Microcredentials as Personalized PD

DeNisco, A. (2016, July). Microcredentials Provide Highly Personalized PD.

Retrieved July 11, 16, from

http://www.districtadministration.com/article/microcredentials-provide-highly-personalized-pd

http://www.districtadministration.com/article/microcredentials-provide-highly-personalized-pd

Summary:

The article “Microcredentials Provide Highly Personalized PD,” by author Alison DeNisco published in July of 2016 focuses on “microcredentials “ and informal learning as a means of professional development (PD).  The article defines microcredentials as “digital badges that teachers earn by learning a skill and demonstrating mastery through student results” (DeNisco, 2016, p.1).  Since professional development is often not personalized, this version of PD focuses on teachers choosing skills they want to learn and allowing them to follow those desires.  Teachers will take an online course from a company in a subject of their choosing.  The company that the article highlighted was called Digital Promise, which is free and offers skill development.  In order for teachers to earn credentials, they complete the course and perform self-assessments as well as display any student- based evidence.  The article refers to the microcredentials as a “digital badge” that is displayed on social platforms.  Since this type of professional development is competency based, how long the learner spent on the subject does not matter, but rather how it was used and applied within the classroom.  The article states that teacher’s who have piloted this format have a year to complete a “microcredential.” 

Becoming more popular in the education world is informal learning opportunities.  Devices and programs such as social media and PLC’s are replacing traditional “sit and get” methods of PD.   Through the company Digital Promise, course takers could learn at their own pace, become a master in their subject and then submit an overview of their learning and lessons.  They could also collect data to show the new skill’s impact on their classrooms.  Some districts have also piloted the new “microcredentials” as a way to increase salaries.  If teachers are bettering themselves to support student needs, and can show evidence, teachers are being compensated on the salary scale.  In the view of administrators, teachers are taking the time to learn new skills that are targeted and specific , which in turn can help the district. 

The article also highlights that although this method is a great way to increase professional development learning opportunities, it alone does not solve all of the needs for PD.  Not all PD can be an isolated, individualized experience.  Learners will still need to connect with other leaners on some level to reach the fullest potential.

Response:

            This form of professional development is intriguing.  I know that I could greatly benefit from this format of PD.  Since there is very little personalized professional development for art, music and physical educators, I would be glad to take a class/session that I specifically found interesting for my own teaching and turn it into a product in the classroom.  I think microcredentials could really help school districts as a whole as well.  If teachers are able to decide on what they would like to be “certified” in and allowed to pursue it, they could spread that knowledge to other educators. In order for it to work properly, however, teachers would have to be able to choose what they are interested in learning.  These small badges of accomplishment could also go a long with morale among teachers.  Teachers who are choosing to increase their knowledge base could have some (small) type of recognition amongst peers and administrators.  I agree with the author, however, in thinking that PD cannot be all individualized.  Every educator needs a collaborator at some point or another.  Overall, I am interested to see if this type of PD takes flight.  

Common Core and Ed-Tech Spending

Common Core Raises

Questions on Future of Ed-Tech Spending

FLANIGAN, R. L.

(2014). Common Core Raises Questions on Future of Ed-Tech Spending. Education

Week, 33(35), S12.

The article Common Core Raises Questions on Future of Ed-Tech Spending, by Robin Flanigan predicts that educational technology spending will spike based on the implementation of common core.  There are now nation-wide standards to uphold by most districts. Technology use has to become more sophisticated and personalized to the common core standards.   As districts invest in technology that is created to meet the needs of learners, the nation will be watching to see if student performance increases.  According to the author, “the next wave of ed-tech investments will center on digitally delivered personalized instruction and professional development targeted at the common core standards and assessments” (Flanigan, R.L., 2014).

 One-to-one technology is sought after more than ever in this current age. Although most schools do not have one-to-one technology, there are places that are universally implementing it.  Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools in Tennessee have a plan to have blended learning in every school by 2017-2018.  Clark County district in Nevada is “focusing on performance-based contracting to help individualize instruction” (Flanigan, R. L., 2014).  If benchmarks are not met, the contract is terminated.  However, the article does state that one-to-one technology is not enough.  It’s only one piece of the puzzle.  If one-to-one is the only accomplishment, then the real potential of technology in the classroom is missed.

The article also says that monies for educational technology could be invested in the students creating their own learning environment.  It gives an example of 3D printers.  Students can now “make” their tools instead of purchasing them.  Technology companies that now are aligned to the Common Core, and market such, have unlimited possibilities.

The article also briefly mentions how technology has changed the concept of professional development.  Face to face training is slowly diminishing.  Instead of companies offering speakers to educators, they are building the professional development right into the devices.  This is called “embedded PD.” 

Although I have never purposely noticed a connection between Common Core and technology spending, the theory makes complete sense.  Now that technology is more affordable and K-12 teachers are less afraid, more emphasis is placed on the actual usage and it’s connection to learning.  I personally have not seen this happen in our district.  I do not know any technology purchases or advancements we have made that specifically target improving student’s knowledge of the common core material.  I do, however, admit to not being very informed on the issue.

 I will be anxious to see what new hardware and software come to light in the next few years now that the standards have been released and implemented.  Will companies create product to meet the demand of the standards? And more importantly, will districts invest?

Evaluating Technology-Based Curriculum Materials

Reed, D. S. & McNergney, R.F. (2000). Evaluating Technology-Based Curriculum Materials. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education Washington DC.  ERIC Digest, www.eric.ed.gov

Summary

The article Evaluating Technology- Based Curriculum Materials by Diane Reed and Robert McNergney gives suggestions for evaluating technology related educational materials.  The article first suggests that users consider the authenticity of the technology for use in the classroom.   There are a number of questions to ask when considering implementing technology-based curriculum in the classroom.  Questions include: “Is technology used to bring real-world examples into the classroom?” and “Are activities such as simulation, Web experiments, and Web field trips used to enable students to understand the richness and variability of real life?” (2000, p.2).   The authors suggest that technology should help students by doing rather than just watching or listening. 

As the article continues, it makes connections with the theory of constructivism.  The authors suggest that technology should make the students and the teachers co-learners.  Students should be responsible for their own learning.  

Educators also need to prepare their own assessment framework for the assignments. First, they need to define the “instructional context” of which the technology curriculum materials will be used. Once educators establish who will be learning, where, and why they need the technology, they are capable of evaluating their materials. 

The evaluator first needs to decide what the digital content will be.  Will students be using it as drill and practice?  Or will students be using technology as open-ended explorations.  The authors suggest that when technology is used efficiently “digital content enables students to seek and manipulate digital information in collaborative, creative and engaging ways” (Reed & McNergney, 2000, p.3).  The ability to evaluate, analyze and create should be the goal of technology integration.  The article gives many examples of students across the world using technology to create many different higher-level thinking projects. 

Another concern of the educator who wants to incorporate technology is the hardware and software requirements of the curriculum.  Also, does the technology take a great amount of teacher time and effort to learn? Educators should also consider if the amount of time put into the product is worth the student learning outcome.  According to the authors, “Evaluators should examine software in the same reflective way that they examine other instruction materials; that is, with children’s learning in mind (Hall & Martin, 1999)” (Reed & McNergeny, 2000, p.4) 

The last points the authors make are about assessment and teacher support. The authors suggest that the primary goal of a technology assessment should be to measure student engagement as demonstrated by their performances.  They suggest that assessment should be based on performance and authenticity.  The authors also suggest that teachers need ongoing professional development no matter what technology they are integrating.  Some suggestions include online classes and teacher-support teams.  

Reflection

After reading this article, I did some research on the SAMR model and technology evaluation.  I started to ponder how I use technology in the classroom and whether it was authentic or merely just a tool that provides convenience.  I have found that I am not where I want to be with technology use.  Not much of my technology is used to provide opportunities for students to learn and explore.  Rather, it is merely a tool I use to show examples, and have students watch lessons.  If all my technology was stripped away at this moment, I would still be able to teach the lessons I teach without any second thought.  It would definitely be more inconvenient.   However, my core lessons would stay the same.  I would like to move to a different approach where technology is used as a tool for students to gain insight and knowledge that directly relates to their own personal artwork.  Until recently, I have not had the capabilities to let students research or learn on their own.  Our school has recently received a roaming laptop cart that could be used in classrooms.  My first step is to find corresponding websites and resources to my lessons and put them in one place- possibly on a website like Weebly.   Only then can technology be used to evaluate and analyze data, rather than just watch or observe.  

Technology and Gifted Students Motivation

Housand, B.C., & Housand A.M. (2012). The Role of Technology in Gifted Students’ Motivation. Psychology In The Schools, 49(7), 706-715.

Summary
         The article The Role of Technology in Gifted Students’ Motivation by Brian C. Housand and Angela M. Housand explores the opportunities that technology can have on gifted students’ education.  The authors begin the article with the notion that technology does not increase motivation by itself.  According to the authors, technology is not a motivating factor, but rather the vessel for which learning takes place.  Current learners are already well versed in technology.  Since technology is such an integral part of student’s lives, students do not even expect to have a learning experience without it.  The article follows a study that took a look at 199 middle-school to community-college level students who actively developed a web-based game online. The study showed success because students felt that designing games “made learning fun and not boring, that they were more productive, and that the work was interesting” (p.707).  The study found that it was not the technology that motivated students “but rather the opportunity for control and autonomy, challenge, cooperation, just-in-time knowledge (i.e. knowledge driven by curiosity and need), creativity, and recognition as products were provided for authentic audiences (Housand, B. & Housand A., p.707).”  Technology just gave opportunity for these things. 

According to the article, technology aids with student choice in learning.  Student control of the project may lead to motivation.  One of the tools mentioned in aiding student autonomy is Internet searching.  However, research has shown that students have problems with identifying legitimate Internet sources.  This issue has to be addressed in order for students to fully use the Internet searching tool correctly.  The article makes a connection between levels of competence and intrinsic motivation.  If the student has a higher competence in the area, motivation tends to be lower, since the subject is less of a challenge.  If student competence is lower, it may compel the student to find answers.  Technology can allow students who do not know much about a subject to find answers easily, as long as the student is knowledgeable with how to use Internet sites properly. 

Another option for students to use is online courses and programs.  Online workshops, courses, and schooling allow students to learn at their own pace.  This can be very beneficial to a gifted student who wants to learn at a quicker rate than average.  Online programs like “iTunes U” allow gifted students to be exposed to rigorous content.  Likewise, the Internet can open doors for gifted students to have “contact with peers who have similar interests and abilities” (Housand, B. & Housand A., p.710).  The article notes that having intense passions for areas of education may be isolating for those who do not have a like-minded similarly driven group of peers.  Technology can bridge the gap for these students.  It can provide mentors and open discussion on sites like Blogger or WordPress. 

Another connection between technology and motivation is curiosity.  According to the authors, “No longer is a question something deemed to be addressed at some future time, but rather, with ready access through laptop computers, iPads and smartphones, information-level learning can meaningfully scaffold deeper and more complex meaning making, thus supporting and sustaining curiosity, which can be a powerful motivator” (Housand, B. & Housand A., 712).  

The above statements reflect the author’s ideas for intrinsic motivation.  As far as extrinsic motivation is concerned, technology is considered a good way to introduce competition and recognition.  These can be powerful motivators for gifted students.  The authors give a few examples of websites, like 3D GameLab, that could aid with these things.  

Reflection/ Application

The article quotes an outside author who suggests “that we begin to view the computer more as a paintbrush and less as a technological device” (p.713).  I see firsthand how this concept is true.  Technology does not intrinsically or extrinsically motivate a student by itself.  Technology just gives students more opportunities than they have ever had.  It also allows them to feel comfortable in the learning place, this being due to their constant use/desire for all forms of technology.  I find that technology often motivates the teacher.  When the educator is excited, the students follow suit.  If a teacher is excited about what tools like Google search or WordPress can bring, then the students will also share that enthusiasm and take their work farther.  The opportunities that technology can bring to education are beneficial.  However, it is the student and teacher relationship that makes them relevant.  Students are most likely to be motivated if they have support, encouragement and self-confidence.  These things do not come from a computer, but from the people in their lives.  Educators should continue the use of technology in the classroom.  It opens doors to creativity and self-directed learning. But all must remember that technology is only a tool.  The tool is only as good as the one who is using it, so it must not be relied upon to “change” classroom environments, among other things.  Only the educator is capable of such a feat. 

Article 4: Flipping the Classroom and Active Learning

Jensen, J., Kummer, T., & Godoy, P. (2014). Improvements from a Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, 1-12. Retrieved March 13, 2015, from http://www.lifescied.org/content/14/1/ar5.full.pdf html

Summary

In the article, Improvements from a Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning, authors Jamie L. Jensen, Tyler A. Kummer, and Patricia D d. M. Godoy study the effects of a flipped classroom on learning and retention.  The study set out to determine if the flipped classroom model truly shows enough significance in learning among students to be worth the time and expense to create the model.  According to the authors, “the goal of this study was to take the first step into providing such a quantitative and controlled data about the effectiveness of the flipped model. (Jensen, Kummer, Godoy, 2014)” 

The study was done at a private university in the western United States.  Students attending the university were selected carefully with the average freshman ACT score being 28.  Students chosen to participate in this study were taking a freshman level biology class that met three days a week for 50 minutes a session.  Only students who finished the class were counted in the final analysis. 

The study was done between two very controlled groups.  One class used the flipped model and the other used a traditional active learning approach.  A great deal of testing was done to make sure that the two groups were as similar as possible.  The same instructor taught both sessions, the classes were taught back to back at the same time of the day, both were also taught with the same materials in the same classroom.  Pretests measured the readiness of the students for the course and were determined extremely similar. Both classes were taught using the 5-E learning cycle, which includes the five instructional phases: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate.  

In order to determine if the format of the course affected the students, the authors measured the effect of the learning through various ways.  Those ways included: unit exams, homework assignments, and final exam scores.  Student attitudes were also considered in the study.  The same questions on exams and homework assignments were given to both classes equally. 

At the end of the study when all of the scores were tallied, there was no significant difference in test scores between both courses.  According to the article, “This study shows that the flipped classroom does not result in higher learning gains or better attitudes over the nonflipped classroom when both utilize an active learning approach (Jensen, Kummer, Godoy, 2014).” The study proposes that the learning gains seen in the courses were a direct result of the active learning approach and not the flipped classroom format.  The study does suggest, however, that if the traditional lecture method is being used, then the flipped classroom format could be beneficial.  This is because it forces the course to utilize the active learning approach method.  

The results of the student attitudes were varied slightly.  Students in the flipped classroom actually showed a more negative opinion of the use of technology.  However, students from the flipped classroom had a better impression of the assignments and activities being assigned.  There was no significant difference in completion rate.  Although the activities in the classes were the same, both classes gave feedback saying they preferred the activities that were done with the professor available.  Regardless of the order of learning, students preferred to learn where the professor was present.
   
Reflection

I have recently been debating whether to take a flipped approach to my own classroom.  As an art teacher, I already utilize an active learning approach with my students.  According to the research, a flipped approach would not make significant gains in student learning. This is a very important factor to consider as an educator. However, I believe I will continue to pursue using the flipped model in some ways.  It may not provide gains in student growth, but it may provide me some conveniences that allow me to teach at a higher level than before.  I would like to create lesson videos to put on my website for students who are absent or parents.  My students are young and do not have access to one-to-one technology.  A full flipped approach would not work.  However, building my database of online lessons could be very beneficial to those students who need to hear the same lesson more than once to retain comprehension.  It could also be beneficial for my higher-level students who do not need my slow, meticulous teaching for them to succeed.  It allows students to work at a pace they are comfortable with.  It allows me freedom to actually work with students in small groups in order to elevate my struggling learners and push my high students.  I could create different variations of the project or lesson in a flipped format and include them in my lesson plans.  This information is very beneficial.  It now can drive the purpose for flipping my classroom.  It may not bring huge gains academically, but it should change their experience to a more positive learning atmosphere.

