ISU Information

             The chapters for this week in our “Meaningful Learning with Technology  (MLWT)” textbook were logically arranged for both novice and expert reader to understand.  I like the fact that helpful websites were provided to help teachers incorporate technology into their academic endeavors. For example, I use webquest lessons in my 7^th grade social studies class so that students can conduct research on their own to find answers to various topics.  The book’s authors provided ways to make my webquest lessons even more interesting and interactive.  In addition, the social studies learning activity types article gave me some new ideas on how to incorporate additional technology into my classroom. In the future, I’d like to introduce artifact-based inquiry and data-based inquiry into my lessons.

            I’ve told my students about this class and showed them my MLWT textbook. My purpose was two-fold. First, I wanted to remind them that I’m in school too, and that their experiences are not unique.  Education is a life-long process and one should always strive to learn new information and grow as a person. Second, I wanted them to know that my new knowledge will be passed down to them. I told them about my blogging setup experience and when I become more comfortable using the tool I will set them up with anonymous logins so they can start blogging too. They were excited and we had a good lesson talking about possibilities.

            As I’ve mentioned previously, I used to work in the healthcare information technology (IT) field so I’m comfortable trying new tools and have a wide knowledge-base regarding existing applications. However, I’d never heard of chapter 5’s topic, “Modeling with Technologies.” I assume this is because I teach middle school. There appears to be few tools geared towards younger students due to the need for “formal operational reasoning skills.” I was gratified that the authors recommended “Model-It” for use with students in this age group.

            I had never thought about using social networks in the classroom but now, after reading chapter 6, “Community Building with Technologies,” my eyes have been opened about their possibilities and benefits. My school system blocks social networks such as Facebook and ISU’s Scholar’s Collaborative Partnership but teachers are encouraged to use wiki technology. My administrators met with teachers late last year and requested that we start using more technologically-based lessons. I found the information stated on pages 105-111 regarding wikis enlightening and I look forward to utilizing them in my classroom.

            This is the second class I’ve taken with Dr. Fiedler, so thanks to her I was familiar with Skype when I started this course. I’m currently using Skype to take an on-campus class and to communicate with friends in New Zealand and Japan. As you can see, it’s a powerful tool that I’ve incorporated for personal and professional reasons.  I feel that we truly live in amazing times.  For example, I’m able to pursue a doctorate at ISU while living in Atlanta, Georgia thanks to digital communication tools. This would have been unheard of even 10 years ago. Chapter 5, “Communicating with Technologies,” addresses all the ways communication tools can be used to foster knowledge both online and in the classroom.

            This generation of students are digital learners and I feel it is my mandate to teach them in a way that is comfortable to them.  My students demonstrate a positive emotional reaction whenever I teach lessons using the “clicker game” or use an interactive whiteboard. This, in turn, provides me with satisfaction because I know that I’m reaching them.  I want to make a difference in their lives and I feel that using technology allows me to have a lasting effect.

References:

Hofer, M. & Harris, J. School of Education, College of William and Mary. Social Studies Learning Activity Types. Retrieved from http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/Social+Studies

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R.M., Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

        This week’s readings from our textbooks, “Meaningful Learning with Technology” and “Models of Teaching” provide valuable information that I will use in my teaching practice. The authors of both books give insight and examples regarding how learners acquire knowledge and how technology can be used to support critical thinking skills and collaborative interactions. The authors also provide guidance regarding how teachers can support students’ acquisition of knowledge that has meaning to them.

          Jonassen, Howland, Marra, and Crismond  (2008) identify five characteristics of meaningful learning. These characteristics are (1) active (manipulative/observant), (2) constructive (articulative/reflective), (3) intentional (goal-directed/regulatory), (4) authentic (complex/contextual), and (5) cooperative (collaborative/conversational). The authors succinctly provide content and examples identifying how learners use these characteristics to facilitate their logical thinking patterns and physical senses in order to process data.  They use a star inside the pentagon figure (MLWT, 3) to show how all these characteristics are interconnected.

          I believe that active learning is the most fundamental ability humans utilize. We are born with the capacity to learn and observe. Our brains are wired to manipulate external stimuli. We would cease to exist without the aptitude to perform this characteristic because we wouldn’t be able to survive the rigors of life. We must then be able explain in a myriad of ways what has occurred in order to advance our ambitions and propensities to the next level. As our thinking matures we are a better able to express our knowledge.

        The remaining characteristics are no less important but require higher thinking skills in order to be expressed.  Everyone has goals — both simple and complex, short-term and long-term. The fulfillment of personal goals is dependent on an individual’s internal drive and aspirations (e.g., quenching thirst or obtaining a doctoral degree).  Meaningful learning has to take place in the right context for a person to be willing to absorb the content. Until the “what’s in it for me” (aka WIFM) question is addressed most people will not easily acquire knowledge. Individuals have different learning styles (e.g., auditory, kinesthetic, visual) and these methods need to be incorporated into learning activities. For example, I utilize all three styles depending upon the activity. I recently asked a friend to create a website for me. I watched him as he coded it but his instructions and actions were “Greek to me” until I had to maintain it on my own. I quickly learned how to add a page, move pictures around, etc when I knew I couldn’t call him for every little question and issue that needed to be resolved.  

        Humans depend on one another to pass on knowledge for the common good. Many cultures have quotes pertaining to the cooperative aspect of our learning process, (e.g., “each one teach one” and “it takes a village to raise one child”). This fifth characteristic is vital to our growth. Humans are social beings and learning occurs more easily in settings where people have an opportunity to interact with others. Intellectual capabilities are stimulated by competitive activities and collaboration with peers and mentors. In my own classroom, my students get excited and engaged when the lesson is some kind of learning activity game such as “Question and Answer Trashball” or “Dictionary Hangman” and they have to collaborate on teams to win.

        Sometimes meaningful learning comes from discomfort. Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun (2009) state that “to grow, learners have to acknowledge discomfort and set tasks to help break free of the barriers of fear. The educator’s task is not simply to unloose the environmental bonds that constrict the learners but to help them become active seekers of new development” (MOT, 393). Humans, by nature, do not like change. Therefore, we have to be pushed to acquire new knowledge (e.g., website support, blog creation).  However, we gain confidence when we are successful and learn valuable lessons when we must try again. Even though we don’t like going through challenges they allow us to progress and make new brain connections.

        As a teacher, I do my best to help my students learn in a meaningful way and hope that my lessons leverage all these characteristics. I even use discomfort to my advantage. I’ve been known to say, “ I’m making you do this for your own good.”  I fondly remember one student replying, “Oh miss, I don’t want to do this. Make someone else do this.”  I firmly responded, “No, you have to do this” and he completed a project that made both of us proud. Meaningful learning has benefits that are invaluable to all the parties involved.  

Bruce, J.R., Weil, M., Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.  

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R.M., Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

The research articles for this week’s topic were enlightening and informative. Although I’m currently a 7^th grade special education teacher, I spent 10 years working in the healthcare information technology field  managing the implementation of hospital patient accounting systems and interfacing with developers of claims management systems.  Because of these experiences, I’m very comfortable using technology both personally and professionally. In my classroom, I try to ensure that software tools and assistive technology help convey the knowledge that I want my students to acquire.

I began reading Shulman’s article and he got my attention immediately with his opening statement regarding George Bernard Shaw’s quote, “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” I have always viewed that quote as an insult and feel that the best teachers are ones who not only can do but can then show or explain the action or information.  Shulman’s article provided insight into the differences between two types of teacher knowledge, content and pedagogy.

Shulman (1986) stated that it is assumed that most teachers possess knowledge about the content area that they are assigned to instruct. His statement is supported by current state and federal law for the certification of teachers. For example, in the state of Georgia, teachers must pass a Georgia Assessments for the Certification of Educators (GACE) exam in the content area they want to teach (e.g., science, math, music). Furthermore, due to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, special education teachers must pass an exam that covers content knowledge (e.g., language arts, social studies) AND core knowledge (e.g., types of disabilities, federal laws) in order to be classified as “highly qualified” by the federal government.

Good teachers are able to convey subject matter in a way that meets their students’ needs. This is where knowledge of pedagogy is critical. Teachers need to know HOW to pass on the content that they are tasked to deliver. Shulman (1986) states that teachers must know “the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations – in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others.” I believe that pedagogy supports everything that a teacher does. Most teachers learn the principles and theories that support pedagogy through their university training programs and school systems provide additional support through professional learning initiatives. However, there are some aspects of pedagogy that cannot be learned from a book. For example, although there has been extensive research conducted regarding classroom behavior management, individual teachers must find their own methods to control the behavior of their students. They must learn the right level of firmness to use, the proper tone of voice that conveys displeasure or support, consequences that work or don’t work, etc.

Teachers must know how learners acquire knowledge (cognition) and must be able to reflect on the “cognitional knowledge that he or she has, both general and content-specific” (meta-cognitional knowledge) (Peterson, 1988). Teachers are continually assessing their students’ performance in order to maximize achievement. Special education teachers have to write goals and objectives for Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and must determine student present levels of performance. This allows special education teachers to incorporate differentiated learning strategies in the classroom (e.g., lessons for auditory learners, kinesthetic learners, and visual learners).

  Mishra and Koeler (2006) expanded on Shulman’s work by adding technology as the third teacher knowledge. We live in an information age and our students are digital learners. Our teaching practices have to incorporate technology in order to engage students and we must deliver content in a way that is comfortable for them to receive.  I am fortunate to have access to technology such as interactive whiteboards, LCD projectors, wireless laptop carts, overhead projectors, and TV/VCR/DVD players. In addition, technology such as the Classroom Performance System (CPS) assessment tool is available to use in a game format in order to foster competition and provide a fun experience for the students. 

These three types of teacher knowledge provide the framework for effective practices today. In addition to staying current with information in their subject areas and knowing how to deliver content, teachers must be open to try the plethora of technology that exists to see what works and what doesn’t. They must be willing to stretch themselves and accept their own learning curve in order to become comfortable using new tools and techniques. Flexibility is the key to blending these three types of knowledge and utilizing them will benefit both our students and our education system as a whole.    

References:

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006, June). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Peterson, P. L. (1988, June/July). Teachers’ and Students’ Cognitional knowledge for classroom teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 5-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Welcome to my Indiana State University blog page. I look forward to interesting discussions about technology and teaching pedagogy. I also plan to use the knowledge that I acquire in my own classroom.