When I initially began this course, I had many questions and a vast area for growth since I had not heard of the Texas Long Range Technology Plan, nor many of the items mentioned in the pre-course evaluation. I am well versed in the STaR Chart, as we completed it for our school just days prior to this course beginning. However, since we are nearing the conclusion of this course, I have learned an ample amount of information that will provide the support I need at my school. As well, this will allow me to be a stronger mentor for the teachers in the school who are not as versed in technology requirements as mandated by the TEA. This course aligned well with the outcomes I was hoping to achieve. I learned a vast amount of information that relates to Cyberbullying, cyber ethics, Wikis, Acceptable Use Policies, Technology Application TEKS, and the administrators role in utilizing technology for the benefit of the school. This includes my role in educating teachers on these practices.
This information is very relevant in my daily practices at my school. Technology is very prevalent at Richardson High School and is mandated to be utilized by the leaders of the school district. Information I have learned in this course supports technology applications I utilize at the school, as well as provides the tools I need to support the teachers in my school. I am now equipped with the knowledge to provide techniques teachers can use in the classroom to help student knowledge and growth. Some of these include student’s use of blogging, RSS, digital projects, proficiency of technology and the like. However, some information from this course will be better utilized in some classes more than others. This information will be valuable to teachers who need ideas on how to incorporate safe technology within their classroom lessons and student assignments.
One of the main outcomes I do not feel I fully achieved knowledge in, are the RSS feeds and how to incorporate them into the classroom efficiently. Fortunately, I did take a staff development session that discussed the use of this in one format; I would like to have learned how to utilize these in ways to further the use in a classroom. The only thing that prevented me from achieving this outcome is the lack of attention addressed toward this activity within the course. I also would like to have learned more about additional formats to use technology for students in the classroom. This course has provided several tools that can be utilized, but I would have enjoyed learning various ways to utilize these activities in the class.
I was successful in carrying out the course assignments throughout the first four weeks. The fifth week proved to be more challenging. The reason for this is because it was the end of the semester at our school which required a lot of my professional attention during the last week, as well as it being my 30th birthday and becoming very distracted personally. I am not sure if I will earn credit for this course because I was unaware of the change of date for the last week’s assignment. When I reviewed the deadline date within Brighten, the deadline was still Sunday, December 20th. I was not on email often during week 5 due to school demands. However, I did look for any emails from my academic coach or the course professors and I did not see any change of deadline date emails. This is one small example of how distance learning classes can be challenging; due to occasional changes in deadline dates that can go unnoticed. I am fortunate enough to have an Academic Coach who understands these challenges and has offered me an opportunity to submit my work. Hopefully I have proven my proficiency of knowledge with this material. Furthermore, I feel some of the articles are slightly out of date. Whereas the information in still valuable, I would like to read more articles that were produced within the past two years. I believe some of the information contained in these articles is outdated.
I learned an enormous amount of information relating to technology in the classroom, Texas STaR Chart, and the Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology. I learned that there are several more ways I can incorporate technology into my classroom, but also support many teachers with the incorporation of technology into their classrooms as well. Technology is the heart of how our world runs this day in age and it is only going to continue to grow. In order for teachers to stay up-to-date with the ever-changing formats and demands of technology, we must continue to educate ourselves on new technology methods. Technology proves to have an immense amount of opportunities for student learning and engagement. This course has also equipped me with leadership tools to help other teachers. Prior to this class, I did not have the ability to mentor or speak on the Technology Long-Rang Plan. Now, I feel comfortable discussing this information with other teachers and leaders within my school. I have even already worked with my Assistant Principal on how to incorporate more technology requirements on our school Campus Improvement Plan (CIP).
Blogging in the 21st century has revolutionized communication. As mentioned in the article by Will Richardson, "A new blog is created every second. There are more than 900,000 blog posts a day. Some two million blogs are updated every week” (Blog Revolution, 2005). This statistic is amazing. It was only a few short years ago when the blog idea was created, going mainstream with the public. With more than 900,000 blog posts a day, one can truly see the change in how technology is being used. Blogging in the classroom is exceptionally valuable for students of all ages. Blogging can enhance classroom communication and interaction. For example, during a classroom book unit, students can reflect on specific chapters, themes or concepts in the book through blogs. This enhances the use of technology but still incorporates the use and knowledge of technology in the classroom. It is also a way to allow students to interact while they are not in the classroom. This is only one example of the multiple ways blogs can be utilized in the classroom.
