Technology and its effect with critical thinking
Effective technology is best described as a tool to guide the learning rather than being the learning instrument. Jonassen, Carr & Yueh (1998) argue that technology should be engaged as a tool that constructs knowledge for which students learn with, rather than learning from it. This has been the primary concern of mathematics teachers at the elementary and secondary levels throughout the United States with the use of calculators in their classrooms. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has advocated for the use of technology at the primary grades as well as the use of graphing calculators starting with middle school age children. Technology, over all, is essential in teaching and learning mathematics for all students but should not be utilized as a substitute for basic understanding (NCTM, 2005). The use of calculators in the classroom can enable students to complete more complex and interesting mathematics problems that would otherwise be omitted. It can also increase problem solving skills that are increasingly critical for standardized tests.

Regardless of the technology that is used in any classroom, it should be integrated as part of the curriculum and not as a stand-alone entity. This is the underlying idea for the use of calculators in mathematics classrooms. The attitude associated with teachers who avoid its usage is due to the misuse of calculators (Smith & Shotsberger, 1997). When students use calculators for basic mathematical computations, then it seems obvious that the emphasis is not on problem solving but rather on regurgitating meaningless problems. Generally, when technology is used as a knowledge construction tool it promotes better understanding of the content because students are creating their own learning rather than completing routine drill and practice problems. The construction of such learning generates a higher level thinking skill. Therefore, when determining if technology will enhance learning, it is important to mediate between its effectiveness and its appropriateness. Effective teachers understand what students know and challenge students to keep learning. Therefore, it is their responsibility to ensure which technology makes a greater impact in teaching and learning without compromising student success.

References

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H.P., (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2005). Principals and standards for school mathematics (4th printing). Reston, VA: Author.

Smith, K. B., & Shotsberger, P. G. (1997). Assessing the use of graphing calculators in college algebra: Reflecting on dimensions of teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics, 43, 25-30.

Learning to Learn
Learning comes in many different ways and in many styles. Some students prefer to learn by means of communicating and observing, others by exploring and hands-on, while many enjoy lectures. Our classrooms are very diverse and being able to accommodate many of these learning styles without compromising the learner perspectives is increasingly important as we try to create an environment conducive to learning. To that end, I conduct my classes as inclusive as possible yet having high expectations of all students. I try to employ all kinds of delivery methods in order to include the varied learning styles when I present the material. For instance, I lecture, I get the students in cooperative groups and have them communicate mathematics in both written and oral language. In a sense I integrate multiple pedagogical methodologies to enhance learning. Papert (1993) criticizes the lack of term when referring to learning. Colleges and universities make explicit connections to the art of teaching and collectively call it pedagogy. Although pedagogy is important, preferred attentions should be given to the learners. After all, the learners are the ones who benefit, or not, from the information presented. Effective way to communicate the material is also essential to the learning outcome. What is it that we, as educators, are trying to convey in order to engage all participants as active learners? This is, in my opinion, the fundamental question that all educators should incorporate in their learning objectives if capitalizing the learning experience is a priority. Much of this can be accomplished if increased attention is given to problem solving.

Interestingly enough, Papert (1993) made mention of George Polya. In his book, How to Solve it, Polya (2004) makes reference to four steps for problem solving that are integrated in mathematics and can be integrated in other subjects. These steps are: 1) understand the problem, 2) devise a plan, 3) carry out the plan, and 4) look back (Polya, 2004). As the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics advocates the importance of problem solving in K-12 curriculum, teachers need to consider implementation of Polya’s steps and how they can help improve the desired outcomes. Students often fail to complete a task, be it in mathematics or not, simply because they try to “solve the whole problem all at once” (Papert, 1993, p. 86). Considering all these theoretical approaches to teaching and learning, imagine the how much learning would occurs if technology were incorporated as well. Hence, when we think of information processes and the use of technology to enhance teaching and to improve learning the options are limitless. In an age where technology plays an important role in learning and dictates methodologies in teaching inclusiveness of all learning styles, it is imperative to make learning a primary goal regardless of whether or not there is a term that describes it.

