Technology Integration I- 5344

we worked on students helping teachers and listened to the mentors group. our group worked well together and really gathered some useful information. listening to the other group there were similarities among the the two areas and i am seeing that the integration aspect is bleeding into other areas. there are so many different ways to integrate technology it is finding the best approach... or the best approach is to offer several different approaches.
saying to only work on a couple technologies doesnt make sense to me... you can grasp a theme for purchases so you dont nickle and dime your funds away. but if you only concentrate on a few you are losing some of the population that may have an interest.

Posted by David Warren at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

i really like the graphic of the pedagogy, content, technology... i am having trouble with the concept though.
to me you have to have the content/pedagogical knowledge when you are awarded your BS/BA. content is treated differently and pedagogical is different. to me they bleed together. i do not see how you can have the technology/content without having the pedagogical. if you are doing a lesson on math-content and using technology... you have to have a method to the madness= your pedagogical approach. the whole point is to have a strategy for learning the content= pedagogy.... no?

Posted by David Warren at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

as the class discussed the differences between the activity. i thought to myself how it seems cut and dry with what level it was. others viewed in different ways and built the activity around what was said. i viewed it as just the activity and tina made the comment as well about we have no idea how the whole unit was built or explained to the students, what resources were giving, what background was discussed. gerry also pointed out that it could be a mindtool 'depending on'... opinions were given but arguments could be made in several different areas of the discussion. jerry also pointed out the training element which i thought was extremely important.. you can not consistently do the projects with the tool unless the foundation is laid on how to use the tool.
many times when i was teaching middle school....many moons ago... i could create a design brief and describe the unit and how i wanted it done, introduce the technology with the basics and let the students go to it. they taught me several features that i didnt know just be them fiddling with it to complete the brief. the majority of teachers do not accept that the students know more than them and refuse to introduce technology because of the simple fact that the students do know more than them and they the faculty are not the expert. they feel they lose credibility.

Posted by David Warren at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

discussing what others were saying about integration... it made me think and discuss how in an observation i see two key features: engagement and teacher role. without looking at documentation on the other aspects how else can you observe the integration? the teacher can evaluate by observing so no documentation is needed. ease of use and time on task would fall into engagement.
it is nice to see the RAT model and understand how you can go from replacement to amplification to transformation without going in sequence. software RFP is important and software install forms for faculty who purchase on their own is important to prove how it would fit into lesson plans. we do not install pre-purchased software without this form being complete.

Posted by David Warren at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

today as we were going through the activities i tried to stay close to the free applications and look at the benefits of the solutions. the downside is that i was familiar with the some of the technologies that i demo'd. the plus was that working with other people there was an opportunity to describe how i use the technology and thus start a conversation about how they would use it and think of ideas together. i would love to have all of the handouts and module design briefs... i understand the copyright issue.
the review of the technologies helped except we didnt get a good chance to get through all of them... time!
there were several that i was curious about and have read about... geometer sketchpad was one i didnt get a chance to see that i really wanted to see, simulation and eZedia MX were two i didnt get a chance to experience. visuals and instant feedback were two trends i heard when reviewing with the class... for me, i love to see it to learn it, that is how i passed the network + cert.. i purchased a simulation to learn. looking forward to the rest of the week and curious as to content....

Posted by David Warren at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

for some reason i wanted to read this one last. i had heard and discussed constructivism and how students learn or construct their learning and knowledge. vygotsky’s zone of proximal development is closely related to scaffolding with providing support and the retrieval of support. the range of actual stage to potential stage can be different in individuals... the learners need to have some one guide their learning. to reach the higher stages of development the learner must learn from other learners as well as an instructor.

Constructivism, as i was taught...
-You don’t see it in little parts
-You can’t break it down…if you take it out of context
-Social interaction, as with the cognitive constructivist
-Problem solving in the real world

the question then becomes, how to train in the real-world in the classroom? the combination of apprenticeships and problem-based learning and technology to be used for stimulus helps with this type of learning. the use of technology changes the role of the teacher to a guide or facilitator of learning. interesting...

Posted by David Warren at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

my previous employment was with indiana state university working on the PT3 grant within the college of education. there were several components that helped with preparing teachers: release time, planning and implementing and monetary support are all instrumental in integration and properly placing the technology that faculty will need. training is also a major component that does not get the funding needed. portfolio development was one of the focuses to show/model the work that teacher ed majors were doing with technology.
the admistrators need to look closely at the how the incoming faculty use technology and base decisions in hiring on understanding and use of technology. administrators along with the IT department need to work on programs and professional development to help faculty use technology. my experience in post secondary and K-12 is that most instructors would like to use technology more... they dont know where to begin. almost like they feel overwhelmed with learning and implementing new technologies. i really liked the idea of the phase 9 article and steps needed in good solid integration into curriculum.

Posted by David Warren at 4:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

all of the NETS standards, faculty, admin and students, are wonderful and need to be addressed in schools. our corporation does not have technology standards in place. at the start of next school year we have set up a team of teachers to document what we want our students to be doing in regards to technology. right now we are teaching keyboarding in 7th and 8th grade and we would like to see it in the elementary curriculum.
everything from turning the computer on, to troubleshooting is likely to be included in our document. this will give us a blue print for where are students will be by grade level. it will be a dynamic document and everchanging to represent the different skill sets which will have to develop and learn to be successful in tomorrow and today's workforce

Posted by David Warren at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Information technologies will be so main stream that it will become ubiquitous in the future. without preparing our students for the 21st century we will fall behind. already the majority of the engineers and more and more of the PhD candidates are coming from other countries. our students will have behind the world unless we proactively start to change the way we approach instruction. michigan is already making it mandatory to have an online course for graduating and soon many schools will have a wide range of offerings online. computers instruction seems to be a separated task from curriculum and the use of the computer needs to be interwoven into instruction. i did research during my masters on expenditures on technology and standardized test scores. i found that the more money that was spent on technology the higher the ISTEP scores. the 21st century will demand the use of technology and yet the technology budgets are not being increased annually to support the technologies students need to be successful in school and outside of school in the workforce.

