Edtechassess

Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan for Educational Technology Summary Prepared by Carla Piper, Ed. D.
The educational technology department learning outcomes assessment plan was designed to evaluate effectiveness in meeting four goals: 1. Personalized education in advising, teaching, mentoring, and career/graduate school preparation. 2. Student competence in scholarly writing focused on the use of online research resources and APA electronic format for citations and references. 3. Proficiency in meeting state and national technology standards for teachers. 4. Electronic assessment portfolio demonstrating competencies in meeting teacher performance expectations and technology standards for teachers and/or facilitators. An online survey was created to evaluate student perceptions regarding personalized education and self assessment of educational technology proficiency levels. Two different rubrics were designed and distributed to instructors throughout the Chapman University College campuses for the assessment of student writing and electronic portfolios. Student writing samples and electronic portfolios were collected as evidence of meeting the writing and portfolio assessment goals. An email was sent to all educational technology instructors for Terms E, 2005 and A, 2006. In addition, education faculty and program managers at all campuses were asked to encourage their instructors to participate. Educational technology instructors were requested to have their students take an online survey in Survey Monkey. Many instructors did have their students participate in the survey portion of this assessment. 272 students responded to the survey. Students reported high levels of satisfaction with Chapman University College instruction, coursework, advisement, and access to technology, Web Advisor and other web resources. 90% of students expressed that they were very satisfied or satisfied with their overall Chapman experience. 91% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the quality of their coursework at Chapman. 85% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with their access to technology. 85% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the Chapman computer lab. 83% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the website information. 82% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with web advisor. 80% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with communication with students. 77% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the advising by faculty and program managers.
Students were less satisfied with library services and career counseling. However, 18% of the students did not consider library services applicable to their Chapman experience. This would imply that they did not use the library services or see the use of the library as important to their education program. They may also be unaware of the services offered in their local Chapman library. 54% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with library services. 51% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the career counseling received at Chapman.
Student examples and rubrics were used to evaluate the goals for student writing and electronic portfolios. The samples were limited due to the lack of response by the Chapman educational technology instructors. Five instructors across California provided student examples and rubric assessments. Despite the efforts made to involve all educational technology instructors in the process of evaluating academic writing skills in technology coursework, the return from instructors was once again very low. Three instructors responded by completing the rubric and sending sample student writing. Two of these instructors compiled results for a full class and the other simply sent writing samples with rubric evaluation. Onsite campuses represented were Modesto, Fairfield, and Concord. The associate chair of educational technology was teaching educational technology classes online through eCollege and had access to the APA writing assignments from 113 students. In order to evaluate the results of the student writing rubric, an Excel file was created and totals and averages were tabulated for this report. A total of 148 student papers were examined and evaluated according to the rubric. The lowest score was with APA research and documentation. Average Academic Writing Proficiency Scores (N=148) Content and Research and Writing Organization Documentation APA Mechanics Total 2.73 2.22 2.78 7.74 Key: 3 points well developed; 2 points developing; 1 point needs work
Academic Writing Proficiency Averages N=148
Key 3 points - well developed 2 points - developing 1 point - needs work
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Content and Organization Research and Documentation - APA Mechanics
Students report strong gains in proficiency with technology tools and applications. A large percentage of Chapman University College students report that they are proficient or very proficient in meeting the national technology standards for teachers (NETS). However, the percentage of students reporting proficiency in 2005-2006 appears to be lower than that of 2004-2005. This may be due to two issues: more undergraduate students are taking the level one computer class as a prerequisite and fewer professional Clear students are enrolling because the state credential requirements for the level one technology course have changed. Percent at Proficient or Very Proficient in 2004-2005 74% 73% 67% 70% 74% 67% 74% 71% 74% Percent at Proficient or Very Proficient in 2005-2006 69% 65% 61% 64% 69% 62% 66% 71% 70%
Technology Standards for Teachers Understanding technology operations and concepts Creating technology-enhanced lesson plans Designing technology-rich classroom environments Implementing curriculum plans using technology Using technology to engage students in learning Using technology for assessment Applying technology for teacher productivity Using technology communication tools Understanding social legal ethical technology use
Students do report that they are satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of instruction they are receiving in their educational technology coursework. However, once again, those percentages have dropped in 2005-2006. The associate division chair will continue to examine the course content and objectives to determine reasons for this change. However, the class make-up has changed considerably with the level one course becoming a prerequisite to the credential program. Students are not yet teaching in the classroom and may not have an understanding of the content standards and teaching strategies. They do not have the experience or opportunity to apply their technology skills to teaching at this early stage, nor do they have a practical understanding of the realities of the classroom. Students who are Satisfied or Very Satisfied with the Quality of Technology Instruction at Chapman University College 2004 2005 2005 2006 Teacher Performance Expectations. 91% 86% State subject matter content standards. 88% 84% Strategies for effective teaching with technology. 92% 89% Use of technology for professional productivity. 93% 87% Educational technology standards for teachers. 93% 87% Strategies for integrating technology into teaching. 93% 89% Instructors model technology use in Chapman classes. 86% 83% 3
The assessment scores of 160 electronic portfolios indicate that students are discriminating in the selection of artifacts that demonstrate proficiencies in meeting technology standards for teachers. The average of the scores for all students was 7.4 out of nine points possible. Students demonstrate creativity and high technical quality. Reflection is the weakest component in the electronic portfolio process. Some students are very thorough in their reflections, relating ideas to their teaching practice, and others simply described what they had included as artifacts. Artifact Selection 3 points 2.6 Reflection 3 points Creative and Technical Quality 3 points 2.5 2.56 Total 9 ponts 7.4
Suggestions for Future Assessment Chapman University College faculty and program managers need to do more to involve educational technology instructors in the student learning outcomes assessment process. Educational technology instructors need to be required to participate in on-going assessment if they are to teach for Chapman University College. Professional development needs to be provided for educational technology instructors and faculty members in the areas of student writing and APA guidelines and electronic portfolio guidelines and expectations. Students are reporting greater proficiencies as a result of their educational technology coursework. However, it would be better if all of Chapman University College participated in this process.
N=272
Growth of Technology Proficiencies Pre/Post Gains
1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

eb W O t) t in en po m er ss ow se (P As g in ns nt io or de at th tu nt Au rS se o f eb re P ls W o ia ts To ed ar gy t im Ch lo ul d M no an ch hs Te g ap r in tG ns Us ee tio la sh cu ad al re tC Sp ee sh ng ad hi h re is rc bl Sp ea Pu es p R to ic sk m De de ca A or W d Pr s es oc g in l ai Em O nl e in D cu is nl g in e in
ch ar Se n
io ss
1. Personalized Education Goal Students will receive personalized education by faculty in the areas of advising, teaching, mentoring, and career/graduate school preparation. Demographics of Student Respondents The online survey is posted in Survey Monkey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=494241468425. 272 students responded to the survey in Terms E, 2005 and Term A, 2006. (N=272) Some students also responded to the survey in Term B, 2006. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of these students were registered for EDUU551: Educational Applications of Computers. Nineteen percent (19%) were registered for the undergraduate number of the same course: EDUU451. In comparison to last years survey, the number of undergraduate students participating has increased. (2004-2005: 85% Graduate; 9% Undergraduate)
N=272
Educational Technology Courses Represented

EDUU554 or 564 2%
EDUU552 1%
EDUU451 19%
EDUU551 78%
Students participating in the survey were primarily graduate credential students with 29% multiple subject and 23% single subject. In the past, this course could be used to meet the professional Clear requirement for the Ryan Act credential. However, with the SB2042 credential program now at the end of the third year, only 2% of the students represented in the survey were taking the course to meet the professional Clear requirement.
N=272
MAE Graduate Student 10% Professional Clear Credential 2% Dual Credential 5%
Education Programs Represented in Online Survey

Non-Degree Seeking Student 2%
Other 3%
Undergraduate 18%
Special Education Credential 8% Single Subject Credential 23%
Multiple Subject Credential 29%
Thirteen campuses participated in the survey. Several campuses did not participate in the survey onsite, but were represented by students taking the course online.
Antelope Valley Coachella Valley Concord Fairfield Hanford Irvine Manhattan Beach Modesto Monterey Moreno Valley Ontario Sacramento San Diego Santa Maria Victor Valley Visalia Yuba City 15 21 46 10 1 1 6 49 2 13 17 2 9 27 15 25 13
N=272
Chapman University College Campuses Represented

Yuba City Visalia Victor Valley Santa Maria San Diego
Sacramento Ontario Moreno Valley Monterey Modesto Manhattan Beach Irvine Hanford Fairfield Concord Coachella Valley Antelope Valley
N = 272
10
20
30
40
50
60
Only three campuses provided artifacts for the writing and electronic portfolio assessments Concord, Fairfield, and Modesto. No other campuses responded to the request for participation in the collection of artifacts of student work.. Total number of students participating in the survey is 272. Onsite student responses total 233 and online student responses total 35. The campuses represented in the online student survey response population are listed in the table below.
Antelope Valley Concord Fairfield Hanford Irvine Modesto Monterey Moreno Valley Ontario Sacramento 2 5 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 2
San Diego Santa Maria Victor Valley Visalia
3 5 2 2
Fifty percent (50%) of the students indicated that this technology class was the first educational computer class they have taken.
N=272
Educational Technology Courses Represented

EDUU554 or 564 2%
EDUU552 1%
EDUU451 19%
EDUU551 78%
Student Satisfaction Students reported high levels of satisfaction with Chapman University College instruction, coursework, advisement, and access to technology, Web Advisor and other web resources. 90% of students expressed that they were very satisfied or satisfied with their overall Chapman experience. 91% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the quality of their coursework at Chapman. 77% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the advising by faculty and program managers. 82% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with web advisor. 83% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the website information. 80% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with communication with students. 54% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with library services. 85% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with their access to technology. 8
85% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the Chapman computer lab. 51% of students were very satisfied or satisfied with the career counseling they received at Chapman.
A number of students regarded some of these questions on student satisfaction as not applicable to their situation. Of particular interest is the fact that 18% of the students did not consider library services applicable to their Chapman experience. This would imply that they did not use the library services or see the use of the library as important to their education program. They may also be unaware of the services offered in their local Chapman library. In addition, the highest very dissatisfied or dissatisfied ratings were in the area of library services, student communication, and student advising (each at 4%).
Overall Satisfaction with Chapman
Very Dissatisfied 0%
Neutral 9%
Dissatisfied 1%
Very Satisfied 34%
Satisfied 56%
N=272
N=272
Student Satisfaction with Web Advisor
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A
N=272
Student Satisfaction with Coursework
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A
10
N=272
Student Satisfaction with Website Information
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Satisfied N=272 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A
Student Satisfaction with Advising
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A
11
N=272
Student Satisfaction with Communication
Student Satisfaction with Library Services
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A
12
N=272
Student Satisfaction with Access to Technology
Student Satisfaction with Computer Lab
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A
13
N=272
Student Satisfaction with Career Counseling
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very Satisfied N=272 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A
Overall Student Satisfaction
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A
14
Communication with Advisors When asked how they would rank their overall experiences with Chapman faculty and program manager advisors, students indicated advisors were helpful in explaining program options (85%), answered their questions phone calls and/or email (88%), discussed options for meeting ed tech requirements (66%), showed concern for their well-being (80%), provided encouragement and support (79%), and provided a personalized education (77%). How would you rank your overall experiences with Chapman faculty and program manager advisors? Advisors:
Absolutely Agree Are helpful in explaining program options. Answer my questions phone calls and/or email. Discuss options for meeting ed tech requirements. Show concern for my wellbeing. Provide encouragement and support. Provide a personalized education. 94 119 78 99 104 93 Agree 136 117 100 117 108 113 Neutral 31 25 66 43 49 49 Disagree 6 6 16 8 6 12 Absolutely Disagree 2 0 1 0 0 0 N/A 2 3 10 2 2 3 Response Average 1.83 1.69 2.09 1.85 1.84 1.93
Students communicate report that they communicate with their faculty advisors and program managers primarily through casual meetings or drop-ins on campus or phone conversations. However, students do use email communication and interact with advisors within Chapman class meetings. The lowest response is with scheduled appointments on campus. How do you communicate with your faculty advisor or program manager?
Very Frequently Scheduled appointments on campus Casual meetings or drop-ins on campus Email communication Phone conversations In Chapman classes 19 14 30 16 33 Often 57 42 46 40 53 Some 101 79 80 95 65 Rarely 51 71 57 67 48 Never 26 48 44 38 51 N/A 17 16 13 13 19 Response Average 3.03 3.38 3.15 3.28 3.12
Strengths and Weaknesses Students were asked open-ended questions regarding the strengths and the weaknesses of the Chapman University College program. Many of these responses related to the general goals of personalized education. Some responses related to the educational technology programs specifically. Students are generally positive about their experiences
15
at Chapman University College. 77% of the students agree or absolutely agree that Chapman is providing them with a personalized education. The primary strength reported was the quality of instructors. The primarily weakness reported was the cost of courses, particularly those that are taught online. Students report the following strengths and weaknesses in their open-ended responses below. Briefly describe the strengths of your Chapman program: The courses are ten weeks which help move the program along. Small classes which allow teachers to be more one on one, clear guidance of what my next step should be, everyone always made time to help when I needed it. The strengths of my Chapman program have been small class sizes, the availability of the teacher for one on one when needed, amount of resource materials were helpful from the Chapman Library and the use of the computer lab. I also liked the educational aspects of working with my peers. The staff and professors are very helpful. Since it is a small university most of the faculty will know your name. They keep in contact with you constantly to stay updated with your progress. Class size and individualized instruction. Teachers take a real interest in student accomplishments. One of the strengths of the Chapman program is that the terms are only two and a half months long. The small ratio of students per teacher makes the classes fun and lend themselves to build friendships among students, and the teachers get to know the students. Program manager always has a moment for a quick question. Able to guide me in getting extra help because of a learning disability. The individual attention in all subject matters, especially with designing your class schedule and financial aid matters. It has high standards. Critical thinking is emphasized. Chapman doesn't leave it all up to you to 'find your way around' the program. They help you along the way. I had an experience with another college where that was not the case. The professors are very helpful and accommodating and want me to succeed. They are approachable and consistently offer guidance. Flexible and unique to each learner. Flexible schedules short semesters, personal attention, technology resources. Convenience of time and location, and understanding, knowledgeable instructors. The Chapman program offers a personalized education. The Chapman classes that I have taken have been a low stress/high learning type of environment. Personable, friendly, challenging, understanding, informative. The strengths of my Chapman program--easy access to instructors and advisors. Very good instructors. They want to see me succeed. I feel that this program's strengths are that we have good equipment to learn on and very patient instructors to walk students through the material when they need help.
16
Strengths: small class size, personable instructors, night classes, knowledgeable advisors, short terms (9 weeks), 18 month credential program. I like the smaller class sizes, the individualized attention, the friendliness of the staff, the teaching expertise in the staff, and the flexibility in the staff. Chapman offers small class sizes that allow for more individualized instruction. Very knowledgeable and professional Instructors State of the art technology available. Advisors knowledgeable and helpful Staff readily available to help. The strengths of the program are that all the staff is easily accessible and responsive to questions. One feels that staff wants to facilitate your learning and success in the program. Also everything (from paperwork in the admin. office to individual instructor lesson plans for class) are very organized. The Chapman mentor, the small class sizes, the advisory capacity, the nine-week schedule, the financial-aide advisory and the student-loan resource page. Chapman offered me the opportunity to work towards my single-subject credential at night and on line. I work full time, have three children and I was very active at the high school with a Youth Group. I thank Chapman, the faculty and program managers for supporting me in my endeavor. Additionally, every person who helped me during the last three years was supportive, attentive, available and willing to suggest effective ways to complete my program by year end, which I did. Considering the staff changes in program management, I was impressed with the care and personal attention I received. I have recommended Chapman to a few people who are considering credential programs. Nice New computers with up to date software! It is adult-oriented; classes are offered in the evenings; professors are in the industry; staff is friendly and available. I have been very satisfied with the support I've been given. Phone calls are returned promptly and advisors are very pleasant and clear on requirements. Helps guide you so you can succeed with your career. The strengths include a personal plan to meet my educational goals. Classes are related to my major, and overall career goal. Time frames meet my personal needs.
Briefly describe the weaknesses of your Chapman program: I'm not always confident that advisor(s) know what the requirements are, or the best way to proceed with my program, as there have been several times I have been given incomplete or false information. People are always pleasant, but not always as informed as I'd expect in university setting. Program advisers do not return calls or answer questions with in a timely fashion. Not good! I do not feel as though I have a great relationship with my program manager. In addition, I believe that some of the coursework is geared towards those who are already in the teaching profession. I would like to have more hands on information as to what I should expect as a teacher. Feel like one in the herd when it comes to being advised. I don't feel the advisors personalize things enough. Kind of a one size fits all type of thing. 17
Courses offered on days that conflict with other courses. For example, many courses are offered on Mondays. Since I can only take one course per day, I have trouble fitting courses into each term if the two courses that I need are offered on the same day. My adviser is not very helpful. I'm new and was not able to obtain much info. The students enrolled in the same program were very helpful. Misinformation from credential advisor in the front office. Not enough career counselors for help reaching employment objectives. No social/ school events for students in the credential programs. Not enough interaction with other students. I still feel confused after my first term of how everything works. I feel I need to better ask these questions of my counselor. Communication with Chapman needs improvement. Emails and phone calls to Chapman staff are not returned. Questions regarding my Chapman program through email or phone calls are not addressed in a timely manner or not addressed at all. Scheduling of classes needs better organization, such as upper division courses are offered on the same day of week, thus competing with each other. The only weakness I have experienced is the availability of some classes. Class periods are too long, 10:30 is too late. It is too expensive! The advising is not personal enough. I have had to keep on top of everything so much because forms have been lost, advisors have quit, financial aid advisor does not return calls. I just found out that my CLAD classes are only offered on-line. No one ever told me this, I luckily found out from another student. The 5 hour long classes with minimal breaks can be a drag after a long day at work. The class is too long...hands hurts and eyes hurt and tired from staring at screen all day and then in class all night. The main weakness of the Chapman program is that half of the computers do not work. The computers are often broken. It is not a productive use of time when there aren't enough computers for everyone or computers continuously shutting themselves off. So far the only thing that I feel is a weakness of the program is the ability to do the internships. I understand having to wait until you have taken the core classes, but then having to do interning for four terms compared to student teaching for two terms. Have to do so many prerequisites that it is prohibiting me from receiving my credential in a year. If I have a BA why do i need to do some many more prereq's? I am a little disappointed in Chapman's class schedule. I have a timeline in which I want to complete the program. This timeline is difficult to follow when only one class option is offered for the particular classes that I am ready for. In other words, I have found after a few terms that each of the classes that I need to take are only offered at one time slot. I would prefer to choose a convenient day of the week to take my classes on, rather than being only given one option.
18
Some of the staff members have seemed unenthusiastic to be there. The program is very expensive. I have received conflicting information from counselors and staff. I do not like the fact that we students that are paying for school out of their own pocket are being charged a fee to pay online but the only way we can pay is by a check that you bring to the office. i believe you should have credit card payment at the office. So that students can pay with their atm cards without a fee. Students with learning disabilities do not have a well-know process in getting accommodations formally acknowledged yet. They allow certain accommodations per instructor agreement, however to take the RICA with extended time or computer access, one is required to show a history of having accommodations. Please help this campus understand the process as soon as possible. The cost of Chapman is steep. The last year I applied for and received financial aide. In addition to the cost, I felt a few of the classes were repetitive. It's possible, however that I was caught between two programs (1059 and the current program).I spite of the repetitive feeling of some of the classes, I enjoyed and learned from my classmates and instructors in many ways that will enrich my teaching.
Conclusion: Personalized Education Despite the comments students made describing weaknesses and frustrations with their Chapman programs, 206 out of 272 students (77%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were receiving a personalized education. Only 12 out of the 272 respondents (4%) disagreed that they were receiving personalized education.
N=272
Personalized Education.
Absolutely Disagree Disagree 0% 4% N/A 1% Absolutely Agree 34%
Neutral 18%
Agree 43%
19
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of students report that they are very satisfied or satisfied with the personalized attention they receive from their education instructors.
N=271
Instructors provide personalized attention.

Dissatisified 3% Very Dissatisifed 0%
Neutral 10%
N/A 0%
Very Satisfied 49%
Satisfied 38%
20
2. Student Writing Goal Students will demonstrate competence in the use of online research resources and be able to write a scholarly research review using proper APA electronic format for citations and references. EDUU451/551 students will review one research article on the use of technology in education. MAE in Tech students will write a literature review in EDUU564 and an action research paper in EDUU565. Student Writing Objectives in Educational Technology Coursework Although the primary purpose in educational technology courses focuses on learning how to use computers for classroom instruction and examining learning theories that support the use of technology in teaching, some course objectives do directly relate to research and student writing. The course description in the EDUU451/551 syllabus states: Focus is on information and communication technologies as a means of gathering, processing, and communicating information. Critical issues include access, equity, privacy, safety, and ethical situations surrounding technology. Course objectives relating to student writing are: Demonstrate knowledge of ethical and social issues related to technology, including issues of access, equity, privacy, the protection of children, and ownership of intellectual property. Demonstrate competence in the use of on-line research resources and develop awareness of issues concerning authenticity, reliability, and bias of the data gathered. Students must gain an understanding how to evaluate online resources and learn how to communicate and demonstrate an understanding of concepts presented in peer-reviewed research. Students learn how to properly cite electronic sources in critiques, reviews, and analysis of research. The education department standard for documentation is APA. As a prerequisite course for all credential programs, EDUU451/551 students are instructed in the use of proper citations and electronic reference standards in order to be prepared for subsequent coursework throughout their education coursework. Online EDUU451/551 students review one ERIC Digest research article on the use of technology in education. Instructors throughout the state may choose to incorporate their own research and student writing assignments in the course. Some instructors request a philosophy of technology in education paper. MAE in Tech students are required to write a literature review in EDUU564 in preparation for their action research project in EDUU565. EDUU552 and EDUU563 also require student writing particularly focused on technology planning and assistive technologies. Student Writing Collection and Assessment Process An email was sent to all education faculty and program managers requesting that the message be forwarded to all EDUU451/551 instructors. In addition, the educational technology associate chair requested a contact list from the associate dean of faculty for
21
all EDUU451/551, EDUU552, and MAE educational technology instructors in Terms E, 200 and A, 2006 across all California campuses. A student writing rubric based on some of the items from the Chapman Writing Guide was attached to the email request. A scoring rubric was to be used to evaluate the research article review for 451/551 and the literature review for 564. Random sample of papers for were requested and they were to be sent to the educational technology associate division chair. Local instructors were also asked to score all student papers according to the rubric and send compiled results to the associate chair. The criteria used for the scoring rubric was on electronic APA format for citations and references, as well as the overall quality of scholarly writing. Changes in wording and scoring were made from the previous years form due to some confusion on interpretation and score reporting. An Excel template for tracking scores for APA writing was attached to all instructor email in order to help instructors compile data. Chapman Writing Guide Rubric Adapted for Educational Technology Courses
Criteria 1 Point
Needs Significant Work
2 Points
Developing
3 Points
Well Developed
I. Content and Organization The writer demonstrates an understanding of the assignment by using a style, form and language that is appropriate for its intended audience. The writer has chosen a topic in accord with the assignment and limited it sufficiently to explore in depth in the space allotted. The paper focuses its presentation by means of a clear statement of purpose (thesis statement, hypothesis or instructor posed question) and logically organized subtopic paragraphs. II. Research and Documentation The writer substantiates abstractions, judgments and assertions with specific illustrations, facts and evidence appropriate to the assignment and/or discipline. The writer has added to on-going discussions of the topic with his or her own critical analysis, rather than simply repeating what others have said through quotation-stacking, paraphrasing or summaries. The writer draws upon research whenever necessary to support critical analysis or assertions made and properly acknowledges the work of others by utilizing a standard APA documentation format for citations and electronic APA references. III. Mechanics The paper conforms to the minimal essentials of Standard American English grammar, word choice, spelling, and punctuation. Paper meets the posted assignment requirements of length, content, and conventions of writing.
22
According to the educational technology learning outcomes assessment plan, instructors were to assign the research review and collect papers for assessment. They were to use the rubrics for grading and send their results to the educational technology associate chair. The purpose was to evaluate students scholarly writing skills, understanding of educational research on the use of technology in teaching, and knowledge of electronic APA citations and reference format. The hope was to improve instruction in identified areas of weakness. Results Despite the efforts made to involve all educational technology instructors in the process of evaluating academic writing skills in technology coursework, the return from instructors was once again very low. Three instructors responded by completing the rubric and sending sample student writing. Two of these instructors compiled results for a full class and the other simply sent writing samples with rubric evaluation. Onsite campuses represented were Modesto, Fairfield, and Concord. Fortunately, the associate chair of educational technology was teaching classes online through eCollege and had access to the APA writing assignments from In order to evaluate the results of the student writing rubric, an Excel file was created and totals and averages were tabulated for this report. Average Academic Writing Proficiency Scores (N=148) Content and Research and Writing Organization Documentation APA Mechanics Total 2.73 2.22 2.78 7.74 Key: 3 points well developed; 2 points developing; 1 point needs work
23
Academic Writing Proficiency Averages N=148
Key 3 points - well developed 2 points - developing 1 point - needs work
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Content and Organization Research and Documentation - APA Mechanics
In addition, three action research projects were completed by MAE in Tech students during 2005-2006, providing an illustration of writing for the capstone course, EDUU565. These projects were expected to meet the highest proficiency level of academic writing and APA documentation. Students were required to edit their work and make changes until they met the scholarly expectations for the capstone action research project and paper. As was the case in last years assessment, the lack of response from the onsite instructors made an accurate analysis of student writing skills is impossible. The assessment of student writing as designed in the original learning outcomes plan was to be met by reviewing sample papers collected randomly and tabulating rubric scores. The results of this assessment process do not provide a complete picture of Chapman student writing proficiency. The lack of participation by instructors is possibly due to the fact that many of them do not incorporate any assignments that require academic writing style and APA format in their local classes. The limited number of instructors contributing to this assessment also draws attention to the lack of buy-in to the learning outcomes assessment process. The questions in the survey designed for assessing the goal of personalized education and quality of technology instruction did include some references to student writing. Students (N=272) indicate that they are generally satisfied with the quality of writing instruction received in education courses. 89% of the students say they are very satisfied or satisfied with the attention given to academic writing standards and 74% were very 24
satisfied or satisfied with instruction on APA references and citations. In educational technology coursework, 89% of the students indicated that they were very satisfied or satisfied with their specific instruction on copyright and electronic APA references and citations.
N=272
Academic writing standards.

Dissatisified 0% Very Dissatisifed 0%
Neutral 10%
N/A 1%
Very Satisfied 35%
Satisfied 54% N=272
APA references and citations.

Very Dissatisifed 1%
Neutral 21%
Dissatisified 3%
N/A 1%
Very Satisfied 32%
Satisfied 42%
25
N=272
Provides instruction on copyright APA citations and electronic references.

Very Dissatisfied 1%
Neutral 7%
Dissatisfied 2%
N/A 1%
Very Satisfied 48%
Satisfied 41%
One significant note is that 11% of the surveyed students selected neutral or not applicable as their response. This still may indicate that students considered the question of student writing as an insignificant objective and not a high priority in a technology class. 74% of the students were very satisfied or satisfied with instruction on APA in their responses to the quality of student writing instruction. However, 22% of the students indicated a neutral or not applicable response. This may be a result of students not expecting student writing and APA documentation to be a significant course objective in educational technology coursework. Satisfaction with the quality of instruction regarding academic writing standards was higher (89%) than student satisfaction of quality of instruction with APA references and citations (74%). Conclusion Results of this assessment were disappointing due to the lack of response from instructors from California campuses. Without rubric assessment and samples of student writing from the majority of the campuses, a true picture of student writing proficiency is impossible. In last years assessment it was determine that faculty or program managers did not forward on the email with rubric to the instructors. At attempt was made to contact each educational technology instructor directly through Chapman email for this years study. However, this change did not result in any significant change in instructors participation. It appears that instructors do not take this assessment request seriously and feel no accountability to this process. Last year, the instructions on how to conduct this assessment were not clearly defined by the associate division chair. This year, rubrics were adjusted and instructions were clarified to the instructors. In addition, an Excel tracking database was created that should have made the collection of data a simple task.
26
Although the writing component has been strengthened in the course objectives, some educational technology instructors are still not incorporating student writing into their class curriculum and assignments. The results of this assessment indicate that student writing is not being adequately and consistently addressed from one campus to another in the educational technology coursework. The associate chair needs to have greater impact with instructors throughout the state. Faculty and program managers need to emphasize the importance of meeting all the course objectives including those related to student writing and proper electronic APA references and citations. Course objectives have been designed to give students the knowledge and proficiencies they needed in order to effectively incorporate technology into their coursework through the credential program. EDUU451/551 was re-structured for the SB2042 credential program to give students the computer skills they needed to succeed in their introductory core courses, as well as their subject matter methods classes. In last years assessment, it was decided that instructors need more guidance not only in how to meet this instructional objective, but also in how to conduct the assessment. A website was established for the purpose of disseminating assessment findings from 20042005. (http://www1.chapman.edu/univcoll/faculty/piper/assessment.html). In order to provide more specific information and guidance for instructors, this website was designed to share the previous assessment findings and provide all rubrics, templates, tutorials, and instructions needed for each component of the assessment process in hopes of improving the student learning outcomes and goals in 2005-2006. The few instructors submitted their own websites and willingly shared their own web resources. However, those instructors were the same few who were already participating in the assessment process. In appears that some instructors ignore the writing goal of EDUU415/551 and continue to teach the level one technology class as a basic class in learning Microsoft software applications. Despite the attempt at providing greater communication with colleagues, the refusal of instructors to participate in student learning outcomes assessment in their own courses is a major obstruction to this process.
27
3. Department Goal: Meeting Technology Standards for Teachers. Students will demonstrate understanding of and proficiency in the national technology standards for teachers (NETS). The assessment method calls for students will answer questions examining their knowledge, skills, experiences, and dispositions related to the national educational technology standards for teachers (NETS). The process of measuring student perceptions regarding their knowledge and skills in meeting standards for teachers was conducted by an online survey is posted in Survey Monkey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=494241468425. 272 students responded to the survey in 2005-2006 school year. The national technology standards for teachers (NETS) are a focus of the course objectives for all of the educational technology coursework. EDUU451/551: Educational Applications of Computers and EDUU552: Using Technological Tools in Teaching both emphasize the NETS. The MAE courses are focused on meeting the standards for technology facilitators and leaders. Students generally felt they were receiving a high quality of instruction in meeting teacher standards for technology.
Satisfaction with Quality of Instruction and Guidance in Educational Technology Coursework
Demonstrates knowledge of newer technologies. Has knowledge of current trends and grant opportunities. Provides technnology leadership at local state or national level. Discusses learning theories supporting technology use. Provides opportunity for academic review of online research. Provides instruction on copyright APA citations and electronic references. Provides instruction on legal/ethical/safe use of the Internet. Focuses on meeting subject matter standards with technology. Assignments have practical classroom application. Challenges advanced computer users. Provides individual help for beginning computer users.
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
N/A
Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
28
N=272
Self Report: Ranking Ability to Meet Technology Standards for Teachers
Understanding social legal ethical technology use Using technology communication tools Applying technology for teacher productivity Using technology for assessment Using technology to engage students in learning Implementing curriculum plans using technology Designing technology-rich classroom environments Creating technology-enhanced lesson plans Understanding technology operations and concepts 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Very Proficient Proficient Adequate Emerging Limited None
Students indicated that they feel they are meeting the state and national technology standards for teachers in the following areas: How would you rank yourself in terms of your ability to meet technology standards for teachers?
Very Proficient Understanding technology operations and concepts Creating technology-enhanced lesson plans Designing technology-rich classroom environments Implementing curriculum plans using technology Using technology to engage students in learning Using technology for assessment Applying technology for teacher productivity Using technology communication tools Understanding social legal ethical technology use 67 69 60 61 65 60 66 82 62 Proficient 118 106 103 112 122 105 112 108 124 Adequate 58 66 69 64 56 74 66 55 61 Emerging 22 20 28 24 19 19 18 16 14 Limited 4 7 9 9 7 11 6 6 6 None 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 Response Average 2.17 2.23 2.34 2.29 2.19 2.33 2.23 2.09 2.17
29
A large number of students rank themselves as proficient or very highly proficient in using technology communication tools (71%) and using technology to engage students in learning (69%). Students report the lowest proficiency ranking as designing technologyrich classroom environments (61%) and using technology for assessment (62%). These areas were also considered the lowest proficiency rankings in the previous years assessment. This may relate to the fact that most of the students are not teaching in the classroom at this time.
N=272
Percentage of Students Report Proficient or Highly Proficient Level with Technology Standards
Understanding social legal ethical technology use Using technology communication tools Applying technology for teacher productivity Using technology for assessment Using technology to engage students in learning Implementing curriculum plans using technology Designing technology-rich classroom environments Creating technology-enhanced lesson plans Understanding technology operations and concepts 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Technology Standards
Percentage of Proficient or Highly Proficient
Of great interest in this report is the comparison of results of the 2004-2005 assessment and the 2005-2006 assessment. The percentage of students reporting very proficient and proficient rankings in meeting technology standards for teachers has dropped considerably. This may be due to the fact that the number of undergraduate students participating in the level one technology course prior to entering the teaching profession has risen from 9% to 18%. In addition, the number of teachers taking a level one course for the professional Clear credential has gone down from 6% to 2%. The students needing a level one course for the Clear are soon to pass their five-year window for filing. They would have filed for the preliminary prior to July 1, 2002 and only needed the level one course. Most of the Chapman students have already met that deadline and are now either required to take a level two course which can be taken in extended education and with other universities. In addition, the number of credential students currently teaching in the classroom prior to completing their credential has decreased 30
sharply because of the state and national requirements that all teachers must have passed subject matter competency prior to teaching in the classroom. As a result, many of the students are not yet in the classroom and have less practical knowledge and understanding of how to integrate technology into their teaching. The only standard that did not indicate a drop in proficiency is using technology communication tools. Percent at Proficient or Very Proficient in 2004-2005 74% 73% 67% 70% 74% 67% 74% 71% 74% Percent at Proficient or Very Proficient in 2005-2006 69% 65% 61% 64% 69% 62% 66% 71% 70%
Technology Standards for Teachers Understanding technology operations and concepts Creating technology-enhanced lesson plans Designing technology-rich classroom environments Implementing curriculum plans using technology Using technology to engage students in learning Using technology for assessment Applying technology for teacher productivity Using technology communication tools Understanding social legal ethical technology use
N=272
Drop in Self-Reported Proficiency Levels from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006

Using technology communication tools
0%
Understanding -1% technology operations and concepts

-2% -3% -4% -5% -6% -7% -8% -9%
Designing technology-rich classroom environments
Using technology to engage students in learning
Applying technology for teacher productivity
Understanding social legal ethical technology use
Using technology for assessment Implementing curriculum plans using technology
Creating technologyenhanced lesson plans
31
N=272
Understanding technology operations and concepts
Emerging 8% Adequate 22%
Limited 1%
None 0%
Very Proficient 25%
Proficient 44%
N=272
Designing technology-rich classroom environments
Emerging 10%
Limited 3%
None 0%
Very Proficient 22%
Adequate 26%
Proficient 39%
32
N=272
Creating technology-enhanced lesson plans
Emerging 7% Adequate 25%
Limited 3%
None 0% Very Proficient 26%
Proficient 39%
N=272
Implementing curriculum plans using technology
Adequate 24%
Emerging 9%
Limited 3%
None 0%
Very Proficient 23%
Proficient 41%
33
N=272
Adequate 21%
Emerging 7%
Limited 3%
None 0%
Very Proficient 24%
Proficient 45%
N=272
Using technology for assessment
Emerging 7%
Limited 4%
None 0%
Very Proficient 22%
Adequate 27%
Proficient 40%
34
N=272
Adequate 24%
Emerging 7%
Limited 2%
None 1%
Very Proficient 24%
Proficient 42%
N=272
Using technology communication tools
Adequate 21%
Emerging 6%
Limited 2%
None 0%
Very Proficient 31%
Proficient 40%
35
N=272
Adequate 23%
Emerging 5%
Limited 2%
None 0%
Very Proficient 23%
Proficient 47%
Proficiency Levels of Various Types of Technology Use Students were asked to report their own perceptions of their proficiency with different types of technology used in the educational technology courses. Generally, students considered themselves most proficient in word processing and email. After your Chapman experiences in an educational computer course how would you rank your proficiencies in the following?
Word Processing Email Online Discussion Web Searching Online Academic Research Desktop Publishing Spreadsheet Calculations Spreadsheet Graphs and Charts Using Technology Tools for Student Assessment Multimedia Presentations (Powerpoint) Web Authoring Highly Proficient 130 131 93 119 94 56 52 55 62 90 29 Proficient 109 105 106 112 118 96 89 89 100 93 69 Adequate 22 28 41 28 43 63 58 53 59 52 69 Emerging 7 5 17 10 9 26 35 41 30 26 40 Limited 1 0 0 0 5 19 25 24 16 7 33 None 0 0 10 0 0 8 9 6 2 1 26 Response Average 1.66 1.65 2.08 1.74 1.93 2.55 2.7 2.66 2.42 2.14 3.21
36
The survey included questions relating to self-reported pre and post proficiency levels in specific types of technology use. Students report the highest proficiency with email and word processing. They consider themselves proficient with web searching, online research, and online discussion. The weakest area is web authoring.
N=272
Proficiency Level with Technology Applications

Web Authoring Multimedia Presentations (Powerpoint) Using Technology Tools for Student Assessment Spreadsheet Graphs and Charts Spreadsheet Calculations Desktop Publishing Online Academic Research Web Searching Online Discussion Email Word Processing 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Highly Proficient Proficient Adequate Emerging Limited None
The lowest proficiency rankings are in the areas of web authoring and the use of spreadsheets for calculations, graphs, and charts. However, some of the greatest gains appear to be in using technology tools for student assessment, web authoring, multimedia presentations, and desktop publishing. Gains were also evident in the use of spreadsheets. The areas of proficiency where gains were not as significant were the skills most students might be expected to have prior to beginning a teacher training program, email and word processing. In contrast to last years assessment, students are coming in to the program with higher levels of skill in desktop publishing. Students report higher levels in the areas of online academic research, web searching, and the use of spreadsheets prior to entering the computer courses. Entering (pre) students report only slightly higher levels of proficiency in word processing and email, but less proficiency with online discussions, multimedia presentations, and web authoring. 37
Pre Ed Tech Course Proficiency Average

Word Processing Email Online Discussion Web Searching Online Academic Research Desktop Publishing Spreadsheet Calculations Spreadsheet Graphs and Charts Using Technology Tools for Student Assessment Multimedia Presentations (Powerpoint) Web Authoring
20042005 1.92 1.83 2.8 2.02 2.35 3.26 3.52 3.55 3.72 3.39 4.54
20052006 1.98 1.85 2.72 2.15 2.51 3.65 3.63 3.68 3.82 3.36 4.52
Response Average 0.06 0.02 -0.08 0.13 0.16 0.39 0.11 0.13 0.1 -0.03 -0.02
The differences in post proficiency between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 are not significant. Students from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 report similar post educational technology course averages for improving proficiency in different computer applications. The higher numbers indicated less proficiency. One is highly proficient and two is proficient. Adequate is three, limited is two, and none is one on the reporting scale. The student make-up of EDUU451/551 has changed slightly due to fewer students taking the course for the professional CLEAR and more undergraduates taking the course as a prerequisite for the credential program. Of interest to the associate division chair is the level of general computer expertise brought in by new students, particularly those in the Chapman undergraduate program. Post Ed Tech Coursework Proficiency Average
Word Processing Email Online Discussion Web Searching Online Academic Research Desktop Publishing Spreadsheet Calculations Spreadsheet Graphs and Charts Using Technology Tools for Student Assessment Multimedia Presentations (Powerpoint) Web Authoring 20042005 1.6 1.55 2 1.68 1.86 2.31 2.56 2.48 2.4 1.99 3.16 20052006 1.66 1.65 2.08 1.74 1.93 2.55 2.7 2.66 2.42 2.14 3.21 Post Difference 0.06 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.24 0.14 0.18 0.02 0.15 0.05
38
Differences Between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 Students

0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 -0.1
nl O l ai Em s es oc g in eb W d or W Pr M
Post Difference Pre Difference
t) in po er w s Po g ( in As ns or nt th tio de ta Au tu en eb rS es W fo Pr s ol
O nl
Sp
p to sk De
g in Us
Sp
t im ul
e sh ad re
e sh ad re
e in D
e in A
c ar Se n
n ch Te
i ed
cu is
m de ca
Pu
ng hi
ph ra G et
ul lc Ca et
hi is bl
ol
io ss
og
ic R
ng
To
r ea es ch
s d an
io at ns
2004-2005 N=209 2005-2006 N=272
The higher numbers indicate less proficiency and higher numbers indicate higher proficiency with various technologies.
2005-2006 2004-2005
Proficiencies Prior to Beginning Educational Technology Coursework

Web Authoring
t ar Ch s
Multimedia Presentations (Powerpoint) Using Technology Tools for Student Assessment Spreadsheet Graphs and Charts Spreadsheet Calculations Desktop Publishing Online Academic Research Web Searching Online Discussion Email Word Processing 2004-2005 N=209 2005-2006 N=272
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
1=Very Proficient; 2=Proficient; 3=Adequate; 4=Limited; 5=No Proficiency
39
2005-2006 2004-2005
Proficiencies after Completion of Educational Technology Coursework
Web Authoring Multimedia Presentations (Powerpoint) Using Technology Tools for Student Assessment Spreadsheet Graphs and Charts Spreadsheet Calculations Desktop Publishing Online Academic Research Web Searching Online Discussion Email Word Processing 2004-2005 N=209 2005-2006 N=272
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Online Courses vs. Onsite Courses Of the 272 survey participants, 35 were taking their educational course online. Generally, students who elect to take an educational technology course online would have more confidence in their ability to work independently with the technology. Presumably, their technology skills would be at a higher level of proficiency before beginning the course. The chart below demonstrates that the self-reported proficiency levels prior to taking the class. Online students indicate a slightly higher proficiency prior to taking the course across the board. According to the online and onsite students self report of proficiencies prior to and after taking an educational technology course, students made greater gains in all areas of technology in onsite classes. This was not the case in the previous years report. It is possible that the emphasis placed on meeting these goals by the associate division chair caused instructors to be more focused on the specific course objectives related to different technologies.
40
Online Onsite
Online vs. Onsite - Pre to Post Gains (Self Reported)

Web Authoring
Multimedia Presentations (Powerpoint) Using Technology Tools for Student Assessment Spreadsheet Graphs and Charts Spreadsheet Calculations
Desktop Publishing Online Academic Research
Web Searching Online Discussion
Email Word Processing 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
41
Onsite Proficient Online Proficient
Online vs. Onsite Self Report by Students Percentage of Very Proficient or Proficient
Using technology com m unication tools
Using technology for assessm ent
Im plem enting curriculum plans using technology
Designing technology-rich classroom environm ents
Creating technology-enhanced lesson plans
Understanding technology operations and concepts
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Online students reported a significantly higher proficiency rating in all areas of educational technology in comparison to onsite students. They started at a slightly higher level, but also rated themselves higher in terms of meeting technology standards for teachers.
42
Online vs. Onsite

Online Students Report Higher Levels of Proficiency in All Technology Applications
Web Authoring Multimedia Presentations (Powerpoint) Using Technology Tools for Student Assessment Spreadsheet Graphs and Charts Spreadsheet Calculations Desktop Publishing Online Academic Research
Web Searching Online Discussion Email Word Processing 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Strengths and Weaknesses Students were asked open-ended questions regarding the strengths and the weaknesses of the Chapman University College program in the educational technology survey. Some of the student responses related to the educational technology programs specifically. Students are generally positive about their experiences at Chapman University College. Students report the following strengths and weaknesses in their open-ended responses below. Strengths relating to quality of instruction in educational technology courses are: Excellent instructors, pertinent learning, opportunities to study and think about practical application and theory equally important. The computer class is stressing computer skills that will be specifically useful for a classroom teacher and I appreciate the practical side of the course. The instructors seem only too happy to help when we have questions or concerns. Great atmosphere, helpful teachers and students, great curriculum, and have more knowledge about standards and how to implement the standards into lessons. My strength in my Chapman program is becoming more educated and knowledgeable on the computer. 43
The technology course I am in has been a wonderful experience. I have used how to implement various elements of technology into my curriculum, and this information has been invaluable. Overall, as well, my experience at Chapman has been excellent. I have better knowledge of word, spreadsheets, and internet surfing. The lessons provided excellent examples to follow and websites to research. The class is small and this allows everyone a good chance of improving our technology skills. Our instructor can provide us individual help if we need it. After each class meeting, I feel like my Education knowledge base has been enriched. I feel like I've learned something, and not wasting my time. Excellent instructors. Up-to-date instruction. We are required to perform a variety of assignments that will benefit us as future educators. Not only are the assignments aimed for our learning, but it is also aimed towards our future generations learning. Covers many ways to use technology, and how to improve the teaching process through technology. I do not have a lot of knowledge when it comes to technology. The only things I know how to do are email, word processing, gradebook programs, Accelerated Reader, and some limited skills with Edusoft. I did not know how to design lessons with technology. I am now beginning to feel comfortable using Power Point and classroom newspapers with my class. I have learned so much. The instructor is very knowledgeable, patient and a wonderfully pleasant person. Having an instructor who is well versed in the subject of computer applications is great asset. The advice given to me by practicing teachers (teachers who are currently teaching children during the day). Also the innovative and creative teaching ideas from all the Chapman instructors. This provided a good introduction to all of the different technology available and ways to integrate it into the classroom environment, and well as an opportunity to learn about some of the less commonly used options with the programs. Covers a great many applications of the computer with practice that forces the student to become proficient. Technology is needed at local schools, this program does a good job of explaining what is needed. the teacher was great. the class should be done more than once. Excellent instructors. Interested in real-life applications of subject matter, in both technology and Intro to Teaching. Highly satisfied with the information and projects given. We have the opportunity to learn by doing and the instructor is there for help/ideas when we need her. I prefer this style of learning/instruction for this subject matter. This is very hands-on knowledge I can build upon for later use in the classroom. My wife, who is an elementary school teacher, is taking a similar education technology course from another university and is jealous of the practical nature of my coursework.
44
The strength of my program is that every class thus far has been linked together, therefore, providing overlapping in key subject areas. I have learned so much in this course. It had made me more interested in technology and has made me feel more confident about using technology. One-on-One assistance from the instructor, valuable information, practical everyday uses for the computer. Professor is highly proficient and able to meet the needs of each student on each level of technological proficiency. Teaching strategies and lesson plan development is very important in all of my classes, and will be important tools in the classroom. I have become more proficient with the use of technologies, and this helps me even in my professional and personal matters. This EDUU 551 course was my favorite course here at Chapman. I learned so much and I will actually use what I have learned!
Comments related to the online course were positive: The most valuable aspect of Chapman is the availability of on campus as well as online courses. I can take online courses when I know it would be difficult to attend regular class meetings. At first I was apprehensive about the online coursework but the instructors have been great about responding to questions. My online course provided an environment that was conducive to learning. The teacher was very knowledgeable and available for questions. Although it took me a few days to figure out the entire online course system, I found it easy as time went on. All lesson units were very detailed and well explained. Online availability. Lesson plans. I love the online courses. It's great to work at my own pace on my own time. I had an excellent instructor; accessible, knowledgeable, and thorough. The information was presented in a creative, easy-to-access manner, and the information had both depth and breadth. I was challenged to consider the implications of the use of technology in education in a variety of ways, and was able to further clarify my own reasons for seek an MAE with Emphasis in Instructional Technology. I can work from home. I can be alone at my computer with no one to distract me. The EDUU 451 online course offered optional sites, so those who want to can obtain more information. The strengths of my Chapman program are the availability of classes in the evening and online, the quality of the instructors, and presentation of the subject matter. I love how the course is independent study. It allows me to work at my own pace. This way I don't get held up when other students don't understand anything. I didn't experience any [weaknesses] in my technology class. However, the efficacy of an online class (or any class, for that matter) is highly impacted by the instructor. I have had both strong and weak instructors at Chapman; in a
45
traditional classroom and online, and although I've learned in both environments, it's obviously easier and more successful if the instructor is good. Students also commented on the weakness regarding educational technology instruction. Sometimes difficult to understand what the goals are of an assignment - we sometimes get too much information that we don't necessarily need to use. Sometimes I feel like the work load is disproportionate with what is necessary to succeed as a teacher. Class moves too quickly for inexperienced students and far too slowly to experienced students. Different levels of users proficiency is needed in my opinion. Due to the short terms and the fast paced work, there is a lot of information to learn in a short amount of time. This can be stressful especially while working full time as well. Too many people in my Eduu 451 for the teacher to adequately assist. To much prep time before class, not enough teaching. Too much researching for the teacher. There are certain professors that do not follow a guided lesson and leave the student to fend for themselves. A weakness is that it may be easier for some to understand an assignment better if the instructor is face to face with the student. There is an assumption that all students in the program are already in the teaching profession. This makes it difficult for those of us who aren't, because we don't know the ins and outs of the CA curriculum requirements, etc. Can get boring if you know a lot about technology....the class feels like it goes by slowly! The only weakness is that I don't feel I was as prepared as I should have been for this course. I noticed that other students had prior knowledge that I did not have. I may have benefited from some sort of introduction course. At times, the classes you need are not offered every term. This can be difficult when you are close to completing your degree. Instructor had a tendency to ramble on and talk too fast and move too fast through instructions. Homework assignments were not always clear. I think that with the same level of computer knowledge it would be easier to teach the class. Beginners with beginners, etc. Boring coursework, and some classes seem to repeat material/titles/topics from others (605,608). Also, there are a couple of instructors who SHOULD NOT be teaching due to the way they treat college students, suggest we treat our students, or to preferential sexist treatment. I sometimes wonder if anyone actually reads the teacher evaluations we turn in. There are classes I would have dropped if I hadn't had to have them. Also, I do not necessarily recommend this program to others, although I have had a few excellent instructors. The quickness of the courses; I'm not sure how serious the students are about their learning. Too many prof's are easily talked out of assignments. Prof's need to
46
teach more in the constructivist style... at least some of the time. EDUU 600 needs to be more about research and less about California Testing. Quite a bit of outside work. Sometimes it is hard to get to school to work on the computers that have the programs installed on them that we are using (i.e. XP MovieMaker). All the students are at different levels of understanding of the programs and things we are learning so some of the time is spent on simple or review topics for some and yet new topics for others. Computer lab is small and sometimes unavailable. Not Science oriented for example for Biological Sciences or Chemistry. Does not go into complex technology applications. I often feel lost in the computer class because I don't always know what the point is or what we are working on. Most of the instructors at Chapman are great and helpful, but there are the few that are not as helpful or not as great. They do not care as much about helping students to understand the course and how to do the best in the class. Some instructors are not as helpful when it comes to the actual content of the class and the learning process. I think that it it would be useful to introduce and learn how to use an on-line grading program. I feel that there are more areas that need to be addressed other than Powerpoint, Publisher and doing, yet again, another journal summary. I would only use half of what learned in a real classroom. I only wish there was more time devoted to certain areas of instruction to allow for retainment of the material. I felt that the instructor at times had less knowledge than I did on certain subjects. I felt that the information was very broad and not deep at all. Learning to copy and paste for one night is time misspent. Maybe break it down into two classes of beginning and advanced, requiring only one class to be taken for the credential. Instructor not willing to teach to different learning styles. Focus less on lecture and more on practical use of the computer in teaching. Instructor should be willing to teach the computer assignments. A lot of busy work sometimes, I have an instructor right now who assigns 3 to 4 assignments each weak and its difficult to get everything accomplished in one week - other than that the program has been great at Chapman.
Weaknesses associated with online instruction are also described. I am disappointed that 3 of the technology classes are offered only online. I like the classroom format. A weakness is that it may be easier for some to understand an assignment better if the instructor is face to face with the student I am still very limited in my expertise with web authoring. I think I would have benefited from classroom instruction, but I like the convenience of taking the
47
online courses. In fact, I am deployed and this is the only way I can continue with my program. Not enough interaction with teachers and students. I prefer to work in a "regular" classroom situation. Their cost for the courses are more than if I was in a regular classroom (can't see the logic in that one). I love eCollege, but one of the problems is that link addresses change often and sometimes teachers are not on-top of that. I currently have a class in which 40% of the links are bad. I find that there hasn't been consistency in the rigor levels of the classes (online). I had one that was very easy-light work load and then the next one has been incredible hard and lots of work. Some lessons contained an excess of information which I waded through in the beginning, but as I progressed through the course, I became much more selective of the pertinent information. If I were an undergraduate or new to the credential program, I would have been overwhelmed. It seemed difficult to attach large files when submitting them through the drop box. This could have been due to my ancient computer, but all of the others worked fine. The weaknesses of my Chapman program were the online technology courses. These courses provided no instruction. Assignments were given, but the skills were not taught. You were expected to personally seek out resources to learn the technology skills (even though these classes were more expensive than onxite classes). The only technology course that provided instruction by the professor was EDUU 551 taken at the Moreno Campus. Being able to ask questions and visually see how the technology works is essential for learning. The online classes only provide tutorials that don't help someone who is not proficient in the technology world. The classes did not prepare me for the electronic portfolio or action research project. I have been very frustrated with these courses do to the fact that I have no background. The ed. tech courses rely too heavily on theory. I would like more real world practical applications of how to use technology and different tools and how I could use them in the classroom. I don't get why I need to write a literature review on digital equity. I think most people realize that more technology needs to be used in the classroom. Teach me about programs and uses please!!!
Students who took their educational technology course in a fully online eCollege format listed their primary reasons for selecting the online option. The most important reasons related to the convenience of taking the course at home, family responsibilities, and work schedule conflicts.
48
Reasons for Taking Course Online

