Category: Module A. Framing Issues

Introduction:

As an elementary school teacher I have always found myself at the tail end of applying educational technologies.  Whether it is an acquisition of a computer lab, Wi-Fi, or need of software, the elementary schools seem to be the last ones to get them.  Currently the emphasis has been to explore and use those affordances of technology which encourage collaboration and interactivity so as to encourage critical thinking skills and metacognition in a socially constructive environment (New London Group, 1996).  Many theoretical papers are being scribed and researches being conducted to show what such learning looks like and how technology and pedagogy need to coexist to provide an optimal learning environment. A closer examination of the literature shows that it is focused on the higher levels of education. Many of my colleagues have also not given it much thought, and with no guidance, I feel secluded again. However, I am very impressed by what the theory and research has to say about these current pedagogical trends and being extremely curious about its applicability in elementary education, I have set out on a quest of my own to figure out if the use of Web 2.0 tools can encourage collaborative learning in elementary education.

Background:

In the last few years I have been experimenting with the use of technology in my teaching. I find it to be a great multimodal tool and have tried to apply it in all phases of the learning process. In math students have been able to interact with virtual manipulative and practice math concepts by playing games on websites or simply doing drill and practice. You tube videos and web cameras have enabled them to see science as it really happens. Lately, I have also started to apply the current pedagogical trends of social constructivism in my classroom. In my exploration of learning theories I was very convinced by Vygotsky’s (1978) belief that students need to explore relevant content to create their own understanding in a socially interactive environment and that teachers need to facilitate such learning by providing the support through their Zone of Proximal Development. Now in math and science classes, my students work in groups and with partners to create knowledge and solve problems. Though such pedagogy also highly recommends the use of technology to allow students not only to interact with content, but also to interact with peers and teachers within a community of learners to create knowledge (Anderson, 2008),  I have until now mainly functioned in a traditional classroom and used technology only to examine content. Timidly, I have just started to experiment a little with a class blog and am unsure of its implications and my implementation, and am looking for some guidance.

In any profession, the best guides can be your colleagues in the same occupation. Therefore I had looked forward to the analysis of the video cases and talking to my colleagues for the field-based interview. It was exciting to find teachers who were using technology in elementary education and discovering it multimodal affordances. As my own interviewee said, “The nice thing about technology – not only does it engage multiple pathways to learning, it is scalable to level of learning.” However, it became apparent that technology is not deemed by some as an essential part of the learning process but rather often viewed as an extra aid whose presence is not omnipotent to the learning process. As one of the interviewee said, “Students can learn both with and without technology”.  There was consensus amongst many teachers that “technology brings limitless access to learning and observing science ” and that virtual manipulative can engage students”,  but many also did not see it as a tool that will help students develop the ability to think critically, problem solve, and work cooperatively alongside their peers. In fact it was feared that technology use “has caused student’s mathematic skills to not develop or atrophy.” The affordances of web 2.0 tools that encourage student interaction and collaboration barely showed up in these discussions and when they did, it was not considered valuable. My own interviewee stated that he did not think that there was any potential for web 2.0 tools in an elementary setup.  Some colleagues even asked for definitive research to prove that technology is effective.  It was hard to find a common ground between what the current literature was proclaiming and what my colleagues were telling me.

My Exploration:

It is hard for me to accept that such affordances of technology can only benefit older students.  I know there needs to be more face to face teaching with younger students (Bates and Poole, 2006) but that does not imply that collaboration and interactivity using web 2.0 tools does not benefit young learners at all. To confirm my conviction, I dug deep into the field to educational research within the annals of UBC library, EBSCO, CITEULIKE, and even Google to find some samples of Web 2.0 technology use with younger children.  Keywords like “blended learning” and “elementary education” proved futile.  Finally terms like “blog” and “online learning” with elementary education, helped me find some studies that could shed light on the viability of Web 2.0 tools in elementary education.

 [Pane, P. (2010). How does the use of blogs impact student motivation for literature discussions?]

