Reflection

The overall learning experiences throughout the course “Reaching and Engaging all Learners through Technology” was a tremendous journey. In fact, the challenges of completing a variety of learning goals were vital in extending my literacy skills which helped to improve my professionalism and purpose as an educator. In reference to Banner and Cannon (1997) they are of the view that, “true teachers always seek to learn more, to remain current with what is known about their subjects, to keep those subjects fresh and exciting enough to sustain the exhausting act of teaching day in and day out, year after year (p. 8) (as cited in Archer, 2004, p. 20). Some of these fresh ideas included creating and implementing surveys from sites such as Zoomerang, for my English Language Learners (ELLs) to assess the “Relevance of Assistant Language Teacher (native speakers) in Japan”. Additionally, using other methods of assessment such as surveys and inventories where used to gather information about students’ interest, learning styles, intelligence, and learning profiles is an attempt to gather relevant information about students that will be useful when differentiating instruction and the learning environment.

Consequently, this opportunity to self-reflect has brought to my attention that in spite of the many challenges that educators have to bear in the classroom, there are endless methods to continue charting the course to facilitate learning. We are reminded that “informative assessment isn’t just for the teacher [because] it involves a partnership between teacher and students” (Tomlinson, 2008). Quintessentially, as educators collaborate with colleagues to create the learning atmosphere to meet learning outcomes, we can also tap into the valuable opportunity that we have to learn from our students as well.

As my professional, academic, and personal development expanded this was attributed based on the wealth of reliable sources from experts which enabled me to demonstrate my competence to use technology to meet the needs of diverse learners. “Providing Internet-based lessons in rich media format for students to use for a review, for homebound students to access basic information, or for parents to use while helping their children with homework is a technology-enhanced form of direct instruction” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009, p. 271). Subsequently, my perspective on constructing lessons to include the use of technology and to be able to meet the needs of diverse learners is now etched in my mind to foster the skills necessary to reshape my teaching methods and approach to deliver instruction while being increasingly supportive to maintain consistence at it.

As my judgement to incorporate technology and 21st Century literacy skills unfold and my efforts to synthesize all the target knowledge encountered, I realized there was so much about being a digital citizen that I was unaware of. As Alvermann, Phelps, and Ridgeway (2007) stated, “how well students do in this digital environment will depend to a great extent on how well teachers prepare them to become independent learners capable of applying information literacy and library skills in critical and creative ways” (p. 342). Therefore, my motivation to become more reliable and competent in the classroom does not rest in my own delivery of instruction but in my good judgement to learn from my students as well whose self-efficacy is highly likely to be improved from such opportunity to be considered an ‘expert’ among peers as well.

Throughout the course, there were strategies for incorporating technology into the content area lessons that contributed to my understanding based on the practical opportunities that were afforded. The differentiation station, creating voice threads, creating interactive presentation for colleagues, constructing lessons and detailed action plans for use with differentiated instruction and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) were practical exercises that helped to spring board my professional journey as an educator. As Eagleton and Dobler (2007) state, successful teachers continually prompt learners to become more metacognitive so that students begin to monitor their own learning, adjusting and extending strategies as needed” (p. 19). Hence this modeling is expected to be manifested as I differentiate instructions and seek to “provide alternatives so that every student can learn” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). Additionally, the discussion boards included a debate component with a discussion on ‘fair versus equal’ in differentiating instruction which aroused much opinion that was supported by facts. Essentially, the most valuable learning outcome for me was to realize that providing a variety of methods for students to demonstrate their understanding is just as vital as ensuring that all students’ needs are met.

The reading conducted on creating a learning environment have caused me to be mindful about the kind of learning atmosphere that we create for our students. By “providing options for the student to obtain extra assistance whenever needed [and] strategically plan a psychologically safe environment so the student feels free to take reading risks with questions and thinking” are the right attitudes to cater to the needs of all learners (Chapman & King, 2009, p. 16). The learning atmosphere also plays a significant role in the vision that the teacher has from the outset for the students. In every content area learning can be hampered as “a capable reader may not reach reading potential because of continued struggles with boring, unchallenging materials [therefore to avoid such award situations] present stimulating and engaging lessons on all the readers’ ability and interest levels” (Chapman & King, 2009, p. 19). Furthermore, the very nature of the labour market, dictates the competitive edge that many learners are required to possess in this 21st Century information age. Hence, it is incumbent that every effort to motivate students and prevent them from being engaged in disruptive behaviours will no doubt be rewarding in preparing students to be qualified and mentally prepared for the competitive labour market.

My misconceptions of the purpose of UDL were clarified as my knowledge based expanded. Therefore, my philosophy has changed to focus on the disadvantaged learner which might include students with a physical disability, slow learners, students with behavioural problems, students who have challenges adjusting to a new culture all require attention and strategic approaches to stay focus. By studying what procedures work in one class can be the anchor for successive lessons. Also, to ignore the value of applying best practices from academic research to show empathy to our struggling learners and fostering competitiveness for more capable learners would be an understatement. As a result, the scientific knowledge about brain research and the three networks “recognition, strategic and affective parallel the three prerequisites for learning described by Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1962): recognition of the information be learned; application of strategies to process that information and engagement with the learning task” will be useful in my current managerial and planning duties (as cited in CAST 2011). The immediate changes that I will model is to become proactive in obtaining information about students’ interest, learning styles, learning profiles and then collaborating with colleagues to implement instructional materials, impart knowledge, interpret data from assessment tools to make informed decisions for their future success.
One immediate adjustment that will become more outstanding than others is to make more meaningful use of expert information that is certain to produce more reliable data associated with the development student-teacher success in the classroom. In relation to this area of improvement, I am expected to affect change in my learning in order to “vary expectations and requirements for student responses [since] a well-designed student product allows varied means of expression and alternative procedures and offers varying degrees of difficulty, types of evaluation, and scoring” (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2003). Based on the incites gained from the readings, I am committed to provide stimulating student product with more options to cater to their diverse so they can feel less pressured to demonstrate their learning potential in more rewarding ways.

Having conducted research from credible Web sites such as CAST, and ASCD about brain research, UDL, and DI changed my perspective in approaches to creating lessons and manage other aspects of the physical and psycho-social environment. The information from CAST was particularly useful as I am more aware that my students’ needs are more important than what the curriculum dictates and the demands to ‘speed up’ learning. Furthermore, since students come to institutions with varied learning expectations which we must ensure are met then our priorities should be removing as many learning barriers that will prevent from functioning in tasks given and being able to apply comprehension skills to decode information. Suffice to say, with so many options for learners these days, varying from online learning to homeschooling, to private schooling, teachers who are especially in state-managed institutions have to captivate their learners’ interest planning carefully to teach needed information, intrigue students, provide age appropriate tasks, and provide student-focused tasks. When we place high values our learners and they will respond accordingly the returns will speak for themselves.




References

Archer, J. (2004). Characteristics of an effective teacher of reading in an
elementary school setting. Retrieved from
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-10282004-201637/unrestricted/Archer_dis.pdf

CAST. (2011). What brain research tells us about learner differences. Retrieved
from,
http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/chapter2_2.cfm

Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful
classroom use: a Standards-based approach. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.

Chapman, C., & King, R. (2009). Differentiated instructional strategies for reading
in the content areas. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Eagleton, M. and Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the web: Strategies for internet
inquiry.New York: Guilford Press.

Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and
implications for UDL implementation. Retrieved from
http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/differentiated_instruction_udl

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Universal design for
learning UDL). [DVD]. Reaching and engaging all learners through technology.
Baltimore, MD.

Tomlinson, C. (2008). Learning to love assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 8–
13. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Zoomerang. (2011). Online surveys. Relevance of assistant language teachers (ALTs)
in Japan – student satisfaction survey. Retrieved from,
http://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsPasswordPage.aspx?ID=L2662VLVBVB6