If you are like me and enjoy freebies, check out this Youtube clip that explains how you can create a communication board using Microsoft Word and Slater Software's free picture search tool.
(Heads-up: When I looked at the Slater Software website - http://www.slatersoftware.com/index.html - I didn't see the same picture search tool described in the Youtube clip, but I think the images would be easy enough to find by searching Google Images.)
I realize this teaching tool is somewhat old-school (or low-tech), but it may prove useful for some of your students.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Thursday, 24 May 2012
Universal Design for Learning
For an introduction to UDL, watch the following video:
As the video explains,
1. Universal refers to a curriculum that can be "used and understood" by everyone. "Curriculum should provide genuine learning opportunities for each and every student." Learning is not constrained to one thing. We have areas of the brain devoted to recognition (the "what"), skills and strategies (the "how"), and caring and prioritizing (the "why"). The curriculum must allow students to develop all three areas. Designing for those in the margins leads to tools and devices that work better for everyone.
2. To plan for UDL in the classroom, consider two questions: 1) What are the goals? and 2) What barriers in the classroom might interfere with diverse students achieving these goals? To break down barriers, develop instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that adhere to the three UDL principles. Provide multiple means of the following three factors:
1) Representation
2) Action and Expression
3) Engagement
For more information about UDL, visit the CASL (Center for Applied Special Technology) website: CAST Website
Also, take note of the link labelled UDL Toolkit provided on the left under Useful AT Resources. (The website is a vast resource for technology serving UDL principles and information about UDL.)
As the video explains,
1. Universal refers to a curriculum that can be "used and understood" by everyone. "Curriculum should provide genuine learning opportunities for each and every student." Learning is not constrained to one thing. We have areas of the brain devoted to recognition (the "what"), skills and strategies (the "how"), and caring and prioritizing (the "why"). The curriculum must allow students to develop all three areas. Designing for those in the margins leads to tools and devices that work better for everyone.
2. To plan for UDL in the classroom, consider two questions: 1) What are the goals? and 2) What barriers in the classroom might interfere with diverse students achieving these goals? To break down barriers, develop instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that adhere to the three UDL principles. Provide multiple means of the following three factors:
1) Representation
2) Action and Expression
3) Engagement
For more information about UDL, visit the CASL (Center for Applied Special Technology) website: CAST Website
Also, take note of the link labelled UDL Toolkit provided on the left under Useful AT Resources. (The website is a vast resource for technology serving UDL principles and information about UDL.)
Writing: Processing Involved in the Task
This week, Barbara shared her mind map of the processing involved in the task of writing. We have been permitted to share that comprehensive mind map on our blogspots. It is incredible when you stop to think about what we do to write (i.e. the processing involved in this task).
With so many features/characteristics involved in this task, there are many places where a processing error can occur. It is no wonder so many universities have writing centres (and other support services) and I have a job at one.
Barbara has set a new goal for herself. She hopes to construct a new mind map that includes AT useful for writing tasks. (...and I thought this image was comprehensive!)
Source: Welsford, B. (n.d.) Writing task analysis. (Shared in a personal communication.)
With so many features/characteristics involved in this task, there are many places where a processing error can occur. It is no wonder so many universities have writing centres (and other support services) and I have a job at one.
Barbara has set a new goal for herself. She hopes to construct a new mind map that includes AT useful for writing tasks. (...and I thought this image was comprehensive!)
Misunderstood Minds: A Presentation of Three Chapters
I plan to watch the entire series, even though it was not a class assignment. If you, too, would like to watch the series, click here: Misunderstood Minds
Monday, 21 May 2012
Reading Process Conceptualized via Inspiration
(After viewing some other blogspots of classmates, I think our group looked at the brain activity more at a surface level than proposed by the reading model presented in class and to the exclusion of some in-depth details about brain biology. Nevertheless, we accomplished exactly what we were asked to do. We used Inspiration to design a model showing what we knew about the reading process. Plus, we worked very well together.)
Because most of us read without difficulties, we do not think about what is involved in that process. Not unlike those drivers who forget all the details they had to learn to get their license, proficient readers forget all those details they had to learn to be able to process written language in their brains without assistance from other people.
If you think the reading process is as easy as depicted in the following figure,
Source: http://brainconnection.positscience.com/topics/?main=gal/text-comprehension
If you think the reading process is as easy as depicted in the following figure in which the brain areas involved in reading are displayed,
Source: http://soundprinciples4literacy.com/index.php/2010/11/26/neural-systems-for-reading/
If you think the reading process is as easy as depicted in the following figure in which word recognition and areas of the brain involved in reading are both illustrated,
Source: http://educational-therapy.com/educ_treatments_fast_latimes_cont.html
For most of us, the brain, the eyes, and the auditory system all play a role in our learning to read and continuing to do so. Our eyes focus on some lines or squiggles on a page, and an image is created on the retina. Information received by the eye is sent to the brain, in which a complicated series of chemical reactions occurs. Someone teaching us to read tells us what the squiggles mean (by making use of another receptive language skill: listening; i.e. the already fluent reader speaks so that we may listen). That sound must also be sent to the brain, meaning another series of chemical reactions must occur. That sound is linked to the squiggles. As you can imagine, this short discussion grants us a view of only the beginning of the process and this beginning phase is already quite complicated. Linking the sound and the visual stimuli and repetition for memory encoding is yet to be accomplished, as is creating retrieval pathways for information about text we are reading and may read in the future. Isn't it amazing that anyone can read?
Within the brain alone, there are thought to be four processes occurring during the activity of reading.
Source: http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/pletcherj/512/designedonlinecourse.html
As the source website explains, "The orthographic processor allows for readers to process the print, but has nothing to do with sounds. When a person looks at print, the brain is trained to associate word patterns to specific sounds. The orthographic processor requires the brain to chunk letters. It also allows us to recognize syllables. The phonological processor adds sounds to the reading process. The student must know what sounds letters and letter combinations make in order for this process to work. The phonological processor responds to the orthographic processor, then sends the sound to the meaning processor. The meaning processor retrieves all known meanings of the word from the reader's brain and sends a signal back to the phonological processor and orthographic processor. The context processor then allows the reader to determine which meaning best fits the situation. If the meaning does not make sense, it sends a signal back to the orthographic and/or phonological processor."
Also, it is believed that "good" readers have a number of sub-tasks to accomplish before a piece of text which is read is made comprehensible.
Source: http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/pletcherj/512/designedonlinecourse.html
As you can see, there are a number of places within the body (in the eyes, ears, and brain) and many sub-tasks within the brain within which something could go wrong and the reading process could be compromised for an individual. The complicated process makes me wonder why the incidence of reading disabilities isn't much higher than reported. In my mind, it is actually quite amazing that the majority of people can read without problems.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Reading Reflection #4
Edyburn, D.L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146-152.
Having read Edyburn's article, one major idea that occurred to me was that he was questioning our underlying assumptions about what it means to perform (specifically, to read). What we believe/assume about how a performance should or ought to be done affects our views of what it means to perform; however, we sometimes fail to recognize other means of accomplishing the same performance or to recognize that individuals may become stronger in certain intelligences (considering Gardner's model of multiple intelligences) or skills if they are allowed to use those intelligences or skills they are most comfortable using until they become familiar with newer intelligences or skills. For example, I was not incredibly strong at reading visual images to interpret meaning as I progressed through school, but I was strong at processing verbal images. (Luckily, I was at an advantage based on what is practiced in the public school system I attended.) Although I was given art classes and saw visual messages in other classes, my knowledge was built upon the verbal information. It has not been until recently that I've grown to appreciate visual images for what they say/what information they communicate. I may be incorrect, but I believe these ideas about having more than one way to perform (intelligence or skill) may be the underlying basis for universal design for learning.
Based on what I've read, I'm predicting ideas/assumptions influencing current practices in school systems are not doing justice to children who do not process in the way we deem appropriate (those who do not fit the norm). If we offered "compensatory" (a potential misnomer) strategies earlier, they may well feel successful using other strategies and develop those strategies we deem appropriate when they are ready.
Having read Edyburn's article, one major idea that occurred to me was that he was questioning our underlying assumptions about what it means to perform (specifically, to read). What we believe/assume about how a performance should or ought to be done affects our views of what it means to perform; however, we sometimes fail to recognize other means of accomplishing the same performance or to recognize that individuals may become stronger in certain intelligences (considering Gardner's model of multiple intelligences) or skills if they are allowed to use those intelligences or skills they are most comfortable using until they become familiar with newer intelligences or skills. For example, I was not incredibly strong at reading visual images to interpret meaning as I progressed through school, but I was strong at processing verbal images. (Luckily, I was at an advantage based on what is practiced in the public school system I attended.) Although I was given art classes and saw visual messages in other classes, my knowledge was built upon the verbal information. It has not been until recently that I've grown to appreciate visual images for what they say/what information they communicate. I may be incorrect, but I believe these ideas about having more than one way to perform (intelligence or skill) may be the underlying basis for universal design for learning.
Based on what I've read, I'm predicting ideas/assumptions influencing current practices in school systems are not doing justice to children who do not process in the way we deem appropriate (those who do not fit the norm). If we offered "compensatory" (a potential misnomer) strategies earlier, they may well feel successful using other strategies and develop those strategies we deem appropriate when they are ready.
Reading Reflection #3
"Implementation of Assistive Computer Technology: A Model for School
Systems," an article in the International Journal of Special Education, vol. 22,
written by Morrison (2007) speaks to a number of important ideas.
Based on what I researched and heard in class during the AT assessment model presentations, I think the best representation of the factors involved in assessment models comes from Joy Zabala. An image from her "Straight from the Horse's Mouth" presentation is shown below.
The depiction of assessment factors does address a number of the issues brought to the forefront in Morrison's article. For example, within the environment building block of the pyramid, Zabala addresses the idea that attitudes within the environment wherein the student functions will influence the student's use of technology. Perhaps, an improvement on this image would be to add a building block addressing issues of time in terms of assessing AT. Morrison did assist in my understanding of this factor when discussing teacher time required to learn about new ACT and how once useful ACT may become ineffective over time.
Morrison's article did, indeed, add to my understanding of AT assessment. The author explains why otherwise well-suited AT can fail to function well for the student. Some problems which arise during implementation can be lack of teacher time, limited training, access to support services, limited leadership in the school or board, or lack of shared vision or rationale for ACT (assistive computer technology).
There were also a number of other messages in the text that I noted. I liked that the author left me without the feeling of desparation despite these challenges or problems. There were suggestions about what others have been doing (self-education, locally developed workshops, and mentoring opportunities) and a discussion of universal design for learning and communities of practice.
Two of my favourite statements were:
1) "Above all, planning and implementation process for students with learning problems must be student focused. Planning starts with the student, not the technology" (p. 90). I, too, believe this is true. Regardless of the technology available, the user's needs and preferences will have more weight in the successful implementation of technology.
2) "Software that might be appropriate for one student with learning problems may not be helpful for another student experiencing similar difficulties." Although this statement seems like common knowledgte, I think it is worthy of being stated. It is important that we recognize there is no one-size-fits-all technology for a given need. Individuals' use of AT needs to be considered on an individual basis.
There was some repetition of ideas I've heard to date:
1) "[T]eachers' attitudes are a key factor for implementation of assistive computer technologies" (p. 84).
2) "It may be helpful for teachers to approach ACT implementation from" models such as the SETT framework (p. 88).
Some new ideas for me to check out or reflect upon:
1) The National Assistive Technology Resource Institute's Policy Checklist (p. 86)
2) QIAT's set of eight competencies for the implementation for ACT, specifically for the common errors inthe process (p. 87) I'd like to say more about these two new ideas, but I haven't had time to research them yet.
Based on what I researched and heard in class during the AT assessment model presentations, I think the best representation of the factors involved in assessment models comes from Joy Zabala. An image from her "Straight from the Horse's Mouth" presentation is shown below.
The depiction of assessment factors does address a number of the issues brought to the forefront in Morrison's article. For example, within the environment building block of the pyramid, Zabala addresses the idea that attitudes within the environment wherein the student functions will influence the student's use of technology. Perhaps, an improvement on this image would be to add a building block addressing issues of time in terms of assessing AT. Morrison did assist in my understanding of this factor when discussing teacher time required to learn about new ACT and how once useful ACT may become ineffective over time.
Morrison's article did, indeed, add to my understanding of AT assessment. The author explains why otherwise well-suited AT can fail to function well for the student. Some problems which arise during implementation can be lack of teacher time, limited training, access to support services, limited leadership in the school or board, or lack of shared vision or rationale for ACT (assistive computer technology).
There were also a number of other messages in the text that I noted. I liked that the author left me without the feeling of desparation despite these challenges or problems. There were suggestions about what others have been doing (self-education, locally developed workshops, and mentoring opportunities) and a discussion of universal design for learning and communities of practice.
Two of my favourite statements were:
1) "Above all, planning and implementation process for students with learning problems must be student focused. Planning starts with the student, not the technology" (p. 90). I, too, believe this is true. Regardless of the technology available, the user's needs and preferences will have more weight in the successful implementation of technology.
2) "Software that might be appropriate for one student with learning problems may not be helpful for another student experiencing similar difficulties." Although this statement seems like common knowledgte, I think it is worthy of being stated. It is important that we recognize there is no one-size-fits-all technology for a given need. Individuals' use of AT needs to be considered on an individual basis.
There was some repetition of ideas I've heard to date:
1) "[T]eachers' attitudes are a key factor for implementation of assistive computer technologies" (p. 84).
2) "It may be helpful for teachers to approach ACT implementation from" models such as the SETT framework (p. 88).
Some new ideas for me to check out or reflect upon:
1) The National Assistive Technology Resource Institute's Policy Checklist (p. 86)
2) QIAT's set of eight competencies for the implementation for ACT, specifically for the common errors inthe process (p. 87) I'd like to say more about these two new ideas, but I haven't had time to research them yet.
Friday, 11 May 2012
Inspiration - the software (not something I'm providing)
There is a Quick Tour of Inspiration 9 Software available.
