Understanding Technology Integration by Design

Katherine Hathcock

FRIT 7738 Technology Staff Development Understanding by Design Spring 2012

Understanding By Design Backwards Design Process (Developed by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, 2002) *Six Facets are labeled in red and featured in Stage Three *WHERETO elements are labeled in blue and featured in Stage Three

Title of Unit: Understanding and Implementing Web 2.0 Tools into the High School (Grades 9-12) Language Arts Curriculum Stage 1 Desired Results
Content Standard(s): Standards: ISTE.NETS.T 1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity Teachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments. a. Promote, support, and model creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness. c. Promote student reflection using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative processes. 2. Design and Develop Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments Teachers design, develop and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessments incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS.S. a. Design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity. b. Develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress. c. Customize and personalize learning activities to address students diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools and resources. Understanding (s)/goals Learners will understand that: Technology, specifically Web 2.0 tools, can be used to attract student engagement and motivation. Technology, specifically Web 2.0 tools, can be used to address differentiation Learners, as teachers, can model Essential Question(s): 1. In what ways can technology be used so that is it relevant and meaningful for teachers? 2. In ways can technology be used so that it is relevant and meaningful for learners? 3. How can students express themselves in a differentiated way through technological outlets?

ways of using technology in the classroom, thereby becoming more of the facilitator needed for the 21st century student Technology can provide an opportunity for learners to gain extra assistance virtually (away from the classroom by use of computer).

4. How can teachers present material to students in a differentiated way?

Common Misconceptions: Technology (Web 2.0) is too complicated to implement into a currently established curriculum Technology (Web 2.0) is too time-consuming in an already time-filled schedule of a high school English teacher Technology (Web 2.0) costs money Technology (Web 2.0) can only be used by advanced students Learner objectives (outcomes): Learners will be able to: Explain what the term Web 2.0 means Identify Web 2.0 tools that can be implemented successfully into their current and future lessons/activities. Create a Voki avatar using the Voki program featured in the presentation. Identify the pros and cons of using the Voki program Utilize Web 2.0 into current or future lesson plans/activities Stage 2 Assessment Evidence Performance Task(s): Other Evidence: Learners will list potential Learners will complete a prelessons/activities into which the assessment of their current presented Web 2.0 tools can be knowledge of Web 2.0 tools implemented either teacher or Learners will complete a poststudent created. assessment of their knowledge of Learners will be able to complete Web 2.0 tools after the presentation their own Voki avatar after completing the workshop Stage 3 Learning Plan Learning Activities: Agenda provided to the audience features each of the steps listed below aligned to a time frame.O Learners will be complete a pre-assessment of their knowledge and comfort level with technology, especially Web 2.0 tools. This activity will be located in the provided work-packet (See Attached Work-Packet). W Self-Knowledge Facilitator presents info on Web 2.0 tools via Powerpoint (See attached

Powerpoint) while learners refer to work-packet. H, T Interpretation Learners are encouraged to list, in their work-packet, current lessons in which the featured technologies can be implemented. Discussion. R, T Explanation, Interpretation, Application A presentation of the Web 2.0 tool Voki is introduced (in same Powerpoint). E Interpretation A step-by-step activity of Voki is presented to the audience using the classroom computer and projector via the Voki website. E Application Discussion of pros and cons of Voki are discussed (both for teacher presentation and student product purposes). R Perspective, Empathy Questions and/or comments are encouraged including both teacher and student issues/concerns. R Perspective, Empathy Post-assessment of workshop measuring content and presentation (me) are evaluated. R, E-2 Self-Knowledge Reminder of material available AFTER the workshop is presented at http://web20andela.weebly.com/ (this info is also featured in the work-packet). T Six Facets 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Explanation Interpretation Application Perspective Empathy Self-Knowledge