I believe some of the major concerns of blogs and blogging in education is the improper use of blogs. If students are not taught cyber ethics prior to blogging in the classroom, they stand at risk for Cyberbullying, improper postings and the like. It is important for activities such as this are closely monitored to ensure student safety on the Internet. Since anything on the Internet is public, students need to be aware of this potential danger. Students should not put private information about themselves that they would not feel comfortable having the entire world being able to see. Students need to be aware not to use blog names that can trace them to their city or location. As well, ensuring pictures posted are appropriate and do not violate the privacy of others and themselves. It is a good idea when first learning how to blog, that students are teamed up with a buddy to double-check each other’s work, ensuring they double-check the safety of their post.
Blogging is a beneficial for school stakeholders to communicate as well. For example, perhaps a new proposition for review is up for discussion amongst the school board and public voters. This could serve as a public forum to discuss the pros and cons of the item up for discussion. It would serve as an outlet for stakeholders to discuss their opinions of the proposition, as well as become an outlet for important information that needs to be announced. I would like to see this form of communication be experimented within my district.
References:
Richardson, W. (2005). Blog revolution: Expanding classroom horizons with web logs. Technology & Learning, 26(3).
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Evaluation
As an assistant principal I would ensure my teachers are using this tool. Curriculum directors and campus administrators can search by department and teacher to see who, how often and what data is being entered. I can ensure this is happening through searching by department to see how often data is being entered and by which teachers. This information can be easily compiled into a data matrix. Once the information is collected, it can be used to support the teachers. I would be able to see if specific teachers are not utilizing the SIMS program and meet with the teachers individually to ensure they understand the software and to see if there are any questions unanswered. If they understand the software and are just not using it, this would provide an opportunity for me to explain the importance of this program and its benefits. This data can also be utilized during individual department meetings to address specific concerns and questions.
With regard to the students, SIMS is a valuable tracking tool to benefit the growth and progress of all students, individually. SIMS tracks benchmark scores, TAKS scores, six weeks grades, teacher inputted RTI’s, demographic data with core classes (math, science, English, social studies), 504, at-risk students, attendance, LEP, SES, Sped, AEIS, and several other categories. It is able to filter students based on a number of categories. Teachers have the capability of logging interventions such as Saturday School referrals, discipline referrals, tutorial attendance, assignment modifications, benchmark recovery, credit recovery, language difficulties (ESL) and the like. This allows the school to track each student’s progresses or setbacks in comparison to interventions used. SIMS makes RTI process easier. We will be able to see what does work with a specific student, and what does not work. We are able to see if discipline has dropped, if benchmark scores have increased, if interventions have worked, and if failures have decreased among other variables.
With regard to the students, SIMS is a valuable tracking tool to benefit the growth and progress of all students, individually. SIMS tracks benchmark scores, TAKS scores, six weeks grades, teacher inputted RTI’s, demographic data with core classes (math, science, English, social studies), 504, at-risk students, attendance, LEP, SES, Sped, AEIS, and several other categories. It is able to filter students based on a number of categories. Teachers have the capability of logging interventions such as Saturday School referrals, discipline referrals, tutorial attendance, assignment modifications, benchmark recovery, credit recovery, language difficulties (ESL) and the like. This allows the school to track each student’s progresses or setbacks in comparison to interventions used. SIMS makes RTI process easier. We will be able to see what does work with a specific student, and what does not work. We are able to see if discipline has dropped, if benchmark scores have increased, if interventions have worked, and if failures have decreased among other variables.
Technology Flow Chart with Roles & Responsibilities
Roles and Responsibilities
- Deputy Superintendent, Patti Kieker - Oversees the assistant superintendents in charge of curriculum & instructions
- Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, Bob DeVoll - Oversees all secondary school operations
- Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools, Joyce Wilson - Oversees all elementary school operations
- Executive Director of Instructional Technology, Sandra Hayes - Responsible for all technology and technology implications across the district
- Director of Instructional Technology, Linda Casey - ELearn, RPortal, instructional resources for the libraries in district
- Director of Instructional Technology Beverly Turner - Responsible for all technology and technology implications inside the elementary schools across the district.
- Curriculum Directors - Knowledgeable about the curriculum, benchmarks, Year at a Glance (curriculum calendar), and experts in their designated field. Conduct staff development for teachers within their respective departments.
- Principals - Oversees each campus and the implementation and support of instruction and technology, is a model of using technology for communicating with stakeholders, teachers, parents and students.
- Assistant principals - Supports teachers and students, oversees each campus and the implementation and support of instruction and technology, is a model of using technology for communicating with stakeholders, teachers, parents and students.
- Instructional Technology Specialist - Cross Curriculum Lab structure, campus teacher training for rPortal, Elearn, STAR TEACHER & Principal Survey, BlackBoard courses evaluation, SRI, TELPAS, EOC, campus technology related troubleshooting that M&A does not address.
- Department Heads - Oversee their teachers, the curriculum in their department, new teachers development and the that technology is being used in every classroom, ensures regular updating of BlackBoard courses within their department.
- Teachers – Are responsible for following TEA and TEKS guidelines for their curriculum. Responsible for teaching all learners and including technology in their classroom, which includes the use and regular updating of their respective BlackBoard courses online.
Roles and Responsibilities
- Deputy Superintendent, Patti Kieker - Oversees the assistant superintendents in charge of curriculum & instructions
- Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, Bob DeVoll - Oversees all secondary school operations
- Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools, Joyce Wilson - Oversees all elementary school operations
- Executive Director of Instructional Technology, Sandra Hayes - Responsible for all technology and technology implications across the district
- Director of Instructional Technology, Linda Casey - ELearn, RPortal, instructional resources for the libraries in district
- Director of Instructional Technology Beverly Turner - Responsible for all technology and technology implications inside the elementary schools across the district.
- Curriculum Directors - Knowledgeable about the curriculum, benchmarks, Year at a Glance (curriculum calendar), and experts in their designated field. Conduct staff development for teachers within their respective departments.
- Principals - Oversees each campus and the implementation and support of instruction and technology, is a model of using technology for communicating with stakeholders, teachers, parents and students.
- Assistant principals - Supports teachers and students, oversees each campus and the implementation and support of instruction and technology, is a model of using technology for communicating with stakeholders, teachers, parents and students.
- Instructional Technology Specialist - Cross Curriculum Lab structure, campus teacher training for rPortal, Elearn, STAR TEACHER & Principal Survey, BlackBoard courses evaluation, SRI, TELPAS, EOC, campus technology related troubleshooting that M&A does not address.
- Department Heads - Oversee their teachers, the curriculum in their department, new teachers development and the that technology is being used in every classroom, ensures regular updating of BlackBoard courses within their department.
- Teachers – Are responsible for following TEA and TEKS guidelines for their curriculum. Responsible for teaching all learners and including technology in their classroom, which includes the use and regular updating of their respective BlackBoard courses online.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Texas STaR Chart Opinion Piece
The STaR Chart is “School Technology and Readiness. A Teacher Tool for Planning and Self-Assessing aligned with the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020” (Texas Education Agency, http://starchart.esc12.net). STaR Chart was developed to aid teachers, campuses and districts in their progress toward meeting the goals for the Long-Range Plan for Technology. The four areas that the STaR Chart addresses include: Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support; or Infrastructure for Technology. School campuses are scored and rated on specific levels of progress which include: Early Technology (level 1); Developing Technology (level 2); Advanced Technology (level 3); and Target Technology (level 4). Campus goals are to achieve the highest level of progress in each area of technology.
The area of Teaching and Learning includes proficiency in the majority of teacher’s being facilitators, mentors and co-learners in the classroom. As well, students have on demand access to technologies and integrated into all core courses. This involves having all Technology Applications TEKS met K-8 and all high schools offering technology courses, teaching a minimum of four. The greatest number of Texas campuses fall under the rating of Developing Technology (69.7%), with second at Advanced Technology (25.5%). Richardson High School has consistently scored at Advanced Technology for the past three years. An item RHS can improve uponin this area is providing staff development to educate teachers in strategies that turn their classrooms into a facilatitng atmostphere instead of a teacher-centered environment.
The second area, Educator Preparation, summarizes the need for vertical alinment of Technology Application TEKS, as well as administrative support to ensure integration of appropriate technology within the campus. The goal is for 100% of educators to meet SBEC standards and 30% or more of campus budget to be allocated for Technology professional development. The majority of Texas schools are ranked as Developing Technology (74.2%) with Advanced Technology following in second (45.5%). Richardson High School has been consistently ranked as Advanced Technology for three years in a row. RHS can improve in this area by encouraging more vertical teaming and alignment between classes and providing opportunities for all teachers to meet SBEC standards.
The next category, Administration and Support, focuses on student success as supported by the school board and administration. The IT department is required to have the ability to serve technocal support to over 350 computers and there are instructional support at each campus. As well, local funding and funding from grants are available. The majority of the state dalls into the Developing Technology category (49.0%) with a close second landing in Advanced Technology (45.5%). Richardson High School scored Advanced Technology from 06-07 and 07-08; however it has recently improved to Target Technology for the 08-09 school year, consistently ranking higher than the state average. At this time, RHS can continue to keep this ranking by providing excellent support for all teachers and obtaining federal and state grants to continue the support of Technology in the school.
The final category, Infrastructure, involves on-demand access for every student with connectivity available in all rooms, and web-based resources in multiple rooms. Within the campus, all rooms are equipped with WAN and appropriate technology for student learning. The state average in this category is Advanced Technology (57.2%) with Richardson High school consistently ranking as Advanced Technology the past three years. RHS can improve in this area by incorporating additional student computer and Internet stations in more classrooms throughout the school.
For more information on STaR Chart you can visit: http://starchart.esc12.net
The area of Teaching and Learning includes proficiency in the majority of teacher’s being facilitators, mentors and co-learners in the classroom. As well, students have on demand access to technologies and integrated into all core courses. This involves having all Technology Applications TEKS met K-8 and all high schools offering technology courses, teaching a minimum of four. The greatest number of Texas campuses fall under the rating of Developing Technology (69.7%), with second at Advanced Technology (25.5%). Richardson High School has consistently scored at Advanced Technology for the past three years. An item RHS can improve uponin this area is providing staff development to educate teachers in strategies that turn their classrooms into a facilatitng atmostphere instead of a teacher-centered environment.
The second area, Educator Preparation, summarizes the need for vertical alinment of Technology Application TEKS, as well as administrative support to ensure integration of appropriate technology within the campus. The goal is for 100% of educators to meet SBEC standards and 30% or more of campus budget to be allocated for Technology professional development. The majority of Texas schools are ranked as Developing Technology (74.2%) with Advanced Technology following in second (45.5%). Richardson High School has been consistently ranked as Advanced Technology for three years in a row. RHS can improve in this area by encouraging more vertical teaming and alignment between classes and providing opportunities for all teachers to meet SBEC standards.
The next category, Administration and Support, focuses on student success as supported by the school board and administration. The IT department is required to have the ability to serve technocal support to over 350 computers and there are instructional support at each campus. As well, local funding and funding from grants are available. The majority of the state dalls into the Developing Technology category (49.0%) with a close second landing in Advanced Technology (45.5%). Richardson High School scored Advanced Technology from 06-07 and 07-08; however it has recently improved to Target Technology for the 08-09 school year, consistently ranking higher than the state average. At this time, RHS can continue to keep this ranking by providing excellent support for all teachers and obtaining federal and state grants to continue the support of Technology in the school.
The final category, Infrastructure, involves on-demand access for every student with connectivity available in all rooms, and web-based resources in multiple rooms. Within the campus, all rooms are equipped with WAN and appropriate technology for student learning. The state average in this category is Advanced Technology (57.2%) with Richardson High school consistently ranking as Advanced Technology the past three years. RHS can improve in this area by incorporating additional student computer and Internet stations in more classrooms throughout the school.
For more information on STaR Chart you can visit: http://starchart.esc12.net
Friday, November 27, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Spiraling Curriculum
The Technology Application TEKS are designed as a spiraling curriculum. A spiraling curriculum is different from traditional methods of curriculum in which the material is not taught in order, one concept at a time. Instead, spiraling curriculum attempts to expose students with a wide variety of ideas and concepts over and over again. With this format, students are not expected to learn something new one day or week, and then just move on to the next item on the agenda. Instead, they are exposed repeatedly, similar content, in which to build upon.
After reviewing the Technology Application TEKS, it is very apparent that they are outlined in a spiraling format. Students who begin learning technology may start at different times in their lives, and learn at different paces. As well, with technology being complex and ever-evolving, it is important that concepts are utilized over and over again. Within the TEKS, the foundation strands offer students an opportunity to build a base knowledge and proficiency of the computer and basic program systems. Then, the students move on to build upon tat knowledge further along in the TEKS. Each section of the Technology Application TEKS (foundations, information acquisition, problem solving, and communication) all work together to achieve the ultimate goal of enriching student learning through technology and technological literacy.
After reviewing the Technology Application TEKS, it is very apparent that they are outlined in a spiraling format. Students who begin learning technology may start at different times in their lives, and learn at different paces. As well, with technology being complex and ever-evolving, it is important that concepts are utilized over and over again. Within the TEKS, the foundation strands offer students an opportunity to build a base knowledge and proficiency of the computer and basic program systems. Then, the students move on to build upon tat knowledge further along in the TEKS. Each section of the Technology Application TEKS (foundations, information acquisition, problem solving, and communication) all work together to achieve the ultimate goal of enriching student learning through technology and technological literacy.
Pre-K Technology Application TEKS in Summary
The Pre-K Technology Application TEKS is the introductory level of Technology Applications as outlined in the Texas Long-Range plan for technology. It is expected that all Pre-K students have regular access to technology to enhance their educational learning and overall knowledge of technology. Children at this age are receiving age-appropriate instruction with computers and software that will enrich their learning experience. The goal is to encourage regular and productive use of technology for these early learners, so that they are able to build on the basic knowledge and utilize technology in their educational growth and throughout their lives outside of the classroom. These students are expected to show proficiency in the areas of:
- start and use new and existing software programs
- ability to use keyboard, mouse, voice/sound recorder and touch screen, as well as have the ability to use technical terminology describing these items (ex: 'printer', 'keyboard', 'flash drive', 'mouse', etc)
- student demonstrates the ability to follow basic oral or pictorial cues for operating programs and navigating through programs
- students show proficiency in using multiple formats of software including audio, video, and graphics to enhance learning experiences
The Pre-K TEKS are the foundation for building additional knowledge within technology amongst all schools and classrooms in Texas. It is within the LRPT that the goal is to utilize technology to enhance student learning in all levels of education.
To read more about the Pre-K Technology Applications TEKS, you can visit: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/prek_guide/index.htm#Long-Range Plan for Technology 2006-2020
I recently finished reviewing the Texas Long-Range Plan (TLRP) for Technology and was stunned by the immense detail put forth into this extensive document. I was impressed with the detail and how comprehensive it is regarding needs for the classroom teacher, the leaders, administration, students, parents, and businesses worldwide. Each individual has a distinct role with the integration of technology inside and outside of school. The goals set forth by the Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) are specific, without forgetting the mention of issues that are being faced. This plan has made me take a closer look at my own teaching strategies and be able to pin point areas in which I may strengthen the technology applications I bring into the classroom. As well, being a leader on my campus, I understand how important my role is in helping other teachers incorporate technology within their curriculum and lesson plans. As a future administrator, I am excited about the potential and possibilities technology integration and advancement will bring to the students and educators alike. As well, this provides another opportunity for me to help guide my campus toward a vision and meeting the long-range goals set forth by the state of Texas. It will be my responsibility to encourage the participation and implement the standards into classrooms across my campus. A challenge I welcome and look forward to accomplishing.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Technology Applications Assessments
In my graduate class, EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership, we are learning about techniques for improving instruction through technology in schools. This will incorporate the reflection on effective schools and instructional models such as curriculum, instruction, supervision, theories, methods and professional development. Our first task was to partake in three assessments that involve our viewpoints and knowledge with technology and technology used in the school.
The first assessment, Technology Applications Inventory, covers all of the technology TEKS mas mandated by the Texas Education Agency. The four domains covered are foundations, information acquisition, solving problems and communication. This was an enlightening assessment because as knowledgeable as I feel I am with technology, there are some areas that I can definitely improve upon. Some of my strengths include my knowledge with general computer hardware, keyboard proficiency, technical writing, spreadsheet development, and the use of audio/video files. However, I prove to have additional areas of weakness that include the integration of productivity tools, the use of virtual interactive environments and groupware or collaborative software, and the use of telecommunication tools for video conferencing. This was effective assessment for my knowledge on what students are expected to learn. I found it helpful.
The next assessment, SETDA Teacher Survey, was an extensive questionnaire that assessed the use of specific technology by the teacher and student, both at school and at home. I found this assessment very challenging because the population at my school includes a very diverse student body for which some students have access to technology at home and others do not. It is also difficult to determine what the students are using at home without conducting a school survey. Furthermore, I am well versed in several technological applications, however, there are several on this survey that I have never encountered, which makes it difficult to answer. I would have to say on this assessment, I found more weaknesses than strengths. I did not find it as useful as the Technology Applications Inventory.
The final assessment, The Rubric for Administrative Technology Use, I am responding as the school Principal throughout the assessment. There are ten evaluation subsets to which one rates them self as a level 1, 2 or 3, with three being the most competent and knowledgeable in that area. The areas include: personal productivity (level 3), information systems use (level 2), record keeping and budgeting (level 3), data use (level 3), communications and public relations (level 3), online research and professional development (level 3), teacher competencies (level 2), student competencies (level 2), envisioning/planning/leading (level 3), and ethical use and policy making (level 2). I feel I am especially strong in the areas of personal productivity and communications and public relations due to my prior work in marketing and advertising prior to teaching. Furthermore, the areas that I know I could withstand additional knowledge and application are information systems use and student competencies.
The first assessment, Technology Applications Inventory, covers all of the technology TEKS mas mandated by the Texas Education Agency. The four domains covered are foundations, information acquisition, solving problems and communication. This was an enlightening assessment because as knowledgeable as I feel I am with technology, there are some areas that I can definitely improve upon. Some of my strengths include my knowledge with general computer hardware, keyboard proficiency, technical writing, spreadsheet development, and the use of audio/video files. However, I prove to have additional areas of weakness that include the integration of productivity tools, the use of virtual interactive environments and groupware or collaborative software, and the use of telecommunication tools for video conferencing. This was effective assessment for my knowledge on what students are expected to learn. I found it helpful.
The next assessment, SETDA Teacher Survey, was an extensive questionnaire that assessed the use of specific technology by the teacher and student, both at school and at home. I found this assessment very challenging because the population at my school includes a very diverse student body for which some students have access to technology at home and others do not. It is also difficult to determine what the students are using at home without conducting a school survey. Furthermore, I am well versed in several technological applications, however, there are several on this survey that I have never encountered, which makes it difficult to answer. I would have to say on this assessment, I found more weaknesses than strengths. I did not find it as useful as the Technology Applications Inventory.
The final assessment, The Rubric for Administrative Technology Use, I am responding as the school Principal throughout the assessment. There are ten evaluation subsets to which one rates them self as a level 1, 2 or 3, with three being the most competent and knowledgeable in that area. The areas include: personal productivity (level 3), information systems use (level 2), record keeping and budgeting (level 3), data use (level 3), communications and public relations (level 3), online research and professional development (level 3), teacher competencies (level 2), student competencies (level 2), envisioning/planning/leading (level 3), and ethical use and policy making (level 2). I feel I am especially strong in the areas of personal productivity and communications and public relations due to my prior work in marketing and advertising prior to teaching. Furthermore, the areas that I know I could withstand additional knowledge and application are information systems use and student competencies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)