"Assistive Technology for the Classroom"

Landmark College Institute for Research and Training has put together an excellent primer on the subject of Assistive Technology in education.  Contributers for this particular article include Ben Mitchell, Janie Duncan, Elizabeth Burns, Ellen Engstrom, and Christine Arieta.

The article begins by defining Assistive Technology as:

"any item, piece of equipment, or product that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities."

With advances in educational theory, reliance on lectures and textbooks has been diminished, with the focus instead centering on constructivist models.  Assistive technology makes it possible to offer this type of learning to all students.   This is particularly true (at this time) for reading assistance.  Assistive technology is NOT a replacement for a teaching, nor is it a guarantee of success.

Despite the effectiveness of Assistive Technology, there are some barriers to its widespread adoption:

• Teacher and Student Attitudes.  Both students and teachers may view this as an "easy way out."  
• Demands of Technology.  It can be expensive, dynamic and maintenance intensive to implement an Assistive Technology solution.
• Access.  Not everyone has access to the technology.
• Training.  To quote directly from the article, "If the student is not supported in learning to use the technology, the results may be worse than having no access to technology at all."

The article also has suggestions for successful integration of Assistive Technology into the classroom (emphasis on student introductions) and into the curriculum.  This includes some evaluations of different methods and even types of Assistive Technology.

This article is definitely aimed at readers who are already convinced that they need Assistive Technology in some form.  There is little in this article to help a novice understand situations in which they might want to consider the use of Assistive Technology, and in fact, as per the bullet list above, they present some compelling arguments to avoid the use of Assistive Technology.

Overall, however, if a reader has decided they need to use Technology in their classroom, this article has some good suggestions and ideas for turning that desire into a reality.

 

Math Teacher internet resources

In my first year of teaching, I have found three internet resources to be particularly helpful while teaching Math as a K-12 teacher:

• http://www.superkids.com/aweb/tools/math/
• http://aaamath.com
• http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/math.htm

The first is a site where you can make up your own math worksheets.  As a primary teaching tool, it's great for elementary kids.  As a "mad math" minute review tool for older students, it also works really well.  I find they need the review, particularly in decimals and fractions.

The second site is wonderfully organized.  If a student is having problems in a particular area, it's easy to find topical practice on this site.  It is also interactive with the teaching and assessing, which allows the student to move through as they progress in their knowledge.  This may be my favorite site for students who can motivate themselves, as they are not needlessly held back waiting for teacher approval to move forward.

The third site is great fun.  It is full of games for all kinds of math up to the pre-algebra level.  If the students are playing a game, they hardly notice they are learning at the same time.  Easy engagement.  It's amazing how they think of time on this site as a "reward" for doing their "schoolwork."

Community

I have started following some of the discussions going on at

 The Math Forum @ Drexel 

 As a math teacher, their site has proven helpful thus far for ideas both on content and approaches.  It's also nice to know that somebody else is having the same challenges I am.  Reading about their successes is also encouraging.

"The Overdominance of Computers" -- Lowell Monke

Students need to be prepared for the challenges of the high-tech 21st century, right?

And schools are supposed to prepare students, right?

So schools should have students start using computers and technology as soon as possible, right?

Maybe not......

Lowell Monke makes a good argument that perhaps immersing students in computers throughout their entire educational process may not only not be a good idea, it may be harming the student.  What students really need, he argues, is to have a good foundation in non-technological areas first, before they are ever presented with the challenges that go hand-in-hand with the power available in high technology.  Students need to be solid with ideas like:

• Commitment
• Loyalty
• Tradition

Obtaining these qualities, Monke argues, is accomplished through real experiences with real people, and not with unfeeling, uncritical, un-personable machines.  Only after laying such a foundation will a student be in a position to make ethical choices about the use of technology.  Similarly, such a student will know that they do not need technology to learn, but will rather view technology as a tool for their learning.

It is quite refreshing to see someone thinking critically about the use of computers in the classroom -- someone willing to *gasp* take computers out of the classroom.  Monke's analogy of teaching a six year old to drive because they will need to know how to operate a care in order to participate in society is an excellent illustration of his point.  I also agree that software is in such a state of flux still that trying to keep a student current throughout their entire pre-collegiate education is both ridiculous and unnecessary.  Let's help kids develop into people who have the ability to choose their own path before we imprint on them the supremacy of technology.

Education Philosophy Movie

Wow!  Do you remember staying up late to read books as a kid?  Under the blanket with a flashlight maybe?  "Sneaking" in just a little bit more?  I know I'm not the only one.  This project was like that--stealing time from other things I should have been doing because I wanted to work on this project, "just at little bit more."  It's not even due for another week, but I couldn't stop myself from working on it.

