EDTECH 504: Setting the course

March 15, 2012 at 4:56 AM · Filed under 2.1 Print Technologies, EDTECH504

It is ironical that life’s constants are chaos and strife. We humans must constantly adapt to change in an attempt to better future generations. In the past two weeks I attended a state-level competitive event for a student organization with six energetic adolescents, replaced a server, and analyzed volumes of raw data for errors in an attempt to improve our state’s reporting system. Not to mention the myriad activities performed at home as a week-end wife of my studious husband who is attending nursing school in a brick-and-mortar institution two hours north, and week-long mother of my ambitious high school freshman. It’s no small wonder clichés such as “pushing through walls” and “climbing ladders of success” pepper our vernacular.

Amid that race, I had the opportunity to stop, regroup, and refocus with what I thought would be a routine assignment. I haven’t performed an annotated bibliography since I earned my first master’s degree a dozen years’ past.  What topic to select? I stewed on it until the due date loomed like a house rock in the middle of the boiling rapids.  Of course! My reasoning behind this degree is to be able to help others in their struggle to change. As a professional technical educator with multiple academic endorsements and an accidental tourist in the IT department, I know a lot about educational theory, teaching in a classroom, IT issues, and design techniques but I don’t know much about the unique climate of the very population I want to serve.

I spent all afternoon with my research, growing more excited with my topic as I read and summarized. Ideas poured forth and began to pool together. Before I knew it, the project was complete. Despite a ten hour stretch of reading, I felt refreshed and motivated. I’m ready to take on the adventure of a research project on this topic and change my world.

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 504: Building a Framework for Lifelong Learning

February 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM · Filed under 1.3 Instructional Strategies, 1.4 Learner Characteristics, EDTECH504

I like to think of myself as a constructivist teacher, but state mandates, pressing schedules and demanding standards often cloud my purpose. I agree with Vygotsky, Bruner (to some extent), Maslow, and Gardner, but I find Piaget’s four stages of cogntive development (Leanord, 2007) rather confining in application. I am also a proponent of brain-based learning, and have spent years researching how our brains anaylyze, accomodate, and evaluate new information.
One way I expand students’ understanding is to make their thinking process visible. Students demonstrate different thinking processes by mapping their problem solving aloud or on paper. When they are learning new thinking operations, I provide scaffolds by utilizing process worksheets and cues. Exercising quality thinking and providing meaningful purpose motivates the students to improve their thinking and provides better cognitive skills to apply toward subject-matter learning, or the content of the lesson. To make sure I plan activities that develop quality thinking, and to better develop my constructivist teaching approach, I try to consistently practice reflective assessment. Students write in journals and think about the processes they used to gain a new skill. Unfortunately, this reflection is sporadic, and oftentimes is used as an afterthought to more objective forms of assessment.
I am happy to say that I have been commended for creating a secure community environment where students take thinking risks and accept the risks taken by their peers. Risk-taking is evident by the quality of interaction between me and my students, and between my students and their fellow classmates. I envision extending that level of secure classroom to promote the different intelligences within that community. Ideally, learning is concentrated on higher levels of thinking, such as understanding, analysis, application, and synthesis of ideas and skills. That learning is reinforced with the ability to practice reflective thinking.
At risk of contradicting Phillips position that I as a teacher “treat the curriculum of an educational institution as vehicle for furthering the socio-political interests and goals of a ruler or ruling class” (Phillips, 2009) besides development of quality thinking, I also plan situations for social interaction to take place and further develop communities of practice (Barab, 2000). The first element of interaction is the implementation of rules, or guidelines, with specific and reasonable consequences for breaking those rules to be applied consistently. Even after ten years of classroom experience, I find myself inconsistent in applying consequences for minor infractions. Once rules are established, I promote social interaction with active classroom discussion on controversial or value-based topics. For example, I posed to my seventh grade math class, “ethical standards are necessary in a school setting” and randomly divided the class in to two groups; one for pro, one for con. The groups had five minutes to research online and come up with an oral argument for their assigned position. Being able to argue for something one believes in is a skill; being able to argue for something one does not hold true is an art.
When the groups have completed the assignment the concept of ethics will not only have been learned, but experienced. At that point, I guided reflection of the groups as to what processes they put into practice to arrive at the level of learning they achieved. In the future, I would like to add a self-reflection on how the groups did in arriving at the level of the class as a whole, and determine what actions could be taken next time for even further learning.
As a teacher, I have the responsibility to provide experiences that scaffold future learning. Furthermore, I must be a reflective practitioner in order to keep growing. In my classroom, I expect my students to learn and to recognize different thinking processes to fall back on when they encounter an unfamiliar situation or problem. They will learn how to interact with others through good communication skills and respect for diversity, and learn to draw off each other’s strengths to complement individual weaknesses. They will develop self-esteem and take pride in their accomplishments. It is my goal to fulfill my teaching responsibilities and to motivate students to fulfill their learning responsibilities. My actions in planning, delivery, and assessment will be based on those aspects, and I will continue to strive for personal and professional development to achieve my goal. I would like to define education as that which is gained upon application, synthesis, and reflection of an experience. I have a duty to teach students how to inquire, think, and know – and then how to analyze, apply, synthesize and evaluate so that they, in turn, can contribute to organizational, social, and global values.

