Standard 3
“Anyone who tries to make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn't know the first thing about either.” Marshall McLuhan
“Adventure is learning.”
When I was very young, I would sit by the bookshelf loaded with encyclopedias and a variety of fiction and non-fiction books, flipping through and learning randomly. Today I will sit on my computer flipping through webpages, attending open source courses, learning about my varied interests. It is no wonder that the mobius learning adventure I have been on, provided side trips that extended the learning experience. The side trips, requiring curriculum writing skills, led to projects that entailed the writing of 2 week units at a distance to teach students about culture, media literacy, digital storytelling in natural settings, and student leadership. And with each new side adventure, the mobius learning adventure grew, but was I making a difference? My social network grew. My PLN grew. I was definitely inspired. But, had I inspired others?
“Adventure is learning.”
When I was very young, I would sit by the bookshelf loaded with encyclopedias and a variety of fiction and non-fiction books, flipping through and learning randomly. Today I will sit on my computer flipping through webpages, attending open source courses, learning about my varied interests. It is no wonder that the mobius learning adventure I have been on, provided side trips that extended the learning experience. The side trips, requiring curriculum writing skills, led to projects that entailed the writing of 2 week units at a distance to teach students about culture, media literacy, digital storytelling in natural settings, and student leadership. And with each new side adventure, the mobius learning adventure grew, but was I making a difference? My social network grew. My PLN grew. I was definitely inspired. But, had I inspired others?
Standard 3: Educational technology leaders model, design, and disseminate curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning.
A. Facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards.
B. Use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students.
C. Apply technology to demonstrate students' higher order skills and creativity.
D. Manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment.
E. Use current research and district/region/state/national content and technology standards to build lessons and units of instruction.
Statement: True teaching is the ability to provide content and skills in a meaningful way that help the learner reach a deeper understanding and apply it through authentic experiences. Technology can provide an authentic environment, authentic audience, authentic tools, and collaborative environments to solve problems.
Artifact 1: Video Sleuth Unit Website and Video Sleuth Unit PDF
Artifact 2: Underage Drinking Media Literacy
Artifact 3: Collaborative Weather Unit
Artifact 4: Virtual Sled Dog Race Lesson and Evaluation
A. Facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards.
B. Use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students.
C. Apply technology to demonstrate students' higher order skills and creativity.
D. Manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment.
E. Use current research and district/region/state/national content and technology standards to build lessons and units of instruction.
Statement: True teaching is the ability to provide content and skills in a meaningful way that help the learner reach a deeper understanding and apply it through authentic experiences. Technology can provide an authentic environment, authentic audience, authentic tools, and collaborative environments to solve problems.
Artifact 1: Video Sleuth Unit Website and Video Sleuth Unit PDF
Artifact 2: Underage Drinking Media Literacy
Artifact 3: Collaborative Weather Unit
Artifact 4: Virtual Sled Dog Race Lesson and Evaluation
What does this standard mean to me?
From Wikimedia Commons
My philosophy of teaching has always had it’s base with the great philosophers, from Socrates and Dewey to modern day Marshal McLuhan, E. Wegner, and present day Jane McGonigal, Wiggins and McTighe, and Berger. These visionary leaders have not only guided in finding ways to not just teach students, but to help them and myself reach deeper understandings that would have meaning and importance in a personal perspective and as a global community member. The goal of reaching these deeper understandings is why creating a quality curriculum is so important, and so necessary for helping students to reach a state of being a thinker, a learner and a participant in communities. However, to reach these deeper understanding, like Plato and Socrates, a wealth of tools are tested and used, including technology. From collaborative work with scientists, to designing simulations for others, to sharing a blog with another class that is reading the same book. Technology provides a wealth of possibilities for applying or reaching a deeper understanding in collaborative and peer-reviewed audiences in our fast paced connected world. But with any tool, it can be either used to create or destroy. Most teachers are aware of this when they implement any new curriculum that uses technology. Wiggins and Mctighe (2005, p.58) point out,
“The greatest defect in teacher lesson plans and syllabi, when looked at en-mass, is that the key intellectual priorities-deep understanding of transferable big ideas, and competence at core performance tasks- are falling through the cracks of lessons, units, and course devoted to developing thousands of discrete elements of knowledge and skill, not prioritized and unconnected.”
