Week 5 EDLD 5352
Reflective Responses
* What outcomes had you envisioned for this course? Did you achieve those outcomes? Did the actual course outcomes align with those that you envisioned?
When I enrolled in this course, I didn’t really know what to expect. I fully expected to learn what my role as an administrator would be as it related to technology, but I wasn’t aware of how complex it would be. I have learned a great deal about how critical technology development is to our children’s future, and how far we as a district have come and how far we need to go. I also evaluated my own comfort level with technology, and feel much more like a digital borderland resident or native than a digital immigrant, despite my age. I also now have a library of resource articles, (complete with links) that I can refer back to from time to time. I have already shared some of these articles with my school administrators and the technology teacher. I have not fully explored all of these links and have a list of things to look at when I am on break. I feel that the course surpassed my expectations. I did not expect to get the depth and breadth of information that I obtained in this course. It was an intensive, but positive experience.
* 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?
Much of the information covered was limited in scope in my current position as a PPCD teacher who has one computer in the classroom for teacher use. However, I do work a lot with photographs, digital media (using a flip camera) and I have to complete many types of reports through my special education department. That said, I do not plan to be in that position forever, and in almost any other position in the school district, I will have to be cognizant of many of the topics covered in this course. Despite little relevance for my current assignment, I found the articles to be thought provoking and prompted curiosity about how things are done in my district. I wanted to know where our district really stood on technology integration. While it looks like the upper levels (Junior High through High School) have good access to technology, our elementary clearly is lacking in many ways. True, the upper level student is better able to integrate technology independently. However, our younger students could benefit from many of the programs available. They simply are not available because no one has computers truly available to students except in the computer lab. I am inspired to learn more about how technology planning works in my district.
* What outcomes did you not achieve? What prevented you from achieving them?
I feel that I was able to achieve all of the outcomes and objectives of the course. There were a few tense days when it looked as if I would not get the information I needed from the director of technology for an assignment. I will say that given the tight turnaround on assignments, I was not able to interview people as thoroughly as I would have liked. I find myself wondering whether the deficits identified are just on my campus, or whether they are prevalent throughout the district. Clearly, on our campus, there are few teachers who are using technology, and it is not entirely their fault. We simply lack the technology availability. If I were in the position of Technology Director, I would try to be more transparent about district technology goals and objectives and would include teaching staff and building administrators in the planning process. I would also post our technology plan on our intranet and update its status every six months. There were a tremendous number of “pendings” listed on our district plan.
* Were you successful in carrying out the course assignments? If not, what prevented or discouraged you?
The quick pacing of the course, the time of year, and the availability of district administrators created some tense moments for me when completing my assignments. Because we were off for a week at Thanksgiving, I had a little difficulty scheduling time with my principal and getting information from the Technology Director. It was a tense week when I did not get a response from my email request, then telephone request to the Technology Director. She finally emailed me the district technology plan that Saturday. Fortunately I was able to complete the assignment in the time scheduled. I would have liked to have had time for follow up. Specifically, why did I have to go to her for the Campus and District Technology Plan? My principal did not have a copy, and it was not posted anywhere online. I would have liked to know how they keep track of progress on the plan, which is in its last year.
The lack of knowledge on the part of my principal was discouraging. With technology as important a component as it clearly is in the articles of this course, I would think she would want to know more and be able to advocate for more technology. Instead, she appears to be resigned to the facts at hand, instead of looking for explanations. The lack of a response to my email from the technology director was also bothersome to me. I never received a response via email other than the technology plan, and I had to call on Friday to get it. It seems to me that that plan should be online where we can access it. When I called Friday, the Tech person I spoke to said that she had to get permission to release the plan, and that she didn’t think she even had a current copy. That circumstance leaves me with a feeling of over protectiveness on the part of the technology department, and I don’t really understand why. As a director of Technology, it would seem that one should be more transparent and interactive with your school administrators. One would need to coordinate with the principal to determine needs for both hardware and software. I did not get the feeling that is happening on my campus.
