1

ED628 Computer Applications for Educators

Course Information

Mondays 4:30-6:50pm, Campion 131

Instructor: Jeremy Price

Office: Campion 119C

Office Hours: Monday 3:30-4:30, Tuesday 3:30-4:30, or by appointment

Course Website: http://ed62811.wordpress.com/

E-mail: jeremy.price@bc.edu

Teacher Education Themes

Programs in Teacher Education at BC have five unifying themes. Although no single course

addresses all five themes in depth and every course has goals and objectives beyond these, each

course is in keeping with the themes and addresses some of the five.

Promoting social justice: At BC, we see teaching as an activity with political dimensions, and we

see all educators as responsible for challenging inequities in the social order and working with

others to establish a more just society.

Constructing knowledge: At BC, we regard all teachers and students as active agents in their own

learning, who draw on prior knowledge and experience to construct new knowledge in

interaction with texts, materials, and other learners.

Inquiring into practice: At BC, the curriculum is intended to bridge the gap between research

and practice by fostering critical reflection and by treating classrooms and schools as sites for

teacher research and other forms of practitioner inquiry.

Accommodating diversity: At BC, we believe that one of central challenges of teaching is meeting

the needs of all learners, especially as the school population becomes more diverse in race,

culture, ethnicity, language background, and ability/disability.

Collaborating with others: At BC, prospective teachers are encouraged to collaborate with each

of the stakeholders in the educational process (other teachers, administrators, human services

professionals, parents, community members) and with fellow students and professors.

Course Overview

Technological advancements have been occurring at a dizzying pace, and our

schools struggle to keep up. Educators are increasingly expected to use

technology in their work, both in their lessons and activities and in their own

2

professional development and learning. These trends come from personal

interests, economic and social expectations, and policy mandates. A great deal

can be gained in education from the use of technology, and this course seeks to

help educators develop a reflective and mindful approach to considering and

expanding their practice with technology. This will happen through interactions

with technology tools and applications, experts and innovators in the field, and

peers enrolled in the course.

Course Understanding Goals

This course seeks to nurture the following skills, attitudes, and approaches in

educators concerning the role of technology in education:

The confidence to “mess about” with technology applications in education

and the self-awareness to acknowledge when to ask for help;

Facility and skill with specific applications and classes of applications;

A recognition of the ways in which the learning experience changes with

technology applications;

A mindful responsiveness to the pedagogical, curricular, political, social,

and economic influences on educational technology;

The critical faculties to evaluate the role of technology applications in

education in general and the use of specific technology applications in

specific lessons and activities;

The ability to cogently and strategically discuss and frame technology

applications in education for a variety of audiences, including (but not

limited to) students, administrators, parents, and other teachers.

Course Structure

This course is intended for masters-level students, and draws upon both

theoretical and practical readings, discussions and activities, hands-on

experience, and reflection exercises.

Features of the Course

Personal Philosophy of Education with Technology. Over the course of the

semester, each student will develop a personal philosophy of education

with technology statement. This is intended to be a very practical activity:

it can be used as a part of a job application packet as well as serving as a

3

“living document” that can help guide your work and can be revisited and

updated over the course of your career.

Walking the Walk with Teaching for Understanding. Students in this course

will be introduced to the Teaching for Understanding (TfU) framework as

one way to develop curriculum and organize activities for learners.

Similarly, this course is organized around the TfU framework as well.

Direct connections to this framework will be made over the semester.

Peer Collaboration and Individual Work. The work of teaching (and

learning) requires a mix of interaction with others and individual

judgment. Many activities and assignments are to be done as individuals,

but there are many times when your social networks are your most

valuable resources. As such, students in the course will work together in

order to support each other as they learn to think about and use the

technology and tools in the course, providing each other with support and

insights.

Hands-On Experience. Providing students with access, time, and support to

try out the various technology applications in the classroom is an

important aspect of the course.

o Messing About and Guided Inquiry. Based on the individual student’s

interest and comfort level, students are given the opportunity to

engage in either “messing about” (playing with technology with no

particular task to accomplish) or “guided inquiry” (using the

technology to accomplish a particular task or explore a particular

question, provided by the instructor in each session). There will be

several sessions where guided inquiry and the response to a

question or problem with the technology of the day is required,

although students are more than welcome to mess about with the

technology in or out of class.

o Technology Labs. The instructor will be on-hand for 1 hour prior to

class (Mondays 3:30-4:30) for a combination of office hours and extra

technology support. Based on students’ needs and requests, the

instructor will provide extra support for the previous week’s

technology or the technology that will be discussed in class that day.

o Remixing Print. In addition, students will be expected to “remix”

their philosophy of education with technology statement with two

different technology tools explored over the course of the semester.

