RATIONALE PAPER
Ronen Cohen, 5th Grade Homeroom Teacher, India
Spring 2015
INTRODUCTION
This rationale paper, together with a reflection video, is the cumulative project of my EdTech
journey. In them I provide evidence of important steppingstones and milestones in my path, which
give proof to my understanding, skills, and practice within the Masters of Educational Technology
program at Boise State University.
In this paper, I identify the five 2012 Association of Educational Communications and Technology
(AECT) standards and indicators, and provide artifacts, supportive evidence, and reasoning to
demonstrate my mastery of each.
STANDARD 1: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.
534 Logo Quiz App: This blog post is a quiz app I created. The quiz asks students to identify
different logos.
501 Tech Trends: In this blog post I discuss my thoughts and process behind creating a lesson that
incorporates technology. Embedded within is a lesson about creating multiplication videos to
demonstrate student understanding.
541 Presentation Applications: In this blog post I discuss effective use of presentations in the
classroom.
505 – Evaluation Report Project: This document is the evaluation report I conducted for my
school’s Student Report system. Every stage of the process of writing and conducting the
evaluation was shared and discussed with my EdTech peers.
1
502 – Netiquette: This web page lesson was designed for students to learn about the etiquette of
using the Internet.
Indicator 1.1 Creating
Artifact: 534 Logo Quiz App
Indicator 1.1 addresses candidates’ ability to create instructional materials and learning
environments using a variety of systems approaches. This logo quiz is an example for an
innovative way to create and use assessments in the classroom. It took me a while to tweak the
blocks and create the final product, but I was satisfied with this app. It demonstrates my ability to
design instructional materials that are relevant, interesting, and engaging to students. I know that
this was a successful product through my observation of students’ reactions. My students were
excited and engaged while taking the quiz; much more so than I have seen them take a
paperandpencil quiz. The discussion that followed extended beyond the intended outcomes, and
covered many different topics, such as how to create quizzes, how to build apps, and about the
level of support designers should include. I find it enjoyable and satisfying to see my students so
engaged in their learning and so curious about technology.
Indicator 1.2 Using
Artifact: 501 Tech Trends
Indicator 1.2 addresses candidates’ ability to select and use technological resources and processes
to support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy. This assignment includes the thought
processes I went through when I looked for interesting ways to teach students, trying to create as
many connections across disciplines as possible. The embedded multiplication lesson asks students
to demonstrate their understanding of the multiplication concept by creating a tutorial video for
their peers. According to Learning Pyramid model, created by the National Training Laboratory in
Bethel, Maine (as cited by thepeakperformancecenter.com), teaching others about a concept is the
most effective way to demonstrate understanding, and learning retention is at about 90% (Peak
Performance Center, 2013). In addition, utilizing an already existing resource (my class’s
only2clicks page) saved valuable instructional time, by helping students to quickly locate
2
preselected videos. This artifact shows that the resources and instructional methodologies I choose
allow for high student engagement and greater chance of success. Observing students throughout
the process and their products, as well as their final assessment results confirmed the research
mentioned above, in that both their motivation and understanding increased by completing this
lesson.
Indicator 1.3 Assessing/ Evaluating
Artifact: 541 Presentation Applications
Indicator 1.3 addresses candidates’ ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of
appropriate technologies and instructional materials. I must admit that prior to this course I was
guilty of creating overwhelming and inappropriate presentations, but learning why so many people
have an aversion to presentations, and how to create an effective, appropriate and viewerfriendly
presentation, has allowed me to better utilize this tool both in and out of the classroom. This
artifact demonstrates my knowledge and understanding of how to create and assess presentations,
so that they support student understanding. The attempts to be flashy or impressive by adding too
much information on one slide, or by choosing distracting color combinations, sounds, or labels,
can decrease the effectiveness of the presentation. Instead, PowerPoint presentations should help
the audience to understand key concepts and visualize ideas, while at the same time ensure the
information is clear, convincing, memorable, and most importantly, simple (Kapterev, 2008). As a
teacher, it is not easy to get the students to understand this concept. It takes a lot of teaching and
practice to make sure they slow down, take notes, summarize and synthesize information, and
remember that their ability to discuss the topic is the main objective, while their presentations are
there to support and remind their audience of the main ideas.
Indicator 1.4 Managing
Artifact: 505 – Evaluation Report Project
Indicator 1.4 addresses candidates’ ability to effectively manage people, processes, physical
infrastructures, and financial resources to achieve predetermined goals. This evaluation
assignment came at just the right time, as more and more teachers were frustrated with the current
report card system at my school, and it was clear that it must be discussed, assessed and improved.
3
In the course of the document’s creation I interacted with my supervisors, colleagues, and
students’ parents to ensure proper communication and that the results represent the views and
opinions of all stakeholders. Throughout the evaluation, I planned and led activities, created a
timeline for the evaluation and shared it with all stakeholders, composed survey questions and
analyzed them, interviewed stakeholders, and showed flexibility in dealing with different people
and in working within the school’s priorities. Conducting the evaluation report was not easy, and I
often struggled to balance the timeframe with the demands of the task. I felt inexperienced and did
not want to “bother” my busy supervisors and colleagues. This being said, I held my breath and
persevered. The outcome of the evaluation was quite successful, in that it allowed for my
supervisors to identify the system’s strengths and areas that needed further examination and
possible modification. This assignment was also personally significant, in that I learned a lot about
the perceptions different stakeholders held, which has already helped me when I wrote subsequent
reports, by including more specific information, and modifying my conference schedule with
parents to allow for more quality discussions.
Indicator 1.5 Ethics
Artifact: 502 – Netiquette
Indicator 1.5 addresses candidates’ ability to demonstrate the contemporary professional ethics of
the field as defined and developed by the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology. This Netiquette page directly relates to the Discussion of the Principles of the AECT
Code of Professional Ethics. According to the AECT (2008), under the Commitment to the
Individual section, technology teachers are obligated to “protect the privacy and maintain the
personal integrity of the individual” (guideline 4), as well as to “make reasonable effort to protect
the individual from conditions harmful to health and safety” (guideline 6) (AECT, 2008). As a
teacher of 11 yearolds and a father of an 8 yearold, I know that students stumble upon
inappropriate and potentially dangerous content, and it is within my responsibility to educate them
about these issues. The Netiquette web page I created includes guidelines and recommendation for
appropriate use of email, chat rooms, and discussion boards, as well as general safety and
communication guidelines whenever students are online. I shared it with my students at the
4
beginning of the year, and it was interesting to see how many of them did not follow simple
courtesy behaviors or did not understand why they should not share personal information online.
STANDARD 2: CONTENT PEDAGOGY
Candidates develop as reflective practitioners able to demonstrate effective implementation of educational technologies and processes based on contemporary content and pedagogy.
542 – PBL Website Project: Inventions: This artifact is a sixweek unit of instruction about
inventions and innovations. It includes an overview, a teaching and learning guide, assessments,
and resources. It follows a problembased learning model.
502 – Web pages for Mobile Devices: This set of web pages was created for my students’ annual
field trip to an NGO in India. It is designed for use with mobile devices, and includes assignments
for completion before, during and after the field trip.
501 Technology Use Planning: This blog post provides an overview for the importance of careful
planning when it comes to technology use at schools. It includes references to guidelines and
personal reflection.
Class Blog: This artifact is my class blog for our current unit, “The Exhibition”, and includes
entries authored by myself as well as by administrators at my school. The blog entries I wrote
include information clarifying what the Exhibition is, clarifying tasks, and more.
503 – Final ID Project: Designing Board Games: This inquirybased unit guides students in the
process of designing board games under the theme of Child Labor.
Indicator 2.1 Creating
Artifact: 542 – PBL Website Project: Inventions
Indicator 2.1 addresses candidates’ ability to apply content pedagogy to create appropriate
applications of processes and technologies to improve learning and performance outcomes. This
unit follows the problembased learning model, which according to the research conducted by the
5
Buck Institute for Education, has multiple benefits for academic achievement and mastering 21st
century skills, and it supports and encourages equity, and increases motivation (BIE, 2013). In this
inventions and innovations unit, students connections to their own lives, they engage in a
scaffolded inquiry, and then continue their own research journey into an invention or innovation of
their choice, which increases their motivation and ownership over their work (BIE, 2013). When
completed, students share their inquiries and findings both in class and on the school’s website,
which allows them to celebrate their work and achievements. Students respond to inquiry based
units positively because they are structured in a way that allows each student to make choices and
steer his/her learning in a personally significant direction. The unit I created is similar to the units I
have been cowriting since 2005 while working for International Baccalaureate schools, which
follow inquirybased curriculum. What I gained from creating this unit was not as much in the way
PBL units are conceptualized, but more in the level of detail of documentation and the need to
align activities to standards, which I had little experience with.
