The light at the end of the tunnel.......

When I began my EdS journey, it seemed like it was a goal that was far, far away.  Now that I am at the end of the journey, I see that it passed so fast and that I have learned so much. I was initially nervous about starting a program online but excited about starting a journey focused on technology.  I have learned about blogs, websites, podcasts, online learning management systems and so much more.  I feel much more comfortable with forums like twitter, etc.  I have attached a document that lists many of the technology standards I covered during my EdS journey. I was fortunate during my journey to move into an assistant principal job that stretched my growth even further.  I was given the opportunity to lead professional development with my own faculty in professional development and use the projects I was working on in my program to assist my own teachers in their classrooms.  I went through a professional coaching cycle with a teacher and enjoyed learning about who I was as a cultural being and how I can help my school move forward and celebrate all students in my care.  At the end of this journey, I can look back and say it has passed very quickly, it has certainly been challenging and trying at times, but it is something I am certainly glad I have done. Technology is a constantly changing world and education must move forward with it.  As an educational leader I feel more prepared now to assist with leading my faculty forward with the technology we are integrating and we can continue to add more technology and I can continue to grow with my faculty.
The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) has outlined the Framework of Essential Skills of the K-12 CTO.  The framework is comprised of three primary categories.  These categories are Leadership & Vision, Understanding the Educational Environment, and Managing Technology & Support Resources.  Each category includes 10 essential skill areas that describe the responsibilities and knowledge necessary to become an educational technology leader.  Over the course of my EdS journey I have created a log to document my participation within these categories and will highlight three of them.
Last year, I worked as my building technology rep to write our school's 2015-2016 technology plan which enabled me to be an observer and participant for 2A and 2B under Strategic Planning. As I moved into the assistant principal role, I not only had a role in writing the plan and assessing the needs, but I was able to have a part in deciding how the money would be spent on technology which was 4C under support, management and operations.
I was also able to lead item 4A under instructional focus and professional development when I lead professional development for my teachers on technology for Google Apps for Education. This was also an opportunity for me as a new assistant principal to be able to practice leadership with my family.
I was also able to implement leadership skills with item 3A under productivity and professional practice as a new assistant principal with using the routine and intentional use of technology by using Google forms and other things with my faculty.

To be Good or Bad….. That is the question….

In reflecting on my online/distance courses I have experienced, I realize I have been overwhelmingly lucky in my experiences.  I have enjoyed most of my online class experiences, I was extremely hesitant in the beginning to even begin a program with online classes, but in the end, I went with an EdS program that is completely online.  I have been surprised at the level of discussion, interaction and face-to-face similarities that this program has provided and agree with Moore and Kearsley (2012) in that “where peer interaction is possible, as it is in online courses, students can find it very sustaining.” The variety of interactions through facebook, blogs, pinterest boards, videos and presentations have been what made it so engaging and given me the ability to get to know my peers and instructors as well as “permit extensive student and instructor interaction” (Moore & Kearsley, 2012, p. 111). I have found through this program there can be online classes that are just as involved as face-to-face classes. I also feel like the variety within the program so that I have not been doing the same “all about me” type video or activity has pushed my growth with new types of technology and kept the introductory part of the classes from being boring.  The “ice-breaker” portion of face-to-face classes are never anyone’s favorite and to convert that portion of the online experience into enjoyable activities is a substantial achievement in my opinion.  My earliest experience with distance learning was prior to online programs becoming popular (or even existent) and that would be the only experience I would say I have had that has been negative. The thing about these classes was the fact that there was little to no interaction with classmates or the instructors.  The psychology and sociology classes I took were telecourses (I’m really NOT that old) and they involved videos of lecture and various supplemental programming aired on Alabama Public Television (APT) that I would have to record and watch at my convenience.  I would then be required to fill out open-book test type questionnaires or write papers based on the videos.  I met maybe 3-4 times a quarter with the whole class and instructor just to turn in work and get information about upcoming assignments.  I think these classes could have been better had their been some interaction with my classmates and possibly more discussion with them but as Moore and Kearsley state if “study is limited to recorded materials such as the printed study guide and  audio/video recordings, getting the student to interact with the subject is even more challenging” (2012, p.115)  The times we met, the instructor was very knowledgeable and had great experiences to share as a clinical psychologist, and I think that discussions would have greatly enhanced that class considering the subject area. According to Moore and Kearsley (2012) “the instructor must be able to guide students into being actively involved in the learning process.”  This is something I think that was missing in those early telecourses that I was a part of and possibly a reason for my hesitation in pursing a completely online degree program. But as, I have found with my current program “engaging students as early as possible and keeping them engaged is key” (Angelino, Wiliams, and Natvig, 2007) and I feel that  is what has kept me in the program. Overall, aside from the few early experiences I had with telecourses, my online experience has been a great one and I am glad I decided to pursue it. Distance learning has changed for the better and I believe it can be a tool used by many to pursue their educational goals and achieve them.