In this action research from the Buffalo State University, it was found that student’s preferred the F2F discussions to blog use. Pane refers to those affordances of technology as the theoretical base for her study which encourage higher level thinking through discussion and collaboration and for that reason I had wanted to examine this study. The study was conducted in a grade four class in which the students were divided into three reading groups and each group was assigned a different book. The students had to read 10 pages every day, write a journal response, and then discuss it either in their group or on the blog. Initially the students had the choice between the tools and then for four weeks they had to choose one. Students had a pre-survey, interviews in the 5^th week, and a post-survey.

 

The results were based on the opinion of the students. Even though the students liked using the blog, the slowness of getting online and low keyboarding skills made the use of blog tedious. The students did not see their blog discussion as “talking “to their friends. I agree with the low keyboarding skills of students this age, but believe that a longer study might have made the students overcome this drawback. The students might have enjoyed it more if they did not have a related writing activity and the blog may have been considered a part of their writing assignment. This might have made them consider the blog activity as vital part of the learning process. I also believe that a summative test based on the books may have provided more insight about the overall effect of blog discussions on learning. 

[Hayes, A. (2004).  Internet in the elementary classroom: effects on vocabulary comprehension and motivation in the content areas]

This study which was conducted in a science classroom did not show encouraging results either. Even though this study focused only on content and student interaction on the Web, and not the student to student or student to teacher interaction, I was curious about how young learners handle any aspect of online learning and benefit from that. Hayes (2004) conducted an action research in her own class of eighteen grade 1 students. She compared their achievement with 56 other grade 1 students from the same school. Hayes used internet activities in her class in conjunction with the traditional teacher –led activities like use of textbooks, lecture, discussion, and worksheet to study vocabulary for the science unit on weather. The other classes just used the traditional methods. Predetermined, age appropriate web sites were used to answer questions about weather, write informational stories, and find new information to share with the class on an individual basis. The students were highly engaged and spent more time on the computers.

Observation and interviews showed that students really enjoyed the unit. At the end of the unit when all first grade students took the same chapter test, the class showed lower mastery level compared to the other classes. Hayes concluded that Internet may have a negative impact on student achievement with younger students as more time was wasted in setting up technology and trouble shooting, and away from the content. I believe that often teacher inexperience can lead to ineffective use of technology. Also factors like teacher’s individual style and student’s familiarity with teacher style in the traditional setup may interfere with their online learning. Another issue that stood out for me from this study was that conventional paper and pen testing do not measure other skills like fact checking and critical thinking that developed during the learning process. Evidently assessment models need to evolve with changing teaching and learning models. I believe that the results of this study imply that technology use in itself is ineffective. It needs proper pedagogical scaffolding to be impactful.                     

[Yee (2010). Web-based Tools for Science Teaching in Lower Primary School. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.]

This recent exploratory study about using Moodle to teach science in a primary classroom shows that collaboration and interactivity are very effective tools in elementary learning. While the study is not conducted in a North American setup, I examined this study as it was testing the use of a Learning Management Systems like Moodle which provide for all affordance of the Web 2.0 tools in a safe and organized environment. Grade 3 students of mixed ability were provided with the opportunity to discuss and to work cooperatively through an LMS for their science unit.  The students used the forum on Moodle to discuss science concepts about plants and animals. They also worked on Tagul, a word cloud software with hyperlinks to Google, to contribute to class knowledge about plants and animals. The pupils worked on both activities into groups of 5. Even though they used the forum to have asynchronous discussions to answer simple questions, there was evidence of knowledge being built as students learned from each other. The word cloud activity encouraged them to find new information to post and expand their learning. The qualitative and quantitative data, both showed improvement in student learning. 

The researchers were able to establish many crucial assumptions from this study. They state that for younger children the LMS needs to be used at school as students are not very independent. This is in accordance with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal development which focuses on the need to adult guidance for students. The successful findings of this study confirm for me that interactivity and collaboration provided by the web 2.0 tools can be effective in educating young learner. The one essential issue the study does not discuss is the level of teacher involvement and support provided, which would have been more insightful. 