REFERENCES:
Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From Practice Fields to Communities of Practice. In Jonasson, D. & Land, S. (Ed.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 25-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrencw Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Leonard, K., Noh, E.K., & Orey, M. (2007). Learning Theories and Instructional Strategies. In M. K. Barbour & M. Orey (Eds.), The Foundations of Instructional Technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/itFoundations/
Phillips, D.C., “Philosophy of Education”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: As of then…

December 5, 2011 at 12:14 AM · Filed under 3.2 Diffusion of Innovations, 3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization, EDTECH501

I was in eighth grade when I fell in love with—and got into trouble because of—a …calculator. This grey HP beauty that my mining engineer/surveyor father used and treasured was a formative part of of my affinity towards technology. It was wieldy by today’s standards, and featured popping buttons with color-coded functions.

My father was impressed with its ability to remember complex strings of entries and was fascinated with the full color user manual, all 120 pages! My friends were impressed with the ability of the display to spell a “swear word” when I typed in 7734 and turned the device upside down (that happened only once in class – the teacher confiscated the distracting gadget and my dad had to come retrieve his $200 calculator).

You can try out the HP-25, which was the same device but did not include the continuous memory. This link will take you to a Java simulation from the Museum of HP Calculators (Hicks, 2010). The applet code (Leinweber, 1998) is public domain. The simulation is not completely functional, but you’ll easily be able to perform basic mathematical functions. Mouse over for tool tips (displayed on the title bar of the window).

References:
Hicks, D. (2010). HP-25C. Retrieved September 6, 2011, from The Museum of HP Calculators: http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp25C.htm

Leinweber, L. (1998). HP Calculator Simulations. Retrieved September 6, 2011, from HP Calculator Museum: http://www.hpmuseum.org/simulate/simulate.htm#java25

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: School Evaluation Summary

November 30, 2011 at 12:51 AM · Filed under 4.1 Project Management, 5.1 Problem Analysis, 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation, EDTECH501

Fishwater is a low-income community with the 2009 median income level of a family being $27,500 compared to the national average of $62,363 (U.S. Census, 2010). The present day economy of Fishwater is based on recreational activities such as hunting, rafting, fishing, and jet boating (Fishwater Chamber of Commerce, 2010), so much of the population works in hospitality and tourism services. As in many rural towns, community members support and actively participate in school functions (Fishwater Boosters, 2010).  Because of the low-income status, 36% of students do not have a computer at home and a larger percentage (48%) do not have Internet access in their homes (School District, 2009).

