I will walk away from this class with three major lessons in mind. First, I learned how to dig deeper than surface level to identify strengths and weaknesses in teaching and learning. This partly means looking at disaggregated data on the major tests like CRCT to identify achievement gaps within groups and within various skill sets. It also means using a wide variety of data to illustrate student achievement; data from the CRCT should only be one part of the puzzle. Second, I learned how to use data to identify a student-learning problem that is within the control of the school, and not to simply blame outside factors such as family background or transiency. Finally, I learned how to actually use that data to collaboratively design, implement, and monitor an action plan that will drive improvement, rather than just think about where to improve instruction on an individual surface level. 

I would say that the Data Inventory field experience was extremely valuable in applying this new knowledge of data analysis to my own school situation. Often, my school only looks at the results of statewide tests such as the CRCT to gauge student achievement. The Data Inventory helped me realize just how many different sources of data exist to fill in the holes left by the CRCT data and complete the picture of student achievement. I solicited the help of my school's administration in order to identify these various sources of data, and even they were surprised at the amount of data sources we have when they were all written down in one place. The Data Inventory also afforded an opportunity to not only look at how we are using that data now, but how we can make even better use of that data in the future. This was very enlightening for me and for my administration as well. 

Before next year I plan to bring these ideas back to my administration to suggest using this process throughout the next school year to see if we can close achievement gaps and identify and act upon a student learning problem in a new way. I will describe the major lessons I've learned and how to apply them to our own school situation. I may run into a problem of simply getting the administration and/or other teachers to hear what I have to say, since I have never before participated on a formal data team. I may also have a problem with buy-in, since teachers may see this as yet another initiative that will add onto their plates. Luckily I have already created an Elevator Speech that will help me in pitching this alternative way of looking at data. 

This course was a great learning experience with me. I came in with what I thought was an adequate idea of what "Web 2.0" meant, but now I realize my former definition was pretty insufficient. Through this course I learned not only what constitutes "Web 2.0" tools, but I also got to reflect on how to best incorporate them into classroom learning. I was already familiar with some tools, such as blogging, podcasting, and YouTube, and others I had never thought to use for educational purposes, such as screencasting, social bookmarking, and Google Docs. I also learned about how to implement lessons responsibly and also how to teach my students about online responsibility, including internet safety, equitable access, Creative Commons and fair use, and cultural proficiency. 

I think one of the most valuable modules I completed in this course was about evaluating Web 2.0 tools. More and more of these tools are being created and used in schools every day. However, not all Web 2.0 tools are created equally. Throughout this course I learned about some specific tools that are currently popular and effective in classrooms. The module on evaluating Web 2.0 tools to determine their value and potential use in the classroom, though, will help me for several years after this course, and indeed this degree program, is over. When new tools come to the market, I will be equipped to determine whether or not my students can benefit from their use. 

The Web 2.0 Lesson Plan Project was also a wonderful experience for me. I was able to create an immersive experience for my students in which they got to use a variety of Web 2.0 tools, some of which they had never seen or used before, to demonstrate their knowledge and creativity. I had a great time designing the project for my students by applying many different skills and knowledge sets I acquired in this course. I had an even better time implementing the lesson with my students. Even though there were some bumps in the road, my students thoroughly enjoyed their experience and I got to see a creative side of them that I don't usually get to see. I am excited to take what I've gained from this course and apply it to my classroom for years to come. Not only that, but now with everything I have gained in this course, I am also closer to being fully equipped to coach others in their use of technology in the classroom as well. 

The following screencast is a description of the Web 2.0 lesson plan I wrote and implemented as a culminating project for ITEC 7430.

The digital divide is an issue among students of various socio-economic, racial, and ethnic groups. The term digital divide can refer to both physical access to digital media such as computers, smart phones, tablets, etc. as well as the quality of interaction with those devices and the skills and knowledge needed to use those devices to their full potential. The digital divide could have consequences for students starting at a very early age. As the authors of one study pointed out, "To the extent that early learning on computers is important for children's later success in school, this divide could be important" (Common Sense Media, 2011, p. 20).  

One issue of the digital divide is simple access to digital media devices. For example, a study conducted by Common Sense Media (2011) found that "there is a large digital divide in home computer access among young children...access ranges from 48% among those from low-income families (less than $30,000 a year) to 91% among higher-income families (more than $75,000 a year)" (p. 10).  The same study found that this divide is also visible among the parents of these young children: "More than a third (38%) of lower-income parents don't have any idea what an "app" is, compared to just 3% of higher-income parents" (p. 21). Another study by Hohlfield, Ritzhaupt, and  Barron (2010) found that community stakeholder involvement in the technology planning process was greater at schools with a higher SES population (p. 398). Community and family involvement is important because, as part of the "spheres of influence" framework, the more that these spheres interact with the third sphere, school, the more positive the outcomes are for the student (Hohlfield et al., 2010, p. 392). 

