Tech Team Spring 2012 Summary
Members:
Ashley Blauwkamp
Karli Brant (Co-director)
Abby DeVries
Amelia DeVries
Krystal Hornecker
Alex Klomparens
Amber Lemme (Co-director)
Kyle Mireles
Sam Pederson (joined Feb 2012)
Susan Cherup (Ring-leader)
Contents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Chalk and Wire Portfolios for EDU 220
Chalk and Wire Portfolios for EDU 225
Toolkit Technologies Presentation to EDU 310
Student Teaching Portfolio Presentation
Student Teaching Portfolio Evaluations
MACUL Conference
Goals for Fall 2012
1
1. Chalk and Wire Portfolios for EDU 220
This semester, CnW changed on us. The formatting was different and the processes were made
simpler. However, the Tech Team had to learn the new format before we could present to other
students. We found that the new format was simpler than before; it just needed to be explained.
Major changes included: how to get to all portfolios, how to upload artifacts, and how to view
portfolio with a theme.
On January 24-26 there was a CnW session each night at 7pm for Edu220 students. This
session was meant to guide students through the creation of their CnW account. Either Karli or
Amber led each session with at least two other members assisting. The sessions lasted no longer
than an hour each. There was no need for a make-up session on Monday January 30th.
Things that went well:
1. Students were very responsive to the process and were willing to ask questions.
2. Students were quiet and productive.
3. Most students brought the correct materials.
Things that did not go well:
1. The first night, the “new account” codes were mixed up with the “renewal” codes. This
problem was resolved and did not happen the following sessions.
2. Some students had not purchased CnW from the bookstore before they came.
3. Students were working ahead and missed important steps such as selecting the correct
table of contents.
4. Some students did not have basic computer knowledge, making directions like “save
your document to the desktop” difficult. These students struggled with uploading
documents too.
5. The most common mistakes were: a) students were naming their portfolios as their
actual name, not the class b) choosing the wrong table of contents.
2
2. Chalk and Wire Portfolios for EDU 225
Because of changes in CnW, Susan Cherup and Jane Finn wanted their students to be
familiarized with the new format. Ashley and Amelia led the session on Tuesday, January 31st.
The presentation took place during the first hour of the 80 minutes class period. During the first 30
minutes, Susan’s class came down to the Van Zoeren computer lab. Here they would get an
introduction to the new CnW and to upload the standards required for their portfolios. There were
some students who had not set up their accounts at all. After 30 minutes, the students switched
with the students in Jane’s class. While students were not getting CnW 101, they were getting an
iPad presentation.
Things that went well:
1. For the most part, students were receptive the changes and picked up quickly on the
new way of doing things.
2. Students were able to upload standards without much difficulty.
3. Students worked ahead and began to write descriptive paragraphs about the
standards.
Things that did not go well:
1. Many students, especially those taking Edu 225 for psych credit, had not purchased
CnW at all.
2. Students were separated by teacher and not by CnW status. There were some
students who had not set up their new portfolios and some who had. Having to split
the class into “have” and “have not” sections made the explanation especially
difficult. Ashley and I had to talk over each other. We were only able to use the
projector for one group, causing confusion for students not in that section.
3. Students had similar problems to Edu 220 students with misnaming their portfolios
and choosing the correct table of contents.
4. The computer system became overloaded, so downloading the standards and
uploading was a slow process. Many students were unable to upload all required
standards.
5. Next time, students should be split into those who have or have not created a
portfolio. This would eliminate a lot of problems.
3
3. Technology Presentation for EDU 310
On February 10th, Alex, Ashley, and Abby visited Linda Jordan’s Curriculum and Methods
class to share a little bit about the technologies available for students in the student teaching
toolkit. The presentation lasted for 60 minutes and instructed students about the use of Livescribe
pens and the SMART Board.
In addition to these technologies, students were introduced to a website called Delicious.
Delicious is in essence an elaborate “book-marking” system that enables teachers to organize and
save links to websites that they feel are useful for instruction. Ashley led the class through the
process of setting up their own Delicious accounts.
