Posted in 1.2 Message Design, 501 Introduction to Educational Technology

Elements of Educational Technology

Originally Published October, 2011

In my discussions about educational technologies I’ve found people often use the same term to talk about very different practices. Robert Reiser talks about some of the difficulties linguistics play in defining a field in his article History of Instructional
 Design and Technology:
Part I: A History of Instructional Media. He points out that, for many people, the term instructional technologies conjured up ideas limited to instructional technologies such as CD-ROMS, computers, and projectors. (Reiser & Ely, 1997). Herein he points out that how we define a subject frames future conversations.

According to The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) the current definition of educational technologies is, “The study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.” (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 1). This definition encompasses management systems, design, learning tools, and instructional media. Yet, to establish a common starting point for discussion we should look at the role of each element individually.

For me, the components of this definition have a hierarchy. Improving performance is the goal. Managing the process outlines the path; the study, creation, facilitation, and usage all provide a means to the end. Prioritizing element helps drill through a complex term with a broad meaning. As the former employee of a corporate e-learning company, our conversations with new clients followed this same sequence. What is your company’s mission? How does management support that? What gaps need to be filled? What content do you need delivered? What is the best delivery method for your employees? We had to ask questions in this manner to evaluate how well our product could meet their needs. When it comes to educational technology not enough conversation happens around how it can be used to better manage the education process.

As I reflect on life as an educator, I’m amazed at how the road map to success twists–and then twists again. Objectives shift from preparing student for a 21st century work force to raising test scores. In my observations, a clear vision and well thought-out implementation plan for adoption of educational technologies leads to authentic integration.

The US Department of Education states their mission is to:

  • Strengthen the Federal commitment to assure access to equal educational opportunity for every individual;
  • Increased involvement in public education of the public, parents, and students in Federal education programs;
  • Promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education
  • Improve the coordination of Federal education programs;
  • Improve the management of Federal education activities; and
  • Increase the accountability of Federal education programs

Based on this vision, the discussion should be how are we managing the implementation of educational technologies to meet these goals.

If we look to other large US agencies we can see how common vision and management implementation are critical for the organizations ability to function properly. In the 911 Commission Report published August 2004, the Commission revealed a systemic problem within the intelligence community.

The U.S. government did not find a way of sharing intelligence and using it to guide the planning and assignment of responsibilities for joint operations involving entities as disparate as the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, the military, and the agencies involved in homeland security.

Similar to the problem highlighted by 911 Commission, our education system needs to reassess how we pool information and resources to ensure equal access to quality education.

The landscape of the 21st century is entirely different from it was at the birth of American education system. One teacher delivering content to classroom 25-30 students is a model developed at time when information could only be delivered to the masses through people and print. Through years of research, we now know that learners have different learning styles, intelligences, skills, disabilities, points of motivation, and interests. To apply this knowledge in a meaningful ways we need to analyze how technology can help us improve how we manage the education process.

To summarize, improved management through technology has the ability to advance processes. Educators face the daily challenge of meeting each individual’s needs with “just-in-time” tools and resources. Technologies like learning/content management systems and data collection have already transformed the way corporations train employees and market to consumers. These same applications applied to education will leverage resources and increase student success.

References

Reiser, R.A., & Ely, D.P. (1997). The field of educational technology as reflected through its definitions. Edu- cational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 63-72.

Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Chapter 1: Definition. In Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 1 – 14). NY: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.

US Department of Education. (2011), Overview, Mission http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/mission/mission.html

The 911 Commission. (2004), The 911 Commission Report, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States–EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

Posted in 1. Instructional Systems Design, 503 Instructional Design for Educators

Teacher vs. Instructional Designer

Introduction

I’ve thought a good deal about the differences between a teaching job and an instructional designers job. Ironically, my first hand experience in both fields makes it more difficult for me to see the distinction between the two.  As a teacher, I regularly fall back on my instructional design skills to plan effective learning units.

1. What are teachers expected to do that instructional designers are not?

I’ve been asked to answer the questionWhat are teachers expected to do that instructional designers are not?”  In short, teachers traditionally are looked at as people who deliver content.  Some key additional responsibilities include building relationships with students, communicating with parents, maintaining students’ personal records, collecting, analyzing, and reporting on performance, grading assignments, and establishing personal behavior and learning plans.  Teachers also need to complete a teacher certification program show mastery over the content areas they teach.  Contrary, as an instructional designer, I relied on subject matter experts (SME) to outline the content for course development.

