You are on page 1of 25

TECHNOLOGY NEEDS FOR NEW ALASKA STANDARDS

What are the primary needs of classroom teachers for technology integration based on the tech-specific New Alaska Standards?

Barbra Donachy Tracie Weisz

University of Alaska Southeast

Rationale The purpose of this action research study is to determine the needs of classroom teachers for a tool, which would provide technology resources based on the tech-specific New Alaska Standards. The literature reviewed represents data that supports the idea of a level of teacher readiness that is necessary for successful technology integration into the classroom that will align with the New Alaska Standards. This readiness can include skills, such as technology skills, as well as knowledge of pedagogy and content. It also includes a certain mindset and reflectiveness on practice. The literature supports the idea that in order to fully and successfully integrate technology into classroom instruction, a school site must have a defined vision for technology, which includes a plan and support for integration, which is backed by administration. As this is not the case for most districts, we envision that teachers, in grass-roots-type efforts, need to encourage and support each other to successfully integrate technology into instruction in order to teach the new Alaska standards, which are tech-specific. We further hope that teachers will encourage administration and teacher preparation programs to seamlessly integrate the requirement to integrate technology into all classrooms. Literature Review A study based on a pedagogical framework rooted in the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), as well as the authentic learning approach (Herrington & Kervin, 2007) reported results on the design, implementation, and outcomes of a Web 2.0 program which was intended to prepare teachers to make purposeful use of Web 2.0 tools in their classrooms. This study clearly indicates that before our research question can truly be answered,

2

there are some attitudes, aptitudes and pedagogical knowledge that would need to be ascertained before any meaningful/impactful suggestions could be put into place and successfully implemented with regard to taking steps toward addressing the tech-specific standards. The Australasian Journal of Educational Technology reported on a study which examined how teachers use technology in their lessons, and gain insights into the influences affecting their current practices. The premise was that the quantity of technology use in a lesson alone is not critical to student learning, and that some teachers are motivated to use the potential of technology in their practice, while others are not. This motivation is what we want to tap into with a tool built to provide teachers with their own access to resources to integrate into their own classrooms. Based on a preliminary scanning, three broad categories were formed, namely, teacher characteristics, school characteristics, and types of technology use. They were teacher characteristics, school characteristics, and types of technology use. Again, this study confirms that before we can ask teachers about their needs in a meaningful way as applied to their teaching, certain knowledge and understandings must be in place in order for that to be successful. An Asian study (Chai, Ng, et al., 2013) was done which focused on validation of the Technological Pedagogical content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, which has been adopted by many educational technologists and educators for the research and development of knowledge about the pedagogical uses of learning technologies and technology integration in classrooms. In understanding the TPACK, we can formulate a plan to build a tool which will help teachers

3

understand their pedagogical knowledge. This in turn will help teachers select the type of resources that can help them in their classroom, based on readiness to integrate technology, content and practice of teaching. TPACK, also referred to in this study as TPCK, is based on the idea that three basic forms of knowledge interact to give rise to four derived forms of knowledge. Technological Knowledge (TK), Content Knowledge (CK), and Pedagogical Knowledge (PK). These in turn give rise to PCK pedagogical content knowledge, TCK - technological content knowledge, and TPK -technological pedagogical knowledge. Ultimately, an ideal combination would be all three of these derived forms combined – TPCK. A study of new and pre-service teachers across China determined things like their levels of expertise in the three basic forms, and then determined which combinations gave rise to conditions favorable for building TPCK knowledge. Their findings showed that the 3 individual forms of knowledge alone did not contribute positively and significantly toward the likelihood of building TPCK. However, their findings showed that three derived combinations of understandings did contribute positively and significantly toward the likelihood of building TPCK. This study again confirms that before meaningful change can happen with regard to technology integration, we need to have an understanding of where teachers are starting from in terms of their basic knowledge about instruction - including content, pedagogy, and technology taken together. This need could be assessed during the data collection phase of the project. In a whitepaper retrieved from learning.com (Parks, 2012), background is given on the

