Reflective Synthesis Paper

Final Instructional Design Project: ePortfolio and Target Setting Google Site

In the ePortfolio site below, the instruction materials for the ID project are built and presented in the Help page. The other pages in the site are for the students to use for their evidence and it is the instructional materials in the help page that provide them with the info they need to edit a Google Site.

Videos were built in alignment with Multimedia Design Principles (Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008)), and the pace of the YouTube demos are appropriate and uses an appropriately “conversational” style.

View the full site here.

Final Instructional Design Project

Final Instructional Design Project

Strategy Narrative

Keller's ARCS Motivation Model

Keller's ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction) is a pedagogical framework, that can be used in conjunction with other frameworks, to enhance the motivation of a learner through intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

Larson and Lockee (2014, p. 170) highlight that ARCS is an acronym that provides a guide for designing instruction:

• Gain and maintain the learner's Attention;
• Provide Relevance to make the connection between the instruction and the learner's personal learning goals explicit;
• Encourage the right amount of Confidence in the learner so that they make sufficient effort to learn the material; and
• Satisfy the learner that their needs will will be met by completing the instruction.

Grant 1.4 - Final

The final grant proposal has developed from a series of submissions and reviews of each section of the proposal document. The feedback from the instructor has led to continuous revisions leaving this final document requiring little revision from the previous draft; I am pleased with the result.

This document is an example of whole school technology integration and represents a final artifact for the School Technology Coordination certificate. It represents professional knowledge and the skills of writing grant proposals for a particular audience. The evaluation plan highlights elements of assessing and evaluating learning goals with the collaborative support of subject matter experts.

ID Formative Evaluation

The evaluation plan outlined is based on Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Evaluation model on page 11 of Streamlined ID (Larson & Lockee, 2014).

Analysis

Rationale, Goals and Objectives

Grant 1.3 - Budget and Evaluation design

The final elements of the grant are the Budget and Evaluation design; what the grant money will be used for, and who will judge if the grant has met the goals set out.

Grant 1.2.1 - Needs Assessment updated

Grant 1.2 - Needs Assessment

In this second draft of the Grant for technology for the STEM Refugees, the focus is on assessing and stating the needs which the grant will address.

Case Comparison and Contrast

Grant 1.1 - First draft

Despite being a native English speaker, my English really needs to improve. It is a little embarrassing that I don't know and understand how sentences should be structured properly. In the example below, the instructor corrects a sentence stating that I should not split a compound predicate with a comma--what? (The instructor's comments are in red; there is lots of red!

Grammar Monster definition:
The predicate is the part of the sentence that makes a statement about the subject. The predicate usually tells us what the subject is doing or what is happening to the subject.
A compound predicate tells us two (or more) things about the same subject (without repeating the subject).

Example - Adam lives in Bangor and speaks Welsh. (This tell us two things about the subject (Adam).)

Compound sentences and subjects:

A compound predicate tells us at least two things about one subject. So, the following sentence is not an example of a compound predicate:

Adam lives in Bangor, and he speaks Welsh. (This is a compound sentence. It has two subjects (Adam and he). Each subject has one simple predicate.)

The following sentence is an example of a compound predicate: Adam and his brother live in Bangor and speak Welsh. (The predicate tell us two things about the subject (Adam and his brother). Even though it has two elements, this is one subject. It is called a compound subject.)

Project Goals

Case 7

Streamlined ID	Case no.7
Identify stakeholders and their expectations (Streamlined ID, p24)	WWW: Maya questions Ruth-Ann, the students from the previous year, those from the year coming, looks at scores and groups the students accordingly before interviewing, she interviews the AP, She identifies the parents. EBI: Did she speak to the Maths teachers from the year before or the SME for Maths? She finds out what lessons were like; could she have asked the students what they wanted their lessons to be like? Do they have favourite lessons/subjects/ teachers? Why? What do the parents think? (Maya relies on the comments from the students)
Identify project roles and their responsibilities (Streamlined ID, p25-26)	Who is the client? Whilst the learners are the ones affected by the intervention, Ruth-Ann, the Maths department and the school are the client. Maya seems to identify Ruth-Ann as the client but I believe it is the Maths Faculty that should be the client. Who has funding/approval authority? Maya does not identify this. The AP alludes to their being little money to support the purchase of of materials for the students Who will be impacted by the instruction? Students/teacher the year after? The intervention effects all the Maths, not just this one teacher.
Defining the problems and analysing the needs (Streamlined ID, p26/29)	p76: Maya seems to identify that the problem, in some cases is due to the culture of the parents not valuing education which affects the motivation of the students to learn. She also points out the expectation that the education of the parents will have an affect on the students' performances. (Streamlined ID, p51) points out that "prior knowledge, motivational goals, and intelligence have shown to have a significant impact on the design and future success of the instruction" (Clark & Feldon, 2005) EBI: From the interviews and Ruth-Ann's comments, the students are not at the appropriate standard when they come to her; prior knowlege in an issue therefore the previous teacher needs to be interviewed and their teaching investigated. Ruth-Ann does not have confidence in her own ability and has not recognised issues with the tects in relation to the Core Standards (p76/77) Streamlind ID. p57: Level 1 reaction; what interests do the students have outside of class; try to apply instruction toward this. Show students and parents that their lives are affected by maths and do activities to match.
Gathering data on needs, resources and constraints (Streamlined ID, p29/33)	Maya does this quite well. She interviews Ruth-Ann, students of differing ability and age. She interviews the AP and some other teachers (these teacher's comments are not listed) Constraints are identified: money by AP p75, p76 the education of parents and their cultural attitudes to education. EBI: Gather data on other Maths teachers, is the problem systemic or is it just Ruth-Ann! What tech is available on the computers? Are there constraints on running after school activities? Are there constraints on releasing a teacher to visit another school? Could cover be done internally? Learning walks?
Refining and translating needs into goals (Streamlined ID, p33/37)	Maya does not seem to do this. If the learner is the most important stakeholder, Maya needs to redefine the goasl to work beyond Ruth-Ann. The problem is applicable to the Maths department, the whole school and community
Seeking approval of the project scope and plan (Streamlined ID, 37/38)	Maya does not seem to do this. She reports back to the instigator of the intervention and offers to assist. She does not report back to the AP or the SME for Maths.