References:

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007, July). Strategies to Engage Students and Reduce Online Attrition Rates. Journal of Educators Online, 4(2). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from http://www.thejeo.com/Volume4Number2/Angelino Final.pdf

Harynomas. (n.d.). Distance Learning [Cartoon]. Retrieved June 27, 2016, from http://www.toondoo.com/View.toon?param=462104

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

S. (2012). What is Distance Learning? - DistanceLearningPortal.com. Retrieved June 27, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6dHK2cXatM

The only thing constant is CHANGE......

Few things are constant in technology except change… While reading the selections for this module I was reminded of just that.  In looking at the chapter readings it was again evident how far distance education has come and how much it has changed.  According to Moore (p. 242, 2012) “The International Council for Distance Education (ICDE) was started in 1938 and had a strong Canadian and U.S presence.”  This single statement shows us just how long distance education has been around.  

Virtual schools have become popular, and recently mandatory for districts in our state due to SB 229.  Now, all students will have this option and be able to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities within their home district as well. Our district has developed a policy and is in the process of final approvals.  It was developed with district personnel who were most familiar with the needs of these students and this type of program. I feel like this was the best way to develop the policy because these people are familiar with students already in a site-based virtual school of sorts.  We currently have an alternative pathway program available to students who cannot attend during a regular 8-3 school day, and for students who are behind to catch up credits and still graduate, possibly with their original cohort.  

I think that the next step for our district would be how to make the technology available to more students who would choose this option.  Our district does not currently have a 1:1 or BYOD policy in place, and many of our students have no access to the necessary high speed Internet connections at home that would be necessary for them to access the virtual school option. This “digital divide” or lack of Internet and related technologies is discussed by Moore as well (p. 243, 2012)  that is one obstacle that students would have to overcome to chose this option. Another concern brought to light by a 2016 study by Fernandez, Ferdig, Thompson, Schottke, and Black suggested that “students enter (virtual schools) with specific needs, both health and otherwise.  Ignoring those needs…..is a path to failing our students.” This study brings forward the issue that instructors in virtual programs have to know what the students in the school are facing, and that may take more effort in a virtual world than a face-to-face setting.  Overall, I am happy to see the progress our state is making in the virtual school arena, but there are issues that will have to be ironed out such as access to technology but, with any new program there are always growing pains and the final product will be worth it.  Change is constant in technology.

References:

Moore, Michael G. (2012). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning, 3rd Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://reader.yuzu.com/#/books/9781133715450/

Fernandez, H., Ferdig, R. E., Thompson, L. A., Schottke, K., & Black, E. W. (2016). Students with Special Health Care Needs in K-12 Virtual Schools. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (1), 67–75.

What's Right With Our Schools: Walker Co. flexible schooling. (n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://www.wbrc.com/clip/11660510/whats-right-with-our-schools-walker-co-flexible-schooling

Education Keyboard Graphic. (n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2016, from http://media.graytvinc.com/images/virtual_schools.jpg

Image retrieved from:

Virtual Schools....3...2...1...

