TRUDACOT as Curriculum/Technology Evaluation Tool

For my most recent graduate class, I had to look at various tools and rubrics that could be used to evaluate possible technology tools that teachers could integrate into their curriculum.

Technology Tool

In order to go through the evaluation process using my rubric of choice, I chose to evaluate a technology tool that I'd used previously called VideoNot.es, which can be found at http://www.videonot.es/ This tool allows students to watch YouTube videos and create time-stamped notes, which automatically save to Google Drive.

Video I created explaining the assignment to students. I created this video because I was absent the day students were working on this task, but this could also be used for flipped instruction and students could complete the task for homework. 

Technology Evaluation Rubric

I chose a rubric that my corporation is actually using for our current technology overhaul. The “Technology-Rich Unit Design And Classroom Observation Template” or TRUDACOT is a protocol rubric, adapted and provided to my corporation by Five Star Technology, that facilitators can use to evaluate their use of technology as well as the design of their curriculum. We’re also using the rubric to observe other facilitators, discuss lesson ideas or plans (past, present and future), and self-reflect on our practices. Our trainers have explained that TRUDACOT was, in part, adapted from the SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition) model, which according to Schwartz (2014) “doesn’t provide enough guidance” to teachers when it comes to integrating technology of value into units and lessons.

The TRUDACOT rubric has nine sections of evaluation that, when incorporated can strengthen the overall design of a unit or lesson. Each section has a small, simple rubric, and each rubric has a line to evaluate the technology. For example, if a project requires students to collaborate, as is required in our instructional setting, the facilitator can go to section F of the rubric and evaluate how collaboration is being used in the unit. The technology specific row asks, “Collaborative Technologies. Are digital technologies being used to facilitate collaborative processes?”

I partially chose this rubric because it is the one that my district is using for curriculum design and evaluation as well as technology design. But my decision goes deeper than the idea that “it’s what we’re already doing.

In multiple discussions with the technology director as well as the other technology integration specialists, we’ve talked about the fact that the technology really doesn’t matter if the design of the lesson/unit is poor. In order for the technology to engage students and serve a valuable purpose, the facilitator’s goal for the lesson/unit/project, must have specific learning goals (outlined through the rubric) in mind. If it does not it’s technology for technology's sake, and it won’t matter how “good” the tech is if it’s not being used in a way ta promotes collaboration, communication, critical/deeper thinking, agency, personalization, discipline/self inquiry, or authenticity/relevance, 
Evaluation Tool Findings
For the sake if this assignment I evaluated my use of the tool VideoNot.es as I used it in a poject last April. I had my students use VideoNot.es on a day when I was out of the classroom for a professional day. My students were, coincidentally, studying how advances and increase in technology has affected their education. They were tasked with watching a YouTube video called, “How Google Saved a School”,and while watching, they were required to take notes using VideoNot.es. This served a few purposes. I wanted them to think critically about the video they were watching rather than simply watching it and checking it off their to-do list. I wanted them to take notes and reflect upon what they were noticing in the video. The next day they pulled up their notes and used them in both small group discussion as well as a guided class discussion. Then they had to write a reflection that included specific quotes of support from the video, which they could go back and find using their VideoNot.es, on how their educational experiences with technology were similar or different to those of the students in the film despite being from very different backgrounds. 

After working through the evaluation tool, I realized that it is a largely valuable tool in the deeper/critical thinking categories, and slightly less beneficial in the communication and collaboration areas. I think with some minor tweaking to the activity it could be strong in each category. Now, that was taking into account the specific structure and format of the activity in which I was using the technology. As far as the piece of tech itself, I think, again, it can make a strong piece for the deeper/critical thinking category. Depending how a teacher decided to integrate the tool into his/her curriculum the other categories could have evaluations that come out a bit stronger than they did in my case. 

I really enjoyed using the TRUDACOT rubric because I think it made me think critically about not only the tool, but how I was using it in my curriculum. I think that helps cement the idea that no matter how amazing the tech tool is, it’s only as good as how it’s used in the curriculum. 

Technology Resource Recommendation

I would highly recommend this technology tool, but I would also caution facilitators on how it is incorporated into a project. The facilitator really needs to think critically about how the tool is used. In order to be used in a way that really facilitates critical thinking, collaboration, authentic learning experiences, communication, agency, and personalization, the facilitator cannot just give students a video and tell them to take notes. 4

The activity needs to extend beyond the at of taking notes, and there really needs to be more to the activity. For example, students should have collaborative discussion after watching and taking notes or the notes/quotes should be used in a writing piece. 

References

Five Star Technology. (2015). Technology-Rich Unit Design and Classroom Observation Template, Version 2. Retrieved 28 August 2015, from https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1zxFeRx6sOYZOOo_ZMec8KcmN1DNPF1EBcbqDllz0vyE/view

Schwartz, K. (2014). Taking Classroom Tech Use to the Next Level: Specific Traits to Look For. MindShift. Retrieved 28 August 2015, from http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/09/10/taking-classroom-tech-use-to-the-next-level-specific-traits-to-look-for/

Walker, H. (2010). Evaluation Rubric for Education Apps. Learning in Hand. Retrieved on 28 August 2015, from http://learninginhand.com/blog/evaluation-rubric-for-educational-apps.html  

I'm back!

So I stepped away from this blog for a while, but I'm back. Well...sort of. I'm currently on maternity leave and won't return to the classroom until November, however I'm working on my masters degree. For the past year I've been teaching at Eagle Tech Academy, a New Tech Network School which is a part of Whitley County Consolidated Schools.

I'm enrolled at Western Governors University working through my masters degree in Education: Learning and Technology. My hope is that it will be a stepping stone on my path to a curriculum/technology coach or a technology director.

One of the pieces I need to create for my coursework is an ePortfolio called Curriculum Corner. My hope is that even after I graduate (hopefully by Christmas) I can keep up with the curriculum website I've created as well as this blog. I'm also working in a Technology Teacher Leader (Tech. Integration Specialist) position this year, which means I'm working on student resources as well as staff professional development. I plan on sharing those resources here as well!

I'm going to try to keep updating with different curriculum and technology resources even before I return to teaching full time, but we'll see how much time I have between feedings and diapers. :)

Speaking of...baby calls. Until next time, please check out the Curriculum Corner site!