Professional development for the educator is an area that I feel quite passionately about and one of the main reasons I chose to pursue a Masters in Education. Being able to work with educators to enhance what they already do and provide for them the tools available to tackle today’s educational issues is something I look forward to.
Soloman and Schrum describe how in 2005 Congress approved seven major steps and recommendations for implementing technology in our schools: 1) strengthen leadership; 2) consider innovative budgeting; 3) improve teacher training; 4) support e-learning and virtual schools; 5) encourage broadband access; 6) move toward digital content; and 7) integrate data systems (p. 100). How are schools supposed to ensure that their professional development plans effectively support implementation of technology? The seven steps are great guidance; however do they change how we teach our educators?
I believe that expanding on the ideas of collaborative learning and cooperative learning groups is an ideal approach. Using these groups as not only collaborative think tanks, but also as a way to approach teaching and the sharing of ideas. These groups could work together to not only continue the development and implementation of ideas and strategies initiated during professional development, but could also become working groups that assist in the daily routine work of a educator such as grading (Pitler, pg. 140). A lot of the collaborative learning is a cultural change that would have to be initiated from the top, but fostered from the bottom. If a principal is able to work with their educators and really foster a collaborative environment where not only are ideas shared, but learning and constructive critiquing is actively engaged, it is a win win situation. I believe that too many times we spend a lot of time discussing the problems and the theoretical solutions; however when it is time to develop the nuts and bolts of the working solution, people tend to lose interest. This is where collaborative learning groups can prosper. Identify problems/issues and then work to find a practical solution.
Another topic I found interesting this week is the idea of allowing for different assessment criteria to be used in the classroom. “The same test is given in exactly the same way under the same circumstances to every learner,” is what we do, with minor modifications (Rose, Chapter 7). Is how it is described in “Teaching every student in the digital age” but are the modifications fair? How do you ensure that the different assessments are true assessments of knowledge? Modifications are already used in the classroom for different students that have gone through an ARD process, but what about the rest of the students. How do you assess a GT student on one level and a student with only remedial reading skills at a different level in the same class? How do you ensure that you are not dumbing down the criteria for the remedial student? I am intrigued by the concept because it allows a teacher to address the different learning styles present in a classroom as well as the different academic levels. There are many questions, but it is something I will continue learning about and observing as the years progress.
References
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology web site, http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment