Differentiated learning and web 2.0 technologies: Difference between revisions
Soccerlynn05 (talk | contribs) |
Soccerlynn05 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
[http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0 tools] are very useful and innovative ways to collaborate | [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0 tools] are very useful and innovative ways to collaborate [http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/maestroc Criswell], 2008). He argued that, instead of static content which only allowed viewing, students and teachers now have the power to change and create content. [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/basia-hall/15/831/138 Hall] (2009) and [http://www.learningstyles.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=131&Itemid=188&lang=en Dunne] et al. (2002) maintained that the how of the instruction and learning is the most important aspect in a child’s learning. With [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0 tools], teachers have more options for how they can present lectures, how students can complete their work, and how students can learn. [http://www.viral-notebook.com/wordpress/ Grant] and [http://clifmims.com/site/ Mims] (2009) pointed out that Differentiation is a word that is essential and encompassed by both [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 Web 2.0] and education. They also posited that Differentiated education needs to be modified around each student and their individual needs. | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 Web 2.0] has many different applications and tools available to teachers and students. Shihab (2008) claimed that teachers perceived [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0 tools] such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog blogs], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki wikis], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast podcasts], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS RSS feeds] as efficient, useful, and powerful. According to Wiberg (2007), these new technologies can be used for user-centered production, instead of teacher-centered content. Wiberg also found that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog blogs], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki wikis], video sharing programs and [http://www.whatissocialnetworking.com/ social networking] tools allow for social interaction and creativity. They encourage students to have a more active and participatory role in what they are doing (Maloney, 2007). Kahiigi, Ekenberg, Hansson, Tusubira, and Danielson (2008) noted that this technology allows teachers to take on more of a facilitative role while the students take control over their learning. According to Yan (2008), “Teachers are amazed at how simple tools for sharing work and ideas can positively transform the classroom” (p.30). Yan also established that students who wouldn’t normally participate in the physical classroom were much more vocal in the class discussions online. Another benefit of these tools acknowledged by Agnello, White and Fryer, (2006), is that they are free which is favorable for both students and teachers alike. | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 Web 2.0] has many different applications and tools available to teachers and students. Shihab (2008) claimed that teachers perceived [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0 tools] such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog blogs], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki wikis], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast podcasts], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS RSS feeds] as efficient, useful, and powerful. According to [http://www.informatik.umu.se/~mwiberg/ Wiberg](2007), these new technologies can be used for user-centered production, instead of teacher-centered content. [http://www.informatik.umu.se/~mwiberg/ Wiberg] also found that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog blogs], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki wikis], video sharing programs and [http://www.whatissocialnetworking.com/ social networking] tools allow for social interaction and creativity. They encourage students to have a more active and participatory role in what they are doing ([http://www.educause.edu/Community/MemDir/Profiles/EdwardJMaloney/47239 Maloney], 2007). Kahiigi, Ekenberg, Hansson, Tusubira, and Danielson (2008) noted that this technology allows teachers to take on more of a facilitative role while the students take control over their learning. According to Yan (2008), “Teachers are amazed at how simple tools for sharing work and ideas can positively transform the classroom” (p.30). Yan also established that students who wouldn’t normally participate in the physical classroom were much more vocal in the class discussions online. Another benefit of these tools acknowledged by Agnello, White and Fryer, (2006), is that they are free which is favorable for both students and teachers alike. | ||
As with many new ideas and technologies, there are some limitations and challenges to [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0] and education that teachers may need to take into consideration when tailoring education for an individual’s needs. Some of those limitations and challenges include issues such as the immaturity of applications, the longevity of the applications, and the vast number of applications that are available, unconsolidated services, and security and ethics (Grant et al., 2009). Shihab (2008) acknowledged similar concerns inferring that these technologies have a chance to be disruptive to learning. Trying to find a way to incorporate [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0] into teaching and learning may present another small hurdle for educators (Maloney, 2007). However both Grant et al. (2009) and Shihab (2008) argued that, even with these limitations or challenges, [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0 tools] are valuable and will enhance teaching and learning. | As with many new ideas and technologies, there are some limitations and challenges to [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0] and education that teachers may need to take into consideration when tailoring education for an individual’s needs. Some of those limitations and challenges include issues such as the immaturity of applications, the longevity of the applications, and the vast number of applications that are available, unconsolidated services, and security and ethics ([http://www.viral-notebook.com/wordpress/ Grant] et al., 2009). Shihab (2008) acknowledged similar concerns inferring that these technologies have a chance to be disruptive to learning. Trying to find a way to incorporate [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0] into teaching and learning may present another small hurdle for educators (Maloney, 2007). However both [http://www.viral-notebook.com/wordpress/ Grant] et al. (2009) and Shihab (2008) argued that, even with these limitations or challenges, [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0 tools] are valuable and will enhance teaching and learning. | ||
As Klamma et al. (2007) conceptualized that for learning to be effective, it has to be personalized and individualized. They also argue that learning needs to be centered on a learner’s preference; things they are competent in and knowledge that is constantly growing. However in order to give [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0] an opportunity to improve education for students, teachers have to be willing to change and expand on their previously required technology skills (Alexander, 2008), just as teachers have to be willing to use a variety of instructional strategies, and to learn new ways of doing things (Tomlinson, 2000). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_instruction Differentiated Instruction] begins with and requires that teachers present engaging instruction (Tomlinson, 1999). [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0 tools] are engaging; they require creativity and higher-order thinking and are promising tools to enhance education (Shihab, 2008). | As Klamma et al. (2007) conceptualized that for learning to be effective, it has to be personalized and individualized. They also argue that learning needs to be centered on a learner’s preference; things they are competent in and knowledge that is constantly growing. However in order to give [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0] an opportunity to improve education for students, teachers have to be willing to change and expand on their previously required technology skills (Alexander, 2008), just as teachers have to be willing to use a variety of instructional strategies, and to learn new ways of doing things (Tomlinson, 2000). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_instruction Differentiated Instruction] begins with and requires that teachers present engaging instruction (Tomlinson, 1999). [http://www.webreference.com/promotion/web20/ Web 2.0 tools] are engaging; they require creativity and higher-order thinking and are promising tools to enhance education (Shihab, 2008). | ||
Revision as of 19:30, 5 February 2010
Introduction
This wiki explores some of the links between differentiated learning and Web 2.0 technologies.
Felicia Roul
Differentiated learning
Increased attention to students’ different abilities, different talents, and different learning styles has become particularly relevant in today’s education system (Tomlinson et al., 2003). As Hall(2009) explained, students come from different social backgrounds, cultures, and economies and are all different in their academic and linguistic ability. She argued that they need differentiating in learning content, in the learning process and the product of their learning. Many teachers struggle with this idea, and don’t fully understand how they can differentiate learning for so many students (Tomlinson 2000). However as Hall posited, “Differentiated instruction does not change WHAT is taught; it changes HOW it is taught” (p.1).
Differentiated learning is at the forefront of many educational systems around the world as educators, researchers and administrators alike strive to meet the needs of individuals (Tomlinson, Brimijoin, and Narvaez, 2008). Differentiating learning which is student centered; provides children with variety of different options to learn the same outcome (Tomlinson, 2001). Tomlinson (2000) argues that by using Differentiated instruction, a teacher has the opportunity to take action in order to reach each child’s different learning style. Every child has its own unique learning style; this uniqueness does not make the child any more or less intelligent than the next person with a different type of learning style (Dunne,Beaudry, and Klavas, 2002). A learning style is simply the way a student learns best. Brualdi (1996) explained that teachers can refer to Gardner’s (1983) Theory of Multiple Intelligence to help guide them in recognizing student’s different abilities and talents. She also identified that teachers should structure their instruction in such a way that it has the ability to appeal to a variety of students different intelligences.
Willoughby (2005) confirms that teachers can differentiate instruction and reach multiple intelligences by providing several different learning options or paths and allowing for different levels of challenge for all students. Thousand, Villa, and Nevin(2007) concur that multiple intelligences are very important for differentiated instruction and observed that it’s very important to note that the intelligences a student possesses are not fixed and can be strengthened.
Web 2.0 technologies and Differentiated Learning
Web 2.0 tools are very useful and innovative ways to collaborate Criswell, 2008). He argued that, instead of static content which only allowed viewing, students and teachers now have the power to change and create content. Hall (2009) and Dunne et al. (2002) maintained that the how of the instruction and learning is the most important aspect in a child’s learning. With Web 2.0 tools, teachers have more options for how they can present lectures, how students can complete their work, and how students can learn. Grant and Mims (2009) pointed out that Differentiation is a word that is essential and encompassed by both Web 2.0 and education. They also posited that Differentiated education needs to be modified around each student and their individual needs.
Web 2.0 has many different applications and tools available to teachers and students. Shihab (2008) claimed that teachers perceived Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, and RSS feeds as efficient, useful, and powerful. According to Wiberg(2007), these new technologies can be used for user-centered production, instead of teacher-centered content. Wiberg also found that blogs, wikis, video sharing programs and social networking tools allow for social interaction and creativity. They encourage students to have a more active and participatory role in what they are doing (Maloney, 2007). Kahiigi, Ekenberg, Hansson, Tusubira, and Danielson (2008) noted that this technology allows teachers to take on more of a facilitative role while the students take control over their learning. According to Yan (2008), “Teachers are amazed at how simple tools for sharing work and ideas can positively transform the classroom” (p.30). Yan also established that students who wouldn’t normally participate in the physical classroom were much more vocal in the class discussions online. Another benefit of these tools acknowledged by Agnello, White and Fryer, (2006), is that they are free which is favorable for both students and teachers alike.
As with many new ideas and technologies, there are some limitations and challenges to Web 2.0 and education that teachers may need to take into consideration when tailoring education for an individual’s needs. Some of those limitations and challenges include issues such as the immaturity of applications, the longevity of the applications, and the vast number of applications that are available, unconsolidated services, and security and ethics (Grant et al., 2009). Shihab (2008) acknowledged similar concerns inferring that these technologies have a chance to be disruptive to learning. Trying to find a way to incorporate Web 2.0 into teaching and learning may present another small hurdle for educators (Maloney, 2007). However both Grant et al. (2009) and Shihab (2008) argued that, even with these limitations or challenges, Web 2.0 tools are valuable and will enhance teaching and learning.
