search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Personalized Learning:


How Does It Fit In Our World? Part I: Defining Personalized Learning In The Music Room


Megan Endicott


Dolvin Elementary School, Georgia endicott@fultonschools.org


sure children are succeeding while encouraging students to set career paths to promote college and career readiness. Meanwhile, the fall of the “No Child Left Behind Act” paves the way for the newly adopted “Ev- ery Student Succeeds Act,” displac- ing the emphasis from the national government to the state government. Educators are consistently presented with the challenge of change in our field through new standards, cur- riculum, and laws while maintaining the charge of providing each individ- ual student with a quality education. Fortunately, with the rise of “Race to the Top,” the push for personal- ized learning is sweeping the nation. Through technology integration and authentic tasks, we are work- ing toward creating problem solvers, critical thinkers, and creative learn- ers, while reaching out to the global community to better equip our stu- dents for college and career readi- ness. Sir Ken Robinson, advocate for personalized learning, stated “per- sonalized learning is finding the best ways to engage with people with dif- ferent interests, passions, and ways of thinking. It’s what good teachers have always known: that their job is not to teach subjects, but to teach


I TEMPO


n today’s heavily academic world, instruction is driven by data and analysis to en-


students.” (DeWitt, 2013) However, questions remain: how are educators who are presented with the juxtapo- sition of personalized learning versus standardized testing properly able to plan instruction for their students while ensuring successful results on student achievement without sti- fling student creativity? Can there be a perfect balance between assessing grade level standards, personalizing learning, and music creation and performance? How does standard mastering and personalized learn- ing fit into our world in a way that makes sense without jeopardizing student learning while promoting student passion for the arts? Where do we start? Well, the best place to start is


in my room! If I can find a way to manage 700 students in a meaning- ful way that creates positive change in my classroom, I can model and demonstrate those changes with other classroom teachers. Serving as a music educator, I have the op- portunity to work with all elemen- tary school students from kinder- garten to fifth grade. This incredible task has really offered the challenge of finding out how to make these changes in our school in an efficient, functional way that is authentic and yet fun for both teachers and stu- dents. Teachers know that teaching


24


to the strengths of each individual child is a must; however, determin- ing how to implement this is where the challenge begins. To help others understand how a classroom could function appropriately, how teachers could create content that is student- directed for each individual child in the classroom, and how to person- alize instruction without sacrificing music making, tough questions had to be answered and research and ex- perimental


implementation in my classroom. After began receiving


my master’s degree in Educational Technology and working toward my specialist’s degree in Instructional Technology, I fully believe that tech- nology is the driving factor in eas- ily tracking, assessing, collaborating, creating, and engaging students. I embrace technology as an enhance- ment in my classroom and push for proper integration in my school and district. In an ideal personalized learn-


ing classroom, teachers are moving from lecturers to facilitators while student learning is carefully crafted to the individual learner themselves. This style of learning moves away from the traditional “one size fits all” approach (O’Donoghue, 2010). This approach to teaching, allows students more choice in demon- strating learning and mastery of the


MAY 2018


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76