Posted by David Warren at 9:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

i common thread i have been reading is the infrastructure must be in place. for me i have a capital projects budget but have to continually update equipment for the eight locations. our infrastructure is fiber connection between all locations and house 3 T1's bundled. to me this constitutes a sound infrastructure. the readings are making it sound like the infrastructure is the equipment the faculty and students use... am i mistaken??
our tile 2-D money is divided amongst the individual buildings and each building works with our department on spending. i want them to approach the spend with themes rather than just nickel and dime it away on consumables and stand alone solutions. we are lucky to have the large porportion of our budget not coming from title 2-D.

Posted by David Warren at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

several items ran through my head as i read this article. allowing faculty to install programs and experiment with them was one item that i disagree with. i am in the middle of an active directory build which will not allow faculty to install programs, .exe, autolaunchers, etc... right now we have over 500 pieces of software which i do not have a license for in my department. each incident of an installed package without proper licensing carries a hefty fine. i am trying to stop this from happening. IT will gladly install software if they can explain how it will be used in the classroom.
our department offers mini-grants to faculty for small tech innovations. i offered 5 last year at $500 a piece. i received three requests.. thats it. i awarded those three with the monies for their classroom projects. i need to start a spark to get people on board and experiment.
our technical support isnt an issue, we raised our approval rating to 85% on our last school year survey. the faculty know they get matters resolved in a timely fashion to assist them in using technology in their instruction. our administration is very supportive as well. technology components, in my opinion, should be included in every professional development offering.
we had offered to also allow all faculty to create their own website with ease by using a web design tool.. very nice solution. which would allow faculty to put video, audio and documents online for students. it was put on the back burner as to not disrupt a course...

Posted by David Warren at 1:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

as i read this article and referred to Figure 2, the center, Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge is really the goal of all integration efforts. many faculty members already know the content knowledge and have pedagogical knowledge.. the issues arise when asked to combine with technology knowledge. in a recent survey i conducted, many feel intimidated by technology and fear the 'what if?' senario when they schedule the computer lab or even using the computers in their classrooms. starting the integration process has to start with the fundamental technology skills.
when i first started using technology, i was an immigrant, the more i learned in one application the more i realized the use and navigation of others. for the most part applications have similarities; the menu, the workspace, toolbars, etc.... once you get a 'feel' for a program you can go into another and be successful. after this phase then combining into TCK and moving, ideally, to Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge. this is where the success comes.

Posted by David Warren at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

this really sounds like a great program... the con i see is the two week chunk. if it was broken up over several months it seems it would be more doable, except for those having to fly into WV.
i guess i dont understand why more universities are not doing similar programs from the curriculum side. they do have the technology imbedded into the coursework, but i have not seen anything locally to send faculty to. to do a week of professional development with 30 faculty members would be around $30,000. lower than the cost of a full time integration specialist, but add about $10,000 on that for full time 8/5 180 contract days and the position would pay for itself.
i love the idea of all the content developed being accessible online to aid others and the team approach is a must. i have thought about similar programs i could develop myself... so many variables to pull together; central facility, standardized equipment/software, interest of teams/principals, etc.., but i believe doable.

Posted by David Warren at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

in indiana the state has created new curriculum for schools... digital communication and tools. the course is sparking questions from technology coordinators as to what needs there are for these new courses. should they use tablets or PDA's... what is the textbook(s) that will be used, etc... the individual schools are developing their own understanding of what needs to be taught in these courses. they are using PBL as the main strategy.
also what i noticed in this article is that the at-risk students achieve with the use of technology. i have heard both sides, some say they are too much of a risk to use technology, while others use it as motivation. my wife's specialty is Emotional Disabled students and works in a program for students diagnosed with Aspergers.. she loves to use technology with her students. she says they become more engaged in their learning and grasp concepts more quickly. i see the engagement and motivation in all areas of K-12 education, core 40, high honors and sped... they all benefit from using technology.

Posted by David Warren at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

the situation i am in now is that i am trying to bring in all these different technologies to choose from for the faculty and my budget is taking a hit with annual subscription fees. the whole myspace issue raised some eyebrows when i am pushing blogging. hard sell without a tool like movable type, nice solution by the way.
trying to get a flavor for groups of teachers or individuals is tough. the tougher part is getting them trained. our specialist was paid through a grant... gone. everything IT related comes through my office along with limited staff and limited funds. the training is critiical. and hiring the new teachers that have proven to be technologically literate is also critical to model the uses of technology. the experienced teachers are more robust in management of the classroom, but Indiana is doing inAccess project right now and it is showing the greatest involvement is coming from the teachers at the top of the pay scale/most experience... technology is giving them new directions and opportunities.
i noticed a couple of the authors cited... phillip molebash, san diego state... i brought him to ISU to discuss wikis when i was working on the PT3 grant... and Dr. Susan Powers...she was one of my professors in my masters in educational technology.. she wrote that piece with her father. interesting how sources and contacts come around again.

Posted by David Warren at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)