As part of my final course with the Digital Educational Leadership master’s program at Seattle Pacific University, I engaged in a 12 week practicum, job-shadowing two instructors who teach a technology elective course for middle school students. The course, a high school graduation requirement, focuses on preparing students to use technology for various academic and job-related objectives. It also seeks to explore the use of different digital tools and is taught using the Learning Management System (LMS), Moodle.
Although in many ways I was an independent observer, I did actively engage in the classroom. I worked with individual students on demand, had regular conversations with the instructors about their approach to the curriculum, and taught a few classes in their absence. These combined experiences provided me with an authentic and immersive understanding of the curriculum’s implementation.
After completing this practicum, I chose to engage further in my understanding of this course by conducting a program evaluation of its curriculum.
Focal Points for Evaluation
Utilizing the work of Sanders and Sullins (2006), the following focus was identified for this evaluation (p. 7):
Process of strategies for providing services to learners: to provide insights about how best to organize a school to facilitate learning
1. Curriculum design: to provide insights about the quality of program planning and organization
2. Classroom processes: to provide insights about the extent to which educational programs are being implemented
3. Materials of instruction: to provide insights about whether specific materials are indeed aiding student learning
For the past few weeks I have explored ISTE Coaching Standard 4b to try to understand how professional learning specifically impacts the use of education technology. School districts continue to take major steps, both in effort and resources, to provide professional development opportunities in the hopes of improving student learning. Unfortunately, the results continue to indicate that most professional development is unsuccessful (Jacob & McGovern, 2015). What are some potential options?
“Universal Design for Learning” by Giulia Forsythe CC 2.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/gforsythe/8527950743
As part of my recent exploration of peer coaching, I have recently explored what it means to peer coach and what 21st century learning looks like in the classroom. Now, my attention has progressed to think about lesson improvement within the peer coaching process. As previously discussed, effective learning challenges students to shift from simple consumers of information, to producers of knowledge in the real-world (Foltos, 2013). For many, this type of learning is not easily integrated into daily teaching (Foltos, 2013). What steps are necessary to co-plan an effective lesson plan?
Creating a Task
Foltos (2013) wrote that first you need to create a task that is complex and real-world. It shouldn’t be too simple or too easily solved (Foltos, 2013). While this concept sounds good, it can be difficult to translate into a learning activity that is both relatable and digestible for students. Foltos (2013) suggested that real-world problems presented are aligned with student interest and that requirements can be easily defined and understood by students.
Next, it is important to define the standards being focused on. There can be multiple categories of standards to consider: curriculum standards like those found in the Common Core, 21st century standards such as those with the Partnership for 21st Century Learning, and technology standards like the ISTE Student Standards.
Crafting Student Directions & Assessments
From here, the learning context can be defined. This might be more easily understood as a “series of carefully sequenced learning activities” (Foltos, 2013, p. 125). It is, of course, important to determine how the learning activities correlate with the standards (Foltos, 2013). Finally, student directions can be crafted, assessments can be created, and resources can be identified, all through a process of receiving and sharing feedback.
One of my collaborating partner’s current focuses is differentiation. As such, I thought it relevant to align this week’s guiding questions about co-planning lessons to questions of differentiation. Differentiation is easily discussed but not as readily implemented into the classroom. It remains a great theoretical concept that is difficult to implement on a daily basis, given time constraints and curricular demands.
What protocols can be used to collaboratively design differentiated instruction effectively?
Created using Tagul by Annie Tremonte
This quarter in my studies in Digital Education Leadership at Seattle Pacific University, I am studying the practice of peer coaching. I have arrived to the table unsure of this role and ready to explore the model alongside my cohort of peers who come from rich and diverse educational environments. So, I am starting with the basics.
What is peer coaching?