2. What are instructional designers expected to that teachers are not?

To the second question I’ve been asked to analyze, “What are instructional designers expected to do that teachers are not?” I have a harder time delineating.  The basic answer is that instructional designers make decisions about how content is delivered.  They need to understand how to use different authoring tools, plan scope and sequence, write scripts, choose supportive media, and develop assessments.

By the same token, as a teacher short on time, I scavenger for material I can stitch together.  Instructional designers need to create their own material from scratch or purchase copyrights because often their work is created for a profit.  As a constructivist, it’s critical for me to design my own content so that I understand the logic behind the design. My teaching philosophy is that educators should build scenarios for students to discover new information and use the best platform possible to do that.

3. What are three major differences between instructional designers and teachers?
Three major differences between a teacher and an instructional designer are practical experience, focus, and expectations. Instructional designers must stay abreast of new technologies like graphics programs, mobile learning, podcasting, and interactive media.  Conversely, teachers gain experience in helping students fill gaps to construct new knowledge.  A second difference is instructional designers are required focus on content development and delivery.  While as a teacher, I received 6 weeks of training on Promethean’s authoring tool ActivInspire.  However, there was no requirement for me to incorporate this tool in my daily duties.  A teacher’s primary focus is on showing student growth.  Finally, Instructional designers are expected to design content and teachers are expected to deliver it.

Posted in 1.3 Instructional Strategies, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies, 522 Online Teaching for Adult Learners

Web Conferencing

Reflection Post Web Conferencing

I enjoy taking the opportunity to use new 2.0 tools to reflect on and expand my learning environment and experiences. I find the challenge of synthesizing new information using a new tool brings my learning experience to a whole new level. It makes me think about not only new information, but also question the best tool to help me digest and share what I’ve learned.

For this assignment, there was no question conducting a web conference would be the way to share what I learned. This is something I’m hoping to introduce as a professional development option for teachers this coming year. Though I’ve used Google Hangouts before, I was hoping to get familiar with some other tools. Unfortunately this week is my first week as a distance-learning student with extremely limited Internet connection. In my summer travels, I’ve been reduced to one hour of Internet per week. This experience has been humbling for someone who spends 95% of computer time online. Some of the challenges I’ve run into are waiting for classmates presentations to load, finding photos to use in my presentation, accessing additional research, exploring web-based web conferencing tools, copying and pasting assignment instructions, and limited awareness of peers progress.

As we get ready to introduce Chromebooks in our district next year, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how I would have completed these assignments if I had taken the ever so light Chromebook on my European vacation. Anyway I think it’s been a good experience to remember what it was like to operate offline and should I have some precautions I’ll be putting in place to make next week go a little smoother.

Web Conferencing

 

Posted in 1.4 Learner Characteristics, 522 Online Teaching for Adult Learners, DESIGN

Andragogy: The Structure & Process of Engaging Adult Learners

AndragogyYesterday, the principal’s at a school I serve addressed his leadership team about the critical importance of raising the graduation rate. “Everything we do,” he said, “must lead back to helping our students get to graduation.” This year, just 46% of their seniors crossed the finish line. There was a time in my life when I was dangerously close to joining the statistics of those who failed to finish. It wasn’t because I  wasn’t bright or curious. But by age 13, I thought of schools as baby sitting centers and was totally unengaged.

As these stories often unfold, the point of pain becomes a driving force in ones life. So now, I spend my days working to improve the student experience in our public schools by coaching teachers to integrate technology into their classrooms. The use of technology in education is not just to utilize this digital social currency, but also to create learning opportunities that might otherwise be impossible to manage. I envision high schools as a place were we prepare students to be life long learners: setting personal goals, problem-solving, and finding real world relevance in the act of studying.

Malcolm Knowles, a man credited for making the distinctions between Adult and child education popular today, lays out six assumptions about adult learners. These assumptions say that learners adult learners are 1. self-directed, 2. enriched and informed by their personal life experience, 3. that readiness to learn is influenced by the relevancy of the topic to the individual’s circumstances, 4  that their motivation level seeds from a need to apply the learned skills immediately, 5 that their motivation is anchored in increasing self-esteems and accomplishing goals, and 6 that adults learn best when they understand why the information is pertinent.  (Forrest III & Peterson, 2006; Kidd, 1973; Knowles, 1984a, 1984b; Knowles et al., 1998; Lindeman, 1926; Ozuah, 2005; Thompson & Deis, 2004)

In looking at Knowles’s characteristics of adult learners, I wonder if our failure to recognize these as more general characteristics of learners accounts for the over 3 million students who dropped out of school last year. According to Taylor and Kroth (2009), Andragogy faces several criticisms. Among them are a lack of ability to be measured, inability to define clear procedures of andragogical practices, that andragogy means a lack of testing and grades and is therefore impossible to measure, and that these characteristics are not always found in adults and are sometimes found in children.

I believe that technology used to capture and study learner analytics can play a critical role in developing ways to measure learner characteristics above and beyond grades and tests. I also think that all educational experiences have more value when students of any age understand why the learning task is relevant and related to personal growth. Based on my own experience, I agree with the criticism that these “adult characteristics” are not just limited to adults. My own critic of my education experience of at a young age demonstrate that I exhibited these “adult learner characteristics” even with limited life experience. As with all learning theories, from behaviorism to constructivism, each carry some truth about learners, not in isolation but woven together to understand the complexity of the human brain. By understanding the characteristics of such theories, they enable us to reach more learners by designing more relevant and engaging learning experiences.

References

Taylor, B & Kroth, M. (2009) Andragogy’s transition into the future: meta-analysis of andragogy and its search for a measurable instrument. Journal of Adult Education, 38 (1).

Posted in 1. Instructional Systems Design, 1.2 Message Design, 512 Online Course Design, DESIGN

Pre-Planning Activities

Gantt Project Time Line (p.181)


Screen Shot 2013-03-09 at 11.33.33 AM

 

 

Completed Task Objective Analysis (p.188-196)

Clustered Objectives (p.198)

1.0 Using Forms to Gather Data

  • A. Prerequisites (objective 1.1)
  • B. Application (objectives 1.2, 1.5)
  • C. Analysis (objective 1.3-1.4)

2.0 Google Drive to Save You Time

  • A. Prerequisites (objectives 2.1-2.3)
  • B. Application (objectives 2.4-2.5)
  • C. Analysis (objective 2.6)

3.0 Blog Planning for Better Preparation

  • A. Prerequisites (objective 3.1)
  • B. Application (objectives 3.2-3.4)
  • C. Analysis (objectives 3.5-3.6)

4.0 Authentic Student Engagement with Digital Learning Logs

  • A. Prerequisites (objective 4.1)
  • B. Application (objective 4.2)
  • C. Analysis (objective 4.3)
Posted in 1. Instructional Systems Design, 1.2 Message Design, 1.3 Instructional Strategies, 512 Online Course Design, DESIGN

Summative & Formative Evaluation Planning

Assignment 1: General Overview of Evaluation Criteria (p. 132)

Evaluation Criteria Explanation Data Source
Appeal: create a connection for user between the formula (daily activities + time management tools = more efficiency.) Review ability to hook the audience by pin pointing real life challenges
  • Teacher KLW survey
  • Application of technologies in the classroom
  • Time on task survey
Usability: ease of user access and use Determine if users are able to navigate the course without any tech support
  • Ability to turn assignments in
  • User interest in taking another similar course
 Effectiveness: ability to utilize the tools as they were taught in the WBI course Determine if participants are able to apply new skills
  • Frequency with which the technologies are applied the classroom

General Evaluation Orientation (p.132)

This course model is oriented toward the participant.  The both formative and summative assessments will be designed to evaluate how well the course has served the participants needs.

Evaluation Matrix: Formative Evaluation Questions. (p140)

Evaluation Criteria & Categories Questions
Appeal
Goals
  • Are the goals relevant to the learner?
  • Is there a clear connection between technology use and time management?
  • Are the goals manageable for learners at varying levels technology proficiencies?
Content
  • Does the information directly address teachers’ daily duties?
  • Is the information applicable immediately?
  • How many people will application of the content impact?
Technology
  • Is the navigation intuitive?
  • Are the materials easy to access?
  • Is the course free of typos?
Message Design
  • Is the course organization easy to understand?
  • Do the videos, graphics, fonts, and colors have universal appeal?
  • Is the course pitched at adult learners of varying age and skill level?
Efficiency
Goals
  • Are the goals stated clearly and concisely?
Content
  • Is the content appropriate for all teaching disciplines?
Technology
  • Is the LMS/web structured properly?
  • Is access to other learners or an instructor an option?
  • Do technology applications outside the course design function easily and efficiently (Google & Weebly)?
Message Design
  • Does the information scaffold on prior skills?
  • Is there a clear organizational pattern?
Effectiveness
Goals
  • How do the goals support best practice instructional strategies?
  • How to the goals reprioritize teachers time?
Content
  • Will the information enable teachers to apply skills immediately or will additional practice be needed?
  • Does the information reflect current instructional practices?
Technology
  • Will the required WBI platform (Edmodo) support learners?
  • Will there be access to an instructor or other learners?
Message Design
  • Is the message design consistent with district instructional practices?
  • Are the directions short and concise?
  • Have screen shots been used according to district standards?

