Photo By: eBeam License CC
This class helped me re-focus my understandings of technology in the classroom based on a Constructavist approach. My professor Michael Wacker pushed me to think about what it really meant to be a learner and how our role as educators, can create the perfect learning environment for students. Ultimately, the best pedagogy for learning is for me, to get out of the way of my students.
My first artifact is what I call my TPACK planning tool. It is a Google Form that incorporates all the elements of TPACK to help teachers ensure they are appropriately integrating each component of the framework into their lesson development. I also attempted (and quite successfully) to incorporate other instructional philosophies, strategies, and systems into each section of the TPACK. For example, under Pedagogy, teachers, based on their lesson, select levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy and various instructional strategies from Robert Marzano. I would still like to revisit this tool as I would like to ensure that this tool can be used in the development of online blended courses. Right now I fell the tool does a good job in helping teachers “think” about all the components of TPACK but doesn’t necessarily help them walk away with a detailed lesson plan. To fix this I am going to add a section where teachers can post links to resources, content, and other information that is important to their online lesson.
What you may not know about my first artifact is that when a teacher submits the Google Form, a Google Document is created and emailed to the teacher, in a nice easy to read format. I was able to accomplish this by using a script called Autocrat. This script, uses the responses in the Google Spreadsheet that is created from the form, and puts those responses in a Google Doc with is then emailed to the user.
My second artifact is a collaborative lesson plan that I developed and worked on via Google Docs with one of my first grade teachers. I selected this since I felt the planning document incorporated every component of the TPACK framework. What I felt was special about this particular plan was that it really focused on 1) expanding the teacher’s understanding of technology content through using their interactive whiteboard (TK) and 2) focused on content and pedagogy by thinking about how to use the Interactive Whiteboard to help students their addition and subtraction strategies. This was one of the first times that I collaborated with another teacher at my school using a Google Doc. It was at this point that I realized the potential in remotely collaborating with teachers when many times, I don’t have time to meet with in a one on one setting. It was at this point that I began to deploy our Google Apps for Education accounts and bring more and more teachers into the power of this collaboration tool.
What I love about these artifacts is that the artifacts themselves demonstrate my own personal knowledge of TPACK, but they also encourage and support teachers in their development of using the TPACK framework. In my first artifact I used a Google script called Autocrat (which I describe above). This really challenged my TK in that I entered the realm of Google scripts which allowed me to use some of my programming knowledge, to manipulate Google Docs into what I need and want them to do. I feel that the TPACK planning form also demonstrated my PK in that it is one of the first planning documents I’ve built to take into consideration some of the best pedagogy practices available including Marzano’s Nine Instructional Strategies, Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy, and the components of Universal Design for Learning. In my collaborative lesson plan we focused on instructional content by looking at the Common Core Standards and the Math Objective (CK), while looking at the structure of the 3-part explore lesson (PK), and how flipcharts can support students sharing their understanding of the content (TK).
It’s truly when all these come together that we meet the “ideal” learning environment where TK is not being used as a simple engagement tool but as a seamless support to CK and PK.
Two artifacts that really stuck out to me were my TPACK Planning Tool for Teachers and my job description for and Instructional Technology Leader.
My TPACK planning tool is a unique combination of a Google Form, Google Docs, and an script called Autocrat. I essentially wanted a tool that pushed teachers to plan the "whole lesson" and to specifically plan how content would be used, what pedagogy would be used, and what technology would be incorporated. By taking into account each piece of the TPACK framework, teachers could start to see how each of these components integrate. This can be a large process when trying to look at the whole TPACK framework for each lesson, which is why I put this planning tool on a Google Form. It's somewhat difficult and lengthy to explain all the components of the form so be sure to check it out for yourself below. On a final note, the Autocrat script I installed on this Google Form, takes the results of the form when its submitted and emails it to you. Enjoy!
My job description reflected the skills and characteristic I felt were necessary for someone to lead their school in acquiring, training, and best practice for technology. I have used this job description to check and reflect my own work as I constantly am seeking improvement. Please feel free to take this document and use it however you see fit.
