Formatted: Left: 1", Right: 1", Top: 1", Bottom: 1",

Header distance from edge: 0.5", Footer distance from

edge: 0.5", Different first page header

Capstone Project

Brittnay Schuster

Kennesaw State University

Fall 2017

September 9th, 2019

 Setting

The location of my school is in the northern area of Gwinnett County. The school itself

is in Lawrenceville, Georgia and it is considered to be a suburban area. Mountain View High

School serves grades nine through twelve and it is a traditional public high school. For the

2016-17 school year there were 2,571 students enrolled. According to the data provided by the

Governor's Office of Student Achievement (2017), the school demographics are: Limited

English proficiency, three percent; eligible for free/reduced meals, thirty-four percent; students

with disabilities, twelve percent; Asian, nine percent; black, twenty-six percent; Hispanic,

twenty percent; white, forty percent; multiracial, four percent. There are 1,246 female students

and 1,325 male students. There are 947 students identified as economically disadvantaged. The

graduation rate at Mountain View High School is 86.6% however only 47.1% of those students

graduated with eligibility to earn the HOPE scholarship in Georgiaeligibility. Additionally, only

69% of the graduates were identified as college ready. There are forty-five male teachers and

seventy female teachers. The average experience level for teachers is twelve years. The majority

of the teachers have less than twenty years of experience. There are forty-six teachers that have

between one and ten years of experience and forty-two teachers who have between eleven and

twenty years of experience. The racial breakdown for the teachers is black, twelve teachers;

white ninety-six; Hispanic, five; and multiracial, two. The school opened in 2009 and the

student and teacher population has grown each year since then. The major curriculum change

that has occurred in the school is the addition of the Dual Enrollment program. This program

allows junior and senior students to take college level courses either on or off campus. Students

who successfully complete these courses can receive college credit before graduating high

school. There have been no physical renovations to o

 the school; however, during the 2016-17 school year the school went through a retrofit Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5"

to update the school technology. This retrofit included upgrading the computers and projectors,

the addition of two computer labs with approximately thirty-five desktop computers each, and

laptop and Chromebook carts and machines were purchased.

Context

There is currently a district initiative to implement a “transformed” framework and a

Project-based-learning initiative. This initiative is in response to the demand for differentiated

instructional practices. Haelermans, Ghysels, and Prince (2015) cite differentiation as their Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not
Bold
solution to the demands of governments and stakeholders to increase standards when they Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman

report, “The first issue is the continuing call for differentiation in education, in order to meet

the needs of both low-achieving and high-achieving students in the same classroom.” The

transformed framework is intended to increase teacher use of instructional technology. This

initiative began to address the stagnation of student achievement and the demands of all

stakeholders to improve engagement (Haelermans et al., 2015). Training on with this program

includes using tools like the Technology Integration Matrix to improve technology use for all

teachers. In order to successfully implement this initiative, the Gwinnett County Public School

district created a new department called eCLASS. The primary purpose of this department is to

fulfill the varying training needs of teachers at all levels to move closer to a differentiated

classroom. The research on differentiated instruction is clear and, in general, states that

“differentiated learning routes meet the demand to teach students at their own level, even when

they are in the same classroom” (Haelermans et al., 2015).

This department is staffed with specialists who are tasked with supporting a roster of Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.43"

approximately six schools each. This initiative began in an effort to improve teacher use of
varying technologies to improve student achievement. The downside of this initiative is that

each specialist has at least six schools that they must work with on an eight-day rotation. This

means that the eCLASS specialist is only available to help the teachers at Mountain View High

School every other week. This is part of the motivation for the proposed capstone project.

The secondary motivation for this project is a general lack of differentiation in teacher

training opportunities. If we are asking teachers to differentiate their instruction, it is

hypocritical to do so without differentiating their training. Gamrat, Zimmerman, Dudek, and

Peck (2014) posit that personalize learning for teachers is just as valuable as personalized

learning for students. According to Gamrat et al. (2014), “Teacher Learning Journeys (TLJ) is

an approach that allows for teachers to customize their PD experience to their workplace and

make decisions about what PD they need based on their expertise and interests.” Allowing

teachers to engage in professional development based on their needs, expertise, and interests is

important because it gives teachers the opportunity to engage in the style of learning that we

are asking them to use for their students.

This

district-wide initiative is implemented through local school training delivered by each

school’s eCLASS specialist, or in this case, highly qualified teachers. The specific background

information relevant to the project includes the whole school population, both teachers and

students of all rigor levels and all grade levels. The project will be directed towards core

classes (language arts, science, math, and social studies) but elective teachers will also be

included in the project.

Problem

The purpose of this project it to provide teachers with a repertoire of research-based

instructional strategies and tools that, regardless of experience or teaching style, will improve Commented [SB1]: Insert research about differentiation

student achievement and engagement. In order to progress, teachers must learn that differentiated

instruction is not a single strategy, but rather “an approach to instruction that incorporates a

variety of strategies. In other words, differentiation is responsive instruction

designed to meet unique individual student needs” (Watts-Taffe, Laster, Broach, Marinak,

Connor, Walker-Dalhouse, 2012). This project is important to me because I have personally felt

the frustration of what Gamrat et al. (2015) refer to as an “outdated one-size-fits-all model of PD

that does not meet the needs of primary and secondary school teachers who need to be viewed as

professionals with a range of expertise and experience.” The intention is to equip teachers with a

variety of effective research-based instructional strategies that they can use to provide

differentiated instruction that is informed by formative assessment. This project is important to

the school because teachers should always have the opportunity to engage in learning

opportunities that allow them to promote high levels of student achievement in their classrooms.

Susan Rice (2014) notes the historical relevancy of differentiated instruction when she explains

that, “although there have been antagonists to curriculum differentiation—including John

Dewey, America’s best-known educational philosopher—the practice of curriculum

differentiation has remained widespread since the Progressive Era.” Although the conversations

about educational differentiation have existed in many forms, dating back to the philosophies of

Plato the United States has faced many other negative types of differentiation in the form of

class, race, and gender (Rice, 2014, pp. 234). Many teachers have years of experience and have

been extremely effective over their years. However, the student population that they have worked

with in the past is very different thanfrom the student population now.

According to Manning, Stanford, and Reed (2010) 21st century students pose a variety of
different challenges including decreased engagement, decreased motivation, the innate desire for

differentiation, and the need for reflection. If a teacher is not skilled in areas that employ these

instructional challenges,hechallenges, he or she may find students difficult to work with.

However, it is not that the students are challenging to work with; the issue is that teachers are not

equipped with the effective strategies to challenge these students. Manning, Stanford, and Reed

(2010) suggest, “Students who have the potential to excel within the curriculum are sometimes

ignored due to a variety of classroom challenges.” If we can eliminate lack of experience with

differentiation strategies as a reason for teachers to continue to use “one-size” instructional

practices we can spend more time focusing on developing quality teaching strategies that are

proven to be successful. By providing teachers with instructional strategies that they can use

specifically for the 21st century student, they will be better able to turn around and equip their

students with the skills they need to be successful both in high school and moving on into either

college or the career world.

One of the reasons that teachers often cite for not trying new things is the lack of time to

plan for a different style of instruction. However, based on my experiences, I have found that

many teachers fall into the same issues that high achieving students fall into in that “[…]what

used to be “simple” is now “difficult” to complete and the thought occurs to the student: ‘Maybe

I am not as smart as I thought I was! Am I just a regular student who thought of myself as

gifted?’ The inevitable conclusion for these students is a loss of potential not only for themselves

but for society” (Manning et al., 2010). Therefore, as an instructional coach, it is imperative that

I “[Build a] trusting relationship between teacher and coach. When this relationship is fostered,

literacy coaches come to know, understand, and appreciate the teachers’ level of experience,

expertise, and interests. Because of this knowledge, the coach can more effectively support
them in their professional growth” (Stover, Kissel, Haag, Shoniker, 2011). Although I will not

serve as a literacy coach, the aforementioned approach is still applicable to the general role of an

instructional coach. During the process of offering a professional learning plan for each teacher, I

will also create teams for teachers to work together. These teams will be small groups of teachers

evenly divided by schools of thought. My goal for this grouping is to promote collaboration

among teachers who would not usually end up working together. I will pair novice and veteran

teachers so that they can all learn from each other in different ways.

Rationale

Teachers have such a wide range of abilities when it comes to technology integration. We

need a way to determine what kind of professional learning would be most beneficial for

teachers. Teachers often complain that they do not find value in professional learning because it

does not directly apply to them as teachers of a specific content area. The customization that this

approach offers aims to enhance the ownership of the learning. Gamrat et al. (2014) express the

importance of relevancy and teacher choice when they posit that, “ Decision making is a key part

of teacher participation in TLJ and furthers personalization by allowing learners to select their

activities, when and in what format to engage in those activities. In this way, teachers make

responsive decisions to focus on their personal needs and expertise” To help combat this the

common frustration of lack of relevancy, I am going to develop a needs assessment specifically

relevant to the teachers at my school. Teachers will take this assessment and I will take the I will

use the data and make an individualized professional learning plan for each teacher. We currently

do not offer many learning opportunities. Teachers will benefit from increased professional

learning options that are specifically geared towards their individualized goals There are a lot of

teachers that would benefit from individualized professional learning because we currently do
not offer many learning opportunities at all, much less ones specifically geared towards certain

goals.

Our school is currently participating in an initiative to essentially create a vertically

aligned set of technology standards for students. These standards are primarily focused on the

use of our district's learning management system and various other Web 2.0 tools. The

questionnaire that teachers complete for me to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses will

correspond directly with the final draft of the vertical alignment guide.

For the first step of the process, teachers will complete the brief questionnaire via Google

Forms. As teachers finish this questionnaire, I will take their answers andThe results of this

questionnaire will be used to assess their needs in three different categories: formative

assessment, differentiation, and technology integration. Teachers will be assigned a professional

learning plan that focuses on where the most learning needs to occur. During a brief coaching

session, each teacher will have the opportunity to review, comment, and reflect on his or her

proposed professional learning plan.