Indicator 2.2 Using
Artifact: 502 – Web pages for Mobile Devices
Indicator 2.2 addresses candidates’ ability to implement appropriate educational technologies and
processes based on appropriate content pedagogy. Learning from my experiences of creating
boring sitdownandwrite/think/discuss activities for a fun field trip was necessary. This
assignment was the answer to my (and my students’) prayers! This web page contains a set of
assignments I created for students to complete before, during, and after their field trip to a local
NGO. It is an example for my newlyacquired ability to use my HTML/CSS skills to create
engaging, appropriate, and differentiated lessons not only for the classroom, but also when
students don’t have desks and desktop computers. According to Dierking, learning is “strongly
influenced by setting, social interaction, and individual beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes” (1991),
and taking advantage of the unique opportunities such occasions offer must be utilized well. This
set of fun tasks allowed students to engage with the place differently. Their questions were
answered by viewing videos, reading blogs and articles, hunting for objects, drawing maps and
diagrams, taking photos of their experiences, recording their findings, and more. By doing that,
each of them became familiar with the environment, reflected on their experiences, and interpreted
6
them in their own ways. Handson, inquirybased learning stimulated students’ interest and, as a
result, they were more motivated to learn, explore and discover.
Indicator 2.3 Assessing/Evaluating
Artifact: 501 Technology Use Planning
Indicator 2.3 addresses candidates’ ability to demonstrate an inquiry process that assesses the
adequacy of learning and evaluates the instruction and implementation of educational
technologies and processes grounded in reflective practice. In this blog post I cited research to
support the idea that technology planning is not a quick and simple task, but one that requires time
and effort to understand and implement procedures. I also reflected on the issue in a more personal
way, discussing the thoughts behind the implementation of technology in my classroom.
Researching and reflecting on the quality of educational technology implementation is necessary if
a school wishes to keep up with the rapidly changing times. My research, as cited in the artifact,
has shown that this should be a collaborative effort in which teachers and administrators sit
together, decide on short and long term goals, and discuss what they would like to do in the
classroom before deciding which technologies should be purchased. This helps schools to avoid
spending money on hardware and software they won’t end up using.
Doing the research for this assignment has taught me a lot about the way I planned my own
technology integration. As I wrote in the blog post, I came across the SAMR integration model of
Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redesign (Puentedura, 2011), which allowed me to
reflect on my own practices, and to ask myself how I could get my students to redefine existing
tasks rather than simply substitute technology without any functional change. This reflection gave
rise to the introduction of the Google Apps suite to encourage collaboration.
Indicator 2.4 Managing
Artifact: Class Blog
Indicator 2.4 addresses candidates’ ability to manage appropriate technological processes and
resources to provide supportive learning communities, create flexible and diverse learning
environments, and develop and demonstrate appropriate content pedagogy. Although young
learners acquire skills to become responsible for their learning as part of a classroom community,
7
it is also necessary to ensure parents are informed, and if possible, become active participants in
their children’s education. My class blog attempts to encourage such learning environment.
According to Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, research suggests that there are
many benefits to students whose parents are involved, such as having better social skills, adapting
well to school, earning higher grades and test scores, and more (2002). The blog allows for parents
to keep abreast of the taught curriculum, and helps parents and students to review and reflect on
their learning, and plan for the upcoming weeks. Maintaining an informative blog and providing
parents with the platform to publicly communicate and celebrate learning has been a successful
endeavor at my school with parents. Although they do not usually leave comments on the blog,
they frequently tell my administrators and myself about its informative nature and usefulness in
directing their children’s learning.
Indicator 2.5 Ethics
Artifact: 503 – Final ID Project: Designing Board Games
Indicator 2.5 addresses candidates’ ability to design and select media, technology, and processes
that emphasize the diversity of our society as a multicultural community. This board game focuses
on human rights issues, and child labor in particular. According to the AECT’s code of
professional ethics, technology teachers should “... encourage independent action in an individual's
pursuit of learning and shall provide access to varying points of view” (Section 1.1) and “... seek to
encourage the development of programs and media that emphasize the diversity of our society as a
multicultural community.” (Section 1.8) (AECT, 2011). I feel that this artifact demonstrates
mastery of the indicator because I was able to expose my students to a sensitive issue, but
approach it in a balanced and respectful way toward both my host country and our global society.
Living and working in India is not a walk in the park when one considers all the human rights
issues involved. While creating this board game I had to make sure to not only introduce the harsh
world of child laborers, but also the complex reality these children live in. Striking a balance
between the world of the child laborer on one hand, and the economy, tradition, and politics
involved on the other hand, was not easy, but it was something that I felt must be done. Although
students struggled to accept some of the concepts (such as police corruption), I felt that they
8
understood them, and as a result it helped them make more sense of their lives as expatriates in
India.
STANDARD 3: LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments.
502 – Jigsaw Activity Governmental Systems: This web page helps students to learn about
governmental systems through a jigsaw activity. It includes instructions and resources for the
activity.
502 – WebQuest: Facebook A Blessing or a Curse?: This website is a Webquest about social
media. By going through the quest, students learn about the advantages and risk involved in using
social media.
505 – Evaluation Report Project: This is the evaluation report I conducted for my school’s Student
Report system. Every stage of the process of writing and conducting the evaluation was shared and
discussed with my EdTech peers.
551 Grant Proposal: Induction and Training Retreat: This artifact is a draft grant proposal, asking
the administrators at my school to consider and approve a staff retreat which includes team
building and technology induction.
502 – Copyright and Fair Use: This web page is a scavenger hunt lesson that guides students as
they research and learn more about plagiarism, copyrights, fair use and creative commons, and the
public domain.
541 Student Safety: This blog post outlines potential problems related to the use of Internet for
teacher use.
9
541 Assistive Technologies: This blog post discusses accommodating of students with learning
differences. Embedded within is a guide for the builtin accessibility features of Apple computers
as well as suggested available software that can help bridge the gaps for different learning
differences.
Indicator 3.1 Creating
Artifact: 502 – Jigsaw Activity Governmental Systems
Indicator 3.1 addresses candidates’ ability to create instructional design products based on
learning principles and researchbased best practices. Although many teachers use the
thinkpairshare strategy, creating a complete assignment in HTML was a first for me. Aside from
improving my coding and web design skills, this activity also shows that I understand the
importance of the community in learning, whether it is through the contribution to understanding
and knowledge, the social interaction, or through the emotional support provided by peers. One of
Christopher Hoadley’s definitions for a community of practice explains that through the exposure
and interaction of its members, knowledge is acquired and generated (Hoadley, 2012). By allowing
students to share their understanding, new knowledge is created not only in the students’ mind but
also for society as a whole. The continued practice of teachers allowing students to engage in
inquiry and collaboration through these types of assignments is what creates these meaningful
constructs.
Indicator 3.2 Using
Artifact: 502 – WebQuest: Facebook A Blessing or a Curse?
Indicator 3.2 addresses candidates’ ability to make professionally sound decisions in selecting
appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning based on
principles, theories, and effective practices. One of the aspects I enjoyed most about EdTech 502
is that the products I created were applicable and meaningful to my classroom. While researching
about safety on the Internet I stumbled upon several articles about the devastating effects social
media can have on people, and teenages in particular. Discussing a cyber bullying incident in my
classroom led to the creation of this social media WebQuest. As a teacher, it is important for me to
make sure that my students consider their own physical safety and emotional health. Creating
10
lessons that allow them to find out more about what they do and how it may affect them negatively
encourages a safer learning community and a place where students think critically about important
matters. This resource allows for optimal conditions for learning to take place, and is supported by
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory, in when students’ psychological and safety needs are met,
they are more likely to have more energy, concentration, and meaningful learning experiences
(Saeednia, 2009).
Indicator 3.3 Assessing/Evaluating
Artifact: 505 Evaluation Report Project
Indicator 3.3 addresses candidates’ ability to use multiple assessment strategies to collect data for
informing decisions to improve instructional practice, learner outcomes, and the learning
environment. Although I initially had little theoretical knowledge but no experience in evaluating
programs, I worked through the weekly assignments, meetings, and writeups and produced a
finished piece I am very proud of. This document shows my ability to design assessment methods,
create tools, and collect relevant data that allows for the betterment of my school. The surveys I
designed, the activities I led, and the meetings and interviews I held, have all been instrumental in
conducting and completing this evaluation, especially at a time when several colleagues,
administrators, and parents were struggling to understand why the current report card did not seem
to work. One of the most important benefits of formal evaluations is that institutions can determine
how effective the program is and which areas need to be improved, modified, and/or omitted
(Boulmetis and Dutwin, 2011). Conducting the evaluation at my school has been beneficial to
myself (I reconceptualized the content of my reports to better match parents’ needs), and I am
hoping that at least some of the evaluation recommendations would make their way into the new
student report system. This implications of this evaluation have also affected my students and
parents, in the sense that they now have a clearer picture of the social, emotional, and academic
progress.
Indicator 3.4 Managing
Artifact: 551 Grant Proposal: Induction and Training Retreat
11
Indicator 3.4 addresses candidates’ ability to establish mechanisms for maintaining the technology
infrastructure to improve learning and performance. The writing of this grant proposal for a staff
induction and training retreat was designed to improve the learning environment at my school
through team building and through learning about the technology we already have. Due to high
turnover among administrators and teachers, there has not been a clear direction in my school’s
technology mission and vision. This proposal for a retreat in which teachers get to know each other
better and improve communication, and where teachers and administrators get training on the
technology we already have demonstrates my ability to find creative ways to make better use of
what we have so that teachers and students can benefit from the valuable resources at my school.
Unfortunately, by the time I completed the proposal, additional turnover in staff and administrators
took place, and so it was not accepted. This being said, writing the proposal has greatly benefitted
my growth as a teacher and a leader. It allowed me to collaborate, create an inventory, start a
discussion about inhouse sharing and training, and most importantly, to find ways to help my
school to better manage existing resources to improve performance and learning.
Indicator 3.5 Ethics
Artifacts: 502 – Copyright and Fair Use and 541 Student Safety
Indicator 3.5 addresses candidates’ ability to foster a learning environment in which ethics guide
practice that promotes health, safety, best practice, and respect for copyright, Fair Use, and
appropriate open access to resources. I chose to use two artifacts to satisfy this indicator because
they demonstrate my ability to create such learning environments for both students and teachers.
The Copyright and Fair Use scavenger hunt teaches students about plagiarism, copyrights, fair use,
and the public domain. This artifact directly relates to AECT ethics guideline 4.1.7, which
discusses inappropriate use of instructional technologies and resources. It also relates to guideline
4.1.9 which emphasizes teachers’ “unique position to influence the attitudes and behaviors of
learners” and encourages teachers “through words and deeds… [to] convey to others the
importance of honoring and respecting the integrity and potential of every individual” (AECT,
2008). Creating a guide that teaches students about appropriate citation, and their rights and
responsibilities as ‘producers and users of content’ indicates my understanding and application of
this indicator. The Student Safety blog entry includes potential problems and possible solutions for
12
teachers to learn about when using the Internet with their students. This artifact also relates to
AECT Ethics guidelines 4.1.7 and 4.1.9, and shows my ability to foster a safe and ethical learning
as an informed and proactive colleague as well.
Indicator 3.6 Diversity of Learners
Artifact: 541 Assistive Technologies
Indicator 3.6 addresses candidates’ ability to foster a learning community that empowers learners
with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. This assignment allowed me to dig deeper
into what current technologies offer, and how they can be utilized by users with different needs.
Learning about the builtin features and the additional software and tools that help bridge the gaps
between students and the curriculum, has allowed me to reach more students and provide them
with easier access to the curriculum, thereby empowering them in their learning journey. By
teaching about, and using these tools in the classroom, I found that they have the potential to
provide clarity and to simplify tasks for all students, allowing them to become more productive
and organized.
STANDARD 4: PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS
Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technologyrich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.
501 Digital Divide: This blog post discusses a collaborative task of addressing digital inequalities.
It includes a reflection about the process, the product, and about my experiences at my current
school.
Google Apps for Education Presentation: I created this Google Slides presentation for a workshop
I led at my school. In the presentation I introduce the Google Apps suite and explain how to use
Google Drive to create, manage, and share documents on iPads.
