Theories of Critical Thinking - Brandace Sims

Based on my experience as an Early Childhood Educator during the educational technology boom, I was able to identify with each article.  When I began teaching, I started in a first grade classroom with minimal technology: two computers, an overhead projector, and a TV/VCR combo.  Sixteen years later, my classroom has 1:1 Chromebooks, near 1:1 ipads, coding equipment, an interactive projector, and a new teacher iMac.  It is a balancing act for educators, wanting to teach content while needing to create responsible consumers and producers of digital literacy (Hobbs, 2011).

 As a novice teacher, I was an Innovator according to Rogers’ (1963) Adopter categories.  I was among the youngest on staff, did not hold much opinion leadership among the faculty, and was interested in the data provided by new educational innovations (Rogers, 1963). I clearly remember when we gave our first online assessment. While many disgruntled, veteran teachers scorned, I printed my reports and happily ran to analyze the quick results.  When teachers started to see the value of the new technology, they naturally gravitated toward them (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014).

As the years progressed, we were bombarded with technology. As Hobbs (2011) states, “Many school leaders mistakenly believe that simply providing children and young people with access to digital technology will automatically enhance learning” (p.15).  It took years for educators to realize that the “differentiating power of educational technology” (Kuhn, 2008, p. 1) is actually what enhanced learning. Even though teachers had knowledge of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences or Bloom’s Taxonomy, few had the time to plan lessons with these in mind (Kuhn, 2008).  Thankfully, educational technology made it easier for teachers to ensure the rigor of their lessons (Kuhn, 2008).  Huitt (2011) stated that “research shows that students remember more when they have learned . . . at the higher levels of the taxonomy” (p. 3).

The opportunity for learning through technology has never been more available. In 2014, Fullan & Langworthy identified three forces that will open up these possibilities: new pedagogies, quicker reform, and more affordable technology. They described these forces as a “positive contagion that becomes unstoppable given the right conditions” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. i).  Fullan & Langworthy (2014) introduce a new term, “Deep learning” as a shift from pedagogies of the past ( p. i).  “Deep learning is more natural to the human condition,” and the desired outcome is for the learner to master the learning process instead of a set of standards (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. i).  I have seen this evolution in education in the form of project-based learning.  Letting students share an equal role as the teacher in their own learning, as Fullan & Langworthy (2014) suggest, will only intensify the need for digital citizenship. Students will need the skills to make wise and responsible digital decisions (Hobbs, 2011).

References

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf  

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. (PDF below)

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf 

Theories of Critical Thinking - Amy Franklin

When reading these articles, the predominant theme that emerged for me regarding my own teaching experience was the adoption of technology. Specifically, when considering the adoption of technology, thought is given to the reasons driving the adoption, plans for implementation, and assessment. Whether considering the adoption of a new online learning system that accompanies a textbook or use of a course management system, these aspects of the adoption are prevalent.  

In my experience, a major issue in adopting technology is determining whether the technology under consideration is student-centered. When considering students, would the technology enhance their learning experience? If not, then as pointed out by Fullan and Langworthy (2014), the addition of new technology will do nothing to address their needs as learners. For me, this is a central component when selecting textbooks and online learning systems. Further, providing access to new technology without considering the needs of students will not enhance learning (Hobbs, 2011). And, in my experience, leads to frustration among students who feel the technology is more of a hindrance than a help. This would follow what Rogers (1963) refers to as relative advantage. Students will be more inclined to learn or use new technology when there is an increased advantage to them as learners.

The last two aspects mentioned, implementation and assessment, are also of utmost importance. When incorporating an online learning system, I have found students appreciate clear and detailed information about how the learning system will be used in the course, how they should use the system as part of their learning, and the components used for assessment. The routine task of answering a set of questions at the end of a unit can be transformed into an opportunity for deep learning when new technology is thoughtfully incorporated. “When used correctly, educational technology gives new meaning and utility to long-established educational paradigms…” (Kuhn, 2008, p. 18). And, “…educational technology leaders can help shift the focus to emphasize how digital tools are used to promote critical thinking, creativity, and communication and collaboration skills” (Hobbs, 2011, p. 15). This shift has the potential to not only enhance student learning in my class but throughout their educational endeavors.

