G.A.M.E. Over? I Don't Think So!

Considering the fact that prior to this course I had no G.A.M.E. Plan for integrating technology into my classroom, as described by Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2009), I would say I have progressed well. However, realistically there is still much more that I need to do  As with any self-directed learning, you can never actually reach the end.  It is cyclical, leading you to a point where you just have more questions about more things.  Nevertheless, it is through this upward spiral that we become better teachers.  The following is a synopsis of my accomplishments and learning thus far.

Standard 1c) “Promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students’ conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes” (ISTE, 2008).

According to Davis (Laureate Education, Inc., 2012a) collaborative tools can greatly increase learning while preparing them for the future.  Davis (2012a & 2012b) lists off a number of specific benefits of using online collaboration software including the ability for students to teach each other, increasing the diversity of a classroom, and allowing students to work asynchronously.  All of these insights came after I already had my G.A.M.E. plan in place, justifying the work I had done and encouraging me to seek more information.

I am now proud to say that I have created a Google document that is full of resources related to collaborative learning.  Most of these resources are blogs published by teachers or tech-support staff about how they, or their districts, are using collaborative learning.  This is exactly the type of information I was looking for as I have known the names of software  that allows collaborative learning, but not how to actually implement them with students.   I have set many of these up on my Google Reader so that I can stay up to date on what people are trying in their classrooms.

One place I have still struggled is finding a community that where I can have two-way conversations about online collaboration in classrooms.  Right now I have a bunch of resources that I can read and attempt to digest on my own.  However, when I have questions or feel like I can make valuable input my options have been limited.  I have commented on several blog postings but have received little if any conversation or feedback.  I am now thinking that I am not taking my own advice about social networking and that I need to try to find a more verbal community.  I am thinking that the next part of my revised G.A.M.E. plan will be to get onto LinkedIn, Google+, or Twitter to look for a more active community to join.

The other side of the coin is to use what I have learned with students.  This is tricky as I do not have a classroom right now.   However, I have a long list of ideas that I am writing down for when I go back next year.  Right now I am going to take advantage of performing the research that is so hard to do when we are actually in the trenches.

Standard 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).

As I have worked through this standard I have followed a very similar path that I did with Standard 1C.  To be honest, I focused on this one a little bit less because I have been more interested the first, but that does not mean it is less valuable.  My greatest epiphany has been the application of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009) and its close relation to this standard.  Accordingly, I have collected online and scholarly resources related to UDL and the use of education technology.  I have collected these in a document attached to the original mentioned in Standard 1C. 

I am excited about applying my findings with my own students, and have already begun making a list of how I will go about doing this for next year.  Much like the first standard, I believe that having a strong community that I can reach out to and help build would be key.  Again I feel that a professional based network like LinkedIn might be a great start.  I have already joined the site, but have not gotten much further as of yet.

After working through a G.A.M.E. plan myself, I am excited about using a similar process with my own students.  Before doing so I think I would pare the process down a bit by coming up with a simple form where they can set up and address each piece.  I would like to implement this part way through the year so that students have already had access to several pieces of technology and understand how the class works.  My plan is to allow for more and more open-ended projects throughout the year where students can choose how they will demonstrate their knowledge.  By having students put a G.A.M.E. plan into place, they will have something to guide which direction they will go.  For example, if someone really wants to learn how to do video editing, then they can focus on this within the context of the science content.  Using the G.A.M.E. plan model I can help students go further and try new things, all of the while allowing them to reflect back on their progress.  Talk about self-directed learning and student autonomy! 

In terms of technology integration into my content area, my biggest step is a lack of fear.  I have now been discussing applications of technology and collecting a list of technologies I would like to use in my classroom next year.  It has been great hearing from professionals and classmates about how they are using these techniques and technologies and gets me excited to start a classroom next year based around these.  I believe that by implementing these techniques and building the culture right at the beginning of the year that they will be much more successful than haphazardly attempting them in the middle of the year. 

This class has opened my eyes to three great learning tools: problem-based learning, online collaboration, and digital storytelling.  In truth, it is only the latter that is new to me, but I have gained enough knowledge about each that I will just count them as such.  Additionally, I have learned an incredible amount about how to integrate technology with each.  Not only do I have a long list of software, but practical applications and short cuts to make them work efficiently and effectively with my students.

As Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2009) explain so well, in science: “Technology is well suited to supporting problem-based and inquiry learning approaches that are authentic and well integrated with both the ISTE and National Science Education Standards” (p 271).  I have always considered myself to be an inquiry based teacher.  However, I have now been shown how many advantages there are when moving the classroom all of the way to problem-based learning (PBL).  This is something I will be moving into quite readily when I get back to a class.  Although I still do not believe that it can be the only way a class runs, it has great potential from time to time.

Social networking and online collaboration is another area that I have already discussed a bunch within the context of my G.A.M.E. plan above.  It is the one area of technology that I would like to focus on the most because I believe it may be the norm of the future.  I am still looking for the best way to jump in, but by the time I start teaching next year I can guarantee this will be a key part of the class.

Digital storytelling also has potential.  There are several places that I could see it as a great fit to really get students involved and to try their hand at some new technologies and techniques.  Due to the amount of time needed and ease of distraction I do see it as a once or twice a semester tool, but that does not mean it does not have merit.

In the end, I have three new arrows in my teaching quiver.  Each of which I can see taking a place within my future classroom.  Additionally, I have a long list of ideas and technology tools that I am excited about trying out.  I have also seen how having a G.A.M.E. plan can accelerate my learning of new technology and teaching tools and how I need to proactive to stay up with the times.  It has also been great to work alongside some wonderful teachers from around the country and get their opinions and perspectives on the work I am putting into place.  It seems as if it is only up from here!