Perhaps a more serious issue of the digital divide is the disparity in the quality and sophistication of tasks with which these devices are being used among various groups of students. Indeed, "examination of the 'digital divide' has increasingly gone beyond the study of differences in physical access to computers to focus on individuals' use of technological tools for empowered and generative uses" (Barron, Walter, Martin, & Schatz, 2010, p. 178). For example, Barron et al. (2010) explain that while students of low SES backgrounds may have spent more time on computers in Math and English courses for drill activities, students of higher SES backgrounds use computers in courses like Science for more advanced computational tasks like simulation and research (p. 179). 

There are, of course, some aspects of the digital divide that are beyond the reach of the school. However, schools do have resources at their disposal to address some of the issues of the digital divide. Some schools allow students to check out equipment, such as laptops or iPads, to bring home to ensure equitable access for online assignments. Schools can make a more conscious effort to give students more in-depth experiences with technology, no matter the subject or class make-up. Lastly, schools can offer outreach to parents, families, and the community to educate the larger population about technology use and its important impact on the success of these students living in a digital age. 


Barron, B., Walter, S., Martin, C., & Schatz, C. (2010). Predictors of creative computing participation and profiles of experience in two Silicon Valley middle schools. Computers & Education, 54, pp. 178-189. 

Common Sense Media. (2011). Zero to eight: children's media use in America. Available from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-in-america

Hohlfeld, T., Ritzhaupt, A., & Barrona, A. (2010). Connecting schools, community, and family with ICT: Four-year trends related to school level and SES of public schools in Florida. Computers & Education, 55, pp. 391-405. 

The term "diversity" covers a wide array of meanings. It can be used to refer to groups of people with different racial, ethnic, economic, religious, political, intellectual, ability, and achievement backgrounds and profiles, among other things. As Lyn Hilt describes, "Sometimes [people] consider the alternative views of others to be wrong, not just different. From an educational perspective, this is downright dangerous." It is important, then, for educators to foster an understanding of and respect for diversity and cultural awareness among our students and the larger world. Technology can be used not only develop this understanding and respect within our students, but also to facilitate those varying needs within our own diverse student populations as well. 

Skype is one such example of using technology to build students' cultural awareness. Teachers can use Skype for whole-class discussion with another individual or class somewhere else in the nation or the world. Students can also communicate on a more personal level with their very own "Skype pal."
Another option is for students to share their learning on a class or individual blog to communicate with others around the world. They are excited to learn where their commenters are from and learn more about them since they are personally invested in their own blog posts. The comments they receive may also represent varying opinions or perspectives from their own. The lesson here would be that there can be more than one way of looking at a particular topic, and that this does not have to come down to someone being right or wrong. Through connecting with others around the world and building their cultural awareness, students become more engaged in their learning. For example, Lyn Hilt describes her students' heightened interest in the tornadoes in Alabama or the earthquake in Haiti after making personal connections, either through Skyping or blogging, with people directly involved in those events.

Technology can also be used to meet the varying needs that come from the diversity within our own classrooms. This is known as differentiation, which is "a way of looking at instruction that is centered on the belief that students learn in different ways" (Smith and Throne, 2009, p. 30). The concept of differentiation is not new. Smith and Throne (2009) point out that it has been around since the days of the one-room schoolhouse, in which a single teacher had to tailor the learning for students in a range of ages and grade levels (p. 30). Luckily, today's technology has the power to make this differentiated instruction (DI) much easier to accomplish. Edyburn (2006) lists modern examples of assistive technology, such as text-to-speech software, dictation services, fact recall websites, and online math computational tools (p. 22). He explains, however, that there is a cultural shift that must occur before assistive technology tools such as these can be fully used without consequence. He explains that there exists a bias called "naked independence" in which our culture "exults the performance of able-bodied individuals and devalues the performance of others who must rely on external devices or tools" (p. 22). He concludes with this powerful statement: "The long-term consequences of academic failure must motivate the profession to intervene with carefully designed learning activities that ensure success from the onset" (p. 23). Whether or not our culture is ready to accept it, technology can certainly help with this type of intervention. Students can create different artifacts of their learning and teachers can use technology to offer a variety of assessment strategies. We can use technology to go beyond differentiation to truly personalize learning for each student. Technology makes it possible to have "the ability to learn what we want, when we want, with whomever we want as long as we have access" (Richardson, 2012, p. 23). One fascinating example comes from the foreign language program at the Trinity School in Atlanta: 

To me, the last statement is very telling. Just as we need to make a cultural shift away from the bias of "naked independence," teachers also need to be willing to make a shift in their role to facilitator of student learning. Teachers should be willing to "transform [the] classroom through the use of technology, not simply layer technology onto traditional instructional practices" (Smith & Thorne, 2009, p. 29). 


Edyburn, D. (2006). Failure is not an option. Learning & Leading with Technology, September 2006, pp. 20-23.

Smith, G. and Throne, S. (2009). Differentiated instruction and middle school learners. In Differentiating Instruction with Technology in Middle School Classrooms (pp. 29-39). ISTE.

Richardson, W. (2012). Preparing students to learn without us. Educational Leadership, February 2012, pp. 22-26.