Unpacking the Standards

What state and national standards should be considered in your scope and sequence?

On Wednesday we went through the process of “unpacking standards.” Since then I have gone through the third grade core curriculum science standards, the 3-5 Utah Technology Educational Standards along with the ISTE standards. It is a good idea to consider all three categories when creating a scope and sequence for any content area. Dr. Cox made a comment that struck me. She said that these standards exist, but nobody really knows that it is their duty to teach these standards, and along with that it is difficult to teach the tech standards alone, but when it is woven seamlessly through content curriculum the maximum impact is attained. It also makes it way more interesting!

While unpacking these standards, I was excited to see that the UTES and the ISTE standards are compatible and they overlap one another. In a conversation I was having with other students in the class, they were talking about websites that already have the standards unpacked. Since I’d just put a lot of effort into unpacking these standards on my own, I decided to do my own research and see what the World Wide Web could offer me.

After substantial research I discovered that there is a benefit to unpacking your own standards, because every state has different standards! Kansas, North Carolina and Utah all have various standards and different unpacking organizers, dynamic learning maps, essential elements, etc. So the conclusion I have made is that there is a great springboard on unpacking standards for the scope and sequence, but it is not necessarily always the best way to design your curriculum.

How will you model digital ethics and responsibility, and how will those skills be incorporated into your scope and sequence?

When I was a little kid (probably 5th grade) I had to do a research project. I don’t remember what the subject was, but I remember going to the computer lab where the old school computers were and the paper that printed with a bunch of little holes on the sides and I researched my project. The teacher required that included a works cited page and I distinctly remember thinking it was so dumb because I got all of my resources from google and google images! I had no understanding of how google works, I guess. Yet, it is a significant memory because it is my first recollection of giving credit where credit is due.

I will model for my students’ digital ethics and responsibility by making it a point to show them where I pull my sources.  For example, I may use a picture in a SmartBoard Presentation and I can say, “I got this picture from__________ website.” Or if I use a lesson plan from a previous teacher I could say, “Today we have our lesson adapted from _________’s lesson. Aren’t we happy that they shared with us?” Helping students be aware is the first step in teaching about ethics in technology.

Incorporating the fifth ISTE standard into the scope and sequence is tricky, but one thing I really liked that Amber said in class is to use the Google lesson plans on Good to Know for emergency sub plans, I thought that was an excellent idea! Obviously, that would be leaving the education of your students in someone else’s hands and so I would also be sure to teach through direct instruction the principles of digitial citizenship. Working with the tech specialist at the school we could use websites like NetSmartz to teach the students the importance and the way to be safe and considerate on the internet. I’m grateful for the resources shown in class, because it definitely gave me a starting place for what I can do with my students in my classroom… when I have one someday.

Scope & Sequence: Weaving Curriculum

Over the last 2 weeks I’ve been thinking, pondering, studying, and actively pulling apart the third grade science curriculum. It has been a huge undertaking for me and has forced me to reflect back on a lot of skills and theories I learned during my undergraduate studies. While creating the scope and sequence I greatly appreciated the instruction during class next week because it gave me a springboard for creating my backwards design. The process I’ve gone through has been lengthy. First I printed out the entire core curriculum standards and then I went through and underlined each of the verbs within the standards, benchmarks and objectives. I categorized each bullet point in terms of Bloom’s Taxonomy and which level of understanding it reaches and I looked for trends and patterns. One of the longest parts in the process was deciding what order I would teach the material. I asked people for their advice and researched different scope & sequences online, and finally I set a loose outline of what I would be teaching in each month of the school year. The backwards design process took some review, mostly by referencing the article assigned for class I was able to recall enough schema on how to create a backwards design plan. I created assessments for the units and from the assessments and the standards I created my essential questions.

So how do you weave technology into that scope and sequence? That’s the real question here. I found myself deliberately thinking what type of technology I could weave into my assessments and consequently what type of technology would be used in individual lessons to enhance the final assessments for each unit. When I first started this project I felt really overwhelmed and clueless, so I did a lot of googling “technology scope and sequence” “technology and curriculum” “science assessment with technology” etc. I was pleased to find that many of the resources I found referenced things we’d already spoken about in class. On the Harford Schools website I discovered the SAMR model listed on the side of the homepage and I gave myself a figurative pat on the back for appropriately applying the principles of the SAMR model into my curriculum. The SAMR model gives the option to incorporate technology and different levels throughout the S&S, for example, sometimes we may substitute an online test instead of the ol’ pen and paper test, yet at other times we may modify the entire assessment instead of a poster with the moon phases the students may produce a collaborative video as evidence of their knowledge of forces applied to various objects and the motion it stimulates.  When we design curriculum with technology in mind from the beginning, it makes the use of technology more purposeful and less accidental or as an after thought.