When reading about Virtual schools in this module I was truly surprised to learn several things.  One, I was surprised to find out how many students are actually attending virtual schools in the U.S. over 199,000 students in over 311 schools as of the 2011-2012 school year and the numbers continue to grow (Miron, Horvitz, Gulosino, 2013). I knew that there were many students enrolled in these schools and that they were enrolling for various reasons but the actual numbers were surprising.  I was additionally surprised to find out that numbers continue to grow with the graduation rates as low as 37.9% (Miron, Horvitz, Gulosino, 2013). As a former high school teacher, this low graduation rate surprised me because in a traditional brick and mortar public school setting this would never be acceptable to administration, parents, or the public.  Lastly, I was surprised to find that most of these schools (70%) also fail to meet AYP (Miron, Horvitz, Gulosino, 2013).  This was very interesting considering the fact that when traditional public schools do so it is highly publicized and students many times begin going other places.  These things surprised me as well as concerned me.  As I continued to read and research I found two things that really concerned me, the low graduation rate 37.9 % and the fact that only 28.1% were even considered academically acceptable according to state school performance ratings (Miron Horvitz, Gulosino, 2013)  This is especially concerning to me as a school administrator in that many of these students find their way back into public schools before they graduate high school.  This can be for a variety of reasons, but many times distance education programs are “difficult to sustain over time” (Moore & Kearsley, p.178, 2012) I have seen this many times in my own community.  If the virtual schools are not academically sound, then the public schools must make up much of the instruction that these students may have missed during their time within a virtual school. So, the question that I have left is why or how is there going to be any regulation of these virtual schools so that they are not just a money-making enterprise.  They need to be held accountable for the students they are educating and not just take the money and time of the students while providing a sub-par education.  I have personally seen many students get behind with promises made from virtual schools and end up back in public school having spent a good bit of money and now having to make up credits and graduate late.  At the end of the day, I think the idea of virtual schools are fantastic, and I believe that many programs, like ACCESS and other programs that are truly sound educationally can benefit students across the board.  Many times the maze is very difficult for students and parents to navigate and they can easily be led astray but organizations whose sole purpose is to make profit. Many people have had the same questions according to the news clip I have included here. 

 I think that the suggestions for “realistic assessments of quality” (Moore & Kearsley, p. 190, 2012) could help in evaluating many of these virtual schools to make the whole group more reputable as a whole.

References:

Miron, G., Horvitz, B., & Gulosino, C. (2013, May). Virtual Schools in the U.S 2013: Politics, Performance, Policy and Research Evidence. Retrieved June 16, 2016, from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/nepc-virtual-2013-section-1-2.pdf

Moore, Michael G. (2012). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning, 3rd Edition

Virtual Schools Infographic. (2009). Politicsdaily.com.

WASTE WATCH: More Concerns on Virtual Academy--Mikayla Lewis. (2014, February 14). Retrieved June 16, 2016, from https://youtu.be/RL2sEifjDS0

Choosing a Learning Management System.... Where to Begin?

Where to Begin?

Picking a Learning Management System (LMS) is a big decision. It is an area of education that has come a long way over the years. I remember my parents talking about correspondence courses and I myself took a telecourse early in my college career.  I remember watching what were basically videoed lectures and taking tests and completing coursework based on it.  Our school does not currently use a LMS as a whole school. We have had teachers in our school/district use Edmodo in the past and found it relatively easy due to the similarity to Facebook.  We have as a district, however, transitioned to Google Apps for Education, so now that we are using Docs, Slides, Sheets, and Forms, Google Classroom seems like the logical next step. According to Dr. Will Dayamport III, the “learning curve for Google Classroom is a lot less.” (2014)  I think this is the choice that our district is strongly encouraging although users who previously used Edmodo still have access and that option, Google Classroom has not been chosen officially, but I think it soon will be.  Our district has also heavily invested in Chromebooks and Chromeboxes which also integrate seamlessly with the GAFE suite which also makes the choice a little easier. 

