EDLD Webinar Refelections

On the whole, feel the webinars have been very useful. Even if I could not attend all of them in person, being able to view them after the fact went a long way in helping to clarify confusion I was feeling over assignment details. While there were technical issues on many occasions, they were typically resolved quickly. It's also nice to be able to see classmates in person and to put a face (and voice) with a name. It helps to personalize the online course experience.

Week 2: Video Podcast: Movie Maker Overview


Week 2: Audio Podcast: Audacity

EDLD 5362: Week 5 Assignment

Assessment of District Technology Plan

Week 2: Network Comparison

The two networks I chose from the given list were The Interactive White Board Revolution and Classroom 2.0.  I feel both sites could be useful resources for administrator, but definitely think the Classroom 2.0 network is more robust in terms of content.  Please watch the video below for an overview and comparison of the two sites.

EDLD 5362: Week 1: Interview Assignment

A Reflection on Technology Education Over the Last 20 Years

Jeff Blankenship

Lamar University

For my interview, I chose to interview Mrs. Dee Ann Barsallo, a member of the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Instructional Technology staff who recently retired after 26 years of service in the district.  Her background includes experience as an elementary classroom teacher, service as a Gifted/Talented specialist, and in her final role with the district, an Instructional Technology Specialist. 

During the interview, I asked Dee Ann to compare and contrast her teaching practices over the last 20 years with emphasis on how her teaching practices have evolved and how are they different now from when she began teaching.  Dee Ann indicated that when she began teaching in 1987, teachers were basically expected to follow the teacher’s guide (e.g., page 1 to the end) from the adopted text – a selection made by a group of district teachers and administrators after an analysis of approved materials provided by the state. She indicated that teachers were allowed to use their own methods of instruction without much guidance and/or scrutiny from other teachers in the grade level, campus administrators or district curriculum coordinators. Teachers were allowed creative license to present materials and skills to the students, as well as, add “fun” to their learning. Testing (local, state, or federal) was present but not the driving force behind the content presented to the students, as it is today.

In addition, I asked Dee Ann to share how the strategies used at the end of her career differed from when she began teaching.   She stated that after 26 years in the same district, she could only speak from experience within the boundaries and regulations set forth by HEB.  She indicated that teaching today is all about standardized testing and its final scores.  She further stated that continuous improvement methods that have been implemented by the district impacted several of the strategies she typically used. Her feeling was that data and scores drive the district curriculum, which is written by hand-picked teachers and approved by district level curriculum coordinators, Assistant Superintendents for Elementary and Secondary Instruction and the Deputy Superintendent for Curriculum. This curriculum is directly connected to the assessment and every teacher is expected to follow the day-by-day, week-by week, six weeks-by-six weeks prescribed lesson plans without waiver.  Dee Ann indicated that she was saddened by the fact that there was no longer room for the teacher’s own personal methods and practices.

As part of the interview, Dee Ann was asked how she felt the characteristics of your students have evolved over the past 27 years.  More specifically, how students today differ from when she began teaching.  Dee Ann informed me that she has seen tremendous change in students’ attitudes as traditional family structures have changed, the economy has worsened, and fewer parents find time to be involved in the educational process. She stated that in the past, students started school already prepared with social skills and background experiences to help provide a solid foundation for their success.  Today, many students start school without ever having had a book read to them.  Without a good, solid foundation and continued support, it makes successful learning extremely difficult. She emphasized that education really takes a team of three – the parents, the student, and the teacher – to achieve success.   Dee Ann felt that as time has passed, the burden of ensuring success has fallen more heavily on the teachers’ shoulders and father indicated that many parents and students have “checked out” due to the pressures of everyday life, especially in the schools when there are high numbers of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. When asked to compare the major learning theories in current practice to those she studied in the past, Dee Ann indicted that early in her career, one primary influence was Howard Gardner.  Whose literature supports: (a) the importance of engaging students actively in what they are studying; (b) the implementation of student-directed learning; (c) the theory of multiple intelligences - linguistic, logic-mathematical, musical, spatial, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic - and the importance to identify them in your students and their application in lesson planning.  Dee Ann also referenced Edward de Bono and his book Six Thinking Hats.  In his research, de Bono identifies six distinct directions in which the brain can be challenged. In each of these directions the brain will identify and bring into conscious thought certain aspects of issues being considered (e.g. gut instinct, pessimistic judgment, neutral facts).   In his book, de Bono uses colored hats as metaphors for each possible direction (de Bono, 1985):

• Information (White) - considering purely what information is available, what are the facts? 
• Emotions (Red) - intuitive or instinctive gut reactions or statements of emotional feeling   
• Discernment (Black) - logic applied to identifying reasons to be cautious and conservative 
• Optimistic response (Yellow) - logic applied to identifying benefits, seeking harmony 
• Creativity (Green) - statements of provocation and investigation, where a thought goes

Another inspiration mentioned by Dee Ann that is currently referenced within education was Blooms Taxonomy, created by educational psychologist Dr. Benjamin Bloom.  In order to promote higher forms of thinking in education, such as analyzing and evaluating, rather than rote memory learning, Bloom's Taxonomy divides educational objectives into three domains: (a) Cognitive;  (b) Affective; and (c) Psychomotor (sometimes loosely described as knowing/head, feeling/heart and doing/hands respectively).  Within the domains, Bloom states that learning at the higher levels is dependent on having attained prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels (Bloom, 1969).  A goal of Bloom's Taxonomy is to motivate educators to focus on all three domains, creating a more holistic form of education. Dee Ann specified that although Dr. Bloom began to publish and promote his theories in the late ‘40s and early ‘50s, its influence is present in today’s curriculum.  Dee Ann stated that as of her departure from education (the district), the Continuous Improvement Method is now the primary driving forces behind instruction and learning.  The focus is about data and the analysis about what it tells us concerning personal or class success and/or failure.

• Builds on existing efforts to improve student achievement

• Encourages a continuous process

• Incorporates researched practices (Effective Schools)

• Identifies strategies for targeting areas of low-performance

She stated that while she recognized the importance of data collection and analysis in terms of formative assessment, she felt that testing standards have definitely overshadowed the art of differentiated teaching methods.

As the interview drew to an end, I asked Dee Ann one final question on how she felt technology has impacted learning and to compare the use of technology 20 years ago to our use of classroom technologies today.   Dee Ann stated that there was no technology when I began teaching over 25 years ago.  She indicated that as computers became part of the business world their influence slowly moved into the educational world.  She said that in the mid-90s, she began using one computer in her classroom to enhance research projects.  She indicated that they teachers and students were not connected to the World Wide Web, so all information came from compact discs (i.e. encyclopedias, software programs, photo tours, etc.).  She stated that students were excited and engaged even though they had to take turns. As the district added labs of computers, she turned to those in order to provide the students with a tool for word processing.  She indicated one of the biggest changes in technologies influence on learning was the introduction of the internet.  An opinion that is still commonly held, “Modern, web-based learning and computing provides the means for fundamentally changing the way in which instruction is delivered to students” (Arsham, 2002).  She said that once teachers and students were connected to the outside world through the web and had ready access to MS Office, they began using computers as tools for current research and digital creation.  She indicated that this was the first time that classroom assignments were made with the expectation of computer usage for the final products.  She expressed that today we have interactive white boards and document cameras to present the curriculum and engage the students in more hand-on lessons.   In addition, software is available that allows the students to create products that involve video, text, links to the web and much more, “Students can do all of this using computers, iPads, Mp3 players, digital video records and so many other option provided by district funds -- Technology has definitely influenced the way learning materials are presented and the way most students interact with those materials” (personal communication, October 8, 2013).

In conclusion, I felt my interview with Mrs. Barsallo was very informative.  It was interesting to hear how instructional strategies and theories have evolved and impacted education over the last 20 years.  Even more interesting was hearing her account of how technology integration essentially evolved and was fully encompassed within her educational career.  In addition, I was pleased to learn that many of the classroom strategies and theories that were in application 20 years ago are still practiced today.  Much of my personal education involved Gardner’s theories on Multiple Intelligences and Bloom’s Taxonomy is currently used for educational planning within my own district.  In fact, his taxonomy model has evolved to encompass digital content, Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy, and is often referenced in my own planning of professional development and many of the regional (TCEA) and international (ISTE) conferences I attend.  Ultimately, I believe this interview demonstrates the idea that good teaching practices, theories, and strategies have the ability to transcend time.

Reference List

Arsham, H. (2002, March). Impact of the Internet on Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from The United States Distance Learning Online Journal: http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR02_Issue/article01.html

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: Longmans, Green and CO.

Bono, E. D. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Week 5: Final Thoughts

In reflecting on the course, I feel there were several valuable learning opportunities or “highlights” that helped me achieve a deeper understanding of the action research process and assisted me with the development of my research plan.  For example, in week two we had an opportunity to view virtual, guest lecture interviews conducted with school leaders who explained their implementation of action research in a variety of educational settings.  I felt the videos were an excellent source of information and they provided a genuine interpretation of the ongoing dynamics involved with the planning process.  I also believe the readings and example resources were a critical component in developing our knowledge of the action research process.

Good luck to everyone on their research and with their studies.  I hope to see you in future classes =)

 

Week 4: Process & Progress

Action Research Plan Revisions

Most of the feedback I have received from everyone has been positive. Like me, some members reviewing my plan expressed a concern with sample group (teachers) commitment over the longevity of the project.  I will definitely keep this in mind as a possible resisting factor within my plan and provide a variety of real and virtual collaborative opportunities where members can share their concerns and provide measurable input in planning.  Another member suggested a forum or blog to keep all stakeholders up-to-date on research progress. This is another great idea that I may implement within my plan. 
                                                                                             
 









Many members expressed positive feedback regarding my approach to data collection and ongoing collaboration methods. In addition, they appreciated my efforts towards planned recognition and celebrations for success. I agree that these could be effective measures towards motivating group commitment, but will sure to track these driving factors carefully as I believe they are crucial elements to the plans success.

Week 3: Action Research Plan

After speaking with my director and supervisor, we decided that my main part of my plan should focus on working with the coordinator of professional development and the supervisor of instructional technology to determine, create and implement district-level (technology) PD courses in both real and virtual environments.

Action Research Template

Goal:		To determine how the effective implementation of instructional technologies impacts teaching and student learning/performance.  To answer this question I will develop a research plan that investigates factors influencing technology integration in the classroom: Do the quality, medium and availability of professional development (PD) impact technology integration and conversely influence student performance?
Action Step(s)			Person(s) Responsible	Timeline: Start/End	Resources Needed	Evaluation
1	Determine integration areas in need of professional development or video modeling through analysis of teacher survey data collected via monthly newsletter, district PD system and leader/teacher interviews		J Blankenship, Director of PD, Supervisor of IT, teachers and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	09/2013 – ongoing monthly data collection	Eduphoria, Google Forms, Teacher Interview Form (for inter-rater reliability)	Formal or informal observation methods, teacher interviews, examination of PD analysis of survey data, and collaborative planning
2	Establish sample groups based on survey data, teacher interest and campus leader input.  Secure random sample that represents grade levels and typifies student populations		Director of PD, J Blankenship, Supervisor of IT, campus leaders and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	11/2013	Eduphoria, Google Forms, Teacher Interview Form	Formal or informal observation methods, teacher interviews, examination of PD analysis of survey data, and collaborative planning
3	Determine baseline data teachers and students in sample populations		J Blankenship, campus leaders, teachers and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	12/2013	Survey data, electronic grade book, formal student assessment and benchmark measures	Assessment of collected data to determine current performance levels of student sample
4	Begin development and implementation of direct campus, group or classroom level training that models effective use of technology and develops methods of student data collection or formative assessment		J Blankenship, Director of PD, Supervisor of IT, and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	12/2013 – ongoing (bi)weekly or monthly TBD by needs assessment	Collected teacher or student data, teacher/leader interviews, (bi)weekly meetings (or webinars), classroom technologies	Ongoing analysis of collected data, collaborative (virtual) meetings, assessment of teacher/student performance, informal or formal observation and direct training
5	Begin creation and deployment of targeted virtual professional development or modeling videos (LMS) that address areas of ongoing support and encourage independent study of best practice		J Blankenship and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	01/2014 – ongoing bi-weekly or monthly TBD by needs assessment	Moodle (LMS), collected teacher or student data, Camtasia Studio, weekly meetings (or webinars), classroom technologies	Ongoing analysis of collected performance data, collaborative (virtual) meetings, assessment of teacher/student performance, informal or formal observation and virtual PD
6	Reflective analysis of data: determine impact of current research plan and the need for modification – allowing for fluid development that meets the needs of sample groups and campuses in general		J Blankenship, campus leaders, Director of PD supervisor of IT, sample teacher groups and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	02/2014 – ongoing monthly meetings throughout research plan	Collected teacher or student data, teacher/leader interviews, (bi)weekly meetings (or webinars), classroom technologies	Collaborative assessment of data and review of findings to determine if PD efforts are understood, measure feedback, and determine current student impact
7	Continue PD efforts making modifications to research plan and PD training methods as necessary to achieve maximum benefit for sample groups.  Develop an ongoing cycle of planning, implementing, studying and acting based on reflective analysis findings		Sample groups, J Blankenship, and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	02/2014 – ongoing monthly meetings throughout research plan	Collected teacher or student data, teacher/leader interviews, (bi)weekly meetings (or webinars)	Collaborative assessment of data and review of findings to determine if PD efforts are understood, measure feedback, and determine current teacher and student functioning
8	Determine findings of research to report findings of technology integration on teacher teaching methods and student performance measures		Director of PD, J Blankenship, Supervisor of IT, sample groups, campus leaders and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	05/2014	Collected teacher or student data, teacher/leader interview  or survey information,	Year-end review of action research plan to determine the models influence on technology integration, teaching methods, and student performance.  Enhancing plan as need for continued PD efforts in the new school  year
9	Use information determined through action research to plan professional development opportunities for the Fall 2014 and determine sequencing for district-wide PD framework		Director of PD, J Blankenship, Supervisor of IT, campus leaders, and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	07/2014 – 09/2014	Survey data, Eduphoria, campus leader/teacher interviews	Continue the use of PD system surveys to measure effectiveness of PD efforts.  Working to integrate model developed through action research on a district-wide level
1o	Develop future PD models using an ongoing cycle of planning, implementing, studying efforts to determine need and effectiveness of model		Director of PD, J Blankenship, Supervisor of IT, and members of Instructional Technology Dept.	08/2014-ongoing	Survey data, Eduphoria, campus leader/teacher interviews	Evolving evaluation of collected data  to integrate strategies and models developed through action research on a district-wide level