Lamar University – M.Ed. in Educational Technology Leadership
Course-based Embedded Assignment Internship Log
Directions: In submitting your Course-based Embedded Assignment Log for each Assignment in Appendix I of the Internship Handbook, you are
required to reflect on the assignments by completing a reflection in your course wiki/e-portfolio that should contain a minimum of 250 words.
These logs will be used to assist you in completing your EDLD 5388/5370 *Please note that course number changes in Fall 2010* Internship
comprehensive exam final report. Students should use and cite their textbook references as well as two additional references when writing each
reflection. The reflection must consist of statements regarding the knowledge you gained from the assignment and how the assignment helped
you master the Technology Facilitator Standard(s) /Indicator(s).
Course Number:
Course Name:
Course-based Embedded
Hours
(see Appendix I)
EDLD 5364
Teaching with Technology
12 hours
Description of the
Assignment/Performance Tasks
(see Appendix I)
 The knowledge you gained
from the assignment. (2 points)
 The relation of new information
to Technology Facilitator
Standards and Performance
Indicators (2 points).
 The relation of information
gained to personal experience.
(2 points)
 Discussion at a critical level,
not just recitation of facts.
Discussion at a critical level
means discussing things such as
your opinion of the reading or
experience, why you hold that
opinion, what you see wrong
with the reading or experience,
how you see the reading or
experience is consistent or
inconsistent with what you have
learned so far, implications for
the future, (4 )
 insights into the patterns of
interactions of colleagues.(2
Almost six years ago, I moved from teaching Spanish to assisting
teachers as an Instructional Technology Specialist. I had been
successful in integrating technology into the foreign language
curriculum; the benefits of being able to practice speaking and
listening or accessing Spanish-language materials in real time were
evident and long-reaching. Additionally, the constructivist method of
hands-on exploration lent itself ideally to the practice that is critical
to learning a foreign language.
Applying what I knew about technology integration to other curricula
proved a slightly different matter. I was taken aback at the imbalance
between those who were proponents of technology and those who
resisted its implementation. Some teachers were convinced that
technology just did not apply to their curriculum. Others used
technology in activities that might have been better served with a
different tool. While Bransford et all (2000) reminds us that
“technologies do not guarantee effective learning…inappropriate
uses of technology can hinder learning”, he also says that “many
aspects of technology make it easier to create environments that fit
the principles of learning.”
At the same time, neither side seemed quite right and we didn’t
seem to be reaching the students on the question of technology.
They were stuck in the middle of the debate and just didn’t
understand what the big deal was. As James Paul Gee states, “While
Baby Boomers tend to look at things like games and other media
points)
 group processes including: who
had power, authority, or
influence; who was
participating and who was not,
who was not included, how did
you or another leader draw the 
silent participants out; was there
confrontation, conflict,
consensus, agreement, hurt
feelings? (2 points)
 notations addressing the
affective or feeling tone
evident, concerns you noticed.
(2 points)
 questions you have that you
should research or about which
you can seek expert advice from
your campus-based supervisor
or your professor. (2 points)
 Issues that puzzle you. (2
points)
(Minimum of 250 Words)
separately, modern kids see all these medias converging”
(Edutopia.org, Big Thinkers: James Paul Gee).
What I was sensing became clear to me in McPheeters’ article Social
Networking Technologies in Education (techlearning.com):
The struggle within modern society regarding the adoption of
new technologies has been framed as a dichotomy between those
who oppose its tendency to redefine culture and those who embrace
it. However a new paradigm has emerged among the young
generation that sees beyond the bipartisan debate, rendering the
debate itself irrelevant. This sense of irrelevancy among a whole new
generation is mistakenly viewed as disinterest by the two sides of
debaters.
As my team put together the pieces to respond to the scenario
provided, it was clear that, while many of the activities were suited to
Web 2.0 tools, some parts of the unit were best created with other
tools. My favorite activities were those where the students could
choose the tools they felt best suited their products.
In reflecting on my own role as a learner, I recall three points made by
Bransford et al. (http://books.nap.edu). First, he says that
“technology can stimulate teachers to think about the processes of
learning…through…a fresh perspective on students’ learning.” I was
able to pull back from my focus on teaching in order to concentrate
on how students learn best.
Second, Bransford says that “interactivity makes it easy for students
to revisit specific parts of the environments to explore them more
fully, to test ideas, and to receive feedback” (http://books.nap.edu). I
found that referring to course materials, especially online references,
as I completed the course activities was invaluable. Being able to
confer with my teammates and receive feedback helped me to
improve my work and boosted my confidence.
And, finally, “technology provides interactive environments that
present students with challenges that require them to understand
and apply important concepts” (http://books.nap.edu). Responding
to the scenario successfully required a deeper understanding of the
concepts of the UDL, the three brain networks, and the most
appropriate tasks for reaching each student.
Few teachers do a truly stellar job of teaching to different learning
styles on a regular basis and, if we continue to use ‘old’ methods of
teaching instead of embracing the technology tools available, this
trend will continue. “Teaching through these varied [networks] would
be daunting or perhaps even impossible if our instructional tools were
restricted to print materials alone” (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
This is what I will continue to study and improve upon as I move
forward. “One size fits all…doesn’t work. Everyone is different,
everyone has different learning styles and there need to be
alternative methods for teaching” (Edutopia.org, Diversity of
Learners). This, in itself, is not new to me. Differentiated learning has
been around for years. What I have opened my eyes to are the many
ways that technology tools can assist the teacher in differentiating
instruction for all learners. We are by law required to differentiate for
certain learners when, in truth, we should be differentiating for each
and every one. As David Rose, Chief Scientist at CAST, says,
“Neuroscience shows that each brain processes information
differently…the way we learn is as different as our fingerprint or our
DNA” (cast.org, The Brain Research).
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded edition). Ch. 9,
pp. 194-218. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Retrieved on
October 4, 2009, from
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6160&page=194.
Edutopia.org (nd). Big thinkers: James Paul Gee on grading with
games. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2009, from
http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-james-gee-video.
McPheeters, D. (2009, march). Social networking technologies in
education. Tech and Learning. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from
http://www.techlearning.com/article/16250.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital
age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the
Center for Applied Special Technology web site. Chapter 6. Retrieved
on October 5, 2009, from
http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/.
Lessonbuilder.cast.org (nd). Diversity of Learners. Retrieved on Oct. 5,
2009 from http://lessonbuidler.castorg/window.php?src=videos.
Lessonbuilder.cast.org (nd). The Brain Research. Retrieved on Oct. 5,
2009 from http://lessonbuilder.cast.org/window.php?src=videos.