shovis.weebly.comshovis.weebly.com/.../4/4/2/5/44252443/capstone_report… · Web viewAs educators...

Running head: RUBRIC FOR IPAD APP REVIEW

Capstone Report:

Speech – Language Rubric for iPad App Review

Susie Hovis

June 22, 2016

Kennesaw State University

Advisor: Dr. Julie Moore

Ed.S. Summer, 2016

RUBRIC FOR IPAD APP REVIEW

Introduction

As educators are challenged to produce twenty – first Century Learners, the

inundation of the amount of technology available for use can be overwhelming. It is the

responsibility of the Speech – Language Pathologist (SLPs) to not only be familiar with

technology, but also be proficient with the resources to be successful in the

implementation of technology tools into speech – language therapy sessions. The design,

development, and implementation of online learning is essential because the trends in

education are pushing for a fully web accessible education.

The intention of this project was to develop a user – friendly rubric for iPad app

review for the Speech – Language Pathologists in Douglas County. The capstone project

was to be implemented in Douglas County during the spring semester of 2015. The

Douglas County SLPs participated in both pre- and post – surveys and participate in

professional learning in the use of a rubric for iPad app review. The general reaction to

the rubric development was that there was not enough time for the SLP to conduct a

thorough app review before the development of the rubric. The capstone was originally

implemented during January 2016.

Description of Capstone Experience

Initially, data was gathered for the project by developing and distribution a pre –

survey to the Douglas County SLPs to assess the specific needs for the rubric. The

information gathered on the initial survey (Appendix A) was gathered into the following

data points.

What iPad apps are you currently using in therapy?Articulation Station, Language Adventures, Language Empires,

What do you like about those apps?*ease of use, *data collection built into app, *student motivation, *content related to goals,

2


Choose one app for the purposes of this survey. Which app did you choose?Articulation Station, Language Adventures, Language EmpiresDoes the app allow for personalization?Yes – 89% No – 11%

Does the app offer flexibility?Yes – 60% No – 40%

Does the app provide appropriate feedback during treatment / therapy sessions?Yes – 80% No – 20%

Is the app easy for the student to use independently?Yes – 95% No – 5%

What features make the app beneficial?Data collection, ease of use, content related to goals

Is there any evidence or research behind the app?Yes – 89% No – 11%

How do you usually choose an app to use in therapy?*ease of use, *data collection built into app, *student motivation, *content related to goals

What are some things that keep you from purchasing an app?COST, not related to content or IEP goals, not easy to use, no time to review apps, too many apps out there and no time to review

Would you be interested in using a rubric to help rate the effectiveness of a n app before it is purchased?Yes – 99% No – 1%

Would you be willing to give feedback and help improve the rubric?Yes – 99% No – 1%

It was evident that a need existed for a rubric for iPad app review. During the

month of January, the Douglas County SLPs responded to the initial survey. Some of

the main concerns outlined by the survey included the vast number of apps available,

most of which are cost prohibitive. The survey also revealed that the SLPs suggested that

time to review and to exercise the process of trial – and – error review were also noted as

negative effects. Most of the Douglas County SLPs completed the survey, and indicated

an interest in this project.

Pre – Survey Results and Analysis

A needs assessment survey was implemented by the candidate to ascertain what

the Douglas County SLPs felt would be important to include the rubric for iPad app

review. After reviewing the initial survey results, the candidate determined that the SLPs

agreed that finding the right therapy app could be overwhelming. Due to the increasing

3


number of apps available, it is essential that clinicians use their clinical judgment and

expertise before purchasing an app to ensure that they are getting the best value from the

therapy tool (Gliddon, 2011). Another barrier outlined on the initial survey was the cost

of apps. Two years ago, the Douglas County SLP program received a Google Grant in

order to purchase iPads and apps for all of the SLPs to use in therapy. A rubric to aid in

iPad app review would make the Douglas County SLPs good stewards of the grant

money. The initial survey included the following questions:

1. What iPad apps are you currently using in therapy?

2. What do you like about these apps?

3. Choose one app for the purposes of this survey. Which app did you choose?

4. Does the app allow for personalization?

5. Does the app offer flexibility?

6. Does the app provide appropriate feedback during treatment / therapy sessions?

7. Is the app easy for the student to use independently?

8. What features make the app beneficial?

9. Is there any evidence or research behind the app?

10. How do you usually choose an app to use in therapy?

11. What are some things that keep you from purchasing an app?

12. Would you be interested in using a rubric to help rate the effectiveness of an app before it is purchased?

13. Would you be willing to give feedback and help improve the rubric?

4


Description of Capstone Experience and Results

Following the initial survey, the candidate spent time analyzing the data from the

survey. Research was also conducted and resources were used to develop a rubric for

iPad app review. (Appendix B) The candidate also created tutorials and documents for

the SLPs to aid in the use of the rubric. Richardson (2010) indicated, “Today’s schools

are faced with a difficult dilemma that put s a student body that has grown up immersed

in technology against a teaching faculty that is less agile with the tools of the trade” (p.

7). There were also SLPs that required more individualized training, so the candidate

provided additional professional learning on how to use the rubric. After research and

development of the rubric, the candidate distributed the rubric to the Douglas County

SLP Leadership Team to gain feedback. The SLP Leadership Team reviewed the rubric

for a week and provided feedback on their thoughts.