1. Visionary Leadership
a. Inspire and facilitate among all stakeholders a shared vision of purposeful change that maximizes use of digital-age resources to meet and exceed learning goals, support effective instructional practice, and maximize performance of district and school leaders
b. Engage in an ongoing process to develop, implement, and communicate technology-infused strategic plans aligned with a shared vision
c. Advocate on local, state and national levels for policies, programs, and funding to support implementation of a technology-infused vision and strategic plan
2. Digital Age Learning Culture
a. Ensure instructional innovation focused on continuous improvement of digital-age learning
b. Model and promote the frequent and effective use of technology for learning
c. Provide learner-centered environments equipped with technology and learning resources to meet the individual, diverse needs of all learners
d. Ensure effective practice in the study of technology and its infusion across the curriculum
e. Promote and participate in local, national, and global learning communities that stimulate innovation, creativity, and digital age collaboration
3. Excellence in Professional Practice
a. Allocate time, resources, and access to ensure ongoing professional growth in technology fluency and integration
b. Facilitate and participate in learning communities that stimulate, nurture and support administrators, faculty, and staff in the study and use of technology
c. Promote and model effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders using digital age tools
d. Stay abreast of educational research and emerging trends regarding effective use of technology and encourage evaluation of new technologies for their potential to improve student learning
4. Systemic Improvement
a. Lead purposeful change to maximize the achievement of learning goals through the appropriate use of technology and media-rich resources
b. Collaborate to establish metrics, collect and analyze data, interpret results, and share findings to improve staff performance and student learning
c. Recruit and retain highly competent personnel who use technology creatively and proficiently to advance academic and operational goals
d. Establish and leverage strategic partnerships to support systemic improvement
e. Establish and maintain a robust infrastructure for technology including integrated, interoperable technology systems to support management, operations, teaching, and learning
5. Digital Citizenship
a. Ensure equitable access to appropriate digital tools and resources to meet the needs of all learners
b. Promote, model and establish policies for safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology
c. Promote and model responsible social interactions related to the use of technology and information
d. Model and facilitate the development of a shared cultural understanding and involvement in global issues through the use of contemporary communication and collaboration tools
Avila, J., & Moore, M. (2012). Critical literacy, digital literacies, and common core state standards: a workable union?.
Theory Into Practice, 51(1), 27-33. doi:10.1080/00405841.2012.636332
In this article the authors JuliAnna Avila and Michael Moore examine how the Common Core Standards shows teachers more of what Digital Literacies students need to be proficient but shy away from what Critical Literacies students should have to be considered proficient. In the article a student’s “letter to the editor” is examined and compared to Common Core and Critical Literacies to see what standards were met. By the end of the article the author’s examine extensions that need to be put in place to encourage critical literacy skills in students.
Brodie, M., Flournoy, R. E., Altman, D. E., Blendon, R. J., Benson, J. M., & Rosenbaum, M. D. (2000). Health information, the internet, and the digital divide.
Health Affairs, 19(6), 255-265. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.19.6.255
Mollyann Brodie is vice-president, director of public opinion and media research, at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Rebecca Flournoy is a research associate in the same division. Drew Altman is president and chief executive officer of the foundation. Bob Blendon is professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard University’s School of Public Health and John F. Kennedy School of Government. John Benson is managing director of the Harvard Opinion Research Program at the School of Public Health. Marcus Rosenbaum is a senior editor at National Public Radio in Washington, D.C. In their research Brodie, Flournoy, Altman, Blendon, Benson, and Rosebbaum, looked at a sample of adults and students to assess their access to computers, the internet, and their use of these resources to find health related information. They found that families with an income of $30,000 or less were less likely to have a computer or Internet access than a family who made $50,000 or more. The study also found that kids in those families, who had computers, used their computers about 68%. Although their findings found little to know computer and Internet access at homes in low-income families, they did find that schools generally had access and thus “equalized” computer access among low income and higher income kids. Of all kids who had access to computers at home, only about 20% used the computer to research information about health. Although it doesn’t speak directly to the information literacy proficiency of the student, there is potentially a correlation. In conclusion the authors believe the digital divide in narrowing but low income families still fall far behind higher income families. They suggest that public internet access sites might help close the digital divide even more. It should be noted that the paper was written in 2000 and thus the information is at risk of being outdated.