Thus, if your tool was a textbook or a collaborative Wikispace, it too can be used in a way to reach understanding or to completely destroy the inquisitive nature of a learner. And like Geoff (“No books: No problem,” para 4), “I gave each student a textbook yet assigned very little from it.” Wiggins and Mctighe (2005, p. 233) corroborated this experience when they stated, “few text-books are designed around a series of defining experiences, yet well-designed experience is the only way to make ideas real.” In addition, Berger (1997, Building a Standard) stated,
“Using grades, praise, and punishment, they may be able to make students behave and function, but for a number of reasons they don't have the power to make them do inspired work.” In other words, “sense of pride can be achieved in the classroom, but not if all students do is practice skills and complete trivial exercises, and never put together impressive projects which are shared with pride with a wider audience."
This is one reason I find Wiggins and McTighe’s Backwards Design model to be an effective tool to integrate technology into curriculum. It allows for the proper use of technology through step-by-step planning and alignment with standards and end goals. In addition, it is the soul purpose of providing meaningful experiences for students, rather than using technology for technology sake. Hence the technology is more transparent in the classroom, serving as the purpose of reaching the deeper understanding, rather than being the deeper understanding.
“We must give students work that enables them to have an “aha!” equivalent to that felt by the scholar who first came to the understanding” (Wiggins and McTighe 2005, p. 122). In addition, “They need to experience how their own inquiries and discussions are “essentially” parallel to those of experts, and how even key agreed-upon understandings can change over times as a result of ongoing inquiry” (Wiggins and McTighe 2005, p. 122).
At this point, one must consider the feasibility of teaching a Backwards Design Unit with multilevel students or students with diverse needs. Again, Wiggins and McTighe’s model provides for internal alignment and constant assessment to identify students progress and needs are being met, thus progress can continue at all levels. “Only experts (or highly gifted thinkers) can hear a teacher’s words and do all the constructivist work in their heads, on their own without experiences, process guidance and tools (such as graphic organizers), tasks for eliciting responses, and feedback in their attempts to show that their learning has been successful” (Wiggins and McTighe 2005, p. 228). Furthermore, Leadbeater (2010, 16:25) described that, “features of an internally motivated classroom include “highly collaborative, very personalized, often pervasive technology learning that starts from questions.” This type of curriculum and this type of class can most easily be met using technology.
“The greatest defect in teacher lesson plans and syllabi, when looked at en-mass, is that the key intellectual priorities-deep understanding of transferable big ideas, and competence at core performance tasks- are falling through the cracks of lessons, units, and course devoted to developing thousands of discrete elements of knowledge and skill, not prioritized and unconnected.”
Thus, if your tool was a textbook or a collaborative Wikispace, it too can be used in a way to reach understanding or to completely destroy the inquisitive nature of a learner. And like Geoff (“No books: No problem,” para 4), “I gave each student a textbook yet assigned very little from it.” Wiggins and Mctighe (2005, p. 233) corroborated this experience when they stated, “few text-books are designed around a series of defining experiences, yet well-designed experience is the only way to make ideas real.” In addition, Berger (1997, Building a Standard) stated,
“Using grades, praise, and punishment, they may be able to make students behave and function, but for a number of reasons they don't have the power to make them do inspired work.” In other words, “sense of pride can be achieved in the classroom, but not if all students do is practice skills and complete trivial exercises, and never put together impressive projects which are shared with pride with a wider audience."
This is one reason I find Wiggins and McTighe’s Backwards Design model to be an effective tool to integrate technology into curriculum. It allows for the proper use of technology through step-by-step planning and alignment with standards and end goals. In addition, it is the soul purpose of providing meaningful experiences for students, rather than using technology for technology sake. Hence the technology is more transparent in the classroom, serving as the purpose of reaching the deeper understanding, rather than being the deeper understanding.
“We must give students work that enables them to have an “aha!” equivalent to that felt by the scholar who first came to the understanding” (Wiggins and McTighe 2005, p. 122). In addition, “They need to experience how their own inquiries and discussions are “essentially” parallel to those of experts, and how even key agreed-upon understandings can change over times as a result of ongoing inquiry” (Wiggins and McTighe 2005, p. 122).
At this point, one must consider the feasibility of teaching a Backwards Design Unit with multilevel students or students with diverse needs. Again, Wiggins and McTighe’s model provides for internal alignment and constant assessment to identify students progress and needs are being met, thus progress can continue at all levels. “Only experts (or highly gifted thinkers) can hear a teacher’s words and do all the constructivist work in their heads, on their own without experiences, process guidance and tools (such as graphic organizers), tasks for eliciting responses, and feedback in their attempts to show that their learning has been successful” (Wiggins and McTighe 2005, p. 228). Furthermore, Leadbeater (2010, 16:25) described that, “features of an internally motivated classroom include “highly collaborative, very personalized, often pervasive technology learning that starts from questions.” This type of curriculum and this type of class can most easily be met using technology.
What artifacts demonstrate my mastery?
Copyright Christina Hum
“When today’s students enter their post-education professional lives, odds are pretty good that they will be asked to work with others from around the globe collaboratively to create content for diverse and wide-ranging audiences” (Richardson 2010, p. 147). Thus the artifacts I have chosen to illustrate mastery of this standard are a Backwards Design Unit that was written when Kigluait Adventures first began as a collaborative videoconference experience centered around a mystery that two classes worked together to solve. The entire unit was tuned into a WebQuest that students could access. In addition, there was a chat room/ discussion board for students to collaborate beyond the videoconference. This artifact also provides a baseline for curriculum creation utilizing a variety of collaborative technologies, while also requiring students to practice online etiquette. The sleuth was aligned with state standards, and provided an authentic problem that could occur in Alaska. Though this artifact meets many of the elements of mastery of this standard, it only touches on the element of students utilizing technology in a safe environment, but it provides little in terms of higher order thinking and not creativity.
Which is why I have also included the Media Literacy Unit that was created for students to learn about media literacy and underage drinking. The unit was taught to students and teachers at a distance using Moodle, an online course management system, and videoconferencing. The unit was aligned with Alaska state reading, writing, and technology standards and had students create a video commercial or animation about their perspective on underage drinking in relation to media literacy. These were then shared online through Youtube, and on the website. This required students to analyze and apply concepts of media literacy by creating a piece of media and peer evaluating the media. This artifact provides a great example of reaching higher order thinking skills to express their opinions and facts on underage drinking and use their creativity to produce their own media.
Two additional artifacts I have chosen to include are a collaborative weather unit utilizing technology in the classroom. It also illustrates the facilitation of a technology enhanced unit, by providing specific teaching for success with the technology, and the Virtual Sled Dog Race Lesson and Evaluation which provides evidence of a unit that was designed to specifically support learner-centered strategies, by allowing the students to progress through learning concepts and requiring them to utilize their skills to demonstrate mastery. The Virtual Sled Dog unit also provides evidence for the need to evaluate units in general that utilize technology, as explained by Wiggins and Mctighe’s (2005, p. 256), “regardless of the approach you should routinely check the emerging design against the UbD Design Standards to ensure that the result is a high-quality design” and “Aggressively seek feedback as you work” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005 p. 271). In addition, Miller (2011, Trial and Error, Timely Feedback and then Success) explain, “This process of allowing for mistakes goes contrary to much traditional instruction, but gamers know (and yes, I am proud to be one) that the payoff feels great, and accomplishment feels more like genuine accomplishment rather than simply "getting it done." This very concept of progress checks and feedback is consistent throughout technology integration, as well. Hardre (2004, p. 315) argues that
Technology educators face special challenges in a content area of tremendous complexity and fast-paced change, with a broad range of learners’ prior knowledge and experience. Thus, technology education is a field that can benefit significantly from the systematic application of principles and methods of instructional design (Alessi & Trollip, 2000; CTGV, 1996) and accomplishment feels more like genuine accomplishment rather than simply "getting it done."
I have learned from the artifact examples that rather than trying to capture the moon on the first lasso, I need to consider that “Every design requires compromise, we have to weigh pros and cons” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005 p. 268). But perhaps the best advice that I can put to use as I review all my work, “Fortune favors the prepared mind. The truly appropriate teachable moment is more visible and comes more frequently to the teacher-designer who has carefully thought through her goals and how to achieve them” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005 p. 276).
