Classroom Technology Integration Configurations

The eye opening part about the budgeting portion of this assignment was the BYOD. While in my classroom practice, there is always technology pedagogy to improve upon, BYOD is one of the places that I have never been able to get to. The students may bring in their own devices from time to time, and then are “supervised” while in class, but a BYOD environment has never been truly used for teaching and learning. Considering the cost saving levels with this environment and how versatile smartphones have become, using them in the classroom for learning would be fantastic. Becoming more tech savvy in the classroom has taken me years of hard work, and my thinking is the BYOD environment will take hard work and time as well. There is now doubt that this kind of teaching and learning environment will be more common in the future, but for now, teaching professionals aren’t sure of the next steps. Now that the smart phone is ubiquitous, what are the next steps for their use in the classroom. 

The configuration using Google Chromebooks was intriguing. The cost is certainly low for the tech one gets, but my knowledge of Google Classroom is limited. My personal experience with Google apps is over 5 years of use, yet most of the apps mimic Microsoft software which would be used mostly for word processing, spreadsheets and presentation type of student work product. There is Youtube, Earth and Hangouts too, but for two years my focus has been the creation of student eBooks to show what they’ve learned. Regardless, this configuration has great merit.

The other configurations are desirable too, in terms of getting tech to students. A 10 iMac environment could certainly be workable, but in today’s world, a one on one environment is essential. A teacher leader would need to use a lot of collaboration techniques with the students The 30 iMacs would be great, although not ideal due to the computer lab arrangement, yet would be cost prohibitive. Also, having classes of 30 students rotate through the lab sounds great, but makes student collaboration and peer to peer cooperation more challenging. 

The one computer and one projector configuration seems quite limiting yet that is exactly how many classrooms are in Northfield Elementary School at the K-2 level. If that was all that was available, one could make it work.  

Analysis of student learning of standards.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YQ1EhnGzik7RnlnZazAwzA_XZgxHCszPD3U-AUPfIT8/edit?usp=sharing

The first analysis to be made with this information from the above link  is to learn which standards needs to be retaught. Looking at the information on the spreadsheet shows that Standard 10, M:04:DSP:6.2 (S), Analyzes patterns, trends, or distributions in data in a variety of contexts by determining or using measures of central tendency (mean, median, or mode) or dispersion (range) to analyze situations, or to solve problem,should be the first to be retaught due to 10 incorrect answers out of 12 students. Next to be retaught would be Standard 6. M:01:NO:6.4 (S), Accurately solves problems involving single or multiple operations on fractions (proper, improper, and mixed), or decimals; and addition or subtraction of integers; percent of a whole; or problems involving greatest common factor or least common multiple. 9 out of the twelve students answered incorrectly about this standard. The next most difficult standard for students was M:03:FA:6.1 (S). Identifies and extends to specific cases a variety of patterns (linear and nonlinear) represented in models, tables, sequences, graphs, or in problem situations; or writes a rule in words or symbols for finding specific cases of a linear relationship; or writes a rule in words or symbols for finding specific cases of a nonlinear relationship; and writes an expression or equation using words or symbols to express the generalization of a linear relationship (e.g., twice the term number plus 1 or 2n + 1), which was answered incorrectly by 8 out of the twelve students. These three standards should be retaught whole class, even students meeting the standards would benefit from reinforcement.

For student grouping there is a few ways to group the students. The different groupings should be used by the teacher in different ways. The first grouping would be small homogenous group that would include students who did not meet the standards. This group would receive small group re-teaching mini- lessons. These are Zamsung K., Zoran B., and Zyntar C. Another homogenous group to receive re-teaching might be Zup C., Zhield H., and Zancy D. A group of homogenous students who met the standards would include Zinvis E., Zuitar F., and Zurii G., for a  review of the standards in small group,  I would recommend heterogeneous grouping in small groups to do a reinforcing lesson of the standards.

The data clearly shows that there are struggling students around the standards, those who got a high number of questions incorrect. The data also shows no student got every standard question correct, meaning for each standard there are students who could be grouped for reteaching. The strategies for the teacher to consider would be small group re-teaching or reinforcement, in addition to large group review.  
The tool I used was Google Sheets, and actually a spreadsheet was created in Microsoft Excel first, then downloaded onto Sheets. This is because the Microsoft software is richer in features and this assignment had a lot of information which made it fairly complex. Once in Google Sheets, color was added which made a positive impact on readability. For Web 2.0 tools, embedding the questions in a Google survey would allow students to work online and the results could be viewed in real time by the instructor. The questions could be sent school-wide.

