Unit Implementation Reflection

Of course all plans are subject to change and this unit required flexibility and a willingness to change to meet the needs of a new class of students. The integration that was planned with Kim Jacques, the Art teacher, did not happen...for several reasons.
Kim had written an Arts grant that needed to be implemented in the Fall Semester. This gave her a full plate. Additionally she was starting a Graduate program herself and that took what little time she had for meeting and coordinating this unit with me.
My 2009-10 classroom membership made integration, outside of the classroom, difficult. One quarter of my students changed from the starting date of school. The unit needed major revision to accommodate the academic and social needs of these children. Trying to integrate with a partner, as I was constantly changing activities and assessment goals, was impractical.
As I reflect on the implementation of this unit I would make the following recommendations:

• Teach this unit as a Spring unit when students have better Reading and Writing skills.
• Choose fewer books to share with the class. Use a variety of versions to share and compare and contrast with Reading groups. The smaller setting can better enable all to share, become involved, and target teaching.
  
• Keep the planned assessments and activities. They served both the boys and the girls and a variety of learning styles as well. The perception survey results indicated that the children enjoyed the unit and plan to read this gendre on their own.

I hope to share the unit and assessments with the other Second Grade teachers in my PLC. They will be teaching a Fairy Tale Unit in the Spring and are looking for ways to integrate technology into the classroom. My student samples can serve as exemplars for their students as the proceed through the unit. Additionally, the Backwards Planning model will provide food for conversation for the group. I will be happy to provide leadership by sharing resources and providing support for further reading, exploration and lesson/unit design.
I have not given up on integrating Art and the Fairy Tale Unit with Kim. Hopefully her schedule and my class composition, next year, will enable this to happen and I will make more adjustments to this unit.

Collaboration with Colleague

Cindy, Stacey, and Kim met together as one group for scheduling and convenience reasons as well as to collaborate and share ideas with each other. The time to collaborate with other professionals was very interesting. Having the time and new learning to apply is exciting and purposeful, while there is some nervousness to implement all the stages and integrate technology within all content areas.

We began by showing Kim our art integration sections of our blog with the embedded links and resources. We really wanted to show her our understanding and empathy towards the value of arts in the classroom. We felt this was a great way to start the meeting, as we showed our appreciation for her as a fellow professional and gave her some resources that might be useful as well.

At this time, Kim did express the concern that she is going to be involved in a masters program and that she truly wanted to help us, but does have some hesitancy towards the amount of work and time needed to implement the lessons (length of time, limited time with children, assessments, technology).

Before sharing stage 3, we thought it was important to share our stage 2 templates with Kim. This could give her a view of the type acceptable assessment evidence that would be expected during the units. Additionally, we had not previously shared our end of the unit authentic performance tasks, sharing these was important so that she would know the products and performances that would demonstrate student understanding. We also shared our product and presentation criteria. Kim expressed that she saw great value in these artifacts and was interested in knowing more about this stage and the backward planning model. Her experience has been to design activities before looking at assessment products and performances. This lead naturally into a discussion about the six facets. These lenses were the most difficult to share and explain. By using our completed stage 3 products we assisted Kim in beginning to organize her planning through the use of this design. We gave copies of our work for her to use as examples. We recognize that next fall, she may only be able to support us in implementation on a limited basis. She was however, interested in this backwards design model as this learning may be useful as she furthers her education.

The rest of our conversation focused around the perspective lens that we both chose for our units. We recognize that further conversations need to be held. She needed some thinking time to formulate ideas and suggestions about how we could integrated perspective into our units from a art educators point of view.

We understand the value of teaching what we have been learning and practicing, not only for our individual learning, but to spread new methods and learning to others. The difficulty we've faced, and we think others have faced this as well, is the lack of commitment on the part of our collaboration partner. Kim wants to be supportive, but at this point, her level of commitment is
not very deep. We're sure in the Fall that she will give us some ideas for arts integration in our classrooms. We don't believe she will pursue this planning method on her own. As planning is occurring for another cohort, perhaps arrangements can be made for collaborating partners to receive some type of continuing ed. credits, or a small stipend, etc.

Chapter 12 TPCK in in-service education Assisting experienced teacher’s “planned improvisations” Judith B. Harris

Okay, oops! I guess before I wrote my reflection on Chapter 11 I should have looked ahead to Chapter 12’s title. I wrote that I hoped that current educators and students weren’t forgotten and here we have this chapter.

In Chapter 12 the author points out the discrepancy between leaders’ vision and practioners’ actions. This is a reoccurring theme that can be found in many technology related journals. A recent article that I read in Edutopia stated that we have only been “dabbling” with technology in our schools. We really have only made a small change to do “old things in new ways.” Educators still show resistance to new technologies. Technology integration efforts are difficult to sustain, which I think is true in MSAD9. Additionally, many school systems put up resistance by blocking email access, Wikipedia, cell phones, unfiltered Internet access and more. These are issues that the author of this chapter agrees with and offers suggestions for changes in professional development.

Judith Harris reintroduces the “wicked problem” of TPCK. Not only is TPCK interdependent with the other variables previously introduced and explored throughout the book but is influenced by other factors such as culture, socioeconomic status, and organizational structure. All of these factors have to be weighed and considered as teachers plan their units of study and teaching strategies. Definitely a “wicked problem!” The additional problem of lack of time for planning and learning was also discussed. This is certainly our reality.

The author recognizes that experienced teachers need a different type of professional development than novices. She proposes that professional development be developed around activity types (structures) within and across curriculum-based disciplines. I was especially interested to see that one of her examples was Japanese Lesson Study. Before I changed position I had read about and gone to a workshop on this collaborative professional development model. The PLC work many of districts are now supporting is somewhat similar but I feel falls short of this model. Maybe it is a step in that direction. I think focusing on activity types in these collaborative groups could help teachers support one another in recognizing, discussing, and selecting TPCK activity types that would transform their instruction.

I really thought the break down of Social Studies into “knowledge-building” and “knowledge expression” activities was an interesting way to think about instructional design. Modifying this model to another curricular area and for multiple grade levels would be helpful but challenging.

The chapter ends with an equation that defines an experienced teachers’ willingness to integrate technology: utility= value/effort. The problem comes in identifying the utility. The quote on the top of page 268 sums up the problems that interfere with teachers identifying the utility of technology integration. If, as teachers, we have a tendency to hold onto the comfortable old practices we are familiar with and if we tend to change by resurfacing our practices with new approaches then deep change will surely be slow and difficult. We are, however, not alone in this. Administration often asks for us to implement changes that are not supported with focus, time, professional development or monies. Deep change needs continuous support. We can’t just plug new in for old and continue on our way. As the author states, The development of pedagogical approaches,...is an additive, recursive, and expansive process.”

Chapter 11 Guiding Preservice Teachers in TPCK

What I liked most about this chapter were the quotes. My favorite quote was one by Thomas McINerney’s, who said, “Hope is not a strategy.” That quote reminded me of several experiences that I had as a Technology Integrator. I think that many teachers came to the lab “hoping for the best.” A combination of lack of training, confidence in their ability to problem solve technology issues and a lack of time to research and prepare lessons led to this strategy being commonplace. Many of the suggestions for preservice teachers could and should be extended to teachers in the classroom that are expected to “ integrate” technology without a background, not just in the hardware and software, but in the thinking and planning necessary to do so in a successful and meaningful way.

At several points in this chapter it was recommended that preservice teachers be involved in field practice. These experiences were recommended to help preservice teachers understand planning, preparation and classroom management with technology. I agree that this is important and that more needs to be done in this area as students from UMF come into our classrooms. Last year Johanna Prince and I were beginning to talk about a structure that could make this happen. Practicums and student teachers are not always in placements that support TPCK. They have great learning environments but they may be more PCK in nature. Johanna and I tried to promote opportunities for practicum students, to be “invited” to observe or participate in, learning opportunities in a variety of classrooms. We had hoped that this could begin to provide experiences for practicums where technology integration was not part of their placement. This arrangement was not really successful. Practicums have such limited time with their mentor teachers that it was hard for them to break away and with good reason. I think more formal arrangements for TPCK field experiences will need to be designed.

Another section that I related to was the section on classroom management. I currently have a 16 week student teacher. She just had her final observation before break. She used the Smartboard and an Internet site to present an interactive science lesson on “Balance.” This was a very successful lesson. Students were engaged and challenged. My student teacher moved from teacher demonstration to whole class interaction to individual exploration, discovery, and concept application. Her supervising teacher was very pleased with the classroom management as well as the excitement in the room. She remarked that her student teachers were often hesitant to do a lesson, for observation, integrating technology, because of the classroom management piece. When this lesson was in the planning stage my student teacher and I brainstormed many aspects of the lesson together. The time spent discussing and preplanning was worth it and could be translated to many different lessons.

I think that planning for and implementing TPCK in preservice teacher education is extremely important. The case has been made about the needs of our students in the twenty-first century and beyond. Dewey’s quote, that opens this chapter, refers to the need to change teaching to prepare students for a future we cannot envision. I hope that attention and funds can be directed to supporting the existing teaching staff in our public schools as well. Current students also need to be prepared for the twenty-first century. We owe it to these students and teachers to provide them with support and opportunities for success.

