Teaching, Learning, & Assessment
FRIT 7235 Technology Enhanced Lesson
Elements: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7
Reflection
In FRIT 7235, Digital Learning Environments, we read about revising old lesson plans to include new 21st Century technologies. People increasingly expect to be connected to the Internet and the rich tapestry of knowledge it contains wherever they go. Mobile devices, including smartphones and tablets, enable users to do just that via cellular networks and wireless power. The growing number of mobile subscribers, coupled with the unprecedented evolution of these devices, has opened the door to myriad uses for education. Learning institutions all over the world are exploring ways to make their websites, educational materials, resources, and opportunities all available online and optimized for mobile devices. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium: The New Media Consortium (NMC).
When trying to take a classroom of kids into 21st century learning, you don't necessarily have to throw out lessons that have worked in the past. What what I had to do was to determine how to line my lesson plans up with the ISTE Standards for Students. By revising and implementing mobile apps into my lesson plans is one way to achieve this. In the lesson plan below you will first find the geometry plan that I have used in the past. The students went on a Geometry Scavenger Hunt afterwards using pencils and paper. Continue through the document and you will find the revisions to that same plan. With the revisions (in the second lesson plans, noted by red text) you will see that not only is the review using Kahoot!, but the students will use mobile devices and apps to make videos. The same Georgia math standards are covered, but now ISTE standards are as well. This was a great way to not become so overwhelmed that past lessons had to be completely discarded and new ones written.
In FRIT 7235, Digital Learning Environments, we read about revising old lesson plans to include new 21st Century technologies. People increasingly expect to be connected to the Internet and the rich tapestry of knowledge it contains wherever they go. Mobile devices, including smartphones and tablets, enable users to do just that via cellular networks and wireless power. The growing number of mobile subscribers, coupled with the unprecedented evolution of these devices, has opened the door to myriad uses for education. Learning institutions all over the world are exploring ways to make their websites, educational materials, resources, and opportunities all available online and optimized for mobile devices. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium: The New Media Consortium (NMC).
When trying to take a classroom of kids into 21st century learning, you don't necessarily have to throw out lessons that have worked in the past. What what I had to do was to determine how to line my lesson plans up with the ISTE Standards for Students. By revising and implementing mobile apps into my lesson plans is one way to achieve this. In the lesson plan below you will first find the geometry plan that I have used in the past. The students went on a Geometry Scavenger Hunt afterwards using pencils and paper. Continue through the document and you will find the revisions to that same plan. With the revisions (in the second lesson plans, noted by red text) you will see that not only is the review using Kahoot!, but the students will use mobile devices and apps to make videos. The same Georgia math standards are covered, but now ISTE standards are as well. This was a great way to not become so overwhelmed that past lessons had to be completely discarded and new ones written.
Mobile Learning Geometry Plan and Revision by Lee McFatridge on Scribd
FRIT 7231 Instructional Design Document
Elements: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8
Reflection
FRIT 7231, Instructional Design, was probably one of the most difficult courses I have taken at Georgia Southern. The reason I say it was difficult was how much had to go into developing a well written document that made sense and provided detailed steps to the instruction that would be provided. Due to its complexity and makeup, this project covers every element of Standard 2. As I look back at the Standard for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment I had to take into account each and every one of these elements to develop the design of the online module I would have to build in FRIT 7235, Digital Learning Environments.
In this course, we had to develop an instructional design document after identification of a learning problem. The Kemp Method was what we used to develop our curriculum which would then be used in a later class to build an online learning module. Being a 5th grade math teacher for several years, I knew that students needed to be able to work on more complex problems without worrying about the basic math computations. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has also stressed that the use of technology in the classroom for basic computation will lead to a greater depth of problem-solving ability. So, I considered using basic calculators in my classroom but determined the students did not know how to properly use them. I decided that if calculators were going to be an effective tool, the 5th grade students would need instruction on how to properly use them. Even though this was a huge project and daunting at times, I learned a lot through the process. Eventually, when I did turn this into an online learning module, it was a great success and had a positive impact on students working higher-order math problems. It did work out great, however each section of the document was not just written once and then move on. I discovered that it would take many edits to deliver a precise document that I could follow when I had to build the actual module.
FRIT 7231, Instructional Design, was probably one of the most difficult courses I have taken at Georgia Southern. The reason I say it was difficult was how much had to go into developing a well written document that made sense and provided detailed steps to the instruction that would be provided. Due to its complexity and makeup, this project covers every element of Standard 2. As I look back at the Standard for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment I had to take into account each and every one of these elements to develop the design of the online module I would have to build in FRIT 7235, Digital Learning Environments.