 I have used Google classroom some as a classroom teacher and I think that it will be a great choice for our teachers and students.  The interface is user friendly and since the teachers and students have been introduced to the GAFE in stages, this would serve as a logical next step.  I do think there are things that Google Classroom is missing that other organizations might need. For our school, however, we aren’t going to full time distance education or e-learning, more likely a blended learning environment for supplemental use,  so I think that Google Classroom will provide everything that we need. The blending environment “does not require as much technology knowledge on part of either the teacher or the students, so it is easy to implement” (Moore, 2012, p. 93) Overall, when choosing a LMS, you must start with looking at what your organization needs and find the best fit. For my school and our needs, I think Google Classroom meets those needs at this time.

References:

Moore, Michael G. (2012). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning, 3rd Edition

Diyamport, W., III. (2014, October 19). Dr. Will : Why Google Classroom? Retrieved June 09, 2016, from http://www.iamdrwill.com/2014/10/why-google-classroom.html

E. (2014, May 14). What is Google classroom? Retrieved June 09, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DCOe9v9CuM

Coaching by Request or Requirement......

When reading for this module, I could easily identify with the different coaching situations mentioned.  Coaching can be mandated by districts or administration or it can be requested by the teacher or an accepted part of the school culture. Coaching relationships arise from many different situations and for different reasons, but as Marzano and Simms (2013, p. 211) point out, “in teacher-initiated coaching, the teacher is self-motivated and invested in the change”.  I myself, have found this to be true as well, in my training, I was able to offer the training to the entire faculty and allow them to sign up if they were interested.  Our first grade teachers had already expressed interest in Google Docs because of standards based report cards.  The majority of the faculty signed up for the training, at least one member from each grade level and several grade levels had 100% participation.  The fact that everyone who was in the training chose to be there made a huge difference in the participation and motivation during the training.  I have included in my follow up survey additional topics the faculty may find relevant so that we may begin to offer this type of training on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. I also found that the fact the training was something the teachers chose to attend, the motivation level was high, even if the skill was low for some of the teachers.  From Marzano and Simms (2013) “the motivation level of a teacher is one of the most important elements in determining the success of a coaching relationship”.  I found this to be true in that even though I had a wide variety of skillsets in my training, all of the teachers wanted to learn and be able to use what I was showing them, so their motivation was high and they were all successful in being able to complete the activities that I had them to do. I believe overall, coaching can be successful in any situation whether it’s required or requested but I believe the optimal setting is when a teacher, like a player (in sports) wants to be coached almost always achieves a better outcome.

Works Cited:

Instructional Coaching. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/instructional-coaching

Marzano, R., & Simms, J. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research.

Thought Partners. (2014, October 6). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://thoughtpartners.blogspot.com/