Demiralay, R., & Karadeniz, S. (2010). The Effect of Use of Information and Communication Technologies on Elementary Student Teachers' Perceived Information Literacy
Self-Efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory And Practice, 10(2), 841-851. Retrieved from http://www.edam.com.tr/kuyeb/en/default.asp
Authors Raziye Demiralay and Sirin Karadeniz examine student teachers and have them self-reflect on their information literacy self-efficacy. The article examines and defines information literacy while examining why it is important for teachers to have information literacy skills. When teachers lack information literacy, generally think of themselves as less successful, and struggle to educate students who then grow up with low information literacy skills. The authors conducted their research by using a “relational survey model.” In this model students answered a survey about their use of information and communication technology and a survey to rate their own information literacy self-efficacy. The results of this survey found that student teachers perceived their information literacy skills as high. They also found that teachers, who used computers longer, say 6 or more years, scored higher in information self-efficacy than teachers who had less ICT use. In their final conclusion the authors recommend that information literacy skills be taught as part of the education licensure program through project based learning to ensure teachers leave undergraduate school proficient in information literacy.
Erdelez, S., Basic, J., & Levitov, D. D. (2011). Potential for inclusion of information encountering within information literacy models. Information Research: An International
Electronic Journal, 16(3), Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/
Sanda Erdelez is an Associate Professor at the School of Information Science and Learning Technologies, at the University of Missouri. Josipa Basic is a Doctoral student at the same school and Deborah Levitov is the Managing Editor for School Library Monthly. The article appears to address any profession in the education field who is interested in a better understanding of what information literacy skills are. Erdelez’s research examines information literacy models intended for use at the Elementary and Middle School levels. These research models included the Big 6, Kuhlthau’s information search process, Stripling and Pitts research process model, Pathways to knowledge model, and the Research Cycle. After reviewing all models through comparing and contrasting the various procedures, Erdelez concludes that information literacy models do no address the idea of information encountering. Erdelez’s research seems to be the only that examines the idea of information encountering in relation to information literacy models.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-Based
Technology Integration Reframed. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 41(4), 393-416. Retrieved from
Horrigan, J B. (2012). Recent tech adoption trends and implications for the digital divide. 2012 TRPC. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2031755
John B. Horrigan is the Vice President and Director for the Media and Technology Institute Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. His study was conducted in Illinois on a phone survey of 3,500 adults in February and March of 2012. Horrigan in his study looked at the percent of adults who had broadband internet service at home and/or a full feature smart phone. He found that broadband adoption had not significantly increased since 2009 (65% of households) to 2011 (68% of households) but that smartphone adoption had increased from 17% (2009) to 47% (2011). Horrigan found that 9% of those surveyed had recently canceled their broadband subscription due to the economy, and 16% for low-income families. In his comparison of smartphone and home broadband use, he found that 83% of people who had Internet at home, also had a smartphone, and only 23% reported having a smartphone only. He also found that those who used smartphones were limited in what they could access due to slower network connections and the constraints of smartphone operating systems. In conclusion, Horrigan believes that smartphone adoption has not helped increase the digital divide and found that adults who had both broadband and a smartphone did more activities online than those who had broadband or a smartphone only. He also found that cost related issues (40% of respondents) did not own either a smartphone or broadband due to cost.
Hudson, H. (2011). The digital divide. Instructor, 121(2), 46-50. Retrieved from: http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/instructor/index.htm
Hannah Trierweiler Hudson is a contributing editor to Instruction Magazine. In her article she looks at technology used at home versus technology used in the classroom. It should be noted that Hudson draws her conclusions on a study conducted by CDW-G, an IT distributor for government and education however, the data appears to be sound. In CDW-G’s findings, 75% of teachers reported using technology “regularly“ while only 40% of students felt that technology was being used regularly, yet 94% of students reported using technology at home to help with homework while the same teachers reported incorporating technology into homework only 46% of the time. Based on this data Hudson concludes that the “digital divide” exists in the school, and not at home. Hudson also found that 53% of students felt that school “restricted their use of cell phones” and that only 30% of students felt that they were able to provide input on what technology to use in school. In conclusion school restrictions on use of technology helps create a digital divide. Hudson also believes that it’s important to get student input into what technology they use at home and what they feel would be helpful to use at school. Overall Hudson raises some great questions about the role of schools and districts creating a digital divide. Although no other researchers reached these kinds of conclusions, I believe that district policy and the need to “protect” students from the internet is a major contributor to the digital divide.
Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Bell, S. (2006). Closing the Digital Divide: Update from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal Of Educational
Research, 100(1), 52-60. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.52-60
In the Journal of Research, Sharon Judge (University of Tennessee), Kathleen Puckett (Arizona State University) and Sherry Mee Bell (University of Tennessee) collected data around use of technology at school and home from grades K to 3rd in high-poverty and low-poverty schools. In their data collection they found that schools who were considered high-poverty (free and reduced lunch above 50%) had more computers per student in school versus low-poverty schools (free and reduced lunch below 50%) although high-poverty schools were 3 to 4 years behind high-income schools in available technology. Judge, Pucket, and Bell also found that high-poverty students were “less likely to have a computer or access to the internet at home.” In the area of computer use they found that high-poverty schools typically used technology for reading and math and taught using a “drill and kill style.” In low-poverty schools teachers had students use computers for internet purposes. In their findings students who used their computers to read, did not see achievement gains in reading, although there were gains in math. This raised the question of the impact of teacher understanding around best use of technology and use of reading software as an instructional tool. Judge, Pucket, and Bell conclude that a ratio of 5 to 1 students to computers would be considered and acceptable amount of technology access to have effective instruction. They did conclude however, that a digital divide still exists at home for students despite increased access at school (96% of students in high income families had a computer at home to 45.4% of low income families).
Karshmer, E., & Bryan, J. E. (2011). Perspectives on… • building a first-year information literacy experience: integrating best practices in education and acrl il competency
standards for higher education. Journal Of Academic Librarianship, 37(3), 255-266. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.018
Elana Karshmer is the Instruction Program and Information Literacy Library at Saint Leo University and Jacalyn E.Bryan is the Reference & Instructional Services Librarian at Saint Leo University. In their article, Karshmer and Bryan acknowledge a problem with incoming 1st year student’s inability and consistent struggle to retain proficient information literacy skills after taking introductory University research classes taught by the librarians. Karshmer and Bryan reflect on the teaching practices of their program to construct a new learning program that would help incoming students better retain critical information literacy skills. Some areas examined included the consideration of student’s background experiences with information literacy and how students would need to use information literacy skills in their first year of college. Ideas and concepts from instructional best practices and pedagogy from Robert Marzono and others were used to construct a new library information session. New learning activities included videos, interactive games, and prizes for correctly identifying different information skills that were taught. Through the use of surveys students were asked to reflect on various aspects of the session including how positive the experience was to how comfortable students were at conducting research. Karshmar and Bryan’s research focus around best pedagogical practices leads to a very unique and applicable set of information that educators can use to teach their students information literacy skills.
Koehler, M. (2011). What is tpack?. TPACK - Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Retrieved September 12th, 2012, from http://www.tpck.org/
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?. Contemporary Issues In Technology And Teacher Education
(CITE Journal), 9(1), 60-70. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol12/iss3/
Latham, D., & Gross, M. (2011). Enhancing skills, effecting change: evaluating an intervention for students with below-proficient information literacy skills. Canadian
Journal Of Information & Library Sciences, 35(4), 367-383. Retrieved from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/journal/journal.htm
In this article the authors, Don Latham and Melissa Gross, both professors from Florida State University, examined first year community college students and how successful interventions were in the area of Information Literacy. It should be noted that these students were considered below-proficiency in the area of Information Literacy. Students were examined by researchers through pre and post intervention test scores, interviews, interviews, and debriefs. This project lasted three years and was funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The authors discuss all the evidence and in the end conclude that the results of the interventions are mixed but that students generally learned at least one new skill from their interventions. The research shows the importance of K-12 education to fully educate students in Information Literacy skills before their entrance into college.
McBride, M. F. (2012). Reconsidering information literacy in the 21st century: the redesign of an information literacy class. Journal Of Educational Technology
Systems, 40(3), 287-300. doi: 10.2190/ET.40.3.e
There is no specific information for Mark F. McBride’s position within Buffalo State College however it can be assumed he is either a professor or associate professor since his article is in a journal. McBride examines 3-credit information literacy classes at various higher education facilities and their incorporation of 21st Century Learning Skills. McBride also looks at why the Constructivist approach to teaching is most effective when teaching information literacy skills and examines if the ACRLs information literacy standards are adequate for the 21st Century. McBride’s research is important for those educators who are looking to more effectively teach 21st Century Information Literacy Skills to their students to prepare them for the real world. Although McBride’s conclusions lack scientific evidence, his research opens questions up to educators to decide for themselves how effective ACRL information literacy standards to better adapt to the way people accessing information.
