My MET Journey Matters
David Mayer Bernheim
9-12 ELA, Theatre Arts, Strategies of Instruction, Unemployed
January 30, 2015
I sought a graduate program that would provide a solid foundation of theory and skill sets that would enable me to be a relevant 21st Century educator and administrator. Boise State University’s Master of Educational Technology program with a graduate certificate program as a Technology Integration Specialist attracted my interest, and through my coursework, helped me to achieve my goals. Through this paper, I present artifacts representative of my studies aligned with the standards set forth by the Association of Educational Communication and Technology (AECT). I offer explanations of how the artifacts demonstrate my mastery of AECT standards with the goal to prove I am a qualified candidate for the Master of Educational Technology degree at Boise State University.
Most of my experience involved Theatre Arts, and that environment spawned my interest in technology integration in the late 80s as a means to document the work my design students created while ensuring sets were cost-effective. Adapting AutoCad Lite to theater applications allowed them to create, design, and record the creative process from idea to stage and then share their artifacts with professors during the college search process. As a Strategies of Instruction teacher and administrator at a 9-12 boarding school for students who learn differently, technology advancements allowed the students to overcome their challenges and excel. I saw an opportunity to leverage device use as a means for all students to hold the chalk and knew that because of technology, the landscape of education would change.
The Master of Educational Technology program at Boise State helped me define the Constructivist educator I have been while illuminating a path toward the Connectivist/Constructivist educator I can be. I hope to return to the 9-12 boarding school environment as an administrator skilled in Technology Integration where I can make a difference for students and teachers in their educational quests.
STANDARD 1: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
EDTECH 502: Webquest – This Webquest was designed for high school English Language Arts students studying Point of View and use of voice in literature. These ELA students utilize existing literature and Fractured Fairytales to create an original work. I constructed the website to contain instructional materials and learning environments.
EDTECH 543: Social Network Mini Curricula Unit – I designed this unit of instruction for high school English/Language Arts, Theatre, and Digital Media students sharing content lessons built around Shakespeare’s literature. These high school students are required to complete tasks contained within the web environment and collaborate with Subject Matter Experts in the field to enhance and broaden their knowledge of both content and context.
EDTECH 541: Relative Advantage of Technology in the Content Area (Theatre) – This task required graduate students to seek technological answers for common content area problems. Programs and apps are assessed and evaluated for their value in solving these issues occurring in the high school Theatre Arts classroom.
EDTECH 505: Final Evaluation Project – This capstone project for EdTech 505 required candidates to manage all facets of the evaluation process of a body of instruction or instructional software. Candidates created a fictitious evaluation firm with associated budgeting; I based the evaluation on interaction with stakeholders and observations and analysis of actual instruction.
EDTECH 502: Netiquette Page – This project challenged candidates to design and build a web page to educate high school students, applicable to our appropriate instructional grade level, on the ethical importance of online behavior, or Netiquette. I designed my page for high school-age learners. Candidates created this page using Dreamweaver software to build the page with HTML and CSS coding.
Indicator 1: Creating – Candidates demonstrate the ability to create instructional materials and learning environments using a variety of systems approaches (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 81).
To represent this indicator, I chose EdTech 502 Internet for Educators Webquest. “A Webquest is an inquiry-based technology activity designed by Bernie Dodge and Tom March at San Diego State University in 1995” (Lacina, 2007, p. 251). I created a higher-order thinking activity that integrates online resources. Multiple Web pages and a CSS menu were used to create this project. I incorporated Point Of View into the lesson rather than addressing it as a stand-alone teaching point. The lesson addressed a variety of objectives and offered high school students a creative way to learn and incorporate the material. “Webquests allow students to work cooperatively to learn and exchange new information, while using technology-which provides the multiple forms of information needed to understand a new topic” (Lacina, 2007, p. 251). My Webquest and self-designed web activity demonstrates my mastery of this standard.
Indicator 2: Using – Candidates demonstrate the ability to select and use technological resources and processes to support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 141).
I chose EdTech 543 Social Network Learning, Social Network Mini Curricula Unit – Shakespearean Twists. This collaboratively constructed unit addressed teaching Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet by three educators working in a co-curricular, high school environment. Partnered with English/Language Arts and Digital Media educators for the framework of the unit, I specifically addressed the Theatre Arts portion. In addition to the website, the high school students would use Edmodo, Twitter, Tweetdeck, Diigo, Google+ & Google Docs, Flickr, Pinterest and YouTube to learn, interact, collaborate and complete assignments. We determined that these apps, websites, and platforms would work best through planning and our self-assessment of technology and pedagogy. Roblyer and Doering (2013) address pedagogy stating, “every content and skill area has a body of knowledge about how best to teach it” (p. 58). I demonstrate mastery of this standard by incorporating content resources and activities that help students learn and enhance their knowledge of Theatre Arts.
Indicator 3: Assessing/Evaluating – Candidates demonstrate the ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of appropriate technologies and instructional materials.
I chose an assignment from EdTech 541-Integrating Technology Into the Classroom Relative Advantage of Technology in the Content Area (Theatre) as my representation of this indicator. This assignment challenged candidates to identify learning problems in our respective content areas. We sought to discover technologies that would help mitigate these problems. We had to assess and evaluate the relative advantage of incorporating each technology and predict logical outcomes. This assessment and evaluation required front-end analysis. Smith and Ragan identify this process where “designers analyze three basic components: the instructional context, the prospective learners, and the learning task” (2005, p. 42). I built the activity in Google Docs, utilizing the table format to show the problem, identify the best technological answer and assess and evaluate the relative advantage for use. This artifact demonstrates my ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of appropriate technologies and instructional materials.
Indicator 4: Managing – Candidates demonstrate the ability to effectively manage people, processes, physical infrastructures, and financial resources to achieve predetermined goals (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 178).
My Final Evaluation Project for EdTech 505- Evaluation for Educational Technologists represents this indicator. I sought to create a plan to evaluate an existing process or instructional unit for an organization. I created cost projections, conducted consultations with stakeholders to define issues, made on-site evaluations, and ultimately presented clear recommendations to affect change presented new challenges. These challenges gave me a taste of managing an evaluation team, communicating effectively with stakeholders, and managing budgets and deliverables (the Final Report). My willingness to manage not only the process but the “involvement of my consumers during the formation of the evaluation design and their input into the evaluation questions” helped insure the effectiveness of the project outcome (Boulmetris & Dutwin, 2011, p. 37). I used proven evaluation methods and theories to shape my process analysis. Theory guided practice and I demonstrated mastery managing all personnel, processes, accounting for physical infrastructures and financial resources to achieve not only my, but Surgical Flight’s, predetermined goals.
Indicator 5: Ethics – Candidates demonstrate the contemporary professional ethics of the field as defined and developed by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 284).
This project, Netiquette Web Page, from EdTech 502 Internet for Educators, challenged candidates to create an effective means of teaching ethical online behavior for our classrooms. Roblyer and Doering add, “Netiquette covers not only rules of behavior during discussions but also guidelines that reflect the unique electronic nature of the medium” (2013, p. 221). With only a few Millennials left in high school and the largest population, Generation Z, I wanted to ensure I communicated expectations appropriately. At the same time, I wanted my personality as an educator to be visible on the page as I made analogies to clothing and structured requirements in a positive light. I demonstrated mastery through delivery of an ethical framework for Internet interactions for an online high school environment. As a side-note, this experience provided my first experience coding since punch cards. I am pleased with just how far I traveled on this journey.
STANDARD 2: CONTENT PEDAGOGY
EDTECH 541: Mobile Learning Activity – This project for EdTech 541 Integrating Technology Into the Classroom required candidates to create a mobile learning activity. Candidates created a content-area activity accessed by an iPad or smartphone. The activity needed to be Common Core-based to validate the subject matter as relevant to the given content area.
EDTECH 521: Synchronous Lesson – This capstone project for EdTech 521 Online Teaching in the K-12 Environment required candidates to develop and implement a unit of study addressing content area and deliver the lesson via Adobe Connect. Candidates incorporated tools for formal and informal methods of evaluation of student comprehension. Candidates practiced using the tools with peers and then created their lesson, delivering to a student of their choice utilizing a synchronous learning environment.
EDTECH 542: Peer Review of PBL – This review of the capstone project for EdTech 542 Project-Based Learning required candidates to assess and evaluate the work of peers. Reviewers explored, analyzed and evaluated all aspects of the project in accordance with guidelines from coursework in the PBL curriculum. Common Core and local state content objectives provided further evaluation criteria. Reviewers used instructor-provided rubric to address specifics and offered latitude to offer impressions in comments.
EDTECH 532: What Makes a Good Game? – This project immersed candidates in exploring game design and quality. Candidates first explored podcasts by a noted expert in educational game construction to refine attributes of successful game design. Candidates then explored various games through an online game design tool to assess and evaluate the principle types of games in order to refine attributes they would like to include in their own designs.
EDTECH 521: Asynchronous Lesson Persuade Me – This project required candidates to build a lesson that could be delivered asynchronously for our content area. The lack of direct interaction required that candidates plan for all levels of student abilities. Candidates created the lesson utilizing HTML and CSS. Viewers accessed the page through a web link. Content needed to be engaging and appropriate for all learners and relevant to Common Core Standards.
EDTECH 502: Web Accessibility – The project required candidates to research and apply ethical aspects of Web Accessibility as they apply to specific content areas. Candidates built a web page using HTML and CSS and then verified color choices to ensure color contrasts were compliant for all.
Indicator 1: Creating – Candidates apply content pedagogy to create appropriate applications of processes and technologies to improve learning and performance outcomes (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 1).
For this artifact, I selected the Mobile Learning Activity – Have Speech Will Travel from EdTech 541 Integrating Technology Into the Classroom. I took a lesson I have used in a physical classroom and redesigned it for a virtual environment. I explored apps that would offer the students scaffolding as they researched, created, and rehearsed speeches. I found a multitude of apps for each step of the speech building process. By performing in a virtual space, they could build confidence and schema to ultimately achieve objectives that were only taught in the physical sense up to this point. “Whatever the purpose, the nature of the virtual reality is such that students have the potential to become engaged in a simulated activity and collaborate in a dispersed setting that more closely replicates the advantages of being face-to-face” (Eschenbrenner, Nah & Siau, 2008, p. 92). I demonstrated mastery applying appropriate content core competencies for building and performing a speech to inform or entertain while exposing them to technology to make the process seamless.
Indicator 2: Using – Candidates implement appropriate educational technologies and processes based on appropriate content pedagogy (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 141).
For this indicator, I selected the Synchronous Lesson from EdTech 521 Online Teaching in the K-12 Environment. Rice advocates that “skills in facilitating online communications, promoting and sustaining appropriate interactions (i.e., timely feedback, facilitated discussions and collaboration), and designing Web-based curricula and proficiency in using the available technology to support instruction are essential for creating meaningful and productive electronic learning experiences” (2012, pp. 13-14). I demonstrated mastery by creating and then recording a live lesson where my students were my wife and a former student from nearly twenty-six years ago. I built a lesson in Adobe Connect, rehearsed with a class cohort to develop the schemas necessary to use Adobe Connect teacher tools to my advantage. I based the live lesson on core competencies for Theatre Arts at the high school level. The use of Adobe Connect allowed interaction, written and verbal, crucial in high school theater settings whether physical or virtual. Although the finished product contains errors in execution, I demonstrate mastery through the use of the tool and the experience of lesson delivery. I discovered I could employ educational technologies in my content area and enhance student comprehension of Theatre Arts without physically being in the same space with students.
Indicator 3: Assessing/Evaluating – Candidates demonstrate an inquiry process that assesses the adequacy of learning and evaluates the instruction and implementation of educational technologies and processes (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 116-117) grounded in reflective practice.
I selected the Peer Review of PBL from Edtech 542 Project-Based Learning as an artifact representative of this indicator. Candidates reviewed peer-constructed Project-Based Learning capstone projects using an instructor-provided rubric. Peer review offered candidates the opportunity to explore a peer project from both a student and an educator perspective. The rubric afforded a common framework for my assessment and evaluation. This peer review afforded me the opportunity to step outside my student role in the class and examine my peer’s work in-depth. I spent a great deal of time dissecting each aspect of my peer’s work to insure met criteria in the rubric while also exploring if the project would hold my interest as a student in her class. I demonstrated mastery of the indicator by providing not only feedback to the rubric but identifying and articulating elements in the lessons that were both exemplary and offering clear guidance for areas needing improvement. The feedback not only helped my peer; but afforded me to opportunity to in turn reflect on her work and mine to see areas I could grow as an educator and educational technologist developing assessment and evaluation tools.
I also selected What Makes a Good Game? from EdTech 532 Educational Games and Simulations as an artifact representative of this indicator. Candidates explored a variety of instructor-chosen games to build schema in game knowledge and quality. Candidates explored podcasts by an expert in educational game design as a basis for creating a list of attributes and criteria for analysis. My specific learning styles and game preferences shaped my choices. I created a table to help me clearly identify elements of games that motivated me to explore further or reduced my interest in a given game concept. I demonstrated mastery through clear analysis of my peer’s work, assessing and evaluating her work. Furthermore, through reflective practice in her peer review, I gained information I could use in my own PBL designs and practices.
Indicator 4: Managing – Candidates manage appropriate technological processes and resources to provide supportive learning communities, create flexible and diverse learning environments, and develop and demonstrate appropriate content pedagogy (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 175-193).
My web page, Persuade Me, I created in EdTech 521 Online Teaching in the K-12 Environment for the Asynchronous Lesson project, represents this artifact. Candidates created stand-alone lessons housing all aspects of a given section of our content. To validate the instruction, I researched Common Core Standards for the lesson I wanted to teach. I built this page using self-coded HTML and CSS. I recognize students who learn differently come to the classroom wanting to learn. In order to address all learners, I included a section where I repackaged the lesson for those who might simply not understand what the lesson requires of them. For those students who learn differently, I built a section employing the RAFT strategy. “RAFT is a writing strategy that helps students understand their role as a writer and how to effectively communicate their ideas and mission clearly so that the reader can easily understand everything written” (Dean, 2015, para 1). I included all parts of a lesson I would offer students if I were physically in a classroom presenting the lesson. The fact I would not be present drove me to continually re-think my lesson to ensure I addressed learner needs at all levels. I demonstrated mastery of this indicator by addressing the learner needs across a broad spectrum of learning levels, anticipating need and providing support. I created a flexible and diverse environment that would appeal to a variety of students. I built a lesson rich in content and challenge regardless of ability level. I look forward to creating more lessons like this and helping other educators meet the needs to tomorrow’s learners.
Indicator 5: Ethics – Candidates design and select media, technology, and processes that emphasize the diversity of our society as a multicultural community (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 296).
I chose to represent this indicator through the artifact, Web Accessibility: Screen Readers, which I created in EdTech 502 Internet for Educators. Having worked with high school students who learned differently at a previous school, I used screen reader devices with students, but was largely unfamiliar with developments since 2008. I desired to explore these developments to assist students and educators once I return to the workforce. This artifact focuses on the various screen readers available as software applications, web or cloud-based applications and apps for mobile devices.
Designing online courses so they are accessible to disabled learners is more than merely the right thing to do. Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act mandates that all government-funded information technology (which includes Web-based courses designed by any federal or DOD agency) must be fully accessible to persons with disabilities (Moore & Kearsley, 2012, p. 113).
To further ensure that my web page information was truly accessible, I verified color choices for my web page through a verification process much like WebAIM: Color Contrast Checker. This verification validated that my color choices provided the necessary contrast for those who see colors differently. Through this process, I accommodated the diverse needs of my audience.
STANDARD 3: LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
EDTECH 503: Final Project – This project required candidates to use the systematic process of instructional design to create an instructional product. Other attributes of this assignment included reflective practice, application of instructional design models in real-world contexts while employing numerous communications technologies.
EDTECH 503: Case Study – This project required candidates to assess a case study. In my particular case, the school needed to determine how to allocate resources for technology integration. All candidates used proven instructional design processes to offer a course of action.
EDTECH 542: What Should You Do? PBL Project – This capstone project required candidates to create a PBL unit of instruction. Candidates had to create a driving question that would first motivate students to start on their path of exploration. The PBL must incorporate a variety of levels of instruction to scaffold those needing extra help while simultaneously meeting the needs of advanced or accelerated learners.
EDTECH 521: Synchronous Lesson – This capstone project required candidates to develop and implement a unit of study addressing content area and deliver the lesson via Adobe Connect. Candidates incorporated tools for formal and informal methods of evaluation of student comprehension. Candidates practiced using the tools with peers and then created their lesson, delivering to student of their choice utilizing a synchronous learning environment.
EDTECH 501: School Evaluation Summary – This project required candidates to explore all aspects of technology of a school using the Maturity Benchmark Survey. Candidates created a report on findings necessary for stakeholder decision-making. Candidates reflected on the process and findings post-evaluation.
EDTECH 502: Plagiarism Scavenger Hunt – Candidates designed and built this web activity to educate high school students on the ethical importance of owning one’s work and citing the words of others. Topics explore issues of plagiarism and copyright accountability to reinforce when and how to cite references.
EDTECH 521: Online Community Building – Candidates created community building strategies they could use in an online class to build and reinforce community from a group of students diverse backgrounds, characteristics and abilities.
EDTECH 541: Adaptive/Assistive Technology – The project required candidates research and explore applications that would help students who learn differently achieve success in a supportive classroom environment. Apps address a full spectrum of diverse learners to foster success in the 21st Century classroom.
Indicator 1: Creating – Candidates create instructional design products based on learning principles and research-based best practices (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, pp. 8, 243-245, 246).
I selected the Final Project – Filtering Colleges from EdTech 503 Instructional Design as an artifact representative of this indicator. As one of the spouse leaders at Mountain Home Air Force Base, I recognized that high school age students and families had few resources available to help guide them through the college filtering process. Because it is a fighter wing, elementary-age children comprise the largest student demographic. Dwindling available Air Force resources required allocation of funds to address that large demographic. However, that meant counseling resources for high school-age children vanished. I sought to create a block of instruction that addressed that need. I utilized the specific structure from the Final Project outline, incorporating Instructional Design Learning Principles and research-based practices. I conducted a Needs Assessment survey, evaluated the results and focused on questions to help high school students and families filter colleges. I tested my instruction on a small group and made revisions. Smith and Ragan state, “the designer evaluates the material to determine the weakness in the instruction so that revisions can be made to make them more effective and efficient” (2005, p. 327). Mountain Home Air Force Base uses Filtering Colleges currently, which offered me personal satisfaction, knowing I created something of real-world value addressing a viable need to the families stationed here.
Indicator 2: Using – Candidates make professionally sound decisions in selecting appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, pp. 122, 169) based on principles, theories, and effective practices (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, pp. 8-9, 168-169, 246).
I selected the Case Study project ID Case Analysis – Spring Wells High School from EdTech 503 Instructional Design as an artifact representative of this indicator. This mid-term major assignment offered my first experience at applying principles, theories, and effective practices to the test via a real-world case study. The case study demanded my full attention, I read through the entire study in order to make reasonable, intelligent decisions based on Instructional Design tenets. I utilized VoiceThread as the means of delivery. Harnessing the power of both the spoken word and visual imagery I incorporated images and details from the Titanic to emphasize my points and to underscore the dire nature of the situation. I identified stakeholders and essential key personnel, four areas of critical need, available resources, existing constraints and obstacles, and articulated a clear path to success. Smith and Ragan (2005) offer many choices for influencing change. I chose to use of the General Information Processing Analysis for Attitudes outlined in their textbook, I clearly presented that plan using simple GIPAA steps “Evaluate the Situation, Consider Possible Courses of Action, Determine Valued Behavior, Choose Valued Behavior, Behave In A Valued Way” starting with the principal administrator and including the key role players (p. 303).
Potential users must be aware of a problem that the innovation can solve, be aware of the innovation itself, believe that that innovation can solve the problem, be in favor of the innovation, and see a role for themselves in using or adopting the innovation (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 304).
I knew from my studies of the Smith and Ragan textbook that change must start with the principal and then filter to subordinates. I demonstrated mastery by making sound decisions rooted in principles, theories, and effective practices.
Indicator 3: Assessing/Evaluating – Candidates use multiple assessment strategies (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 53) to collect data for informing decisions to improve instructional practice, learner outcomes, and the learning environment (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, pp. 5-6).
For this artifact, I selected Project-Based Learning Project – What Should You Do? from EdTech 542 Project-Based Learning I co-created. “The first step is for teachers to develop an understanding of the fundamentals of TSIL [Technology-Supported Inquiry Learning], as well as the ability to transfer their understanding into practical applications of web-based technologies” (Hakverdi-Can & Sonmez, 2012, p. 339). I demonstrated mastery creating and implementing a variety of assessment strategies to improve the instructional practice and learner outcomes while applying appropriate content core competencies for Theatre Arts,. Combined with my cohorts’ knowledge of English and Spanish, my co-creators and I explored where we intersected and driving questions that would motivate students and enhance the learning environment. Critique of performance and analysis of recorded, written, and spoken language are integral components of Theatre and ELA classrooms. Creating multiple opportunities for process, assessment, and performance were all by design, specific to our content pedagogy, offering higher-level learning and performance outcomes, particularly when the capstone project is in a high stakes environment.
Indicator 4: Managing – Candidates establish mechanisms (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 190) for maintaining the technology infrastructure (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 234) to improve learning and performance (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 238).
I selected the Synchronous Lesson from EdTech 521 Online Teaching in the K-12 Environment as an artifact representative of this indicator. I created and delivered a lesson built entirely online and executed through Adobe Connect. I built the lesson using Google Docs, PowerPoint and utilized Google Hangout to help guide my online students, as they were both new to Adobe Connect. The assignment challenged me to know the technology infrastructure in my home and be able to pass that knowledge forward to my students in order to share the lesson with them. The lesson contained flaws in execution, as problems in delivery became hurdles to overcome. I demonstrated mastery by overcoming those technology issues and delivering a lesson re-useable in an actual online Theatre Arts class. I learned how to master the technology and the technology infrastructure to elevate learning and student performance.
I also selected the School Evaluation Summary Reflection from EdTech 501 Introduction to Educational Technology as an artifact representative of this indicator. I utilized a former employer as the basis for this project as I was unemployed. I gleaned information from stakeholders currently in relevant positions. Through the Maturity Benchmark Survey, I assessed the plan for maintaining and advancing the technology infrastructure to improve learning and performance. This process enabled me to make a difference for this school as stakeholders saw these findings in print for the first time. Independent schools must create their funding and cannot increase funds without donor support. The school utilized my report to build their presentation to the trustees to help bridge gaps in understanding the need for change. I demonstrated mastery by creating a viable, usable document showing all stakeholders a comprehensive assessment of not only infrastructure; but all facets of technology and integration as it applies to education at that school. This assignment proved valuable as a future Technology Integration Specialist as theory and coursework came face-to-face with application in a high school environment.
Indicator 5: Ethics – Candidates foster a learning environment in which ethics guide practice that promotes health, safety, best practice (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 246), and respect for copyright, Fair Use, and appropriate open access to resources (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 3)
This project, Plagiarism Scavenger Hunt, from EdTech 502 Internet for Educators, challenged candidates to create an effective means for teaching ethics in Internet research for our future students. We live in an age where music sampling occurs and high school students fail to see sampling as copyright infringement. According to Rice, “Young learners’ lack of awareness makes educating them about their rights and responsibilities as digital citizens of the Internet more critical than ever” (2012, p. 248). In order to achieve the lesson objective I needed to teach concepts of copyright, plagiarism, and when to cite. I built the page using HTML and CSS. I included an attached worksheet, web links for more information, and embedded a video to build interest. I also included an answer key so other educators could use the assignment. I demonstrate mastery of this standard by creating a scavenger hunt that would educate students on the ethical issues pertaining to citing the work of others and plagiarism.
Indicator 6: Diversity of Learners – Candidates foster a learning community that empowers learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 10).
My Community Building Strategies from EdTech 521 Online Teaching in the K-12 Environment represents this indicator clearly. Tasked to create ten strategies we could use in our grade-level appropriate online classes, I built just that. I created activities that would recognize their diverse backgrounds and interests while sharing with one another. This activity allows individuality and yet creates cohesion through learning about one another. “Finding way to attend to student backgrounds, interests, ages, geographical locations, technological differences, computer platform, software accessories, and so on will allow you to create an environment that supports participation and learning” (Rice, 2012, p. 77). Through these ten activities, I encourage and facilitate the growth of community in my online classroom.
I also chose the Adaptive/Assistive Technology project from EdTech 541 Integrating Technology Into the Classroom to represent this indicator. I built on my prior knowledge as a Strategies of Instruction teacher at a school for students who learn differently. In that environment, I guided students through their given difference providing research-based strategies to work over, around and through their challenge to prepare them for mainstreaming in college. The apps I selected offer similar structure and guidance utilizing a smartphone or iPad device. I designed the page to be a resource for educators, parents and students, so students could find that sense of community, regardless of learning differences and feel a part of the 21st Century classroom. I demonstrated mastery by assembling applications that students can use in a Theatre Arts, or any other discipline, and participate successfully as a functional part of the learning community.
STANDARD 4: PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS
EDTECH 543: Social Network Mini Curricula Unit – Candidates joined Personal Learning Networks early in the course based on the content area, grade level, and common interests. As a capstone project, these PLN partners collaboratively created an entire unit of study housed, taught, and managed in social network platforms and tools. This educational unit conformed to real-world best-practices and content area objectives. Candidates vetted completed units of instruction through peer critique and analysis.
EDTECH 532: Gamification of Theatre Arts – This capstone assignment in EdTech 532 required candidates to employ Game-Based Learning in their given content area and create a unit of instruction reflective of the tenets learned in the coursework. Candidates presented their products in a virtual space through the use of avatars and virtual whiteboards. In short, we presented our game within the game of our class instructional space. Game concepts presented were as varied as the output each candidate created and offered unique perspectives on Game-Based Learning.
EDTECH 543: Final Reflection – The final assignment in EdTech 543 challenged candidates to assess and evaluate personal and professional progress throughout the course. Candidates predicted their implementation of social media tools while evaluating high and low points throughout the coursework. This evaluation also included self-analysis of blog contributions and how they worked with peers.
EDTECH 543: Peer Review – This final piece of our capstone assignment in EdTech 543 offered candidates the opportunity to sit on the other side of the desk and offer peer review of a group of our peers as they presented their Social Networked Mini Curricula Unit. Candidates provided written feedback and created a video using Screen Capture to assess and evaluate the unit in-depth.
EDTECH 543: Real Time Virtual Professional Development – This project immersed candidates in social media uses for professional development. Candidates participated in a variety of synchronous webinars and live Twitter chats within their content areas or areas of educational interest. Candidates documented involvement and used their experiences to validate their use (and future use) of these tools as professional development activities. Connections with peers and subject matter experts via social media underscored the amount of information processed in a short time frame.
EDTECH 505: Final Evaluation RationalePaperBernheimwordFinaledit2Project – This capstone project for EdTech 505 required candidates to assess and evaluate all facets of the evaluation process of a body of instruction or instructional software. Candidates created a fictitious evaluation firm with associated budgeting, but they based their evaluation on actual observations, surveys, site visits, varied assessments, and evaluations.
EDTECH 501: Digital Inequality – Candidates worked in small groups analyzing how to address Digital Inequality in a specific US state. Focusing on Digital Divide and Digital Inequality, candidates created a presentation that would address options the group felt would best address the problem of Digital Inequality. Candidates researched their chosen state to ensure their plan reflected demographics and values of stakeholders. Our group chose Slideshare to present our findings.
Indicator 1: Collaborative Practice – Candidates collaborate with their peers and subject matter experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners.
As a collaborative practice artifact, I selected the Social Mini Curricula Unit-Shakespearean Twists from EdTech 543 Social Network Learning. With two other cohorts, one English and the other Digital Media educators, our PLN set about analyzing the high school learner and where we felt our three content areas best intersected. Our analysis revealed students would embrace the opportunity to create an updated version of a scene from Romeo and Juliet. Much like a video game with three levels of increasing difficulty, we felt that the English teacher would best serve script writing. The Theatre Arts teacher would assess props, sets, and costumes. The Digital Media teacher would focus on the production and filming of the product. This three-working-as-one approach allowed us to create a deeper, more meaningful lesson for our students. “Technology use is more likely to be sustained when integration occurs across a number of classrooms and content areas over time and is recognized as a school-based effort rather than the special interest of an individual teacher” (Zorfass and Remz, 1992, p. 39). We each served as the Subject Matter Expert for our specific area while operating cooperatively for the whole unit. Each educator reached out to other SMEs in our area vetting the instruction. We ensured the students would have access to the SMEs as the students navigated our collaborative unit. I achieved mastery by working as a member of that PLN contributing to all phases of the process. Assessment of learner impact through peer review was favorable overall and would make an interesting unit of instruction at my next school.
Indicator 2: Leadership – Candidates lead their peers in designing and implementing technology-supported learning.
I selected Gamification of Theatre Arts – Role-ing With My Homies from EdTech 532 Educational Games and Simulations because I see changes on the horizon for education. “Everywhere educators from K-12 to university professors are attempting to negotiate the widening gap between decades-old teaching methods and the video game-playing, social-networking students of today” (Sheldon, 2012, p. 10). I demonstrate mastery in Leadership designing new methods of teaching, evaluating and performing Theatre Arts. The MMORPG (Massively Multi-player Online Role-Playing Game) I constructed is consistent in design as it uses the same location and same characters separated by time. “A consistent world is a world that encourages the player’s willing suspension of disbelief and smoothes the path to immersion in the game experience” (Sheldon, 2012, p. 37). This suspension of disbelief is the same needed for the stage.
I learned from my experience in the course to create a better end product. “And the canny game designer is one who learns from the past in order to do better in the future” (Sheldon, 2012, p. 237). I gained insight from my peer critiques and would constantly modify my games to improve upon them just as one does daily in theater rehearsals. I certainly learned from the varied presentations by my cohorts, exploring their choices of unique content delivery over a wide spectrum of grade-specific game units. I am equipped to lead peers and help them navigate gamification of their respective content areas.
Indicator 3: Reflection on Practice – Candidates analyze and interpret data and artifacts and reflect on the effectiveness of the design, development and implementation of technology-supported instruction and learning to enhance their professional growth.
For this indicator, I selected my Final Reflection from EdTech 543 Social Network Learning. This class focused on Social Media implementation in the content area and as professional development and networking for educators. For our Final Reflection, we evaluated both highs and lows of the coursework, reflecting on our specific contributions, artifacts and our growth throughout. I demonstrate mastery by honest reflection on my successes and shortfalls as a student in that course. I address effectiveness of the major assignments and their ability to offer takeaways I can use in the future.
In addition, I selected my Peer Review of a Social-Networked Mini Curricula Unit from EdTech 543 Social Network Learning. For this assignment, the instructor provided candidates with a specific rubric for evaluating peers’ projects. Furthermore, we created a video using screen capture to assess and evaluate focusing on lesson specifics. I demonstrated mastery by taking the rubric and creating a spreadsheet for written feedback. This written feedback provided talking points for my video assessment while offering a by-the-rubric assessment and evaluation of what worked and did not work for me. My artifact is a good representation of this indicator because both the assignment and the peer review incorporate technology-supported instruction, and both peers and reviewer grew professionally through the process.
I also selected the Real-Time Virtual Professional Development Reflection from EdTech 543 Social Network Learning as an artifact representative of this indicator. Candidates participated in four synchronous webinars and four synchronous Twitter chats in content or areas of educational interest. I experienced both and discovered my interest in Tweetdeck to allow participation in multiple synchronous Twitter chats. The webinars proved less than exciting, as many were glorified death-by-PowerPoint presentations with too few opportunities to ask questions in the moment. At the other end of the interest spectrum, Twitter chats delivered information at high volume and pace. The depth of information in a one-hour Twitter chat far exceeds any experience I have had with teacher in-service. I demonstrated mastery through an inquiry process by engaging in both formats, and sharing the depth of my teaching experience with peers. I evaluated and assessed the instruction and reflected on the process once complete. Through my reflection on practice, I determined tools that helped me to learn and grow from my peers while reaffirming my own ability to lead and guide learning for peers and cohorts. “Educational technologists are considered change agents and the focus of Educational Technology includes the possibility of effecting major changes in society by transforming educational systems and practices” (Luppicini, 2005, p. 106). As an Educational Technologist, I will ensure going forward that I take full advantage of both venues to lead my peers toward improved integration in their classrooms and content areas.
Indicator 4: Assessing/Evaluating – Candidates design and implement assessment and evaluation plans that align with learning goals and instructional activities.
For this indicator, I selected my Final Evaluation Project for EdTech 505 Evaluation for Educational Technologists. This assignment challenged me to interview all stakeholders to gain an understanding of each of their goals for the instruction and my evaluation. I created questions to seek these answers. Once I established common ground, I approached the how to evaluate questions. I designed surveys to assess the service members (those directly involved in receiving instruction) to establish their views on objective attainment and the methods currently used by the Flight to reach those goals. All of the subsequent observations and assessments aligned with the expressed goals of the stakeholders to evaluate the instructional activities. I demonstrated mastery by creating an evaluation plan that met all the stakeholder criteria and answered all of their questions about the attainment of goals and the instructional activities.
Indicator 5: Ethics – Candidates demonstrate ethical behavior within the applicable cultural context during all aspects of their work and with respect for the diversity of learners in each setting.
I selected my Digital Inequality assignment from EdTech 501 Introduction to Educational Technology to represent this indicator. Our group chose the state of Idaho for the basis of our report. We addressed issues of culture and diversity of learners throughout our research. We identified our perceptions regarding failed Propositions 1, 2 and 3. We attributed failure to Digital Inequality (one cannot appreciate what one does not have or does not use) reasons and a lack of establishing value of achievable educational gains for the constituents. I demonstrated mastery by addressing solutions that respect the specific cultural context of Idaho students and adults. We respected the diversity of learners and built a viable plan and road map to Internet technological literacy through each step of the process.
STANDARD 5: RESEARCH
EDTECH 504: Final Synthesis Paper – For this capstone project, candidates were tasked to research foundational theories of education, assess and evaluate the impact of educational technology, write a research paper that met APA standards, document all sources and submit for peer review.
EDTECH 504: Annotated Bibliography – Candidates prepared for the Final Synthesis paper by exploring a focused educational issue, reading peer reviewed articles and creating a bibliography with commentary about each. Candidates must follow a set of specific guidelines in both research and execution. Therefore, the created document not only helps solve our quest to answer an immediate question; but also, those who follow can benefit from our work.
EDTECH 505: Final Evaluation Project – This capstone project for EdTech 505 required candidates to assess and evaluate all facets of the evaluation process of a body of instruction or instructional software. Candidates created a fictitious evaluation firm with associated budgeting but I based the evaluation on actual observations, surveys, site visits, varied assessments, and evaluations.
EDTECH 501: Horizon Report Tech Trends – This project required candidates to read the New Media Consortium’s Horizon Report 2012 K-12 Edition. Based upon reading, we designed instruction that implemented up and coming technology. Our lesson plans assessed and evaluated students and their learning ensuring objectives, goals and instructional activities aligned with the vision of the report and state standards.
Indicator 1: Theoretical Foundations – Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of the contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and technology (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 242).
For this indicator, I selected my Final Synthesis Paper for EdTech 504 Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology. This was a capstone project for this course. In order to even select our project, we had to learn about the past of educational theory and how educational technology’s present is influenced by that past. As we explored past, present and future theories of educational technology, candidates enjoyed some latitude in topic choices for our final project. Throughout, candidates offered feedback as ideas and interests gelled. I demonstrated mastery through research of past and current educational technologies. I expanded my foundational knowledge by conducting research and applying the research to make my predictions on the present and future of educational technology.
Indicator 2: Method – Candidates apply research methodologies to solve problems and enhance practice (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 243).
This indicator is best represented by my Annotated Bibliography assignment for EdTech 504 Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology. I chose to explore the convergence of communication and Educational Technology. I encountered this assignment early in my MET journey. Looking ahead, the flow of available information and the variety devices astounded me. I sought to research the past in an attempt to gauge what brought us to the current point and the possible directions for the future. I discovered that my interest the ever changing evolution of technology was not unique at all.
Others articulated views I held, and still hold, helping me shape the direction I pursued in my research. Guenther Liestol (2006) compared convergence to the development of numerous hand tools to the creation of the Swiss Army knife in 1901 and divergence to the creation years later of the Leatherman tool in 1983 (p. 2904). His examples helped me to understand the terms and utilize that analogy looking at convergence in communication and smartphone tools. Dr. Keith Turvey (2012) reminded me that convergence must be viewed as an “agent-centered, cultural process first and a technological process second” (p. 752). Both Liestol and Turvey’s analysis of convergence helped guide my research moving forward as it applied to technology in education.
I demonstrated mastery through the use of peer-reviewed research to answer questions and grow my knowledge as a Technology Integration Specialist. I was able to base suggestions for the future on grounded theory of the past and present.
Indicator 3: Assessing/Evaluating – Candidates apply formal inquiry strategies in assessing and evaluating processes and resources for learning and performance (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 203).
For this indicator, I selected my Final Evaluation Project for EdTech 505 Evaluation for Educational Technologists. I chose to evaluate the Physical Training Program of the Surgical Operations Flight at the 366th Medical Support Group at the hospital located at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. I applied formal inquiry strategies for this evaluation as outlined in our coursework. I identified that the program was objective or goal-based (for both individuals and overall) and most suited to the “Goal-Based Method” (Scriven, 1991, p. 178). “The evaluation may be based on stated objectives or goals found, for example, in a proposal, brochure, or other description of the program” (Boulmetis and Dutwin, 2011, p. 109). This project was by far the most detailed of all my projects and assignments in my MET journey. I met with stakeholders to refine questions of evaluation and determine the direction the evaluation would proceed to meet the needs of all parties. I demonstrated mastery through my thorough observations, interviews, surveys, and applied assessments of all aspects of this program. I incorporated technology into the results of the survey encouraging leadership to take full advantage of mobile devices for evaluating the fitness leader’s instructional presentations. Knowing the stakeholders implemented my recommendations, particularly concerning employing technology, proved rewarding.
Indicator 4: Ethics – Candidates conduct research and practice using accepted professional (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 296) and institutional (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 297) guidelines and procedures.
I selected the Horizon Report Tech Trends assignment from EdTech 501 Introduction to Educational Technology. The assignment challenged us, as a class, to read the report in-depth to explore trends time-to-adoption in three categories: One Year or Less, Two to Three Years and Four to Five Years. Category 1 addressed Mobile Apps and Tablet Computing, Category 2 focused on Game-Based Learning and Learning Analytics. Category 3 zeroed in on Gesture-Based Computing and Internet of Things. This assignment stimulated me as I studied and researched predictions based upon the information contained in the report. As I read Mobile Apps and Tablet Computing, I thought about how mobile devices could change the way educators conduct business. Many boarding and independent schools use a Harkness Table as a means of Socratic education. For the first time in my MET journey, I realized that mobile devices would empower each of my students to hold the chalk. Armed with my research from the Horizon Report, I explored apps that would replace old-fashioned actor legwork and create new ways student performers could research and display their craft. Explain Everything, Evernote, and YouTube became new tools for exploration, discovery and performance. As delineated above, I demonstrated mastery by researching applicable aspects of the Horizon Report, first. Next, I researched the North Carolina objectives for Theater students, finding specific objectives that correlated to the Horizon Report research predictions. Then, using those institutional guidelines I fabricated a lesson that is relevant and applicable in the high school Theatre Arts environment.
The assembled artifacts tell my tale of mastery of the AECT Standards toward my Master of Educational Technology at Boise State University. I grew through productive struggle with each course I took. My growth became more evident as I completed my rationale paper. Coursework grounded in theory enabled me to see education through a new lens. High points for me included creating my first web page, designing mobile learning lessons, mastering Adobe Connect, utilizing Google Docs at every opportunity and experiencing a wide array of online Web 2.0 tools. I am capable to guide other teachers toward integrating technology in their practice. I brought technology-infused units of instruction to the military high school students and families preparing to enter the college search process and trained support units at Mountain Home AFB to use Google Docs.
I look forward to the future as I seek to reenter the education field. I see myself as a more seasoned, relevant 21st Century educator and administrator. “When teachers are aware of the types of technology and applications available, they begin to understand how to integrate technology into the curriculum to help them teach what they are teaching now, only more efficiently and effectively” (See, 1993, para 9). Armed with my MET and the TIS certificate I feel capable to have those meaningful, educational technology-based conversations with both digital natives and the remaining digital cave dwellers at my future school. Equipped with theory, as well as practice, I am ready for what comes next.
Boulmetis, J., & Dutwin, P. (2011). The abc’s of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program and project managers (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dean, C. (2015, January 1). Using the RAFT writing strategy – ReadWriteThink. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.readwritethink.org/professional-development/strategy-guides/using-raft-writing-strategy-30625.html
Eschenbrenner, B., Nah, F. F.-H., & Siau, K. (2008). 3-D virtual worlds in education: Applications, benefits, issues, and opportunities. Journal of Database Management, 19(4), 91–110.
Hakverdi-Can, M., & Sonmez, D. (2012). Learning how to design a Technology Supported Inquiry-Based Learning Environment. Science Education International, 23, 4, 338-352.
Lacina, J. (2007). Inquiry-based learning and technology: Designing and exploring WebQuests. Childhood Education, 83(4), 251-252. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/210390813?accountid=9649
Liestøl, G. (2006). Dynamics of convergence & divergence in digital media & learning. World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006, 2006(1), 2902–2909.
Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 103-109.
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M., Eds. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aect.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/AECT_Documents/AECT_Standards_adopted7_16_2.pdf
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Rice, K. (2012). Making the move to K-12 online teaching: Research-based strategies and practices. Boston: Pearson.
Roblyer, M.D., & Doerling, A.H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation Thesaurus. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
See, J. (1993). How to develop technology plans. (cover story). Education Digest, 58(5), 28.
Sheldon, L. (2012). The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Boston, MA: Course Technology/Cengage Learning.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, N.J: J. Wiley & Sons.
Turvey, K. (2012). Questioning the character and significance of convergence between social network and professional practices in teacher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/87731.
Zorfass, J., & Remz, A. R. (1992). Successful technology integration: The role of communication and collaboration. Middle School Journal, 23(5), 39-43.