Stakeholders (p.143)

Primary Stakeholders

  • Designer: Responsible for course quality and revisions
  • Instructor: Responsible for informing the designer of snags or challenges in the course
  • Learners: will spend time trying to expunge information from the course
  • Learner’s students: successfully application will directly impact how the students are trained to use these tools.

Secondary Stakeholders

  • ITC department: The course reflects the department’s productivity level
  • School Administration: teachers working smarter reallocates time teachers’ time
  • Parents: Transparency and efficiency = more effective instructional time

What is Being Evaluated? (p.145)

   
  • Motivation strategies
  • Objectives
Design Plans
  • Grouping of objectives
  • Instructions
  • Activities
  • Example Items
Prototype & Website
  • Assessment items
  • Navigation
  • Interface
  • Collaborative Modeling

Who Are The Evaluators and Reviewers (p. 147)

Evaluator/EDTECH 512 Online Course Design Professor:

Youngkyn Baek has his Ph.D., Educational Foundations and Computer Based Instruction. He is a professor at Boise State University and teaches Online Course Design among other online classes.  Areas of Interest and Expertise: Game-based Learning, Instructional Mobile Game Design, Teaching and Learning in Virtual Worlds.

Evaluator/Designer/Instructor: Gillian Riley is an Instructional Technology Coach for SCCPSS. She holds an Education degree and has 7 years of classroom teaching experience. She is also a former Instructional Designer and is ¾ through the M.E.T program at Boise State University.

Expert Reviewer (instructional design, subject matter expert): Wendy Marshall is the Program Manager of the Instructional Technology Department of SCCPSS. She is the former director of the Educational Technology Training Center at Armstrong Atlantic State University.

Expert Reviewer (instructional design): Cris Higginbotham has her Ed.S. in Education and is an Instructional Technology Coach SCCPSS high school teachers.  She headed the adoption of Edmodo as a LMS for professional development and has developed the districts first online courses for teachers.

Expert Reviewer (subject matter): Stephen Routh is Science teacher in SCCPSS. He is partnering with the designer to test implementation logistics. Stephen is an avid user of Google Apps for Educators and is a leader of technology integration at his school and throughout the district.

Expert Reviewer (instructional design): Melissa Milligan is and Instructional Technology Coach at the middle and elementary level for SCCPSS. She has her Ed.S. in Education and is an online instructor.

Expert Reviewer (instructor): Caronia Shafer has 12 years teaching experience and is a professional development coach for SCCPSS. She has her Ed.S. in education and works with the designer as an instructional partner.

End-User Reviewer: Teachers who participate in both the face-2-face course and online version will be asked to give feedback on the course after each module. Learners from of the face-2-face version will have required attendance. Those accessing the content online will have chose to take the course. This should be noted as the responses from participants will be impacted based on how they came to take the course.

Evaluation Matrix Revisions (p.152)

Evaluation Criteria & Categories Questions Methods & Tools

 

Appeal

Goals
  • Are the goals relevant to the learner?
  • Is there a clear connection between technology use and time management?
  • Are the goals manageable for learners at varying levels technology proficiencies?
  • Observation
  • Pre-assessment
  • Pre-requisite survey
Content
  • Does the information directly address teachers’ daily duties?
  • Is the information applicable immediately?
  • How many people will application of the content impact?
  • End-user and expert reviews (SME)
  • Observation
  • Survey
Technology
  • Is the navigation intuitive?
  • Are the materials easy to access?
  • Is the course free of typos?
  • End-user and expert reviews (ID)
  • Survey
Message Design
  • Is the course organization easy to understand?
  • Do the videos, graphics, fonts, and colors have universal appeal?
  • Is the course pitched at adult learners of varying age and skill level?
  • End-user and expert reviews (SME, ID)
  • Survey

