Can you count how many tech tools you have been introduced to in the past few years and have used only once or not at all? I can count more than twenty. Some of them, I don’t even remember the names but just the visual platform. Day by day, districts are paying for technology tools that they hope teachers are utilizing in their classrooms. We all want students to succeed as global citizens in the future and on summative assessments in the present. However, when administration and teachers don’t see eye to eye on which tech tools are beneficial, money gets wasted, time gets wasted, effort gets wasted.
During my Educational Technology cohort with the University of St. Francis, one of the assignments was to create a rubric for collaborative tools. This was eye-opening to create. What determines if a collaborative tool is successful? How is that success defined for teachers versus administration? Although I cannot answer the administration’s perspective right now, I can explain what I think should be assessed and analyzed for a collaborative tool before a district decides to buy an expensive license hoping that teachers utilize it in the classroom.
The first factor is to make sure the tool has a curricular connection. The tech tool should connect to clear learning standards that actually improve student performance. Sometimes, the tools can be flashy with no substance. If the curricular connection is present, then the educational goal can become clearer.
The second factor is user-friendliness. Companies spend millions of dollars on research and development in this sector. If the application is not easy to use, teachers wouldn’t care to implement it for their students. For example, the College Board this year released a website for teachers and students to utilize for practice questions. The website was hard to maneuver and many teachers complained. The College Board remarked that once they improved the user-friendliness of the website, more teachers and students started using it. This becomes effective for all and reduces time wasted if teachers and students can use a website within seconds.
The third factor is the feedback options. Revisions take time and clear feedback should be highlighted and outlined with revision history. This way, students can improve upon their work after peer and teacher feedback and continuously reflect on increased learning.
Lastly, can the work be saved? I think it’s powerful for student work to be saved in a portfolio that allows them to observe and reflect on their performance from the beginning of the year to the end. Also, if the portfolio can be shared with parents, the community gets to benefit from the shared experience of improved learning.
With this rubric, teachers can reflect if they want to use valuable time learning how to use an application that they can benefit from in the classroom and improve the learning experience of their students. Before tech tools are introduced to teachers during workshops, a collaborative rubric should be shared to help teachers understand the usefulness of the tech tool so administration, teachers, and students can benefit from the collaborative experience in the classroom.