3.1: Classroom Management & Collaborative Learning:
|
Artifact Capstone Research Tech-Integration Plan Reflection The artifact I selected to best demonstrate my ability to model and facilitate effective classroom management and collaborative learning is a portion of my capstone research project design. This portion is an alignment grid demonstrating how the collaborating teachers should teach a technology-enhanced version of their Internal & External Monsters Unit. The left-hand column delineates each assignment the teachers listed in their original, non-tech integrated unit plan. The right-hand column delineates collaborative technology-enhanced versions of each assignment. I created the right-hand column so that the teachers could implement both units simultaneously, and we could collect pre- and post-survey data as well as performance data to determine whether the right-hand column’s collaborative technology enhancements would result in an amelioration of students attitudes, as evidenced by survey data, and an increase in their understanding and skill, as evidenced by the summative assessments. This artifact demonstrates mastery of Standard 3.1. It is itself an organized, easy to follow model to help facilitate teachers’ transition into utilizing technology in their classrooms without completely gutting their previous methods and content. Embedded in the right-hand column are provisions for student choice of presentation tools and how to structure in-class versus at-home work via the class wiki. Providing students with as much choice as possible increases motivation and decreases classroom management problems, including behavior (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012) and potential digital platform operability issues. Each technology-enhanced assignment is designed on the principles of collaborative learning. Throughout the unit design, there exist three levels of student collaboration: (1) partner collaboration on picture notes of The Odyssey and the epic hero cycle project; (2) small group collaboration on the monster tracking and research for each short story via Google Sheets; and (3) whole class vocabulary builder via Memrise and whole-class unit exam study guide via Google Docs. From completing this artifact, I learned that it is important to meet teachers where they are by modeling and easing the transition to technology-enhanced lesson planning. Too often, the transition can seem overwhelming, and teachers may feel as though they must completely revamp their entire curriculum in order to accomplish it. Avoidance of such an enormous task is understandable. By demonstrating the potential of technology to specifically enhance—not to replace—what teachers are already doing, I was able to convince my two collaborating teachers that technology integration is worthwhile. It is imperfect, however: Had I to do it over again, I would include tips and tricks for behavior management of students as well. Although some students misbehave in classes no matter the content, provision of laptops and iPads adds extra elements of potential misbehavior, and such potentialities should not be overlooked. Unfortunately, despite my best laid plans, plans laid in accordance with the principal’s report of the infrastructural capacity, the collaborating teachers met with infrastructural problems that resulted in frustration and inability to complete many of the technology-enhanced assignments with their students. Resultant student survey and performance instrument data revealed information relevant to school improvement (i.e., the need for an increase in infrastructural capacity), faculty development (i.e., the need for ongoing technology training), and student learning. The impact was assessed via analysis of the data, which revealed that students’ attitudes and performance were not inhibited by the lost instructional time that resulted from the technology problems they encountered. Thus, their attitudes remained consistently positive despite frustrations with the technology infrastructure, and they learned the same amount of information as the non-technology-integrated class in less time. References Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Education Digest, 78(1), 29-35. |