EDT+650

This is the wikipage for EDT 650: The Practicum for the Instructional Technology program at St. Thomas University, Miami.


 * Technology Planning //(field experience)// **
 * (1) Description: ** As part of their practicum, MS in Education, Instructional Technology concentration candidates create a detailed plan for carrying out an actual //**technology facilitation project**// in a school or workplace setting appropriate to the candidate's career goals. In the technology plan, the candidate must analyze the logistical, pedagogical, and political issues related to putting the project into practice. The plan can be to implement a project regarding any ISTE-TF standards domain (such as planning and designing learning environments and experiences, curriculum development, assessment and evaluation, productivity and professional practice, social, ethical, legal and human issues). Scheduling, budgetary, and staffing implications must be clearly articulated, and the candidate must present a realistic schedule for implementing the project in the local setting. The candidate submits the implementation plan in the form of a narrative that can include charts and diagrams.

This is a strategic plan that explains how the local school or workplace will go about achieving strategic goals by using technology to provide instruction, collect data, and evaluate results in order to determine the extent to which standards have been met. The plan includes a work schedule, hardware and software configuration, a proposed budget, and a budget explanation.

When evaluating the technology plan, the faculty use the ISTE rubric for candidates who are teachers working toward the ISTE-TF endorsement. The tables below present the Technology Planning rubrics.

□ Multi-year timeline. □ Shared vision for technology integration. ||
 * (2) Technology Planning Project Scoring Rubric **
 * ** ISTE Rubric for the School Technology Plan ** ||
 * Required elements:
 * ** Candidate's Name: ** || ** Date: ** ||
 * ** INDICATORS ** ||  ** Developing **  ||  ** Meets **  ||  ** Exceeds **  ||
 * ** ISTE-TF-VII **

Promote the development and implementation of technology infrastructure, procedures, policies, plans, and budgets for P-12 schools. || The plan may cover more than one year, but there is little or no provision for ongoing planning and support, or the budget explanation is vague and unconvincing. || The plan includes a detailed budget explanation, considers current funding sources, recommends how to find additional monies that may be needed to accomplish program goals, and has a detailed timeline that covers at least three years. || The plan includes a detailed budget explanation, considers current funding sources, has a detailed timeline, and includes R&D experiments or monitors the results of regional or national pilots which, if successful, promise to reduce costs, improve results, or achieve milestones ahead of schedule. ||
 * (circle rating) ||  ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** ISTE-TF-VIII **

Contribute to the shared vision for campus integration of technology and foster an environment and culture conducive to the realization of the vision. || Little or no educational research is cited to situate the school's technology integration plan in the context of state or national efforts to make appropriate use of technology to improve teaching and learning. || Cites relevant research findings documented in the scholarly literature indicating how the proposed plan helps achieve applicable state or national technology integration standards. || Reflects on relevant research findings and identifies ways in which the local school can contribute lessons it learns to the national dialog about strategies for achieving appropriate uses of technology in education. ||
 * (circle rating) ||  ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||


 * __ CCMS Technology Intergration Plan: __**

This Plan, which is currently under construction, will span several years with slow integration and flexible changes if needed. This school wide initiative at Country Club Middle School specifically involves assessment and evaluation by utilizing data management and data analysis technologies that drive the school to higher efficiency and effectiveness. In the process of implementing the plan other systems and structures already in effect in the school will have to change as well. The use of databases, dashboards, and six sigma will be integrated into the school at all the various levels of the school organization. The plan involves an ecological approach in which all the stakeholders: teachers, students, parents, administrators, and staff will slowly progress to integrating data-based technologies to track progress and growth. The plan has several layers of implication that have a flexible schedule that adapts to unexpected changes.

Phase 1: School data management. The first year of the plan focuses on applying school wide technologies as it related to data collection (testing) and data analysis.


 * __Teachers:__** will have technology standards that will need to be met by using Edusoft. Teachers will need to access their own reports and analyze their own data using these reports. Additionally, teachers will drive instruction using data from Edusoft. Teachers will also create their own tests and make align their own test answer sheets using edusoft. The use of these technologies serve to reduce time in teacher grading as well as provide a more objective measure of student learning. Tutorials will be made at ccmsdata.wikispaces.com to assist teachers in meeting technology competencies and Microsoft Excel will aid in the data analysis process.

__**Students**__: Student will access to their own dashboards that record and display their progress on school wide tests using a series of graphs and charts. Students can then set goals based on the data so continuous improvement can be made. Dashboard will be created via the microsoft excel program.

__**Administrators:**__ The databases from microdsoft excel will be used to create pivot tables and charts that can be displayed in powerpoint for presentations. Admisitrators can see the progress of the entire school through the data collection (testing) and data analysis process. Teacher Evaluation will heavily rely on a teacher dashboard that needs to be created using microsoft excel. Administrators simply type in the teachers name and by Vlookup function brings up all the teacher's assessment data to be used for IPEGS and evaluation purposes.

__**Parents**__: Access to students data will increase accountability as parents will see how teacher's effectiveness compare with other teachers in the district. This will increase involvement and motivate teachers to do a better job.

__Activities Timeline:__ 1.) Creation of student databases (math, reading and science) of student information (mainly assessment information) To be finished **October 10th and updated after each test.** (Microsoft Excel) 2.) Creation of Teacher's Performance reports from each test through microsoft excel with programed graph functions. Target date: **October 29th** after Fall interim. (Microsoft Excel and Powerpoint). 3.) Creation of Faculty data PD **October 13th** (Edusoft 101) and PD day **October 23rd.** (Explain how to use databases and pull reports on Edusoft using powerpoint advanced functions). 4.) Creation of Student recognition on Fall interim Assessment using MovieMaker. Target date: **November 17th.** 5.) Programming of Student's Dashboards displaying data from assessments on graphs. Follow pilot programs. Design as "Passport" for school wide initiative. Target date **December 3rd.** 4.) Creation of Teacher's Data wikipage at __ccmsdata.wikispaces.com__ with tutorials using JING software. Target date **December 5th** (To be explained at faculty meeting Dec. 6th). 5.) Creation of School SIP Scorecard programmed from Microsoft excel. Follow pilot scorecards in Hillsborough county. Target date **December 8th.** 6.) Creation of Department of science wikipage for teacher collaboration at __countryclubmiddleschoolscience.wikispaces.com__ Target Date **Oct. 20th** 6.) End of year teacher evaluation Dashboard from FCAT 2.0.Taget date **June, 2012.**


 * Phase 2: Data expanding to include other school functions through the use of six sigma management.**


 * School Finance and Budget Using Excel (Target Date Feb. 2012)**
 * Inventory (Target date Feb. 2012)**


 * Total Cost of Printing and Color Ink: $97.00. This would occur 4 times a year. Since this is the first year of implementation of the passport/dashboard, then it would first be done in January and again at the end of the year. This would total the budget to nearly $200.00 in printing and color ink costs.**

A well though up plan need to address the above issues if it is to be implemented effectively. Legal issues surround the sensitive data that is viewed from student test results and teacher evaluations. The United Teacher's of Dade protect teachers from having their students data, which is also an indicator of their effectiveness, shown to other stakeholders (parents). Because of this I need to make sure that the data is not shown to non-admistrators. Teachers may also resist the use of data and technology as they are not willing to adapt to educational change.
 * Logistical, Political, and Pedagogical Issues Related to implementing the CCMS Te****chnology Integration Plan:**

Artifacts of the Technology Plan __Student Dashboard:__



__Sample Student database:__

__Teacher Tutorial Website:__

ccmsdata.wikispaces.com


 * II. Capstone ePortfolio* **


 * (1) Description: ** As the capstone project at the end of the master's program, all candidates will create a multimedia Web site ePortfolio full of artifacts demonstrating the manner and the extent to which the degree candidate has met the ISTE-TF national standards. This capstone ePortfolio is a collection and reflection of artifacts documenting achievements in each ISTE-TF standards domain. Program faculty uses the ISTE-TF endorsement rubrics when evaluating the capstone ePortfolio.


 * (2) Capstone e-Portfolio Scoring Rubric: **
 * Note: ** Publishing e-Porfolio using Issuu free software []*

□ Summative Introduction □ Statement for each of the eight NETS-TF standards □ Artifacts, with abstracts, supporting each of the eight NETS-TF standards || ** Introduction ** || The introduction may accurately summarize the eight statements and connections, but it does not discuss insights gained or connect the statements as a whole. || Introduces and summarizes theories and connections to artifacts presented in the statements. This provides the reader with an overview of your accomplishments as well as a context for the statements that follow. || In addition to summarizing the connections between the artificacts and the statements, the introduction includes a reflection on how your perspective as a teacher/technology facilitator has been impacted by the process of meeting the NETS-TF standards. || ** NETS-TF Standards **  || Artifacts may demonstrate proficiency, but their value to the candidate's practice and theory-base is not clear.
 * ** ISTE Rubric for the National Standards Capstone ePortfolio ** ||
 * Required elements:
 * ** Candidate's Name: ** || ** Date: ** ||
 * ** INDICATORS ** || ** Developing **  ||  ** Meets **  ||  ** Exceeds **  ||
 * ** Summative **
 * (circle rating) ||  ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** Statements documenting achievement of the eight **

Artifacts may be of high quality showing good use of integrated technology, but their connection with the ISTE standards is not explicit or the artifacts are of limited value.

Artifacts are not given a context or are evaluated only to a limited extent by the candidate.

More artifacts are needed to support proficiency in one or more ISTE standards. || Two to three significant artifacts are cited for each ISTE-TF standard, and artifacts are used for multiple standards.

For each artifact cited there is an abstract which provides (1) a description of the artifact and how it relates to you (context/date), and (2) an analysis of how the artifact demonstrates evidence for one or more particular standards. || In addition to citing two or three significant artificats for each standard, selections or portions are chosen from artifacts to illustrate salient points.

In addition to explaining how each artifact demonstrates evidence for one or more standards, the abstract includes a reflection on how the artifact has contributed to your growth as a more informed, reflective, and/or responsive teacher/technology facilitator consistent with the SOE conceptual framework. ||
 * (circle one rating per standard) ||^   ||^   ||^   ||
 * ** NETS-TF 1: Operations ** || ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** NETS-TF 2: Designing ** || ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** NETS-TF 3: Teaching ** || ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** NETS-TF 4: Assessing ** || ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** NETS-TF 5: Productivity ** || ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** NETS-TF 6: Social Issues ** || ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** NETS-TF 7: Planning ** || ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** NETS-TF 8: Leadership ** || ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||
 * ** Technical Quality of ePortfolio Design ** || Proper use of type and size may be used, but consistency in design is weak, or the document is not carefully edited for spelling and grammar. The writing style may create comprehension difficulties, or the user may get lost due to poor site design. || The portfolio is easy to navigate and follows design principles covered in the multimedia design and Practicum courses. Writing is concise, clear, and well organized. || Navigation is seamless because the design elements consistently locate the reader in the portfolio structure and provide intuitive controls to navigate the portfolio. The candidate's writing integrates into the site structure by making logical connections between portfolio sections and the artifacts. ||
 * (circle rating) ||  ** 0 **  ||  ** 1 **  ||  ** 2 **  ||