Original Social Studies Lesson: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jqaENd6jVtBHP4kTXh8gfULLQIbS3AC3/edit

Redesigned Social Studies Lesson: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zcj_R_IFKh-Q5vwt65xXvsfYfXL_jJvq/edit

I have decided to redesign a social studies lesson. I will use the Triple E to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology such as Scratch, Flip, and Google Slides in my lesson. The first E is engagement. I do believe the technology being used will allow my students to focus on the assignment because it is so engaging. As a result, it will also motivate them to start learning and creating. Therefore, the students will become active social learners. Students will be engaged to create animations in Scratch, find images and design on Google Slides or create fun backgrounds in their video on Flip. So for engagement in learning, this lesson will score 6 points. The second E is enhancement. I do believe technology like Scratch, Flip and Google Slides will help my students demonstrate higher order thinking skills because according to Bloom’s Taxonomy they are creating projects to show understanding. The technology does provide scaffolds. Scratch has tutorials, Google Slides provides visuals to their different tools and Flip has visuals to help students create their videos. However, the visual scaffolds may not be enough for students to successfully create on Google Slides or Flip. I do think the technology allows students to demonstrate learning in a new way that paper and pencil could not. Kids could code, design or record themselves instead of writing a simple report. So for enhancement of learning goals, this lesson will score 5 points. The last E is extending. Students could continue to work on their projects at home. Students collaborating, coding and creating does create a bridge to everyday life experiences because it supports their computational thinking skills. For instance, they are using abstraction, decomposition, pattern recognition and creating algorithms when they code their Scratch project, design their Google Slide or film themselves.  Finally, these computational thinking skills they are learning can be used in their everyday lives. So for extending the learning goals, this lesson will score 6 points. Therefore, according to the Triple E evaluation model the lesson is strong.

Both lessons provide multiple means of engagement. Both lessons start with students working in partnerships sharing an interesting fact they learned. The students were given a choice in what country and subtopic they wanted to study. Collaboration is evident in both lessons. At the end students are given a chance to see the work of their friends. In my redesign, I will provide an exit slip that guides the students to note a new fact and interesting fact and a question. I feel this scaffold will help students compliment the work of their friends.  My lesson has students working in groups to study a country, however, they are working independently to create their project. Students may be more engaged if they are working together to create their project. So that is weakness in both projects.

Both lessons also provide multiple means of representation. The lessons give access to books that can be read and videos to help them gather facts. Some books on Epic have screen readers which makes it more accessible. Slides are provided to help engage students and organize the lesson. In my second lesson, the slides are more accessible because I use the Lexend Font. Also, my text is left aligned and the color contrast is high. Furthermore, I removed the extra clipart of the slides so the kids can focus on the words. I also used alt text for each of my images.  I also included the HTML link to increase my accessibility. In the redesign, I include more support for my students to make it more accessible. For instance, I will include a glossary to help support students as they research and design  their presentations. I also included a checklist to help guide them to completion. Graphic organizers such as webs and boxes and bullets will help my students take notes as they research. 

In addition, I believe both my lessons are strong because they both provide multiple means of action and expression since they provide choices in how the students want to present their learning. I think my second lesson is more accessible because I provide an additional option with the Flip video. This allows students to talk instead of writing or drawing. I think this will help students who struggle with their fine motor skills. I believe the use of the digital tool, Scratch will increase engagement but also accessibility. The kids love creating code that can move or make sounds. They enjoy looking for images to upload and edit. In addition, Scratch has tutorials on the website and the blocks can be in different languages. For students who have trouble seeing, students can zoom in to see the blocks better.  Furthermore, the use of Google Slides will also increase engagement and accessibility. Kids can change the font to one that is easier for them to understand and they can change the size to help them see. In addition, once they finish writing they can use the text to speech feature to read their work. Finally, the use of Flip will also increase engagement and accessibility. Kids could pretend they are reporters and change the screen. Then they can talk instead of writing. Afterwards, closed captioning could be used to help other students watch their videos. As mentioned before, according to the Triple E the lesson is strong because the technology being used provides engagement. Furthermore, the fact they are creating projects enhances their learning. The lesson provides extensions because students are using computational thinking skills which can be used in their everyday lives. 

Cited Sources:

• The original lesson is based on a NYC Passport Social Studies lesson.
• Mrs. Song, my co-teacher,  helped to create the original Google Slides.
• BootUp PD inspired the Virtual Museum Scratch Project.
• Triple E Framework: https://www.tripleeframework.com/uploads/2/2/8/7/2287991/educationaltechnologyvalueevaluation__2___1_.pdf