Susan+Grasso



Hi Everyone! My name is Susan Grasso and I am a first year doc student studying Instructional Design and Technology. I am new to Cincinnati and the "North" but I think I am beginning to assimilate. I am from South Carolina but left there after high school to live in just about every state in the Southeast, the only Southeastern state I have not lived in is North Carolina. I like to say I have a rich and varied background but reading between the lines means that I have done a lot of stuff. I spent time in the military and in law enforcement before finally finding my true path, teaching. I have taught Social Studies in middle school since 2003. Last year I got a huge opportunity to teach a class called Arts-Infused Technology where I solidified my passion for integrating technology into learning opportunities for students. I wanted to increase my knowledge and skills in the area so here I am at U of Cincinnati working on my Doctorate. Websites and tools that I recommend for others are [|Twitter] (check out #edtech and #edchat), [|Diigo] for social bookmarking and [|LiveBinder] for assembling information and links about topics with an intuitive interface.

Reading Reflection #1 There are two philosophies that underlie learning theory, objectivism and constructivism. According to Jonassen objectivism is knowing and learning processes that mirror reality while constructivism contends knowing is an active process of constructing individual knowledge representations. (2001) He further argues that these theories are on opposite ends of a continuum and learning professionals have moved more toward a constructivist approach since the 1950s.

At first blush one would assume that since these learning theories are opposite ends of a continuum one must be favored over the other. This is not true in the practical reality of the classroom. Learning in the classroom is a mixture of the two theories. There are times when learners must be exposed to certain background information before completing a higher order task where they construct their own ideas. An example would be a history assignment that compares the approaches to war by two different countries. The first step in such a project would be to make sure that all learners have a common shared knowledge of the individual approaches to war by the two countries. An objective lesson where the teacher lectures about the two approaches or a reading assignment with questions that guide learning may be appropriate.

Enriching the learning event is the next step. After the students learn the different approaches to war they may compare or analyze the two. In this process they may access prior knowledge of the history, political or economic status of these two countries and they must access their experience of comparing and analyzing historical events. At this stage the students would draw on their constructed meaning to offer reasons why the two countries had differing approaches to war. The higher order analysis and comparison learning processes in this task would be better explained from the constructivist point of view.

The example above meshes with Cronjes assessment of objectivism and constructivism in learning theory in which he argues that the two are not opposite ends of a continuum but should be placed at right angles to each other to form an integrated matrix. (2006)

I think for students to construct their own meaning is a goal to strive for in planning learning experiences but objectivistic goals are necessary to create a common platform of knowledge for students to use as a foundation for constructing knowledge at higher levels of thinking. Cronjes argument for a matrix best fits my experience working with students in the classroom.

How does Cronjes model solve Jonassen’s conundrum of which philosophical approach best supports learning design?

Given Cronjes argument for a move toward integration how should educators argue for changes in high stakes testing?

Cronje, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Association //for Educational Communications and Technology////, 54//(4), 387-416. Jonassen, J. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm. //Educational Technology Research and Development////, 39//(3), 5-14.

Reading Reflection #2

Anderson and Chaika offer creative solutions to overcoming a dearth of technology in the classroom. Chaika suggests offering students popsicle sticks to manage student turns on the computer or to set up computer use stations. Printing articles from the computer to read while others are working is one of Anderson's suggestions for surviving in a one-computer classroom. They each seem to be focused on using the computer for research projects. What about looking up something the teacher or another student just talked about because the student is curious and wants to know more? How about students who do not see or hear very well? Can they use a computer to follow along with the teacher's presentation? Students also use computers as a productivity tool. Typing essays and planning projects are much easier when supported with technology.

Computers, tablets and smartphones are ubiquitous in our society. An 8 year old chatting away on an iPhone is not an uncommon sight and walking into the local coffee shop one would be hard pressed to find a patron without some sort of technology tool in hand. Both Anderson and Chaika offer good ideas for dealing with the situation of a one computer classroom but I argue the issue needs to be moved away from strategies to overcome lack of access to strategies to increase access in the classroom. I suggest that schools allow students to bring in their personal technology at all levels. School districts should implement procedures to protect district assets from threats that may come from use of personal machines. Teachers need to fully integrate technology into their instructional design and expect students to access information on technology and use technology as a productivity tool. Teachers should expect that students have access to technology rather than function in a reality of limited or no technology.

Schools could form partnerships with mobile phone companies and secure refurbished equipment at much lower cost. Providing access to broadband internet for schools, libraries and other civic organizations should be a cost of doing business for internet service providers.

What are some ways school districts could protect their interests while allowing students and teachers to use personal technology?

How can we convert teachers' thinking from making do with the technology provided to thinking of creative ways to increase availability of technology tools?

Reflection #4 Web 2.0 Tools: Value Added to the Classroom
The democratization of the web enables teachers to use this ubiquotus tool for so much more than information gathering. Students can search, share, comment on, post their own opinions and create unique content using the new tools available to them in the Web 2.0 realm. I was first introduced to Web 2.0 in a professional development class a few years ago. The title of the class was "Using Web 2.0 Tools to Differentiate Instruction". This class taught me that there are numerous avenues for students to create and express themselves on the web. As a Social Studies instructor, I was tired of giving students the same few assignments. Most of the time projects consisted of the three Ps, posters, pamphlets or papers. It was easy from an instructional standpoint since the students were familar with the three Ps, but the student products I got were mostly mediocre with a only few superior. Student were not very enthusastic about completing these types of projects either. So after I completed the professional development and introduced some of the new ways to create my students blossomed. They were focused and worked hard to learn the tools and to create engaging products.

