April 1998
Many educational institutions are moving toward the integration of technology into education. These moves need careful consideration. Each new medium for learning and teaching has unique strengths and weaknesses. These often require new interactional frameworks to support powerful learning in the new medium. In this paper, we consider several new interactional frameworks which engage learners in teleapprenticeships, providing active involvement in the situation of practice using telecommunications. These new frameworks pose challenges for evaluation, some of which can be addressed with the same new technologies. We describe here computer-supported collaborative evaluation (CSCE), in which students and teachers jointly engage in the collaborative construction of electronic portfolios which represent the accomplished learning. We describe some of the problems that have arisen in our implementation of these CSCE environments, and describe ways in which we plan to deal with these problems.
In the College of Education at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, we have been developing, implementing and evaluating new frameworks for using technologies to improve teacher education. Over the past several years, we have been exploring ways to create new connections of mutual benefit between the university context and the K-12 context, frameworks we call "Teaching Teleapprenticeships" (Levin, Riel, Miyake, & Cohen, 1987; Levin, Waugh, Brown, & Clift, 1994; Thurston, Secaras, & Levin, 1996; Levin & Waugh, 1998). We are integrating the best of these Teaching Teleapprenticeship frameworks into our undergraduate teacher preparation program, as part of an overall redesign by our College. The redesign process specifies that technology be integrated as a "strand" throughout the two years of teacher education courses, rather than offered as a stand-alone course. The Teaching Teleapprenticeship frameworks generally involve extended activities or projects, rather than conventional course units. This creates challenges for evaluation.
In addition, the state of Illinois has been moving toward the adoption of the ISTE/NCATE technology competencies. If done in a conventional way using paper, folders and files, there would be major difficulties in managing the information flow across multiple faculty members and multiple courses over multiple years.
In response to all these changes, we've been exploring uses of new technologies to support collaborative evaluation, especially portfolio-based assessments that go beyond the conventional computer-based quizzes or tests. We have been exploring the use of the World-Wide Web to provide computer support for an interactive collaborative evaluation process, a process that supports a rich set of interactions between students and faculty that result in the construction of portfolios representing student learning.
We have implemented a set of web pages that display a set of competencies for students, show their current progress in accomplishing them, and that link to a set of forms to allow the students to provide evidence that they have accomplished selected competencies. The student submissions are stored in a database and the students' pages are updated from the database so they reflect their current state of accomplishment. The student pages can be viewed at <http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/tcd/log235.html>
Once the students submit evidence of accomplishment, then faculty members responsible for evaluating the group of students use a similar set of web pages to see where the students are, to examine their evidence for accomplishment, to make a decision about whether the evidence is adequate, and to provide feedback to the students. The faculty pages can be viewed at <http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/tcd/fac235.html>. Icons are used to display for both the students and faculty their state of accomplishment, and actions by both are initiated by selecting the icons. Both students and faculty can see the successful accomplishments on any competency, which are retrieved from the database. This display of successful accomplishments is augmented each time a student's evidence is judged by a faculty member to be sufficient.
We have pilot tested this mechanism during the Spring 1997 with a dozen volunteers from a group of 40 of our elementary education teacher education programs. We will report on observations of use by these 12 students, results of a questionnaire of the volunteers, and in-depth interviews with four of the most active users of the mechanism. We will also report on similar data from the use of this mechanism by 45 students in an elementary education student teacher cohort group of 57 students during the fall of 1997. Based on this data, we will describe some of the implications for this kind of computer supported collaborative evaluation mechanism for computer supported collaborative learning more generally.
To deal with technology competencies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), we developed the Technology Competencies Database (TCD), a web-based resource being implemented in the undergraduate education program at the College of Education. In the fall semester of 1997, 57 senior-year undergraduates majoring in elementary education were introduced to the TCD as part of their coursework. The TCD offers students a chance to tell their professors what they know about aspects of educational technology, and gives the professors the chance to award credit to the students for their knowledge.
This paper describes a formative evaluation study of the process of implementing the TCD in our teacher education programs. Technical, educational and social issues relevant to the innovation are described, with attention given to the views of diverse stakeholders including teachers, students and the TCD designers. Conclusions and recommendations appearing in the study deal with a broad range of implementation issues within and beyond the immediate context of use.
NCATE is a Washington, DC-based coalition of 30 national organizations that sets standards for education schools and accredits about 500 teacher training programs nationwide (Bradley, 1997). Recently, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) recommended technology content guidelines to NCATE for programs in educational computing and teacher preparation. The ISTE guidelines encompass five general areas: 1) recommended foundations in technology for all teachers; 2) educational computing and technology literacy - endorsement; 3) secondary computer science education - endorsement; 4) secondary computer science education - bachelor's degree, and 5) educational computing and technology leadership - advanced program (ISTE, 1997). NCATE adopted these guidelines for use in the accreditation of teacher education programs beginning in the fall of 1998. The first area, "recommended foundations," lists eighteen competencies which all teacher education programs should address. These are divided into three categories: Basic Computer/Technology Operations and Concepts, Personal and Professional Use of Technology, and Application of Technology in Instruction. (A list of these competencies appears in the Appendix.)
In mid-September 1997, an NCATE task force released a 32-page
report warning that new teacher graduates are not being adequately
prepared to use technology in their teaching (Bradley, 1997; Guernsey,
1997). This report urges that technology topics be integrated
fully into the curricula of teacher training courses, rather than
being ignored or treated as an optional add-on. In addition,
the task force report urges NCATE to work with other professional
organizations to encourage education schools to use modern communications
technologies, and to identify and promote examples of exemplary
practices. Among other recommendations, one particularly relevant
to the efforts described in this paper is a suggestion that teacher
education programs post student portfolios for electronic review
(Bradley, 1997).
The TCD project is taking shape at a time of major change in the College of Education at UIUC. In fall 1998, two redesigned teacher education curricula (elementary and secondary education) will begin which will include both classroom work and extensive internship experiences in the public schools. All majors in elementary education will be placed in public schools as student teachers for their entire senior year. Secondary education students will not graduate as education majors at all--instead, they will be majors in the subject areas of their specializations, and will meet state certification requirements by minoring in the College of Education. These secondary education students will spend an intensive final semester engaged in two field placement settings--one in the middle grades and the other in high school.
Throughout this redesigned curricula, technology is to be a recurring strand within a spiral curriculum; junior- and senior-year students will explore educational technology issues as part of at least four courses within the College's curriculum. (The other recurring strands are "diversity," "special populations," and "evaluation.") Such an approach requires that students be made aware and encouraged to explore educational technology use in a systematic yet highly fluid manner. This need has led to our development of the Technology Competencies Database.
The Technology Competencies Database (TCD) is a web-based system that stores and retrieves information in a database, allowing users to update, change and delete information via web-browsing software. As of the spring of 1998, the resources required are a Power Macintosh computer, FileMaker Pro 3.0 database software running on the computer, WebStar 2.01 server software, and a WebStar add-on called Lasso, which allows information to be passed between FileMaker Pro and Internet web browsers.
The Year Long Project (YLP) is a pilot program for our newly redesigned elementary education curriculum. Students in the YLP spend two to three days a week teaching at public schools in the fall semester, and move to a five-day-per-week placement in the spring. In the spring of 1997, 40 YLP seniors were introduced to the Technology Competencies Database (TCD). Based on their experiences with the TCD, we modified the program and used it with another group of 57 YLP students in the fall and spring of 1997-98.
Using the TCD via web-browsing software, the students described how they met some of the competencies laid out by NCATE and ISTE. They also optionally provided a link to a web page with supporting information. The instructor used the TCD to respond to the students' descriptions, either by awarding credit or by requesting additional information. In addition to providing these means for individual student-teacher interaction across the network, users also could see successful completions of various competencies by other students; the result is a system which grows more useful as more users contribute to it, with standards that are operationally defined through use.
The TCD is intended to give students a way to communicate their experiences with instructional technologies to the faculty, and for the faculty to assess the students' accomplishments in these specific aspects of instructional technology. While many of the students' experiences might be gained through participation in courses in the teacher education program, this mechanism also permits students to earn credit for experiences gained through other means. Due to the large number of students in our programs and our need for multiple faculty to have simultaneous access to the students' records of performance, an on-line mechanism for student-teacher interaction and record keeping is proving to be the most efficient, effective and convenient means for infusing the technology strand through the courses in our programs.
TCD is a mechanism that can provide some essential structure to independent learning. One participating faculty member has suggested that the TCD might be made more flexible by having students nominate areas of technology expertise themselves, rather than responding to the list of competencies provided by ISTE/NCATE. Even in its present form, the faculty involved see the TCD as representing a portfolio approach, in that students are in control of the content they submit and they are creating a coherent summary of their work which may be used later as evidence of achievement.
During the spring semester of 1997, 13 competency areas were included in the TCD. These were the original set of standards recommended by ISTE/NCATE. (Changes made by ISTE/NCATE in mid-1997 resulted in 18 rather than 13 standards.) In the spring 1997 version of the TCD, students were rated as having achieved at one of three levels of accomplishment for each of the 13 competencies; in general, Level 1 represented basic familiarity with a competency, Level 2 indicated that the student had used the competency with elementary-school sessions, and Level 3 showed that the student teacher had made the competency an integral part of an extended set of lessons in the elementary school (B. Levin, 1996).
An evaluation of the TCD implementation in spring 1997 revealed strengths and weaknesses (Moore, 1997). On the positive side, students reported high interest in using the TCD, particularly because they thought it would prove useful in job searches. As negatives, students listed the slowness of the system (it has since been made considerably faster to use), and the long delays that many of them experienced between submitting information and receiving any response from their instructor.
Analysis of the TCD responses following the Spring 1997 semester showed that of the 40 students in the YLP, 12 volunteered to try the TCD. Of these 12, seven successfully completed at least one competency. Eight students had submitted descriptions which received no response from the instructor, and five students received feedback from the faculty member but did not respond to the instructor's requests for additional information about one or more of their descriptions. Twenty-five of the 39 competency/level combinations were attempted by any of the students.
These findings led to substantial revisions in the TCD over the summer. The TCD was updated to reflect the revised 18-competency version of the NCATE standards, and the three-level performance distinction was eliminated. In the current version of the TCD, students are asked to describe a single level of completion for each of the 18 competencies; the instructor is given the choice of withholding credit pending more information, awarding a rating of acceptable, or awarding a rating of exemplary.
In the fall of 1997, formative evaluation techniques were employed to seek an understanding of the diverse viewpoints of the various stakeholders involved in the implementation of the Technology Competencies Database project. Through these efforts, we gathered information from students and faculty members via surveys, personal interviews and direct observations. We then used this information to modify the design of the TCD throughout the semester. Although this departs from traditional research designs in which evaluators refrain from direct interference in the projects they are examining, we felt that the benefits of a hands-on approach outweighed any purity of purpose that might otherwise be achieved; that is, it was reasoned that if the purpose of evaluation is to inform practice, the greatest benefits would be achieved by applying the information gained as soon as possible, so that participants would not have to continue dealing with inefficiencies which might easily be remedied. Among the changes which resulted from this approach during the semester were improved instruction hand-out sheets and programming changes to maximize the speed of interacting with the database.
The evaluation conducted during the fall consisted of four main phases: 1) participant observations at the time of students' initial introduction to the TCD; 2) distribution, analysis and collection of surveys given to the students at the time of introduction; 3) interviews and discussions with a faculty member participating in the TCD project; 4) interviews with two students who used the TCD extensively. Each phase will be discussed below.
The students were introduced to the TCD in late September. At that time, forty students submitted responses for at least one competency area. This occurred despite remarkably slow response times from the network, owing to the large numbers of simultaneous users on what is essentially designed to be a one-at-a-time database program. (Particularly slow were page updates, which are made when users submit new information to the database. Each took about 20 seconds, so in cases where as many as fifteen users submitted requests almost simultaneously, the last requests in the sequence would take nearly 300 seconds, or five minutes, to be processed.)
Thirty of the 57 students returned surveys which were distributed to them at the time of their introduction to the system. In these surveys, they were asked to write briefly about their likes and dislikes regarding the TCD, about what changes they would like to see, about anything they found confusing, and about how they thought the TCD might be useful to them.
Fourteen students said they liked the overall operation of the TCD, with five reporting that it was user friendly, seven commenting on its ease of navigation, and two commenting that the directions were self explanatory. Four respondents commented favorably on the efficiency of using the TCD: one called it "effective," another reported that it was "not very time consuming," one appreciated being able to use it "on my own time," and one remarked favorably about being able to provide a narrative description of abilities.
The negative comments from students largely fell into two major categories. There were seventeen complaints about the speed of the system, and twelve about the wording of the competencies themselves. One respondent commented that it was difficult to decide what to write about, and another complained, "it's just another thing to do." Similarly, there were twelve requests that the standards be rewritten to make them less confusing, and four requests for faster programming. One student suggested that designers might explore "a more specific way of testing these skills," rather than relying on self-reporting by the students. In writing about what they found confusing, sixteen students commented on the language of the descriptions (they did not understand the wording of the competency statements.); four others were confused and irritated by a programming error which brought up an incorrect response page (the error was fixed immediately after the session).
Finally, in responding to how the TCD might prove useful, seventeen students commented that they hoped to show their records in job interviews or as a part of portfolios for potential employers to see. "It will make me more marketable," wrote one. Eleven responses dealt with personal goals; three students said the TCD would encourage them to learn more about computers, five saw it as a tool for self-assessment, and three said it helped them to realize what they didn't know. One student wrote that "meeting future national standards" was a useful goal.
As a result of the students' responses, two independent efforts were made to clarify the intent of the standards. The instructor of the YLP group prepared one set of descriptions to help the students understand the competencies. He distributed his comments to the students on paper. In addition, the authors of this paper also paraphrased and revised the statements and added these to the TCD via hyperlinked text. This duplication of effort was in part due to lack of communication between the authors and the instructor, but it resulted in the creation of two good sets of plain-language descriptions which may be combined for even better results. By going through this process, the instructor became more aware of the standards he would actually employ in deciding how to award credit to students.
Following the introduction of the TCD, the programmer met several times with the students' instructor to show how the system could be used efficiently, and to explore areas where the TCD might be improved. In general, the instructor spoke quite favorably about the TCD's ease of use, and about what it has enabled him to learn about his students' abilities. However, he expressed concern about finding ways to decrease the time required to evaluate responses. He devoted considerable effort to the job at times, as can be seen in e-mailed comments: "I worked for about 45 minutes on 10/15/97 to react to all YLP in section #2, who had responded to standard #1. I did not count, but I estimate 15-20 students in section #2 had noted something on some standard. I did not really refer to the responses I had created when reacting to section #1. Also found that I gave only one exceptional grade. Maybe I am becoming harder to please. The constant rereading of the standard and student responses certainly helps clear things up." Several days later, he wrote, "I have worked on standard #1 since 1:00 PM or so-Jim Buell dropped in and coached as I started. I then went on to do all YLPs' standard #1. That is, all of those who had entered something for standard #1. It is now 3:30 PM. I have not left my chair, but have had a steady stream of phone calls, visits, and secretarial interruptions. It is my opinion that I can get quite a bit done in a short amount of time if I stay with one standard and do this after hours. ... There are several do-it-agains and 3 exemplary judgments. They differ, but should have in common-more than we asked for. "
Through these efforts, the instructor completed the evaluation of one of the eighteen competencies for the thirty students who had attempted it, within four weeks of the time the students were introduced to the TCD. However, those thirty submissions were just one-fourth of the 120 which students had submitted up to that point. Owing to other demands on his time, the instructor was able to advance little in the task over the following month. By late November, nearly all students were still waiting for responses to descriptions they had entered as much as two months previously.
As solutions are being found to problems associated with access speed, information collection and usability, a key problem regarding feasibility of use has been discovered. It has become obvious that faculty would have a difficult time providing the optimal level of individualized feedback to students that the TCD is capable of enabling. The success of the TCD initiative will depend upon our discovering several acceptable models for assisting instructors in managing the effort involved in evaluating student submissions. Designers, instructors and users all agreed that having one professor evaluate fifty-seven students in eighteen different competency areas proved to be an unrealistic task.
This raises interesting questions about the role of evaluation in a student-centered resource like the TCD. At least one faculty member has considered the idea that students themselves be required to evaluate, or pre-evaluate, one another's completions of the competencies. However, students who have been presented with this idea have responded that they do not believe they would be qualified to judge one another's work. An alternative strategy might be to devote the time of a teaching assistant to this task; this, in fact, was suggested by two students interviewed for this study.
During the spring semester, we asked a graduate teaching assistant to help with the evaluation of the TCD submissions. She was asked to respond to those that were obviously exemplary, sufficient, or insufficient, and to pass on to the faculty member those that were more problematic. She report some of the same problems as the undergraduate students and the faculty member with understanding how the very generally worded competencies matched up with specific activities described by the students. She also found it easier to go through all those submissions for a given competency rather than evaluating all the submissions by a particular student or by evaluating submissions in the order they came in. However, the evaluation still took a substantial commitment of time, and all of the student submission were still not responded to in a timely manner.
Clearly, the barrier to evaluation is not technological but instead in the social organization of the evaluation. While the TCD framework was constructed to span the multiple courses that our undergraduate students take over two years, we have not yet reintegrated it into the specific courses that students take during that time. Our current effort is to work with the specific courses to identify which competencies are likely to be met in which course, and to make the accomplishment of those competencies part of the course structure. Then the evaluation of the submissions can be more naturally distributed across multiple faculty, and the work of submitting and evaluating become part of the normal course load for students and faculty.
One question that has been raised is how we can verify that students actually did what they described they did in their submissions to the TCD. One answer is that a faculty member would know in the same way that a faculty member knows for any other assignment turned in - they know about the students in their courses in some depth and can use that to evaluate whether a response to a particular assignment fits that knowledge. In addition, if the competencies were integrated into specific courses, then the faculty members could call upon students to expand upon what they'd written in class. This would not only provide a check on students, but would benefit the class more generally by bringing back to the class a variety of perspectives and accomplishments for a given competency.
In addition, the set of exemplary accomplishments can contribute to a high quality web resource that grows into something of value not only to the particular students and faculty, but to the educational world more generally. The collaborative evaluation creates a portfolio representing student work, it creates a portfolio representing the state of the whole class, and it can create a quality-controlled resource for the world more generally. We have found in many cases that exemplary student work has an impact far beyond the student, the class, the university, but is valued by teachers and students world-wide. In this computer-supported collaborative evaluation system, exemplary student work can easily be made available not only to other students and faculty in the same university, but that can be made available to a global audience.
New technologies support new learning and teaching frameworks such as teleapprenticeships. In implementing teaching teleapprenticeships in our teacher education program, we have found the need for new collaborative evaluation mechanisms. The convergence of calls for technology competencies and the need for alternative assessment mechanisms motivated the development and implementation of the Technology Competencies Database. We see this as a way to help students acquire a wide range of expertise with educational technologies, while at the same time providing them with the tools to support their development of electronic portfolios illustrating their expertise. While we have developed a system that supports students in their submission of evidence supporting their expertise, we still need to develop additional software tools and social frameworks to help faculty evaluate these submissions in a timely and efficient manner.
Bradley, A. (1997). NCATE told to emphasize technology. Education Week, 17(3) (Sept. 17).
Brehm, B., Moran, J., Bievenue, L., Andris, J., Handler, M., Levin, J., & Payne, A. (1998 in press). Integrating technology into teacher and administrator preparation programs: Five models in Illinois. IASCD Journal.
Guernsey, L. (1997). Education schools must incorporate technology into courses, report says. Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 10, 1997.
Handler, M. G., & Strudler, N. (1996). ISTE Standards: Issues of implementation. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(2), 16-23.
Levin, B. B. (1996). Using portfolios to fulfill ISTE/NCATE technology requirements for preservice teacher candidates. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 12(3), 13-20.
Levin, J. A., Riel, M., Miyake, N., & Cohen, M. (1987). Education on the electronic frontier: Teleapprenticeships in globally distributed educational contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 254-260.
Levin, J., Waugh, M., Brown, D., & Clift, R. (1994). Teaching Teleapprenticeships: A new organizational framework for improving teacher education using electronic networks. Journal of Machine-Mediated Learning, 4(2 & 3), 149-161.
Levin, J. A., & Waugh, M. L. (1998 in press). Teaching Teleapprenticeships: Frameworks for integrating technology into teacher education. Interactive Learning Environments.
Moore, J. (1997). Technology and the Year-Long Project. Unpublished report, Department of Educational Psychology, Champaign IL: University of Illinois.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Washington DC.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (April 1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. (OTA-EHR-616) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [Although the OTA report is out of print, it may be downloaded from the Web at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9541.html.]
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology. (March 1997). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington DC.
Thurston, Catherine O., Secaras, Evangeline, & Levin, James A. (1996). Teaching Teleapprenticeships: An innovative model for technology integration in teacher education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(5), [ONLINE] Available at <http://www.educ.ksu.edu/Projects/JRCE/v28-5/Thurston/article/main.htm>.
Zehr, M. (1997). Teaching the teachers. Education Week (Special Issue: Technology Counts) 17(11) (Nov. 10), 23-29.
This material is based upon work supported by a grant from the University of Illinois ALTHE program and by grants from IBHE and ISBE as part of the PIE-21 Project. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors. We would like to thank Karl Koenke and Shwu-yi Leu and the members of the Year Long Project for pilot testing the TCD.
James Levin is an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, 61820. Phone: 217/244-0537; Fax: 217/ 333-6662; E-mail Address: j-levin@uiuc.edu
James Buell is a Graduate Research Associate in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, 61820. Phone: 217/244-0537; E-mail Address: jbuell@uiuc.edu
Michael Waugh is an Associate Professor of Instructional Technology in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, 61820. Phone: 217/333-3676; Fax: 217/244-4572; E-mail Address: mwaugh@uiuc.edu
Recently, the International Society for Technology in Education has drafted several sets of competencies for teachers in training. The first set of 18 competencies, "Foundations," is intended for all undergraduate education students. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education has accepted the ISTE standards as goals for all teachers in training.
As part of your teacher training, you will have ongoing opportunities to assess your level of achievement in these competencies. You will be using the Technology Competencies Database (TCD) matrix, an information-gathering resource that runs on College of Education's web server. Using web-browsing software, you will be able to correspond with your instructors to describe how you have met various competency requirements, and to seek their approval. The TCD will let you build a personal record of your accomplishments, which may be of great use to you in later job searches and resume-building. The TCD will also help your teachers to lead a course that takes full account of your current knowledge and needs.
The TCD matrix is still in an evaluation phase. Throughout the course, we encourage your comments and suggestions about how to adapt it to suit your needs and interests.
Using the TCD matrix, you will be presented with descriptions of each of the 18 foundation competencies, and will be requested to write online about how you have met any or all of these. Supporting evidence may be given in the form of a URL, pointing toward your own home pages. Instructors will then have the opportunity to evaluate your efforts. Credit may be awarded in the form of a "gold-star" (or, for outstanding efforts, a "double star"); alternatively, you may be asked to revise your descriptions before credit is awarded.
Although you will use web browser software to build your personal matrix of competencies, you should get started with the process by looking over the competencies on the other side of this paper. Check off any competencies which you already have, and jot down a short description of how you have met them. Soon, you will have opportunities to enter this data into the TCD, so your teachers can see your answers and evaluate them.
Here's how to get started using the TCD matrix:
1. Professional studies culminating in the educational computing and technology literacy endorsement prepare candidates to use computers and related technologies in educational settings. All candidates seeking initial certification or endorsements in teacher preparation programs should have opportunities to meet the educational technology foundations standards.
1.1 Candidates will use computer systems to run software; to access, generate and manipulate data; and to publish results. They will also evaluate performance of hardware and software components of computer systems and apply basic troubleshooting strategies as needed.
| 1.1.1. Operate a multimedia computer system with related peripheral devices to successfully install and use a variety of software packages. |
|
| 1.1.2. Use terminology related to computers and technology appropriately in written and oral communications. |
|
| 1.1.3. Describe and implement basic troubleshooting techniques related to using a multimedia system with related peripheral devices. |
|
| 1.1.4. Use imaging devices such as scanners, digital cameras, and/or video cameras with computer systems and software. |
|
| 1.1.5. Demonstrate knowledge of uses of computers and technology in business, industry, and society. |
|
1.2 Candidates will apply tools for enhancing their own professional growth and productivity. They will use technology in communicating, collaborating, conducting research, and solving problems. In addition, they will plan and participate in activities that encourage lifelong learning and will promote equitable, ethical, and legal use of computer/technology resources.
| 1.2.1. Use productivity tools for word processing, database management, and spreadsheet applications. |
|
| 1.2.2. Apply productivity tools for creating multimedia presentations. |
|
| 1.2.3. Use computer-based technologies including telecommunications to access information and enhance personal and professional productivity. |
|
| 1.2.4. Use computers to support problem solving, data collection, information management, communications, presentations, and decision making. | |
| 1.2.5. Demonstrate awareness of resources for adaptive assistive devices for student with special needs. | |
| 1.2.6. Demonstrate knowledge of equity, ethics, legal, and human issues concerning use of computers and technology. | |
| 1.2.7. Identify computer and related technology resources for facilitating lifelong learning and emerging roles of the learner and the educator. |
|
| 1.2.8. Observe demonstrations or uses of broadcast instruction, audio/video conferencing, and other distant learning applications. |
1.3 Candidates will apply computers and related technologies to support instruction in their grade level and subject areas. They must plan and deliver instructional units that integrate a variety of software, applications, and learning tools. Lessons developed must reflect effective grouping and assessment strategies for diverse populations.
| 1.3.1. Explore, evaluate, and use computer/technology resources including applications, tools, educational software and associated documentation. |
|
| 1.3.2. Describe current instructional principles, research, and appropriate assessment practices as related to the use of computers and technology resources in the curriculum. | |
| 1.3.3. Design, deliver, and assess student learning activities that integrate computers/technology for a variety of student grouping strategies and for diverse student populations. |
|
| 1.3.4. Design student learning activities that foster equitable, ethical, and legal use of technology by students. | |
| 1.3.5. Practice responsible, ethical and legal use of technology, information, and software resources. |
Last updated: 1 September 1997 Created by Keith
Garrett; updated by Jim Levin, Ed Malczewski and Jim Buell.
