Saturday, January 29, 2011

Application Four: Online Learning for Advanced Math and Science Students

Click on the following link to learn how online learning modules can benefit advanced math and science students.


Lemke, C., & Coughlin, E. (2009). The change agents. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 54–59.

Stockley, Derek. (2011, January 11). E-learning definition and explanation (elearning, online training, online learning). Retrieved from

Young, J., Birtolo, P., & McElman, R. (2009). Virtual success: Transforming education through online learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(5), 12–17.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Immediate Impact of Technology

Children learn differently using various modalities and multiple intelligences. Educators need to find avenues for students to utilize and maximize learning opportunities. According to Dr. Ross, it is an educator’s responsibility to provide students with access to the curriculum (Laureate Education, 2009). This course has taught me ways to create flexibility with instruction using technology to meet the individual needs of all learners. I will immediately adjust my instructional practices regarding the use of technology integration to customize instruction.

The first thing I will do to adjust my instructional practices is to use technology to determine my students’ learning profiles and interests. When students are interested and motivated to learn, they will move through the learning process on their own instead of the teacher having to drag them through it (Laureate Education, 2009). I will learn about my students’ learning profiles and interests by having them complete my survey “Getting to Know You” located at This survey will help me design effective instruction and assessment for my students. It is my responsibility to make sure that I understand my students’ interests and learning styles so that I can provide effective learning experiences.

The second thing I will do to immediately adjust my instructional practices is to use technology to differentiate assessments. I will use technology to assess students’ academic strengths and weaknesses. The evolution of technology has created opportunities for differentiation in classrooms that were not possible before. Technology has created ways for teachers to “bridge the gap” (Laureate Education, 2009) between students’ learning styles and assessments. Teachers are now able to assess children in ways that were not available previously. “By using assessment strategies that draw students into the assessment process, it is more likely that they learn more” (Science Education Resource Center, 2010). I will continue to use my district’s online benchmarking program “Orchard” as a formative assessment to create individualized and effective instruction. In addition, I will integrate using digital answering devices (clickers) to assess student understanding during a lesson. Students that typically are shy may be more willing to answer if they do not have to speak. Another way I will differentiate assessments is to allow students to create digital portfolios instead of taking written paper and pencil tests. Digital portfolios can support my efforts to provide students with an alternative assessment that engages learners and supports all types of learning modalities. A portfolio allows students to display their work as they master content.

The third thing I will do to immediately change my instructional practices is to use technology to add differentiated elements within the instruction. According to Dr. Rose, the brain has three networks that are responsible for doing different things yet they work together to identify and process information. The recognition network identifies patterns such as chairs, dogs, cats etc. The strategic network helps a person problem solve and the affective network identifies emotions. The brain “not only distributes processing to different places according to what kind of task it is but it also distributes processing differently when you’re a beginner at a task than when you’re an expert at a task” (Laureate Education, 2009). Each person has these networks but they are specific to that person which creates different learning modalities. I will meet different learning styles by presenting information in a variety of ways such as concept maps using Inspiration, visual imagery using power points and/or outlines using Microsoft Word. In addition, to replace lecture and a one-size-fits-all lesson, I will create choice boards to allow students options in how they prefer to learn content. The choice board could include activities that provide support for reading using technology and/or project-based learning using technology to research and create products. Finally, I will include additional opportunities for students to reinforce skills using technology skill-based activities such as Academic Skill Builders for Wii (

Technology will allow me to differentiate in ways that were not as easily possible previously. As I immediately adjust my instruction using technology, I will need to remember that differentiation is not about creating many lessons for one topic (Laureate Education, 2009). It is about allowing flexibility for readiness, interest and learning profiles within one lesson and topic. Students enter the classroom with different background knowledge and preferred methods of learning. It is my responsibility to make sure that all students have equal access to learning in the classroom. Technology will help me fulfill this responsibility.


Academic Inc.,. (n.d.). Play the games on Wii. Retrieved from

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Brain research and universal design for learning. Reaching and engaging all learners through technology. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Initials. (Producer). (2009). Learner differences. [Educational Video].Baltimore:Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Reaching and engaging all learners through technology. Baltimore: Author.

Orchard Learning, Inc., . (2010). Orchard. Retrieved from

Parker, Jennifer. (2010). Get to know you survey.Retrieved from

Science Education Resource Center, . (2010, May 26). Assessment. Retrieved from

Saturday, October 30, 2010

GAME Plan Reflection

I had chosen for my goal to strengthen two of the ISTE National Educational Technology Standards (NETS-S). The two standards were to use technology to provide thinking that is more critical and problem solving in addition to providing more opportunities for my students to demonstrate creativity and innovation using technology (National Education Standards for Teachers, 2009). I understood the content knowledge and I understood the uses of technology. My challenge was to overcome how to integrate the two areas together. As I met this goal, my students now have the opportunity to be able to self-direct their learning while they solve a problem of interest to them and create a digital product that displays their learning process. These skills are teaching my students how to be critical thinkers of information and how to apply what they have mastered. These skills are preparing my students for jobs of the 21st century.

According to Dr. Ross, it is an educator’s responsibility to provide students with access to the curriculum (Laureate Education, 2009). Children learn differently using various modalities and we as teachers need to find avenues for students to utilize and maximize learning opportunities. My GAME Plan focused on integrating more inquiry-based lessons using technology into instruction. I had chosen to focus on this because I wanted my students to maximize their learning of content and 21st century skills. As I completed my plan during the course, I realized the opportunities that technology created in inquiry-based lessons. By using technology, I was able to build in levels of rigor and scaffolds to support different learning modalities and levels of learning. It took me a lot of time and thought to create the unit but now I have it to use in all of my classes. I learned that creating these types of lessons require more research and time on the front end but will have great benefits for my students in the long run.

As an instructional coach for my district, I am making some immediate adjustments regarding technology integration into content areas. I am asking the computer teachers to teach our students how to use blogs, wiki spaces, podcasts, Voice Thread etc. using content from core subjects. My hope is that as the students learn how to use these applications, content area teachers will be more comfortable allowing students to use them as a learning tool in the classroom. Due to time constraints, it is difficult for teachers to teach the applications and the content. With my plan, computer classes and content areas are horizontally aligning to provide maximum learning opportunities in academics and in 21st century skills.

Jennifer P.


Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore: Author.

National Education Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from 2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Linking GAME Plan to NETS

The ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for students and teachers (NETS, 2007) are two lists of technology standards and performance indicators for teachers and students. When I compare these lists, I notice that they complement each other. For example, the student standard to be creative and innovative complements the teacher standard to facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity. The teacher may use the teacher standards to facilitate the student standards.

A teacher may use the GAME Plan model to facilitate mastery of these standards. The GAME Plan supports self-directed learning which means that learners are driven by their own desire and actions to learn something new. Self-directed learning can be divided into four steps called the GAME plan. The “G” stands for set goals, the “A” for take action to meet the goal, “M” for monitor progress towards the goal and “E” for evaluate if the goals were achieved and extend the learning (Cennamo, Ross & Ertmer, 2009). As an educator and lifelong learner, I need to continue my GAME plan to self-direct my learning towards integrating more technology into my content area with more confidence and proficiency. As I become more empowered in the use technology as part of my instruction, students will have the opportunity to learn and master the 21st century skills that ISTE supports.

Upon the completion of my problem-based unit plan, I want to use it in a science classroom. The unit will teach students the necessary content required by the state but will support NETS too. This will be another step towards a classroom that reflects 21st century learning.

Jennifer P.


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.

National Education Standards (NETS) (2007). Retrieved from

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Week 6 GAME Plan

I am in week six of my GAME Plan. My district was on fall break so I was unable to work in my classrooms but it did allow me time to look at some more technology-based lessons. My professor posted a great website, that shows project-based learning in action using technology. I found it to be very helpful because it gave me a visual of how a classroom looks during this type of learning.

My plan is to become effective when integrating technology and content together for student learning. As I worked on a lesson plan this past week, I kept in mind the benefits and challenges of integrating technology into lessons. I made sure that I provided times for students to organize and reflect on their learning. It is through these opportunities that I will be able to assess student learning of content. I also had to remind myself that I need to provide scaffolds such as helpful websites and graphic organizers to support the learning process. I am excited about trying this lesson in a science class when they get to the specific chapter.

I am also considering how I might integrate “educational networking” (Laureate Education, 2009) into my classroom. Using technology to communicate and learn will tear down the walls of my classroom. I am facing some obstacles such as time, computer access and administrational support. These are challenges that I will seek solutions to during this upcoming week.

Jennifer P.


Bucks institute for education. (2010). Retrieved from

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore: Author.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

GAME Plan Week Five

This week I am more overwhelmed as compared to previous weeks. I am having troubles wrapping my head around the concept of problem-based learning (PBL) using technology in the classroom. As I work towards my GAME Plan goals of being able to link student learning with content and technology, I am realizing that it has definite benefits and challenges. According to Dr. Ertmer, some of the benefits of PBL are it supports self-directed learning, collaboration (a 21st century skill), integration of core subjects and authentic learning (Laureate Education, 2009). Students are engaged in inquiry-based thinking while determining solutions for a problem that has meaning to them.

The challenges that I am trying to overcome is how to link the learning with the content (standards) so that it is more than just fun and I am comfortable knowing that my students know the standards. I am not sure how to teach this or model this. Is it something that I teach? Do the students learn it naturally during the process? Dr. Ertmer suggests that as students progress through PBL, have them reflect on their learning through journaling, using checklists or blogs (Laureate Education, 2009). Since my students have not done this previously, I would need to model how to articulate one’s thoughts using a journal or blog. These items would provide a formative assessment as the learning progresses and reassure me that the students are mastering the standards in addition to learning how to think on a higher level.
I will continue to work on my PBL unit plan to help fulfill my GAME Plan. My PBL unit plan supports the STEM initiative in my state.

Is anyone else experiencing the same concerns?



Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Program 8. Spotlight on Technology: Problem-Based Learning Part 1. [Educational video]. Baltimore: Author.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

My GAME Plan Continues

It is week three in my efforts to master my GAME plan. This past week, I continued to research STEM projects using the internet. An abundance of information is available about inquiry-based and project-based lessons. I am learning what a good inquiry-based lesson should look like to use as a comparison when evaluating other lessons. I am learning to look at the objectives and ask myself whether or not the lesson supports the standards and if it will have real-life meaning for a student. I am looking for organization and how well the unit flows for student understanding.

When I originally had written my GAME plan, my focus was on integrating science and math together using inquiry-based units or project-based units using technology. I had not given thought to how student learning would be assessed in these lessons and units. Dr. Ross suggests that I “…develop a cadre of techniques to monitor and evaluate” (Laureate Education, 2009). I need to consider how student learning would be assessed during and at the end of the unit. I need to consider what parts of the unit need to be assessed and in what ways. For example, how will academic content be measured as compared to how will the growth in technology use be measured? Are those skills of equal importance? Dr. Ross suggests using the following steps in determining effective assessment. First, I need to identify the learning objectives. Second, I need to determine the instructional method and finally, what technology supports the objectives and method of delivery (Cennamo, Ross & Ertmer, 2009). During this week, I will focus on determining how I will assess student learning when using this type of instructional delivery in my classroom.

Jennifer P.


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). (2009). Program 7. Assessing Student Learning with Technology. [Educational video]. Baltimore: Author