Brian+Berling



=__**Week 1**__=


 * Intro**

Hi everybody! As you can tell by the title of my page, my name is Brian Berling. I am a first year masters student in Curriculum and Instruction. Last June, I received my bachelor's degree in Secondary Education: Social Studies from the University of Cincinnati. I thoroughly enjoyed my undergraduate career, as my life was filled with many things that I enjoy. For example, I enjoyed my academic program, as it gave me a taste of content, pedagogy, and real world experience. I also enjoyed running track for UC. I specialized in the 5K and 10K, and I will never forget the times that I spent with my teammates. Finally, I worked at several places during my undergraduate career. I was a student helper in the athletic office, a peer leader in the First Year Experience program, and an employee at an Ohio River marina known as Mariner's Landing. I enjoyed working at all of these places, so much that I still part time at two of them (the athletic office and the marina). While I do not yet view my graduate career in nostalgic or halcyonian terms, I believe that one day I will. Since entering graduate school, I have completed my internship at a local Cincinnati Public School and acquired my two-year provisional teaching license from the state of Ohio. Last quarter ('11W), I began working in the School of Education as a graduate assistant. It is fun (and convenient) to work and go to school in the same place.

There are a few other things which I should include in this introduction in order to paint an accurate picture of myself. First, I have a girlfriend named Kayla whom I have been dating for approximately 8 months now. Second, I live with eight of my best friends and teammates in a big house just off of campus. And finally, I am the youngest of three children. My older sister Karen got married three weeks ago (on March 12), and my older brother Kenny is engaged. He will get married on July 2, 2011.

Although it can be very busy and topsy-turvy at times, I enjoy life. I try to make every day the best that it can be while simultaneously appreciating it for what it is.


 * Here are some of my favorite websites:**

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/

http://www.letsrun.com/

http://www.learner.org/resources/series138.html?pop=yes&pid=1498#

=__**Week 2**__=


 * Reflective Blog #1**

During the first week of this course, we have been exploring the wiki along with some readings concerned with pedagogical phiosophies. In particular, these readings juxtapose objectivism and constructivism. One reading, "Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm?," written by David H. Jonassen, urges readers to adopt the constructivist philosophy. He states that "rather than decontextualizing learning in isolated school environments, we should create real-world environments that employ the context in which the learning is relevant." (Jonassen, 1991, p. 11) In an effort to convince his readers to adopt constructivism, Jonassen describes constructivism and objectivism as "polar extremes on a continuum." (Jonassen, 1991, p. 8) Johannes Cronjé takes exception to this assertion in his article, "Paradigms Regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and Constructivism in Instructional Design and the Learning Sciences." Unlike Jonassen, Cronjé does not view one philosophy as inherently superior. Rather, he asserts that "constructivism and objectivism are not antithetical to one another- they are simply at cross purposes" (Cronjé, 2006, p. 412) and that they must both be implemented into the classroom. These two articles, while conflicting, served to further my understanding of objectivism and constructivism. I believe that Jonassen put it best when he stated that "The emphasis of objectivism is on the //object// of our knowledge, whereas constructivism is concerned with how we //construct// knowledge." (Jonassen, 1991, p. 10) I plan to incorporate both pedagogical philosophies into my teaching. I am a firm advocate of constructivism and of students taking ownership of their education, but I also believe that students cannot be interested in, and therefore construct, knowledge which they do not know about.

Question: Can we really classify a particular lesson as constructivist, immersion, integration, or injection? Many lessons are hybrids and difficult to classify.

__**INTASC standard(s) addressed:**__


 * Standard 2: Student Development**

The teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support a child's intellectual, social, and personal development.


 * Standard 3: Diverse Learners**

The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and created instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.


 * Standard 4: Multiple Instructional Strategies**

The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage student development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.

