http://screencast.com/t/YjUwZWE1NTU

Module #3:  Meaningful Learning with Technology

             I began this week’s assignment with much frustration and concern (and a little bit of hair pulling).  First of all, after visiting the Learning Activity Types wiki, I saw my subject area listed, but not available. Talk about being out of my comfort zone! I panicked and sent a thread through the Discussion Board.  Not wanting to wait for a response, I decided to go on an Internet search to find a taxonomy I could try to incorporate, along with as many art-related example technologies as I could.  And to my delight I found both.  The taxonomy I found is more cognitive in nature, but can be tailored to suit my needs. Also, I found several really neat tech tools I can incorporate as well.  Later on, after reading Dr. Fiedler’s response, I soon realized I was on the right track with the plan I had initiated. Yippee!!   

             I then switched my focus to the assigned reading. My mission for this week’s reading assignment was to discover new tools which could possibly be incorporated into my lesson plans for the course and/or used for future instruction. 

            In Meaningful Learning With Technology, Jonassen, Howland, Marra, and Crismond (2008) offered several tools for examination. The first thing that caught my attention was Chapter 4’s “Supporting Writing Organization and Planning” (Jonassen et al, 2008, p. 62).  Improving writing skills across the curriculum is one of our focuses at Woodrow Wilson. In particular, students work on writing essays in response to a prompt. They are encouraged (and often expected) to plan their writing by using some type of graphic organizer. Using concept mapping tools such as Semantica would fit very nicely into my lesson plans and the students would love it as an alternative to the pencil/paper kind I have them use (2008, p. 63). Also in Chapter 4 the authors recommended using technology to help motivate creative writing because students’ writing could be published in some way.  Kidscribe was mentioned as a simple Web site to encourage young writers (2008, p. 71). One of my lessons includes a creative writing assignment.  This would be a different way to get them excited about their writing. 

             Wikijunior was described in Chapter 6 as a branch of Wikibooks.  At the time their book was published, the authors mentioned Wikijunior was developing a set of books for children ages 8 to 11.  They mentioned a magazine titled Our World of People which was described as a “culture/history/life/society series” (Jonassen et al, 2008, p. 107). I think this is worth looking into, especially because I teach a sixth-grade unit on Greek art and would expect to find some information there which would be targeted for this age group. Because I love to trade lesson plan ideas, I found TeacherTalk in Chapter 6 to be another possibility (2008, p. 132). The fact that I could communicate with teachers in other countries would provide me with a rich opportunity to enhance any multi-cultural lessons I teach. 

             I found the most relative tools in Chapter 8, Designing With Technologies. The authors described real-world design problems as ones which “require the designer to make judgments about the problem and defend them or express personal opinions or beliefs about the problem” (Jonassen et al, 2008, p. 170). Design problems carry multiple solutions instead of right or wrong answers, which improve problem-solving strategies. Four cases of designing with technologies were described.  Of those, the case of “Developing Programming Skills While Designing in the Media Arts” caught my attention (Jonassen et al, 2008, p. 180). The authors introduced me to Scratch as a way for students to learn basic computer literacy skills while they design their own games, animations, graphics, and even music.  Targeted toward preteens and teenagers from many cultures, they discussed Scratch as a tech tool that would eventually help these students develop more advanced programming skills.  Also, the authors stated that “students in informal education settings (a tough environment) would find cool, required little training to use, and could run without the frustrating work of writing of syntax-sensitive commands” (Jonassen et al, 2008, p. 181). There is no doubt in my mind that Scratch would be a great design tool for my students.  And it’s free!

             This week’s assignment, although causing me some grief early on, has lead me to find a host of tech tools, both through my reading and through my online search. Now the task of delving deeper into each of them begins. 

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful Learning With Technonolgy (3^rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Module 2:  Meaningful Learning, Models of Teaching, and Reflection on TPACK

      This week’s assigned readings were enlightening and validated much of my current practices. Here I will describe and reflect on the characteristics of meaningful learning, including which ones I would incorporate and which ones I would eliminate.  I will also discuss the Models of Teaching in terms of what models I have used in my classroom or have witnessed other teachers use. Finally, I will reflect on and apply the TPACK construct to portions of the assigned readings which I believe are relevant.

      As categories, David Jonassen, Jane Howland, Rose M. Marra, and David Crismond (2008) described meaningful learning as assigning tasks which require “intentional, active, constructive, cooperative, and authentic learning processes” (Jonassen et al, 2008, p. 2). Briefly, intentional learning processes involve focusing on and satisfying particular goals, from simple to complex. Active learning requires students to be active observers and participants in their own learning through hands-on manipulation of things in their environment.  Constructive learning is important because students need to be able to reflect on their new learning experiences, integrate them with prior knowledge, and articulate how and what they learned.  Cooperative learning proposes that students need to collaborate more through group work and be able to work in groups to help each other. Authentic learning puts an emphasis on exposing students to real world experiences (2008, p. 2-5).

      I thought all of Jonassen et al’s (2008) characteristics were right on target. I was pleased with the many ways the characteristics were interrelated and dependent upon one another. As far as modifying their model, the only change I would make would be to perhaps incorporate some type of intrapersonal category.  When students have an understanding of themselves, their strengths, their limitations, how they react to situations, and how to solve problems, their learning will no doubt improve. 

      Next, the Models of Teaching (MOT) as outlined by Bruce Joyce, Marsha Weil, and Emily Calhoun (2009) included four categories:  information-processing family, social family, personal family, and behavioral systems family (2009, p. 25). Under the information-processing family category lies what the authors termed mnemonics, or memory assists (2009, p. 27). I have created and used mnemonic devices in all of my classes to help students memorize and retain a variety of vocabulary terms.  Actually one of my favorite assignments is to have the students create their own acronyms for the art elements and principles.  One student came up with “Sally Stole The Very Confused Lawn Flamingos” which stands for “Shape, Space, Texture, Value, Color, Line, and Form.” Another one was “Uncle Ryan Caught Me Eating Pig Brains” for “Unity, Rhythm, Contrast, Movement, Emphasis, Pattern, and Balance.” They love this assignment and it really works!

      The second MOT category is the social family (2009, p. 28).  One facet of this category is jurisprudential inquiry (2009, p. 30).  One of my former colleagues at Wilson used to do an annual activity with his Social Studies students which focused on racism – segregation in particular.  Students would take turns wearing a red string around their wrists.  Students wearing the red strings were only allowed to drink out of certain water fountains, eat at designated tables, sit in the back of the classroom, and wait until everyone else was out of the room before leaving. All teachers in the building were encouraged to participate in how these students were treated to make it more of an authentic experience for the students. 

      Under the third MOT category, the personal family, falls what the authors described as nondirective teaching (2009, p. 31). This closely resembles the mentor program we have at Wilson.  Students benefit from teachers acting as counselors who strive to find out what students are “thinking and feeling, and helping them understand what they are about” (Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun, 2009, p. 31).

      The last category in the MOT is the behavioral systems family (2009, p. 32) and includes the authors’ theory-to-practice model. This model reminded me of how I teach, especially in terms of its use of demonstrations, allowing for practice of skills, feedback, and coaching until the skill is mastered or reaches a certain level of completion (2009, p. 34).

      Finally, reflecting on the TPACK framework, I can see some similarities between it and the characteristics of meaningful learning.  According to Mishra & Koehler (2006) the TPACK framework “allows us to conceptualize and discuss a complex web of relationships in a methodological, grounded manner” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1044). Jonassen et al’s (2009) model also represents a sort of web or interrelationship between all of the characteristics.  Further, they discussed how using technologies to actively engage students will provide more meaning when applied to all of the characteristics (2009, p. 2). 

