Project ii FEA Tool
Technology Curriculum Implementation Rubric
[identifying student information removed]
Overview
This tool is a rubric designed to measure a teacher’s tendency toward a student-centered, inquiry-based teaching philosophy with respect to use of technology in the classroom. The tool is intended to be completed by an external observer during a 30-minute classroom observation of a technology-based lesson (see Appendix A for rubric).
Background
Where does this come from?
The rubric is based on literature and tools designed to measure student-centered, inquiry-based teaching philosophies. Several other existing tools were reviewed during the process of creating the rubric. The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Sawada & Pilburn, 2000) is an observation tool designed to measure a teacher’s orientation toward a student-centered, inquiry-oriented teaching approach, specifically in mathematics and science classrooms (Sawada, Falconer, Turley, Benford, & Bloom, 2002). The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) is designed to measure constructivist theory of teachers in mathematics and science classrooms. This measure focuses on the emphasis of student input in classroom decisions, the teacher serving in a facilitative role, and student questioning of content and learning activities. This focus is consistent with student-centered, inquiry-based teaching philosophies (Taylor, Frazer, & White, 1994). These two tools were used as references in creating the categories and descriptors in the rubric. As the rubric was intended to only gain a general perception of the constructivist practices in specific classrooms to determine if this was a factor in the use of specific technology curriculum materials, these references, along with the expertise of the persons creating the tool, were deemed appropriate and complete enough for developing the rubric.
The Implementation Levels utilize concepts from Hord and Hall’s (1987) Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) which focuses on the process of change and the stages people experience when adapting to change (Hord & Hall, 1987, Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987). While based on this research, the Implementation Levels were adapted for use in the rubric, either by combining Hord and Hall’s levels, or renaming them in order to use language consistent with that used in K-12 schools.
Where does this apply?
This tool was intended to be used in K-8 public schools in the state of West Virginia. The rubric would be used by classroom observers to measure evidence of student-centered, inquiry-based philosophies of teachers implementing lessons from the techSteps program (SchoolKit, 2010). The rubric itself, however, does not refer specifically to any aspect of the techSteps program, so it could be utilized in classroom observations of other technology lessons as well.
History
In response to the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act to report the technology literacy of eighth grade students (U.S. Department of Education, 2007), the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) piloted the techSteps program in eleven schools during the 2007-2008 school year. WVDE technology staff wanted to determine what training and support WVDE would need to provide to schools in order to help them be successful in implementing techSteps. The staff at the Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center (ARCC) at Edvantia were asked to collaborate with WVDE technology staff to conduct a front-end analysis in order to determine what qualities and prerequisites needed to be in place for a school to be successful in implementing this program. WVDE technology staff would then utilize this information to design training and resources for schools.
Based on their expertise and conversations with stakeholders, the WVDE technology staff brainstormed potential reasons that school would be successful in implementing the techSteps program. They hypothesized that teaching philosophy may have an impact on implementation. It was determined, therefore, that a tool would be developed in order to measure this trait. As it would be difficult to measure all aspects of teaching philosophy in short observations, it was decided to measure teachers’ tendency toward a more student-centered, inquiry-based approach. This decision was made for two reasons. First, Literature on technology-rich classrooms has indicated that the use of technologies in educational settings—which involves active, hands-on learning on the part of the student—favors a more student-centered, inquiry-based teaching philosophy (Collins, 1991; Mann, 1994). In addition, the techSteps learning materials are based on a more student-centered philosophy (SchoolKit, 2010), and a review of research suggested that a mismatch between the teacher’s philosophy and that philosophical basis of the instructional materials may be a barrier to implementation (Ertmer, 1999).
After data was gathered utilizing the tool, it would be analyzed to determine if a particular teaching philosophy seemed to be present among teachers in schools that were successful implementing the techSteps program. ARCC staff, specifically Laurene Johnson and Kirk Knestis, developed the Technology Curriculum Implementation Rubric in response to this task. Unfortunately, due to time and personnel constraints, the rubric was never utilized and the front-end analysis was not completed.
Purpose
The purpose of the front-end analysis for which this tool was developed was to determine what characteristics were present in schools that were successfully implementing the techSteps curriculum, and which of these characteristics were essential to success of the program. The rubric was just one of the tools used to gather information in schools. Once data was gathered and analyzed, these essential characteristics would be defined. The next step would be to determine how to help schools that were not successful to develop or obtain these essential characteristics. The goal in conducting classroom observations and scoring them utilizing this rubric is to determine if schools and teachers who were implementing techSteps successfully tended to have a similar teaching philosophy as evidenced by their teaching practice.
As the original rubric was designed specifically for observing techSteps lessons, a revised version of this tool has been designed to be used in any classroom where a lesson utilizing technology is being implemented. Specific references to techSteps have been removed so that the tool can be used in other situations (see Appendix B for revised rubric). Utilizing the revised rubric will help determine if a teacher has a more student-centered, inquiry-based teaching philosophy, or a more traditional, teacher-centered teaching philosophy. While the tool could be modified to be used in an observation of any lesson in a classroom, this rubric is currently intended for observing technology-based lessons. This tool provides a way to quantify teaching philosophy based on a teacher’s lesson implementation.
Using the Tool
Assumptions
This tool is intended as a classroom observation tool. The rubric was specifically designed to be filled out by an expert observer during the course of a classroom observation. In order to complete all aspects of the rubric, the observer needs to be present for the entire lesson. The observer would make an appointment to attend the lesson with the instructor. This rubric is not designed for use as an unannounced observation. The observer will be present in the classroom during the lesson, but is not a part of the lesson, and should make every effort not to impact the lesson implementation in any way.
The rubric is designed as a guide in order to place a teacher on a continuum from more teacher-centered to more student-centered. It is not intended to be a teacher evaluation tool—a higher score indicates a more student-centered, inquiry-based approach, but does not necessarily indicate better teaching overall. As an FEA tool, the information gathered from this instrument can be used to identify possible causes for specific instructional problems related to teaching philosophy, and to guide decision-making.
Examples of Similar Tools
While this tool is for use in observing entire lessons, it is similar to some walk-through observation instruments used by the Irving Independent School District (n.d.) and the West Clermont School District (n.d.). In a classroom walkthrough, a school leader spends approximately 2-5 minutes in a classroom looking for specific characteristics that can be used to gather information about the overall effectiveness of teaching and learning. Acccording to Pitler and Goodwin (2008), the focus on walkthroughs can vary, but typical “look fors” include instructional strategies being utilized, grouping of students, use of technology, communication of learning goals, and evidence of higher-order thinking. Similar to this FEA tool, data from classroom walkthroughs is intended to guide decision-making, not to evaluate teacher performance. For example, if a school has recently conducted a professional development session on utilizing graphic organizers in instruction, a walkthrough may specifically focus on looking for evidence of these organizers in instruction. This information can then be used to guide future professional development (Pitler & Goodwin, 2008).
There are also many instruments available that are designed to be used as a guide during classroom observations. For example, the University of Minnesota, Center for Teaching and Learning, provides several examples of classroom observation forms on their website. These tools are specifically designed for peer reviews of teaching, which are intended to provide feedback to instructors on their teaching and student learning. Generally, peer review is a collaborative process designed to improve, rather than simply evaluate, instruction (University of Minnesota, n.d.).
Advantages and Disadvantages
Classroom observations have proven to be an effective tool for providing feedback to teachers and initiating instructional change (Colvin, Flannery, Sugai, & Moneghan, 2009). Unlike teacher self-report data gathered using a survey or questionnaire, a classroom observation provides a realistic picture of what is actually taking place in the classroom (Jonassen, Hannum, & Tessmer, 1999). In this case, the information obtained through observations was for use by WVDE staff in making decisions about professional development, school and district implementation plans, school goals, and support and resource needs.
As this tool provides information regarding the teaching philosophy evidenced by teaching practice, it can provide information to guide decisions regarding philosophical issues that might be preventing teachers from successfully integrating technology into their instruction (Ertmer, 1999). This tool also provides one way to measure how a teacher’s philosophy manifests itself in teaching practice, a concept that can be difficult to measure empirically (Matthews, 2003).
The disadvantages of any observation process apply here as well. A hazard of any observation is that the presence of the observer, or something the observer inadvertently does in the observation, changes the teacher’s or students’ actions, thus affecting the quality of the data collected during the observation. In addition, conducting the observations requires a skilled observer who is an expert in the concepts involved. The teacher being observed also may be intimidated by the process, resulting in an observation which is not typical of his or her practice (Jonassen, et. al., 1999).
Observation is also a time-consuming process. In this case, observation subjects must be identified, be willing to participate, and time must be arranged for the observation to take place. In order to conduct observations of more than one teacher, multiple visits to the same site may need to occur.
Any observation also only views a snapshot of what happens in a classroom. Even observing an entire lesson may not give a true picture of a teacher’s overall philosophy or practice. Jonassen, Hannum, and Tessmer (1999) recommend observing many performers over time, though admits that time and budget often make this impossible. Results of one observation must be viewed as one piece of information to consider, rather than as a definitive answer.
Conclusion
This FEA tool was initially developed specifically to meet the needs of the West Virginia Department of Education in assessing their techSteps implementation. This tool has been adapted, by removing specific references to the planned techSteps lessons, to be used as an observation tool in any classroom implementing a technology-based lesson. This use of this tool can provide valuable information for an instructional designer. Information about the student-centered, inquiry-based teaching practices can be used to diagnose instructional problems related to teaching philosophy, as well as to plan professional development and instructional interventions. The information received from using the tool should be used for planning, rather than for evaluative, purposes.
References
Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), 28-36.
Colvin, Flannery, Sugai, & Moneghan (2009). Using observational data to provide performance feedback to teachers: A high school case study. Preventing School Failure, 53(2), 95-104
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York: State University of New York Press.
Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Education Technology Research, and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
Irving Independent School District (n.d.). Documented walk-through form. Retrieved from http://www.irvingisd.net/personnelhandbook/documents/section_03/Walk%20Through%20Form.pdf.
Johnson, L., & Knestis, K. (2008). Technology curriculum implementation rubric. Unpublished. Edvantia, Inc.: Charleston, WV.
Jonassen, D., Hannum, W., & Tessmer, M. (1999). Task Analysis Methods for Instructional Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Mann, C. (1994). New technologies and gifted education. Roeper Review, 16, 172-176.
Matthews, W. (2003). Constructivism in the classroom: Epistemology, history, and empirical evidence. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2003/30_3/matthews.pdf.
Pitler, H., & Goodwin, B. (2008). Classroom walkthroughs: Learning to see the trees and the forest. Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/teacherprepretention/0125NL_ChangingSchools_58_4.pdf.
Sawada, D., & Pilburn, M. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP). (ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-01. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for the Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245-252.
SchoolKit (2010). techSteps. Retrieved from http://www.techsteps.com/.
Taylor, P., Fraser, B., & White, L., (1994). CLES: An instrument for monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Retrieved from http://surveylearning.moodle.com/cles/papers/CLES_AERA94_Award.htm.
University of Minnesota, Center for Teaching and Learning (n.d.). Classroom observation instruments. Retrieved from http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/resources/peer/instruments/index.html.
University of Minnesota, Center for Teaching and Learning (n.d.). Peer review of teaching. Retrieved from http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/resources/peer/index.html.
U.S. Department of Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; Policy and Program Studies Service (2007). State strategies and practices for educational technology: Volume I—Examining the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Running head: TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION RUBRIC 3
West Clermont School District (n.d.). Elementary walk through observation form. Retrieved from http://www.westcler.k12.oh.us/public_html/files/ElementaryWalk-ThroughObv.Form.pdf.
Appendix A
West Virginia techSteps Implementation Rubric
Implementation Level
(Adapted from Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987)
0
Non-use
1
Mechanical use
2
Routine Use
3
Refinement
4
Extension
5
Renewal
Teacher’s Level of Activity Adaptation
The degree to which activity is tailored to student needs
Technology integration activity use was not observed
Teacher changes the activity to simplify instructional implementation
Teacher implements the activity with no changes
Teacher adapts the activity in an effort to improve student learning outcomes
Teacher makes deliberate efforts to integrate the activity to meet student needs
Teacher develops new activities to improve effectiveness
Teacher’s Technology Virtuosity
Evidence of the teacher’s relationship with technology
Use and learning of new technology skills was not observed
Teacher limits self and student learning of new technology skills to those in the activity
Teacher relies on materials to help students learn new technology skills
Teacher acknowledges students’ discovery of new technology skills
Teacher actively facilitates student discovery of new technology skills
Teacher actively discovers new technology skills in collaboration with students
Teacher’s Communication of Content Standards
Helping students understand what they should learn
Communication of targeted content standards to students was not observed
Standards are communicated passively to students
Standards are communicated actively in their original form to students
Standards are explained to students in relevant and understandable ways
Standards are discussed, checked, and clarified as necessary
Students help guide decisions about which standards they are expected to learn
Teacher’s Communication of Technology Outcomes
Helping students understand what technology skills they should gain
Communication of desired technology outcomes was not observed
Technology outcomes are posted with no explanation for students
Technology outcomes are communicated to students in terms of required performance
Technology outcomes are communicated to students in terms of required performance and benefit to students
Technology outcome options and choices are discussed and clarified as necessary
Students develop their own priorities for development of new technology skills to support their learning
Students’ Hands-on Use of Technology
The opportunity to gain experience with technology
Use of technology by either teacher or students was not observed
Students observe teacher using technology
Students use technology with explicit direction from teacher
Students independently control technology to complete the activity
Students select from limited technology options to meet learning needs
Students adapt or choose from a broad range of technologies to meet their needs
Students’ Guidance of Their Own Learning
The opportunity for students to be responsible for their own learning
Student opportunities to guide their own learning were not observed
Students have extremely limited opportunities to guide their own learning activities
Students have limited opportunities and flexibility in their learning activities
Students have some flexibility in their learning activities, with substantial teacher guidance
Students make decisions about their own learning activities with limited teacher guidance
Students make substantial decisions about their own learning activities
Appendix B
Technology Curriculum Implementation Rubric
Implementation Level
(Adapted from Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, & Hall, 1987)
0
Non-use
1
Mechanical use
2
Routine Use
3
Refinement
4
Extension
5
Renewal
Teacher’s Level of Activity Adaptation
The degree to which activity is tailored to student needs
Technology integration activity use was not observed
Teacher’s implementation simplifies instructional implementation
Teacher implements the activity with no adaptations for individual needs
Teacher adapts the activity in an effort to improve student learning outcomes
Teacher makes deliberate efforts to integrate the activity to meet student needs
Teacher develops new activities to improve effectiveness
Teacher’s Technology Virtuosity
Evidence of the teacher’s relationship with technology
Use and learning of new technology skills was not observed
Teacher limits self and student learning of new technology skills to those in the activity
Teacher relies on written materials to help students learn new technology skills
Teacher acknowledges students’ discovery of new technology skills
Teacher actively facilitates student discovery of new technology skills
Teacher actively discovers new technology skills in collaboration with students
Teacher’s Communication of Content Standards
Helping students understand what they should learn
Communication of targeted content standards to students was not observed
Standards are communicated passively to students
Standards are communicated actively in their original form to students
Standards are explained to students in relevant and understandable ways
Standards are discussed, checked, and clarified as necessary
Students help guide decisions about which standards they are expected to learn
Teacher’s Communication of Technology Outcomes
Helping students understand what technology skills they should gain
Communication of desired technology outcomes was not observed
Technology outcomes are posted with no explanation for students
Technology outcomes are communicated to students in terms of required performance
Technology outcomes are communicated to students in terms of required performance and benefit to students
Technology outcome options and choices are discussed and clarified as necessary
Students develop their own priorities for development of new technology skills to support their learning
Students’ Hands-on Use of Technology
The opportunity to gain experience with technology
Use of technology by either teacher or students was not observed
Students observe teacher using technology
Students use technology with explicit direction from teacher
Students independently control technology to complete the activity
Students select from limited technology options to meet learning needs
Students adapt or choose from a broad range of technologies to meet their needs
Students’ Guidance of Their Own Learning
The opportunity for students to be responsible for their own learning
Student opportunities to guide their own learning were not observed
Students have extremely limited opportunities to guide their own learning activities
Students have limited opportunities and flexibility in their learning activities
Students have some flexibility in their learning activities, with substantial teacher guidance
Students make decisions about their own learning activities with limited teacher guidance
Students make substantial decisions about their own learning activities
The post Project ii FEA Tool appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
We are a leading academic writing company, which has been providing exclusive writing services for years.