[Li, Qing. (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational Research. Vol. 52, No. 4]

This very thought-provoking study from the University of Calgary showcased how use of internet tools and face to face collaboration among younger children increased their understanding of the subject matter in question and enhanced their general problem-solving abilities through the process.  Li studied 21 elementary students (19 boys and two girls) between the ages of seven and eleven, during a summer camp where they were involved in the “learning –by-game-building” approach. The students created educational games to teach other students, and during their learning process their emotional and learning experiences were measured qualitatively and quantitatively. Students discussed and collaborated traditionally as they explored the online applications to help them create games.

The researchers found that as students worked together they expanded their knowledge regarding the science and math involved. They showed great problem solving skills as they worked through the software and created their final product. While the study did not extensively use the collaborative online tools for discussion, their blended use of technology and face to face collaboration clearly showed how their appropriate use is conducive to higher level thinking. Since it was a voluntary summer camp and not conducted in a structured educational setup, it might be hard to apply the positive results to the general elementary student population. However, it still highlights the extensive pedagogical benefits of blended learning systems in science education for elementary students.

Conclusion:

While it was hard to find studies solely on the topic of Web 2.0 tools and its implementation in elementary education, all studies have been able to shed some light on my query about benefits of collaborative learning using technology.  The studies do not provide a precise answer but raise some significant concerns about the applicability of web tools in elementary education.  Web 2.0 tools need to be intricately woven with pedagogy, like any other technology, for them to be effective. Research and my own experience has shown how effective collaborative learning has been in understanding science phenomenon and applying math concepts to real life situations even in a traditional classroom. In such a successful pedagogical setup when technology is introduced, it should be done in a way so as to enhance the effect of what is already being achieved. This refers to keeping in mind many issues like student’s cognitive and social abilities, teacher ability and planning, the content under consideration, and the affordances of the technology being used. From my investigations I can pragmatically conclude that Web 2.0 technologies can be effective in the elementary education if used appropriately. 

References:

 

Anderson, T. (2008).Towards a Theory of Online Learning.  In: T. Anderson & F. Elloumi

             (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University.

 

Bates A. W. & Poole, G. (2003).A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In A.W.

              Bates & G. Poole, Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education (pp. 75-

             108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 4.

 

Hayes, A. (2004).  Internet in the elementary classroom: effects on vocabulary comprehension

            and motivation in the content areas. Retrieved January 14, 2012 from  

            http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/vol3no1/pdf/ahayes-article.pdf

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.        Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Pane, P. (2010). How does the use of blogs impact student motivation for literature discussions?

Retrieved January 16, 2012 http://www.buffalostate.edu/elementaryeducation/documents/ActionResearch_2010Pane.pdf

S. L. Wong et al. (Eds.) (2010). Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers

in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Retrieved January 22, 2012 from http://www.apsce.net/ICCE2010/papers/c6/short%20paper/C6SP23.pdf

 

Li, Qing . (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational

 Research. Vol. 52, No. 4, December 2010, 427–443

 

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.

            Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

 

 

 

There have been multitude discussions in this course and probably all my previous MET courses about how to get more teachers to adopt technology in their classrooms. Here is a comment I made in response to another comment on Vista, but which led me examine the topic more closely.

Inquiry B

As I look over some of my posts earlier on in the course, I am able to see my pedagogical beliefs reflected…

Jan. 7, 2012 [ on trying  to sort technology…]

Technology is a huge spectrum….we can be on one end and never see or fathom the other end. Like some will only relate to social networking while some will use computers only for word processing. So it is so easy to be involved with technology and still be a stranger to it.  Everyone is touched by technology in their lives – but in different ways.

Jan. 10, 2012  [ on differntiating instructions]

Thinking of “many levels in one classroom” regarding technology – I was thinking that we differentiate instructions according to student need – so can we also differentiate in use of technology? For example some use powerpoint, some prezi, some kidpix to make a slide show? What we would need to have in place is a generic criteria…. Thoughts?

 Jan 8 [ on making math more realistic]

Janet’s question   : Do we always have to make math relevant or practical or tie it in to “when are we ever going to have to use this in real life”? I think technology can allow us to explore and investigate the beauty of math and the FUN of how it works, without it always having to be practical.