 

Resources

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf  

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. 

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18-21.

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69-75. http://www.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf 

Theories of Critical Thinking - Mysti Nichols

If I am being honest, a good portion of the information discussed in these articles is not new; however, that is not to say that the ideas presented are not helpful. When I was in school myself, the idea of student driven learning or even technology in the classroom beyond overhead projectors and computers with green font on a black screen was extremely rare, and I went to ten different schools in about five different school systems across two states. It was possible that individual homes had access to a computer that would do basic skills and functions but not common. There was nothing like waiting for that AOL dial tone to boot up so that I could chat with my friends; however, the idea of using the internet to learn or to research was still a fairly foreign concept. Much changed though over the course of my college career, and by the time I graduated with my degree in English and Education the classroom of my childhood was beginning to morph into something different. We were encouraged to provide students with the chance to explore and use technology, but that was limited to school hours as many of our students still did not have home access to computers or internet. The world has completely changed in the 15 years since I began teaching. More and more colleges are developing entire degrees which can be completed online to help students who work and have other responsibilities. With recent events we have gone from in classroom learning to learning through online video chats with teachers and classmates and work being submitted virtually. But what does all of this mean for the future of education? All of these articles pose, if not all new, interesting and compelling ideas towards the use of technology in education and moving it from strictly being a tool to being something more key to learning.

I believe these articles are more timely now than even six months ago. They each take a different perspective on the idea of technology and education; however, they all point to the same goal. The ultimate goal whether termed as “deep learning” or “literary competency” or “multiple intelligences” is all to meet students in this digital world they live in and use its power to stimulate curiosity, creativity, engagement, and learning. None of this can be accomplished by ignoring the past and simply pursuing a whole new path of learning which is why the Huitt and Rogers articles are so imperative to understanding this concept. Understanding how our society adapts and adopts new ideas plays a key role in the shift to this new idea of a learning partnership between teachers and students. Not everyone will buy-in immediately; however, for those of us who do our students will benefit greatly, and, hopefully, eventually more and more of our colleagues will be swayed.

One of the elements that most made an impression in my reading was a statement in the Fullan and Langworthy article that discussed the idea of trust being integral to student engagement. In my experience, students are busier than ever and therefore become more frustrated than ever with what feels like “busy work” to them. If a student does not trust their instructor to not simply give work just to have work to do (no matter how technologically tricked-out it might be), then they do not engage with the assignment or idea or process even if they complete it; however, if students truly believe that the instructor has a purpose in the assignment that will benefit them as a learner, they are much more likely to become that desired learning partner. This is something I personally would like to set as a goal for myself. I already try to incorporate various learning styles and techniques into my instruction which draw from students’ day-to-day lives and prior knowledge and skills such as multi-modal tiered projects and interactive research assignments; however, I do not always communicate the way in which these assignments help students with learning both inside and outside of my classroom. Hopefully by doing this, students will be more willing to engage with the material and the learning process as a whole.

Digital literacy is also something that I want to help my students better understand. In Hobbs’ article, she makes the point that a major mistake in education today is the assumption that if technology is provided to students they will automatically know how to use it. I see the opposite of this in my freshman comp classes each semester. Many of my students enter my classroom with the ability to shoot and edit video footage or create digital art or even write a blog with great skill; however, when asked to create an essay with a header and one inch margins they are completely lost. Along with this is the fact that helping them to develop research skills is a key component to my courses, but if it cannot be pulled-up within the first five options of a Google (not even Google Scholar) search, they tend to become defeated. With all of the world’s information literally at their fingertips, many students come to me with no understanding and even a good amount of trepidation and fear about what it really means to research something. This intimidation causes a disconnect within them that I want to help them overcome.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf 

 

Theories of Critical Thinking - Jason Mallet

The messages of these articles spoke very strongly to me, especially from "A Rich Seam."  Having received my primary and secondary education primarily in the 1990s, the methodology used was the classic one of the teacher lecturing and the students taking notes.  However, when I began teaching in the late 2000s and early 2010s, not only was technology heavily involved in every aspect, but the students often showed me new methods of learning that they had learned from one another or found on the Internet.