Timeline Dates Description of ActivityJanuary, 2016 Developed needs assessment survey to

determine needs for iPad apps. Distributed survey to the Douglas County SLPs and analyzed data when surveys were completed.

February, 2016 Researched resources and designed rubric. Created tutorials, developed rubric and documents, and distributed rubric to Douglas County SLP Leadership Team for feedback.

March, 2016 Completed professional learning to train SLPs on how to use the rubric. Distributed rubric to Douglas County SLPs for use for app review and recommendations. Completed individualized professional learning for those SLPs needing further training. Candidate revised and edited rubric where needed based on ease of use and recommendations from the SLPs.

5


April, 2016 Developed and administered post – survey to Douglas County SLPs for follow – up review. Candidate analyzed data from post – survey in order to provide continued monitoring of the rubric’s usefulness and effectiveness.

Post – Survey Results and Analysis

Following the implementation of the final rubric for iPad app review, the SLPs

were given a post – survey to evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of the rubric for

iPad app review. All SLPs surveyed indicated that the rubric was easy to use. An SLP

also reported in the post – survey that she felt more empowered when purchasing apps for

therapy by using the rubric because it made the process much more objective rather than

the subjective way it was previously done. The survey also indicated that the SLPs

would continue to use the rubric when assessing the usefulness of iPad apps for therapy.

No negatives were indicated by the SLPs, and the only negative noted by the candidate

was having the SLPs complete the post - survey during such a busy time of the year.

Reflection

The Capstone project was a great opportunity to learn and grow as a technology

coach. There were SLPs who felt very comfortable implementing technology into their

therapy sessions, and they use not only the iPad with their students, but also the

Promethean Board and other technology tools as well. There are others, however, who

found implementing technology into their therapy sessions difficult. One thing learned

from completing this capstone is how difficult it is as a trainer to stand in front of a group

of my peers and confidently address negative attitudes towards implementing technology

into daily therapy sessions. They were vocal in stating their success with the tried and

6


true therapy process that they have used for years, but after working with them using the

iPad and implementing the rubric for iPad app review, they were more open to what

could be accomplished.

Effective technology implementation is vital to promote student achievement.

Technology leaders are necessary to pave the way for how technology should be

incorporated into the classroom. SLPs also need to realize that it is inevitable that

technology would impact the world of speech – language pathology. There is a vast

range of iPad apps being developed by Speech Pathologists and educators for a wide

range of speech and language areas (Gliddon, 2011). Due to the increasing number of

apps available, it is essential that clinicians use their clinical judgment and expertise

before purchasing an app to ensure they are getting the best value from the therapy tool

(Glidden, 2011). “Many Speech – Language Pathologists (SLPs) and other professionals

who are using mobile apps in therapy report that their selection process is typically driven

by word of mouth, online consumer reviews, and the cost, or lack there of, of an app

rather than an evidence – based approach” (Gosnell, Costello, & Shane, 2011). The

creation of a rubric for iPad app review enabled the SLPs the ability to assess these apps

in order to decide what worked best according to the needs of their students. The results

indicated the need for the rubric and ultimately the ease of use of the rubric as indicated

by the Douglas County SLPs made iPad app reviews easier and a more objective process.

Conclusion

Overall, the candidate found the capstone project to be successful. The goal to

provide the SLPs of Douglas County Schools with a rubric to provide a more systematic

process of iPad app review was met with success. The SLPs reported ease of use and

7


reliable results when determining the appropriateness of iPad apps for therapy. The

candidate implemented best teaching practices that the SLPs found beneficial and useful

when professional learning for the use of the rubric was given. Continued review and

adaptation of the app is needed in order to make sure app purchases are appropriate.

Dunam (2011) stated that due to app technology constantly changing, it is vital that

speech pathologists know what applications are available to them to ensure that their

therapy tool is up to date. “Meaningful technology is dependent on how teachers plan for

and use these powerful devices” (Roblyer and Doering, 2010). With the implementation

of the Speech – Language Pathology rubric for iPad App Review in place, the use of

technology through iPads and apps in therapy could have a profound positive impact for

the students in Douglas County who present with communication disorders.

8


References

Dunham, G. (2011). The Future at Hand: Mobile Devices and Apps in Clinical PracticeThe ASHA Leader.

Gliddon, J. (2011). Talking technology with Speech Pathology Australia. Retrieved from http://ehealthspace.org/casestudy/talkling-technology-speech-pathology-australia

Gosnell, Costello, & Shane (2011). Apps: An Emerging Tool for SLPs: A plethora of apps can be used to develop expressive, receptive, and other language skills. The ASHA Leader. 16 (12), 10-13.

9


Richardson, Will. (2010). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web

10


Tools for Classrooms. (2nd

ed.) Corwin Press.

11


Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2010). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Appendix A

12

RUBRIC FOR IPAD APP REVIEW 13

RUBRIC FOR IPAD APP REVIEW 14


Appendix B

15


Appendix C

16

shovis.weebly.comshovis.weebly.com/.../4/4/2/5/44252443/capstone_report… · Web viewAs educators...

Documents

Transcript of shovis.weebly.comshovis.weebly.com/.../4/4/2/5/44252443/capstone_report… · Web viewAs educators...