__**NETS standard addressed:**__

Teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS•S. Teachers:
 * 2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments**
 * a. || design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity. ||
 * b. || develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress. ||
 * c. || customize and personalize learning activities to address students' diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools and resources. ||
 * d. || provide students with multiple and varied formative and summative assessments aligned with content and technology standards and use resulting data to inform learning and teaching. ||

=__**Week 3**__=


 * Reflective Blog #2**

Although both of the articles which we read this week are somewhat dated (2002 and 2005), they are still very applicable. Of the three classrooms which I have taught in so far, two had zero computers and one had one computer. Due to this experience, I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what the authors had to say, as I had been in similar situations and tried similar measures. For example, when I had one computer, I used the station technique many times. Likewise, I agree with both Glori Chaika and Whit Anderson when they say that teachers who incorporate technology into their lessons must "plan ahead." (Anderson, 2002, p. 2) Even though all teachers must plan ahead, teacher who use technology must do so painstakingly, as there are many things that can go wrong when technology is in the equation. For example, I planned a webquest exercise for my students last November. I reserved the laptop cart, wrote selected quality websites, and wrote explicit direction for my students to follow. I did all of this only to find out that one of the websites i selected was blocked by the district's firewall! Similarly, when facilitating in inquiry lesson in my one computer classroom, the one computer froze during the first group's turn on it! I ended up having my students skip the computer station for the time being. They combined groups and traveled to all of their other stations. by the time they had finished, I had got the computer working, and we visited the computer station together.

I enjoyed Ckaika's suggestions for what to do in a one computer classroom, and I am intrigued by the resource which she mentioned, //25 Activities for the One Computer Classroom.// However, I do believe that teachers must be careful to not allow their one computer to be a busy work station. Because of the computer's scarcity and esteem, I can see some teachers and students using it just to use it. This would be a mistake, seeing as we have so little time in the classroom as it is. As a teacher, I vow to ask myself, is there worth in the student acquiring and/or viewing this information on the computer? If the answer is "no," then we will not use it for that particular activity.

Question: If a school had the option of purchasing one desktop for each of its thirty classrooms or one laptop cart with 30 laptops, which should it choose?

__**INTASC standard(s) addressed:**__


 * Standard 7: Planning**

The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.

__**NETS standard addressed:**__

Teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS•S. Teachers:
 * 2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments**
 * a. || design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity. ||
 * b. || develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress. ||
 * c. || customize and personalize learning activities to address students' diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools and resources. ||
 * d. || provide students with multiple and varied formative and summative assessments aligned with content and technology standards and use resulting data to inform learning and teaching. ||

=__Week 4__=


 * Productivity Tool Survey**

Hi all, since I was not in attendance this evening (April 18), I have posted my survey link to my bio page. You can take my survey by clicking [|here], or by copying and pasting the below link into your browser:

http://edu.surveygizmo.com/s3/522025/Brian-Berling-FolioSpaces-Survey

=__**Week 6**__=


 * Reflective Blog #3**

The three articles which we read this week: Shaing-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsua's "Reflections on Using Blogs to Expand In-class Discussion," Chinwe H. Ikpeze and Fenice B. Boyd's "Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests," and Dina Rosen and Charles Nelson's "Web 2.0: A New Generation of Learners and Education," all provide the reader with new tools and ideas to use in the classroom. These new tools and ideas are accompanied by endorsements and reasons for use. For example, Rosen and Nelson bluntly state that Education 2.0 should be used because it "emphasizes social constructivist pedagogy." (Rosen & Nelson, 2008, p. 221) Similarly, the other four authors tout their featured example of technology as the epitome of high level thinking skills. Wang and Hsu assert that blogs "can be an ideal forum for social constructivist learning." (Wang & Hsu, 2008, p. 81) Ikpeze and Boyd state that "WebQuests are designed to make effective use of learners' time and to support their thinking and active involvement at the levels of analysis, synthesis, transformation of information, decision making, and evaluation." (Ridgeway, Peters, & Tracy, 2002) While all three articles feature an example of a technology that is supposedly conducive to higher level thinking skills**,** two of them deal with Web 2.0 tools while one of them deals with a Web 1.0 tool.

