What outcomes had you envisioned for this course? Did you achieve those outcomes? Did the actual course outcomes align with those that you envisioned?
At first, I thought this class would be more related to instructional administration. Even with the title Instructional Leadership, I thought of being the instructional leader, more along the lines of what we learned in Curriculum Management. I was not sure how relevant the course would be to my current position as a special education program coordinator, but it did prove to be relevant, valuable information. I learned about the STaR chart in depth, something I did not have more than surface knowledge of in the past. I also learned more about how technology is planned and developed than I ever knew before. I found it interesting to read the Texas Long Range Plan and the district technology plan. I had no idea the great amount of money dedicated to keeping us in technology. The course was not exactly what I expected it to be, and I feel it was valuable information that I will need to know as a building level or district administrator.
To the extent that you achieved the outcomes, are they still relevant to the work that you do in your school? Why or why not?
The main outcome of the course for me is that I have a much deeper knowledge of technology than I ever had as a teacher or coordinator. The articles, while numerous and time-consuming, contained important information. I found most of them very interesting. It is very fitting for me to understand technology at a deeper level because in my work at the school, I need to be able to support teachers in their implementation of technology and provide them chances to learn about how to integrate technology into their content area lessons to maximize instruction. I work a lot with special education, and there are many times when technology makes the difference for the student to communicate with others, to be able to access a text or trade book, or write a story. I need to understand how the technology works and how we go about choosing appropriate technology to use with our students so that I can help teachers make strong recommendations to help kids learn.
What outcomes did you not achieve? What prevented you from achieving them?
This is not really a course outcome, but I have not completed the technology proficiency tests for my district. Ironically, I was made aware of the requirement while interviewing the Director of Educational Technology for this course. I knew teachers had to take the test, but did not realize the requirement extended to all certified staff in my district. I have made arrangements to start taking the assessments. As far as course expectations, I am sure I completely understood the action plan. I completed the assignment, but was confused about exactly the way the it should look and what should be included. I read the week 4 overview, completed the interviews, read the articles, and watched the videos, but still it was not clear.
Were you successful in carrying out the course assignments? If not, what prevented or discouraged you?
I completed all course assignments. I was discouraged when weeks 1 and 2 were not graded and posted for quite a while. It was mid-course, and it was time to submit week 3, but there was no feedback from 1 and 2, so I was uneasy. I had a difficult time with the action plan because while I knew what my plan was, I was not sure I was writing the assignment the way the instructors wanted it to be. I worked through it, and did my best. I think it might have helped to have a table to fill in for part of it or some type of structure to guide our responses. It was helpful to me when the coach sent the weekly overview earlier in the week. I had become a little frustrated by finding out new information after I had already done parts of the assignment in previous weeks. I think many of us have to complete our work on a schedule of sorts because of our jobs and other commitments, so we like being able to know that the overiew is not going to change mid week.
What did you learn from this course…about yourself, your technology and leadership skills, and your attitudes?
I learned about the Texas technology plan, the district technology plan, and especially the STaR Chart. I also learned that the Campus Improvement Plan is not particularly aligned with the District Improvement Plan when it comes to educational technology. Looking at the two documents side by side with the STaR chart nearby allowed me to see that the Campus Improvement Plan needs to be updated to include the needs from the STaR Chart. I also learned how my school and district organize teacher staff development in the area of technology. My campus does not offer many trainings that are campus based for some reason. I plan to work on this so that training can reflect teacher needs. I learned that I have some underlying beliefs and attitudes about technology. I am not sure I was seeing the value of kids having cell phones and IPods with internet in our classrooms. I can honestly say, I am feeling a little more open to the idea now than I was before.
What is the educational value of blogs and blogging to the 21st century learner?
Last summer during our June Leadership, we were required to create a blog. I did that, but had not thought about it much since then. When we created one for this course, I learned a lot about posting different kinds of documents and realized how easy it was to use them. I can really see how using a blog in the classroom or for home assignments would work well. I can see how information can be shared among teachers, students, and parents. I would like to work on my work blog so that I can post important information related to the district and school so that teachers can learn new information and make comments. Kids love to be on the computer and they love to give their opinions, so using a blog would be something valuable that they might even enjoy. It reminds me of those old commercials talking about food that kids like that is good for them, but the adults don’t tell them it’s good for them, so they will still eat it.
What are the concerns of blogs and blogging in education?
I think with blogs and blogging the concern is that in education there has to be a gatekeeper so that entries can be filtered. I think adults and kids should be able to say what they think, as long as their responses are appropriate as far as language and sometimes content. Like anything else we have students do, we have to set expectations, teach and model appropriate responses. I would recommend sharing some of the articles with teachers, so that the staff can have powerful discussions about acceptable use policy, using tehnology devices in the classroom, and other relevant issues affecting schools in the digital age.
How can you use blogging to communicate with school stakeholders?
I think creating a campus and district blog would be a great idea. Schools can get parents, teachers,and students to read information and provide their own input. This is a great way to survey the stakeholders informally without having a meeting. Nowadays, with most children living in homes where both parents work, it is more difficult to get parents into the school to attend meetings. I think using technology is a great way to make sure everyone is included in the process. There can be face to face meetings and blogs so that the digital immigrants can feel comfortable, too.
I am thinking of using the blog to pass along important information related to dyslexia and Section 504 via the blog. That way, teachers and administrators can access the training information 24/7, and they can add their own input.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Instructional Leadership Technology Link
Organizational Chart
The organizational chart posted on the previous page shows the title of all personnel responsible for integrating technology and instructional and organizational leadership from the district Superintendent and central office staff to the campus administrators and classroom teachers.
My district has made technology a big focus this year, per the Superintendent. He has a vision and long term mission for technology integration and development within the school district. Technology in my district is separated into two divisions at the central office level-the Division of Accounting and Finance and the Division of Instruction. The Division of Accounting and Finance is responsible for purc hasing, upgrading and maintaining technology. The Division of Instruction is responsible for integrating technology into the curriculum areas and instruction. During an interview with the Director of Educational Technology (T.Johnson, personal communication, December 3, 2009), he clarified that his department handles integration of technology within the classroom, while Computer Services under the Division of Accounting and Finance handles purchasing and repairing the technology.
In both the Division of Instruction and the Division of Accounting and Finance, the Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, Executive Directors, Senior Director, Director, and Assistant Directors work together to develop the vision for technology in the district. Together they analyze data to evaluate use of technology within the district, and maintain and plan for use of technology. The Engineers and System Adminstrator work to make sure that the systems are compatible. The Coordinators and Specialists from the Educational Technology Department supervise teams of district and campus level specialists who support technology maintenance and use on the campuses. They help solve problems and make mino repairs. They also provide campus and district level professional development to support technology integration. In the Division of Computer Services, Managers serve a similar capacity to Coordinators and Specialists from Educational Technology . Managers supervise teams of people who maintain and repair technology. The Help Desk Clerk provides clerical support and maintains work order requests for technology throughout the district. The work orders generate “tickets”, which are distributed to technicians by the Dispatcher. The Dispatcher’s role is to maintain communication with the technicians to ensure that campuses and district departments receive assistance in a reasonable amount of time.
At the campus, the principal knows the role of the two divisions who support technology within the district. He or she has a good understanding of the procedure to follow when support is needed for technology. The Director of Educational Technology indicated (T.Johnson, personal communication, December 3, 2009) that when principals have difficulties with technology on campus, they first seek assistance from their Instructional Technology Specialist, and if it not resolved then a work order is generated. The principal communicates this with teachers and staff members. The Week 3 interviews that we watched emphasized the importance of the principal being knowledgeable of technology, and modeling technology use with staff members in faculty meetings or training sessions. The principal needs to stay abreast of research in the area of technology, so that he or she can advice the Campus Improvement Committee regarding technology purchases and priorities. The principal is responsible for making sure the students are using technology safely as well.
Professional Development Planning
When I analyzed the data from the Texas Campus STaR Chart from 2006-2008, I found that my campus was lowest in the areas of Teaching and Learning and Educator Preparation and Development. Both areas had a total of eleven points. I attribute part of the reason for low score in Educator Preparation and Development to turnover at the campus, but it still is an area of concern. In a previous course, I analyzed AEIS data along with the Campus Improvement Plan to determine professional development needs, and examine differences in the performance of subgroups within the school. Data indicate that Hispanic students are scoring lower than White and African American for the most part, and that Science and Reading Fluency were areas of concern across the board.
Using the STaR Chart data, the AEIS report, Campus Improvement Plan, District Instructional Impovement Plan, and the District Technology Plan 2008-2011, along with results from Technology Excellence Indicator Systems Surveys and results of teacher tehnology proficiency assessments, it was determined that the main need is Teaching and Learning, focused on Technology Applications TEKS implementation and Content Area Connections. These areas will be addressed through district and campus –based professional development, modeling of technology integration lessons, and increasing student exposure to technology devices for school and home use. Student and teacher feedback is important in this process and will be used to create the professional development plan and make adjustments to it.
The district Literacy, Math, and Science specialists will model content area lessons for grade level teachers integrating technology into the teaching so that teachers can see real world examples of how to use technology as a teaching tool. For example, in literacy, teachers will observe and implement use of software programs to create graphic organizers for reading and writing. Teachers will explore the use of document cameras enhance read aloud lessons and model correctly completed work for their students. In math and science, teachers will be introduced to web sites to extend their lessons and use for students to complete in centers or at home. The above mentioend are just a few ways that technology will be modeled and used by teachers.
Since Reading Fluency is an area where improvement is needed, the Educational Technology Special Projects Coordinator will collaborate with the Bilingual/ESL Specialist and Dyslexia Coordinator to implement a home reading program to promote fluency building using Ipods. Students will check the Ipods out through the library and record themselves reading their leveled readers at home. Students will chart their own progress using Excel software on the classroom computer. This home reading program will begin with Bilingual/ESL students and students at risk for reading failure. Special Education students with moderate to severe disabilities will check out the Ipod devices to take home and listen and respond to literature, poetry, and rhymes. Students and parents will be encouraged to participate in the Campus Reading Wiki to provide feedback on the books they have read.
Evaluation for Action Plan
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation of the action plan, data will gathered from the Texas Campus STaR Chart, teacher technology proficiency test results, campus and district improvement plans, TPRI/Tejas LEE results, AEIS reports and data from the district’s data program COMPASS. Student reading fluency charts will also be reviewed. The Campus Improvement Team will review the data to determine whether additional goals need to be added or existing goals modified to reflect updated needs assessment.
The campus principal is required to gather and analyze data from various sources. Results from formal and informal assessments along with data gathered from classroom walk throughs, teacher technology proficiency assessments, and Campus STaR Chart results to determine technology integration has increased. Progress monitoring assessments such as running records and reading inventories will be administered every two to three weeks to assess growth in reading fluency.
Students, parents, teachers and administrators will be asked to take Project Tomorrow Speak Up Surveys annually to provide feedback regarding technology use in the school and at home. Surveys can be found at the Project Tomorrow Speak Up website at http://www.speakup4schools.org/speakup2009/ . There is a survey for K-2 students, grades 3-5 students, teachers/adminsitrators, and parents. Data from the survey results will be analyzed along with the above mentioned data to help the Campus Improvement Committee determine needs in the area of technology, including staff development, purchasing, maintenance and integration within the content areas. It is essential to have the feedback of the stakeholders when making these decisions.
The organizational chart posted on the previous page shows the title of all personnel responsible for integrating technology and instructional and organizational leadership from the district Superintendent and central office staff to the campus administrators and classroom teachers.
My district has made technology a big focus this year, per the Superintendent. He has a vision and long term mission for technology integration and development within the school district. Technology in my district is separated into two divisions at the central office level-the Division of Accounting and Finance and the Division of Instruction. The Division of Accounting and Finance is responsible for purc hasing, upgrading and maintaining technology. The Division of Instruction is responsible for integrating technology into the curriculum areas and instruction. During an interview with the Director of Educational Technology (T.Johnson, personal communication, December 3, 2009), he clarified that his department handles integration of technology within the classroom, while Computer Services under the Division of Accounting and Finance handles purchasing and repairing the technology.
In both the Division of Instruction and the Division of Accounting and Finance, the Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, Executive Directors, Senior Director, Director, and Assistant Directors work together to develop the vision for technology in the district. Together they analyze data to evaluate use of technology within the district, and maintain and plan for use of technology. The Engineers and System Adminstrator work to make sure that the systems are compatible. The Coordinators and Specialists from the Educational Technology Department supervise teams of district and campus level specialists who support technology maintenance and use on the campuses. They help solve problems and make mino repairs. They also provide campus and district level professional development to support technology integration. In the Division of Computer Services, Managers serve a similar capacity to Coordinators and Specialists from Educational Technology . Managers supervise teams of people who maintain and repair technology. The Help Desk Clerk provides clerical support and maintains work order requests for technology throughout the district. The work orders generate “tickets”, which are distributed to technicians by the Dispatcher. The Dispatcher’s role is to maintain communication with the technicians to ensure that campuses and district departments receive assistance in a reasonable amount of time.
At the campus, the principal knows the role of the two divisions who support technology within the district. He or she has a good understanding of the procedure to follow when support is needed for technology. The Director of Educational Technology indicated (T.Johnson, personal communication, December 3, 2009) that when principals have difficulties with technology on campus, they first seek assistance from their Instructional Technology Specialist, and if it not resolved then a work order is generated. The principal communicates this with teachers and staff members. The Week 3 interviews that we watched emphasized the importance of the principal being knowledgeable of technology, and modeling technology use with staff members in faculty meetings or training sessions. The principal needs to stay abreast of research in the area of technology, so that he or she can advice the Campus Improvement Committee regarding technology purchases and priorities. The principal is responsible for making sure the students are using technology safely as well.
Professional Development Planning
When I analyzed the data from the Texas Campus STaR Chart from 2006-2008, I found that my campus was lowest in the areas of Teaching and Learning and Educator Preparation and Development. Both areas had a total of eleven points. I attribute part of the reason for low score in Educator Preparation and Development to turnover at the campus, but it still is an area of concern. In a previous course, I analyzed AEIS data along with the Campus Improvement Plan to determine professional development needs, and examine differences in the performance of subgroups within the school. Data indicate that Hispanic students are scoring lower than White and African American for the most part, and that Science and Reading Fluency were areas of concern across the board.
Using the STaR Chart data, the AEIS report, Campus Improvement Plan, District Instructional Impovement Plan, and the District Technology Plan 2008-2011, along with results from Technology Excellence Indicator Systems Surveys and results of teacher tehnology proficiency assessments, it was determined that the main need is Teaching and Learning, focused on Technology Applications TEKS implementation and Content Area Connections. These areas will be addressed through district and campus –based professional development, modeling of technology integration lessons, and increasing student exposure to technology devices for school and home use. Student and teacher feedback is important in this process and will be used to create the professional development plan and make adjustments to it.
The district Literacy, Math, and Science specialists will model content area lessons for grade level teachers integrating technology into the teaching so that teachers can see real world examples of how to use technology as a teaching tool. For example, in literacy, teachers will observe and implement use of software programs to create graphic organizers for reading and writing. Teachers will explore the use of document cameras enhance read aloud lessons and model correctly completed work for their students. In math and science, teachers will be introduced to web sites to extend their lessons and use for students to complete in centers or at home. The above mentioend are just a few ways that technology will be modeled and used by teachers.
Since Reading Fluency is an area where improvement is needed, the Educational Technology Special Projects Coordinator will collaborate with the Bilingual/ESL Specialist and Dyslexia Coordinator to implement a home reading program to promote fluency building using Ipods. Students will check the Ipods out through the library and record themselves reading their leveled readers at home. Students will chart their own progress using Excel software on the classroom computer. This home reading program will begin with Bilingual/ESL students and students at risk for reading failure. Special Education students with moderate to severe disabilities will check out the Ipod devices to take home and listen and respond to literature, poetry, and rhymes. Students and parents will be encouraged to participate in the Campus Reading Wiki to provide feedback on the books they have read.
Evaluation for Action Plan
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation of the action plan, data will gathered from the Texas Campus STaR Chart, teacher technology proficiency test results, campus and district improvement plans, TPRI/Tejas LEE results, AEIS reports and data from the district’s data program COMPASS. Student reading fluency charts will also be reviewed. The Campus Improvement Team will review the data to determine whether additional goals need to be added or existing goals modified to reflect updated needs assessment.
The campus principal is required to gather and analyze data from various sources. Results from formal and informal assessments along with data gathered from classroom walk throughs, teacher technology proficiency assessments, and Campus STaR Chart results to determine technology integration has increased. Progress monitoring assessments such as running records and reading inventories will be administered every two to three weeks to assess growth in reading fluency.
Students, parents, teachers and administrators will be asked to take Project Tomorrow Speak Up Surveys annually to provide feedback regarding technology use in the school and at home. Surveys can be found at the Project Tomorrow Speak Up website at http://www.speakup4schools.org/speakup2009/ . There is a survey for K-2 students, grades 3-5 students, teachers/adminsitrators, and parents. Data from the survey results will be analyzed along with the above mentioned data to help the Campus Improvement Committee determine needs in the area of technology, including staff development, purchasing, maintenance and integration within the content areas. It is essential to have the feedback of the stakeholders when making these decisions.
Friday, December 11, 2009
District Organizational Chart for Technology Integration
My district has organized technology into two divisions, Computer Services and Educational Technology. The divisions are outlined below in order.
Through the Division of Accounting and Finance-
- Superintendent
- Associate Superintendent/Chief Financial Officer
- Executive Director-Management Information Systems
- Senior Director -Computer Service Center
- Assistant Director-Technology Network Services
- Work Station Engineer
- Convergence Engineer
- Computer Networking Engineer
- Unix Systems Administrator
- Technology Services Manager
- Parts Manager
- Computer Repair Technician
- Field Maintenance Technician
- Network Support Technician
- Cabling Technician
- Dispatcher
- Superintendent
- Associate Superintendent/Chief Instructional Officer
- Executive Director-Research & Information Technology
- Director-Educational Technology
- Assistant Director-Educational Technology
- Instructional Technology Coordinator
- Special Projects Coordinator
- Instructional Technology Specialist
- Web Specialist
- Program Specialist
- Technology Support Specialist
- Help Desk Manager
- Help Desk Clerk
- Purchasing Specialist
The campus administrators are the instructional leaders, and that instruction includes technology. Principals are to model technology integration and ensure that teachers are utlizing technology as a tool to enhance learning. All certified personnel must be proficient in the use of technology. Teachers are expected to integrate technology into their teaching consistently.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Texas Campus STaR Chart
According to the Texas Campus STaR Chart, my campus rated highest in Infrastructure for Technology and lowest in Teaching and Learning and Educator Preparation and Development. Infrastructure for Technology includes number of students per computer, Internet access and connectivity speed, other classroom technology, technical support, local area network wide area network, and distance learning capacity.
The campus ratings on the Texas Campus STar Chart were exactly the same for all areas in 2006-2007 and 2007-2208. There was no data available for 2008-2009. I was surprised to find that there had been no changes at all in the two year span. It might be in part due to teacher turnover. There have been new teachers added each year due to teacher resignations, retirements, and transfers. The campus was rated Advanced Tech in Infrastructure for Technology, which is in alignment with the district and the state. Within the state in 2007-2008, 57.2% of schools were rated Advanced Tech in this area. The Long Range Plan for Technology (Texas) is aligned with the federal NCLB requirements.
Although Infrastructure for Technology was our highest area according to STaR Chart data from 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 (2008-2009 was not available), network and infrastructure have been a problem since mid year 2008-2009. While the district allocates adequate funding for infrastructure and has several wireless access points in every school and throughout the district, there have been connectivity issues since the implementation of the teacher laptop initiative. This has been frustrating for teachers because they cannot always access the district Intranet and other resources on demand. The district and has allocated a portion of the ARRA (stimulus) funds to upgrade the infrastructure and connectivity.
The district has taken an important step in improving the Infrastructure for Technology. Additionally, more servers are needed to run district wide instructional and data management programs.
The campus ratings on the Texas Campus STar Chart were exactly the same for all areas in 2006-2007 and 2007-2208. There was no data available for 2008-2009. I was surprised to find that there had been no changes at all in the two year span. It might be in part due to teacher turnover. There have been new teachers added each year due to teacher resignations, retirements, and transfers. The campus was rated Advanced Tech in Infrastructure for Technology, which is in alignment with the district and the state. Within the state in 2007-2008, 57.2% of schools were rated Advanced Tech in this area. The Long Range Plan for Technology (Texas) is aligned with the federal NCLB requirements.
Although Infrastructure for Technology was our highest area according to STaR Chart data from 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 (2008-2009 was not available), network and infrastructure have been a problem since mid year 2008-2009. While the district allocates adequate funding for infrastructure and has several wireless access points in every school and throughout the district, there have been connectivity issues since the implementation of the teacher laptop initiative. This has been frustrating for teachers because they cannot always access the district Intranet and other resources on demand. The district and has allocated a portion of the ARRA (stimulus) funds to upgrade the infrastructure and connectivity.
The district has taken an important step in improving the Infrastructure for Technology. Additionally, more servers are needed to run district wide instructional and data management programs.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Spiraling Technology TEKS
The Technology Applications TEKS provide students with a spiraling curriculum of technology expectations. Here is an example of a Foundation technology application that begins in Pre-kindergarten and continues to expand through high school.
In Pre-kindergarten, students begin using and naming a variety of computer input devices, such as mouse, keyboard, voice/sound recorder, touch screen, and CD-ROM. In K-2, students are expected to use data input skills appropriate to the task. The student is expected to use a variety of input devices such as mouse, keyboard, disk drive, modem, voice/sound recorder, scanner, digital video, CD-ROM, or touch screen. In Grades 3-5, the expectation is stated the same way, but students are expected to be more independent. In Grades 6-8, students are expected to use data input skills appropriate to the task. The student is expected to demonstrate proficiency in the use of a variety of input devices such as mouse/track pad, keyboard, microphones, digital camera, printer, scanner, disk/disc, modem, CD-ROM, or joystick. In high school, students are expected to use data input skills appropriate to the task, The student is expected to demonstrate proficiency in the use of a variety of input devices such as keyboard, scanner, voice/sound recorder, touch screen, or digital video by appropriately incorporating such components into the product.
This is an example of how the skills are spiraled to support student learning and mastery. First students were asked to become familiar with and name the devices, then use them at appropriate times, then become proficient, then apply them to the correct situations. This reminds me of reading strands for phonics and word study. FIrst students learn letters and sounds, then chunks, then simple spelling patterns (CVC, CVCe), become proficient, and then apply them in their reading and writing. Doing this activity helped me make a connection with technology that I had not made before because I was able to relate it to a content area.
In Pre-kindergarten, students begin using and naming a variety of computer input devices, such as mouse, keyboard, voice/sound recorder, touch screen, and CD-ROM. In K-2, students are expected to use data input skills appropriate to the task. The student is expected to use a variety of input devices such as mouse, keyboard, disk drive, modem, voice/sound recorder, scanner, digital video, CD-ROM, or touch screen. In Grades 3-5, the expectation is stated the same way, but students are expected to be more independent. In Grades 6-8, students are expected to use data input skills appropriate to the task. The student is expected to demonstrate proficiency in the use of a variety of input devices such as mouse/track pad, keyboard, microphones, digital camera, printer, scanner, disk/disc, modem, CD-ROM, or joystick. In high school, students are expected to use data input skills appropriate to the task, The student is expected to demonstrate proficiency in the use of a variety of input devices such as keyboard, scanner, voice/sound recorder, touch screen, or digital video by appropriately incorporating such components into the product.
This is an example of how the skills are spiraled to support student learning and mastery. First students were asked to become familiar with and name the devices, then use them at appropriate times, then become proficient, then apply them to the correct situations. This reminds me of reading strands for phonics and word study. FIrst students learn letters and sounds, then chunks, then simple spelling patterns (CVC, CVCe), become proficient, and then apply them in their reading and writing. Doing this activity helped me make a connection with technology that I had not made before because I was able to relate it to a content area.
Pre Kindergarten Technology Applications
The Pre-kindergarten technology applications pave the way for students to increase their knowledge in Kindergarten and beyond. Students learn to open and navigate software programs that enhanced learning. This helps students begin their knowledge of technology Foundations. In Kindergarten through Second Grade, students are expected to learn to start and exit programs and use technology terminology appropriate to the task.
Pre-kindergarten students learn to name a variety of computer input devices, such as mouse, keyboard, and voice recorder. These are devices that students are to learn in Kindergarten through Second Grade in Foundations, and they remain in the Foundations through high school.
Pre-kindergarten students also learn to operate voice/sound recorders and touch screens. Again, this part of Foundations for students Kindergarten through high school.
Pre-kindergarten students learn to use software programs to create and express their own ideas. That is very aligned to a Foundation skill as well as a Communication skill for students beginning in Kindergarten. Students beginning in Kindergarten are expected to produce documents at the keyboard and use language skills as grade level appropriate. In the area of Communication, students are expected to learn to publish information ina variety of media beginning in Kindergarten.
Finally, Pre-kindergarten students learn to recognize that information is acessible through the use of technology. This is related to Solving Problems, where students are to use electronic tools and research skills to build a knowledge base on a topic, which begins in Kindergarten.
Pre-kindergarten students learn to name a variety of computer input devices, such as mouse, keyboard, and voice recorder. These are devices that students are to learn in Kindergarten through Second Grade in Foundations, and they remain in the Foundations through high school.
Pre-kindergarten students also learn to operate voice/sound recorders and touch screens. Again, this part of Foundations for students Kindergarten through high school.
Pre-kindergarten students learn to use software programs to create and express their own ideas. That is very aligned to a Foundation skill as well as a Communication skill for students beginning in Kindergarten. Students beginning in Kindergarten are expected to produce documents at the keyboard and use language skills as grade level appropriate. In the area of Communication, students are expected to learn to publish information ina variety of media beginning in Kindergarten.
Finally, Pre-kindergarten students learn to recognize that information is acessible through the use of technology. This is related to Solving Problems, where students are to use electronic tools and research skills to build a knowledge base on a topic, which begins in Kindergarten.
How can my new learning assist me as an instructional leader who is guiding technology use and integration at a campus?
Examining the Long Range Plan for Technology helps me to be more aware of standards for students and teachers. It provides me with the background to understand the purpose of our district and campus technology plan. Since I am a veteran teacher of more than 20 years, I feel a little at a disadvaantage when it comes to technology, although I use it several times daily both personally and professionally.
As a leader, knowing the Long Range Plan for Technology helps me know what is very important for my teachers to know and be able to do. As I sit on the Campus Improvement Committee, I will have the knowledge base to discuss technology issues that we write into our campus plan.
I had no idea that the US was so far behind countries like India in the number of college graduates. We have the opportunity to provide all students with the tools necessary to be ready for college or trade school of some kind. It's time we made it a priority.
As a leader, knowing the Long Range Plan for Technology helps me know what is very important for my teachers to know and be able to do. As I sit on the Campus Improvement Committee, I will have the knowledge base to discuss technology issues that we write into our campus plan.
I had no idea that the US was so far behind countries like India in the number of college graduates. We have the opportunity to provide all students with the tools necessary to be ready for college or trade school of some kind. It's time we made it a priority.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Reflections on Technology Assessments
I completed the Preassessment before the course began, and found that I do not know much about the technology plan and the goals for improvement in technology. I left the classroom before the STAR chart began, and so I do not have first hand knowledge of that, either. I have had training related to technology. I am proficient in using Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, and I use them daily in my current job. I use Adobe Professional daily as well.
The first assessment on the assignment was the Technology Applications Inventory. I rated myself "yes" or "no" on questions from four categories; Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. I had the most "yes" responses in Foundations, which was not a surprise to me since I have been out of the classroom for quite a while. I had 14 "yes" responses compared to 4 "no" responses in that area. In Information Acquisition, I had 5 "yes" and 5 "no" responses, meaning I was pretty equal in both. In Solving Problems, I had a higher number of "no" responses than "yes". I think this is because the training that I have attended in the past several years related to technology was more focused on administrative technology applications instead of teaching applications. In Communications, I had 7 "yes" responses and 5 "no" responses. I am able to communicate effectively using technology, but there is more that I can learn to improve this skill.
The second assessment was the SEDTA teacher survey. I had hard time deciding whether to complete the teacher, building, or district survey because none of the surveys really fit my exact position as a district administrator. I chose the teacher survey because it was the most applicable to what I do. The survey was very lengthy, and asked about the extent to which technology is utilized in the classroom by teachers and students. I found that teachers in my school are expected to use technology to communicate with other staff members, parents, and even students. There is an expectation that technology will be integrated into content area lessons with increasing frequency. Both the building level and district level adminstration support the use of technology by teachers and students. This is evident in the district's long range technology plan, and in the campus improvement plan. This year, our campus improvement team decided to use stimulus (AARA) funding to purchase addtional technology for classrooms. We are purchasing document cameras, flip cameras, and smart boards to assist teachers with utilizing technology to enhance learning.
We use technology in our teaching frequently. For example, in the science lab, teachers use the projector and computer to display Internet resources related to science concepts being taught. Document cameras are used to demonstrate how to complete assignments, such as lab documents and science journals. In the reading content, document cameras are used to show literature as it is read during a whole group lesson. In bilingual classrooms, teachers use the document camera to display correctly completed homework and classwork to increase comprehension for students who are learning English.
Technology is used by teachers and administrators to gather and store data related to student performance. There is an expectation that teachers are able to navigate the mclass and Voyager websites for reading data and the COMPASS, for all other data related to assessment and intervention for students within the district.
Students go to the computer lab on a rotating basis and additionally when teachers sign up. They learn keyboarding beginning in third or fourth grade. There is more of a focus on it as students get olddr, but we try to expose them early so that they can use word processing and other applications effectively. Students also use computers within the classroom to complete research and as a station for learning in reading and math. We use programs such as Write Outloud, Word, and Powerpoint for students to complete written projects. Students do not use excel often in elementary school.
Although this second survey did not provide a way to score and categorize the responses, I did feel that my responses were similar to the first survey in that I had much more foundational knowledge than information acquisition and problem solving. Most teachers are really embracing technology and embedding it into their teaching. There are some who are less comfortable, and the district and school is providing training to assist them in integrating technology.
The first assessment on the assignment was the Technology Applications Inventory. I rated myself "yes" or "no" on questions from four categories; Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. I had the most "yes" responses in Foundations, which was not a surprise to me since I have been out of the classroom for quite a while. I had 14 "yes" responses compared to 4 "no" responses in that area. In Information Acquisition, I had 5 "yes" and 5 "no" responses, meaning I was pretty equal in both. In Solving Problems, I had a higher number of "no" responses than "yes". I think this is because the training that I have attended in the past several years related to technology was more focused on administrative technology applications instead of teaching applications. In Communications, I had 7 "yes" responses and 5 "no" responses. I am able to communicate effectively using technology, but there is more that I can learn to improve this skill.
The second assessment was the SEDTA teacher survey. I had hard time deciding whether to complete the teacher, building, or district survey because none of the surveys really fit my exact position as a district administrator. I chose the teacher survey because it was the most applicable to what I do. The survey was very lengthy, and asked about the extent to which technology is utilized in the classroom by teachers and students. I found that teachers in my school are expected to use technology to communicate with other staff members, parents, and even students. There is an expectation that technology will be integrated into content area lessons with increasing frequency. Both the building level and district level adminstration support the use of technology by teachers and students. This is evident in the district's long range technology plan, and in the campus improvement plan. This year, our campus improvement team decided to use stimulus (AARA) funding to purchase addtional technology for classrooms. We are purchasing document cameras, flip cameras, and smart boards to assist teachers with utilizing technology to enhance learning.
We use technology in our teaching frequently. For example, in the science lab, teachers use the projector and computer to display Internet resources related to science concepts being taught. Document cameras are used to demonstrate how to complete assignments, such as lab documents and science journals. In the reading content, document cameras are used to show literature as it is read during a whole group lesson. In bilingual classrooms, teachers use the document camera to display correctly completed homework and classwork to increase comprehension for students who are learning English.
Technology is used by teachers and administrators to gather and store data related to student performance. There is an expectation that teachers are able to navigate the mclass and Voyager websites for reading data and the COMPASS, for all other data related to assessment and intervention for students within the district.
Students go to the computer lab on a rotating basis and additionally when teachers sign up. They learn keyboarding beginning in third or fourth grade. There is more of a focus on it as students get olddr, but we try to expose them early so that they can use word processing and other applications effectively. Students also use computers within the classroom to complete research and as a station for learning in reading and math. We use programs such as Write Outloud, Word, and Powerpoint for students to complete written projects. Students do not use excel often in elementary school.
Although this second survey did not provide a way to score and categorize the responses, I did feel that my responses were similar to the first survey in that I had much more foundational knowledge than information acquisition and problem solving. Most teachers are really embracing technology and embedding it into their teaching. There are some who are less comfortable, and the district and school is providing training to assist them in integrating technology.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
