
Mock Teaching
Integrating technology into the classroom goes beyond replacing other teaching methods with a device or an application. The technology teachers are incorporating must be developmentally appropriate for the target age group and the way they incorporate these technologies must be meaningful and enhance the learning of the students. According to Koehler and Mishra, “There is no ‘one best way’ to integrate technology into the curriculum. Rather, integration efforts should be creatively designed or structured for particular subject matter ideas in specific classroom contexts” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Teachers have to work to develop a deeper understanding of the technologies they wish to incorporate into their lessons as well as the constraints and affordances of technologies and the disciplinary contexts within which they function is needed (Koehler & Mishra, 2009)
My group and I put a lot of time and consideration into finding, trying and applying the technological tools that we chose. We made sure that the tools met the ISTE standards for students and educators. We also had to make sure that the tools we used were appropriate for the age group and their development. Two of our medias were a Kahoot! quiz and a Google Form which served to assess the students. The Kahoot! assess the student's prior knowledge of the topic and the Google Form asses their knowledge after the lesson. These medias allowed for the teachers to observe and document the student’s knowledge through the use of technology (NAEYC, 2012). Our Google Slide allowed us to display and implement the lesson, prompts and directions to the whole class for a whole class, collaborative learning approach. We were sure to make the font large enough for all students to see the text and images on the screen. The Polleverywhere served as a platform for the students to brainstorm and outline their thoughts as a class and see them grouped together in a way that shows similarities and differences between the student's ideas and opinions (Blooms Wheel). The Google Classroom tool and the Awwapp tool were both ways for students to apply their learning. Through the Awwapp, we combined construction and communication and encouraged the students to use their creativity through drawing and writing and applying what they learned to tell a story. Through the Google Classroom, the students were able to view the activity and directions on their own personal devices or as a group for reference and for easier reading. Some younger second graders still have trouble seeing smaller prints at the front of the room, so we made sure they were able to access these documents in front of them easily (Wood, 2007). The Google Classroom also served as a way they could share their creations with the whole class. Second graders usually enjoy sharing and enjoy working in groups rather than alone (Wood, 2007) which makes these tools developmentally and age appropriate. We used these tools in our lesson because as a collective group we felt that these tools would be most beneficial to the education of our students when used in these ways.
I think that the Mock Teaching went pretty well for our group. I think that the biggest challenge was the time restraint. We constructed our lesson to teach an entire topic in one sitting, which usually wouldn’t happen in a regular elementary classroom. The time restraint caused us to worry more about the time we spent on each part rather than allowing the students time to share or create. To be sure we made the time restraint we kept a time going at the front of the room by the desk to be sure we kept the momentum of our lesson as well as giving the students time warnings through the activity to make sure we stayed on track. I think if we did this lesson again I would remove a tool because we did have a lot of different medias crammed into 30 minutes and I think we were rushing a little toward the end to make sure we got all the tools into the lesson. Our students (peers) liked the hands-on activity we included with a tactile box along with the technological tools as well as the ability to use emojis in the PollEverywhere to express their thoughts. Some students thought that maybe if we spread the lesson out over a number of days and allowed for more time on the Awwapp if it would flow better and result in more detailed stories.
Full Documents
Standards
References
6. Facilitator Educators facilitate learning with technology to support student achievement of the 2016 ISTE Standards for Students. Educators: d. Model and nurture creativity and creative expression to communicate ideas, knowledge or connections.
4. Collaborator Educators dedicate time to collaborate with both colleagues and students to improve practice, discover and share resources and ideas, and solve problems. Educators: a. Dedicate planning time to collaborate with colleagues to create authentic learning experiences that leverage technology. b. Collaborate and co-learn with students to discover and use new digital resources and diagnose and troubleshoot technology issues.
-
Carrington, A. (2015, March 01). Bloom's Pedagogy Wheel [Digital image].
-
ISTE, (2016). International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Educators.
- Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
-
National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC] and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools for early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8.
-
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions.
-
Wood, C. (2007). Yardsticks: Children in the classroom ages 4-14 (3rd ed.). Turners Falls, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children, Inc.