This week we began deciding our own
GAME plan based on Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer’s (2009) advice on becoming
self-directed learners when it comes to technology integration in our
classrooms. To begin this process we
were asked to look at the International Society for Technology in Education’s(ISTE) standards for educators which are known as the NETS-T (ISTE, 2008). From these we were asked to reflect upon our
teaching and skills and select two indicators which we could use some
strengthening and confidence. Below I
have listed my chosen two and created a basic GAME plan for each.
1c) “Promote student reflection
using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students’ conceptual understanding
and thinking, planning, and creative processes” (ISTE, 2008).
Goals – The key
part to this indicator is the “using collaborative tools.” Now, using them just for the sake of using
them does not do anything but waste valuable class time. However, using them with the purposes described
within this indicator can greatly increase student learning and
engagement. I already have a list of
software tools that I have seen used for collaborative efforts among students,
both within and across classrooms.
However, I would like to know more about the actual structure of lessons
incorporating these tools. For example,
I know blogs are a good tool to use for student collaboration and I have seen how
we use them in our class, but thinking about actually implementing that with my
students with limited access to crowded computer labs is another story.
Action – What I
will be looking for in terms of information are more detailed descriptions of
the way other teachers have implemented this. Rather than the examples we often get through
our class resources which basically explain what the technology is and how it
helped students learn, I would like to see lesson plans describing things like how
students were grouped, how often they posted, and how they were graded. One resource I will look for is teacher blogs
and descriptions of what they did. I
believe this may have to be outside of the realm of published papers as there
are often too many criteria in published work for the amount of detail I
desire. Another resource is going to be
finding other teachers, or communities of teachers, who are already
implementing such skills.
Monitor – In order
to monitor my progress, I will keep a log of any resources I find. These resources will include people, and
communities of people. I will also be on
track if I start actually developing my own lessons based on my research and
work towards implementation. Through
this, I will be able to pick up patterns of what successful implementation
looks like.
Evaluation –
Ideally, I will know if I succeeded after I have successfully implemented a
lesson or two using collaborative technology within my own class. However, with no current classroom and a new
baby boy coming in the next 48 hours, this is going to be put on hold for a
little while. Instead, I will have to
determine whether I feel ready to implement the lesson as opposed to actually
doing it. In terms of a learning
community, this may mean giving advice rather than just taking it after
researching online. It will also mean
that I have a solid document I have created based on my research that has all
of the best practices I have discovered that is ready to go when I am in a
position to implement this with students.
2b) “Develop technology-enriched
learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities
and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing
their own learning, and assessing their own progress” (ISTE, 2008).
Goals – Like the
last one, this indicator also has many different facets. The part I would like to focus on is the
piece on students pursuing “their individual curiosities.” Now, success in that means having them set
goals, manage their learning, and assessing their progress, thereby requiring
the rest if the indicator. However, I
just want to focus initially on how to design projects that target the core
content while allowing for student’s personal taste to be part of their work in
terms of topic and delivery. My goals
here are very similar to the goals with the other standard above, and I
actually believe that they can be learned together, especially when thinking
about a learning community.
Action – My action
plan is essentially the same as the previous indicator. One key difference would be the added benefit
of finding a learning community focused on biology, or at least science, so I
could see specifically what type of lessons they are doing. This would also allow for more overlap in
content and resources.
Monitor – My plan
for monitoring is also very similar to standard 1c. One note I would add is that this indicator
seems as if it would be easier to work into with projects I have already
designed, offering more freedom and presentation options as students advance
and I feel more comfortable with the flexibility. A journal of my implementation would be
beneficial, as it will allow me to reflect on the pro and cons of my lesson
planning decisions which I can build upon in the future.
Evaluate – All of
my sentiments from the first indicator are shared here as well. However, this standard seems easier to work
into slowly as opposed to requiring everything to be in place. I will know when I am meeting my goals when I
am able to pass on information and advice to others based on my
experiences. On issue with each of these
standards is that you can never truly master them, rather you can just keep
getting better at how you do them.
Resources:
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer,
P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A
standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