Since each teacher will have a different plan, I will have to strategically plan the

professional learning sessions that I will lead so that teachers are able to get the most out of the

learning session without feeling overwhelmed with the material they are learning. Garmrat et al.

(2014) found that “[…] structured educational opportunities are effectively used in workplaces

across employment types, especially when employees are in a new workplace environments or

changing positions, we posit that one can design technologically enhanced workplace tools that

can enhance how learners customize navigation and track personally relevant PD.” I want

teachers to master one instructional strategy before giving them other instructional strategies so

each tool gets 100% of their focus at any given point. The goal, by the end of the professional
learning plan, is for teachers to be able to integrate each teaching strategy or technology tool

seamlessly into their daily instruction.

Project Objective and Deliverables

Scenario

Mountain View High School is in need of a variety of professional development

opportunities for all teachers. Many teachers have expressed desire to engage in these

opportunities and the assessment data for students indicates that there truly is a need. Although

Mountain View is considered to be a “good” school--our assessment data shows that we have not

been increasing achievement in all core content areas, math, science, language arts, and social

studies. Minimal improvement has been demonstrated, according to the Georgia Milestones End-

of-Course assessment data , except for the 9th Grade Literature and Composition (Chaney 2017).

As a part of the 9th Grade Literature and Composition team, I can adequately attest to the

measurable impact that professional learning opportunities can make in one year.

The intention of this project is to formulate a schedule or “menu” of learning

opportunities for all teachers at Mountain View based on the results of their needs assessment

survey. There will be a small team of teachers and instructional technology specialists that will

provide the instruction for each of the learning opportunities throughout the year. Teachers will

track and assess the effectiveness of the implementation of each strategy they are provided.

Teachers will measure the effectiveness by reflecting on their lessons and by analyzing student

assessment data to determine the average percentage increase from pre-test to post-test for each

of their classes.

Project Objective #1
By May 25th of the 2018-2019 school year teachers will engage in a minimum of seven hours of

professional learning intended to provide teachers with instructional tools and strategies to use in

order to increase student engagement and achievement as measured by an increase in student

assessment scores from pre-test to post-test by a minimum average of two percentage points.

Deliverables

1. Needs assessment

1. Teachers will take this survey via Google Forms. The data will be

aggregated via Google Sheets and I will the the survey results for each teacher to provide

an individualized professional learning menu for the year.

2. Training menu

1. Teachers will receive a personalized menu of learning opportunities for

the year. This menu will contain multiple items tailored to their needs based on the needs

assessment survey that they take at the beginning of the year. Before teachers begin

attending their professional learning opportunities, they will engage in a coaching session

where they will have the opportunity to discuss their suggested professional development

courses and request modifications based on their needs and interests.

3. Potential training schedule for the year

1. After collecting the data from the needs assessment I will generate a

potential training schedule including the broad topics (strategies) that will be covered in

each session, when the session will take place, where the session will take place, and who

will host develop, identify and provide the professional development sessions each

session.

4. Assessment reports
 1. In order to measure student achievement, tTeachers will administer a pre-

test to collect the student data. Teachers will need to choose a test in which they can

administer a pre and post assessment and set a goal for improvement (e.g. “Students will

demonstrate an increased score of three percentage points from pre-test to post-test”).

They will need to note the averages for each grade and course level. At the end of the

“program” teachers will compare their pre-test data to their post-test data to determine the

percentage increase. After teachers collect this data, they will reflect on the presence or

absence of demonstrated improvement based on the goal they set at the beginning of the

year.

5. Teacher reflections

1. Teachers will maintain a simple log of instructional practices to reflect on

the impact their instructional strategies might have had on assess how the student

achievement data. is affected by the instructional practice. Teachers will also associate

which standards are relevant to the instructional practice in order to generate a direct

connection to the standards that are included in the End-of-Course assessment

Project Objective #2

By May 25th of the 2019-2020 school year students enrolled in a core class will demonstrate a

teacher-chosen minimum increase of designatedof an average of two percentage points as

measured by district or state pre-test and post-test data for each of their four core classes.

Deliverables

1. Teacher reflections

1. Teachers will need to use their reflection about which instructional practices they use and

to what extent they the strategies were successfully or unsuccessfullyor were not effectively
implemented. Maintaining a log and using a reflective approach will assist teachers in making

connections between the increase in achievement and the instructional strategies.

2. Assessment reports

1. Teachers will need to use their assessment reports to measure the improvement in

student achievement. These assessment reports will contain pre-test and post-test data for their

chosen assessment instrument. These will be different for each teacher but will provide a

snapshot of the same type of data

PSC Standards

The Georgia Professional Standards CommisionCommission standards that are associated

with this project are primarily from the second domain “Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.”

The second domain, Teaching, Learning, and Assessment requires teachers to “demonstrate the

knowledge skills, and dispositions to effectively integrate technology into their own teaching

practice and to collaboratively plan with and assist other educators in utilizing technology to

improve teaching, learning, and assessment The standards can be clearly connected to the

objectives and deliverables for the project. The comprehensive list of the PSC standards that are

associated with this project is provided below.

