Course Reflection

Going into this course, I already knew about a lot of technology tools that can be used in the classroom. I had learned a lot from my personal teaching experiences and from previous courses. However, I learned about even more technology tools for education by completing assignments and by collaborating with my classmates throughout this course. For example, in one assignment we enhanced a lesson by integrating technology, and then we worked with each other to improve our lessons. The lesson that I modified was on the Fibonacci sequence. My classmate, Amanda Goguen, helped me make these modifications. In the improved lesson, the teacher would use an interactive whiteboard to provide students with a visual of the Fibonacci sequence in action, and the students would use Google Slides, Prezi, Powtoon, or any other approved technology tool to create a final presentation. Powtoon was new to me. I used it for the first time during this course. We did a lot of assignments like this, and we commented on each other’s work all the time, whether we posted it on Blackboard, on our own blogs, or on the class wiki. I took a lot from all of these learning experiences and from my classmates’ comments and suggestions.

For the most part, though, I learned about the role of the technology integrator. “Technology integrators need to focus on providing technology options for students and training for their colleagues” (SNHU, 2014). Technology integrators need to create technology plans, they need to budget for and purchase technology, and they need to provide professional development to administration, staff, and students, ensuring that everyone is meeting the ISTE Standards. “Maintaining a strong district technology plan along with a continuously evolving professional development plan will strengthen the integration of technology throughout a school” (SNHU, 2014). In this course, we researched the costs of educational technology, we constantly reviewed and referred to the ISTE Standards, and we even created a professional development plan.

Professional development is an extremely important part of the technology integrator's job. Many teachers know bits and pieces about integrating technology, but they have yet to put it all together. It is up to the technology integrator to train teachers on effective use of technology in the classroom. I’m going to refer back to my very first blog post here - When the same old methods are “used to train teachers in employing technology, the end result is often frustration, negative attitudes, and a sentiment of ‘this too shall pass’” (Meltzer, 2012, p. 3). Not all teachers have enough of a knowledge base to learn about technology the same way they’ve learned about other aspects of education. A new approach for professional development in technology is required to really help teachers. Sarah T. Meltzer’s book Professional Development in Technology provides just that – a new, step-by-step approach. - When I created this post, I was convinced that we had to change the way we train teachers in technology. However, I did not yet know what that would entail. We have since gone through Sarah Meltzer’s approach, step-by-step. We created a needs assessment survey in Google Forms, a pre-planning worksheet, an authorized use policy, a professional development plan, and a training schedule template. A technology integrator would have to go through the same process to truly prepare for and offer effective professional development on technology.

References

Meltzer, S. (2012). Professional Development in Technology. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

SNHU. (2014). EDU 641 Module Ten Overview – Perfecting the Craft. Retrieved from https://bb.snhu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4766961-dt-content-rid-9925264_1/courses/EDU-641-15TW2-MASTER/EDU-641-14TW4-MASTER/edu_641_module10_overview.pdf

BYOD

For the age group that I work with (high school students), I am in favor of a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy. Most high school students have their own mobile devices, whether it be a smart phone, an iPod touch, or a tablet. Furthermore, they are old enough to use their devices responsibly. I can also see a BYOD policy working for middle school students. However, I would expect it to be a challenge to implement with elementary school students. Younger children do not all have mobile devices, and more parental concerns may arise if younger children are using mobile devices at school.

Implementing a BYOD policy has a lot of pros. A BYOD policy “is a way for schools to integrate technology with little to no budgetary concerns” (SNHU, 2014). Furthermore, technology and electronics are not going anywhere. Therefore, we might as well use them to enhance our students’ education. “Students could become more engaged in academics because their favorite toys are linked to what they do in school” (Fingal, 2012). One other small, but significant, advantage is that in many instances it is easier to have students simply use their personal devices as opposed to going to a computer lab or signing out and wheeling a laptop cart to your room.

However, there are “concerns that schools must consider prior to implementing a BYOD policy” (SNHU, 2014). Some questions to consider include “will the school have enough bandwidth,” “can the school’s filtering system work on all devices,” and “who is responsible for the personal devices brought to school” (SNHU, 2014). In addition to these logistics, certain expectations and policies would have to be put in place. Students would be expected to use their devices solely for educational purposes. For the policy to be effective, there would have to be strict guidelines and consistent consequences. Depending on the severity of the violation, and the amount of times the student has violated the rules, students may have their mobile devices confiscated for a class period, a school day, or until a parent or guardian comes to retrieve it. Students may also lose technology privileges altogether if warranted.  

While it may seem like implementing a BYOD policy has a lot of cons, I believe it is still worth it. In fact, I wouldn’t even consider all of the above concerns cons. I believe that a well-planned policy could be very successful, as long as students, staff, and parents are provided with training on responsible technology use and on the policy itself. The school administrators would have to inform parents of the new policy. They could send home documentation, put it on the school website, and/or hold an informational assembly. The responsibility for training staff and students would fall on the technology integration specialist. “Professional development surrounding the policy, along with creating an authorized use policy for students, should be the technology integration specialist’s main focus” (SNHU, 2014). The training and acceptable use policy should “address negative behaviors that are sometimes associated with these technologies, including the use of technology tools in bullying, along with self-destructive behavior and poor decision-making” (Nagel, 2012). Staff training should also include effective ways that teachers can use mobile devices in the classroom. As long as all concerns are addressed and proper training is provided beforehand, and the acceptable use policy is accurately revised, then a BYOD policy could have a real positive impact on a school.

References

Nagel, D. (2012). Banning is Not the Answer to Mobile and Social Tools in Schools. The Journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2012/04/11/banning-is-not-the-answer-to-mobile-and-social-tools-in-schools.aspx.

Fingal, D. (2012). Is BYOD the Answer to Our Problems or the Worse Idea Ever? Learning & Leading with Technology. Retrieved from http://technologycourses.wiki. mtnbrook.k12.al.us/file/view/BYODSolutionoProblem.pdf.

SNHU. (2014). EDU 641 Module Seven Overview – Personal Learning Devices. Retrieved from https://bb.snhu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4766931-dt-content-rid-9925262_1/courses/EDU-641-15TW2-MASTER/EDU-641-14TW4-MASTER/edu_641_module7_overview.pdf.

Technology Reflection

I recently created a budget matrix that included five lesson ideas and potential issues for each lesson, depending on the technology available in the classroom. Creating this matrix allowed me to see how different lesson ideas and different technology configurations may lend themselves to a higher order of thinking, and how they relate to Bloom’s taxonomy in general.

With just one Mac Mini and a projector in the classroom, students have fewer opportunities to demonstrate higher levels of thinking. One type of lesson that only requires a computer and projector is a game of jeopardy. In a whole-class game of jeopardy students simply select the correct answer, and prove that they “remember previously learned information” (Bloom’s Taxonomy). However, the teacher could try to create questions that require students to compare, explain, and justify. Furthermore, it is always nice to have a projector and/or a smartboard in the classroom. It is easier to engage students with visuals, presentations, videos, etc.

The more computers that are available to students, the easier it should be for them to reach higher levels of thinking. If students had access to computers, they could create their own presentations in Prezi, design a house on Google SketchUp, and write blog posts on Wikispaces. By completing activities like these, students would be able to prove that they can apply, analyze, synthesize, and even evaluate information. With 10 iMacs or 25 Google Chromebooks, students may have to share. That is the biggest con of these configurations. However, with 30 iMacs, they would all be able to have their own computer. Another option is to have students bring in their own device. A mobile device could work well for some activities, like a survey or quick quiz on Poll Everywhere. However, you can run into an abundance of issues when you ask your students to bring their own device. They may not have one, they may forget to charge it, the screens are small, and mobile devices do not work well with all sites. All of these configurations do not include a projector. While it is not exactly a con, it is worth noting that without a projector, visual displays may need to be “distributed around the room,” and “students themselves will need to utilize and control the technology, as much or more than the instructor” (Leiboff, 2010).

The budgeting portion of the budget matrix assignment made it clear that purchasing Google Chromebooks is the most cost-effective choice. This wasn’t entirely surprising to me. My previous school chose to purchase Chromebooks as a part of a 1-1 initiative for that exact reason. I used the Chromebooks in my classroom a lot. I loved them and I think my students did too. We have Dell laptops at my new job, and I definitely prefer the Chromebooks over the Dells. They are great products and the price is right!

References

Bloom’s Taxonomy Action Verbs. Retrieved from http://www.clemson.edu/assessment/ assessmentpractices/referencematerials/documents/Blooms%20Taxonomy%20Action%20Verbs.pdf.

Leiboff, M. (2010). Rethinking Classroom Design Guidelines. Campus Technology.Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/06/02/rethinking-classroom-design-guidelines.aspx.

Data Assessment

I used Google Sheets to organize the data for an assessment given to a middle school math class. I hadn’t used Google Sheets before, so I had to look up how to do some things. However, I found that it worked very well. I especially like that it automatically saves to Google Drive and keeps a revision history. This came in handy when I didn’t like some changes that I had made and just wanted to revert back to what I originally had. In order to make the spreadsheets, I started by copying the data into one big chart and organized it by student name, question number, standard identifier, correct answer, and student response. I also included a column that stated whether the standard was met or not. With this data, I created a few pivot tables. One is a summary of all the data. It is color coded green if the student met the standard and red if the student did not meet the standard. Color-coding did help to identify problem areas. A column that is mainly colored red shows that a specific student did not meet many standards, and is struggling overall. A row that is mainly colored red shows that most students did not meet that standard. The table also gives, on the far right, the number of students and percent of students that met each standard. The other two tables give groups of students that met each standard and groups of students that did not meet each standard. Teachers are provided with data like this all the time. It is really important that they actually use it, especially since “data collection is essential to implementing any school-based intervention” (Helping Teachers to Structure, n.d).

A teacher could easily use this data to group students either heterogeneously or homogeneously. She could create groups of students of mixed abilities, and have students who met certain standards help those students who did not meet the standards. For example, when working on something that addresses standard M:01:NO:6.2 (S), she could group Zamsung and Zancy with Zoran, Zhield, Zirii, and Zon with Zuitar, and she could group Zoerelda, Zucy, and Zup with Zyntar. A teacher could also choose to keep students who met the standards together and students who did not meet the standards together. That way, she could focus on providing intervention to struggling students and provide students who are excelling with an opportunity to work together and extend their thinking on the content discussed in the standards.

This data also points to standards that the teacher may not have taught, may need to re-teach, and standards the teacher did a great job teaching. Only 8.33% of students met standard M:01:NO:6.4 (S): Accurately solves problems involving single or multiple operations on fractions (proper, improper, and mixed), or decimals; and addition or subtraction of integers; percent of a whole; or problems involving greatest common factor or least common multiple. With such a low number of students meeting this standard, it is highly possible that the teacher did not fully cover the material listed. I would recommend the teacher plan to cover more of these topics. Furthermore, only 41.67% of students met standards M:02:GM:6.6 (S) and M:03:FA:6.1 (S). I would recommend the teacher re-teach this material, using a different strategy than the one previously employed. For example, the teacher could try using Geometer’s Sketchpad to re-teach the geometry standard, or she could guide students through the material as they design their own house with certain area and volume requirements on Google SketchUp. On the other hand, 91.67% of students met standard M:03:FA:6.2 (S). I’d tell the teacher she should keep using whatever strategies she used to teach this material! Finally, I’d recommend the teacher make sure to share “identified strengths and weaknesses with the teacher who will be working with those students in the next grade level” (Logan, 2014). It is always a good idea to keep an open line of communication with other teachers. It is also important to remember that these are just suggestions! The teacher should get “multiple sources of data validating a pattern of need” before drastically changing their instructional practices (Logan, 2014).

