Reflection over Budget Matrix

Link to Budget Matrix: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HPDgTr4L_9wkt_fXj4SfG7gL0UmJCphbDgsg9DOGOtM/edit?pli=1#gid=0


Blooms Taxonomy:

 CC-BY-ND

Retrieved from missrumphiuseffect.blogspot.com

 

    Bloom's taxonomy allows teachers to think about what their lessons are asking students to do as well as how they are showing what they know. Technology allows teachers to really move students from the lower order thinking zone to the higher order thinking zone because it turns students into creators whose projects can potentially be seen around the world, provided parents have consented. 

 

The 1:1 technology configuration and the 25 Chromebook configuration really lend themselves to the higher order thinking realm of Bloom's taxonomy because technology is available for all students and students are not being forced to have to work in large or small groups to accomplish task that ask students to be innovative. 

 

The other technology configurations could be used for higher order thinking projects, but like I said above the technology would have to be shared with a group limiting each individual student's access. 

 

Pros and Cons of configurations:

 

One Computer classroom--with projector and Mac Mini

 

Pros:

• You have technology in your room at least
• Your projector can be used to display information and instructions (Remembering/Understanding)

Cons:

• Limited access
• One student can use the computer at a time
• If teacher is using the computer then there is no access for students
• Unable to differentiate and really reach the higher order thinking level

Small Cluster of Computers in Classroom:

 

Pros:

• More access to technology
• Allows for group activities
• Able to differentiate
• Able to accommodate students with special needs
• Can be used to research (Remembering, Understanding)
• Can be used to create a project or a paper (All levels of Bloom's Taxonomy)

Cons:

• Most projects will have to be group projects
• If using these with individuals only, then a time card would need to be kept so that all students can use them.

Portable Computer Cart with 25 Chromebooks:

 

Pros:

• Better access to technology for your students depending on class size
• More can be done which means all levels of Bloom's can be met
• Students can record video and audio with Chromebooks (Creating, Evaluating, Analyzing)
• Allows for differentiation
• Able to accommodate all students
• Can be used for research (Remembering, Understanding)
• Files less likely to get mixed up with another students (Taylor, n.d.)

 

Cons:

• May have to share cart with other teachers which can limit access
• Chromebooks are not super durable, so even though you have 25 on any given day you may have less

Computer LAb 1:1 technology for all (30 iMacs):

 

Pros:

• Every student has access to technology
• Every student has the same amount of time to complete assignments (Taylor, n.d.)
• Assignments/Activities can meet all levels of Bloom's Taxonomy

 

Cons:

• May have to share the lab creating limited access (Hertz, 2013)
• Technology removed from the classroom (Hertz, 2013)
• Room layout (Hertz, 2013)
• Hard to use when coupled with a lesson that blends technology with non-technology (Taylor, n.d.)

 

BYOD:

 

Pros:

• Student files are easily contained on their own devices and will not get mixed up with another students (Taylor, n.d.)

 

 

Cons:

• Not all students may have devices
• Students who do not have the latest devices could be excluded or bullied
• Students may not charge devices adequately

 

Obstacles and Surprises with the Budget Matrix

No matter what you do, when it comes to technology you will encounter obstacles. It is important to know what you have available to you and create lessons around that availability. It is also important to have alternate assignments because technology will throw you curve balls. For instance a couple of months ago I was having students complete a lesson I created online and then our internet went down. I did not have a backup plan at the time and had to scramble to find something quick for the students to do. It is always important to come up with an alternative way to do things in case something doesn't work out.

 

When completing the budgeting matrix, I found it interesting to see how much the equipment cost, but it did not surprise me that it would be expensive. The one piece of equipment that surprised me the most was the cart for the chrome books. I looked for the one I have in my classroom and was floored to find out that it cost $565. I had figured it cost maybe $200. It was also interesting to see how much an Mac mini cost and to see what it was. I do not work with MACs in my school so this was a learning curve for me. For some reason it was hard to come up with all the concerns that might arise. I thought because I work with technology on a daily basis that I would be able to complete that part no problem; this was not the case. In was a great assignment to complete. It helped put into perspective for me how much the equipment really costs as well as made me brainstorm possible problems that might arise from using it.

 

References:

 

Hertz, M. (2013, January 9). The pros and cons of computer labs. Retrieved December 23, 2014, from Edutopia website: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/pros-cons-computer-labs-mary-beth-hertz

Taylor, K. (n.d.). Pros and Cons of Single Computers Vs. Computer labs in schools. Retrieved
December 23, 2014, from eHow website: http://www.ehow.com/
info_8465500_pros-vs-computer-labs-school.html

 

 

Data Assessment Module 5

Link to the spreadsheet

Analysis and Interventions:

When looking at the data, there are a few standards that need to be retaught. McKenzie (2014) would identify this as a "pattern of need" because standard M:01:NO:6.4 was missed by all but one student (as cited by Logan, 2014, para. 3). It would be a good idea to reteach this standard to the whole class. If she wanted to differentiate she could have the one student who exceled on the standard move ahead by providing an alternate activity for her.

