EDLD+5364+Week+2

The readings from this week were informative and thought provoking for me. I am a part of a cohort with my district committed to learning about and implementing differentiated instruction in the classroom. As a member of this cohort, I attended a national conference over the summer and had the privalege to listen to speakers such as Marzano, Wiggins, and many others. While I had been practicing differentiated instruction for some time, this was the first chance I had to put a framework around my practice and really begin to understand how differentiated instruction can make for students in terms of achievement. I loved the readings from "Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works," by Howard Pitler, Elizabeth Hubbell, Matt Kuhn, and Kim Malenoski because it provided some very practical examples of how technology integration fits into the framework of differentiated instruction in terms of setting objectives for students. I especially liked the KWHL charts that students can make themselves through word processing applications, and the organizing and brainstorming software such as "Inspiration" that students can utilize to provide a visual framework or outline for a unit of study. My students do not love to take notes, but they are extremely engaged when they have the opportunity to create their own mind maps or outlines with a technology application. The ability to then take their brainstorming effort from the beginning of the unit and add to it as they learn new information is a powerful tool that gives them some control over their own learning. I really feel like I am beginning to see "differentiated instruction" in a practical way now that the potential technology applications have been introduced for one of the key D.I. componenets, setting objectives. I love how I am able to move (slowly) from theory to practice and fill in some of the gaps that I have had since the summer conference.

The second reading that had an impact on me was from "Technology-Enriched Classrooms: Effects on Students of Low Socioeconomic Status," by Michael Page. In this reading, the study conducted indicated that "technology-enriched elementary classrooms are conducive to higher levels of mathematics achievement, higher levels of self-esteem, and student-centered environments among low socioeconomic status elementary children," (Page, 2002). I am currently serving on a technology committee for our district, and the goal of the committee is to provide recommendations to the district as to how to provide equitable access to technology (computers and internet) for all students. It is a complicated task, however, this study along with other findings by the committee demonstrate to me how important it is to provide these technology resources to our lower socioeconomic students if at all possible. I am proud to be in a district that recognizes the importance of this. I have also seen first hand how hard it is for these few students who do not have access to technology to feel like they can keep up with other students who do have technology tools available. Even when there is time allotted during the school day for these students to complete work that others can complete at home, they still feel left behind. I am hopeful that our committee can develop a good solution to this issue.