As Klamma et al. (2007) conceptualized that for learning to be effective, it has to be personalized and individualized. They also argue that learning needs to be centered on a learner’s preference; things they are competent in and knowledge that is constantly growing. However in order to give Web 2.0 an opportunity to improve education for students, teachers have to be willing to change and expand on their previously required technology skills (Alexander, 2008), just as teachers have to be willing to use a variety of instructional strategies, and to learn new ways of doing things (Tomlinson, 2000). Differentiated Instruction begins with and requires that teachers present engaging instruction (Tomlinson, 1999). Web 2.0 tools are engaging; they require creativity and higher-order thinking and are promising tools to enhance education (Shihab, 2008).
References
Anglello, M., White, D., and Fryer, D. (2006). Toward twenty-first century global
citizenship: A teacher education curriculum. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1(3), 317. Retrieved January 15, 2010 from http:// www.socstrp.org/issues/P DF/1.3.3.pdf
Brualdi, A. C. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Gardner's theory. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 5(10). Retrieved January 17, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=5&n=10
Criswell, C. (2008). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Teaching Music,
16(3), 24. Retrieved February 2, 2010 from Eric Database.
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J.S., and Klavas, A. (Spring 2002). Survey of research on learning
styles. California Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 75-88. Retrieved January 15, 2010 from http://www.cascience.org/csta/pub_learnjournal.asp
Grant, M., and Mims, C., (2009). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Characteristics,
implications and limitations. Wired for Learning: An Educators guide to Web 2.0 (pp. 343-360).Retrieved January 15, 2010 from http://www.viral-notebook.com /wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/grant_mims_web20_formatted.doc
Hall, B. (2009) Differentiated instruction: Reaching all students. Pearson Education.
Retrieved January 15, 2010 from http://wilsonsd.org /77032081816511420/lib /770320818 165 11 42 0/DI_Reaching_All_Students.pdf
Kahiigi, E., Ekenberg L., Hansson H., Tusubira F.F., and Danielson M., (2008).
Exploring the e-learning State of the Art, The Electric Journal of e-learning, 6(2), 77- 88. Retrieved January 17, 2010 from http://www.ejel.org/.
Klamma, R., Chatti, M.A., Duval, E., Hummel, H., Hyannberg, T.E., Kravcik., . . . Scott,
P. (2007). Social software for life-long learning. Educational Technology and Society, 10(3), 72-83. Retrieved January 15, 2010 from doi: 0.1.1.108.5134
Maloney, E.J., (Jan, 2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. Chronicles of
Higher Learning, 53(18), b 26. Retrieved February 2, 2010 from Eric Database.
Shihab, M.M. (2008). Web 2.0 tools improve teaching and collaboration in English
language classes. International College, Beirut, Lebanon. Retrieved January 15, 2010 from https://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu Research/NECC_Research_Paper_Archives/NECC2008/Shihab.pdf
Thousand, J.S., Villa, R.A., Nevin, A.I. (2007). Differentiating instruction:
Collaborative planning and teaching for universally Designed Learning. California: Corwin Press.
Tomlinson, C.A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C.M., Moon, T.R., K
Brimijoin, K., Conover, L.A., and Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 27(2/3), 119-45. Retrieved January 22, 2010 from http://etseo.org/info/raas /DI%20Review%20of%20Lit.pdf
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the needs
of all Learners. Alexandria: ASCD publications. Retrieved Feb 4, 2010 from http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dDJasEi- 6xQC&oi=fnd&pg =IA2&dq =+Differentiated+instruction+engaging&ots =NZ_S5uhFRY&sig =ctd8or AmPgALn_FiHEjN_AiycEs#v=onepage&q= Differentiated% 20instruction%20engaging&f=false
Tomlinson, C.A., Brimijoin, K., and Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school.
Making revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C.A. (August 2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades.
Eric Digest. Retrieved January 17, 2010 from http://www.ericdigests.org /2001-2/elementary.html
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Retrieved January 17, 2010 from http://books.google.ca/books ?hl=en&lr =&id= n different tiated+instruction&ots=5wj5zkw78f&sig=wbi3LnZz34YS V9FC86 9j_FbThGoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=student +centered+learning +best+ cvf U9ra Us#v=onepage&q=studentt%20centered%20learning %20best%20differentiated%20instruction&f=false
Wiberg, M. Net learning through networks, Educational Technology and Society, 10(4),
Retrieved January 17, 2010 from Doi: 10.1.1.100.9113
Willoughby, J. (2005). Differentiating instruction: Meeting students where they are.
Teaching Today. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. Retrieved January 17 from http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/subject/di_meeting.phtml
Yan, J. (2008). Social technology as a new medium in the classroom. The New
England Journal of Higher Education, 22(4), 27, 29-30. Retrieved February 2, 2010 from Eric Database.