Evaluating Technology-Based Curriculum Materials

Reed, D. S. & McNergney, R.F. (2000). Evaluating Technology-Based Curriculum Materials. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education Washington DC.  ERIC Digest, www.eric.ed.gov

Summary

The article Evaluating Technology- Based Curriculum Materials by Diane Reed and Robert McNergney gives suggestions for evaluating technology related educational materials.  The article first suggests that users consider the authenticity of the technology for use in the classroom.   There are a number of questions to ask when considering implementing technology-based curriculum in the classroom.  Questions include: “Is technology used to bring real-world examples into the classroom?” and “Are activities such as simulation, Web experiments, and Web field trips used to enable students to understand the richness and variability of real life?” (2000, p.2).   The authors suggest that technology should help students by doing rather than just watching or listening. 

As the article continues, it makes connections with the theory of constructivism.  The authors suggest that technology should make the students and the teachers co-learners.  Students should be responsible for their own learning.  

Educators also need to prepare their own assessment framework for the assignments. First, they need to define the “instructional context” of which the technology curriculum materials will be used. Once educators establish who will be learning, where, and why they need the technology, they are capable of evaluating their materials. 

The evaluator first needs to decide what the digital content will be.  Will students be using it as drill and practice?  Or will students be using technology as open-ended explorations.  The authors suggest that when technology is used efficiently “digital content enables students to seek and manipulate digital information in collaborative, creative and engaging ways” (Reed & McNergney, 2000, p.3).  The ability to evaluate, analyze and create should be the goal of technology integration.  The article gives many examples of students across the world using technology to create many different higher-level thinking projects. 

Another concern of the educator who wants to incorporate technology is the hardware and software requirements of the curriculum.  Also, does the technology take a great amount of teacher time and effort to learn? Educators should also consider if the amount of time put into the product is worth the student learning outcome.  According to the authors, “Evaluators should examine software in the same reflective way that they examine other instruction materials; that is, with children’s learning in mind (Hall & Martin, 1999)” (Reed & McNergeny, 2000, p.4) 

The last points the authors make are about assessment and teacher support. The authors suggest that the primary goal of a technology assessment should be to measure student engagement as demonstrated by their performances.  They suggest that assessment should be based on performance and authenticity.  The authors also suggest that teachers need ongoing professional development no matter what technology they are integrating.  Some suggestions include online classes and teacher-support teams.  

Reflection

After reading this article, I did some research on the SAMR model and technology evaluation.  I started to ponder how I use technology in the classroom and whether it was authentic or merely just a tool that provides convenience.  I have found that I am not where I want to be with technology use.  Not much of my technology is used to provide opportunities for students to learn and explore.  Rather, it is merely a tool I use to show examples, and have students watch lessons.  If all my technology was stripped away at this moment, I would still be able to teach the lessons I teach without any second thought.  It would definitely be more inconvenient.   However, my core lessons would stay the same.  I would like to move to a different approach where technology is used as a tool for students to gain insight and knowledge that directly relates to their own personal artwork.  Until recently, I have not had the capabilities to let students research or learn on their own.  Our school has recently received a roaming laptop cart that could be used in classrooms.  My first step is to find corresponding websites and resources to my lessons and put them in one place- possibly on a website like Weebly.   Only then can technology be used to evaluate and analyze data, rather than just watch or observe.  

Technology and Gifted Students Motivation

Housand, B.C., & Housand A.M. (2012). The Role of Technology in Gifted Students’ Motivation. Psychology In The Schools, 49(7), 706-715.

Summary
         The article The Role of Technology in Gifted Students’ Motivation by Brian C. Housand and Angela M. Housand explores the opportunities that technology can have on gifted students’ education.  The authors begin the article with the notion that technology does not increase motivation by itself.  According to the authors, technology is not a motivating factor, but rather the vessel for which learning takes place.  Current learners are already well versed in technology.  Since technology is such an integral part of student’s lives, students do not even expect to have a learning experience without it.  The article follows a study that took a look at 199 middle-school to community-college level students who actively developed a web-based game online. The study showed success because students felt that designing games “made learning fun and not boring, that they were more productive, and that the work was interesting” (p.707).  The study found that it was not the technology that motivated students “but rather the opportunity for control and autonomy, challenge, cooperation, just-in-time knowledge (i.e. knowledge driven by curiosity and need), creativity, and recognition as products were provided for authentic audiences (Housand, B. & Housand A., p.707).”  Technology just gave opportunity for these things. 

According to the article, technology aids with student choice in learning.  Student control of the project may lead to motivation.  One of the tools mentioned in aiding student autonomy is Internet searching.  However, research has shown that students have problems with identifying legitimate Internet sources.  This issue has to be addressed in order for students to fully use the Internet searching tool correctly.  The article makes a connection between levels of competence and intrinsic motivation.  If the student has a higher competence in the area, motivation tends to be lower, since the subject is less of a challenge.  If student competence is lower, it may compel the student to find answers.  Technology can allow students who do not know much about a subject to find answers easily, as long as the student is knowledgeable with how to use Internet sites properly. 

Another option for students to use is online courses and programs.  Online workshops, courses, and schooling allow students to learn at their own pace.  This can be very beneficial to a gifted student who wants to learn at a quicker rate than average.  Online programs like “iTunes U” allow gifted students to be exposed to rigorous content.  Likewise, the Internet can open doors for gifted students to have “contact with peers who have similar interests and abilities” (Housand, B. & Housand A., p.710).  The article notes that having intense passions for areas of education may be isolating for those who do not have a like-minded similarly driven group of peers.  Technology can bridge the gap for these students.  It can provide mentors and open discussion on sites like Blogger or WordPress. 

Another connection between technology and motivation is curiosity.  According to the authors, “No longer is a question something deemed to be addressed at some future time, but rather, with ready access through laptop computers, iPads and smartphones, information-level learning can meaningfully scaffold deeper and more complex meaning making, thus supporting and sustaining curiosity, which can be a powerful motivator” (Housand, B. & Housand A., 712).  

The above statements reflect the author’s ideas for intrinsic motivation.  As far as extrinsic motivation is concerned, technology is considered a good way to introduce competition and recognition.  These can be powerful motivators for gifted students.  The authors give a few examples of websites, like 3D GameLab, that could aid with these things.  

Reflection/ Application

The article quotes an outside author who suggests “that we begin to view the computer more as a paintbrush and less as a technological device” (p.713).  I see firsthand how this concept is true.  Technology does not intrinsically or extrinsically motivate a student by itself.  Technology just gives students more opportunities than they have ever had.  It also allows them to feel comfortable in the learning place, this being due to their constant use/desire for all forms of technology.  I find that technology often motivates the teacher.  When the educator is excited, the students follow suit.  If a teacher is excited about what tools like Google search or WordPress can bring, then the students will also share that enthusiasm and take their work farther.  The opportunities that technology can bring to education are beneficial.  However, it is the student and teacher relationship that makes them relevant.  Students are most likely to be motivated if they have support, encouragement and self-confidence.  These things do not come from a computer, but from the people in their lives.  Educators should continue the use of technology in the classroom.  It opens doors to creativity and self-directed learning. But all must remember that technology is only a tool.  The tool is only as good as the one who is using it, so it must not be relied upon to “change” classroom environments, among other things.  Only the educator is capable of such a feat.