Reflection for 12/20: The Final Reflection….

So, this is it. We’re (almost) all done. We’ve come a long way!

I thought I would reflect in list form and create a “top 5″ list of UD BIG Ideas. I have found in the past that making a list like this will help me to further implement material in future lessons.

#1: Universal Design is for all learners.

UD is a means to make content more accessible (and interesting) for every child in every classroom. Sometimes, individual accommodations made for one student do not benefit the general population. With individual accommodations, much of a teacher’s time can be spent on a small segment of the classroom population.

Instead, teaching-with-UD aims to make each learning experience more appropriate for every learner. Implementing UD is a win-win situation for teachers and learners. When teachers implement UD, they are considering the multiple paths that can be taken by learners to reach the same goal (end goal: student learning). UD aims to make each learning experience more appropriate for every learner.

#2: Blogs and Wikis can be useful classroom tools.

I had heard of blogs before taking this class. I had probably read a few blogs, too. However, I had not even begun the process of creating my own until I was compelled to do so by this course. At first, the task was slightly daunting. The blog sites use an entirely different vocabulary than I am accustomed to reading, writing or speaking. The good news about being marginally technologically-aware is that I was willing to try out the formatting options and different commands. In the end, I have learned a lot about blogs and their secret lingo. I have found blogging for this course to be a useful way to vent my anxiety, thoughts, and questions.

I think that Blogs would have a place in the classroom. I could see the usefulness of posing a question on a teacher-moderated blog and having students post comments in response. I could also see students showcasing their learning on a blog where teachers and other students could comment on the student’s insights.

I am still a little bit of a Wiki novice. I have set one up, but haven’t spent considerable time on the site. I do think that Wikis would have an application for student-directed group projects. I think Wikis will be my next frontier for collaborative online learning. (Thanks for setting up the Wiki, Cynthia. I will check it out tonight!)

#3: Podcasting: It’s not that hard to do!

I was excited to learn about Podcasting. I had heard of Podcasts, but never realized that I had the capability to make one myself or have my students create their own. It was fun to write and read aloud the reflection Janet and I created. I think that we learned while we were annotating our information, but by writing a script and performing the Podcast, we committed a lot of the information to memory. This would be a very useful way for students to digest new information and present their learning. Next step: I need to learn how to Podcast using the version of Garage Band that I have on my teacher laptop – and the student laptops we have in the classroom.

#4: Collaboration is Key.

Working with my unit team has been challenging (especially to schedule), enjoyable, and enlightening. I have had the opportunity to collaborate with each of my teammates in the past,  but our work has never been technology focused or even focused on our own learning. We’ve always put the kids first. We have had the opportunity to create a unit in a thoughtful and well-planned (or at least we hope it is) way.  It has been interesting to learn where each of us is coming from, write goals about where we are going, and get to where we need to be with this unit. I hope to further collaborate with my team this winter to write the learning experiences that will complete the layout of this unit.

#5: Implementing UD doesn’t have to be complicated.

I have learned many new ways to incorporate UD in my daily lesson plans. It doesn’t have to be groundbreaking or earth-shattering. Baby steps seem to work best in UD implementation. I have already brought in a projector on multiple occasions to share PowerPoint presentations. I have also used the audio CD that accompanies our LA program. I plan to use the HOLT online website very soon to spice up my LA classes. The changes I have made for UD have nicely complimented my current work on teaching study and textbook skills. (Our kids are lacking in this area.)

Overall, I’ve learned a lot this fall. I hope to find new ways to implement UD. I am also excited to teach our unit in a few months. Perhaps I will try to maintain the blog while I am teaching the unit to help me plan my lesson and reflect.

Happy Holidays! Thanks for everything, Cynthia!

Reflection for 12/13

I can’t believe it Wednesday night already?! December always seems to fly by so fast. Too little time, too much to do!

I did read Cynthia’s comment on my last reflection. She mentioned that I haven’t written too much about accessible content media. This is very true. The media component of our unit has become the last frontier for our project. I think we have put that portion of the project off for two reasons. 1. Unfortunately, I have not spent a lot of time thinking and planning in terms of accessible media in the past. I have integrated technology in lessons, but of late, I have stuck to predictable, “usual” (for example: word processing, projecting sites on my laptop, etc.) technology rather than really branching out and trying new modes of teaching and learning. 2. The second reason for the procrastination on this front is that we are less knowledgeable about this area of lesson planning and delivery. And, the unknown scares us (read: me)… a lot.

