Course Reflection

This course has had a profound impact on my work as a technology integration specialist.  I had a concept in mind of what the role of a technology integration specialist is, but this course has helped me to shape how exactly one would fulfill said role.  This course has provided a crucial road map for implementing the role of a technology integration specialist.

I had previously created a needs assessment survey for my staff, but through this course I have edited and improved upon it.  I had never thought to ask questions such as, “How do you plan on utilizing your technology integration specialist?” or, “How do you prefer your professional development to take place?”.  By including questions such as these in my needs assessment survey, I can better plan for the needs of my staff.  I learned that many teachers prefer workshops to virtual webinars, and video tutorials instead of written instructions.

I love the templates from Sarah Meltzer’s book, Step-by-Step Professional Development in Technology.  These templates, especially the long and short term planning guides, have helped me to look at a technology plan as long terms goals, as well as in the form of achievable action plans.  Our school is sorely missing concrete action plans in our technology plan, and I plan on remedying that as we write our new plan for the 2015-2016 school year and beyond.

This course has also solidified my belief that great professional development is the cornerstone for any goal a school may set, especially when those goals are centered around technology.  I can use the resources presented in this course to create a solid professional development plan for my staff.  I've already started this process by steering my administration away from large, whole staff technology training, towards smaller training groups led by different “Super Users”, aka peer teachers who are above proficient at the skill being taught.

With new Common Core Standards being implemented, it is essential that professional development in technology integration continues to be an ongoing process.  At a recent conference I attended by Alan November, he stated that we cannot use new technology with old pedagogy.  The pedagogy must be updated as well.  Likewise, with these new common core standards lend themselves so well to learning deeper with an emphasis on real life problem solving using technology.  We cannot teach the new standards using old, teacher centered pedagogy, and we cannot integrate technology successfully if we are still going to teach the same old way.  “The new standards will require teaching techniques that are substantially different from practices that are in place today, and it will take time not just to teach those techniques but to give teachers a chance to implement them effectively” (Nagel, 2013).  Let’s give our teachers not only the tools, but the time to implement these changes successfully.

Works Cited

Meltzer, Sarah T. Step-by-step Professional Development in Technology. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education, 2012. Print.

"Report: Effective Teacher Professional Development Crucial to Common Core -- THE Journal." Report: Effective Teacher Professional Development Crucial to Common Core -- THE Journal. Web. 01 Feb. 2015. <http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/09/10/report-effective-teacher-professional-development-crucial-to-common-core.aspx>.

BYOD: Bring You Own Distraction?

I do not believe that a BYOD policy is the panacea we are looking for in education’s attempt to bring learning into the 21st century.  This does not mean, however, I think we should ban the devices entirely from the classroom.  I believe teachers should play a role in teaching students how to use technology responsibly, and in order to achieve this, students should not need to leave their devices at home.  There can be many teachable moments when students use their own devices in class, like teaching students how to use smartphone apps to make flash cards or showing them the latest app for language learning.  

My fear, however, which was illustrated in the Bloggers Beat article entitled, “Is BYOD the Answer to Our Problems or the Worst Idea Ever”, is that an official BYOD policy would make it acceptable to decrease funding to our schools in the area of technology.   As Gary S. Stager states in his response to, “Should students use their own devices in the classroom?”, “BYOD contributes to the growing narrative that education is not worthy of investment…If we placate those who slash budgets by making unreasonable compromises at the expense of children, we will find even fewer resources down the road.  We must not view education as some ‘every man for himself’ enterprise that relies on children to find loose change behind the sofa cushions.”  Other similar views on the subject point to the fact that if students were allowed to bring their own devices, the learning would be relegated to the least powerful device in the class.  How could a teacher ask students to use Powerpoint if half of the class chooses to bring in smartphones?  Or how could a teacher possibly troubleshoot 25 different devices?

BYOD is great for quick clicker activities and looking up information, but definitely not for activities that delve into the deeper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.  To echo my opening statement, classrooms should be open to BYOD, but it should not be the mandate.  In order for this to work, the school must first have a dedicated student wireless that is separate from what teachers or the public may have access to. I also believe that this should begin, at the earliest, in middle school when students are really getting into their devices and is a critical time to teach responsible use.  This does not mean that students should have devices on their desks at all times.  The expectation would be that students ask permission to use their device, or the teacher has given the class to use devices for a certain project.  Perhaps students are working on a poster and they want to use their cell phone to look up facts and bring up pictures to model their drawings on.  Maybe other students are using a class computer to put together a presentation, but they want to take pictures with their phone to include in the project. The teacher should model this type of use, and show how technology can be used to further learning.  Likewise, the teacher should have their phone out of sight when not being used for such purposes, as should the students.  

A lot of opponents to this policy believe that BYOD could lead to distractions, but I do not believe that needs to be the case.  Any teacher with solid classroom management skills can put procedures in place to ensure students are using their devices appropriately.  For example, the teacher could create a , “Dock your device!”, protocol, and all students would put their devices face down in the upper corner of their desk while the teacher demonstrates something or needs their attention. Any student that touches their device during this time would lose the privilege of using it in class.  Guidelines need to be strict, and follow through is absolutely necessary.  To turn a blind eye to under the desk texting can be detrimental to a functional BYOD classroom.

In summary, schools should be responsible for providing technology that enables students to fulfill the ISTE standards.  Student devices can be used to supplement this curriculum, but their use needs to be modeled and not mandated.  With this type of classroom, teachers can encourage students to use their personal devices for things other than social media and texting.  It allows students to show critical thinking skills and problem solve while under the guidance of their teacher.  If the devices are not being used appropriately, there must be consequences and follow through.  Using devices in class teaches students how to optimize their use in the real world. BYOD, however, is not the solution to creating that golden 1:1 ratio of student to computer.  And yes, student to computer.  Phones and tablets do not have the full functionality and opportunity for creativity that a computer has to offer.

Sources

Fingal, D. (2012, February 1). Is BYOD the Answer to Our Problems or the Worst Idea Ever? Learning and Leading with Technology, 5-8. 

Budget Matrix, Blooms, and Technology Integration

Blooms Taxonomy is a great road map for the gradual release for responsibility to our students.  Ultimately, we want our students to be able to engage in learning processes through which they are responsible for their own learning.  They are the ones investigating and discovering knowledge, while simultaneously teaching and assisting their peers.  Blooms helps us to take our students from simple tasks such as labeling, identifying, and locating, to more complex learning processes such as solving, analyzing, and creating.  

Imagine two different assessments.  One asks the students, “To where did Lois and Clark travel?” and gives the students some multiple choice options.  A second assessment states, “Using Google Maps, plot out the different places Lois and Clark traveled to.  Drop at least 5 different pins, and explain what happened in those areas during their journey.  Use pictures, text or video to tell the story of their journey.  Now, which one of these assessments best tells the teacher if the students have learned about Lois and Clark?  

In today’s classroom, these feats of creation are no longer that-  feats.  They are actually tasks that with thoughtful planning, can be completed in a few class periods.  The ease of which students can complete these assignments, of course, is dependent on the technology configuration of the classroom.  Let’s take a look at how different classroom configurations can allow for students to reach the deeper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

If a classroom setup has only one computer and a projector, this does not lend well to deep Bloom’s level.  This set up allows for teacher direct instruction, where the teacher presents and the students listen.  This set up could lend itself for student presentations as well, but the creation of those presentations could not be done in a classroom with one computer.  In order for students to reach deeper into blooms, they will need to engage in using technology themselves.

If a classroom has a small group of computers, perhaps 10 or so, this will better lend itself to the creation of student knowledge.  At least with this configuration, students can work together to research and create projects.  Working with peers is a very important part of the learning process, and this configuration lends itself well to said group work.  The drawback of this configuration is that it would not allow a teacher to necessarily assess the skills of one particular student, if students were only to engage in group work.

