Category: LRNT 527

Final Phase: Reflection (Activity 2 LRNT 527)

 

To frame my final reflection, I am using the Seidel and Blythe (1996) model, “the Compass.”

 

Inward: refers to the manner in which you felt about a particular situation.
I appreciated the design process in this course. It was condensed and quick, but I value the explicitness of the stages to flush out what I was thinking and why I was thinking it. The stages created a space for intentionality. Typically, because of my many hats and busy life, I at times will have a more hurried pace when I approach a project or problem. Inevitably, the task or project will not be as complete or thorough as I may want it to be. The design stages in this project made me stop and think. As I was going through the stages, I appreciated them as a teacher and felt how valuable the formative stages were in this process – all working toward the final productive. I had an “ah” moment that connected me very quickly with my students, as I ensure the work through the formative process, stage-by-stage writing. My worlds collided and the importance of my formative work was key.

Backward: might refer to a number of things related to your thoughts about a particular event, including its impact on higher-level questions, such as the impact on your identity, sense of sense, and values.
Receiving feedback is valuable and important part of the process. The feedback from Jordanne and my peers were varied in their approach to my project and created many opportunities to think and to move to the next steps. Jordanne provided specific feedback that brought me back to thinking about my purpose and how clear am I in what I have intended for my outcomes. Jordanne asked a lot of “How” questions, pushing my thinking and clarity in expectations. My peer feedback was specific and spoke to the experience had in the test phase.
When I completed this project, I am hopeful for it to be something that I can use in my setting, and having others walk through it is tremendously helpful. The feedback from Jordanne, “How will blended learning of this resource work” and “How will this DLR build trust and support” – will help me design my next steps to ensure clarity and that I can meet my overall goal of consistency of knowledge in my setting. I need to reexamine my learning goals for the purpose of my project and the learning goals of the students.

I am looking forward to the next steps.

Outward: refers to the manner in which society and culture can help shape how we see others.
Often, I can be caught up in my head and unable to see the ‘forest through the trees’. Having the perspective of others is valuable to keep me grounded in my purpose and keep me striving for the learning targets. The effectiveness of the DLR depends on how it is received in its environment. Using the design thinking process helped to see the situation from someone else’s perspective. The empathy stage created a space for me to stop and think of others needs and to double-check my plan – is it meeting the needs of the users of my DLR? It helped dissolve some assumptions that I have created about my users or environment, and made me rethink perspectives. I will continue to use the design thinking process in the future for problem solving and projects. As I have stated earlier, having the stages laid out to walk through, and although it may seem intuitive, it keeps me true to my path and doesn’t allow me to take shortcuts.

Forward: refers to the outcome of your reflective process. What are you going to do differently next time?
Next time … or continuing with this time… when I look at the thoughtful feedback by Jordanne and peers, it is evident to me that I need to ensure that I can articulate my “how.” I have to be able to speak t my DLR well, and if promoting my DLR, I have to have the “Hows” thought through and ready to be answered.

My next steps are to think of the foundational thinking that Jordanne has mentioned. Then, as my peer has identified, to tighten the navigation system by enhancing interaction with colour coding links. As well as ensure that all my videos have text that is accessible. I also have visions of the blended learning with this DLR. However, I need to flush this out and be clear on how it will look and be presented.

Thank you Jordanne, team, and peers for a great experience and the collaborative work!

Seidel, S., & Blythe, T. (1996). Reflective practice in the classroom. Unpublished article. Project Zero Massachusetts Schools Network.

Activity 3 Design Phase

(Better late than never…)

Description:

The purpose of this resource is to help students gain a better understanding and consistent messaging of the school’s plagiarism and academic integrity policy.

Learning Goals:

The learning goal of this digital resource is the students will:

  • Understand what is plagiarism.
  • Gain knowledge of how to paraphrase, and cite properly.
  • Apply skills of paraphrasing and citations for purposeful evidence in writing.
  • Build consistent messaging and learning regarding academic integrity at the school.

Intended Audience:

The intended audience is high school students, grade 9-12. For this particular resources, it is aimed at grade 11 as a pilot project. Creating a resource for grade 9 -12 will require different levels of information and examples that for this assignment, are beyond the scope of what is needed. The users, of grade 11 students targeted as they are entering the International Baccalaureate (IB) and Advanced Placement (AP) courses, as well as the students’ parents.

