EDUC 5373

  1) Crompton (2023) Best Practices and ISTE Educator Standards: Crompton (2023) emphasizes that to effectively support student learning gains, it is essential to employ practices that blend technology with active learning and personalized instruction. Two best practices outlined in the article that align with the ISTE Educator Standards are: Active Learning and Student Engagement: Crompton highlights the importance of creating active, student-centered learning experiences. Educators can use technology to allow students to engage with content actively, not just passively consume it. This practice supports ISTE Educator Standard 3: Citizen because educators can guide students in developing ethical digital citizenship and understanding the role of technology in the learning process. Personalized Learning: Crompton discusses the need to tailor learning experiences to meet individual student needs. Technology tools that enable adaptive learning environments or learning analytics ca...

 Drawing on A.C. Rule (2006) and the principles of authentic learning—real-world relevance, collaboration, and learner-centered design—a technology integration plan should be inclusive, context-driven, and iterative. Here’s a structured response to each part of your prompt: 1. Stakeholders to Engage First To reflect authentic learning’s emphasis on real-world collaboration, I would begin with a broad and inclusive group: Students (primary users; diverse voices across grade levels and abilities) Teachers (across subjects, including special education and ESL) School leadership (principals, instructional coaches, district tech leaders) Families and caregivers (especially those representing underserved communities) IT staff and technology coordinators Community partners (libraries, local businesses, nonprofits, higher education institutions) School board members / policymakers Support staff (counselors, paraprofessionals) This aligns with Rule’s emphasis ...

How the Interviewee Became a Decision‑Maker in Educational Technology Across the interviews compiled by Stachowiak and McClay (2024), one consistent theme is that leaders rarely follow a straight administrative path into technology decision‑making. The interview highlighted in the Week 1 summary shows a leader whose expertise emerged through: Hands‑on classroom experimentation with digital tools, which built credibility among colleagues. Participation in pilot programs , giving them early exposure to implementation challenges and opportunities. Collaboration with instructional designers , which expanded their systems‑level understanding of technology integration. Informal leadership , such as mentoring peers or leading small-scale initiatives, which later translated into formal leadership roles. This aligns with research showing that ed‑tech leaders often rise through practice-based expertise rather than traditional administrative tracks. Their legitimacy comes from demonstrated succ...