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.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
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.
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.
“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.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 9, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Chapter 6 Social Studies
Toward democracy
Social Studies and TPCK
John K. Lee
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)