4

development and evolution of the Common Core, and how it is intended that Common Core will change what is happening with teaching and learning in schools. The paper then specifically discusses what it terms "digital literacies" and how they are an important part of the Common Core. Although educational technology leaders and thinkers such as Mark Prensky and Jason Ohler are quoted in the article giving their thoughts about the potentials for technology integration, a great deal of this paper focuses on the assessment piece - particularly with regard to computer/tablet-based testing. According to Parks, digital literacies seem focused on what will be measurable within the assessment piece - mostly word processing skills integrated with the writing shifts. This is not necessarily an accurate reflection of what was intended by digital literacies, given the explicit technology requirements in the standards, which indicate going beyond this basic level of competence. However, given the close alignment of New Alaska Standards with the Common Core (even though we have our own, there is a close alignment), and given that Alaska is also moving toward computer/tablet-based assessments, these basic skills and literacies will also be important for students and teachers come testing time. Teachers will need the skills to teach even these basic literacies, and for some, who lack some of the derived TPCK levels of knowledge, this could be a good starting point for support. Learning Forward (Tallerico, 2013) published an article that begins on the premise of prior studies which have concluded that teachers want more varied and tangible learning resources, support for learning best practices, and support for mastering strategies in engagement, differentiation and instruction to meet student needs. They also conclude that teachers believe their professional learning has a strong impact on student achievement.

5

The teachers in the study were exposed to a variety of technology tools, which included: resource sites of lessons and ideas for classrooms, video tutorials for both teachers and students, and online professional development communities, all aligned to, or addressing teaching and learning in the Common Core. The resources were also meant to address the concerns outlined at the premise of the study. Over the time of the study, teachers went from being very engaged and excited, to tapering off (ironically around the testing windows was when teachers integrated practices dropped off almost entirely), back to a more stabilized use. The learning curve noted in their reflections also indicated that the more they learned, the more curious and engaged they became in incorporating technology into their instruction. This seems to confirm the idea that a tool, such as the one we intend to build, which supports ongoing support and encouragement of learning new methods of technology integration could be the impetus for teachers for continue to maintain a curiosity and motivation to build on this practice. As the above-referenced research shows, the foundation of a forward thinking school or district is visionary leadership who incorporates technology into their mission and supporting teacher development. Outside of this support, we currently see teachers opting in to the integration of technology based on individual comfort level and interest. A 10-year-old, but still timely, article (Earle, 2002) outlines the critical need to integrate technology into education. “Too often our efforts to improve education have resulted in our unrealistic isolation of technological processes.” The obstacle of the separatist notion of technology instruction is still alive and well in our schools today. The Harvard article suggests, “Change starts with the individual teacher, who, upon catching the vision, is willing to take

6

risks, to experience Christopherian confrontations or encounters (Gardner, 1991) in rethinking teaching and learning, and to model for and be a mentor to peers.” This has been the way of thinking, because there is lack of vision in schools to strongly encourage and support teachers to integrate technology into content area instruction. At this point, teachers take it upon themselves to integrate technology. They opt in. For those who do want to opt in, we need a tool, a central resource, to help make it easy for teachers to find resources to integrate technology into the instruction of the new standards. So, if there is a lack of vision for technology in schools, are pre-service programs picking up the slack? A support tool like the one we intend to build would be equally as useful for preservice teachers, as well as for districts looking to form a more focused vision for how they will use technology. Survey results published in the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education sadly show the lack of integration of technology specifically in pre-service instruction to math teachers. The new Alaska standards specifically include technology in instruction. In higher-level math, for example, technology makes the study of statistics much more efficient. This journal article demonstrates that the need for an institutional vision extends outside a district and into a need in our teacher preparation programs. Again, there is a cry for a central source for information for integrating technology into both math and English language arts instruction of the new standards. Until teacher preparation programs produce teachers who are highly skilled at integrating technology or districts integrate technology into their vision statements and support teachers with professional development, it is up to the teaching community to support each other in

7

doing what’s right for students. Washington State’s office of the superintendent of instruction has created an interactive website to suggest technology sources aligned with the common core standards. This is a useful model for our project. Part of the next steps of this project will be to contact this source and see what type of response they are receiving for this website. This may help us fine-tune the tool we would like to build for the state of Alaska. The readings have informed not only our question, but also the approach we want to use for collecting data. It is important that we have a clear understanding of teacher readiness levels before we proceed with any kind of prescriptive tool to support levels of integration. Readiness levels can mean a teacher's content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge (TPACK), and also their motivation and mindset regarding technology integration and their practice. Mindset and motivation may be influenced by personal interests, the professional environment/culture in which they work, and perceptions of teaching practices, curriculum, New Standards, and technology in general, as well as the attitudes and actions of their school administrators toward these elements. Methodology In order to collect data to assess what the primary needs are for classroom teachers in Alaska for technology integration, we will collect data using three strategies. We will send out surveys through our Professional Learning Networks to collect data from across the state of Alaska, focusing on Alaska Gateway and the North Slope Borough school districts. We will also perform classroom observations in these two districts within the state of Alaska. Lastly, we will conduct interviews with teachers at varying levels of technology-readiness and varying grades in order to collect first-hand desires of support and resources.

8

In each data collection mode, we will assess how we should differentiate the tool so that it has appropriate information and appropriately displayed resources based on TPACK or readiness levels. Analysis General survey questions were emailed out to all teachers in both Alaska Gateway School District and North Slope Borough School District. A total of 94 teachers responded to the 8 question survey. The data found an even spread of teachers across k-12 responding. The majority of the teachers, around 70%, said they used classroom technologies such as SmartBoards, projectors, and online courseware in their classrooms. After that, the most common uses reported by teachers were for Internet research, work submission (this included email and word processing), and for centers and rewards like free time. Consistently, the lowest usage of technology in the classroom was for activities that involved use of web tools, or creation of video, blogs, websites, or other more "constructivist" activities - around 10%. Regarding the use of curriculum to teach or promote digital citizenship, an average of 90% responded that they either did not have materials for this, or that they simply did not know what this concept encompassed. Results were similar when questioned about digital literacies - about 80% reported not knowing what these were. Around 50% of the teachers knew what blogs, wikis, and websites were, but also admitted they did not know how to use these with students and incorporate them into their teaching. 30% indicated some use with students, but also that they would like to learn more about how to effectively do this. A full 90% of the teachers said they did not understand what web 2.0 tools are, or that they did not know enough about them to

9

use them with students often. Half of the teachers said they utilized video with students, but only for student viewing, not creation (either by themselves or the students). The OPTIC tool was used for the classroom observations - 8 observations total covering a span of elementary through high school classrooms. The majority of the classrooms observed, 7 out of 8, were either one to one iPad or one to one laptop settings. About half of the lessons involved individual activities, and half involved small group activities. In about half the classrooms, the nature of the activities was passive, and in half, the nature was for students to be producing something. About 63% of the students observed were using their devices for drill and practice activities, 8% were using them for Internet research, 8% for simulation activities, and 8% for problem-solving activities. The student learning objectives for the use of technology during the lessons was evenly split, with 50% using the technology to learn content, and 50% using it to practice a skill. Throughout the lessons, we observed some above-average integration methods and activities in the areas of student choice, ethical use, and student focus on curricular objectives. Areas falling below average in integration methods and activities were in student planning - in the majority of the classrooms the students were not involved in the planning and use of technologies during their lesson - they were directed to a specific use by the teacher. We also noted a low level of student collaboration in the technology use. Problemsolving activities were observed at various levels in about half of the classrooms. Interview questions were used to validate data collected from the OPTIC observations and the survey results from the Arctic Gateway and North Slope Borough school districts. A majority of teachers in the survey responded that they use technology in their classrooms on a regular basis. The majority of interviewed teachers elaborated that their

10

technology use centers on the display of clarifying media or enriching media in all subject areas. Some teachers described student technology use as blogging or using online sites where students had to read and react to the reading. Since we are anticipating creating a tool which will help teachers at all levels of technology mastery with the new Alaska standards, we asked the teachers how familiar they are with the new standards. In all cases, teachers were aware that there are new standards. One example answer sums up the general response to this question – “I know they’re there… I looked them up on line once!” When teachers were asked about specific technology familiarity, the responses were all over the spectrum. Where some teachers used blogs, interactive websites and podcasting, for example, there were an equal number of returns that admitted they never used these technologies. There were also responses in the middle, some awareness and little use of different available technologies. The responses to the kind of technology teachers would like to learn about mirrored the above familiarity question. Teachers reacted positively to a potential tool that would help them quickly find resources to help them integrate technology while supporting the new Alaska standards. Teachers suggested that a helpful site would have links, lesson plans, helpful tips on an easy to navigate website with each standard and associated technology use broken down by standard. Conclusions In the online survey, responses were found to be strikingly similar on each question when the two districts were compared. Although the districts are of different sizes, have different demographics of students, and are geographically very far apart, the similarities could

11

likely result from an historical perspective. The timeline and approach both districts have taken to bringing educational technology to the classrooms matches up consistently. Both districts went 1:1 in the middle schools at around the same time, around 2007, and both districts have dealt with the boom and bust periods of sporadic professional development offerings, as well as changing leadership that at various times embraced technology, and at times ignored it. When analyzed against the Technology Integration Matrix, our data indicate that both districts are still somewhere hovering around the Entry level, and in some areas moving toward the Adoption level of technology integration. This descriptor indicates, "Students receive information from the teacher or from other sources. Students may be watching an instructional video on a website or using a computer program for "drill and practice" activities. The teacher may be the only one actively using technology. This may include using presentation software to support delivery of a lecture. The teacher may also have the students complete "drill and practice" activities on computers to practice basic skills, such as typing." The survey results also indicate a pronounced and widespread lack of awareness about competencies such as digital citizenship, digital literacies, and infused or transformative technology integration with web tools and other creative software. The lack of awareness could stem from lack of training, and lack of consistent vision and support from their districts. For the classroom observation data, it must be noted that these were not drop-in observations where the purpose was to simply note whether or not technology was being used. Those kinds of observations would probably have given us very different findings - ones that would have supported the data captured in the general online survey. For our observations, we scheduled times to observe teachers when they told us they would specifically be using

12

technology in a lesson. So taken at face value, data from the observation tool shows 100% usage of technology in lessons, but the context of the observations must be taken into consideration. Our observations were meant to give us a clearer picture of exactly how the technology was being used, when it was in fact part of a lesson. Even though the observations were scheduled based on 100% use of technology, our observations still back up what we have learned from our other data - a mostly low-level use of the technology - approximately Entry level according to the Technology Integration Matrix. Most tellingly, we observed that the majority of the activities involving technology represented learning activities that could have been done without the use of technology at all. All-in-all the interviews confirmed the need for a tool which would help teachers become more comfortable with the integration of technology in their classrooms. If we look at the interview answers regarding basic technology use from the perspective of creating digitally literate students, both sets of interview answers indicate that these teachers are still in the “adoption phase” of technology integration, according to the Technology Integration Matrix. It surprised us that teachers were not more aware what the new Alaska standards required students to learn, since the standards are the foundation of what the state expects students to learn. The lack of technology integration in spite of the requirement specifically addressed in the standards indicates a need for more teacher awareness. The responses to the two questions about familiarity of technology tools also indicated the need for a tool which would brings the standards and the technology expectations together in one place with resources and links for implementation of the expected teaching and learning activities.