Article #3- Web-Based Portfolios and Peer Assessment in Art Education

Lin, K., Yang, S., Hung, J., & Wang, D. (2006). Web-Based Appreciation and Peer-Assessment for Visual-Art Education. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 4(4), 5-14. Retrieved February 18, 2015, from ProQuest.

Summary

The article Web-Based Appreication and Peer-Assessment for Visual-Art Education written by authors Kuan-Cheng Lin, Shu-Huey Yang, Jason C. Hung, and Ding-Ming Wang covers the use of the web-based portfolio and peer assessment in elementary art education.  It covered both how the web-based portfolio can help with visual art education and how it can aid in assessment of students. The study was located in Taiwan at the Ta-Jiao Primary School in Taipei.  It was in a fifth grade class.  The study was set up for a number of reasons.  One reason is because paper pencil tests are inaccurate when assessing visual art education. Also, according to the article, “Curriculum requires students to apply computer skills to learning (Lin, Yang, Hung, Wang, 2006, pp.5-14).” The need for authentic assessment and the need to integrate technology presented a good place to try web-based peer assessment portfolios. The study focused on how web-based portfolios could facilitate peer assessment among students and how it could be used as a valid assessment system.  

The software that was used for the students was constructed on a Tomcat 4.1.18 Web server in the Windows 2000 operating system (Lin, Yang, Hung, Wang, 2006, pp.5-14). Both teachers and students used the system and it had an authentication process for security as well.  Students could browse other student portfolios. Students had the ability to search, observe and comment on other student artwork via the portfolio.  Scanners and digital cameras digitized student artwork. The study was three months long.  The study used a questionnaire method to collect information. 

The analysis found that students felt that commenting on other people’s work was beneficial.  According to the article, “most of the students think that commenting on other people’s work can improve the student’s learning, improve the ability of appreciation by the students and agree it can be time consuming (Lin, Yang, Hung, Wang, 2006, pp.5-14).” The study also found that most of the students like that classmates give comments on their work.  Students reported that they pay attention in class due to their peer feedback.  Overall, “students think that peer assessments influence their learning attitude positively (Lin, Yang, Hung, Wang, 2006, pp.5-14).”  This study also made a case that suggests students could increase their ability to describe their peer’s artwork through the web-based peer assessment mechanism. 

The study came out with four main conclusions. First, the portfolio system can help student learning in art education. Second, the peer assessment system can aid in student learning at the elementary level. Third, the portfolio system can help the teaching strategy of the art educator. And lastly, the support of the parents and the willingness of the teacher are important factors that influence the effectiveness of the system (Lin, Yang, Hung, Wang, 2006, pp.5-14).  

Reflection/Application

This study has great research showing how digital portfolios can aid in the assessment of the visual arts.  The common core has made it clear that school systems are supposed to encourage higher-level thinking.  Peer assessment encourages higher-level thinking.  The portfolio system also allows teachers to evaluate student progress as well as mastery.  It allows students to be involved in their progress.  Combining the portfolio system and technology creates a convenient avenue for students to see their artwork and compare and contrast with other students in their class.  According to the research, the portfolio assessment gives students more appreciation for their artwork and art education.  When students are engaged and held accountable, they will perform better.  The goal of education should not just be to push the students to perform better, but also to motivate them to perform better for their own personal gain. 

Differentiating with Technology Article Citation

Stanford, P., Crowe, M.W., Flice, H. (2010). Differentiating with Technology. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6(4) Article 2. Retrieved [date] from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol6/iss4