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. 

The Role of the Technology Integrator

The technology integrator has a lot of responsibilities. Administration, teachers, students, and parents may all have different expectations regarding technology integration in the classroom. The technology integrator needs to be able to gauge the level at which all the different community members embrace technology and they need to advocate for, coordinate, and provide professional development in technology accordingly. 

Professional development in technology is extremely important. Technology has advanced rapidly, including in the world of education, and some teachers are not comfortable using it in their classroom at all. They need training so that they can educate their students in the most effective way possible. “Expectations for graduates entering the job market have changed considerably” (Meltzer, 2012, p. 2). The U.S. Department of Education has even created a National Education Technology Plan – a product of the Framework for 21^st Century Learning (Meltzer, 2012, p. 3). With all of this coming down the pipeline, it is becoming impossible to ignore the need for professional development in technology. Technology is only going to continue to advance. Students are expected to be competent with technology. Teachers need to be able to model that.

Professional development in technology should not end with instructions on how to use a technology tool or software. Educators must also explore the “pedagogical principles that will guide their use of technology for teaching and learning” (Okojie, Olinzock, & Okojie-Boulder). If teachers “perceive technology in education as part of the pedagogical process,” they will use technology in a more meaningful way (Okojie et al.).

When trying to implement technology programs and trainings that not only teach educators how to use technology, but also how to use it effectively, schools and the technology integration specialist are sometimes faced with challenges. 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.

References

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

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.