Thank you!

Chris (Mr. C)  

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.

ISTE (2008). NETS-T. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2012a). Spotlight on technology: Social networking and online collaboration, Part 2. [Course Media]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2012b). Spotlight on technology: Social networking and online collaboration, Part 1. [Course Media]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Problem-Based Learning: Technological Aids

 “One must learn by doing the thing; for though you think you know it, you have no certainty, until you try.”  - Sophocles

And so it is that several millennia later we discuss what many tout as a new(er) theory of the way we learn.  In modern education, this is known as constructionism, an extension of its cousin, constructivism.  Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) summarizes it well by calling it: “A theory of learning that state people learn best when they build an external artifact or something they can share with others.”  Both of my grandfathers were incredibly good at getting me to do this.  Instead of teaching me all of the steps to a job, with minute details and special orders, they would hand me a tool and a piece of wood and tell me to get to work.  Through those trials and tribulations, I learned skills with more understanding and depth than I ever would have by reading a book or even watching someone else do it. 

This constructionist lens of learning is how I would like to take a look at a teaching strategy that Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) call “generating and testing hypothesis.”  Though it may sound all shiny and new it is really just a collection of ideas and resources that teachers can use to teach by using problem-based learning (PBL) with their students.  According to Glazer (2001), problem-based learning: “Is an effort to challenge students to address real-world problems and resolve realistic dilemmas.”  In other words, a problem is either discovered by or presented to students, and the process of solving that problem is used to teach students content within the context of the solution.  

Today we are going to look at specific techniques involving problem-based learning.  More specifically, we will how technology can aid students learning this way by allowing them: “To spend more time interpreting the data rather than gathering the data” (Pitler et al., 2007, p 203).  As a science teacher, I am well aware of this pit fall, having spent extra days, and even weeks, trying to sort out data from a lab to make it accessible for students.  Pitler et al. (2007) offer up three general categories of technologies to aid constructionist learning which I will follow in this analysis: 1) Spreadsheet software, 2) Data collection tools, and 3) Web resources.

Spreadsheet Software:

There are many spreadsheet programs out there; however, the king of them all seems to be Microsoft Excel.  I will mention that there are a few benefits to using Google Spreadsheets in terms of accessibility online and a few other features, but almost every computer I have touched in schools has Excel loaded on.  Despite your brand choice, there are huge advantages for teachers to use this software in class. 

The obvious advantage is data analysis whether it is lab results or test scores.  Numbers can be easily compiled, crunched, and plotted with only basic knowledge of the program.  However, today we are not discussing a spreadsheets ability to count; rather we are looking at its use in helping students learn in a manner consistent with constructionist theory.  

The examples shown by Pitler et al. (2007) do not involve number crunching.  Rather, the teacher sets up a spreadsheet that allows students to test a hypothesis.  Students are told that they inherit ten thousand dollars and must decide how to invest it to maximize their yield.  To bring this back to the learning theories, students are given a realistic scenario for which they must figure out the best solution.  As a science teacher, I can see many advantages to spreadsheet software in testing hypotheses.  For example, students could use the software to determine how large of a sample size they would need to get an accurate picture of population.  Alternatively, they could devise a plan to decrease pollution levels for families by calculating current levels.  Of course, I am spouting out examples without having done them, but I see some potential for uses of spreadsheets in problem-based learning especially.

Data Collection Tools:

A hypothesis is not a hypothesis unless it can be tested.  Pitler et al. (2007) are spot on when they discuss the importance of data collection in testing a hypothesis when they describe how: “Students research problems, form a hypothesis, and collect data to confirm, deny, or revise their last hypothesis” (p 210).  However, they way they apply data collection tools, from Probeware to the internet, it is not a teaching strategy, rather a teaching aid. 

Almost all of the problem-based learning I have directed in my classroom requires the collecting of data.  This data is often used to help solve a problem, though occasionally, and perhaps more effectively, it has been used to determine the problem itself.  For example, while working in Montana with the Watershed Education Network (WEN), middle school students first pointed out rapid decline in the health of a local river through their monitoring of the river itself.  Data collection tools can greatly speed up this process.  In the case of these middle school students, these Probeware devices made monitoring streams feasible during a normal school day. 

I have a great example of internet-based data collection tools used by students tracking the migration of certain species across the continent.  Students from across the country input dates and counts of sightings.  This data was collected into charts that show where different species are in their migration.

Web Resources:

This category is really the dumping ground for anything found online that has not fit into the other two categories.  However, Pitler et al. (2007) discuss their importance in allowing: “Students to use background knowledge, make decisions, and see the outcome of their hypotheses, often in virtual situations that would be impossible or financially unfeasible in real life” (pp 212-213).  In science, I know of many simulators that allow students to test the hypotheses they have derived from other parts of the class.  There is an added benefit to these in terms of student buy-in and engagement, which helps with learning and motivation (2007).

It is easy to fall into the pitfall of thinking every simulation online fits into constructionist learning theory.  However, we must make sure that students are actually able to create stuff and not just fill in preset boxes.  As the line is fuzzy between these two, I would encourage teachers to aim hard towards the side of design, rather than just manipulation.  On that note, I believe Pitler et al. (2007) gave us many great resources to aid students in implementing Problem-based learning.  We just have to understand the importance of making learning relevant to students.  This means leaving things open ended enough for students create things on their own.  Though technology can be an incredible aid in constructionist learning, it is also very easy for teachers to design something that is really just a digital worksheet.

Resources:

Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.