To demonstrate mastery of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) standards, I compiled a series of artifacts from my coursework in the Master of Education Technology program (MET) from Boise State University (BSU), and aligned them to the individual standards. Even though an artifact is mapped to a single standard, it is most likely that the artifact reflects mastery of multiple standards. In this document, I explain why I selected each artifact, and the rationale for how it reflects the chosen standard.

Choosing artifacts was not an easy process. Throughout the MET program, I created dozens of examples of work which could be used. I decided to showcase those artifacts that aligned with projects that I was able to use in my career; projects that had impact on the teachers and students in the school where I work and projects that helped me grow as an educator when I witnessed their successes, and occasionally their shortcomings.

When I started the MET program, I had the goal of convincing my school district that they needed to create a district wide technology integration specialist position, and of course demonstrating to them through my actions, that I was the ideal candidate. I was working in a grade 5/6 middle school as a network technician, but my daily activities went beyond just the planning and support for the technology infrastructure. Every day, I worked with teachers in their classrooms, helping them introduce technology to their students. As I advanced in the program, I began to understand more about the theory behind education and instructional design principles, and the projects I created began to rise to a new level. In meetings, I didn’t just provide answers to technical questions anymore, but rather I became a major contributor to the planning and use of technology within the building. I found my actions were being guided by this quote from Lockee and Larson (2013) “When a technology is not clearly supporting a learning strategy and there is no solid reason, basis, or justification for its use, it obscures the purpose of instruction rather than enhancing it” (p. 184).

Last fall, my district created the integration specialist position, and when I applied I was asked to explain my vision of how technology should be used in education. My guess is that many other applicants started by explaining how technology can solve a problem, or the benefits of a particular device like an iPad, but I began by showing a four minute video of students in the district using technology in the classroom. The focus was on student learning, not the use of technology. I didn’t even offer an explanation of the technology that was used, instead I handed out the accompanying lesson plans for the activities I had created. Lesson plans that included clearly identified learning objectives mapped to our district’s curriculum and the common core state standards. The questions that followed pertained to assessment and epistemology, and reflected the major themes of the AECT standards. Not once did we discuss the device or the program the students used.

I was offered the position and am now the district’s integration specialist. My role has changed from supporting a single school, to handling district wide initiatives. My first year focused on four major programs of which several, such as preparing for smarter Balanced online testing, and designing a Google Apps for Education initiative, are included in these artifacts. The BSU program was instrumental in helping me achieve my new job, but also helping me excel in this role as it rounded out my extensive technical knowledge with the fundamentals of education.