Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 1
Capstone Report
Screencasting: Differentiated Teaching and Learning Opportunities
James Chase-Wegner
Kennesaw State University
October 22, 2016
Dr. Anissa Vega
Fall 2016 (Cohort 19)
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 2 Description of Capstone Experience and Results
The experiences that the candidate engaged in throughout the completion of this capstone
project were valuable. Many new skills and lessons were learned along the way. After completing the
capstone paper in the Fall of 2015 the candidate fine-tuned the survey questions in preparation to gain
IRB approval from Kennesaw State University and permission to perform research through the Paulding
County School District. With the assistance of the P.B. Ritch Middle School administration, the
candidate was able to get the Capstone Project listed as a sanctioned opportunity within the district for
staff to earn Professional Learning Units (PLUs). Staff that attended, participated, and completed the
assigned job-embedded professional development activities were able to earn PLU credits.
Historically screencasting has been used for out of class remediation and extension; however,
the focus of this capstone project was to use screencasting to provide opportunities for in class
differentiation of content, product, and process in order to create lessons in which students are given
assistance or challenged depending on current understanding of standards and cognitive ability. The
candidate envisions screencasting as an opportunity to provide multiple pathways within a single
teacher classroom where teachers can provide opportunities for high achieving students to move ahead
or even move beyond the standards. The candidate also believes screencasting can be used to provide
struggling students with opportunities for increased one-on-one interaction without slowing down
instruction for other classmates. The instruction and activities that participant engaged in focused
directly on using screencasting to differentiate instruction for students in their classrooms which
allowed for job embedded professional learning.
The initial survey was sent to the entire staff at P.B. Ritch Middle School to help garner interest.
This survey was also meant to assist the candidate in understanding the skills and deficits of those
interested in joining this professional development opportunity. By analyzing the data from the initial
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 3 survey the candidate was able to gain a better understanding of the prior knowledge and attitudes that
participants would be bringing with them into the professional learning group. This allowed the
candidate to focus on the specific needs and learning styles of the participants. The participants were
two 6th grade teachers and four 8th grade teachers from within the candidates building at P.B. Ritch
Middle School. The content areas taught by participants included Science, Math, English Language Arts,
Social Studies, Spanish, and Family and Consumer Science. The teaching experience of the participants
ranged from 1-5 years (1), 6-10 years (3), and 15+ years (2). A Likert scale ranging from 1-5 with one
being the lowest level and five being the highest level was utilized for several survey questions. The
average current understanding of using data from informal, formative, and summative assessments to
drive instruction for my participant group was 3.5. The average current level of ability to provide
instruction to students at the highest levels and lowest levels within the same class period for my
participant group was 2.83. One member of the participant group felt as though they had a strong
understanding of screencasting tools prior to this professional learning opportunity while three
members had absolutely no experience with screencasting. Participants had the lowest level to an
above average understanding of what flipped learning meant with a scattering of scores ranging 1 to 4
with an average understanding of 3.5. Participants were slightly less comfortable with the concept of
blending learning with an average understanding of 3.33. The participants average current level of
technology implementation for instructional purposes was 3.16. The participants average current level
of technology implementation for remediation purposes was 3.33. The participants average current
level of technology implementation for extension purposes was 3.33. The participants average current
level of technology implementation for assessment purposes was 4.2. All participants agreed that
“technology implementation would be more successful if given support and participants had the
opportunity to design, create, implement, receive coaching, and reflect on successes and shortcomings.”
All participants chose the survey choice that stated “these elements are quite often lacking in the
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 4 process.” The candidate took these responses into consideration when designing this professional
development course, methods of instruction, and overall approach to the coaching opportunity. The
online learning management system Edmodo was utilized as a forum for class sharing, discussion, and
uploading of teacher and student made screencasts. Participants were invited to join the Edmodo
“Screencasting for Differentiation” group through email.
Professional learning (PL) session one was completed via the flipped classroom model. By
flipping this part of the professional learning it provided greater flexibility to the participants and
allowed the first face-to-face meetings to be utilized for hands-on learning. Participants watched these
initial screencasts on their schedule. These screencasts were meant to provide a strong foundation for
why differentiation is necessary, the need to meet students at their proximal zone of development, and
how screencasting could be utilized to meet these needs and could be utilized for many other tasks that
an educator must carry out.
During the PL session two each member shared how they currently provided differentiation
within their classrooms. The candidate recorded these ideas and then shared how screencasting
technology could enhance what they were currently doing. After the candidate provided several
examples, participants brainstormed and shared ways in which they could use differentiated screencasts
in their classrooms. Next, the candidate provided instruction on creating screencasts. Participants
completed activities using the screencasting tools Jing and Screencast-o-matic during this session. They
worked in content area pairs to assist each other. The candidate facilitated the introduction of the
screencasting tools and the various tools within these applications. Participants created short screen
screencasts using both Jing and Screencast-o-matic and used the sunburst tool in Jing to make screen
captures. Participants were able to ask questions and receive assistance as needed. The candidate
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 5 stayed beyond the intended end time of this session to discuss the software and assist members of the
group further.
Prior to PL session three the candidate checked out document cameras and
headphone/microphones from the school media center. The candidate assisted participants in setting
up software and equipment needed for screencasting in each of their classrooms. The instructional
portion of PL session three was divided into whole group face-to-face instruction and one-on-one
instruction in participants’ classrooms to provide greater levels of support and coaching to any
participants that requested. Once participants created their differentiation screencasts they
implemented these screencasts during in-class instruction.
Professional learning session four involved meeting to reflect on the participants current
understanding of screencasting for differentiation. Participants shared the struggles and successes they
had with the design, creation, and implementation of their screencasts. Participants posted teacher
made screencasts to the Edmodo professional learning blog, reflected on the overall experience, and
gave feedback to one another.
The candidates goal of having every participant complete two cycles of creating differentiated
screencasts to facilitate instruction during the Spring of 2016 was almost accomplished. During
professional learning sessions five and six participants repeated the process of analyzing data and
looking for opportunities in which they could use screencasting to differentiate instruction within their
classes. Due to the timing of the Georgia Milestones, a state-wide assessment of learning in all content
areas some participants requested to fulfill the commitment of creating and implementing a second
screencast during the Fall of 2016. The candidate used this opportunity to work more closely with
specific participants who had not completed their second screencast to build confidence and ensure
future successes. Participants were also asked to complete a midpoint evaluation of the professional
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 6 learning opportunity thus far. When asked to describe their experiences with the professional
development opportunity thus far participant responses were:
“This professional development opportunity has opened up my eyes on how to use
technology to differentiate in my classroom. Screencasting has provided me the
opportunity to remediate and enrich students in my class that either might struggle or
need to move ahead. Screencasting allows me the opportunity to facilitate my
classroom and work more one-on-one with students. I would highly recommend
teachers to learn Screencasting (Personal Communication, 2016).”
“It has been very educational. I have learned how to do screencasting and will do so
weekly next year (Personal Communication, 2016).”
“I have found this professional development opportunity to be very useful so far to
differentiate content, specifically, how students access the content we are learning.
What I discovered when I planned do my whole group lesson plan was that most
students were not ready to move on to the point that I expected because the most
students were not finished with the previous project. I used the screencast that I had
originally planned to use to differentiate product to differentiate content by modifying
the text materials to a screencast for them and main lessons that I usually lecture over.”
“Supportive thanks to the instructor's availability. It has also been intriguing to embed
differentiation within my classes with the screencasts (Personal Communication, 2016).”
“Immediately beneficial and applicable to me. This is a tool that I can use right now to
help my struggling students, parents, and differentiate in the classroom in order to
maximize instructional time (Personal Communication, 2016).”
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 7
When participants were asked share the positives of this professional development opportunity
thus far are they responded:
“Screencasting has allowed me more flexibility in my classroom to work with students
that need more teacher-directed assistance. It also allows me the opportunity to assess
my students more often and provides them with a positive learning experience (Mid-
Point Survey, 2016).”
“I feel like I have more knowledge than my peers (Mid-Point Survey, 2016).” “Providing
me with different ways to present information and making me think more about
differentiation in my classroom (Mid-Point Survey, 2016).”
“Frankly, this activity is pushing me to view differentiation in its purest form. In other
words, it is hard for me to truly have multi-leveled activities occurring simultaneously
within a class period, allowing me to give those various groups feedback (Mid-Point
Survey, 2016).”
“The ease of use of the technology and collaboration and discussion among the cohort
(Mid-Point Survey, 2016).”
When participants were asked about the shortcomings of this professional development opportunity
they responded:
“I still find getting data and grouping students difficult as well as thinking of a plan for
how to lay out expectations for behavior in groups that I don't have to work with
individually. Many students I have will not work if they are left to their own devices
(Mid-Point Survey, 2016).”
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 8
“Overall, the only shortcoming of the professional development opportunity is that I
wish there was more time to implement this technology into my classroom, and that I
could have more time to create more screencasts (Mid-Point Survey, 2016).”
“To do a great screencast, it takes a lot of time (Mid-Point Survey, 2016).”
“I haven't noticed any from my end. Most of my issues have been user error. For
example, not using a platform to do screencasts (Edmodo or otherwise) that most
students are not familiar with without training them first. Thinking of a management
plan for when this is happening in class (Mid-Point Survey, 2016).”
“Time is crunched. Application may be a little bit forced (Mid-Point Survey, 2016).”
“I do not believe there are any shortcomings to this professional learning. The most
difficult part so far has been the learning curve with the technology and figuring out
how to effectively implement the screen casts in the lesson (Mid-Point Survey, 2016).”
One survey question that was repeated on both the initial recruitment survey and on the
midpoint survey that demonstrates some positive growth for participant’s attitudes was: “Please select
the current level of support you feel from peers in the building in regards to technology implementation
in your instructional practices. A score of 5 represents the highest level of support and a score of 1
represents the lowest.” Participant responses on the initial recruitment survey showed participants felt
as though the current level of support in regards to technology from peers in the building was low to
average with two participants selecting 2 and three selecting 3 with a combined average of 2.1. On the
midpoint evaluation this survey question recorded three responses at 3, one response at 4, and two
responses at 5 with a combined average of 3.8. This data can be analyzed in a few ways. Participants
attitudes towards peer support could have increased due to their participation in this professional
learning opportunity. These improved scores in attitude toward peer assistance within the building may
have improved due to the candidate’s time and attention to participant technology needs. Participant’s
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 9 growing relationships with each other may have given them an improved level of comfort when
discussing technology and assisting each other with technology issues. Finally, participants themselves
may be more confident in their own abilities to assist others with technology. This last statement can be
defended by examining one other repeated question from the recruitment and midpoint surveys.
Participants were asked to “Please select the current level of support you feel from a technology mentor
in the building in regards to technology implementation in your instructional practices. 5 represents the
highest level of support with 1 representing the lowest.” On the initial recruitment survey responses
ranged from one 1, two 3’s, and three 4’s for a combined average of 3.1. On the midpoint survey
participants demonstrated a greater confidence with their selections when they selected two 3’s, two
4’s and two 5’s for a combined average of 4. Building the confidence of peers when working with
technology is one role of an effective technology coach. When working with technology educators must
be able to troubleshoot problems as they arise in order to successfully implement instructional
technology within their classroom consistently.
Beginning in the Fall of 2016, the professional learning group met for professional learning
session seven to discuss the skills and attitudes that were shared and acquired in the Spring of 2016.
Participants reflected on their past learning regarding screencasting, differentiation, and uploading to
online hosting sites for student use. Participants shared current strengths and struggles with the group.
Solutions and opportunities for growth were discussed and recorded.
The candidate discussed the importance of providing students with an opportunity to use
screencasting and how it could benefit student achievement and long term memory. The candidate
discussed the real world tasks of preparing reusable instruction for others and documenting one’s
learning through storytelling and reflection. The candidate facilitated discussion and a brainstorming
opportunity dedicated to considering best practices when preparing students to use screencasting to
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 10 complete assessments over learning. Best methods for managing behavior while students use
screencasting technology and which types of devices would be most effective for completing student
screencasts were shared. Other topics discussed included ideas for grouping students and creating
differentiated assignment options. While working in content/grade level pairs participants developed
assessment options, rubrics, and honed personal screencasting skills by asking questions they still had
concerning the software and its limitations. After this session, participants implemented student
screencast projects in individual classrooms, uploaded student projects to the Edmodo blog, and
completed an online reflection of their experience. Participants reviewed each other’s student
screencasts
During professional learning session eight the candidate facilitated a discussion with the
participants regarding their experiences with using screencasting as a tool for alternative assessment
and reflection for students. Participants shared many thoughts during the reflection. Some positive
comments included:
“The students enjoyed using the screencasts and I told them that I would make a future
project involving the use of the screencasts (Edmodo Communication, 2016).