Online is the only option for this course Interested in trying online format Family responsibilities Work schedule conflicts Recommended by colleague or fellow student Recommended by advisor Health reasons Quicker to complete Course not offered onsite Already proficent with computers Living too far to drive to campus regularly Preference for individualized study Convenience of working at home 0 5 10 15 20 25
Extremely Important Important Neutral Somewhat Important Not Important
How satisfied are you with the quality of instruction and/or guidance in your education course/s?
N=271 Critical thinking and analytical skills. Academic writing standards. APA references and citations. Evaluation of professional research. Teacher Performance Expectations. State subject matter content standards. Strategies for effective teaching with technology. Use of technology for professional productivity. Educational technology standards for teachers. Strategies for integrating technology into teaching. Instructors model technology use in Chapman classes. Instructors provide personalized attention. Very Satisfied 101 96 86 87 107 101 123 124 113 127 110 129 Satisfied 133 143 112 127 121 121 117 110 121 108 113 103 Neutral 31 28 56 49 28 41 23 30 31 27 34 26 Dissatisified 2 0 7 2 9 2 4 3 2 4 8 9 Very Dissatisifed 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 N/A 3 3 4 4 4 5 2 2 3 2 2 1 Response Average 1.76 1.76 1.97 1.88 1.78 1.8 1.68 1.7 1.72 1.67 1.81 1.69
49
Satisfaction with Quality of Instruction and Guidance in Education Coursework
Instructors model technology use in Chapman classes.
Educational technology standards for teachers.
Strategies for effective teaching with technology.
Teacher Performance Expectations.
APA references and citations.
Critical thinking and analytical skills. 0 N/A Very Dissatisifed Dissatisified 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Neutral
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Education instructors appear to be modeling the use of technology in Chapman classes as a whole. 87% of the students are very satisfied or satisfied that they are learning critical thinking and analytical skills. 89% of the students are very satisfied or satisfied that they are learning academic writing standards. 74% of the students are very satisfied or satisfied that they are learning how to document their sources using APA references and citations. 80% of the students are very satisfied or satisfied that they are learning how to evaluate professional research. Generally, students are pleased with their educational technology classes. Student perceptions indicate that they believe they are successfully meeting technology standards for teachers. The following demonstrates that students are slightly less satisfied with the quality of their technology instruction in 2005-2006 from the previous report in 20042005.
50
How satisfied are you with the quality of your instruction/guidance in your educational technology course/s?
Very Satisfied Provides individual help for beginning computer users. Challenges advanced computer users. Assignments have practical classroom application. Focuses on meeting subject matter standards with technology. Provides instruction on legal/ethical/safe use of the Internet. Provides instruction on copyright APA citations and electronic references. Provides opportunity for academic review of online research. Discusses learning theories supporting technology use. Provides technology leadership at local state or national level. Has knowledge of current trends and grant opportunities. Demonstrates knowledge of newer technologies. 142 106 140 139 137 128 125 128 98 106 147 Satisfied 81 88 104 112 115 110 108 100 97 91 100 Neutral 23 38 13 14 11 20 29 32 56 49 14 Dissatisfied 7 6 6 2 1 6 3 3 2 7 5 Very Dissatisfied 3 2 4 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 N/A 13 29 1 1 2 2 3 3 13 14 2 Response Average 1.63 1.79 1.61 1.55 1.53 1.66 1.66 1.68 1.87 1.85 1.54
51
Satisfaction with Quality of Instruction and Guidance in Educational Technology Coursework
Demonstrates knowledge of newer technologies. Has knowledge of current trends and grant opportunities. Provides technnology leadership at local state or national level. Discusses learning theories supporting technology use. Provides opportunity for academic review of online research. Provides instruction on copyright APA citations and electronic references. Provides instruction on legal/ethical/safe use of the Internet. Focuses on meeting subject matter standards with technology. Assignments have practical classroom application. Challenges advanced computer users. Provides individual help for beginning computer users.
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
N/A
Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Students who are Satisfied or Very Satisfied with the Quality of Technology Instruction at Chapman University College 2004 2005 2005 2006 Teacher Performance Expectations. 91% 86% State subject matter content standards. 88% 84% Strategies for effective teaching with technology. 92% 89% Use of technology for professional productivity. 93% 87% Educational technology standards for teachers. 93% 87% Strategies for integrating technology into teaching. 93% 89% Instructors model technology use in Chapman classes. 86% 83%
52
Despite the slightly lower ranking students gave their technology instruction in 20052006 in comparison to 2004-2005, the chart below would seem to indicate that the student learning outcomes have improved slightly this year.
Proficiencies after Completion of Educational Technology Coursework
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
re ad sh e
To
Sp
og
Te ch n
ul t im
ol
ed i
2005-2006
Us in g
2004-2005
Pr As es se en ss ta m tio en ns t (P ow er po in t) W eb Au th or in g
in g
Em ai l
ng
es ea rc h
bl is hi
Pr oc es s
Se ar c
is cu
et Ca lc ul
W eb
ic
De sk to p
in e
W or d
ca de m
hs
an d ol s fo r St u
Pu
in e
O nl
Sp
re ad sh e
et G ra p
O nl
de nt
Ch ar ts
ss io
hi ng
at io
ns
53
Students report significant gains in proficiency with the tools and applications of technology to the educational setting after taking the educational technology coursework. The highest gains are in using technology tools for student assessment, web authoring, multimedia presentations, desktop publishing, and the use of spreadsheets for calculations, graphs, and charts.
N=272
Growth of Technology Proficiencies Pre/Post Gains
1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

