EDUC 6714: Final Reflection

The resources my other group members and I have gathered for our Differentiation Station assignments will become useful tools to have at my disposal. In designing instruction that will meet the needs of the diverse learners that walk through my door every day, one can simply never have too many options from which to choose. When looking for new instructional resources, a fellow educator should always be your first stop. The Differentiation Station has allowed us to come together and share relevant, useful resources in an effort to improve our efficacy as professional educators.

While I would not categorize my learning in this class as “new” learning, I did find it useful. I have always believed in differentiated instruction and the integration of technology to reach all learners. I was already familiar with the principles of Universal Design for Learning, the various brain networks and how they figure into learning, and how to effectively use technology with my students. However, through this course, I was able to further my understanding of UDL and DI, and refine my approach to both. I was able to gather even more useful, engaging, and relevant technology resources for my students, which will have only positive effects on them and their learning.

I have already begun to make changes to my instruction as a result of this course. In fact, the design of my next unit is completely differentiated by readiness, as indicated by my students’ Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) scores. Group Learning Pages have been set up on my class website and Learning Packets have been put together for group use. Students will be using Compass Learning Odyssey to navigate their way through greatest common factors and least common multiples in their Learning Groups. I tried this same approach during the last unit on function tables and was thrilled with how well it turned out. My students naturally helped each other before asking me, which allowed me to focus on those students that needed my attention the most. We were able to come together and work out any “kinks” they discovered and, in the end, agreed it was a very successful unit. We are all looking forward to next week’s learning!

EDUC 6713: Final Reflection

Cennamo, Ertmer, and Ross tell us that, “[t]he GAME plan enables you to customize your approach to learning tasks, to develop relevant skills that are important to you, and prepares you for lifelong learning,” (Cennamo, Ertmer, & Ross, 2009, pgs. 3 – 4). As I reflect on my own GAME plan developed and followed throughout this course, I feel as though I learned several valuable lessons as a result.

The goal on which I focused throughout this course was to increase my proficiency in customizing learning activities to address my students’ diverse learning and working styles and ability levels through the use of digital tools. While working toward this goal, I discovered Google Docs, which, as I “play” with it, seems to be one of those “must-have” teacher tools. Using Google Docs, students can create PowerPoint-style presentations (as well as other types of documents) together, with all students having access and equal opportunity for input. This will allow for students with varying technology abilities to create a product collaboratively, without one student “taking over,” which can easily happen in a small group setting.

In my learning about the GAME plan process itself, I find myself with conflicting opinions. In theory, it is a great strategy to help students improve their self-directed learning skills. Allowing students to set, monitor, evaluate, and extend their goals puts their learning in their hands, where it should be. This strategy does just that. However, the pace we followed throughout this course left me overwhelmed and questioning its effectiveness.

After sitting back and thinking about it, I now feel as though I can actually see myself using this strategy with my students. Goal setting is a major component of self-directed learning and the basis of the GAME plan. If implemented properly, I feel as though this strategy will be an asset to my instructional practice.

I have to admit that there is no need for an adjustment to my instructional practice regarding the integration of technology. We already use some form of technology on an almost-daily basis. This course has, however, confirmed my opinion that technology is an incredibly valuable tool for learning and its use will benefit my students well beyond the nine months they are with me.

Reference:

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach (Laureate Education custom edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

EDUC 6713: APP 7: Using the GAME Plan Process with Students

Our goal as educators is to create self-directed, life-long learners; individuals that continually seek new experiences, knowledge and skills. Such learners, according to Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer, “engage in three key processes: planning, monitoring, and evaluating their learning activities,” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, pg. 3). The authors’ GAME Plan (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009) provides a framework and guide for learning that puts the responsibility, evaluation, and extension of learning squarely in the learners hands.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve worked through my own GAME Plan in an effort to understand its purpose and process and determine the best way to implement such a strategy with my own students. While the idea behind this strategy is a good one, the speed with which we have “gone through” it left me overwhelmed and a bit frustrated. This, however, has proven to be a valuable lesson about the pacing to use with my own students.

According to the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ITSE) standards, students must be able to demonstrate creative thinking and innovation, communicate and work collaboratively, use digital tools to research and use information, use critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making skills, understand and practice legal and ethical behavior relating to technology, and understand technology concepts, systems, and operations (ISTE, 2007).

Using the GAME Plan as a means for gaining proficiency in these standards accomplishes two goals: proficiency the NETS•S standards themselves and greater skill in self-directed learning. Allowing students to set their own goals then handing the responsibility for monitoring, evaluating, and extending those goals over to them is the only way to truly “teach” them to become the life-long, self-directed learner I set out to create.

References:

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach (Laureate Education custom edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.