The two that deal with Web 2.0 tools are Shaing-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsua's "Reflections on Using Blogs to Expand In-class Discussion," and Dina Rosen and Charles Nelson's "Web 2.0: A New Generation of Learners and Education," After reading both of these articles, I am not only more willing, but better prepared to implement Web 2.0 into my everyday instruction. Wang and Hsua convinced me that implementing blogs into my classroom is a good idea because they listed several of the best characteristics of blogs. For example, Wang and Hsua mentioned that unlike Blackboard which "becomes inaccessible when the class is finished...the content on blogs can be accessed by every internet user" (Wang & Hsua, 2008, p. 82) even after the course is over. The authors went on to point out that "knowing that their writing is available to the public, students might have stronger motivation to write well." (Wang& Hsua, 2008, p. 82) Finally, Wang and Hsua pointed out that blogs might be better than in-class discussions because "face-to-face discussions are frequently dominated by only a few participants who determine the topic. Blogs can serve as a strong equalizer." (Wang & Hsua, 2008, p. 83) I agree with this point, as I have certainly participated in in-class discussions that were dominated by a few outspoken classmates. Likewise, Rosen and Nelson emphasized the benefits which comes from the "many-to-many" (Rosen & Nelson, 2008. p. 213) interaction that is endemic to Web 2.0. This also struck a chord with me, as it made me realize that Web 2.0 is unique. it is not a "one-to-many" medium of communication such as books, newspapers, radio, and TV, nor is it a "one-to-one" medium of communication such as letters, telegraphs, and telephone communications. These points, along with Rosen and Nelson's explanations of several popular Web 2.0 tools, are enough to convince me to implement Web 2.0 tools into my instruction. With this in mind, I believe that these articles were worth my time, as they will most likely enhance my instruction in the future. I wish I could have been present for Janet's Web 2.0 presentation as well.

Question: How does a teacher create a back-up plan for a webquest? After all, it is entirely online. The essence of the lesson is the internet.

__**INTASC standard addressed:**__


 * Standard 2: Student Development**

The teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support a child's intellectual, social, and personal development.


 * Standard 3: Diverse Learners**

The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and created instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.

__**NETS standard addressed:**__

> Teachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments. Teachers: > || b. || engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tools and resources. || > || c. || promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students' conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes. || > || d. || model collaborative knowledge construction by engaging in learning with students, colleagues, and others in face-to-face and virtual environments. ||
 * 1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity**
 * a. || promote, support, and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness. ||

=__Week 7__=

Here is my rubric which I created in class.


 * Reflective Blog #4**

Both of the articles for this week, John Sweeder’s “Digital Video in the Classroom: Integrating Theory and Practice” and Debra Sprague and Cynthia Pixley’s “Podcasts in Education: Let Their Voices Be Heard” encourage teachers to integrate technology into their instruction. However, they do not stop there; they give excellent instructions and advice in order to make it easy for teachers to implement technology into their instruction. For example, Sprague and Pixley provide the reader with rather specific instructions for creating a podcast. They point out that the creator should find a quiet environment and rehearse what he or she wants to say. The authors also provide the reader with several computer programs he or she could use to edit a podcast.

However, the important part of Sprague and Pixley’s article is the last part, where they discuss the effect of podcasts on students. In this section, Sprague and Pixley make it clear that “the real power of podcasts, as with any technology, is when they are placed in the hands of the students.” (Sprague & Pixeley, 2008, p. 231) They go on to explain how “podcasts allow students to publish their ideas for a broader audience than the immediate classroom” (Sprague & Pixeley, 2008, p. 232) when they are combined with students projects and other forms of assessment.

Similar to the last part of Sprague and Pixley’s article, most of Sweeder’s article focuses on the educational benefits of digital video, especially when it “ integrates or blends “product” technologies such as computers, camcorders, tripods, and editing software with “idea” technologies, such as multiple intelligence theory (Armstrong, 2000; Gardner, 1999), cooperative learning elements (Wilen, Ishler Bosse, Hutchison, & Kindsvatter, 2004), and Sherman’s (1991) three-stage videographing process with subject-matter content.” (Sweeder, 2007, p. 110) I am a huge fan of Sweeder’s idea to blend all of these elements together, as doing so will likely cause an increase in student learning. Sweeder gives several examples of how this could happen. For instance, on page 110 he talks of how students’ self-concept often goes up as a result of mastering a new technology. He also points out that “Careful listening as well as a willingness to handle conflicts and compromise are central requirements for all group productions to be successful and finished on time.” (Sweeder, 2007, p. 111. However, these benefits to using digital video in the classroom are not inevitable. They must be carefully planned for and supported by the teachers. For example, the teacher must provide students with specific rubrics when asking them to complete digital video projects. Likewise, teachers must give very clear and explicit directions. The week-by-week breakdown that Sweeder provides on pages 112-118 makes it very clear that he has though his digital video project out and is prepared to give very clear directions.

