Month: September 2013

Innovations of technology do not require the basic usage of technology but an integrated understanding of applications (Batson, 2011). It is imperative that instructors use technology to meet the needs of the learners. Educators need to understand the why and how technology should be utilized in the classroom (Liang, T., Huang, Y., & Chin-Chung, T., 2012).

Integration of new technology in the classroom begins with an innovative concept which is then communicated through various channels as it is implemented by an increasing amount of educators. This diffusion occurs best when educators are receptive and are eager to be early adopters of the advancement. Administration at my institute exerts considerable pressure on the educators to encourage implementation of any novel technological advancement into their teaching styles.  Their goal is to move the bell curve away from the laggards and towards the early adopters and even innovators (Rogers, 2003). This vastly decreases the time needed for the institute to broadly adopt innovative practices (Rogers, 2003). This push for early adoption, by the school administration, provides a sizeable advantage when courting families desiring a technologically savvy and cutting edge institute for their children.

This shift in attitude is easier for younger educators who are accustomed to the wealth of technology in their lives but remains difficult for more seasoned veterans. Whereas one group is not afraid of trying new things with their existing technology, the other is apprehensive due to their lack of familiarity and confidence in their ability to fix something if it goes wrong. The solution to bridging this divide is increased education and support for the veteran educators and continued push and encouragement for the others. This active effort to shift the bell curve could ultimately provide a boost in the integration of technology in the classroom for the benefit of the students.

References

Batson, T. (2011). Faculty ‘buy-in’–to what?. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2011/04/06/faculty-buy-in-to-what.aspx

Liang, T., Huang, Y., & Chin-Chung, T. (2012).  An investigation of teaching and learning interaction factors for the use of the interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), 356–367.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

 

I was first introduced to Pinterest by a friend who was throwing a party and pulled ideas that captured her guests’ attention. She was able to use colorful pipe cleaners and clothes pins in a fun and innovative way to make butterfly party favors and party decorations. I, however, had discovered a world full of creative ideas to ensure that my students were having fun while learning.

Not only do my students understand the short vowel sounds and various ways sentences can be combined, they are also laughing and having fun. I am constantly trying new ideas that I’m finding on Pinterest. Currently, I am trying an idea from a math pin to help my students round numbers. Prior to this discovery my students were looking at me as if I had three heads, and now they are enjoying rounding and even helping each other practice!

Pinterest allows users to search for ideas for a particular topic or interest. Not only can Pinterest users find new ways of doing things, they can also pin ideas they find. I have not gotten to the point of pinning new ideas onto Pinterest. I do, however, lose countless hours looking for new ways to teaching objectives that my students are struggling with.

A 2006 study found that 40% of college students were visual learners (Clarke, I., Flaherty, T., Yankey, M.). Pinterest provides teachers various methods to engage these students to facilitate learning. Teachers need to be able to filter through and select the activities that are best suited for their classroom mix and grade level.

References

Clarke, I., Flaherty, T.,  and Yankey,M. (2006). Teaching the visual learner: The use of visual summaries in marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education. 28(3). 218-226.