Brownfield

Technology Usage Assessment Worksheet

Your Name: Becky Brownfield

KITE Case Number: 7041-1

KITE Case Summary: High school theater arts teacher incorporates PowerPoint presentations into lectures in order to improve classroom management, while also appealing to visual learners.

For each of the five categories below, provide a rating of the technology usage based on each factor in the category. Provide evidence in the form of brief examples from the case. Direct quotes may be used. If the case does not contain sufficient information for you to give a particular rating, indicated “UNKNOWN” in the Rating column.

Assessing Active Learning

Factor / Rating
high-medium-low / Evidence Supporting Rating
Learner interaction with real-world objects / Medium / Some real world interaction as students in the theatre class look at real costumes, real theatre sets, ect.
Observation and reflection / Medium / Students create PowerPoints to share their research findings with other students
Learner interactions / Low / No manipulations of variables or controls noted
Tool use / Low / Students used PowerPoint to display information, but other than that no tool use

Assessing Constructive Learning

Factor / Rating
high-medium-low / Evidence Supporting Rating
Dissonance/Puzzling / High / Students are excited to learn because they are using technology and getting to “play” with the actual theatre components
Constructing Mental Models and Meaning Making / Medium / Students aren’t solving problems, but they are expected to make sense of the new theatre research they have found and put it in their own words in a PowerPoint

Assessing Intentional Learning

Factor / Rating
high-medium-low / Evidence Supporting Rating
Goal directedness / High / As the students participate in lecture and create their own PowerPoint Presentations, they know what the end goal is – to clearly inform other students of their findings
Setting own goals / Low / Typically the teacher informs them of the learning goal – what they are to report on to the class
Regulating own learning / Low / The learner’s progress is monitored mainly by others, the teacher and other students
Tool learning – how to learn / Medium / Students often work with each other and discuss their PowerPoints and information researched – they also help each other with project ideas
Tool articulation of goals as focus on activity / High / Learners know the goals of activities and are excited to complete them – they know the stage directions and why they are designed that way by the time they complete their presentation
Tool technology use in support of learning goals / Medium / The use of presentations help students collect their thoughts and explain knowledge learned

Assessing Authentic Learning

Factor / Rating
high-medium-low / Evidence Supporting Rating
Complexity / Medium / Students are using writing skills as they create their presentations, so cross discipline somewhat
Higher-order thinking / Low / Students are just finding information and placing it in a presentation – no problem solving or hypothesizing found
Recognizing problems / Medium / Students don’t have “problems” to solve as the activity – but they do have problems they arise by using the technology that they have to solve in order to keep working
“Right answers” / Medium / This activity is not set up for right or wrong answers. Students are reporting their research.

Assessing Collaborative Learning

Factor / Rating
high-medium-low / Evidence Supporting Rating
Interaction among learners / High / Students are constantly engaged with other students as limited computers have students pairing up – they also engage as they help each other with their presentations and then again when they present
Interaction with people outside of school / Low / This activity does not involve interaction with people outside of school
Social negotiation / Medium / Students work together as some of them share computer – they have to agree on some level of presentation material and design
Acceptance and distribution of roles and responsibilities / Not sure / Evidence of this is not clear in the case study