Rationale:

The digital learning resource will meet the needs of students because it will provide a consistent learning experience to guide the understanding of plagiarism and what is the academic policy at the school. The students have varying degrees of understanding of plagiarism and academic honesty, yet I am striving to create an expectation of a standard level of understanding. Our student population is transient the digital resource will fill the gaps if those students with less knowledge of the academic policy and plagiarism and it will create a common understanding. The digital resource will provide the knowledge to meet the expectations of the school.

 

Tools:

The tools that I will be using to develop the digital resource is a mixed bag of tricks. The resource itself will be housed in Google Sites. Our school is a Google school and a 1:1 laptop program in the high school. Google Suite is a typical digital application for our community, and as students will use the resource that is facilitated by teachers, and also acknowledged by parents, the users require easy access with a familiar tool. Google classroom will record the documentation of learning, where students and parents acknowledgment their understanding and partnership of the school program.

From here, I will be using a series of tools to help compile the resource. Some of the tools I plan to include are:

  • Videos (Snagit and Camtasia…I hope, still playing with it)
  • Graphics (Canva, images, screenshots)
  • Learner response (Google Form, Kahoot)

Assessment Plan:

To ensure the students have achieved the intended learning goal, the students will be completing a quiz from their learning of academic integrity whereby the students must identify from examples and create their examples of adequately using evidence within their academic work. The students will require to submit evidence via Google and in Google Classroom. The students will have to succeed fully, be able to discern proper use of evidence and parents acknowledgment, to earn their micro-credential of academic integrity (or plagiarism — haven’t decided).

The parents will also have to acknowledge the academic integrity policy and show understanding, with a submission from a Google form (I think … haven’t decided the best method here yet).

Learning Theories & Instructional Design Principles Used:

Behaviorism – The need for the student to master the skill is essential, forming habits of integrity within students’ academic life.  Students will have clear learning outcomes and expectations. To ensure that they understand the mechanics of using evidence in writing, there will be assessments that check the students’ achievement level and feedback and review of their work to improve.

Constructivist – Students will be involved in a good facilitated online learning experience blended with the classroom. They will have opportunities to construct their knowledge by using prior knowledge and building new knowledge. Although the initial lesson will be the given to all members of the class, the students can navigate their learning to grow in their knowledge and understanding. The ultimate goal is to share their knowledge with peers and parents, and able to transfer the skills and integrity across all disciplines.

Instructions for Use:

For most students, these instructions will apply. The only students these instructions will not work for are those students whom are enrolling in our school late and may have missed this lesson.

In class:

  1. Enter the Google Site
  2. Read the Honor Code and Academic Policy. Students may ask clarifying questions.
  3. Students will complete a quiz on the Honor Code and policy.
  4. Students complete a lesson on how to use evidence in writing correctly.
  5. Students will practice using and identifying evidence properly used and cited.
  6. Students will construct own meaning and provide an example.
  7. The classroom teacher will ensure the students are using the correct skills.
  8. Students will complete an assessment for their learning of proper use of evidence.

Outside of class:

  1. Students and parents will read through and understand the Honor Code. Both student and parent will sign to acknowledge.

Plan for Use:

Initially, the digital learning resource will be shared within a controlled group, grade 11 class. This class is where I will monitor results and collect the data. It will also be provided for all students to view and use as a resource on the school website.

 

 

 

Activity 2- Selecting Promising Ideas


The Empathy and Design stage did not create as much anxiety as this stage to narrow my ideas. I know the choice of the right tool is vital to the learning outcome and impact on the students. While reading about the frameworks to help select a digital resource, I appreciate different elements of TPACK and SAMR in various capacities of my work — where classroom dynamics, specific content, and tools used to enhance or redefine learning is more in play. For this project, the aim is to provide a resource that helps to present and educate about academic integrity.

In my current scenario for this project, I am looking at the framework of Bates’ (2015) SECTIONS to guide my process in determining my best-fit digital tool. The SECTIONS (Bates, 2015) framework provides key questions to consider when choosing and designing a digital resource. The structure helps to ensure all consideration of all aspects when deciding on the digital tool. Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber (2006) RAT framework is a check in the purpose of the technology implementation — to replace, amplify or transform. RAT (Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006) creates dimensions for the degree of use of the technology is used. This affirms the purpose, and in the design process keeps the aim in sight.