Coaching and Technology

Coaching and Technology……

When I started the “coaching” process for this class, I thought it was a “new” experience, but as I have discovered, it is something I have been doing in my school for some time.  Like Marzano and Simms point out, “the term coaching can be used in a variety of ways” (2013, p.7). I thought about classroom coaching as what our instructional coach does or what formal mentors do for their mentees, but I have discovered it is something that goes on informally quite often in schools everywhere.  In my school, it happens for me in the area of technology on a regular basis.  I was the first person in my building to get a SMART board.  I applied for a grant and got the money to purchase it and loved using it interactively with my students.  Naturally, several years later, when our school received the money to install them school-wide, I was the go-to person for basic how-to information and getting everyone started.  Thus, my technology coaching experience began simply because I had experience with something nobody else had worked with before. This continued as I was chosen to pilot Chromebooks for our district before we started making large purchases of them.  Now I am the assistant principal, but before that change, I moved from unofficially being the tech-helper to the tech go-to person for administration and teachers to the official technology coordinator for our building. There were many teachers who had never seen a SMART board who are now using them everyday for their morning calendar routines.  Some teachers had never used any of the SMART notebook software and now many can hardly function without it if we lose Internet and I was part of that.  I realized that during all of these transitions there had to be certain things in place in order for me to help others learn and become confident in using technology.  First, I had to have the knowledge.  I had to be interested in new technology and not be afraid to try new things and get my students involved.  I had to learn the ins and outs of any new technology before I could help others learn.  I also had to learn to troubleshoot it so that I could help others do the same.  I also had to become trustworthy.  According to Marzano and Simms (2013) “trust is an important aspect of effective coaching relationships and effective schools”(p. 10). I had to be someone that the other teachers knew they could depend on to be able to help them when they needed it.  I had to be someone they could trust to be vulnerable in front of and someone that they could trust to help them find answers or express their frustrations to.  I learned early on in these “coaching” relationships that trust was a huge factor and that if I did not know the answer it was okay to say so, but that I would have to be able to find it. So, if by definition coaching is helping teachers become better at what they do, then an informal coaching relationship was  what I was beginning with these teachers.

Sources:

Bates, Mark. "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teachers Who Use Educational Technology Infographic - E-Learning Infographics." ELearning Infographics. Alwaysprepped.com, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

Marzano, Robert J., and Julia A. Simms. Coaching Classroom Instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research, 2013. Print.

"BLACKLINE REVIEW: Technology Teachers Redefine the Innovative Classroom." YouTube. Web. 19 Oct. 2015. <https://youtu.be/kGtw_xxtKnw>.

A Coach is a Coach…. or is it?

When I started reading the chapters for this module, my first thoughts were of our instructional coach in our building.  She is very helpful, good with data and very uplifting and encouraging. But then I also thought about how I started out my first year teaching without one. I started out  in a 7-12 high school setting, no formal mentor relationship and no instructional coach.  I realized, while reminiscing,  that on my own, I sought out exactly that type of person.  She was a veteran teacher, well respected by both students and coworkers as well as  someone I knew would know the right advice to give, and she did.  I also, looking back, entered into an informal mentor relationship with another person in that school that I still seek advice from to this day.  I never thought of either of those relationships as a “coaching” relationship, but now, looking back, I think that’s exactly what they were.  According to Marzano and Simms (2013, p. 4) “the term coach generally means helping someone move from where he or she is to where he or she needs or wants to be.”  That is exactly what those people helped me to do.  That is what coaches do, whether in the professional, athletic, or academic arena, that is what they do, they make us better at what we do. 

There is lots of research out there on coaching, various stances on which style is best or how it should be done, but it is not a one size fits all item.  In fact “effective coaching is not entirely dependent on the coach. Rather many assert that the person being coached is the most important determiner of the success or failure of a coaching relationship” (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 9).  This statement emphasizes just how important and unique that relationship must be in order for it to be successful.  I am from the south, where football is king.  We all know what sport takes precedent in the fall, and we can all name famous coaches.  All of these coaches are successful, but most would agree their styles vary greatly from one another.  I think instructional coaching styles would be the same.  There are going to be basic needs in any coaching relationship for it to be successful: trust, feedback, choice (Marzano & Simms, 2013, p. 10). There are a wide variety of personalities out there in education.  I think there would have to be a wide variety of coaching styles ready to meet those needs as well.  This, as in most aspects of education, is not a “one size fits all” situation.

Instructional Coaching With Technology. (2013, November 13). Retrieved September 28, 2015, from https://youtu.be/wA4ZHlBHvDc

Marzano, R., & Simms, J. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research.

Waterman, R. (2013). Coach Graphic. Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://www.richwaterman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/coach.jpg

601 Final Presentation

Here is my final presentation for using Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides.

Presentation with Tutorial

Handout for presentation

E-Learning... You've Come a Long Way Baby!

E-Learning… You’ve Come a Long Way Baby…..