What is this project?  I'm glad you asked.  I have created a movie that sums up my personal Philosophy of Education.  It's short--about 90 seconds or so, and consists of all still photographs arranged a la Ken Burns (camera pans/zooms over still photographs).  Intro title and trailing credits, soundtrack, and a personalized voice-over make this a full-fledged movie project.  I created it on a Mac using iMovie.  I've never tried the PC software, but I have to say that the Mac software was easy to use and well integrated. 

 But enough talk--watch my movie!  I'm quite proud of it.

"Tools for the Mind" -- Mary Burns

Computers were supposed to revolutionize learning.  Or at least that's what people thought was going to happen.  Mary Burns takes this expectation and dissects why technology hasn't had a huge impact on education (yet) and explains her thinking for how technology should be used in the learning process, or, as she puts it, how "...we can begin to bridge the gap between intention and implementation."

Mary Burns' main point is one of understanding, or rather, the lack thereof.  Technology, mainly in the form of computers, were plopped into the educational system mainly without a the benefit of understanding how they could aid learning.  Rather, technology was just supposed to make things better; as Mary puts it, computers were viewed as sort of "instructional talismans" that would magically make things better.  She argues for several reasons that this occurred: 

• Teachers trained in tech skill instead of in how to use the technology to enhance learning.
• Schools need to make more accommodations to allow full technology use (long-term professional development, tech staff, etc)
• Teachers have conflated the use of technology that engages students with improved learning.
• Teachers have not distinguished between levels of software in terms of low-order versus higher order thinking caused by the software.

Fortunately, she does not stop with pointing out the faults of the past; she also points out two main ways to effectively implement technology in the educational process.

• Teach critical thinking first, and technology later.
• Focus on curriculum, instruction and assessment.

In the first strategy, Mary wants instructions to have assignments that are educationally worthwhile.  If there is a technological tool that can help, wonderful!  But the point of the assignment should not be based around the technology.  In the second strategy is closely related to the first, but is more sweeping in scope.

I personally agree with Mrs. Burns assessment as far as why technology has not been the silver bullet is was expected to be for education.  Simply throwing technology at education is like throwing money at poverty.  It does not address the root issue.  However, Mrs. Burns lays a lot of the fault on the shoulders of educators.  Technology, however, has been on a rocket pace for development for the last few decades, and without a huge investment in keeping up, it's not at all surprising that its use in education has been less than optimal.  

I am not sure I agree with her analysis of how to best implement technology now.  I do agree that when it is used inside of other instruction, it should be "almost invisible."  She herself points out that a lot of higher-order software is not used because it is harder to learn, more time consuming, and harder for teachers to understand and integrate.  Unless some effort is made to teach students technology in increments (just the same as Math, English or any other subject), it not reasonable to expect them to have the tech skills needed to utilize the higher-order software when the time comes. 

Presentation of the Copier Energy Project

It's funny (funny strange, not funny ha-ha) how a video camera can make me more nervous than a room full of students now. Maybe it's because I know the intended audience is myself. How does the old saying go? "You are your own worst critic." Well today, I recorded myself presenting my Energy Project slide show. The good news is I overcame the various technologies involved (Powerpoint with remote, projector with remote, camcorder with remote, digitizing analog camcorder output, etc), and did a pretty decent job overall with the presentation.

• Well organized.
• Slides matched what I was talking about.
• Good explanation of research.
• Good voice, no ummmms.
• Good eye contact.
• Fairly attention holding

It is true that watching yourself is like taking off blinders though. There are lots of things I could do better.

• Have a clearer focus. I tried to mix the results with the scientific process too much. I should have focused on presenting results first and foremost.
• Lay off the Powerpoint animations, or practice with them more. When I had animations in my presentation, I ended up looking at the screen more than the audience. They weren't *that* exciting.
• My assumptions page was too long. It sucked me in, and away from my audience.
• I definitely needed to repeat my second slide at the end. Reviewing the initial questions was a good idea, but paging back through the presentation to find the slide I needed was not.
• I could have done better presenting the research process. Again, I needed to blend the results and the scientific process better. This problem was somewhat exacerbated by not having a real audience. I ended up trying to present to a generic audience, and, no surprise, I ended up giving a bit of a generic presentation.
• I was a bit fidgety. Typically, if I'm standing, I'm used to writing on the board. It was a little unsettling to have everything already written on the "board."
  

In all though, I believe this was a successful project. The process was good, the results valid, the topic engaging, and the presentation informative and relevant. I can't complain too much either about my students not coming in on a Saturday to watch. One of them brought me some deer meat from *his* successful project today.