Question+2+-+Day+2

Katie Allegretto has left a new comment on your post "Class 2 - Question ISTE standards for students":

The National Education Technology Standards (NETS) were made to help teachers and students become aware, be able implement, and use various forms of technology for different purposes. They have a set of six standards with multiple objectives under each of them. After comparing the old standards in 1998 and the updated ones, I think the news standards have a stronger focus and do a good job providing goals for the updated forms of technology that we did not have in 1998. I am surprised that I am now just seeing these standards for technology. Are these standards supposed to be used in technology class or are classroom teachers supposed to be implementing them into their daily lessons as well? If classroom teachers are supposed to be implemented them, then why was I unaware of these standards?

While I think it is important for teachers to be using technology in their classroom, it concerns me that we do not have enough computers to use with our students. In my classroom, we only have two computers that students can use (and these computers rarely work or are VERY slow). We also have a mobile lab but often have to sign up weeks in advance to be able to use it. I want to be able to use technology with my students but often feel frustrated that we are not provided with enough resources.

One of the conditions for these standards is to have skilled personnel. I have not yet to this day have been trained in any programs that they suggest using. Luckily, I am very familiar and comfortable using many programs. However, I know some teachers who are not. What are they going to do in order to have the “skilled personnel” they want in schools?

Joshua has left a new comment on your post "Class 2 - Question ISTE standards for students":

I would like to mention that my first interaction with the ISTE standards (the 1998 ones) was very positive. My Freshman communications class for teachers was heavily rooted in these standards. Everything that we created had to cover certain standards and I felt that it was very expansive. It covered everything reasonably that could be effectively used as an instructional resource. Now I have not seen the new 2008 standards until this assignment. One of my first thoughts of the new standards was how much they have evolved. I cannot remember a "digital citizenship" standard. Communication has also grown to include "collaboration" from what I can recall. Educators and professional organizations can evaluate students using a clear, organized rubric for each standard that contains specific criteria for growth. We need to ultimately ask: Does this learner have the ability to make responsibly effective use of technology? I feel these standards as a whole do a great job of doing this. As much as I hated aligning everything I did with the old standards, I realize how beneficial it ultimately was.

REED 660 Laura Smith Changing NETS reflection

My initial thoughts when reading the 1998 standards is that they were very vague. As a teacher, I prefer more descriptive standards and examples. For instance, #3 says, “Students use technology tools to enhance learning….students use productivity tools to collaborate in constructing technology-enhanced models….” The guidelines referred to ‘technology communication tools’, ‘software’, and ‘ethical, cultural, and societal issues’, but offered no examples of these. I would like to be given specific guidance on which types of tools students should be using. As a classroom teacher, I do not have background on what tools are age appropriate, manageable, and important for students to be using, so listing some ideas would be helpful.

When reading the new standards, I noticed the language was still vague in some cases, but was more explicit in others. Specific examples of types of software, programs, and tools were still not offered. I wonder if perhaps this is the role of the individual states to decide? I did think the indicators and descriptions were more detailed and easier to understand. The ‘Communication and Collaboration’ section was much more descriptive than the 1998 ‘Technology Communication Tools’ section. I liked that the new standards focused more on creativity, innovation, collaboration, problem-solving, and critical thinking. These are goals that are extremely important in other curricular areas as well, so I like that they are being reinforced with technology. In addition, they are skills that will be required in college and the work force, so it is important that they are instituted when children are in school. The first section titled ‘Creativity and Innovation’ is an important change. As teaching methods have changed from teacher-directed instruction to student-centered and inquiry-based models, this section I crucial. Students need to be able to produce original products rather than copying from a teacher’s model. I also like that the new standards include a section on digital citizenship. It is important that we realize that students are ‘technological natives’ and that they understand how to be a responsible member of this community.

Dylana James

Why is technology integration the perfect tool for accommodating different learning styles?

Technology integration is useful in accommodating a variety of different student learning preferences and learning styles. Baltimore County’s Office of Instructional Technology distinguishes student preferences as “…the conditions in which students prefer to work and learn such as, the classroom situation, grouping, and whether the lesson is more or less teacher driven. Styles are used to indicate how the students mentally receive, perceive, process, understand, and internalize the new knowledge” (2002). As a teacher, it is imperative that I tailor instruction to meet the needs of various learners. With its wide range of applications, technology gives me an invaluable resource in meeting both student learning preferences and learning styles. Consider the use of technology in supporting Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences. Technology can be used to engage and strengthen the learning style of the linguistic child who can practice language, editing, writing, and rewriting through word processing software. These skills can be practiced both independently and through cooperative learning with the use of technology. Independently, students can tap into their intrapersonal style of learning. Whereas through cooperative grouping, the student learner can engage in developing group presentations or conduct online chats, thus furthering the needs of the learner who perceives information best through intrapersonal interaction. Visual learners receive input through iMovies and graphics or symbols through the computer software program, Inspiration. Auditory and verbal-linguistic learners can scan and listen to text with Inspiration, Kurzweil, and other text reading technology devices. Kinesthetic learners are able to touch keyboards and use gaming joysticks that fulfill their tactile function in learning style. With access to so many tools that engage students and meet their various learning preferences and learning styles, it is critical that I find ways to help students access technology tools as well as develop their proficiency and growth in technology use.

More significantly, technology integration gives me the opportunity to vary instruction. There are so many possibilities to engage students in independent work where they can work at their own pace and access resource tools as well as work in groups to brainstorm ideas, solve problems, and create multimedia presentations. When I am planning lessons and searching for ideas to engage students, purposeful use of technology can clear the way for instruction that highly motivates students. It is clear that technology is a resource that has changed the way in which teachers do business.

Estella Duberry has left a new comment on your post "Class 2 - Question ISTE standards for students":

The Technology Foundation Standards of 1998 contained the guidelines that educators were to follow when developing technology related activities for their students. I think these standards were broad and focused on helping students to become proficient in technology, develop a basic understanding of its varied uses, and build their confidence in using technology as they collaborated with their peers in creative, ethical, cultural, and problem-solving ways. I believe The National Educational Technology Standards of 2007 raised the bar on technology education for students to another level. It seems that in the same way that the level of our knowledge of technology has advanced, so have the standards. On one hand, I still see the same stance of having students use technology in creative, collaborative, and multi-faced ways remains. Yet, I see added descriptors that require far more from our students, such as being aware of the global community, using more in-depth critical thinking, and troubleshooting about systems and applications.

We are all aware of the great explosion and advancement in technology, even in the last decade. Most people love it and are benefiting from it. After reading these articles, I can understand the importance of our students being on an even playing field with the world. I am in agreement with the set of standards in place for our students in technology. I believe that standards give everyone clearer objectives and outcomes to aim for inside and outside the classroom. My only concern is how this opportunity for instruction can be made available for all students. We know that because of a lack of funds, all our schools are not equivalent when it comes to providing technology equipment and teachers. In addition, in the interview Mr. Knezek suggested that technology instruction be done across the curriculum. My thoughts are that regular classroom teachers and specialists would need a lot more in-depth professional development. Furthermore, with the push for higher standards in math and reading, where is the regular classroom teacher going to find the time to teach and develop the expertise to bring all her students up to these standards? Right now, I see all this as a Catch 22, where we have the needed standards for our students to reach in order to be technologically competitive in the real world, yet we lack the resources to bring all this about for everyone.