AECT+Standard+2


 * AECT Standard 2 (Content Pedagogy): Candidates will be encouraged to grow as practitioners within a supportive community of practice that enables them to demonstrate effective implementation of educational technologies based on content pedagogy.**
 * **Element 1 - Creating -** Candidates will apply content pedagogy to create appropriate applications of processes and technologies to the improvement of learning. (p. 1)

**Description:** In the summer of 2011, Dr. Judi Harris and Dr. Mark Hofer invited me to collaborate in creating a Visual Arts Activity Type Taxonomy in conjunction with the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework (see //Artifact 1 -// //First Draft of TPACK Visual Arts Activity Types//). The process included a literature review in visual arts activities for student learning. This review included over 60 articles and books that involve student activities in the visual arts. This work may help arts teachers and other teachers interested in planning student art activities related to improving learning outcomes involving technology. The first draft pulling elements from the literature review has been completed after working with Dr. Hofer and Dr. Harris and working at the College of William & Mary for a three day period in late March 2012. Sixty-three+ visual arts activity types were identified. The next phase of the work includes examples of the activity types along with suggested technologies. I envision learning outcomes being constructed in conjunction with the visual arts activity type taxonomy, which would create much needed guidelines for arts and non-arts teachers to consider with students. This work is needed in both the educational technology and art education disciplines in supporting student learning and pedagogy. Since the work will be released under a Creative Commons license upon completion, the work will be accessible to those who may need them.

**Reflection:** This experience gave me the opportunity to refine my research and writing skills in the area of visual arts and instructional technology. I am grateful to Judi and Mark (and the College of William & Mary) since my expenses related to travel and other costs were covered for me to do the work. They also offered me first authorship in the area of any work created as a result of our collaboration, suggested that I consider publishing an article about the new visual arts learning activity types, and to present this work at ed tech conferences and other field journals. This summer we may collaborate on an article related to the next wave of activity types that will be completed by that time. My professional work in this area has helped teachers through various online communities to share ideas related to the TPACK visual arts activity types through professional networks.

**Evidence:** Artifact 1 - First Draft of TPACK Visual Arts Activity Types [|(Soon the final draft of the Visual Arts Activity Types will be located here)] ||
 * **Element 2 - Using -** Candidates will implement appropriate educational technologies based on content pedagogy. (p. 141)
 * **Element 2 - Using -** Candidates will implement appropriate educational technologies based on content pedagogy. (p. 141)


 * Description: ** In October of 2010 I co-presented a Pennsylvania Art Education Association art conference session using Avermedia software and digital pens with the audience (see Artifact 1 - //[|Art in The Digital Garden: Cultivating Best Practices in Technology Integration and Art Presentation]).// Although the presentation dealt with the topic of educational technologies and art content using the metaphor of a digital garden, the use of the digital pens helped support the audience's responses to some of the topics presented. For example, we asked them to circle the best answer listed considering the question, "What is TPACK?" We also encouraged them to create their own metaphors for things that grow in a digital garden and they responded by draw them in the picture on slide 9. My colleague and I described our experiences in using specific tools (see slide 18) in conjunction with sharing examples of arts content and pedagogy. Participants used the digital pens to circle tools that they had some experience with as well while some offered their own ideas of what they had done with them. Other topics we addressed in conjunction with the topic was considering what appropriate educational technologies could offer arts content learning for students and pedagogy. Finally we also shared P. Ertmer's work on first-order and second-order barriers to technology integration in addition to sharing specific ideas for the art educator's digital garden (around Partnership for 21st century skills, the arts and technology). The LoTi framework was also shared as a way to gauge the H.E.A.T. level of using appropriate educational technologies in the art classroom.


 * Reflection: ** I am sometimes skeptical of presentations that use technology tools sponsored by various companies. This is because in some cases these tools seem to get in the way of the material being presented. It was very successful however as art teachers did more to interact with aspects of the presentation with the interactive digital pens than we anticipated. We also received a lot of feedback on our choice to focus mostly on images and less on text heavy presentation slides which some expressed were not as effective. One person commented that since there were images that were open, that it encouraged them to be more creative and and make drawings and notations on those slides with the digital pens. The professional knowledge gained through sharing this information allowed participants to consider new approaches in engaging students through interactive technology tools.

Artifact 1 - [|Art in The Digital Garden: Cultivating Best Practices in Technology Integration and Art Presentation] ||
 * Evidence: **
 * **Element 3 - Assessing/Evaluation** - Candidates will demonstrate an inquiry process that evaluates the adequacy of learning, instruction and the implementation of educational technologies. (p. 116-117)
 * **Element 3 - Assessing/Evaluation** - Candidates will demonstrate an inquiry process that evaluates the adequacy of learning, instruction and the implementation of educational technologies. (p. 116-117)


 * Description:** In May 2009 I started a blog to document my inquiry and learning around educational technology, leadership, the arts and coursework (see Artifact 1 - [|Adventures in the Digital Garden Blog]). In [|one particular post,] I documented my inquiry related to my trip to ISTE when I visited the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, the oldest school in the country, by creating digital iPad drawings based on works from the museum's collection. I also described approaches to learning and instruction at other ISTE sessions such as the "Follow We Project" that documents children's stuffed animals that travel the globe to bring people together through the use of web 2.0 tools. The blog post references the "iPads and Inquiry for Arts Educators" co-presentation that I was involved in there as well. Artifact 2 - [|Twitter Inquiry Documentation] includes my tweet history of all things related to education, arts learning and instruction, leadership and educational technology.


 * Reflection:** Blogging and tweeting my inquiry processes has been a great experience in documentating my learning. They have also allowed me to combine my own reflections in combination with what I have learned in my coursework while sharing this process with others. Although I tweet more often than I blog, I would like to get back to blogging when I am not pre-occupied with my dissertation proposal and other scholarly endeavors. My professional growth in this area has helped my students create their own reflective practice through modeling in my own work.

Artifact 1 - [|Adventures in the Digital Garden Blog] Artifact 2 - [|Twitter Inquiry Documentation] ||
 * Evidence:**
 * **Element 4 - Management -** Candidates will manage appropriate technological processes and resources to provide supportive learning communities, create flexible and diverse learning environments, and develop and demonstrate content pedagogy. (p. 175-193)
 * **Element 4 - Management -** Candidates will manage appropriate technological processes and resources to provide supportive learning communities, create flexible and diverse learning environments, and develop and demonstrate content pedagogy. (p. 175-193)


 * Description: ** In the fall of 2010, 10 members of the faculty and co-directors in the ArtEducator2.0 federal project decided to collaborate in a supportive professional learning community blog. The purpose of the blog was to blog about issues related to technology tools, processes and approaches to content and pedagogy that could impact the diverse group of arts teachers we worked with during that time (see Artifact 1 - //[|Arts Ed Tech Blog Posts).]// Some of the topics I have written about have included: iPad apps & children's creativity, issues around web2.0 tools, updates on iPad apps, barriers to technology integration and professional development around the arts and technology.


 * Reflection: ** I learned a lot in this group as I wrote and collaborated with my other colleagues. Several collaborative inquiry teacher groups emerged based on the model we used. The teachers blogged about very diverse learning within their groups and supported one another as the faculty gently guided the process. As a faculty member I learned a lot about how to support teachers in their own learning processes while challenging the process where necessary. My professional learning in this area allowed the teachers to develop confidence in their own learning and professional practices.

Artifact 1 - [|Arts Ed Tech Blog Posts] ||
 * Evidence: **
 * **Element 5 - Ethics -** Candidates will design and select media and technology that emphasizes the diversity of our society as a multicultural community. (p. 296)
 * **Element 5 - Ethics -** Candidates will design and select media and technology that emphasizes the diversity of our society as a multicultural community. (p. 296)


 * Description:** Artifact 1 (//[|Education in a Global Society paper)]// was an assignment in Dr. Martin's Education in a Global Society course. We were required to research issues related to change, cultural ignorance and the need for comparative education considering educational technology. I learned a lot by reading Mazurek & Winzer's //Schooling Around The World// and making connections between their work and educational technology.


 * Reflection:** This assignment really opened my eyes to the multicultural issues that are related to the need for comparative education. Specifically exploring educational systems in relationship to how they relate to social structures is important to look at cross-culturally in order to learn about what works and what doesn't within a particular culture. Being able to view issues from different perspectives, along with applying this knowledge in different cultures who handle digital content and educational concerns of children differently is very important. My professional learning growth in this area allowed me to share more global perspectives with the teachers I work with as they created their professional development plans.

Artifact 1 - [|Education in a Global Society paper] || Go to Next Section - AECT Standard 3 Page Go Back to AECT Standard 1 PageGo Back to Portfolio Page
 * Evidence:**

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