WHERETO W- Ensure that students understand WHERE the unit is headed, and WHY. H- HOOK students in the beginning and HOLD their attention throughout. E- EQUIP students with necessary experiences, tools, knowledge, and know how to meet performance goals. R- Provide students with numerous opportunities to RETHINK big ideas, REFLECT on Progress, and REVISE their work. E- Build in opportunities for students to EVALUATE progress and self- assess T- Be TAILORED to reflect individual talents, interests, styles, and needs. O- Be ORGANIZED to optimize deep understanding as opposed to superficial Coverage. Points to Consider Originally, this staff development was to be for an entire English department staff at a nearby high schoolapproximately 14 teachers. However, when I arrived, some staff members forgot, and some even had family emergencies including my original contact person. As a result, only six staff members showed up, and only four participated in the survey. Despite the limited amount of participants, I feel the data included displays an adequate review of my attempt. Furthermore, the unavailability of a computer lab made my original intention of having the audience members create an avatar themselves via the Voki program unsuccessful. Therefore, the focus of the workshop became more of a starting place for the

teachersmerely an opportunity to give them ideas and tools to use for both themselves and their students. Modeling the usage of the Web 2.0 tools became the strategy, and discussion became a method of interaction and production. Additionally, since I only spoke with the department head, and was under the impression that the majority if not all of the teachers participating would be somewhat limited with their technology skills. However, as shown by the pre-assessment data, there were some participants who were readily apt.

Self-Reflection Development When considering the preparation of the workshop, I found it both exhausting and rewarding. During my research of the material, I learned more about tools, and even became more familiar with the ones I thought I knew. Many times I felt overwhelmed and frustrated with the whole process, and had recurring feelings of discouragement and lack of confidence. Throughout the process, I felt that I wasnt making the right decisions, and I would be wasting the audiences time with what I chose. Considering there are so many Web 2.0 tools available, with more being developed every day, the ability to narrow it down to so few to feature was very challenging. Furthermore, organizing all of the featured tools was a feat in itself! I knew nothing about my audience other than what the department head told me, which was very little. I should have asked more specific questions or possibly had distributed an email survey (such as SurveyMonkey) to those potential audience members in order to gain a better grasp on the level of technology ability. That would have guided my design in a more focused manner, and prevented any potential redundancy. Regardless of my negative emotions at times, I feel more comfortable about Web 2.0, however, I know that it is an everchanging concept that is a job in itself to keep up-to-date on. Design The aforementioned reflection guided my design for this particular staff development. I decided to begin with an overall view of Web 2.0 in order to address any misconceptions and to be clear about the direction of the workshop. Moreover, I thought it ideal to transition directly from that to the examples of Web 2.0 tools, therefore making it easier for the audience to understand and relate. With those featured examples, I also found it easier to transition to the Voki demonstration. My intent was to begin in a very general manner and then become more focused. As seen by the presentation evaluation (see attached Pre-Assessment Analysis) the audience found the design effective. Delivery Overall, I believe the workshop was successful. Initially, I was a bit discouraged by the lack of participants, but I cant expect for busy teachers to want to participate in yet another meeting. I believe that I allowed the lack of participation to affect my attitude towards the presentation of the material. I guess you could say that I began on the wrong foot.

Despite the fact that I worked so long and hard on the actual presentation and work packet, and constantly reassured myself that I would be OK with the recommended time frame, I absolutely flew through the material. I cannot get over how incredibly nervous I became speaking in front of people I didnt know and would probably never see again. Considering that I speak in front of students almost every day, I have yet to understand why I was so uncomfortable with speaking in front of peers. I guess I kept thinking about how important the assignment was, and that I had one shot to get it right. Thankfully, they were very supportive, and even added some advice for the tools and procedures that I featured. Some participants even wrote on the surveys that I inspired them. I mean really, that was VERY nice. Seeing that this was my first solo staff development, I have to give myself credit for a job well done. Now I know what to expect, and I can hopefully not be so nervous about my delivery. Analyzing my potential audience before ANY presentation, need it be for colleagues or students, is the best preparation for a workshop and/or lesson. With that in mind, I believe I will be better prepared and more at ease with any future staff development.