[References]
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Higher Level Thinking and Technology

Each generation has its own characteristics. For instance baby boomers, born between 1943 and 1960, possess the willingness to put forth maximum effort, are rated as highly results-driven, very likely to retain learned material, and need low to no supervision (Lindenberger, Stoltz-Loike, 2005). The population born between 1961 and 1981 are known as the Generation-X. Gen-X parents are protective of their children and family, and a bit skeptical about school and other public institutions (Strauss, 2005). Millennials, born since 1981, are more technologically driven. By the end of this decade they will outnumber other generations in law and business school as well as most graduate programs including medical school. To this end, educators are concerned about literacy skills that are paramount in education. As technology development increases, fewer children are reading literature-like books and hence a decline in writing or creating original thought. Tarlow and Spangler (2001) contribution to this topic manifest in the fact that if books are replaced by audio-visual technology then the students will lack the “written model to promote their understanding of the systems which they are required to learn in order to write for themselves” (p. 27). What should educators do in order to establish a connection to technology and literacy? Educators know what methods are effective. Therefore, they should take advantage of new technologies as they become obtainable to enhance these effective methods. Moore (2000) has designed a seven-step effective instructional acquisition as it relates to classroom performance and higher level thinking skills. These steps are: 1) identify teaching goals and objectives, 2) identify required student assessment, 3) identify resources to meet the objectives, 4) allocate appropriate student time, 5) sort and match possible students activities to objectives, 6) monitor student progress and 7) evaluate and revise.
Recognizing the audience’s strengths and weaknesses is essential when trying to implement effective instructional methods in order to improve higher level thinking. Teachers are expected to address individual differences and to teach higher level thinking skills. When these two instructional quandaries are accomplished the students will have a greater appreciation for the content and its delivery. Juxtaposed with technology enhances a better understanding of the material at hand. Therefore, it is necessary to accommodate the technologically savvy students who are at the receiving end. In conclusion, making use of appropriate assessment tools, like portfolios and presentation, and using the students’ knowledge of technology and the instructors’ expertise, a higher, deeper level of thinking can be achieved without compromising the basic skills required to be competent readers and writers.


[References]

Lindenberger, J., & Stoltz-Loike, M. (2005). Mentoring and baby boomers. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from Business know-how, Web site: http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/mentoring.htm

Moore, B. (2000, January). Higher level thinking skills and individual differences: Bridging gaps with technology. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 3, 74-79

Strauss, W. (2005). Talking about their generations: Making sense of a school environment made up of Gen-Xers and Millennials. School Administrator, 62(8), 10-14.

Tarlow, M.C., & Spangler, K.L. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply?. The Education Digest, 67(3), 23-27.

Diversity and Technology

Diversity and multiculturalism are sensitive issues that must receive special attention, whether or not it relates to a school setting or a workplace. Even as important as inclusion is in these areas, is the issue attached to new technology development. Reeves (1997) explains the importance of evaluating technologies and their cultural sensitivity. He further gives explicit examples of technology that is acceptable for American society but not for many other cultures. What are some of the aspects that one needs to consider when developing new technologies? In my opinion, it is important to stress the level of English proficiency of the audience for which the technology is being developed. The use of slang words should be eliminated and more proper English be employed. As a non-native English speaker, I did not learn slang words, but rather the proper way of expression, both written and spoken. Accessibility to the technology plays a central role when adopting it to curricula or the workplace. How accessible this technology is, has become a buzz word for researchers known as “digitally divide”. This digital divide describes the discrepancies in accessibility of computers and the internet due to certain social or cultural identifiers (Clark & Gorski, 2001). The number of people who physically have access to the internet or even a computer is much higher than it was about 10 years ago. However, Whites and Asian/Asian American have a higher rate of access to technology in school or their homes than African Americans and Hispanics (Gorski, 2002). Readiness to have training and supplement manuals of the technology available in other languages promotes inclusiveness.

Reeves (1997) further suggests that the development of new technology within cultures is not a one-size-fits-all design. Therefore, creating an environment that is conducive to learning and enhancing the culture's unique characteristics are intrinsic in making the technology relevant to its needs. Awareness of such characteristics will also enable an atmosphere of inclusion and respect. After all, isn’t time that we as (future) educational technologist take an initiative to create innovative technology that will benefit, not only the targeted culture, but also the dominant culture? When this happens we have then achieved a level of understanding and tolerance that goes beyond technology.

[References]
Clark, C. & Gorski, P. (2001). Multicultural education and the digital divide: Focus on race, language, socioeconomic class, sex, and disability. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(3),39-44

Gorski, P.C. (2002). Dismantling the digital divide: A multicultural education framework. Multicultural Education, 10(1), 29-30.

Reeves, T. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-31.