501 School Evaluation Summary: This evaluation and rating of my school’s Information
Technology Department includes a summary of my research, details the different equipment the
school had, and an explanation of how the network operated.
13
503 – Final ID Project: Designing Board Games: This inquirybased unit guides students in the
process of designing board games under the theme of Child Labor.
502 – Virtual Field Trip: This website is a virtual field trip to Israel. It includes external links to
information about the history, activities, recommended sites, and fun videos about four popular
destinations.
Indicator 4.1 Collaborative Practice
Artifact: 501 Digital Divide
Indicator 4.1 addresses candidates’ ability to collaborate with their peers and subject matter
experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners.
The Digital Divide assignment was a collaborative assignment, and in the blog post I discussed the
benefits and limitations I experienced while collaborating with peers who lived half way around
the world. In this assignment I collaborated with peers to analyze a digital inequality issue,
considered options and offered solutions to address the inequalities. It shows my ability to
collaboratively identify, analyze, evaluate, and make suggestions about different innovations in
learning communities and policies and regulations dealing with instructional technologies.
Thinking about digital inequalities made me reflect about my school’s practices and the
perceptions teachers and parents have about technology and its connection to student literacy. In
my local context, as I am employed at a welltodo private school in India, I felt that it is our moral
obligation to share our knowledge and resources with local schools, and help narrow the gaps. I am
glad to say that my discussions with colleagues have been effective, and their understanding of the
issue and willingness to examine it and help a local school has been quite successful, as the
relationship continues to this day.
Indicator 4.2 Leadership
Artifact: Google Apps for Education Presentation
Indicator 4.2 addresses candidates’ ability to lead their peers in designing and implementing
technologysupported learning. One reason I am extremely thankful for my coursework at Boise is
14
that it not only provided me with the necessary knowledge about technology, but it also forced me
to converse about it, which allowed me to become confident enough to share my newfound
knowledge with others. To demonstrate my mastery of indicator 4.2 I chose to include a workshop
to teachers I recently led about the use of the Google Apps suite on iPads. I have been using the
Google Apps suite (Classroom, Docs, Sheets, etc.) with my students since the beginning of the
year as a pilot program due to my experience with, and knowledge of the software. Throughout the
year I helped teachers understand how to use applications that allow them to easily create,
distribute, manage, and assess assignments and to encourage and support collaboration among
their students. These types of opportunities (formal and informal presentations) have slowly built
my confidence and ability to lead colleagues in the use and implementation of innovative
technologysupported learning. I was very happy to finally being able to do so. I have always been
excited for such opportunities and feel that my first successful formal workshop will give rise to
many more.
Indicator 4.3 Reflection on Practice
Artifact: 501 School Evaluation Summary
Indicator 4.3 addresses candidates’ ability to analyze and interpret data and artifacts and reflect
on the effectiveness of the design, development and implementation of technologysupported
instruction and learning to enhance their professional growth. If I were asked to analyze my
school’s network system prior to EdTech 501, I would have left the conversation with nothing to
answer. This course has equipped me with the knowledge and understanding of what networks are
and how they operate, and has given me a model to use to evaluate existing structures. In this
evaluation, I gathered, interpreted and applied data, which was then reflected upon and used for the
betterment of my school, and therefore a perfect fit for this indicator. I followed Chip Kimball and
Peter Sibley’s Maturity Model Benchmarks as a framework (Kimball & Sibley, 1997), and
interviewed and surveyed a variety of stakeholders at my school. By having these conversations
and looking into how my school operates and then creating this artifact, I feel that I also revived
our IT department’s reflective practices. This year a full audit is taking place, which I am
interested to find out how the analyses and recommendations match the ones in my document.
15
Indicator 4.4 Assessing/Evaluating
Artifact: 503 – Final ID Project: Designing Board Games
Indicator 4.4 addresses candidates’ ability to design and implement assessment and evaluation
plans that align with learning goals and instructional activities. This project was based on the
ARCS model, which has a very studentcentered pedagogical approach, and focuses on designing
learning environments to stimulate and sustain students’ motivation (Keller, 2013). It contains a
detailed analysis of potential learners and the evaluation methods designed to ensure the project
would be successful. I used expert reviews and population samples to conduct onetoone, small
group, and field trial evaluations. To ensure motivation would be sustained, I included handson
activities, used audiovisuals, focused on student choice, made connections to students’ prior
experiences, scaffolded learning, and provided frequent feedback. By carefully considering
students’ needs and wants, and putting emphasis on sustaining their motivation in each step of the
way, teachers have a better chance of creating effective and engaging materials.