Domain 2: Teaching, Learning, & Assessment: Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills,

and dispositions to effectively integrate technology into their own teaching practice and to

collaboratively plan with and assist other educators in utilizing technology to improve

teaching, learning, and assessment.

Element 2.3 Authentic Learning

Candidates model and facilitate the use of digital tools and resources to engage

students in authentic learning experiences. (PSC 2.3/ISTE 2c)

Element 2.4 Higher Order Thinking Skills

Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of digital tools and resources to

support and enhance higher order thinking skills (e.g., analyze, evaluate, and create);

processes (e.g., problem-solving, decision-making); and mental habits of mind (e.g.,

critical thinking, creative

thinking, metacognition, self-regulation, and reflection). (PSC 2.4/ISTE 2d)

Element 2.5 Differentiation

Candidates model and facilitate the design and implementation of technology-

enhanced learning experiences making appropriate use of differentiation, including

adjusting content, process, product, and learning environment based upon an analysis of

learner characteristics, including readiness levels, interests, and personal goals. (PSC

2.5/ISTE 2e)

Element 2.6 Instructional Design

Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of research-based best practices

in instructional design when designing and developing digital tools, resources, and

technology-enhanced learning experiences. (PSC 2.6/ISTE 2f)

Element 2.7 Assessment

Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of diagnostic, formative, and

summative assessments to measure student learning and technology literacy, including

the use of digital assessment tools and resources. (PSC 2.7/ISTE 2g)

Element 2.8 Data Analysis

Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of digital tools and resources to

systematically collect and analyze student achievement data, interpret results,

 communicate findings, and implement appropriate interventions to improve instructional

practice and maximize student learning. (PSC 2.8/ISTE 2h)

Domain 3: Digital Learning Environments Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and

dispositions to create, support, and manage effective digital learning environments. Specific

standards that will be addressed in this domain include:

Element 3.2 Managing Digital Tools and Resources

Candidates effectively manage digital tools and resources within the context of

student learning experiences. (PSC 3.2/ISTE 3b)

Element 3.3 Online & Blended Learning

Candidates develop, model, and facilitate the use of online and blended learning,

digital content, and learning networks to support and extend student learning and expand

opportunities and choices for professional learning for teachers and administrators. (PSC

3.3/ISTE 3c)

Element 3.6 Selecting and Evaluating Digital Tools & Resources

Candidates collaborate with teachers and administrators to select and evaluate

digital tools and resources for accuracy, suitability, and compatibility with the school

technology infrastructure. (PSC 3.6/ISTE 3f)

Domain 5: Professional Learning & Program Evaluation Candidates demonstrate the

knowledge, skills, and dispositions to conduct needs assessments, develop technology-based

professional learning programs, and design and implement regular and rigorous program

evaluations to

assess effectiveness and impact on student learning. The standards from this domain that will be
addressed in the project include:

Element 5.1 Needs Assessment Commented [SMC2]: This is not apa style.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Candidates conduct needs assessments to determine school-wide, faculty, grade-

level, and subject area strengths and weaknesses to inform the content and delivery of

technology-based professional learning programs. (PSC 5.1/ISTE 4a)

Element 5.2 Professional Learning

Candidates 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 5.2/ISTE 4b)

Finally, my project will address standards from domain six, Candidate Professional

Domain 6: Candidate Professional Growth & Development Candidates demonstrate the

knowledge, skills, and dispositions to engage in continuous learning, reflect on professional

practice, and engage in appropriate field experiences. The standards from this domain that will be

addressed in the project include:

Element 6.1 Continuous Learning

Candidates demonstrate continual growth in knowledge and skills of current and

emerging technologies and apply them to improve personal productivity and professional

practice. (PSC 6.1/ISTE 6a, 6b)

Element 6.2 Reflection

Candidates regularly evaluate and reflect on their professional practice and

dispositions to improve and strengthen their ability to effectively model and facilitate

technology-enhanced learning experiences. (PSC 6.2/ISTE 6c)

 Project Description

Project Activity One

This project cannot exist without evaluation at the beginning, throughout the process, and

at the end of the process. To aid in establishing the importance of consistent evaluation,

Tteachers will complete a questionnaire via Google Docs to establish their needs when it comes

to learning about formative assessment practices. Teachers will be encouraged to provide honest

answers despite the lack of anonymityBefore completing this questionnaire, teachers will be

reassured that the expectation at the beginning of this project is that they have very little to no

knowledge of how to utilize this strategy. It is imperative that teachers provide honest answers

during this stage of the project in order to effectively complete the rest of the process. The data

from this questionnaire will be used to complete project activity two. This will help to encourage

teachers to provide honest responses so that their personalize professional learning plan can

make the most impact for them throughout the year.

Project Activity Two

After teachers have completed their questionnaire, I will take that data and construct a

personalized professional learning plan for each teacher based on their responses. Because there

are so many teachers and so much data available, I will focus primarily on the core content area

teachers before integrating this projects for the entire school. This part of the project will take the

longestlongest, as it requires me to analyze the information that each teacher provides to develop

a learning plan that meets their needs in the context of content and time.