13

There are obviously obstacles for teachers in integrating technology in their classrooms. Teachers generally felt unsupported, citing the need for more training and more time and practice. Reading between the lines, teachers feel like it is not a requirement to integrate technology and are opting out of using technology if it is unreliable or if they have to spend too much time on their own learning about it. An easy-to-use tool would aid teachers who are willing to add technology to their classroom, but are worried about the time commitment to research valid technologies to use with students. Next Steps Based on our literature review and data analysis, we have determined there is an immediate need for a resource for Alaskan teachers to quickly assess what technology is needed to support specific standards. Due to the vast geography of this state, the best site for this type of resource would be online. The initial interface of this website needs to have multiple entry points in order to differentiate the resources based on user tech savvy-ness. Our initial design of this site would have entry points based on self-determined tech skill levels. For example, an entry-level tech user would click on a button for entry-level resources to support the standards. We will have definitions listed to aid the user in determining their level of tech ability. After the initial entry point, a display will appear using a list of standards and their associated tech requirements. The user can then navigate to the standard they want to teach to populate a list of suggested technology and lesson plan ideas. In order to build this website, we will enlist the help of those in our professional learning network to continually give us feedback as we build what will essentially be an interactive database. We anticipate using virtual real estate via the ASTE website, as they are a central tech

14

location for all Alaskan teachers. We hope that this tool will inspire individual teachers to incorporate more and more technology into their classrooms in order to create technology fluent digital Alaskan citizens. Our further hope is that educational leadership in the Alaskan education system will adopt this tool as they begin to lead districts across the state with visions that seamlessly incorporate technology into all Alaskan classrooms.

15

References Chai, C. S., Ng, E. M., Li, W., Hong, H., & Koh, J. H. (2013). Validating and modeling technological pedagogical content knowledge framework among Asian preservice teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 41-53. College of Education, University of South Florida. (2011). TIM: The Technology Integration Matrix | A video resource supporting the full integration of technology in Florida schools. Technology Integration Matrix. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix.php Crosswalk the common core & educational technology standards. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/EdTech/Standards/edtechcoresubjects/CCSS-Crosswalk.aspx Earle, R. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. (Vol. 42, pp. 5-13). ET Magazine. Retrieved September 25, 2013 from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic87187.files/Earle02.pdf Jimoyiannis, A., Tsiotakis, P., Roussinos, D., & Siorenta, A., Department of Social and Educational Policy, University of Peloponnese, Greece (2013). Preparing teachers to integrate Web 2.0 in school practice: Toward a framework for Pedagogy 2.0. Australasian Journal of Education Technology, 29(2), 248-267. Mitchell, R. & Laski, E. (2013). Integration of Technology in Elementary Pre-Service Teacher Education: An Examination of Mathematics Methods Courses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 337-353. Chesapeake, VA: SITE. Retrieved September 26, 2013 from http://www.editlib.org/p/41345 Parks, A. (2012). Understanding the central themes of the Common Core Standards and the

16

need to develop digital literacy and 21st century skills in today's classrooms. learning.com, 12, 1-8. Retrieved September 26, 2013, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/files/2013/08/Digital-Literacy-Common-Core-whitepaper.pdf Tallerico, K. (2013). Meet the promise of content standards: the role of technology for teacher and student learning. Learning Forward, 1, 1-22. Tondeur, J., Kershaw, L., Vanderlinde, R., & Braak, J. v. (2013). Getting inside the black box of technology integration in education: Teachers' stimulated recall of classroom observations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 434-449.

17

Appendix

Survey questions (for surveys sent out across PLN)

1. What grade(s) do you currently teach? Check all that apply, or if there is overlap. a. Primary (k-2) b. Intermediate (3-5) c. Middle School (6-8) d. High School (9-12)

2. How would you describe your current level of technology integration into your classroom (choose any descriptors that comes closest to what you do). a. I do not currently integrate technology into my classroom learning b. I use instructional technology - Interactive white board, projector, or online courseware c. I use technology as a means for my students to submit work - such as word processing, online submission of assignments d. I use technology in my classroom as an extra, or add-on, such as centers, free time, or for rewards e. Once in awhile I incorporate technology into a lesson where students get to create with it or use web tools f. I often allow students to use the internet for research

18

g. I integrate technology daily, and my students have an "academic" web presence (blogs, wikis, websites, etc).

3. My classroom technology access includes: (check all that apply) a. Fairly dependable internet access b. A device for each student (desktops, laptops, iPads, etc) c. An interactive white board d. Access to a computer lab

4. What are your needs for Digital Citizenship curriculum? a. I have a good curriculum, but I haven't used it b. I have a good curriculum and I use it with consistency c. I don't have materials for this d. I don't understand all that this encompasses

5. What are your needs in Digital Literacies? a. I don't know what digital literacies are b. I incorporate these into my teaching on a regular basis c. I know what they are, but I don't know how to teach them

6. What are your needs with using media platforms (blogs, wikis, websites) for student work?

19

a. I don't know what media platforms are b. I know what they are but I don't know how to use them with students c. I use some of these with students, but need to know more d. I use these with students consistently

7. What are your needs with web 2.0 tools? a. I don't know what these are b. I use them sometimes, but need to know more about them c. I use web 2.0 tools consistently to let students explore, create, and explain

8. What are your needs with basic media tools like video and podcasting? a. I don't know how to use these b. I show students video and let them listen to podcasts, but they don't create these things c. I have had students create video and/or podcasts a little, but I need to know more d. I consistently use video and podcasting as a means for students to explore, create, and explain

20

Personal Interview Questions (conducted across 2 districts)

1. How often would you say that you allow, encourage, or require students to use word processing, blogging or social media, or presentation software for reports or displays?

2. What kinds of equipment/software are available to you to carry out effective technology integration? (Computers, laptops, iPads, multimedia equipment and telecommunications stations)

3. How well do you think you understand the curriculum in terms of knowing where applications of technology are appropriate to achieving goals and objectives? (explain)

4. Do you feel there are some minimum expectations or guidelines within the curriculum and New Standards, and from the district regarding achievement of technology skills for students from k-12? If so, what is your understanding of these expectations?

5. How do you choose the technologies appropriate to your students’ activity and need?

6. In what ways do you use online access to tools and information resources from within the school and from home or other outside settings to inform and plan your instruction? (explain)

21

7. Are you aware of or do you take part in the sharing of successful practices (with or without technology) between and among teachers? (explain)

8. Do you design assignments for students based on assumptions of technology use?

9. Do the ways in which you use technology represent an improvement over previous methods of carrying out learning activities, or represent a learning activity which could not previously be done? (explain)

10.Are there staff development opportunities to improve skills in technology integration? Are they available for all teachers relevant to subject areas?

22

Classroom Observations (Across 2 districts) This is the OPTIC tool – the Observation Protocol for Technology Integration in the Classroom, developed by Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.

OPTIC - Observation Protocol for Technology Integration in the Classroom

I. Setting and Circumstances: Grade Level(s) of Students ______ Observation Length: _____ minutes

Site (check): __Computer lab __Classroom __Other Inside: ______________________ __Outside the building: what setting? _______________________________ Ratio of Students to Station or Device: __1 to 1 __2-5 to 1 __6-9 to 1 __10 to 1 or more

In each category below, check as many as apply during the time of the observation. Activity: __Individual __Small group __Whole class __Student Presentation __Teacher Presentation Choice: The specific uses of technology in this session were __required of all students __required of some students __unrestricted __Social Studies

Curricular area(s) addressed: __Math __Science __Language Arts __Foreign Language __Other____________________ Primary nature of student activity: __Passive and receiving

