Learning Anytime, Anywhere: Advanced Distributed Learning and the Changing Face of Education
by J. D. Fletcher, Sigmund Tobias, and Robert A. Wisher

This article presents an exciting, and a little scary, vision of the future of education. At first glance, it seems as if the authors are describing a time when teachers could be replaced by “instructional objects” so that students can learn anytime, anywhere. In reality, the authors provide a balanced presentation of the benefits and deficits of Advanced Distributed Learning.
One item that I found especially interesting was the notion that ADL instructional objects are capable of tailoring instruction to individual needs by assessing prior domain knowledge. As a teacher of low-achieving students, I believe that is a feature that would benefit them greatly. One of my biggest challenges is how to handle the wide span of skills and lack of prior knowledge that my students come to me with. The ability of ADL instructional objects to adapt training for each student is an exciting possibility because it is nearly impossible for me to accomplish effectively and efficiently in my current role.
I appreciated how the authors recognized that utilizing ADL instructional objects would result in a dramatic shift in American education and were willing to try to describe what that shift might look like. Teachers as guides and facilitators rather than sources of information and instruction is something I am comfortable with, but I think the greatest obstacle and most valuable outcome is students taking more responsibility for their own learning. I think using ADL instructional objects requires students to be more motivated intrinsically since motivation may or may not be provided extrinsically by the classroom teacher.

Politics of Curriculum: Origins, Controversies, and Significance of Critical Perspectives

I found the authors of this article to be very thorough in their discussion of how curriculum relates to politics. I also believe they were very even-handed in their criticism of the movement. The assertion I responded to most was related to curriculum as a means of reproduction and “selective tradition.” I teach AP Calculus and because my students are at the highest level in the school, I am familiar with the concept of “selective tradition” which refers “to the ways in which curriculum functions to privilege certain sets and orders of knowledge over others.” I feel that in my community certain students are set up to succeed and others are set up to fail. The least experienced teachers are assigned to the lowest level course with the most challenging students. The more experienced teachers are assigned higher level courses with higher achieving students. If the intention was for the challenged students to succeed, they would be taught by experienced teachers who have more skills to cope with the difficulties of teaching students who are less motivated to learn. The system as it is now is one focused on reproduction. Three out of four students is meeting standards and every year we hope to reproduce these results.
Another point that I found interesting was the discussion of hidden and overt curricula. Our school has courses at five different levels, Level 1 is Special Ed and Level 5 is Honors. We are in the process of reducing to four levels, in part because the parents of the students who belong at Level 2 are resisting the placement because they are opposed to the stigma they believe is attached to that level of courses. The hidden curriculum is that students learn to associate self-worth with course level. I strive very hard never to demean students for their mathematical ability, but rather acknowledge the areas where their strengths lie.

Rose, D., Hasselbring, T. S. et al. (2005). Assistive technology and Universal Design for Learning: two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn et al (Eds). Handbook of special education technology research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design: 549-569.

I found this article to be very thoughtful and thorough. I have a much better understanding of both Assistive Technology (AT) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). I think that by necessity educators have focused on assistive technologies, but that increased pursuit of materials created by UDL would better support our students.
Assistive technologies serve individuals by minimizing their deficits, so it is reasonable for parents and case managers to advocate for accommodations which include AT. Who is left to advocate for the group? The authors assert that “fostering human learning will require access solutions that are optimal interactions between what is universal and what is individual.” (p. 517)
An interesting experience I had in my role as technology staff developer was attending a workshop on Kurzweil 3000, a reading, writing, and learning software. Kurzweil Education Systems originally developed text to speech software for the visually impaired, but the company expanded the product to assist any struggling reader. I think this is an excellent example of the “optimal interaction” promoted by the authors. The most basic function of the software is to read aloud any text that the user selects. The pace and tone of the speech can be adjusted. However, when marketed to struggling readers, the software displays many deeper layers of functionality. Students can annotate, create outlines, or word lists. These are skills that every student should learn and utilize. The ease with which students can accomplish these tasks is owed to the digital format of the text and the advanced software. What began as assistive technology for those who physically were unable to read evolved into a tool which adheres to UDL principles. As a result, all students are better served.

Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning Author(s): Elizabeth A. Davis and Joseph S. Krajcik Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Apr., 2005), pp. 3-14
This article was a refreshing change of pace, in that the focus was on teacher learning rather than student learning. I support the three heuristics proposed by the authors that materials created should add new information to the teachers’ repertoires, help teachers make connections between new and existing ideas, and apply knowledge to new situations. I also respect the authors’ point that no matter the content of curricular materials, teachers have many responsibilities and finding time to read the material is a challenge.
I connected my own experiences most to Heuristic 3 -- Supporting Teachers in Anticipating, Understanding, and Dealing with Student’ Ideas About Science. I have been teaching AP Calculus for 10 years with measured success. Last year 40 out of 46 students scored a perfect 5 on the AP Calculus Exam. Upon reflection, I realized that over time I have not just deepened my understanding of Calculus concepts, but more importantly, my comprehension of what it is that my students do not understand has deepened. This realization has improved my instruction because I approach each topic with possible student misconceptions in mind. After years of asking questions and listening to the questions that my students ask, I can anticipate the errors in their thinking that are likely to occur. If I had had access to educative curriculum materials that highlighted these areas for concern and typical misconceptions when I first began teaching Calculus, it would have hastened my own education along with my students. I see great value in materials which inform teachers not only of content, but the rationale for modes of delivery as well.