Week+4+Reading+EDLD+5364


 * Reading Update for Week 4**

<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; msoansilanguage: EN-US; msoasciithemefont: minor-latin; msobidifontfamily: 'Times New Roman'; msobidilanguage: AR-SA; msobidithemefont: minor-bidi; msofareastfontfamily: Calibri; msofareastlanguage: EN-US; msofareastthemefont: minor-latin; msohansithemefont: minor-latin;">My first reading for the week was the “McRel Technology initiative: The development of technology intervention program final report.” The study compared the selected schools that the intervention program was addressing against the comparison schools that were determined to have a good technology implementation based on responses to questions. The program showed that the teachers that participated in the mentor/mentee roles realized positive effect from the selected schools. The mentor teachers responded that the program provided higher levels of technology integration and improved student skills. This could be attributed to the program and the support of the administration to integrate technology. This created a good framework for technology professional development that included peer coaching and development of internal expertise. The second reading was from chapter 7 in “Teaching every student in the digital Age: Universal Design for Learning.” We find that there are barriers to accurate assessment for the diverse types of learners. We find the current model of assessment is flawed because it can confound results with student characteristics, media characteristics, withholding student support, and poor integration with curriculum. There are many individual learning differences, which could include content recognition, strategic expression, and engagement. Some students have problems comprehending connected text; others have physical disabilities, while some can experience high levels of anxiety that has a negative effect during testing. In understanding their differences then we could use media not usually associated with assessment to fit their needs. Lack of appropriate support during the assessment process create another problem in assessment when students cannot use word processors, calculators, and text to speech processors. Assessments are lacking in integration with curriculum, which creates still another barrier.

My third reading was from “Classroom instruction that works.” We learned about cooperative learning and student grouping to facilitate collaboration and structure while allowing technology to play a unique and vital role. There are three generalizations that state grouping based on ability levels is done sparingly, groups should rather small in size, and that cooperative learning should be used consistently and systematically. It mentions that teachers should create groups with the five basic components for creating formal groups. We learned that multimedia, web resources, and communication software could enhance cooperative learning. Advance organizers and rubrics can be used with students to let them know what is expected of them and how they will be graded. With the increase in infrastructure and speeds, so many web-enabled resources lend itself to collaborative learning for students. The technology resources on the web are many like the JASON Project, Keypals, WebQuests, collaborative organizers, shared bookmarking, course management systems, Web-Enabled multiplayer simulation games, and communication software. The final reading focused on professional development. It mentions that there has been so much money used for this purpose but no significant advances are realized. For it to be effective there has to be participation from all parties. The reading focuses on creating effective programs, preservice learning, and creating learning communities using virtual environments. It mentions that teachers should participate in communities of practice, which could help educators become comfortable with the Web 2.0 tools and the potential that it brings for preparation in the classroom. When involved it provides motivation and interest because one is part of a contributing group. Professional development should use some of the Web 2.0 tools such as blogging, podcasting, and wikis to create content and collaboration.

 Pitler, H. (2005). //McRel technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program final report// (Contract Number ED-01-CO-0006). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED486685) Retrieved from __ [|http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED486685&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED486685] __

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). //Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning//. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chapter 7. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology Web site. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from [] Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works.// Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 139-154.

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). //Web 2.0: New tools, New schools.// Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 99 – 116.