It becomes simple to use both general pedagogical content as well as content-specific technologies as we become familiar with our core curriculum. As leaders of technology we must shift our paradigm to not use tech just as an enhancement but to incorporate it seamlessly into every aspect of our curriculum. Every good teacher recognizes that reading comprehension has a place in each nook and cranny in the classroom – similarly as we shift to a new perspective we will see that technology is not just another subject to teach, but it becomes the way in which students are taught. It becomes a vehicle to bring learning to an elevated level, and if done correctly the students will learn the content-specific technology and how to use it.

Side note: When I create my next scope and sequence, I would have changed the process a bit by viewing the technology standards at the beginning of the process (at the same time as I was doing the other standards) so that I was familiar with them while going through the backwards design process.  If I would have had a basic understanding of the technology standards earlier on, I would have specifically looked for ways to fulfill both standards.

Sources:

SAMR Model - https://sites.google.com/a/hartfordschools.net/hsd-k-12-technology-scope-and-sequence/

Impact of TPACK

Essential Questions:

What is the difference between technology in education and educational technology?

What is TPACK and how does it help us better understand the role and impact of technology?

I’ve spent a good portion of my week thinking and researching trying to figure out the subtle difference between technology in education and educational technology. I’m still not sure if I have the write distinction, but I’ve formed my own understanding – and if it’s wrong, I hope we talk about it in class.

While looking at the TPACK Venn diagram I would explain educational technology as the crossover circle between technology and pedagogy. It is the tools that are used to help teachers teach more effectively, but they don’t necessarily vary based on content. Tech tools such as SmartBoards, doc cams, iPads, apps (in certain situations), personal computers, etc. 

In reference to the TPACK Venn diagram, I would explain technology in education to be the sweet spot between pedagogy, content and technology. According to Dell, technology in education is used in three ways. When I reviewed this website it helped me to synthesize the three major uses of technology in the classroom.

1.       Education data management

2.       Assistive technology

3.       Mobile learning

Teachers use technology to manage the data – such as online grade books, apps that report immediate test scores, emails to parents, classroom websites, etc. Diverse learners – which I would argue that we are all diverse learners, can be reached through media using assistive technology. ESL students can access speech to text software, autistic children can work with apps to practice social skills, and teachers can differentiate lessons to reach the many needs of students. Last of all, mobile learning helps break away from the standard classroom setting and it enables students to get up out of their seats and discover the world. In my opinion, this is where real learning happens! From our example in class last week, we saw evidence that students are more engaged in learning when they are immerse in real life issues.

These real life issues that give students the opportunity to redefine their education experience is exactly what TPACK is reaching for. My mind keeps reflecting on the horny-toed lizards project because it was a perfect example of using technology in education to bring the perfect balance of content, pedagogy and technology. Teaching Teachers for the Future gives us insight into the expert teacher in the 21st century, “Expert teachers now are those who can bring together knowledge of subject matter, what is good for learning, and technology (ICT). The combination is described as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). “ As we know from a basic study of business, backed by our study of Disrupting Class, if a business wants to survive in the rapidly changing world, then they cannot stand still.  During the 20th century, expert teachers were those who knew their content and knew how to teach it, but with the introduction of technology and it’s impact on the world it is required that teachers evolve.

Technology is a leading force in our economy and community, thus it is imperative that we prepare our students to thrive in a technological world. This means they need to be exposed to the tools of technology early on and they need to be taught how to use them. The practical application of using technology in real world settings to learn the content in a pedagogically sound way is the vision of TPACK. TPACK helps me see and understand the practical aspect of implementing the things we’ve learned and I’m excited to create a TPACK lesson within my scope and sequence.

Side note: I find it interesting that the TPACK website I referenced is based out of Australia. It would be interesting to study the impact of ed-tech on a global level.

Sources:

http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/25/k-12-solutions?dmp=1M2U3U4PE5UO&ST=technology%20in%20education&dgc=ST&cid=271535&lid=5036848&acd=12309164820490250

http://www.ttf.edu.au/what-is-tpack/what-is-tpack.html