TPCK An integrated framework for educating world language teachers

This chapter, like the others in this textbook calls for the integration of technology education in pre-service teachers’ content and pedagogical courses. It is suggested that if teachers can see the usefulness of technology integration they would be more likely to incorporate it into their instruction. Another suggestion that I found interesting was the statement that the more a reflective an educator was the more likely it was that he/she would consciously integrate technology. I can see these two statements working together. If an educator spends time in reflection and conversations on their craft, they would see what technology has to offer their instruction and their students and be willing to include integration in their plans. Like any of the other content chapters, however, lack of training still can be an impediment.

The author of this chapter related TPCK in Foreign Language instruction to the same in Science and Mathematics. Like Science there was agreement that technology should “be used for activities that would otherwise be impossible to accomplish.” Since World Language curriculum includes cultural knowledge and appreciation access to museums and art galleries, through virtual tours, is vital for students to truly understand their language studies. Like Mathematics there was agreement that thinking imaginatively about how technology can support teaching and learning was more important than focusing on what applications and tools should be used. Social networking environments were highlighted as environments that cultivate cultural literacy. A variety of tools were suggested from emailing to blogs and wikis. Findings show that students’ reading, writing, and conversational skills benefit from real-time networking tools. Additionally, audio files, online dictionaries, interpretation sites and digitized stories help students reach benchmarks. Also mentioned were hypertext and hypermedia applications that support vocabulary acquisition and retention.

My youngest daughter is currently studying for the U.S.Border Patrol examination. ITunes Podcasts have been extremely helpful as she prepares for the language portion of the exam. Repeatedly listening to words spoken with correct accents has been another web benefit that she has been able to take advantage of.

Computer- assisted language learning (CALL) is being studied to see how teaching and learning is impacted and can be improved. If foreign language teachers can view TPCK as a framework for instruction then technology integration won’t feel like an additional burden but will instead support teaching and learning.

The role of TPCK in physical education Luke E. Kelly

The inclusion of technology in Physical Education presents more challenges. Although not stated it would seem that, like Arts Education, Physical Education would face some of the same challenges. In the budget cutting process Physical Education is discussed as a possible area for cutting; an educational extra. With national attention on the obesity crisis it seems less likely for P.E. to fall to the budget cutting ax than programs for the Arts though. Also like the Arts, Physical Education has standards for students to master and instructors have little class time to accomplish them. With this time crunch, as well as with the active nature of Physical Education, adding technology presents an additional challenge.

As stated in the text, not only does the learner need to understand the skill being taught and how it can be used in games and sports, but the learner needs to needs to be able to perform it to an acceptable level of proficiency and they need to do this in public, repeatedly, as they learn skill acquisition. Early learners need to be able to do this especially at a time when this may not be developmentally appropriate. I hadn’t really thought about this before but as I think back about my own experiences I think about how visible I was in P.E.class and how embarrassing that was.

When I was involved with the S.E.E.D. Developer Awards we listened to each other’s presentations. One was by a P.E. teacher who was using iMovie to create step-by-step how to videos, for basketball free-throwing, for her students. This is one way that technology could be used to scaffold learning in this content area.

Significant cost was mentioned as one of the challenges for inclusion of technology in P.E. Heart monitors were used to illustrate this. While motivational and able to give immediate feedback the cost and maintenance is unreasonable in public education.

Data management seemed to be focused on as the greatest use for technology in Physical Education. Technology to collect, manage, analyze, and report student performance data and training in using tools such as PDAs as collection instruments is needed. P.E. educators need to be able to learn how to analyze student performance data to evaluate their instruction and guide their planning and teaching.

This chapter seemed to recommend technology as teacher support tools more than as tools to support student learning.

Perhaps a matter of imagination TPCK in mathematics education Neil F. Grandgenett

Reading this chapter reminded me of two things. The first is how much I like reading quotes by Albert Einstein. Because this one is such a keeper I’m writing it here so I can review it without having the book on hand.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

I think this is important, in all content areas, and more importantly as we integrate content areas and collaborate with others to tackle problems or celebrations for the future. My hope would be that we include a place for imagination in our lessons and projects and that we integrate content areas for application.

The second thing, I was reminded of as I read this chapter is how much I dislike mathematics, probably because I never understood it. My learning style is so nonlinear. When the author asked for a definition of mathematics I actually got it right. Understanding that mathematics is the study of patterns and interacting with them was an understanding that I didn’t come to until I was teaching Investigations in my classroom. Seeing the whole picture, seeing patterns and how they can be used was never an understanding or a strategy that was used in my mathematical learning (or not learning) experiences.