While I have not worked in a school with peer coaches before, I have heard the term used in the past. Unfortunately, I have been disinterested because of my perception that it was a form evaluation. In an age when teachers are often blamed for educational malpractice, it is easy to be defensive. Additionally, while the practice of observation is often highlighted as a helpful component of coaching, it is closely tied with evaluation. Since I might not be alone in this perception, perhaps perception is an important consideration when implementing a peer coaching model. In order to address perception, it is best to start with the what before the how. According to Foltos (2013), “A Peer Coach is a teacher leader who assists a peer to improve standards-based instruction by supporting the peer’s efforts to actively engage students in 21st century learning activities” (p. 3). Integral to this process is a coach’s ability to guide a peer towards autonomy (Foltos, 2013). It is also a collaborative process between two peers, not a hierarchy of superiority. Transparency in these goals can also perhaps go a long way in establishing an effective practice.
What is essential for successful coaching?
Based upon the work of Foltos (2013) and my own experiences, the following themes have become apparent.
A coaching relationship needs to consist of willing participants, who are open to building trust with one another (Foltos, 2013). This trust is the foundation of a working relationship that encourages risk-taking and growth.
It is important to set goals and norms collaboratively. While it can begin with a school or district goal, it can also stem from goals set by the coaching partnership (Foltos, 2013).
Establishing modes of respect is a separate consideration from participation. It is important to address time as a factor in a coaching relationship, and recognizing certification hours and/or compensation for work being done outside of the school day can properly value the process.
How do you create a peer coaching model that doesn’t suggest or feel like an evaluation system?
This week in my exploration of ISTE Teaching Standards with my graduate program in Digital Education Leadership at Seattle Pacific University, I am examining ISTE Teaching Standard 5 in an effort to understand how teachers can…
“continuously improve their professional practice, model lifelong learning, and exhibit leadership in their school and professional community by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources.”
Embedded in this standard is the indicator for teachers to…
“exhibit leadership by demonstrating a vision of technology infusion, participating in shared decision making and community building, and developing the leadership and technology skills of others.”
This standard immediately make me think about my previous post on ISTE Teaching Standard 3 in which I explored collegiality and collaboration among educators. Collaboration of any kind is an important global skill that takes advantage of unique perspectives and expertise, while also being an effective method of adult learning (Morel, 2014). It is one that we need to be fostering in our own students, so it is important that we develop and model this ability ourselves. EdSurge reported that “Teachers consistently say they learn best from their peers” (2014, p. 8). In my previous post on collaboration, I used the word informal at times to define a collaborative experience that is less about attending a training guided by a top-down approach and more about working with colleagues to experiment and offer reciprocal feedback. My professor, @RobinHenrickson, guided me to consider my use of the word informal, as it can connote practices without norms or protocols. I realized that my past year of effective collaboration that I shared in this post utilized norms, whether I knew it or not. My colleague and I followed an inquiry model for implementing new practices or technologies, we offered each other feedback and support, and we respected each other’s expertise. So, as I approach ISTE Teaching Standard 5, I am now wondering how leadership can play an important role in the effectiveness and sustainability of collaborative professional development. How can I expand upon the success I’ve had collaborating during this past school year and work to lead a model that engages and benefits more of my school community?
What role do teacher leaders play in establishing effective collaborative practices focused on Ed tech?
My first quarter in the Digital Education Leadership program at Seattle Pacific University is coming to a close and I am left with some reflections on my experiences. I appreciate that the program is designed to use projects and assignments to build a comprehensive graduate portfolio, while simultaneously pushing me to both become more involved in school initiatives and build a professional online identity. Additionally, the readings have been approachable and relevant to both the classroom and the real world. The skills and knowledge that I believe to be most important to successful participation in the program are as follows.
Recently, I had the opportunity to interview my principal about the digital readiness of our middle school. The goal was to discover how my institution is ensuring that technology is being used wisely for teaching and learning. The infographic that follows is a visual representation of my findings. The two driving questions at the top of the infographic guided the interview, while Mike Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship, the ISTE Digital Citizenship Standard 5, and a number of informal interviews with colleagues guided the construction of the interview questions that follow.
My role as an educator is to both prepare students with the skills and knowledge for an undefined future, and engage them to take ownership of their own learning. The following mission statement aims to excite other secondary educators, as it identifies and addresses crucial areas of need during the secondary years. Educating students for the future is anything but explicit, and there is increasing demand to be technologically literate.