Desperate SBTS

I think that it is interesting that so far I have said that we SBTS shouldn’t teach technology, but we should use technology to teach the content.  But the two articles that we read for this assignment seem to me to be taking another approach – the approach of using the technology to effectively present the students learning.  This approach puts less emphasis on the teaching and more emphasis on the learning or the product rather than the process.  It seems to me that a lesson that is focused on delivering content (as in SOL objectives) will not regard technology as part of a process but as a means to an end.  In this guise, technology’s principle attraction is its motivational power that we all keep talking about.  I don’t think that I see much of that kind of teaching going on.  Most of the value of technology integration lies in the “koolness” of the product (think a MapMakers Map instead of one colored in with crayons), or the necessity  of the skill (think word processing or spreadsheets and graphs).  Getting technology to be part of the learning process would require a learning process to be part of…hmmm.

So I am thinking about how to enhance a 2^nd grade lesson on poetry with technology.  In the lesson as I have seen it done students will read and hear different kinds of poetry and write their own poetry as the culminating activity.  I was interested in the evaluation toolkit’s emphasis on how technology is to used to present the product of learning.  Before reading these two articles, I was thinking of having the students illustrate the poems in Pixie and then exporting and importing into Photostory and then the students would record the poems.  This project does incorporate a lot of technology, but also requires a lot of scaffolding and outright direct instruction of technology techniques (how to export, for instance).  And there is no choice as to how the poem will be presented.  All the poems will be the same format.  The challenge for me is to create a lesson that allows students to decide what form the presentation of the poem will take place. 

The other thing I am thinking as well is that it is difficult to create a technology rubric for just one lesson because learning to use technology is a process– and any one lesson will provide opportunities to advance through a technology rubric as students explore and practice using different technology tools. 

Reading and writing poetry is included specifically under POS objectives 2.4 and 2.5  about beginning to use text organization to construct meaning and beginning to develop an appreciation for literature through a variety of oral, reading, and writing experiences with fiction and nonfiction.  There are two categories of objectives – those concepts and skills that are introduced and those that students will begin to own. So I have used these two categories in my rubric.  Then I tried to identify technologies that would support some indicators found in those objectives and other that concerned writing.  I am not sure that I ended up in a good place for technology integration, but I think it sis a good start.  rubric-for-2nd-grade-poetry-lesson.doc

Filed by sepowell50 at 9:03 pm under Uncategorized
1 Comment

Literature Circle definition:

The literature circle is a strategy for teaching reading comprehension.  Each circle reads the same text and each member is assigned a role that corresponds to a specific comprehension strategy for analyzing the passage.  When the group meets, each student presents the results of his or her analysis for discussion.

Connection with Bloom’s Taxonomy:

By definition, a literature circle is a strategy that encourages critical analysis of read texts.  The objective of the reading circle is to provide students scaffolded practice in a variety of comprehension and analytical strategies.  The critical thinking levels that are the objectives of the student roles of a literature circle are Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation. 

BTW – I looked up Bloom’s Taxonomy on Wikipedia – and found a diagram that arranged the levels in a different hierarchy than was used in class.  This arrangement was in three levels, the bottom being Level I – Knowledge, the second being Levels II and III – Comprehension and Application, and the third being Levels IV, V, and, VI – Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation.  This arrangement seems to eliminate the need for thinking of these levels as stages (where the next necessarily follows the last and the order cannot be rearranged or any stage skipped).  I think it is helpful to think of the levels in this way – as there often seems to be confusion over where to place a strategy that may fit the description of more than one level. 

Connection with NETS-S:

As presented (minus the technology integration portion of the article), one general similarity that I found in the NETS-S and the literature circle strategy is the emphasis on helping students develop independence through controlling their own learning.  I think it is easy to see the influence of Bloom’s taxonomy in the 6 technology standards.  But beyond advancing throught the taxonomy levels, I find that the goal of literature circle and the technology standards is to give students the confidence and competence to be independent learners.

Taking each standard independently – even without a specific technology component in the literature circle, there is a definite correlation between the objectives of the literature circle and those of the technology standards 1-4, particularly with regards to communication and collaboration (standard 2) and research and information fluency (standard 3).  

Connections with Lesson Planning:

This article presents a very strong case for the utility of the literacy circle strategy in satisfying many critical requirements of a good lesson plan.  In addition to necessarily promoting thinking to the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy,  the literacy circle provides built-in opportunities for inclusion, differentiation, accountability and assessment.  It is easily adaptable to content areas other than language arts where reading takes place, or to different genres of literature itself.  It provides for the consideration and exploration of learning styles.  It provides a scaffolded opportunity to practice the techniques of cooperative learning and discussion. Really – I was very excited about this idea because it is so powerful and encompasses so many necessary lesson plan components.         

Filed by sepowell50 at 7:38 pm under Uncategorized
2 Comments

1. …technology is only a tool.  A pencil is also a tool.  Each can be used to accomplish some of the same tasks.   Sometimes technology can accomplish some of those tasks faster, but in my experience, not always.  If you don’t agree with that last statement, then I am probably older than you. 
2. …instructional technology by itself will not save the world. Or you. Or me for that matter, although as an SBTS I am able to afford food and shelter because of it – so maybe it does rescue me from starvation and homelessness.  But I think that it is important to keep this limitation in mind.  Technology by itself is never the goal when considering instructional technology integration.  What technology is being integrated into – the instruction- is the goal.  Teachers do not plan lessons about writing because they want their students to use a pencil, or because they think using a pencil is so cool, or because using a pencil is the means of our salvation.  But teachers do plan lessons about writing where a pencil is needed to do the actual writing.  Technology is more or less a really fancy pencil.
3. We often identify many of the characteristics of instructional technology as it is experienced by students.  We talk and write about (no I have not read your posts) how it can help them learn by motivating (the “WOW” factor), expanding horizons (the internet), aiding in the acquisition of background knowledge (United Streaming), encouraging creativity (blank slate software) , and providing structure and organization (graphic organizers).  You could probably add to thsi list.  This is a perfectly appropriate conversation, because the students are the recipients of and participants in the instruction that instructional technology supports.
4. But maybe focusing on the intsruction part of instructional technology means also focusing on the instructor.  Technology is not always the tool of choice for teachers.  We all know this is true, because it is why they have given us jobs.
5. For me, what is most important, the accomplishment that I value the most, the motivation for showing up for work every day, is the opportunity that I have to help teachers cut that big, intimidating, real fancy pencil called technology down to size.  ”You are in charge,” I tell them, “don’t let this computer push you around!”  I have not met a teacher who would not admit that technology could do all of the things listed above for students.  I think teachers are not reluctant to use technology for instruction because they do not think that it works.  I  think teachers resist using technology because they are afraid that they cannot manage it and their students as well.  The art of my teaching is in convincing teachers that technology is a pencil that they can pick up.  I cannot yet articulate how , but I do believe that in the past two years, I have had some success. 
6. I believe that technology can do for students and for learning all those things that we have ever identified, but I also know that it cannot do anything by itself.  Technology is only a tool, and a teacher has to pick it up first in order for it to work.  I believe it is my most important job to encourage teachers to pick up the technology tool.        

Filed by sepowell50 at 9:30 pm under Uncategorized
1 Comment