The good news is… we know a lot more about accessible content media now than we ever did before taking this course. Also, we have seen the benefits of implementing accessible tech into our lesson plans. Now, we just need to bite the bullet, suck it up, and tax our brains a little to find the right fit for accessible content media in our writing unit.

Some ideas for implementation of accessible content media…

1. Julie has found some PowerPoints on unit material that were sent along with our language arts curriculum kit. The PowerPoints would be great to use to kick off the unit. I think the kids will enjoy this format of lesson launching, in lieu of simply reading the same material in the text book.

2. We are planning to create a Wiki (or perhaps blog) for the kids to use for reading responses.

3. I toy with the idea of having the students create an electronic presentation about American symbols in order to teach the idea of symbolism.

4. The easiest connection: we will have kids type their stories and edit their work in Appleworks or NeoOffice. I am also planning to have the kids use the text-to-speech capabilities on their laptops to help them edit their work.

5. Our textbook is available online (and on audio cd), so I plan to have kids read the stories while listening to them read aloud. (We will also do a low-tech reading of each reading to work on fluency.)

6. We could teach a literary device in a Web-Quest format, as well. (For example: We may want to teach metaphors by first visiting sites to learn what they are, then visit different sites to see samples of metaphors, next visit sites where kids need to pick out metaphors, and finally, write some of their own metaphors in a wiki or a blog.)

That’s what I have to far… I plan to work with the group tomorrow and see what ideas we can generate. I am really excited to teach this unit. I think my students will really enjoy the engagements and the technology connections. Looking forward to feedback!

Reflection for 12/6

Happy Snow Day!

I am so grateful for the winter weather. After spending Friday and Saturday at an awesome conference on Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), I just need a couple of days off to rest my brain and get caught up on my work. Let it snow!

About the conference, it was put on by the Northeast affiliate of the ASCD and was titled “Leading and Learning: Sustaining Learning Communities”. It was really very eye-opening. We learned a great deal about PLCs and how to make them successful and useful in our school environment. This conference was very timely, as we just implemented a district-wide initiative committed to each educator taking part in a community that is focused on achieving one of our district-improvement goals.

Some of the biggest learning I picked up:

1. (Although, I’m not exactly sure how this connects to PLCs…) We should do away with threatening to and giving kids zeros for incomplete work. There has a been a great deal of research on this topic, and it is proven that the threat of failing an assignment does not work as a motivator for students to complete the work to the best of their ability. I have done some incidental research on this in my own class. I have found the exact same conclusion. Recording zeros, in effect, excuses students from the assignment. And, although I would have been mortified by the impact of a zero in my 6th grade teacher’s grade book, many kids are defeated by the idea of a zero and/or are more willing to avoid work than consider the impact of a zero of their “academic record”. I think my new philosophy will be that all students must complete all work. It will be recommended that students do the work when it is most valuable (when it is assigned and pertinent to the following day’s lesson). However, work that is not done will not be a zero – but will be done by every student at a time that is less convenient to students (recess, after school, etc.). I am going to try this for the duration of this year and see if this policy has an impact on how kids approach their assignments, scores on assessments, and their overall comprehension of materials. I think this policy may give more value to the work that students are expected to do.

2. Another eye-opener, PLC topics need to be selected by teachers for the betterment of students’ education and teacher’s ability to teach and learn. This year, my PLCs topic is RTI. This is a topic I was interested in studying; however, our direction and focus has been assigned to us. Thus, members of my group are frustrated with the process and direction that we are currently moving in. We were also assigned to groups, and I think this limited our ability to select group of colleagues that make sense to us on a practical level. For example, working with teachers at my grade level or those who teach the same curriculum would have been a more comfortable and productive fit.

3. Although not implicitly stated, I think there is a logical connection between PLCs and UD. Planning units and lessons with others who have an understanding or interest in UD would make for a very interesting PLC group. I think it is sometimes overwhelming to consider all of the elements of a unit, along with the opportunities to integrate Universal Design. Working with others would give an individual teacher the chance to collaborate and consider elements of lessons that they may not have thought of on their own. I think units created by teams of teachers are ultimately more thoughtful and creative. I believe a PLC that focuses on integrating UD into their units would find that the unit is more universally accessible.

Overall, it was a very enlightening conference. I think that we will be able to improve our PLCs as a result of what we learning. I think that I also have some new strategies to employ with my unit development group – which is a highly functioning PLC in my opinion.

Cynthia – Will you please let me know if there are objectives on your check-off list that I have neglected to write about on the blog. I would love to complete those reflection pieces in the next couple of weeks. Thanks so much!

See you Thursday!

Article: Learning in a hypertext environment

Article 3: Reading with digital text – is it about more than access?

Gosse, H., Gunn, H., & Swinkels, L. (2002, March). Learning in a hypertext environment. Web site constructed by Holly Gunn of Halifax Regional School Board. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from
http://www.accesswave.ca/~hgunn/special/papers/hypertxt/index.html

Hypertext is “interlinked pieces of text or other objects stored electronically”. Each piece of information is called a node, module, or topic. Each node is connected to links and this leads to an association of ideas.  Hypertext, in essence, is what we use when we surf the World Wide Web.

Some benefits of teaching uses hypertext are:

1. “Association of ideas through links”

2.  “Choice of paths for readers”

3.  “Immediate access for reference documents”

4. “Movement through browsing”

5. “Focus of thought” is able to shift

6. Constructivism

Most students browse the web. They are familiar with the flow of information and the purpose of embedded links on a web page. An advantage to using hypertext in information delivery is that learning can occur at a student’s own pace. Students can click links to gather more information about a topic or enrich their understanding of a concept.

A drawback to using hyperlink format is the need to read from the computer screen. This type of reading is quite different from traditional reading of a book or written work. Another disadvantage is that students are often overwhelmed with information and do not know where to start when working on the web. I think a teacher could overcome this issue by providing elicit instruction on how to use the web to gather information.

I have had some limited success with Webquests in the past. These activities are high-interest. It is also, in my opinion, easier to find and gather information about concepts by using a series of links on the WWW. The authors also point to an interesting online platform – Storyspace. I want to follow up on this program and see if it has an application in my language arts classes.

Article: Reading comprehension of freshman students: Comparing printed and digital texts

Article 2: Reading with digital text — is it about more than access?

Joly, M.C.R.A., Capovilla, A.S.C.G., Bighetti, C. Neri, M.L, & Nicolau, A.F. (2007, June/July). Reading comprehension of freshman students: Comparing printed and digital texts. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Multimedia and Information & Communication Technologies in Education. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from http://www.formatex.org/micte2005/12.pdf

Joly and colleagues studied the differences in comprehension levels of students who were presented and tested on information in either digital or hard copy formats. The participants in this study were college freshman enrolled in a psychology course. They varied in age from 17 to 56 years old. The authors describe a model of four levels of comprehension:

Level 1: Literal understanding of text

Level 2: Inferential understanding of text (making deductions)

Level 3: Critical understanding of text (analyzing text)

Level 4: Creative understanding of text (elaboration/application of text material)

Obviously, teachers strive to provide learning experiences that push students toward the higher levels of comprehension. The authors of they study propose that providing information in an electronic format may lead students to better comprehend the material. In electronic, as opposed to static paper, format, students are able to “use space in dynamic, virtual, fluid, and temporary” ways. In essence, students as able to differentiate their own text materials for their level of comprehension.

The findings of the article were that students (particularly under the age of 25) performed better on assessments after using digital text formats. The authors propose that this may be due to their familiarity with this type of text delivery. The authors also found that text takers were more frustrated with the printed text than the digital text. The authors close by commenting that the younger generation would probably benefit from their educational information being presented in the digital format that they use in their personal lives.

Article: Applying principles of UD to test delivery

Article 1: Reading with digital text: is it about more than access?

Dolan, R.P., Hall, T.E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E. & Strangman, N. (2005, February). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7). Retrieved September 19, 2007, from http://www.jtla.org

Dolan et al begin their article by pointing to the need for accurate assessment of all learners. They also mention the need for individualized accommodations for learners, especially those with disabilities. It is proposed that text-to-speech technology be employed by test creators to provide a consistent accommodation for students.

