AECT+Standard+3


 * AECT Standards 3 (Learning Environments): In 1999, the National Research Council released its canonical synthesis of How People Learn, which was followed in 2006 by the more detailed Handbook of the Learning Sciences. These books are rich in their portrayals and examples of researched best practices. As noted in the Definitions (pp. 8, 243-245, 246), it is important for candidates to study these effective practices and use this research to inform the design of 21st century learning environments. This is important not only in creating new learning environments, but also in using educational technologies created by others. Candidates need to inform their adoptions by the principles, theories, and effective practices documented in the scholarly literature. (pp. 8-9, 168-169, 246) These findings help candidates understand why they need to use multiple forms of assessment (p. 53), including metacognitive supports that make visible the learner’s reflections and enable an instructor to provide scaffolding and guide revisions to improve student learning and reasoning. Managing such a learning environment requires that candidates know how to establish mechanisms (p. 190) for maintaining the technology infrastructure (p. 234) that learners interact with to improve learning and performance. (p. 238) Use of the technology needs to be ethical (p. 246). By teaching about copyright and fair use (p. 297), candidates need to help users understand that everything found on the Internet is not free. Learning environments need to value diversity (p. 10) by creating a community that values cultural differences (p. 296, 309), promotes caring for other people, and discourages use of the Internet for bullying, discrimination, or hateful practices that hurt individuals and harm society overall. **
 * **Element 1 - Creating -** Candidates create instructional design specifications based on learning principles and effective practices. (pp. 8, 243-245, 246)


 * Description:** Artifact 1 (//[|Current Research and Best Practices in Designing E-Learning Experiences Workshop]//) is a Prezi presentation that I created for a Mercyhurst College online learning workshop in June 2010. This presentation was based on the multimedia learning principles and e-learning design work of Clark and Mayer (2008).* Multimedia elements that I addressed were personalization effect, segmenting, contiguity, coherence, split attention effect, and modality principles. I was first exposed to this work in Dr. Heo's Courseware Design course (GDIT 705) (see Artifact 2 - //__ [|How Do People Learn from E-Courses?] __//for an example of a course presentation I completed). Other best practices related to distance learning that were included in this presentation were related to what I learned in Dr. Martin's Distance Learning Global Leadership Seminar (GDIT 711). This presentation also addressed specific topics such as optical online learning success, constructivist teaching strategies, establishing collaborative communities through transformative uses of technologies, instructor and learner comfort in e-learning and transactional distance. I also discussed specific wikis and blogs, podcasting, live blogs and broadcasting, conferencing and screencasting tools as w ell as web-based resources such as Google tools while relating them to multimedia principles and best practices.

*Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). // E-learning and The Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. //John San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons, Inc.


 * Reflection:** This work has informed much of the way I look at the design of multimedia design. After [|blogging]about the potential for combining multimedia principles with art elements and principles of design, I have realized that this work needs further development. One of my colleagues and I presented,// "Making beautiful pixels: Multimedia design meets art theory,"  // at the ISTE Conference in June 2012. My professional growth in this area has influenced teachers to consider the intersection between art theory and multimedia theory that appears to be absent from past ISTE conference proceedings. Some of the conference participants at the session reported that the information I shared would help them in making their presentations more "aesthetically" pleasing while another reported that "more of this kind of information is needed at ISTE" so that the content of the presentations they were viewing needed much improvement.

Artifact 1 - [|Current Research and Best Practices in Designing E-Learning Experiences Workshop] Artifact 2 - __ [|How Do People Learn from E-Courses? Course Presentation (based on Chapter 2 of Clark and Mayer)] __ ||
 * Evidence:**
 * **Element 2 - Using**- Candidates make professionally sound decisions in selecting appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning (pp. 122, 169) based on principles, theories, and effective practices. (pp. 8-9, 168-169, 246)
 * **Element 2 - Using**- Candidates make professionally sound decisions in selecting appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning (pp. 122, 169) based on principles, theories, and effective practices. (pp. 8-9, 168-169, 246)

Artifact 2 - [|Jean Piaget Course Presentation] was created as a requirement in Dr. Ford's Instructional Learning Theory Course (GDIT 714). We were required to present a specific theorist and appropriate theories to our class. This class was very effective in providing a comprehensive overview of educational principles and theories.
 * Description: ** In 2010 I helped co-create a workshop for induction-level teachers (see Artifact 1 - //[|Growing with Google District Induction Workshop]).// This workshop was created with the work of Malcolm Knowles and Andragogical learning theory in mind. Considering adult learning, we felt it was important that the teachers made decisions about what they wanted to learn based on the possibilities of menu items we set up on a wiki. We felt it was important to model effective practices and options for Google Tools, while guiding the teachers through the options as they selected what they needed. The essential questions that the workshop was based on included:
 * Which Google Tools can help us to be more effective in our teaching and learning practices?
 * How can Google Tools be used collaboratively to transform teaching and learning experiences?
 * How can specific Google Tools be used creatively in classroom instruction?
 * How can specific Google Tools be used to organize documents, presentations and other types of materials?
 * How can specific Google Tools be used to create efficiency in teaching and learning?
 * How can Google Tools create rich documentation of teaching and learning?

**Reflection:** Teachers taking the workshop made many different choices in their learning during the workshop. Some chose to set up Google Calendars for their teaching schedules, while others worked on curriculum templates in Google Docs. It was rewarding to see teachers enjoying the process of learning and exploring what was relevant for them. Many teachers seemed to appreciate having some control over what they were learning and expressed that they did not usually have much choice. After co-facilitating this style of workshop I am not sure i can lead the "sit and get" style that many teachers have expressed are not effective for them. I personally learn much more when I can explore on my own and recognize that those that I might be leading deserve the same option in directing their learning as well. My professional growth in this area influenced teachers to consider how they might differentiate technology content with their own students.

**Evidence:** Artifact 1 **-** [|Growing with Google District Induction Workshop] Artifact 2 - [|Jean Piaget Course Presentation] (Instructional Learning Theory, GDIT 715) ||
 * **Element 3 - Assessing/Evaluation**- Candidates use multiple assessment strategies (p. 53) to collect data for informing decisions to improve instructional practice and student results. (pp. 5-6)
 * **Element 3 - Assessing/Evaluation**- Candidates use multiple assessment strategies (p. 53) to collect data for informing decisions to improve instructional practice and student results. (pp. 5-6)


 * Description:** Artifact 1 - //ArtsEducator2.0 Year 2 Post Test & Survery Form// and Artifact 2 - //Artseducator2.0 Year 4 Pre and Post Test Form//were created by the evaluator and included questions generated by the project faculty. I was responsible for generating ideas for the technology-related questions. This data collected in the pre-assessments was used to drive the course content over a nine-month period related to the federal grant project goals. It also helped to guide instructional practice by revealing important professional development areas that needed to be addressed with the teachers. Artifact 3 - //Technology Class Session Summative Assessment was used in another federal project (i.e. Art in Action program) and was used to collect information about the technology class at Edinboro University.//


 * Reflection:** I am very grateful to have worked with other colleagues and the evaluators in both projects that I have been working in... What I have learned about evaluation there, in addition to Dr. Kush's Instrument Design course (GREV 550) and Dr. Shank's Qualitative Research Methods I course (GREV 721), have really helped inform my current work in the WeTeach project. My professional growth in this area allowed the director of the project to consider research areas that were important to consider in the project such as teacher voice and student engagement.

Artifact 1 - ArtsEducator2.0 Year 2 Post Test & Survery Form Artifact 2 - Artseducator2.0 Year 4 Pre and Post Test Form Artifact 3 - Technology Class Session Summative Assessment ||
 * Evidence:**
 * **Element 4 - Managing**- Candidates establish mechanisms (p. 190) for maintaining the technology infrastructure (p. 234) that learners interact with to improve learning and performance.
 * **Element 4 - Managing**- Candidates establish mechanisms (p. 190) for maintaining the technology infrastructure (p. 234) that learners interact with to improve learning and performance.


 * Description: ** In the fall of 2010 I began work as a technology specialist in the Art in Action Program through ArtsErie. I was responsible for generating a policy that outlined responsible uses of technologies between the three districts impacted by the program's work (see Artifact 1 - //Technology Responsible Use Policy for Art in Action Program).// This policy was a compilation of elements from the three district's district technology policies combined with the core planning team's goals around the possibilities for improved learning and performance with technology. I was also responsible for building and maintaining the Art in Action site which now has over 480+ pages and 85+ collaborators working in different capacities there (see Artifact 2 - //Art in Action Technology Site).// Collaborators have had many different needs in interacting in the virtual space as well as using the information to interact and collaborate in real time residency work. This necessitated a series of directions for how to use specific technology tools in conjunction with the wiki site (See Artifact 3 - //Art in Action Technology How-Tos).//


 * Reflection: ** It can be a daunting task overseeing a wiki that has grown so large. Last year because the wiki had started to look a but messy due to the nature of learning, it was decided to do a design overhaul. Much of the educational content was moved which meant I needed to make recommendations for the team on what pages might need to be in closer proximity and more explicit to specific types of visitors (such as administrators, teachers, specialists, parents, students, etc.). I have learned a lot about the nature of learning in collaborative websites and witnessed the tension that can happen between educational technology content and website design from the perspective of a graphic designer. This has been an area I have needed to monitor very closely to make sure that the collaborators are all being honored for their contributions in this learning space. It has been a great learning challenge to continue to build specific content around directions for how-to do things with the site that help document their learning and performance. For example, teaching artists and teachers in the project have learned how to load videos, picture galleries and add descriptions to residency pages which has been very valuable in promoting the project's learning goals. My professional growth in this area has helped to improve the responsible use of technology in the Art in Action Program. Teachers, administrators and the planning team were more aligned in understanding the importance and use of the policy.

Artifact 1 - Technology Responsible Use Policy for Art in Action Program Artifact 2 - Art in Action Technology Site Artifact 3 - Art in Action Technology How-Tos ||
 * Evidence: **
 * **Element 5 - Ethics**- Candidates foster a learning environment in which ethics guide practice that promotes health, safety, best practice (p. 246), and respect for copyright and Fair Use. (p. 3)
 * **Element 5 - Ethics**- Candidates foster a learning environment in which ethics guide practice that promotes health, safety, best practice (p. 246), and respect for copyright and Fair Use. (p. 3)


 * Description:** Artifact 1 - (i.e. //Technology Responsible Use Policy for Art in Action Program)// was created in both a Google Doc as well as in a Prezi which are both embedded or linked in the program wiki. It includes elements related to securing student releases and seeking teacher and administrator permission before anyone in the project takes any pictures or records any documentation of children on the wiki. Issues around copyright and fair use are also included in the policy which has been shared in two different venues. Artifact 2 - //What Else Do We Want to Know?// includes more detailed information about taking pictures and video of student work as well as what information not to include with any media.


 * Reflection:** This is an area I feel very strongly about as including any information about minors on websites can be a violation of school district policy. Even though the Art in Action Project is proactive in asking teachers to secure parental/guardian permissions around student work being included in documentation, this is always challenging. Some of the children that shine the most in the program residency work are some of the same ones that cannot be included in documentation which seems interesting. I feel very strongly that I need to address these issues in the work that I do. My professional growth in this area has helped participants be more proactive with regard to the legal and ethical issues related to violating the technology policies.

Artifact 1 - Technology Responsible Use Policy for Art in Action Program Artifact 2 - What Else Do We Want to Know? Wiki Page ||
 * Evidence:**
 * **Element 6 - Diversity of Learners**- Candidates facilitate a learning community that empowers learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. (p. 10)
 * **Element 6 - Diversity of Learners**- Candidates facilitate a learning community that empowers learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. (p. 10)


 * Description: ** The largest learning community that I am currently facilitating is a group of 85+ elementary teachers, art and music teachers, teaching artists (in visual arts, drama, dance, poetry and music), administrators, content specialists, project directors, community and planning committee members who are all exploring and collaborating in the Art in Action wiki. Because there is tremendous diversity within this community, it has been necessary to create diverse learning pathways that honor the different abilities, characteristics and backgrounds of those collaborating there. Artifact 1 (i.e. //Differentiated Learning and Instruction Activities Resource Page ) // was set up to help guide different the different learning levels through navigating and collaborating within the wiki.


 * Reflection: ** The resources that I have built that are self-directed for the site's learners and explorers have been very successful in moving them forward. It has been very important to have menu options for everyone to allow for diversity in how people explore and collaborate within the site. It can be a daunting task however monitoring that what is built by collaborators is balanced, considering all the various skill levels. This year the grant budget has been limited in the area of educational technology so it can be challenging to provide so much support when there are financial constraints. My professional growth in this area allowed participants to differentiate their own needs around the topic of differentiated learning, as well as their students.

Artifact 1 - Differentiated Learning and Instruction Activities Resource Page || Go to Next Section - AECT Standard 4 Page Go Back to AECT Standard 2 PageGo Back to Portfolio Page
 * Evidence: **

// Copyright //// 2012 Camille Dempsey //