Typical Class Session

Class sessions meet Mondays from 4:30-6:50. The instructor will be available on

Mondays from 3:30-4:30 for office hours and Technology Labs. Each class session

4

will be broken up into two parts separated by a short break. The first half of class

will consist of introducing the generative topic for the session, reviewing the

readings, class discussions, in-class activities, and presentations by the instructor

or by guests. The second half of class will consist of a short overview of the

technology applications and tools and hands-on practice individually or in

groups. For the second half of class, individuals or groups may mess about with

the technology or engage in guided inquiry based on the task or question

provided by the instructor.

Course Schedule

Date/Topic Readings Technologies January 24 There’s An App For That: Introducing Technology in Education

Google. (2010). 20 Things I Learned About Browsers & The Web. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.20thingsilearned.com/

Blogs/RSS XMind VoiceThread

January 31 (Online) The Many Faces of Technology in Education

Collins & Halverson, Chapters 2-3 Lanier, J. (2010, September 16). Does the Digital

Classroom Enfeeble the Mind? New York Times Magazine. New York. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19fob-essay-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uAXidyqn)

Prensky, M. (2008). The Role of Technology in Teaching and the Classroom. Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Role_of_Technology-ET-11-12-08.pdf

Porter, B. (n.d.). Grappling's Technology and Learning Spectrum. Bernajean Porter Consulting. Retrieved November 21, 2010, from http://www.bjpconsulting.com/files/GA%20SpectrumTable.pdf (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uPOxU6EL)

Williams, B. (2010, November 7). Why technology scares (some of) us -- and what to do about it. The Answer Sheet - The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/technology/why-technology-scares-some-of.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5u5cKr7oF)

VoiceThread

February 7 Framing Technology in Education: An Introduction to Teaching for Understanding

Wiske et al., Preface and Chapters 1-2 Media: Digital Nation, Chapters 4 and 5

Collaborative Curriculum Design Tool (CCDT)

5

Date/Topic Readings Technologies February 14 Beyond Apps: Purpose, Experience, and Reflection with Technology

Wiske et al., Chapters 3-4 McKenzie, J. (2003). Questioning as Technology. From Now

On, 12(8). Retrieved from http://fno.org/apr03/qtech.html Spencer, J. T. (2010, November 4). Making It Relevant.

Spencer's Scratch Pad. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from http://jtspencer.blogspot.com/2010/11/making-it-relevant.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uBOK3X0M)

OPTIONAL: o Media: Digital Nation, Sherry Turkle Extended

Interview

Exploratree HistoryPin MuseumBox WebQuests

February 21 Negotiating The Place of Technology First Draft of Philosophy Statement Due

Collins & Halverson, Chapters 4 & 6 Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High Access

and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813 -834.

Ferriter, W.M. (2011). Developing Technology Vision Statements. The Tempered Radical. Retrieved from http://teacherleaders.typepad.com/the_tempered_radical/2011/01/does-your-school-have-technology-vision-statements.html

ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: o 21st Century Skills o NETP o NETS

OPTIONAL: o Media: Rushkoff (2009), “Rebooting Education,”

12:30-33:09, 39:16-44:43 o Noë (2010) o Norton (2010)

PowerPoint Prezi

February 28 Social Justice Guest Speaker

UDL readings Ferriter & Garry, Chapter 2 Frederick, R. M. (2007). Conductors of the Digitized

Underground Railroad: Black Teachers Empower Pedagogies with Computer Technology. Journal of Negro Education, 76(1), 68, 12.

OPTIONAL: o McKenzie, J. (1999). Scaffolding for Success.

From Now On, 9(4). Retrieved from http://fno.org/dec99/scaffold.html

o Andrade, D. (2010, November 10). Differentiating with Web 2.0 Technology. Tech&Learning Advisor. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.techlearning.com/blogs_ektid34530.aspx (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uFxdP7Tw)

CAST BookBuilder and other CAST tools

Blogging

March 7 SPRING BREAK (No Class)

6

Date/Topic Readings Technologies March 14 Evaluation, Assessment, and Accountability Guest Speaker First Philosophy Statement Remix Due (March 18, 12:00pm)

Niguidula, D. (2010). Digital Portfolios and Curriculum Maps: Linking Teacher and Student Work. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Stone et al., Chapters 5-6 Collins & Halverson, Chapter 8

Assessment tools Online Rubric

Creators RicherPicture

March 21 Media Literacy and Media Gathering

Jenkins, H. (2010). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5vrBHhv7k), pp. 3-21

Ferriter & Garry, Chapter 3 Flickr Aviary Education Glogster Video making

online/offline

March 28 Multimedia Production and Sharing

Jenkins, H. (2010). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5vrBHhv7k), pp. 22-61

Lanier, J. (2006, May 30). Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism. The Edge. Retrieved from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5vrBR8w1d)

7

Date/Topic Readings Technologies April 4 Social Networks and Teen Culture/Digital Natives

boyd, D. (2007). Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What? The Knowledge Tree, 15. Retrieved from http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/edition-13/social-network-sites-public-private-or-what/

McKenzie, J. (2008). Beyond Mere Gathering: Converting Social Networking into Collaboration and Synergy. From Now On, 17(6). Retrieved from http://fno.org/sum08/synergy.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uASjHVmp)

Stone et al., Chapter 7 OPTIONAL:

o Pesce, M. (2010, November 10). The Soul of Web 2.0. the human network. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=439 (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5u8LomNB8)

o Vander Wal, T. (2008, January 9). The Elements in the Social Software Stack. Personal InfoCloud. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.personalinfocloud.com/2008/01/the-elements-in.html

o boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Diigo Zunal/Webquests

April 11 Networked Education (Class Format TBD) Second Philosophy Statement Remix Due (April 15, 12:00pm)

Ferriter & Garry, Chapter 4 Selections from Castells (TBD) Caraher, B. (2010, October 28). A Defense of

Asynchronous Teaching. The Archaeology of the Mediterranean World. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from http://mediterraneanworld.typepad.com/the_archaeology_of_the_me/2010/10/a-defense-of-asynchronous-teaching.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uAOtbBc3)

Required Media: Frontline, Chapter 7

Vyew and other web conferencing software (Dimdim, Yugma, etc.)

TappedIn

April 18 PATRIOT’S DAY (No Class) April 25 Managing Information

Ferriter & Garry, Chapter 1 Guhlin, M. (2008). Diigo The Web for Education - From

Telegatherer to Teleplanter with Diigo. Share More! Wiki. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.edsupport.cc/mguhlin/share/index.php?n=Anthology.Diigoway (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uFyUgcXw)

November, A. (1998). Teaching Zack to Think. Retrieved from http://novemberlearning.com/resources/archive-of-articles/teaching-zack-to-think

Diigo

May 2 Technology Fair

Ferriter & Garry, Chapter 5

Wiki Posters/Presentat

ions

8

Date/Topic Readings Technologies May 9 Teachers and Learners in The Networked World Final Philosophy Statement and Unit Plan Due (in class)

boyd, D. (2009). “It is easy to fall in love with technology...” New York. Retrieved from http://wp.nmc.org/future/ideas/danah-boyd/

Shirley, D. (2011). “The Fourth Way of technology and change.” Journal of Educational Change, 12, pp. 187-209.

OPTIONAL: o Richtel, M. (2010, November 21). Growing Up

Digital, Wired for Distraction. New York Times. New York. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uPMiutGw)

o Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2010-Horizon-Report.pdf (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uAY7E4vN)

o Prensky, M. (n.d.). H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate Online, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue3/H._Sapiens_Digital-__From_Digital_Immigrants_and_Digital_Natives_to_Digital_Wisdom.pdf

o Media: Frontline, Chapter 9

Personal Learning Networks

Course Evaluation

9

Readings, Viewings, and Listenings

Required Books Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology:

The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ferriter, W. M., & Garry, A. (2010). Teaching the iGeneration: 5 Easy Ways to Introduce Essential Skills With Web 2.0 Tools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Wiske, M. S., Franz, K. R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for Understanding with Technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Other Readings