 

Efficiency

Goals
  • Are the goals stated clearly and concisely?
  • Expert review (SME, ID)
Content
  • Is the content appropriate for all teaching disciplines?
  • Expert review (SME, ID)
  • End-user review
  • Observation
Technology
  • Is the LMS/web structured properly?
  • Is access to other learners or an instructor an option?
  • Do technology applications outside the course design function easily and efficiently (Google & Weebly)?
  • Expert review (SME, ID)
  • End-user review
Message Design
  • Does the information scaffold on prior skills?
  • Is there a clear organizational pattern?
  • Expert review (SME, ID)

Effectiveness

Goals
  • How do the goals support best practice instructional strategies?
  • How to the goals reprioritize teachers time?
Expert review (SME, ID)
Content
  • Will the information enable teachers to apply skills immediately or will additional practice be needed?
  • Does the information reflect current instructional practices?
End-User and expert (SME, ID) review
Technology
  • Will the required WBI platform (Edmodo) support learners?
  • Will there be access to an instructor or other learners?
Expert review (ID, instructor)
Message Design
  • Is the message design consistent with district instructional practices?
  • Are the directions short and concise?
  • Have screen shots been used according to district standards?
  • Expert review  (ID)
  • Instructor review

Assignment 2:  Summative Assessment (p.163)

 Guiding Questions—Evaluating Appeal

  • Is there a change in appeal of face-2-face professional development vs. WBI?
  • What benefits do participants sight as preference for WBI over face-2-face instruction?
  • What challenges do participants sight a detractor for WBI vs. face-2-face instruction?
Data Source  Rationale & communication method Time-frame
Survey participant perceptions Evaluate the appeal of online professional development to present report to department head and board of education. Face-2-face data collected Spring 2013. Online data collected Summer and Winter 2013.
 Guiding Questions—Evaluating Efficiency

  • Do learners find WBI more efficient than face-2-face instruction?
  • Did learners feel their time was spent more efficiently in WBI or face-2-face course?
Data Source Rationale & communication method Time-frame
Survey participant perceptions Evaluate the efficiency of online professional development to present report to department head and board of education. After a face-2-face and online version have been offered (Winter 2013)
 Guiding Questions—Evaluating Effectiveness

  • Was there a difference in implementation rates between face-2-face participants vs. WBI participants?
Data Source Rationale & communication method Time-frame
ObservationInterview participants Evaluate the efficiency of online professional development to present report to department head and board of education. Conducted Spring 2014
Posted in 1. Instructional Systems Design, 4.1 Project Management, 512 Online Course Design, DESIGN, MANAGEMENT

Learning Task Map

LEARNER TASK MAP

Part 1: The learner task maps identifies the major steps participants will need to complete the activities outlined in this course. Click on the brainstorm image to see it full size.

Screen Shot 2013-02-19 at 6.25.32 PM

Part 2:

Task-Objective Assessment Item Blueprint by Gillian Riley

Part II: Task Objective Assessment Item Blueprint

REVISION PROCESS

Laying the tasks helps the designer realize how just many steps are involved in each objective. Perhaps more importantly, misalignments become apparent. In constructing the Task Objective Blueprint, I could see how both my objectives and my activities were aligned. After spending a good amount of time with teachers, I realize they want something that’s applicable…tomorrow.

While the realization about what teachers want was heavy on my mind at the I set into design mode, the Task Objective Map helped me realize skills were embedded, but I wasn’t asking the most important questions: Why is this important to me? What benefit does this process produce for me and my students? How does the implementation effect my students or I long run? and If I do this, then what? The task objectives helped me extend my orignal activities to reach for more depth in the critical thinking process. In each course design, the Task-Objective Assessment Item Blueprint is the most helpful.

Posted in 1. Instructional Systems Design, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies, 512 Online Course Design, All

Project Analysis

PROBLEM ANALYSIS

When you ask teachers what they want more of, emphatically they answer TIME! Time to collaborate, plan, reflect, analyze data, and give feedback. These are fundamental to sound instructional processes.  Yet their time is often spent working in isolation, improvising, and using their bare hands to grade 100’s of assignments weekly. Public k-12 education has been one of the slowest industries to adopt time saving technologies and teachers are paying the price. Consider that even the auto mechanic leverages his time more effectively. Technology can automatically diagnose a car’s problem, identify needed parts, locate them, and place automatic orders. Repair shops use databased of information to preemptively market to their clients based on miles and make a BEFORE the repair is every needed.  Can you imagine such sophisticated and proactive data to educate our children?

