Insights from a Constructivist Approach to the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers
Heather Sanderson
June 25, 2019
After reading A Constructivist Approach to the National Technology Standards for Teachers I came out with five insights to help instruct my teaching. The first insight is that it is important for teachers to foster learning through creativity and innovation in the classroom. Morphew states that according to Bloom’s Taxonomy “‘Create’ is thought to be the most complex and cognitive process for a learner” (Morphew, 2012). The importance of creativity and innovation in the classroom reminded me of Honey and Kanter’s book Design, Make, Play Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators. In their book Honey and Kanter explain that makers (students who create) have a “deep engagement with content, explorations, problem-solving, collaboration, and learning to learn” and that the design process “engages students as critical thinkers and problem solvers” (Honey & Kanter, 2013). In fact The Next Generation Science Standards requires that science teachers conduct problem solving and engineering tasks in our curriculum (Next Generation Science Standards, 2013). In my classroom I have my students’ complete 4 engineering tasks each year and I can confirm that when students design and create they are engaged with the content and enjoy the process. During my graduate studies I have also come to embrace the Experiential Learning Theory which “promotes learning through direct experience” (McKenzie, 2013). These engineering tasks which implement innovation and creativity are also a science experience that my student’s will remember and will hopefully foster a love of science in them.
The second insight I took from A Constructivist Approach to the National Technology Standards for Teachers was that technology can be used to personalize instruction (Morphew, 2012). In the ISTE Standards for Teachers, Standard 5a states that teachers need to “use technology to create, adapt and personalize learning experiences that foster independent learning and accommodate learner differences and needs” (International Society for Technology in Education(ISTE), 2019). Additionally, A National Landscape Scan of Personalized Learning in K-12 Education in the United States found that “sixty percent of middle and high school teachers report that students have access to one-to-one devices in their classrooms” (Gross, Tuchman, & Patrick, 2018). With that number only increasing, teachers will have more opportunity to personalize their teaching through the use of technology. Also, in A Look to the Future: Personalized Learning in Connecticut it is stated that a personalized learning environment provides “flexible and sufficient time for students to stay on track toward their aspirations, commit to their goals, and to persevere” (Zmuda & Ullman, (N.D.). When education is tailored to fit each student, EVERY student can achieve to their maximum potential and not get left behind.
The third insight I took from A Constructivist Approach to the National Technology Standards for Teachers is that teaching and learning can be enhanced when technology software that uses spreadsheets or databases are included (Morphew, 2012, p. 154). Much of the research I have done in my graduate work has centered on using apps to teach science content. One of the main findings of my research is that the immediate feedback I receive through the apps databases and spreadsheet produced positively directs my teaching. In the article Apps-oluely Perfect! Apps to support Common Core in the History/Social Studies Classroom the authors state that by using apps “a teacher can know in matter of seconds if students are grasping the material” (Waters, Kenna, & Bruce, 2016). In another study done that used student feedback to inform teacher practice among pre-kindergarten students it was found that “mobile learning using informal feedback from students to guide instruction significantly increased students’ Phonological Awareness and Mathematic skills compared to a control group that did not receive targeted instruction using mobile technology” (Reeves, Gunter, & Lacey, 2017). I have also discovered through my research for my thesis on how the iPad improves science achievement that my students thrive on the immediate feedback apps provide both to me to inform my teaching and to my students to guide them to where they need to be to find success in science class.
The fourth insight I gained from A Constructivist Approach to the National Technology Standards for Teachers is that 1to1 iPad use has revolutionized access to assistive technology. While the authors do not discuss the iPad specifically and just reference using technology for students with disabilities, I have come to rely on the iPad for the ease at which text to speech can be used for my students who are dyslexic or not reading at grade level. In the article Using a Multicomponent Multimedia Shared Story Intervention with an iPad to Teach Content Picture Vocabulary to Students with Developmental Disabilities the authors state iPads “are easily adapted to differentiate instruction” and “are less stigmatizing compared to other forms of assistive technology, and provide easy access due to their portability and features” (Riveria, Hudson, Weiss, & Zambone, 2017). The use of the iPad has allowed many of my special education students better access to the science curriculum and they succeeding at a much higher rate than before the implementation of one to one iPads. Also in the article Using iPads to Improve Academic Gains for Students with Disabilities the authors point out that “the cost of an iPad and corresponding apps are less expensive than other devices used for AT and instructional technologies” (Quick, 2014). I have no doubt that many more students now have the access to the assistive technology they need due to the reduced cost.
The final insight I took from A Constructivist Approach to the National Technology Standards for Teachers was that as teachers we must provide safe and healthy use of technology (Morphew, 2012). This made me think of the research I have conducted on iPad distractions for students with ADHD. In fact, a study done by Willcocks and Redmond found that the most negative aspect of technology in the classroom was that “parents and students both reported concerns about off-task behaviors or the increased opportunity for distraction, particularly in the areas of gaming and social networking” (Blikstad-Balas & Davies, 2017). In Screen media use and ADHD-related behaviors: Four decades of research the authors state that “research has shown that children who display ADHD-related behaviors typically experience low baseline arousal levels. This is often experienced as an unpleasant physiological state, and to alleviate this state, children with ADHD-related behaviors tend to seek out and engage in arousing activities. Media use, particularly violent or fast paced media, may serve as a sufficiently arousing activity” (Beyans, Valkenberg, & Piotrowski, 2018). To deter this type of off task behavior our school has done two things. First our students do not have an app store on their iPad so they cannot download game apps or other apps that may distract them. Second, each student is monitored through Apple Classroom. Apple Classroom is an app that allows me to monitor each of my student’s screens simultaneously and lock the screen if I need to. Just the fact that my students know I can see their screens keeps them on track, I barely have to address inappropriate iPad use anymore.
References
Beyens, I., Valkenburg, P.M., & Piotrowski, J.T. (2018). Screen media use and ADHD-related behaviors: Four decades of research. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 115(40), 9875-9881.
Blikstad-Balas, M., & Davies, C. (2017). Assessing the educational value of one-to-one devices: have we been asking the right questions? Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 311–331.Retrived from https://doi-org.ecsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1305045
Gross, B., Tuchman, S., & Patrick, S. (2018). A National Landscape Scan of Personalized Learning in K-12 Education in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/iNACOL_ANationalLandscapeScanOfPersonalizedLearning.pd f
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2019). ISTE Standards for Educators. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators
Morphew, V. N. (2012). A Constructivist Approach to the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE].
Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states by states. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org
Quick, N. (2014) Using iPads to Improve Academic Gains for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1005&context=eatc;Using
Reeves, J. L., Gunter, G. A., & Lacey, C. (2017). Mobile Learning in Pre-Kindergarten: Using Student Feedback to Inform Practice. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 37–44. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ecsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=120706100&site=ehost-live
Rivera, C.J., Hudson, M.E., Weiss, S.L., & Zambone, A., (2017). Using a Multicomponent Multimedia Shared Story Intervention with an iPad to Teach Content Picture Vocabulary to Students with Developmental Disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 40(3), 327-352.
Waters, S., Kenna, J., & Bruce, D. (2016). Apps-olutely Perfect! Apps to Support Common Core in the History/Social Studies Classroom. Social Studies, 107(3), 1–7. https://doi-org.ecsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00377996.2016.1149046
Zmuda, A. & Ullman, D. (N.D.) A Look to the Future: Personalized Learning in Connecticut. Retrieved from https://www.capss.org/uploaded/2014_Redesign/Educational_Transformation/CAPSS_Whitepaper_FINAL_12-23-14_copy_2.pdf