OK – Math can be very abstract  [ mental, not concrete] and so many students have a hard time with it. The way out can be to memorize formulas and not totally understand the concept. As a kid I rote learned my times tables but had no understanding of what it meant. No one taught it and I was too afraid to ask. What we need to do is help students crystallize the concept – to see it. And often that comes from showing them the relevant connections to the real world. Kids can see what fractions means when we keep splitting the limited amount to cookies or smarties amongst the ever growing group members; they can visualize litres when we talk about pop bottles and the milk jug, they see adding when they put their crayons in the same box as their neighbours.

I teach kids who are still in the concrete operational age[ Piaget] and so I think it works at this level.The concepts are easy to connect too. I honestly have no idea how some high school teachers  do what I am talking about with their topics – am sure it is a tough feat!

Jan 8 [ on how to teach technology]

……Teaching tech is similar to anything else I teach – gradual release. I keep modeling and my group keeps shrinking as students feel they do not need my help. I also chunk lessons a lot. Like for power point right now they have learned to make new slides, add pictures and text. Now I’ll teach them slide transition and animation.

The word that summed up my understanding of all the interviews and forum discussions around them is TRANSITION.

Transition can be defined as a passage from one form, state, style, or place to another. My purpose during the interviews and discussions had been to examine the application of technology in elementary education and figure out the scope for blended learning. Even as I examined scenarios from other levels of education and considered their issues, the general feeling I got in the end was that the education system is currently transitioning towards the stage of effective technological application. There are discussions about technology being used [Smartboards, calculators, virtual manipulatives] and curiosity about what the others are using [How does Voki work?]. It is a slow process, but nonetheless, heading in the right direction!

 Teachers are starting to understand the pedagogical implications of technology use and are exploring some of its affordances. There is an acceptance that even though most outcomes can be taught without the use of technology, its inclusion allows the learning to become multimodal and engaging. There is speculation and fear about tech dependence and whether it might have negative effect on learning, a fear that we may be denying our students opportunity to become critical thinkers. Teachers are starting to experiment with technology firstly as a teaching tool and secondly as a practice tool. [ My teaching has changed ever since I started using a Smartboard!] There is preference towards use of premade software and interactive websites to help students learn and practice. This is the first step!

While there is the awareness about the ultimate educational goals of helping students become critical and higher-level thinkers, there is confusion and hesitancy about exploring the affordances of the web that provide for such learning [I don’t think there is room for web 2.0 tools in elementary education!].The capabilities of the Web 2.0 tools are being acknowledged but there still needs to be interpretations about their connections to sound pedagogy. Teachers are musing about the coming changes [future of textbooks; mandatory use of technology, role of ipad in education ] This is step 2!

Such uncertainties beg for clarification and this led to the recurring talk and consensus about the need for professional development and guidance for teachers. The divergent nature of technology makes it very hard to explore all affordances. Even teachers quite comfortable with technology are at times hesitant about exploring deeper. There is a realization that there needs to be support put in place to allow teachers making such significant transitions. With teachers at different levels of ability and interest, it is hard to fathom what professional development should look like. Nonetheless, teachers are looking for proper support. This would be step 3!

Lastly, there was also consensus in our discussion that self-initiative is a big part of this professional growth and as professionals we need to take initiatives about our own learning. This would be the final step!

It will get us there!

