1
2019-2020 Rubric
LIMITED 12 |
DEVELOPING 15 |
ACCELERATING 18 |
ADVANCED 20 |
|
ARTIFACTS __/20 |
Provides evidence of limited/insufficient proficiency in selected professional standards. |
Provides evidence of emerging/developing proficiency in selected professional standards. |
Provides evidence of accelerating/adequate proficiency in selected professional standards. |
Provides evidence of advanced/excellent proficiency in selected professional standards. |
DESCRIPTIONS __/20 |
Minimally contextualizes and frames the artifacts. |
Generally contextualizes and frames the artifacts. |
Sufficiently contextualizes and frames the artifacts. |
Strongly contextualizes and frames the artifacts. |
REFLECTIONS & RATIONALES __/20 |
Demonstrates limited reflections about knowledge, skills, and dispositions. |
Demonstrates developing reflections about knowledge, skills, and dispositions. |
Demonstrates proficient reflections about knowledge, skills, and dispositions. |
Demonstrates advanced reflections about knowledge, skills, and dispositions. |
LANGUAGE __/20 |
The style and tone could be appropriate to the purpose given some. |
The style and tone are appropriate to the purpose. |
The ePortfolio has a strong voice. The style and tone are appropriate to the purpose. |
The ePortfolio has a strong and engaging voice. The style and tone are appropriate to the purpose. |
LIMITED
2 |
DEVELOPING
5 |
ACCELERATING
8 |
ADVANCED
10 |
|
MECHANICS __/10 |
Has some sentence level errors that should be corrected. |
Written with some correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
Written with mostly correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
Written with correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
PROSPECTUS & APA FORMAT __/10 |
Demonstrates limited knowledge of research topic and design; Provides limited outline or does not describe intentions for dissertation research. Has some APA format errors that should be corrected. |
Demonstrates developing knowledge of research topic and design; Provides basic outline and briefly describes intentions for dissertation research. Written with some correct APA format. |
Demonstrates proficient knowledge of research topic and design; Provides developed outline and describes intentions for dissertation research. Written with mostly correct APA format. |
Demonstrates strong knowledge of research topic and design; Provides developed outline and clearly describes intentions for dissertation research. Written with correct APA format. |
RESULTS from RUBRIC SCORING (Maximum Score is 100, Minimum Score is 52)
Advanced Level: 92-100 (Pass with no additional revisions needed.)
Accelerating or Proficient Level: 80-92 (Conditional pass with minor revisions. Revise & resubmit in 3 weeks.)
Developing Level: 60-79 (Needs further development. Revise and resubmit for the next cycle.)
Limited or Beginning Level: 52-60 (Major revisions needed. Meet with Advisor/Chair or PD.)
Name of Student:________________________________
FINAL SCORE: _________
RATIONALE FOR SCORE, COMMENTS DIRECTED TO THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR (Not mandatory, if applicable)
WRITTEN FEEDBACK FOR STUDENT (Blind reviewer comments will be shared with the student in the notification letter)
Creating
AECTSTANDARD 1
– (CONTENT KNOWLEDGE)
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.
INDICATOR 1- Creating: Candidates demonstrate the ability to create instructional materials and learning environments using a variety of systems approaches.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
In the summer of 2017, I had created a video tutorial called Creating Dissertation Template as a part of GDIT703: Foundations of Instructional Technology, which is a course taught by Dr. Misook Heo. This tutorial explains the way to create a dissertation template using APA style in Microsoft Word. I had presented my work in various formats like written text, graphics, video, audio, and integrative. The intended users of this video tutorial are the students of the doctoral or graduate programs at Duquesne University who need to submit their dissertation using the APA style formatting.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
I had created a video tutorial to indicate my expertise in designing learning and instructional materials by using various resources and tools. For developing this tutorial I had used systems like Camtasia and Microsoft Word, and other resources from the web and library. This also included combining various video clips to create an overall lesson, which can be posted to any Media Learning System (such as Blackboard) and utilized for dissertation research that needs APA style. This project allowed me to display my knowledge of APA style formatting and the ability to create instructional materials using a variety of technological tools.
Using
AECT STANDARD 1 – (CONTENT KNOWLEDGE)
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.
INDICATOR 2 – Using : Candidates demonstrate the ability to select and use technological resources and processes to support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
In GDIT 719, Learner-Computer Interaction I have worked the main project that using Augmented Reality (AR) designed interdisciplinary lesson plans. There are 3 goals that the lesson plan included:
· Raise awareness on augmented reality (AR) for education
· Design innovative, interdisciplinary lessons adopting augmented reality AR
· Promote collaborative learning
I was with a group that worked on this project with Nawal and Tasnem, the project topic is space exploration for 3rd / 4th grade. we worked together in each point of the project. we focus on teaching a science topic and integrate some language activities so that we satisfy the interdisciplinary requirement.
In this project, students are presented with a technology, augmented reality application that promotes curiosity and elicits current knowledge about STEM disciplines. The learning experience makes connections between past and present learning experiences (where students explore the space, learn about planets), expose current ideas about science, and organize students’ thinking toward the learning outcomes for the science unit.
In this project (the materials ) offer exploration experiences which provide students with a common base of activities within which the teachers identifies current knowledge, processes, and skills relative to the STEM disciplines. Also, these experiences serve as formative assessments of students’ current knowledge. Students complete activities that help them use past knowledge to generate new ideas, explore questions, and design and conduct investigations about the problem presented at the beginning of the project.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This lesson uses an interdisciplinary teaching and learning approach by integrating the teaching and learning of both content and literacy. Specifically, this lesson is designed to teach a science topic (Space exploration) while it also aims to provide students the opportunity to develop Language Arts literacy skills, including recalling information from experiences and interactions with print and digital texts, taking brief notes on the sources, and sorting evidence in provided categories.
