AECT+Standard+5

//Candidates are expected to demonstrate knowledge and skills as researchers in areas related to educational/instructional technology. Candidates will systematically design research studies that are grounded in theoretical foundations and employ appropriate methodologies to investigate problems. Using ethical practices, candidates will conduct studies, evaluate processes and communicate their findings to other professionals. Proficiency in all four elements is required.//

**AECT Standard 5 (Research):** Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize and apply systematic methods of inquiry (p. 13) to enhance learning (p. 4) and improve performance (pp. 6-7).
 * **Element 1 Theoretical Foundations**: Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of the contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and technology. (p. 242)


 * Description:** Artifact 1 (//[|List of Theorists on Google Docs]//) was created in 2009 after I thought about how I might organize what I was learning about theorists and theories in my courses. In almost all of my courses I pulled in information from lectures and books I was reading at the time into the Google Doc list. I have referenced this many times in my writing and I am still working on updating the list. Artifact 2 (//Annotated Bibliography)// was one of the assignments required in Dr. Heo's GDIT 703 Foundations of Instructional Technology course. We were required to write annotations based on two journals and two conference proceedings related educational technology.


 * Reflection:** There are many important strategies in being more efficient in scholarly writing. I still consult //[|Artifact 1 List of Theorists on Google Docs]//when I am reading, writing and researching. The Foundations of Instructional Technology course was instrumental in helping me to understand how to write annotated bibliographies. This allowed me to start a system for collecting annotated bibliographies each time I read journal articles that I can use in my dissertation. I am also grateful to Dr. Heo for pushing us very hard to write annotated bibliographies on a regular basis. This helped me discipline myself and now I am writing them and including them with citations I have created in Mendeley for my dissertation work. Artifact 2 represents one example in the series of annotated bibliographies. My colleagues have reported that the list of theorists that I developed has benefitted them in their own work and understanding.

Artifact 1 -[| List of Theorists on Google Docs] Artifact 2 - Annotated Bibliography ||
 * Evidence:**
 * **Element 2 Method:** Candidates apply research methodology to solving problems and enhancing practice. (p. 243)
 * **Element 2 Method:** Candidates apply research methodology to solving problems and enhancing practice. (p. 243)


 * Description: ** In Dr. Shank's Research Methods course (GREV 701), we were asked to generate three empirical questions outside of the field of education. Once we discussed this in a class discussion board, I completed a final course project that was designed to introduce research methods, models and processes and to challenge us to create a basic question that we wanted to research and to create a design to test it. I then shared my question and design with a partner and was asked to review hers. Artifact 1 - Empirical Research Design Report is the result of what I wrote about her research question and design.


 * Reflection: ** Many of Dr. Shank's assignments have had interesting twists in the expectations. Although the assignments were unpredictable, I felt relaxed when the assignments and course learning were circular. When I first started this assignment, I assumed that we would be creating our own question and design and evaluating our own. It took a lot of trust and open-mindedness when my partner was asked to create the assignment around my work. I am sure she probably felt the same way since we were not asked to carry out our own ideas to fruition. What this assignment taught me was the value of having someone else see your work from another perspective and I am very grateful that that approach was modeled for me. This professional growth area will influence my dissertation which includes a qualitative focus.

Artifact 1 - [|Empirical Research Design Report] ||
 * Evidence: **
 * **Element 3 Assessing/Evaluation**: Candidates apply formal inquiry strategies in assessing and evaluating processes and resources for learning and performance. (p.203)
 * **Element 3 Assessing/Evaluation**: Candidates apply formal inquiry strategies in assessing and evaluating processes and resources for learning and performance. (p.203)


 * Description:** In 2009 I started exploring the Poll Everywhere tool in assessing conference audience's knowledge on specific resources and topics related to their practice. Artifact 1 includes a presentation that I did with a colleague with the Poll Everywhere tool embedded. We asked the audience to use their mobile devices to respond to this question: "Why would an art teacher want to have an online web space?" When we evaluated the responses, we directed our presentation material around their responses and needs.


 * Reflection:** Using the Poll Everywhere tool was very informative to capture audience opinions and information very quickly. It really helps me to know how the audience is processing content information so that I know where to direct the rest of the presentation material. I look forward to exploring other ways of surveying live audiences through mobile devices. This area of professional growth influenced the teachers to consider how devices and polling tools can be relevant tools in their classrooms with students.

Artifact 1- [|Poll Everywhere Assessment Embedded in Presentation - The Online Art Room Part 1: Web Presence] (see slide 3) ||
 * Evidence:**
 * **Element 4 Ethics**: Candidates conduct research and practice using professionally accepted (p. 296) and institutional review board (p. 297) guidelines and procedures.
 * **Element 4 Ethics**: Candidates conduct research and practice using professionally accepted (p. 296) and institutional review board (p. 297) guidelines and procedures.

// //is used in the 3 districts participating in Art in Action Program in order to allow students to be included around arts integration work.
 * Reflection: **Considering //[|Tap No. 41, The Use of Human Subjects in Research] //(Artifact 1), I am very sensitive to the issue of not including any private information even outside of the college requirements in my other consulting work. For example, when I consult I have to remind many directors of projects not to include any names or contacts in interviews for assessment purposes in any project work. Artifact 2 -


 * Description: **Even though Artifact 1 is related to human subjects related to dissertation projects, independent study projects and course projects, I still consider this in consulting work as the information is valuable to share with others. Because my dissertation proposal includes looking at philosophical inquiry looking at the nature of a specific topic rather than focusing on a study with individuals, so far Artifact 1 doesn't seem to be as much of an issue. However, I will be working closely with my dissertation chair to make sure that I follow guidelines very closely.

Artifact 1 - [|Tap No. 41, The Use of Human Subjects in Research] Artifact 2 - ||
 * <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12px;">Evidence: **
 * Go to Next Section - Coursework <span style="background-color: white; display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">Go Back to AECT Standard 4 Page <span style="background-color: white; display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">Go Back to Portfolio Page ||
 * // Copyright //// 2012 Camille Dempsey // ||