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
Sunday, November 29, 2009
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)