Narrative for master of education portfolio

NARRATIVE FOR MASTER OF EDUCATION PORTFOLIO 1

Narrative for Master of Education Portfolio:

Curriculum and Instructional Technology

Colleen Ites

Iowa State University

Curriculum and Instruction Distance Program

Master of Education in Curriculum and Instructional Technology

2008-2011 Cohort Portfolio

2 April 2011


INTRODUCTION:

“I shall be telling this with a sigh -

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference”

~ Robert Frost

While Frost and I likely interpret this poem differently, as I reflect on my time in the

Cohort I find myself returning again and again to this quote. American education is now at a

crossroads with two choices for the future: teaching students the kind of mind-skills and core

competencies necessary to thrive and survive in an uncertain future, or following the skill and

drill of basic information found when standardized assessments control instruction. In 2007

several important events occurred in my life. I had returned to work after the birth of my

daughter, I read Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat, I had a practicum student from ISU who

worked in the CTLT, and I saw Karl Fisch's and Scott McLeod's "Shift Happens" on YouTube.

All of these items together helped me decide to apply for the Master of Education CIT program.

At the time I did not see how all these items were related, but I had begun to feel

suspicious of the push toward standardized assessments found in education and felt there had to

be more out there for my students. The birth of my daughter increased my desire to give my

students (and her) the best academic and societal survival skills possible. The ideas found in The

World is Flat addressed those 'other skills' I felt necessary for student success beyond the skills

that allowed students to have high test scores. Friedman's ideas instead spoke of empowering


students to become active and cooperative participants in their own education. This seemed to

be the beginning of that 'something more out there' for my students.

As a committee member on the State of Iowa Teacher Quality Enhancement Reading and

Writing Team I helped host a teacher symposium at Upper Iowa University. During this

symposium UIU President Dr. Alan Walker presented "Shift Happens" on YouTube and

expressed his experiences with these 'flat world' ideas at his multi-site university. Part of my job

during this symposium was to catalog student reactions to research samples of the Question

Answer Relationship (QAR) reading method; while some students did not take the process

seriously, others seemed to appreciate the ability to share feedback with the program and have a

voice in the process. The part I found shocking was the number of students who wrote their

answers using TXT or IM language; there was an assumption that this 'translation' would be

acceptable in a school setting. It was my first realization that these digital natives were truly

bilingual and needed to be taught the appropriate ‘when and where’ their second language would

be acceptable. This discovery seemed to solidify my decision to find an M. Ed program that

would allow me to cultivate these skills in myself and help my students do the same.

That school year I began to research programs that would utilize these skills, but as a new

parent and full-time teachers and coach, I didn't think I would find a program where I could

dedicate the time necessary to really fulfill my new-found passion for teaching. That spring I

had a practicum student who told me about the Curriculum and Instructional Technology

program at ISU that taught teachers how best to implement technology and encourage student

problem-solving and independence. When she told me that it was an on-line / on-campus

hybrid, I felt confident enough to inquire about applying. I had begun down the less-traveled

road and was uncertain where it would lead.


My own educational journey had many twists and turns, and my undergraduate years had

not been academically successful. I was a top-level student in high school, but I was lacking in

social and emotional maturity. After learning that you couldn't just memorize and repeat

information in college classes, I began to drift in the academic program at my university. I

entered college with aspirations to be a language arts teacher, but eventually I left that field for a

degree in business writing. Eventually I graduated and spent six years working in finance before

returning to earn my teaching endorsements. Because of my previous experiences in college, my

entrance into the Master's program at ISU was nerve-wracking; I didn't know if I had the

knowledge and drive to 'cut it' in this type of program; I feared what lie down that less-traveled

path.

The educators and staff at the CIT were welcoming but firm: you would need to leave

your comfort zone in order to succeed in this program. For many in the Cohort, leaving your

comfort zone involved working in a truly cooperative environment (where the whole was more

that its parts combined) and putting yourself out there on the Web in word, image, and sound. As

a Cohort we became very close and shared in both joys and sorrows together: one member's

marriage, the birth of babies for three members, the miscarriage of a baby and loss of a parent for

two other members, and the creation of an adoption family for another member. Instructors were

active participants on-line and in the classroom, giving advice and bouncing ideas off students

and each other. Students build a trust-based environment together to create and implement

exciting and cutting-edge ideas in classrooms and school districts across the country. As the

Cohort progressed I found that I was no longer afraid of 'not making the cut' and instead looked

forward to working with my peers and re-learning how to learn. My journey down the less-


traveled path was no longer frightening and instead encouraged me to push my thinking and try

new things in the classroom that I would never have imagined previously.

As I enter into the final phase of the Cohort I view it with a sense of melancholy. The

environment we have created has fostered support and encouragement for all involved. I would

daresay that we are unified in our desire and drive to change education for the better as a result

of our time at ISU. I will greatly miss this environment, as it has been both encouraging and

nurturing over the last three years, but am now committed to creating this type of virtual

environment for my future students and colleagues. The less-traveled path has given me the

tools, the knowledge, and the desire to make my students' education one that will give them

survival skills for school and beyond. And that, truly, has made all the difference.

PERFOMANCE INDICATORS / ADAPTED NETS STANDARDS

STANDARD 1: Technological Applications

Best classroom practices using technology: Teachers plan, design, and implement innovative

uses of technology that have implications for learning.

This standard speaks to the evaluation process teachers need to address while developing

their own curricula. To me the most important part of this standard is "innovative uses of

technology that have implication for learning." In CI 511, Technology Diffusion, Leadership

and Change, we read a book by Larry Cuban titled Oversold and Underused that greatly

affected me. In this piece Cuban addresses the way that society has assumed that by purchasing

the latest and greatest in technology equipment schools will be more tech savvy, and why this

isn't true. In explaining a case study of teacher Alison Piro, I was struck by her belief about

effective technology use in the classroom, "... through the use of computers students can

demonstrate their knowledge and show whether they reach the school standards teachers have


set. Computers, however, are not appropriate for all projects" (2003, p.70). This deep analysis of

not just what the technology can do but how it can best aid learning was a key element in my

own attitude toward instructional technology. Up until that time I had simply thought of a

technology integrationist as someone who would show fellow teachers a variety of technologies

and how they could be used in their rooms, but the evaluation of those technologies had not

struck me until I read the Cuban book.

In every course of the CIT M.Ed program students were required to create and implement new

or emerging technologies into their own classroom practices. This 'hand-on' process forced

students to leave their comfort zone and to see the implications of the planning and

implementation processes involved in utilizing a variety of technologies within the classroom.

The final essential component of this process was a reflection on these implementations. My

reflective paper from CI 505 with Dr. Ann Thompson was published by ASCD Express. ASCD

is formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, and organization that

advocates “best practices and policies for the success of each learner.” (“History and

Membership,” 2011). ASCD Express is a bi-weekly newsletter distributed to ASCD members

with updates and discussions on current topics in education. My article discusses a variety of

ways to efficiently integrate technology into classroom instruction and assessments, skills that

were taught by both ISU instructors and my peers within the Cohort. Drawing on the idea of

student and teacher as co-learners, I synthesized the collective knowledge of the Cohort into an

organized 'primer' for other teachers to use when integrating technology in their own classrooms.

Taking my own advice, I began to look at technology integration not as a teacher but as a

learner. In my own classroom over the last three years students and I began to collaborate on

best ways to integrate technology into our instruction. Without using the term constructivism,


students seem to understand that they deepen and internalize their knowledge if it is created by

them instead of given to them. Using this, along with their own multiple intelligence and

learning style surveys, students create a personal plan for integrating technology. For example,

if a student is a visual learner and who has high visual / spatial intelligence, he may choose to

present his monthly book report using PowerPoint or Prezi.com. Meanwhile, his female

classmate who has a high mathematical / logical intelligence and is a tactile learner may choose

to use the Scratch programming language to create a 'game' of the plot from her free reading

book. Both are equally valid and the projects are scored using a topical rubric. The bonus is that

by using this process the students take ownership of their own learning, are vested in that

learning, and play to their strengths, giving them a greater chance of success in (and a better

attitude toward) school (Cuban, 2003, pp. 69-70).

STANDARD 2: Technology Planning and Integration

Creating technology infused learning environments through appropriate technology uses:

Plan and integrate technology effectively in learning environments and experiences.

This standard's greatest importance is in considering the best use of technology to create

effective learning environments. This speaks to the digital divide between digital natives and

digital immigrants, as proposed by Marc Prensky. Digital natives often have a greater

understanding of what technologies are out there, but digital immigrants often can step back and

see the best ways to use those technologies. Often the natives are students while the immigrants

are teachers: by working together they can develop effective learning environments (Van Horn,

2007). These learning environments also speak to Bransfords' learner-centered and community-

centered environments, where students must feel motivated to work on developing their own

knowledge as well as a community of knowledge within their own group to show their ability to


meet the standard of learning required. The teacher must then serve as a guide to this process

and not as a knowledge expert instructing the process.

For CI 515 Action Research in Education I developed a plan to implement Google Apps

as a LMS (learning management service) with my eighth grade students to more efficiently

research and develop comparative MLA research papers. As an instructor I needed a learning

platform that was flexible in time and place. I also needed one that could adapt and change

based on individual student needs. Finally, as a teacher in a parochial school I needed an

application that was very cost-effective (and if possible, free). After working with a group of

staff and committee members in my building to research this, we purchased a separate domain

name and created a Google Apps for Education account. I created a step-by-step unit of

planning and instruction and implemented a study with a pilot class of eighth grade students.

The results of this pilot study found that when given guidance for the entire process and

parameters to fulfill, the use of Google Apps for Education can be an effective LMS for grade 8

students.

The multiple applications found in the Google Apps made the process invaluable as an

LMS. Students used a webpage to create a form that everyone used to enter their thesis, which

allowed them to break into groups based on their thesis content. These groups then splintered off

to create webpage summaries of research on content about their specific topics. They also gave

the internal documentation and citation for each resource. Students then created outlines for

their papers utilizing these webpage summaries, making me a collaborator and their content

group peers viewers. We all gave feedback (mine directly on the document, peers on a wiki

page) to the outline to make it as complete as possible. Each student then created a second

document as their working draft. I again was a collaborator and the student then choose any


three students from the same content area to be viewers for feedback on the document. The

students utilized the summary web pages as support for his / her arguments and used the internal

documentation and citations for the working draft as well. This working draft became the

student's final draft, with the submission being electronic only. My grading was done by a rubric

with comments, which I digitally attached to each paper. Comments were added by myself and

others outside and inside of school, utilizing the anytime, anywhere learning aspect of Google

Apps, and the problems found with compatibility issues were non-existent as long as a student

had Internet access outside of school.

Throughout the process students kept journals on their use of Google Apps and their own

research. There was a Calendar for all students as well as one for each content group; these were

posted on specific web pages for instant viewing during the process. Students also utilized

Calendars to schedule homework for other classes and extracurricular events. As a Google Apps

for Education account, all advertising was eliminated and the student addresses and documents

were locked away from the general Web, ensuring a safe digital environment for students.

Students overall gained a greater sense of ownership of their work by using Web 2.0 skills and

by working collaboratively with peers. Feedback between students and teacher was deeper,

more specific, and much timelier in the Google Apps environment than in the typical classroom

environment. Feedback among students regarding their work was more content-driven and

focused than in group edits done outside of the digital environment. While grading and parent

communication was still kept using Edline (the school grading and communication software), the

use of Google Apps was far and away a success.

After I reported out on the use of Google Apps to the school board the board voted to

have the technology committee implement Google Apps availability for all students in grades


3-8. This process will be implemented starting in the middle school with grades 7-8 and then

moving down to include grade 6, grades 4-5, and eventually grade 3. The next study being

completed by the technology committee will test the viability of using Google Apps for

communication among all staff to replace Microsoft Outlook and other aspects of the Office

Suite. I plan on implementing a program similar to the study for use with the school staff to

instruct the teachers in best ways to utilize the Google LMS as motivation in student learning;

this key element is necessary for all learners - digital immigrants, digital natives, on-line natives

- to experience a successful digital educational environment (McNeely, 2005).

STANDARD 3: Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues in the Use of Technology

Teachers understand the above issues and use that knowledge as a guidepost in their use of

technology in schools: Teachers understand social, ethical, legal and human issues surrounding

the use of technology in schools, and use that understanding to guide their practice.

In my mind this standard will be the most difficult for education to achieve over the long

run. The idea of equity or fairness is so broad and easily manipulated that educators must give

detailed attention to the diverse nature of the physical and digital environments found in schools.

Student populations come from a variety of social, cultural, gender, ability, and socioeconomic

status groups: when utilizing technology in schools all these items need to have equal weight in

the decision-making process. If a student is from a society where photographs are not to be

taken, it would violate that student's cultural norms if she were required to participate in a video

chat or to create a video podcast as an assignment. If a school is struggling to cover basic needs

for its student population (such as food, general building conditions, or cold-weather clothing) a

fund drive to improve technology may not be the next best step. And finally, if a developing or

third-world country has spotty resources or limited funding to give students the basics of


instruction, being paternalistic and deciding what is best for the population without taking into

account that population's cultural, human, and societal needs is creating a system designed to

fail. On both the American and international fronts, the ideas of digital equity, the digital divide,

and the impact of technology on globalization are constantly changing, yet still have an impact

on American education today. I addressed several articles and Friedman's The World Is Flat in a

midterm for Dr. Patricia Leigh's course CI 577: Historical Perspectives on Technology Equity:

Implications for Policy and Practice. In this paper I argued that America needs to bring about

immediate and necessary changes in order to meet the needs of a globalized society, but that

these changes must be tempered by the humanistic needs and resources available to all. I also

bring up the question of digital equity as a basic human right in an ever flattening world.

In developed countries the assumption that 'give them the technology and their scores

will improve' is another way that the human aspects of instruction are ignored. Technology must

be viewed as a tool for instruction, not a magic 8-ball for learning. As with any tool, when used

properly it can assist in completing a job in the best way possible. Conversely, a tool misused

can do more damage than if it were not used at all. Students from impoverished areas (both

urban and rural) often are given technology to benefit or improve their learning, but often the

training for teachers, the upgrades and updates for technology, or the time needed to best

implement these technologies is not given. If a school is on the watch list for NCLB their

greatest concern will be to improve test scores in order to continue to receive funding. The idea

of working to implement ELMOs or SMARTBoards into classroom instruction will take a

backseat to the greater concern at hand. This stance is not wrong in and of itself, but the before

implementing new technologies these kinds of factors must be taken into account.


Student access to technology in their homes, community, and schools must also be

directly addressed. Previous knowledge and experiences with technology must be addressed for

all educational stakeholders: students, staff, parents, and the community, especially when

determining appropriate technology usage guidelines. The expectation of Internet access outside

the home for instruction and communication must coincide with the socioeconomic status of the

school population, an issue that often occurs when discussing the digital divide. Schools need to

learn how to adapt and change instruction and homework expectations regarding technology

usage to meet the needs of students inside and outside of school. This critical element must also

be considered when determining technology funding for schools and districts.

I felt strongly enough about this issue that I chose to create a podcast on it for CI 501:

Foundations of Instructional Technology. In the course we addressed several issues of morality

regarding technology usage in the class, including Pojman's moral philosophy. These ideas of

ethics, culture, gender, ability, and copyright spoke directly to my own concerns as to the true

definition of the digital divide, and as I have worked through the Cohort I have taken particular

cautions to be aware of and not infringe upon these issues in my own practice (Ites, 2008,

“Pojman's moral philosophy: moral responsibilities in education”) . As a classroom instructor I

have also actively worked to make my students aware of these issues as well.

The final hurdle to overcome regarding these humanist issues is that of copyright. I have

worked with the Diocesan schools regarding how to define appropriate copyright requirements

for technology infusion. Within my own classroom students are instructed in these copyright

issues and must incorporate them into their own created projects (Ites, 2009, “Technology

Exploratory Websites”). Students then take this incorporated knowledge and re-teach it when

working with younger students in the building. By showing students the requirements for


copyright regarding mixed media resources, there has also been an increase in student awareness

regarding copyright and plagiarism regarding the written word on the Web. As more and more

information becomes fused with other divergent information through the Web, this issue will

need to be continually addressed and adapted.

STATNDARD 4: Research and Assessment

Using research-proven technology infusions for effective research projects and assessments:

Technology-infused classroom-based educational research projects that use effective assessment

and research strategies.

The 'bling factor' found when technology is infused into education is a double-edged

sword: it can be both a blessing and a curse. The blessing of technology's bling factor is that

because it often appeals to multiple sense simultaneously, it can involve student's lives outside of

the classroom, and it can be a more efficient and enjoyable method of instruction, many people

decide to support the use of technology in classrooms today. On the flip side, because

technology's 'latest and greatest' often seem to hold potential for improving educational

instruction, educator and administrators often overlook research-proven studies regarding the use

of technology in specific classrooms. Often the marketing for new technologies show positive

results from a limited and homogenous group of students used in a pilot study. While opinion

pieces about the use of technology are prevalent, it becomes more difficult to find action research

studies completed with specific groups utilizing specific technologies. This lack of attention to

the finer points of technology diffusion can cause school opinion leaders and change agents to

become ostracized from their colleagues. If the new technology has high expectations that are

not grounded in hard fact research, these technology innovators may likely be blamed for the


'failure' of the technology to meet the collective expectations of those in the schools (Rogers,

1995, p.22-30).

As I have completed my own 'mini-research projects' during the course of the Cohort I

have seen this 'change agent as bad-guy' idea come into play. As with most successful

enterprises, the successes are quickly forgotten while the failures loom large for long periods of

time: to use an old adage, bad news travels twice as fast as good news. For the class CI 515

Action Research in Education I learned the best ways to develop and implement an effective

research project in schools. Using the Mertler’s text Action Research: Teachers as Researchers

in the Classroom and Mills’s text Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher the

process for effective action research was laid out for me. Mertler’s text gave excellent visual

aids and graphic organizers showing the step-by-step processes necessary for effective action

research as well as real-world action research projects done in the classroom. This breaking-

down of the process into smaller organized units allowed for me, as the developer, to pay

attention to detail, look for possible problems and create contingencies, and know how to design

and what to do with all the data once it is collected (Mertler, 2009, pp.125-135). Mills’s

extensive use of example projects for success and failure were critical to the ways in which I

chose to create and implement my action research project on using Google Apps as an LMS with

grade 8 students. In Chapter 4 Mills also showed the problems and pitfalls found when the

researcher allows bias into their data creation and collection (2007, pp.84 -97). Mills also

dedicated Chapter 7 to showing how action research can have a positive impact on educational

change: how to use the results of classroom-created action research to transform and develop

best practices in instruction. The subsection on challenges facing teacher researchers were

excellent reminders that as a researcher I must remain conscious of the possible results of my


action research project: a lack of funding or resources, resistance to change, admitting to difficult

truths, and interfering with others’ professional practices all have implications both professional

and personal for the action researcher. The author also gives eight conditions for creating

effective educational change, sort of a cheat-sheet for best ways to implement the results of

action research (Mills, 2007, pp. 151-158). While I utilized all aspects of the action research

process in both texts, these best ways to implement the results were perhaps the most helpful to

me. My school had asked me to create and complete my specific project, and planned on using

the results of the project for technology changes in the following school year. I had more riding

on this paper than just a grade: my professionalism with my colleagues and administration as

well as with students and parents needed to be impeccable. This guideline given by Mills

advised me on potential problems and – most importantly – gave me potential solutions.

While the process was not without hiccups and setbacks, I would consider the overall

outcome a success. Because of the extensive planning I learned in the CI 515 class I had also

developed contingency plans to deal with those hiccups and learn how to gather the data

scientifically without emotion. I paid specific attention to the skills and ideas given in Chapters

4 and 5 of Mills' text and Chapter 6 of Mertler’s text. These chapters dealt with the specific

considerations necessary in data collection and the most effective methods to analyze and

interpret data (Mills, 2007, pp.69-110; Mertler, 2009, pp.140-164). While trying to plan and

interpret data without involving emotion, I also tried to keep in mind the ideas presented in

Wagner's The Global Achievement Gap. Chapter 5 in Wagner's text centered on student

motivation and the how to use that motivation in the creation of life-long learners. Since I

wanted to show my students easy ways to create effective collaborative groups, I took the

examples given in Wagner's text (both good and bad) to heart in designing this project (Wagner,


2008, pp.167-206). As a result of the data created and gathered during this project, the

technology committee has proposed to the school board implementation of Google Apps for

Education as a communication and collaboration tool for all students in grades 3-8 (Ites, 2010,

“Action research in the cloud: …”). The success of this project also prompted a request for future

study regarding the effectiveness use of Google Apps for Education as a communication and

scheduling tool for the school faculty and staff.

STANDARD 5: Instructional Technology Leadership

Teachers serve as peer innovators with their local and national peers: Teachers provide

effective instructional technology leadership to peers within schools, districts, and nationally.

I have not had much chance to serve as a leader or sounding board for technology issues

to teachers outside of my own Diocesan district, but within the Diocese of Des Moines schools

and, specifically, St. Theresa School, I have had many opportunities to guide my colleagues in

the implementation of new technologies. I am currently in my ninth year at St. Theresa School

and have served as the teacher coordinator for the technology committee for the last six years.

During this time I have been asked to share information with teachers that looks to the social

dynamic of the classroom, the instructional style of the teacher, the learning style of selected

students, and the culture of the school. In the past I have been the liaison for use of Jackson

Edline and GradeQuick instruction to teachers in grades pre k - 5. I have also assisted our

webmaster in the design of teacher Edline web pages to coincide with the overall design of the

school's website. The final step in this process was to work with those teachers who were more

adept at Edline at utilizing the Moodle WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) mode of

development to coordinate or improve the information posted on each teacher page.


For the course CI 511 Technology Diffusion, Leadership and Change I had the

opportunity to incorporate the ideas given in the texts Oversold and Underused by Larry Cuban

and Diffusion of Innovations by Everett M. Rogers. Both texts stressed the important of well-

planned systems for diffusion of new technologies in schools, and both also stressed that the

different stakeholders within the schools (digital immigrant teachers, digital native teachers,

administration in both areas, students, and parents) need to be approached first at the level where

they are most comfortable, then later challenged to implement the newly proposed innovation.

While previous attempts at new technology innovations had taught me (albeit the hard way) that

there was not 'one size fits all' way of supporting a new innovation within a school, these texts

showed the best ways to innovate to each of the different adopters found in a school.

As a result the professional development plan I created was designed to bring all faculty

and staff members to a minimum standard of knowledge and use of a variety of technologies,

including ELMOs, SMARTBoards, and LCD projects and laptop computers. I decided the best

method of implementation for these innovations was to have monthly face-to-face meetings and

monthly journal posts via Google Apps. There would be early innovators within in each grade

band chosen to be both instructor and resource for that specific innovation. The resident 'expert'

in each grade band would lessen any sense of fear or jealousy that would likely occur with late

adopters or laggards, and would also reduce fear in those who where technophobic. Also, the

asynchronous reflective journals shared within each group would serve as an additional form of

communication: as a support for those adopters who were nervous about the process and as a

way to check on growth toward the adoption of the new innovations. The final element would be

for at least one peer to view a lesson taught with classroom students utilizing at least one of the

innovations (Ites, 2010, “Professional development plan …”).


As I come to the end of the Cohort this specific course and the information I learned have

become very valuable to my current work with not just students but also colleagues. The

conscious decision to treat these very divergent learning groups differently must be made in

order to aid the success of new innovations in schools today. In order to ensure a successful

implementation of new technologies the trainer must also be flexible, supportive, and willing to

provide as much emotional support as knowledge support to teachers. All of these ideas are the

result of the information I have taken from the texts used in CI 511. This need to take into

account the emotional needs of all stakeholders within technology integration added new

speedbumps to the less-traveled road. These speed bumps forced me to slow down, be cautious

with my decisions, and be careful where I tread; they are not large enough to stop my overall

journey.

Final reflections ME PAGE

"It doesn't matter where you live, it's what you do with your life that counts."

~ "Red" McManus

This was one of my grandfather’s favorite sayings and is one that I have tried to

accomplish every day. My time in the Cohort has been both a struggle and a challenge. I have

learned to truly structure my time and plan for contingencies. My personal experiences using

technologies have been enriching, forcing me outside of my own personal comfort zone and

teaching me the best ways to push others to expand their own technology skills. My courses

have showed me the most effective ways to differentiate technology use for all stakeholders in

education. I have developed close personal and professional relationships with my peers and

professors in the Cohort, and now look forward to sharing my knowledge and understanding

with my own students and colleagues in the future. American education is currently at a


crossroads and I feel ready to guide future students to become effective world citizens regarding

content knowledge and collaborative learning skills. I also am ready to show them the best ways

to utilize technology in both areas.

As a teacher of technology and language arts, I live in both worlds regarding high-stakes

testing and instructing students in collaborative problem-solving processes. As I wade through

this process I have worked with students to develop more efficient and effective methods of

instruction and assessment, including the use of combined spelling and vocabulary root word

books, creation of prezi.com presentations for all-class novels, use of Google Docs to create on-

line tests in grammar and collaborative research units, and small group creation of summative

grammar assessments. All of these have an impact on my own teaching and life-long learning,

as well as on the lives of my students.

I am still continuing my journey down that road less traveled, but now the path ahead is

not dark and foreboding, but instead full of rich and exciting future endeavors. There will be

vines across the path designed to trip any passersby, but the trees will be there for support and

guidance. Those supports, the skills I’ve developed throughout the Cohort, will continue to

guide me to the end of that road less traveled, if there is an end to find. Perhaps it will be the

journey itself and not the final destination that will make ‘all the difference.”


References:

Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Ites, C (2008, July 11). Pojman's moral philosophy: moral responsibilities in education.

Colleen's blog CI501. Located at http://cmites.blogspot.com/2008/07/pojmans-moral-

philosophy-moral.html.

Ites, C (2008, July 11). Technology integration: the next step. Hosted at slideshare.net. Located

at http://www.slideshare.net/cmites/technology-integration-podcast.

Ites, C. (2009, March 19). Effective ways to integrate technology. ASCD Express. 4(12).

Located at http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol4/412-ites.aspx.

Ites, C (2009, Sept 23). Technology exploratory websites. Classroom instruction materials

hosted at slideshare.net. Located at http://www.slideshare.net/cmites/technology-

exploratory-websites.

Ites, C (2010, July 11). Professional development plan for innovation of new technologies.

Final for Dr. Niederhauser in CI 511 at ISU. Located at

http://www.slideshare.net/cmites/pd-for-integrating-interactive-tech-at-sts-ites

Ites, C (2010, May 1). Action research in the cloud: using Google Apps as a learning

management system in grade 8 classrooms. Located at

http://www.slideshare.net/cmites/ites-actionresearchproject-ci515.

Ites, C (2011, March 4). Shifting sands: globalization and digital equity. Hosted at

slideshare.net. Located at http://www.slideshare.net/cmites/shifting-sands-

globalization-and-digital-equity-ites-midterm.

McNeely, B. (2005). Using technology as a learning tool, not just the cool new thing. In D. G.


Oblinger & J. L. Olinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO:

EDUCAUSE. Located at

http://www.educause.edu/Resources/EducatingtheNetGeneration/UsingTechnologyasaLe

arningTool/6060.

Mertler, C.A. (2009). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom (Second

ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research: a guide for the teacher researcher (Third ed. ). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Prensky, Marc. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. MCB University

Press, 9(5). Located at http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-

%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf.

Presnky, Marc. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think

differently? On the Horizon. MCB University Press, 9(6). Located at

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20- %20Digital%20Natives,

%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. 4th Ed, New York: The Free Press.

Van Horn, R. (2007). Web applications and Google. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(10), 727-792.

Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database 18 March 2010.

Wagner, T. (2008). The Global Achievement Gap. New York: Basic Books.

Narrative for master of education portfolio

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Narrative for master of education portfolio

Similar to Narrative for master of education portfolio (15)

More from CM Ites

More from CM Ites (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Narrative for master of education portfolio