Chapters 2 & 4 (LeBaron & Collier)

In chapter 2, LeBaron outlines successful integration of technology into the curriculum. Two things that stand out are that we need an effective paln for technology as well as the participation of each stakeholder in the process (LeBaron, 2001). We need to each take ownership in the use of technology in the curriculum for it to be successful. Also, we must have a clear set of goals and guidelines in place to maximize effectiveness of technology integration (LeBaron, 2001). Two other major topics discussed by LeBaron include the ideas that we need to use technology appropriately for each curriculum and that we need to assess its effectiveness properly (2001).
In my school there are many techers that fully embrace the use of technology in the classroom. They are teachers of all ages, levels of experience as well as subject area. Luckily, we have a supportive administration as well as a full time computer guru. Many of us, myself included have used technology integration as part of our professional goals.
In Chapter 4, Jarvela uses an appropriate subtitle for establishing success in the long run in terms of technology integration: "Getting the story out" (Jarvela, 2001, p. 43). We need to share our successes with others in our school and the community as a whole. Parents and politicians all need to know how we are teaching and how technology is helping our kids. We must show proof that technology motivates and helps students enhance their learning (Jazrvela, 2001). If we do not share our successes, then we will lose funding for new technologies. We need to enhance and document our constructivist uses of technology, our teaching for understanding and our authentic assessments (Jarvela, 2001). This is a lot easier said than done but we all need to do our part. If we are to gain more tools for our classrooms, we need proof in the form of higher test scores on standardized tests. Unfortunately, this seems to be the only thing that the public seems to look at to measure improvement. So just keep on using technology and document your success. One day, someone in power might just listen to you.

References

Jarvela, S. (2001). Technology and learning: Getting the story out. In Lebaron, J.F. & Collier, C.
Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

LeBaron, J.F. (2001). Curriculum planning for technology rich instruction. In Lebaron, J.F. & Collier, C. Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

NCLB

When it comes to No Child Left Behind, there is a lot of controversy. In my opinion, it is a good idea to have national standards and a curriculum that is consistent for all students in any state. However, it does not truly work this way since each state and even district can differ drastically in curricula (Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, Pheifer & Zellmer, 2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). One major problem I have with the program is that it preaches that we need to do whatever it takes to help students learn and grow through differentiation of teaching and assessment, yet it strictly enforces the use of only one type of high stakes assessment for everyone at the end of the year (Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, et al.;2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). How can we show valid statistics of what the students really learned or how much they grew if we only put all of the emphasis on one test? Also, many teachers, parents and politicians misuse and misunderstand the scores and data provided by such assessments(Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, et al.; 2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). The scary part is that many of the people that decide on the funding for schools have no clue how to properly analyze, compare and interpret test data. We are leaving many behind with unfair assessment such as minorities, ESL kids and those of low socioeconomic status(Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, et al.; 2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). We are also in some cases lowering our standards by allowing loopholes for some students in terms of score reporting for AYP(Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, et al.; 2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). We need to differentiate assessment, not fudge the numbers. I will keep this rant short for tonight so stay tuned for more NCLB complaining at another time. Standards= good; Misuse of data and standards = bad. Cookie next to computer = good ; dog trying to steal it = bad...I better go!

References

Cawelti, G. (2006). The side effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership 64 (3), 64-8.

Frontier, A., Pheifer, D. & Zellmer, M.B. (2006). What are NCLB’s instructional costs? Educational Leadership 64 (3), 43-6.

Guilfoyle, C. (2006). NCLB: Is there life beyond testing? Educational Leadership 64 (3), 8-13.

U.S. Department of Education (2005, September 19) No Child Left Behind. Retrieved
February 21, 2007, from http://www.nclb.gov

Wiske et al.; Chapters 3,4 &5

Chapter 3 of Wiske, Franz & Breit discusses the idea of using generative topics to enhance technology use in the curriculum (2005). When teaching for understanding we need to use topics that can be explored in detail, meet our curriculum standards and interest students (Wiske, et al., 2005). I try to find things that interest my students in relation to our prescribed curriculum and just go with it. We use the internet for research and other software for presentations and information organization. Thanks to easy internet access, I can do a lot more with my students than my mother ever could when she was a teacher. As long as we connect, use multiple teaching styles, deepen understanding of topics and open the lines of communication, we will be successful in the generative aspect of our learning (Wiske, et al., 2005)
Chapter 4 is essential for any technology integration in schools since it seems almost like common sense...have clear goals (Wiske, et al., 2005). If we set clear goals outlining how we expect to use technology in the curriculum, then we can avoid confusion and conflict. We have to do more than just put kids on the computer. We need to have valid reasons why we are doing it that apply to thier learning (Wiske, et al., 2005). We can use technology not as a novelty, but as a tool to extend our curriculum. Sometimes, I even learn from my students when it comes to using different tools in the classroom. It is always fun to watch how they choose to design presentations in my class.
Chapter 5 continues to outline the previous topics from the other chapters but includes the idea of using technology to aid performance assessment (Wiske, et al., 2005). Since I am relatively new to teaching, I learned from the beginning that there is more to learning than just a right or wrong answer. The process of working with information is much more important. We need to focus on growth, not just right and wrong. I try to incorporate as many activities as I can for the students to work with new information. This can range from a simple internet search to a Wiki project to powerpoints and other presentation software. I am learning to let the students take more of the lead in thier learning and technology makes that so much easier. The only thing that I need to constantly remind them is to not trust everything on the internet, which ties into a previous entry.

