This past week,
during a meeting with the Professional Learning Community, and I was able to
discuss the GAME plan, created to strengthen confidence and understanding in
the NETS-T standards. Some of colleagues vented about how integrating
technology into instruction is frustrating and time consuming. It is easy to
admit at times, the frustration and discouragement faced occasionally. However
the second there is an increase in participation and enthusiasm amongst the
students and therefore, the effectiveness of the lesson, I instantaneously
change my mind. Instead, I find myself boasting about the successful lesson of
the day.
As
I continue to monitor my progress through the GAME plan, I began to take into
consideration the advice of my course instructor, Suzanne Lebeau, PhD., as well
as authors: John Ross, PhD., Katherine Cennamo, and Peggy Ertmer’s from the
course text, Technology Integration for
Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach (2009). It was brought
to my attention, by Dr. Lebeau, “Sometime the tools available to us, as
educators, must be repurposed and used in different ways than they were
originally intended” (personal communication, January, 2013). With this, I
realized I had to modify my action plan.
I revisited my GAME plan and notice I was giving the students too much
freedom and too many choices with the use of technology. For example, I
proposed that I would have students create KWL charts, listen to audio, create
presentations, record themselves on a podcast, contribute to a blog, etc.
Though these are fun and exciting ways to get students engaged and to show off
their creativity side, I had to be realistic. In turn, a new question arose:
Can I have this much going on in my classroom and still provide an effective
lesson for my students?
In
order to address this concern, guidelines need to be set and choices need to be
more controlled on my part. I had mentioned in my previous discussion and blog
that my students would complete a Tic-Tac-Toe board with various activities to
choose from. This board would be more useful if I set each column to read,
“Practice”, “Assessment”, and “Reflection”. The students will be instructed to complete one row of
activities. The students are still provided with a choice, so the only
difference is that I would tell them how to get Tic-Tac-Toe. Another benefit to
this modification is being able to challenge the students in certain areas of
the activities completed. One row may have a more challenging reflection, but
simpler Practice exercise and mid-leveled assessment. These levels of
difficulties could be evenly distributive so it is a fair game.
The
category “Assessment” was included in the board game of activities, in order to
monitor student progress and the progress of the lesson. In this week’s
learning resources, it was mentioned “assessments, overall, provide students
and teachers with feedback for learning and effectiveness of the lesson”
(Cennamo, Ross, Ertmer, 2009). Providing students will a choice, increases
student engagement and confidence (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). Integrating
Technology into this game board activity helps students to mastery skills, be
creative, monitor success in learning, as well as display and communicate their
understanding on the content. In addition, it assists teachers in gathering data,
monitoring the progress of her students and the lesson, evaluating student
performance and understanding, analyzing and organizing data, and communicating
her findings (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). As stated before, I have not run
into a problem finding information or any of the resources needed to continue
to carry out my GAME plan. I am still, however, waiting for my Polyvision board
to be fixed. In the meantime, I have been requesting the portable SMARTboard to
use, instead.
Jacquelyn Caliente
References:
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. &
Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology
integration for meaningful classroom
use:
A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont,
CA:
Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive
Producer). (2011b) Assessing Student Learning With
Technology [Video webcast]. Retrieved from
