ISTE Standards for Teachers Case Study

This post is in response to the prompt:
Choose an instructor you have had in the past or a colleague you have observed, either face-to-face or online. Rate the instructor according to the ISTE Standards for Teachers. Develop your own rating system, and construct a blog post to justify your rating for each standard. In your post, reference 1 or more specific resources or ideas from this Interactive wiki. 



The instructor whose skills I chose to evaluate using the ISTE Standards for teachers was a doctoral level educator and the course was graduate-level and hybrid. The levels of assessment I chose to use, in ascending order, were Novice (1 pt), Basic (2 pts), Proficient (3 pts), and Advanced (4 pts).

1. Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity

The instructor was Proficient with indicators a and b which included promoting, supporting, and modeling creative and innovative thinking and inventiveness and engaging the students in real-world issues or problems and how to solve them. He assigned small group discussions in the Learning Management System (LMS) so that students could collaboratively work through ideas and projects. The instructor was Advanced in the skills of promoting student reflection and modeling collaborative knowledge construction. He assigned reflection blogs which were sometimes private and sometimes shared with peers in order to encourage collaborative knowledge construction. We also used a wiki within our small groups to foster this knowledge construction. Given the division among the indicators I would use my rubric to give him 3.5 pts – being midway between Proficient and Advanced for Standard 1.

2. Design and develop digital age learning experiences and assessments

The instructor gave us the opportunity to work with small, private, book collections from non-profits in the area as we learned to catalog their materials in a way that would be useful to them. This project was a semester long and certainly met the criterion of an authentic experience. As we worked with our groups we were encouraged to use technology (mostly built into the LMS because this was prior to most Web 2.0 technologies) to reflect on our experiences and to read and comment on our classmates’. This experience can loosely be compared to the Novel Wiki created by two teachers as a class project on “The Best Christmas Pageant Ever” by Barbara Robinson. The final product (a catalogued collection) served as the summative assessment while the “check-ins” using blogs and class discussions served as the formative assessments. Rubrics were shared with us so we knew what was expected with each assessment. Based on his skills with these indicators, I would give him 4 pts on the rubric.

3. Model digital age work and learning

The instructor was very familiar with the LMS and how to use different tools to promote teaching and learning. He often invited colleagues to come to class and speak to us about their real-world experiences as practitioners. When face-to-face visits weren’t possible, we watched a video of the presenter. I believe at this time videos recorded on camcorders with cassette tapes was probably “the” technology. While the instructor did his best with what he had to work with, I would give him 3 pts on the rubric.

4. Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility

The syllabus reflected digital citizenship by containing citations for all works consulted and assigned. Each assignment that was submitted had to contain proper and accurate citations. Opportunities in the course for communication and collaboration with people from other cultures were not presented. I have a difficult time discerning learner-centered strategies used in this class. Based on the evidence for this standard, I would rate his skills as Basic (2).

5. Engage in professional growth and leadership

The instructor was an active member in the field’s local and national organizations, giving presentations at both the state and national levels. His involvement allowed him to remain current in the field which, in turn, benefited his students. I’m sure he had a professional learning network, but it couldn’t have functioned in the same way that PLNs function today. He would have had his colleagues in the department, access to journals in the field, and communications with colleagues who weren’t in close proximity to him via conferences and blogs. He would not have had the same technology affordances available today such as Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. Based on the indicators for this standard, I would rate him as Proficient (3).