Megan+Parcell



My name is Megan Parcell and I am working on my Master's of Curriculum and Instruction. I am in my fifth year of teaching and this year is my fourth year teaching at Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy High School. I teach 9th grade biology (honors and college prep) and this is my first year teaching AP Biology. I am excited about being an AP teacher but I am quickly learning about the stress and constant challenges of teaching such an intensive course. I am a moderator of club called CHCA Peer Advisors that plugs a junior and a senior into each ninth grade homeroom to help foster a sense of community and belonging early on in our ninth graders. It gives the upperclassmen a sense of responsiblity in their school community and it allows our ninth graders to start feeling connected to their high school community. It is something I am very proud of.

I grew up in Cincinnati and I am earned my undergrad degree from the University of Dayton in 2007. My concentration was adolescent to young adult education, focusing on life science. Before CHCA, I taught a year at North College Hill High School.

I have been married to my husband Justin for two years. We recently bought our first home so this has become our big adventure. We enjoy working on our home with different painting and landscaping projects. And when we are not workin on our house (or chasing our 2-year old Dachshund Sheldon around the house), we love to travel to visit friends and family.

I look forward to getting to know everyone throughout the quarter....Here's to a great quarter! [|A picture of Jane Goodall, my mom and me!!!!]

=//**Week 1 Reflective Blog:**//= In the Jonassen article, the author introduces Constructivism and Objectivism and how these ideas have changed over time. The article looks at how these two ideas look at learning and the mind. When focusing on instructional systems technology (a focus of the article), objectivists believe ," that the goal of instruction is to map an external reality onto learners" ( Lonassen, p12). They would define knowledge as "subject matter analysis". The other view point offered in this article is Constructivists that perceive that "knowledge may not be the knowledge that is constructed by the learner" but rather the instruction given to someone should provide them with the tools and skills to perceive the world around them and create their own opinion and world view.

In the second article by Cronje takes the same ideas of Constructivism and Objectivism and applies them to learning. The author also suggest that these ideas do not need to be thought of as completely separate thoughts, but they can be applied to learning opportunities together. Cronje develops this idea by introducing a grid system that puts Objectivism on the x-axis and Constructivism on the y-axis. It then creates a 4-box grid that generates four learning dimensions. Low Objectivist, Low Constructivist = Immersion High Objectivist, Low Constructivist = Injection Low Objectivist, High Constructivist = Construction High Objectivist, High Constructivist = Integration

Both articles relate to the NETS standards. The one that seems to parallel the idea of being intential with the design a lesson for intential and genuine learning is standard 1a. 1. Facilitate and Inspure Student Learning and Creativity a) Promote, support and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness. The ideas of understanding learning and trying to find the correct balance of Constructivism and Objectivism are driven by the desire to create a lesson that offers a student a genuine opportunity to learn. Regardless of how knowledge is defined, both of these articles push for learning to be intential and to look at it from many different angles. There is not one way to address student learning and by offereing different styles of instruction, technology and communication, a teacher is more likely to be affective with helping their students be better learners.

The information provided in the articles is very different from other educational articles I have read lately. I do not focus a lot on the psychology of learning, the mind or knowledge so this was something new for me. I found the articles to be very valid and offered a good arguement on the importance of looking at learning and knowledge from many different angles. The break down between teaching styles, pedagogy and method that fall under constructism and objectivism were very interesting. After reading, it seems as though both objective and constructive methods need to be used to set up a proper classroom. Using objective practices by laying the foundation of information and technique will allow future lessons to be taught in a more constructist method. The idea that learning can be both intential and unintential is something that teachers try to balance everyday. We try to offer intential lessons that benefit all students in our classrooms. And we challenge ourselves to stay alert to accidental or unintended learning opportunities. These are often the most valuable to students.

Out of the four different practices that Cronje outlined in their article, the most difficult to address is immersion. This idea of situational learning where the student has to be at the right place at the right time is very difficult. The other side of that is this practice can be very effect. Situational learning can be very genuine and leave a lasting impression. However, it is too unreliable to be a method of teaching that can be continually practiced.

