RATIONALE PAPER

Ronen Cohen, 5th Grade Homeroom Teacher, India

Spring 2015

INTRODUCTION

This rationale paper, together with a reflection video, is the cumulative project of my EdTech

journey. In them I provide evidence of important stepping­stones and milestones in my path, which

give proof to my understanding, skills, and practice within the Masters of Educational Technology

program at Boise State University.

In this paper, I identify the five 2012 Association of Educational Communications and Technology

(AECT) standards and indicators, and provide artifacts, supportive evidence, and reasoning to

demonstrate my mastery of each.

STANDARD 1: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.

534­ Logo Quiz App: This blog post is a quiz app I created. The quiz asks students to identify

different logos.

501­ Tech Trends: In this blog post I discuss my thoughts and process behind creating a lesson that

incorporates technology. Embedded within is a lesson about creating multiplication videos to

demonstrate student understanding.

541­ Presentation Applications: In this blog post I discuss effective use of presentations in the

classroom.

505 – Evaluation Report Project: This document is the evaluation report I conducted for my

school’s Student Report system. Every stage of the process of writing and conducting the

evaluation was shared and discussed with my EdTech peers.

1

502 – Netiquette: This web page lesson was designed for students to learn about the etiquette of

using the Internet.

Indicator 1.1 Creating

Artifact: 534­ Logo Quiz App

Indicator 1.1 addresses candidates’ ability to create instructional materials and learning

environments using a variety of systems approaches. This logo quiz is an example for an

innovative way to create and use assessments in the classroom. It took me a while to tweak the

blocks and create the final product, but I was satisfied with this app. It demonstrates my ability to

design instructional materials that are relevant, interesting, and engaging to students. I know that

this was a successful product through my observation of students’ reactions. My students were

excited and engaged while taking the quiz; much more so than I have seen them take a

paper­and­pencil quiz. The discussion that followed extended beyond the intended outcomes, and

covered many different topics, such as how to create quizzes, how to build apps, and about the

level of support designers should include. I find it enjoyable and satisfying to see my students so

engaged in their learning and so curious about technology.

Indicator 1.2 Using

Artifact: 501­ Tech Trends

Indicator 1.2 addresses candidates’ ability to select and use technological resources and processes

to support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy. This assignment includes the thought

processes I went through when I looked for interesting ways to teach students, trying to create as

many connections across disciplines as possible. The embedded multiplication lesson asks students

to demonstrate their understanding of the multiplication concept by creating a tutorial video for

their peers. According to Learning Pyramid model, created by the National Training Laboratory in

Bethel, Maine (as cited by thepeakperformancecenter.com), teaching others about a concept is the

most effective way to demonstrate understanding, and learning retention is at about 90% (Peak

Performance Center, 2013). In addition, utilizing an already existing resource (my class’s

only2clicks page) saved valuable instructional time, by helping students to quickly locate

2

pre­selected videos. This artifact shows that the resources and instructional methodologies I choose

allow for high student engagement and greater chance of success. Observing students throughout

the process and their products, as well as their final assessment results confirmed the research

mentioned above, in that both their motivation and understanding increased by completing this

lesson.

Indicator 1.3 Assessing/ Evaluating

Artifact: 541­ Presentation Applications

Indicator 1.3 addresses candidates’ ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of

appropriate technologies and instructional materials. I must admit that prior to this course I was

guilty of creating overwhelming and inappropriate presentations, but learning why so many people

have an aversion to presentations, and how to create an effective, appropriate and viewer­friendly

presentation, has allowed me to better utilize this tool both in and out of the classroom. This

artifact demonstrates my knowledge and understanding of how to create and assess presentations,

so that they support student understanding. The attempts to be flashy or impressive by adding too

much information on one slide, or by choosing distracting color combinations, sounds, or labels,

can decrease the effectiveness of the presentation. Instead, PowerPoint presentations should help

the audience to understand key concepts and visualize ideas, while at the same time ensure the

information is clear, convincing, memorable, and most importantly, simple (Kapterev, 2008). As a

teacher, it is not easy to get the students to understand this concept. It takes a lot of teaching and

practice to make sure they slow down, take notes, summarize and synthesize information, and

remember that their ability to discuss the topic is the main objective, while their presentations are

there to support and remind their audience of the main ideas.

Indicator 1.4 Managing

Artifact: 505 – Evaluation Report Project

Indicator 1.4 addresses candidates’ ability to effectively manage people, processes, physical

infrastructures, and financial resources to achieve predetermined goals. This evaluation

assignment came at just the right time, as more and more teachers were frustrated with the current

report card system at my school, and it was clear that it must be discussed, assessed and improved.

3

In the course of the document’s creation I interacted with my supervisors, colleagues, and

students’ parents to ensure proper communication and that the results represent the views and

opinions of all stakeholders. Throughout the evaluation, I planned and led activities, created a

timeline for the evaluation and shared it with all stakeholders, composed survey questions and

analyzed them, interviewed stakeholders, and showed flexibility in dealing with different people

and in working within the school’s priorities. Conducting the evaluation report was not easy, and I

often struggled to balance the timeframe with the demands of the task. I felt inexperienced and did

not want to “bother” my busy supervisors and colleagues. This being said, I held my breath and

persevered. The outcome of the evaluation was quite successful, in that it allowed for my

supervisors to identify the system’s strengths and areas that needed further examination and

possible modification. This assignment was also personally significant, in that I learned a lot about

the perceptions different stakeholders held, which has already helped me when I wrote subsequent

reports, by including more specific information, and modifying my conference schedule with

parents to allow for more quality discussions.

Indicator 1.5 Ethics

Artifact: 502 – Netiquette

Indicator 1.5 addresses candidates’ ability to demonstrate the contemporary professional ethics of

the field as defined and developed by the Association for Educational Communications and

Technology. This Netiquette page directly relates to the Discussion of the Principles of the AECT

Code of Professional Ethics. According to the AECT (2008), under the Commitment to the

Individual section, technology teachers are obligated to “protect the privacy and maintain the

personal integrity of the individual” (guideline 4), as well as to “make reasonable effort to protect

the individual from conditions harmful to health and safety” (guideline 6) (AECT, 2008). As a

teacher of 11 year­olds and a father of an 8 year­old, I know that students stumble upon

inappropriate and potentially dangerous content, and it is within my responsibility to educate them

about these issues. The Netiquette web page I created includes guidelines and recommendation for

appropriate use of e­mail, chat rooms, and discussion boards, as well as general safety and

communication guidelines whenever students are online. I shared it with my students at the

4

beginning of the year, and it was interesting to see how many of them did not follow simple

courtesy behaviors or did not understand why they should not share personal information online.

STANDARD 2: CONTENT PEDAGOGY

Candidates develop as reflective practitioners able to demonstrate effective implementation of educational technologies and processes based on contemporary content and pedagogy.

542 – PBL Website Project: Inventions: This artifact is a six­week unit of instruction about

inventions and innovations. It includes an overview, a teaching and learning guide, assessments,

and resources. It follows a problem­based learning model.

502 – Web pages for Mobile Devices: This set of web pages was created for my students’ annual

field trip to an NGO in India. It is designed for use with mobile devices, and includes assignments

for completion before, during and after the field trip.

501­ Technology Use Planning: This blog post provides an overview for the importance of careful

planning when it comes to technology use at schools. It includes references to guidelines and

personal reflection.

Class Blog: This artifact is my class blog for our current unit, “The Exhibition”, and includes

entries authored by myself as well as by administrators at my school. The blog entries I wrote

include information clarifying what the Exhibition is, clarifying tasks, and more.

503 – Final ID Project: Designing Board Games: This inquiry­based unit guides students in the

process of designing board games under the theme of Child Labor.

Indicator 2.1 Creating

Artifact: 542 – PBL Website Project: Inventions

Indicator 2.1 addresses candidates’ ability to apply content pedagogy to create appropriate

applications of processes and technologies to improve learning and performance outcomes. This

unit follows the problem­based learning model, which according to the research conducted by the

5

Buck Institute for Education, has multiple benefits for academic achievement and mastering 21st

century skills, and it supports and encourages equity, and increases motivation (BIE, 2013). In this

inventions and innovations unit, students connections to their own lives, they engage in a

scaffolded inquiry, and then continue their own research journey into an invention or innovation of

their choice, which increases their motivation and ownership over their work (BIE, 2013). When

completed, students share their inquiries and findings both in class and on the school’s website,

which allows them to celebrate their work and achievements. Students respond to inquiry­ based

units positively because they are structured in a way that allows each student to make choices and

steer his/her learning in a personally significant direction. The unit I created is similar to the units I

have been co­writing since 2005 while working for International Baccalaureate schools, which

follow inquiry­based curriculum. What I gained from creating this unit was not as much in the way

PBL units are conceptualized, but more in the level of detail of documentation and the need to

align activities to standards, which I had little experience with.

Indicator 2.2 Using

Artifact: 502 – Web pages for Mobile Devices

Indicator 2.2 addresses candidates’ ability to implement appropriate educational technologies and

processes based on appropriate content pedagogy. Learning from my experiences of creating

boring sit­down­and­write/think/discuss activities for a fun field trip was necessary. This

assignment was the answer to my (and my students’) prayers! This web page contains a set of

assignments I created for students to complete before, during, and after their field trip to a local

NGO. It is an example for my newly­acquired ability to use my HTML/CSS skills to create

engaging, appropriate, and differentiated lessons not only for the classroom, but also when

students don’t have desks and desktop computers. According to Dierking, learning is “strongly

influenced by setting, social interaction, and individual beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes” (1991),

and taking advantage of the unique opportunities such occasions offer must be utilized well. This

set of fun tasks allowed students to engage with the place differently. Their questions were

answered by viewing videos, reading blogs and articles, hunting for objects, drawing maps and

diagrams, taking photos of their experiences, recording their findings, and more. By doing that,

each of them became familiar with the environment, reflected on their experiences, and interpreted

6

them in their own ways. Hands­on, inquiry­based learning stimulated students’ interest and, as a

result, they were more motivated to learn, explore and discover.

Indicator 2.3 Assessing/Evaluating

Artifact: 501­ Technology Use Planning

Indicator 2.3 addresses candidates’ ability to demonstrate an inquiry process that assesses the

adequacy of learning and evaluates the instruction and implementation of educational

technologies and processes grounded in reflective practice. In this blog post I cited research to

support the idea that technology planning is not a quick and simple task, but one that requires time

and effort to understand and implement procedures. I also reflected on the issue in a more personal

way, discussing the thoughts behind the implementation of technology in my classroom.

Researching and reflecting on the quality of educational technology implementation is necessary if

a school wishes to keep up with the rapidly changing times. My research, as cited in the artifact,

has shown that this should be a collaborative effort in which teachers and administrators sit

together, decide on short­ and long­ term goals, and discuss what they would like to do in the

classroom before deciding which technologies should be purchased. This helps schools to avoid

spending money on hardware and software they won’t end up using.

Doing the research for this assignment has taught me a lot about the way I planned my own

technology integration. As I wrote in the blog post, I came across the SAMR integration model of

Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Re­design (Puentedura, 2011), which allowed me to

reflect on my own practices, and to ask myself how I could get my students to re­define existing

tasks rather than simply substitute technology without any functional change. This reflection gave

rise to the introduction of the Google Apps suite to encourage collaboration.

Indicator 2.4 Managing

Artifact: Class Blog

Indicator 2.4 addresses candidates’ ability to manage appropriate technological processes and

resources to provide supportive learning communities, create flexible and diverse learning

environments, and develop and demonstrate appropriate content pedagogy. Although young

learners acquire skills to become responsible for their learning as part of a classroom community,

7

it is also necessary to ensure parents are informed, and if possible, become active participants in

their children’s education. My class blog attempts to encourage such learning environment.

According to Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, research suggests that there are

many benefits to students whose parents are involved, such as having better social skills, adapting

well to school, earning higher grades and test scores, and more (2002). The blog allows for parents

to keep abreast of the taught curriculum, and helps parents and students to review and reflect on

their learning, and plan for the upcoming weeks. Maintaining an informative blog and providing

parents with the platform to publicly communicate and celebrate learning has been a successful

endeavor at my school with parents. Although they do not usually leave comments on the blog,

they frequently tell my administrators and myself about its informative nature and usefulness in

directing their children’s learning.

Indicator 2.5 Ethics

Artifact: 503 – Final ID Project: Designing Board Games

Indicator 2.5 addresses candidates’ ability to design and select media, technology, and processes

that emphasize the diversity of our society as a multicultural community. This board game focuses

on human rights issues, and child labor in particular. According to the AECT’s code of

professional ethics, technology teachers should “... encourage independent action in an individual's

pursuit of learning and shall provide access to varying points of view” (Section 1.1) and “... seek to

encourage the development of programs and media that emphasize the diversity of our society as a

multicultural community.” (Section 1.8) (AECT, 2011). I feel that this artifact demonstrates

mastery of the indicator because I was able to expose my students to a sensitive issue, but

approach it in a balanced and respectful way toward both my host country and our global society.

Living and working in India is not a walk in the park when one considers all the human rights

issues involved. While creating this board game I had to make sure to not only introduce the harsh

world of child laborers, but also the complex reality these children live in. Striking a balance

between the world of the child laborer on one hand, and the economy, tradition, and politics

involved on the other hand, was not easy, but it was something that I felt must be done. Although

students struggled to accept some of the concepts (such as police corruption), I felt that they

8

understood them, and as a result it helped them make more sense of their lives as expatriates in

India.

STANDARD 3: LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments.

502 – Jigsaw Activity­ Governmental Systems: This web page helps students to learn about

governmental systems through a jigsaw activity. It includes instructions and resources for the

activity.

502 – WebQuest: Facebook­ A Blessing or a Curse?: This website is a Webquest about social

media. By going through the quest, students learn about the advantages and risk involved in using

social media.

505 – Evaluation Report Project: This is the evaluation report I conducted for my school’s Student

Report system. Every stage of the process of writing and conducting the evaluation was shared and

discussed with my EdTech peers.

551­ Grant Proposal: Induction and Training Retreat: This artifact is a draft grant proposal, asking

the administrators at my school to consider and approve a staff retreat which includes team

building and technology induction.

502 – Copyright and Fair Use: This web page is a scavenger hunt lesson that guides students as

they research and learn more about plagiarism, copyrights, fair use and creative commons, and the

public domain.

541­ Student Safety: This blog post outlines potential problems related to the use of Internet for

teacher use.

9

541­ Assistive Technologies: This blog post discusses accommodating of students with learning

differences. Embedded within is a guide for the built­in accessibility features of Apple computers

as well as suggested available software that can help bridge the gaps for different learning

differences.

Indicator 3.1 Creating

Artifact: 502 – Jigsaw Activity­ Governmental Systems

Indicator 3.1 addresses candidates’ ability to create instructional design products based on

learning principles and research­based best practices. Although many teachers use the

think­pair­share strategy, creating a complete assignment in HTML was a first for me. Aside from

improving my coding and web design skills, this activity also shows that I understand the

importance of the community in learning, whether it is through the contribution to understanding

and knowledge, the social interaction, or through the emotional support provided by peers. One of

Christopher Hoadley’s definitions for a community of practice explains that through the exposure

and interaction of its members, knowledge is acquired and generated (Hoadley, 2012). By allowing

students to share their understanding, new knowledge is created not only in the students’ mind but

also for society as a whole. The continued practice of teachers allowing students to engage in

inquiry and collaboration through these types of assignments is what creates these meaningful

constructs.

Indicator 3.2 Using

Artifact: 502 – WebQuest: Facebook­ A Blessing or a Curse?

Indicator 3.2 addresses candidates’ ability to make professionally sound decisions in selecting

appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning based on

principles, theories, and effective practices. One of the aspects I enjoyed most about EdTech 502

is that the products I created were applicable and meaningful to my classroom. While researching

about safety on the Internet I stumbled upon several articles about the devastating effects social

media can have on people, and teenages in particular. Discussing a cyber bullying incident in my

classroom led to the creation of this social media WebQuest. As a teacher, it is important for me to

make sure that my students consider their own physical safety and emotional health. Creating

10

lessons that allow them to find out more about what they do and how it may affect them negatively

encourages a safer learning community and a place where students think critically about important

matters. This resource allows for optimal conditions for learning to take place, and is supported by

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory, in when students’ psychological and safety needs are met,

they are more likely to have more energy, concentration, and meaningful learning experiences

(Saeednia, 2009).

Indicator 3.3 Assessing/Evaluating

Artifact: 505­ Evaluation Report Project

Indicator 3.3 addresses candidates’ ability to use multiple assessment strategies to collect data for

informing decisions to improve instructional practice, learner outcomes, and the learning

environment. Although I initially had little theoretical knowledge but no experience in evaluating

programs, I worked through the weekly assignments, meetings, and write­ups and produced a

finished piece I am very proud of. This document shows my ability to design assessment methods,

create tools, and collect relevant data that allows for the betterment of my school. The surveys I

designed, the activities I led, and the meetings and interviews I held, have all been instrumental in

conducting and completing this evaluation, especially at a time when several colleagues,

administrators, and parents were struggling to understand why the current report card did not seem

to work. One of the most important benefits of formal evaluations is that institutions can determine

how effective the program is and which areas need to be improved, modified, and/or omitted

(Boulmetis and Dutwin, 2011). Conducting the evaluation at my school has been beneficial to

myself (I re­conceptualized the content of my reports to better match parents’ needs), and I am

hoping that at least some of the evaluation recommendations would make their way into the new

student report system. This implications of this evaluation have also affected my students and

parents, in the sense that they now have a clearer picture of the social, emotional, and academic

progress.

Indicator 3.4 Managing

Artifact: 551­ Grant Proposal: Induction and Training Retreat

11

Indicator 3.4 addresses candidates’ ability to establish mechanisms for maintaining the technology

infrastructure to improve learning and performance. The writing of this grant proposal for a staff

induction and training retreat was designed to improve the learning environment at my school

through team building and through learning about the technology we already have. Due to high

turnover among administrators and teachers, there has not been a clear direction in my school’s

technology mission and vision. This proposal for a retreat in which teachers get to know each other

better and improve communication, and where teachers and administrators get training on the

technology we already have demonstrates my ability to find creative ways to make better use of

what we have so that teachers and students can benefit from the valuable resources at my school.

Unfortunately, by the time I completed the proposal, additional turnover in staff and administrators

took place, and so it was not accepted. This being said, writing the proposal has greatly benefitted

my growth as a teacher and a leader. It allowed me to collaborate, create an inventory, start a

discussion about in­house sharing and training, and most importantly, to find ways to help my

school to better manage existing resources to improve performance and learning.

Indicator 3.5 Ethics

Artifacts: 502 – Copyright and Fair Use and 541­ Student Safety

Indicator 3.5 addresses candidates’ ability to foster a learning environment in which ethics guide

practice that promotes health, safety, best practice, and respect for copyright, Fair Use, and

appropriate open access to resources. I chose to use two artifacts to satisfy this indicator because

they demonstrate my ability to create such learning environments for both students and teachers.

The Copyright and Fair Use scavenger hunt teaches students about plagiarism, copyrights, fair use,

and the public domain. This artifact directly relates to AECT ethics guideline 4.1.7, which

discusses inappropriate use of instructional technologies and resources. It also relates to guideline

4.1.9 which emphasizes teachers’ “unique position to influence the attitudes and behaviors of

learners” and encourages teachers “through words and deeds… [to] convey to others the

importance of honoring and respecting the integrity and potential of every individual” (AECT,

2008). Creating a guide that teaches students about appropriate citation, and their rights and

responsibilities as ‘producers and users of content’ indicates my understanding and application of

this indicator. The Student Safety blog entry includes potential problems and possible solutions for

12

teachers to learn about when using the Internet with their students. This artifact also relates to

AECT Ethics guidelines 4.1.7 and 4.1.9, and shows my ability to foster a safe and ethical learning

as an informed and proactive colleague as well.

Indicator 3.6 Diversity of Learners

Artifact: 541­ Assistive Technologies

Indicator 3.6 addresses candidates’ ability to foster a learning community that empowers learners

with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. This assignment allowed me to dig deeper

into what current technologies offer, and how they can be utilized by users with different needs.

Learning about the built­in features and the additional software and tools that help bridge the gaps

between students and the curriculum, has allowed me to reach more students and provide them

with easier access to the curriculum, thereby empowering them in their learning journey. By

teaching about, and using these tools in the classroom, I found that they have the potential to

provide clarity and to simplify tasks for all students, allowing them to become more productive

and organized.

STANDARD 4: PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology­rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.

501­ Digital Divide: This blog post discusses a collaborative task of addressing digital inequalities.

It includes a reflection about the process, the product, and about my experiences at my current

school.

Google Apps for Education Presentation: I created this Google Slides presentation for a workshop

I led at my school. In the presentation I introduce the Google Apps suite and explain how to use

Google Drive to create, manage, and share documents on iPads.

501­ School Evaluation Summary: This evaluation and rating of my school’s Information

Technology Department includes a summary of my research, details the different equipment the

school had, and an explanation of how the network operated.

13

503 – Final ID Project: Designing Board Games: This inquiry­based unit guides students in the

process of designing board games under the theme of Child Labor.

502 – Virtual Field Trip: This website is a virtual field trip to Israel. It includes external links to

information about the history, activities, recommended sites, and fun videos about four popular

destinations.

Indicator 4.1 Collaborative Practice

Artifact: 501­ Digital Divide

Indicator 4.1 addresses candidates’ ability to collaborate with their peers and subject matter

experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners.

The Digital Divide assignment was a collaborative assignment, and in the blog post I discussed the

benefits and limitations I experienced while collaborating with peers who lived half way around

the world. In this assignment I collaborated with peers to analyze a digital inequality issue,

considered options and offered solutions to address the inequalities. It shows my ability to

collaboratively identify, analyze, evaluate, and make suggestions about different innovations in

learning communities and policies and regulations dealing with instructional technologies.

Thinking about digital inequalities made me reflect about my school’s practices and the

perceptions teachers and parents have about technology and its connection to student literacy. In

my local context, as I am employed at a well­to­do private school in India, I felt that it is our moral

obligation to share our knowledge and resources with local schools, and help narrow the gaps. I am

glad to say that my discussions with colleagues have been effective, and their understanding of the

issue and willingness to examine it and help a local school has been quite successful, as the

relationship continues to this day.

Indicator 4.2 Leadership

Artifact: Google Apps for Education Presentation

Indicator 4.2 addresses candidates’ ability to lead their peers in designing and implementing

technology­supported learning. One reason I am extremely thankful for my coursework at Boise is

14

that it not only provided me with the necessary knowledge about technology, but it also forced me

to converse about it, which allowed me to become confident enough to share my newfound

knowledge with others. To demonstrate my mastery of indicator 4.2 I chose to include a workshop

to teachers I recently led about the use of the Google Apps suite on iPads. I have been using the

Google Apps suite (Classroom, Docs, Sheets, etc.) with my students since the beginning of the

year as a pilot program due to my experience with, and knowledge of the software. Throughout the

year I helped teachers understand how to use applications that allow them to easily create,

distribute, manage, and assess assignments and to encourage and support collaboration among

their students. These types of opportunities (formal and informal presentations) have slowly built

my confidence and ability to lead colleagues in the use and implementation of innovative

technology­supported learning. I was very happy to finally being able to do so. I have always been

excited for such opportunities and feel that my first successful formal workshop will give rise to

many more.

Indicator 4.3 Reflection on Practice

Artifact: 501­ School Evaluation Summary

Indicator 4.3 addresses candidates’ ability to analyze and interpret data and artifacts and reflect

on the effectiveness of the design, development and implementation of technology­supported

instruction and learning to enhance their professional growth. If I were asked to analyze my

school’s network system prior to EdTech 501, I would have left the conversation with nothing to

answer. This course has equipped me with the knowledge and understanding of what networks are

and how they operate, and has given me a model to use to evaluate existing structures. In this

evaluation, I gathered, interpreted and applied data, which was then reflected upon and used for the

betterment of my school, and therefore a perfect fit for this indicator. I followed Chip Kimball and

Peter Sibley’s Maturity Model Benchmarks as a framework (Kimball & Sibley, 1997), and

interviewed and surveyed a variety of stakeholders at my school. By having these conversations

and looking into how my school operates and then creating this artifact, I feel that I also revived

our IT department’s reflective practices. This year a full audit is taking place, which I am

interested to find out how the analyses and recommendations match the ones in my document.

15

Indicator 4.4 Assessing/Evaluating

Artifact: 503 – Final ID Project: Designing Board Games

Indicator 4.4 addresses candidates’ ability to design and implement assessment and evaluation

plans that align with learning goals and instructional activities. This project was based on the

ARCS model, which has a very student­centered pedagogical approach, and focuses on designing

learning environments to stimulate and sustain students’ motivation (Keller, 2013). It contains a

detailed analysis of potential learners and the evaluation methods designed to ensure the project

would be successful. I used expert reviews and population samples to conduct one­to­one, small

group, and field trial evaluations. To ensure motivation would be sustained, I included hands­on

activities, used audiovisuals, focused on student choice, made connections to students’ prior

experiences, scaffolded learning, and provided frequent feedback. By carefully considering

students’ needs and wants, and putting emphasis on sustaining their motivation in each step of the

way, teachers have a better chance of creating effective and engaging materials.