Which is why I have also included the Media Literacy Unit that was created for students to learn about media literacy and underage drinking. The unit was taught to students and teachers at a distance using Moodle, an online course management system, and videoconferencing. The unit was aligned with Alaska state reading, writing, and technology standards and had students create a video commercial or animation about their perspective on underage drinking in relation to media literacy. These were then shared online through Youtube, and on the website. This required students to analyze and apply concepts of media literacy by creating a piece of media and peer evaluating the media. This artifact provides a great example of reaching higher order thinking skills to express their opinions and facts on underage drinking and use their creativity to produce their own media.
Two additional artifacts I have chosen to include are a collaborative weather unit utilizing technology in the classroom. It also illustrates the facilitation of a technology enhanced unit, by providing specific teaching for success with the technology, and the Virtual Sled Dog Race Lesson and Evaluation which provides evidence of a unit that was designed to specifically support learner-centered strategies, by allowing the students to progress through learning concepts and requiring them to utilize their skills to demonstrate mastery. The Virtual Sled Dog unit also provides evidence for the need to evaluate units in general that utilize technology, as explained by Wiggins and Mctighe’s (2005, p. 256), “regardless of the approach you should routinely check the emerging design against the UbD Design Standards to ensure that the result is a high-quality design” and “Aggressively seek feedback as you work” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005 p. 271). In addition, Miller (2011, Trial and Error, Timely Feedback and then Success) explain, “This process of allowing for mistakes goes contrary to much traditional instruction, but gamers know (and yes, I am proud to be one) that the payoff feels great, and accomplishment feels more like genuine accomplishment rather than simply "getting it done." This very concept of progress checks and feedback is consistent throughout technology integration, as well. Hardre (2004, p. 315) argues that
Technology educators face special challenges in a content area of tremendous complexity and fast-paced change, with a broad range of learners’ prior knowledge and experience. Thus, technology education is a field that can benefit significantly from the systematic application of principles and methods of instructional design (Alessi & Trollip, 2000; CTGV, 1996) and accomplishment feels more like genuine accomplishment rather than simply "getting it done."
I have learned from the artifact examples that rather than trying to capture the moon on the first lasso, I need to consider that “Every design requires compromise, we have to weigh pros and cons” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005 p. 268). But perhaps the best advice that I can put to use as I review all my work, “Fortune favors the prepared mind. The truly appropriate teachable moment is more visible and comes more frequently to the teacher-designer who has carefully thought through her goals and how to achieve them” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005 p. 276).
References
Berger, R. (1996) A Culture of Quality: A Reflection on Practice; Annenburg Institute for School Reform, Occasional Paper Series, Number 1. September 1996
Berger, R. (1997). Building a school culture of high standards. Retrieved from http://home.blarg.net/~building/strategies/arts/cabc/berger.htm
Hadre, P. (2004). Starting from the end: Designing instruction for technology skills. AACE Journal, 12(3), 315-330. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/57818506/04hardre315-330
Leadbeater, C. (Performer). (2010, April). Charles Leadbeater: education innovation in the slums [Video podcast]. TedTalks. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/charles_leadbeater_on_education.html
Miller, A. (Sept, 2011). Game-based Learning Units for the Everyday Teacher. Edutopia. Retrieved from: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/video-game-model-unit-andrew-miller
Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, wikis, podscasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=CArG5bfUy-sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Will Richardson
Ruth, G. (n.d.). No books: No problem. Teaching without a text. Edutopia. Retrieved from: http://www.edutopia.org/teaching-without-text
Wiggins, G. , & McTighe, J(2005). Understanding by design. (2nd ed., pp. 13-81). Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD
Berger, R. (1997). Building a school culture of high standards. Retrieved from http://home.blarg.net/~building/strategies/arts/cabc/berger.htm
Hadre, P. (2004). Starting from the end: Designing instruction for technology skills. AACE Journal, 12(3), 315-330. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/57818506/04hardre315-330
Leadbeater, C. (Performer). (2010, April). Charles Leadbeater: education innovation in the slums [Video podcast]. TedTalks. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/charles_leadbeater_on_education.html
Miller, A. (Sept, 2011). Game-based Learning Units for the Everyday Teacher. Edutopia. Retrieved from: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/video-game-model-unit-andrew-miller
Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, wikis, podscasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=CArG5bfUy-sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Will Richardson
Ruth, G. (n.d.). No books: No problem. Teaching without a text. Edutopia. Retrieved from: http://www.edutopia.org/teaching-without-text
Wiggins, G. , & McTighe, J(2005). Understanding by design. (2nd ed., pp. 13-81). Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD
