eTips Article Reflection

(Chapter 3)(Chapter 4)

In reading Sara Dexter's eTips piece, one point needs to be made from the start. The idea that, because technology is in the classroom, therefore it has value, is bunk. It is like any resource a teacher has; it only has value if it is used, and used to its strengths. There has been a lot of outcry at the implementation of smartboards; they're expensive, they're clunky, and they're already close to, if not already, being outdated technology. And older teachers dismiss it (I have heard comments like, "I will use it as a chalkboard"). But you know what? I have yet to see a teacher not use it. Once they realize what it can add to the classroom, its value goes up tremendously, because teachers are more open to it.

The concept of "added value" also plays an important role in the use of technology in the classroom. Often it's thought about how the students can benefit; however, the article makes a good claim for how teachers benefit, too. In being able to reach a wider array of students through technology, teachers are able to be more effective. Effective software and hardware is key in this process, but when done right, the results are astounding, for both parties.

It can even allow students a voice they did not have previously. A student who may not be very good at writing, but is excellent with visuals, can use technology to get their thoughts, emotions, and feelings across in a way they may not have been able to with the written word. It is in this vein that teachers are also able to scafford...even individualize scaffolding...far more effective than ever before. If you are able to show a student how he or she got from Point A to Point Z, and show all of the steps, all of the ideas, all of the ways they modified their project throughout the process, you help the student get a better idea of their own innerworkings. It helps the teacher figure them out, as well.

Especially in this day and age, where teachers from multiple generations exist, there needs to be a wide array of professional development, which the article states. This point can not be more important; it is essential that, as we live under NCLB, the same applies for teachers. We cannot simply force them to adjust to the changing times; we have to hold a lifeline, and help them move with it. Because the younger teachers that "get it" today will be the teachers that rebuff advancements tomorrow. It's a never-ending cycle. You get comfortable with certain methods, and you stick to what you know. Technology inherently goes totally against this; Moore's Law alone dictates this. So, more professional development is a must.

Overall, I thought the article did a good job of outlining the keys when dealing with technology in our schools. But they'll only go as far as the district, its schools, and their staffs, allow it. If there is a resistance from the top, teachers may not receive the kind of professional development they need. If there is resistance in the middle, policies may not be implemented to assist teachers, or the district, to meet its goals. If there is resistence on the front line, technology may be ignored, and districts will be left asking, "What happened?"
---
When it comes to the concept of UDL, I find it to be a pretty straightforward concept. It is how I have conducted myself in the classroom through my time in one. The notion of teaching to each individual student, rather than force the students to conform to one method, is common sense to me. As a result, the idea of utilizing multiple, flexible methods with the intent to scaffold and help each student find a clear, common goal, is also common sense.

I don't know what I can add that would make my thoughts any clearer.