A lot of this came to a head when I began teaching at a university in Korea in 2012.  I entered a department that was stagnant and only existed due to Korean law mandating ESL education for all university students.  We were required to simply teach from the textbook, give homework assignments, two exams, and that was it.  As each instructor in the office had anywhere from 200-400 students per week, it was beyond impossible to grade paper homework assignments.  I thus researched a method of delivery for homework that could be done online, graded automatically, and be easily reproduced with minimal effort.  I found the learning management system Moodle (similar in concept to Canvas and Blackboard).  I was fortunate enough to be supervised by an extremely forward-thinking instructor and surrounded by eager and forward-thinking colleagues.  There was a core group of "innovators" in our office that enthusiastically embraced this new model, and we acted as "opinion leaders" who were able to easily sway most of our colleagues to adopt the new technology.  While it began simply as an easier way to grade homework, our embrace of technology gave way to online exams, MOOCs, technology-based classroom activities, and student collaboration projects that went far beyond what we were doing before.  We were even recognized by the local government for our efforts and for improving the English testing scores of our university's students.

I believe that what we did, and what I am eager to continue doing when I re-enter the field of instruction, was to introduce students to higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy.  In Korea the default method used by most teachers and professors is to simply provide knowledge and have the students memorize it.  There is absolutely nothing beyond this step.  We found that by engaging our students and having them teach one another and show practical applications for English language knowledge in the real world, they were far more willing not only to learn, but to work to maintain their knowledge.  There is no doubt that the technology involved played a crucial role.  Students created videos, used message boards, took photographs, and much more, depending on which area they showed the greatest amount of strength.

Theory Of Critical Thinking - La'Vonda Thomas

I have read the articles and have reflected on each one and how it relates to me. I am currently a kindergarten teacher and the rise in technology is becoming a main priority versus how it has been in the past. Because technology has become such a vital source in the world learning different ways to integrate it can prove to be a task if not done efficiently. This means that I must understand how to properly transition my students to use the technology. Referring to Blooms taxonomy “The major idea of the taxonomy is what educators want students to know.” (Huit, W. 2011.) In order the make this decision we first must understand the what and the why. Why is technology such an important tool? What will I have them do? Where will they use these tasks that they have learned?

As we continue to progress to these transitions we have to take note of the things that need to happen during this process. Having technology does not help us understand how to properly use it. It takes planning, using useful resources and being able to create new understanding. Once it is decided what needs to be done we have to make sure that teaching strategies becomes more about discovering and mastering content together. When a student and the teacher work together you start to see deeper learning occur. To me this is what will be the driving force when it comes to students understanding how and when to integrate technology. “Partnerships emerge from a set of roles for both teachers and students.” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014. pg 24) This means that rules and roles need to be in place. A teacher can is more than a facilitator when it comes to the new pedagogies. Students learn in various ways so it’s up to the educator to build those relationships to gain trust for learning. Educators must also be aware of their goals and require challenging task for the students that tap into their prior knowledge. For me I understand that sometimes my students don’t always have prior knowledge of a topic that we might be discussing. I would ask myself how I can make these connections using technology to enforce learning. I also would plan out useful digital resources that can help aid higher order thinking.  Transitioning and integrating technology in the classroom should be a continuous discovery.

 “Collaborate with other teachers and leaders.” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014. pg 24) This is very important for anyone that is seeking to integrate technology in the workforce or at school. During these times we have found that we have found a loophole when it comes to properly integrating technology from home in the lower grades. Collaborating with peers has become one of the most useful tools and ideas when you are exploring how to integrate technology efficiently. Schools and businesses are using more and more technology. As time continues to go on we will continue to see a rise in the digital world. So, by assisting learning and giving opportunities to explore and evaluate they will understand and use technology properly. 