Andrade, D. (2010, November 10). Differentiating with Web 2.0 Technology. Tech&Learning Advisor. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.techlearning.com/blogs_ektid34530.aspx (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uFxdP7Tw)

andrewch. (2010, October 2). Comparing 20th and 21st Century Educational Paradigms. Educational Origami. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from http://edorigami.edublogs.org/2010/10/02/comparing-20th-and-21st-century-educational-paradigms/ (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uANfbMqC)

Ashburn, E. A. (2006). Attributes of Meaningful Learning Using Technology (MLT). In E. A. Ashburn & R. E. Floden (Eds.), Meaningful Learning Using Technology. New York: Teachers College Press.

boyd, D. (2007). Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What? The Knowledge Tree, 15. Retrieved from http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/edition-13/social-network-sites-public-private-or-what/

boyd, D. (2009). “It is easy to fall in love with technology...” New York. Retrieved from http://wp.nmc.org/future/ideas/danah-boyd/

boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Caraher, B. (2010, October 28). A Defense of Asynchronous Teaching. The Archaeology of the Mediterranean World. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from http://mediterraneanworld.typepad.com/the_archaeology_of_the_me/2010/

10

10/a-defense-of-asynchronous-teaching.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uAOtbBc3)

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813 -834.

Ferriter, W.M. (2011). Developing Technology Vision Statements. The Tempered Radical. Retrieved from http://teacherleaders.typepad.com/the_tempered_radical/2011/01/does-your-school-have-technology-vision-statements.html

Google. (2010). 20 Things I Learned About Browsers & The Web. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.20thingsilearned.com/

Guhlin, M. (2008). Diigo The Web for Education - From Telegatherer to Teleplanter with Diigo. Share More! Wiki. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.edsupport.cc/mguhlin/share/index.php?n=Anthology.Diigoway (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uFyUgcXw)

Jenkins, H. (2010). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5vrBHhv7k)

Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2010-Horizon-Report.pdf (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uAY7E4vN)

Lanier, J. (2006, May 30). Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism. The Edge. Retrieved from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5vrBR8w1d)

Lanier, J. (2010, September 16). Does the Digital Classroom Enfeeble the Mind? New York Times Magazine. New York. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19fob-essay-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uAXidyqn)

McKenzie, J. (1999). Scaffolding for Success. From Now On, 9(4). Retrieved from http://fno.org/dec99/scaffold.html

11

McKenzie, J. (2003). Questioning as Technology. From Now On, 12(8). Retrieved from http://fno.org/apr03/qtech.html

McKenzie, J. (2008). Beyond Mere Gathering: Converting Social Networking into Collaboration and Synergy. From Now On, 17(6). Retrieved from http://fno.org/sum08/synergy.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uASjHVmp)

Noë, A. (2010, November 5). Students Are Not Products And Teachers Are Not Social Engineers. Cosmos And Culture. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/11/05/131088812/politics-respect-and-the-teacher (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uAOgRK8I)

Norton, J. (2010, November 10). Mr. Administrator, Tear Down This Firewall! Teacher Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2010/11/10/tln_firewall.html?tkn=YMLF49iJdFU4vsBRN5NYg9MgLdVuhC7wIguC&cmp=clp-edweek (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uFwWxkZx)

November, A. (1998). Teaching Zack to Think. Retrieved from http://novemberlearning.com/resources/archive-of-articles/teaching-zack-to-think

Peppler, K., & Kafai, Y. B. (2007). What Videogame Making Can Teach Us About Literacy and Learning: Alternative Pathways into Participatory Culture. In Situated Play. Presented at the Digital Games Research Association, Tokyo. Retrieved from http://download.scratch.mit.edu/DiGRA07_games_kafai.pdf (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uGjnSGQg)

Pesce, M. (2010, November 10). The Soul of Web 2.0. the human network. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=439 (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5u8LomNB8)

Porter, B. (n.d.). Grappling's Technology and Learning Spectrum. Bernajean Porter Consulting. Retrieved November 21, 2010, from http://www.bjpconsulting.com/files/GA%20SpectrumTable.pdf (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uPOxU6EL)

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uAUwaMbt)

Prensky, M. (2008). The Role of Technology in Teaching and the Classroom. Educational Technology. Retrieved from

12

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Role_of_Technology-ET-11-12-08.pdf

Prensky, M. (n.d.). H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate Online, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue3/H._Sapiens_Digital-__From_Digital_Immigrants_and_Digital_Natives_to_Digital_Wisdom.pdf