eb W nl O t) t in en po m er ss ow se (P As g in ns nt io or de at th tu nt Au rS se fo eb re s P W ol ia ts To ed ar gy t im Ch lo ul d M no an ch hs Te p g ra in tG ns Us ee tio la sh cu ad al re tC Sp ee g sh n ad hi h re is rc bl Sp ea Pu es p R to ic sk m De de ca A d or W nl O e in D l ng ai si Em es oc Pr e in
ch ar Se n
cu is
g in
io ss
54
The data from the survey suggests that significant gains are being made in student learning outcomes in educational technology coursework. A large percentage of Chapman University College students report that they are proficient or very proficient in meeting the national technology standards for teachers (NETS).
N=272
Percentage of Students Report Proficient or Highly Proficient Level with Technology Standards
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Using technology for assessment Using technology communication tools Implementing curriculum plans using technology Applying technology for teacher productivity Understanding technology operations and concepts Designing technology-rich classroom environments Creating technology-enhanced lesson plans Using technology to engage students in learning Understanding social legal ethical technology use
55
4. Department Goal: Electronic Portfolio Students will show evidence of meeting technology standards and Teacher Performance Expectations or national standards for technology leadership through an electronic assessment portfolio. Goals of Using Electronic Portfolios for Assessment The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether students are making connections between technology standards and Teacher Performance Expectations or ISTE national standards for technology facilitators/leaders. The electronic portfolio performance assessment relates to the course objective of EDUU451/551: Create an electronic assessment portfolio providing evidence of meeting Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs). Credential students create and maintain a hard copy portfolio throughout their credential coursework. They present the portfolio as a part of their exit interview. Creating an electronic portfolio provides a foundation for understanding how portfolios can be used for assessment and acquaints students with the reflective portfolio process. MAE in Tech students are required to meet the EDUU564 course objective of preparing a professional portfolio (Appendix #1). These MAE portfolios are created using HTML web authoring and are all posted on the web (Exhibit #6). These portfolios were part of the capstone project in the previous MAE in Tech program (EDUU551, 552, 553, and 554). The current program includes action research as the culminating project, but students in the MAE in Tech will continue to add to their electronic portfolio throughout the masters program. Collection of Data and Rubric Scoring A scoring rubric was designed to evaluate evidence of meeting standards in the electronic portfolios for various technology courses. EDUU451/551 student portfolios are based on the TPEs. MAE portfolios are based on ISTE/NCATE national standards for technology facilitation and leadership. Instructors were asked to send exemplary examples of electronic portfolios to the chair in order to collect models for all sites. Results from data will be used to assess strengths and weaknesses in the programs. Information will be used to implement changes in curriculum to ensure teaching of these proficiencies. An email was sent to all education instructors in Terms E, 2005 and A, 2006. In addition, education faculty and program managers were sent requests to forward email to all EDUU451/551 instructors. An electronic portfolio rubric was attached to the email requests. Random sample of electronic portfolios were requested to be sent to the education associate chair. Instructors were asked to score all electronic portfolios according to the rubric and send compiled results to the associate chair. The criteria included the following areas: Quality of Artifacts as Evidence of Professionalism in Educational Technology Evidence of Reflection Linking Artifacts to Technology Standards Creative Design and Technical Proficiency
56
Electronic Portfolio Grading Rubric EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Students Name _________________________________Instructor ___________________________________Course #: EDUU451/551, 552, 563, 564, 565
Criteria for Electronic Portfolio

Briefly describe the assignment requirements and software used:
1 point Needs Significant Work
2 points Developing
3 points Well Developed
Quality of Artifacts as Evidence of Professionalism in Educational Technology Artifacts or links are clearly and directly related to state and/or national technology standards for teachers. Artifacts or links provide evidence of professionalism in the use of technology. Artifacts or links demonstrate strong communication and information literacy skills. Artifacts or links clearly demonstrate the knowledge and understanding of how technology can be integrated into classroom instruction effectively. Artifacts or links provide evidence of understanding the relationship between technology and research on learning. Evidence of Reflection Linking Artifacts to Standards Reflections demonstrate thoughtful connections to state/national technology standards. Reflections clearly describe how artifacts provide evidence of a professional level of expertise, knowledge, and understanding of technology integration into teaching and learning. Reflections demonstrate critical analysis and synthesis of the practical, historical, psychological, and/or philosophical developments of technology in educational settings. Creative Design and Technical Proficiency Portfolio index demonstrates clear connections between artifacts and standards. Portfolio layout is well-designed and use of tools demonstrates technical proficiency. Background, colors, and graphic choices add to the readability of the textual information. Navigational tools are provided and presentation is interactive, providing viewer choice. Multimedia links have been included and are functioning properly. The website or portfolio product is creative, aesthetically pleasing, and engaging to the viewer.
Questions - Email Carla Piper, Ed. D., Associate Chair of Educational Technology Chapman University College. piper@chapman.edu or call (209-550-4530)
The California Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs) and the technology standard 9 related to the concepts included in the NETS for Teachers. A chart was created demonstrating connections between both sets of standards. The TPEs are posted on the Teaching with Technology website which is maintained by the associate chair of educational technology http://www.chapman.edu/univcoll/faculty/piper.
57
TEACHING PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS and NETS FOR TEACHERS A. Making Subject Matter Comprehensible To Students TPE1. Specific Pedagogical Skills For Subject Matter Instruction ISTE NETS Standards I. Technology Operations And Concepts. Teachers demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts. Teachers: A. demonstrate introductory knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology (as described in the ISTE National Education Technology Standards for Students). B. demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies. B. Assessing Student Learning TPE2. Monitoring Student Learning IV. Assessment And Evaluation. Teachers apply During Learning technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies. Teachers: A. apply technology in assessing student learning of subject TPE3. Interpretation And Use Of matter using a variety of assessment techniques. Assessments B. use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning. C. apply multiple methods of evaluation to determine students' appropriate use of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity. C. Engaging And Supporting Students In Learning TPE4. Making Content Accessible III. Teaching, Learning, And The Curriculum. Teachers implement curriculum plans, that include methods and TPE5. Student Engagement strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. Teachers: TPE6. Developmentally Appropriate Teaching Practices A. facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards. Grades K-3 Grades 4-8 B. use technology to support learner-centered strategies that Grades 9-12 address the diverse needs of students. TPE7. Teaching English Learners C. apply technology to develop students' higher order skills and creativity.
D. manage student learning activities in a technologyenhanced environment. D. Planning Instruction And Designing Learning Experiences For Students
58
TPE8. Learning About Students
II. Planning And Designing Learning Environments And Experiences. Teachers plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology. Teachers: A. design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners. B. apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences. C. identify and locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability. D. plan for the management of technology resources within the context of learning activities.
TPE9. Instructional Planning
E. plan strategies to manage student learning in a technologyenhanced environment. E. Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning TPE10. Instructional Time VI. Social, Ethical, Legal, And Human Issues. Teachers understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology in PK-12 schools and apply those principles in practice. Teachers: TPE11. Social Environment A. model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use. B. apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. C. identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity D. promote safe and healthy use of technology resources. E. facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students. F. Developing as a Professional Educator TPE12. Professional, Legal, and V & VI. Productivity And Professional Practice. Teachers Ethical Obligations use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. Teachers: A. use technology resources to engage in ongoing
59
TPE13. Professional Growth
professional development and lifelong learning. B. continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning. C. apply technology to increase productivity. D. use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.
The assessment of learning outcomes related to the use of electronic portfolios was thwarted by the lack of participation by instructors from other campuses. Only four instructors sent example portfolios and used the rubric for assessment. The total number of electronic portfolios evaluated is 160. Since the associate division chair had access to online classes of students, much of the analysis was based on work from those classes. The associate chair analyzed 124 electronic portfolios from online EDUU451/551 students. Online EDUU451/551 students are given a choice between a Powerpoint presentation or an interactive portfolio webpage in HTML. The Powerpoint presentation must include an index linking the viewer to artifacts, Teacher Performance Expectation standards, and personal reflections. The web-based template teaches HTML web authoring skills as well as provides students with a creative forum for demonstrating proficiencies linked to standards. One other instructor used the same Powerpoint portfolio template and one instructor used his own model based on technology course objectives. His student portfolios include a Powerpoint menu that links to all assignments in the course, but did not include student reflections. One instructor used the web-based model of electronic portfolio, but had the students create the portfolio using Microsoft Word. An Excel spreadsheet was designed to tabulate rubric scores based on evaluation criteria. The assessment scores of 160 portfolios indicate that students are discriminating in the selection of artifacts that demonstrate proficiencies in meeting technology standards for teachers. The average of the scores for all students was 7.4 out of nine points possible. Students demonstrate creativity and high technical quality. Reflection is the weakest component in the electronic portfolio process. Some students are very thorough in their reflections, relating ideas to their teaching practice, and others simply described what they had included as artifacts. Artifact Selection 3 points 2.6 Reflection 3 points Creative and Technical Quality 3 points 2.5 2.56 Total 9 ponts 7.4
60
Electronic Portfolio Final Scores

2.64 2.62 2.6 2.58 2.56 2.54 2.52 2.5 2.48 2.46 2.44 Artifact Selection Reflection Creativity and Technical Quality
Student reflections provide insight into the portfolio process and demonstrate students connections with the Teacher Performance Expectations and/or NETS for Teachers. A few examples of student reflections in portfolio are included below: EXAMPLE OF JOURNAL REFLECTIONS based on Teacher Performance Expectations from Student #1
61
TPE1. A: Making Subject Matter Comprehensible to Students - JOURNAL REFLECTION The first thing technology is doing is helping me understand my subject matter deeper and more comprehensively. The better grasp I develop on English and Literature, the better I am able to pass that on to my learners. The two sites I have found are California Standards for the Teaching Profession, which outlines standards, and then suggests ways teachers may approach teaching the topics. The second is California Subject Matter Projects, which provides ideas for teachers on how to approach individual subject matter to address standards. The more resources I look at, the more I understand both my subject, and how to approach it. If ever I find myself unsure about how to approach a topic, or how to help a student learn, I am sure that internet research may help me problem solve and sort out a solution. California Standards for the Teaching Profession: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/cstpreport.pdf California Subject Matter Projects: http://csmp.ucop.edu/csmp/about/distinguishing1.php Standard B: Assessing Student Learning - JOURNAL REFLECTON A very popular form of assessing student learning is project based learning, where instead of studying and taking exams, students must put together a practical application of knowledge acquired, and many times present this. Not only does this approach challenge students to learn more, the practice reinforces the knowledge in a student's mind, as they have to approach it and apply it on a number of different levels. Project Based Learning With Multimedia is a website about assessing student learning through projects that require use of multimedia to demonstrate learning. The Center for the Study of Higher Education is an Australian project about learning in college, but it talks about groupwork and learning that is demonstrated through the use of Portfolios. Things such as computers, internet, digital photography, film and sound editing, PowerPoint are all providing students with the tools to quickly and easily create demonstrations to show learning. Center for the Study of Higher Education: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/group.html Project Based Learning With Multimedia: http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/PBLGuide/AssessPBL.html EXAMPLE OF JOURNAL REFLECTIONS based on Teacher Performance Expectations from Student #2
62
Standard C: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning - JOURNAL
REFLECTION
One of the greatest ways that technology can help make content accessible to all students is that a teacher can place what information the students need on a website which would be accessible by the students at home, or at the public library. This way, students would be able to keep up with what information they need to know to keep up with the class. The teacher can also put links to information which may be of interest to the students, but would also tie in to the curriculum. Technology would be able to to engage students by allowing them to be creative by using technology write, record, and publish their own works in a way that they can share it with others. The technology used can be adapted to each of the grades. The tasks that need to be completed, as well as what types of programs are used can be tailored for each developmental age group. The needs of teaching English learners may be met by purchasing bilingual software publications, or those that may be used with a built in dictionary that would readily translate words that the student doesn't know. The use of some of the music programs does not take much language skills as much as it does take the understanding of musical concepts. English learners could be paired up with a non-English learner until they learned the basics of these programs. After which, they would probably be able to use them on their own. Links: ESL Infusion: Principles for teaching English learners in the mainstream classroom Standard D: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students JOURNAL REFLECTION Technology can help the teacher in so many ways, when it comes to planning instruction. Information and knowledge needed for lesson plans can be easily researched on the internet, while various programs may be used to create handouts, worksheets, newsletters, etc. Using such a program as Powerpoint can be useful when showing students a substantial amount of material. In this format, it can be seen very precise and clear. In this day and age, students enjoy learning experiences that involve technology in one way or another. It doesn't matter if they are being shown something, or if they are being asked to complete a certain task. If they are allowed to use technology in some way, they get excited about the experience of it. I have seen this happen in my classroom recently when I designed a project for the students to use a few websites to gather some information on composers. Even before they knew everything about the project, they were asking if they could use the internet to research the project and whether or not they would be able to type the project. Even though the project itself was quite simple, it is interesting to think how much more effort it would have taken to complete such a project if there was no internet.
63
Links: Music Tech Teacher, Music Technology Lessons
64
65
Students from the more advanced level two classes created electronic portfolios based on a combination of California Level II technology standards and the National Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS). Three main topics related to the standards and assignments included in the EDUU552 course were suggested to students.

Professional Practice and Productivity with Technology (at least 3 artifacts) Teaching with Technology (at least 3 artifacts) Assessment and Evaluation with Technology (at least 3 artifacts)
Students were to include a reflection with description/explanation for each topic, showcase, or standard being met answering the following questions.

Why have I included these artifacts in my portfolio or showcase? What standards have been showcased? (teacher standards, technology standards and academic content standards) How do these artifacts demonstrate my professional competencies as an educator? How does this showcase or section in my portfolio demonstrate student learning? How might I build on these proficiencies and improve my teaching?
Students were to choose which digital portfolio tools they wanted to use for this assignment and demonstrate their understanding of the technology standards and ways to integrate technology into teaching, assessment, and productivity.

Website - Create web pages using a web authoring program and post materials to the server. TeachPort Use TeachPort, a web-based turn-key portfolio system designed by the instructor. Include one personal showcase and three professional showcases on the following topics. (http://eport.soundpiper.com/teachport) Powerpoint - Include all artifacts, links, and reflections within one interactive Powerpoint presentation. Include a main menu or index with navigation buttons on all slides.
Examples of Reflection from EDUU552 Student #1: Reflection ~ Professional Practice and Productivity with Technology The following three artifacts have been included because they show the technology focus in my classroom as well as in my teaching. The artifacts/assignments allowed me to reflect on how technology can change and enrich my teaching. Assistive Technology allowed me to examine the many ways students can be assisted and to also reinforce the importance of students being mainstreamed. The assignment reminded me that through technology students can be accommodated in the classroom. This enriches the student/s who has/have the need as well as teaching tolerance and acceptance to the other students in the classroom.
66
Reflection ~ Teaching with Technology Ive included the following artifacts because these are artifacts that allowed me to be creative and to research my curriculum. Ive created presentations that I will be proud to present to my class as well as share with my colleagues. Ive felt as if Ive accomplished greater proficiency in my subject matter and truly enjoyed my work. Students will benefit from these because they will be more focused and they too will be allowed to be creative as they complete the assignments. Reflection ~ Assessment and Evaluation with Technology Ive included the following artifacts because these artifacts show my growth in using and understanding the many options provided through technology. We are concentrating on common assessment in our Social Studies department and with the skills I have learned I will be able to present my information more thoroughly in meetings. I will also have an opportunity to include others assessment for comparison. Ive always concentrated on rubrics for grading and I find that through technology I can make rubrics much more clear, colorful, and more interesting than when I would produce them in the word document.
Examples of Reflection from EDUU552 Student #2: Professional Practice and Productivity with Technology The following documents demonstrate my commitment as an educator to the incorporation of technology-based learning opportunities for students. The SelfAssessment Reflection provides a window through which my skill set can be viewed in detail. The Classroom Technology Plan demonstrates a realistic possibility for technology incorporation in my classroom. Finally, the Assistive Technology demonstration is indicative of my commitment to serving the wide range of abilities and needs represented by my students through cutting edge technology. These artifacts pertain to the following National Standards. NETS for Teachers Technology Operations and Concepts Teachers demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts. Teachers: demonstrate introductory knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology (as described in the ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for Students). demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies.
67
Productivity and Professional Practice Teachers use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. Teachers: use technology resources to engage in ongoing professional development and lifelong learning. continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning. apply technology to increase productivity. use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.
Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues Teachers understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology in PK12 schools and apply that understanding in practice. Teachers: model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use. apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity. promote safe and healthy use of technology resources. facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students.
Teaching with Technology The artifacts provided in this section demonstrate my instructional style and philosophical commitment to the incorporation of technology based learning in the classroom. Each of these documents represents a typical lesson or activity as I would conduct it in a classroom. These illustrate the impact of Constructivist methodology and incorporation of technology as I emphasize them in the classroom. These are representative of the lessons I conduct in classroom instruction throughout the academic year. These artifacts pertain to the following standards: NETS for Teachers II. Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences
Teachers plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology. Teachers:
68
III.
design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners. apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences. identify and locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability. plan for the management of technology resources within the context of learning activities. plan strategies to manage student learning in a technology-enhanced environment. Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum
Teachers implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. Teachers: facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards. use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students. apply technology to develop students higher order skills and creativity. manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment.
Assessment and Evaluation with Technology These artifacts provide insight into my philosophy of assessment as an instructor. I strive to create authentic assessment opportunities in multiple measures so as to derive an accurate assessment of student understanding which can be used to guide further learning. I think an essential aspect of assessment is review and analysis of the data, as demonstrated by the Star Testing document. These artifacts pertain to the following National Standards: NETS for Teachers IV. Assessment and Evaluation
Teachers apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies. Teachers: apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment techniques. use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning.
69
apply multiple methods of evaluation to determine students appropriate use of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity.
Students who are completing their MAE with an Emphasis in Instructional Technology created web-based portfolios focused on standards for leadership and facilitation. Links to student websites are published at http://www1.chapman.edu/univcoll/faculty/piper/links.html. The following MAE student websites were completed this year: Student #1 - http://homepage.mac.com/sandovaltony/portfolio/ Student #2 - http://www.geocities.com/ringoportfolio/index.html Student #3 - http://www.robinson710.com/robinson/ Student #4 - http://johnphillipsworld.com/pparker/ Conclusion This Chapman University College educational technology assessment regarding the use of electronic portfolios as a critical part of the course curriculum and performance assessment has failed once again. The conclusion for 2005-2006 is basically the same as that of the 2004-2005 school year. The poor return of portfolio examples and scoring rubrics from instructors demonstrates the lack of communication, consistency, and cohesion in the educational technology department. Although instructors are encouraged to be creative in presenting the course content and meeting course objectives, the objective for creating an electronic portfolio has apparently not been met by the instructors at most campuses. In addition, the concept of defining a professional portfolio based on standards and competencies related to what a teacher should know and be able to do with technology in the classroom is clearly not understood by instructors or students. Communication between the educational technology associate chair, course custodians, and educational technology instructors needs significant improvement. Instructors appear to need more guidance and training on how a portfolio should be organized, what artifacts and links should be included, how to foster reflective practice, and how to show connections between artifacts and assignments to specific teacher and technology standards in order to demonstrate competencies. However, the examples of electronic portfolios that have been collected demonstrate that some students are succeeding in this process of collecting, organizing, and reflection on artifacts as they link to standards. Some students demonstrate that they do have an understanding of how portfolio assessment can be helpful in not only collecting, storing, reflecting, evaluating, and sharing their evidence electronically. Hopefully, the Chapman University College student learning outcomes assessment will receive stronger support in the future.
70

Edtechassess

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edtechassess

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan for Educational Technology Summary Prepared by Carla Piper, Ed. D.

Growth of Technology Proficiencies Pre/Post Gains

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Educational Technology Courses Represented

MAE Graduate Student 10% Professional Clear Credential 2% Dual Credential 5%

Education Programs Represented in Online Survey

Special Education Credential 8% Single Subject Credential 23%

Multiple Subject Credential 29%

Chapman University College Campuses Represented

San Diego Santa Maria Victor Valley Visalia

Educational Technology Courses Represented

Very Satisfied 34%

Student Satisfaction with Web Advisor

Student Satisfaction with Coursework

Student Satisfaction with Website Information

Student Satisfaction with Advising

Student Satisfaction with Communication

Student Satisfaction with Library Services

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A

Student Satisfaction with Access to Technology

Student Satisfaction with Computer Lab

Student Satisfaction with Career Counseling

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very Satisfied N=272 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A

Overall Student Satisfaction

Instructors provide personalized attention.

Very Satisfied 49%

Academic Writing Proficiency Averages N=148

Key 3 points - well developed 2 points - developing 1 point - needs work

Academic writing standards.

Very Satisfied 35%

Satisfied 54% N=272

APA references and citations.

Very Satisfied 32%

Provides instruction on copyright APA citations and electronic references.

Very Satisfied 48%

Self Report: Ranking Ability to Meet Technology Standards for Teachers

Percentage of Proficient or Highly Proficient

Drop in Self-Reported Proficiency Levels from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006

Understanding -1% technology operations and concepts

Designing technology-rich classroom environments

Using technology to engage students in learning

Applying technology for teacher productivity

Understanding social legal ethical technology use

Using technology for assessment Implementing curriculum plans using technology

Creating technologyenhanced lesson plans

Understanding technology operations and concepts

Emerging 8% Adequate 22%

Very Proficient 25%

Designing technology-rich classroom environments

Very Proficient 22%

Creating technology-enhanced lesson plans

Emerging 7% Adequate 25%

None 0% Very Proficient 26%

Implementing curriculum plans using technology

Very Proficient 23%

Using technology to engage students in learning

Very Proficient 24%

Using technology for assessment

Very Proficient 22%

Applying technology for teacher productivity

Very Proficient 24%

Using technology communication tools

Very Proficient 31%