There is no doubting that technology use has had a beneficial effect on my
lesson planning and, in a school-wide application, curriculum construction . This has definitely impacted upon my productivity
and professional practice. For example, as the result of a project for Dr. Leslie Ricklin’s Curriculum Development and
Evaluation course, I, along with a partner, Margaret Tarbox, created an Authoring Cycle, (See Appendices J and K) a curricular model designed by Kathy Short and Carolyn Burke (1991). This is literally a cycle; prior knowledge is added
to by curricular instruction, product is generated and assessed, and that product becomes the prior knowledge for future activities.
In creating the Author Cycle, we used PowerPoint slides to present specific aspects of the cycle, and incorporated technology
(virtual tours, word processing programs, and blogging) to augment the lessons. I have been allowed to incorporate these lessons,
and all of the technological aspects, as a core element of the eighth grade curriculum this year.
The experience
gained from that Authoring Cycle project has led to my serving on a curriculum design committee in my middle school, with
technological applications being my major area of influence. To date, we have adopted electronic portfolios as culminating
projects in writing, and have integrated technology in major cross-curricular projects that had not been possible in the past.
Additionally, upon recommendations of the district, all the curricular work has been done in a virtual meeting environment,
with amendments to curricular guidelines and documents being evaluated on-line prior to publication in hard copy form.
As my initial interest
in educational technology was triggered by an interest in the fully-inclusive classroom and differentiated instruction, it
seems only fitting that my career has come full circle during the course of my degree work. Because of the inclusion of sections
of the Authoring Cycle in the operating curriculum in my school, I have been identified as a teacher knowledgeable in the
application of technology in the classroom. With the recent increase in the interest surrounding further use of technology
for daily lessons, and my response to it (See Appendix N), I have been given the opportunity to serve as a Differentiated Instruction (DI) facilitator representing my school and
district in implementing this relatively new and exciting aspect of classroom planning and management.
The program in which I am involved is run out of the State Education Resource Center (SERC) of Connecticut.
Initially, it is a training program; working in teams, the participants identify the needs of their own schools (which are
not just limited to differentiated instruction matters), and learn the techniques of DI to practice in their own classes as
models for other instructors. Additionally, the participants address their peers’ concerns about DI, and work with them
to make it effective in their own classes. Finally, the team takes on the role of instructors for another school chosen by
the district to participate, and generates new facilitators who then repeat the process. This stage will commence in the spring
of 2008.
The parallels between the
introduction of technology in the classroom and differentiated instruction practices are readily apparent. As pointed out
by Tomlinson & Eidson (2003), “It’s the teacher who must ask questions such as ‘What matters most here?’
‘What is this subject really about?’ ‘What will be of enduring value to my students?’ ‘What
must I share with them to help them truly understand the magic of this subject in their lives?’” (p.4) These questions
are central to the use of educational technology as well as incorporating differentiated instructional techniques in the classroom.
The relationship between the two does not end there, for it is becoming readily apparent that a knowledge and use of technology
can be an extremely successful way to introduce differentiated instruction both to students and to teachers.
As an example of this,
I have started using the computer grading program to randomly create groupings of students in each class. This is a first
step to acclimating the students to grouping that eventually will be based on differentiated skills and/or tasks. The importance
of the random grouping lies in erasing the students’ perceptions/fears that all grouping is by intelligence level, and
the computer program in the grading application helps to insure that I don’t replicate previous groupings, creating
“true” randomness. As a result of this ground work (made possible by the technology), my students go into their
groups without thought of what the group “means”, a large step in accepting the differentiated instruction that
follows.
While this is a very simple application of technology, it is one that has made my efforts in the classroom far more
successful, and has bolstered my confidence to use both technology applications whenever and wherever possible, as well as
the differentiated instruction techniques that gain so much from technology’s application. This use, in turn, has led
me to examine other situations in which these two important aspects of my career can supplement each other, as well as providing
the means to convince my peers of the efficacy of technology and differentiated instruction. It is an element of my professional
growth with which I am pleasantly surprised.
However, I
am most proud of the creation of a cross-curricular lesson based on a survey and research project that I conducted for Dr.
David Stoloff’s Research and Readings course at Eastern Connecticut State University in the spring and summer of 2007
(See Appendix L and L1).An initial survey using the electronic capabilities available to all faculty members in my school allowed me to accumulate
information about comfort levels of the teachers regarding the technology in their classrooms. The research led to a paper
entitled “The Effects of Computer Use on Middle School Faculty” (See Appendix N) in which I used the results of a survey to determine which faculty members were having the greatest difficulty in applying
computer technology in their classrooms, and then created and implemented lesson plans utilizing the “CultureQuest” Internet model to demonstrate the ease and effectiveness of a computer-generated activity. As part of the lessons,
assessment rubrics were applied that included the use of computers in the particular lessons and final collaborative projects
for demonstration and assessment were constructed solely on the computer through PowerPoint presentations, and Microsoft Word
graphics programs.
I was allowed
to use my preparation time to present an introductory lesson to each of my peers who expressed a fear of using technology
in their classrooms, or who questioned that a computer activity would have the same validity as a class taught without technology.
After the demonstration, these teachers continued the lessons independently, and were interviewed about their experiences.
In all cases, the teachers stated that their opinions of technology in the classroom had been changed for the better, and
that they would be willing to expand their own uses of technology in the classroom.
In many ways
this is a culmination of my entire Educational Technology experience, incorporating lesson planning, differentiation, and
the school’s technology resources to instruct not only the students in various classes, but to reach their teachers
(my peers) as well. As satisfying as reaching the students was, it was professionally rewarding to offer technological solutions
to the teachers, and to see them successfully implement a lesson plan that had a primary effect of reducing their personal
fear of technology as applied to their own teaching.
Constantino
and Lorenzo (2006) assert that teachers need to embrace the benefits of technology. They maintain that technology is having
a major impact upon teacher education, and add that our students’ computer literacy will become an element that must
be addressed for us to be successful. In documenting special needs students’ performances, helping my students create
and edit electronic portfolios, applying the Authoring Cycle to support curricular elements, and creating and implementing
lessons that center upon innovative use of technology with my peers, I feel that I am addressing those elements that will
allow me to continue to be successful in a rapidly changing educational environment. Educational technology has provided me
with access to these areas of professional development, has created increased avenues for communication with the parents of
my students, and has served as a great impetus for me to improve my own teaching methods.