Fishwater  is located in the Big Canyon about 150 miles from Boise, Idaho. The town is located at approximately 1800 feet elevation surrounded by rugged canyon mountains (Fishwater Chamber of Commerce, 2010). Despite the geographical challenges, the two schools enjoy high speed internet connectivity via Metro Ethernet, which is currently 5MB (bidirectionally), but can be increased to 35MB delivered over copper, or 100MB over fiber. With over 150 devices, and 115 students, the district is technology rich. In addition, the State’s Educational Network video teleconference center provides additional online access to neighboring schools and universities. Access is available to all students and staff

In 2007, Fishwater Elementary and Junior Senior High School deconsolidated from a larger district to form the Fishwater Joint School District . The split was made to prevent bussing 1 hour each way for its (at the time) 140 students. The formation of a new district has allowed many decisions to be made locally, instead of at a distant district office. One decision was to implement new technologies with various grant funding opportunities. Another was to implement the Fishwater Online Learning Center dedicated to asynchronous classes, blended learning, and dual-credit courses. The center is proctored by a non-certified, but highly qualified, staff member. At any given period, the center is filled to capacity. Students use laptops, headphones and microphones to complete the interactive coursework.

This technology is not confined to the online learning center. Similar technology and related resources are available for all curricular areas. Classrooms are equipped with overhead projectors, sound systems, computers, dedicated student workstations, student response pads, and Interwrite ™ pads (interactive note pads). Some classrooms also feature interactive whiteboards and document readers. In addition, each school (elementary, middle, and high school) has a wireless laptop cart holding 12 laptops. Teachers use the cart regularly. Laptops have headphones/microphones that will eventually be used to consistently be tools for student creativity. High School teachers have access to digital still and video cameras, Kindle e-readers (15) and iPads (5); elementary teachers have access to an iPad lab (20 iPads).

The professional technical programs use technology and current industry standard software to produce such real-life products as the student newspaper, which is printed in a local area newspaper with a 3,000 – 5,000 delivery, providing an excellent venue to display student work. The desktop publishing class partners with the photography class to design, create, publish, and bind the yearbooks. The shop class use a CAD suite to design and manufacture various products that they later sell at a benefit auction.

Approximately 20% of teachers have fully adopted the student response pads and report they are invaluable assessment tools in both spontaneous and comprehensive assessment. Other teachers that use the pads occasionally report the pads take too long to initiate and cause too much of a classroom distraction. Most teachers indicate their interest in fully integrating the response pads if they could have additional one-one specialized training. Unfortunately declining funding prevents additional training. The teachers that have fully adopted the clickers have agreed to be mentors, but they have yet to actually do it.

Students and staff are heavily dependent upon information resources and use them daily, and resources are fairly comprehensive, providing depth or diversity, and moving toward a balanced delivery.  Staff, students, and parents use Powerschool for administrative reporting, data collection, and progress monitoring. Grades are entered and reviewed using a web interface. Areas that continue to need development are training (using available tools for more advanced activities), assessment, and availability of formal and/or informal tech support.

The administration is fully in support of professional development in educational technology and is eager to implement new and emerging technologies. The district is technology rich, and professional development is offered to teachers three times annually. Despite the available technology, few teachers use it to its capacity Curriculum is somewhat dependent upon technology and used in multiple ways in most classrooms. The science teacher is a model of technology integration, whereas four of the fifteen teachers rarely use any technology. Interestingly enough, most veteran teachers (10 years or more of service) are eager to learn the new technologies. 20% of teachers cite lack of time to learn and plan for the technology as the main reason new technologies remain unused in their classrooms.

Currently the technology leadership team, comprised of one administrator, two board members, the technology coordinator, the business manager, the online classroom proctor, the science teacher, the first grade teacher, and one student, is developing a new comprehensive technology plan and use policy. Formal policy exists, and further planning and policy is currently under development for approval by the board of trustees. The comprehensive technology plan will be submitted to the state board of education in mid December after board approval.  Two main themes are in place over the next three years: virtualization and integration of student devices.

The district has been operating for five years and has only recently begun to examine the cost of maintaining and acquiring new technology. Prior to this time, funding has been provided by a number of large ($50,000-75,000) grants. The grant funding has also provided professional development for staff members. They plan to have a technology line item for FY2013 of approximately $30,000, excluding the fractional time of a staff member maintaining the technology.

Currently the district is technology rich with full administrative support, high speed bandwidth, a glut of computers, current industry standard software, and a well maintained network infrastructure. At this stage it lies in the “integrated” status, with a few areas of immediate improvement. Additional resources and planning in staff development, technology integration, and more advanced skills taught to staff and students are still necessary to become an “intelligent” model as demonstrated by this survey.

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: Technology Use Planning Overview

November 8, 2011 at 11:43 PM · Filed under 1.3 Instructional Strategies, 2.4 Integrated Technologies, 3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization, 3.4 Policies and Regulations, 4.1 Project Management, 4.2 Resource Management, 5.1 Problem Analysis, 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation, 5.4 Long Range Planning, EDTECH501

The National Educational Technology Plan (2010) offers a non-prescriptive means of achieving the goals set forth by our nation’s educational leaders. Using it as a referance point provides a common lens through which to view our own objectives and progress towards those goals. In our district, technology planning committee members print out key segments to research and discuss at committee meetings. This blog features the main categories within this post to define how technology planning, implementation, and evaluation impact instruction and student learning.
Innovate and ScaleTeaching: Our district is miniscule. With 57 students in our junior/senior high school, technology offers students a competitive education that would be unavailable without synchronous and asynchronous online learning. Teachers are isolated in their subject areas, teaching six different flavors of their content area daily. Thanks to technology, the days of one person spewing forth knowlege are gone. From cutting-edge industry practices to details of ancient museum pieces, content delivery is supplmented with the vast resources of the Internet that brings a world of knowledge and ideas into the classroom.
Prepare and Connect: I am part of a team of instructional technology leaders made up of teachers, administrators, and other stake holders. Currently we are in the midst of developing a three-year tech plan to replace the existing plan that has met its useful life. Our past technology plan was designed for five years, as the State of Idaho had requested at the time. We have found it to be insufficient to address our expanding use of technology, even though it was beneficial in guiding our newly formed district in the path we are currently taking (our district is in its fifth year).
Infrastructure: Access and Enable: Previous to working in education, I worked in business management. One of the mantras of the day was to think/plan/act/evaluate with the end in mind. I believe that guideline rings true today. Even though we are designing a written technology plan, it’s the structure of our organization’s mission and vision statements that drives the adjustments needed when a new route or detour presents itself.
Assessment: Measure What Matters: Our committee recognizes that the planning stage is ongoing and needs flexibility as technological advances continually change the educational landscape. Because of this elasticity, we believe our tech plan should be designed for not longer than three years, which is in agreement with See (1992). I also am in agreement with See’s comment that “effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology.” Our committee strives to evaluate the effectiveness of current technological practices and endeavors to use technological and traditional methods to measure student achievement. The following example is how teachers in our dstrict have implemented student reponse pads, or “clickers.”
Productivity: Redesign and Transform After a committee determination that our district, teachers, and students would benefit from student response pads, we purchased a set for every classroom. The grant was written in such a manner that professional development for the integration of the devices was paramount to the technology. The first year, contracted trainers worked with teachers and teachers worked with one another redesigning their delivery and assessments to accomodate the devices. We experienced great success, with 75% of the teachers actively using their response pads and using the resulting data to steer their instruction. Students reported especially liking the instant feedback aspect of the systems. Three years later we have one teacher regularly using the response pads. What happened? Two key factors came into play resulting in technology without application: 1) administrative changes; 2) staff retirement, relocation, and replacing. The new staff does not have ownership in the decision, so they are reluctant to implement the devices because they do not see the added value. The unused clickers are waiting to shine, and Karen Roberts (1990) has provided me with 13 ways to bring them out of the storage closet and back into the hands of the students.
The National Education Plan (2010) and the articles provided at the National Center for Technology Planning have added insight and inspiration to the planning process that we are currently undertaking at our district.

