I am in the process of writing a manuscript about 21st-century learning and the integration of technology. I have developed a three-tiered system to identify types of learning activities that integrate technology. Their descriptions are provided below. Can you help me by providing practical examples from the classroom of the different technology integrations? Your comments would be greatly appreciated.

Retrofitting
The simplest integration of technology into teaching and learning is retrofitting. There is little change in instruction, but rather a different tool is used to facilitate similar learning strategies. This level of implementation has the instructor performing the same tasks, with the same teaching and learning strategies, only using the technology as a new tool. The teacher still delivers information directly to students and may have interaction via questioning. The use of the technology does not intellectually challenge students in any new or novel format. Instruction, although perhaps enhanced in some fashion, really is not altered in any meaningful way.

Retooling
The next level of information technology integration offers educators more tools for learning. Retooling expands options for learning. For example, instead of being limited by the books available in a classroom or library, a virtual world of extensive, seemingly endless information becomes available using online tools. The information is generally available upon demand and is easily cross-referenced and verified by a cautious, critical eye. Although there is an increase in options for knowledge acquisition, there is still only a one way flow of learning: from source to student. Educators have the ability to do more to enhance student learning.

Reconfiguring
When truly considering the implementation of twenty-first-century skills in conjunction with core instruction, educators must reconfigure. Most recognize that constructivist-based knowledge acquisition occurs through a situated learning schema where students not only learn from the “Sage” (whether the Sage be a teacher or a website), but from social interaction with one another. Knowledge flow can occur in two directions. Therefore, students need to become producers of information, not just consumers. Implementing novel knowledge production in this bidirectional fashion certainly will cause changes to teacher pedagogy. It is probable that many educators will need direct and specific training and mentoring to implement this type of change.
Many web-based tools are specifically designed with interactive features. Sometimes dubbed Web 2.0 or the read/write web, these sites allow simple production and the ability for others to provide reactions or comments. Blogs, wikis, podcasts, discussion forums, photo albums, instant messaging, and voicethreads allow students to produce original work, publish it online, and solicit feedback from other classmates, the teacher, or the online world in general. Student-producers do not have to be savvy at programming. Rather, the web tools are menu driven, object-oriented, and often have interfaces that look like common word processing software packages. This is important because it allows students and teachers to focus on content, concepts, and ideas, not the distracting minutia of web coding.

Disclaimer: I am generally very pleased with the education my daughter is receiving at her elementary school. She comes home excited about learning, and I can see her growth in reading and especially writing. She is adept at finding patterns in numbers and we often “play games” to reinforce her math skills. This “rant” is an attempt for me to evaluate my own practices when assigning homework.

My 1st grade daughter comes home on Thursdays with a homework packet, which is to be done over the course of the week. The paper requests that for management purposes, the papers not be returned until the following Thursday. The assignments have caught my attention, but unfortunately, in a negative way.

I was quick to notice that the top portion of the paper has the date the assignment is given and it is followed by the date it is due. Usually the day (Thursday) and the month is typed in, but the numerical date always seems to be handwritten.

I inquisitively wonder how many years these papers have been recycled. I was particularly aggravated last week, when one of the “handwriting assignments” wasn’t even copied correctly – the children couldn’t even see the full word.

The assignments are uniform across all 8 sections of first grade – our neighbor’s child, in a different class, also comes home with the same work. There is little to no differentiation on the pages, and I find many of the assignments to be busy work. I work with my child diligently, but I really see very little learning taking place, besides the responsibility of a parent to work with a child to complete this work. Perhaps skills are being developed, but I see very little attention being paid to higher-order thinking. In fact, the one time I see a potential higher-order thinking assignment, it’s assigned to ME!

As part of our fire safety program, please create a simple map of your home showing at least two fire escape routes from your child’s bedroom as explained in the packet.

My child’s? I recognize this is most likely an error on the part of the original writer, and that my daughter is the one that is supposed to complete the assignment, but it just illustrates to me the lack of care that goes into the preparation of these documents.

As many know, I am a strong advocate for 21st-century skills. To me, they are just as relevant in elementary school as they are in high school. If we are preparing our students for the challenges and demands of a 21st-century society, I think we are obligated to request meaningful work that challenges them (as developmentally appropriate), but moreover asks them to use those skills that are so critical: critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, effective written and oral communication, creativity, and the likes.

I think it just reminds me of the importance of relevance when we give students work to complete outside of class. I need to be mindful that an assignment should be a learning experience, and challenge my students to make connections with previous knowledge, build skills, and certainly use higher-order thinking. If we are not promoting thinking and acquisition or refinement of knowledge, we are not valuing the time our students are spending doing work outside of class.  Meaningful work can take a long time to complete – that’s acceptable, because learning is taking place.  What I must try to avoid are assignments that don’t have meaning, and don’t stretch students to learn.

Equally important is to provide feedback to students, even when the work is good.   We always talk in education how there’s room for improvement, and our students need similar feedback.

I hope I haven’t insulted too many people.  Moreover, I hope I assign homework that follows my model.

Last week I taught a statistics class on converting data to different forms: z scores, percentile rank, NCE scores, and the like.  The challenge with teaching these concepts, besides the obvious mathematical concerns, is the relevance of doing it.  The basic meaning behind converting scores is to put numbers in common terms so sets of data can be related to one another.  For example if one instrument had potential scores of 1-42, and another had a range from 200-800 (like the old math SAT ranges), its hard to put that interval-level data into common terms.  That’s the ultimate purpose of the z-score:  to base a set of data (e.g., a sample of students with normal distribution with a specific standard deviation), in common terms, regardless of the raw score format.  Remember that z-scores are based on a SET OF DATA that is inter-related.

The majority (~96%) of z-score data will be between the values of -2 and 2, with a mean of 0.  Uggg . . . now all numbers are on the same scale, but still have relatively little meaning to a non-stats person.  So the percentile rank comes in.  Put the scores in percentiles relative to one another.  This comes at a cost:  the data is now ordinal.  But the benefits are enormous:  they have meaning to practitioners. 

Now for an affective comment.  I went home with a sore throat.  Hmmm . . .  I must have been talking too much.  I wonder, for a two-hour class session, if there was too much direct instruction.  Were there enough opportunities for the students to apply their knowledge? 

I pondered this on the drive home, and even more so on Friday, when I had the opportunity to meet with a master World Language teacher for whom I am serving as a dissertation major advisor.  Since my primary role is a science teacher, I wanted to expose myself to the instructional experiences of a high school Spanish teacher.  For me, this was a wonderful and enlightening experience. 

I had never seen a computer-driven language lab and the power of allowing students to demonstrate their technical speaking, reading, and listening skills.  The process was so fluid and dynamic, and the transitions from learning activity to learning activity were masterfully administered.  No doubt, this was due to an extraordinary master teacher.  Easily five different learning activities took place in each class I observed.  Each learning activity was targeted to a specific skill or knowledge and was seamlessly transitioned to the next.  Just amazing to watch, and I know I do it no justice in words.

My learning helps to remind me that students need a variety of instructional strategies to address their varied learning styles.   Also it reinforces my general strategy to vary instruction, especially in an extended-class setting.