Place. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thornburg, D. Education, Technology and Paradigms of Change for the 21st Century. Monterey, Calif.: Starsong Publications, 1991.
Friday, March 2, 2007
LeBaron's Chapter 2 & 4
I must say I had to re-read chapter two a few times because I found the chapter to be a bit hard to follow. There were pieces, however, I made note of in terms of what is necessary in order to successfully implement technology into our curriculum/school.
Strategic versus operational plans made a lot of sense to me. Strategic plans should definitely be revisited and revised and in doing so, the operational plan is revised and "moves forward from the previous operational plan" (LeBaron,2001, p.18). There is also a good plan listed on page 19 for implementing technology into the curriculum (LeBaron, 2001).
If you take ideas like those of Pratt (1994) and Eisner (1985) then planning and integration would be easy and effective (LeBaron, 2001). Essentialism, cultural transmission, individual fulfillment (my favorite) and social transformation should always lay the foundation for ideas involved in curriculum planning (LeBaron, 2001).
And constructivist view is needed in creating such perspectives in the classroom and school-wide. An "evolving interaction between unique personal experiences and the new phenomena that individuals bring to them" is a great way to bring meaning to lessons and technology is instrumental in creating that interaction (LeBaron, 2001). With a constructivist view, the learning environment would only be further enhanced because goals are created with exchanges that build knowledge.
Once the thought processes for designing curricula planning begin, then the six steps of the planning process can be utilized. A vision that resounds the feelings of the many individuals involved is necessary, as involvement is key in integration success. Communication of goals, assessment and expectations need to be voiced and agreed upon. Businesses, teachers, parents and media/ITRT personnel are extremely helpful in the sharing process.
I think ITRT's are probably the most essential part of the integration equation. If we did not have an ITRT that made a point of stopping us in the hallway or coming by our classes, I don't think we would have as much integration as we do. She was very personable and we almost felt bad if we did not try her ideas because she tried so hard to work with us and get us involved with technology and its wonderful attributes. This year, our ITRT is much less available and I don't feel as though I use as much tech. as I should, simply because the relationship is different. Our ITRT last year even knew our principal pretty well and she traveled among schools!
A personable, driven ITRT is a big help when trying to "get the story" out as Sanna Jarvela discusses in chapter 4 of LeBaron's book (LeBaron & Collier., 2001). Learning involves so many pieces and I hope we all agree that memorization and technology just do not get along, when it comes to providing an enriched learning environment. Jarvela discusses inquiry and its importance in our students' classrooms.
Through inquiry, students develop questions independently and use resources to find their answers. Inquiry brings more meaning through that process of finding answers to independently created questions.
I thought the projects discussed (CSILE) were okay but I think we can do better when wanting to create more inquiry based learning. We can use technology quite heavily and student achievement can easily be enhanced. Of course, we should follow Jarvela's principles, such as developing group roles within class activities and those students should work well together in order to create a great class environment, conducive to creativity and knowledge gain. Evaluation of lessons and activities should always follow activities and lay the foundation for the integration of technology.
When I used the remote controls (can not remember what this software is called!) with quizzes, the students loved it. Each student is assigned a number in the computer program and questions are placed in a document within the software program. When class begins, the folder is opened within that program and has questions in it that my co-teacher and I have developed. Each question is given a point value and they are all multiple choice. Then the students are given a remote with their assigned number on it and we open the quiz on our computer and it is projected on the big screen for the students to see, kind of like jeopardy but no one really pays attention to who is which number, nice feature.
Questions are answered based on categories chosen by students and the quiz runs rather quickly. According to Jarvela, this type of activity supports student autonomy because there is almost a transfer of "responsibility from teacher to student" (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Turner, 1995; LeBaron & Collier, 2001). This makes good sense; technology helps create a shift of responsibility, as students and teachers are better able to work together on tasks and goals. Students feel more ownership, as they did with the quiz software, making learning more meaningful because concepts are retained.
Technology allows for more communication, more involvement, thorough reporting and documentation, allowing the "story of" lessons to be told. And students are better skilled and better prepared because of technology integration in our lessons.
Strategic versus operational plans made a lot of sense to me. Strategic plans should definitely be revisited and revised and in doing so, the operational plan is revised and "moves forward from the previous operational plan" (LeBaron,2001, p.18). There is also a good plan listed on page 19 for implementing technology into the curriculum (LeBaron, 2001).
If you take ideas like those of Pratt (1994) and Eisner (1985) then planning and integration would be easy and effective (LeBaron, 2001). Essentialism, cultural transmission, individual fulfillment (my favorite) and social transformation should always lay the foundation for ideas involved in curriculum planning (LeBaron, 2001).
And constructivist view is needed in creating such perspectives in the classroom and school-wide. An "evolving interaction between unique personal experiences and the new phenomena that individuals bring to them" is a great way to bring meaning to lessons and technology is instrumental in creating that interaction (LeBaron, 2001). With a constructivist view, the learning environment would only be further enhanced because goals are created with exchanges that build knowledge.
Once the thought processes for designing curricula planning begin, then the six steps of the planning process can be utilized. A vision that resounds the feelings of the many individuals involved is necessary, as involvement is key in integration success. Communication of goals, assessment and expectations need to be voiced and agreed upon. Businesses, teachers, parents and media/ITRT personnel are extremely helpful in the sharing process.
I think ITRT's are probably the most essential part of the integration equation. If we did not have an ITRT that made a point of stopping us in the hallway or coming by our classes, I don't think we would have as much integration as we do. She was very personable and we almost felt bad if we did not try her ideas because she tried so hard to work with us and get us involved with technology and its wonderful attributes. This year, our ITRT is much less available and I don't feel as though I use as much tech. as I should, simply because the relationship is different. Our ITRT last year even knew our principal pretty well and she traveled among schools!
A personable, driven ITRT is a big help when trying to "get the story" out as Sanna Jarvela discusses in chapter 4 of LeBaron's book (LeBaron & Collier., 2001). Learning involves so many pieces and I hope we all agree that memorization and technology just do not get along, when it comes to providing an enriched learning environment. Jarvela discusses inquiry and its importance in our students' classrooms.
Through inquiry, students develop questions independently and use resources to find their answers. Inquiry brings more meaning through that process of finding answers to independently created questions.
I thought the projects discussed (CSILE) were okay but I think we can do better when wanting to create more inquiry based learning. We can use technology quite heavily and student achievement can easily be enhanced. Of course, we should follow Jarvela's principles, such as developing group roles within class activities and those students should work well together in order to create a great class environment, conducive to creativity and knowledge gain. Evaluation of lessons and activities should always follow activities and lay the foundation for the integration of technology.
When I used the remote controls (can not remember what this software is called!) with quizzes, the students loved it. Each student is assigned a number in the computer program and questions are placed in a document within the software program. When class begins, the folder is opened within that program and has questions in it that my co-teacher and I have developed. Each question is given a point value and they are all multiple choice. Then the students are given a remote with their assigned number on it and we open the quiz on our computer and it is projected on the big screen for the students to see, kind of like jeopardy but no one really pays attention to who is which number, nice feature.
Questions are answered based on categories chosen by students and the quiz runs rather quickly. According to Jarvela, this type of activity supports student autonomy because there is almost a transfer of "responsibility from teacher to student" (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Turner, 1995; LeBaron & Collier, 2001). This makes good sense; technology helps create a shift of responsibility, as students and teachers are better able to work together on tasks and goals. Students feel more ownership, as they did with the quiz software, making learning more meaningful because concepts are retained.
Technology allows for more communication, more involvement, thorough reporting and documentation, allowing the "story of" lessons to be told. And students are better skilled and better prepared because of technology integration in our lessons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)