To show mastery in PLO 5, I used my EDU656 Just-In-Time (JIT) Request for a Proposal. The link to this original assignment can be found here:
After viewing the original assignment, my redesigned work for EDU697 is below.
Week Three
Assignment: PLO 5 Redesign
Dyane Plumly
EDU697
Dr. Philip
Orlando, Ed. Spec
July 14, 2014
Introduction
The
assignment that I have elected to redesign to meet the Program Learning Outcome 5 to “exemplify ethical practices of
technology usage” is the EDU656 Request for a Proposal for a Just-in-Time (JIT)
Learning Activity. In the EDU656 Request for a Proposal, I had made a statement
of work for a JIT Learning Activity that resembled an AT&T Broadband
example that utilized a “learning management system and dynamic learning
objects (small chunks of course content)” that creates “customized course work
targeted to eliminate individual gaps in learning” (Weintraub & Martineau,
2002, p. 55-56). This JIT Learning Activity would require a Google Site with
navigation tools to access information and videos; yet, I had not made any
ethical considerations for student use. As the original assignment was a
Request for a Proposal and is written in a very specific manner, I have elected
to explain the redesign changes in narrative form and attach it to the original
document. In this narrative,
I have also included a discussion regarding the instructional design principle
and theory that ensures ethical practices of technology usage and a reflection
on the challenges of this redesign work.
Explanation of Redesign
When
specifically considering educators, Mills (2014) discusses the AERA code of
ethics. Included in the AERA code of ethics are areas such as professional
competence, integrity, and respect for people’s rights, dignity, and diversity.
When reviewing the Belmont Report, the basic ethical principles are respect for
persons, beneficence, and justice. When electing the redesign components
necessary for the JIT activity described above, these topics were considered.
In order to
ensure that I protect my students and do no harm, my first ethical concern that
I must address is the specific needs of my students with special needs. As my
program serves the Special Day Class (SDC) students in our region, many of my
students have an IEP. In order to respect my students, as described in The
Belmont Report (1979), I need to ensure that the technology use does not
infringe on the specific learning disability or behavioral needs of students
according to their IEP’s. This respect
for persons can be ensured for my SPED students, and all my students, by
utilizing the three principles of Universal Design of
Learning (U.D.L.) - representation, expression, and engagement. As described by
the Center for Applied Specialized Technology (CAST) (2011), this first
principle provides options for perception (alternatives for auditory and/or
visual information), provides options for language and symbols (options to
define vocabulary, clarify, illustrate key concepts), and provides options for
comprehension (activate background knowledge, guide processing). Also, as
described by CAST (2011), the second principle, expression, calls for multiple means of expression, such as
providing options for physical action (assistive technologies), expressive
skills and fluency (media, scaffolds), and executive functions (planning and
monitoring progress). Finally, as described by CAST (2011), the third
principle, engagement, recruits
interest, sustains effort and persistence, and self-regulation. By having the
JIT activity designed around these principles, the first ethical concern,
respect for persons, can be adequately addressed.
More
specifically, in this request for this JIT activity, I would ensure to request
that in order to show respect for persons in regards to the site that is being
accessed by students, headings can be used in a logical, predictable manner (UDI Online Project, 2010). The use of larger text can be
used to provide ease for students with low vision. Alternative text will also
be used with any images that are used on the site (UDI Online Project, 2010). Similarly, closed captioning will be used for
any videos that are shown on the site.
The JIT
activity website also uses the segmenting and pretraining principles. According to Clark and
Mayer (2011), the segmenting and pretraining principles make material more
accessible to all learners, but particularly those who might need more
processing time, are special education learners, or have English as their
second language. Even more, novice learners or students who are new to a
particularly complex topic benefit from these frontloading and “chunking”
instructional decisions. Even more so, Dabbagh (2006) notes that one of the
basic principles of
Cognitivism includes an “Emphasis on structuring,
organizing and sequencing information to facilitate optimal processing.” By
allowing students to access the material on the site as needed, they are able
to organize the own learning process to best meet their individual needs.
As my students
are in high school, I also need to respect them by explaining the purpose of
the JIT activity. They deserve to be informed about the technology benefits and
drawbacks they might experience with the tool.
By explaining the purpose of the activity, students can become consciences
users of the site and instructional material. In addition to this, I must also
get informed consent from parents and probation officers. Informed consent must be provided by parents of
minors to ensure that they understand students are accessing online material –
and that their use may result in it being recorded by other students or the
site owner (Google) without permission. When considering the informed consent
from parents, it is important that parents have access to my Teacher’s Assistant
who is Spanish-speaking and that written information is delivered in Spanish so
that all families have access to the content. I must also get consent from
probation officers, as some terms of student’s probation limits certain uses of
technology.
Lastly, in
order to ensure that students are using the technology safely and ethically,
students will not be allowed to use technology until they are versed in the safety
and responsibility use expectations.
By
addressing all of the above concerns, the Request for the Proposal for my JIT
activity addresses the Program Learning Outcome
5 to “exemplify ethical practices of technology usage”
Principles and Theory
In my
particular case, understanding the population that will be utilizing the JIT
activity is critical. I am a teacher
with Juvenile Court and Community Schools. At my specific site, the students
range in grade from 7th-12th and in age from 12 to 19 years old - yet, all
these grade levels and ages may be mixed inside one classroom of 25-30
students. In addition, my particular school site is the Special Day Class
designated school. Lastly, as my classroom is less than five miles away from
the Tijuana border, approximately 80% of my students were raised in
Spanish-speaking homes.
According to Dabbagh (2006), there are several
basic principles to consider with instructional design. These theories of
learning can be applied when considering how to structure the JIT learning
activity. According to Dabbagh (2006), in the description on Cognitivism, learning
is an active process. In the JIT activity, students would be able to navigate
the material according to their specific learning need. In addition, the site
is linked to Google Docs. In this case, learners could collaborate with either
educator or fellow classmates. Also according to Cognitivism, as described by
Dabbagh (2006), learning is also created based upon what the learner does with
this information. By using Google, which includes the Site, Drive, Docs, and
Chat, students would be able to have both asynchronous and synchronous learning
opportunities, in addition to creating their own individualized learning path.
Lin (2007)
notes that copyright infringement and the violation of online private
information are examples of potentially inappropriate use of technology. According to the U.S. Copyright Office (2012),
material can be considered for fair use if it is for educational purposes.
Although the use of this Google Site is not intended to replicate or distribute
student work, students must always be informed about the possibility about
their work being shared online. When
working online, students must always be aware that their work can easily be
distributed. Even more so, as students are working within Google, and this
allows for email, chats, and sharing of documents, students must also know that
although it is not my intent to share their personal information, if they
shared anything that put them or others at risk of dangers, there are certain
legal mandates that I must follow and this would void any other privacy
considerations.
Lastly, as also
described in The Belmont Report (1979), the concern of beneficence will
also be addressed. As a teacher, it is always my goal to do no harm and only
practice what I believe is in the best interests of my students. Throughout
this action research, I will remain flexible in my course of action and
implementation so that all students are in the safest and most beneficial
learning environment possible.
By creating a
JIT learning activity with evidence-based literature that supports student
learning, I am able to ensure that my personal teaching ethics, and those as
outlined by The Belmont Report (1979) are intact.
Challenges Experienced
For
this assignment, there were several challenges that arose. To begin with, until
EDU671, ethical concerns with technology use were not addressed in any of my
assignments. As a result, there were many previous assignments to sift through
in order to select the activity that would be best improved by these additions.
Although I selected the JIT activity for the ultimate redesign, it made me
realize that these considerations with student use of technology must always be
considered.
As
with the previous week, I also wanted to ensure that all the material I created
would be relevant to my current teaching practice. It is critical to me that I
am effectively designing and creating content that my students will benefit
from – both as a way to save time for myself and in order to ensure that my
students are benefiting from my experiences as a student and what I am
learning. Yet, with this particular redesign, I am not actually submitting a
request for a proposal. However, I ultimately selected this particular
assignment because I do frequently work with Google Sites (my students will eventually
create a e-portfolio using this tool) and I felt that much of the information
used here could be taken into my classroom for use – having my Teacher
Assistant get informed consent from parents, explaining the purpose of our work
to my students, and making sure that all the online instructional material that
I use is accessible to show respect for persons.
Lastly, I had to
carefully understand the ethics of technology use and be able to apply it to
the various components. For much of the work regarding respect for persons, I
felt that it overlapped with supporting the needs of all my learners. However,
this led me to the realization that these two concepts are hand-in-hand – that
in order to respect my students, I must provide them equal access to material
according to their learning needs. The other ethical concerns addressed allowed
me to also reflect the need to create better dialogue between myself, students,
and parents about technology use, safety, and expectations.
Conclusion
The
redesign of my original JIT activity proposal has highlighted the need to not
only incorporate relevant and meaningful technology into my classroom, but to
also ensure that the technology is being ethically and responsibly used. As an
educator, I have many professional considerations to make to ensure my decisions
are in the benefit of my students so that they are being well respected and
informed online. Technology creates opportunities for students to become
autonomous and creative digital users, but they must also use this technology
carefully. In my role as the educator, it must be my first priority that no
technologies are introduced or used in my classroom without I have successfully
met the criteria for Program Learning
Outcome 5 to “exemplify ethical practices of technology usage.”
References
CAST (2011). Universal Design for
Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-Learning
and the science of instruction (3rd ed). San Francisco. Pfeiffer.
Dabbagh, N.
(2006). Instructional design knowledge base. Retrieved from http://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/IDKB/models_theories.htm
Lin, H.
(2007). The ethics of instructional technology: issues and
coping strategies experienced by professional technologists in design and
training situations in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55,
411-437. Retrieved from http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/ed690mb/ethics.pdf
UDI Online Project. (2010). Students with disabilities and
online learning (Technical Brief # 04). Storrs: University of Connecticut,
Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability. Retrieved from http://www.udi.uconn.edu/index.php?q=content/technical-brief-students-disabilities-and-online-learning
U.S. Copyright Office. (2012). Fair use. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
U.S. Department
of Health & Human Services. (1979). Ethical
principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The
Belmont Report. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
Weintraub, R. S. & Martineau, J. W. (2002).
The Just-in-Time imperative. T+D 56(6), 50-58. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
No comments:
Post a Comment