This is how ISTE’s Research & Evaluation Department evaluated the scenario on page 39.
What was your interpretation of the NETS? Do you agree or disagree with ISTE R&E’s coding below? How could a teacher modify this scenario to create a
richer lesson? What additional time, student preparation, technologies, or other resources would the lesson need? Find out how other readers responded and
share your insights, comments, and questions on the Know the NETS page of the NETS Assessment Wiki ( nets-assessment.iste.wikispaces.net).
Creativity and Innovation
h 1a. Apply existing knowledge to generate new ideas, products, or processes
h 1b. Create original works as a means of personal or group expression
■ 1c. Use models and simulations to explore complex systems and issues
h 1d. Identify trends and forecast possibilities
Rationale: The lesson was all about simulations of complex systems, the poor instructional design of the quiz notwithstanding. It did not address other creativity
attributes, but this was an introductory lesson.
Communication and Collaboration
■ 2a. Interact, collaborate, and publish with peers, experts, or others employing a variety of digital environments and media
h 2b. Communicate information and ideas to multiple audiences using a variety of media and formats
h 2c. Develop cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with learners of other cultures
h 2d. Contribute to project teams to produce original works or solve problems
Rationale: The teacher used interaction to offset the lack of computers. Lacking classroom technology, she made the GIS software a center for discussion.
Research and Information Fluency
h 3a. Plan strategies to guide inquiry
h 3b. Locate, organize, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and ethically use information from a variety of sources and media
h 3c. Evaluate and select information sources and digital tools based on the appropriateness to specific tasks
■ 3d. Process data and report results
Rationale: Research was not a part of this lesson. The teacher was apparently trying to transmit basic standards-required information in a constructive way. One of
these techniques was to have students reflect on the meaning of data.
Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making
■ 4a. Identify and define authentic problems and significant questions for investigation
h 4b. Plan and manage activities to develop a solution or complete a project
h 4c. Collect and analyze data to identify solutions and/or make informed decisions
h 4d. Use multiple processes and diverse perspectives to explore alternative solutions
Rationale: Opportunities for student inquiry and problem solving were limited in this lesson. However, the teacher did require students to access prior knowledge
and consider questions implied by new information.
h 5a. Advocate and practice safe, legal, and responsible use of information and technology
■ 5b. Exhibit a positive attitude toward using technology that supports collaboration, learning, and productivity
h 5c. Demonstrate personal responsibility for lifelong learning
h 5d. Exhibit leadership for digital citizenship
Rationale: While most of Standard 5’s attributes were only implicit, the lesson would not have been possible without a class that had learned how to share and
support one another around technology. Collaborating to foil the quiz was evidence of this.
Technology Operations and Concepts
■ 6a. Understand and use technology systems
h 6b. Select and use applications effectively and productively
h 6c. Troubleshoot systems and applications
■ 6d. Transfer current knowledge to learning new technologies
Rationale: As noted above, students adapted quickly to the GIS application and took up the online simulation. Identifying the algorithm behind the quiz required
at least some of the students to have a sense of how the computer was processing their input.
In summary, this was an innovative approach to a potentially tedious task: the transmission of numerous facts about a new topic. The technology infrastructure
was mediocre, but the teacher used it to her advantage. Overlooking the poor error-correction procedure in the simulation was probably embarrassing to this
otherwise well-prepared teacher. Her experience illustrates the principle that poor instructional design is made worse by automation.