“I shared some of my student screencasts with all of my classes and the math teacher
next door shared it with her classes too (Edmodo Communication, 2016).”
“My students went into the hallway to film themselves. This was a great idea because
the noise in the classroom was no longer a factor (Edmodo Communication, 2016).”
“I think the students really enjoyed the activity. In fact, I am planning to complete
another screencasting activity with the same students (Edmodo Communication,
2016).”
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 11
“I also used screencasting for enrichment to excel my more advanced students
(Edmodo Communication, 2016).”
“Once I showed them (How the software worked) they were able to teach one another
how to use the software. I simply had to facilitate (Edmodo Communication, 2016).”
“I do find that using screencasts helps students make their learning more concrete. It
truly allowed them to apply the content they acquired and create an assignment that
displayed their knowledge (Edmodo Communication, 2016).”
In regards to issues that arose and helpful solutions to consider in the future participants shared
these thoughts:
“The screencast app was preloaded on the laptop computers. But, the video wouldn't
work; that is, until we figured out which button to press to activate the camera. Once
the video was activated, it was smooth sailing (Edmodo Communication, 2016).”
“One thing that I would do differently is to say that not everyone has to be filmed. If
someone is too shy, then he/she can be the behind-the-scenes person. Because one
group of students held the papers up to their faces, it was hard to hear what they were
saying. It also made for a boring video (Edmodo Communication, 2016).”
“Having extra flash drives when working with screencasts is a necessity (Edmodo
Communication, 2016).”
“Time was an issue. I would have liked to had more of my students create more
screencasts. Also, it was harder for me to monitor the students that were using this
activity to enrich their learning. What I probably should have done was a complete an
additional screencast for those students that were remediating and on level (Edmodo
Communication, 2016).”
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 12
Participants were asked “Do you feel that allowing students to use screencasting was worth the
effort it took to plan the lesson, gather the technology, and manage the use of the laptops and
screencasting application?” The response was positive from all participants with one member of the
group stating, “Absolutely! I love screencast and hope to do more of them in the future with my
students (Edmodo Communication, 2016).”
In the final reflection opportunity of the course, participants completed a post-project survey.
For many of the questions a Likert scale was utilized with 1 representing the lowest level and 5
representing the highest level. Participants were asked if they “believe the “Differentiation through
Screencasting” professional learning series has impacted them and at what level.” The average score in
this area was a 4. While this is not a score of 5, it does show that screencasting have had an above
average impact on participants. Participants average understanding of how to use of data to drive
instruction was also a 4 which is an improvement from the initial recruitment survey where the
participant average was 3.5. Participants ability to “provide instruction to students at the highest levels
and lowest levels within the same class period” received an average score of 3.3 which was an
improvement from 2.8 on the initial survey. Participant’s comfort levels with using screencasting tools
improved from 2.3 on the initial survey to 4.3 on the post-project survey. When asked whether
participants felt “screencasting is beneficial in differentiating instruction for students” the average score
was 4.3. When asked what kind of support participants could offer other staff members “in regards to
screencasting and its uses in instruction and assessment” the staff average was 3.7. This score shows
there is still work to be done in the continuing confidence building of these staff members in regards to
screencasting and technology implementation. Finally, when participants were asked to select the
“current level of support from a technology mentor in the building in regards to technology
implementation in instructional practices” the overall average improved from 3.1 on the initial
recruitment survey to 4.6 on the post-project survey.
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 13
Participant responses to open ended questions also provide insight into the overall success of
this capstone project. In your own words what would you say the positives of this professional
development opportunity were?
“Learning how to use screencasts in the class to allow myself to do more than one thing
at a time (Post-Project Survey, 2016).”
“The instructor was always there for additional and needed support during this
professional development course. He was always willing to go above and beyond to help
others (Post-Project Survey, 2016).”
“Before this class differentiation was always something that I did not like planning for
because I knew it was going to be a struggle. Screencasting has really changed that for
me. It allows me to extend learning for accelerated learners and it frees me up to be
more one on one with my low level learners. Parents love the screencasts because they
feel like they have a better understanding of what is being taught in the classroom.
When students are absent all they have to do is watch a screencast in order to get
caught up and it doesn't waste instructional time. The possibilities are endless (Post-
Project Survey, 2016).”
Some lessons can be taken away from participant responses during the Post-Project Survey as
well. Participants were asked to respond to the following question: “In your own words what would you
say the shortcomings of this professional development opportunity were?”
“I can't really think of any except that I felt overwhelmed sometimes. This would have
been great on canvas. I think modules rather than Edmodo would have worked better
(Post-Project Survey, 2016).”
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 14
“I wish there was more time we could have spent on learning more about this plc. It was
very beneficial and schools need to spend more time on plc's that teachers can actually
use (Post-Project Survey, 2016).”
Comments about the participants’ experiences with the candidate as a peer coaching partner
and what the candidate could improve within this professional learning process included:
“It was good. He gave good instructions (Post-Project Survey, 2016).”
“It was nice having a peer coaching partner to bounce ideas off of (Post-Project
Survey, 2016).”
“My peer coaching partner was excellent (Post-Project Survey, 2016).”
Finally, participants were asked to share a few success stories they had during this professional
learning experience.
“I used screencasting a lot last year with my FACS classes because they all moved at a
different pace through projects. I put all of my lectures for the last half of the year in
screencasts and I think it helped those who made use of it how I instructed in the
screencasts (Post-Project Survey, 2016).”
“I have two students in my small group math class that were recommended to move
into a less restrictive environment because screen casting allowed me to accelerate
their learning while giving the lower students extra attention (Post-Project Survey,
2016).”
“My students really loved creating the screencasts. I had my students create an
advertisement for a new restaurant. They had to create the restaurant and then come
up with the natural, capital, and human resources they needed to create this restaurant.
Once they completed the written part of this assessment, they then created a newscast
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 15
interview about their restaurants. They absolutely loved working with the technology
and really understood the material better (Post-Project Survey, 2016).”
Obstacles Encountered
There were a few obstacles that were encountered throughout this capstone project. One
obstacle encountered was the timeline. After gaining IRB approval from KSU and then approval to
complete research from the Paulding County School District, it was the end of February forcing the
candidate to start the search for participants a little later in the school year than originally planned.
Upon gaining the appropriate permissions, the candidate immediately sent out an email to staff relaying
the opportunity. After receiving feedback through the recruitment survey, the candidate moved quickly
to plan out scheduled dates with interested applicants. The professional learning group took on a
flexible schedule of Mondays or Wednesday’s due to various commitments from some of the
participants. This flexibility was appreciated by those participating. At the close of each session the
group would collaboratively select which day of the week would be best to meet on for the next session.
Another hurdle the candidate was able to work out was obtaining and installing the needed
equipment and software on every participant’s teacher computer. This took a few days due to schedule
and complete. The candidate personally checked out all of the equipment for participants and assisted
the participants with the install and testing to ensure that everything was up and running correctly. This
allowed the participants to quickly begin practicing what they were learning about in the privacy of their
own classrooms. Some teachers were quick to begin to work on screencasting projects while some
teachers took longer to get going.
Heading into the April state mandated testing window participant’s interest in learning about
and working with screencasting was strong; however, participants were also concentrated on
maximizing the success of their students on standardized tests. The testing window at P.B. Ritch Middle
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 16 spanned the last 3 weeks in April. Most of the participants were able to complete their second cycle
effectively before testing occurred in April; however, three of the participants had not completed their
second cycle yet. As soon as testing was concluded participants’ minds seemed to shift to how
screencasting could be used to benefit and prepare students for success at the start of the next school
year. With the many extra-curricular activities and increase in student excitement regarding the
impending close of another school year during the month of May, keeping momentum going was
difficult. The candidates desire was to keep the participants to keep the participants on schedule, but
the candidate was willing to work with them as they were passionate about their ideas for using
screencasting to differentiate instruction for students at the start of the following year. The candidate
compromised by having those participants share their plans for the second cycle of differentiated
screencasts on the Edmodo blog so others could offer feedback and offer ideas and praise. Participants
were given the goal of posting completed screencasts to our Edmodo blog before the Summer break of
2016. All but one of the groups participants completed both cycles of evaluating student data, designing
a differentiated screencast, creating the screencast, implementing it within their classrooms, and
reflecting on their experiences. The candidate was pleased with this success rate as well as staff
responses to the professional learning experience.