In this course, we had to develop an instructional design document after identification of a learning problem. The Kemp Method was what we used to develop our curriculum which would then be used in a later class to build an online learning module. Being a 5th grade math teacher for several years, I knew that students needed to be able to work on more complex problems without worrying about the basic math computations. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has also stressed that the use of technology in the classroom for basic computation will lead to a greater depth of problem-solving ability. So, I considered using basic calculators in my classroom but determined the students did not know how to properly use them. I decided that if calculators were going to be an effective tool, the 5th grade students would need instruction on how to properly use them. Even though this was a huge project and daunting at times, I learned a lot through the process. Eventually, when I did turn this into an online learning module, it was a great success and had a positive impact on students working higher-order math problems. It did work out great, however each section of the document was not just written once and then move on. I discovered that it would take many edits to deliver a precise document that I could follow when I had to build the actual module.
McFatridge Donald FRIT7231 DesignDocument by Lee McFatridge on Scribd
FRIT 7236 Key Assessment Part 1 & 2: Improving Assessment and Data Analysis
Elements: 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.8
In FRIT 7236, I was asked to consider several things about how I currently assess students. During this course, I had to develop a 2-part Key Assessment. The first artifact I have included is KA1 in which I had to create multiple choice, short answer/essay, higher-order thinking, and performance based questions. After each of these I had to discuss the reliability, validity, differentiation of instruction for each type of question. After that, I had to discuss ways to improve student learning and improving future assessments with each type. The second artifact included below I had to use a test that I already given to students and then do a data analysis of the test to determine if it was a valid and reliable assessment. This was a very interesting learning opportunity but also had its difficulties when it came to finding certain aspects of the analysis, particularly the Spearman-Brown reliability calculation.
I have learned quite a few things about assessments and how I should be changing my teaching practice. For several years, I have attacked many of the tests that my county asks me to give as pre- and post-assessments. My arguments have been because they are 99% multiple choice with perhaps one extended response. I have always felt that even though it was math, the students couldn’t show mastery with these types of assessments. One reason is that I feel some students are just good at elimination and don’t understand how to work the problems, they are just good at taking tests. I think after this class I can better defend those thoughts. As the text and discussions have brought about, there are ways to make multiple choice questions better by well-made choice items and not having poor functioning distractors. However, there are certainly better ways to assess the students. I will try to be more deliberate in the assessment types I use from now on and more involved on the county level.
I have learned quite a few things about assessments and how I should be changing my teaching practice. For several years, I have attacked many of the tests that my county asks me to give as pre- and post-assessments. My arguments have been because they are 99% multiple choice with perhaps one extended response. I have always felt that even though it was math, the students couldn’t show mastery with these types of assessments. One reason is that I feel some students are just good at elimination and don’t understand how to work the problems, they are just good at taking tests. I think after this class I can better defend those thoughts. As the text and discussions have brought about, there are ways to make multiple choice questions better by well-made choice items and not having poor functioning distractors. However, there are certainly better ways to assess the students. I will try to be more deliberate in the assessment types I use from now on and more involved on the county level.
McFatridge_KA1 by Lee McFatridge on Scribd
McFatridge_KA2_DataAnalysisDocument by Lee McFatridge on Scribd
Standard 2: Teaching, Learning, & Assessment
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to effectively integrate technology into their own teaching practice and to collaboratively plan with and assist other educators in utilizing technology to improve teaching, learning, and assessment.
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to effectively integrate technology into their own teaching practice and to collaboratively plan with and assist other educators in utilizing technology to improve teaching, learning, and assessment.
- Element 2.1 Content Standards & Student Technology Standards - Candidates model and facilitate the design and implementation of technology- enhanced learning experiences aligned with student content standards and student technology standards.
- Element 2.2 Research-Based Learner-Centered Strategies - Candidates model and facilitate the use of research-based, learner-centered strategies addressing the diversity of all students.
- Element 2.3 Authentic Learning - Candidates model and facilitate the use of digital tools and resources to engage students in authentic learning experiences.
- Element 2.4 Higher Order Thinking Skills - Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of digital tools and resources to support and enhance higher order thinking skills (e.g., analyze, evaluate, and create); processes (e.g., problem-solving, decision-making); and mental habits of mind (e.g., critical thinking, creative thinking, metacognition, self-regulation, and reflection).
- Element 2.5 Differentiation - Candidates model and facilitate the design and implementation of technology-enhanced learning experiences making appropriate use of differentiation, including adjusting content, process, product, and learning environment based upon an analysis of learner characteristics, including readiness levels, interests, and personal goals.
- Element 2.6 Instructional Design - Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of research-based best practices in instructional design when designing and developing digital tools, resources, and technology- enhanced learning experiences.
- Element 2.7 Assessment - Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments to measure student learning and technology literacy, including the use of digital assessment tools and resources.
- Element 2.8 Data Analysis - Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of digital tools and resources to systematically collect and analyze student achievement data, interpret results, communicate findings, and implement appropriate interventions to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning.