Final Course Reflections

Part 1: What I've Learned

Now that my technology course if almost finished, the time has come to reflect on what I've learned. Before I started, I thought that technology integration in the classroom only meant needless fluff. Now, I realize that Google Docs and other related technology make lesson planning and all other areas of teaching easier. In particular, I have found that the Common Core Standards fit in well with the NETS Standards. I have accomplished the following learning outcomes:  

1. Demonstrate the understanding of how technologies can effectively promote student learning.

2. Evaluate and use a variety of current technologies to enhance content instruction and to advance students' technological literacy.

3. Design meaningful and authentic digitally based learning experiences with multiple and varied assessments.
4. Reflect upon and demonstrate effective use of digital tools and resources: I met the first four learning outcomes by creating a lesson plan and a webquest.

5. Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of safe, ethical, legal and moral practices related to digital information and technology: I did this here, here and here.

6. Illustrate through application how state and national standards are implemented within the curriculum (e.g., NH Curriculum Frameworks,

ISTE (NETS-Teacher/NETS-Student) and NH-ICT Literacy Standards for K-12 Students (306.42)).

7. Demonstrate an understanding of the use of adaptive technologies and other digital resources to personalize and differentiate learning activities for every student: I met 6 and 7 in my lesson plan.

8. Evaluate, adapt and reflect on emerging tools and trends by participating in local and global learning communities and by reviewing current research and professional literature: In addition to commenting on my classmates' blogs, I wrote a blog review and a webinar review .

Part 2: Why It Matters

Technology integration is important for all grade levels and subject areas. Even for young children, standards are getting more and more rigorous. To put things in perspective, I didn't learn to type until the 5th Grade and I didn't own my first cell phone until I was a Junior in college. Nowadays, by contrast, some tablet devices are specifically marketed to preschoolers.

Of course, barriers to technology remain despite recent progress. Marc Prensky cautions against complacency. Even though most schools today offer at least token Internet access, their firewalls often get in the way. Another problem involves a lack of individual laptop ownership on the one hand and and the conservatism of digital immigrant teachers and administrators on the other.

Obstacles notwithstanding, teachers can begin to integrate technology. As long as they are mindful of state and national standards, their efforts will be completely relevant and, in fact, result in more efficiency. Effective lesson plans can do this through such tools as Animoto, Audioboo and Prezi.

Observation Report

I recently visited a large suburban high school to observe “Mr. A,” an Algebra II teacher. There were about 20 students seated in rows. Even though the class was mostly lecture-based, they were clearly engaged. Mr. A wore a voice projector around his neck; even though this is mostly for the benefit of students who have cochlear implants, it is also a good tool for classroom management because it ensures that the teacher’s voice will overpower any chitchat.

Mr. A explained various word problems on a Smartboard. Most of the problems included images for visual support. He also used TI-nspire CAS Teacher Software. This includes a graphing calculator that can generate 2D and 3D graphs. It also has a feature for rotating planes. He displayed the range of possible coordinates for each problem by highlighting the space between lines. Even though he used a lot of technology in his lecture, the students had to take notes the old-fashioned way.

Post-observation Interview

Q: How was teaching different before you had access to the technological tools at your disposal?

A: Time spent creating material has been greatly reduced.  Time spent presenting material is greatly reduced since I do not have to draw it in chalk.  The quality of the lesson has greatly improved with multiple ways visually to look at a problem.

Q: What is the most challenging thing about using technology in the classroom?

A: When something breaks there is no funding to fix it or maintain it.  Most technology is purchased by the teacher.  This takes years to be able to afford.

Q: What are the most common modifications and accommodations you make when it comes to technology?

A: Printed copies of the lesson are easily made.  When you teach in chalk a copy is hard to make unless you have a camera.  You can change the lesson on the fly and bring up items from the internet.

Q: How satisfied are you with the extent of technology integration at your school?

A: Not very.  Only my classroom has a mimeo board , mic with speaker, and Ti-nspire.  Most teachers are still chalk and talk due to funding.

Q: Other than Smart Board, TI-nspire CAS software and your cochlear implant microphone, what other forms of technology would you like to use in the future?

A: Handheld wireless computers for students to take notes and receive assignments.  Eliminate paper.

           For technology integration to work, two criteria need to be met. First, teachers must be willing to learn about new forms of technology and make changes in their instruction. Second, school boards must account for technology integration in their budgets. Not all teachers are willing to dig into their own pockets like Mr. A, nor should they be. The bottom line is that a paperless classroom has the potential to save students, teachers, parents and administrators a lot of time and money. Teachers will save countless hours in grading and other paperwork. It will be easier for students to keep up when they are absent. Even though the initial costs may be high, schools that properly accommodate their students’ needs will avoid even costlier government sanctions and funding cuts.