Article Analysis

Being able to write well requires that you know what good writing looks like, and what it doesn't. It the embedded doc is an analysis of an article on blogging that was posted online; it is linked within the doc. My analysis is thorough and I nit-pick somewhat, but that was the point!

ID model

After feedback and evaluation of my model, I updated it to incorporate returns to sections from all other sections during the process.

Reflection on Fracken Model

I created a linear ID Model as it closely respresents how I work and how the teams that I am part of function. I understand the ADDIE model and the pathway through it and my model is based upon it. I have structured the model to step down from left to right to visualize the progression toward the end of the project; this also associates with Gantt Charts as the bars that represent time on a task move towards the right. I have placed a definite evaluation subphase after each of Analyse, Design, Develop and Implement as I believe that they shouldn't be optional nor should the evaluation be left to the last phase. If a good sub-evaluation is carried out, the need to jump back several phases is removed. I was inspired by the Casebook task to place the evaluation after the Analysis and include identifications of "culture" and "how people work" in the Analysis. From my own recent experience where I built an instant feedback quizzing system in Google Docs for my new Y12 students I found that each step required me to have the other Biology teachers I work with look at what I had produced and evaluate it. I produced a successful system the students have found value in using and the teachers also value. I have found that if the teachers don't value a system I build, they don't use it, which turns out to be a waste of my time. If teachers don't value a new piece of bought software then it won't be used and that will be a waste of money.

I am aware that the text I have added mixes classroom teaching/lesson design with systems development; I do both.

I aimed to construct the model based on the readings from the first module assignment (Gustafson & Branch, 2002, and Streamlined ID, 2013) but without looking back at the images. I wanted to represent how I believed my ID model would look and not be biased by any of the models in the books. After drawing it and subsequently looking back at the texts I can see similarities to several of the linear models.

My reflections from our first discussion posts have inflenced my design as I have assimilated some of the concepts/processes from those models; "I am comfortable with Gerlach & Ely’s (1980) “mix of linear and concurrent” (p39); this is generally how I work but this model needs to include elements of the other models particularly when assessing the students’ current knowledge.

Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino’s (p42) ASSURE model makes a lot of sense and I appreciate how they focus on the selection of resources as opposed to the creation of new ones. They also place the analysis of the learners first which I think is appropriate; I don’t start a semester with a new class without knowing everything I can about my students. As the semester progresses I tend to consider the characters, personalities and learning styles of my students more as I get to know them so an evaluation of the students must to be on-going if I am to design activities and materials that works best for them.

I aim to make my lessons learner centred so the PIE model by Newby, Stepich, Lehman and Russell (p45) had elements I liked. Their matrix of questions concept intrigued me as I have been moving my lesson design and objectives toward a Why, How, What model. The question “How will you know they are learning?” is one I have been paying attention to."

I had thought Gerlach and Ely's Model was most similar to how I work but on reflection the concurrent nature of their design doesn't suit my style. After reviewing the models in Survey of Instructional Models I see that my style is much more similar to the heavily critcised rectilinear models and that of The Diamond Model and The Smith and Ragan Model. I prefer the logic and organisation of the linear models; they are clear and make sense unlike The Gentry Instructional Product Development and Management model, Boehm's Spiral Model or some of the other models that seem to have no start or end. I cannot afford the time to maintain every system I have ever built so I am likely to always prefer a model that has a clear endpoint. In the model I have built the final evaluation is the endpoint unless the evaluation uncovers that the designed object does not produce the desired outcomes.

With regards to activities in each phase I have taken mostly from Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino’s (p42) ASSURE model and the matrix of questions Newby, Stepich, Lehman and Russell (p45) have designed. I also found myself drawn to the rigid structures of the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development Model.

As a teacher, if I build a scheme of work other teachers need to be able to use it. As a Learning Technology systems developer, I am answerable to the Head teacher who requested the system. In both these situations I believe it is important to get the people I am answerable to to sign off that they are happy with the way projects are developing and moving. This is the reason for the split decisions on the sub-phase evaluations. If after the Design evaluation the client isn't pleased, I can go back and revise the design based on the critiques. Only after they are completely happy do I feel the project should move ahead.

Case 20 review

When Ross writes “With the exception of a couple of students in 503 who are working outside the U.S., my guess is that the elements of the case are sufficiently outside people's realm of experience to allow them to look at it objectively.” I can appreciate why he has chosen this case.

Having taught in England, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Malaysia, I have come into contact with students, teachers, parents and administrators of many cultural backgrounds and upbringings including North Americans. Attitudes to teaching, learning and even how to speak in public are very different in different countries and in a place like Malaysia that is made up of  Malay, Chinese and Indian populations these attitudes can be evident in the same room!

Interestingly, the Head of Physics in my current post is French and his attitude and approach to teaching is very grounded in his French upbringing and the French educational system; as I read the case I could see him in my mind; I will be as objective as possible!

After reading the case once through I got the impression that the consortium had not done the Analysis phase of the ADDIE model. Why had the French team been permitted to build a prototype design without them considering the expectations of the other consortium member’s expectations and needs? After reading the case again I stepped back and considered that this is exactly what they needed, to do a project together and analyse each other’s styles of working and thinking to better understand each other. Had this analysis been part of their original analysis design plan then that would have been great planning by the consortium. It is clear from the case study that this “getting to know you” phase wasn’t part of the plan and should have been. The delay in the production of design requirements was inevitable as this meeting was more about analysing the various consortium and designer’s ways of working.

The culture of the consortium members i.e. the behaviours and beliefs characteristic of the different groups, are evident in the comments in the case regarding of how the French and US Americans approached meetings and what educational strategies they considered appropriate. Without researching or directly experiencing how another culture does a task there is likely going to be frustration. Since Jim Huggins had this experience from his previous trips the year before, I believe he could have avoided most of the issues that were encountered by Iris had he met with her to consider the French style before she left. Iris could have prepared herself better by seeking advice before the trip; having the humility to ask for help and the awareness to know that one doesn’t know everything is the lesson here!

The different purpose of a meeting between the two groups causes some interesting issues; the French report back on a plan, the US Americans use the meeting for the plan. Due to this lack of awareness Iris feels Jacqueline is taking credit for the discussions they have in private whilst Jacqueline is innocently reporting back what they had decided together. The differences in meeting culture begins to affect the social interactions between the individuals and groups.

Attitudes to what constitutes good education is grounded in each country’s governmental policies and the educational institutions. The case shows that the French designers clearly value content and theory and were likely subjected to a didactic style of teaching in the classroom; “this is what you need to, learn it, do the exam”. The US style of scaffolding and modelling is much more hands on and constructive, focusing on skill acquisition that can be subsequently applied to other situations. It is good that Iris and Jacqueline come to a middle ground and that the prototype developed by the US team incorporates the theory that the French learners expect in their education. The observations made by Dieter on the second meeting day made me consider that the US instructional designers  with their background in educational theories and systems design made them much more prepared as individuals to consider the whole project. The French designers were probably specialists in their fields and were challenged to see the big picture of learning theories combined with attractive and functional design.

Where the technology is concerned I have some sympathy for the French team. An agreement is made by the consortium that the constraints of the development tools available to build what the Americans want would “work themselves out”. Designing strictly in HTML, CSS3 and Javascript may have been a huge challenge for the French team when asked to produce interaction without plugins like Flash and Shockwave. That being said, the French team don’t take any risks whereas the US Americans are happy to design what they want as an end product and work out the technical requirements as they go. This attitude is another example of how the analysis phase did not happen as the French team designed what they were capable of at the time and not what they could build had their been no restraints on the technical side of the project.

Writing Style Evaluation

Using the guidance provided, I have analysed a document I wrote previously for ease of reading and appropriateness to the audience.

Webquest

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/webquest/start.html

The Webquest, made popular by Bernie Dodge, is a structured learning environment for students to find resources that support the production of an object for their learning. In this case, the theme of the webquest is Animal Testing. 

The "Triple Impact" self/peer/teacher assessment is a powerful pedagogical tool for enhancing the students work. Reflection and feedback at multiple times throughout the process increases the quality of the final product. Ertmer points out that "Students noted that peer feedback can be valuable and, more importantly, described how giving peer feedback not only reinforced their learning but enabled them to achieve higher understanding" (Ertmer, 2007)

This was the final object I created in this module and encompasses all the elements of the other modules; accessible and responsive design, with appropriate copyright usage demonstrated.

I find the webquest structure itself useful, but elements of it are somewhat redundant and repetitive. In the future when I create a webquest, I will not include all of the elements as a result of my learning on this task i.e. the introduction, task and process pages can all be one, and the teacher page does not have to be included for the students to see.


Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., et al. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412-433.

Virtual Field Trip

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/start.html

The Virtual Field Trip is a series of linked pages with different activities on each. Students navigate through the site completing the activities and do the research at the proposed sites; it is somewhat like a webquest but tries to "take" students to the real-world places they are studying, virtually!

I have embedded a specifically designed Google Map, a Mindmeister MindMap, and a YouTube clip. The various media and interactivity make this learning object engaging and a challenge to complete.

Mobile Learning

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/mlearning.html

The mobile learning task was not required for the course but I did it anyway. Using Dreamweaver's responsive template designs I was able to adapt my other CSS stylesheets to be mobile compatible. The responsive design works well in PC, tablet and smartphone sized screens, enabling students to access the info as efficiently as possible while studying offsite. 

The best practice of creating a resource that fits the most devices possible iin order to enhance accessibility is highlighted by this object.

School Evaluation Summary

Evaluation | Survey

This was an interesting task; I only wish I had had more time to do a more thorough job. Perhaps if this task had been assigned earlier on in the semester, I would have been able to do the job to the level I will need to justify improvements to my bosses! That being said, I now have some data that verifies what I have thought about "SCIS" in the past.

My school has been in the process of trying to achieve the NAACE Mark which is a British technology maturity certification. It is rather similar to the maturity benchmarks we used in this task. It has not been my responsibility to evaluate "SCIS" against the NAACE Mark criteria but I have been asked to give my opinion in the past. I was not as positive in my assessment one year ago as those that were performing the evaluation and I was clearly being seen to be looking at the evaluation with a "glass half empty" perspective. After completing this task, I am confident that my previous assessment was accurate and that "SCIS" has a lot of work to do.

It was interesting to see the differing perspectives offered by the members of staff I asked to collaborate with me on this task. The Systems Adminstrator, the Assistant Principal for Development, and the Head of IT curriculum all completed the survey I prepared. After bringing all of their responses together I was able to get a much wider picture of the state the school is at. After given the evaluation to these staff members they too were interested in the differences in perception.

The elements that I have identified that need attention: training, new technology use, and assessment, will likely need 2 to 3 years of planned development to get them up to Intelligent level. As I mention in my evaluation, a culture shift will need to occur where it comes to the attitudes of the staff. I regularly visit an American international school and play sport with the staff there. Through this interaction I have had the opportunity to talk with the Americans regarding their attitudes to training. It is clear that the requirement to go through re-certification is a big plus for institutes that have this in place. The staff know they have to meet the standards or they will not be able to teach; their jobs depend on them being up-to-date.

In the past I submitted the suggestion/plan to the leaders of "SCIS" that the school take a more serious view of the attendance at training and the development of the skills needed to work in a 1 to 1 environment. I made comparisons with other educational systems such as the US and Japan but it was decided to continue with training being "optional". The idea of making staff do certification seems completely unrealistic! Whilst "SCIS" employs staff on a 2 year contract basis, they are not prepared to use this pressure to insight change.

Before I return to school I intend to fully compare the benchmark with the NAACE Mark. Had I had the time to be more thorough for this task, I would have asked department and faculty heads to complete the survey along with a sample of students, parents and governors where the survey is appropriate. It was clear to me after I got the responses back from the three other staff members with responsibility for technology integration that perspectives are very different. We will need to thoroughly go through each element and evidence each part from the students perspectives right up to the governors if we intend to succeed with the NAACE Mark.

Jigsaw

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/Jigsaw.html

Elliot Aronson, the creator of the Jigsaw activity describes it as this: Jigsaw is a cooperative learning technique rich in opportunities for promotive interaction (Aronson, 2008).

The Jigsaw activity is an excellent pedagogical group work strategy where students initially assign themselves to do research on part of the whole task. They split up and work with other students from different groups also researching the same topic to become "experts". These secondary groups decide how to teach the content to their "home" group and then give a presentation.

A short quiz is given at the end of the session to ensure the students have taken onboard the learning objectives and have taken the activity seriously.

Aronson, E. (2008). Jigsaw classroom. Retrieved July 29, 2013 from http://www.jigsaw.org/ 

Concept Map

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/conceptmap.html

The concept map image on the right hand side of the main page was build in Adobe Fireworks and then imported into Dreamweaver. This is a relatively straight forward process but one which can make the design and navigation of a page more appealing to the user as images are being used to enhance the experience.

Copyright Scavenger Hunt

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/scavenger.html

The copyright scavenger hunt is a learning resource that guides teachers and students to answer questions about copyright abuse, plagiarism and fair use. 

After doing the research and building this object, I have a new respect for doing things the right way. Teachers tend to take if they can get their hands on resources, and use them as their own. I have made it my goal to not do this again and have been in contact with companies regarding the use of their materials within the confines of our school's domain.

In order to instill a sense of responsibility in my students, I have begun to include a referencing section in all of my rubrics in order to push the students to identify from where they have been taking the media they find for their work. It is slowly getting through to them that if they didn't build it themselves, they need to say who did!

Technology Use Planning Overview

Technology Use Planning. 
Technology use planning is a process by which an institution develops a time based action plan for the future integration of technology. The plan is based upon the mission and vision of the institution; where they currently are and where they aim to be all in light of their budget, stakeholder skills, and the current state of the technology available. 


How might the new National Educational Technology Plan 2010 be an effective and powerful resource for technology use planning? 
After researching and reading about digital divides and digital inequalities, I feel that the NETP 2010 tries to address each of the elements of possible inequality well while looking at new competencies and how these should be approached. In this regard the NETP is a great guide from which to base technology use planning.

I particularly like the section on "Assessment: Measure What Matters". I have been challenged over the last couple of years to find ways to measure the effectiveness of student behaviors online in relation to 21st century skills, so this section has definitely caught my attention. The recording of formative assessments (assessment for learning) using simulations and games is very interesting and as the authors clearly see the increase in gaming and the use of tablets for such actions as a trend that will continue to rise, finding ways to evidence the 'players' performances seems logical particularly in light of the skills Universities and employers are asking for lately.

The recommendations for "Connected Teaching" are very forward thinking. To have a vision such as this come to fruition will require the other possible divides that teachers might face to already have been leveled. Whilst I am a big fan of using LinkedIn, Google+ and have various RSS feeds aggregating into my email, and enjoy learning on Coursera, the majority of the teachers I work with are far from a level of 'connectedness' that would meet the NETP goals. The degree of awareness and ed-tech skills exhibited by my colleagues would have to grow considerably and would require, at the very least, one year if not more is several cases, for staff members to become connected. On top of this, a full culture change would be required and driven with considerable energy by the senior leaders of the school for there to be an impact. A shift toward professional development that was continuous, focused and has time allotted to it very regularly would be necessary.

The "Rethinking Basic Assumptions" is an interesting section with the reference to the restructuring of classes to ones where competence is the primary factor and not age. Is it not generally a difficult decision to have students, who are not performing at their age appropriate standard, move to work with different aged students? Physical and emotional developmental states can have repercussions in certain scenarios. Having not read any research on the success of American schools using this technique, I am only going on what I have seen in the British and International systems. It has become more common for tutor groups to be arranged in a "vertical" fashion so that younger students come into contact with the more mature students; learning from them and building relationships. It is not common in international schools or British schools for this vertical, competency based approached to be applied to the curriculum.

It is mentioned several times in the NETP 2010 that research into learning sciences and pedagogy has and is to be used to guide the further implementation of technology. This is essential for any effective integration. It has been my experience that new technologies are bought by schools to provide a superficial push toward meeting requirements. The knowledge and experience of how the technology can be used to enhance learning must be built through the use of sound theories from good research and practice.


Do you agree with See about tech use plans needing to be short, not long term? Why or why not? 
Whilst much of the technology that Dr See refers to is out of date, his ideas are still relevant. The first two paragraphs of his article refer to his opinions of long and short term plans. I personally do not agree that five years are too long. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. Planning for the acquisition and integration of a VLE may easily take three to five years; research, trialing, acquisition, implementation, training of early adopters in the student, teacher and parent body, opening up to the institution, and review/evaluation. If however we are planning for the integration of a new site wide application e.g. Prezi, this could easily be done in a much shorter time and probably within six months assuming the budget has been prepared with foresight to allow for such a fast turn around purchase. Certainly curriculum based software and technology identified by the specialists can be requested by a deadline that provides the requisitioning staff time to order and receive the purchase for the next academic year; three to six months seems appropriate in this instance.
So, whilst I understand his perspective, Dr See has simplified the situation too much for it to be applicable in all instances.



What do you think about his comment that "effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology? 
After reading this section of Dr See's article, I wonder if Simon Sinek didn't get his inspiration for his "the golden circle" concept made popular on his TED talk from Dr See. The 'Why' is very important and I fully agree with Dr See in this regard. The why is always about the learning of our students. When we understand the why and can answer this question, the how and what are much easier to address. Example: The Art department are interested in giving their students the best opportunity to enhance their digital photography and video work. This is the why. How? By providing them with the best possible hardware and software within the constraints of the budget, if not for this year, perhaps for the year after. What? Apple? Microsoft? Adobe? It may actually be easier to convince the Board of Governors to spend more money by allowing them to answer the question "What?" after considering the why and the how first.
If the answer is Apple for the Art department, a similar consideration of technology may lead the Science department to acquire Microsoft laptops. Like what we teach the students in IT class; use the correct tool for the job, one size does not fit all. 
It is this argument with which I intend to approach the Board in the near future to argue that forcing all of our students to buy iPads for our 1 to 1 scheme isn't appropriate. As long as our students can achieve the desired learning experience, it doesn't matter which device they use, therefore BYOT seems like a better fit. The only stipulation the students should be given is that they are capable, using the device they choose, of experiencing the process their teachers wish them to have.


