5.3: Program Evaluation
Candidates design and implement program evaluations to determine the overall effectiveness of professional learning on deepening teacher content knowledge, improving teacher pedagogical skills and/or increasing student learning. (PSC 5.3/ISTE 4c)
Artifact: ITEC 7410 Action and Evaluation Plan for Professional Development
This artifact was designed for the 2014 – 2015 school year for use in my new role as an Instructional Technologist for Atlanta International School (AIS). The action and evaluation plan aimed to look at the overall effectiveness of professional learning and to synthesize the existing stakeholder education over the course of the year to deepen teacher content knowledge to improve pedagogical skills to increase student learning.
As much of this artifact has been rolled out during this year, I can talk to the authentic improvement in content knowledge by the teachers with whom I have worked and how this is having an effect on our students.
The initial objective of taking a Google Site framework that I had developed to use with the entire secondary faculty did not come to fruition. This was due to lack of assigned professional development time with the faculty for instructional technology as a whole. However, the drop-in workshops were scheduled for after school for three days a week. At the beginning of the school year, these were well attended but mostly for technical problems, for example aligning Google Calendars and updating apps. The discussions did not morph into the authentic teaching and learning needs of the faculty and, by the end of September, teachers stopped coming. Our reflection as a team to this point was that our faculty is busy and that after school is really not a good time for them to engage with going deeper into technology integration for their own professional development.
I set about identifying the individual faculty that might benefit from attendance at the Google Southern Summit in January 2015 and began to collaborate with those teachers in aligning some of their professional development SMART goals to meet that end. Eight educators from the secondary school attended and have actively continued to work with the instructional technology team in deepening their content knowledge and use of resources through technology. I have worked with these teachers in the classroom (creating blogs, working with students on Google Sites and assisting with the roll out of Google Classroom) and observing the impact on student learning as the students continue in this process. I have also started to use the LoTi HEAT measurement scale with various teachers during curriculum planning and evaluation to evaluate their technology integration.
These have been very useful discussion points for faculty to self evaluate and ponder carefully the use of technology in their content areas. This is discussed as part of the rolling agenda at the weekly meetings between the Instructional Technologists and Information Technology Operations (ITO) in-house to continue communication to improve hard and software purchases that will be sustained over time to meet the emerging learning of the faculty in this context.
I have learned from creating and putting this artifact into action the usefulness for thinking forward in a strategic manner. However, it is also important to recognize that while an action plan is a hugely valuable document, it has to be iterative to accommodate changes that impact its roll out (for example, I was unable to secure whole school training initially in using Google Sites for student portfolios). This has meant that ongoing discussions about using this for student teaching and learning has been limited to the teachers that have sought individual training and support in this area. Action plans do need to be reviewed regularly and adjusted to address the environment in which they are to be enacted. Therefore, one area that I would change is insuring that administrative level are included in the initial planning discussions, as they are the controllers of professional development scheduling and can scope in the holistic time needed for teachers to engage with technology for teaching and learning. There needs to be that level of support and buy in for an action plan to have leverage to meet the actions that it aims to do.
This artifact has certainly helped school improvement in that there has been a visible enhancement in communication between the Instructional Technology team and ITO through weekly scheduled, agenda driven meetings. Another improvement outcome has been the teacher engagement with local professional development through attendance at the Google Southern Summit 2015, and the learning that they have brought back into their classrooms. Post conference, there was an elevation of teachers engaging me to come into the classroom and work with students. This evaluation is ongoing for now, as I observe the student learning due to the rising improvements in teacher pedagogical skills as they deepen their technology integration in the classroom.
As much of this artifact has been rolled out during this year, I can talk to the authentic improvement in content knowledge by the teachers with whom I have worked and how this is having an effect on our students.
The initial objective of taking a Google Site framework that I had developed to use with the entire secondary faculty did not come to fruition. This was due to lack of assigned professional development time with the faculty for instructional technology as a whole. However, the drop-in workshops were scheduled for after school for three days a week. At the beginning of the school year, these were well attended but mostly for technical problems, for example aligning Google Calendars and updating apps. The discussions did not morph into the authentic teaching and learning needs of the faculty and, by the end of September, teachers stopped coming. Our reflection as a team to this point was that our faculty is busy and that after school is really not a good time for them to engage with going deeper into technology integration for their own professional development.
I set about identifying the individual faculty that might benefit from attendance at the Google Southern Summit in January 2015 and began to collaborate with those teachers in aligning some of their professional development SMART goals to meet that end. Eight educators from the secondary school attended and have actively continued to work with the instructional technology team in deepening their content knowledge and use of resources through technology. I have worked with these teachers in the classroom (creating blogs, working with students on Google Sites and assisting with the roll out of Google Classroom) and observing the impact on student learning as the students continue in this process. I have also started to use the LoTi HEAT measurement scale with various teachers during curriculum planning and evaluation to evaluate their technology integration.
These have been very useful discussion points for faculty to self evaluate and ponder carefully the use of technology in their content areas. This is discussed as part of the rolling agenda at the weekly meetings between the Instructional Technologists and Information Technology Operations (ITO) in-house to continue communication to improve hard and software purchases that will be sustained over time to meet the emerging learning of the faculty in this context.
I have learned from creating and putting this artifact into action the usefulness for thinking forward in a strategic manner. However, it is also important to recognize that while an action plan is a hugely valuable document, it has to be iterative to accommodate changes that impact its roll out (for example, I was unable to secure whole school training initially in using Google Sites for student portfolios). This has meant that ongoing discussions about using this for student teaching and learning has been limited to the teachers that have sought individual training and support in this area. Action plans do need to be reviewed regularly and adjusted to address the environment in which they are to be enacted. Therefore, one area that I would change is insuring that administrative level are included in the initial planning discussions, as they are the controllers of professional development scheduling and can scope in the holistic time needed for teachers to engage with technology for teaching and learning. There needs to be that level of support and buy in for an action plan to have leverage to meet the actions that it aims to do.
This artifact has certainly helped school improvement in that there has been a visible enhancement in communication between the Instructional Technology team and ITO through weekly scheduled, agenda driven meetings. Another improvement outcome has been the teacher engagement with local professional development through attendance at the Google Southern Summit 2015, and the learning that they have brought back into their classrooms. Post conference, there was an elevation of teachers engaging me to come into the classroom and work with students. This evaluation is ongoing for now, as I observe the student learning due to the rising improvements in teacher pedagogical skills as they deepen their technology integration in the classroom.