AECT (2012) stated that for candidates to achieve proficiency in Standard 1.2 they must “demonstrate the ability to select and use technological resources and processes to support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy”. which project confirms and provides opportunities for students to learn content and improve literacy skills through diverse in-class activities including hands-on activities, collaborative as well as individualized work. AR is found to be helpful in fostering students’ conceptual understanding, motivating and engaging learners more thoroughly in the inquiry process. Other benefits of AR technology for education include increasing students’ interaction, improving attitudes towards the learning materials after the AR experience.
Assessing/Evaluating Managing
AECT STANDARD 1 – (CONTENT KNOWLEDGE)
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.
INDICATOR 3 – Assessing / Evaluation : Candidates demonstrate the ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of appropriate technologies and instructional materials.
&
INDICATOR 4 – Managing :Candidates demonstrate the ability to effectively manage people, processes, physical infrastructures, and financial resources to achieve predetermined goals.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
I created this initiative for a computational thinking and robotics program for an imagined school that two of my classmates and I collaboratively developed in the summer of 2018 while taking GDIT 701: Professional Leadership in Technology with Dr. David Carbonara. This course investigated the differences between management and leadership and provided an opportunity to reflect on and devise strategies to implement both. After we learned terms and read several articles about different types and problems related to leadership, we reflected on our individual styles of leadership. We then developed strategic plans and proposals for new school initiatives.This paper was incredibly thorough, including a vision statement; mission statement; committee; goals; demographics; data, analysis, and reporting; curriculum, instruction, and evaluation; content development plan, courseware implementation plan; training and professional development; standards; accessibility and legal issues; budget; and bibliography
.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
for my efficiency shows’ how this artifact demonstrates assents in Standard 1.3 which states that candidates should have “the ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of appropriate technologies and instructional materials.” in this artifact which I explain the various methods that will be used to assess by Data collection in the school about the new technology will be carried out by the technology committees. The data to be collected will be used in assessing the needs of the latest technology, the experience of theusers, to establish the feelings of the education stakeholders concerning the latest technology, and software preferences.The committee will interview the students concerning the use of the
instructional technology. I became aware of surveys since the analysis make the designated experts to join the technology committee to assist the other members in undertaking the research, testing, and gaining insight from the stakeholders about effectiveness technology software and hardware.In the reporting of data, the teachers are supposed to complete forms to address
the challenges that they face in when applying modern technology to deliver education to the learners. They will be needed to address the needs that must be addressed in the new technology. Furthermore, I was able to use my knowledge of using Google form since Teachers and students will do only surveys
through Google forms, and the data received in the study is compiled, and the administrators will receive the results. The data will enable the school administrators to make recommendations which will be used by the board as the basis for funding the new academic technology.
According to AECT (2012), Standard 1.4 states that “candidates [should have the] ability to effectively manage people, processes, physical infrastructures, and financial resources to achieve predetermined goals.” I chose this artifact to demonstrate my proficiency that technology integration plan which I describe has several critical issues such as Obsolescence, Ergonomics, Standards and Communication. Hence, I gain over the knowledge to developed the plan with school’s administration. first, The school should assess the users and carry out research on the efficiency of the new technology and replace outdated equipment. Second, The technology team must ensure that furnishings and equipment are user-friendly that is the height of the table and the seats should make the users comfortable and use the electronics without straining to access them.Next, The equipment producers and technology electronics lay standards on the limit of their usage. Therefore, the school management must ensure that all the standards about the use of the education technology are followed strictly. Finally, The discussion will help the technology committee to gather information from different personnel and give feedback on the issues which may arise in the technology plan.
I created this initiative for a computational thinking and robotics program for an imagined school that two of my classmates and I collaboratively developed in the summer of 2018 while taking GDIT 701: Professional Leadership in Technology with Dr. David Carbonara. This course investigated the differences between management and leadership and provided an opportunity to reflect on and devise strategies to implement both. After we learned terms and read several articles about different types and problems related to leadership, we reflected on our individual styles of leadership. We then developed strategic plans and proposals for new school initiatives.This paper was incredibly thorough, including a vision statement; mission statement; committee; goals; demographics; data, analysis, and reporting; curriculum, instruction, and evaluation; content development plan, courseware implementation plan; training and professional development; standards; accessibility and legal issues; budget; and bibliography
Ethics
AECT STANDARD 1 – (CONTENT KNOWLEDGE)
Candidates demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.
INDICATOR 5- Ethics: Candidates demonstrate the contemporary professional ethics of the field as defined and developed by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This artifact is successfully complete Duquesne University’s online training for Protection of Human Subjects. I Completed the required training in GDIT 717, Research Seminar in Instructional Technology course taught by Dr. Joseph C. Kush, in the Spring of 2018. During the my doctoral program includes many courses integrated the Ethics which over time through builded my knowledge and understanding through various instructional activities, readings, required training, and individual and cooperative projects. This is exact artifact shows that I learned about the Duquesne Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval process, its rules, and standards, and the importance of obtaining needed IRB approval, before approaching any research subjects. Understanding the intellectual property and copyrights issues and how that important in practice and research subjects.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
Earning the certificate of Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program) courses that this training enhances me to the importance of practicing and promoting ethical research As a current research practitioner and educational leader and lecturer in Saudi Arabia I will make sure my community members are as aware of respecting these professional standards. Moreover, understanding of the importance of conducting the necessary training to educate research administrators and organizational leadership about this important topic, ethical research practice. Since I completed the following Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program) courses: Social and Behavioral Responsible Conduct of Research I earning the certificate posted below that I believe that this artifact shows my proficiency in “Candidates demonstrate the contemporary professional ethics of the field as defined and developed by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology” (AECT, 2012).
Stander 2
AECT STANDARD 2 – (CONTENT PEDAGOGY)
Candidates develop as reflective practitioners able to demonstrate effective implementation of educational technologies and processes based on contemporary content and pedagogy.
INDICATOR 1- Creating: Candidates apply content pedagogy to create appropriate applications of processes and technologies to improve learning and performance outcomes.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
The artifact chosen to demonstrate proficiency in AECT’s Standard 2.1 is a I created SAMR modeling in K-12 Learning in GDIT706, Developing Learning Environment Using IT, a course taught by Dr. David Carbonara, during the spring of 2019. The objective of this project was to create a SAMR Modeling in K-12 Learning: A Study in Technology-Based Teaching Methods, on a topic of our choice, that focuses on teaching children of K-12 the necessary mathematical and linguistic skills with technology and by following the principles of the SAMR Model. The project will preconceive the notion that most urban children are deeply engaged in modern technology and the content to enhance their analytical skills is already readily available on the internet.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
I applied the SAMR model to the learning process in mathematical and linguistic classroom. My contribution shows’ in project which use SAMR Modeling techniques to enhance the learning experience in K-12 students using the nine principles of pedagogy by Robert Ganges. The program was developed by using the five staged of design thinking and was assessed by the nine principles. The aim is to enhance curiosity among students at an early age. My contribution shows my newly developed understanding of the SAMR model as well as examples and functional change in the following areas:
Substitution: Substitution is considered to be a weak form of enhancing learning through computer technology. Print outs instead of handwritten practice assignments and video lectures in place of a lecture by an instructor come in the category of substitution. The results found a student to be more interested in the assignments if they were in the form of exciting and eye-catching graphics.
Augmentation: The online conduction of examination or finishing projects through online tools is considered augmentation. The paper allowed students in the K-12 class to finish their mathematical and linguistic practice tests through the online filling of the form on Android devices.Even though the children were young, they found the programs to be exciting and were more engaged in the examination.
Modification: How common classroom tasks may be accomplished through the use of computer technology, transforming the Arabic classroom.
Modification: The papers and projects are to be finished in an unconventional manner that involves technology. Children in the group were too young to participate in this form of study as they could not be expected to create content on a technologically advanced platform.
Redefinition: The complete overhaul of how students submit their projects and develop project plans that do not require any of the conventional classrooms is considered redefinition.
Therefore,It will help achive my goal to develop earning in early childhood education that is high functioning and interactive.I believe that this artifact reflects my proficiency in AECT’s Standard 2.1 which states that “candidates [should be able to] apply content pedagogy to create appropriate applications of processes and technologies to improve learning and performance outcomes.”
Using
AECT STANDARD 2 – (CONTENT PEDAGOGY)
Candidates develop as reflective practitioners able to demonstrate effective implementation of educational technologies and processes based on contemporary content and pedagogy.
INDICATOR 2- Using : Candidates demonstrate the ability to select and use technological resources and processes to support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This paper was written in GDIT706, Developing Learning Environment Using IT, a course taught by Dr. David Carbonara during the spring of 2019. I wrote paper about using the TPCK model to improve learning in language and culture I created the application of the TPCK model can prove beneficial in enhancing the comprehension levels of bilingual students. The application of modern and effective technology can aid bilingual students in gaining English comprehension and literacy much faster. For this paper, graduate students were asked to locate and describe an application of the TPCK model to a curriculum in a discipline of their choice and answer the question, “How would we research this curriculum with this model?”
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This artifact demonstrates my ability to research, locate, and describe the application of the TPCK model to teaching the English language
it implements appropriate educational technologies and processes based on appropriate content pedagogy, and improving the quality of reflective writing is a pedagogical concern. The methodology which I choose such interviews and questionnaires will provide the information needed for the study, and the TPACK framework adds a logical lens through which to scaffold preservice student learning. Also, I conclude with three very interesting possible research questions for future investigation in applying TPCK to teach English. The research questions identified will aid in determining the areas that the study will focus on to achieve success. The topic under research is the application of technological pedagogical content knowledge in bilingual education and the possible benefits. I believe that this artifact is an example that demonstrates my proficiency in Standard 2.2 as it shows my ability to choose and then implement the best educational technologies and processes based on science pedagogy.
Assessing / Evaluating
AECT STANDARD 2 – (CONTENT PEDAGOGY)
Candidates develop as reflective practitioners able to demonstrate effective implementation of educational technologies and processes based on contemporary content and pedagogy.
INDICATOR 3- Assessing / Evaluating : Candidates demonstrate an inquiry process that assesses the adequacy of learning and evaluates the instruction and implementation of educational technologies and processes grounded in reflective practice.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
For this artifact is a video I created in the fall 2018 semester for Dr. Joseph Kush’s GDIT 713: Computational Thinking, course. The objective of this final project was to create and develop a video of approximately 5 minutes in length, demonstrating the Sphero robot a codable robot. The video had to also include an example of how the robot can be used to integrate computational thinking into a class curriculum. The video Includes appropriate age ranges for your particular task as well as any prerequisite knowledge that will be required. Describe whether you imagine the task being a stand-alone activity or integrated within some particular content area. The video was also assessed for its creativeness and the quality of the elements of design (e.g., film clips, pictures, backgrounds, music etc.).
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
During the course I learned several software and application to integrate computational thinking into academic curricula. By this class and assignments, I learned about the coding throw the course by each application. In this project I used the Adobe Spark since I preferred it more than other applications for making a short video. I focused on elementary school classrooms as that is the age level which my vidoe created for it. The planing for using the shapes in math lesson. and then tried it with my students at the time. Hence allowing me to evaluate its effectiveness on student learning. I believe that the knowledge and skills I gained in this class on assessing the technological resources demonstrates my proficiency in AECT’s Standard 2.3 which states “candidates demonstrate an inquiry process that assesses the adequacy of learning and evaluates the instruction and implementation of educational technologies and processes grounded in reflective practice.”
Manning
AECT STANDARD 2 – (CONTENT PEDAGOGY)
Candidates develop as reflective practitioners able to demonstrate effective implementation of educational technologies and processes based on contemporary content and pedagogy.
INDICATOR 4- Managing : Candidates manage appropriate technological processes and resources to provide supportive learning communities, create flexible and diverse learning environments, and develop and demonstrate appropriate content pedagogy.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This aritfact about Blendspace lesson I completed in GDIT703 Foundation of Instructional Technology, taught by Dr. Misook Heo during Summer 2017. The topic for my lesson was e-Books and e-Book creation. The target audience for this lesson can be learners in elemantry school which is taking about digitl story. At the end of this lesson, students will be able to define e-books, compare e-books to printed, traditional books, list the pros and cons of using e-books, choose a method to create a simple e-book, identify at least one free e-book creation software, and create a simple e-book using readily available software.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This artifact using the Blendsapce I learned about Blendsapce, a free technological tool with which I wasn’t familiar and had never used. I used this as e book for elementary school. The Blendsapce engages children and give them more opportunities to improve their learning. Digital storytelling is one of the significant tools to make learning more interesting and engaging for students. Digital storytelling proves to show breathtaking efficacy in the classroom. I include the following resources in my lesson: a YouTube Education video that explains in very simple terms what an e-book is and a YouTube video comparing e-books with physical books. First, the video show’s what is digital story, how can create it, and so o. I can use uploads from my computer and/or use TES Resources tools (such as Google Search, Educreations, Google Drive, and Dropbox), complete my lesson design, and share it with my students through their class account or a direct link. Even though I have chosen not to use Blendspace in my classroom, I believe that these two artifacts demonstrate my knowledge and skills in selecting and using “appropriate technological processes and resources to provide supportive learning communities, create flexible and diverse learning environments, and develop and demonstrate appropriate content pedagogy.” Thereby, showing my proficiency in AECT’s Standard 2.4.
Ethics
AECT STANDARD 2 – (CONTENT PEDAGOGY)
Candidates develop as reflective practitioners able to demonstrate effective implementation of educational technologies and processes based on contemporary content and pedagogy.
INDICATOR 5- Ethics : Candidates design and select media, technology, and processes that emphasize the diversity of our society as a multicultural community.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This artifact PowerPoint presentation was created for GDIT714, Leadership and Education in a Global Society, a course taught Dr. Sandra Quiñones , which I took during the fall 2019 semester. It was
collaborative final project option will take the form of a comparative inquiry & analysis process that will require you to research and compare the education system of Saudi Arabia particularly in relation to the leveraging of technology and notions of empowered educators as discussed.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
I chose this artifact because it serves as an example of emphasizing the diversity and multiculturalism of our society. As future educational leaders, my group members and I researched various aspects of the Saudi education system to help us understand the Saudis’ approach to education from a practical, societal, and cultural perspective. We looked about Education technology is the integration of digital and online learning materials into the daily learning of students. Technology has created new opportunities for students to acquire knowledge and governments to reduce their operating costs while improving the level of efficiency. Both the United States and Saudi Arabia have integrated education technology though they both face various challenges such as lack of infrastructure. This presentation and others’ in this course resulted in a deep understanding and knowledge of various educational systems and cultures around the world. This, in turn, promoted cross-cultural understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of other members of our multicultural society and diverse community.
As I result, I believe that this artifact demonstrates my knowledge about and proficiency in AECT’s Standard 2.5 which states that Candidates design and select media, technology, and processes that emphasize the diversity of our society as a multicultural community.
Stander 3
AECT STANDARD 3 – LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments.
INDICATOR 1- Creating: Candidates create instructional design products based on learning principles and research-based best practices.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
The artifact for the course GDIT 706: Developing a Learning Environment using IT with Dr. David Carbonara, taken during the spring 2019 semester. I created the final project used to show proficiency of objective of this project was to create a learning environment for a content area of our choice, covering two to three sessions of content using the pedagogical and technological knowledge that we have learned during this course.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
The first indicator of AECT’s standard three states that candidates can “create instructional design products based on learning principles and research-based best practices” (AECT, 2012). I chose this artifact to demonstrate my knowledge of current best practices when it comes to designing learning environments in a K-12 learning environment. For this project I created a learning environment for K-12 learning necessary mathematical and linguistic classroom based on the Next Generation Science Standards (2013) and the Pennsylvania Science Standards (2010). I used the Student’s performance and assessed the learner characteristics of the learning was evaluated after incorporating the four stages of SAMR modeling, and the results were gauged independent of the preconceived notions to create the lesson plan. Several pedagogies I had learned during this course with Dr. Carbonara and other courses were also used such as reception, Expectancy, Retrieval, Selective Perception, Semantic Encoding, ,Responding, Reinforcement, Retrieval, Generalization.