What are the affordances and limitations of the framework?  

Affordances

    • Logical. The framework walks you through reasonable questions to consider, helping you to work in perspectives that ensure that you are looking beyond my viewpoint and considering many aspects of my users. It is a practical look and analysis that will help justify the decision for the technology tool.
    • K-12 context. Bates’ framework (2015) is applied directly to my context of K-12 education, specifically grade 9-12 students.
    • Dual settings. The framework allows for the consideration of the tool in a classroom setting and an online.
    • Inclusive. Considerations for ensuring the needs of all students are met with the tool that is chosen.

Limitations

    • A detailed perspective. The many direct questions ensure the designer considers the finer points, however, it may cloud or hinder the bigger picture.
    • Assumptions. The questions have an assumption that there is a level of comfort or understanding of technological pedagogy/practice for the teacher to be successful or be able to consider and answer the guiding questions.

How well does the framework align with your existing educational and pedagogical practices?

    • For my purpose of this project, the SECTIONS framework allows for a straightforward and clear process for thinking and choosing my digital tool. I appreciate the TPACK (Koehler, Mishra & Cain, 2013) and SAMR (Puentedura, 2013) framework as the models seek to enhance student learning and to create shifts in instruction to impact learning. For this circumstance, the purpose of this resource is not better to integrate technology to transform a lesson or specific target — not yet, anyway. This is where the RAT framework has kept me in check to understand that I am using technology to amplify the student learning for understanding and efficiency of the school’s academic integrity policy.

How did the application of the framework impact your decision-making process?

    • The application for the framework in my decision-making process to help work through assumptions and ensure that I am looking at all possibilities. The practicality helps me with the bigger picture to use a platform that people can easily access and willingly access as programs at our school.
    • The framework is reminding me to keep it simple and to look at the learning targets and how to maximize learning within the realm I am capable of creating that is accessible to everyone.
    • I have decided to use the Google Sites, in conjunction with Google Forms and Google Classroom. I haven’t decided which program I will be using yet for audio and visual. Depending on my better dabbling in Camtasia and Snagit or to keep it simple with Screencastomatic.

Which components of the framework did you find most valuable to your decision-making process? Why?

    • The components of the framework that I found the most valuable are the guiding questions that are applied at the end of each element. The Students component is helpful to look past biases and assumptions. Also, the Teaching/Media Selection to provide tips and considerations when creating an effective digital resource.

References

Bates, A. W. (2015). Chapter 8. In Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd.

Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006, March). Assessing technology integration: The RAT–replacement, amplification, and transformation-framework. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616-1620). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Koehler M. J., Mishra P., & Cain, W. (2013). What Is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal Of Education, 193(3), 13-19.

Puentedura, R. R. (2013, May 29). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html

Activity 4: Define Phase

LRNT 527 Activity 4 – The Define Phase

As I synthesize my data about academic integrity, examining my methods of the Extremes and Empathy Map, I natural found myself dabbling in many methods of the define stage.

Empathy Map from Bobbi’s notebook

Working through the empathy map, naturally brought me to ask “Why + How?” (Bootleg Bootcamp, 2016) when looking at the quadrants Say, Do, Think, and Feel. I would add to and build on my thoughts with questions to myself — hmm, why are students choosing to plagiarize? Why don’t they speak to their teacher about how to cite? Why don’t students ask for an example assignment? Why do they risk it? How do students feel safe to ask these questions

? How is the deadline more important than the consequence? How is my school going to be better at this?

Themes evolved.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have two competing stakeholders – students and teachers. Through my empathy stage and moving into my define phase, the student as my primary user emerged. I continue to be mindful of teachers and their vital role in the solution. I am happy to resolve my tension identified earlier, as it was difficult to address both sides of the fence. However, I feel that if I look at the needs of the students, I am on the side of the fence that has the greatest impact.

Maintaining empathy for the teachers, I have written POV statements for students and teachers, exploring the 2×2 matrix for teachers and students on one axis versus ‘knowledge and understanding’ and ‘no knowledge or understanding.’

Why+How Ladder (Bobbi’s notebook)

The 2×2 matrix was an initial define method. Although it solidified some themes, I went back to the Madlibs POV and the “How+Why” ladder for depth and greater clarity. These two methods extended from my empathy stage and reflection process.

The POV I have drafted for my user has been revised as I play with the needs and insights. I feel that there are not enough layers and I have difficulty keeping it simple. Keeping it simple is essential. Complexity is not useful for stakeholders–students or teachers. I reflect and then revise the statement, trying to find clarifying words.

 

Because I often use analogies, I went down that path—for fun. In my creative spurt, the analogy spilled out after the other methods were processed and I walked through them. The analogy helped me cement my thinking.

Unicycle clown juggling

The analogy, although complicated, comes down to a circus a clown (maybe a bear) who rides a unicycle and juggles balls all the while trapeze artists are flying above with a safety net, taking risks with a team and are able to sustain poise and grace – both of which the circus clown may not have. In my analogy, the circus clown is the student, expected to do these many things and juggle a hectic life with academics, athletics, arts, and service and not always knowing how it will turn out. There is not a team but only a ringleader (the teacher). The clown performs to entertain and please the ringleader; whereas the trapeze artists, who practice and take chances with a team, perform knowing their risks or errors are not so detrimental. If there is a missed swing, there is a safety net and a team to protect and pick up the trapeze artist to practice, apply what was learned, to better the outcome. In hopes that the clown is not a solo act and feels supported.

For this define phase, the themes of trust, support, transparency, and understanding emerged.

References

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg.  Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf

IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods

 

Activity 3: Empathy

Through the readings and discover in the journey of empathetic design, one of the crucial aspects is the ability to step in and out of a situation, to ‘walk the walk’ of others and then to reflect on what was heard, observed, and said. Through the readings of this unit, I appreciate that Kroupie and Visser (2009) have distinguished the affective and cognitive response to the user with an emotional response, affective, plus recognition, cognitive, from the user’s point of view. I appreciate the distinction because it has made me think where I already work within the empathy methods—do I to any degree have an emotional response AND recognition of the users’ point of view?

I am looking at academic integrity in my high school for my design project. My users are BOTH students and teachers. This is where this dichotomy of Kroupie and Visser (2009) appealed to me. Although I am an administrator, I continue to teach. As I am still in the classroom, I have the empathy for the teacher and student in one aspect. Then as an administrator, I observe, listen and respond to both perspectives of student and teacher.

In consideration of empathy methods, I have to consider the situation of summer with international faculty and students. I do not have any success with connecting with my users. I am relying on the notes and past conversations, as well as documented data for academic dishonesty that I do have.

I am deliberating between two methods of the Empathy map and the Extreme Users (Extreme and mainstreams from IDEO.org) from the Bootleg Bootcamp. These methods seemed much more applicable due to my situation of summer break and the ability to access my users.

Although these methods need to be adjusted to my circumstances, I have data from our school database on academic dishonesty as well as documented conversations when dealing with the teachers and students in these particular situations. The application of these methods will cause reflection on the data and the discussions with the teacher and student. As I already have this data

Resources

The resources to apply these empathy methods are the database from my school as well as the documentation, student letters, and reflections on conversations with students and teachers regarding the academic dishonesty.

Challenges

Regarding Matthews, Williams, Yanchar, and McDonald (2017) and possible key tensions, one of the barriers and conflicts I face is that I have multiple stakeholders. Students are the learners of the academic integrity, and I empathize with what they are receiving for knowledge and consistent learning between all the disciplines. I empathize with the faculty to develop a consistent message and tutorial for the students, generating a consistent message to the learner. Both stakeholders are important and valuable in this process.

Empathy, noted in Kroupie and Visser (2009), “is finding echoes of another person in yourself.” This resonates with me as I feel that I am at least in the shoes of one of my users in my design challenge. I will have to keep both stakeholders in mind, as the situation is sensitive to both stakeholders.

References

Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.

Matthews, M., Williams, G., Yanchar, S., & McDonald, J. (2017). Empathy in distance learning design practice. Tech Trends, 61(5), 486-493.

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf