Carlos Garza
10239725
EDTC 6320
UTRGV
Conditional Formatting - IU4
2021 October 9th
INTRODUCTION
IU3 Focuses on Conditional Formatting and how it was implemented. To evaluate IU3, three tools I used were:
- SME Eval - Google Docs comments features.
- 1:1 Eval - Live conversation.
- Small Group - Google Form
INSTRUCTIONAL GOAL |
Educators will use conditional formatting in spreadsheets for color-coding a grade book. |
S.M.E. REVIEW
Introduction
The Subject Matter Expert (SME) is a Librarian and my Co - Campus Technologist at the high school where I teach. Our school district conducts an EdTech Academy that she completed. She has a masters degree.
Using the Google Docs commenting feature, the evaluation was conducted asynchronously. She was in school, in her office. Initially, she misunderstood the purpose of an IU Design, so I had to explain it in a different way.
S.M.E. Summary
Steps | SME Comments | Response |
Step 1: Pre-Training Assessment (Instructional Strategy). | I would change this statement to “I have no experience with this” or something similar. | Changed. |
Step 2: Delivery System. | I would replace the word "system" for the word "method." | Since the title of the section is Delivery System, there was no change. |
Step 3: Google Sheets & Google Slides (Delivery System). |
| My experience with screen readers is that bulleted lists are read as a single sentence if they do not end with a comma or period. To allow for accessibility, no changes were made. |
Step 4: Interactive Presentation (Delivery System). | Replace: “It contains the” with “Containing” | Changed. |
Step 5: Attention Getter (First Draft). |
| Changed. |
Step 6: Rubric (First Draft). | To me, proficient and efficient mean pretty much the same thing | The rubric calls for a specific method, but both methods are valid. Since they are the same thing, no changes were made. |
Step 7: Rubric (First Draft). | Also...you forgot the T in proficient on the Assessment & Rubric Template | Changed. |
Synopsis
This review yielded several mistakes and improvements. These were corrected. Others may not need to be improved as it may change the purpose or accessibility.
1:1 REVIEW
Introduction
For the one-to-one evaluation: She is a teacher in elementary school who has a bachelor’s degree.
First impression was that the linear approach was difficult to understand. After a brief explanation, it was well understood.
1:1 Summary
Steps | 1:1 Comments | Response |
Step 1: IU3 | Make references to materials. | Since it is linear, the materials are at the bottom of the page. I will have to consider this and make changes if needed. |
Step 2: 9’s | 6 was easy to find. | I tried placing the 6 in a different spot. That was a better placement. |
Synopsys
No other comments were made other than the overall “it’s ok”.
SMALL GROUP REVIEW
Introduction
The group was at random. In the end, two completed the Google Form. Neither was a teacher. No further information was provided.
Small Group Summary
Step | Comments | Response |
Step1: | Does it only work for Gradebooks? | I used a gradebook to make it relevant to education. However, I need to give a better explanation on “how are other ways to implement conditional formatting?” |
Synopsys
There was less input other than that one comment from one learner.
REVISIONS
Changes can be visible in “revision” history and comment history of the IU3...
The highlights will follow.