However, this project gave me the opportunity to use more of the research-based practices that I have learned throughout this doctoral program to create an actual unit that I used in my current teaching. It further helped develop techniques and routines that I use to integrate these research-based practices to undrgrdod lessons that I currently teach.
Using
AECT STANDARD 3 – LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments.
INDICATOR 2- Using : Candidates make professionally sound decisions in selecting appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning based on principles, theories, and effective practices.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
The two artifacts chosen to demonstrate my proficiency in Standard 3.2 were created For GDIT 705 Cognition and Instructional Design with Dr. Misook Heo’s Fall 2017 course. I researched and wrote a Learning Strategies unit which I would to tach in the digital story which I have to teach reading and writing courses in my classroom. I had concerns about the existing content we delivered in the course; it was very difficult when I started to but than when I follow the direction of the project , it become useful. The first document, I Developed non-formal lesson modules for your targeted audiences using a learning management system. Learners should be able to recognize the personal value of what they are learning. After brainstorming as many ideas as possible, once I decided on a learning activity, design learning experiences/materials around the activity to help learners attain the intended learning outcomes. Some of the activities I used as to help learners attain the knowledge, attitudes, skills, aspirations, and behaviors related to the content. The second document, Rationalization for Learning Module, is the document which describes each of the principles I utilized in the learning environment itself.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This artifact is Learning Module addresses using indicators for Standard 3, as it is I created based on learning principles and Cambridge Handbook to be best practices. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning has significant evidence that these principles apply toward the cognitive theory related to learning through multimedia that have brought about many positive educational outcomes. which are proven to increase learning outcomes. It also delivers practical knowledge for students on how to navigate the course and engage with the content. The instructional design of the content follows best practices according to several different learning and design principles. The ultimate goal was to provide optimal learning conditions for students entering courses. The Using Indicator of AECT’s third standard states that “candidates [should] make professionally sound decisions in selecting appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning based on principles, theories, and effective practices.“ I was able creating this learning resource that is accessible by all students, I was able differentiate my lesson and create an optimal learning environment for all my students.
Assessing / Evaluating
AECT STANDARD 3 – LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments.
INDICATOR 3- Assessing / Evaluating: Candidates use multiple assessment strategies to collect data for informing decisions to improve instructional practice, learner outcomes, and the learning environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
The two artifacts chosen to demonstrate my proficiency in Standard 3.3 were created for Dr. Misook Heo’s spring 2018 course: Design of the Learner Experience. The objective of this project was to create “an application or service that facilitates behavior change in individuals” ( So, my partners and I created a prototype of an app called Study Up after observing that some students and students’ study management using the application ‘Study Up’ will be evaluated against students managing their study on their own to assess the effectiveness of the application in regard to user experience satisfaction, management success and the time required to complete assignments in a timely manner. Accuracy will only be considered for the application.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
The two artifacts chosen to demonstrate my proficiency in Standard 3.3 were created for Dr. Misook Heo’s spring 2018 course: Design of the Learner Experience. I created that with my partner a prototype of an app called Study Haibts. With the challenging requisites of school programs, college students often find difficulty in balancing between school and personal life. Nevertheless, if students maintain good study habits, they will succeed both in their school and personal life. Thus, in order to help students achieve desirable study outcomes, we intend to create an application that will help them manage their study duties and maintain organization of their study process. Specifically, the Study Up application will allow students to schedule assignments as well as to plan and schedule study sessions. It will also include features that will help students communicate with their classmates to discuss group projects, to schedule group meetings, or seek assistance from their peers. While I believe that this project allowed me to become proficient in Standard 3, an area of continued development for me is the preparation of assessments that measure the learning objectives and goals of the learning environments I create in the future.
Manning
AECT STANDARD 3 – LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments.
INDICATOR 4- Managing: Candidates establish mechanisms for maintaining the technology infrastructure to improve learning and performance.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This project we were required to create a strategic plan for the implementation of instructional technology in a school of Arabic school. This is artifact was created during the summer 2018 semester in Dr. David Carbonara’s course titled Professional Leadership in Technology. This course investigated the differences between management and leadership and provided an opportunity to reflect on and devise strategies to implement both. After we learned terms and read several articles about different types and problems related to leadership.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This artifact content directly relates to the standard, “Candidates establish mechanisms for maintaining the technology infrastructure to improve learning and performance.” The knowledge I gained from this project allowed me to write a professional development for the Aribc teachers in technology integration, and funding for devices to be used in at the school that I would to work at. I particularly enjoyed learning more about my group members and their expertise. We had a very productive and collaborative experience, I believe partly because we shared an overall vision for the project and could each take ownership of sections.The technology infrastructure in this strategic plan was a new technology platform to deliver the curriculum materials online. The strategic plan included sections for how to implement the technology. The instructional technology that is used by the teachers must equip the students with skills to help them participate in classroom activities and better their creativity. The learners will acquire knowledge from technology that access from the school which will contribute to their success in their future lives. The instructional technology will ensure that faculties and other stakeholders acquire a quality learning experience which is supported by the current technology.
Ethics
AECT STANDARD 3 – LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments.