Technology Integration Presentation


Technology Integration Presentation

Technology Integration Survey

http://goo.gl/forms/jNn3xEt3GS

The survey results did not surprise me, yet when I dug deeper into the details of the responses, there were teacher needs to be discovered. My colleagues at Washington South Supervisory Union, in Northfield, Vermont, were experienced educators. Two of them were known by me to be “tech savvy” and the third also embraces technology. The survey they were given was very close to the example given in Step by step professional development in technology, but my version had a few minor tweaks (Meltzer, .

The results from the top section, or hardware specific questions were 66 % “very comfortable”, and 33% “comfortable” on computer, projector and digital camera use. Then the results slipped to a 33% spread on uncomfortable, comfortable, and very comfortable with an interactive whiteboard or Ipad.

 

 In terms of the questions around improving technology integration skills with software and hardware, the training method most preferred would be to have authentic, ongoing training, as well as observing an expert using the technology. This is exactly what Meltzer recommends (Meltzer, 2012). What the results of the survey also show is that receiving print training manuals or going to a website for training or information is not desirable.  

Washington South Supervisory Union is a Microsoft campus, so there are many Microsoft products, such as Office 365, that are available to teachers and students (Microsoft, 2016). There was one specific request for a “substitution” level software integration with OneNote (Microsoft, 2016). My general sense of the campus is that the software available is quite under-utilized.

All of the respondents were looking for training that could give them technology integration skills and tools that would be relevant to them, with every day, authentic use in the classroom. It was enlightening to hear that from the teachers in my district. In the eight years since I was hired, 90% of the technology training has been with national experts, such as Alan November, using large group, lecture style presentations. Usually these were presenting futuristic, pie in the sky technologies, things the teaching staff could not really put to use on a day to day basis. There has been some change in this training approach, but nowhere near what my survey respondents are asking for. Ironically, the district now has the infrastructure in place to provide some of the technologies suggested 4-5 years ago.  

Meltzer, Sarah T. Step-by-step Professional Development in Technology. Larchmont, NY: Eye                 On Education, 2012. Print.

Office.com, 2015. Microsoft Office Online - Word, Excel, and PowerPoint on the web. Retrieved from https://www.office.com/

Technology Integration Survey

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge or TPACK is a framework showing the knowledge teachers need to teach with technology. The TPACK framework extends Shulman’s idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1987).

This TPACK framework, is how three essential forms of knowledge: Content (CK), Pedagogy (PK), and Technology (TK) connect. With the TPACK system, a teacher weaves these three forms of knowledge together within the context of the topic one is teaching. As shown above, using a Venn diagram, the intersection of the three essential knowledge forms is when TPACK can be identified with technology integration (Venn).

Implementing this method into their classroom, a teacher would have to take a purposeful, timely approach. Working through the teaching curriculum unit by unit, then lesson by lesson, a teacher would apply these methods to the curriculum. Working on a team to do this, and/or with an experienced technology integration specialist would be the ideal scenario. Also, having the support of administration would be important as well.

One obstacle a teacher might face is being overwhelmed. Without the time, guidance and support required, it would be very challenging to implement TPAC across all lessons. Another might be the level of tech hardware available.

Looking over the table of activity types is very exciting, as there are many resources listed to use in order to implement the activities. Starting with the first, the use of electronic books is very engaging for students. eBooks that use multimedia with video, sound, pictures, animation, artwork and weblinks are just so far beyond what a traditional textbook is or can do. Another is student research, which today is far more sophisticated than it was just 3-4 years ago. The digital resources available to students are helping them to become expert researchers. The table follows Bloom’s Taxonomy in a way. The Product Expression activities in Table 6 represent higher order thinking.

With motivation and support, many of the activities, if not all, could be integrated into any core curricular subject.  

TPACK.ORG. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2016. http://www.tpack.org/

Shumlan. "Knowledge and Teaching, Foundation for the New Reform." Harvard Educational

           Review (1987): n. pag. Web.

John Venn (1834–1923),

Technology in the trenches. 

This is reality. You enter the classroom after a sweet winter break to find that in the name of waxing the floors, the building maintenance supervisor thought all technology should be disconnected. To put all back together took me about 5 hours. 

Staying positive in times like these is key. Practice gratitude. Keep perspective. Remind yourself about the bigger picture.

Then get to work.