North Carolina Professional Technology Facilitator Standards
Standard 1.1: Instructional Technology Facilitators demonstrate 21st century leadership in the school.
Standard 1.2: Instructional Technology Facilitators lead an instructional technology program that supports 21st century teaching and learning.
Standard 2.1: Instructional Technology Facilitators use effective pedagogy to infuse the curriculum with 21st century content and tools.
Standard 2.2: Instructional Technology Facilitators know the content appropriate to their teaching specialty.
Standard 2.3: Instructional Technology Facilitators model, share, and promote effective principles of teaching and learning.
Standard 3.1: Instructional Technology Facilitators serve as a specialist, fostering the effective use of digital tools and resources for constructing and sharing knowledge using inquiry-based instruction.
Standard 4.2: Instructional Technology Facilitators seamlessly integrate content-area curricula with 21st century content, effective pedagogical practices, universal design principles, and appropriate technology applications for all learners.
Standard 5.3: Instructional Technology Facilitators function effectively in a complex, dynamic environment.
(NC Board of Education, 2012)
Requirements of the Artifact
This particular artifact was the first instance, via my progression of the MAED in Instructional Technology program, that I fully constructed a professional development session using the tools we discussed in class, such as the learner analysis and task analysis. At the same time, I also had the opportunity to integrate performance objectives and consider various instructional strategies for this particular PD session. To conclude the PD, I was asked to use an evaluative tool as well. Of course, the entire process leaned on the principles of instructional design that I reviewed concurrently in EDTC 6010 and EDTC 6020.
Connecting the Artifact and Standards
Reviewing the numerous NC Standards for Instructional Technology Facilitators, the entire design of this professional development session touched on many of these. In the role for this project, I carried out leadership by identifying a need among my colleagues that tied into the school’s goal for the year. Using the data collected, and through my own research and knowledge, I selected a topic that would satisfy the need of my team and be an engaging resource for teaching and learning.
Demonstrating to my colleagues how to use playlists in the classroom for learning involved considering the differing array of content teachers present. In other words, I was not leading PD for just science (my specialty), but also for math, ELA, and social studies content areas (Bullock, 2017).
In addition, while I presented the use of playlists as engaging and creating a personalized learning environment, I also had to reference the importance of keeping to sound pedagogy. In other words, the playlist is to be considered just another resource in the toolbox. The teachers themselves had opportunities for collaborating and getting feedback as a part of the PD session also.
Potential Improvements to the Artifact
There are a couple of areas I would have liked to improve upon, perhaps within my control or not if I had to do over again. Brown and Green illustrated in Chapter 3 that when conducting a needs analysis, the instructional designer should usually carry out this process over a few stages (2016). This allows for the designer to better eliminate any gaps in information and better align the instructional session to meet the needs of the participants. Given the time-limitations of both myself and my colleagues, it did not seem practical at the time, yet may have served us well to have done so.
Another area for improvement resides in the length of the PD session itself. As a group, the PD was limited to a single ninety-minute session. This impacted some of the follow-up discussions, making it harder to schedule time to talk with my peers who participated. In addition, I would have preferred to have at least one more follow-up session to continue our conversations. Even conducting two separate 45 minute sessions may have been better and made those 90 minutes more effective and engaging.
One final place I see that could have been improved upon is some of the PD’s content. Since we were discussing using playlists to guide instruction, and playlists essentially put students on a learning path that relied upon their past learning experiences, I feel I should have stressed how to evaluate this previous background knowledge in a more targeted way. Upon reading more about this very concept from an article in Middle School Journal, I would now choose to include the four primary questions teachers can ask in order to help them determine a student’s “core background knowledge”, as opposed to mistaking it for “incidental knowledge” (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012, p. 23). Using these questions may help the teachers to better validate the use of the playlists as an effective tool in their classrooms.
Career Goals and the Artifact
Training colleagues is a task that I consider to be expected of almost any role as an instructional designer or instructional technologist. Whether training on how to use an LMS or training on how to design sound instruction, I expect to use the principles of instructional design in my future career. I will look to this artifact as one of many examples around which to plan future instruction, whether I’m reviewing a task analysis, learner analysis, or performance objectives.
Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2016). The Essentials of Instructional Design: Connecting Fundamental Principles with Process and Practice (3rd ed.). Retrieved from Amazon Kindle store.
Bullock, D. W. (2017). ID Project. Unpublished manuscript, East Carolina University.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Building and activating students' background knowledge: It's what they already know that counts. Middle School Journal, 43(3), 22-31. DOI: 10.1080/00940771.2012.11461808
NC Board of Education. (2012). North Carolina Professional Technology Facilitator Standards. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/effectiveness-model/ncees/standards/prof-tech-facilitate-standards.pdf