EDLD5364 Reflection

“You don’t know what you don’t know.” This phrase sums up the entire course for me. Although I have served as an end-user trainer in the past, and am now working in higher education, I have never managed a classroom, developed a lesson plan nor studied educational theory and brain networks. Like the students in our readings, I appreciated the applied examples for learning in both texts and other readings. It gave me an opportunity to contextualize how educational theory, brain networks and technology are applied in K-12 classrooms to maximize learning. As educators we need to balance our need to measure what students learn with how students will use what they have learned to solve problems both in and outside of the classroom. The Partnership’s 2004 report Learning for the 21st Century report implies that the current educational system is irrelevant unless we bridge the gap between how students live and learn (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). The texts, videos and group project have given me insight on how to harness students interests, expertise and current social environments to help them “know what they don’t know” in an active and engaging learning environment.

Fortunately, I was able to reflect on how I may integrate the theories, networks and best practices in my own community college student affairs policies, practices, process and learning outcomes. Solomon and Schrum (2007) warn that sitting on the sidelines is no longer an option; teachers must embrace students’ technology interests and capacity while leveraging their strength, pedagogy, to help students learn. In my case, I must consider how I can integrate Web 2.0 tools into the processes I “own” including outreach, admissions, assessment and graduation. Although social networking is included in the prospective and current student communication plans, should it have a more prevalent role? What other tools may be “harnessed” to create Gladwell’s (2002) “stickiness” and “tip” admissions yield, retention and graduation rates?

My “old information” is limited. I can only leverage my experience as a student, as a parent and as a community college administrator; however, in one of the weekly overview videos, Dr. Mason spoke of "enriching our personal knowledge base," and I have, definitely. I can apply what I have learned by addressing the individual differences in my own staffs' recognition, strategic or affective networks by individualizing pathways for their learning and professional development (Meyer & Rose, 2002). As an administrator, I have identified common goals for my employees and departments, but realize that I may need to be more flexible in allowing staff to follow their own path to reach personal and departmental goals. Furthermore by applying UDL principles and standards, I will be able to clearly state my goals and identify how I will monitor progress. Afterall, one size fits none for K-12 and lifelong learners.

In each of the courses I have taken thus far, I found the rubrics to be very helpful in designing my approach to completing the assignments. Some weeks, the learning curve was steeper than others, but I have been able to relate the K-12 concepts and examples to some of my work in student affairs at a community college. In school, I typically avoided group projects. In an interview when asked the standard question “do you prefer to be a team member or a team leader,” I always answer both, of course. The truth is, given the opportunity, I would prefer to be the leader: setting goals and timelines, making assignments, delegating, etc. However, for this assignment, I was at an extreme disadvantage. While I could leverage my experience as an administrator, with project based assessment and writing, I simply could not be in control, when I have no classroom experience. I had to rely on my teammates and team leader to provide context, set goals and delegate. I am fortunate to be part of a diverse team whose experience and considerable knowledge of K-12 and technology is more than impressive. Vicki’s vast knowledge of technology is an asset to student learning and teacher professional development. By exposing the team to the technology that is available she has assisted us in creating our own UDLs and meeting the scenario objectives. Jennifer’s experience with the content, lesson planning, TEKS and graphic design has helped me visualize the lesson, and both Janet’s and Holly’s experiences as coaches and with special needs students have been invaluable. Peer feedback indicated that my writing skills and time on task proved valuable to the team and the ultimate solution.

As usual, I felt the course concentration and content was more relevant for K-12 faculty and administrators; however, I have found that the things I have learned can be applied to higher education and student affairs. As college’s and K-12 research innovative ways to align curriculum and ensure that students exiting high school are college and career ready, the knowledge I have gained in this course will be valuable. I already feel as if I am more familiar with the K-12 environment including their challenges and triumphs. As I progressed through the course, I did realize that in order to provide efficient and effective service to our K-12 partners, my familiarity with the standards is essential. As we look for ways to align both career and technology as well as academic dual credit courses, I will leverage the knowledge I have gained in this course.

Although my assignment and discussion scores have been high, I do miss the feedback regarding the quality of work and areas of improvement. I was craving more feedback from both my IA and professor. I feel as though I my technology skills and attitudes have improved and as a result my ability to lead the young, digital natives that I supervise has improved as well. I am fortunate to be working at a young community college that values technology in the classroom. Our classrooms are state of the art and our information services and planning division is diligent in researching and reviewing innovative ways to support and implement technology both in and outside of the classroom. While I do have leadership, writing, strategic planning and assessment/evaluation experience, I am missing the classroom experience my peers bring to the discussion.

I live in a majority/minority region that has abhorrent educational attainment levels. The statistics reveal that for every ten Hispanic students that begin the first grade together, five make it to ninth grade, two make it to their senior year and only one of those students will graduation from college. Census Bureau data indicates that one-half the population lives below the poverty level and one-half of the adult population over age 25 have less than a ninth grade education. The majority of our students are first generation, Spanish speaking and poor. They are the faces of the non-traditional students Page (2002) references in Technology Enriched Classrooms: Effects on Students of Low Socioeconomic Status. As I reflect on my experience in this classroom, I know that I will be able to address the challenges those students face by leveraging what I have learned in this course. I will continue to reference the texts, the videos and discussion posts to look for solutions and innovative approaches to help these students succeed both inside and outside of the classroom.

References

Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus & Girous.

Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Hidalgo County, Texas. Educational Attainment Level 2005-2009. Retrieved March 3, 2011 from the US Census Bureau http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_S1501&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-tree_id=5309&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US48215&-format=&-_lang=en

Page, M.S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 289-409. Retrieved August 8, 2009 from the International Society of Educationhttp:
Education Research Quarterly

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved on March 7, 2011, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/chapter6_5.cfm

Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.