Indicator 4.5 Ethics
Artifact: 502 – Virtual Field Trip
Indicator 4.5 addresses candidates’ ability to 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 chose this virtual field trip artifact because given the fact that Israel is quite a
controversial place, and so it is important to be sensitive to different perspectives and opinions.
When I searched for media about Israel, it was not an easy task to find articles and videos for
young students that present both sides of the conflict. While using this assignment with my
students it was interesting to hear students’ thoughts about the videos they watched and the new,
less biased, information they viewed. We had animated conversations about the media and Israel,
and the implications to other global and potentially controversial issues. By being sensitive to the
different learners and investing time and effort into finding appropriate materials, I feel that I
mastered this indicator.
16
STANDARD 5: RESEARCH
Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance.
503 – Reading Quiz: Instructional Design: This artifact is a quiz that turned into a presentation
using text and images to explain concepts about instructional design.
541 Integrating technology into Content Areas: This blog post discusses the benefits and effective
use of technology integration in different content areas. Embedded within are example lessons for
Mathematics, Language Arts, and using spreadsheets and databases.
504 – Final Synthesis Paper: Social Networking Technologies: This research paper explores
Social Networking Technologies and their place in education. Through the synthesis of relevant
research, I outline different learning theories, present research about their effectiveness, and
conclude with suggestions for proper implementation.
505 – Evaluation Report Project: This artifact contains the evaluation report I conducted for my
school’s Student Report system. Every stage of the process of writing and conducting the
evaluation was shared and discussed with my EdTech peers.
Indicator 5.1 Theoretical Foundations
Artifact: 503 – Reading Quiz: Instructional Design
Indicator 5.1 addresses candidates’ ability to demonstrate foundational knowledge of the
contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and
technology. This was not an easy quiz to complete. Using what at the time were mostly unfamiliar
concepts about instructional design theories, I had to not only synthesize written material, but to
also create a visual representation of the (often quite abstract) concepts, and explain how each
relates to the written summary. It was a challenging, frustrating, and fun learning experience,
which forced me to use both my left and right “brains”. In order to design instructional materials
properly, I needed to understand the underlying theories and how each was developed. In turn, this
17
theoretical foundation allowed me to better understand my students and how they think and
construct their understanding. Lastly, being knowledgeable about learning theories allowed me to
have an opinion of my own, and to steer my teaching in a way that resonates with me. This artifact
is a perfect example of indicator 5.1.
Indicator 5.2 Method
Artifact: 541 Integrating Technology into Content Areas
Indicator 5.2 addresses candidates’ ability to apply research methodologies to solve problems and
enhance practice. According to Barbara LaBeau, the main problem with technology integration is
that it is not integrated in a meaningful way (2005), which was the problem I was facing when I
was integrating technology into my teaching. I held the common (mis)assumption that if I can
connect technology to my teaching, the outcome would be inevitably positive students will learn
in a fun way, and I will be satisfying teaching requirements. I was glad that this overly simplified
assumption was challenged so early in my MET coursework. After conducting research into how
technology should be integrated into teaching, my knowledge grew and my understanding became
clearer. LaBeau suggested that teachers must learn and understand what specific technologies can
do first, so that they can properly utilize them with their students (Morehead & LaBeau, 2005). In
the artifact’s embedded documents I reviewed different technologies, such as simulations, games,
eBook sites, and spreadsheets and databases, and explained how they can be integrated into
different content areas. Learning about these tools and carefully choosing which would fit best and
how, has helped me to select more appropriate tools to teach in a fun and engaging way while
keeping in mind the lesson’s objectives.
Indicator 5.3 Assessing/Evaluating
Artifact: 504 – Final Synthesis Paper: Social Networking Technologies
Indicator 5.3 addresses candidates’ ability to apply formal inquiry strategies in assessing and
evaluating processes and resources for learning and performance. Understanding Social
Networking Technologies (SNTs) and their history allows me to better utilize them in my school
and classroom. For example, in my school we are using several SNTs (such as Edmodo, Moodle,
and Google Classroom) and many teachers feel frustrated. They argue that the systems we have are
18
no good because they can’t do what we want, and they ask to change platforms to ones they used
in the past. Based on my research, most SNTs come from the business sector, and it is only
recently that companies began designing them with schools and classrooms in mind. As a result,
there is no one SNT that fits all of our needs (especially because they are changing so rapidly).