The authors write about “construct irrelevance”. This is the idea that many assessments measure unintended skills and knowledge along with the intended content of the test. For example, math tests that are language-based measure the students’ math ability – along with their reading and writing abilities. This can be a particularly difficult problem for students with disabilities (such as sight or hearing impairment, the inability to hold a pencil, etc.).

Dolan et al also write about the traditional accommodations used for struggling readers – having tests read aloud by a teacher or aide on a individual or small group setting. They site three problems with this accommodation:

1. Read alouds vary in quality of delivery.

2. Students are reluctant to ask human readers for clarification or repetition of a questions/passage.

3. Intonation of human reader can be an issue for test takers.

To create an even playing field for learners, Dolan et al suggest using text-to-speech technology (CBT-TTS) in test-taking. This technology involves a computerized voice reading material to test takers. The authors found that this accommodation led to slightly better overall scores on the test. They also found that TTS technology led to significantly better scores when the question involved reading a long passage. Dolan et al also found that over 90% of test-takers accessed the TTS technology when it was available to them during the test.

At our school, we have difficulty finding staff to deliver small-group test accommodations to students. Having the TTS available during standardized testing would solve our test staffing dilemma – and more importantly, make sure that all students are being given the same accommodations and opportunity to succeed.

Reflection for 11/29

Happy Belated Turkey Day!

I’m sorry this is being written post-Thursday, but I just could not find the time to get this done in the week leading up to Thanksgiving. Patrick, my husband, and I, in an effort to spend time with both of our families, typically celebrate each holiday for about 5 consecutive days. So, we are just beginning to come down from a Thanksgiving preparation-and-celebration bender. Not a good excuse for not having this done…but maybe better than “the dog ate my blog post”.

On the brighter side, our group did have a chance to meet this Tuesday afternoon and work on some objectives and other unit essentials. We looked at the objectives first. In particular, our aim was to use the class’ and Cynthia’s feedback to finalize (for now) the objective wording. We were able to do this with an amount of success. We had already implemented many of the suggestions given by the class, so that part was easy! Then, we looked at Cynthia’s feedback. I think we agreed with the valid and interesting points – well, all but two of them. It was actually kind of amusing, because the two pieces of advice we grappled with were about the two objectives that we had previously discussed at length within our own group.

One of the challenging objectives: “Learners will be able to distinguish between effective and detractive literary devices when used as components of a story”. Cynthia had asked whether we could do without this objective – or maybe more precisely, is it needed within the larger list of objectives. Nathan, Julie, Janet, and I discussed this and realized that we do feel there is a need for this particular objective. Our reasoning is that kids often will employ literary devices in their writing that do not properly fit into the work and/or are incorrectly used. We thought there would be value in showing our students different pieces of work – some with appropriately-used literary devices and other with overblown or incorrect or distractive literary devices. Our aim is for kids to understand that authors do not simply use literary devices randomly, but instead employ them to enrich their pieces and add meaning to their work.

Our other dispute centered on the idea of assessing “voice” in this unit. We have gone around and around about this one. I think, for me, the biggest issue I have with writing a voice objective is that there is (in my mind) no way to objectively score that component of students’ writing. I think voice is so individualized that it’s very hard to pinpoint exactly “what it is” and where it’s used. In the end, we decided that the unit is quite full as is – and since we would not be explicitly teaching voice in the unit, that we should not be assessing for it. (Note: I am not sure how to “teach voice” at all… maybe I need to write another whole unit on that one!) We compared assessing voice to assessing mechanics: we are not actively teaching mechanics in this unit, so we do not have an objective for it. However, we have taught mechanics in the past, so we feel the kids should employ the rules taught in past units. Our thinking came around to the idea that we should not try to assess too much the first time we teach this unit, as we need to try it first on a smaller scale – and then possibly add on while revising it for the following year.

