Posted in 5.1 Problem Analysis, 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation, 5.4 Long-Range Planning, 501 Introduction to Educational Technology

School Evaluation Project

For my organization assessment I measure the district and local school site using the Maturity Benchmark Model. This rubric model offers evaluation of a schools technology adoption and integration under five different filters including: Connectivity, Administration, Curricular, Support, and Innovation.  This project addresses the AECT standards 5 in the following ways.

STANDARD 5: EVALUATION

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to evaluate the adequacy of instruction and learning by applying principles of problem analysis, criterion-referenced measurement, formative and summative evaluation, and long-range planning.

  • 5.1 Problem Analysis
    Problem analysis involves determining the nature and parameters of the problem by using information-gathering and decision-making strategies.

 

  • 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation
    Formative evaluation involves gathering information on adequacy and using this information as a basis for further development. Summative evaluation involves gathering information on adequacy and using this information to make decisions about utilization.

 

  • 5.4 Long-Range Planning
    Long-range planning that focuses on the organization as a whole is strategic planning….Long-range is usually defined as a future period of about three to five years or longer. During strategic planning, managers are trying to decide in the present what must be done to ensure organizational success in the future.

School Demographics
ABC Elementary School is Title 1 School located in coastal Georgia. The school was built 15 years ago and is nearing its capacity of 700 students. The average class size is 25. The principal is in his second year of leadership.

School Background
Five years ago the district received $300 million in funding from a ESPLOST (Education Specialize Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) to make physical structure improvements to school buildings. As a result schools in the district have a 5:1 ratio of students to computers. The school was part of a redistricting at the end of the 2009 school year creating a surge in population primarily of Hispanics in pre-k and kindergarten.

About the Evaluation Summary
The summary is organized in order from tier one, or top “emergent” or “island” priorities to lower tier two priorities or “integrated” or “intelligent” ratings. The principal of ABC school as well as the Networking Engineer, Director or Technology and Media Integration, and multiple teachers were consulted on this survey.

Overall Ratings
1. Administrative Integrated
2. Support Emergent
3. Curricular Emergent
4. Connectivity Intelligent
5. Innovation Integrated

Tier I Priority: Emergent or Island rating.
Support-Emergent

Stakeholder

  • Behavior= Island.
  • Resource/ Infrastructure= Emergent

Summary: The Technology Planning Committee consists of 4 member: Chief Data & Information Officer, Networking Engineer, Director of Curriculum & Instruction, Director of Technology and Media Integration. The original 5 year EPLOST technology use plan was designed by these individuals and voted on by the board of education. Future planning should involvement key stakeholders including: parents, administration, teacher, students, business partners, and community members.

Admin Support = Island

Summary: This rating scale should be redefined to be more specific. Statements like limited support, peripheral involvement, ongoing discussions, and extensive involvement must be clearly defined to be measured accurately. In my survey, I specified how often and the way in which administration is involved in district wide technology use planning. For example, were they involved in pre-planning survey, brainstorming, drafting, or pre- publication previews? Additionally, how much time is set aside for planning and implementation support? What kind of support systems, if any are in place?
I found administration is not directly involved in any of the long-term district wide planning outside of their schools. Principals and district staff may share ideas about how to use technology informally. However, there is no process in place or dedicated time for technology use planning.

Tier II Priority: Integrated Rating
Support

Training

  • Behavior= Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure= Intelligent

Technology & Infrastructure Support

  • Behavior= Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure= Intelligent

Summary: The district requires staff to attend many technology trainings such as Power Teacher for grading and attendance and integration of new CPS clickers. Other trainings like Neos, use of Moodle and website development are optional. Some training includes stipends to encourage staff to participate. The district provides all formal technology training. Training is introductory in nature and follow-up trainings on new technology are provided on certain types of technology like the district grading software. The Media technology coordinator has conducted two school professional development sessions over the course of three years. One consideration that should be taken to account teachers movement from positions and grade levels year to year and often miss trainings that have are relevant.
The district is outfitted with a Help Desk for tech support issues Monday-Friday. Most staff utilizes formal support provided by the district in terms of training and maintenance. Grade level teams share information both formally and informally about curriculum, data, and planning in their classroom. Information about how technology is being used often comes up in these conversations though there is no requirement that technology use is discussed formally.

Administration

Policy

  • Behavior = Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure = Intelligent

Planning

  • Behavior = Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure = Integrated

Budget

  • Behavior= Intelligent
  • Resource/ Infrastructure = Integrated

Administrative Information

  • Behavior= Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure= Intelligent.

Summary: A formalized process has been integrated to use technology to maintain grades, take attendance, communicate through email with other staff members, and manage the library and cafeteria management systems. In addition, the district’s acceptable use policy describing how students and faculty can use the school equipment are available online.  However some systems such as tardiness, students excuses overlap between paper and electronic processing.

The school’s Yearly Improvement Plan is reviewed by the district and must be aligned with district initiatives. School-wide comprehensive planning receives informal review also because it is often connected to school-wide funding. Schools often look to the district and adopt technologies they have recommended. There is no formal review and no opportunity for faculty to view how technology adoptions are related to other planning in the school or district. Janitors, long-term subs don’t have access to email. Long term subs can’t access gradebook, attendance, copiers, or email. All students 1-5 access computers for 40 minutes 2 times per week. Free internet activities and school purchase

Curricular

Electronic Information

  • Behavior= Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure = Integrated

Assessment

  • Behavior = Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure = Integrated

Curriculum Integration

  • Behavior = Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure = Intelligent

Teacher Use

  • Behavior = Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure = Intelligent

Student Use

  • Behavior = Integrated
  • Resource/Infrastructure = Integrated

Summary: Teachers use technology in their daily activities to email, read district news, access standards and curriculum maps. Teachers also use Power School for grades and benchmarks assessment are scored electronically. Teachers in 2nd and 4th grade use Study Island to assess student needs based on standard area. Assessment reporting tools are integrated within products like this but are not integrated into the students’ personal records or year-to-year reporting. Many free Internet activities are also accessible but not all teachers seek them out or use them. Curriculum and instruction are not dependent upon technology.
Students access programs paid for through the district like Brainpop, Education City, Study Island, and United Streaming. All students grades 1-5 access computers for 40 minutes 2 times per week. The Internet provides resources on every area covered by standards. Not all classrooms have access to student computers or computer projection systems and student performance outcomes are not hinged on use of technology. The district purchases equipment for test grade levels first and then purchases equipment on an as needs basis for other grade levels.

Innovation

New Technologies

  • Behavior= Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure= Integrated

Comprehensive Technologies

  • Behavior= Integrated
  • Resource/ Infrastructure= Integrated

Summary: Many staff members accept new technologies. Experimentation could happen during planning periods, or while instructing students. However no systems are in place for surveying teachers to find out how often or how they integrate technology into their daily instruction.

Connectivity-Intelligent

Local Area Network

  • Behavioral: Intelligent
  • Resource/Infrastructure: Intelligent

District Area Network

  • Behavioral: Intelligent
  • Resource/Infrastructure: Intelligent

Internet Access

  • Behavioral: Integrated
  • Resource/Infrastructure: Intelligent

Communication Systems

  • Behavioral: Intelligent
  • Resource/Infrastructure: Intelligent

Summary: Staff use available networks for practice activities for students and content delivery. The use differs between faculty depending on their comfort level. All computers are connected with high-speed access to all working environments. comprehensive and expandable for data, voice, and video according to District Network Engineer.

 

 

Posted in 3.1 Media Utilization, 5.3 Formative and Summative Evaluation, EVALUATION, UTILIZATION

Course 541 “Integrating Technology into the Curriculum”

Course Work


Blogs

  1. Vision Statement
  2. Relative Advantage of Instructional Software
  3. Video Blog – Advantages of Hypermedia
  4. Voicethread on Social Networking
  5. Internet Safety
  6. Integrating Technology Into the Content Area
  7. Assessing Two Students’ Final Projects
  8. Final Course Reflection
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

Posted in 1.2 Message Design, 3.4 Policies and Regulations, 5.4 Long-Range Planning, DESIGN, EVALUATION, UTILIZATION

Internet Saftey

Acceptable Use Policies

Acceptable Use Policies, or AUP, can be likened to the “Terms of Service” agreements people sign off on when they access online software. The intention of the AUP is provide a framework for specific information security standards. AUP’s should be succinct, yet also cover how users are and aren’t able to use the IT system. With the rapid pace of technological advancements, the trick for many organizations is to find the balance between excessively restrictive policies and those that fall short of their legal obligations.

The purpose of AUPs is two fold. The first is to protect people in a learning environment from malicious material. The second purpose is to open doors for students to learn and teachers to teach. Keeping AUPs aligned with web 2.0 tools requires constant attention. Some districts update AUPs when the Technology Plan is drafted. Others update yearly, and still others update multiple times in a single year. Some districts use generic language to allow their policies encompass new products.

Tips for Covering the bases with AUPs

  • Consistent enforcement among all staff and faculty
  • Clearly define if tools will be used as learning tools or personal tools
  • Specifically define how certain tools should be used such as a common class Google accounts or material recorded on cameras.
  • Compel all parents and teachers to know, teach, and enforce the districts AUPs.
  • Compose a copy of computer use rules at age appropriate levels in all computer labs.
  • Use computer lab rules that answer “how,” “who” and “when” to adapt to the changing technological landscape.

Here are some examples of AUPs that tackle mobile learning in different ways:

Speers Point Public School Mobile Phone Policy

Mercer County Mobile Device Acceptable Use Policy

Broward County School and District Technology Use

Chatham County Acceptable Policy Use

Resources

Consortium for School Networking. (Sept. 2011). Acceptable use policies in the web 2.0 and mobile era. Learning, Leadership & Policy A CoSn Leadership Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org/Default.aspx?tabid=8139

Scrogan, L. (Jul. 2007) AUPs in a web 2.0 world. EDTECH Focus on K12. Retrieved from http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2007/07/aups-in-a-web-20-world

Nagel, D. (Jan. 2011). A better approach to AUP’s for mobile devices: 5 questions with Anthony luscre. The Journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2011/01/06/a-better-approach-to-aups-for-mobile-devices-5-questions-with-anthony-luscre.aspx

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, 3.1 Media Utilization, 3.2 Diffusion of Innovations, 3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization, 4.3 Delivery System Management, 4.4 Information Management, 5.4 Long-Range Planning, All, DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, EVALUATION, MANAGEMENT, UTILIZATION

Multimedia Integration In the Classroom

The following are a collection of videos to help teachers see what technology integration looks like in the classroom and how it is transforming the learning process. Please be aware the Ted Talk videos do not have a stop play button so you will need to exit out of the site when they finished.

What Technology Integration Looks Like In Elementary School

Meet the faculty at Forest Lake Elementary in Columbia, SC. Starting as techno- novices, they now use customizable software, interactive whiteboards, digital cameras, and more to tailor lessons to the individual needs of diverse students. To see more exciting reports from our Schools that Work series, please visit our website: http://www.edutopia.org/stw-differentiated-instruction-south-carolina

What Technology Integration Looks Like in High School

The DNA of Learning: Teens Tackle Animal Poaching Through Genetics

Eleventh-grade biotechnology students use DNA barcoding to help save endangered African wildlife.

 

Twelfth grade students use Google docs to collaborate on a group science paper. They use scholarly research searches, power point, video and sound clips, blogs, and ScyncronEyes to broadcast to other students computer screens.

Technology Integration with Google Drive

Team Teaching: Two Teachers, Three Subjects, One Project

A pair of educators are sanguine about their art, biology, and multimedia program.

Teaching Kids Real Math With Computers

Conrad Wolfram who runs the mathematical lab and research division behind cutting-edge knowledge engine Wolfram Alpha make an argument teaching real world math in school and leaving computation to computers.

What Technology Integration Looks Like In the Abroad

The Child-Driven Education

Education scientist Sugata Mitra tackles one of the greatest problems of education — the best teachers and schools don’t exist where they’re needed most. In a series of real-life experiments from New Delhi to South Africa to Italy, he gave kids self-supervised access to the web and saw results that could revolutionize how we think about teaching.

Technology Innovation in Slums

Charles Leadbeater, a researcher with the think tank Demos in London, looks at effective education innovation in slums around the world.

What Could A One-to-One Education Look Like?

Electronic TextBooks
Envision electronic textbooks the way Apple sees them.

Technology Integration from CaseNEX on Vimeo.

The 100-Student Classroom

In the fall of 2011 Peter Norvig taught a class with Sebastian Thrun on artificial intelligence at Stanford attended by 175 students in situ — and over 100,000 via an interactive webcast. He shares what he learned about teaching to a global classroom.

Building Bridges with Parents

A Lake Forest Elementary parent demonstrates how technology is keeping her connected with her child’s learning.

What About Games In Education?
How Games Play into Educaiton

We’re bringing gameplay into more aspects of our lives, spending countless hours — and real money — exploring virtual worlds for imaginary treasures. Why? As Tom Chatfield shows, games are perfectly tuned to dole out rewards that engage the brain and keep us questing for more.

Sasha Barab on New-Media Engagement

A professor of learning sciences at Indiana University explains how new-media literacies are creating new opportunities for student participation.

Lesson Plan

This plan is meant to accompany the Building Bridges with Parents video.

 

Posted in 5.2 Criterion-Referenced Measurement, EVALUATION

Developing Effective Technology Plans

Letter EThink of technology as the water that fills in the shapes of our imaginations. Technology use planning is about shaping a vision and leveraging innovation to make it happen. At worse, these plans are a narrow in overview, outlining types or a number of gadgets that should be acquired by a school or district. At best, it is both a plan and a process (Anderson)–a process that harnesses ideas into a collective consciousness and exemplifies problem solving with innovation.

John See, author of the article “Developing Effective Technology Plans,” argues that technology plans should not cover the scope of more than one year. On one hand, See makes his case by pointing out that in a year from now we don’t know what technologies will exist. On the other hand, Mr. See also says “effective plans focus on application, not technology.” If this is true, then application objectives should drive vision and not the other way around. If a technology plan attempts to tackle some of the more serious weakness in the educational system as outlined in initiatives like Race to the Top, I would argue, planning less than year is hardly adequate time to adopt and evaluate worthwhile innovations.

To illustrate, last year our district implemented the Georgia RESA Assessment of Student Progress, or GRASP testing, intended to progress monitor students in basic reading and math skills k-12. This year, GRASP is no where on the district agenda. For a success of a year-to-year data collection program to be measured or beneficial it must be maintained, analyzed, and evaluated over the course of several years. When the use of such a tool isn’t mandated, and teachers don’t know how to access or use the information, the tool becomes virtually useless.

The downfall in a technology use plans is a plan that focuses on adoption rather than implementation and evaluation. Before implementation we must ask what practice are we trying to improve? How will this technology support that goal? What benchmarks will we use to determine the success of an adoption? And perhaps most importantly, how will the adoption of this technology will improve learning? If I’m using a computer projector in my class in the same way I used an old school light projector, what’s changed? Nothing. If I’m using clickers to speed up grading but not adapting my instruction based on what I’ve learned, again, nothing has changed.

dusty keyboardIn my school we have adopted web programs, typing equipment, computer projectors, Promethean boards, headphones, and camera equipment many of which are infrequently used to maximize learning. Reasons range from lack of training, fear of equipment, fear of equipment breaking, or in some cases, teachers not even knowing they are there. This year’s adoption was Neo keyboards. Currently, four of five grade level sets sit gathering dust. Who ordered them? What was their intended purpose? How do we use them?

New technology trainings focus on the bells and the whistles of the equipment. Yet we tend to miss the essential question. How are we improving the way we teach and the way students learn? If we don’t follow up to find out how teachers and students are answering this question then, I argue, money spent on new equipment is not money spent wisely.

When I started teaching four years ago, what stood out to me was how dated information management systems were compared to every other field I’d worked in. Even at the auto repair shop, I could look up the history of a vehicle to see every oil change, every diagnosis, quote, test-drives notes, and replaced part by brand and model with the click of a few buttons. But the information on my kids was more elusive. What did an 86% in math tell me about someones needs? I wanted concrete information on what my students knew and needed. Who were they as learners? What strategies maximize their learning in the past and which ones didn’t?

Wiki Product ImageI also wondered how we could leverage resources. How could new teachers tap into the collective intelligence of the greatest teachers from the past? How would a seasoned professional solve the challenges that I faced as a novice? And still further, I wanted to know how I could personalize learning for students. How could I tap into their knowledge base and inspire them to build on what they already knew? These are still fundamental questions that guide my interest as an educator. My vision for personalized learning in fact, has hardly waivered since my own days as begrudging passive student.

My idea of a technology use plan involves finding solutions to these issues that are still of utmost importance. The Department of Educational Technology acknowledged my concerns in the 2010 National Educational Technology Plan. The plan discusses a shift from promotion based on seat time to promotion based on competency. This would mean a shift in grading methodology and would lead to maintenance of more accurate information on individual student needs.

Personalized LearningThe document also distinguished the difference between individualized learning, which refers to students learning common information at their own pace, differentiated learning, which addresses different modalities, and the ability to personalize learning which takes into account students prior experience, language, culture, as well as pacing and modality. The success of customized consumer experiences has been demonstrated by companies like Amazon, Pandora, Netflix, and Stitcher radio.

The plan goes on to discusses how teachers across the country will share Common Core Standards. This will hopefully lead to a digital warehousing of best practices and expert presenters in core discipline. Not all concepts mentioned in the report were easy a matter of effectively management of information systems however. There also was mention of developing 2.0 assessment, which would include problem solving, critical thinking, and concepts of global participation into student evaluation. The subjective nature of assessing these kinds of skills has always been a challenge, which is why virtually all state tests are fill in the bubble, multiple choice tests. In the past, when faced with the choices of the most effective way or the fastest way to assess students, we’ve opted for speed and efficiency. This leaves me to wonder, when we look back on the transformation of 20th century education system, we will attribute changes to technology use plans and visions of educators, or will simply see disruptive technologies as the butterfly wing that shifted the status quo?

Butterfly-Create ChangeREFERENCES

Anderson, S Larry, The Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan Version 2.0 prepared by students at students at Mississippi State University, 1996

See, John, The Computing Teacher, Vol.19 Number 8, May 1992.

______. National Education Technology Plan 2010 | U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.