BM teaches grade 4/5 split at my school. He has been teaching for the past 11 years and just completed his M.Ed. in School & Applied Child Psychology. BM enjoys technology. He has recently acquired an Ipad and is experimenting with Cloud Technology.
Response	Analysis
Question: What is the place of technology in elementary education?
In elementary education, technology can be a tool that assists teachers in delivering content that augments and brings instruction to life.  It also has a place in helping children practice skills, learn and demonstrate knowledge, and receive immediate feedback (e.g., math drills, quizzes).  Children today are inundated with technology.  They are growing up in the digital age and need to be familiar with, comfortable using, and knowledgeable about a myriad of technological tools, like computers, smart phones, tablets; and software, like MS Office and other productivity suites to web based services offered through the Cloud.  Technology is pervasive in everyday life and so it will be in elementary schools.  However, we must ensure that we do not lose sight of the fact that it is only a tool and that children need to develop the ability to think critically, problem solve, and work cooperatively alongside their peers.	I totally agree that the core behind all the technology is educational outcomes of critical thinking, problem solving, and metacognition.Therefore, technology needs pedagogical approval. If it is not able to help achieve educational goals – it needs to be given up. [is that what we call fluff?] But then can all technologies be conducive to education if applied properly. There is much talk about using Facebook , cell phones, etc…
Question: Are you able to differentiate instructions through technology?
Absolutely, that is the nice thing about technology – not only does it engage multiple pathways to learning, it is scalable to level of learning.  Take software that adjusts to performance – for example Star Reading and SuccessMaker adjust their level of difficulty based on the students response set – they keep the tasks within the students Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as espoused by Vygotsky to ensure optimal growth.	I have my doubts about pre made programs like SM. It is adjusting to student level – which is fabulous. But it is a basic drill activity. There is no higher level thinking involved here. So, does all technology need to afford high level thinking etc. Is there still any room for drills and practice in education?
Question: Do you think technology should be used even if the same concept can be learned effectively without it?
Absolutely, technology may support effective instruction and learning.  If it can help reinforce learning and reach students through multiple pathways, than why not use it.  However, if it is just used as fluff to extend lessons or fill in time then its use should be reconsidered.	Technology has the affordance for multimodalities- that gives it an edge over traditional teaching.
Question: What does technology look like in your science and math class?
I use videos from you tube not just to show content but also to show other student’s projects and group work to model how their peers think. I put up the textbook on the smart board to make it multimodal. In math, students play many online games and use drill sites to practice concepts.	A lot of technology is being used in presenting information is science. It is not as interactive as math. Is it harder to create interactivity in science lessons?
Question: Does the use of technology change your pedagogical approach to your lessons?
Not really!  I still teach the same – find out what they know and build on a solid base – make instruction and practice activities engaging and relevant, and if technology can bring the subject to life, enhance engagement, and support learning then it gets built into the lesson.  I still want to hit as many modalities of learning as I can and tap into multiple intelligences, and if technology enables me to do so, then I jump on the chances.	The emphatic answer made me think that deep below that technology is sound pedagogy – Vygotsky, Constructivism, Multiliteracies. Without this foundation, technology application would be useless.However, technology does have its affordances that can enhance the pedagogical expectations. For example, ability to communicate online allows for negotiation and discussion of knowledge.
Question: Do you think there is a place for social interactive tools in elementary school?
I believe that social tools can be a great learning tool for students to contact other students in other provinces and may be other countries. However, I do not think it is suitable in an elementary school. It does not have any potential here.	Nevertheless, students in intermediate use emails and chats – so why cannot we build on that ability to use it in a more conducive manner to create knowledge? My students are blogging and I plan to create a class wiki. This aspect of online technology may be slow in coming into elementary schools.

The Good Use of Technology:

1.Learning Environment 4 [Elementary School: Space Science]

As I watched the interview and the activities happening in the back what stood out for me was the collaborative group work and active learning happening in the class. It was an implementation of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) principle of developing reciprocity and cooperation not only among students but also students and teacher; and using of active learning techniques.

The grade 6/7 teacher mentioned that technology was able to break through the language barriers. She had many students of Indian and Pakistani descent and many were new immigrants. This highlighted for me the fact that technology is the common language for this generation of digital natives.

The Project Based Learning model being implemented in the class was able to cross curricular boundaries. Students showed that they were combining art to show their understanding of the movements of hurricanes. The teacher discussed how they were able to connect fiction [novel study of Parvana’s journey] from a language arts class to a reality across the world [working with woman’s group in Afghanistan]. This is a great example of technologies deftness at promoting interdisciplinary approach.

The retiring and the new teacher interviewed showed trepidation about using technology, despite availability of help from colleagues.

2.Learning Environment 7 [Science Elementary – Pre-service teacher]

By making the use of technology a compulsory part of their course, the professor not only modeled that group work could be continued in their professional life with their colleagues, but also allowed the pre service teacher to realize the advantages of including technology in the learning environment. The pre service teachers recognized the technology’s ability to be multimodal [Pair 3] and interactive [Pair 1]. By adding narrative to text [Single student], adding animation to pictures [Pair 1 and 3], technology could help them reach out to more learners. Some pre service teachers used the collaborative and cross curricular ability [Single student] of technology where one class did the art which was used by the other class to make their science project about fish life cycle. There was concern (Pair 1) that technologies being used were too complex for the students and time taking.