While the similarities between cars and students are slim, what doesn’t change from the mechanic to the teacher is  one field the need to work smarter. Teachers will be the first to admit their attention and time is divided in 100 directions and rarely is the right amount spent on the design behind of the instruction. In conversations with teacher, they’ve said they need more time to:

  1. grade & give feedback
  2. get to know their students
  3. plan
  4. figure out how to engage students

SYMPTOMS

Digital tools have the ability eliminate  or reduce some of symptoms I see daily working with teachers as an Instructional Technology Coach. These symptoms include

  • High stress levels
  • Sense of isolation
  • Bitterness toward professional development and other things that are not “A priorities.”
  • Make it up as you go instruction
  • Reinventing the wheel
  • Lack of communication with students & parents
  • Lack of engaged students

ROOT CAUSES

The root cause of this problem, is that the responsibilities of teachers huge and the number of hours in the day outside of instruction are limited. Time management is a popular training topic in corporations across the county, yet after 10 years in the education field, and after completing three education programs spanning 6 years, time management has never been addressed. Another cause is that teachers are challenged to manage their multiple daily responsibilities along with finding time to grow professionally. Taking their planning time for professional development is like robbing Paul to pay Mary.

In a recent professional development survey of 30 high school teacher 83% of staff said that an opportunity to exchange ideas with other teachers was very important.

PD ideas Exchange 2013-02-13 at 1.21.14 PM
Likewise, 87% said it was very important to be able to express concerns on school, classroom, or curriculum issues.

Express Concerns 2013-02-13 at 1.21.28 PM

When asked how important it was to have time to learn to play with new technologies, only 67% said this was very important

Learn New Tools 2013-02-13 at 1.21.40 PM

My conclusion from this is that there ins’t a strong connection between time invested to learn new tools and the long term pay off of daily efficiency.

The evidence for creating a blended learning solution is slightly less conclusive because participants could select multiple options on this survey question. However, it does show that 37% prefer an online option, and 33% said a blended solution would be preferable.

PD Time 2013-02-13 at 1.19.53 PM

.

That said, the rationale for creating a web-based course is two fold. The first is to differentiate professional development and to meet the needs of already overtaxed teachers at the high schools I work with. The second rationale is so the course can be offered virtually over the summer to teachers across the district to support them as they plan for the 2013-2014 school year. This solution will allow us to accommodate more users by offering more options.

GAPS ANALYSIS

ACTUAL SITUATION GAP ANALYSIS OPTIMAL SITUATION
GRADING & FEEDBACK GRADING & FEEDBACK GRADING & FEEDBACK
Grading and feedback is widely still done by hand. Teachers are often the only ones giving feedback on student work. Class wide rapid assessment tools and data is inconstantly gathered and used to inform instructional decisions. Rapid assessment tools are regularly implemented and used to drive instructional decisions. Students take a more active role in assessing each others work before it is submitted for teachers feedback.
KNOWING STUDENTS KNOWING STUDENTS KNOWING STUDENTS
High school teacher have reported it’s a difficult to get to know 120+ students. Differentiated instruction cannot be implemented without prior knowledge about the students. Teachers will implement tools that allow them to hear from and learn about their students regularly.
PLANNING PLANNING PLANNING
Teacher often plan in isolation and reinvent the wheel year after year. No Virtual collaboration space is in place. Many teachers are unaware of the benefits of cloud-based storage solutions. Teachers collaborate regularly with those in and outside of their school and use a cloud based solutions to keep track of lesson plans and teaching resources.
MAXIMIZE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME MAXIMIZE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME MAXIMIZE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME
Instructional time is not always maximized. GAPS analysis reported a lack of closings in lessons. Teacher report they often run out of time for closings. Lessons may not be fully thought out and therefore specific goals may not be met. Time indicators are rarely utilized to keep lessons on track. Daily instructions are clearly printed so students have direction and flexibility to move at their own pace. Teachers utilize tools like digital timers to ensure openings, work sessions, and closings stay within targeted timeframes.