What experiences have you had with technology use planning and what have been your experiences in terms of outcomes (both good and bad)?
The examples I have mentioned above are indeed my own experiences. Not everything has been smooth sailing. The implementation of our VLE has had its challenges as it was decided to implement two different versions of the VLE, one for the primary campus and one for the secondary, on the same server. While we were assured this would work, it has had problems as the company has updated the different instances at different rates causing malfunctions on the instance that wasn't updated.
What have I learned from this? Don't be an early adopter and don't try something that others haven't done before and been successful with. I'm sure that my compatriots in other international schools in the region have looked at our experience and steered away! That being said, I'm not afraid to lead the pack but when it comes to a product that costs $25000 per year, it needs to work!
The majority of my experience has been around the training of staff to improve their basic skills and to enhance their lessons with technology use. This has been a success for those members of staff who have given their time to attend the sessions and apply what they have learned. If I were to have this be more successful, I would need more support from the senior leaders of the school to make the use of educational technologies to enhance learning a greater priority for all teachers. Many teachers who choose not to attend the training sessions use the technologies in ways that could be a lot more inspiring but since there is nothing forcing them to attend and to improve, they continue to use the IWBs simply as a surface to project on to. My plan this year was to identify individuals how were prepared to give thirty minutes of their time after school to run a training session. These sessions were replicated several times each week with different volunteers, including myself, running the same content. This has had the benefit of serving more teachers as many can't make it to training on certain days. This strategy will continue next academic year.
The most recent blunder and success I have had was this year when I, through lack of awareness, registered the wrong email address with Google when we began the process of integrating GAFE into our school. After attending a Google summit I realized the scope of what acquiring GAFE for our school meant. Fortunately the error wasn't a serious one and my drive to have GAFE into our school is progressing well with us rolling out Gmail to our early adopters in preparation for a school wide transition in September. These early adopters are a combination of savvy and not-so-skilled individuals working in teams. They will disseminate there knowledge to the rest of their faculty colleagues and progress through further training sessions, as the year goes by, in the various Google Apps. I have encouraged the less confident adopters to get involved because I wanted them to be able to show the rest of their teams how the technology worked; if they can do it, everyone can! I have also used these individuals as a debugging tool not only for the technology itself but as a gauge for the appropriateness of the training I have organised. Everything seems to be going well although I do have to remind myself on occasion that just because they volunteer, doesn't mean they can use technology, and so I need to go a lot slower! 

Digital Inequality

Over the last week I have been on a school trip to Phuket, Thailand. Every time I go to Thailand it amazes me how rice farmers can pull out a smart phone and happily text away, or how it is possible to pay for your Air Asia flights, along with all your other bills, in 7 Eleven. The Thai technology infrastructure is pretty good despite their 91st placing by the ITU last year!

Initially I was intending to do my piece as a comparison of the strategies Thailand and Malaysia have put in place to bridge their digital divides with regards to broadband access and to bring themselves inline with the international agreements for 2015. However, a discussion with a colleague on the trip, when they said they needed to figure out Google Docs, was what triggered me to think about the issues with our staff as a whole. Since all of our students have their own devices and can bring them to school if they wish, their techie skills are high. They are autonomous. What they don't do so well is use the technologies available to them to enhance their learning, and this is due to the teachers not exposing them to the plethora of awesome apps and websites available to them. 

Just like what Anthony has done for us with the use of these different web apps, the exposure to the technology needs to be greater. Of course, teachers will complain about not having enough time therefore whatever strategies are put in place, they need to target as many individuals as possible so as the 'don't have time' excuse becomes superfluous.

I mention Digital Literacy in my second to last slide. This is an issue I wish to look into further and hopefully provide some guidance for the improvement of at my school with the help of our librarian.

Mart's Digital Divide/Inequality Voicethread

Accessibility

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/accessibility.html

Accessibility is about designing web pages that provide content that is available to the greatest number and type of devices, be they keyboards, screen readers, mobile devices or for low bandwidth connections. It is also equally important that the greatest variety of people are given access to the content of the page. It is the law that designers meet the standards set out in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These standards are summarized on the WebAIM 508 check list page.

I particularly enjoyed testing my page for color contrast and for access by individuals with different types of color blindness. One of my students is purple/blue color blind and this drove me to produce the most attractive but accessible design I could.

I also found the challenge of ensuring that my pages are accessible on as many browsers as possible fun. The websites analyse your design and find any errors. All of my pages are certified for HTML5 and CSS3 compliance.

Netiquette

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/martinmullan/502/netiquette.html

Netiquette is a set of rules that outlines socially acceptable behavior when you are communicating online. Students need to be taught how to behave and how to keep themselves safe online; this webpage highlights my ability to create HTML5 and CSS webpages but also the rules and guidelines I foster in my students.

Edtech Challenges

This was a tricky one; go safe with a website I have used before or go for a new tech and maybe make a mess of it! Why bother playing it safe when I am on this course to learn new stuff?- Muvizu it will be. After four failed download attempts I finally got it to work. I watched the tutorials and thought, "hey this is pretty cool". The thing is, I've seen applications like this before and there is no way I would master it in 4 days, especially when my computer is overheating trying to run the 3D graphics! I tried to replicate the tutorials and couldn't make my character move! I decided there that the application deserved more time than I could afford to give it in this instance and I promptly uninstalled it!