Issue that Stood Out from both environments:

• What does technology use look in the elementary school?
• What online learning tools are suitable at elementary schools?
• What technologies can be used to enhance F2F environment?
• What is a good balance between online and F2F learning at elementary level?
• Which online tools can be effectively used at elementary level?
• How to use technology to achieve a collaborative, multimodal, cross curricular approach?

Other Issues:
Some other issues that also stood out for me:
• How to encourage teachers to adopt technology?
• Is it fair to students that many teachers are unwilling to use technology?

Reference:

Chickering, Arthur and Stephen C. Ehrmann (1996), “Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever,” AAHE Bulletin, October, pp. 3-6.

Though, like many, I am guilty of using technology to display information in science and encouraging math games and drills on websites, playing Jeopardy, or some labeling activity on the Smartboard, I believe that a more meaningful use of technology in a science and math class would be an interactive setup where students can examine math and science topics actively in a realistic setup.

Though at my grade level [4] I am able to connect all math to real life quite easily, I have heard my own high school children moan about, “how is this ever relevant in real life!” and “when am I ever going to use this in real life?” In our examination of learning theories we know that meaningful learning only happens when students are able to relate to concepts that are relevant to them. (Constructivism, Social Learning Theories)

I believe that if we can create learning scenarios with inquiry based or problem based learning with technology which will allow students to learn and apply the math and science concepts that they are learning to relevant, real life situations, that will be create an immersive learning environment. By using technology in a combination of F2F and online environments, students could actively explore concepts in realistic situations collaboratively. For example at my grade level students could do a webquest about biomes, follow some animal webcams, blog and discuss, and then create a class wiki about different biomes. They could create and decorate a room using software to explore measurements and shapes in math, or plan trips around the city using transit system to delve into mapping, time, and money outcomes. I believe if I could create these interdisciplinary lessons which allow students to interact with different outcomes using different modalities, it would be the ideal application of technology!

Reverting back to my current practices with use of technology in science and math – while these practices do have a place in learning, they lack interactivity and collaborative learning and so should probably just supplement the main activities.

What I envision is doable but challenging. It involves a lot of time on the teacher’s part to plan all topics interactively and with technology – which means teachers need to be tech –savvy. It might be harder to implementing it as well. In a perfect classroom all students will have access to a computer at all times to pull this off. However with 2 computers in the classroom and access to computer lab twice a week for 45 minutes only, it might be hard to use technology interactively all the time for all science and math lessons. Solution? Start small… Taking baby steps… One project at a time… think positive!

Growing up in a remote town in India, my education was never touched by technology. When I finally saw a computer in my late teens, it was treated as an office machine that was to make life easy for the secretaries and the accountants. I went ahead and learned dBase IV [a data management system] and Excel and worked in an office creating payrolls in Excel and sales reports in dBase IV!

As a teacher, my initial use of computer with students was to teach them to make slide shows and create desktop publishing using the word processors. I really enjoyed this as these activities would be content related and the students would have to make posters on science and socials topics. Otherwise I used edutainment software like the Reader Rabbit and the Math Blasters to enhance student learning. There were piles of CD’s to choose from in the computer labs for different grade levels. Then another teacher showed me some websites which provided similar learning experience and were free! Thus began the online activities!

The turning point in my relation to technology was when my Learning Assistant teacher showed me a few remedial programs she was using with some of my student. When I saw the level of student engagement and its effect, I was impressed. This changed my way of thinking. Why cannot my entire class reap the benefit of such technology? That is how my laptop ended in my classroom then got connected to an overhead projector and a white board, and then to a smart board almost two years later!

In all honesty, initially the issue of pedagogical sanctions got lost in the preliminary success of student engagement and rigor. Then it was like planning the lessons backward to check if the activities planned fit well with sound pedagogy. I have come a long way now and do not do that anymore! MET has been a great help in consolidating my understanding and practice. My main goal now in every lesson I plan is to ensure multimodalities for teaching and learning. It is such a challenge to reach every child in the classroom!