INSTRUCTIONAL GOAL

At the end of instruction, teachers will be able to identify how technology tools can be used to streamline their duties in gathering assessment data,learning about their students, planning, maximizing instructional time, and creating authentic engagement  They will also be able to evaluate if these tools can be applied in their classroom. Further, they will have the skills needed to apply these tools if their learning environment permits.

LEARNER ANALYTICS

As an Instructional Technology Coach and former teacher in the district, the course designer has personal experience with the learners. This course will also be offered as a blended solution before it is offered online. The blended version is a pilot to be revised based on evaluations and complete rates before the online version goes live. The image below outlines what is known about the learners. Below is a link to a survey that will need to be conducted to answer the unknown, namely discovering disabilities and learner technical skills. Click the image to enlarge.

Learner Anyalitics

See the Prerequisite Survey.

Posted in 1. Instructional Systems Design, 1.2 Message Design, 1.3 Instructional Strategies, 1.4 Learner Characteristics, 2.3 Computer-Based Technologies, 2.4 Integrated Technologies, 512 Online Course Design, DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT

EDTECH 512: Online Course Design

Time Management Tools for Teachers Designed by Gillian Riley

timemanagement

Web Based Instructional Design 

 


Final Products

Posted in DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, EVALUATION, MANAGEMENT

541 Final Reflection

Part One: Course Reflection.
What you have learned?

There were several projects in Integrating Technology into the Curriculum that expanded my knowledge base about educational technology.  The first was researching how to create a school-wide wireless network.  The second was the use of databases and spread sheets, which I’ve always had an interest in using but didn’t know how to use.  The third was exploring the role of social media in the classroom.  Each of these subjects were areas I knew very little about but now feel comfortable I have the base knowledge necessary to talk informatively about.

How you have grown professionally?

At the start of this course I began interviewing for an Instructional Technology Coach position in my district.  Professionally, the summer is a time I reflect on successes from the prior year and plan ways to build on those successes.   When I applied for the new position, I used the assignments and blogs entries as a tool to re-frame my thinking from classroom teacher to teacher support person.  I really focused on the logistical challenges I faced using technology to teach and worked all of my projects with those in mind.  I also spent time exploring both elementary and high school standards as my new position may require me to work in both settings.  I’m pleased that I was able to explore my new role within the structure of this course.

How did the course work demonstrate mastery of the AECT standards.

Integrating Technology into the Curriculum projects covered a broad scope of the AECT standards including design, development, management, and evaluation.  The column on the right lists the AECT standards and the activities I have completed that match the standard.  Many of the activities met more than one standard.  Course projects met the following standards:

DESIGN

1.3 instructional strategies  Instructional Software Lesson

1.4 learner characteristics Adaptive/Assistive Technology Presentation

DEVELOPMENT

2.3 Computer Based Technologies  Using the Internet for Instruction Project

2.4 Integrated Technologies  Content Area Presentations

UTILIZATION

3.1 Media Utilization Community Building & Social Networking Project

3.4 Policy and Regulation  Internet Safety

MANAGEMENT

4.2 Resource Management Relative Advantage Chart

4.3 Delivery System Management: Network Project

How your own teaching practice or thoughts about teaching have been impacted by what you have learned or accomplished in this course?

Over the summer I’ve been in discussion with my new department about alternatives to face-to-face professional development.  I used the following assignments to explore different options:

Video Blog – Advantages of Hypermedia

Voicethread on Social Networking
Community Building & Social Networking Project
Using the Internet for Instruction Project

I also took another deep look at how I was organizing my learning blog and restructured how I was using it for my own learning.  I’ve started tagging post, categorizing by standard, and thinking about how I will use my work created at Boise in other professional settings.

How has theory guided development of the projects and assignments you created?

Each assignment allowed me to reflect on my own learning style and think about what made certain assignments more enjoyable than others.  This course has inspired me to think specifically about clarity of directions, the use of peer feedback as a performance review, and the role of Bloom’s taxonomy in building courses and designing activities.

Part Two: Assess Your Performance

Content

Rich in content, full of thought, insight and synthesis with clear connections to previous or current content and/or to real life situations made with depth and detail. 70/70

Readings and Resources

Readings (from course text) and other resource materials are used to support blog comments. APA style is used to cite references. 18/20

Timeline

All required postings are made early in the module to give others time to comment. 18/20

Responses to Other Students

Two or more substantial posts with at least one detailed response made to address another students’ post. 27/30