Things that went well:
1. Students seemed engaged in the information being shared.
2. Students were able to test out the Livescribe pens to see how they
worked.
3. Students were given handouts about the technologies being presented so
that they had a reference to go back to if they had questions.
Things that did not go well:
1. Some students did not bring computers so they were unable to set up a
Delicious account.
2. Some students worked ahead in setting up their Delicious accounts and
missed important information about the use of Delicious.
Things that need to be changed:
1. Allow time for students to explore the SMART Board. Learning about
the SMART Board and presenting on the SMART Board are two very
different things.
4
4. Student Teaching Portfolio Presentation
Karli and Amber presented on the requirements of the Student Teaching Professional Portfolio
on January 30th. They went through the power point of what the purpose of the portfolio was, why
it was important, the different types of portfolios, things to include, helpful suggestions, and they
showed Amber’s as an example. Kyle and Amelia will be conducting their presentation in the fall,
so they were in attendance to become familiar with the content.
Things that went well:
1. Students were very attentive and many were taking notes. This happened because
we did not tell them the PowerPoint would be on the website or sent to them. We
agreed this is a good way to get them to pay attention.
2. Students asked good questions and were concerned with getting the correct due
dates and correct information.
3. Examples were provided in the front of paper portfolios.
Things that did not go well:
1. When students saw Amber’s portfolio, one girl asked if it could be sent out. This is
tricky because Amber did not want her information out there or her styling copied.
Nancy Cook decided the names of the tabs Amber had would be given out instead.
Things that need to be changed/added to presentation:
1. When including lesson plans, put ones from previous classes, but they will
eventually be replaced with student teaching lesson plans.
2. Letters of Rec: do NOT ask college supervisor (outside observer) or mentor teacher
for a letter. They will already do this.
3. On “What Do I Include?” slide: Philosophy of Edu should be at the beginning and
students need to put in a cover page that is not an autobiography.
4. Under professional development, students can include workshops or conferences
they go to.
5. Students should also add about their diverse classroom experiences. Tell the reader
the type of classroom you worked in, the diversity, the type of school, etc.
6. Community involvement should be included as it pertains to teaching and
volunteering.
5
5. Student Teaching Portfolio Evaluations
On February 27th, the student teachers presented their portfolios in small groups to other group
members and to the Tech Team leaders. These TT leaders worked usually in pairs. Besides Tech
Team members, we all had a mix of Hope education professors and community
teachers/administrators to come in to evaluate as well. There were on average four student teachers
and two evaluators. Each group had about one hour to complete the evaluation process. The group
leaders were given packets of rubrics to be filled out by everyone in the group (including the other
student teachers). The packet also included a list of questions that should be answered in the
portfolio. These things included data-driven instruction and use of technology.
Once each group got to their designated room, the student teachers would present their
portfolios one at a time to the group. They would click on the tabs and explain their portfolio.
They were told to summarize, not read word for word off their descriptions. At the end, the
evaluators could ask questions, offer suggestions, and pay compliments.
Things that went well:
1.
Many students did very nice online portfolios and there were very little
technological problems.
2.
Most groups finished early.
3.
Portfolios were well done and showed the hard work that went into its creation.
Things that need to be changed:
1. Students need to put photo credits if there are pictures of students. There needs to
be some place where it says that photos were taken with permission.
2. The rubric for the evaluators was not as helpful as the questions provided. A
committee of Ashley, Alex, Krystal, and Nancy Cook has been formed to redo the
rubric and create greater correlation between the questions and the rubric.
3. In explanation of field placement, keep it short. It is especially nice of the
evaluations are linked into the descriptions.
4. The “Big Three” need to be better emphasized: a) Data-driven instruction, b)
technology, and c) behavior management.
6
6. MACUL Conference
The MACUL Conference in Grand Rapids from March 7th-9th offered a great experience for
five of the Tech Team members. Amber, Karli, Amelia, Alex, and Kyle, along with Susan were in
attendance. Tony Donk joined us later in the day. The education department covered the cost of
the conference and we attended the 8th and the 9th. The first day we were there started in the
morning with time spent in the exhibition hall. Here we split up and wandered. We explored the
different technologies offered and learned about what was new. The afternoon was spent in
various sessions. We split up and went to the ones that sounded interesting to us. Members of our
Tech Team presented on Friday morning.
Find the Tech in You: Integration 101
Karli Brant, Susan Cherup, & Amber Lemme
(Abstract) Integration of the NETS*T into all education classes at Hope College, professional
development for both faculty and preservice teachers, and the Traveling Technology Toolkit,
developed in response to data from student teacher surveys, are preparing students and
faculty for using 21st century technologies.
Goals of Presentation:
- The learner will (TLW) discover how NETS*T can be incorporated into the education of PreService Teachers.
- TLW learn ways to engage higher-education faculty in learning new technologies.
- TLW become informed of new additions to the Traveling Technology Toolkit (TTT) and
website.
- TLW see how student teachers are using technology in their student teaching placements
Overall Experience:
“I went to multiple sessions on digital storytelling. It really emphasized the importance of stories and
letting kids be creative still. There is a continuum of ways to do this but I think this is a great way to
incorporate writing, reading, and creativity with kids of all ages. I also think the overall theme is just
that technology is a fantastic tool but you have to start with something and move forward with that.
You can not pick up ten things at once and expect it to be used effectively!” – Amber Lemme
“From MACUL I learned what a talented duo Karli and Amber were as they presented and I was
pleased with how receptive the audience was to the presentation. The discussion was very interactive
and informative. I learned about the challenges classroom teachers face in trying to implement
technology in their classrooms from this discussion.” –Susan Cherup
“ MACUL was the first conference I had ever been to. It really opened my eyes to all the types of
technologies that are out there. I never knew how many types devices are available! The best session I
went to was about Project-Based Assessment using the Internet. It showcases several online
assessments where students can be creative. I thought it was a great way to break up the usual tests
and essays.” – Amelia DeVries
“For me, MACUL was an opportunity that allowed me to analyze my own use of technology in the
classroom and plans for future teaching. In the world of today, students walk into the classroom
7
expecting a totally wired, technology-enhanced experience. As an educator, it is my job to make
lessons fun, exciting, and applicable to their lives, and technology is a huge part of that. Attending
MACUL allowed me to gain more confidence and resources to use in the classroom in order to reach
my students.” – Karli Brant
“One of the most interesting presentations I saw included six ways to write a story without a pencil. It
shared everything from apps like storykit, to websites like myfakewall.com. The wonderful thing about
this presentation was that it provided ideas for all grade levels. Storykit is a bit more elementary,
myfakewall.com is geared more towards middle school or high school students.
I also went to a presentations in which teachers were receiving awards for research they had done in
their own classrooms. For instance, one teacher used ipads in one of her classes and then used
traditional workbooks in another one of her classes. Another women came into the lady's classroom
and monitored the amount of time students were on task. Although both classes got similar grades, the
ipad class was on task more often.” – Alex Klomparens
8
Goals for Fall 2012
Our emphasis next semester will be making sure our professional portfolios have the three
major categories that employers are looking for: 1) Data-driven instruction 2) Alternative
assessment (in the form of project-based learning and assessment) 3) Classroom management.
These are three areas that we talk a lot about in class, but we want to find ways to bring technology
into these areas.
Student Teacher Workshops: After attending MACUL and learning so much about data-driven
instruction, alternative (project-based) assessment, and classroom management, we decided these
would be good topics for our annual fall workshops. The date and times of these workshops have
not been determined at this time.
For the Fall 2012, we also welcome several new members: Kate Bauer (14), Hannah Loula
(15), Rachel Lundstrom (14), and Brady VanMalsen (14).
Amelia DeVries and Kyle Mireles will be the new co-directors for the 2012 school year. They
are very excited to continue the progress the Tech Team has made and look forward to how to
continually improve the Toolkit.
9