2a. Standards

Evidence of competence in ISTE-CS

Creating questions from standards

I think the process of using standards to inspire questions that guide the design and implementation of technology-enhanced learning experiences can be used for any set of standards. This is something I could do as a coach to develop coaching questions (like I did in Compatibility between peer coaching and the ISTE-CS), or a process I could coach teachers in doing for themselves. In my blog post, Compatibility between peer coaching and the ISTE-CS, I wrote:

The exercise of turning all the indicators into questions was quite valuable. It made me realize that this is something you can do with any set of standards, and I feel like it made the standards more manageable. Some of my questions were geared towards taking the first steps in the direction of the indicator, but I envision an iterative process where we use an indicator to come up with questions to pursue, and then come back to the indicator to come up with follow up questions.

For even more questions, there's always questions like: "but what do we really mean by 'troubleshooting'?" I find these to be enjoyable and enlightening rabbit holes of their own. I did not include these kinds of questions in my list above, but they are often the kinds of questions I pursue.

Understanding by Design

Understanding by Design (UbD) is a framework for lesson planning that uses a backwards design process. Stage one of the UbD process asks you to identify “established goals” - which can include content standards and student technology standards - and the rest of the process helps you plan to meet those goals. Incorporation of content standards and ISTE Student Standards can be seen in my practice lesson plan, Antiderivatives: Practice Lesson Plan Using Understanding by Design, where I used the UbD framework to develop a lesson plan for teaching antiderivatives, class culture, and digital citizenship on the first day (or week) of Calculus II.

When I think about the UbD process in light of ISTE-CS 2a, I feel compelled to throw out the reminder: We should make learning experiences technology-enhanced when technology will enhance those experiences.

Digital citizenship clicker questions

In my blog post, Digital citizenship clicker questions in math, and Mendeley, I developed and borrowed clicker questions to get students thinking about different ethical dilemmas they might face in a math class. Some of these question address the digital citizenship ISTE Student Standards, 2b and 2c. The learning experience that I’m shooting for in this blog post is technology enhanced by using clicker questions to spur discussion; what that looks like can be seen in Derek Bruff’s narrative about using clicker questions to inspire class discussion in his blog post, Ethical or Not? Clicker Questions about Academic Integrity.

Peer coaching question(s)

Peer coaching question(s) I developed for this indicator in Compatibility between peer coaching and the ISTE-CS: How does this technology-enhanced learning experience address content and technology standards?

References

Bruff, D. (2010). Ethical or not? Clicker questions about academic integrity [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://derekbruff.org/?p=799

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.