Standards M:02:GM:6.6 and M:03:FA:6.1 were missed by 58% of her class, so it would be wise if she revisited this standard with the students who missed it. Again for the students who exceled on this standard, she could provide an alternate activity for them. Another option would be to assign one of the students who exceled with one of the students who missed the question as a learning partner. She could pair these students up to work on an activity that revisited those standards.

When looking at the student's scores, 50% of the class scored proficient with a 70% or higher while the other half scored not proficient with a 60% or below. She could create stations that meet the needs of all of her learners and pair the students up by ability. There are six students who scored proficient, so she could divide them up into groups of three. This is the same for her struggling learners. Each station could assess specific standards and the students would have to rotate through the stations.

Upon further evaluation I noticed that two of her struggling learners missed the exact same standards, so she might want to verify that there was not any cheating as well as provide necessary supports for those two students, Zamsung and Zhield. A site like yhomework  might be a helpful resource for them to use a study and practice aid. She might also want to create a quizlet over the standards missed by most of her students.

If she has an RTI or MTSS teacher it would be wise of her to share this data with them, so they can help her reach those students needing extra supports ("Helping Teachers to Structure," n.d., para. 1). In order to have an accurate baseline for her students "the teacher should collect 3-5 data-points prior to starting the intervention to calculate the student’s baseline, or starting point, in the skill or behavior that is being targeted for intervention ("Helping Teachers to Structure," n.d., para. 4), so I would recommend that she uses formative assessments often to gather the baseline ability for all of her students for the standards she is assessing.

While Alber (2011) encourages teachers to share the results of state tests with students to come up with goals, I would recommend this teacher to do the same with her baseline assessments of where students are in regards to the standards (para. 11). This would allow students to see what they are deficient in and reflect on how they can master the standards.

TOOLS 5.3

I liked using Google sheets because it is easy to use and is similar to excel. I feel it's strength is that it is a lot like excel; however, it does not have all the capabilities that excel has. One of the main draw backs I had with using Google sheets was when I was collecting data for action research, I was not able to select two cells and input an equation for both of them. I did not need to do this for the data assessment assignment, thankfully.

Adding color to the sheet, helped me to pinpoint areas of interest or patterns within the standards and students knowledge of them. I was able to identify that all but one student missed question 6, which is a standard that would need to be retaught.

I think Google docs, sheets, presentation, etc all lend themselves to the functionality of the classroom. For example, since I use the standards as the assignments within the gradebook, I needed something to keep track of the lessons my students were completing that I use as formative assessments. I turned to Google sheets to do this. The link to the sheet is on my website for easy access for my students. They can go to this sheet and see if I have marked them as passing their formative assessments or if I need to visit with them for one-on-one re-teaching. Google Sheets allows me to keep track of what my students have completed as well as provides them with the feedback they need to progress to my summative assessments.

As I stated in my earlier post over data assessment, I would recommend the teacher to use Quizlet with her students as a study aid for the standards the students are struggling with. Quizlet allows teachers to create flashcards and games that students complete over a vocabulary the teacher inputs. I use Quizlet and have embedded falsh cards and games for students to complete within my website.

Another Web 2.0 tool I recommended was yHomework. This tool allows students to input an equation and then the site will solve it two different ways. This should only be used as a study aid for students who need to see the visual steps again.

Another cool Web 2.0 tool she could use is Pixel Press "Floors" which allows students to create a game using graph paper and then to actually play the game. She could have students create equations and then create games that meet those equations in order to demonstrate their understanding of the math standard.



References:

Alber, R. (2011, December 6). Three ways student data can inform your teaching. Retrieved  
     December 15, 2014, from Edutopia website: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/
     using-student-data-inform-teaching-rebecca-alber

Helping teachers to structure their classroom (tier 1) data collection. (n.d.). Retrieved December
      15, 2014, from Intervention Central website: http://www.interventioncentral.org/
      response_to_intervention_structuring_teacher_data_collection

Logan, L. (2014). 5 ways to use data to improve your teaching. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from
      Amplify website: http://www.amplify.com/viewpoints/5-ways-to-use-data-to-improve-your- 
      teaching

Mrs. Slifer's Technology Presentation

Link to Google Site

Professional Development Survey

Professional Development Survey
Link to Survey: https://docs.google.com/a/fmcsd.org/forms/d/1I3Le6fD5f8QonDJsUqgOh3BaSb4TPsCAhSyyQTjcBlY/viewform