Since I have used Goanimate before, I decided to try Powtoon. I like this. A web app that permits the upload of .swf files; I'll be able to use that later! Pretty straight forward app right up until I realized that the voice-over had to be one continuous file; the slides don't accept separate audio files. I had to rethink how I was going to work. I downloaded Audacity and the Lame add-on to permit the export of mp3 files. It took a fair bit of creative editing but I think I managed to sync the slides reasonably well.

I chose element 6 of the significant challenges because it is a challenge I am actually facing at the moment. Every character in my animation is real at my school. The pastoral team are looking for a dynamic solution to target setting that links with the eportfolio and reflective writing the Sixth Form students have to do for the AQA Baccalaureate. Unfortunately, as a librarian colleague of mine pointed out in a paper he is about to publish, the British education system isn't very good at assessing 21st Century Skills.

I did some brief research but found this is an area my school definitely needs to look at. The International Baccalaureate (IB) seems to have this kind of assessment of the the students activities away from the classroom done rather well with the Creativity, Action, Service elements of their course. As a Duke of Edinburgh facilitator I am aware of IB schools employing the Duke of Edinburgh as part of their CAS offerings. This makes a lot of sense. Interestingly, we have this programme at our school but the skills of planning, organizing and leadership are not developed further in the school. I think I might try to change this, and with it, implement a more rounded assessment of the students skills and abilities; perhaps we should just do IB!

EDTECH Research

I very much enjoyed the challenge of this task. By being able to research a topic that I am interested in with regards to my work and upcoming projects at my school I was driven to go much further than simply researching and referencing five articles as was required from the rubric. In total I think I read about forty different pieces of research.

The real challenge was workflow. Picking out the most relevant research items that informed my instructional objective and finding the documents I wanted in the various libraries.

Where workflow was concerned I started by finding and downloading journal articles to read. At the start I was inserting the APA reference as I accessed an article. This seemed slow as I found myself spotting errors in the APA style and was tweaking this at the same time. Of course, upon reading the article, I would discover that it didn't rate being in my bibliography so I had wasted time! I decided to leave the referencing until I had found everything I was looking for and I proceeded to find and access many articles. On first glance, some seemed more relevant than others so I begun to separate them into different folders as I progressed. After I felt I had exhausted the research parameters and other relevant references in the bibliographies of the articles I was reading, I began to thoroughly read the articles and pick out those that provided value to my objective, identifying those that seemed most relevant.

In the end I had about ten articles that I had to re-search for to get there locations. The Google Research tool was very useful here and, I think, was quite accurate in it's representation of the APA style. I did find some errors but I'd say the referencing was around 95% accurate. As I was accessing the documents I had downloaded to get their article and journal titles I would reread the document and identify the elements of the published research that I would be able to use in the future in my school. This was the basis of my annotations.

I'm not sure if this workflow is the most efficient way of working but at least how I ended up doing it was better than where I started.

Normally I would print out an article and highlight the sections I was interested in. I found myself getting cross-eyed reading from the computer screen and had to leave my machine a lot to keep my focus but I am determined to do this work on my computer. When I come back to the articles I downloaded to create the plan I intend to present to the senior leaders of my school, I will aim to use the highlighting tools available in Acrobat Pro instead of printing everything off!

Edtech research Google doc

RSS in Education

Whilst I'm not a big fan of voicing over the movies I create as my accent is very nasal, generating this project reminded me of a couple of things: 

• trying to record in a soundproof room can be difficult as the wifi doesn't penetrate so well
• don't record in school near the end of a lesson as the bells go off right in the middle of your video!
• Making a small verbal mistake can be fixed afterwards in editing so don't just bin the minutes worth of recording  I've just done; keep going!
• Making lots of small cuts stops me rambling as I can prepare a sentence or two and say them with ease
• I say "ahhhhh" far too much! Its a good job I could edit them all out.

I am a lot more comfortable creating captioned screencasts using Adobe Captivate. The program recognizes the buttons you press and automatically creates a caption that can be edited. It also creates simulations with animated mouse tracking. Dealing with the verbal errors almost doubles production time compared to the auto-captioning Captivate allows.

This video was the second I produced as I made two. The first was ten minutes long and included how to insert RSS feeds into Blogger and a Google Site. I decided trying to show how to use RSS and how I use RSS feeds were different tasks and since there are tutorials all over the internet on how to set up a RSS reader, I went with the latter and made the five minute limit!
If you would like to look at my first video attempt, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4OShnYrFbM

I currently use the RSS aggregator built into Microsoft outlook and I have to agree with  +Bryan who mentioned in his reflection about there being too much information to keep track of. That being said, I would definitely miss the information if I had to regularly visit the different sites I subscribe to; at least they are in Outlook and I can look at them offline when I want.

