This course made be truly understand the importance of individualized learning, "Learning is internally controlled and mediated. Learners take in information, process it to fit their personal frameworks, and build new understanding. That knowledge construction occurs internally, in the private domain of each individual" (SEDL, 1999). I use differentiated instruction in my lesson plans so I understand that my students learn differently but I can admit that not all of my lessons were centered around my students. This quote explains why the learning theory constructivism focuses on the learner instead of the teacher. Constructivist teaching practices activate prior knowledge and encourage students to research, interview, and share info. Teachers do not have to provide students all the answers but should provide a structure that encourages exploration.
Before I became overwhelmed with the challenge to center my lessons around all these learning needs, I read where Anne Meyer says that that the Universal Design of Learning (UDL) principles in learning mirror that of UDL principles architecture and product design. Just like curb cuts, speakerphones, and closed caption television accommodate a wide variety of users so should teachers accommodate a wide variety of learners. UDL encouraged me to rethink my instructional objectives and assessments because acknowledging all learning needs is very necessary. I concentrated most of this course on UDL because, for me, it connected neuroscience to the way we learn. The three primary brain networks: recognition, strategic, and affective deal with how the brain gathers, plans/performs, and engages/motivates (respectively) (Rose and Meyer, 2002). UDL supports that learners construct the meaning of the lessons and that teachers support the learners instead of imparting the knowledge. UDL minimizes learning barriers. Its primary principles are to provide multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement to cater to the 3 primary brain networks: recognition, strategic, and affective (respectively) (Rose and Meyer, 2002).
This course was more challenging than the previous concerning my learning experience. As an individual learner, my approach and strategy to completing assignments is to highlight and answer all the assessment questions. I normally reflect upon how the subject matter improves me professionally while achieving the instructional objectives. Since I worked with a group, I mirrored my strategies on my course mates and I assessed my performance based on their feedback. I worked with the same group of colleagues from my previous course so the chemistry was still there but I choose to be less aggressive in advocating my ideas and suggestions for the project. I am learning a great deal about team building and collaboration in this program so I chose to focus on myself as a leader and realized, at times, I can be very opinionated. When we came up with our group UDL lesson subject, I agreed more to keep the peace of the group not really knowing a strategy to complete the assignment. With help from my team leader, I designed a UDL lesson unique to the gifted and talented portion of our classroom set. I don’t know how interaction with colleagues impacted my performance results this course but I have no regrets about the decisions that I made.
As mentioned in my week 5 reflection, the last readings and videos of this course were very enjoyable and I had a few epiphanies. This course gave me accountability as an instructor on how to create change for an effective 21st century classroom. My previous course left me with the challenge to find a strategy that meets both the needs of the internally driven students and the data driven institutions. This course provided several authentic technological assessments that can motivate the students and comply with state assessment guidelines. For example, English students can listen to a podcast as they would on a state exam. Students can peer-edit different students' works in a shared online space. Teachers can assess using the state writing rubric (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). Before I designed my UDL lesson, I studied the ISTE.NETS-S Standards to make sure that they were met. I am encouraged by my growth in this program because I designed a project-based lesson plan before I read about the benefits of that instructional strategy from the course readings. I figured what is the most engaging way to ensure that all of my students’ learning needs are met and I decided to introduce the content with various formats so that the students would eventually model them. I am also comforted by the fact that one course answered the question that the previous course posed. Lastly, I am motivated to advocate for teachers and students in the 21st century classroom the importance of media literacy in shaping the future for our children.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center of Applied Special Technology Web site. Chapter 1. Retrieved on March 6, 2012, from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/chapter1_4.cfm
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, New schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 168-176
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, (1999). Learning as a personal event: A brief introduction to Constuctivism. Retrieved on March 1, 2012, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/tec26/intro2c.html