Nielsen, J. (2006, November 20). Digital divide: The three stages. Retrieved from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/digital-divide.html
Jakob Nielson has a Ph.D. in human-computer interaction from the Technical University of Denmark. He has a background in Engineering with Sun Microsystems. Nielson has written multiple books and journal articles around use if internet and media. In this article Nielsen describe the three digital divides as the “Economic Divide, the Usability Divide, and the Empowerment Divide. Nielsen defines the economic divide as “people who can’t afford to buy a computer.” He believes that with prices of computers starting around $300, that the economic divide is really not an issue any more. I would like to see specific data around high poverty families and the type of technology used at home before drawing any conclusions since Nielsen does not include his own research. Usability is defined as “technology remains so complicated that many people couldn’t use a computer even if they got one for free.” His third divide is “Empowerment” which is the idea that people don’t make full use of technology and its potential. Overall I like the ideas that Nielsen invokes, however, without proper research we should be careful to make any definitive decisions about these divides. I found that his work was a useful guide to exploring potential “digital divide” issues.
Niedbala, M., & Fogleman, J. (2010). Taking library 2.0 to the next level: using a course wiki for teaching information literacy to honors students. Journal
Of Library Administration, 50(7/8), 867-882. doi: 10.1080/01930826.2010.488986
Mona Anne Niedbala is the Education and Curriculum Materials Library at the University of Rhode Island and Jay Fogleman is an Assistant Professor at the University of Rhode Island. Niedbala and Fogleman examine the information literacy skills needed for the 21st Century and believe that higher expectations should be set for students in Higher Education due to the vast amount of information available in the 21st Century. Although the information literacy framework developed by Niedbala and Fogelman is more directed to college professors, many aspects of their framework including blended learning and Web 2.0 skills are beneficial topics for teachers in education to evaluate and understand. The authors, through research, gain an interesting insight into how effective college students felt various tools like Web 2.0 were effective to them in conducting research. The authors conclude learning theories like backwards design can help educators use online tools to effectively teach information literacy to students. In addition Web 2.0 technologies can help “improve information literacy instruction.”
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and, D. (2012). Are boys and girls ready for the digital age? PISA in Focus. No. 12. OECD Publishing.
Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/49442737.pdf
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a study conducted by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In their study OECD gathered data from nineteen different countries around Digital Reading Proficiency of 15 year old boys and girls. In their study Digital Reading was defined as the ability to, “locate, analyse, and critically evaluate information in an unfamiliar context and despite ambiguity. They can also navigate across multiple sites without explicit direction and handle texts in a variety of formats. In their research they found that the countries of Australia, Korea, and New Zealand were top performers in digital reading, having 17% of their students considered fully proficient in Digital Reading Proficiency. Other countries such as Austria, Chile, and Poland scored low, with only 3% of the students assessed scored proficient. Boys also typically outperformed girls in digital reading and had stronger “digital navigation skills.” In conclusion OECD believes that digital reading is important for students to have in order to “survive” in the digital age. OECD also believes that policy makers and educators should note the low scores overall and see the issues we’ll have with student’s understanding digital literacy if we don’t change policies. There are not concrete plans presented but the data definitely pushes us into discussions around how we can better serve students (both boys and girls) and help them gain digital reading proficiency.
Travis, T. (2011). From the classroom to the boardroom: the impact of information literacy instruction on workplace research skills. Education Libraries,
34(2), 19-31. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov
Author Tiffini Travis examines the idea of students leaving college and high school without proficient information literacy skills. Travis examines various reports that claim students aren’t ready for the work place because they lack 21st Century Skills and most importantly, information literacy skills. After reviewing previous findings, Travis conducts her own research through a five section survey that covers “Alumni Profile, Information Literacy, Information Sources used at work, Information sources used at Campus, and a Self-Assessment of Information Literacy/Research Skills.” Some interesting key findings concluded that students used more advanced search features on the internet than they did through college database libraries and that students either used “research” for “writing research papers” or solving everyday problems. Although Travis admits that more research should be conducted to evaluate if students are really receiving the information literacy skills they need for the workplace, many interesting ideas are brought up that calls for any educator to re-evaluate how the educate their students on information literacy skills.