      In conclusion, I am beginning to see much overlap between several of the types of knowledge bases and methods I have read about and ones which I am using.  I am also realizing I have much work to do, especially concerning my knowledge and use of technology in the classroom.  In some aspects I get fired up and in other ways I feel inadequate.  So thank goodness for this course!! 

 Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful Learning With Technonolgy (3^rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of Teaching (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content

           Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College

          Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

     As the year 2010 unfolds, the stakes are higher than ever in terms of meeting the needs of all learners. Although the responsibility for successful student learning should rest relatively equally on the shoulders of all stakeholders, too often the focus of responsibility shines directly on classroom teachers. As one of these classroom teachers, I realize it is imperative for teachers to develop, modify, maintain, and defend a strong knowledge base which encompasses many facets of learning. Therefore, in an effort to enlighten and engage my classmates and to reflect on my own learning, I have included what I believe are important aspects of teacher knowledge, details and questions about each aspect, and how these aspects related to the assigned readings.

      To begin, in terms of what I believe are important aspects of teacher knowledge, I have created the following list:

 Critical Types of Knowledge Today’s Educators Must Have

 I.  Knowledge of your philosophy of teaching and your school’s philosophy

~This includes your beliefs, goals, and objectives for student learning.  Along with being willing and able to change your philosophy as needed, it also means you are able to defend your philosophy when students’ best interests are at stake. In terms of your school’s philosophy, you should have a working knowledge of its mission statement, goals, and improvement plans. Questions to ask periodically are: How does my philosophy fit in with my school?  How does it affect my teaching – both positively and negatively? To what extent do I adopt my school’s beliefs? What of my own philosophy am I willing to compromise and what will I defend?

 II. Knowledge of your community

~This includes knowing who the stakeholders in the community are, including policy makers, parents, volunteers, and business men and women. Questions to ask are: What benefit can these community members be to my students and me? How can I get them involved in student learning and overall school improvement?

 III. Knowledge of your school’s student population

~This includes knowing the level of diversity in your school.  Consider populations such as special needs, accelerated learners, ethnicity, socio-economics, gender, religions, and ability tiers or levels.  Questions to ask are: Who am I teaching?  Where do they come from?  What do they know?  How do they learn?

 IV. Knowledge of your curriculum and curricular standards

~This includes a working knowledge of the curriculum for your subject matter– at the national, state, local, and classroom levels.  It also encompasses a working knowledge and application of all levels of curricular standards related to your subject matter. Questions to ask are:  How does my classroom curriculum mirror the other levels?  How aware am I of the resources available to me?  How effectively do my curriculum and content utilize the standards?  Have I referenced the standards in all my unit/lesson plans?

 V. Knowledge of your content/subject matter

~This includes the ability to not only comprehend your subject matter, but to also be able to impart knowledge to diverse groups of learners. Also, you should have a strong desire to continue learning your subject matter, as well as the subject matter of other disciplines.  Furthermore, you should have a deep affection for what you are teaching, regardless of whether you are teaching a subject you WANT to teach or HAVE to teach. Finally, you should constantly update and modify your content to meet the needs of your learners. Questions to ask are: What do my students already know? Do I know enough about this subject to effectively teach my students?  Where can I go to learn more? 

 VI. Knowledge of different pedagogical strategies

~This includes a working knowledge of many strategies, including ones that are research-based and ones that are tried-and-true.  It is important for finding the best ways for students to learn. Also, you should realize the importance of being flexible and open-minded, being willing to take criticism, and learning from your mistakes.  Furthermore, you should determine the value of adopting and blending state and local “trends” for improving teacher strategies. Finally, the knowledge of and ability to question these strategies and tailor them to the needs of your students is important.  Questions to ask:  What data is available to show if this strategy is working?  Who can I ask for help? 

 VII. Knowledge of your ability to manage classroom instruction

~This includes knowing how to administer effective discipline, establish procedures, adhere to schedules, and become proactive.  Questions to ask are:  Why did this happen?  Who is at fault?  How can I prevent this from happening in the future?