While reading chapters nine and ten, I was thinking of blog topics and how I use technology in my classroom as a teacher for the most part.  It wasn’t until I happened upon the part discussing distance learning versus e-learning that I began thinking of my own experiences as a student with using technology. I was intrigued by the debate over whether or not the term  “e-learning” applies to both instruction delivered over the Internet and content delivered via CDs and DVDs, audio and video recordings, and via satellite broadcast, and interactive television and cable” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.193).  If, indeed, we include cable and interactive television, my first e-learning course was many years ago when I  first started my college career in a community college.  Home computers were a rarity, most of my papers were typed on a word processor, and my e-learning class consisted of recorded (via VCR) lectures from the local public television station that I would watch after reading the text and then complete selected classwork to be turned in periodically on campus.  We would visit campus a set number of times during the quarter to turn in work and complete tests and that was my first experience with “e-learning.”  Basically, the lecture portion of the class was recorded for viewing outside the classroom.  Thinking back on this experience, I was surprised when considering the technology at the time, how well it fit the iterative process illustrated by Larson and Lockee (2014, p.194).  

Larson and Lockee 2014 p. 194 

The instructional need (#1) at the time (early 90’s) was to make the class schedule more flexible and accessible, so the video lecture did that. The instructional strategy (#2) was exactly the same as the classroom setting would have been, primarily lecture.  Consideration of media affordances (#3) there were very little to choose from at the time so the televised lectures to be recorded and watched at the student’s leisure (asynchronous format) was as flexible a format as was available at the time, so this was the selected technology (#4). While it was not as engaging as an actual classroom lecture setting might have been and there was no accompanying thoughts, remarks or group discussions, it did provide flexibility, which, I assume was the main goal. This was my only reference for e-learning which explains my hesitance when taking on an entire degree program based primarily in an online format.  Being almost at the halfway point now though, I can truly say, times have changed!  I can honestly say the technology being incorporated is “being used to meet a specific need” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.184).  We have the synchronous chats to create the sense of group familiarity we would have in a face to face environment, we have the asynchronous blog communications to read and reflect on each other’s views and opinions at our convenience.  The technology is used a little differently each time as well, so that it doesn’t become monotonous or repetitive.  So, for me, in my experience instructional design in e-learning, “you’ve come a long way baby!”

How education has changed in past years?? Teaching and learning at Qpage www.qpagep.com. (2013, June 6). Retrieved July 29, 2015.

History of E-Learning: E is for Evolutionary. (2012, October 11). Retrieved July 28, 2015, from http://www.idealearninggroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TimelineBlogLarge-ILG.png

Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York: Routledge.

Cost, Access, and Engagement

Cost, Access, and Engagement…..

When starting the reading for this module, we were asked to come up with three considerations for technology selection, mine were cost, access, and engagement.  Having been on more than one technology committee, and written more than my share of grants, cost had to be my number one, money is always an issue in education, but certainly when it comes to technology. “When possible, select technologies and media that can be used by other efforts in your organization and factor in the expected lifespan of the instruction when considering costly technology choices (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.200) Secondly, I came up with access.  All the technology in the world is great, but if you don’t have the infrastructure in place or equipment necessary to access it then it is useless.  And finally, engagement, the one that is sometimes the most elusive.  We have all planned that wonderful (or so we thought) lesson that would have the students hanging on our every word from bell to bell only to see it flop within the first five minutes.  Luckily, while reading, I was reminded of some of the more inexpensive, easily accessed, and interesting technology based activities I use with my students and that is what I want to talk about.

First of all, I am a science person, through and through.  I love science, completely, even outside the classroom, ask my husband.  All things science hook my interest, so naturally a problem for me from day one in my science classroom has been the information in the textbooks.  Due to the nature of textbook publication, by the time the books hit the classroom, the information is old.

I have always tried to integrate current science through magazine articles, video clips, and news stories as I see them, but this is very time consuming.  I also love technology, so I have always tried to integrate videos, animations, and short clips to introduce, wrap up, and even reinforce or reteach lessons to my students. I have recently started using science magazines to integrate and address all of the above.  The cost is minimal, usually covered by a classroom donation, instructional supply money, or my principal’s generosity, or a combination of all of these, and I use one classroom set for all my classes.  

These magazines reinforce core science concepts through current science articles that kids are seeing in the news already.  I have started converting many of the questions and data tables into google forms or socrative for the students to fill out so that I can grade them easily or compiling their data into google sheets and the students love working with the technology.

This actually raises the skill level the students are using, to using “technology as a partner, or mindtool” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p. 185)  I also like that with these magazines, I have the option of the online version or the print version as a backup if necessary, this addresses the access issue.  Alternately, the online version is easily enlarged for students with visual disabilities, or students who have trouble navigating the online environment, can go to the print, so it works both ways.  I can also have the students read the material and work and discuss in groups and enter data on only one computer if I am short on technology or I have students who need extra support. According to Larson and Lockee it is important to “consider producing a version of the main content via a low-tech medium, both to provide a backup in case of technology failure and to accommodate learners with special needs” (2014, p. 200).  Lastly, engagement is something that these magazines do a really good job with, they start with some short videos to introduce some of the stories for the magazine to get the student interested, they also have some online games related that we play after the assignments are complete.  Most of the students really like that the information is tying concepts we talk about in the classroom to things that are happening in the world right now, not 10-15 years ago.  They like hearing about bedbug infestations and flesh eating bacteria and why these things are becoming more common and the science behind it.  Overall, my experience with integrating technology in my classroom is that it has helped me bring my content to life and helped my students realize that science is not something that happens in a book or a classroom.  It is something that is happening everyday, everywhere, we just have to look with our “science goggles” and know what to ask so we understand it.  

 

Glasbergen, R. (2007). Randy Glasbergen – Today's Cartoon. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://www.glasbergen.com/?count=13&s=education

Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York: Routledge.

Science World Magazine Online Resources. (2011, December 8). Retrieved July 23, 2015, from https://youtu.be/tslcvzh4HxY?list=PL95385C6482FE3B21

Show what you know...

Show What You Know

In the reading assignment for this module, the chapter about assessment really stood out to me.  As teachers or administrators so much of our decisions are based on data from assessments whether formal or informal.  While reading the chapters discussing aligning your instruction with your outcomes and assessing your instruction accordingly, I was reminded of the cartoon I started with here.  We have all seen this at some time or another used in some context.  But it is so true of assessment if it is not aligned to our learning.  If our assessment does not match our outcomes or objectives, it is useless.  We cannot expect our students or participants to do something we have not prepared them for.  This brought me back to the earlier principal Larson and Lockee (2014) pointed out regarding “beginning with the end in mind” when designing instruction.  This simple concept will make sure that our assessment is appropriate as well.  I also found myself nodding my head during the marshmallow illustration from chapter 6 when the instructor demonstrated that “it was necessary to have a target, that the target should remain constant and not move, and that the task required opportunities to practice prior to assessment” (Larson and Lockee, 2014, p.116) As a science teacher, I find students definitely tend to perform better on assessments when they have had the opportunity to interact with the material in some way. The following infographic I found called "the cone of learning" includes data that supports just that. 

Cone of Learning

Interactions can be as simple as discussing with their group or partner, or as complex as a full lab experience, but it does seem to help them to comprehend the material.  We also know there are different types of assessment, formative and summative, just to name a few and they all have their appropriate time and place. So, what makes for effective assessment?  According to Larson and Lockee (2014) effective instruction must: “Align with the learning outcomes, be a learning experience for both the learner and the designer, and be known in advance by the learners” (p.139).  I find that these three principles while simple, give us exactly what we need.  We have to know what we want from our students before we start (begin with the end in mind, align with the outcomes),  it has to be ongoing and guide our instruction (we have to reteach or support the learner if necessary), and we must let our students know what we are going to expect from them up front.  So, the instructor who used the marshmallow demonstration was right “on target” with her “assessment of assessment.”

Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York: Routledge.

Lim, J. (2012, May 1). Finance and Listening to Nature. Retrieved July 16, 2015, from http://joycelim.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/cone_of_learning.png

Rao, S. (2014, June 26). Top 10 Traits of a Good Tester. Retrieved July 16, 2015, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140616032541-3446415-top-10-traits-of-a-good-tester

Zody, O. (2015, April 1). Summative VS. Formative Assessments. Retrieved July 16, 2015, from https://youtu.be/-DrFt_tqMSU

Good vs. Bad......Instructional Design that is....

"Inservice" by Doug Johnson

Good Instructional Design vs. Bad Instructional Design……

While reading the chapters for Module 1, I was reminded of this image I found a while back on Pinterest. It always makes me laugh.  Most of us have at one time or another sat through an inservice presentation that made us feel exactly like that picture, like we are about to die. I can remember times like that as a student as well.  I had an early morning geology class that would have been difficult at any time of day, even for a science lover but early morning class completely about rocks for a college student was nearly impossible.  My favorite classes usually were science though, because there was a natural element to the content, I was usually learning about something I had experienced or was at least familiar with (plants, animals,).  I also always enjoyed the fact that there was usually a lab component, a place that we could explore or extend our learning about the current topic.  As educators, we present instruction to our students daily and we sit through more professional development and instruction than most other professionals with a unique perspective.  When we are asked, we can definitely point out bad instructional design when we see it or experience it, and easily give examples of great instructional design. When looking at these examples though, what exactly must we do to ensure our professional development and presentations model good instructional design?  Defining exactly what that entails is sometimes much more difficult than just giving examples.  One of the first things Larson and Lockee (2014) insist on for planning is “beginning with the end in mind.”  Most of us find this easy to do with our students, as we have clear cut objectives and standards to guide us. With professional development, just like with our students, we must know what we our outcome needs to be before we can plan our route to get there.  We have all been the victim of professional development that seemed to have no clear purpose or goal, and just like our students, adult learners also want to know what the purpose for their learning is.  While researching good instructional design, I found this infographic and I really liked the simplicity of it.

It also connects well with the ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) model we are working with.  Starting similarly with “begin with the end in mind” just as Larson and Lockee (2014) recommend, it also gives four other simple guidelines to follow.  It must be student-centered, which for professional development that could be any learner.  I think we would all agree that all learning must be centered around the learner.  The third point “it is perfected by improvement” ties directly into the evaluation/revision part of the ADDIE model.  “Continuous evaluation produces feedback that facilitates continuous improvement of the instruction” (Larson and Lockee, 2014).  The fourth point, “follows a well-defined system” ties in perfectly with the systematic ADDIE model of instructional design we are using in this course.  Lastly, it points out “considers the big picture”.  I realized when completing my ADDIE outline for this first module that this model does a great job of looking at the entire picture.  When planning for successful instructional design, its very easy to go about it from our own comfort zone, learning style or viewpoint.  We must always consider the goals, expectations, and needs of our learners, as well as the limitations that we may encounter. "Learners mus have a will to learn as well as the skill" (Larson and Lockee, 2014). Once again, bad instructional design may be very easy to point out and identify, but after reading and starting to research it is becoming more clear exactly what makes good instructional design as well.

5 Golden Rules of High-Quality Instructional Design Infographic - e-Learning Infographics. (2014, May 19). Retrieved July 10, 2015, from http://elearninginfographics.com/5-golden-rules-of-high-quality-instructional-design-infographic/

"Inservice" by Doug Johnson. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2015, from https://www.flickr.com/photos/kjarrett/4138613146/

Instructional Design Series Introduction. (2013, December 26). Retrieved July 10, 2015, from https://youtu.be/_WGcS6lxqME

Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, New York.