During these Spring cycles the candidate spent time after school working with participants on
non-meeting days to help them acquire the confidence and skills needed to work alone. The candidate
originally planned to focus on building screencasts, understanding software features, being comfortable
with the document camera and microphone, and most importantly providing insight into the
importance of data analysis, differentiation, and alternative teaching, learning, and assessing
opportunities. However, participants lacked previous experience with online file management,
uploading, embedding, and or streaming. This was not an element the candidate had originally planned
to offer instruction on during the face-to-face sessions. Once participants began to create screencasts it
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 17 was clear that many of the participants were interested in using different online opportunities to host
screencasts. The candidate discovered that some participants did not communicate struggles during
group meetings; however, they preferred to wait until after the meeting to ask questions. Meetings
stretched from the planned hour to two hours at times, spending additional time working with one or
two individuals. The candidate spent unplanned time working one-on-one with participants whom had
a personal teacher website, blog, LMS, or a teacher website provided by the district. Directions for
uploading were created for each of the above. The candidate realized that one of the participants was a
very visual learner and always preferred a PDF or screencast that would break down the various skills
and features of the program even when the participant spent extra one-on-one time with the candidate
mastering skills. This participant was not quick to openly relay this during early sessions. Once this was
realized, the candidate tried to accommodate for this participant’s needs each time, understanding that
many fellow and future participants could benefit from those additional resources. Some directions
needed to be written and recorded to a screencast to assist participants. This extra instructional time
cut into the candidate’s personal time to complete required school responsibilities, but the candidate
appreciated the participants’ personal sacrifices to become a vested partner in this capstone project.
Participants had given their time and the candidate’s intention was to be sure participants received as
much support as they needed to feel successful creating valuable differentiated screencasts. Some
participants created screencasts that would accompany assignments to assist struggling learners. Other
screencasts were made that enabled students to complete assignments/products of varying difficulty.
Screencasts were made to lead whole group facilitation while participants were able to work individually
with struggling students.
The follow-up for this professional learning opportunity is a planned technology professional
learning community. Participants have been asked to join the PLC and continue to work together to
improve technology integration and implementation efforts at P.B. Ritch Middle School. The candidate
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 18 will lead this group in the development of technology plans, advocacy efforts for increased technology
funding, and advancement of using technology to impact student achievement within diverse
populations such as P.B. Ritch Middle School.
Reflection
By completing this Capstone Project, the candidate built on and improved both the pedagogical
and technological knowledge of fellow staff members by successfully leading participants through a
series of flipped learning, blended learning, engaging job embedded professional learning, and reflection
opportunities. During this capstone project the candidate learned that all learners, even staff, come
with different levels of prior knowledge, need for support, willingness to ask for support, and attitudes
regarding professional learning. During this capstone project the candidate was able to employ many of
the partnership philosophies championed by Jim Knight (2007) which were learned and internalized
through “continuous learning” and practice. The candidate was able to “research, recommend, and
implement strategies for initiating and sustaining technology innovations and for managing the change
process in schools (PSC Instructional Technology Standards, 2010).” The candidate was able to provide
valuable technology based professional learning to fellow staff by “modeling and facilitating the design
and implementation of technology-enhanced learning experiences aligned with student content
standards and student technology standards (PSC Instructional Technology Standards, 2010).” This was
done by: completing a “needs assessment” of the staff, developing a means to recruit and establish
prior dispositions and knowledge of participants, planning for meaningful and research based
professional development, developing useful resources in multiple formats, providing opportunities for
flipped learning within the professional development series in order to use actual meeting times for
practice and professional discussion amongst participants, providing individualized support, and leading
opportunities for reflection and data collection. Reflection and data collection are key components of
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 19 “program evaluation” and is used to “determine the overall effectiveness of professional learning on
deepening teacher content knowledge, improving teacher pedagogical skills and/or increasing student
learning Instructional Technology leaders must be flexible and willing to work with the schedules of their
staff (PSC Instructional Technology Standards, 2010).” They must sacrifice personal time to meet the
schedules and varied learning needs of their staff. This capstone project clearly shows the candidates
ability to “develop and implement technology-based professional learning that aligns to state and
national professional learning standards, integrates technology to support face-to-face and online
components, models principles of adult learning, and promotes best practices in teaching, learning, and
assessment (PSC Instructional Technology Standards, 2010).”
The candidate facilitated fellow teachers in PSC skills such as “basic troubleshooting” of
software and hardware. Participants were engaged through participation on an online platform to
bolster “communication and collaboration.” Through the use of screencasting the candidate has
improved the staff’s ability to use digital tools and resources to support and extend the learning and
assessment of diverse learners. By demonstrating how screencasting can be used for alternative
student assessment the candidate has given teachers a means of modeling safe, healthy, legal, and
ethical uses of digital information and technologies (PSC Instructional Technology Standards, 2010).”
The candidate also facilitated discussions concerning “classroom management and collaborative
learning,” methods for “managing digital tools and resources,” and “online and blended learning.”
This capstone project required participants to make deeper connections to “content standards
and student technology standards, “technology based “authentic learning” opportunities, “data
analysis,” “differentiation,” “high order thinking skills,” “instructional design,” and “assessment
opportunities (PSC Instructional Technology Standards, 2010).” By facilitating this professional learning
experience, the candidate has taken and shared a vision with fellow staff for how a new emerging
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 20 technology can be implemented to change and improve “teaching, learning, and leadership” at P.B.
Ritch Middle School.
Reflecting back on obstacles that occurred during this capstone project it would be wise to
consider changes for future implementations of technology based professional development. The late
start during the Spring semester negatively impacted this professional learning opportunity. Many of
the staff involved were interested in learning these new skills, but each had many other professional and
personal commitments they were juggling. These are important factors to consider when planning for a
professional development series. Recruiting participants in August when the staff is eager to learn new
ways to reach students and the stresses of the school year have not yet begun to pile up may lead to
even greater results. By starting in August these new skills would be solidified heading into January
where staff members could continue to hone and sharpen their craft, providing truly valuable
differentiation in large amounts leading up to the April testing window. Having led others through this
type of professional development has provided the candidate with the necessary insight needed to
assist others with screencasting as well as other technology based professional learning opportunities in
the future. If one was to engage others in a similar professional learning experience, plan for instruction
in the following areas: downloading files, saving files, understanding mp4 file formats, and uploading
files to various online learning and content management systems. Lastly with the Paulding County
School Districts purchase of a subscription to the Canvas learning management platform, it was
suggested by one of the participants that the ability to break the learned content into segregated pages
or modules would improve the flow, understanding, and collaborative elements of the capstone project.
This is an excellent suggestion and utilizing Canvas to deliver instruction, organize content, collect
submitted work, and provide methods for communicating through specific discussion boards for would
really elevate this course to a higher level. Specifically, the instructional technology coach could make
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 21 use of the discussion boards to lead trouble shooting threads and brainstorming threads within Canvas
which would be separated from other instructional content.
Running head: CAPSTONE REPORT 22
References
Edmodo Communication. 2016. Screencasting and differentiation: Professional learning group.
Georgia Professional Standards Commission. 2010. Instructional technology standards. Retrieved from
http://www.gapsc.com/Commission/policies_guidelines/Downloads/Instructional_Technology_
Standards.pdf
Initial Recruitment-Survey. 2016. Screencasting: Differentiated teaching and learning opportunities.
PollDaddy. Wordpress.com.
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand
Oaks, CA: NSDC.
Mid-Point Survey. 2016. Screencasting: Differentiated teaching and learning opportunities. PollDaddy.
Wordpress.com.
Post-Project Survey. 2016. Screencasting: Differentiated teaching and learning opportunities. PollDaddy.
Wordpress.com.