Indicator 4.5 Ethics

Artifact: 502 – Virtual Field Trip

Indicator 4.5 addresses candidates’ ability to 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. I chose this virtual field trip artifact because given the fact that Israel is quite a

controversial place, and so it is important to be sensitive to different perspectives and opinions.

When I searched for media about Israel, it was not an easy task to find articles and videos for

young students that present both sides of the conflict. While using this assignment with my

students it was interesting to hear students’ thoughts about the videos they watched and the new,

less biased, information they viewed. We had animated conversations about the media and Israel,

and the implications to other global and potentially controversial issues. By being sensitive to the

different learners and investing time and effort into finding appropriate materials, I feel that I

mastered this indicator.

16

STANDARD 5: RESEARCH

Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance.

503 – Reading Quiz: Instructional Design: This artifact is a quiz that turned into a presentation

using text and images to explain concepts about instructional design.

541­ Integrating technology into Content Areas: This blog post discusses the benefits and effective

use of technology integration in different content areas. Embedded within are example lessons for

Mathematics, Language Arts, and using spreadsheets and databases.

504 – Final Synthesis Paper: Social Networking Technologies: This research paper explores

Social Networking Technologies and their place in education. Through the synthesis of relevant

research, I outline different learning theories, present research about their effectiveness, and

conclude with suggestions for proper implementation.

505 – Evaluation Report Project: This artifact contains the evaluation report I conducted for my

school’s Student Report system. Every stage of the process of writing and conducting the

evaluation was shared and discussed with my EdTech peers.

Indicator 5.1 Theoretical Foundations

Artifact: 503 – Reading Quiz: Instructional Design

Indicator 5.1 addresses candidates’ ability to demonstrate foundational knowledge of the

contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and

technology. This was not an easy quiz to complete. Using what at the time were mostly unfamiliar

concepts about instructional design theories, I had to not only synthesize written material, but to

also create a visual representation of the (often quite abstract) concepts, and explain how each

relates to the written summary. It was a challenging, frustrating, and fun learning experience,

which forced me to use both my left and right “brains”. In order to design instructional materials

properly, I needed to understand the underlying theories and how each was developed. In turn, this

17

theoretical foundation allowed me to better understand my students and how they think and

construct their understanding. Lastly, being knowledgeable about learning theories allowed me to

have an opinion of my own, and to steer my teaching in a way that resonates with me. This artifact

is a perfect example of indicator 5.1.

Indicator 5.2 Method

Artifact: 541­ Integrating Technology into Content Areas

Indicator 5.2 addresses candidates’ ability to apply research methodologies to solve problems and

enhance practice. According to Barbara LaBeau, the main problem with technology integration is

that it is not integrated in a meaningful way (2005), which was the problem I was facing when I

was integrating technology into my teaching. I held the common (mis)assumption that if I can

connect technology to my teaching, the outcome would be inevitably positive­ students will learn

in a fun way, and I will be satisfying teaching requirements. I was glad that this overly simplified

assumption was challenged so early in my MET coursework. After conducting research into how

technology should be integrated into teaching, my knowledge grew and my understanding became

clearer. LaBeau suggested that teachers must learn and understand what specific technologies can

do first, so that they can properly utilize them with their students (Morehead & LaBeau, 2005). In

the artifact’s embedded documents I reviewed different technologies, such as simulations, games,

eBook sites, and spreadsheets and databases, and explained how they can be integrated into

different content areas. Learning about these tools and carefully choosing which would fit best and

how, has helped me to select more appropriate tools to teach in a fun and engaging way while

keeping in mind the lesson’s objectives.

Indicator 5.3 Assessing/Evaluating

Artifact: 504 – Final Synthesis Paper: Social Networking Technologies

Indicator 5.3 addresses candidates’ ability to apply formal inquiry strategies in assessing and

evaluating processes and resources for learning and performance. Understanding Social

Networking Technologies (SNTs) and their history allows me to better utilize them in my school

and classroom. For example, in my school we are using several SNTs (such as Edmodo, Moodle,

and Google Classroom) and many teachers feel frustrated. They argue that the systems we have are

18

no good because they can’t do what we want, and they ask to change platforms to ones they used

in the past. Based on my research, most SNTs come from the business sector, and it is only

recently that companies began designing them with schools and classrooms in mind. As a result,

there is no one SNT that fits all of our needs (especially because they are changing so rapidly).

