Compatibility between peer coaching and the ISTE-CS (Module 3)

After thinking hard about what peer coaching is and isn’t, I decided that it was time to go back to the ISTE Coaching Standards (CS). I had a few things on my mind, but overall, I was wondering:

How can I incorporate the ISTE-CS into my new understanding of peer coaching? Is the kind of coach described in the ISTE-CS compatible with peer coaching?

Incompatibility Between the ISTE-CS and Peer Coaching

My first impression of the compatibility between the ISTE-CS and a peer coach is that they are not necessarily compatible, but I should definitely elaborate on what I mean. What I mean is, if I imagine a person embodying all the things stated in the ISTE-CS, I imagine a person who is leading by example and actively advocating for the meaningful integration of technology and education; neither of these characteristics are in line with the goal of peer coaching. They are by no means negative characteristics, they are just not characteristics of peer coaching.

I say this because I think “leading by example” is fairly synonymous with “leading as expert.” The idea of “leading by example” is to say “this example is one to follow and emulate,” and following in someone’s footsteps is a completely different picture than working as peers to discover the coachee’s path. When leading by example, the answers reside within the person leading, not within the person emulating; this is the opposite of peer coaching, where the answers reside within the coachee.

Additionally, ideally, a peer coach shouldn’t be pushing any sort of agenda, and I think “actively advocating for the meaningful integration of technology and education” is starting to cross that line. I want to reiterate that this advocacy is not bad, it’s just not the goal of peer coaching. Of course, as humans, we can’t eliminate all biases from our work as a peer coach, but we should be careful when actively advocating for something.

Making the ISTE-CS Compatible with Peer Coaching

All that said, I do think that the ISTE-CS can inform peer coaching. Since “asking questions” is a hallmark of peer coaching, I decided that I wanted to try and use the ISTE-CS to come up with questions that I could ask, as a peer coach. I tried to keep the technology focus a separate part of the questions, when I could, to reduce the advocacy angle. My goal was to look at the indicator and come up with one or more questions that could get at what the indicator was talking about.

After doing that, I decided I wanted to pull out as few words as possible from the indicator to summarize what the indicator was talking about; this is what is bolded at the start of every number. It was something I personally needed to do, for myself, to “see the landscape” of everything in the standards – or to see the document as a whole. There are a lot of similar words in the ISTE-CS, and I felt like I couldn’t see the forest for the trees. (Doing this actually gave me insight I didn’t have before. I half thought that some indicators repeated themselves in terms of the ideas being focused on, but really they don’t overlap all that much!)

Peer Coaching Questions Based on the ISTE-CS
  1. Visionary Leadership
    1. Vision: What is your vision of how technology could be incorporated into the instructional environment?
    2. Planning: What is your plan to reach your vision? How will you evaluate the success of implementation? Do you need to communicate with anyone about your plan?
    3. Support: What policies, programs, and funding exist to help you implement your plan? What procedures must you go through to implement? Does your plan align with the school’s or district’s technology plan and guidelines?
    4. Sustaining: What challenges might stop you from implementing or sustaining your plan?
  2. Teaching, learning, and assessments
    1. Standards: How does this technology-enhanced learning experience address content and technology standards?
    2. Diverse needs and interests: What research-based instructional strategies and assessment tools can address the diverse needs and interests of all of your students? What are the diverse needs of your students for assessment? For instruction? Are there technologies that can help you meet their diverse needs?
    3. Real-world problems: Are there local or global communities that your students could interact with during the learning experience? Is there a way they could assume a professional role and research real-world problems? Could they collaborate with anyone outside the classroom? Could they produce a meaningful and useful product?
    4. Creativity, higher-order thinking skills: How does the learning experience allow for creativity, higher-order thinking skills and processes, and developing mental habits of mind? Are there technologies that could help your students engage in these things during the learning experience?
    5. Differentiation: How can the learning experience be differentiated for students? Can technology be used to aid in differentiation?
    6. Research-based best practices: What does research say about best practices for ____?
    7. Formative and summative assessments: What kinds of formative and summative assessments do you use? Are there other kinds of assessments you could use that might help students convey their ideas in new ways? How can technology help create a rich variety of formative and summative assessments?
    8. Student achievement data: What kinds of student achievement data could be collected during the learning experience? Who will use it? How will it be interpreted? Who will it be communicated to, and how?
  3. Digital age learning environments
    1. Classroom management and collaborative learning: Does the learning activity create any challenges with classroom management? Is technology creating classroom management challenges? Does the learning activity incorporate collaborative learning? Is there a technology that could help with classroom management or collaborative learning?
    2. Maintain and manage tools: How do you manage digital tools for yourself? For your students? How can students manage their own digital tools?
    3. Online and blended learning: Is there any blended learning incorporated into the classroom? Could there be? Could digital tools increase student choice in the activity?
    4. Assistive technologies: What assistive technologies do you use? What assistive technologies would be helpful to your students? Can you incorporate any of these into your classroom?
    5. Troubleshooting: How do you troubleshoot problems (tech problems or otherwise)? How do your students troubleshoot? How can you teach troubleshooting skills? What do you need in your classroom to teach troubleshooting skills?
    6. Select and evaluate digital tools: What is your school or district’s technology infrastructure? How do you ensure that you select tools which are compatible with your school or districts’s technology infrastructure?
    7. Communicate locally and globally: What digital communication and collaboration tools do you use in your classroom to increase communication and collaboration between: you, students, parents, peers, and the community?
  4. Professional development and program evaluation
    1. Needs assessment: What technology-related professional learning do you feel like you would most benefit from?
    2. Professional learning programs: In response to (a), can you get this professional development through your school or district? Can we do anything to support your professional development?
    3. Evaluate results: What does research say about the results of specific professional learning programs?
  5. Digital citizenship
    1. Equitable access: What do students have equitable access to in your classroom? Where do you feel like equitable access could be improved? How can we improve equitable access? Can a technology help?
    2. Safe, healthy, legal, and ethical uses: Where are some opportunities in the curriculum to talk about safe, healthy, legal, or/and ethical uses of digital information and technologies?
    3. Diversity, cultural understanding, and global awareness: Where are some opportunities to promote diversity, cultural understanding, and global awareness? Can a technology help promote those things?
  6. Content knowledge and professional growth
    1. Content and pedagogical knowledge: Is there a technology you would like to learn more about for classroom use? Maybe a technology you have never used before, or one that you would like to deepen your knowledge about?
    2. Organizational change and leadership: What are the dispositions of your leadership regarding technology in the classroom? What kind of change can you advocate for within your school or district? How can you advocate for that change?
    3. Reflect: What are some professional practices you have in place that you feel work really well? What are some things that you feel could run smoother? How do your beliefs and dispositions about technology affect your practice? How do the dispositions of your peers affect their practice?

The exercise of turning all the indicators into questions was quite valuable. It made me realize that this is something you can (probably) do with any set of standards, and I feel like it made the standards more manageable. Some of my questions were geared towards taking the first steps in the direction of the indicator, but I envision an iterative process where we use an indicator to come up with questions to pursue, and then come back to the indicator to come up with follow up questions.

For even more questions, there’s always questions like: “but what do we really mean by ‘troubleshooting’?” I find these to be enjoyable and enlightening rabbit holes of their own. I did not include these kinds of questions in my list above, but they are often the kinds of questions I pursue.


ISTE: International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for coaches (2011). Retrieved from

Homework solutions, digital citizenship, and math education (EDTC 6101, Digital readiness project)

It stretches my thinking to imagine how Ribble’s (2013) nine elements of digital citizenship can be meaningfully incorporated into math education. Digital citizenship is a concept that relates respecting, educating, and protecting yourself and others while in an online world through nine elements: digital etiquette, digital access, digital law, digital communication, digital literacy, digital commerce, digital rights and responsibility, digital safety, and digital health and welfare. Technology is a large part of our culture and I believe that being a thoughtful digital citizen is as important as being a thoughtful citizen of the physical world, so I think it is important to teach digital citizenship where applicable. In my day to day life, digital citizenship feels like a highly relevant and core skill. However, during my math classes as an undergrad, I don’t feel like digital citizenship was ever addressed.

Pre-interview preparation

Since I was struggling to think of ways in which digital citizenship could be taught within a math class, I wanted to use the interview portion of EDU 6101’s Digital Readiness Project as a way to uncover some of the inherent connections. Therefore, I developed a list of questions based on the ways I thought technology could intersect with math education – including topics like gender-related differences in calculator/math software use, and accepting students as friends on Facebook – but I left the interview open enough to follow unexpected connections. For this project I interviewed math professor Dr. James Lambers of University of Southern Mississippi.

Post-interview infographic

This infographic represents some general information about technology and math education. What I chose to include was based on my interview with Dr. Lambers.


Post-interview reflection

Upon reflecting about the interview, one connection between digital citizenship and math education stood out to me as the most meaningful, and that is the connection to digital law with digitally accessible homework solutions. The connection is possibly more in spirit than technically an issue of copyright law, but the issue of students using digital homework solutions is morally and ethically similar to the problem of stealing content since both are an issue of presenting unoriginal work as your own.

As math educators, we want students to take ownership of their learning, and digitally obtained homework solutions via resources like Wolfram Alpha, Chegg, or past students can exasperate the problem of students working to “get the grade” instead of working to learn. I don’t mean to say that using solutions is always negative for the learning process – it’s how solutions are used that makes the difference. I’m specifically referring to when students copy solutions without understanding what they’re copying, and this is the kind of behavior we want to prevent. I’m envisioning a connection where helping students develop their moral and ethical thinking for citing sources of digitally or otherwise obtained solutions could promote a shift from focusing on “getting the answer” to being responsible for the learning process.

James (2014) gives us some insight that may be useful for understanding students’ moral and ethical considerations regarding instructor-developed homework problems and solutions. Her research suggests that knowing the content creator can increase young peoples’ moral and ethical sensitivity (p. 63), and one study showed that students were more likely to use digital content without permission as opposed to physical content (p. 67). This makes me wonder if students may be more likely to respect a teacher’s request to not distribute solutions simply because the students know the teacher, and if the students may be more likely to not distribute physical handouts of solutions, as opposed to electronic solutions. Furthermore, her work suggests that young people who have created content within a community feel more responsibility towards that community and are more likely to employ moral and ethical considerations. This makes me wonder if developing a sense of community in a math class where students are also content creators could support their moral and ethical thinking about copying and distributing homework solutions.

Beyond the direct parallels made between James’ work and math education, these questions also got me asking broader questions about using solutions: How can we utilize James’ research to help us teach moral and ethical use? How are students thinking about the use of digital homework solutions? Are they making consequence-based decisions or employing moral and ethical thinking? When do they employ moral and ethical thinking? What activities increase the moral and ethical thinking of math students? Do they have a free-for-all mindset regarding solutions (p. 56)? These questions are very interesting to me and could inform possible directions for future dissertation work.



James, C., & Jenkins, H. (2014). Disconnected: Youth, new media, and the ethics gap. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lyublinskaya, I., & Tournaki, N. (2011). The effect of teaching and learning with Texas Instruments handheld devices on student achievement in algebra. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching30(1), 5-35. Retrieved from

Munger, G. F., & Loyd, B. H. (1989). Gender and attitudes toward computers and calculators: Their relationship to math performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research5(2), 167-177.

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2016). Mathematics literacy: Gender. Retrieved from

Ribble, M., & Miller, T. N. (2013). Educational leadership in an online world: Connecting students to technology responsibly, safely, and ethically. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 17(1), 137-145. Retrieved from

Svadilfari, Sean. (2008). Homework. Retrieved from

Digital education leadership mission statement (EDTC 6101)


My mission, as a digital education leader and future college mathematics instructor, is to be a resource of knowledge about technological tools and ethical considerations regarding technology for my colleagues and students. To do this, I need to be fluent in both the common and research-based technologies used in mathematics education, and in the research and debates surrounding the ways in which we – as people – use (or don’t use) technology. Digital citizenship is a concept that relates respecting, educating, and protecting yourself and others while in an online world (Ribble, 2013). Increasingly, technology is integrated into our lives, and I believe that being a thoughtful digital citizen is as important as being a thoughtful citizen of the physical world. Since digital citizenship doesn’t start or end with mathematics-related technology, it will be my ongoing mission to model being a good digital citizen and to keep my eyes open for opportunities to promote critical thinking about digital citizenship in a global, online community (ISTE, 2016, 5c).

Guiding Principles

Equity and equal access: As the mathematics community works towards equity in the classroom, it is important to understand if and how the technologies used in the classroom advantage some populations of students over others. While equal access to classroom technologies is a must (ISTE, 2016, 5a), it is imperative to also consider if the technologies promote equal access to the mathematics. For example, there is a large body of research around whether or not the use of calculators and other mathematical software disadvantages the performance of female mathematics students. The literature shows mixed results: often males outperform females (e.g. Forgasz & Tan, 2010), sometimes females outperform males (e.g. Lyublinskaya & Tournaki, 2011), or no difference is found (e.g. Munger & Loyd, 1989). As a future mathematics instructor, it is my goal to know what research has been done on equity and the use of technology in the classroom, and to think carefully about the technologies I choose to use in my own classroom.

Ethical use: As calculators and computers become better at symbolic computation, educators must think carefully about how to address the use of tools like WolframAlpha and Photomath. Copying mathematical solutions from a source like WolframAlpha is not technically a copyright issue, but it does fall under the ethical issue of presenting unoriginal work as your own. James’ research shows that while many young people don’t consider the ethical issues around presenting unoriginal work as their own (instead, focusing primarily on the consequences of such actions), they are capable of considering the moral and ethical dilemmas, but “need support from adults in order to do so” (James & Jenkins, 2014, p. 71). As a mathematics instructor, it will be my goal to use this opportunity to engage students in a conversation around the ethical use (ISTE, 2016, 5b) of computation software, and to promote the value of the learning process over and above “the right answer.”

Interactive-engagement: In physics, there are many names for instructional strategies that don’t look like “traditional” instruction; e.g., Hake’s (1998) term “interactive-engagement,” or Henderson and Dancy’s (2009) term “research-based instructional strategies” (RBIS). It is well documented in physics education that interactive-engagement methods and specific RBIS often lead to equal or higher gains in student achievement on conceptual understanding inventories of physics topics like the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Finkelstein & Pollock, 2005; Hake, 1998). Two of the most common RBIS, Peer Instruction and Just-in-Time Teaching (Henderson et al., 2009), make use of technology to reform their curriculum. Peer Instruction uses clicker questions to encourage students to work together on conceptual questions throughout lecture (Mazur, 1997), and Just-in-Time Teaching uses online pre-class reading assignments to allow the instructor to adjust the day’s lesson to meet the needs of the students (Novak, 2006). It will be my goal as a mathematics instructor to know what technologies and RBIS can be used to implement interactive-engagement instructional strategies in a mathematics classroom.


Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977.

Finkelstein, N. D., & Pollock, S. J. (2005). Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics. Physical Review ST Physics Education Research, 1(1), 1-13.

Forgasz, H., & Tan, H. (2010). Does CAS use disadvantage girls in VCE mathematics? Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 25-36. Retrieved from

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2009). Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Physical Review ST Physics Education Research, 5(2), 1-9.

ISTE: International Society for Technology in Education. 2016. 5: Digital citizenship. ISTE standards for coaches. Retrieved from

James, C., & Jenkins, H. (2014). Disconnected: Youth, new media, and the ethics gap. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lyublinskaya, I., & Tournaki, N. (2011). The effect of teaching and learning with Texas Instruments handheld devices on student achievement in algebra. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 5-35. Retrieved from

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Munger, G. F., & Loyd, B. H. (1989). Gender and attitudes toward computers and calculators: Their relationship to math performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(2), 167-177.

Novak, G. (2006). What is Just-in-Time Teaching? Retrieved from

Ribble, M., & Miller, T. N. (2013). Educational leadership in an online world: Connecting students to technology responsibly, safely, and ethically. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 17(1), 137-145. Retrieved from

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2007). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71. Retrieved from