Week+2+Assignment+Part+2.4,+Reflection+on+EDLD+5364

__Reflection on EDLD 5364, Teaching with Technology__
====This was a very challenging course in a number of ways. First it required collaboration with other students in the program. It was quite a challenge to juggle schedules and time zones in completing the components of the assignment. I also found it a challenge to communicate and collaborate using wikis, google docs, and emails. I know that wikis are an easier way to work together, but it was still difficult for me. Part of this was because as the document grew in size, it became harder and harder to keep it all straight. In other words, we might be discussing 5 different parts of the assignment. So now each of the 5 sections had multiple contributions by multiple people. Even with color-coding etc it was hard to keep it all straight. Google docs was a bit easier, but that was used for the actual assignment, not the planning.====

====Our final product (Dreger, James, Pressler, Sullivan, & Threadgill, 2009) was actually very good, but a bit disjointed due to different people completing different sections. But I was pleased because it fully incorporated constructivist methodologies (Bransford, Brown,& Cocking, 2000). The unit was squarely based on the science content standards. Every section built on the other. We had formative and summative assessments built in. We also included both traditional and web 2.0 technologies (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). Working and collaborating with my colleagues affected me/us because we were all dependent on each other in order to meet the requirements of the assignment. I think I did a good job on my section. I was able to get the ball rolling and help us focus on a topic pretty early on. For my part I was able to draw in a prior unit I had done with my 5th grade students. The part that was new was the framework of the unit and the Texas Standards.====

====Making the electronic book was more problematic. I didn't really like the software, and it seemed like an awful lot of work to produce something that was pretty "lightweight" in the end. Our unit was on force and motion for 6th grade. I spent hours on my book and it was still at a much lower level than 6th grade. Some of it was the content I put together, but some of it was the program was very unwieldy and would have taken many more hours to have the depth I would have wanted. I think bookbuilder is better for the students to design something, than for me, the instructor.====

====I want to do more of this kind of collaboration and constructivist unit planning. But I am finding it difficult due to time constraints at school, and quite frankly a lack of interested people that are familiar with web 2.0. This is something I want to continue to pursue.====

====My group has since become very good friends and we have collaborated together ever since. In fact for a recent class, we asked the instructor if we could work in a group of 5, rather than 4, so we could be together.====

====Bransford,J.,Brown, A.,& Cocking,R. (Ed). (2000). How people learn. pp.129-154 (Chapter 6). Washington DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved on March 18, 2010 at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9853&page=129====

====Dreger, R., James, K., Pressler, E., Sullivan, D., & Threadgill, M., (December 18, 2009) Teaching with technology; force, motion, & energy, grade 6. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/dregersscience/====