INDICATOR 5- Ethics: Candidates foster a learning environment in which ethics guide practice that promotes health, safety, best practice, and respect for copyright, Fair Use, and appropriate open access to resources.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This course was taught during the summer of 2018 by Dr. Rosemary Mautino in GDIT 712: Ethics and Social Justice in the Digital Age. The ” Hacking Presentation” were created in collaboration with my colleague, Tasnem Alarabi. The presentation was created to facilitate the learning in our class and provide students with a balance of technical information and real-world issues that will prepare them to become responsible, ethical users of future technologies. The target audience for this lesson was students in doctoral/graduate programs at Duquesne University. At the end of this lesson, students were expected to be able to define, is hacking a form of cyberbyllying?, Is hacking common among school students?, and How to deal with the problem?.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This artifact demonstrate my improved knowledge of the issues of Hacking. In this presentation, we include a brief about Cyberbullying, computer hacking, some statistics and computer hacking among students. College students who feel that companies and institutions should provide better security were more likely to guess password and browse accounts illegally than students not feeling this way.
Students who felt that software companies overprice their products and that they would not report a friend who pirated software, they were likely to pirate software and commit different types of computer crime. Female students were significantly less likely to pirate software and commit computer crimes than were male students .
Although most students were aware of the illegality of computer crime, the possibility of suffering penalties seemed to have little effect on their behavior. As I result, I believe that this artifact demonstrates my knowledge about and proficiency in AECT’s Standard 3.5 which states that “candidates foster a learning environment in which ethics guide practice that promotes health, safety, best practice and respect for copyright, Fair Use, and appropriate open access to resources. “
Diversity of learner
AECT STANDARD 3- LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Candidates facilitate learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments.
INDICATOR 6- Diversity of learner: Candidates foster a learning community that empowers learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This artfact was a paper I wrote Fall 2018 from GDIT 718: Instructional Technology Policy Issues, Planning and Management I took with Dr. David Carbonara. that paper it has two scoction were about Teacher Preparation and a second was about Class Size. As scholars, I wrote research questions about my subject. So, I imagine to use Smartwatches in classroom that one of these articles is interesting to you. Smartwatches are educational utilities today where teachers and students find various applications. These digital wearables should be used as a device in classrooms. Essentially, these technological inventions offer digital management for teachers, enable endless communication between teaching staff and students, encompass applications that focus on language skills and speech to text options, allow efficacious problem solving, and promote uniqueness while collaborating .
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
In this artifact I share my insights and my process of creating a positive culture to support diverse students with the policy using the smartwatch which focuses on engaging in leadership and growth in the professional community by utilizing all available resources and tools. since I am leader They develop, design, and evaluate learning experiences by modelling digital resources in work. Moreover, the leaders should also understands societal implications in digital culture and demonstrate ethical and legal practices in the professional atmosphere. I believe this artifact demonstrate my knowledge and skills in selecting and using “Candidates foster a learning community that empowers learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities.
Stander 4
Collaborative Practice
AECT STANDARD 4- (PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS)
Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.
INDICATOR 1- Collaborative Practice: Candidates collaborate with their peers and subject matter experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
In GDIT 716, Design of the Learner Experience, In the spring of 2018 I took Dr. Misook Heo’s . Me and my group creaded our project was to use a wireframe or prototyping software to develop an educational app or website which would solve a problem of our choosing. Our group were interested in developing the Study Up application will allow students to schedule assignments as well as to plan and schedule study sessions. It will also include features that will help students communicate with their classmates to discuss group projects, to schedule group meetings, or seek assistance from their peers.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
In this artifact this is first time I used prototyping app like Balsamiq before. I learned that software and become able to use the software to help produce my own feature ideas. my group mates and I conducted the initial developing the script, tests, and survey to confirm the need for our design and which showed me how valuable the entire testing process is. Getting early feedback and identifying needed change could save much time and before the full dissertation research process began. This project covers both the Collaborative Practice and Assessing/Evaluating indicators of Standard 4. me and Tasnem, and I collaborated as a team to identify the learners we were going to serve and the need we were going to fill. Our evaluation plan begins with a project summary, description, and project goals. It includes a list of evaluation goals, learning goals, evaluation focus, and measurement goals. A section about participant selection and recruitment process and a section explaining the methodology of testing, timing, testing duration, and different scenarios are also included. Getting early feedback and identifying needed change could save much time and before the full dissertation research process began. Lastly, we all conducted usability studies with real students and created the final report document. This project had strong collaboration requirements from start to finish. I chose this artifact to represent proficiency in AECT’s Standard 4.1 as it demonstrates my ability to “collaborate with peers and subject matter experts to analyze learners, develop and design instruction, and evaluate its impact on learners.”
Leadership
AECT STANDARD 4- (PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS)
Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.
INDICATOR 2- Leadership: Candidates lead their peers in designing and implementing technology-supported learning.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
The artifact chosen to demonstrate proficiency in AECT’s Standard 4.2 is class discussion in GDIT705 Cognition & Instructional Design Fall 2017 course taught by Dr. Misook Heo. In this course, I designed, authored, and managed the contents of two whole class discussions. I posted a higher-order discussion question to assure individuals’ critical reading of a book chapter covering the Segmenting, Pre-training and Modality principle. I also introduced one learning design activity to facilitate individuals three type of feedback: corrective feedback, explanatory feedback and outcome feedback. Multimedia principle .
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
The target audience for this discussion activity was a group of fellow doctoral Instructional Technology and Leadership students. I led the class discussion covering two different topics of multimedia learning principles. I created and posted a Segmenting, Pre-training and Modality principles thinking questions in which I asked course participants to:
Based on chapter, Can you provide examples for Segmenting, Pre-training and Modality principles and how that techniques can manage essential processing?
Under another discussion thread, I posted a Guided Discovery Principle learning activity, asking participants to:
This chapter is talking about the feedback principle in multimedia learning. Moreover, the author presented three type of feedback: corrective feedback, explanatory feedback and outcome feedback.
http://www.apprenticeship.nscc.ca/mentoring/Mentoring.Course.Step5
I offered the link which included some activities relevant to feedback principle. You can answer all activities in this blog but the activities which you will reply to discussion will be in p5, and last activity. However, the answering in last activity will be as your feedback about your learning through this activity and which kind of feedback will be.
For clarification
The first activity will be in page 5 as you can see blew:
1-Feedback Activity
Supportive Feedback: Think about a recent work situation where you could have given a co-worker some supportive feedback, but didn’t. Imagine that you can re-play the work situation and change what you did. What words can you imagine saying to give supportive feedback to that person?
Corrective Feedback: Now put yourself into a situation where you could have given a co-worker some corrective feedback, but didn’t. Re-play the situation and think of what you would say to give corrective feedback.The second activity will be in last page as you can see blew:
http://www.apprenticeship.nscc.cam
Each chapter discussed one principle of multimedia learning and then presented a summary of the research that had been conducted related to the principle. Therefore, I believe that these class discussions are a clear example to demonstrate my proficiency in AECT’s Standard 5.1 with states that candidate should “demonstrate foundational knowledge of the contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and technology.”
Participants in this course come from many different education and work backgrounds. My colleagues and I engaged in lively discussions about these two principles. We learned from each others’ diverse points of view and experiences applying the two principles. This activity opened our eyes to how diverse disciplines apply these principles and benefit from the application.
Reflection on Practice
AECT STANDARD 4- (PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS)
Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.
INDICATOR 3- Reflection on Practice: Candidates analyze and interpret data and artifacts and reflect on the effectiveness of the design, development, and implementation of technology-supported instruction and learning to enhance their professional growth.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This Aritfact for GDIT717, Research Seminar in Instructional Technology, a course taught by Dr. Joseph Kush during the Spring 2018. The manuscript review assignment was a part of the work required Provided with a draft manuscript, which was not APA formatted, students were asked to re-format the manuscript according to the 6th edition of APA Publication Manual and point out (or make) the necessary changes for this document to comply with the APA style formatting, the accepted style for a research manuscript in the field of instructional technology.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
I chose this artifact and I decided to use the “Track Changes” function in Microsoft Word to show my ability to analyze artifacts, their contents, and design in order to enhance my own professional growth and provide the learners with the needed support. In order to make the necessary changes, show my work, and what the final product should look like. The experience of reviewing the original manuscript and making the excellent review of APA style formatting gave me a quick test of my knowledge. I believe that artifact demonstrate my proficiency in AECT’s Standard 4.3.
Assessing/Evaluating:
AECT STANDARD 4- (PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS)
Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.
INDICATOR 4- Assessing/Evaluating: Candidates design and implement assessment and evaluation plans that align with learning goals and instructional activities.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
The artifact that was create in Dr. Joseph Kush’s GDIT 715: Instructional Learning Theory, course taken during the fall 2017 semester I am using to demonstrate my proficiency in both Standards 4.4 . The objective of this presentation was to create a learning unit using the one of the learning theory models we had learned about during the semester.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
I chose this artifact which is Interactive PowerPoint to highlight this artifact to demonstrate my understanding of assessment tools, their categories. I was able to use this creation about systems of the human body to complement this assignment. This lesson is students in an introduction in Sciences specific about systems of the human body. The students have to complete learning the whole assignment. about systems of the human body. My objective to improve my instructions and help my students review content and monitor their learning and understanding of the material covered in class. Instructors can use this interactive presentation to test it and to spark students’ interest at the beginning of the course. Teachers can also use this presentation to monitor student learning to provide ongoing feedback to improve their teaching.
Ethics
AECT STANDARD 4- (PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS)
Candidates design, develop, implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments within a supportive community of practice.
INDICATOR 5- Ethics: Candidates demonstrate ethical behavior within the applicable cultural context during all aspects of their work and with respect for the diversity of learners in each setting.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This artifact The “Oppression Presentation” was created in collaboration with my colleague Tasnem Alarbi , in GDIT712, Ethics and Social Justice in the Digital Age. We presented to students in doctoral/graduate programs at Duquesne University. This course was taught during the summer of 2018 by Dr. Rosemary Mautino. The presentation was created to facilitate the learning in our class and provide students with an important insight into important real-world issues and current events that will prepare them to be aware of what Oppression: the abuse of a target group by an agent group. (Discrimination + Social power = Oppression).
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This artifact demonstrate my improved knowledge of the issues of . In this presentation, we include a brief about Oppression, I exaplend in presentation about a women and what the society says that women are the property of their fathers or husbands, society exists where people of certain race are denied opportunities and equality, society exists where people who believe in a certain set of religious teaching are considered to be inferior to others who accept astate religion, society is controlled by a small percentage of very wealthy people, society carefully controls the freedom of speech all people of speech, society allows migrants to enter its borders but will not grant them any rights, children respond to oppression in one of four ways: passive acceptance, exercise of illegitimate coercive power, manipulation of one’s peers, and retaliation and oppression in social media and arresting people based on their actions on social media.I believe this artifact fully demonstrates my proficiency in AECT’s Standard 4.5: “Candidates demonstrate ethical behavior within the applicable cultural context during all aspects of their work and with respect for the diversity of learners in each setting.”