Wang and Hsua (2008) suggestion that using the blogosphere as a means to enhance discussion supports the idea of democratization of information using the web. As the authors point out many times in face to face classrooms students are unable to fully develop thoughts and reactions to the dicussion. Barriers such as comfort level, time or opposing personalities in the face to face classroom inhibit some people from participating but a blog where the participant is able to think longer, reflect and edit comments is an ideal place to engage in meaningful discussion. Safety of information was a concern expressed by the authors. They thought locking the blog so that only certain participnats could interact with the writieers may be a good way to combat dangers but I think allowing the at-large community access to the blog may invite additinal critical interaction that may enhance the discussion. (Wang & Hsua, 2008) Dangers are there and it is wise to take caution but the web is a place where the free exchange of ideas is encouraged and keeping a discussion closed or limited may inhibit the flow of ideas.

The web quest is an excellent tool to create a scaffolding for research in the classroom. As the Ikpeze and Boyd(2007) suggested the web and its non-linear format with hypertext and hypermedia can be a quagmire for the unfocused, novice researcher. Web quests enable instructors to guide students access to a few websites thereby curbing the potential for students slipping into the information abyss. The web quest format also supports problem or project based learning. The end of the quest can be set up to produce a project or explain a solution to a problem questions. The structure provided by the web quest format allows teachers to gently guide students while not imposing the "answers" upon them. Students discover the answer as they explore the carefully chosen information while the instructor stands clear as the "guide on the side".

Should content standards and curriculum guides include requirements for the use of web 2.0 tools for learning and creating?

Could blogs proving thoughtful meaningful discourse about educational issues be used in teacher preparation programs as part of a capstone project required for satisfaction of degree requirements?

Reflection #5 Gaming for Motivation

Development and nurturing of 21st century skills in students is an important goal of all teachers. As we have heard so many times students must master problem solving and critical thinking in order to compete for jobs in the future. Gaming is an opportunity to develop these skills in an environment that naturally motivates students to participate. Games create intrigue and competition and motivate strategic problem solving conversation. But sometimes teachers are afraid to add games to their lesson plans for fear they may cause disruption and fail to meet curricular needs.

According to Sardon and Devlin- Scherer (2010) some of the reasons that teachers are afraid of adding games to their pedagogical repertoire are that they are afraid of losing control of classroom management or are worried about the lack of intrinsic educational value of games. Attitudes like this are easily overcome when teachers see students engaged in competition and communicating with each other trying to solve the problem presented by the game.

As with any pedagogical method games are not a panacea that teachers can just open up and expect students to magically be educated. It takes careful construction and consideration of lesson goals to decide where to fit games into the lesson and curriculum and then afterward a meaningful debriefing so the students understand the lesson supported by the game. As Hong, Cheng, Hwang, Lee and Chang (2009) found through their study, games must be vetted before used for instructional purposes. Just because it is a game does not mean that it will work in all instructional situations.

In my own experience I found that whenever I used any type of gaming structure in my lesson plans I got much greater engagement for students. Digital gaming is even more motivating because the action never stops and the students are immersed in the alternate environment. Digital gaming creates the critical element of motivation and often students do not realize they are learning so they do not resist. One thing I am concerned about is the use of the gaming environment for drill and practice. I think that would only be mildly valuable and would lose its appeal after awhile.

Can commercially available games be adapted for use in the classroom?

How could teachers use game like structure to convert their presentation of content into something more motivating to students?

Reading Reflection #6 Uh, Can I get some training on this new gizmo?

Armstrong et. al (2005) reflects a situation all too common in schools. New technology is packaged, delivered and installed without much forethought as to how teachers are going to integrate it into their classroom routines or curriculum. The article reviews a research study where several teachers were observed using an interactive whiteboard with students in their classroom. Three case studies were documented. Each of the teachers in the case studies had varying degrees of formal training and varying degrees of access to the IWB in their schools. Researchers took note of how each teacher viewed the IWB and the usefullness of it in their daily practice. The first teacher was Sarah who had formal training on the use of the IWB but failed to reach her stated objective because the program she used was not suited to fit in her time frame and students thought of the activity as a game rather than a scientific observation. Her failure goes to show that the technology is only as good as the planning behind it. She likely did not fully examine the program she used and thought that the IWB interactivity would be enough to engage the students. This idea failed because it took too long and the students could not adequately do the observation. Another teacher Simon was more successful because he paired the software with the learning outcomes. The observations of the researchers tell two stories first teachers must be prepared and supported when new technology is introduced in their classroom and second, they must take ownership of their own planning and not rely on the technology to get the job done.

Banister (2010) follows the same line of thought in her article about the vision of using iPod touch in the classroom. She extolls the posibilities as she lists the neat out of the box features of the iPod and adds to the excitement as she mentions some of the web applications available. I get excited when I think of all the possibilities of using these type devices in the classroom then I get pulled back down when I think of the reality of managing these tools and keeping them and kids safe using them. Much is already laid upon the shoulders of classroom teachers and these devices with all their promise lay much more. Adequate,timely and useful training and support are the most important peripherals that needed to be considered when districts purchase these tools for classroom use.

In my own practice I always tried to stay ahead on the game when it comes to technology. This is a major reason I chose to come to UC for the IDT program. I think technology tools with the right motivation, the right plan and the right support can elevate learning to a whole new level. This attitude is reflected in the NETS for Teachers #5. I think it is the duty of all teachers to maintain current on technology advances and I think there should be mandates attached to certificate renewal that reflect the importance of maintaining high technological standards.

"Teachers continuously improve their professional practice, model lifelong learning, and exhibit leadership in their school and professional community by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources." NETS for Teachers

How do you think ongoing professional development should be implemented in schools? Should teachers who demonstrate mastery in delivering curriculum using technology be given extra funds to support and sustain their efforts?