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.

Creating a G.A.M.E. Plan

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.

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

Learning to Search

I have always considered myself to be reasonably advanced in my ability to peruse the internet.  I have also enjoyed showing students how to do so when needed.  However, the concept of explicitly teaching students how to use things like search engines has never really occurred to me.  I have simply tried to build in opportunities to show students how, and only if I think they need help.  This week, Alan November (2008) convinced me that: “It is essential that we teach our children the discipline of making meaning from a very complex and constantly shifting global warehouse of information and communication” (p. 6).  Though all of our resources had good ideas, November did the best job of describing practical applications for our classrooms, and ourselves.

Though many of the techniques described in our resources were elementary, there were also many good suggestions.  Many of the search techniques I have already figured out, but the activities described for students would be great for showing them why we must be cautious when clicking on search results.  As I searched for three resources this week I attempted to employ several of the techniques described in our resources. 

For the project I am having students do, each student will be selecting their own organism to research its place within the levels of biological organization.  To make things interesting, I am not allowing any overlap of species, meaning that students will be researching more than 160 total species.  In order to aid them in this endeavor, I thought I would find several databases that they can use to select and begin their research.

I began my search on good old Google.  I decided to first employ basic Boolean operators as described in Eagleton & Dobler (2007, pp. 61-62). Working through various combinations of +’s and –‘s I eventually found a great animal database created by Sea World (http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/animal-bytes/).  This I bookmarked using Diigo (www.Diigo.com) which I to be the most useful bookmarking program for me, even if it is not as good for sharing my sites with others.  I liked the ability to highlight and take notes as well as the quick features of the Diigolet Toolbar App.  I also like that I can add my own descriptions and tags for quick searching within My Library later.

Next, I tried to use November’s (2008) suggestion of searching “extensions” using Alta Vista’s (www.altavista.com) host: command.  My success was somewhat limited and may reflect a change in the search engines “host” feature over the years since the book was published.  About 80% of my search results had the correct host extensions (I was searching for .edu domains) but they also seemed to search for the word “host” literally.  When combined with the term “animal” this meant I got a lot of hits about parasites (which I do find interesting :-).   In the end, I decided to try removing  the command “Host” and try just searching “.edu” in a normal Boolean search.  This yielded several good sights, including one nugget called the Animal Diversity Web (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html).

To play devil’s advocate I decided to find my last one by just going to Google and typing a search like a student probably would.  I clicked the first link (like they would) and found another animal database (http://www.kidsbiology.com/animals-for-children.php?animal=Star-Nosed%20Mole) that is for younger kids and does not have all that detailed of information, but would work for brainstorming and as a launch point for further research.

In the end, I discovered several ways to refine my everyday searches.  More importantly, I have found some great resources, and reasons, to use in my own classrooms to get my students to be more advanced Web surfers.  I agree with all of the authors this week that these are skills that we must teach students before setting them free on the web. 

In Diigo, I created a public list of these three sites.  In order to do so, I had to install the Diigo toolbar (kind of annoying) but it would be good for me to use with students.  Here is the link: http://www.diigo.com/list/hiscitech/animal-databases

Resources:

Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the web: Strategies for Internet inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Of the Nine, I'll Start With Two

This week we looked back at the nine clusters of instructional strategies that Marzano (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) has identified as those that have the largest impact on students learning.  Pickering (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) is clear about the point that we should only select one or two of these strategies to focus on in a year so that we may gain mastery rather than get overwhelmed.  Accordingly, I have chosen two instructional strategies that I think will be valuable to my teaching and my students.  Both of these happen to come from this week’s learning and they are: 1) Identifying similarities and differences and 2) Creating nonlinguistic representations.

According to Marzano’s meta-analysis (as discussed in Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) effectively using the instructional strategy “Identifying similarities and differences” leads to a percentile gain of forty-five.  If these numbers are accurate, and it truly has a percentile gain eleven points higher than the next, it is hard not to work on this strategy first.  This instructional strategy lends itself towards science as so much of what we do is comparing and classifying.  In terms of implementation, it will be a little different for each particular approach I use, but Pickering (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b) makes a few clear suggestions.  Essentially, she says we should work from the teacher modeling the strategy to completely independent practice.  Of course, this would follow a continuum where students do more and more on their own as they get more comfortable doing so.  Pickering is also clear that the use of graphic representations greatly increases the success of implementation.  She also stresses the fact that we must vary our approach, not just use one method every time.

What does this actually look like in the classroom?  That will depend on the specific application.  However, let me discuss several piece of technology that I believe will help make this strategy successful.  According to Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) when students identify similarities and differences: “They make new connections, experience fresh insights, and correct misconceptions” (p. 167).  They also believe that technology is an essential instructional element to make this process more accessible to both the students and the teacher.  The main technological resource mentioned by Pitler et al. (2007) is Microsoft Word.  Though somewhat rudimentary, in terms of tech, it is quick and easy for a teacher to create templates and charts that aid students in comparing and classifying things.  One downfall to this is that this usually means students are using pencil and paper to complete the organization.  In science, one of the most powerful pieces of technology for identifying similarities and differences is Microsoft Excel.  We often have data that can be easily compared in Excel.  Best of all, it is only a few quick clicks until you have a graphic representation of the data you are working with. 

Probably the most useful in terms of implementation is the use of organizing and brainstorming software.  Now, Pitler et al. (2007) hype up a program called Inspiration (or Kidspiration for the younger grades).  However, my district does not have a licensed purchased and I do not believe it is worth the money with free options available.   For example, programs like Lucid Chart (www.lucidchart.com) would be great for creating Venn Diagrams and other organizational charts.  Even programs like PowerPoint lend themselves towards the easy creation of comparison and classification templates, which students could manipulate. 

Generally, this instructional strategy seems to fit best with Cognitive learning theory.  According to Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011c) cognitive learning theory is really a collective of theories describing how the brain processes and stores information.  Having students identify similarities and differences fits closely with this definition.  At the same time, certain activities involving this strategy could have students creating their own classifications and organizational charts.  This would start working more into constructionist learning theory.

The second learning strategy I will discuss (more briefly), is how to use nonlinguistic representations.  I believe that the same ideas from the last strategy will apply in terms of implementation; that is working from teacher modeling to independent practice.  Pickering (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) was a big fan of this strategy, describing it as a way to help students learn what to do inside of their heads.  The reason I am choosing nonlinguistic representations is that I like the technologies that can be used to support it. 

Pitler et al. (2007) devote more examples to this strategy than almost any of the others.  There are the more obvious word processing and spreadsheet applications, but it is here I want to go a little deeper than those do.  For one, the idea of time-lapse photography seems like a powerful tool for a science class.  Pitler et al. discuss them in terms of digital microscopes; however, it could be done with any camera.  Along the same lines would be stop-motion pictures.  The most common example is claymation, but I am thinking about other applications like mitosis cutouts and other processes.  The next logical phase is full video which I have seen used very powerfully in the recent months.  All of this requires a little bit more hardware and software, but with a few baby steps, I think I could get stop-motion movies going if I use some online editing software like Jay Cut (http://jaycut.com). 

However I end up implementing nonlinguistic representation, it is going to have students creating an artifact, and most likely in groups.  This ties into constructionism and social constructionism learning theories.  It would also not be hard to build this into problem or project based learning.  Now, I guess it is time to get planning!

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Instructional strategies, part one [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Instructional strategies, part two [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011c). Cognitive 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.