TPACK

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework (TPACK) is the combining of our technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (Zirkel & Troxel, 2014). Each of these pieces can be combined in numerous ways, for instance our pedagogical and content knowledge (PCK) or our technological content knowledge (TCK) (Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg, 2013), but the sweet spot as Candace M (2013) calls it in her "TPACK in 2 minutes" video it is when all three of these "knowledge pieces" merge to in the middle forming TPACK. Below is a diagram of TPACK:

To break TPACK down for you, let me define each piece. Koehler et al. (2013) define the pieces below as follows:

• Technological Knowledge (TK): Knowing how to use technology for educational purposes such as giving a presentation using PowerPoint or Google Presentation. It also refers to being able to adapt to technological change and learning how to use new technology.
• Content Knowledge (CK): Subject matter knowledge.
• Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): The skills teachers have in order to teach. Knowledge of teaching strategies. Classroom management skills. Ability to motivate learners and assess learners.

Now for the combinations, defined by Harris & Hofer (2009):

• "Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): How to teach particular content-based material
• Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): How to select and use technologies to communicate particular content knowledge
• Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): How to use particular technologies when teaching" (para. 3)

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) occurs when each of these pieces come together (Koehler et al., 2013). Koehler (2013) states, "For the teacher with TPACK, knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content is synthesized and put to use for the design of learning experiences for students (p. 4).

Implementing TPACK

There are two main approaches a teacher can take when implementing the TPACK Framework into their curriculum (Koehler et al., 2013).

• Activity Types: In this approach, Mishra & Koehler (2009) state that a teacher must first come up with the goals for the lesson or unit (as cited by Koehler et al., 2013, p. 5). Next, Koehler et al. (2013) state that teachers must then choose activities that align with the goals (p. 5). Lastly, teachers then select technology that will fit with their activity choice (p. 5).
• In the Activity Types approach Harris and Hofer (2009) break down this approach in the following way as "five basic instructional decisions":
• "Choosing learning goals
• Making practical pedagogical decisions about the nature of the learning experience
• Selecting and sequencing appropriate activity types to combine to form the learning experience
• Selecting formative and summative assessments strategies that will reveal what and how well students are learning
• Selecting tools and resources that will best help students to benefit from the learning experience being planned (para. 7)

Harris & Hofer (2009) advocate when using the Activity Types approach teachers should use "curriculum-specific, technology-enhanced learning activity types as the building blocks for instructional planning" (para. 8). They also stress that the more activity types used, the more complex the lessons (para. 15).

          Below is an example of the table provided by Harris & Hofer (2009):

                                             Knowledge Building Activity Types

• Activity Type: Read Text     Description: Students read a text in order to extract information  Possible Technologies: Websites, electronic books

                                  Convergent Knowledge Expression Activity Types

• Activity Type: Answer Questions     Description: Students respond to questions in a traditional format or through the use of a digital technology such as a discussion board, email, or chat    Possible Technologies: Inspiration, Word, BlackBoard, eboards

Harris & Hofer (2009) provide seven different activity types to choose from. When designing a TPACK lesson using activity types, teachers can pull from these seven activity types, but can do this in any combination that meets the goals of the lesson (para. 15).

• Learning Technology by Design: Koehler et al. (2013) state that this approach is an "authentic" one for teachers and graduate students. In this approach faculty or graduate students "design an educational technology artifact that develops in-step with the student's progress through coursework or professional development (p. 6).

It is important to note that Koehler et al. (2013) state that "the development of TPACK should begin with relatively familiar technologies" (p. 6).  When teachers do not have the proper technological knowledge or technological vocabulary and begin in unfamiliar territory frustration is in the end result (Meltzer, 2012, p. 3).

TPACK is a great framework to use when developing lessons enhanced with technology. It has been my personal experience that this framework works well within the core content areas. I tend to start with the Iowa Common Core as my goal since I do standards-based grading and assessing in my classes. This helps me to align the framework with the Core.

If you are wanting to do more research on TPACK, I recommend the following sites:

• http://youtu.be/FagVSQlZELY
• http://cadrelearning.com/
• http://www.heitmanagement.com/blog/2013/03/the-information-technology-departments-role-in-higher-education-seen-through-the-tpack-model/

References:

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based  
     TPACK development. Research highlights in technology and teacher education, 99-108.

M, C. (2013, April 26). TPACK in 2 minutes [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/
     watch?v=FagVSQlZELY

Meltzer, S. (2012). Step-by-step: Professional development in technology. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
     Education.

Zirkel, B., & Troxel, A. (2014). Our Purpose. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from Cadre Learning
     website: http://cadrelearning.com/our-purpose.html

Image References:
TPACK Image by Heitmanagement.com is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND