Bay Colony Technology
View more presentations from kgarza.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
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)