Understanding this and other research about SNTs has helped me to better understand the history
and theory, and therefore allowed me to manage my students’ and my needs better, by picking and
choosing different SNTs for different educational purposes. The research and assessment of SNTs
and the decisions and actions that followed have made management of different tasks easier for me
and my students. Using userfriendly SNTs such as Edmodo together with the collaborative nature
of Google Apps has also boosted my students’ enthusiasm and ability to manage their work.
Indicator 5.4 Ethics
Artifact: 505 – Evaluation Report Project
Indicator 5.4 addresses candidates’ ability to conduct research and practice using accepted
professional and institutional guidelines and procedures. According to the AECT ethics guideline
4.2.1, members should represent the organization in an honest manner while keeping in mind the
appropriateness of such expressions (AECT, 2008). Throughout the evaluation of my school’s
report cards I did my best to remain objective and to not express my personal opinions about the
effectiveness or appropriateness of the current system. I was also faced with the ethical dilemma of
following the evaluation procedures outlined in the textbook versus allowing decisionmaking
stakeholders to dictate certain approaches to the way the evaluation should take place.
Understanding my place (as a student who initiated the evaluation) and the existing politics at the
institution, I did my best to explain the dilemma to the people in charge in a nonthreatening
manner. Once rejected, I accepted my modified role, and continued the evaluation in the best way I
could, given the new circumstances. This was a new experience for me, one that taught me the
dangers of “mixing business with pleasure”… Ethical issues are not always simple to solve, but I
feel that I handled this potentially dangerous issue with professionalism and respect while being
true to my task.
19
CONCLUSION
In this document I outlined the different AECT standards and indicators and showed mastery of all
of them through the use of artifacts, examples, explanations, and reflections. Ensuring my
understanding of each standard and indicator was the first difficult task, and the need to select so
few assignments to demonstrate my mastery of each was even more difficult. I have learned and
accomplished so much in the last two years, and was thrilled that most of the assignments were
applicable to my profession and have been continuously utilized in my classroom and even by
colleagues at my school. Although this is the end of my journey as an MET student, I feel that my
new sets of knowledge and skills mark the beginning of a whole new learning chapter both
professionally and personally.
REFERENCES
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2008). Section 4: A discussion of the principles of the AECT code of professional ethics. Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/intranet/publications/ethics/ethics04.html
Boulmetis, J. & Dutwin, P. (2011). The ABCs of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program and project evaluation. (3 ed). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass
Buck Institute for Education. (2013). Research Summaries on the Benefits of PBL. Retrieved from http://bie.org/object/document/research_summary_on_the_benefits_of_pbl
Dierking, L.D. (1991). Learning theory and learning styles: An overview. Journal of Museum Education, 16(1), 46.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf
Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a Community of Practice and How Can We Support It? In Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 286299). New York: Routledge.
Kapterev, Alex. (2008). Death by PowerPoint (and how to fight it). Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/thecroaker/deathbypowerpoint?ref=http://edtech.mrooms.org/mod/page/view.php?id=49020
20
Keller, J. (2013). ARCS Explained. Retrieved from http://www.arcsmodel.com/#!motivationaldesign/cyrv
Kimball, C., & Sibley, P. (1997). The technology maturity model primer (rev. ed.). San Diego, CA: Edmin Open Systems
Morehead, P. & LaBeau, B. (2005). The continuing challenges of technology integration for
teachers. Retrieved from http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol152005/moreheadrev.pdf
Peak Performance Center. (2013). Learning Pyramid. Retrieved from http://thepeakperformancecenter.com/educationallearning/learning/principlesoflearning/learningpyramid/
Puentedura, R.R. (2011). Learning, Technology, and the SAMR Model: Goals, Processes, and Practice. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/LearningTechnologySAMRModel.pdf
Saeednia, Y. (2009). The need to know and to understand in Maslow’s basic needs hierarchy. USChina Education Review, 6(9), 45.
21