Hinna+Ahmad

= = = **__Education:__** = Currently in my 2nd year Master's program in Curriculum and Instruction; middle childhood Educational Focus: Language Arts, Social Studies, Natural Science, Math (4-6)


 * __Links I love to use__:**

Twelve essentials for technology integration:  http://content.yudu.com/ Library/A18dcc/ TwelveEssentialsforT/ resources/index.htm? referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. yudu.com%2Fitem%2Fdetails% 2F59772%2FTwelve-Essentials- for-Technology-Integration

 teacher tested techology sites blog:  http://www.freetech4teachers. com/

 Beyond Google Description:  http://content.yudu.com/ Library/A1hpsm/BeyondGoogle15+ Tools/resources/index.htm? referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. yudu.com%2Fitem%2Fdetails% 2F96315%2FBeyond-Google---15-- Tools-and-Strategies-for- Better-Web-Search-Results

Bright Ideas: []

CECH LIBRARY RESOURCES (right side):  http://libraries.uc.edu/ libraries/cech/

What I loved about the Chaika article is that it addressed the exact issue teachers deal with in public school. Not all classrooms have a computer, and if they do, it is just one ‘teacher’ computer and its often not user friendly for students. What I mean by this is that it is sitting at the teacher’s desk, often alone and in a corner, behind the children facing their backs, has this unspoken assumption that the computer is meant for the teacher and no one else. I loved that Chaika addressed that it’s not about a teacher being tech savvy, but that working in classroom where technology is limited really pushes your creative buttons and there are often more trial-errors than successes. I think Joan Peebles addresses the first most important idea, that when resources are low in a classroom you have to give up control as the teacher and share. The computer needs to be in an open, visible and equitable location. I think that is hard for teacher because we are so USED to seeing the ONE computer at the teacher’s desk, but I think it’s something we need to do in order to see the computer as a resources, and not our own property. Once the computer becomes a more communal resources, it’s much easier to incorporate it into lesson plans which have station-rotations, incorporate videos or simulations, scheduled computer time, or even research within groups. What I found counterintuitive with the readings is that the Anderson article said that we have to think of the one-computer mishap as a resource, a place for gathering information and doesn't work around students creating projects with. While I understand why the author would say think, I think that the problem with one-computer classrooms is that teachers already see the computer in this way and which is why it's used minimally because teachers have tons of resources already to use, especially for more experienced teachers. I think that one-computer means that a teacher HAS to be creative. I would insist on finding ways to use the computer to develop student projects because it has them engaging with the computer beyond google. One idea I would do is every unit lesson, a pair or group of students would create a summary presentation of the lesson information - something to be used or reviewed right before the test - that would be helpful for all students and they could access at home if they wanted. However, it is still something student-created and they are engaging with tools and resources on the computer in a more complex format. This unit rotation allows students to build information sharing on one another and still allows them to have individual access to the computer but in varying formats. This way, i am still giving control to the students, but they are being challenged because as every unit goes by, students will be come more and more familiar with computer/online features and will be challenged to create reviews which were better then the last, but still is specialized to whatever topic we are covering.
 * REFLECTION BLOG #2 **

I think one of the greatest challenges with a one computer classroom is using the computer beyond just a technical accessory, but using the computer as a critical thinking tool. Is computer integration into my lesson necessary? Are my students critically thinking because of the technology I have brought into the lesson? When you consider these questions when using a computer in the classroom, I think you address the NETS standard of productivity, as well as planning and designing of effective learning environments. Teachers limit computer use in the classroom because it doesn't help them in any way, computer-use should be productive. And we as teachers need to "continually evaluate and reﬂect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning" - by considering higher-order thinking when using a computer - we always have to adjust its use to what students are knowing and learning - something that is an active process just like our instructional practice should be.

I think these are important questions because we shouldn’t use computers just for the sake of using them, but really getting students to engage with technology with higher order thinking. More than anything, I think both articles got it right when they said that this takes planning ahead of time. The NETS standard states " design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners" Although it might feel like the one-classroom computer begins as a burden, not a tool, once teachers start to use the computer in the classroom on a regular basis – developing new ideas and higher order lesson planning with technology will come easier.

**REFLECTION BLOG #3 **

What Rosen and Nelson (2008) pointed out was that web 2.0 deals more with user initiated information, and a social sharing between members or public. The differences between web 1.0 and 2.0 really showed their differences when it dealt with presentation and collaboration. Were Web 1.0 is meant for an information transfer, web 2.0 is meant to be more collaborative and possibly informal inquiry. I thought it was interesting for Ronsen and Nelson (2008) to break down the different web 2.0 tools currently available or popular today. While I thought Table 1 on page 214 was a really great categorization to tools, I’m not sure a description of all the different social media tools was as helpful. Beyond description and uses of different services on the web, I think that the broader impact of web 2.0 and social media is more important because it is a constantly evolving process which demands in-time updating and comments. Nevertheless, it was interesting to hear how the different social tools used features or community information in different and new ways. I particularly find that the ability to upload, tag or link any piece of info, article, photo, video, etc., onto a discussion board type post is particularly unique and helpful for web 2.0 information sharing. Features such as this allow us to propagate and further discussion in new ways that we could not do immediately/quickly before.

While I think it is important to discuss and analyze new media/tools for education, I think that the features and discussion around WebQuests from the Ikpeze & Boyd (2007) article to be a little outdated. I feel like every single class I have ever taken in my Master’s and licensing courses discusses and features WebQuests as the highlight of educational media literacy. I think that when we develop a constructivist approach towards teaching, where students “should be allowed to make choices that reflect their interest and to be in control of their learning”, then WebQuests is extremely limiting and surrounding around a teacher centered model of information transfer (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007). That is not suggesting that WebQuests do not have their place in the classroom, however I think that these WebQuests could likely be moved down for lower level instruction and a great introductory strategy for students just learning to use the internet or for a controversial/highly volatile topic. A teacher who is not already comfortable with using the internet as a resource in her classroom clearly is not comfortable with the internet themselves as a whole and therefore reach a larger discussion about the disconnect between older educators and their students. I definitely agree with the article when they describe our students as being ‘digital natives’ and that this “identifies a new generation of learners who are comfortable with and enthusiastic about using collaborative technologies to participate in the World Wide Web as creators rather than consumers” (Ronsen & Nelson, 2008).

I found this quote interesting because more than ever you hear about students being isolated and closed off from socializing and interacting in the real world. **Discussion Questions:** Are these accusations unwarranted by those who are considering only traditional socializing methods? Are students more willing to do group work and participate than before?

** REFLECTION #4 ** I liked the Sweeder (2007) and how the class used common movie themes and ideas to introduce video/online instruction in the classroom. By using cultural references such as the Oscars or Video superlatives, video instruction becomes more relevant and fun for students. The students are able to equate their videos in a modern context and make their material more relevant to how they see and value videos today. Even though the students were in graduate coursework, I think that it still provided an important basis for students to value video instruction in a meaningful way. This method could easily be transferred to a classroom context where younger students can gain similar benefits to video production. Developing confidence in product technologies begins with teachers, but ultimately is meant to encourage and dissipate information and self-regulating behaviors to students. Educational technology (ET) was defined as “the systematic and creative blending of ‘product’ and ‘idea’ technologies with subject matter content in order to engender teaching and learning processes within and across disciplines …exploring the dynamic, transactional relationships among content, pedagogy and technology” (Sweeder, 2007). I liked how the author discussed that using technology allows students to not only show what they learned within a unique context, but allows them to work together and produce information that is presented in various intelligences and styles. ET allows students to use their strengths, within a unique context that is not only relevant, but also allows them to build on information taught during instruction. ET allows students to showcase what they are good at, while challenging them to think outside of the box. Using technology can be challenging as a learning tool because there are many unknowns as well as complications. However, I think that giving students control within clearly defined parameters, as shown in the article, allows us as teachers to learn more about what our students are capable of. Sweeder went into detail about the roles and assignments which went along with the project, defining the assessment and student goals/objectives, giving us a well-defined project to implement as a lesson plan to our students. However, I think the greater take-away from his article was the connections made to various student outcomes and theories, showing the marriage between technology skills and educational theory. This project can be scaled to fit the needs of teachers and students, but more than anything provides an explanation for each process and how its related to student learning. The pre-production, production and post-production format seems like a really simple organization, but allows teachers to define lesson plans in an organized format for developing student’s background information, implementing main concepts for the lesson, and assessment. I found this ET lesson plan to be really helpful for teachers who are at any level of using ET.

Podcasts are another great technology within ET because it is something that is mobile, on the go, and something students can access virtually anywhere. Podcasts are great because it allows students to access information on the go, or within various contexts. If students are listening to school work or learning materials outside of the classroom, then maybe it would be easier for them to connect information to outside sources. The only difficulty with podcasts is that it typically requires a very specific type of information transfer. Students are using podcasts within a limited auditory context and we all know that their attention spans aren’t always the best.

Discussion: this article did a great job organization and outlining how educational technology can and would be used as a lesson/unit plan. It’s clear that using educational technology takes time and was using within a long-term context. It made me consider the ways in which teachers plan out their weeks and resources. Is technology as useful for teachers who plan only a day/week beforehand? Can ET still be relevant to teachers who don’t plan as well as the article defined? This makes me think about the way teachers plan their classroom instruction and what changes need to be made in instruction to incorporate technology – would teachers see ET as necessary enough to change the way they instruct? Should/can ET be presented or formatted to fit the way teachers plan?

** Rubric Reflection **

 * b) create one or more rows of a rubric that you would use for your own classroom **

||  ||
 * || ===Persuasive Essay : Environment Change===


 * CATEGORY || **4 - Above Standards** || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 11pt;">**3 - Meets Standards** || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 11pt;">**2 - Approaching Standards** || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 11pt;">**1 - Below Standards** || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 11pt;">**Score** ||
 * <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 11pt;">**Focus or Thesis Statement** || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">The thesis statement names the topic of the essay and FORESHADOWS the main points to be discussed. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">The thesis statement names the topic of the essay. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">The thesis statement outlines some or all of the main points to be discussed but does not name the topic. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">The thesis statement does not name the topic AND does not preview what will be discussed. ||  ||
 * <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 11pt;">**Accuracy** || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">All supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately from credible peer-reviewed journals and up to date. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">Almost all supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately with verifiable data from tracked websites within the past 10 years. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">Most supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately within 20 years of data. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">Most supportive facts and statistics were inaccurately reported. ||  ||
 * <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 11pt;">**Position Statement** || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">The position statement provides a clear, strong statement of the author's position on the topic. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">The position statement provides a clear statement of the author's position on the topic. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">A position statement is present, but does not make the author's position clear. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">There is no position statement. ||  ||
 * <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 11pt;">**Support for Position** || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">Includes 3 or more pieces of evidence (facts, statistics, examples, real-life experiences) that support the position statement. The writer anticipates the reader's concerns, biases or arguments and has provided at least 1 counter-argument. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">Includes 3 or more pieces of evidence (facts, statistics, examples, real-life experiences) that support the position statement. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">Includes 2 pieces of evidence (facts, statistics, examples, real-life experiences) that support the position statement. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">Includes 1 or fewer pieces of evidence (facts, statistics, examples, real-life experiences). ||  ||

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;">Date Created: **May 09, 2011** <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;"> <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma; font-size: 9pt;"> **READING REFLECTION #5** <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma;"> The readings presented this week provided interesting insight into teacher/student perceptions about how to use trending technologies. The greatest takeaway I took from the articles was that technology used in the classroom cannot provide pedagogical instruction in replacement of educators and it is a medium for which to provide more widespread use and ease. The Roschelle article was particularly interesting because it talked about the use of mobile devices and their contribution to class instruction. Particularly, Roschelle (2003) stated that “Mobile devices participate in a network that is overlaid in the same physical space in which students and teachers participate socially in teaching and learning, so two distinct kinds of participation are occurring at the same time and in the same space: the normal social participation in classroom discussion (for example) and the new informatic participation among connected devices”. I liked this comment because I think that the variance in participation with mobile technologies in the classroom typifies the situation presented for teachers and students well. When you use technology in the classroom, there are two-different types of communication happening, and they are not always synced with one another. Even though mobile technologies described in the Roschelle article were small roles in the overall classroom instruction, they proved to have valuable uses and have the potential to adapt and change as the classroom learning and knowledge capacity changes. What I like about mobile technologies is that they are still a new market in the classroom and the capabilities for mobile devices are still growing at an extremely rapid pace. As this technology grows, I think the function and use in the classroom will change as well. Teachers use the mediums which they are provided within the context that they know. Armstrong et all (2005) perfectly pointed out this conundrum when stated that “…when faced with a new technology a teacher is likely to make sense of it in terms of previous experiences of older technologies”. The variability of a technology tool, or any tool for that matter, is dependent on the training and experience of the educator. For example, even though participatory simulations have found to be useful in technology based formats, this is something that could be potentially organized and managed by the teacher. By no means is a simulation limited within the scope of technology availability. If a teacher was motivated to provide a simulation for the class, he/she could very much do so with the appropriate amount or preparation and time. However, technology in this case allows a teacher to limit the work preparation and speed up the lesson in order to provide more time for discussion or instruction.

I think ease of use is currently the most common use for technologies because that is how teachers perceive their use in the classroom. It is a tool to enhance instruction by either a.) Providing teachers with more time for interaction with students by limiting the amount of work a teacher must do before or during class, or b.) Speed up and increase the availability of instruction/tools for students so that they can have greater access and integration of knowledge into their daily lives. Even though technologies have proven to be fast-paced and adaptive to the needs of their users, there is still a lot of potential to be unlocked from technology which is entirely dependent on the user. Thus, I agree with Armstrong et al (2005) when they say that technologies provided in the classroom are dependent on the knowledge and experience background of the teacher and proper training is needed to have teachers use technologies in a way that is most effective for them, as well as their students.

Discussion Questions: 1. Should technologies provided in the classroom provide a mutually beneficial use where teachers as well as students are improving instruction and learning? Or should technology be used as a medium to help teachers/make instruction easier 2. If technology is as valuable as what individuals make of it, how can we elevate the interaction of educators with technology? <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma;"> <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma;"> <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma;"> <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma;"> <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma;"> <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: arial,verdana,tahoma;">** REFLECTION #6 ** ==== ** ﻿ <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-weight: normal; line-height: 16px;">While I don’t think any technology tool should be limited in its scope of use, I do find certain technologies to work better than others in specific contexts. I found the second life/virtual reality articles interesting as a middle school teacher. I had a professor once use and model second life and the variations in which she used the medium were interesting and even helpful. I liked how the articles discussed how second life has been particularly groundbreaking in psychology courses and exploring online virtual museums. Strangman & Hall (2003), said it best when they said “ Virtual reality is a technology that allows students to explore and manipulate computer-generated, 3-dimensional, multimedia environments in real time ”. The keyword I found to be helpful was the use of ‘explore’. Virtual reality is meant to be an exploratory tool where students work outside of typical frameworks on purpose in order to gain new knowledge or experiences. If a school does not already have a virtual venue set up in second life, navigating or facilitating students through this medium can be a challenge for one teacher. Therefore, I think I would see virtual reality working in k-12 schools on a broader scope where students interact by grade or school subject. If teachers collectively work together to incorporate second life into students’ learning, I could see it having much more of an positive effect rather than one teacher doing it within her classroom context. By using second life in this way, I think students release the true benefit of second life, which is to connect individuals in a different way, either to one another or information, that they might not have done so in real life. ** ====

==== Baker et all (2009), did a great job of introducing virtual worlds of education, and I loved the step by step guidelines teachers can follow. It gave more concrete possibility to the idea of me using virtual reality in the classroom. Sending students to this medium with clear educational objectives was likely most important for a middle school classroom. It has been widely discussed that one of the driving benefits to second life is that students who are typically shy, have an alternative method for interacting and can develop social behaviors online which they lack in the real world (Baker et al, 2009). However, I genuinely wonder if this statement is overreaching for students who are traditionally shy. Just because a student is quiet in a physical classroom, does not necessarily mean that that will blossom online. I think online socialization, as it is currently, is beneficial for a very specific type of personality. That being said, I also think that the environment itself is crucial to engage students. Both articles discussed successes in virtual reality with older students and contexts. ====

==== Most academic standards relating to technology reference the ability for students to build on basic technology skills. I wonder if second life is something that would be able to build a students technology efficacies outside of second life. To me, it feels as though second life is something that is still outside the realm of national standards. However, i do think standards in academic content could definitely be addressed within second life. Especially when it comes to students understanding cultures, concepts, and theories not readily accessible in the classroom. With the SB5 cuts, I feel as though second life really could become a necessity for students to interact because they have no other outlets. While it may currently be useful for more mature audiences, I think it would be interesting to see how this works for middle school. However, without strict measures, buffers from outside users, and privacy setting, I do not think that I would use second life with middle school students. I may model the environment for a demonstration, but not have students create and avatar themselves. Using second life in a middle school classroom I think puts a teacher and students at a vulnerability which they cannot effectively control. I think second life pushes at the boundaries for teachers because they do not always have control over who students are talking with and they types of information being transferred between strangers and students. ====

Discussion Questions:
==== <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">1. Would a k-12 teacher ever use second life with their students? Is it too risky to allow students that kind of freedom in such a variable medium? ==== ==== <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">2. Is Second Life considered to be the ‘ultimate’ direction for technology? Is the goal for technology to increasingly integrate real life and virtual life? ==== ==== <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">3. Simulations seem like a great option, has anyone ever used a simulation in their class? What does prep time look like? ====