Discussion Questions. 1) What day to day practices inside a classroom fit into Constructivism and Objectivism? It seems like a lot of different classroom practices would fit into these terms, but it would be interesting to see different activities or methods and how they fit into (or a combination) of both ideas. 2) How do these concepts and the different ideas of what knowledge is play into this course? How will these concepts play a theme into selecting technology and tools for the classroom.

=//**Week 2 Reflective Blog:**//=

The articles from week two both focus on effective ways to implement technology into the classroom when you only have one computer. That computer might be one classroom computer or even just the instructor/teacher's computer. Both articles highlight very similar information for how to effective plan lessons in classrooms with only one computer. Some of the articles emphasize that planning and preparation is a teacher's best tool when planning to use one computer in the classroom. Some of those strategies include using stations, allowing the students to print different resources or to project the computer screen on a large screen. The use of stations could be used individually or in groups. Anderson's article points out that, "classroom time is too valuable to have a line of students waiting around for a turn to use the computer." This is where planning the time allotted at computer stations or planning a specific website or word document is important to keep the students from waiting around and wasting time. The use of projection can help every student to have exposure to the content on the computer screen. This allows one person (either a teacher or a student) to manipulate the technology but involve everyone in the room.

In Glori Chaika's article, she discusses different ways to divide time at the computer station. She dicusses using popsicle sticks, one with each child's name on it, and then selecting one popsicle each day. The name on the popsicle stick will then be allowed to use the computer that day. She also mentions the importance of putting the classroom computer in a usable place. It should be in a place where people can access it, yet away from windows and chalk boards that might spread dust all over the screen.

The NETS standard below ties in with this week's articles... 2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments c) Customize and personalize learning activities to address students' diverse learning styles, working strategieis and abilities using digitial tools and resources. This standard addresses the importance of working in technology with distinct learning goals and strategies. The resources have to be able compliment the content and the learning goals. The technology should also enhance the learning strengths of the students and help present the content in a new way.

I thought the articles offered good solutions for a very common issue. I know that I share a cart of 24 laptops with 8 other people at school. So I connect with the idea that it takes a lot of planning and preparation to implement the use limited use of computers in the classroom. When the students are not able to use individual laptops, I try to use my computer for online animations and tutorials that we watch and discuss together. The validity and concepts in this week's articles were very applicable to my classroom.

Reflective Questions: 1. (Sort of a class discussion question...) Do teachers teach/practice/model technology responsibility in their classrooms when using computers in their classroom? 2. As smart phones become more and more popular, can they be used as a supplement to a lack of computers in the classroom?

=//Week 4 Reflective Blog://=

Both articles this week focus on the importance of understanding copyright laws and the fair use policy. Both articles are put out by American University on understanding the fair use policy and how this is important to educators. The first article, //The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education//, defines fair use as, "the right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment under some circumstance." The article is very clear that there is a lot of merit in teachers understanding the difference between copyright restrictions and fair use. The article states that fair use is meant to benefit educators so that they can use cultural and copyrighted material to help educate students more effectively. The article highlights five principles of fair use that include using copyrighted material in media literacy, classroom curriculum and in educating students on media literacy.

The second article titled, The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy, focuses on misconceptions that educators have about copyright laws. And these misconceptions keep teachers from using valuable resources that would benefit their classrooms and students. The resources include print articles, videos, blogs, articles and music. The teachers who best understood fair use described it as "people should be allowed to repurpose copyrighted material to make teaching tools or art." The research in this article demonstrated that there are a lot of misconceptions about copyright law and these misconceptions impact the effectiveness of teachers in their classrooms.

This has become a real hot-button issue at my school. Our school officials have been purchasing general licenses to allow teachers to show movies in their classrooms and in school assemblies. They have hung different piece of copyright law at all copy machines int he building to remind teachers of different policies. I find this to not be effective because teachers do not have the time to read things when they are making copies and lesson planning. I do find the articles to be very interesting and I am looking forward to going over the issue in class. I have been trying to implement more current articles and medical journals in my class and it would be great to really understand the scope that fair use allows me to use these tools in my classroom.