Over the next year I will be using a Google Site and a Blog with my students as they write their Reflection Diaries as part of their target setting. I think I will trial the various options for alerting me to their posts and updates. I like getting email notifications when things are changed on the sites I 'watch' so comparing Google Site's change alert with email updates from the blogs and RSS feed updates should be interesting.

I know that many tutorials mention that our consumption of RSS from a website is anonymous, I am sure that if a website designer really wanted to know who you were they could do it when you click the RSS button on their page. This page was interesting: http://www.feedforall.com/measuring-rss.htm

Boise's Albertsons Library: http://boisestate.worldcat.org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/oclc/4598406564

Pence, L. E., & Pence, H. E. (2008). Accessing and managing scientific literature: Using RSS in the classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 10.)

Mart.

Elements of Educational Technology

Elements of Educational Technology

As my responsibility for the introduction and integration of educational technology at my school has grown, my awareness of the scope of the issues involved has also grown. We tend, as classroom teachers, to only think within the confines of our class or our department.  When we try to expand our ideas and experience beyond our classroom, we can find blocks that, without having the experience to deal with them, can stop our plans in their tracks and leave us frustrated.

I have felt this frustration over the last five years and, as I commented in the task document, have changed my thinking with regards to what is most important. When teaching ethical considerations of science in my Biology classes or topics such as global warming or even plants, I have found my students, many being Chemistry students, aren't terribly enthusiastic. I have noticed that part of this lack of enthusiasm has come from their teachers! As a result I have done my best to present these lessons in the most interesting way I can. I am ethically bound to do this and as the years have gone by, my students have come to appreciate these areas of Biology as opposed to finding them boring and "not real science!"

While it would seem obvious that the learning is most important, this task has reminded  me to look at the bigger picture. I am ethically bound to present educational technology in such a way that learning, its facilitation, the user's performances, the other teachers' ability to use the technology,  etc. are all considered important. To do this, I need to research and to study.

Welcome

Hi,

I am Mart. I am a Y7 to 13 Science and Biology teacher at the Alice Smith School in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I currently have a role in technology coaching/integration and love Google!

I'm a big fan of playing around with technology and trying it out in the classroom with my students who are all game for anything. Bending tech to my wishes is a hobby and my current toy is definitely Google Spreadsheets with Sites, Blogger and Plus right up there.

This learning log will track the artifacts I create throughout my studies on the M.E.T. at Boise State University. This process will allow me to evaluate the use of Blogger as a reflection diary linked to a portfolio in Google Sites.

AECT Standards 2012: Research

AECT Standard 5 - Research: 
Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning (p. 4) and improve performance (pp. 6-7).

Indicators:
• Theoretical Foundations - Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of the contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and technology. (p. 242)
• Method - Candidates apply research methodologies to solve problems and enhance practice. (p. 243)
• Assessing/Evaluating - Candidates apply formal inquiry strategies in assessing and evaluating processes and resources for learning and performance. (p. 203) Page 3 of 3
• Ethics - Candidates conduct research and practice using accepted professional (p. 296) and institutional (p. 297) guidelines and procedures.

NOTE: Parenthetical page references are to Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (2008, A. Januszewski & M. Molenda, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.)

AECT Standards 2012: Professional Knowledge and Skills

AECT Standard 4 - Professional Knowledge and Skills: 
Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.

Indicators:
• Collaborative Practice - Candidates collaborate with their peers and subject matter experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners.
• Leadership - Candidates lead their peers in designing and implementing technology-supported learning.
• Reflection on Practice - Candidates analyze and interpret data and artifacts and reflect on the effectiveness of the design, development and implementation of technology-supported instruction and learning to enhance their professional growth.
• Assessing/Evaluating - Candidates design and implement assessment and evaluation plans that align with learning goals and instructional activities.
• Ethics - Candidates 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.


NOTE: Parenthetical page references are to Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (2008, A. Januszewski & M. Molenda, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.)

AECT Standards 2012: Learning Environments

AECT Standard 3 - Learning Environments: 
Candidates facilitate learning (p. 41) by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments. (p. 1)

Indicators:
• Creating - Candidates create instructional design products based on learning principles and research-based best practices. (pp. 8, 243-245, 246)
• Using - Candidates make professionally sound decisions in selecting appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning (pp. 122, 169) based on principles, theories, and effective practices. (pp. 8-9, 168-169, 246)
• Assessing/Evaluating - Candidates use multiple assessment strategies (p. 53) to collect data for informing decisions to improve instructional practice, learner outcomes, and the learning environment. (pp. 5-6)
• Managing - Candidates establish mechanisms (p. 190) for maintaining the technology infrastructure (p. 234) to improve learning and performance. (p. 238)
• Ethics - Candidates foster a learning environment in which ethics guide practice that promotes health, safety, best practice (p. 246), and respect for copyright, Fair Use, and appropriate open access to resources. (p. 3)
• Diversity of Learners - Candidates foster a learning community that empowers learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. (p. 10)

NOTE: Parenthetical page references are to Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (2008, A. Januszewski & M. Molenda, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.)