Thursday, January 29, 2009
TPACK2
Chapter Two stated the importance of accessibility to the information and communication of technology literacy. Before reading this chapter, I had the understanding that the accessibility to computers was more important than technology literacy. This chapter revealed the importance of the equality of ICT literacy for all students regardless of their cultural background. As stated in Chapter One, the digital divide between the “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” becomes more apparent in the achievement of the “full spectrum frequency” ( M. A. Kelly, 2008) of ICT literacy. As a “digital immigrant” (M.J. Kehler, & P. Mishra, 2008), I am fortunate to have access to communication, construction, and entertainment technology. However, I have not achieved the ICT literacy that is necessary to integrate digital technology successfully in my classroom.
Chapter Two discussed the impact of three digital divide within the ICT literacy. The first digital divide focused on the accessibility of computers and the Internet. At our school the Internet is limited, due to a computer block and poor electrical wiring. When the power is interrupted, the accessibility of computers is also interrupted for an indefinite amount of time. This interruption impacts teachers’ and students’ computer usage. Another interruption, that occurs, is when the second and third grade students participate in on line testing. This prevents other grade levels from having access to the computer lab.
Success within the second digital divide requires access to technology instructions from skilled teachers. Skilled teachers may not be accessible which creates an inequity for students. The skilled teachers must also be able to integrate technology with problem solving activities to increase students’ understanding, instead of relying on technology skills and practice drills. These skills and practice drills do not provide technological knowledge. In order for me to achieve success in enhancing instructions in technology, I will need to acquire a deeper understanding and knowledge of technology. I learned from Chapter Two that when I integrated technology in previous lessons, I used a “ defensive teaching” ( M. A. Kelly, 2008) approach in my lesson. I was not intentionally trying to control the students, but trying to work with the diversity of learners in my classroom. This teaching approach hindered the students that were able to work on their own.
The third digital divide is based on the cultural background of all students. Cultural background equity needs to be considered when using software and planning lessons. However, this is difficult to achieve due to the diversity in cultural and learning styles in classes.
As stated in Chapter One, the TPACK framework is a context process that will meet all students’ needs in the ICT literacy, regardless of their cultural background.
TPACK
Reflections from Chapter One
Defining technology as a tool that combines many resources, while using problem solving skills to create a desired product, provides a clearer
understanding of technology for me. Technology, in this chapter, refers to analog and digital technology as tools that can be used to create a desired product.
As one who did not grow up with digital technology, I have found the definition of “digital immigrant” very fitting for myself. Being a” digital immigrant” places me in a digital divide with the “digital natives,” who have grown up with technology ( M.J. Kehler, & P. Mishra, 2008). This divide is similar to the diversity in learning styles, that we as educators encompass in our classrooms. The digital divide adds to the complex process of teaching and learning.
Through the years, I have tried to include digital technology into my first grade curriculum and my staff development goals. Being engulfed in my “functional fixedness” approach ( M.J. Kehler, & P. Mishra, 2008), I have allowed this to limit my ability to integrate digital technology in my classroom. This has effected my students’ continuation of experiences and knowledge using digtial technology, which places them at a deficit compared to other students.
Our staff development workshops are based on isolated technology skills, that do not help me to transition beyond this “functional fixedness” ( M.J. Kehler, & P. Mishra, 2008). Once I have become familiar with a software program or an operating system, the technology changes. This increases my frustration with technology.
I found the paragraph on educational games enlightening. I had thought educational games provided the same design and usage as commercial games. I was not aware that educational games had limitations and were ineffective in social interaction, complexity of mastery, and educational value, as compared to commercial games.
As we venture into this class, I am in hopes that the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework, will assist me in intergrating my content and pedagogy knowledge and also have a better understanding of technology.
Defining technology as a tool that combines many resources, while using problem solving skills to create a desired product, provides a clearer
understanding of technology for me. Technology, in this chapter, refers to analog and digital technology as tools that can be used to create a desired product.
As one who did not grow up with digital technology, I have found the definition of “digital immigrant” very fitting for myself. Being a” digital immigrant” places me in a digital divide with the “digital natives,” who have grown up with technology ( M.J. Kehler, & P. Mishra, 2008). This divide is similar to the diversity in learning styles, that we as educators encompass in our classrooms. The digital divide adds to the complex process of teaching and learning.
Through the years, I have tried to include digital technology into my first grade curriculum and my staff development goals. Being engulfed in my “functional fixedness” approach ( M.J. Kehler, & P. Mishra, 2008), I have allowed this to limit my ability to integrate digital technology in my classroom. This has effected my students’ continuation of experiences and knowledge using digtial technology, which places them at a deficit compared to other students.
Our staff development workshops are based on isolated technology skills, that do not help me to transition beyond this “functional fixedness” ( M.J. Kehler, & P. Mishra, 2008). Once I have become familiar with a software program or an operating system, the technology changes. This increases my frustration with technology.
I found the paragraph on educational games enlightening. I had thought educational games provided the same design and usage as commercial games. I was not aware that educational games had limitations and were ineffective in social interaction, complexity of mastery, and educational value, as compared to commercial games.
As we venture into this class, I am in hopes that the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework, will assist me in intergrating my content and pedagogy knowledge and also have a better understanding of technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)