Unit 5 – Speaker, R. Technologies for Teaching Science and Mathematics in the K-12 Schools: Reviews, Observations and Directions for Practice in the S

This article by Richard B. Speaker discusses the different levels of technology for schools in the Southern United States. Speaker had four main questions he wanted to address in this article, which included:
o What aspects of multimedia and communications technologies are appropriate for teaching science and mathematics concepts and practices at different developmental levels?
o What technologies are teachers using to teach science and mathematics at different developmental levels in the United States?
o What inequities or divides still exist in technological access for science and mathematics teachers and their students at different developmental levels, especially in schools dealing with diverse students and children of poverty?
o In the current standards and achievement test driven educational situation, how are individual schools and teachers of science and mathematics integrating technology into their practices?
After gathering data, Speaker created a table to describe where different technology should be implemented in each grade. Also, Speaker ended by stating how the gap between the wealthy, well equipped communities and the poor, less equipped communities needs to shrink by having the federal government provide more funding for the poor, less equipped communities.
The table that Speaker created from his research is very helpful and should be viewed by districts around the United States. If students were introduced to different aspects of technology at the appropriate age, then students would be ready for jobs and advance technology skills in their futures. The article itself was not easy to read, but the information given, especially the table is very beneficial for incorporating technology in the classroom.

Unit 4- Sahin, T. 2003. Student teachers’ perceptions of instructional technology: developing materials based on constructivist approach

This article discusses a study with preservice elementary school teachers in Turkey that investigated the viewpoint of the preservice teachers pertaining to Instructional Technology and Material Development. These courses were taught in a constructivist approach, so the preservice teachers could learn about constructivism. If you are unclear about the meaning of constructivism, it simple is an approach to teaching where students are given the opportunity to take ownership of the learning by letting them discovery the material being taught. The results from this article showed that the preservice teachers enjoyed the constructivist approach to their learning and thought that they were active learners. This article concludes that constructivism is one approach that works for Instructional Technology and Material Development courses and encourages other educators to take a look at it.
Constructivism is an approach that many math teachers are going towards. It’s great when students can discover the objective and goals of the lesson on their own. Letting students take ownership of their work really creates relevancy to a student and the learning. I have a hard time think that pure constructivism is the way to go in a math class, but I learn so much more on the computer we I discover shortcuts, then when an instructor teachers them to me. I pretty much don’t remember about 80% of what the instructor shows me, so I agree that constructivism is the best approach for learning in an Instructional Technology course.

Unit 3 –Wang, L. & Beasley, W. 2005. Type II Technology Applications in Teacher Education: Using Instant Messenger to Implement Structured Online Clas

This article by Lih-Ching Chen Wang and William Beasley discussed several different aspects of using Instant Messenger (IM) for the forum of a discussion class. The authors described a study complete with graduate students, where e the whole class was on IM, except for two class periods. The type of technology applications used when a discussion is on IM is called type II, which is student-centered. There are five different characteristics for type II activities, which IM includes, such as stimulate relatively active intellectual involvement or place the learner rather than the teacher in charge of the learning environment. Through observing the study of graduate students and different research, Wang and Beasley saw both positive and negative aspects of using IM. One example of something positive that came from discussing over IM was that students were able to use other computer programs at the same time and share their data or finds (word projects or excel). One example of something negative that came from discussing over IM was that students could have private conversations or be doing something else during the discussion. Overall, if someone is really organized and does not think that discussions need human to human contact, IM discussion will work.
After reading this article, I definitely would not implement IM discussion into my classroom. There is too much opportunity for students to be off task and nothing would get done. Also, students could be having inappropriate side conversations and I would have a very difficult time monitoring it. Using IM seems like it would work best in a college setting, but definitely not in a high school mathematics classroom setting.

Unit 2- Handler, M. Integrating Technology into the Instructional Process: Good Practice Guides the Way

This article by Marianne Handler describes the importance and different ways to integrate technology into the classroom. The most important aspect for teachers to take from this article is that technology or learning about computers should be incorporated into lessons and not viewed as its own content area. Handler goes on to give examples for four different uses of computers in the classroom, which consist of teaching students, being a tool with which students can learn from, being a tool to assist in the learning process, and a way to develop open-need exploratory experiences for the students. When using computers in the classroom, Handler recommends that great planning goes into the process, as well as using the computers within the teacher’s comfort level. Teachers should become familiar with different softwares and computer aides to include in their lesson plans. Overall, the article really encouraged teachers to get familiar with software and computers, so students have more opportunity and a wider range of learning available.
After reading this article, I fully agree with Marianne Handler about incorporating technology as a part of the class and not its own class. I will be teaching mathematics and there are several cool and interesting software available that lets students practice operational skills and advance their problem-solving skills. I know as a child, my favorite computer game to play was Fraction Munchers. Giving students the opportunity to grow in computer skills, increase mathematical understanding, and have fun at the same time seems to me like a win-win-win situation.

Unit 1.Oblinger, D. and Hawkins, B. 2006 The Myth about Online Course Development.

This article by Diana G. Oblinger and Brian L. Hawkins gave some ground rules and questions to think about for online courses. Pedagogy and technology expertise are very important in developing and delivering quality online courses and the authors expressed how this has not occurred very frequently. Reasoning behind their claim was that many faculty members do not have savvy technology skills, so the courses are not presented with the ability for students and teachers to interact. The article stresses that to have successful and quality online courses, their needs to be a team effort between faculty, students, and technical staff. A few questions the authors suggested we think about are:
What is the best use of the faculty member, an expensive institutional resource?
Do we have a process for strategically investing in course development?
Do we confuse providing content with creating a learning environment or delivering a course?
What is the return we hope to see from our investment in course development?
After reading the article, I thought of my experience with my online class. It was pretty much a joke, where I would read the material and then write a summary about what I read and summit it to the instructor each week. I took the online course one summer, so I could get through my entire general university requirement courses fast. The article said something about using online courses for this very purpose, to graduate students on time. There was never any interaction between my peers or my instructor and myself. I would just turn papers in and receive a grade for the work I did. The online course didn’t teach me anything, so I understand what the authors are discussing when they bring up the point that online classes could be great if it was a team effort and not just done at an individual level.