Richtel, M. (2010, November 21). Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction. New York Times. New York. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uPMiutGw)

Spencer, J. T. (2010, November 4). Making It Relevant. Spencer's Scratch Pad. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from http://jtspencer.blogspot.com/2010/11/making-it-relevant.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5uBOK3X0M)

Vander Wal, T. (2008, January 9). The Elements in the Social Software Stack. Personal InfoCloud. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.personalinfocloud.com/2008/01/the-elements-in.html

Williams, B. (2010, November 7). Why technology scares (some of) us -- and what to do about it. The Answer Sheet - The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/technology/why-technology-scares-some-of.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5u5cKr7oF)

Media Frontline. (2010). Digital Nation.

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/view/): Chapters 4, 5, 7,

and 9

Frontline. (2010). Digital Nation: Sherry Turkle Extended Interview.

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/interviews/turkle.html)

Rushkoff, Douglas. (2009). Rebooting Education. Media Squat. Retrieved from

http://rushkoff.com/videoaudio/reboot-education/

Performances of Understanding

Participation in Ongoing Class Processes Ongoing participation in class is both expected and an important component of

learning in this course. As such, students are expected to participate in

13

discussions in-class and online when appropriate. Students are further expected

to bring in comments and thoughts from the readings into the class discussions,

as well as from outside sources and past experiences (when appropriate).

Students are also expected to follow at least one educational blogger who satisfies

the following criteria:

Interests or professional experiences consistent with the student’s;

Posts at least once a week about education;

Posts at least once a month about technology;

Generally reflects on their practice or the nature of education and is not an

information distributer or re-distributer who passes on information or

posts from others without comment.

Students are expected to post a comment to at least three posts on the blog that

they follow.

10/150 Points

Philosophy of Teaching or Education with Technology Statement The clearly and concisely articulated position on the place of technology in

education is an important yet underrepresented portion of a new educators’

portfolio. As such, you will be expected to compose a clear philosophy of the role

of technology in education. This can be included as part of an application

package, and can be revised at any time. You will be expected to hand in two

drafts, an early draft early in the semester and a final draft at the end of the

semester. The first draft should not exceed more than two single-spaced pages, and

the second draft should not exceed more than three single-spaced pages. Include a

1-2 page reflection on how your philosophy has changed with the final draft.

Your philosophy statement should address the following areas:

§ LEARN: What motivates you to learn about this subject? Why is this mode

common? Why would you motivate others similarly?

§ ACT: Why do you value certain characteristics in teachers and then express

those in your own teaching?

§ DIFFERENCE: Why does what you do in your teaching make a difference in

the lives of others? Why is it relevant?

§ VALUES: What values do you impart to your students and why?

§ SETTING: Why do you develop the learning environment(s) and the

relationship with students that you do?

14

§ ENJOY: What are your favorite statements to make about teaching? Why

are they favorites?

Do not use these bullet points as section headings; use them to guide your writing.

While you will not be able to cover every single point in detail, your choices

reveal something about who you are and what you value, so a thoughtful

approach is necessary.

For more information on writing philosophy of teaching or education statements,

refer to the resources listed at http://bit.ly/write_philosophy_teaching.

First Draft Due February 21 In Class. 10/150 Points Final Draft Due May 15, 5:00pm. 30/150 Points

Philosophy Statement Remix

Students will use their first draft of their Philosophy of Teaching or Education

with Technology statement and “remix” or re-present it using two different

technology applications over the course of the semester. Students are welcome to

choose any of the technologies in consultation with the instructor, so that they

are consistent with the messages of their statement and with their own interests

and styles.

In addition to the finished products, students will submit a 1-2 page reflection

paper as well as with each remix. The reflection paper will explore the following

questions:

§ How has your philosophy statement changed by remixing it?

§ What are some of the advantages and disadvantages to remixing your

statement with this technology or media?

Students will also submit 3-5 criteria based on the technology or media for the

instructor to evaluate their remix. The criteria should be relevant to the student’s

philosophy statement and to the media or technology used. The student should

include a short description of each criterion to provide the instructor with

guidance of how to evaluate the remix. The instructor will provide comments

and feedback beyond the criteria, and will also consider the extent to which the

student stretched his or her comfort and skill level, the overall creative effort,

and the strength to which the student’s philosophical stance comes through.

First Remix Due March 18, 12:00pm. 25/150 Points Second Remix Due April 21, 5:00pm. 25/150 Points (15%)

15

Technology Fair

Students will investigate deeply one particular technology application for

education in consultation with the instructor. It may be an application that has

been covered in class at a surface level as long as the student delves into the

application more deeply.

Students are expected to set up a station for the course Technology Fair which

will be held on May 2, 2011. Their station will cover both practical and

conceptual aspects of the technology application, and why it is a valuable

application to include in education.

Student pairs will also construct a page on the ED628 Technology Fair Wiki about

the technology they are exploring. We will negotiate the categories and headers

that belong on the wiki page in class.

Guests will be invited to the fair. Guests and fellow students will be provided

with a modified version of the rubric that the instructor will use to evaluate the

students’ stations and the guests’ and peers’ evaluations will be included with the

final evaluation.

Due May 2 In Class. 20/150 Points

Unit Plan Revision

Proper planning by educators for a well-structured curriculum and a thoughtful

approach to using technology in practice is an important skill. As such, students

will be required to modify a plan for a curriculum unit based on the Teaching for

Understanding framework using the online Collaborative Curriculum Design

Tool. An additional category will be added by the student to the map to include

the use of technology in the curriculum unit. A curriculum unit is defined as one

overarching theme in a typical subject and grade level of the student’s choosing

which would take between 3 and 6 weeks to cover in the classroom.

Students will submit the CCDT map plus a 4-7 page reflection paper describing

the TfU and technology features of the revised unit plan and exploring the

following questions:

§ How has TfU expanded and limited the curriculum unit plan?

§ How has the incorporated technologies changed the curriculum unit plan?

What are some of the projected opportunities, challenges, and drawbacks?

§ How has this structured planning process impacted your thinking about the

practice of education and the role of technology?

16

Due May 15, 5:00pm. 30/150 Points (20%)

Letter Grades

Based on a total score of 150 points, grades will be assigned in the following

manner:

Rubric Point Range Letter Grade Numeric Grade 135-150 A 4.0 125-134 A- 3.67 115-124 B+ 3.33 105-114 B 3.0 100-104 B- 2.67 0-99 C+ and below 2.33

Boston College Policies

a) Students will be expected to attend all classes and to be punctual. If you know you are going to

miss a class, please let me know in advance. If you are unable to attend class, you need to turn

in a short written summary of the readings for that class. If you have to miss 3 classes or

more, please withdraw from the course.

b) You are strongly discouraged from taking an incomplete for this course. The Lynch School of

Education has a grading policy for graduate students. Incompletes on Fall semester grades

will be changed to an “F” on March 1 if the work has not been completed by that time.

c) BC Academic Integrity: the pursuit of knowledge can proceed only when scholars take

responsibility and receive credit for their work. Recognition of individual contributions to

knowledge and of the intellectual property of others builds trust within the University and

encourages the sharing of ideas that is essential to scholarship. Similarly, the educational

process requires that individuals present their own ideas and insights for evaluation, critique,

and eventual reformation. Presentation of others’ work as one’s own is not only intellectual

dishonesty, but also undermines the education process. Plagiarism, that is, failure to properly

acknowledge sources written or electronic, used for verbatim quotations or ideas, is a

violation of academic integrity. Each student is responsible for learning and using proper

methods of paraphrasing and footnoting, quotation, and other forms of citation to ensure that

the original author, speaker, illustrator, or course of the material used is clearly

acknowledged. Suspected cases of academic dishonesty will be brought to the attention of the

Dean’s office. See http://www.be.edu/offices/stserv/academic/rescourses/policy/#integrity for

additional details about Academic Integrity.

d) BC Students with a Disability or Suspected Disability: If you are a student with a

documented disability and will be requesting accommodations, please register with either

Kathy Duggan [Kathleen.duggan@bc.edu], Associate Director, Academic Support Services, the

Connors Family Learning Center (learning disabilities and ADHD) or Suzy Conway

[Suzy.conway.1@bc.edu], Assistant Dean for Students with Disabilities (all other disabilities).

Advance notice and appropriate documentation are required for accommodations.

17

e) Assignments are due on their due date. If you have trouble meeting a due date, please notify

me before the due date via e-mail or phone, providing a reason and negotiating a mutually

agreeable alternate date. Unauthorized late assignments will forfeit 10% of the total

assignment score per day.