Putting the GAME Plan Together

The focus of my GAME plan goals is to utilize technology to foster an active learning atmosphere whereby creativity and authentic learning experiences/assessments are implemented across the content areas (National Education Standards for Teachers, 2009). Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer state that “[a]uthentic instruction enables you to meet your curricular standards in ways that can engage and support your students’ interest, creativity, and motivation” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009) To help define these goals and select appropriate strategies, I reached out to colleagues for advice and information on various digital tools . Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer state that “[s]haring what you have discovered with your colleagues is a critical step in improving your instructional effectiveness” (2009). “When you know what your choices are, you are better able to determine whether technology is already available or whether you need to request specific technology” (King-Sears and Evmenova, 2007). Additionally, I used the Checklist for Integrating Technology Into Instruction(2007) by King-Sears and Evmenova to progress monitor my ability to organize and implement these various mediums. Consequently, this process provided me the opportunity to set objectives, choose appropriate methodologies, monitor progress and determine effectiveness.

During my investigation in using the GAME plan as means to maturate my own understanding of authentic learning opportunities, I ascertained the significant importance self-directed learning can have on student achievement. A self-directed learner is able to synthesize prior knowledge with new discoveries to guide and monitor progress toward goals (2009). Instruction that supports the development of self-efficacy must be scaffold to take into account the varying degrees of abilities and interest in the classroom. By scaffolding instruction I can “…accomplish four important goals: 1) initiating student’s inquiry; 2) maintaining students’ engagement; 3) aiding learners with concept integration and addressing misconceptions; and 4) promoting reflective thinking” (Ertmer & Simons, 2006). One way in which I can implement this into my classroom is by alternating the methods on how students are assessed and evaluated. Students will therefore have multiple options for demonstrating mastery through means that address the differing multiple intelligences found in the classroom.

I plan to use my position on my school’s STEM committee is help mentor other teachers about best practices regarding integrating digital means to support self-directed learning. At our next meeting, I will be sharing my own GAME plan and information on developing authentic learning experiences in the classroom using NETS-T standards in conjunction with our state objectives. As I assist each member in writing a plan of their own and providing guidance for developing the means in which to carry them out, I hope to work toward developing my own personal goal of becoming a technology instructional coach.

Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A Standards-Based Approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

Ertmer, P., & Simons, K. (Spring 2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 40-54. Retrieved on October 4, 2010,from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article =1005& context=ijpbl.

King-Sears, M., & Evmenova, A. (2007). Premises, Principles, and Processes for Integrating TECHnology Into Instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 6-14. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

National Education Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/ 2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf