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.