Understanding this and other research about SNTs has helped me to better understand the history

and theory, and therefore allowed me to manage my students’ and my needs better, by picking and

choosing different SNTs for different educational purposes. The research and assessment of SNTs

and the decisions and actions that followed have made management of different tasks easier for me

and my students. Using user­friendly SNTs such as Edmodo together with the collaborative nature

of Google Apps has also boosted my students’ enthusiasm and ability to manage their work.

Indicator 5.4 Ethics

Artifact: 505 – Evaluation Report Project

Indicator 5.4 addresses candidates’ ability to conduct research and practice using accepted

professional and institutional guidelines and procedures. According to the AECT ethics guideline

4.2.1, members should represent the organization in an honest manner while keeping in mind the

appropriateness of such expressions (AECT, 2008). Throughout the evaluation of my school’s

report cards I did my best to remain objective and to not express my personal opinions about the

effectiveness or appropriateness of the current system. I was also faced with the ethical dilemma of

following the evaluation procedures outlined in the textbook versus allowing decision­making

stakeholders to dictate certain approaches to the way the evaluation should take place.

Understanding my place (as a student who initiated the evaluation) and the existing politics at the

institution, I did my best to explain the dilemma to the people in charge in a non­threatening

manner. Once rejected, I accepted my modified role, and continued the evaluation in the best way I

could, given the new circumstances. This was a new experience for me, one that taught me the

dangers of “mixing business with pleasure”… Ethical issues are not always simple to solve, but I

feel that I handled this potentially dangerous issue with professionalism and respect while being

true to my task.

19

CONCLUSION

In this document I outlined the different AECT standards and indicators and showed mastery of all

of them through the use of artifacts, examples, explanations, and reflections. Ensuring my

understanding of each standard and indicator was the first difficult task, and the need to select so

few assignments to demonstrate my mastery of each was even more difficult. I have learned and

accomplished so much in the last two years, and was thrilled that most of the assignments were

applicable to my profession and have been continuously utilized in my classroom and even by

colleagues at my school. Although this is the end of my journey as an MET student, I feel that my

new sets of knowledge and skills mark the beginning of a whole new learning chapter­ both

professionally and personally.

REFERENCES

Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2008). Section 4: A discussion of the principles of the AECT code of professional ethics. Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/intranet/publications/ethics/ethics04.html

Boulmetis, J. & Dutwin, P. (2011). The ABCs of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program and project evaluation. (3 ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey­Bass

Buck Institute for Education. (2013). Research Summaries on the Benefits of PBL. Retrieved from http://bie.org/object/document/research_summary_on_the_benefits_of_pbl

Dierking, L.D. (1991). Learning theory and learning styles: An overview. Journal of Museum Education, 16(1), 4­6.

Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf

Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a Community of Practice and How Can We Support It? In Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 286­299). New York: Routledge.

Kapterev, Alex. (2008). Death by PowerPoint (and how to fight it). Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/thecroaker/death­by­powerpoint?ref=http://edtech.mrooms.org/mod/page/view.php?id=49020

20

Keller, J. (2013). ARCS Explained. Retrieved from http://www.arcsmodel.com/#!motivational­design/cyrv

Kimball, C., & Sibley, P. (1997). The technology maturity model primer (rev. ed.). San Diego, CA: Edmin Open Systems

Morehead, P. & LaBeau, B. (2005). The continuing challenges of technology integration for

teachers. Retrieved from http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol152005/moreheadrev.pdf

Peak Performance Center. (2013). Learning Pyramid. Retrieved from http://thepeakperformancecenter.com/educational­learning/learning/principles­of­learning/learning­pyramid/

Puentedura, R.R. (2011). Learning, Technology, and the SAMR Model: Goals, Processes, and Practice. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/LearningTechnologySAMRModel.pdf

Saeednia, Y. (2009). The need to know and to understand in Maslow’s basic needs hierarchy. US­China Education Review, 6(9), 4­5.

21