My GAME Plan… Back to the drawing board…

Information and resources are plentiful. Support, however, is lacking. In other words, regardless of the resources that I bring to the table, the discussion of technological resources is at a standstill until the 2010-2011 school year.

I was hired under the premise that this brand new charter school with a for profit national sponsor was prepared to create a technologically rich learning environment. As the administration quickly deteriorates, the teachers struggle to make it from one day to the next.

I must modify my GAME plan. My students do not value education. Their families do not value education. Talks within these communities proclaim that no one cares about these young people, and they are on their own. Every morning, I switch to survival mode before walking into school. There is not a teacher on my staff who wants to return in January, though we all will because we know what quitting might do to our careers. We have put our own health, sanity, and family-security at risk, working our hardest to make a difference in the life of just one student.

My students enrolled in this school looking for something different. As of right now, I have nothing new to offer, and am feeling frustrated and somewhat hopeless. Ross (2009) reminds educators that despite any summative assessments at each year’s end, we are the ones who spend time getting to know our students best (Laureate Education). I would like to incorporate the relationships I build with my students into my GAME plan. It may be the only chance I have to reach this population.

My original GAME plan targeted the reflective process, with a focus on individual growth in my reading and writing classroom. Under the circumstances, I believe that my students would benefit from a variation of e-portfolios, in which they share reflections of their lives with me and their peers. Barrett (2005) emphasizes the importance of “student participation and choice, criteria for selection, criteria for judging merit, and evidence of self-reflection” in the e-portfolio process. I would absolutely implement these aspects, with the specific subject matter chosen by the students. The curriculum content has little to no relevance in the lives of my students. They meet it with anxiety, anger, and outrageous acts. Carol Ann Tomlinson (1999) reminds teachers that we need to meet students where they are.” It is time to listen.

My students have stories to share, and often feel as if there is no one who will listen. E-portfolios, which may begin with paper and pictures due to our lack of resources, allow students to share in creative and collaborative ways. I will provide the structure in which they will create and share their stories and what they learn from day to day; as well as ample opportunity to write, revise, and meet a variety of other standards and skills sets such as creative and critical thinking. Barrett (2005) asserts that e-portfolios provide "multiple purposes: learning/processing, assessment, marketing and showcasing."

I need to reach my students, but I need help.
E-portfolios: that’s what’s on my mind.




References

Barrett, H. “The reflect initiative.” February 5, 2005. Webcast. “High school portfolios: To e or not to e.” Retrieved November 20, 2009 from http://present.bccampus.ca/p43204744/

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Assessing student learning with technology from Integrating technology across the content areas. Baltimore: Author.

Tomlinson, C. (1999) The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Carrying out my GAME plan

I began discussions with my students this week about both Internet access and the reflective process. The first thing I discovered is that all of my eighth graders WANT to better integrate technology into their lives, but have limited resources. The majority of my students do not have computers or Internet at home, but do live near public libraries. Many frequent the libraries to use social communication tools such as MySpace and Face Book, but do not really have much use for the Internet otherwise. Ross (2009) asserts that our students "have social skills; they need academic skills" (Laureate Education, 2009).

I asked whether or not they would be willing to engage in classroom websites and wikis. They responded favorably, clarifying that they would only do so if it was "fun." While I wasn't surprised by this response, I am not sure how to ensure participation outside of class, when access is so sparse. Wahl and Duffield (2005) remind us that web resources "include many materials with high student interest, such as articles on snowboarding, sports, and popular media figures" (p. 4). My first goal must be to expose students to all of the great resources available on the web that will help them become more successful in school, and in their lives. I will allow 2-3 students in each class an opportunity to search the web for resources that fit into the day’s lesson. Those who are off task, will lose this opportunity. Those who find something that they think is fun or at least engaging will earn extra credit points for sharing it with me and the class. This will hopefully increase student belief that all resources related to school are boring and “lame.”

In terms of the reflective process, I asked my classes what they thought of the opportunity to reflect on my practices during each quarter. I confirmed that they would earn points for engaging in the process, but would not be graded for their responses. I granted them freedom, provided that they are respectful in their concerns and offer realistic alternatives to criticisms. They excited over the idea, and are looking forward to the opportunity to share honest opinions.

The aspects of my GAME plan are challenging, and will occur over time. I intend to incorporate as much technology exposure and reflection into my lessons as possible, but need to be realistic. First things first.

I am open to any and all suggestions!
Thanks for reading what’s on my mind!

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Using technology to customize instruction part 2 from: Promoting creative thinking with technology from Integrating technology across the content areas. Baltimore: Author.

Wahl, L., & Duffield, J. (2005). Using flexible technology to meet the needs of diverse learners: What teachers can do. WestEd, pp. 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/763.

My Own GAME Plan

Technological advances that swept us off of our feet last week, are old news. Pedagogy is no different. In today’s rapidly changing world, teachers must work in new, more efficient ways to keep up. As educators, we are preparing our students to compete globally in a workforce that does not yet exist. The International Society for Technology in Education (2008) has created a set of standards which cater entirely to these rapidly changing skills sets. One of our greatest challenges, as teachers, is making changes to our own repertoires in order to meet these new needs.

Cennamo (2009) recommends all teachers make a formal GAME plan in which they set Goals; choose Actions via which to meet these goals; Monitor said goals; and regularly Evaluate their own progress (Laureate Education, 2009). Many teachers are naturally self-directed, life long learner, who tend to do this naturally, however informally.

I have created a GAME plan for solidifying my own ability to better prepare students for the 21st Century. I do believe that I touch on each new standard here and there, but hope to increase the frequency to every lesson.

My initial goal incorporates the first of The ISTE National Educational Technology Standards (NETS.T) and Performance Indicators for Teachers standard which states that teachers “facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity” (ISTE, 2008). I will focus on better integrating the reflective process into my classroom pedagogy. Actions I will take to achieve this goal include modeling my own reflective process, while challenging my students to write about their growth, achievement and weaknesses. I will monitor the progress through the dialectic journaling process in which we reflect on each journal entry after we write it, through questions such as, “why did I write that,” and “how did that look and feel?” An additional set of questions will be incorporated for the self-evaluation process in order to encourage both my own and students’ discovery of how we learn best. These will all be in the form of learning logs that will be kept private between my students and myself. My personal reflective learning log will be shared by a colleague with whom I feel comfortable. This process will allow me to better track my own pedagogical successes and weaknesses.

A second personal goal targets ISTE NETS.T standard number 4a. which “promotes and models digital citizenship and responsibility [through the] advocacy, modeling, and teaching [of] safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology” (ISTE, 2008). Actions I will take to learn to better integrate ethical use of the Internet include teaching sound inquiry and scrutinizing skills. I will scaffold instruction at the beginning of each research project, in strategies such as the “ABCs of websites” as suggested by Phillips (2009b) along with the “url back-tracking system,” which Warlick (2009b) recommends (Laureate Education, 2009b). These strategies help students determine the most reliable sources. I will hold students accountable for properly crediting all sources, including graphics and sound bytes, reminding them that do not like when others steal from them. Consistency is crucial. Students should never use a source that is not formally cited. I will also monitor and evaluate these processes through the same learning logs (including my own). I will challenge students to hold themselves and their peers accountable as well.
Sticking to my GAME plan, in which I incorporate these strategies consistently and with follow up will provide the opportunity for growth technologically and otherwise. Through steadfast monitoring and evaluation, I will provide confidence, clarity and growth within myself and my students. We will all benefit. Cennamo, et. al. (2009) reminds educators that “as a self-directed lifelong learner, [we’ll] be able to respond to the rapid and continuous technological changes that inevitably will occur…and better meet the needs of your students today and in the future” (p. 7). We have nothing to lose!





References:

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

ISTE International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). NETS-T. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Integrating technology across the content areas. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009b). Supporting Information Literacy and Online Inquiry in the Classroom. Baltimore: Author.

The not-so-new "New Literacies"

A REFLECTION
of Supporting Information Literacy and Online Inquiry in the Classroom

"It's obvious that technology is reshaping students' reading and writing practices, with or without educators' intervention. Our challenge is to teach students to be truly literate in two languages - those of the pre- and post-digital worlds" (Rooney, 2009, p. 1). The concept of “new literacies,” introduced by Hartman (2009), adds questioning, searching, evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating to the traditional notion of reading from and writing about textbooks. Literacy skills today are not much different from those described by the great Jon Dewey or Paulo Freire years ago. These great educational philosophers focused on communication and collaboration, despite the differences in technological resources. Neither one agreed with the stagnant teacher-centered classrooms that have bored students and teachers for years. Hartman (2009) explains that the nature of literacy has evolved as populations have matured (Laureate Education, Inc.). Yet even Dewey (1938) argued that teachers must blend real and classroom worlds in order to prepare students for their futures, as opposed to the pasts of their teachers and parents.

As a child, I was a “how-come? kid.” I wanted to know the whos, whats, wheres, whens, whys, and hows of the world around me. What likely came off as an irritating childhood tendency has helped me collect information throughout my life with which to construct new knowledge. I am delighted to see that educational researchers have reprioritized questioning as a crucial stepping stone in the greater scheme of learning. Eagleton and Dobler (2007) validate the importance of asking questions “as the first step in the inquiry process, in addition to its ongoing role as a method of activating prior knowledge, monitoring, and decision making during online reading” (p. 80). For years, pedagogy has been focused on the answers. With technology advancing and evolving toward a more predominant role in education, students’ abilities to formulate questions are central to their ability to discover and create new answers in more meaningful, relevant ways than ever before.

Professional development is crucial to successful pedagogy. A goal of mine is to integrate technology into every unit, despite our lack of resources. Eagleton and Dobler (2007) provide a wealth of resources that help me determine where students are in terms of prior knowledge and experience with technological resources, along with the specifics of how to meet them there and teach them the new literacies that will guide them toward success in the 21st century workplace of their choice. While my goal is to start by meeting my students where they are, I intend to see growth through the introduction of the quest model of internet inquiry, as described by Eagleton and Dobler (2007). Questioning, Understanding resources, Evaluating, Synthesizing, and Transforming of information (QUEST), “engages and supports students as they tackle the complexities of reading on the Web” (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007, p. 51). This model allows student choice and flexibility, while providing the purpose students need in traditionally dull literacy projects.

As an eighth grade reading and writing teacher in a brand new charter school for inner city youth, I feel like a first year teacher all over again. I still ask questions as often as possible, regardless of any potential scrutiny I may receive from my colleagues or the administration. Radical ideas come from administrators, the charter company, the public school district, parents, and students in terms of discipline plans, teaching styles, curriculum, and extra-curricular activities, on a daily basis. The integration of technology and education into this quickly advancing society of ours is no longer such an outlandish idea. On the contrary, the time is now to provide a forum for all students to begin thinking, questioning, evaluating and synthesizing information in ways that will prepare them for the “who knows what?” that is their future.



References
Dewey, J. (1897) My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, LIV (3),77-80.

Eagleton, M., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the web: Strategies for internet inquiry. New York: The Guilford Press.

Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987) Literacy:Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). New literacies from Supporting information literacy and online inquiry in the classroom. Baltimore: Author.

Rooney, J. (2009) Teaching two literacies from Educational leadership. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved 22 October 2009 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/mar09/vol66/num06/Teaching_Two_Literacies.aspx