Reference

Wiske, M.S., Franz, K.R. & Breit (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

LeBaron & Collier (Chp. 10)

When using new technologies in the classroom, schools need to have a clear set of goals and policies in regards to their uses. Also, ethics, policy development and responsibility need to math the overall goals of the educational system (Friel, 2001). Our students must follow acceptable use policies set forth by the school system to ensure both online safety and responsible use (Friel, 2001). As teachers, we need to model appropriate uses of technologies and teach our students how to evaluate information, especially information found on the internet (Friel, 2001).

Students need to be information literate, meaning that they need to learn the skills to distinguish valid information from that which is invalid (Friel, 2001). As a Civics teacher, I deal with various forms of primary and secondary sources and I am always trying to get my students to ask questions about where the information came from. All too often, we see students pulling information off the internet and taking it at face value. I am always pushing my students to be critical of what they read, see or hear. To be truly effective in this goal, a school needs the collaboration of all staff members, especially media specialists and librarians (Friel, 2001).

Acceptable use is always a controversial topic since the first amendment is blurred when it comes to expression online and in other forms of media (Friel, 2001). In my county, we do have policies set in place in every school dictating exactly how computers should be used and we also have blocking software in place to keep our students away from less than savory websites. However, this brings up the question of knowing when and how to block access. Still, I agree with the article in that teaching responsible use is the best solution to avoiding uncomfortable online situations (Friel, 2001).

“Educators must teach students the importance of citing all of their sources, no matter what the format” (Friel, 2001, p. 128). See, it is that easy to avoid plagiarism. Even in my class, I encourage the students to cite even information found in the text. We practice writing and this helps reinforce responsibility. I know that there are websites that actually sell term papers and teachers of secondary and post secondary students often have to deal with these situations. Yet, as Friel stated, we need to teach proper use early in order for students to get the message (2001). Should a cheating or inappropriate use situation arise in my class, I just follow the school discipline procedures as appropriate for the situation. I have been teaching for four years and our use policies are solid enough that I have never had any complaints or questioning of my actions regarding proper use.

Our students have the tools to learn. We just need to teach them how to act responsibly.

Reference

Friel, L. (2001). Using technology appropriately: Policy, leadership and ethics. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (eds.). Technology in its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc..

Chapters 7 & 8 (LeBaron & Collier)

“Investments in equipment have not always been accompanied by changes in teaching” (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001, p.87). Our schools have the right idea, but do not know how to implement technology in a way to maximize its use as well as student learning. We need to align the goals of school leaders, politicians and other stakeholders to promote learning and restructuring of our educational system (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001; Zimmerman, 2001).

First, it is necessary to establish proactive school leaders. I like the quote that stated, “Leaders believe that when it ‘ain’t broke may be the only time you can fix it’” (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001, p. 89). This says it all about how we need to take a look at our schools and figure out how we need to improve and use technology better. We need to work smarter, not harder. Just buying hardware is not enough since we need to all take the lead in implementing it into our classrooms (Areglado & Perry Jr., 2001).

Next, we need to pay attention not only to the politics of technology integration, but also to the pedagogy behind it (Zimmerman, 2001). Politicians need to see results and involvement in order for them to support any project. If we want funding for our schools, we need to show solidarity and total school and community support. This can take the form of letters, petitions, grant requests, phone calls or any other communication to political figures. Good old fashioned grassroots support starts with each school employee (Zimmerman, 2001). Yet, we must show definitive proof that technology improves instruction. This is where the nasty old SOL comes into play. Yes, we do rely too much on these scores for countless reasons but these are the only things that politicians claim to understand.

Finally, the question remains of how to restructure our schools. If I had it my way, we would have a laptop for every student to supplement instruction as well as teach basic technology skills in every class. Sadly, our nation doesn’t care about schools. If given the choice between a road and a school, guess what wins. Also, just compare the salaries of celebrities and politicians with the amount of money given to our schools. We must still keep trying to be the best teachers for our students. If we model good instructional practices, incorporate technology and provide real life skills, our students will thrive. I will continue to consult our ITRT for ideas as well as use open ended assignments allowing students to use technology as they see fit in the context of social studies.

References

Areglado, R.J. & Perry Jr., G.S. (2001). The computers are here!: Now what
does the principal do?. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (eds.) . Technology in
its place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey- Bass Inc.

Zimmerman, I.K. (2001). Building public support: The politics of technology
transformation. In Collier, C. & LeBaron, J.F. (eds.). Technology in its
place: Successful technology infusion in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Inc.

Social bookmarking

Check out my new portaportal site. I will be adding some cool links soon, keep checking back. Go to www.portaportal.com and type in kbouf4jc into guest access.

K