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf 

Theory of Critical Thinking- Constance Bass

As I began reading these articles, I began to reflect on my experiences my previous role in Human Resources.   Specifically, how the integration of technology changed the way we taught the material as well as how we actually used these online training courses. Once the transition to online-training was complete, we quickly learned that integration to technology helps no one if the users are not able to successfully use it. “ Simply purchasing the latest digital technologies do not necessarily lead to the acquisition of digital media technology.” (Hobbs, 2011.)  It was impossible for our associates to effectively complement their training if they are not able to effectively navigate through the technology. 

It takes time as well as resources to help learners become integrated with the new technology. The navigation of technology is only the first step. The instructor and the student must develop a relationship that will allow true learning to take place. “Unfortunately, many school leaders mistakenly believe that simply providing children and young people with access to digital learning  will automatically enhance learning.” (Hobbs, 2011)  In our organization, the leaders felt that as long as the same material was given in the online format that they employee would learn the same and/or even better. It was their belief that employee would be able to have a better grasp on  the concepts because they would be able to do it on their own time and learn and at there on pace. It was really clear, the leadership had not even began to understand the nuts and bolts of online learning. Yes, all the items that they mentioned in our staff meetings where the  benefits but they did not simultaneously result in the success of these online-training's. The content had to change to challenge the learners to use critical thinking and apply their real world training to enhance their currently knowledge on the subject matter. Fullan and Langworthy (2014) stated it best, “ Teaching shifts from focusing on covering all required content to focusing on the learning process.” (pg. 7) 

It is not only crucial that we ensure that the targeted audience understand how to navigate through the technology but also the level of instruction to able accommodate a variety of learning styles. As the person who was not only creating some on the training content but also assisting ensuring that the audience would be able to apply their real world skills to training.  “ Technology has unleashed learning, and the potential for students to apply knowledge in the world outside of school; new pedagogies leverage all of this in the formal learning process.” (Fullan & Langworthy,2014)  In education, online- learning had become apart of the new norm for students but in business sector online learning and training was know becoming a new trend for companies. At this point in time, we where simply inventing a lane for the organization that had not been fully researched but would essentially changed the way we trained and many way interacted with our employees.  This advancement in technology completely changed the dynamics of out workforce. 

Fullan, M & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf 

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39 (5), 12-17 Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. 

Theories of Critical Thinking - Spencer Tinman

As we learn more about the brains of our students, the more we understand about how they learn and the most effective ways at getting them to a deeper understanding.  Huitt (2011) and Kuhn (2008) discuss Bloom’s Taxonomy and other curriculum theories and how they have changed over time.   Technology is another thing that we have learned more about and has become more widespread.  As this has happened, the prior mentioned theories have been altered to include technology and amended to work with technology integration.  These topics are addressed in a deeper way by Fullan and Langworthy (2014) as well as by Hobbs (2011).  The effect of the rise of technology in education has been a positive one in places where learning theories were adapted to integrate technology into their frameworks to create new pedagogies.  Hobbs (2011) discusses the importance of teaching students about digital literacy and effective ways to use the new technology that comes about.  These latter ideas are most impactful where technology innovations are used early and often as Rogers (1963) approaches in his article. As new ideas come about, the people who adopt them quickly have less of a learning curve and those that are later adopters struggle to implement the idea (Rogers, 1963).  The relationship between these older learning theories and the new technology that has come about in the past few decades is of dire importance for educators.  We are asked to integrate technology into our lessons while also addressing the different pedagogical ideals that have been used in schools for decades on decades.  Having an understanding of how technology can extend and enhance these older theories is vital for the success of educators in this technological age.

As with all innovation, buy-in from the top is of utmost importance.  A superintendent who is focused on innovation and technology integration causes the principals, assistant principals, veteran teachers and new teachers alike to put an emphasis on these two ideas.  As educators, we are often looking for new ways to empower our students and deepen their understanding of the topics we teach.  This necessitates the combination of pedagogical theories and technology.  Kuhn (2008) shows this perfectly with the example of the water cycle where the theories of Bloom and Gardener are enhanced by the usage of software that differentiates the delivery of the material at hand.  As much as a teacher wants to do things like this, they need their higher-ups to understand the important role that new technology can play.  I am lucky enough to work in a district that has a superintendent that created an innovation center for the district and discusses the importance of technology and innovation with his principals/teachers weekly.  Rogers (1963) discusses the importance of “change agents” and “early adopters” when implementing new ideas.  Our superintendent being an early and aggressive adopter of the latest technologies and pedagogical ideas has allowed our district to become a technology and innovation beacon in our state.

Students see major benefits when their teachers are comfortable with technology and are able to implement different technologies to improve the teaching and learning in the classroom.  As a math teacher that has gone largely virtual I can say that being able to differentiate my teaching through different software/programs has been huge.  I am able to spend more time working 1-1 with my students and give them more ownership of their learning.  According to Hobbs (2011), having the ability to show students how to use technology to assist their learning empowers the students to take control of their own education.  They rely less on me to show them how to use programs and I am able to facilitate their learning in a more effective way.  This allows for the new pedagogues that Fulland and Langworthy (2014) talk about in their article to exist.  Students develop a deeper understanding of material as it allows for more time to make them think critically and problem solve.  They learn how to use different digital tools and resources while reaching the top levels of Bloom's and getting what they need based on Gardner’s theory.  The essence of why technology integration and innovation is imperative is that it allows teachers to do the following: meet all of their students where they are in their understanding, address different pedagogical theories at the same time, and ensure that students are getting exactly what they need at the exact time they need it.

References:

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf  

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. 

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf

App Reviews - Robyn Lyle Lowe

Standard: Physics ALCOS 1 - Investigate and analyze, based on evidence obtained through observation or experimental design, the motion of an object using both graphical and mathematical models (e.g., creating or interpreting graphs of position, velocity, and acceleration versus time graphs for one- and two-dimensional motion; solving problems using kinematic equations for the case of constant acceleration) that may include descriptors such as position, distance traveled, displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration.

App #1: Graphical Analysis
https://www.commonsense.org/education/app/vernier-graphical-analysis
Graphical analysis is a free app designed to help students from elementary school to college create and analyze graphs. Graphical Analysis enables users to collect data with sensors, graph data, apply a best-fit curve, and identify important features of the graph such as slope and y-intercept. This app also has data sharing and storage capabilities. Graphical Analysis is compatible with iOS, Windows, macOS, Android, and Chromebook. The review link is from Common Sense, which is a credible, third-party review source that collects input from educators who use the app.

App #2: Google Slides
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-slides
Google Slides is a free presentation tool designed to help people (ages 4+) create presentations as well as collaborate with each other and edit slides from different devices. Students can use Google Slides to build, edit, and annotate presentations together, which is useful for this standard when graphing, problem solving, and designing experiments. Google Slides is compatible with iOS, Android, Chromebook, macOS, and Windows. The review link is from PCMag, which is a credible, third-party review source that lists pros and cons of Google Slides as well as many details of how it works.

App #3: Lab4Physics
https://www.commonsense.org/education/app/lab4physics
Lab4Physics is a free app designed to help students in grades 6-12 use their phone's built-in sensors such as the accelerometer and speedometer to collect and analyze data. The app has a plotting tool that enables students to create a graph within the app. Lab4Physics is compatible with iOS and Android. The review link is from Common Sense, which is a credible, third-party review source that collects input from educators who use the app.