Project Activity Three

As the third step in the process, teachers will begin engaging the learning opportunities

tailored to them via their personalized professional learning plan. Each plan will include a variety
of activities such as professional learning sessions, observations (both observing and being

observed), reflections, data collection, using formative assessment tools and strategies, and

informal interviews about their progress. Activity three will include most of the work that the

teachers will do and it will last the entire school year. Thus, embedded in activity three, are a

multitude of other activities.

Project Activity Four

The fourth activity will involve follow-up surveys, interviews and data analysis. Each

teacher will complete a follow-up questionnaire or survey to evaluate their success or lack of

success in implementing new formatively assessed instructional practices. After completing the

survey about their learning experiences, they will analyze the data from their selected growth

measures and determine whether their instructional strategies produced an increase in student

achievement (experimental limitations aside). After collecting this data from teachers, I will use

this informative to determine the best approach for professional learning for the next school year.

Measurement Instruments

Questionnaire

This questionnaire is one that I developed through my experiences in working

with teachers at my school. It uses vocabulary they are familiar with and aims to provide

an accurate representation of the current state of their understanding of formative

assessment practices. This questionnaire will function primarily to inform me of what

each teacher requires to be successful with their personalized professional learning plan.

Observation Form

As a part of each teacher’s personalized learning plan, they will be matched with a

teacher who they can observe who has experience and an understanding great than their
 own for specific formative assessment strategies or activities. When teachers observe

their partner teacher, they will meet with them ahead of time to briefly gain an

understanding of what they can expect to see during the lesson. As the teachers are

observing their partner, they will record relevant information about the learning

environment, demographics, content, and formative assessment practices that are being

used in the model teacher’s lesson. Since all teachers will engage in both observations

and being observed, the aim is to build a stronger culture of collaboration. Teachers will

maintain a minimum of three observation logs to refer to during their culminating

interview and to aid with their data analysis.

Data Analysis form

After teachers have completed all items on their personalized professional

learning plan they will be asked to analyze student data using pre and post test scores on

their chosen assessment. Since there are so many different assessments, each teacher will

choose their growth measure instrument at the beginning of this process so they know

that data they will be expected to report on at the end. I will provide teachers with a

standardized form in which they can plug in their student performance data to evaluate

the impact that formative assessment practices has on the success or lack of success on

the achievement of their students.

Table 1.
Project Timeline
Month Project Item, Activity, or Time (hours)
Evaluation

August Create and administer Approximately 5 hours

questionnaire. Provide teachers
with an overview of the objective
for this approach
August Collect questionnaire data and Approximately 50 hours
generate personalized professional
learning plan for 85 core-content
area teachers

September Plan and host first formative Approximately 3 hours

assessment professional learning
session

September Engage in observations to Approximately 10 hours

appropriately pair teachers for
observations

October Plan and host second formative Approximately 3 hours

assessment professional learning
session

October Engage in observations to Approximately 10 hours

evaluation teacher participation in
their personalized learning plans

November Plan and host professional learning Approximately 3 hours

session to provide teachers with the
tools they will need to
appropriately analyze the data they
will receive in December

December Work individually with teachers to Approximately 15 hours

determine if they have enough data
to begin the follow-up process or to
determine if they must continue
collecting data to determine
whether their approach was
successful

January Plan and host a “showcase” of Approximately 5 hours

professional learning session to
highlight some of the best practices
from the beginning of the year.

March Plan and host a third formative Approximately 3 hours

assessment professional learning
session

April Begin working with teachers to Approximately 10 hours

collect and analyze student data.
Begin making connections between
 student data and formative
assessment implementation

May Finalize and report on data Approximately 10 hours

collected from teachers, student
data, and observations. Begin to
develop plan for next year based on
data collected

Total Timeline: Total hours:

One school year Approximately 127 hours

Table 2. Formatted: Font: Bold

Resources Needed

Resource Category Specific Items

Time I will need my administration to provide me the time to host each

professional learning plan. I will also need them to provide me with time
to conduct observations and interviews

Space My administration will have to provide an appropriate learning space for

me to conduct my professional learning sessions.

Physical Materials Teachers will also need access to the observation form that they will use
when participating in partner observations.

Digital Materials The preliminary and follow-up questionnaires will be administered via
Google Docs. Most of the data that is gathered will be gathered from
assessments that are given via an online platform

Computer Teachers will need access to a variety of cloud or internet-based tools

Software (such as Google Docs, Socrative, Quizlet, etc)

Computer My administration will need provide me the ability to ensure that teachers
Hardware have access to technology that allows them to conduct formative
assessments. This technology includes but is not limited to access to
computer labs, Chromebooks, and/or laptops.

Evaluation Plan

The evaluation process will start at the beginning of the project by utilizing a needs

assessment developed through Google Forms. The questions from this needs assessment can be
found in Appendix A. Teachers will use thisThis instrument will be used to document evaluate

to what extent they feel comfortable with utilizing formative assessment practices to improve

student achievement and engagement. Throughout the year-longyearlong process, teachers will

engage in observations and reflections to continually evaluate their progress. When engaging in

observations, teachers will complete an observation form to help them focus on instructional

strategies during their observation. Gamrat et al, 2014 found, in their study on personalized

professional development, found that “learners appreciate a centralized, cloud-based location that

can be accessed at any time where they can revisit both content and personal notes. As evidenced

by the teachers’ eagerness to share resources with colleagues, we recommend that online PD

afford ease of sharing. As teachers learn and share their successes and struggles in the learning

process they will be able to constantly refer back their best practices and resources.” The success

of their each teacher’s progress will be measured by students demonstrating an increase in

performance for their selected student growth measure (i.e. district assessment, state assessment)

from pre-test to post-test. Part of the evaluation process will also include classroom observations

and teacher reporting. The objectives for this project are directly reflected in the needs

assessment included in Appendix A. All of the questions focus on what teachers and student can

do with technology within the classroom.

Capstone Project Description: Part B1

The purpose of this project was to provide teachers with a repertoire of research-based

instructional strategies and tools that, regardless of their experience or teaching style, would

improve student achievement and engagement by effectively implementing instruction that is

guided by formative assessment. In order to progress, teachers had to learn that differentiated

instruction is not a single strategy, but rather “an approach to instruction that incorporates a

variety of strategies. In other words, differentiation is responsive instructional designed to meet

unique individual student needs” (Watts-Taffe, Laster, Broach, Marinak, Connor, Walker-

Dalhouse, 2012). This project was important to me because I personally felt the frustration of

what Gamrat et al. (2015) refer to as an “outdated one-size-fits-all model of PD that does not

meet the needs of primary and secondary school teachers who need to be viewed as professionals

with a range of expertise and experience.” The intention was to equip teachers with a variety of

effective research-based instructional strategies that they could use to provide differentiated

instruction that was informed by formative assessment.

As an instructional coach, it was imperative that I “[Built a] trusting relationship between

teacher and coach. When this relationship was fostered, literacy coaches come to know,

understand, and appreciate the teachers’ level of experience, expertise, and interests. Because of

this knowledge, the coach can more effectively support them in their professional growth”

(Stover, Kissel, Haag, Shoniker, 2011). Although I did not serve as a literacy coach, the

aforementioned approach was still applicable to the general role of an instructional coach. During

the process of offering a professional learning plan for each teacher, I also created teams for

teachers to work together. These teams were small groups of teachers evenly divided by schools

of thought. My goal for this grouping was to promote collaboration among teachers who would

not usually end up working together. I paired novice and veteran teachers so that they can all

learn from each other in different ways because teachers have such a wide range of abilities when

it comes to technology integration.

We needed a way to determine what kind of professional learning would be most

beneficial for teachers. Teachers often complained that they did not find value in professional

learning because it did not directly apply to them as teachers of a specific content area. To fix

this, the professional development opportunities focused on the instructional strategy, not the

content. The customization that this project offered aimed to enhance the ownership of the

learning. Gamrat et al. (2014) express the importance of relevancy and teacher choice when they

posit that, “Decision making is a key part of teacher participation in TLJ and furthers

personalization by allowing learners to select their activities, when and in what format to engage

in those activities. In this way, teachers make responsive decisions to focus on their personal

needs and expertise.” To help combat the common frustration of lack of relevancy, I started by

developing a needs assessment specifically targeting the teachers at my school. I then used the

data to make an individualized professional learning plan for each teacher.

For the first step of the process, teachers completed a brief questionnaire via Google Forms. The

results of this questionnaire was used to assess their needs in three different categories: formative

assessment, differentiation, and technology integration. Teachers will be assigned a professional

learning plan that focused on where the most learning needs occurred. During a brief coaching

session, each teacher had the opportunity to review, comment, and reflect on their proposed

professional learning plan. Since each teacher had a different plan, I had to strategically plan the

professional learning sessions so that teachers were able to get the most out of the learning

session without feeling overwhelmed with the material they were learning. Garmrat et al. (2014)

found that “[…] structured educational opportunities are effectively used in workplaces across

employment types, especially when employees are in a new workplace environments or changing

positions, we posit that one can design technologically enhanced workplace tools that can

enhance how learners customize navigation and track personally relevant PD.” The goal, by the
end of the professional learning plan, was for teachers to be able to integrate each instructional

strategy or technology tool seamlessly into their daily instruction.

The intention of this project was to formulate a schedule or “menu” of learning

opportunities for all teachers at Mountain View based on the results of their needs assessment

survey. I then took that information and developed a small team of teachers and instructional

technology specialists that provided the instruction for each of the learning opportunities

throughout the year. Teachers tracked and assessed the effectiveness of their implementation of

each strategy they are provided by utilizing a rubric that was provided to them. Teachers

measured their effectiveness by reflecting on their lessons and by analyzing student assessment

data to determine the average percentage increase from pre-test to post-test for each of their

classes.

The next school year, (this year), I noticed a significant increase in teachers utilizing the

tools and strategies that their professional development provided. This year, I am going to

continue working with teachers to develop their skills with instructional technology. However,

the pool of teachers that do not have the foundation to implement these strategies on their own is

so small now that I will work individually with them to equip them with these research-based

best practices. The primary reason behind this deviation was because I became the department

chair of a new department in the middle of this project and had too many other responsibilities to

The only deviation from the project proposal was that instead of providing all of the

professional development myself, I had selected strong teachers to lead the professional

development sessions. The teachers seemed to like the fact that a fellow teacher was delivering

the learning opportunities because they understood what they needed and when. The primary

reason behind this deviation was that I became the department chair of a new department in the
middle of this project and had too many other responsibilities to provide quality professional

development. It turned out that this was a great opportunity to identify quality teachers and

utilized their expertise.

Reflection
During the process of this project, I learned a lot about technology facilitation and general

leadership. The first lesson I had to learn was the hardest—I had to learn how to assess teachers

and provide feedback without taking their reactions personally. Teachers do not tend to like

being assessed by another teacher. Even though I was given the authority by the principal to lead

our technology efforts, I am not an administrator so I do not have the actual “authority.” I have

had the opportunity to operate in the role of technology coach and that has been the most

rewarding part of my studies at Kennesaw State University. I learned so much about the “behind

the scenes” elements of instructional technology that I felt like I was truly able to serve (and

continue to serve) my peers in that capacity. The knowledge that I obtained through this program

and my own experiences with instruction technology allowed me to support teachers from a

variety of different levels. Some teachers need help with basic learning management system

tasks, some need help with taking the first steps into instructional technology, and some are more

advanced and wanted to use technology in innovative ways. This knowledge that I obtained

applied directly to the skills that I needed to be able to help my peers. As I learned more about

instructional technology, I was able to use that information to build my skills and abilities as an

instructional technology coach. These skills include adjusting my vocabulary for varying levels

of support, not giving teachers too much information to where they feel overwhelmed, and

approaching reluctant teachers in a non-intimidating way. Some of the skills that I developed in

relevance to the Professional Standards Commission include: the ability to utilizing digital tools,

facilitating implementation of technology-enhanced learning, using diagnostic assessments to

determine the needs of teachers, facilitating digital tool implementation, managing digital

resources, model blended learning, conducting and analyzing a needs assessment to evaluate

teacher strengths and weaknesses, and facilitating professional learning opportunities.

 References

Chaney, K. (2018, January). Accountability Report. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from

https://publish.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/gcps/wcm/myconnect/5b73d9e9-9273-465f-be37- Formatted: Font: 12 pt

5c70f05dda49/MountainViewHS.pdf?MOD=AJPERES Formatted: Font color: Auto

Gamrat, C., Zimmerman, H. T., Dudek, J., & Peck, K. (2014). Personalized workplace learning:

An exploratory study on digital badging within a teacher professional development

program. British Journal oOf Educational Technology, 45(6), 1136-1148. Formatted: Font: Italic

doi:10.1111/bjet.12200

Haelermans, C., Ghysels, J., & Prince, F. (2015). Increasing performance by differentiated

teaching? Experimental evidence of the student benefits of digital differentiation. British

Journal oOf Educational Technology, 46(6), 1161-1174. doi:10.1111/bjet.12209 Formatted: Font: Italic

Manning, S., Stanford, B. “., & Reeves, S. (2010). Valuing the Advanced Learner:

Differentiating Up. Clearing House, 83(4), 145-149. doi:10.1080/00098651003774851 Formatted: Font: Italic

Report Card, Dashboards, and Data. (2017). Retrieved January 22, 2018, from Formatted: Font color: Auto

gosa.georgia.gov/

Rice, S., & Smilie, K. D. (2014). In Plato's Shadow: Curriculum Differentiation and the Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color:
Auto
Comprehensive American High School. Educational Studies, 50(3), 231-245. Formatted: Font color: Auto

Stover, K., Kissel, B., Haag, K., & Shoniker, R. (2011). Differentiated Coaching: Fostering

Reflection With Teachers. Reading Teacher, 64(7), 498-509. Formatted: Font: Italic

Watts-Taffe, S., Laster, B. (., Broach, L., Marinak, B., McDonald Connor, C., & Walker-

Dalhouse, D. (2012). Differentiated Instruction: Making Informed Teacher Decisions. Reading Formatted: Font: Italic

Teacher, 66(4), 303-314.

 Appendix A

2/2312018 LDTi Questi□nna.ire

LoTi Questionnaire

Your name*

How many years of teaching experience do you have?*

1-3 years

@ 4-9 years

l O or more years

How often do your students work together for collaborative purposes? *

Students collaborate daily

@ Students colll aborate week ly

Students colll aborate in specif ic subject

areas

Students rarely or never collaborate

2/23/2018 LoTi Questionnaire

How often do you requireyour students to use digital tools for the purpose of analyzing information,?;

Daily

Weekly

@ Monthly
Spec ialoccasion s Never

Howoftendo yourequirestudentsto produce a slides-based representation of their learnin,g

;

