Unit 4, Activity 1

By Laren Helfer, Caroline Monsell, Kerry Sharples

  • Technology allows groups from different geographical areas, and of all sorts, to connect in real-time, often without a financial cost to any of the group members (Jimerson, 2018).
  • Digital Learning makes successfully balancing work, school and home life more achievable. It allows learners to allocate their time where it’s the most necessary at that moment, which increases the likeliness that a learner will persevere to accomplish their goals (Jimerson, 2018).
  • When learning takes place in a digital environment, it allows for assistive technology to compensate for various disabilities, or residual birth deficiencies while simultaneously eradicating barriers an accommodated learner may face; such as differentiation and exclusion (Maria, Francesca, Patrizia & Rosalba, 2014).
  • Technology integrated learning environments have become a must-have in order for learners with specific learning challenges to become successful (Francesca, Patrizia, & Rosalba, 2014).
  • Educators who use digital learning methodology to create an inclusive classroom feel inadequately prepared and require additional instruction and guidance in the use of technology and digital applications (Donne & Hansen, 2014).
  • Digital learning experiences designed for inclusion that incorporate rote learning create a divide between the student and the context which limits the learner from making sense of new content (Sulecio de Alvarez & Dickson-Deane, 2018).
  • Students become alienated when they do not understand why they are using the intended solution (technology) and what is the outcome that should be learned (Sulecio de Alvarez & Dickson-Deane, 2018).
  • Brown, Cummins and Sayers provided examples and discussions on how using an academic language learning framework (which focused on “maximum cognitive engagement, maximum identity investment, and a critical focus on linguistic meaning”), was able to support a more diverse student population by offering innovative forms of technology (Warschauer, M, 2007).
  • From a teaching and learning perspective,  adopting a more inclusive environment allows for more cultural diversity in the classroom and expands upon crucial learning to the learner, such as identity and a more valued learning experience (Parrish, G 2016).
  • Recently, there is more demand to reform education by bringing a more inclusive atmosphere into the classroom. The implementation of a “social emotional learning curriculum” and bringing in UDL (universal design for learning) are just small components to help identify the deficits facing learners. (Sokal, L., & Katz, J, 2015)

References

Donne, V., & Hansen, M. A. (2014). Business and Technology Educators. International    Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 9(4).     Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2013100106

Jimerson, P. (2018). How technology influences diversity and inclusion. Indianapolis         Business Journal, 39(14), 15. Retrieved fromhttps://ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/docview/2055195111?accountid=8056

Maria, M. A., Francesca, C., Patrizia, O., & Rosalba, L. (2014). Pedagogical-Didactic       Training for an Inclusive Didactics: The Precision Teaching for Strengthening of        Basic and Integrating Skills in Intellectual Disabilities. In M. Khosrow-Pour,       D.B.A. (Ed.),

Parrish, G. (2016). Inclusive Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from             https://teachingcenter.wustl.edu/resources/inclusive-teaching-learning/

Sokal, L., & Katz, J. (2015). Effects of the three-block model of universal design for          learning on early and late middle school students’ engagement. Middle Grades            Research Journal, 10(2), 65–82.

Sulecio de Alvarez, M., & Dickson-Deane, C. (2018). Avoiding Educational Technology    Pitfalls for Inclusion and Equity. TechTrends, 62(4). Retrieved from   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0270-0

Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 41–49