TFI
ARTICLE CRITIQUE TFII ARTICLE CRITIQUE
TFI:
Technology Operations and Concepts
Caverly
and MacDonald (2004) explained that one of the most important aspects
of keeping
up with technology is that it causes us to be developmental learners,
struggling to learn new concepts and processes, reflecting on that
process is
good for us as developmental educators, because it will help us in our
careers
in addition to growing intellectually is better for our institutions
and our
programs, and most of all, professional development enhances learning
for our
students.
The authors cited that Boylan (1995)
estimated that over 100,000 developmental education and learning
assistance
professionals served over 3 million students, although less than 15%
subscribed
to professional journals or belonged to professional organizations and
less
than 2% attended state or national conferences and that considering
this
reality, the National Association for Developmental Education's
Executive Board
(NADE, 2001) resolved that developmental educators should regularly
engage in
professional development.
There are three dimensions for
professional development in technology integration,
one dimension provides a checklist of standards developmental educators
should
acquire in technology integration, a second defines proficiency levels
within
these standards, and a third lays out resources to develop the other
two
dimensions (Caverly and MacDonald, 2004).
Similar to the six categories of technology
skills and abilities for teachers identified by ISTE, the authors
listed their adapted
standards and proposed that developmental educators should be able to:
(a) demonstrate a sound
understanding of technology operations and concepts; (b) plan
and design learning environments and
experiences supported by technology; (c) implement curriculum
plans, which include methods and
strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning; (d) apply technology to facilitate
a variety of effective assessment and evaluations; (e) use
technology to enhance their own productivity and
professional practice; and (f) understand
the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of
technology
in higher education in order to apply those principles in practice. It is further revealed that these standards
present technology as neither the content of instruction nor the
delivery of
instruction, but instead, they advocate the use of technology as a tool
to
supplement instruction (Caverly & Peterson, 2000).
Caverly and MacDonald also adapted
the ISTE administrator standards and proposed that developmental
education
leaders should: (a) inspire a
shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology and foster an
environment and culture conducive to the realization of that vision;
(b) ensure that curricular design,
instructional strategies, and learning environments integrate
appropriate
technologies to maximize learning and teaching; (c) apply
technology to enhance their professional practice and to
increase their own productivity and that of others; (d) ensure
the integration of technology to support productive
systems for learning and administration; (e) use technology
to plan and implement comprehensive systems
of effective assessment and evaluation; and (f) understand
the social, legal, and ethical issues related to
technology and model responsible decision-making related to these
issues.
The authors pointed out that in an
effort to move beyond a simple checklist of technology skills, Apple
Computer
(2003) designed a continuum of technology integration. This continuum
provides
a means to evaluate oneself regarding how one thinks about and acts
when
integrating technology. Simply, it outlines a series of developmental
levels in
technology integration: (a) adoption,
where technology supports traditional practice; (b) adaptation, where technology
integration enhances practice; (c) appropriation,
where technology integration changes practice; and (d) innovation,
where new
practices are developed due to technology.
This development allows for a means to progress either within
the
standard or from standard to standard.
Morrison & Brown (2004)
suggested that professional development in technology has the best
success when
provided outside one's normal responsibilities and duties, allowing
attention
to be focused on learning technology integration. The
authors offered suggestions of alternative
avenues to pursue for professional development such as attending
sessions on
technology at state and national conferences, checking the websites of
major
national organizations and their representative state chapters, joining
the
special interest groups on technology at these national organizations
to keep
informed, and utilizing online tutorials that are available at a
variety of websites
to teach the software.
In its brevity, with the
introduction of adapted standards, this article highlighted key aspects
related
to ISTE Standard I: Technology Operations and Concepts as they apply
specifically to teachers, administrators and professional development. The information presented in this article was
useful as were the adaptations of the ISTE standards.
TFII:
Planning and Designing Learning
Environments and Experiences
ISTE
standard II applies to Coiro’s second discussion point of broadened
understandings of the reading activity. Standard
II is applicable to the author’s interpretation of the aforementioned
as the
author spoke to three specifics areas: purpose, process, and
consequences of
reading. Standard II is relevant to this
because technology facilitators cannot effectively implement standard
II as it
relates to reading comprehension on the Internet without ensuring that
the
teacher-imposed purpose is clear, the readers possess the literacies
necessary
to appropriately process the information of activity, as well as gains
knowledge, can make applications, or maintains a level of engagement
while
involved with a text.
As
Coiro explores the broadened understandings of the reader, cognitive
capabilities, purpose, motivation, and self-efficacy were incorporated. The author suggests that technology can
influence our understanding of the cognitive traits commonly associated
with
both strong and struggling readers and that few studies examine the use
of the
Internet as a teaching tool for reading comprehension.
Additionally, the author points out that
research shows that as children progress through school their interest
in
reading for pleasure and their motivation to read to learn diminish
(Robb 2000)
and explains how Plugged In (http://pluggedin.org)
is being used
as a technology tool to motivate and empower students in low-income
neighborhoods in Palo Alto, California.
This
was an excellent article and a must read for educators on all levels as
we work
to facilitate technology into educational processes.
Coiro discussed important yet often
unaddressed points. As a classroom
teacher and prospective school library media specialist, I am expected
to integrate
and teach the various uses of technology to adults and children. In my efforts to incorporate technology, I
had never thought of reading comprehension prior to reading this
article. As I attempted to provide
technology as an
alternative to lectures and textbook assignments, I just assumed that
the use
of technology would be an easier and better instructional strategy
without
considering the variables associated with reading comprehension. Looking back at some of the unsuccessful
lessons in which I have attempted to use technology as a teaching tool,
I can clearly
see that the lack of these considerations has played an integral role
in their
failure.
Coiro,
J. (Feb 2003). Reading
comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding
of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. Reading Teacher 56, 5.