      Next, after reading the three assigned articles and reflecting, I am able to compare and contrast the authors’ views with my own. In the first article, Lee S. Shulman (1986) identified, among other important facets, three main categories of knowledge growth in teaching:  subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge (1986, p. 9).

      Shulman’s (1986) views of content and subject matter knowledge expanded on my views when he discussed how critical it is for educators to not only understand (the amount of) what is being taught, but to also have the ability to organize this information successfully. He went on to mention how teachers must structure and deliver their content in ways that utilize both substantive methods (ways of organizing the material) and syntactic methods (the set of “rules” for determining what is the valid or legitimate information to give to students).  Furthermore, he believes educators must go beyond simply understanding their content to a level of understanding and thinking critically about why the information exists, how it can be justified, and how relative it is (1986, p. 9). There is no denying these are all important aspects of knowledge growth in teaching content that I had not considered. 

      With regard to Shulman’s (1986) next category, pedagogical content knowledge, I saw several parallels with my own views.  In particular, he mentioned teachers must have a wide variety of strategies on hand – both research-based and other methods which “originate in the wisdom of practice” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). On the other hand, I disagree with his statement that research-based knowledge “should be included at the heart of our definition of needed pedagogical knowledge” (Shulman, 1986, p. 10). It is my opinion that strategies may begin with trying out what the latest “guru” has published.  However, it is my experience that what happens in the classroom and what is shared between teachers determines much of what methods are implemented. 

       Third, according to Shulman’s (1986) curricular knowledge category, he discussed something I realized should be more a part of my curricular knowledge. It is what he termed “lateral curriculum knowledge” (Shulman, 1986, p. 10). I am only vaguely aware of what my sixth graders are studying in Social Studies, for example.  My curriculum focuses more on what Shulman (1986) termed “vertical” curriculum knowledge in terms of how knowledge and skill builds upon what students learned the previous year and prepares them for the year(s) to follow (1986, p. 10).

      In the second assigned article, Penelope L. Peterson (1988) examined subject matter content as well as cognitional and metacognitional knowledge as applied to both teachers’ and students’  “cognitional knowledge related to classroom teaching and learning” (Peterson, 1988, p. 7). While reading this article, what struck me the most (and what I realized was an important type of knowledge I failed to include in my list) was Peterson’s (1988) discussion of student metacognitional knowledge (1988, p. 7).  Of course it is important for educators to have a working knowledge of how their students learn best.  However, how often do educators ask their students such questions as:  “Are you aware of how you learn best?” or “Can you tell me what helps you to acquire knowledge?” I make it my job to know my students, their ability levels, and what kinds of learners they are.  However, I can honestly say I rarely engage students in a dialogue which requires them to think critically about their own cognitional knowledge and then respond back to me. Well, that is going to change!

      The third article by Punya Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler (2006) used a conceptual framework as a way to examine the relationship between and the blending of content, pedagogy, and technology into what they termed “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1017). This article reflected today’s emphasis on the use of technology in the classroom and shed much needed light on the complexity of its use, which the other two articles previously discussed did not.  Perhaps this is because the third article was written only four years ago, compared to the other two. In any case, I responded the most to Mishra’s and Koehler’s (2006) examination of how the TPCK framework should be applied – both through professional development and for teachers to utilize in the classroom.  According to the authors, this should be done through a “learning technology by design” approach (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1031). Utilizing design-based activities affords teachers and students opportunities for hands-on learning of and through technology, which, in my experience, is one of the best ways to learn. 

      In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that my thoughts, reflections, and questions have provided useful insight and sparked inquiry from my classmates. The information presented in the articles was beneficial in terms of its scope and examples of practical application to continue building a strong knowledge base. Personally, although the foundation of my knowledge base is strong, it is still a work in progress!

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content

           Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College

          Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Peterson, P. L. (1988). 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.