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

@ Rarely

Never

How often do you encourage studentsto produce a non-slides-based representation of their

learning

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

@ Rarely

Never

https://docs.google.cm
o /fonns/d/1dzjoY
t OXY0dFP8d51yfl<EuPZHo3
l v1h!59uXchlTOHCOU/eidt#response=ACYDBNg
2Uh!99hGWTkal,13
BOKa8E
vBO... 2/8
2/23/2018 LoTi Questionnaire

How oftendo youuse slides-based presentations to provide students with new content (utilizing a
lecture format,;)

Daily

Weekly

@ Monthly
Rarely

Never

How often do you utilize student –centered instructional pr actices,?;

@ Daily
Weekly

Monthly

Rarely

Never

Do you know who to approach if you need guidance on technology tool s,?;

Yes •

How oftendoyouuse problem (or project) based learning in your classroom,?;

Never

@ Once a semester

Once or twice a semester

More than twice a semester

https://docs.google.cm
o /forms/d/1dzjoY
t OXYOdFP8d51 y fl<EuPZHo3
l v1M59uXchlTOHCOU/edit#response=ACYOBNg2UM99hGWTkaM3BOKa8EvBO... 318
2/23/2018 LoTi Questionnaire

Weekly

Never

Teacher Proficiency Evaluation

For this section, please rate your comfort level for each task. For the purposes of this survey the scale should be
interpreted as follows:

1 Extremely uncomfortable. I neve r use this in my classroom or instruction

2· I know how to use it but I don’t usually use it in my classroom or instruction
3·1 am somewhat comfortable and I sometimes use this in my classroom or instruction
4· I am relatively comfortable and I use this frequency in my classroom or instruction
5 1 am very comfortable using this frequency in my classroom or instruction

Finding newdigital tools for educational purposes''

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable
@ Comfortable

Using digital tools to conduct formative instructional practices''

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable @ Comfortable

https://docs.google.cm
o /forms/d/1dzjoY
t OXYOdFP8d51y ll<EuPZHol3v1M59uXcMTOHCOU/edil#response=ACYOBNg2UM99hGWTkal,!380Ka8EvBO... 418
2/23/2018 LoTi Questionnaire

Using digital tools for in-class differentiation for either instruction or student tasks

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable @ Comfortable

Using digital tools to communicate with students, parents, or peers;

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable
@ Comfortable

Using digital tools to support my instruction;

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable @ Comfortable

Using digital tools to increase student achievemen

t; t'

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable
@ Comfortable

Using digital tools to model or teach appropriate digital citizenshipfor my stud ent,s;

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable
@ Comfortable

https://docs.google.cm
o /forrns/d/1dzjoY
t OXY0dFP8d51yll<EuPZHo3
l v1M59uXcMTOHCOU/edil#respons=
eACYDBNg
2UM99hGWTkal,13
BOKa8EvBO... 5/8
2/23/2018 LoTiQuestoinnaire

Using digital tools to collaborate with my students or peers ''

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable
@ Comfortable

Usingdigital tools to encourage studentsparticipate in activities that demand higher order thinking
and cognitive skills high on Bloom's Taxonomy scale ''

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable @ Comfortable

Using digital tools to evaluate student's mastery of specific content standards ''

0 l 2 3 4 s
Extremely Extremely
Uncomfortable @ Comfortable

Student Proficiency Evaluation

For this section, please rate your comfort level for each task. For the purposes of this survey the scale should be
interpreted as follows:

1 My students don know what this is

2 My students are aware of this but are nowhere near proficient
3 My students know a little bit about this but they need significant instruction to increase their proficiency
4 My students do(or use) this regularly but theyneed a some additional instruction to move towards proficient 4
5 My students are beyond proficient with this

https://docs.google.com/fonns/d/1dzjotYOXYOdFP8d51 y ll<EuPZHol3v1M59uXcMTOHCOU/edil#response=ACYOBNg2UM99hGWTkaM3BOKa8EvBO... 618

2/23/2018 LoTi Questionnaire

Using digital tools to communicate with a teacher''

0 l 2 3 4 s
Beyond proficiency
No proficiency @

Using digital tools to collaborate with their peers''

0 l 2 3 4 s
Beyond proficiency
No proficiency @

Using digital tools to store, share, or send school work .,,

0 l 2 3 4 s
Beyond proficiency
No proficiency @

Using digital tools to produce original products that require higher order thinking skills and high
levels of Bloom's Taxonomy''

0 l 2 3 4 s
Beyond proficiency
No proficiency @

Using digital tools to conductresearch on a specific topic ''

0 l 2 3 4 s
Beyond proficiency
No proficiency @

Using digital tools to cite sources found and used in academic research .,,

0 l 2 3 4 s
Beyond proficiency
No proficiency @

https://docs.google.co
m/forms/d/1dzjoY
t OXY0dFP8d51y fl<EuPZHol3v1hl59uXcMTOHCOU/edil#respons=
eACYDBNg
2UM99hGWTkal,!38OKa8EvBO... 7/8
Using digital tools in a way that demonstrates a sophisticated

2 3 4
Beyond
proficienc

2 3 4
Beyond
proficienc

2 3 4
Beyond
proficienc

This fom1 was created inside of

Mountain View High School.

Google Forms