Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It is the goal of Educational Technology Solutions to improve Language Arts scores for Harper
Archer Middle School through the use of technology and visual media literacy.
Staff
Project Director: Carol Mathis cmathis3@my.westga.edu
Facilitator: April Olorunfemi -
aolorun1@my.westga.edu
Abstract
This proposal was developed to address the essential need for professional development
of middle school teachers as a strategy to improve the use and integration of visual media in the
classroom with the greater intent to contribute to learner-centered classrooms. An extensive
review of the literature exemplified by the work of An and Reigeluth (2012) was conducted by
four experienced teachers attending the University of West Georgias summer course, Leading
and Managing Instructional Technology Programs, instructed by Dr. Danilo Baylen.
Based on the literature review, the needs assessment focused on the Georgia public
school system, and standard test scores served to identify teacher and student needs within the
Atlanta Public School System. Further assessment found opportunity within the district middle
schools. Based on low student performance at the eighth grade level, Harper Archer Middle
School was identified as the focus of this proposal to serve as a pilot school for the district.
This professional development proposal provides 12 teachers a comprehensive 5-day
workshop during the summer months, followed by 2 sessions in the fall. Curriculum, selected
tools and technology were selected and aligned with four of the Georgia Standards of Excellence
in English Language Arts, through planning sessions with school district partnerships. Program
evaluation is guided by an external education expert using a mixed methods approach to include
teacher assessments, pre and post education and student assessments, and finally the Georgia
Milestones Assessment System (GMAS) standard test scores.
Development of this proposal is the work of four middle school teachers: Carol Mathis,
April Olorunfemi, Kaywana Stewart and Jamie Bennett. Collectively, they represent 48 years of
educational experience in math, science, language arts, social studies, and may be reached
through the University of West Georgia, Department of Educational Technology & Foundations.
2
grade students, Figure 1 illustrates the decrease from 2013 to 2015 with 76% performing lower at
the basic level and 34% performing lower in reading proficiency. At the state level, Georgia
showed no change. However, the Atlanta Public School District scores decreased, looking much
like the nation.
The decrease and variance in high and low scores may be explained by core assessment
and instructional changes taking place at many levels as explained by Kane (2015); the need for
a network of systems (Anthony, 2012, Day, 2013) and communications (Bielefeldt, 2012);
education for teachers (Albers et al, 2016, Jaipal-Jamani, Figg, Gallagher, Scott, & Ciampa,
2015, Lester, 2012), and learner-centered opportunities for students (An & Reigeluth , 2012).
Reading
2011.0
2013.0
2015.0
This proposal addresses the demonstrated PD needs within the Atlanta Public School
System with the intent to focus on Harper Archer Middle School. This middle school is operating
in an urban environment with many children living below the poverty level. Fortyseven
teachers serve >600 students in grades 6-8. The school demographics are 100% minority with
99% eligible for free lunches. Research generated by the Atlanta Public School System (2014)
suggests that children in need of the Free and Reduced Lunch Program (FRL) are at risk for
lower test scores in writing skills. The Georgia Milestones end of grade test scores for 2015
(Figure 2) finds most of the children in this school to be functioning below proficiency levels in
English language arts (ELA) with a range of 56% to 73% for a mean of 65% across the 3 grades
levels (Atlanta Public Schools, 2015). These scores suggest this is a population of children
deemed at risk based on demographics and potentially struggling with standard testing because
of core assessment and instructional changes that have taken place in recent years (Atlanta Public
Schools, 2014, Kane, 2015).
% Below Proficiency
40
20
0
6th
7th
8th
Mean
CCRPI scores for all grades declined in 2015 suggesting students are not achieving readiness for
college or careers (Georgia Department of Education, 2015).
Figure 3. Harper Archer Middle School: College and Career Ready Performance Index
In 2012 the Georgia school system implemented the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System
(TKES) to assess teacher quality and effectiveness. The assessment framework includes the
Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (TAPS), Surveys of Instructional Practice with
the intent to support professional development. The Atlanta Public School System teacher
assessment programs have been in a transitional state since 2010. As a result, the reliability of
earlier state and comparative data models to establish trends on some platforms may not be
consistently reliable data sources. For this proposal, teacher effectiveness within Harper Archer
Middle School is based on three data bases: The Georgia Student Growth Model (GSGM)
established to as a method to assess teaching and learning and test scores on the newer Georgia
Milestones Assessment System (GMAS), and finally the College and Career Ready Performance
Index (Georgia Department of Education, 2015). Using these three methods to establish needs
assessment metrics within the school, Harper Archer Middle School was identified as the site for
this proposal as the school scores align with the lowest in the nation and the state.
Plan of Operations
Within this strategic professional development plan, 10 eighth grade ELA teachers along
with the Media Specialist and the Curriculum Director will engage in several site based,
professional development sessions to address the learning gaps in ELA and Reading. The
professional development sessions will provide participants with visual media technology that
they can use to plan technology-rich lessons that are engaging in order to increase student
achievement. Facilitators will use best teaching practice strategies to delivery content specific
information to participants about Web 2.0 visual media tools that will improve ELA and reading
achievement.
The greatest challenge to providing professional development to teachers is the element
of time, having the sessions in the summer will decrease the issues associated with lack of time
during the school year since school is typically out in the summer (Desimone & Birman, 2000).
Participants will attend a five-day voluntary professional development session in the summer that
will be held within the schools media center. Participants will receive a stipend and PLU,
professional learning unit, credits for attending the sessions. Facilitators will establish a
mentor/mentee relationship with the teachers. The mentor/mentee approach to professional
development is a reform model which encourages constant communication with participants.
(Birman & Desimone, 2000, p. 29). This model has been proven effective and is said to increase
the likelihood of teachers integrating content knowledge from the professional development
sessions. With this model the participants input is valuable. Facilitators will build on the
participants current knowledge of Web 2.0 tools.
Sessions Outline
Each session will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m. Participants will also attend 2
follow- up sessions in the fall (August 25, 2016 and September 22, 2016) to ensure that
participants are implementing the plan with fidelity. Facilitators and participants will work
closely together in the weeks leading up to the follow-up sessions.
Facilitators understand the importance of collaboration and conversations that are
centered around the craft. Therefore, the facilitators have developed a professional development
session that will incorporate the skills and knowledge of the participants while acquiring new
knowledge about Web 2.0 tools that are used to improve literacy skills (Birman & Desimone,
2000, p. 29). When participants are given adequate time, the content along with activities, they
are able to transfer the knowledge from the professional development sessions to their
classrooms (Birman & Desimone, 2000, p. 32).
For this professional development session, we will focus on the following GSE (Georgia
Standards of Excellence) standards: ELAGSE8RL2: Determine a theme and/or central idea of a
text and analyze its development over the course of the text, including its relationship to the
characters, setting, and plot; provide an objective summary of the text; ELAGSE8RL4:
Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative and
connotative meanings; analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone,
including analogies or allusions to other texts and ELAGSE8RL10: By the end of the year, read
and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, at the high end of grades 6-8
text complexity band independently and proficiently (Georgia Standards, 2016). While
facilitators are focusing on three specific standards for these professional development sessions,
once participants are comfortable using the Web 2.0 tools, they will be able to use the tools to
teach any of the ELA/Reading standards. The facilitators will introduce the participants to a
9
variety of visual media Web 2.0 tools that could be used to engage students and support literacy
instruction in the classroom. The first set of tools that the facilitators will introduce to the
teachers will be vocabulary 2.0 tools. These visual media tools can be used to teach vocabulary
and provide vocabulary enrichment opportunities to students. Providing teachers with Web 2.0
tools that will improve vocabulary instruction will provide teachers with a resource to explicitly
teach vocabulary. Explicitly teaching vocabulary addresses ELA standard ELAGSE8RL4,
students must be able to identify words and know the meaning of words to better understand the
text that they are reading. Vocabulary instruction will improve students comprehension skills
(Nagy, 1998, p .9) Another Web 2.0 tool the facilitators will teach participants about is
storyboarding. Storyboarding will improve literacy instruction. Storyboarding will allow teachers
to provide students with student centric learning opportunities and address standards:
ELAGSE8RL2 and ELAGSE8RL10. Storyboarding will allow students to develop stories to
address the key elements within these standards (plot, setting, theme, etc.).
Session Descriptions
Day 1
The first day of the professional development session will outline the agenda for the week and
allows participants to get to know the facilitators. The facilitators will disseminate information of
effective vocabulary instruction, model and describe how to access and utilize the following 2.0
tools (Vocabulary Spelling City, VocabAhead,Wordnik.com ). These tools incorporate many of
Marzanos strategies (proven effective vocabulary instruction practices) for vocabulary
acquisition (Marzano 2009) and will address ELAGSE8RL4: Determine the meaning of words
and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the
10
impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including analogies or allusions to other
texts. Teachers will have an opportunity to navigate and explore one of the 2.0 tools from the list
(Vocabulary Spelling City, VocabAhead,Wordnik.com ). Teachers will share their views about
the tools with another teacher. Once teachers have shared their views, the facilitators will model
the steps to creating a standards aligned lesson using the tools. The remaining of the day will be
spent developing a lesson plan incorporating the tools.
Day 2
The facilitator will spend the first thirty minutes reviewing the goals and outlining the agenda for
the day. The facilitator will review the 2.0 tools that participants were introduced to in session
one. The facilitator will introduce Dropbox to participants. The facilitator will demonstrate how
to create a Dropbox account and how to share lesson ideas with the team using Dropbox. Once
participants are comfortable using Dropbox, the facilitator will allow participants to continue
planning lessons using the 2.0 tools from session one. The participants will begin loading
resources they have created in the 8TH Grade teacher tool box in Dropbox.
Day 3
The facilitator will spend thirty minutes recapping the work participants completed on day two of
the professional development session. The facilitator will answer any questions regarding any
tools introduced the first two days of the session. Today most of the work will involve
introducing a new Web 2.0 tool, Storyboarding. This tools will address standards ELAGSE8RL2:
Determine a theme and/or central idea of a text and analyze its development over the course of
the text, including its relationship to the characters, setting, and plot; provide an objective
summary of the text and ELAGSE8RL10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend
11
literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, at the high end of grades 6-8 text complexity
band independently and proficiently. These tools will allow participants to create a student
centric lesson that is focused on literacy instruction. The facilitators will guide provide
participants with the web address for Storyboarding. Once all participants are on the website, the
facilitator will instruct participants to create a free account. The facilitator will then walk
participants through navigating the site. Once the participants have spent some time navigating
the site, they will spend ten minutes sharing ideas with other teacher about possible lessons that
they could create using the tool. Participants will then spend some time creating standards
aligned lesson using Storyboarding. Participants will not be expected to complete their lessons
today; they will have time to continue their work on day four.
Day 4
On day four, the facilitators will review the session agenda with the participants and provide
individual feedback on the work they had begun using Storyboarding on day three. The
participants will continue developing lesson plans using Storyboarding. Participants should have
two complete lesson plans utilizing Storyboarding by the end of the day. Participants will upload
the completed lesson plans to Dropbox.
Day 5
Session five is the final session of the professional development sessions until the follow-up
session in the fall. The facilitators will post the overall goals and objectives for the professional
development. The facilitators will give participants two minutes to review the goals and
objectives and allow participants to describe the learning outcomes for each goal and objective.
The facilitators will review the tools and strategies that were presented in the PD. The
participants will then have an opportunity to collaborate on all of the lessons and activities that
12
have been created within the professional development sessions. Participants will evaluate each
of the activities and lessons that were created during the PD to make sure they are aligned to the
standards and meet the goals of the PD. As a team they will decide which lessons and activities
would remain in the Dropbox for all eighth grade teachers to use. At the end of the day, the
participants will complete an anonymous feedback form for the sessions.
Day 2
Vocabulary 2.0 Tools Part II
Day 3
Storyboardthat.com: Increasing Literacy using Storyboarding
Day 4
Increasing Literacy using Storyboarding Part II
Day 5
Collaborate and Evaluate
Feedback (Participant Evaluation of PD) and Reflections
13
Evaluation Plan
The Integration of Visual Media in Middle School Classrooms is a professional
development initiative to equip teachers with tools to improve student achievement in the areas
of reading and writing. Harper Archer Middle School administration has expressed a need for an
engaging initiative to support existing teaching practices currently taking place. In response to
that need, the stakeholders have requested action; action that would make an impactful change
that is meaningful and long term (Reeves, 2009).
In order to address the effectiveness of the program initiatives in place, it is essential to
conduct an evaluation of the program. For the purpose of this program, this means a structured
systematic process to collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data (Gopalakrishnan
14
& Preskill, 2014) from identified resources with the intent to support decisions about integration
of technology and the resulting necessary actions action. The evaluation can contribute to the
proper aligning of needs and goals for the program. Scriven (1991) describes the evaluation
process as means to establish the value of an action or an outcome. The program evaluation is a
critical part of the success of any program. In order to prescribe to the needs of the program
participants and to ensure the program outcomes meet the objectives, an evaluation is a
necessary event and component.
The external evaluator for this project will be Dr. Robert Heaberlin. Dr. Heaberlin
currently serves as senior director and chief administrative officer of Off-Campus Programs for
the University of West Georgia. He has extensive experience in the education arena with over 44
years of teaching, leadership and higher education experience. Dr. Heaberlin has insights from
his professional publications and presentations on both improving student achievement and
educational leadership. He is qualified to provide quality and objective insight for addressing the
program in all facets. His accomplishments as a champion of leading change are far reaching and
include several memberships and offices held for notable professional organizations including
but not limited to Georgia Association of Educational Leaders (GAEL) President, Georgia
Partnership for Excellence in Education (Board of Directors), National Middle Schools
Association (NMSA), Georgia Association of Middle Level Education (GAMLE), National
Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), Professional Association of Georgia
Educators (PAGE), and the Georgia Association of Educational Leaders (GAEL). In addition to
his extensive engagement in education, Dr. Heaberlin has received several professional awards
for his contributions to education and middle schools specifically, including the prestigious
Governors office Bronze award for gains in student scholastic aptitude test (SAT) scores. Dr.
15
Heaberlins experiences and background make an exceptional evaluator for the Visual Media
Literacy professional development program.
Dr. Haeberlins evaluation responsibilities will consist of data collection and analysis, and
final evaluation report for the professional development program implemented based on the
goals and objectives outlined by facilitators and stakeholders. The evaluation will be used to
identify how well the professional development initiative is helping English Language Arts
teachers consistently use advanced technology practices within their classroom. The evaluation
will consist of mixed methods data collection. Criteria for the professional development program
evaluation are based on the identified program objectives. The first objective is to improve the
quality of professional development initiatives. The stakeholders have expressed a concern about
implementing quality training that teachers consider helpful and relevant. Teachers must feel the
professional development opportunities are helpful in that they create a more efficient and
engaging teaching process and assist students in mastering the content area curriculum Georgia
Standards of Excellence. The second objective is that teachers engage students in technology as a
learning method to promote performance.
An effective professional development program will improve teacher technology
integration and implementation during collaboration, instructional planning and classroom
instruction as well as enrich the quality of academic content for the students, the teachers and the
schools administration. In order to determine the effectiveness of the professional development
initiative, it is important to pre- and post- assess the knowledge, experiences and current
classroom teaching processes of the professional development teacher participants. This
assessment will be collected by 4 primary methods of measure: surveys, teacher interviews,
student scores, and teacher artifacts. This data will support the goals of the program by giving
16
specific operation guidelines, goals and inputs, which foster a successful professional
development program. Data collected will be as anonymous as possible to protect the dignity
and rights of the students and other individuals involved. Once data is collected the evaluator to
analyze the inputs and resources, the activities and their inputs and outputs as well as the short-,
intermediate-, and long-term outcomes of the program will review it. This data will also provide
insight about the constraints, barriers and potential threats of the program that operate internally
and externally that may or may not be foreseeable to the trainers, administrators and
stakeholders. In a typical evaluation effort political, resource, time and data constraints are often
relevant (Bamberger, Rugh, & Mabry, 2006). The data used is from multiple sources including
teachers, students and administrators to make this determination. Since teacher visual media
implementation as an intended outcome, data that includes this evidence can come from an
existing and future teacher collaborative planning agendas, instructional planning documentation
and teacher lesson plans. Since the program is focused on a specific content area of teachers, it is
important to note that the survey questions used for data collection are to be motivated by the
existing literature, current and future practices of teachers, program intended outcomes, and
identifying classroom activities that will propel the relationship between the professional
development and teacher implementation.
The sources of data and methods by which data are collected are important in establishing
relevance for an evaluation. Table 4 outlines the methodology for each of the three evaluation
questions and will be answered via collection and utilization of data from appropriate sources.
Table 2 Data Collection Plan and Timeline
Question
Data Source
Participants
How are
Administration
17
Data timeframe
Administration Pre-Assessment
appropriate
professional
development topics
chosen?
interviews
Instructional
support teacher
interviews
Teacher surveys
of direct teacher
reporting
Instructional
Lead Teacher
Teacher
participants
What level of
knowledge do
teachers have about
the professional
development topic
of visual media in
literacy and writing
Content
Teacher
Knowledge Assessment participants
Lesson Plan
Rubric
Teacher Focus
Group
Administration
survey
PD Effectiveness
survey
Teachers
participants
Administration
Day 2
Day 2
Daily
To support the professional development grant proposal for objective 1: Improve the
professional development initiatives, Harper Archer School has identified a demonstrated need
and compiled several supporting outcomes to support its grant proposal request. Interviews of
both administration and teachers will be conducted onsite to provide data about the content/topic
knowledge and overall professional development experience for the participants. The 12
participating English Language Arts teachers will provide important data throughout the
professional development course that will support the evaluation of the programs effectiveness.
This methodology will provide insight about the objectives outlined in the grant proposal. Taking
into consideration the request for quality professional development for teachers, this evaluation
seeks to identify how professional development topics are chosen and how teacher participants
value them through consistent implementation in classroom instruction. The professional
18
development has been expressed as a direct need and necessary tool to improve student GMAS
performance for the upcoming school year.
Two types of evaluations or evaluation processes, as related to impactful evaluations, are
outcome evaluations and process evaluation. To clearly understand the differences between the
two, Deborah Linnell (2014), Director of Programs at Third Sector New England, a nonprofit
philanthropy group, suggests that evaluations evaluate the change produced by a program. This
understanding will allow answers to research questions, which will inform if activities are
effective and aligned to the program goals. It serves as a return of investment analysis for
stakeholders. Based on her work, Linnell (2014) goes further to state the importance of
evaluating the process of a program. Process evaluations help stakeholders see how a
program outcome or impact was achieved. The focus of a process evaluation is on the types
and quantities of services delivered, the beneficiaries of those services, the resources used to
deliver the services, the practical problems encountered, and the ways such problems were
resolved.
Considering these respective differences, the outcome evaluation will help determine
if the goal to improve teacher technology integration, specifically visual media in reading
and writing, will be implemented immediately as a result of the professional development
technology once the school year begins. The need to revisit and support the momentum of
classroom practices will determine if the term goals set forth are actualized and attained.
The process evaluation proponent of this initiative will have similar feats. In order to reach
the goals and objectives, it is integral that the approach taken directly aligns as a best
practice. Professional development is the approach, but it is not the end-all. There are many
potential initiatives that would support the goal of advanced teacher technology integration.
19
In the process evaluation, this determination will be addressed as well as other approaches
to successfully reach the defined goals for the teachers and stakeholders.
Program
Management
-Teacher training
&
consultation/best
practice sharing
-Teaching
materials (unit
lesson plans,
student handouts,
students
assessments)
Administration
-Teacher time
-Bandwidth,
Internet, &
laptops are fully
functioning &
available
Activities
In order to
address our
problem or
asset we will
accomplish
the following
activities:
Teachers
-Participate 5
day summer
PD training
-Participate in
bi-monthly
consultant
visits/provide
feedback
-Facilitate
lessons
-Use
appropriate
assessments
Students
-Participate in
daily lessons
-Complete inclass activities
-Participate in
survey/intervi
Outputs
(Products of
program)
We expect that
once
accomplished,
activities will
produce the
following
evidence:
Teachers
-Successful
technology
infusion into the
classroom
-Increased
satisfaction and
advanced use
with teaching
Students
-Display a
willingness to
try new visual
media
technologies in
the classroom
-Show better
reading and
writing
assessment
scores
20
Short Term
(Outcomes)
Intermediate
(Outcomes)
Long-Term
(Outcomes)
Changes in
knowledge,
skill, and
attitudes
Behavioral or
actionable
changes
Goals/ impacts
Teachers
Comfortable
using visual
media in
reading and
writing
class
content
Teachers
- Continue use
of visual
media
curriculum
resources
Teachers
Consistent/Dail
y use of visual
media
curriculum
resources
Students
-Familiar
with visual
media as a
reading and
writing
resource.
Students
-Know how to
better
comprehend
lessons, i.e.
reading and
writing
Students
-Overall
improvement
reading and
writing
-Pass yearly
standardized test
ew feedback
The evaluation plan is aligned with the demonstrated need, goal and objectives as
well as the plan of operations set forth within proposal. This is due to the specific goals and
objectives that guide the actions of methods of the program. The evaluation is a summative
and reflective event. It analyzes each activity in conjunction with methodical data to
determine if the priority measure was in fact attained. Once defined, all goals and objectives
drive the programs outliers and methods of attainment. The demonstrated need, once
communicated, provides opportunity to grant and uphold leadership and change initiatives
(Reeves, 2009). The plan of operations simply communicates what steps and actions are
planned for participants. The interaction that is required for teachers to learn and collaborate
with peers and instructional leaders is the single most critical practice because it requires
involving and awakening new ideas and approaches to the overarching goal of, in this case,
pedagogy evolution and improvement with advanced technology, specifically Visual Media.
The plan of operations is specific to one initiative at a time and is usually the area of the
program with the most flexibility. Altogether, the demonstrated need, goals and objectives,
plan of operations and evaluation are the basis for which effective change takes form and
creates new practices, strategies and necessary change (Reeves, 2009).
Partnerships
Integration of technology for teaching and learning requires a network of systems across
state, district, and classroom systems. Collaborative attention to these relationships ensures
21
participation at all levels and process improvement strategies which are critical to sustainability
(Anthony, 2012). These partnerships establish a framework for sharing and dissemination.
Partners
Participants in the effective technology integration conference will be composed of select
Atlanta Public School administrators, language arts grade level chairs and middle school
language arts teachers. The session will be supported by the system superintendent as well as
representatives from the Metro RESA located in Smyrna, Georgia, the chapter serving the
Atlanta Public School System. All stakeholders will receive training on effective technology
integration techniques and the methods utilized to implement these strategies into the classroom.
Participant Recruitment
To ensure transparency and equitable participation across the system, a letter of invitation will be
submitted to all projected administrators, partners, teachers, and participants at least 90 days
prior to the scheduled summer session. The assumption is the school superintendent and grade
level chairs will participant in the identification of additional partners and participants. The letter
will outline the goals and objectives, curriculum, faculty, timeline and evaluation plans. As
commitments from participants are received, the faculty will reach out for collaboration and
professional conversations.
Timeline
Conclusion
22
Capacity
The goal of all project team members is to provide high quality training in the area of
using visual media to improve writing instruction for teachers and writing production for
students. The staff conducting the professional development program brings a wide array of
experience and expertise as teachers and experts in the area of using visual media to enhance
student writing. All members of the project team will work tirelessly during and even after the
professional development is over to provide the necessary support to all training participants.
The training will be externally evaluated by Dr. Robert Heaberlin who is presently the executive
director of the Georgia Association of Middle School Principals among many other accolades.
Recipients of the professional development are 10 language arts teachers, an ELA
instructional coach and media specialist from Harper Archer Middle School. For 5 days these
23
educators will examine cutting edge technology, reliable research and tested activities that will
use visual media to improve their students writing.
Project Director
Carol Mathis is a math and science teacher in Coweta County. Over
her 23-year career she has taught at the elementary, middle and high school
levels. She is also certified in math, science, social studies and special
education. Carol received her Bachelors degree in secondary education and her Masters in
Middle Grade Education from the University of West Georgia. As an educational leader she had
the opportunity to be a presenter on the topic of Collaborative Instruction, for new teachers
orientation for Clayton County School System. Carol is currently working to complete an Ed.S in
Instructional Technology from the University of West Georgia.
Carol will have many responsibilities as the project director. Carol will be responsible for
recruiting any potential clients to take part in the professional development. As well, Carol will
need to secure a facility and confirm dates for the professional development as well as follow up
sessions. She will have the task of training all support staff to insure that they are well equipped
to deliver quality and effective direction during the professional development. As project director
Carol will serve as primary teacher during the duration of the training. Finally, Carol must
secure the necessary funds to make the professional development financially possible.
Facilitator 1
and Advanced ELA in a Title 1 school. April is also certified as a Media Specialist. April
received her undergraduate degree in Journalism from Georgia Southern University. She is
currently completing her coursework with hopes of earning an Ed.S in Instructional Technology
from University of West Georgia. She is also a contributing grant writer for her schools 21st
Century Program and looking forward to her new assignment as a media specialist.
As a project facilitator Aprils primary responsibility will be to assist participants with
any questions or concerns that arise during the professional development and follow up sessions.
Some of her more specific responsibilities are making sure that all necessary adjustments are
made to the curriculum based on any unforeseen time constraints or the level of technology
competencies of our participants. April will handle the opening activities each day during the
duration of the professional development. She will also serve as the primary resource for the
participants in terms of how teachers can best use their media specialist to better implement the
professional development into their instructional practices.
Facilitator 2
26
organized before being the last person to leave the facility and make sure that all doors are
secured and locked.
External Evaluator
Facility
27
Harper Archer Middle School is governed by the Atlantic Public School System and is
structured within district five. The school is located at 3399 Collier Drive Northwest, Atlanta,
GA, 30331, providing ease of access to all participants. The school has the capacity to host the
professional development program with computers available to all participants. Materials and
courtesy items will be provided by the host facility.
Materials and courtesy items:
-
Teachers participating in the professional development will use Chromebooks that are
28
29
30
31
Pre-assessment
Post-assessment
Difference
Note: Additional data collection tools are in place within the Atlanta Public School System,
District 5, and Harper Archer Middle School for teacher and student assessments
32
References
Albers, P., Angay-Crowder, T., Turnbull, S., Cho, A., Shin, J.H., Pang, M.E., Pace, C., Wang, H.,
& Juna, J.K. (2016). Learning together in holistic online critical professional
development spaces. National Council of Teachers of English: Talking Points, 27(2), 1727. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/TP/0272may2016/TP0272Learning.pdf
An, Y. & Reigeluth, C. (2012). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms: K12 teachers beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning
in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ960151
Anthony, A.B. (2012). Activity theory as a framework for investigating district-classroom system
interactions and their Influences on technology integration. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 44(4), 335356. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ976472.pdf
Atlanta Public School System. ( 2014). Eighth grade writing results. Atlanta, GA, Author.
Retrieved from
https://public.tableau.com/profile/aps.dig#!/vizhome/Grade8Writing2014_0/G8WritingDash
Atlanta Public School System. (2015). Georgia Milestones 2015 end of grade results. Atlanta,
GA, Author. Retrieved from http://apsgraphs.blogspot.com/2015/12/milestonesachievement-levels.html
33
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J. & Mabry, L. (2006). Real world evaluation: Working under budget,
time, data, and political constraints. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bielefeldt, T. (2012). Guidance for technology decisions from classroom observations. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 205-223. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ976466.pdf
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Day, L. (2013). A snapshot of the use of ICT in primary mathematics classrooms in Western
Australia. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 18(1), 16-24. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1093130.pdf
Georgia Department of Education. (2015). College and Career Ready Performance Index
(CCRPI). Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.gadoe.org/CCRPI/Pages/default.aspx
34
Gopalakrishnan, S. & Preskill, H. (2014). Strategic evaluation blog: What is evaluation, really?
Retrieved from:
http://www.fsg.org/KnowledgeExchange/Blogs/StrategicEvaluation/PostID/570.aspx)
Hightower, R. (2015). Dr. Robert L. Heaberlin, Jr. Honors His Parents with a Donation to UWG
Newnan. Perspective. Retrieved from
http://uwgperspective.com/giving/stories/heaberlin.html
Jaipal-Jamani, K., Figg, C., Gallagher, T., Scott, R.M., & Ciampa, K. ( 2015). Collaborative
professional development in higher education: Developing knowledge of technology
enhanced teaching. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 15(2), 30-44. Retrieved from
http://www.uncw.edu/cte/et/articles/Vol15_2/Figg.pdf
Kane, T.J. (2015). Did the common core assessments cause the decline in NAEP scores?
Brookings Institution. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/11/05-common-core-assessmentsdecline-in-naep-scores-kane
Karahan & Bilict, (2015). Integration of media design in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 221240). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1076677.pdf
35
Lester, K.C. (2012). Roadblocks to integrating technology into classroom instruction (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, 2012. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?
q=technology&ff1=souProQuest+LLC&id=ED548102
Linnell, D. (2014, February 13). Process evaluation vs outcome evaluation [Web log post].
Retrieved July 9, 2016, from http://tsne.org/blog/process-evaluation-vs-outcomeevaluation
Marzano, R. J. (2009). The art and science of teaching: Six steps to better vocabulary
instruction. Educational leadership, 67(1), 83-84
Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment,
and get results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
U.S. Department of Education (2016). The Nations Report Card 2015: Mathematics & reading
at grades and 8. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
36