My classmates and I are getting ready to complete an assignment based on this software. To date, I've only seen it used to create mind maps. I do not recall knowing about the outlining feature of the software, and I had never known of the presentation feature which is available through the software. I was happy to see that a solution was proposed for Inspiration users working on computers which do not have Inspiration installed; these people simply download an additional file to their jump drives, and they can present their work on any computer.
My classmates and I are getting ready to complete an assignment based on this software. To date, I've only seen it used to create mind maps. I do not recall knowing about the outlining feature of the software, and I had never known of the presentation feature which is available through the software. I was happy to see that a solution was proposed for Inspiration users working on computers which do not have Inspiration installed; these people simply download an additional file to their jump drives, and they can present their work on any computer.
Playing to Learn - My Thoughts on the AT Assessment Models
For this week's class, each student had to prepare a presentation of four models for AT assessment. Although everyone was to be prepared to present, only three people would be presenting (due to time constraints), and those three people would be determined with the roll of the dice. Lucky or not, my name was selected as one of the three names of people to present. For my classmates, you can see my PowerPoint presentation in its entirety under the second discussion thread in our Blackboard site. For anyone and everyone else, the highlights of my presentation are these:
As aforementioned, the one factor of which I had not taken great notice in my research for the presentations this week was time. Between the class discussions and my review of Scherer's table of how milieu, personality of user, and the technology itself can influence a person's use of AT, I have come to understand more about the importance of time as a factor influencing AT assessment. Although I had seen that the models called for assessment to be more than a one time event, I did not take note of concerns about how the user changes over time, how the user may need time to learn to use the technology, or how the technology may require time to be updated or serviced when problems occur.
In the image below, I began to show some of the links between the five factors. As you might imagine, however, the links between the factors are extensive. It is difficult to fit every link on the diagram. (As I write this sentence, it strikes me that I didn't write that the environment may have or lack supports - teachers, friends, and family - for the student.) In addition, it is difficult to consider one factor without considering the others. Although the links flow from one factor to another, sometimes the link note refers to a third factor.
(Note: For some reason, the five factors common to the AT assessment models remind me of Schwab's four commonplaces: student, teacher, milieu, and content, and this makes sense to me since we are considering AT in the context of education.)
Resources: For more information about the assessment models, visit the websites listed below.
Education Tech Points
Ñ
http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/Us_Eu/conf/csun_99/session0089.html
Matching Person and Technology (MPT)
Ñ
http://www.homemods.org/resources/pages/ATAssess.shtml
Student, Environment, Task, and Tool (SETT)
Ñ
http://www.joyzabala.com/uploads/CA_Kananaskis__SETT_Horses_Mouth.pdf
- There are far more than four models of AT assessment.
- The four models I chose to present were:
- Education Tech Points (by Bowser & Reed, 1995)
- Matching Person and Technology (by Scherer and colleagues, 2002)
- Human, Activity, Assistive Technology (by Cook & Hussey, 2002)
- Student, Environment, Task, and Tool (by Zabala, 1995)
- The commonalities I noticed (as I discussed in a previous blog about Alberta's education system) were student/individual, task, context, and technology. (What I would learn more about in class was time.)
- The SETT model is sometimes referred to within other models.
- Assessment is not seen as a one-time event, but as an ongoing occurrence.
- Assessment requires a collaborative effort on the part of a team which should include the student.
As aforementioned, the one factor of which I had not taken great notice in my research for the presentations this week was time. Between the class discussions and my review of Scherer's table of how milieu, personality of user, and the technology itself can influence a person's use of AT, I have come to understand more about the importance of time as a factor influencing AT assessment. Although I had seen that the models called for assessment to be more than a one time event, I did not take note of concerns about how the user changes over time, how the user may need time to learn to use the technology, or how the technology may require time to be updated or serviced when problems occur.
In the image below, I began to show some of the links between the five factors. As you might imagine, however, the links between the factors are extensive. It is difficult to fit every link on the diagram. (As I write this sentence, it strikes me that I didn't write that the environment may have or lack supports - teachers, friends, and family - for the student.) In addition, it is difficult to consider one factor without considering the others. Although the links flow from one factor to another, sometimes the link note refers to a third factor.
(Note: For some reason, the five factors common to the AT assessment models remind me of Schwab's four commonplaces: student, teacher, milieu, and content, and this makes sense to me since we are considering AT in the context of education.)
Resources: For more information about the assessment models, visit the websites listed below.
Education Tech Points
http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/Us_Eu/conf/csun_99/session0089.html
Ñ http://www.homemods.org/resources/pages/ATAssess.shtml
Human, Activity, Assistive Technology (HAAT)
Student, Environment, Task, and Tool (SETT)
Ñ http://www.joyzabala.com/uploads/CA_Kananaskis__SETT_Horses_Mouth.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)