Jessica Stith

Loyola University

Prof. Bal

Internship Proposal

Internship Goals:

 For the English Department at Forest Park High School to become comfortable with the google

suite for education and be able to use it in a meaningful way in their instruction.

 To demystify the use of technology in the classroom and support colleagues as they begin to

integrate technology in a meaningful and sustained way in their instruction.

 To provide a safe and comfortable space for department members to experiment with

technology and technology integration and to encourage a fail forward attitude.

 To provide a model for scaling technology instruction and integration throughout the school as

we move to a 2-1 model in our new technology-rich environment.

Internship Objectives:

3.1 Candidates will be able to apply models of technology in school (such as SAMR, TPACK,
and/or TIM) to incorporate technology tools to improve teaching and learning.

3.2 Candidates will be able to demonstrate the ability to tackle challenging technical tasks.

4.2 Candidates will be able to use technology tools to collaborate with colleagues.

5.1 Candidates will be able to apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment
and evaluation strategies.

5.2 Candidates will be able to use technology to collect assessment data, analyze it, and
improve student learning.

5.3 Candidates will be able to use technology to communicate assessment data with others.
6.1 Candidates will be able to model and promote strategies for achieving equitable access to
digital tools and resources.

7.1 Candidates will be able to model and build a positive school culture that supports the safe,
healthy and ethical use of technology.

8.1 Candidates will be able to apply models of change to understand the current situation of
technology innovation in a school.

8.2 Candidates will be able to plan for the future of technology in a school using models of
change.

13.2 Candidates will be able to determine and implement the best approaches to improving their
technology integration efforts through a continual process of self-evaluation and reflection.

18.1 Candidates will be able to locate a variety of technology resources, evaluate them for
classroom use, and assist colleagues with this process.

Internship Overview:

In 2010, Baltimore City Public Schools began to conduct research into how to revitalize

and improve the failing school infrastructure present throughout the city (About, 2017). The

culmination of that study led to the creation of “21st Century Schools Baltimore” which is a

multi-partner initiative with the mission to “build future-focused, adaptable, sustainable and

high-quality schools that inspire and support the educational success of Baltimore City Public

Schools students” (Mission, 2017).

My school, due to significant problems with flooding, heating, cooling and lead

plumbing, was designated as a year 1 school, and is currently undergoing a 70 million dollar

renovation (Forest, 2017). This confluence of events means that our school population is going

to double next year and then we will enter our newly renovated building in the fall of 2018.
As a part of the renovation process and likely due to the incredible financial resources being

devoted to our school, we have been under intense scrutiny from our district and have also

been designated as a STEAM school starting school year 2018-2019. This means that school

year 2017-2018 is a crucial and powerful year for our school. We have added an ESOL program

and diversified our previously nearly homogenous school population, adding three new career

and technical pathways and working to re-engage a limping AP and Honors program.

Additionally, our principal is extremely focused on our school becoming a green school

and in addition to our LEED Silver designation, we will be highly encouraged to use digital and

electronic methods to assign, assess and design curricula as well as communicate with students

and other stakeholders. This focus is also reflected in the 2016-2020 Baltimore City Schools

Strategic Plan which says, “these new and renovated school buildings are designed to support

excellence in teaching and learning with flexible and adaptable space, learning areas designed

for interaction and collaboration, and technology equipped classrooms, enabling students to

meet today’s—and tomorrow’s—high standards” (Excellence, 2017). However, there has been

very little discussion of how that technology will be purchased or maintained or who will be

responsible for it.

All of these factors mean that I am designing and completing my technology internship

at a time when there is high-interest in the implementation and integration of technology in my

school, but there is not currently a structure or organization to support it.

After considering the limitations of my own abilities, the support of the administration

and the buy-in from stakeholders, as well as talking with Professor Marcovitz, I ultimately
decided to stay focused on a smaller, but still powerful level—that of my department. Given

where we are expected to go and our current access to technology and support for technology

innovation, this seemed the best place to leverage my skills and enthusiasm, the buy-in from

stakeholders, and the potential impact on student achievement and engagement.

My specific innovation is the integration and use of cloud computing. We gained district-

wide access to the G Suite for Education this summer. Although we previously had access to

cloud computing technology via our district and Microsoft 365, most educators did not use this

platform. I would like to increase knowledge and use of cloud computing in general and within

my department, I would like to support and encourage the use of G Suite for Education in my

department.

Applying the Perceived Attributes Theory to my school leads me to the following

conclusions:

1. Trialability: After my initial decision to use this as my internship, my department began

to make tentative steps towards online computing via our collaborative planning. We

started by using/modeling the online features in our weekly collaborative planning

meetings and build competency and comfort in a safe, low-risk environment. I would

like to push our department to use G Suite for Education because the synchronous

editing features are unique to that suite of products and the long-term access and

stability of the platform is already proven. Additionally, this product can be used to

create, grade, and track assessments automatically which is a huge plus to busy

educators. We have started building comfort with the products by encouraging the
 department to keep our weekly meeting notes/agenda in a google doc that can be seen,

edited, and accessed by everyone in the department. Some of our staff have some

experience with Google Docs so there is evidence to suggest that this level of

participation would not be deemed taxing and would be a nice way to highlight ways

that these products can be used in the classroom.

2. Observability: The unique power of cloud computing lies in the fact that the results are

immediate. This allows for teachers to observe the power of immediate submission and

feedback on assignments or see the immense power of synchronous collaboration on

documents and presentations. One area where this could be a challenge for my

department is that they will not be able to observe the full power of cloud computing if

they do not try to create, send or receive assignments in this fashion. To make these

benefits more observable (at my suggestion), we have begun to deliver our collaborative

planning agendas via Google Document (which supports our green schools initiative as

well as our technology initiatives) and then use that document to function as our group

notes from the meeting.

3. Relative Advantage: I think the advantages of receiving work digitally and being able to

grade and leave feedback digitally as well will be easily seen by my department. Since

we are in the English department, we have significant amounts of student writing to

read, review, score, and return. I know that being able to grade from anywhere and not

have to carry heavy bags of grading will be an advantage and most teachers also type

faster than they write so they will see the additional advantage of being able to leave

detailed feedback more quickly and efficiently. I also know that people in my
 department are interested in how to leverage these technologies in their classrooms,

but don’t feel empowered or able to take the risks alone. Doing so with colleagues in a

safe, evaluation-free space will help them to take these risks and hopefully realize these

advantages.

4. Complexity: I don't believe that complexity will be a substantial problem. Departmental

staff already use and know the Microsoft products that they will be most likely to use so

the only complexities are in the digital interface, which they already have to navigate to

get to their email. In terms of the G Suite for Education products that I want to highlight,

there is some additional complexity, but I think their baseline familiarity with those

types of programs and Google will help. The only areas that are likely to prove complex

enough to need explicit teaching and modeling are Google Forms, Google Sheets (only

in the differences between Excel and Sheets) and Google Classroom.

5. Compatibility: Because staff already use the traditional forms of the programs, this is

infinitely compatible with what they already do. They will be able to branch out and

experiment at their own pace while still using the technologies that they already know,

only online. I also think that because students have access to these features on their

mobile devices, they'll have additional compatibility in that respect. I also think that

increased technology integration and use supports the district and school initiatives that

are driving the changes in our school.

Ely’s Eight Conditions of Change:

The reason that I’ve chosen to focus my innovation so specifically on department is

because considering Ely’s Conditions within the larger school led me to believe that the
conditions did not exist to produce the desired change. With that knowledge, I then conducted

a survey within my department to assess the status of the eight conditions within my

department in regards to the change I hope to achieve. The table below outlines my

assessment of both the school and department in each of the eight areas. I initially conducted

these interviews in Spring of 2017 in conjunction with ET 680, although there are few changes

to the information based on my observation.

Ely’s Conditions School-wide assessment Departmental Assessment

Dissatisfaction with Within the school, I would say that staff are
the status quo dissatisfied with either the access to technology
and/or their training and ability to integrate
technology within their department. Although
dissatisfaction exists, there doesn’t seem to be
interest in trying to remedy knowledge gaps on
personal initiative or without incentive.
All of my interviewees expressed
dissatisfaction with the status quo in
terms of technology access and
availability and about half of them
expressed dissatisfaction with their
current level of technology training and
knowledge and/or wanted more
training and support in integrating
technology.

Knowledge and Most of the staff, more than half, cannot
Skills Exist identify cloud computing. Although I think I
have the knowledge and skills to support staff
in this area, there is such an overwhelming
diversity of skill levels and areas of interest that
I don’t think I could coherently create a
program that would meet the needs of the
staff.
About half of respondents knew what
cloud computing was and some could
identify specific examples, but all
indicated interest in further training,
support and usage. Some teachers
asked for specific training in making
class websites, using class kick, or Sway.
I have some of the knowledge and
skills, but I am not an expert at all of
the requested topics. I would have to
do some independent learning and
research to fully meet this condition. All
respondents have basic computer skills
and a working knowledge of Google.
The biggest concern in this area is that
respondents are at a variety of skill
levels and all have a range of
technology skills and supports that they
would like to improve on and/or
receive training for.

Resources are This is one area where there is a distinct lack.
available Although most staff have district issued laptops,
they do not have administration rights meaning
that they are not all updated or even
functioning. There are some desktops in
My department has six English teachers
and the lead teacher for the school. Of
the seven of us, three teachers use
personal Mac laptops, three of use
district-provided PC laptops and one
classrooms, but newer teachers are
predominantly using their own personal
technology, many of them using Apple devices,
which I do not have extensive knowledge of and
some of which use different apps or resources.
After training, there is also a distinct lack of
technology access within our school. Right now
we have four or five mobile laptop carts (of 14-
30 laptops each) and 25 desktop computers to
service a student body of over 400. Three of the
laptop carts are specifically and permanently
devoted to the Math Department, but they
have not been supervised or maintained and of
the original fifty-sixty computers they received,
only about 15-20 are working and have keys. It's
incredibly frustrating to me. They have daily
access to the computers, but do not use them
and when they are used, they are not handled
appropriately. I have off-and-on access to
approximately 35 laptops, but they are ten
years old and we have only 14 chargers. They
will not let me buy chargers for the remaining
ones and there is an issue with the windows
licenses as well. On a regular basis, I about 12 of
these working. When I am using tech in my
classroom, it's a combination of these
computers and students' phones. Of the
remaining computers (desktops and two carts),
they are used for testing on a near-daily basis
and must be used in the library. In addition to
these concerns, we do not have sufficient
ethernet ports and since the building we are in
is about to be closed, so they will not install
them. All of the desktops in the library and all of
the computer carts are on the wifi network--
which routinely kicks people off (especially
frustrating when students are testing). At this
point, all laptop carts are reserved for testing
until next school year. There will be PARCC,
HSA, Agile Mind or other testing every day until
final exams. Some technologies that staff want
training in or access to are free, but some are
not. Staff would have to determine which
resources they wanted to prioritize and if they
are willing to pay for those resources
themselves.
Beyond all of these factors, a key resource in
my school is teachers. We lose between 30 and
50 percent of our staff every year because of
poor personal management, new opportunities,
retirement, etc. It would be very intensive to
provide this introductory level of support and
teacher uses a personal PC laptop. Even
though this is still a changing in terms
of troubleshooting and support,
working with a small number of
teachers, especially ones which have
indicated that they are willing to work
beyond the normal work day if needed,
it will be easier to manage. Additionally,
we will start by using cloud computing
within our own department via
collaborative planning and teachers will
be able to determine when to use it
within their classrooms. This also
negates the issues with trying to access
the wifi in large numbers. Although the
access to technology within the
classroom is still problematic, G Suite
for Education is optimized for use on
mobile devices and we can leverage the
12(ish) laptops (mentioned in the
schoolwide assessment) that we have
access to via the department to
augment student mobile devices where
necessary. The technology we are
wanting to use (GAFE) is free and freely
available and my time as a trainer
would also be free and provided to
staff.
At this point, my department is the
second-most stable in the school. Of
our seven staff members, we have only
one who is not going to return to the
school next year. This means that
efforts made this year can be improved
on next year and potentially be
significant by our fall 2018 return to
renovated school.
 training every single year.
Time is Available Although we do have monthly staff meetings,
they do not allow for technology training and
support. I have spoken to our Vice Principal
who wants to set up a series of voluntary, drop-
in technology PDs weekly or bi-weekly. Right
now she wants me to do the bulk of them which
means losing 20% of my teaching time during
the week, which is fairly significant. Because our
planning periods are organized by department,
there are no other departments with my
planning period so the only common time I
could offer training would be during lunch. The
staff members most interested and/or willing to
do this sort of work during a working lunch are
the ones who need less support. For those staff
members who need more support, they resent
attending weekly collaborative planning
meetings and would be likely to resent working
lunches as well.
Rewards or Other than the training itself or the benefits to
Incentives Exist for the students, I am unable to provide large-scale
Participants: incentives to staff and administration has
already indicated that they would not or could
not do so. I can do small incentives (candy, etc),
but they are not likely to be sufficient to meet
the demand to actually incentivize staff. Those
staff members are already incentivized by
student achievement or engagement concerns
seek me out individually to get that support
already.
Participation is Although the administration would be vocally
Expected and supportive of participation and it would be
Encouraged: verbally expected and encouraged, experience
says that they will not take the required steps
to make participation possible (class coverage,
incentives, resources, time, etc.). Also, the way
that administration supports initiatives like
these tends to become punitive quickly which
means that the union gets involved and
My department is close and often
chooses to meet and collaborate
beyond the requirements of our school.
On the survey provided, all respondents
were willing to use our shared planning
time to do PD as required and several
seemed excited by the opportunity.
This would also allow me to
differentiate between the cloud
computing that I am proposing to the
department and the integration of
some of their other technology
requests/desires (class kick, weebly,
etc.).
Half of the respondents said they would
like food/snacks as incentives. Three
people specifically mentioned that
gaining better training or resources
would be sufficient incentive, two
people mentioned student
achievement as sufficient motivation.
One person said that other than
student learning, money would be nice.
Although I cannot pay for their time or
provide large-scale incentives often,
with only seven people I could offer
things like pizza during a working lunch
or other more achievable incentives.
Additionally my department tends hold
each other accountable through
positive peer pressure which I think
would sufficient even if there wasn’t
already significant interest in learning
and applying these skills.
The only person interviewed who was
not interested in more training or
creating a department mission/vision is
not going to be with our department
after May. The others seemed excited
about the idea of organizing around a
common departmental goal that
included technology integration. All
respondents were interested or willing
 initiatives are shut down “because the teachers
complained”, although that is not a complete
examination of the factors involved.
Additionally, staff have been burn out by
routine announcements of initiatives, areas of
focus, programs, etc. with little or no
scaffolding, no follow-through and no support.
Anything that is introduced through or
supported by administration is seen as likely to
be abandoned or used only as a tool to punish
teachers. Even amongst the most engaged
teachers, there is a very jaded and cynical view
towards these efforts.
Commitment by Although there is a district and school level
Those Who Are commitment to technology integration in
Involved: advance of our STEAM school status, there is no
plan for how to leverage that commitment into
actual progress. Additionally, although verbal
commitments would be made, experience and
evidence suggest that would be the extent of
the commitment.
Leadership is The de facto leader in the school and definitely
Evident: the person that is trusted by all members of
staff to actually accomplish something is our
lead teacher. Our administration has not shown
adequate leadership and in fact often shows
failure to lead. There is also a desire to
micromanage any/every initiative to the point
of collapse.
to use a planning period to attend PD
although one person asked that they be
allowed to use their technology to
support their own learning of the
material. We are going to be a STEAM
school in two years and there is
significant pressure to begin to
transition and include more technology
integration ASAP. Our departmental
culture is overwhelmingly supportive
and encouraging and I think that
increases interest in initiatives like this
one. Our department also has
demonstrated a fidelity and
commitment to implementing,
assessing and maintaining efforts,
particularly those involved with student
achievement. This increases
departmental buy-in to further
initiatives.
Everyone is committed to the goal of
increasing our technology integration
and meaningful technology usage and
everyone is committed to being
prepared to be a STEAM school by
2018. All members of the department
indicated a willingness and
commitment to achieve this goal. In
fact, the problem for me was that
wanted almost too much at once, but
the small scale of our department
means that I can manage those
additional request more meaningfully.
The lead teacher in our school is in my
department and has already committed
to being my partner in this effort. I feel
confident that with the help of our lead
teacher I could effectively support the
department in most of the areas that
were requested and I have already
become the de facto technology leader
in the school. They already look to me
for leadership on this issue and ask for
tutorials and support in these areas. I
will need more training and support in
some areas because I am not fully
aware or experienced with all the
technology they want to use or use
more effectively i.e. the interactive
projectors. Also, the scope of our
project is an advantage in this case
because it is likely to fly under the radar
 of the administration which will allow it
to unfold unimpeded and with more
likelihood of success.

Since my innovation will be implemented within my department, I rated each of us on our

ACOT stages.

Individual ACOT Stage and Rationale

Darrin Brozene, Lead Teacher Entry. He has a lot of interest in and respect for the ways
that we can leverage technology for student achievement,
but feels like he doesn’t have enough knowledge to
adequately use it in his classroom with the same level of
effectiveness that his current instruction supports.
Jen Travis, Department Lead Entry: She does not use technology in her classroom, but has
a much better grasp of it than she realizes. She is also the
only person in our school that I have seen attempt to use
Microsoft 365 to share documents/collaborate with staff.
She’s interested and willing, but needs some support and
clear direction.
Jessica Stith Adaptation: I waver between adoption and appropriation,
most often hitting adaptation. I have a lot of interest in
leveraging technology in meaningful ways and have tried a
variety of ways to do so including having students explore
societal evils via digital stories, building curated webquests,
and having students use my website as a primary point of
contact for me. I want to do more with cloud computing and
integrating assignment and assessment of activities as well
as the synchronous collaborative abilities of technology. I
think specific projects may have come close to invention, but
overall my regular functioning is probably more
adoption/adaptation.
Robyn Richie Entry: Other than for research or typing papers, she does not
use technology in the classroom. However, she is not
resistant to learning, she just wants a good way to practice
with low stakes.
Jason Mabee Entry/Adoption: He encourages students to leverage
technology and available media to propose and develop
entrepreneurial endeavours.
Courtney Queen Entry/Adoption: She has students submit things via email
and google docs, but does not use technology in any other

Caitlin Bell-McCarthy
Marissa Adkins
way. Including not using her document camera or projector
in class. She feels frustrated because she has to use her
personal laptop in the classroom and therefore does not
want to do certain things.
Adoption: She uses her smart board every day, but not as a
smart board. She has done some activities with QR codes,
but overall is somewhat techno-phobic and needs a lot of
reassurance and support. However, she is very excited about
the possibilities and genuinely wants to improve and has
good ideas about ways to implement technological changes
and meaningful instructional connections.
Adoption: She is the most likely to progress to Invention the
quickest. She has excellent ideas for how to changes and
infuse technology into curriculum in meaningful and
deliberate ways, but she also has the most frustration with
the current access to technology in the building. She
currently uses Google Docs with students but isn’t familiar
with the rest of GAFE suite.

I know that the risk of working with a small group is that there will be a lack of sufficient

spillover into the larger school community and/or an insufficient cumulative growth in the

ACOT stages and Perceived Attributes in terms of observability. I think, however, that my plan

avoids this risk for two key reasons. One is that the entire English Department is committed to

this initiative meaning that even though there isn’t a large percentage of staff involvement,

every single student in the school will be impacted since every student must take at least one

English course per year. This is significant because within our department we will be able to

track implementation and progress of our innovation and therefore each consecutive year we

will be able to build on the foundation that we can guarantee was laid.

Also, our students push us to be better, faster, more effective. If I am giving a quiz, they

tell me that, “Mr. Corral uses Kahoot! in Biology and that’s better”, for example. Our students
will drive the interest and dissemination of our innovation throughout our school environment.

And, finally, although in an ideal world all educators would use technology in innovative and

powerful ways to inspire, motivate and drive students to achievement, the ultimate goal is in

the student’s achievement. I know that I cannot enforce universal interest or buy-in across my

staff, but my department already has that and we can leverage that to reach all of our students

in the best and most meaningful ways possible—which achieves our ultimate goal anyway.

Internship Plan:

I began parts of this internship by working with my department last spring to create a vision and mission

that reflects our beliefs and priorities about our work with students and the place of technology in that

work. We worked on this across several collaborative planning periods and eventually settled on a

mutually agreed upon mission and vision statement. This year, because we added several new people to

our new department, we went back over the mission and vision statement and reached a new

consensus. The plan below for the internship is related to realizing that mission and vision in our

department. For each of the presentations I give, I will record a screencast or video that presents the

information so that attendees can access these resources outside of the meeting and/or it will be

available to other staff members. These will be hosted on my website and will provide an additional

support and modeling for how to incorporate technology in the classroom. This will also help as we

attempt to scale the program in the coming years.

Goal Objective Responsible Date to be Assessment Who Is

Party Completed Responsible for
Assessment?
Introduce teachers to Teachers will collaborate to Jessica Stith January The production of Jessica.
the GSuite for teachers create communal 2018 meeting
and allow them to notes/resources. Teachers agendas/notes in
Assessment
familiarize themselves will be able to create collaborative
occurs in June
with the way that these google docs and slides in documents during
2018.
programs correlate to order to share the planned
programs they may docs/slides with others. collaborative
already know. planning sessions
(Docs/Slides) throughout
January and
February.

Teachers will
provide examples
of docs and slides
used primarily as
instructional tools
as well as
examples of docs
and slides as well
as student-created
or student-
collaborated docs
and slides.

The goal is to introduce Teachers will be able to Jessica Stith February Teachers will The instructor
staff to the advantages create a google form in 2018 provide examples
of google forms as order to collect data from of google forms
survey and assessment its participants. used primarily as
tools. (Forms) an assessment or
survey to help
Teachers will create at
guide future
least one auto-grading
instruction.
form for use in class as an
exit slip, drill, quiz or other
formative assessment. Staff will share
their experiences
implementing a
form and will also
provide feedback
to the instructor
via a form.

The goal is introduce Teachers will be able to Jessica Stith March 2018 Teachers will The instructor
staff to Sheets and to create a google sheet in Darrin Brozene provide examples
highlight the key order to turn the data into a of sheets as
Darrin Brozene,
differences between graph. student tools as
Lead Teacher
sheets and excel. well as data
collection and
Teachers will work as a
assessment.
The goal is also for staff department to create a
to be able to create and common data tracking tool
maintain data tracking and use it to track standard
tools using sheets that data throughout the school
they will use and year.
update throughout the
17-18 school year.
(Sheets)

The goal is for the The department will work Jessica Stith April and The department The instructor
department and together to create a Marissa Adkins May 2018 will have a The department
individual teachers to Departmental Site functional website (peer feedback
feel comfortable showcasing their vision that unifies the and support)
creating and and mission, providing department and
maintaining a website resource for various provides links and
as well as considering student projects and support for
different ways that sites reference tools, and link to students.
can be used for the individual sites of
instruction or teachers.
assessment. (Sites)

Teachers will be able to The teachers will be able
incorporate all of the to incorporate all of the
skills that they have previous apps together in
learned into a unified order to host an entire
product. (Complete class unit on their website
Integration) and linked to the
departmental website.
Jessica Stith By the end Teachers will be Assessment of the
Darrin Brozene of April able to articulate Instructor and
2018 how and why they evaluation of the
created their unit, plan will be
how students used reviewed at the
that unit and November PD
student data and days. Adjustments
assessment was and additional PD
submitted and topics/foci will be
tracked using the determined then.
tools.

Teachers will receive Teachers will indicate Jessica Stith By June Teachers will All parties will be
ongoing training and where/how they want (Others as 2018 demonstrate their surveyed and
support in G Suite as additional training which be appropriate) comfort and results will be
they move from entry to provided monthly growth through an used to determine
adoption and throughout the school year increase in next steps for the
adaptation on the in a collaborative planning student use of G growth of the
ACOT model. period. Suite tools and the English
by tracking Department and
student any required
achievement data changes to the
through the use of format prior to the
G Suite use of this model
in a new
department.

Reflection and Evaluation:

My current plan to map my progress through the internship is to complete a reflection once a

month, after providing the most recent training and reviewing the products/feedback that

result from that training. I tentatively have decided to complete these reflections by the first of

each month.
 References

About. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://baltimore21stcenturyschools.org/about/history

Excellence and Equity 2020. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from

http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/cms/lib/MD01001351/Centricity/Domain/10215/

2015StrategicPlan_Final.pdf

Forest Park High School. (2017, May 04). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://baltimore

21stcenturyschools.org/schools/103

Mission. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://baltimore21stcenturyschools.org/mission

Note: Much of this proposal is adopted from course work completed in Spring of 2017 in ET 680

under the guidance of Dr. Marcovitz