Resources:
Robertson, K. (1990). PROMOTING TECHNOLOGY: 13 WAYS TO DO IT. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from National Center for Technology Planning: http://www.nctp.com/html/promoting_technology.cfm
See, J. (1992, May). Developing Effective Technology Plans. Retrieved November 8, 2011, from National Center for Technology Planning: http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm
U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National Technology Plan 2010. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from ed.gov: http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

Leave a Comment

EDTECH501: APA 1.6 using Zotero and Google Scholar

October 26, 2011 at 10:21 PM · Filed under 3.1 Media Utilization, 3.4 Policies and Regulations, 4.1 Project Management, 4.2 Resource Management, EDTECH501, Standard 3: Utilization, Standard 4: Management

I have found the best thing since EndNote in a combo punch, and I am shamelessly endorsing them for the scholarly as well as those who are, well..less drawn to scholarly activities.

I eagerly partnered with Zotero for the software’s ability to organize my myriad wanderings and ponderings on the world wide web.  Google Scholar is another lens that brings to focus the articles I need to extract the information I am looking for – in this case, mobile learning. I am including five correct APA citations as examples of the genius of Zotero. For a quick look at the FireFox plug-in, I chose to embed Arial’s tutorial. She has a few distracting “ums” and “uhs,” but her style captured my interest.

References

Adkins, S. S. (2008). Ambient Insight. The US Market for Mobile Learning Products and Services: 2008-2013 Forecast and Analysis (p. pp. 5). Retrieved from http://www.ambientinsight.com/Resources/Documents/AmbientInsight_2008-2013_US_MobileLearning_Forecast_ExecutiveOverview.pdf

Enabling Mobile Learning (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE. (n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume40/EnablingMobileLearning/157976

Masters, K. (2005). Seeing, Understanding, Learning in the Mobile Age. Low-key m-learning: a realistic introduction of m-learning to developing countries. Budapest, Hungary, April 2005. Retrieved from http://www.fil.hu/mobil/2005/Masters_final.pdf

Mobile Learning History. (2010).Mobile Learning Community. Retrieved from http://trainandgo.blogspot.com/2010/01/mobile-learning-in-cortina.html

Moore, J. (2009). Proceedings of IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning. A portable document search engine to support off-line mobile learning. Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17441/

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: A Lesson in Patriotism

October 16, 2011 at 7:42 PM · Filed under 1.1 Instructional Systems Design, 2.4 Integrated Technologies, EDTECH501

My principal, a retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant, approached me asking that I consider having my photography students “pull something together” for a Veterans’ Day tribute. In the midst of technology glitches, out of state conferencing, and state reporting deadlines, her request seemed a breath of fresh air. The project could be done with mobile devices, and our final product would highlight the advances our district is making with technology. Coincidentally, my EDTECH501 course assignment was to develop a lesson plan that integrated a new technology. Voila! My Lesson Plan
Servicing [an] A-20 bomber, Langley Field, Va. (LOC)

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: Plagiarism; Resist the Temptation!

October 3, 2011 at 11:51 PM · Filed under 1.2 Message Design, 2.2 Audiovisual Technologies, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies, 3.4 Policies and Regulations, EDTECH501, Standard 2: Development, Uncategorized

Plagiarism (Latin plagiare “to kidnap”)

 

Plagiarism
by: brimstef

http://www.xtranormal.com/xtraplayr/12517753/plagiarism

This video (Brimacomb, 2011) covers using someone else’s work as my own (in this case “buying” a paper from a website), copy and pasting without citations, and using my own prior work without instructor permission. As these two college students talk about whether or not to go to the beach with friends, I incorporated something that I learned on this project. I was intrigued by the root (Latin “kidnap”), and found it to be useful in the script. Xtranormal is a new medium for me. I was impressed by the animation, but found the text readers somewhat difficult to understand. Nevertheless, I was excited to see how my video-graphics students became immediately engaged. I wish I could accumulate points rather than purchase them. It would make the experience more enjoyable. I used the Salmon River Joint School District Trustees’ Policy Manual (2009) as my source rather than the BSU Code of Conduct (2011), because I want to embed my video onto my high school’s home page to emphasize the three aspects of plagiarism.

REFERENCES:
Boise State University (2011). Student Conduct Program – Code of Conduct – Article 4. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from Boise State University Code of Conduct: http://osrr.boisestate.edu/scp-codeofconduct-article4/

Brimacomb, S. (2011, October 3). Plagiarism. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from XtraNormal: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12517753/plagiarism

Brimacomb, S. (2011, October 3). Plagiarism Video Discussion Forum. Retrieved October 4, 2011, from EDTECH Boise State EDTECH 501-4175 (FA11): http://edtech.mrooms.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=28525

Salmon River Joint School District Trustees. (2009, April 1). Policy 3202. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from Salmon River Joint School District 243: http://www.jsd243.org/2032101210144059403/lib/2032101210144059403/3202.pdf

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 501: Digital Equality?

October 3, 2011 at 10:50 PM · Filed under 1.2 Message Design, 1.3 Instructional Strategies, 1.4 Learner Characteristics, 2.2 Audiovisual Technologies, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies, 3.1 Media Utilization, 4.1 Project Management, 4.2 Resource Management, 5.1 Problem Analysis, 5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement, 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation, EDTECH501, Standard 1: Design, Standard 2: Development

Online learning seems to be the pathway to enlightenment for some and the pathway to, well….disenchantment for others. Still others may never know because they don’t have the opportunity to–or choose not to–pursue the experience. After spending several weeks trying to collaborate with my virtual team across time zones and amidst the normalcy of chaos at work and at home, I realized that online learning is far more difficult than face-to-face learning. This coming from a veteran digi-learner, no less, who lives in a society whose core values lie in industry and growth.  All this collaborating and near-instantaneous global publishing is made possible by technology that was unavailable to me after graduating from high school in the early 80’s. However, not knowing your peers and instructors impersonalizes the learning experience in a way that creates a digital divide of its own. 

The primary digital divide I noticed when researching this project is that of those who use technology and those who don’t (by choice or by circumstance is irrelevant). To what future are our digital natives (Prensky, 2001) embarking? What of our society’s values will they retain, and what values will they relinquish as the digital nature of information seeps into every aspect of their lives. Will they be more comfortable collaborating with virtual peers, or will they long for the person to person interaction that only a traditional course can offer?

After completing this assignment with four highly competent digi-partners, I am of the opinion that there is less a digital divide than a digital inequality. The inequality stems from those who know how to, and have a desire to, manipulate the myriad venues of information to gain new understanding and knowledge and those who mainly use the speed and accessibility for social pursuits.

Because I prefer balance, I felt that our final choice would address the needs of the inequality,  yet bridge the gap left by the digital divide.  Watch our VoiceThread presentation, and let me know what you think.

REFERENCES
Prensky, M. (2001, October 5). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrents. On the Horizon. University Press. Boston Retrieved September 25, 2011 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

 

 

Leave a Comment

EDTECH 504: Elements of Educational Technology

September 12, 2011 at 10:54 PM · Filed under 1.4 Learner Characteristics, 5.4 Long Range Planning, EDTECH504

I face thousands of decisions every day, most seem inconsequential, but others are more significant.  The significance rises with the benefits and risks associated with the decision. When others are involved, I feel an increasing burden and responsibility.  My decisions are then based on what is important to me, and what is important to me is my values.

According to Janawuski and Molenda “…ethical practice is less a series of expectations, boundaries, and new laws than it is an approach or construct from which to work” (pg 3). I like to think that my values guide my decision-making at work, at home, and in my community.

In my position, I honor three commitments as I serve students and staff.

1)      My accountability extends to the individuals within my scope of practice who entrust me with confidential information.

2)      My local community–as well as society in general—depends on me to be trustworthy to provide services and technological products using public funds.

3)      My work ethic and my dedication to continuing education bring honor—or dishonor—to my profession.

There are many creeds that help define how we should live, but my personal favorite is by an unknown author:

“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

References
Januszewski, A. and Molenda, M. (2007). Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. AECT.

Leave a Comment

« Newer Posts · Older Posts »