Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Freeda Discussion 2-1

I have been on the receiving end of each of the mentioned techniques to learn about new technology. Of all the methods mentioned, none are effective unless the teacher is given the opportunity to use, or as I like to say, “play” with the tools before trying to implement them. I personally find a combination of the techniques to be the most effective. It’s important to have explicit teaching time when learning about new tools and technology. That includes hands on guidance prior to working with students. This could be as professional development for a grade level or school staff. Too many times, teachers are exposed to new technology in a way that seems really exciting but by the time you get back to your school, the new learning has been put into the folder that you were given and it gets filed along with all the other things we need to do.

Many times the new learning is not geared to a specific grade level. An example, as a kindergarten teacher, most professional development is geared toward a range of grades instead of just kindergarten. We usually end up with K-3 teachers. There are so many great ideas that we as a staff have learned about over the years, but in many cases the information presented assumes that the students can read. Well, Kindergartners are generally at an emergent stage and not able to rely on their independent reading skills. This becomes lost professional development time for us. Working directly with grade levels would allow the Technology Integrator to tailor the needs.

Teachers need to learn about the tools, experience and play with the tools and then see how to use them in the classroom setting. This can be done using modeling by the Technology Integrator or even by another teacher, preferably by a teacher from the same grade level. This really helps the teacher see how the new technology can be applied in a way that is appropriate for their grade level. I also feel it’s important to collaborate with the teacher or the grade level/subject matter teachers while they are planning their units and lessons. This allows the teachers to fully integrate the use of technology and view it as an important aspect of the unit being taught, not just an add on technique. This collaboration along with exposure to the different tools allows the Technology Integrator to differentiate their teaching to meet the varying needs of the individual teachers.

4 comments:

  1. Jenn, you are so right about the importance of being able to implement what you learn at PD seminars. Like anything, if you are not able to use the technology, you will forget what you learned. I think that any training on technology needs to be immediate and relevant to what the teacher is doing in the classroom. Otherwise it's just a waste of time and money.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a great point I haven't thought of. Yes, each tool should be examined for age appropriateness. When teaching to my graduate students, that is always one of the important parts that I make them think about. What is the age appropriateness of the tool, who can use it, are there modifications needed for the tool, etc. It is wasted time if you have to sit through training that would not apply to you, the technology integration specialist is not doing their job well. Collaboration is key!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jen - I completely agree that technology resources and tools need to be introduced to teachers for different grade levels individually. Although this may require more time and effort on the technology integrators part, it is vastly more beneficial for the teachers and students. As a computer teacher, the technology understanding, growth and development ranging across K-3 is quite incredible. Across this grade span the students skill levels, interest and academic mastery is so different. Providing a third grade teacher with resources and thinking a kindergarten teacher could use the same resources or ideas is just a nice thought but often times an unrealistic gesture.

    I agree that too often resources are introduced, and too little time is spent mastery the tools that are introduced. As a technology integrator, I think that many times technology integrators try to provide a plethora of information to allow teachers to choose what will best suit their classroom; however, providing one or two resources with more in depth training that could be applied to a variety of subject areas is probably more beneficial. More detailed training in less resources would allow teachers to have a deeper understanding, and leaving the workshop or professional development with a more solid understanding and less "play" time required later.

    I've often thought that technology integrators should provide teachers with resources that will be covered prior to workshops and professional development opportunities. This could allow for teachers to review resources prior to the workshop and come prepared with questions, comments and concerns. This could eliminate the initial step by step introduction, since most teachers (and students) prefer to discover and learn independently and seek guidance when encountering questions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Amber, I agree with all of your points. A good example of how well that works... last year the K teachers had Smart Boards installed and a month later we were given a half day professional development course. Our tech specialist had suggested that we spendthe month just using the board as best as we could with just basic instruction so when I got to the PD, I had specific questions about the usage. Teachers from the other schools were still trying to figure out how to turn the boards on and asking why their dry erase boards had been covered! I felt so ahead of the curve.

    ReplyDelete