Action Research Project update

Action Research Project Title: The Impact of CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) on TELPAS Ratings for Elementary ELLs

Blog URL: http://shaunydaun.blogspot.com/

Number of AR Project Documented Hours: 10

AR Project Summary (at least 250 words):This project was completed in May 2011.  I only have to write up the final report.  I completed all of the activities on my action research plan and I have written up some results and created tables based on the data.  I have even already communicated the results of my study, in table form, to my Bilingual Director and MIS.  This activity has led me to believe that my future career will involve language acquisition and computer assisted language learning.  I have see the impact of the program I chose to study and I realize the parts of the program that don’t have any effect on student learning.  I will be able to help a software developer in creating truly impactful language programs due to this experience.  I only have to write up the results to be completed with this project. 

The conclusion I and my Bilingual Director have come to is that the CALL I studied was really only having an impact on the youngest students we assigned to it.  The group who move the most, according to TELPAS results, was 2^nd graders and new comers.  This has helped us decide that this year all second grade ELLs will be assigned to the program.  No third and fourth graders.  Last year we assigned only newcomers to the program, along with all low level third and fourth grade students.  Those third and fourth graders had the highest incidence of non-movement on TELPAS, and so this year we won’t assign them to the program.  Hopefully we will get more use out of the program if we assign the younger students in larger numbers. 

September 2012

I have completed half of the courses required for this degree and I am ready to take the Principals Competency Exam.  I believe that I will register to take the January 4th administration of the test.  I am studying now.  I have updated my e-portfolio to include the most recent versions of my course embedded activities and my internship activities.  Everything is going smoothly and I feel I am being well prepared to serve students both as a leader in Educational Technology and as a Principal.  Please see my updates on my e-portfolio listed to the right. 

Course Reflection 5364

Course Reflection 5364

This course has been a great learning opportunity for me.  It was exciting to work with such a diverse group of educators. Constructivism, as described by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (1999), played a key role in the success that I had in this course.  The team that I worked with was a flexible group of teachers who always pulled their own weight and the final product reflects their commitment to excellence.  We each brought a different skill set and we were able to figure out the best way to highlight each person’s abilities.  This experience is in contrast to the opinion I held prior to the course.  I thought it would be too difficult to work with others across long distances and with such diverse backgrounds.  I now see the importance of collaborating with a wide variety of stakeholders to get a more thorough product.

The incorporation of a UDL (Rose and Meyer, 2012) lesson plan in this course’s assignments helped me to understand how to modify basic lessons for diverse student populations.  The lessons we created can be seen on our group collaboration site. https://sites.google.com/site/fivestartexcollaboration/

The google doc we created in which to collaborate allowed us to practice goal setting.  I learned during this course that setting a goal and identifying roles of the team early on are vital to successful completion of the task.

I think that the most impactful information I gained in this course is based on the work of Pitler (2005).  He described in great detail the need for buy in and support from administrators.  I see this most clearly in my work with teachers on lesson planning and curriculum development.  Because my administrators don’t see the value of technology, the teachers and students haven’t seen the full potential of all the technology we have in the building.  We owe it to our students to give them every experience possible while they are in our care (Page, 2002).

I learn best by seeing an example of what is expected.  This course helped me to be successful by providing clear rubrics for what is expected during each part of the assignments.  I was able to check myself against the rubrics each week and see that I was fulfilling the expectations of my professor.  I checked my assignment grade as soon as possible so that I could revamp next week’s assignment based on what the comments of my professor and associate were. 

In addition to the fact that I am a new believer in constructivism, which I mentioned previously, I feel that now I have a new outlook on how to modify lessons to incorporate technology.  My goal for this course was to learn how to integrate technology seamlessly and I reached my goal.  Through careful study and listening to the experiences of my professor and classmates, I was able to obtain new techniques which allow me to use technology as the basis of lesson plans, not in addition to lesson plans.  I previously thought that teachers should be first planning the lesson and the objectives without technology and then incorporating it into the lesson.  Now I know that technology products and processes can support the development of the lesson plan by giving a framework into which the lesson is built.  Using technology as the support for the lesson, instead of in addition to the lesson, allows the teacher to become more effective and teach the TEKS for technology at the same time as the TEKS for their core-subject.  This requires a change on the part of administrators in that they should understand this personally.  I hope that the change I can affect on my campus is just that; I would like to be the voice of experience for my teachers and my principal.  I can show them through my example how much more deeply we can affect our students’ learning (Schacter, 1999). 

Page, M.S. (2002). Technology-Enriched Classrooms: Effects on Students of Low Socioeconomic Status.  Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (4), 389-409.  Retrieved October 5, 2009 from the International Society of Education at http://www.iste.org/AM/Templane.cfm?Section=Number_4_Summer_20021&Template=/MembersOnly.cfn&ContentFileID=830

Pitler, H. (2005). McRel technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program final report (Contract Number ED-01-CO-0006). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reporduction Service No. ED486685) Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp

?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED486685&ERICExtSearc h_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED486685.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology web site, http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, (1999). Learning as a personal event: A brief introduction to constructivism. http://www.sedl.org/pubs/tec26/intro2c.html

Week 5 EDLD 5364

“Some students also see friends who are successful and attribute their success to outside factors.  They might even have the misconception that people of a certain background excel in a particular curricular area.  By relying on a stereotype, these students ignore the effort other students put into doing well.  The research indicates, however, that students can change their beliefs and make a connection between effort and achievement. (Pitler, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007)”

The quote highlights the importance of teaching students about the relationship between effort and achievement.  The techniques discussed in this reading include using tables and spreadsheets to chart out the relationship between self assessment via rubric and grades received for work.  I like the idea of using technology in areas like this because it can help a student see their behavior in a new light. 

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pg. 156

Week 4 EDLD 5364

“Although teachers perhaps represent the "front line" for the use of technology to improve student learning, a substantive body of research strongly points to the fact that training that does not include a school leadership component will be ineffective. According to Coley, Cradler, and Engel (1997), "research on the adoption of innovations in schools consistently points to the key role of administrators in successful implementation" (p. 5). Byrom (1998) identifies the leadership and vision that these administrators bring to the table, as they relate to technology integration, as the single most important factor affecting the successful integration of technology. Likewise, teachers’ attitudes are strongly impacted by school administrators’ support. Administrators need training "in how to provide adequate planning time and observe, coach, and reward teachers in the integration of computers into their instructional strategies." Pitler, 2005

As I see more and more technology present in the school building, I see less and less focus on technology from the leadership. I think that my principal thinks that putting kids on a program in the lab for 45 minutes a week meets their needs. This year, the administration on my campus actually removed the previously required "technology product" from the weekly lesson plan template. The justification was that the teachers are "too busy" to have to think up a product each week. I hope to see leaders in the near future who are technologically savy and supportive of integrating technology into the classroom. Otherwise we are going to see a lot of good expensive equipment go to waste.

Pitler, H. (2005). McRel technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program final report (Contract Number ED-01-CO-0006). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reporduction Service No. ED486685) Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp ?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED486685&ERICExtSearc h_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED486685.

Week 3 Post EDLD 5364

"Affect is the fuel that students bring to the classroom, connecting them to the "why" of learning. (Rose and Meyer, 2002)"

The more I read about UDL the more I understand why it impacts student learning so much. We often use curricula as a one size fits all solution for teaching. I loved the tool that Rose and Meyer included in Chapter 6 of their book, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age. Their "Curriculum Barriers Tool" showed me how to analyze the barriers I might be putting in the way of student success. I can now evaluate the curriculum I am using and modify it to fit the needs of my students. This will allow them to maintain a higher affective relationship with the information I am presenting to them.

David H. Rose & Anne Meyer, 2002. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning.ASCD

Week 2 EDLD 5364

Setting instructional goals narrows what students focus on (Pitler et al, pg. 17).  Teachers who set instructional goals that can be personalized by the students is helping them to stay engaged in the process of learning.  Some tools for goal setting are word processing and software that allow for personalization.  A teacher can save a template of a KWL chart and then have each student save their own version of the learning objectives.  These digital plans can be shared with parents and can help the student to stay focused on the end result (Pitler  et al, pg. 20).  Students who come from a low socioeconomic, at-risk, or other disadvantaged background report higher satisfaction and motivation from education that integrates technology.  Schools who have integrated technology into the classroom have been able to increase their graduation rates (Page, 2002).

There are many hypotheses for what could be causing this report in higher self esteem.  Page (2002) suggests that perhaps these students view technology as a novelty since they may not have access to it at home.  My idea is that perhaps the students see that they can achieve through this medium and that they are relieved from the social interactions that happen between regular classroom teachers and students who are perceived to be low achieving.  Another possibility is that students see technology as a viable field of work for them in the future and they want to take advantage of the education that is presented about technology or using technology.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online at the Center for Applied Special Technology web site, http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

Page, M.S. (2002). Technology-Enriched Classrooms: Effects on Students of Low Socioeconomic Status.  Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (4), 389-409.  Retrieved October 5, 2009 from the International Society of Education at http://www.iste.org/AM/Templane.cfm?Section=Number_4_Summer_20021&Template=/MembersOnly.cfn&ContentFileID=830