I have a great job as a traveling trainer with the School Improvement Network. The company, founded 20 years ago by two teachers in Utah, has grown to the point where sales reps and trainers are being sent out to all 50 states to enhance professional development for teachers in struggling schools.
Observation 360 is a great new tool for administrators or peer teachers that have access to PD360 streaming video content. Using this tool, school principals can develop templates to use when observing classroom teachers. Data from these observations can instantly be sent to the teacher that has been observed, with a digital copy going directly to the administrator's files. Suggested videos for professional development are linked to the classroom observation notes. http://appshopper.com/education/observation-360
My thought is to apply Observation 360 to the Classroom Technology Assessment (CTA) that was developed for my dissertation (USU, 2003). There are five components to the CTA: Plan, Develop, Deliver, Assess, and Engage.
A. Plan. The administrator/peer observer is looking for evidence that teachers are using technology to plan teaching and learning activities in their classrooms. This might take the form of educational websites for online research or streaming videos bookmarked on their desktop or laptop computers. It might also show up as URLs in lesson plans. The classroom observer might also see lesson plans managed in electronic formats (electronically searchable lesson plans, emails from colleageus with suggested lesson plans, emails to substitute teachers, etc.).
B. Develop. The administrator/peer observer is looking for evidence that teachers are using technology to develop teaching and learning materials. This might take the form of customized worksheets or electronic presentations (PowerPoint, blogs, wikis) that have not been commercially developed.
C. Deliver. The administrator/peer observer is looking for evidence that teachers are using technology to deliver student based learning activities. This might take the form of individual and group time scheduled for classroom computer centers, teacher directed computer lab activities, and/or teacher/student presentations to the entire class. This might include commercially developed software applications and web-based instruction.
D. Assess. The administrator/peer observer is looking for evidence that teachers are using technology to assess student learning. This might take the form of online assessment of core curriculum covered in class and/or homework. It might also take the form of teachers managing grades using online software or spreadsheets.
E. Engage. The administrator/peer observer is looking for evidence that teachers are using technology to engage the students in open-ended (creative) activities that require students to use higher order thinking skills. Small group activities for engaged learning are preferred.
Summary
By using the Observation 360 tool with the CTA evaluation instrument, school administrators will be able to identify training needs among their teaching staff. With pre and post training observations, they can also measure progress that is attributed to specific training.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Formative Keyboarding Assessment
Folks in the district are looking at ways to assess sixth graders' keyboarding ability. This will determine their placement in a middle school computer literacy class. This is considered to be a summative assessment of keyboarding skills.
I have developed a very basic test that might be considered as formative assessment. The proctor sets a timer for 30 seconds and instructs each student to type his or her name for 30 seconds. That is the warmup, since everyone's name is various length. But, the proctor records whether the student used both hands or not and whether their posture was in good form.
Next, the students are told to type the row of numbers just above the letters. After they type 1 through 9 and Enter/Return the proctor counts the number of lines typed in 30 seconds. This score can be compared between students and groups of students. A video camera might be used to record the posture and hand position of the students.
This method is free and easy for anyone to administer in class by a teacher, paraeducator or volunteer. We might collect enough data to develop standards for each grade level, grades 1 through 5. What are your thoughts?
I have developed a very basic test that might be considered as formative assessment. The proctor sets a timer for 30 seconds and instructs each student to type his or her name for 30 seconds. That is the warmup, since everyone's name is various length. But, the proctor records whether the student used both hands or not and whether their posture was in good form.
Next, the students are told to type the row of numbers just above the letters. After they type 1 through 9 and Enter/Return the proctor counts the number of lines typed in 30 seconds. This score can be compared between students and groups of students. A video camera might be used to record the posture and hand position of the students.
This method is free and easy for anyone to administer in class by a teacher, paraeducator or volunteer. We might collect enough data to develop standards for each grade level, grades 1 through 5. What are your thoughts?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Evaluating Technology Integration
The Canyons School District, located in the progressive South-East suburbs of Salt Lake City, Utah, hosted the Utah Content Forum (aka C-Forum) on December 4th, 2009. I volunteered to apply my dissertation research (Utah State University, 2002) on Evaluating Technology Integration to school technology in Utah.
For the dissertation I had asked to compare the three types of assessment that were being used in Idaho to assess teachers' abilities to integrate technology with instruction. These were ...
the so-called "Boise Exam," developed at Boise State University;
the Idaho Performance Assessment, developed at Idaho State University in Pocatello; and,
the Idaho Technology Portfolio Assessment, developed at the University of Idaho in Moscow.
Each method was based on one educational philosophy or another, but neither camp could agree on the best way to assess teachers' ability to integrate or "infuse" technology in their schools. I was only given access to data at Idaho State University, but the discussion on the best way to assess teachers' ability to use technology continues.
Along with teacher assessment, I discussed program evaluation. Administrators, board members, and tax payers alike are all asking, "What is our return on investment for money paid for technology in the schools?"
This question fits the summative evaluation category where data is quantitative and facilitates value comparison between programs and requires large numbers to show significance. This process is extensive, expensive, and is often performed by an outside entity.
For the purpose of Professional Development, as internal and district level trainers, we must gather qualitative data on the ways that teachers are currently using the technologies that are available to them. This is so that we can ...
a.) perform a needs assessment,
b.) develop or locate training materials to meet those training needs,
c.) deliver training individually or in small groups, and then
d.) gather post training data to see whether the needs were met.
e.) repeat the cycle!
Since I only had 15 minutes to introduce the topic at C-Forum, I built this blog so that participants (and others) might continue to interact and provide ways that they are evaluating technology integration in their schools. These contributions will potentially benefit a wide audience!
For the dissertation I had asked to compare the three types of assessment that were being used in Idaho to assess teachers' abilities to integrate technology with instruction. These were ...
the so-called "Boise Exam," developed at Boise State University;
the Idaho Performance Assessment, developed at Idaho State University in Pocatello; and,
the Idaho Technology Portfolio Assessment, developed at the University of Idaho in Moscow.
Each method was based on one educational philosophy or another, but neither camp could agree on the best way to assess teachers' ability to integrate or "infuse" technology in their schools. I was only given access to data at Idaho State University, but the discussion on the best way to assess teachers' ability to use technology continues.
Along with teacher assessment, I discussed program evaluation. Administrators, board members, and tax payers alike are all asking, "What is our return on investment for money paid for technology in the schools?"
This question fits the summative evaluation category where data is quantitative and facilitates value comparison between programs and requires large numbers to show significance. This process is extensive, expensive, and is often performed by an outside entity.
For the purpose of Professional Development, as internal and district level trainers, we must gather qualitative data on the ways that teachers are currently using the technologies that are available to them. This is so that we can ...
a.) perform a needs assessment,
b.) develop or locate training materials to meet those training needs,
c.) deliver training individually or in small groups, and then
d.) gather post training data to see whether the needs were met.
e.) repeat the cycle!
Since I only had 15 minutes to introduce the topic at C-Forum, I built this blog so that participants (and others) might continue to interact and provide ways that they are evaluating technology integration in their schools. These contributions will potentially benefit a wide audience!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