1. How strictly does your school follow copyright rules? Or how strictly do they force their teachers to follow it? 2. Has anyone attended a professional development session on fair use? I think that would be a great topic to cover with teachers. This would allow continuity among the staff and give teachers an understanding of their rights. 3. Is fair use something that seniors/juniors should be taught in their upper level English classes before they head to college? We teach them MLA format and how to make proper citations, but should we also teach them the proper use of fair use and copyright law?
 * Discussion Questions:**

=//**Week 5 Reflective Blog:**//= = = This week's articles focused on different types of technology that can be used in the classroom. The articles focused on blogs, webquests and the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Blogging offerings many different educational aspects that many teachers are starting to develop. It offers a relaxed community where students and teachers can interact on different topics. It creates a learning community where people can interact and respond to each other. The webquests allow for teachers to use the many resources of the internet while keeping their students on task. The article makes an excellent point that when using a webquest in class, teachers are not only helping students understand content on a deeper level but they are also helping students increase their computer and internet literacy. They help students develop skills of performing online searches, typing in and manipulating websites and an overall better understanding of using a computer. Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 differ in what someone does with the internet. Web 1.0 was developed first and this was when the internet's primary purpose was to supply people with large masses of information. Web 2.0 allows for people to both read and write on the internet. This is people being able to share ideas via blogs, social networks and other community postings.

Inside the classroom, webquests are something I use a lot. With biology, we study a lot of different concepts that are small and not visible by the naked eye. Online animations and tutorial give students an opportunity to manipulate and see cells and molecules that they usually could not see. And giving the students an opportunity to work these websites via a webquest offers them a chance at more genuine learning. I do not use blogs in class but after reading the article, it is something I would definately consider for my higher level classes. I like the idea of being able to give students an opportunity to create a community learning place outside the classroom that is available whenever they are. The concepts of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 perfectly describe the differences in how I used the internet in high school compared to how my students use the internet now. I used to use it to strictly pull information from. My students take a 2.0 approach where the interact, research and build communities online. It is a very effective tool for them both in and out of the classroom.

Discussion Questions: 1. Can the ability of the internet or the web exceed a Web 2.0 approach? 2. Does anyone use a blog instead of a classroom website? What are the benefits and negatives of using more of a community page rather than a webpage?

=//Week 6 Reflective Blog://=

Both articles this week focus on the use of digital games in the classroom. The first article, //Assessing The Educational Values of Digital Games//, argues against some negative viewpoints of using digital games in the classroom and studies many of the positive attributes of using digital gaming in the classroom. The article lists the seven different genres of digital games including action games, adventure games, strategy games and simulation. These games are compared to Piaget's theories about development. Games help children with motivation and imagination. The article reflects that effective games include, "interactivity, user-centered design and state of the art computer technologies." The second article written by Sardone and Devlin-Schere, also focuses the benefits of using digital gaming in the classroom to help develop a 21-century classroom. In the study, there were a variety of games that were tested based on different school subjects (biology, chemistry, English, etc.). The study found that when teachers use digital games within a well structured classroom lesson, there are a lot of benefits for student learning. These games can reinforce content by keeping the students' motivation high while allowing them to master the content. Also, pairing faculty with someone that is an expert in educational technology can help both the teacher and their students.

I do not use a lot of digital games with my instruction. The blood typing game referenced in the second article is one that my students use in the third quarter when we study genetics. I agree with a lot of the points the articles makes about increasing student motivation. I notice that when the students are assigned a webquest, digital game or anything digital that they can manipulate they seem to find more enjoyment in learning the content. The idea of being able to use their own device, work at their own pace and redo the exercise as they desire makes them more inclined to learn and enjoy the activity. This article makes me feel like I should do more research into games that compliment the units we cover in class. The Nobel Prize website has a lot of games that cover a lot of the different Nobel Prizes awarded in science.

The NETS standards addressed in this article are... **1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity** > Teachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments. Teachers: > || b. || engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tools and resources. || This standard addresses that digital games are an effective way to take curriculum and present it in an interesting and creative way. The teacher finds these digital http://tech4class.wikispaces.com/Megan+Parcellgames that compliment the content and engage the students to use real world scenarios to motivate them further.
 * a. || promote, support, and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness. ||

Discussion Questions: 1. Are digital games more effective at certain grade levels? 2. What resources do teachers use to find appropriate games? Do they just "Google" search for them or is there an edited database of digital games?