* What did you learn from this course…about yourself, your technology and leadership skills, and your attitudes?
I feel that I learned a great deal from this course. The readings opened my eyes to the many new ideas, strategies, and requirements that living in a digital age has. I learned that I am really more tech savvy that I thought I was, even though I don’t use all of the cutting edge technology on a daily basis. I personally prefer to write on the computer, and use technology fairly comfortably in my job and in my personal life. I am not always someone to jump on the newest bandwagon, but I do see lots of value in most of the emerging technology of the last five years. I see some distinctive leadership issues in our district with technology and building administrators. As a technology director, collaborating with administrators and campus teachers must be central to development of plans for those schools. Because I prefer the collaborative process in terms of general decision making, I would work to regularly collaborate with the principals, the campus improvement committee, and any other group that requests technical assistance. I believe this is a way to “bridge the gap” between tech staff and teachers as well. I personally believe that teachers and techies must learn to collaborate, and respect each others’ needs. Not all problems can be resolved as peacefully as we would like. However, the process could help develop working relationships with mutual respect.
* What is the educational value of blogs and blogging to the 21st century learner?
I believe that blogs have a tremendous potential for the 21st century learner and teachers. I viewed many of the blogs mentioned in our reading materials and found them engaging and focused. I will not soon forget “The Secret Life of Bees” blog. It is one of my favorite recent reads and I thoroughly enjoyed the blog. I learned from the perspectives and questions of others.
Setting up a blog and posting was a neat process. This was the first time I have set up a blog, though I have commented on many. I found the process easy, intuitive, and with the exception of pasting Word tables online, found it easy to figure problems out. I definitely see the potential for a lot of learning in the upper elementary through high school grades. It is fun to create and post a blog. However, no blog should be created without establishing guidelines for internet/blog use, discussing internet ethics and acceptable use policies, and without the express consent and review of the building administrator or designee. For all the good blogs can do, a poorly developed and reviewed one could create big problems for a school and school district.
* What are the concerns of blogs and blogging in education?
Blogs can be wonderful instructional tools. Properly created, reviewed, and maintained, they can contribute to learning in ways that no other method can. However, blogs can also be dangerous places if they are not well conceived. The articles I read reiterated numerous times that blogs absolutely must be formed with parameters for acceptable use, they must have the ability to be reviewed for appropriate content prior to posting, and students should have ongoing ethics and etiquette training to prevent potentially dangerous, libelous, or criminal events from happening within the blog. Blogging in education should happen, but with teacher guidance and control. Teachers must have training regarding how to develop a good blog and what to avoid. School districts must have acceptable use policies that address blogs as well.
*How can you use blogging to communicate with school stakeholders?
Blogs can provide a wonderful opportunity to provide information to your campus as an administrator, can provide the community with school information, and can serve as a site for education among staff. As we become a more technologically oriented community, I believe we will use media such as blogs to communicate ideas in a way that allows for anytime information and learning. My favorite way to look for information is to use a search engine. During hurricane season, I read the Houston Chronicle SciGuy blog, simply because there is a free market of ideas and a moderator who keeps things sane and is well informed. (No one has to evacuate Katy for a hurricane, but we need to let Galvestonians get out of harms’ way!) As a technology director, I would love to use a blog to keep district staff informed about progress on technology issues, training, and even use it for requests and explanations. It is very satisfying to be able to go back and review information that was blogged. A tech blog is also a great way to provide education to staff and link it with educational links, much as we did with the YouTube links.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Technology Integration Plan
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership: The Technology Link
Week 4 Assignment
Kaye Windel-Garza
December 13, 2009
Part 1: Development of an Organizational Chart Integrating Technology
In developing an organizational chart for Technology Integration, one must consider the importance of full integration. All members of the instructional team must be involved in the integration process, from the Superintendent and the Board of Trustees to the paraprofessional in the classroom assisting the teacher. All are members are responsible for their part in technology integration but many have distinctly differing roles within this context that are impacted by their assigned duties and responsibilities.
http://www.scribd.com/word/embed/24061717
The Superintendent is responsible for technology integration in several ways. It is his duty to inform the School Board regarding the needs and challenges of technology. He is responsible for directing the budget and finding needed monies for technology. The superintendent is also responsible for pushing technology as a priority in a district. If the Superintendent is not fully on board, no one else will be.
The School Board is responsible for asking questions of the District and making informed decisions about technology and development. If the school board is not aware and does not make technology a priority, funding will go elsewhere.
The Assistant Superintendents for Administration and Educational Services, the Director of Assessment, the Director of Technology, and the Director of Special Programs all sit at the next level in the hierarchy. These people are directly responsible for the planning and coordination of educational services, and their role is to seek ways to integrate technology into the curriculum. The Director of Technology is responsible for planning, maintaining, and implementing the district technology plan. This person is central to the inner workings of both hardware and software within the district. However, this person must communicate regularly and meaningfully with the other people at this level about integration. These other people, the Assistant Superintendents, Director of Assessment and Director of Special Programs, must prioritize integrating technology into the curriculum and assessment. The Director of Special Programs must take special care to examine risks and benefits of technology for students with special needs. This group must develop a planning long term work group that develops and examines long term goals for tech. integration in coordination with the adopted technology plan. Information provided by Building Administrators and technology integration specialists could inform recommendations to the Superintendent and Board.
The building Administrators play a vital role in the Technology Integration Organization. Building administrators must convey the goals and plans of Upper Administration to front line persons, teachers and paraprofessionals. The building Administrator, in collaboration with technicians, technology coordinators, and tech. integration specialists are the people who will drive innovations in instruction by being cheerleaders for innovation. She will encourage staff to use technology in new ways with students and encourage them to allow greater independence in their students. The building Administrator must expect that technology is being used by the students and must be clear that it must be observed. It is the building Administrator who will guide a successful implementation on their campus or a lukewarm one.
Technicians, technology coordinators, and technology integration specialists will be responsible for maintaining hardware, helping teachers integrate the use of this technology, and will provide training to increase use. Technology coordinators and Technology Integration Specialists will also be responsible for developing communities of learning within the different grade levels to assist teachers in learning and sharing ways to integrate technology. They will also advise the building Administrator regarding problems with implementation, general resistance, and make suggestions to improve compliance.
Classroom teachers and paraprofessionals are last on the list, but central to the project. Teachers will have high expectations placed upon them with few resources. It is up to teachers to demonstrate what they can do with what they do have, but also advocate for more resources. Teachers must be represented at technology meetings at the district level and all major school levels, elementary, middle, junior high, and high school, must be represented.
At all levels, there should be committees discussing technology integration regularly. Each group should be identifying needs, developing action plans, and assisting in the implementation of technology. All plans should support the District action plan for Technology Integration.
Part 2: Professional Development Planning
Technology availability is a problem on our campus. However, it is not as large an issue on other campuses in the District. One of the chief frustrations is having only one computer per classroom and one computer lab for a severely overcrowded school. There is limited access to a laptop lab (always in use) and the computers in the library are also heavily used to take AR tests. Teachers have been slow to use the technology available simply because it is so difficult to access. That said, there are teams that regularly use technology to complete student projects.
In terms of analysis of campus technology, we utilize the Texas STaR chart as a means of gauging technology advancement. We are in the “Developing Stage”. However, in my analysis last week, I realized that the shortened definitions on the STaR questionnaire are not exactly what the longer definition explained. For this reason, I realized that I have been filling out the STaR chart inaccurately. I informed my principal that I felt those numbers might be compromised due to lack of training/orientation prior to doing the STaR chart online. I believe that a short review of the STaR categories as well as a handout of the more detailed chart would automatically increase our STaR rating in some areas.
In addition to improved reporting on the STaR chart, I would like our campus to participate in the Project Tomorrow online survey. This survey is free, allows for collection from all stakeholders (teachers, students, and parents) and provides data that the school can use for technology planning. My recommendation is that all teachers take the Project Tomorrow survey, that we send notes home to all parents asking them to take the parent survey, and have 4th grade students take the student survey. (The Technology Instructor took the student test and found it lengthier than the parent and teacher test. She felt only fourth graders would be able to complete it successfully.) This data will be used in conjunction with the STaR data to drive planning.
Finally, since next year is the final year in the District Technology plan, I will request information regarding status of projects related to our campus. I will also request a position on the technology committee to develop the new plan. This information can guide planning as well. On our campus, we simply must have more access to computers. Informing the Technology Department that we are aware and concerned can help to prioritize projects on our campus.
In developing professional development, it is not only prudent but strategic to use technologically competent practitioners on our campus. Our librarian and technology teacher are highly innovative and can demonstrate some easy ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. We also have several grade level teachers who do neat things with technology. Showcasing them and their ideas at staff meetings is a great way to identify “experts” one can go to. Providing time to discuss technology during staff training days is also critical. Giving staff time to problem solve can be a great way to demonstrate this new kind of learning. Many teachers need to know that they can integrate technology and how it is done. Assigning a monthly student project (within the current curriculum) that must integrate technology to each grade level to develop is a great way to have teachers work together to develop technology based plans. These could also be shared in staff meetings.
Part 3: Evaluation Planning for Action Plan
Currently, our campus uses a wealth of data from multiple sources to determine progress in our students, sub groups, and special populations. We can analyze data for trends, and can disaggregate it any way we wish. We use Eduphoria, Skyward, Special Education Manager, STaR, STAR testing, and AR testing. Fortunately, the ability to track data for regular education students is very good. However, for students in self-contained classes, this information is not tracked. Many of these students take modified tests or their scores are so low that the campuses do not want them to count in their district tracking. Finding a way to track these students through the system also could be beneficial.
In terms of Technology Integration, we only have the STaR chart data to inform us. Technology has sent out surveys regarding technology in the past, but this data is not available. I would like to see the use of Project Tomorrow data used in conjunction with STaR. In addition, I would like simple surveys after all technology mini trainings and a brief reflection from each team as they complete their technology integrated lessons. This information could guide further development and identify needs.
Week 4 Assignment
Kaye Windel-Garza
December 13, 2009
Part 1: Development of an Organizational Chart Integrating Technology
In developing an organizational chart for Technology Integration, one must consider the importance of full integration. All members of the instructional team must be involved in the integration process, from the Superintendent and the Board of Trustees to the paraprofessional in the classroom assisting the teacher. All are members are responsible for their part in technology integration but many have distinctly differing roles within this context that are impacted by their assigned duties and responsibilities.
http://www.scribd.com/word/embed/24061717
The Superintendent is responsible for technology integration in several ways. It is his duty to inform the School Board regarding the needs and challenges of technology. He is responsible for directing the budget and finding needed monies for technology. The superintendent is also responsible for pushing technology as a priority in a district. If the Superintendent is not fully on board, no one else will be.
The School Board is responsible for asking questions of the District and making informed decisions about technology and development. If the school board is not aware and does not make technology a priority, funding will go elsewhere.
The Assistant Superintendents for Administration and Educational Services, the Director of Assessment, the Director of Technology, and the Director of Special Programs all sit at the next level in the hierarchy. These people are directly responsible for the planning and coordination of educational services, and their role is to seek ways to integrate technology into the curriculum. The Director of Technology is responsible for planning, maintaining, and implementing the district technology plan. This person is central to the inner workings of both hardware and software within the district. However, this person must communicate regularly and meaningfully with the other people at this level about integration. These other people, the Assistant Superintendents, Director of Assessment and Director of Special Programs, must prioritize integrating technology into the curriculum and assessment. The Director of Special Programs must take special care to examine risks and benefits of technology for students with special needs. This group must develop a planning long term work group that develops and examines long term goals for tech. integration in coordination with the adopted technology plan. Information provided by Building Administrators and technology integration specialists could inform recommendations to the Superintendent and Board.
The building Administrators play a vital role in the Technology Integration Organization. Building administrators must convey the goals and plans of Upper Administration to front line persons, teachers and paraprofessionals. The building Administrator, in collaboration with technicians, technology coordinators, and tech. integration specialists are the people who will drive innovations in instruction by being cheerleaders for innovation. She will encourage staff to use technology in new ways with students and encourage them to allow greater independence in their students. The building Administrator must expect that technology is being used by the students and must be clear that it must be observed. It is the building Administrator who will guide a successful implementation on their campus or a lukewarm one.
Technicians, technology coordinators, and technology integration specialists will be responsible for maintaining hardware, helping teachers integrate the use of this technology, and will provide training to increase use. Technology coordinators and Technology Integration Specialists will also be responsible for developing communities of learning within the different grade levels to assist teachers in learning and sharing ways to integrate technology. They will also advise the building Administrator regarding problems with implementation, general resistance, and make suggestions to improve compliance.
Classroom teachers and paraprofessionals are last on the list, but central to the project. Teachers will have high expectations placed upon them with few resources. It is up to teachers to demonstrate what they can do with what they do have, but also advocate for more resources. Teachers must be represented at technology meetings at the district level and all major school levels, elementary, middle, junior high, and high school, must be represented.
At all levels, there should be committees discussing technology integration regularly. Each group should be identifying needs, developing action plans, and assisting in the implementation of technology. All plans should support the District action plan for Technology Integration.
Part 2: Professional Development Planning
Technology availability is a problem on our campus. However, it is not as large an issue on other campuses in the District. One of the chief frustrations is having only one computer per classroom and one computer lab for a severely overcrowded school. There is limited access to a laptop lab (always in use) and the computers in the library are also heavily used to take AR tests. Teachers have been slow to use the technology available simply because it is so difficult to access. That said, there are teams that regularly use technology to complete student projects.
In terms of analysis of campus technology, we utilize the Texas STaR chart as a means of gauging technology advancement. We are in the “Developing Stage”. However, in my analysis last week, I realized that the shortened definitions on the STaR questionnaire are not exactly what the longer definition explained. For this reason, I realized that I have been filling out the STaR chart inaccurately. I informed my principal that I felt those numbers might be compromised due to lack of training/orientation prior to doing the STaR chart online. I believe that a short review of the STaR categories as well as a handout of the more detailed chart would automatically increase our STaR rating in some areas.
In addition to improved reporting on the STaR chart, I would like our campus to participate in the Project Tomorrow online survey. This survey is free, allows for collection from all stakeholders (teachers, students, and parents) and provides data that the school can use for technology planning. My recommendation is that all teachers take the Project Tomorrow survey, that we send notes home to all parents asking them to take the parent survey, and have 4th grade students take the student survey. (The Technology Instructor took the student test and found it lengthier than the parent and teacher test. She felt only fourth graders would be able to complete it successfully.) This data will be used in conjunction with the STaR data to drive planning.
Finally, since next year is the final year in the District Technology plan, I will request information regarding status of projects related to our campus. I will also request a position on the technology committee to develop the new plan. This information can guide planning as well. On our campus, we simply must have more access to computers. Informing the Technology Department that we are aware and concerned can help to prioritize projects on our campus.
In developing professional development, it is not only prudent but strategic to use technologically competent practitioners on our campus. Our librarian and technology teacher are highly innovative and can demonstrate some easy ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. We also have several grade level teachers who do neat things with technology. Showcasing them and their ideas at staff meetings is a great way to identify “experts” one can go to. Providing time to discuss technology during staff training days is also critical. Giving staff time to problem solve can be a great way to demonstrate this new kind of learning. Many teachers need to know that they can integrate technology and how it is done. Assigning a monthly student project (within the current curriculum) that must integrate technology to each grade level to develop is a great way to have teachers work together to develop technology based plans. These could also be shared in staff meetings.
Part 3: Evaluation Planning for Action Plan
Currently, our campus uses a wealth of data from multiple sources to determine progress in our students, sub groups, and special populations. We can analyze data for trends, and can disaggregate it any way we wish. We use Eduphoria, Skyward, Special Education Manager, STaR, STAR testing, and AR testing. Fortunately, the ability to track data for regular education students is very good. However, for students in self-contained classes, this information is not tracked. Many of these students take modified tests or their scores are so low that the campuses do not want them to count in their district tracking. Finding a way to track these students through the system also could be beneficial.
In terms of Technology Integration, we only have the STaR chart data to inform us. Technology has sent out surveys regarding technology in the past, but this data is not available. I would like to see the use of Project Tomorrow data used in conjunction with STaR. In addition, I would like simple surveys after all technology mini trainings and a brief reflection from each team as they complete their technology integrated lessons. This information could guide further development and identify needs.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Bay Colony Technology
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Bay Colony Technology
View more presentations from kgarza.
STaR Educator Preparation and Development
The Educator Preparation and Development is Key Area #2 of the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology Development. The goal of this key area is to develop staff, offer relevant training, create new learning with technology as a tool or venue for learning, and move into teaching courses online. At the state level, 74.2% of schools are at the developing tech level in the 2008-2009 school year. My school is also at the developing tech level, as is our district. Our campus reports Early Tech scores in EP4 and EP6, access to professional development and professional development for online learning. I believe that this is a mostly accurate, though sad representation. Professional development has focused primarily on the mechanics of administrative programs and basic access to web pages. There have been opportunities to learn Office software and Groupwise, but that is essentially all. Teachers are all mostly proficient in these types of programs at this point, or can find someone who is who can help them. What teachers do need, in fact, are grade level, real world examples of how to integrate technology into lessons delivered by teacher technology specialists who know kids, know curriculum, and who know the time demands placed on teachers. A consultant model might be a better model than a "teach the masses" approach. Instead, a consultant who requests teachers bring their lessons to team meetings and then helps them integrate technology into the lesson may be a better approach. Teachers then get the opportunity to share knowledge with each other. This level of collaboration is listed as "Target tech" the highest ranking. Using an expert teacher to develop new experts also increases the amount of actual integrated learning that is going on, thus impacting the "teaching and learning" key area.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Pre K Guidelines for Technology
The Pre-Kindergarten Guidelines, the "TEKS" for pre-Kindergarten teachers were revised in 2008 and offer guidance regarding curriculum decisions. They are not required, as the TEKS are, but do provide a solid foundation from which the TEKS can be taught. The technology component is comprised of five skill areas that are to be accomplished by the end for the year. They are:
1. Child opens and navigates through software programs designed to enhance development of appropriate concepts.
2. Child uses and names a variety of computer input devices, such as mouse, keyboard, voice or sound recorder, touch screen, CD.
3. Child operates voice or sound recorders and touch screens.
4. Child uses software applications to create and express own ideas.
5. Child recognizes that information is accessible through the use of technology.
As one can see, achievement of these skills allows the student to be beyond skill acquisition by the time they are in kindergarten. The expectation is that most children will be able to understand the basic vocabulary of technology, will be able to operate it in known programs, will be able to use it to create (through KidPix or other creative software), and will know they can find out about things by using the internet. All of these skills are listed in one way or another in the Kindergarten TEKS for technology. For example, the learner 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;" (K-2 TEKS, 2.A) This is exactly what is required by the guidelines. However, as the child becomes more competent, the level of competency with the equipment also increases, even though it is essentially the same skill. This is scaffolding, or building on existing knowledge, at its best. Each year the student is expected to do more with the skills he/she has, increasing knowledge and becoming more competent in navigating and using the technology. Using the devices continues until middle school, when the language changes to "demonstrates proficiency" and continues on to describe the equipment. This is in keeping with NCLB requirements for technology, which stipulate that all eighth graders must be technology proficient.
1. Child opens and navigates through software programs designed to enhance development of appropriate concepts.
2. Child uses and names a variety of computer input devices, such as mouse, keyboard, voice or sound recorder, touch screen, CD.
3. Child operates voice or sound recorders and touch screens.
4. Child uses software applications to create and express own ideas.
5. Child recognizes that information is accessible through the use of technology.
As one can see, achievement of these skills allows the student to be beyond skill acquisition by the time they are in kindergarten. The expectation is that most children will be able to understand the basic vocabulary of technology, will be able to operate it in known programs, will be able to use it to create (through KidPix or other creative software), and will know they can find out about things by using the internet. All of these skills are listed in one way or another in the Kindergarten TEKS for technology. For example, the learner 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;" (K-2 TEKS, 2.A) This is exactly what is required by the guidelines. However, as the child becomes more competent, the level of competency with the equipment also increases, even though it is essentially the same skill. This is scaffolding, or building on existing knowledge, at its best. Each year the student is expected to do more with the skills he/she has, increasing knowledge and becoming more competent in navigating and using the technology. Using the devices continues until middle school, when the language changes to "demonstrates proficiency" and continues on to describe the equipment. This is in keeping with NCLB requirements for technology, which stipulate that all eighth graders must be technology proficient.
Response to review of the state plan for technology
Wow.
Much of the information covered in the Long Range Plan is "Big Ideas", things like statewide 24-7 access to high speed internet so that our students, parents, and educators can get to resources and information in real time. However, as a building administrator, I have a lot to think about as well. I need to consider where we are as a district as well as a school in terms of our technology and where our plan says we need to be. The first thing that comes to mind is an inventory of computers, their age (or average age of all on campus), the number in the classrooms, how often do kids have access. Does the District have a replacement schedule, or is it a "whenever it dies" approach? The next is, what happens in the event of , say, a hurricane? Do we have a plan to replace them in the event the unexpected actually happens? I need to model good technology usage. I actually enjoy bringing technology into meetings, so this should be fun. Finally, I need to find a way to give my teachers time to learn, to collaborate, to develop best practices, and to embed technology into their teaching. I need to identify local "experts" and allow them time to mentor when possible. This is probably the most daunting task, but also the most potentially fruitful.
Much of the information covered in the Long Range Plan is "Big Ideas", things like statewide 24-7 access to high speed internet so that our students, parents, and educators can get to resources and information in real time. However, as a building administrator, I have a lot to think about as well. I need to consider where we are as a district as well as a school in terms of our technology and where our plan says we need to be. The first thing that comes to mind is an inventory of computers, their age (or average age of all on campus), the number in the classrooms, how often do kids have access. Does the District have a replacement schedule, or is it a "whenever it dies" approach? The next is, what happens in the event of , say, a hurricane? Do we have a plan to replace them in the event the unexpected actually happens? I need to model good technology usage. I actually enjoy bringing technology into meetings, so this should be fun. Finally, I need to find a way to give my teachers time to learn, to collaborate, to develop best practices, and to embed technology into their teaching. I need to identify local "experts" and allow them time to mentor when possible. This is probably the most daunting task, but also the most potentially fruitful.
Technology Applications Assessments
or lack thereof in the world of Pre-Kindergarten...
I just completed the required inventories for my class. The first, the Technology Applications Inventory, asked me to evaluate my knowledge in four domains; foundations, information acquisition, solving problems with technology tools, and finally communication. The second, the State Educational Technology Directors Association Teacher Survey, asked questions primarily to my specific usage of technology in the classroom.
The first survey, the TAI, was much easier for me to quickly evaluate. It was well designed and grouped skills by specific domains. The questions were specific to my usage and did not delve into district policies or goals. In general, I am pretty competent in the domains of foundational skills and information acquisition. However, in the "output" areas, solving problems with technology tools and communication, I am weaker. That said, I don't typically use many of the more advanced skills denoted in these areas on a daily basis, while I'm sure I would in a more advanced grade.
The second survey, the SETDA, tried to gather a lot of general information, not only from my usage, but also my knowledge and perceptions of my district's plan for technology. I found myself answering "not applicable" or "don't know" to a lot of the questions. This survey was less effective in defining areas of growth for me as a teacher, but did identify my ignorance of my district's technology goals. The survey did, however, remind me that I do have a technology resource person I can consult with on campus.
The answers to both surveys were directly impacted by my current teaching position. I currently work in a 4 year old PPCD program for students with autism. When I took over the class two years ago, there were two MACs that were at least seven years old and barely worked. I promptly removed them from the classroom. I do have an internet connected PC in the classroom. However, I cannot allow students to use this computer due to my daily online responsibilities (taking attendance, email, special education programming and Medicaid billing). Unfortunately, I cannot risk having a computer down with these regular responsibilities, and my students have a propensity for unintentional destruction. Despite this, I do try to bring technology into the classroom. We regularly use united streaming technology and e-books. I have a digital camera, a flip camera, and a color laser printer all at my immediate disposal. I also have Boardmaker software for developing visual schedules and educational materials. However, the students still don't have access to a computer. I did request and was granted three computers with stimulus funds. The requested computers were to have interactive touch screens, adaptive mice and keyboards, and software. The request is currently in the "pipeline" and I am eagerly awaiting their arrival. I hope the technology department consults me regarding the adaptive equipment and software. We will see.
I definitely see the value of technology, especially in the population I teach. However, it is frustrating not to have the training or the time to get to know the software. As we all know, becoming proficient at anything takes practice, and the teacher rarely has time to practice these days!
I just completed the required inventories for my class. The first, the Technology Applications Inventory, asked me to evaluate my knowledge in four domains; foundations, information acquisition, solving problems with technology tools, and finally communication. The second, the State Educational Technology Directors Association Teacher Survey, asked questions primarily to my specific usage of technology in the classroom.
The first survey, the TAI, was much easier for me to quickly evaluate. It was well designed and grouped skills by specific domains. The questions were specific to my usage and did not delve into district policies or goals. In general, I am pretty competent in the domains of foundational skills and information acquisition. However, in the "output" areas, solving problems with technology tools and communication, I am weaker. That said, I don't typically use many of the more advanced skills denoted in these areas on a daily basis, while I'm sure I would in a more advanced grade.
The second survey, the SETDA, tried to gather a lot of general information, not only from my usage, but also my knowledge and perceptions of my district's plan for technology. I found myself answering "not applicable" or "don't know" to a lot of the questions. This survey was less effective in defining areas of growth for me as a teacher, but did identify my ignorance of my district's technology goals. The survey did, however, remind me that I do have a technology resource person I can consult with on campus.
The answers to both surveys were directly impacted by my current teaching position. I currently work in a 4 year old PPCD program for students with autism. When I took over the class two years ago, there were two MACs that were at least seven years old and barely worked. I promptly removed them from the classroom. I do have an internet connected PC in the classroom. However, I cannot allow students to use this computer due to my daily online responsibilities (taking attendance, email, special education programming and Medicaid billing). Unfortunately, I cannot risk having a computer down with these regular responsibilities, and my students have a propensity for unintentional destruction. Despite this, I do try to bring technology into the classroom. We regularly use united streaming technology and e-books. I have a digital camera, a flip camera, and a color laser printer all at my immediate disposal. I also have Boardmaker software for developing visual schedules and educational materials. However, the students still don't have access to a computer. I did request and was granted three computers with stimulus funds. The requested computers were to have interactive touch screens, adaptive mice and keyboards, and software. The request is currently in the "pipeline" and I am eagerly awaiting their arrival. I hope the technology department consults me regarding the adaptive equipment and software. We will see.
I definitely see the value of technology, especially in the population I teach. However, it is frustrating not to have the training or the time to get to know the software. As we all know, becoming proficient at anything takes practice, and the teacher rarely has time to practice these days!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)