Jeff Burgess
Reflection: ISLLC II
Internship 6062/6072
Dr. Michael Arnold
Spring 2004

ISLLC 2 Summary and Reflection

Expectations:

2.1 Identifies and codifies varied instructional strategies.
2.2 Supports a culture for a caring school community.
2.3 Uses student assessment grounded in the belief that each student can learn.
2.4 Uses student data that improve instruction.
2.5 Develops, evaluates, and refines curriculum.
2.6 Plans professional development for staff.
2.7 Assesses the level of commitment to life-long learning of staff and students.
2.8 Assesses the nature of a school's climate and culture.

	The action research project involves the use of technology to improve instruction. 
Several sections of the action research project – including the purpose statement, the significance of the study, background of the problem, and the action summary – contain statements related to the expectations of ISLLC standard II: 
	Creighton (2003) states that the mere presence of computers, hardware, and other technological devices does not serve a notable purpose unless it is used effectively to improve academic performance (2.1, 2.5).  Computers should do more than replace other teaching methods.  Teachers need to be involved in researching the effects of technology on learning (2.7). Creighton states that technology has the potential to be used as a tool to support and encourage constructivist methods of learning. In constructivism, rather than disseminators of knowledge, teachers become facilitators for an active process of construction of knowledge by the student (2.1, 2.5).  Creighton identifies concepts that can be used to evaluate the extent of constructivism in the use of technology in the classrooms (2.5).  In constructivism, by moving the discovery step to the beginning, students of all abilities (2.3) are given the opportunity to experiment, hypothesize, and discover, something that traditional teaching saves for last with only the brighter students participating.  Creighton describes five types of actors (2.7, 2.8), as they apply to technology, in change of the educational environment.  A collaborative effort should be made to include teachers, parents, students, board members, and area business partners in the implementation of technology.  (2.2).  Teachers may have the power to move a good plan forward, and may choose to do so if the plan focuses on benefits to the curriculum (2.5).  Extensive teacher education (2.6) must address the aspect of using technology to improve teaching and learning (2.1, 2.5). Teacher evaluation as it relates to technology should have a focal point that looks for meaningful, engaged learning (2.5).  The teacher becomes a facilitator, a guide, a co-learner, and a co-investigator (2.1), while the student becomes an explorer, a cognitive apprentice, and a producer of knowledge (2.3).  One reason for failure of technology plans is the insufficiency of staff development (2.6).  Teachers are able to use technology for basic and important computer skills that allow them to better perform their jobs, but staff development activities are not often enough focused on creating an educational environment that will positively affect student learning (2.7, 2.8).  The successful plan for technology needs program support from the school board, central administration office, building principals, and teachers and staff (2.2, 2.8)
	The purpose statement of the action research project proclaims that the integration and appropriate use of available technology with the mathematics curriculum (2.1, 2.5) may appeal to a variety of learning styles (2.3) , help to motivate the students, and improve attitudes and achievement (2.2, 2.4).  Royer (2002) states that teachers need to know not only how to use technology, but how it can be used to develop understanding, constructivism, cooperative learning, and problem-based learning (2.1, 2.5).  Teachers need to be involved in exploring and testing the use of technology to improve achievement so that they will perceive ownership of the problem and sense a connection to the solution – teachers need to share the vision (2.7).    The continuous cycle of action research begins with a plan, followed by implementation, observation, reflection, and renewal (2.5).  
	The background of the problem section of the action research concerns improving scores on the statewide Missouri Achievement Program (MAP) achievement tests (All expectations included here).   Student data (2.4) is observed to look for ways to improve instruction: see Table 1 and Table 2.	
	The literature review section of the action research has numerous examples of how student data is used to improve instruction (2.4) and develop, evaluate, and refine curriculum (2.5), as well as identifying instructional strategies(2.1).  The problem of academic success for learning and behavior problem children (2.3) in an urban setting was studied by Laffey (2003).  Page (2002) examined the effects of technology-enriched classrooms on students of low socioeconomic status in a study of ten third and fifth grade Louisiana classrooms with populations of low income, mostly minority students (2.3). An Evaluation Team Policy Brief (2003) provided an analysis of 2002 Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) results for Enhancing Missouri's Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies (eMINTS) students. Achievement was studied in third grade communication arts and science and fourth grade math and social studies (2.4, 2.5).  Middleton and Murray (1999) studied the relationship of the degree of technology integration and achievement scores in the fourth and fifth grades (2.1, 2.4, 2.5).  Rose and Meyer (2002) are cofounders of the  Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), a not-for-profit organization founded in 1984 whose original mission was to “develop and apply technologies that would expand learning opportunities for individuals with disabilities (2.3)” (p. v).  Since its establishment, CAST has begun a paradigm shift to a new position of “the use of technology to transform the nature of the curriculum (2.5) itself” (p. v).  After fifteen years of thought, research, and collaboration with individuals and educational communities, the organization has developed Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a research-based (2.3, 2.4) set of principles that outline a practical structure to maximize learning opportunities with the assistance of technology.  This program is based on the realization that barriers to learning are not an intrinsic component of the learner (2.3), but these barriers emanate from interactions with inflexible instructional methods (2.1) and materials.  The United States Department of Education (ED) (2003) states that parents and educators consider technology to be an important part of a high quality education (2.8).  A study was conducted by SRI International (2002) on the Professional Development and Teachers Use of Technology.   The evaluation of the role of professional development (2.6) found that teachers needed more training and more time to participate in educational technology related activities. 
	The actual action research involves identifying instructional strategies (2.1) to improve instruction and development , evaluation, and refinement of the curriculum (2.5).  The action research project was a learning experience.  Though no statistically significant difference was noted in the research performed, the research and literature touched on each expectation of ISLLC standard II.  The research in this project did not meet the requirements of being a constructive method of instruction, but future endeavors will strive for inquiry-based learning.  The action research also did not include a method of instructing and assessing special needs and at-risk groups, a definite area to be looked at concerning the use of technology.  A staff survey shared under ISLLC 5 shows a great need at Greenfield Elementary School for improvements in technology and professional development (2.6) related to technology issues.
	The Curriculum Class Mapping project was an extensive development, evaluation, and refinement of curriculum (2.5) and identification of effective teaching methods (2.1).  The action plan section of the project calls for Instructional units to be developed for each of the curriculum content standards.  Learning centers will be set up for each the content areas with questions from each of Bloom’s taxonomy levels and/or the six facets of understanding (2.1).  Units will begin with thought provoking questions, puzzles, role-plays, etc. Primary sources will be used as appropriate and available. In-depth exploration, inquires, problems, and active lessons will be pursued. Student progress will be assessed according to the objectives and instruction will be reevaluated.  The project looks for ways to present the curriculum and assess each student on his or her level (2.3).
	The Reading First Assessment and Curriculum Selection and Budget Proposal was my part in the application process for a Reading First Grant that was not approved for our school district for this year.  The many hours spent by the teachers, reading recovery teachers and myself show a commitment to life-long learning (2.7).  The district plans to reapply for the grant next year.  I helped the reading recovery teacher with selecting appropriate students assessments (2.3) based on scientific research (2.4) and tested with years of actual classroom use. The Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised-Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU) helps to: identify specific children’s strengths and weaknesses in reading skills,  ascertain students’ difficulties and their root causes so that you can plan targeted remediation, and determine the reading strategies so that students with special needs can get needed help learning to read (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5).  The budget also planned for appropriate professional development expenses (2.6) related to Reading First.  I calculated other expenses related to Reading First, including the core reading and language program chosen, Harcourt Trophies, a research-based, developmental reading/language arts program, with explicit phonics instruction, direct reading instruction, guided reading strategies, phonemic awareness instruction, systematic intervention strategies, and integrated language arts components (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5).   
	The Teacher Evaluation artifact identified teaching strategies (2.1) by identifying specific teacher behaviors that check for comprehension and teacher behaviors that support positive student behaviors (2.2, 2.8).  Suggestions were given for improving questioning strategies (2.1) as they relate to a fair and equitable balance of students (2.2, 2.8).    
	I trained for four days, 6 hours a day, in Kansas City for Nonviolent Crisis Intervention trainer certification (2.6) in December of 2003.  In March and April of 2004, I trained several elementary and high school staff members for a total of 16 hours training time (2.6).  The Nonviolent Crisis Intervention program’s primary purpose is to “provide for the care, welfare, safety, and security of those in our care” (2.2, 2.7, 2.8).  The program teaches techniques to identify anxiety and provide support (2.2. 2.8) to students in our care and prevent related behaviors from escalating into a crisis situation.  The PowerPoint presentation that I developed with permission from the Crisis Prevention Institute to use in training has topics related to respect of personal space, supporting anxious students, paraverbal communication, limit setting, empathic listening, precipitating factors, rational detachment, fear and anxiety recognition, personal safety techniques, and coping techniques for the post-effects of a crisis (2.2, 2.7, 2.8).