The first NETS-T standard I would like to strengthen relates to modeling digital age work and learning. Specifically, I would like to “model and facilitate effective use of current and emerging digital tools to locate, analyze, evaluate, and use information resources to support research and learning” (http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS-T_Standards.sflb.ashx).
G: My goals are to incorporate mini research projects for students to practice the real-world writing purpose of inquire and explore (Gallagher, 2011), and evaluate the validity or credibility of their sources and quality of the information itself.
A: My actions will be to introduce and model sites and strategies for conducting effective internet searches. Students generate the questions through writing brainstorms. Then, they work together to investigate the answers. The students will learn to be careful when using keywords by completing the various practice activities and scavenger hunts (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007). They will learn how to identify overtly misleading web content by following the GET REAL steps (November, 2008). These steps are: reading the URL, examining the content, asking about the author and publisher, and looking at the links. In addition, the students will make decisions about which information to include on their projects.
M: The students will monitor their progress through the use of flowcharts or by keeping a journal of the number of steps, and the steps themselves, towards discovering their answer. It would be interesting to have them do a Voice thread or even a podcast of their process. Talking through the inquiry process can be very revealing and rewarding. I will know that the strategy is successful by analyzing the length of time it takes to locate information, as well as the validity of information they found.
E: They can extend their thinking by brainstorming key words or other ways to decrease the number of searches and increase the effectiveness of their searches. As stated in November (2008), “understanding validation as well as effective search techniques will help [students] both lessen the number of dubious sites that [they] might find and evaluate the ones that remain” (p. 61).
The second NETS-T standard on my improvement plan is titled Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership. The indicator is “exhibit leadership by demonstrating a vision of technology infusion, participating in shared decision making and community building, and developing the leadership and technology skills of others.
G: My goal is to work with team leaders from grades K-6 to develop a scaffolded technology plan. An important attribute of teachers who integrate technology is working with supportive colleagues who are willing to change together (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010). Our technology plan would include basic skills, such as how to save, insert a picture and use spell check. In addition, the plan would increase in complexity as students gain more proficiency (with promotion separate from age or grade). With all of the focus on reading and math differentiation, web literacy is an area often overlooked
A: Taking action involves starting a Shared Google Document, where team leaders will add their thoughts related to which technology skills are expected at each grade. Then, we will rank them so they increase in complexity as the student gets older and learns more. Finally, the team and I will work on placement of the skills where they seem most appropriate.
M: We will monitor progress by observing whether the students are getting the right amount of rigor as they progress through the program. In addition, there should be some cross-grade level collaboration where we coordinate lab schedules to best utilize our technology specialist. During our first implementation, it will be important to assess whether or not our plan has enough rigor without being too difficult for many of the students. The other team leaders and I will need to monitor students’ acquisition of web literacy skills in order to decide if we need to modify the action plan (Cennamo, Ross & Ertmer, 2009). This type of reflection is considered “in action” because it takes place while we are implementing the plan (Cennamo, et al., 2009), similar to formative assessments with students. “On action” reflection occurs in the final step of the GAME plan.
E: During the evaluation phase, it will be important to reflect on the amount and frequency of skill practice the students need to develop proficiency on their grade level skills. We will decide ways to extend what we learned to other areas, hoping that as our students engage in this scaffolded technology plan, the level of rigor can increase along with them.
I would appreciate any comments or advice you have as I work to implement these two GAME plans. Thank you.
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the web: Strategies for Internet inquiry. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Gallagher, K. (2011). Write like this. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Enriching content area learning experiences with technology part 2. [Video Webcast]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_550064_1%26url%3D
November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.