EDLD+5364+Reflection

__** EDLD 5364: Course-Embedded Reflection **__ Almost six years ago, I moved from teaching Spanish to assisting teachers as an Instructional Technology Specialist. I had been successful in integrating technology into the foreign language curriculum; the benefits of being able to practice speaking and listening or accessing Spanish-language materials in real time were evident and long-reaching. Additionally, the constructivist method of hands-on exploration lent itself ideally to the practice that is critical to learning a foreign language.

Applying what I knew about technology integration to other curricula proved a slightly different matter. I was taken aback at the imbalance between those who were proponents of technology and those who resisted its implementation. Some teachers were convinced that technology just did not apply to their curriculum. Others used technology in activities that might have been better served with a different tool. While Bransford et all (2000) reminds us that “technologies do not guarantee effective learning…inappropriate uses of technology can hinder learning”, he also says that “many aspects of technology make it easier to create environments that fit the principles of learning.”

At the same time, neither side seemed quite right and we didn’t seem to be reaching the students on the question of technology. They were stuck in the middle of the debate and just didn’t understand what the big deal was. As James Paul Gee states, “While Baby Boomers tend to look at things like games and other media separately, modern kids see all these medias converging” (Edutopia.org, //Big Thinkers: James Paul Gee//).

What I was sensing became clear to me in McPheeters’ article //Social Networking Technologies in Education// (techlearning.com):


 * The struggle within modern society regarding the adoption of new technologies has been framed as a dichotomy between those who oppose its tendency to redefine culture and those who embrace it. However a new paradigm has emerged among the young generation that sees beyond the bipartisan debate, rendering the debate itself irrelevant. This sense of irrelevancy among a whole new generation is mistakenly viewed as disinterest by the two sides of debaters.

As my team put together the pieces to respond to the scenario provided, it was clear that, while many of the activities were suited to Web 2.0 tools, some parts of the unit were best created with other tools. My favorite activities were those where the students could choose the tools they felt best suited their products.

In reflecting on my own role as a learner, I recall three points made by Bransford et al. ( [|http://books.nap.edu] ). First, he says that “technology can stimulate teachers to think about the processes of learning…through…a fresh perspective on students’ learning.” I was able to pull back from my focus on teaching in order to concentrate on how students learn best.

Second, Bransford says that “interactivity makes it easy for students to revisit specific parts of the environments to explore them more fully, to test ideas, and to receive feedback” ( [|http://books.nap.edu] ). I found that referring to course materials, especially online references, as I completed the course activities was invaluable. Being able to confer with my teammates and receive feedback helped me to improve my work and boosted my confidence.

And, finally, “technology provides interactive environments that present students with challenges that require them to understand and apply important concepts” ( [|http://books.nap.edu] ). Responding to the scenario successfully required a deeper understanding of the concepts of the UDL, the three brain networks, and the most appropriate tasks for reaching each student.

Few teachers do a truly stellar job of teaching to different learning styles on a regular basis and, if we continue to use ‘old’ methods of teaching instead of embracing the technology tools available, this trend will continue. “Teaching through these varied [networks] would be daunting or perhaps even impossible if our instructional tools were restricted to print materials alone” (Rose & Meyer, 2002).

This is what I will continue to study and improve upon as I move forward. “One size fits all…doesn’t work. Everyone is different, everyone has different learning styles and there need to be alternative methods for teaching” (Edutopia.org, //Diversity of Learners//). This, in itself, is not new to me. Differentiated learning has been around for years. What I have opened my eyes to are the many ways that technology tools can assist the teacher in differentiating instruction for //all// learners. We are by law required to differentiate for certain learners when, in truth, we should be differentiating for each and every one. As David Rose, Chief Scientist at CAST, says, “Neuroscience shows that each brain processes information differently…the way we learn is as different as our fingerprint or our DNA” (cast.org, //The Brain Research//).

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). //How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school// (Expanded edition). Ch. 9, pp. 194-218. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Retrieved on October 4, 2009, from [].

Edutopia.org (nd). //Big thinkers: James Paul Gee on grading with games.// Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009, from [].

McPheeters, D. (2009, march). Social networking technologies in education. //Tech and Learning//. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from [].

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology web site. Chapter 6. Retrieved on October 5, 2009, from [].

Lessonbuilder.cast.org (nd). //Diversity of Learners.// Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from [].

Lessonbuilder.cast.org (nd). //The Brain Research.// Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009 from [].