Although each of these three apps is very useful in the classroom, I believe Graphical Analysis is best, and it is the one I use most in my physics classroom. Graphical Analysis has the ability to collect data from a variety of sensors. These sensors are more reliable than those built into cell phones. Graphical Analysis also plots the data points as they are entered and displays important features of the graph immediately on-screen. I use this app to help my physics students collect data and derive equations from the data they collect, which is an important part of physics.

Theories of Critical Thinking - Robyn Lyle Lowe

As I read these articles, I saw several parallels to my current position as a high school science teacher. Much of my success in the classroom can be attributed to the work I put into developing relationships with my students. The article A Rich Seam really resonated with me as someone who deeply values student relationships. In the article, Fullan places emphasis on the "student's new role as an equal learning partner" in the learning process (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). This is something I have been working toward in my classroom by loosening the reins and shifting some of the initiative (as well as responsibility) to the student. I also agree with the idea of new pedagogies, which focuses on "deep learning tasks characterized by exploration, connectedness, and broader, real-world purposes" (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). It is so important to a student's education that the teacher helps create authentic learning opportunities that allow the student to be engaged as well as help direct and analyze their own learning. Digital tools are a great way to provide these opportunities to students.

Digital tools are a wonderful asset to the classroom, but they must be implemented in a way that enhances learning. The simple purchase of new technology doesn't get us ahead in education. These digital tools hold the key to new connections and avenues of exploration previously unavailable to students, and we owe it to them to use these new tools - and teach the students to use these tools - properly in our classroom. In the article Bloom et. al's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain, Huitt discusses how digital tools allow students to learn at different levels by illustrating, creating, evaluating, and performing other tasks using digital resources (Huitt, 2011). Kuhn expands on this idea in Connecting Depth and Balance in Class when he addresses the fact that digital tools allow teachers to differentiate their instruction with regards to learning styles, something that doesn't always happen in our classrooms today (Kuhn, 2008). I know using digital resources such as lab technologies, Google Slides, and Edpuzzle have made it much easier for me to reach all learners regardless of learning style as well as enable them to learn at different levels of Bloom's Taxonomy (though I must mention I really use Depth of Knowledge when planning my lessons as I believe it is a better resource).

While there are great benefits to using digital tools in the classroom, there is also great responsibility. As student access to technology increases, we must make sure our students become good "producers and consumers" of digital media (Hobbs, 2011). This means addressing risks that come with using digital tools as well as teaching students to evaluate the credibility of sources they use. These are often not things students think about, so we need to address these issues in the classroom.

As I mentioned earlier, digital tools are wonderful resources for education. However, in order to be useful, they must be adoptable. In his article The Adoption Process, Rogers points out several factors that affect the rate of adoption, including compatibility with existing values, difficulty of implementation, and how much better the new tool is than its predecessor, something he referred to as "relative advantage" (Rogers, 1963). When developing, selecting, and/or implementing digital tools or initiatives, these factors must be taken into consideration. It is also important to know the audience - who is going to be adopting these tools? Rogers classifies adopters into five categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. I have seen the division in these categories in my job many times. Some teachers are willing to accept change - they will adopt new tools, implement new strategies, and participate in new activities with little or no complaint. Then you have the laggards (and maybe some late majority). Sometimes, these people are just afraid of change, but in my experience, they often have a negative attitude that prevents them from implementing new ideas. I have heard things like, "I'm just not doing it," "I've never done it this way, and I'm not starting now," or worse, "My kids are too dumb to understand this, so I'm just going to do it the way I have always done it." These teachers are much harder to convince. One particularly good principal I had dealt with laggards by convincing the more upbeat and progressive teachers to implement the change early, then she used the results to convince those who were more apprehensive. Until reading this article, I didn't know the categories of adopters, but I'm convinced this principal had already read this article and used it to guide her actions in implementing new change. Ultimately, to bring digital tools to the classroom, we need to be aware of how they will be accepted.

Resources

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf

Hobbs, R. (2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge Quest, 39(5), 12-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al's taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf

Kuhn, M. S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(1), 18-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Rogers, E.M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf