+1 (208) 254-6996 essayswallet@gmail.com
  

Discussion Two: Article 1 Review 

Technology is undoubtedly a solidified component of today’s educational process. However, there are those who continue to struggle with the implementation of technology for numerous reasons as addressed in an article written by Harrell & BynumPreview the document (2018). After reading the article, please provide a brief discussion (at least two to three paragraphs) about two of the factors discussed in the article (both external or internal or one of each) as to how you view their impact on the classroom of your content area. Your response may be in agreement or disagreement with the article, providing cited evidence in support of your comments. You may also briefly address any other factor(s) that were not covered in the article (optional). Cite all references and list them (APA format) at the end of your post.

Once your post has been submitted, you will then have access to view others’ posts and replies. You are to reply to at least two other student’s article review posts using tasteful, thoughtful, and sufficient scholastic statements (minimum of two to three sentences).

Be sure to review the Discussion Board Expectations and RubricPreview the document file before posting.

Reference:

Harrell, S., & Bynum, Y. (2018). Factors affecting technology integration in the classroom.

Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership5, 12–18. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov

     /contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1194723

Due Jan 31 2021

Discussion Two: Integrating Technology into the Classroom

No unread replies.No replies.

Discussion Two: Article 1 Review 

Technology is undoubtedly a solidified component of today’s educational process. However, there are those who continue to struggle with the implementation of technology for numerous reasons as addressed in an article written by  Harrell & Bynum Preview the document (2018). After reading the article, please provide a brief discussion (at least two to three paragraphs) about two of the factors discussed in the article (both external or internal or one of each) as to how you view their impact on the classroom of your content area. Your response may be in agreement or disagreement with the article, providing cited evidence in support of your comments. You may also briefly address any other factor(s) that were not covered in the article (optional). Cite all references and list them (APA format) at the end of your post.

Once your post has been submitted, you will then have access to view others’ posts and replies. You are to reply to at least two other student’s article review posts using tasteful, thoughtful, and sufficient scholastic statements (minimum of two to three sentences).

Be sure to review the  Discussion Board Expectations and Rubric Preview the document file before posting.

Reference:

Harrell, S., & Bynum, Y. (2018). Factors affecting technology integration in the classroom.

      Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership5, 12–18. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov

     /contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1194723

Lesson Plan Presentation (Weekly)

Submit Assignment

· Due Feb 14 by 11:59pm

· This assignment is a unit of five days of lesson plans, including the evaluated one day lesson plan, that incorporates other disciplines.

· The unit should have at least two other disciplines in addition to your content area embedded within the lesson plans.

· Be sure to indicate Day One, Day Two, etc. at the top of each lesson plan.

· Give the unit submission a title that reflects the topic covered.

· This assignment must have technology included in at least two days of the five lesson plans.

· One day may be used for final assessment, but this assessment is to be something other than a multiple-choice test. Instead, the final assessment should be a project, essay, etc.

· FYI:  Once we cover the mini grant information, you will be asked to create a mini grant request. This request should be for something (software, hardware, manipulatives, etc.) that could be used to enhance the instruction for your unit. All of this information will be used to develop your Interdisciplinary Instructional Module Initial Draft. 

 See  rubric Preview the document for evaluation measures.

There will be virtual office hours posted for questions you may have while developing this unit.

Discussion Three: Direct vs Constructivist Instruction with the Implementation of Pedagogical Tools

Submit Assignment

· Due Feb 21 by 11:59pm

· Points 10

  Virtual Fetal Pig Dissection Lab on youtube

· Submitting a text entry box, a website url, or a media recording

Online courses have been steadily increasing in enrollment among colleges as the format appeals to not only adult students who work while completing college but also high school students who are dual credit/dual enrollment students. However, there have been some courses in question of credibility and effectiveness when offered virtually, especially lab-based sciences. Nevertheless, virtual pedagogical techniques, such as virtual dissection, are included among the instruction methods for students at both the secondary and post-secondary levels to make these online courses suitable for learning the course objectives. The video embedded at the end of this post is only one example of a virtual dissection (there are numerous purchasable options) to give you an idea of what is used.

Read the following scenario and respond to the questions from the perspective of a school district science coordinator. Keep in mind that as a leader, one must consider all aspects – students, teachers, administration, and the school district as a whole – when making program decisions. In addition, please address direct versus constructivist methods in your narrative. 

Note: Approach this assignment as if this was a real situation and carefully consider how you would/should handle this “change” as a good educator and an effective leader. Additional comments about using virtual simulation software in your area of expertise are welcomed (optional). Creativity is key in this discussion. Use any resource available to you (i.e., colleagues, research, and software) that can assist you in your responses to these questions.

Deciding on Objectives and Assessments (Roblyer & Doering, p. 69)

As the school district science coordinator, you ask the high school biology teachers to begin using a dissection simulation program in the lieu of actual pig dissections as usually done. You believe this method will save both time and money for the district. Several biology teachers are reluctant to make this change. The teachers claim their resistance arises from students not being able to learn as much about anatomy and dissection techniques from a simulation as they can from real-time dissection. However, they agree to pilot the software in a few sections.

1. What would be the expectations of the virtual simulation method in terms of Student Learning Outcomes (SLO)? Include how might they differ, if at all, from the classes not using the virtual simulation.

2. If you were one of the biology teachers, how would you implement the virtual simulation to appropriately address and evaluate these SLO expectations?

3. As district coordinator, what instruments or information would you use to assess the saving time and money objective for the implementation of the virtual dissection?

Once you submit your post, you will then have access to view others’ posts and replies. You are to reply to at least one other student’s post using tasteful, thoughtful, and sufficient scholastic statements (minimum of two to three sentences).

Roblyer, M. & Doering, A. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching (5th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Interdisciplinary Instructional Module

Submit Assignment

· Due March 28 by 11:59pm

· Submitting a text entry box or a file upload

Interdisciplinary Instructional Module 

 The  Interdisciplinary Instructional Module will be a 2 page narrative explaining the following:

· Unit Lesson Plan for Five Class Days

· Indicated Technology Applications

· Copies of assessments (test, quizzes, projects, etc.) that students will receive should be included in in the 5 lesson plan but not this narrative.

· brief description of idea for Mini Grant Proposal that relates to need of the Unit Lesson Plan

Important Note: Culmination project using a single subject and interdisciplinary activities incorporating state and national curriculum objectives and advanced pedagogy to include technology, meeting the diverse learning styles of students. Prior work submitted will be applicable to this final project.

Discussion Four: Educational Software

Due Mar 28 4 by 11:59pm

· Submitting a text entry box, a website url, a media recording, or a file upload

TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) is a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to spreading ideas, usually in the form of short, powerful talks of 18 minutes or less.

Watch a TED Talk given by Sal Khan, the founder of Khan Academy, entitled  Let’s Teach for Mastery – not Test Scores  (Links to an external site.). Then briefly share your thoughts about Khan’s presentation, referring to specific comments that you find interesting (i.e., “right mindset muscles”, “mastery-based learning”, and “inverting the pyramid”), along with how implementing technology may enable an educator to address these elements of learning within the classroom.

Once your post has been submitted, you will then have access to view others’ posts and replies. You are to reply to at least one other student’s posts using tasteful, thoughtful, and sufficient scholastic statements (minimum of two to three sentences).

Optional viewing: Sal Khan’s first TED Talk is about how Khan Academy started entitled  Let’s Use Video to Reinvent Education

Discussion Five: Education Grants

Due April 4

Discussion Five: Education Grants 

Research information via educational literature, library, and/or internet (please use credible sources) about best practices in writing mini-grants as well as find viable mini-grant opportunities for Mississippi educators.

1. Post at least five (5) elements of a mini-grant proposal that may lead to a successful mini-grant submission. Be sure to cite or provide a link to the resource(s). The idea of this discussion is to share helpful information about writing mini-grant proposals.

2. Post at least two (2) current mini-grant applications and/or links to mini-grant applications that are available to teachers in Mississippi of different content areas. This will provide a small collection of potential mini-grant applications for everyone in the class. Be sure to make note of the mini-grant’s deadline.

3. Comment to at least two (2) of your colleagues’ posts of the five positive factors from #1, giving your reflection about at least one of the five that you find critical to a successful submission.

4. Comment to a colleague’s post of one mini-grant application that you would most likely consider for submission. This may be of the same person you respond to from #3 or one of a different colleague.

Due

Jan

31

2021

Discussion Two: Integrating Technology into

the Classroom

No

unread

replies.No

replies.

Discussion Two: Article 1 Review

Technology is undoubtedly a solidified component of today’s educational process.

However, there are those who continue to struggle with the implementation of

technology for numerous reasons as addressed in an article written by

Harrell & Bynum

(2018). After reading the article, please provide a brief discussion (at least two to

three paragraphs) about

two

of the factors discussed in the article (both external or

internal or one of each) as to how you view their im

pact on the classroom of your

content area. Your response may be in agreement or disagreement with the article,

providing cited evidence in support of your comments. You may also briefly address any

other factor(s) that were not covered in the article (opt

ional). Cite all references and list

them (APA format) at the end of your post.

Once your post has been submitted, you will then have access to view others’ posts and

replies. You are to reply to

at least two

other student’s article review posts using

tast

eful, thoughtful, and sufficient scholastic statements (minimum of two to three

sentences).

Be sure to review the

Discussion Board Expectations and Rubric

file before posting.

Reference:

Harrell, S., & Bynum, Y. (2018). Factors affecting technology integration in the

classroom.

Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership

,

5

, 12

18. Retrieved from

https://eric.ed.gov

/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1194723

Lesson Plan Presentation (Weekly)

Submit Assignment

·

Due

Feb

14

by

11:59pm

Due Jan 31 2021

Discussion Two: Integrating Technology into

the Classroom

No unread replies.No replies.

Discussion Two: Article 1 Review

Technology is undoubtedly a solidified component of today’s educational process.

However, there are those who continue to struggle with the implementation of

technology for numerous reasons as addressed in an article written by Harrell & Bynum

(2018). After reading the article, please provide a brief discussion (at least two to

three paragraphs) about two of the factors discussed in the article (both external or

internal or one of each) as to how you view their impact on the classroom of your

content area. Your response may be in agreement or disagreement with the article,

providing cited evidence in support of your comments. You may also briefly address any

other factor(s) that were not covered in the article (optional). Cite all references and list

them (APA format) at the end of your post.

Once your post has been submitted, you will then have access to view others’ posts and

replies. You are to reply to at least two other student’s article review posts using

tasteful, thoughtful, and sufficient scholastic statements (minimum of two to three

sentences).

Be sure to review the Discussion Board Expectations and Rubric file before posting.

Reference:

Harrell, S., & Bynum, Y. (2018). Factors affecting technology integration in the

classroom.

Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership, 5, 12–18. Retrieved from

https://eric.ed.gov

/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1194723

Lesson Plan Presentation (Weekly)

Submit Assignment

 Due Feb 14 by 11:59pm

Revised for Fall 2018

Rubric: Weekly Plans

CAEP InTASC TGR

CRITERIA

Unacceptable (1)

Needs Improvement

(2)

Meets Standard (3)

Exceeds Standard

(4) CAEP 1.2 InTASC 7 TGR 1

All objectives are written in measurable and observable terms, based on state frameworks, and are developmentally appropriate for students. All objectives are aligned with assessments and all learning outcomes are clearly specified.

All or most objectives are not written in measurable and observable terms and are not aligned with assessments. Learning outcomes are not specified.

All objectives are not consistently written in measurable and observable terms and/or are not consistently aligned with assessments. Most learning outcomes are specified.

All objectives are written in measurable and observable terms, based on state frameworks, and are developmentally appropriate for students. All objectives are aligned with assessments and all learning outcomes are clearly specified.

In addition to meets standard, the pre- assessments were implemented and the results support the planned objectives and learning goals.

CAEP 1.5 InTASC 8 TGR 2

Plans appropriate and sequential teaching procedures that include innovative introductions and closures. Teaching procedures incorporate different teaching strategies that positively impact student learning and development.

Does not plan appropriate or sequential teaching procedures that include innovative introductions and closures. Different teaching strategies are not utilized.

Plans lack logical sequence and different teaching strategies.

Plans appropriate and sequential teaching procedures that include innovative introductions and closures. Teaching procedures incorporate different teaching strategies that positively impact student learning and development.

In addition to meets standard, multiple lesson plans cited research-based evidence.

Revised for Fall 2018

CAEP 1.1 InTASC 2 TGR 2

Differentiated instruction is included as plans include meaningful and authentic learning experiences that accommodate developmental and individual needs of each learner in the group.

Does not include differentiated instruction in plans that include meaningful nor authentic learning experiences to accommodate developmental and individual needs of each learner in the group.

Develops meaningful and authentic learning experiences, but does not differentiate instruction to accommodate individual needs of each learner in the group.

Differentiated instruction is included as plans include meaningful and authentic learning experiences that accommodate developmental and individual needs of each learner in the group.

In addition to meets standard, provides evidence-based strategies that accommodate developmental and individual needs of each learner in the group.

CAEP 1.5 InTASC 7 TGR 6

Plans include resources and/or technology that will engage students in analysis, creativity, and deeper learning experiences to improve student growth, development, and understanding.

Plans do not include resources or technology that will engage students.

Plans lack logical use of resources and technology.

Plans include resources and/or technology that will engage students in analysis, creativity, and deeper learning experiences to improve student growth, development, and understanding.

In addition to meets standard, multiple lesson plans utilize resources and technology to enhance learning opportunities.

CAEP 1.3 InTASC 6 TGR 3

Plans indicate use of appropriate informal and formal assessments that effectively evaluate student learning and development.

Plans do not indicate use of informal and formal assessments that effectively evaluate student learning and development.

Plans indicate use informal and formal of assessments but not all are appropriate.

Plans indicate use of informal and formal appropriate assessments that effectively evaluate student learning and development.

In addition to meets standard, assessments are performance-based to enhance critical thinking and problem solving.

Revised for Fall 2018

CAEP 1.1 InTASC 5 TGR 4

Overall assignment is free with no more than one spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and paragraphing error. Writing exemplifies professionalism and effective writing skills.

Overall assignment includes four or more spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and paragraphing errors.

Overall assignment is free with most spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and paragraphing errors. Submission may include no more than three errors.

Overall assignment is free from no more than one spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and paragraphing error.

Overall assignment is free with all spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and paragraphing errors. Writing exemplifies professionalism and effective writing skills.