References

Helping teachers to structure their classroom (tier 1) data collection. (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2014 from http://www.interventioncentral.org/response_to_intervention _structuring _teacher_ data_collection.

Logan, L. (2014). 5 ways to use data to improve your teaching. Retrieved December 21, 2014 from http://www.amplify.com/viewpoints/5-ways-to-use-data-to-improve-yourteaching.

Presentation on Technology Integration

Here is the link to my PowToon Presentation on Technology Integration.

Professional Development Needs Assessment

Here is the link to my Google Form. It is geared to the high school that I work at.

TPACK

TPACK stands for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. It is “the intersection of teachers’ knowledge of curriculum content, general pedagogies, and technologies” (Harris & Hofer, 2009). Teachers need to be knowledgeable in all three of these areas in order to use technology to effectively teach their content. It is a given that teachers should be experts in their content area, and that they should know how to teach the material. However, educators must also explore the “pedagogical principles that will guide their use of technology for teaching and learning” (Okojie, Olinzock, & Okojie-Boulder). Teachers could implement the TPACK model into their classrooms by applying a “systematic and judicious selection of technologies and teaching/learning strategies” when planning instruction (Harris & Hofer, 2009). I always plan a week in advance. I start by writing the main goals for each class. Then, I go back through and think about different technologies I could use for instructional purposes, and different technologies my students could use to explore a concept or demonstrate competency in a concept. If I can think of or find a technology tool that will enhance the lesson, then I plan on implementing it. I don’t use technology in especially creative ways every single day, but when I do, my students respond in a very positive manner. Often, the chosen technology tool enhances the lesson and engages my students.

While it is undoubtedly a good idea for teachers to develop their TPACK and implement the TPACK model, some may encounter some obstacles along the way. I think the biggest challenge some teachers face is that they are not comfortable implementing technology in their classroom. A lot of teachers don’t have technological content knowledge, nevermind technological pedagogical content knowledge. If a teacher does not know much about technology, then they would have a very difficult time trying to choose technology tools that would enhance their lessons. While professional development could help with this problem, it may not entirely solve it. Teachers often learn about technology tools in isolation during professional development time. This leaves them with the struggle of figuring out how they could apply it to their subject area and their classes. I have been to many faculty meetings that share new technology tools for education. However, we have never discussed the pedagogical principles behind the technology use. “Applying TPACK to the task of teaching with technology requires a context-bound understanding of technology, where technologies may be chosen and repurposed to fit the very specific pedagogical and content-related needs of diverse educational contexts” (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, Rosenberg, 2013).

The Instructional Planning Activities Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development paper provides some possible technology tools that can be used for different types of activities. For example, if you’d like students to have a group discussion, you could have them use Blackboard, Wikispakces, or e-boards. If you need to review with your students, you could use personal response systems (PRS), Jeopardy, or SurveyMonkey (Harris & Hofer, 2009). This list provides suggestions that could work for every core curricular subject. This list is especially helpful because it provides the activity type first, and then lists different technologies that could work for that activity. This list is a great tool for teachers to use when implementing the TPACK model and methodically choosing technologies and teaching/learning strategies. I know I will be referring to it as an additional resource when making my weekly plans!

References

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TP ACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE). Retrieved from http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/HarrisHofer-TPACKActivityTypes.pdf.

Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Akcaoglu, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2013). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework for Teachers and Teacher Educators. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia. Retrieved from http://cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/ICT%20teacher%20education%20Module%201%20Final_May%2020.pdf.

Okojie, M., Olinzock, A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. The Pedagogy of Technology Integration. The Journal of Technology Studies. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v32/ v32n2/okojie.html.