site 2016 presentation

DR . SHELBIE W ITTEASSO C IATE PR O FESSO R O F SEC O N DARY L ITER AC Y,

C HUC K AN D KIM WATS O N EN DO W ED C HAIR IN EDU C ATIO N

O KLA HO M A STATE U N IV ER SITY

AM Y PI OTR O W S KIDO C TO R AL C AN DIDATE I N EN GLIS H EDU C ATIO N

FLO R IDA STATE UN I VER S ITY

DR . KATIE RY BA KOVATEAC HIN G FA C U LTY IN E N GLISH EDU C ATIO N

FLO R IDA STATE UN I VER S ITY

Initiating Instructional Change Through the Use of 21st Century

Literacies Practices

DR. SHELBIE WITTEASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SECONDARY

LITERACY, CHUCK AND KIM WATSON ENDOWED CHAIR IN EDUCATIONOAKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

AMY PIOTROWSKIDOCTORAL CANDIDATE IN ENGLISH

EDUCATIONFLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

Livescribe and a University-School Partnership Enhance

Literature Instruction

The Problem

Sixth grade students may be reluctant to speak up in front of their peers

Some students struggle with literary analysis beyond simply recalling basic plot details and characters

How can teachers encourage higher-level analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in the middle school Language Arts classroom?

Our Project

Collaborative learning in small groups using Livescribe smartpens

This project focuses on how the Livescribe smartpen was used in a middle school Language Arts class to collect data from student conversations in a constructivist classroom in order to monitor student understanding and academic progress

A middle school Language Arts teacher, her student teacher, and university teacher educators worked together to integrate Livescribe smartpens in the classroom

University/K-12 Partnerships

Partnerships between K-12 schools and universities benefit teacher education programs, preservice teachers, and K-12 teachers

Research has found some gaps between what teacher education programs teach about technology in the classroom and what technologies practicing teachers actually use in the classroom (Ottenbreit-Lefwich et al, 2012)

Kajder (2005) found that student teachers benefit from cooperating teachers who model and support technology integration

Using Technology for Assessment

Technology tools can engage students in learning and facilitate effective collection of assessment data

Technology “may allow teachers to assess more frequently and provide more and better feedback to leaners to improve their performance” (Jonassen, et al., 2008, p. 219)

Technology as a Collaborative Tool

Constructivist approach based on conversation and collaboration

“Conversation should be encouraged because it is the most natural way of meaning making” (Jonassen et al. , 2008, p. 5)

Technology enables students to “engage in active learning, constructive learning, intentional learning, authentic learning, and cooperative learning” (Jonasse, Peck, & Wilson, 1999, p. 218)

Assessment in Constructivist Classroom

Student-driven learning about real-life issuesTeacher is guide rather than transmitter of

knowledgeStudent understanding frequently monitored

by the teacherAssessment “documents what students can

do; promotes the collaboration of teacher, student, and parent in the learning process; and places the ownership of learning on the student” (Fischer and King , 1995, p. 33).

Livescribe Smartpen

The Livescribe smartpen is a hand-held pen that records anything the user writes or draws on special dot paper along with the audio associated with that writing. Users can then tap anywhere on the paper that they have written on and listen to the audio. These notes can also be uploaded to a computer and converted into a pencast—a PDF document that plays back both the writing and audio.

Livescribe in the Classroom

During a unit on the novel Drums, Girls, and Dangerous Pie, a 6th grade Language Arts teacher used learning stations facilitated by the Livescribe smartpen

These learning centers employed Livescribe’s smartpens to involve every student in literature analysis discussions

The Livescribe centers allowed students to demonstrate comprehension, team collaboration skills, and the ability to analyze textual events and themes. Groups of five students of mixed ability levels rotated to different stations every 10-15 minutes.


Centers: 1) vocabulary practice 2) discussion questions 3) a cause and effect chart 4) a body map analyzing a character 5) a story map that had students identify and analyze

tone, mood, conflicts, themes, and genres Additionally, the teacher and student intern recorded

the Socratic Circle Discussion (or Inside/Outside Circle Discussion)


Students first listened to audio recordings of the instructions (pre-recorded by the teacher, accessed by touching the pen on a pre-drawn star on the dot paper) and followed along with written directions

Students then audio-recorded their answers, taking turns within their groups speaking into the pen to what their peers discussed

Students were asked to arrange their responses on the dot paper by drawing a dot, which would tie their group’s voices to that mark, in a pre-drawn square, which corresponded to their class period number


The teacher uploaded the pencasts at the end of the school day to listen to and note students’ discussions and understanding of the novel

Student also listened to pencasts and listed five things they learned from listening to another class period’s discussions

Students were harder on each other in their feedback than the teacher


From the pencasts, the teacher was able to determine what topics and skills students needed to review and which topics and skills the students understood well

The teacher was also able to determine which individual students or groups struggled

These centers challenged students to think critically and collaborate with technology


Pencasts available online at: http://www.shelbiewitte.com/livescribe-article-examples.html

Thank You!

Contact Information for Dr. Shelbie Witte Email: [email protected] Website: shelbiewitte.com

Contact Information for Amy Piotrowski Email: [email protected] Twitter: @piotrowskiamy Website: amypiotrowski

References

Cambre, M. & Hawkes, M. (2004). Toys, tools, & teachers: The challenges of technology. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Fischer, C. F. & King, R. M. (1995). Authentic assessment: A guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hartshorne, R., Ferdig, R. E., & Dawson, K. (2005). Preparing current and future teachers to teach with technology: An examination of school-university collaborations. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 77-85.

Jonassen, D., Howland, J. Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A

constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Kajder, S. (2005). “Not quite teaching for real:” Preservice secondary English teachers’

use of technology in the field following the completion of an instructional technology methods course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(1), 15-21.

Livescribe. (2012). Education: K12 Institutions. Retrieved from http://www.livescribe.com/enus/

solutions/k12/ Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Strycker, J., Gronseth, S., Roman, T., Abaci, S.,

Plucker, J. (2012). Preparation versus practice: How do teacher education programs and practicing teachers align in their use of technology to support teaching and learning? Computers & Education, 59(2), 399-411.

Sindelar, N. W. (2011). Assessment powered teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

AMY PIOTROWSKIDOCTORAL CANDIDATE IN ENGLISH

EDUCATIONFLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

Using Swivl and Digital Video to Develop Preservice English

Teachers’ Reflective Practices

Introduction

Teacher educators would do well to work with preservice teachers on being reflective professionals

Teachers can improve instruction and student learning when they reflect and make adjustments accordingly

Previous research has examined teacher noticing and ways that teacher change instruction based on what they notice

This study applies this previous research to the field of English education

Methods

Participants: Four preservice secondary English teachers who took a methods course as part of program at a large research university.

As part of this methods course, participants were required to complete fieldwork in a secondary English classroom. During this fieldwork, participants had to teach three lessons, video one lesson, watch the video, and then write a reflection.

Methods

Participants used Swivl to make their videos. The course instructor chose this tool so that preservice teachers could see their movements throughout the classroom.

Data collected: Interviews before videoing their lesson and after

videoing their lesson Participants’ lesson videos Participants’ written reflections

Data was coded using framework for what teachers notice (Amador & Weiland, 2015)

Findings

Participants spent more time focusing on behavior and classroom management and less time focusing on learning and teaching pedagogy.

One participant spent more time in her written reflection discussing her cooperating teacher’s classroom structure than discussing her own lesson.

Participants were noticing what students were doing and didn’t have much to say about how students were learning content.

Findings

Reflections were general with only a little discussion of specific events that happened in the classroom during the lesson.

Participants spend more on their reflections on student behavior and classroom environment than on content and students’ understanding of content they were learning.

The findings of this study are consistent with previous research (Amador & Weiland. 2015; Ross and Gibson, 2010).

Conclusion

More research is needed on how to get preservice teachers to reflect at deeper levels of teacher pedagogy and student learning. Previous research suggests that classroom experience helps.

References

Amador, J., & Weiland, I. (2015). What preservice teachers and knowledgeable others professionally notice during lesson study. The Teacher Educator, 50(2), 109-126.

Miller, K. (2011). Situation awareness in teaching: What educators can learn from video-based research in other fields? In M.G. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing (pp. 51-65). New York, NY: Routledge.

Osmanoglu, A., Isiksal, M., & Koc, Y. (2015). Getting ready for the profession: Prospective teachers’ noticing related to teacher actions. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 29-51.

Ross, P. & Gibson, S.A. (2010). Exploring a conceptual framework for expert noticing during literacy instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 175-193.

Seidel, T., Sturmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations:

Does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 259-267.

Sherin, M., Linsenmeier, K.A., & van Es, E.A. (2009). Selecting video clips to promote mathematics teachers’ discussion of student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 213-230.

Sherin, M.G., Russ, R.S., Sherin, B.L., & Colestock, A. (2008). Professional vision in action: An exploratory study. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 27-46.

Shoffner, M. (2009). Personal attitudes and technology: Implications for preservice teacher reflective practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 143-161.

Star, J.R., & Strickland, S.K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Math Teacher Education, 11, 107-125.

van Es, E.A. (2011). A framework for learning to notice student thinking. In M.G. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing (pp. 134-151). New York, NY: Routledge.

van Es, E.A., & Sherin, M.G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-596.

Questions?

Contact Information for Amy Piotrowski Email: [email protected] Twitter: @piotrowskiamy Website: amypiotrowski