The philosophical debate about the use of technologies such as calculators when students may not know their basic-facts is one I’ve heard many times before. The reply that using technology inappropriately or too often may cause misconceptions and bad habits is one that can be applied to other content areas as well. Literacy teachers may feel that relying on spell check may cause issues with spelling, science teachers may take issue with data collecting and displaying technologies. Again the theme seems to run through all of these chapters that as educators we need to make informed choices about our content, students and technologies as we design learning experiences TPCK. This leads into the section that I thought was the most important nugget of this chapter. The author related that tessellation artist, M. C. Escher, was not successful in mathematics courses but his artwork is now uses to illustrate mathematical concepts. Technology can make for a more inclusive classroom reaching students with different learning styles, genders, races, and backgrounds. “The computers’ flexibility with instructional scaffolding, alternative representations, screen displays, audio languages, assessment. and teacher feedback makes reaching a wider range of students increasingly more possible as computers become more pervasive and ubiquitous.”

I took a podcasting class, online, last spring and saw the use of this tool as a method for providing instructional scaffolding. Several participants in the class were math teachers. They were taking the class so that they could make instructional podcasts for their students. Students would be able to review a lesson, step-by-step, as often as


needed. I thought this was great and I think this would have been great for a student such as I was.

I do think that there is a place for technology in mathematics. Maybe as it is just a matter of imagination.

Science, Technology, and Teaching The topic-specific challenges of TPCK in Science

This chapter echoes the theme that has been running through the last several chapters that I have read. Preservice institutions must design their programs to include uses of technology integral to their content courses. It is the author’s premise that then preservice teachers will graduate with a small repertoire of tools and a deep knowledge of the role technology can play in their content area, specifically science.
Other simple statements, made by this author, can be applied to all content areas. His discussion of proposal characteristics for what reasonable and manageable technology knowledge would be for a science teacher is what I believe is reasonable and manageable for all content areas and all grade levels. He proposes that the teacher be a regular computer user that manages and troubleshoots issues in personal use, be willing to approach new technologies with confidence and know where to turn for help, and lastly be willing to try something new. I really agree with this.He makes another statement earlier in the chapter that planning for using a technology for the first time is not unlike planning for any new resource. These two points are the core of developing an attitude that makes for success in TPCK and in many aspects of teaching.
Another point made in this chapter is one I was discussing with my student teacher this morning. Although we were discussing an issue in her Mathematics unit it is applicable to this chapter on Science as well as other content areas. My student teacher wanted to use the Smartboard for a geometry unit. She had borrowed a laptop from school which she had difficulties with when taken off the network. She then ran into one problem after another. I then asked her why she wanted to use the Smartboard. What did it add to her lesson? Did it support the concept being taught in a unique way that helped the children gain a better understanding than traditional materials? Were the children learning from the technology itself? As the conversation developed we discussed that in this case, the technology wasn’t offering significant value to the content being introduced. As the author states teachers need to decide what technology to use and when to use technology.
While much of the chapter reiterated what has been proposed in previous readings I liked this chapter the best so far. The design of how TPCK was organized and the realistic, simplistic way this author explained his points appealed to me. An example is how he concluded with the statement, “ ...we teach teachers as we wish them to teach.” I think this simple statement really says it all.

Leveraging the Development of English TPCK within the Deictic Nature of Literacy

I thought that it was interesting that this chapter began with the statement that TPCK is a temporary concept that will, in time, be incorporated as an aspect of CK, PK, and PCK as technology integration becomes more centralized in schools and as teacher preparation and professional development catches up with the technology explosion. I’m not sure that I wholly agree. I understand what the authors are proposing but feel that the rate and type of technological changes occurring make the explicitness of the TPCK concept one that will constantly have to be revisited.
As the chapter unfolded I was interested to read about the author’s recommendation that professional developers need to design content-rich learning opportunities that would strengthen content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge and TPCK. This was of interest because of the many meetings I attended as a district Technology Integrator. During these meetings we were often told that the teachers were the curriculum experts. They were in charge of relating technology tools to their practice. This was not our job. We often argued that separating content and technology was not an affective form of professional development. Now the district is following a course that reminds me of the vignette bout Laura. We are providing our teachers with the latest in equipment; that is readily available. Minimal professional development is offered and little or none is content-focused. An individual teacher can request one-on-one support if they know what they want and have an idea of the software/hardware that they want support with.
The chapter concludes with the recommendation that practicing teachers focus on new content knowledge (such as new literacies) in order to create cognitive conflict and growth. While I see this occurring in our grad. school class I don’t see this as a solution that will be happening in our district professional development; especially with the budget cuts that are happening.
While this was a chapter designated for English education I felt that it was really applicable to all content areas. No matter the content area, content specific technology integration taught in conjunction with content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge is a richer and more successful strategy. This seems to be what Dr. Grace is referring to as she describes her preservice work with Dr. Theresa. I am sure that we will hear more about their project/program.

