EDLD+5364+Reflection

Week 1 The first week of EDLD 5364 involved reading and watching videos over constructivism, connectivism and cyborg theory and their impact on teaching and learning. From what I have read, I believe that constructivism is a great way to go in the classroom. In a constructivist classroom, the students guide the classroom content. I think that this is wonderful, but not just teachers, but administrators, will have a hard time letting go. Many times, teachers are assumed to be the control freaks, while the administration is just as guilty, if not more so. If given the opportunity, I believe constructivism could lead to authentic, meaningful engagement in all subject areas. Connectivism talks about how anything that is learned is connected to prior experiences and knowledge. To me, this is a common sense idea. Of course, students are going to relate and connect new ideas with those that they already know. However, teachers being aware of this should acknowledge what their students may be picking up from the lesson and any misconceptions they may have due to lack of prior experiences.

Week 2 This week, the theme seemed to be how to use technology to touch a wide diversity of students and learning styles. Students, obviously, learn at different paces and learn best through different means. The Universal Design of Learning, which we will be using to make a lesson next week, is designed to help teachers meet the challenges of creating meaningful, complex lessons that reach every learner in the classroom. Technology has been proven to be incredibly useful in the classroom, but many teachers find it difficult to find ways to effectively implement it into their lessons without using it for the sake of it being there. The UDL seems to be the solution to that problem.

Week 3 This week's readings are over the Universal Design for Learning. It seems to be a great, though idealistic, method for designing lessons. To me, UDL design is just a more in-depth explanation as to why and how teachers should differentiate their instruction, assessment and engagement. Differentiation on the level that UDL suggests would be wonderful, though I am not sure how feasible it is. Weeks of preparation would be required for each lesson, as well as research into what each student prefers and how to adjust instruction for them. I am not saying that the UDL should not be used, because it absolutely should be. I am saying that it might not be realistic to the extent that it is suggesting. In a classroom of 25 students who all come in at different levels and learn at different paces, 'time' might end up being days and days. I do not know what the solution is, though I do believe the UDL is the direction every teacher wants to go. The feasibility of using UDL in every lesson to the extent it is asking is my concern.

Week 4 It is incredibly apparent that the Universal Design for Learning exists in a world without federal and state mandated standardized tests. It suggests that teachers should individualize each assessment according to student preferences and strengths. While a great idea in theory, I can't imagine a single teacher that is capable of doing this. Not only that, but it would not reflect the state tests, in which the test is pre-made and is a 'what you see is what you get' assessment. The quote from Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age that stated, "A student may summarize a passage about the Pilgrims poorly but provide an excellent summary for a passage about race cars. This is important information for guiding teaching." proves how idealistic this is. While it would be wonderful to provide each student with this opportunity to show their strengths at all times, it is simply not feasible in this day and age. Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chapter 7. Retrieved from: @http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

Week 5 Technology, while at times a hassle for some, can make teachers' lives so much easier if properly implemented. I was fortunate to receive a personal set of student response systems (clickers) last week, and I'm pretty sure the buttons are already worn down! The kids request to use the clickers and to quote one student, "Everybody can say what they got and nobody knows who got an answer wrong so we aren't embarrassed." In our textbook, Web 2.0, a quote that really stood out said “Technology makes it easier for students and teachers to track the effects of efforts and facilitate more immediate feedback.” (Solomon, G., & Schrum, L.). These clickers not only have every student involved, but it is possible to immediately see any misconceptions, see the results of a certain activity and tract how students are progressing. Not only have I been pleased with the results from the involvement of my kids, but the infinite data I can obtain and manipulate at a moment's notice. Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.