Stander 5
Theoretical Foundations
AECT STANDARD 5- (RESEARCH)
Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance
INDICATOR 1- Theoretical Foundations: Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of the contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and technology.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
Based on my experiences in teaching filed and this class GDIT 718: Instructional Technology Policy, Planning, and Management, with Dr. David Carbonara in the fall of 2018 I got enough knowledge about educational policy particularly policy with Instructional technologists. My policy which I choose in this artfict using Smartwatches are educational utilities today where teachers and students find various applications and these technological inventions offer digital management for teachers, enable endless communication between teaching staff and students.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This artifact directly covers the Ethics indicator of Standard 5 by addressing “the respect for using Smartwatches in classroom , Fair Use, and appropriate open access to resources and , encompass applications ” This artifact provides a policy and details on how students, faculty, and staff can use smartwatches through appropriate use of the arrangements that are made off-site and on-site. The policy is in compliance with other policies such as “learning and teaching policy,” “Care and restraint policy,” and “Child protection policies. I believe that these class discussions are a clear example to demonstrate my proficiency in AECT’s Standard 5.1 with states that candidate should “demonstrate foundational knowledge of the contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and technology.”
Method
AECT STANDARD 5- (RESEARCH)
Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance
INDICATOR 2- Method: Candidates apply research methodologies to solve problems and enhance practice.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This artifact is a paper my cohort and I presented at the E-Learn conference hosted by the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) held in Las Vegas, Nevada in October 2018. This paper looks at how a first-year doctoral cohort formed a Community of Practice (COP) using Slack: an online communication tool, to form a scholarly community (Lave & Wenger, 1999).
I participated in a self-study group with my doctoral cohort a year after we started the program at Duquesne University. We worked outside of regular coursework, and we were fortunate to have the support and guidance of several professors. We analyzed the data collected through our Slack application, which we had collectively used to communicate. Learning about self-study was brand new to me. It forced me to confront my biases and assess my thinking and work as a student more objectively. After research and analysis, we co-wrote the paper below, which was accepted for publication by AECT. Four of us made the journey to Las Vegas in October 2018 to present
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This artifact is about my cohort and I realized that we had several courses in which quantitative research methodologies were discussed, and very few about qualitative methodologies. I believe that while this paper demonstrates my ability to “apply research methodologies to solve problems and enhance practice” as stated in Standard 5.2, I still have much more to learn in terms of qualitative research methodologies douring this sumster Spring 2020 I am taking THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH which designed to address basic issues in learning how to understand and conduct qualitative research.
Assessing/Evaluating
AECT STANDARD 5- (RESEARCH)
Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance.
INDICATOR 3- Assessing/Evaluating: Candidates apply formal inquiry strategies in assessing and evaluating processes and resources for learning and performance.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
During the GESL 512- ESL Curriculum and Assessment semester Spring 2018 I took Dr. Nihat Polat. In this course provides a general overview of curriculum and assessment in ESL education. More specifically, the first half of the course focuses on theoretical and practical issues related to the ESL curriculum, including the origins of language curriculum development, students’ needs analysis, learning situation and setting analysis, planning goals and learning outcomes, ESL course planning and syllabus design, instructional materials selection, adaptation and development, and approaches to language program evaluation. The second half of the course, on the other hand, sheds light on the processes of language testing, including teaching and testing, kinds of language tests, validity, reliability and backwash effect in L2 testing, stages of test development, common test techniques, testing productive, receptive and complementary language skills. It also touches upon currently debated assessment and evaluation issues such as testing overall L2 proficiency, age and L2 testing, standardized tests, and process-oriented assessment: dynamic, authentic and portfolio assessment. In this course, students will also get a working knowledge of the application of fundamental L2 curriculum development and testing principles to particular L2 settings and language skills with actual data sets and exercises in several class sessions.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
This artifact is a paper for GESL 512- ESL Curriculum and Assessment semester Spring 2018 I took Dr. Nihat Polat I created this paper include
two parts. The first part involves the analysis of (1) The state’s requirements regarding English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) for ELLs, and (2) local (any school district in PA) practices related to Ells’ language and academic assessment. In the second part, candidates develop a language test to assess the learning outcome of their own teaching. This test assesses one particular language skill or a few integrated skills of a specific ELL profile. I believe this artifact demonstrates my proficiency in Standard 5.3, which states that “candidates should apply formal inquiry strategies in assessing and evaluating processes and resources for learning and performance.”
Ethics
AECT STANDARD 5- (RESEARCH)
Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance.
INDICATOR 4- Ethics: Candidates conduct research and practice using accepted professional and institutional guidelines and procedures.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTIFACT:
This is papaer for Dr, Heo’s spring 2018 course; Design of the Learner Experience. The objective of the assignment was to use the process of UX design to create an application that could be used to change a student behavior. The artifact chosen to demonstrate my proficiency in Standard 5.4 is a paper describing the evaluation plan for the prototype of an application called Study up.
REFLECTION AND RATIONALE:
We made sure we asked the participants to sign a consent form once they had read through our evaluation plan.
Thus, I believe that the knowledge and skills developed through the creation and administration of this evaluation plan helped me become proficient in AECT’s Standard 5.4 which states that “candidates [ should be able to] conduct research and practice using accepted professional and institutional guidelines and procedures.”
This is paper for Dr, Heo’s spring 2018 course; Design of the Learner Experience. As we were creating the evaluation plan, my partner and I had to consider the ethical and professional guidelines set by the Institutional Review Board and the AECT’s instructional technologists’ ethical guidelines. The objective of the assignment was to use the process of UX design to create an application that could be used to change a student behavior. The artifact chosen to demonstrate my proficiency in Standard 5.4 is a paper describing the evaluation plan for the prototype of an application called Study up.