Stage 1 Planning with Partner

Stacey Augustine and I are both partnering with the Elementary Art specialist. We decided that we’d meet with her as a team to introduce the Understanding By Design planning process. The experience of working with our colleague was both interesting and somewhat frustrating. Finding time to meet was difficult. Our partner teaches Art in several elementary schools in the district and is not at Mallett School everyday. When she is she is usually playing catchup. Then we had to coordinate Stacey’s and my schedule as well. We finally found a time that all of us could free up to get together.

We had a good conversation. Our partner really wanted to support our work and integrate art into classroom content. The paperwork aspect of the unit design felt overwhelming to her and she felt that she was there was a high expectation of work for her when she was not involved in taking a course and receiving credit. We reassured her that we would do our best to limit the time and workload expected of her. As she is considering beginning a Master’s Program we offered to serve as a support and offered her our classrooms to tap into, if needed, during her program of study.

We began by sharing my completed Stage One template for the Language Arts part of the Unit. I walked Kim through the process and the basic organization. We discussed the lack of activities at this point and discussed focusing on the learning that will come from the unit. This was difficult for her. She continually referred to projects and lessons that she was used to teaching. I decided that the best place to start filling in a blank template, for her part of the collaborated unit, was to begin with the standards. This proved to be a little more difficult than I anticipated. Kim explained to us that MSAD9s Art standards are currently being revised and that she feels there will be significant change. With this in mind I suggested we use MLR for our planning. I showed her how to access the MLRs online. When viewing these I realized how broad they were. We chose PREK-2 A1 Artist's Purpose: Students recognize a variety of purposes for making art, including telling a story, communicating emotion, or beautifying functional objects. These standards were appropriate for Stacey’s unit as well. We discussed the conceptual lens of perspective that both Kim and I would be using in our unit. We then reviewed my essential questions and agreed that one of them “ Why do people see things differently?” could also be used for her part of the unit as well. The process was then repeated with Stacey’s template.

Our next step was to tackle the understandings followed by the key knowledge and skills. Again we began with my Fairy Tale unit. This was a little more challenging to support as I am not familiar with some of the Art concepts and processes needed to teach perspective. My job became to prompt, question, encourage and guide the conversation. The six facets section was definitely difficult and we both still have more work to do in this section with Kim. We were nearing the end of the time she was able to devote to the process and we felt it was best not to hurry but to reflect and regroup.

Before we ended our conversation Stacey and I both share shared the performance tasks we had created with Kim.We showed her the type two technology grid and explained the rationale for the technologies chosen. This excited her the most. I think she saw how she could “fit” into the assessments and better understood the knowledge and skills that were needed for successful completion of the tasks.

We have more conversations to come but I felt that together, we had made a good beginning.

Chapter 6 Social Studies

Toward democracy
Social Studies and TPCK
John K. Lee

It was interesting that this chapter put the responsibility for preparing future citizens for participation in a democracy on Social Studies and technology. Lee defined Social Studies as, “ the study of subject matter for democratic life.” In our earlier Philosophy course, Dewey defined education’s role, as a whole, as being preparation for a democratic society. I find that I still agree with Dewey. It is part of all content areas, across all grade levels to model and prepare students for their place in a democratic society. I do see however how Social Studies affords a perfect forum for this work and the inclusion of technology enhances and transforms the work. Historical source materials open a new avenue to research. This can include not only the use of them but opportunity to participate in their creation. I personally, and my class as well, is working on a grant with Maine Memory Network/ Mantor Library and the Farmington Historical Society to digitize, and catalog historical artifacts and create exhibits on their site. This work is giving my students an authentic audience for their historical learning. Google Earth is an awesome example of using technology for Geography instruction. I was excited to learn, this past weekend, that Google Earth now has a feature that allows one to compare, side-by-side, a location as it exists currently and in the past. This will be a wonderful feature for me to use to help my students compare and contrast life “now and then.” Our recent election showed the impact and the power of the Internet on politics. Including this in governmental studies is crucial for our future citizens.
It was additionally interesting to me that the author emphasized Social Studies’ central role in developing critical media literacy skills. In Technology Committee meetings discussion has focused on Media Specialists as having the responsibility for instructing students in digital literacy skills. This never made sense to me. I recognize that these are vital skills but have thought that they were better repeatedly taught, in context, in all content areas. Social Studies certainly is one forum for this instruction; but not the only one. At the second grade level I am working with my students on Internet safety and in beginning to look at sites critically for validity when conducting research.
Global interaction and collaboration can add much to the Social Studies curriculum. I have looked at iEARN, KidLink and other global project sites and hope to have my class participate in one at some point.
In my Internet travels I came upon an advertisement for a conference for high school Social Studies teachers. Professional Development was being offered to support teachers in making history come alive through presenting history through mystery questions such as: Who killed the Iceman? What really happened at the Battle of the Little Big Horn? What became of the lost colony of Roanoke? Who was the Man in the Iron Mask? How did Cortez conquer the Aztecs? Internet resources were being shared to support student research. I thought about how engaging these questions were and how much better I would have liked history in high school if I were engaged in a process of teaching and learning that made history come alive.

Reflection on TPCK in Arts Education - Chapter 8

This chapter verifies how necessary Arts Education is, how technology supports and transforms it and how important it is to integrate the arts and accompanying technology into other content areas. The point is made that this is especially timely as budget constraints are resulting in cuts in these areas. Edutopia has a timely article on this very subject this month.
I was interested in the list “The Partnership for the 21 rst Century” reported as necessary for students to have to meet the demands of the twenty-first century. This reinforced what I have read and seen reported in other documents. Additionally author, Nancy De Plantchett, claims that everyone of the skills listed can be enhanced through arts education. This really stood out to me. Recently I had had a conversation with the Elementary Art teacher. She was relating her apprehension as we head into budget preparation. She is nervous about the Art and Music positions. She told me of several schools that were considering making substantial cuts in these areas. My daughter teaches in a small Downeast elementary school and she told me that Art and Music positions were both being considered for cuts there. Arts Education rarely get the same emphasis as core content areas. They are considered extras or enrichment rather than vital content. Little time is allotted for their instruction and this is without considering technology integration. The case is certainly made for the regular education teacher, or in upper grades for content area teachers, to integrate arts into their content area instruction.
Arts integration should be considered or expanded not only to support the arts but as a way to access effective learning and implement research on cognitive learning theory. Arts education integrates assessment and instruction and emphasizes “cognitive theory-based experiential learning, inquiry, and exploration.” This reading also stressed that arts education allows students to maximize the use of both brain hemispheres. Opportunities to access multiple intelligences is another reason to integrate the arts and technology in other content areas. Project Zero was founded at Harvard Graduate School of Education to study and improve education in and through the arts. Howard Gardner is involved in this program that believes that arts learning should be studied as a serious cognitive activity, but that "zero" had been firmly established about the field; hence, the project was given its name. This is an awesome site to investigate.
This chapter provided a wealth of examples and links to support TPCK in Arts Education. Arts Education was subdivided into: visual arts, music, dance, drama, and media production. Some of the sites were familiar to me but as I continued reading I realized my familiarity was in Art, Music and Media. I haven’t ventured into the areas of drama and dance using Internet resources. There are several sites that I plan to explore and bookmark when I am back in school and using a faster network than dial-up. The Old Sturbridge Village Kids Club is recommended as having information about drama and history integration for young students. This could be integrated into the early history unit I am currently teaching. This is just one example. There were many other sites, especially The Kennedy Center's ARTSEDGE, a k-12 site that appears to have helpful information, interactive displays, activities, shows and museums.
The concluding section brought back the reality of the “wicked problem” of integrating the Arts with and without technology. As elementary teachers we used to include art projects, sing poetry and songs, work on skits and puppet shows with our students. Much of this is no longer done as our focus is on reading and math. Social Studies and Science instruction is also taking a backseat to these areas. My challenge is not to allow technology, the Arts, Social Studies and Science to be extras in my classroom but to integrate them into literacy and math instruction. I need to take advantage of the many supportive materials and tools that the Internet makes available.I need to harness the many benefits that all of these areas have to offer and that are vital to our future citizens. I need to not let the questions of “When?” or “How Can I Find the Time?” be roadblocks but be willing to take one step at a time.
Great additional links, for Arts Integration, not mentioned in the chapter reading follow. I have chosen to organize them by art content areas. Many cover the K-12 grade span or can be modified to do so.

Art
Artrageous Thinking - thinking like an artist.
Art Sparklers - ideas
Art Junction - a collaborative art space for teachers and students see Artist Trading cards and much more.
Music
Science of Music-Explore the science of music, through these online exhibits, movies, and questions. Along the way, you can compose, mix, dance, drum, experiment, and above all…listen.
www.ikeepbookmarks.com/mallett - In the Podcasting folder you will find Tutorials for Audacity and Garageband as well as sites for free music and sound effects for audio track projects.
Dance/Drama
ArtsWork- Integrated arts site that has k-12 lessons that integrate the arts into many content areas.
Virtual Tours
Virtual Tours of over 300 museums around the world.
Metropolitan Museum of Art
And lastly, The Portland Museum of Art has a teachers' resource section on their website that features Maine educator made lessons and assessments that match Maine Learning Results.

Reflections On Chapter 3 TPCK in K-6 literacy education

Over the past two or three years I have followed articles, in Edutopia and discussions by Alan November and David Warlick, on the changing definition of Literacy. Last Spring I presented this information to MSAD9’s School Board as part of the budget process. The information presented in Chapter 3 reaffirms the information I had been following.
I had read articles that noted the changed definition of literacy from: the ability to read, write and effectively communicate in English; to the ability to read, write, and communicate in another language and through multimedia. Last year I read an even broader definition which included all the previously mentioned categories as well as the ability to program.
In TPCK, authors Denise Schmidt and Marina Gurbo present the idea that educators must consider the effect that multimedia and electronic environments have on the traditional view of literacy education and adjust their teaching accordingly. In light of the ever changing definition of literacy this seems timely and necessary. Additionally educators need support, through professional development, to do so.
As Early Childhood Educators it is our primary charge to develop readers and writers. That is our primary content. There are many strategies and researched -based methods to consider while teaching reading and writing content. A K-2 teacher must know these and know which are suitable developmentally for the grade level, class, groups and individuals that they teach. Borrowing a term introduced in this text this becomes another ‘wicked problem’ for the educator. Adding technology adds another layer to this complexity.
While I use technology in my literacy instruction, I find it difficult to keep up with the multitude of possibilities. This year I decided to add a few elements to my classroom that I thought I could manage and that would motivate my students and have impact on their learning. Next year I will reevaluate and make changes and additions.
This year my students use word processing to edit and make final drafts of the stories they have written. Recognizing a need for audience, for both comment and motivation, students aid in posting their writing on a classroom wiki. Families can view and comment on student writing. Additionally, Seniors from Leavitt High School and one of Johanna’s Princes’ undergraduate classes, send comments about writing elements that students are trying to incorporate into their writing. My students love the interaction and are motivated to put their very best up on the wiki for feedback. As well as showcasing individual writing, students work in pairs as reporters to write classroom news.
Another way that I am using technology is through the creation of a bookmark site for Word Study practice and online books. Spelling words and sight vocabulary can be reinforced through many online games. Students can listen to authors read their works as well as readings by many of the young television stars they are familiar with. This supports many of my students who do not have anyone at home willing or able to read to them. It also presents models for fluency and expression.
Podcasts are another way I am using technology as a tool to capture retelling, fluency and expression. Students repeatedly practice reading when they know that they will become “stars.” These can be shared with families to document and communicate progress.
I am exploring Global Writing Projects to further aid in the effort to enhance and transform the reading/writing connection.
There are so many different tools and pieces of software that can be used. I need to further explore possibilities, including some of the sites mentioned in this chapter, and make decisions about which will be most beneficial to support and enhance my literacy content and pedagogy.

Chapter 2

TPCK - Chapter 2 Reflection

A statement made in the text really stood out to me. M.A. Kelly states, “Whether technology helps to increase achievement for all, or merely exacerbates existing inequities, is largely dependent on how it is used in the schools.” This statement sums up an internal struggle I have been wrestling with this year.
I mentioned previously that I was the K-3 Technology Integrator for MSAD9 these last six years. Most of my time in this role was at Mallett School, as it had both the largest population and the largest number of teachers interested in technology. Now that my position has been cut, and I am back in the classroom, I see a dramatic decrease in the use of technology. I’ve heard comments such as, “ I haven’t taken my students to the lab yet this year. I know that I should go at least once before the year’s end.” or “ Now that I don’t have support I’m not planning on doing anything.” Chapter 2 discussed inequities in technology but an additional one is within the school itself. Students, at least in the MSAD9 district, and I would presume to generalize this issue to other districts, have an inequitable experience depending on their classroom placement.
I had hoped, thought, that I had done a better job of helping teachers to see the benefits of technology integration; how technology, curricular content and pedagogy interrelated and supported learning for all. I knew that there would be a decrease in use once my position was eliminated but I had thought it wouldn’t be quite so drastic.
In my second grade unit, of four classrooms, I am the only one that integrates technology on a regular basis. I am very fortunate that a laptop cart is housed in an extra room across the hall. My students can often be seen traveling across the hall to get a laptop for word processing stories for our classroom wiki, researching, dictionary use, e book libraries, spelling practice, math practice, project use, or to get the projector cart or Smartboard. I feel that one of my strengths is using technology to support and transform learning. Our classroom wiki has provided my students with outside comments on their writing pieces and growth. We created a historical calendar of area inventors, as a fund raiser, as part of our local history and invention unit. Students digitized artifacts and photographs for this. As we study the founding of the Sandy River Valley we are preparing to create a claymation video of Stephen Titcomb’s arrival in the Farmington area and his family’s settlement. Both of these experiences are to help make history alive and understandable for young students who developmentally have a difficult time with the concept of time. Making scenery, dressing characters and reenacting the story will help young students compare and contrast time “then and now.” The video will be uploaded to Maine Memory Network for global viewing. The technology supports this process. The learning of the tools and applications are embedded in the greater work of recording history.
While I feel good about what I am doing I know I have much to do. I feel that I have a democratic classroom and that children have a voice in decision making and in their learning. I feel that I am working to have a technologically equitable classroom but I am not “ all the way” there yet. I think that the gap between my students with access at home and those without is narrowing. Learning in the classroom is for all whether technology is included or not. I think that daily incorporation of technology tools is helping to take the “ novelty” of using a digital camera, a scanner or a laptop away. All of my kids set up and put away projectors and the Smartboard. I still am working to make sure that all of my students have feedback on their wiki entries. I am searching out college and high school classes that will give my students an audience for writing. At parent conferences students without access showed their parents our wiki. I have encouraged public access through the public library but know that that has not been taken advantage of. I know that MSAD9 had a once a week lab open to parents and students but stopped this practice last year due to poor attendance.
I feel that I have made a start in building a TPCK foundation in my classroom. I know I have much work to do. I am excited by the potential of this course and the discussions and sharing we will have and the growth I can make.

Chapter 1

UMF EDU 583 Reflections and Assignments

Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

TPCK - Chapter 1 Reflection

I believe that I come to reading and reflecting on this book from a unique perspective. I was a classroom teacher, of grades Pre-First to 3, for twenty-four years before accepting a K-3 Technology Integrator position. Due to budget constraints I am now back in the classroom teaching second grade. Having a “ foot in both worlds” triggered many thoughts as I read this chapter.
I was originally hired, by MSAD9, because I was an early elementary teacher who was attempting to integrate technology use into my first grade classroom. They wanted an educator in this role to better encourage and support other elementary teachers in technology integration. The department’s philosophy, at this time, was that the teachers were the content specials. The Technology Integrator’s job was to provide them with technology tools for their application. At this time I also served as a Learning Leader for SEED. This, grant supported, group offered training, awards and celebration to Maine educators integrating technology into their curriculum. SEED’s philosophy was very similar to the authors of TPCK. Teacher training opportunities were designed combining technological tools, content, and pedagogy. Understanding By Design elements were infused in these sessions. Often we had discussions about the difficulties we experienced from teachers who complained that they had “come to learn technology ... they didn’t need to know how to teach.” This same conversation replayed often in MSAD9 department meetings. A new technology manager was hired and a philosophical shift was made to supporting teachers in connecting technological tools, content, and pedagogy. Even with this shift, discussions of how to connect technology to teaching, still occurred.
As Technology Integrators we often met to create continuums of integration, rubrics, training materials and to express our concern over budget, and our time spent as technicians rather than as integrators. Our greatest dilemma was our conflicting empathy for overwhelmed teachers (overwhelmed with all the demands that are being placed on teachers) and the perception that technology integration was one more of these demands that we were enforcing. I often was met, by teachers, with the comment: “ I don’t have time for this. Why can’t you just teach my kids if I drop them off?”
Now that I have returned to classroom teaching I am struggling with the balance of content, pedagogy, and use of appropriate technological tools. I recognize myself as a teacher with a constructivist philosophy. Possibly this is why I have felt that it is essential that technology play a central role in my classroom. I have identified three goals for myself this year.

The first is to use technology equipment as everyday tools rather than novelty items or once a week “to do technology.”

The second is to integrate technology across a spectrum from supporting curriculum to enhancing and transforming learning.

Lastly, to use web tools for student communication of learning to a variety of audiences; promoting individual and collaborative growth.

I believe in the importance of technology integration, not for its own sake, but as a vital part of “good” teaching. Recognizing and maintaining the TPCK balance is difficult, especially as support services to teachers are being increasingly cut. I believe that there are many ways that teachers can support each other in this struggle, both formally and informally, but it is not a priority item at this time; at least not at the elementary level and not, I feel, at the administrative level. I wish that this book had been part of the Technology Department’s reading when I served in that role.