So, finally, we decided upon 11 objectives that we think are doable and will teach kids the “meat and potatoes” of our unit. We then worked on enduring understandings. This may be unpopular, but I do not see the need for enduring understandings. I feel that if the kids are able to master the skills/knowledge in the objectives, then they will understand what I want them to “understand”. However, we worked some out – and the process did help us pinpoint what we want the kids to take away from the unit in a more specific way. We wrote these understandings around the idea that students need to learn what literary devices are, need to know where to find them, and then need to know why we use them. We also wanted the kids to use these devices to enhance their own writing. I hope this is the correct way to word the understandings. Is it ‘ok’ for them to be redundant when read in conjunction with the objectives. Are we on the right track with these?

After grappling with the enduring understandings, we worked on the “essential questions” of the unit. We had already written one:

“What makes a piece of writing worth reading?” I really like that question. I think kids will get that idea and be interested in the exploration of that question. Other questions we developed:

“What are literary devices?” (Simple and forthright)

“How are literary devices used?” (Stolen from the objectives)

“How can we enhance our own writing so that it is more descriptive, more accessible, and more interesting for our readers (aka worth reading)?” (Here, we were trying to list the reasons that literary devices are used by authors – and why readers prefer to read the work of those who are successful at utilizing literary devices. Not sure if we hit the mark here…)

All in all, we didn’t come up with too many essential questions, but we hoped to keep the list short and the wording simple. Since we will want to assess our students on these questions, they are very closely aligned with our objectives and mirror them in many ways. Is this acceptable? Should we design more questions – like one for each objective?

Finally, we talked about how to assess each individual objective. That process was tricky. We are on the right track here, I think, but have barely scratched the surface. A lot of work remains to design some assessments that hit all three corners of the assessment triangulation (student products and performances, teacher-directed evidence, and observations & conversations). We have much to do! I think we’ll have plenty to do when we get back to school on Monday!

I hope you had a great holiday! See you a week from Thursday (I will be at the conference in Boston this week). Cynthia, please let me know what I can do to make up the time I miss. Thanks!

Reflection for 11/15

Happy Early Thanksgiving! (I will say it now, as we do not have class scheduled for next week.

Objective Update: I was really pleased to have an opportunity to gather feedback on our objectives last week in class. It’s funny how the objective writing process works…

1. An individual writes the objectives that he/she thinks are flawless and precise.

2. A group of individuals dissects the individual’s objectives and determines that they were neither flawless nor precise.

3. Group of individuals draft new objectives. They feel confident that their objectives are better than the individual’s objectives. The group assumes that this set may not be absolutely precise and may be imperfect.

4. Group of individuals bring objectives to a larger forum. Objectives are found to be imprecise, slightly confusing, and imperfect.

5. Using feedback from the forum, group rewrites objectives and prays that no larger consortium ever spend a block of time analyzing said objectives. Objectives are left in a state of constant revision.

Ok, maybe it wasn’t all that bad.

I am glad that we had time to work together as a group to look over our objectives and really get to the “meat & potatoes” of what we want the kids to know. I am also glad that we were able to rework our objectives with the larger class (and Cynthia’s) feedback to make them more readily understandable and measurable. I am looking forward to meeting up with my group again to do a final (for now) revision of the objectives and see where that leaves us. (Later, I know we will want to review our objectives as we are teaching the unit and upon its completion.)

As I consider the objective creation process, my thoughts wander to the application of this “Unit Objectives Creation Process” in my everyday teaching…

On creating objectives as a group…. I have found that planning with others is a valuable activity. I learn so much about content – and how to teach it – when I work with other professionals to write lesson plans, craft assessments, and evaluate student work. I gravitate toward teachers who also thrive off this model of group planning (for example: Mrs. Buck!).

On our daily teaching/learning objectives… I think that we (Janet, Tonya – our fearless special educator, and I) often orally go through the same objective creation criteria when we meet to plan SS and LA. We think about what we want the kids to know and then come up with a means to reach those ends. We discuss student learning in terms of quantity of information and precise language. We always think about how much kids need to know about a certain topic and what score they will need to achieve on an assessment to prove mastery of a topic or skill. We also try to create scoring rubrics and checklists that tell kids exactly what we want to them to do/know.

So, I guess the objective creation process is not so far from what we do everyday. We just don’t write it down (which seems to make it so much simpler!). I think working on the set of objectives for our writing unit is helping me to create other sets of objectives for current units being taught and those I will teach in the future. It’s nice to have an opportunity to look at a unit in isolation and spend a good amount of quality time hashing out what we want kids to know and be able to do.

In other news… I hope that we will have time to talk more about UD assessment before we are set forth to create assessments for our unit. I understand that we will be using three different types of assessment. I also plan to create a rubric or other grading criteria list for each type of assessment we will use. I think I am most confused about the assessment reporting format you would like us to use. I also hope that we may find time in class to work on this aspect of the project – as finding other opportunities to work together is a quite difficult for our group.

Hope you are having a great week! See you Thursday!

Reflection for 11/8

Happy Monday!

This week, I’m actually a little digitally speechless (which is very unusual!). I think I’m meeting-ed out this week, so much so, that I am feeling a little passionless about any one particular hot topic. All the PLC, RTI, social studies curriculum, universal design, report card talk has fried my brain!

A few disjointed thoughts… I was glad to learn about Grab last week – I have used it before, but it had been awhile, and it was a nice refresher. I could see applications of that program in making technology manuals for kids (0r adults) to use. I am also excited to learn more about Podcasts and the application for that technology in my classroom. I haven’t tried creating or playing any yet, but plan to tackle that media in the coming weeks. I could see broadcasting information for kids from one of the many Podcasts available on I-tunes. I could also see the application for Podcasts on a sub day. You could leave your instructions in a Podcast format so that the kids could hear directions and guidelines as intended by the classroom teacher. I suppose I would have to have a technologically-savvy sub, but I think we are moving toward that (hey, and you could always burn it on a cd!).

Our objectives are coming along. I think we came a long way from our original draft. We were also to rework or delete any objectives that we perceived as subjective or unclear. We refined exactly what we were looking for in the process and narrowed our statements down to the essential ideas and skills.

We really struggled with finding a way to assess voice in writing. I think I’ve always struggled with this in my correction of student work. It is hard to say exactly what voice is. It can also be very subjective. What I consider good voice could be very different that Janet or Julie’s perception of the same piece of writing. So, we dealt with this by debating what we specifically wanted to see in the students’ writing – and eliminating the term “voice” altogether. I think in the end, we were able to develop quantifiable objectives by really thinking about precisely what we wanted instead of using blanket terminology (like voice).

Although I’ve known this is what we needed to do to develop objectives, it wasn’t until we had drafted some vague ones that we were able to rework those ideas and design concrete and quantifiable objectives. It also took the discussion between my colleagues and myself to really hash out what we wanted and how we were to word our demands.

I think this process will help me in creating everyday lesson plans. I will be able to think about the “meat and potatoes” (or essential understandings, to be more technical) I want the kids to gather from a lesson. This focus should help drive my instruction and assessment. I also plan to work harder to make my objectives (daily and unit) more available to students. It gives the kids a sense of purpose and understanding when they can see what they are working toward and a possible route to get there.

I think that’s it for this week. I am looking forward to our “objective share” this week in class and hope that we will be able to cement our objectives and get to work on the assessment piece.

See you Thursday!

Article: How Can Teachers Promote the Use of Accessible Tech in schools?

Article 1: How can I advocate for universal design and accessible technologies for my students?

Burgstahler, S. (2004). How can K-12 teachers promote the use of accessible technology in schools? National Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from http://www.washington.edu/accessit/articles?1252

This article presents useful definitions of terminology related to accessibility:

AT – Assistive Technology – grammar checks, text-to-speech technology, etc.

IT – Information Technology – computers, software, web sites, etc.

UD – Universal Design – In this sense, educators should be choosing products that are able to be utilized by everyone.

Accessible Information Technology – “Producers consider the needs of people when developing IT.”

The authors promote the idea that Accessible Technology & Information Technology can work together.

The authors point out that promoting Universal Design can lead to implementation of NCLB. It is also stated that educators can follow a four step plan to meet the needs of all learners.

1. Educators should be knowledgeable about UD and accessible technology. (In our case, check!)

2. Teachers should “identify the barriers” students have when they attempt to access technology and education. (Working on it…)

3. Districts should write a technology plan that is sensitive to learners’ needs. (Perhaps, next step?)

4. The plan should be instituted and be used to always consider accessibility in the purchasing and utilization of technology.
There are also some useful websites on this page that educators can use to access more information.