More ideal situations arise when classrooms have access to a computer cart, or a computer lab.  This allows for 1:1 access of devices, which allows each students to unleash their own individual potential.  In my own experience, I have found that one drawback a chromebook would have over a computer in a lab is that one would need to make sure the wireless connection was strong and in working order.  Chromebooks also work off of apps, meaning that traditional software cannot be installed onto them.  Depending on the program being used, the lab could be a more ideal set up.  If working on more traditional assignments, such as papers or presentations, a Chromebook is perfect because it allows students access to all of the different Google Apps for Education.  Chromebooks are also an extremely cost effective solution, allowing students to have a 1:1 environment for only a fraction of the cost of iMacs in a lab.

Lastly, there is the BYOD configuration.  I’ve always been a proponent of this idea, but after completing the budget matrix assignment, I am not sure if it is the best solution to a school’s technology issues.  While this configuration occurs at no cost to the schools (besides having a dedicated student wireless network), the variety of devices students could bring in is just too varied.  I feel that BYOD is great for apps like Kahoot or Socrative, where assessments are made to work on any device.  When it comes to project creation, such as presentations and essays, it is very exhausting to type on smaller devices.  Once would need at least a tablet.  As students get older, they are more likely to have a laptop, which would make a BYOD policy more effective.  At the younger grades, however, when students are more likely to have tablets and smartphones, BYOD may be limited to fun activities like Kahoot or completing digital exit tickets.  Having these technologies in school could also help students by allowing them to take pictures of homework assignments, or complete other similar small tasks.

After evaluating the different configurations, I believe that having Chromebooks is a great, cost effective way to get technology into the hands of every students.  These inexpensive laptops allows students to use all of the Google Apps, which cover a lot of the processes that students engage in at school (writing essays, creating presentations and spreadsheets, and much much more).  As these computers gain more popularity, I have no doubt that their already pretty well stocked app store will continue to grow with educational apps and games for students of all ages.

Spreadsheet Data Analysis using Flubaroo.

For this post, I'd like to share a simplistic way to analyze student data.  Normally when I give a summative exam that contains many multiple choice questions, I will do so using a Google Form.  The beauty of this is that when the students have finished the exam, the teacher now has all of their answers in a spreadsheet.  Now,  Google does a really nice job analyzing data from a Google Form, and will generate different graphs and tables to help one visualize said test results.  I have even stumbled upon a great Google Sites Widget called, "Awesome Tables" that can take any data in spreadsheet form (not just Google Form results) and turn them into detailed graphs and visuals.  Awesome Tables, however, is a post for another time.

Today, I'd like to focus on a simple and effective tool for analyzing student data in spreadsheet form:  Flubaroo.  Flubaroo is a Google Sheets add-on that corrects and grades test results.  For this assignment, the data given was in a PDF format.  I first took that data and made it into a Google Sheet that looked like this:

When using Flubaroo, one should leave the A column blank (That is usually where the time stamp goes on a Google Form).  You will also notice that I added the answer key to the bottom row.  When using Flubaroo, one must have an answer key in the document to choose when you want to grade the results.

Next, I went up to "Add-ons" and selected Flubaroo.  After checking off a few different options, the data was analyzed using the chosen answer key, and then generated onto another tab looking like so:

Here are both of those sheets in one Google Sheet.  Please notice that to get to the graded summary, click on the "Data Sorted" tab at the bottom of the sheet.


You will notice that Flubaroo has added in some important details.  It has summarized:

• Possible points
• The average amount of points scored
• How many submissions there were
• How may low scoring questions there were

Flubaroo has also totaled:

• How many total points each student received
• How those points translate into a percent
• How many times they attempted the exam

Lastly, Flubaroo has colored coded not only students that have scored below 70%, but questions that received less than 60% correct answers.  This allows the teacher to not only quickly ascertain low scoring students that need help, but identify standards that were not addressed thoroughly during instruction. (or possible poorly worded questions).

Check out this video to learn more about the Web 2.0 Tool, Flubaroo.

Now, when one looks at the data on the latter sheet as opposed to the first, the following statistics stand out more readily:

Only half of the students scored more than 70%.  This means that only half of the students could be considered "proficient" on the topic that was being assessed.  

Zinvis, Zuitar, Sirii, Zorelda, Zucy, and Zon have all met the standards with at least a 70% proficiency rating, while Zyntar, Zup, Zancy, Zhield, Zamsung, and Zoran all scored 60% or lower.

 

When looking at the low scoring questions, the teacher could assume that the following standards in red need to be re-addressed and re-taught in another fashion.  These are the standards that are consistent with the low scoring questions.

Standards Assessed

Question #	Standard Identifier	Standard
1	M:01:NO:6.2 (S)	Demonstrates understanding of the relative magnitude of numbers by ordering or comparing numbers with whole number bases and whole number exponents, integers, or rational numbers within and across number formats (fractions, decimals, or whole number percents from 1–100) using number lines or equality and inequality symbols.
2	M:02:GM:6.3 (S)	Uses properties or attributes (shape of bases, number of lateral faces, number of bases, number of edges, or number of vertices) to identify, compare, or describe three-dimensional shapes (rectangular prisms, triangular prisms, cylinders, spheres, pyramids, or cones).
3	M:02:GM:6.6 (S)	Demonstrates conceptual understanding of perimeter of polygons, the area of quadrilaterals or triangles, and the volume of rectangular prisms by using models, formulas, or by solving problems; and demonstrates understanding of the relationships of circle measures (radius to diameter and diameter to circumference) by solving related problems. Expresses all measures using appropriate units.
4	M:02:GM:6.7 (S)	Measures and uses units of measure appropriately and consistently, and makes conversions within systems when solving problems across the content strands.
5	M:03:FA:6.1 (S)	Identifies and extends to specific cases a variety of patterns (linear and nonlinear) represented in models, tables, sequences, graphs, or in problem situations; or writes a rule in words or symbols for finding specific cases of a linear relationship; or writes a rule in words or symbols for finding specific cases of a nonlinear relationship; and writes an expression or equation using words or symbols to express the generalization of a linear relationship (e.g., twice the term number plus 1 or 2n + 1).
6	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.
7	M:03:FA:6.2 (S)	Demonstrates conceptual understanding of linear relationships (y = kx; y = mx + b) as a constant rate of change by constructing or interpreting graphs of real occurrences and describing the slope of linear relationships (faster, slower, greater, or smaller) in a variety of problem situations; and describes how change in the value of one variable relates to change in the value of a second variable in problem situations with constant rates of change.
8	M:03:FA:6.3 (S)	Demonstrates conceptual understanding of algebraic expressions by using letters to represent unknown quantities to write linear algebraic expressions involving any of the four operations and consistent with order of operations expected at this grade level; or by evaluating linear algebraic expressions (including those with more than one variable); or by evaluating an expression within an equation (e.g., determine the value of y when x = 4 given y = 3x – 2).
9	M:03:FA:6.4 (S)	Demonstrates conceptual understanding of equality by showing equivalence between two expressions using models or different representations of the expressions (expressions consistent with the parameters of M:03:FA:6.3), solving multi-step linear equations of the form ax + b = c, where a, b, and c are whole numbers with a not equal to 0.
10	M:04:DSP:6.2 (S)	Analyzes patterns, trends, or distributions in data in a variety of contexts by determining or using measures of central tendency (mean, median, or mode) or dispersion (range) to analyze situations, or to solve problems.

Standard 7 received the highest proficiency rating with all but one students answering its corresponding question correctly.  Conversely, only one student answered the question that corresponded with standard 6 correctly.

From looking at this data, I would proceed by pairing one proficient student with a non-proficient student and have each pair work on a project that will exemplify and teach one of the non-proficient standards.  Since there are 6 groups but only 5 standards that contained low scoring questions, I would have one group repeat standard 6, the lowest scoring standard.

Through this exercise, students would work together to re-teach each of the low scoring standards.  After this mini-project, students will be re-assessed.

In conclusion, Flubaroo is a great tool for quickly sorting student data.  It works even better when the data is already gathered from a Google Form.  It took me a few attempts to input the data from the given PDF so that Flubaroo would read it correctly and not leave any of the students out.  Overall, it is an effective tool for sorting and color coding concrete data for further analysis. 

Technology Integration Tutorial

Technology Assessment Survey

In order to successfully assist teachers in integrating technology into their curricula, one must first assess the needs of the teachers in their community.  Knowing which skills teachers currently posses, and what they wish to accomplish is important information for any Technology Integration Specialist.  Here is an example of a survey that could be used to assess the needs of a teaching community.


Alternate Link

TPACK

TPACK, or Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework model, provides a way for educators to practice technology integration as a fluid, second nature, integral piece of their planning and teaching. It takes the complex practice of teaching, and breaks it down into three interrelated parts: Pedagogy Knowledge, Content Knowledge, and Technological Knowledge. "Teachers must understand how technology, pedagogy, and content interrelate, and create a form of knowledge that goes beyond the three separate knowledge bases" (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg 2013). See Figure one for further explanation of these knowledge bases, and how they interplay with one another in the TPACK model.

figure 1

There have been many different methods created and tested for the implementation of TPACK.  One that will be highlighted here is learning by technology by design and activity types.

TPACK works off of the concept of understanding by design, where it is always important to start with learning standards and outcomes. By keeping the end in mind, educators can select appropriate technologies that support their lesson plans. "In this approach, teacher first formulate goals for students learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). Then, they choose activity types appropriate for the specified goals. Finally, they select specific technologies based upon their choice of activity types"(Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg 2013). Staying true to the TPACK model, this type of implementation strategy sees technology as a tool that aids students in their learning goals. It does not teach technology independently of the learning processes, but rather, integrates it naturally into planning, teaching, and learning.

The difficulty in implementing this model stems from lack of teacher knowledge of what technological tools may be available to them. Teachers have more than a full plate nowadays, and spending time researching the newest and best digital tools for their content area is not always a priority. The very nature of technology, and how it evolves and changes at such a rapid pace, can be a deterrent for teachers who may be interested in doing said research, but really do not know where to start. This is where a skilled technology integration specialist comes in. A TIS can help model this practice with teachers, and give them suggestions as to which tools they should add to their toolbox. These tools should always be added to said box with content and pedagogy in mind. A TIS should not introduce a tool in a vacuum, but rather show how a particular tool can help students meet learning goals.

In an article entitled, "Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development", many great sample activities and their technological equivalents are listed and discussed. Although these tools are meant to be included in a Social Studies curriculum, many, if not all, can be included in almost any core subject. For example, the authors of the article suggest using digital texts and websites for reading text, Podcasts and Audacity for listening to audio, and PowePoint, Photostory, iMovie, MovieMaker, Inspiration, and videoconferencing for viewing presentations. All of these tools can be used in any common core subject, and have even been improved upon since the publication of this article. For example, the authors list creating Scantron forms as a means for taking a test. In the almost six years since this article's publication, we now have a myriad of digital means of disseminating a test, such as Google Forms and Socrative. We even have Google add-ons, such as Flubaroo, that will grade a test given with Google Forms.

As we continue to encourage teachers to integrate technology into their curricula using the TPACK model, hopefully this process will be facilitated by the emergence of amazing, interactive technologies that really cannot be ignored.  Differentiation use to be viewed as printing an easy, medium, and hard version of a test.  With technology, teachers can truly differentiate for those students who are at, below, and exceeding grade level expectations.  By keeping the TPACK model in mind, teachers may introduce technology into their teaching in order to allow student learning and understanding to truly flourish.

References

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2009, 99-108. 

Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Akcaogl, M., & Rosenberg, J.  The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework for Teachers and Teacher educators.

TPACK in 2 Minutes. (n.d.). Retrieved December 07, 2014, from http://youtu.be/FagVSQlZELY