Questions:

While I learned a lot from these two articles about implementing digital video and podcasts into the classroom, I still have two burnings questions. First, are podcasts equal to class time? For example if a teacher decides to replace all of her lectures with podcasts, will learning and comprehension rise, fall, or stay the same? Second, if teachers to not have time to do some of the technological grunt work upfront, should they still use technology? For example, Sweeder mentions in “Digital Video in the Classroom: Integrating Theory and Practice” that “before students enter class during Week 4 the course instructor, in order to save time, captures all of the student videos by downloading them directly from the digital camcorders onto separate multimedia computers using nonlinear digital editing software.” (Sweeder, 2007, p. 115) In this situation, if the teacher simply did not have time to do this, should she still do the project?


 * INTASC Standards**


 * Standard 3: Diverse Learners**

The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and created instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.


 * NETS Standards**


 * 2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments**

Teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS. Teachers:

b. develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress.

=__Week 8__=


 * Reflective Blog #5**

This week’s articles, “Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology” and “Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices” both shed light on cutting edge pedagogical technology that can be used in today’s classrooms. “Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology” discusses the benefits of using interactive whiteboards in a K-12 classroom while discusses the many things that teachers and students can do with handheld mobile devices. Both articles gave insight into the general use of technology as well. For example, J. Roschelle, author of “Unlocking” stated that there are three possible roles for a computer in a classroom: tutor, tutee, and tool. While I agree with this categorization, I also think that the three roles often merge in one lesson, unit, or school year. For example, a categorization exercise on a SMART Board can be both a tutor and a tool for students. Similarly, Roschelle pointed out that that if used correctly, technology can transform the classroom to a “learner-centered, assessment-centered, knowledge-centered, and community-centered” environment. (Roschelle, 2003, p. 4) While I agree with this assertion, it does appear to be a bit over the top, especially when taken out of context. I agree that technology can do all of those things, but it is dependent on how the technology is implemented in the classroom. As the authors of “Collaborative” point out, a teacher doesn’t necessarily have to have formal training in technology implementation, so long as they dedicate significant time to learning how to use the technology in a learning conducive way. This is evidenced by Simon Mills’ ability to “fully integrate this technology into his classroom practices, using it to support and enhance students’ learning conversations about mathematics” (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson, 2005, p. 455) without being formally trained.

One other thing which resonated with me from these two articles include Sarah Curran’s assertion that whole school approaches to technology work better than when a single classroom attempts to go it alone. I agree with this, as I have found it to be true in all respects, not just technology. If an entire school embraces the use of technology in the classroom and is able to acquire funds to equip all classrooms, I believe that the learning will be plentiful. Students won’t need to take the time to learn and re-learn how to use devices such as interactive whiteboards and handheld computers. Technology will simply be an everyday tool for students to manipulate for learning purposes.

Questions:

However, a question did arise in my head while reading page 461 of “Collaborative.” Does terminology matter? The authors mentioned that Sarah Mills referred to the interactive whiteboard technology as a “game” and that students were subsequently very interested. How should teachers refer to technology? She we attempt to frame it in positive terms or should we allow it to speak for itself?


 * NETS Standard(s)**


 * 5. Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership**

Teachers continuously improve their professional practice, model lifelong learning, and exhibit leadership in their school and professional community by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources. Teachers:

d. contribute to the effectiveness, vitality, and self-renewal of the teaching profession and of their school and community.


 * ITASC Standard(s)**

Standard 9: Reflective Practice: Professional Development

The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluate the effects of his or her choices and actions on others and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally,

9.2 Uses professional literature, colleagues, and other resources to support self-development as a learner and as a teacher.