__Producing and creating

Technologies in use: __Computer __Internet __E-mail __Hand held __Camera __One-way video __Two-way Interactive video __CD Other ______________

Software in use by class during the observation: __Drill and practice ___% students using __Simulation or game ___ __Problem solving ___ __Data analysis ___ __Word processing ___

(Will not total 100%) __Spreadsheet ___ % using __Present/publish ___ __Internet browser ___ __Graphics/Web page ___ __Other:_______________

23

Student objectives for this time period: __Learn content-related skills, facts or concepts __Practice or reinforce a skill or concept __Communicate with resource person or peer __Learn a software or application skill (note): __Other (note):

__Develop a project __Learn a research skill __Testing or assessment

Student goals addressed this time period: __ be a discriminating and technically proficient technology user __ seek, analyze and evaluate information using technology __ conduct problem solving and/or decision making activities using technology __ be a creative and effective user of productivity tools __ be effective communicators, collaborators, publishers and producers __ be a responsible citizen, worker, learner in technology environment

Copyright © 2004, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon. All rights reserved. This work was produced by the Northwest Educational Technology Consortium of the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory under contract number R302A000016 from the U.S. Department of Education. The content does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Department or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

24

25
II. Integration Observation Rubric: For each row, place a mark in the bracket in the box best representing the situation you observe. Columns 4 and 2 are provided as intermediate points for your convenience. A mark in column N/A means the item is not applicable in this situation. Use of N/A in any one observation is not a sign of deficiency.
5 Most students are independently choosing the technologies appropriate to their learning objectives. [ ] Students are highly involved with their teacher and peers in planning for the use of technology in a unit or lesson. [ ] In group activities using technology, a high degree of collaboration is exhibited. [ ] When using technology, most students act ethically and in accordance with the district acceptable use policy. [ ] Most students exhibit skill in the effective use of available technologies at or above grade and ability levels. [ ] In using technology, most students are focused on the intended curricular objectives. [ ] Most specific technology skills are embedded and learned in the context of core curriculum lesson objectives. [ ] Problem solving and higher order thinking is evident in most students’ activities. [ ] Most students are highly engaged in the use of technology. [ ] Student use of technology is based on their cognitive abilities and physical needs. [ ] Most technology uses represent learning activities that could not otherwise be easily done. [ ] 4 3 Some students are independently choosing the technologies appropriate to their learning objectives. [ ] Students have a moderate role with their teacher and/or peers in planning for the use of technology in a unit or lesson. [ ] In group activities using technology, a moderate degree of collaboration is exhibited. [ ] When using technology, some students are not acting in accordance with the district acceptable use policy. [ ] Some students exhibit skill in the effective use of available technologies at or above grade and ability levels. [ ] In using technology, some students are focused on the intended curricular objectives. [ ] Some specific technology skills are practiced in the process of achieving core curriculum objectives. [ ] Problem solving and higher order thinking is evident in about half the class. [ ] Some students are highly engaged in the use of technology and others are not. [ ] Student use of technology is directed at one of the needs areas. [ ] Some technology uses support learning activities that could not be done without it. [ ] 2 1 Students are using only the technologies prescribed by the teacher for meeting learning objectives. [ ] Students await and follow teacher directions for what technology to use. [ ] In group activities using technology, few students display collaboration. [ ] When using technology, few students follow the district acceptable use policy; many violations are apparent. [ ] Students generally exhibit a low level of skill in their use of available technologies and require much assistance. [ ] In using technology, few students are focused on the intended curricular objectives [ ] Specific technology skills are taught and practiced as sep-arate lessons, and later applied to core objectives. [ ] Most students exhibit little creativity, only responding to software prompts. [ ] Few students are highly engaged in the technology activity. [ ] Student use of technology is directed at neither area. [ ] Most of the learning activities might be done as well or better without technology. [ ] N/A

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

25