Monday, March 28, 2011
Web Conference EDLD 5352
This was the first web conference that I have actually attended, although I've read the transcripts of others. It was an interesting and (mostly) enjoyable experience. I think limiting the size to 25 participants was a great idea - the transcripts I've read with more participants are almost impossible to follow. We did have some technical difficulties with the sound, so only Dr. Abernathy was speaking. Even so, the sound was awful. But, we persevered. We spent some time discussing why it is important to web conference, and discovered that the interaction was the most important part. We discussed Web 2.0 tools that are available and our experiences with them. I really want to try tagxedo - it sounds so much better than Wordle. Then the discussion turned to the mechanics of finishing our internship portfolios and action research. It was encouraging that so many of us seem to be in the same boat there, although there are a few very organized folks in the course who are absolutely on top of it. Dr. Abernathy was very positive that we would all somehow finish. Finally, the discussion turned to how the reduced state funding was affecting our districts. Many of us, including me, have yet to see our contracts. Again, many of us in the same shaky boat.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Professional Development Plan
Rebecca Koch 3/20/2011
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership SP 2 11 EA 1204 Week 4 Assignment
Organizational Flow Chart – Technology Integration
In absolute terms, this is how the decision making flows, but this diagram should really be more overlapping circles. At any time anyone in the organization may suggest new technology, it isn't always just imposed on the lower end of the chart.
Once the technology to be implemented has been identified, the Superintendent and School Board approve the purchase. Our Assistant Superintendent of Admin. Services works closely with the vendors and our technology department to coordinate implementation and training.
The Technology Director has primary responsibility for all things technology in the district: hardware, software, bandwidth and server issues, locating vendors, inventory, training and maintenance.
Our Instructional Technology Coordinator is our trend watcher. She is also responsible for staff training at the district level, which includes facilitating our transition to Apple laptops.
1
Rebecca Koch 3/20/2011
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership SP 2 11 EA 1204 Week 4 Assignment
There is a Campus Instructional Specialist at each campus. They are responsible for training at the campus level, ensuring that all teachers complete their required technology training. They also consult with teachers about how to integrate technology into classroom instruction.
The campus principals are charged with encouraging teachers to integrate technology by monitoring its use and providing opportunities for additional professional development.
Each grade level has a Technology Teacher leader. They are our primary resource for day-to-day help with technology issues. They attend off-campus professional development and then bring that training back to campus.
Finally, teachers and staff are responsible for using the technology in the classroom. We use it for record-keeping, testing and grading. We also use it instructionally, both in teacher-created presentations and student-created products.
Week 4 Assignment, Part 2: Professional Development Planning
According to our district's Technology Plan, data was gathered from "teacher surveys, interviews, inventories and the Texas Campus STaR Chart" to determine the state of the district's technology implementation level and future needs. (Bridgeport ISD Technology Plan: 2010-2013, p.5) The district has reached the Advanced Tech level in the areas of Teaching and Learning, Educator Preparation and Development, and Infrastructure for Technology. We have already reached the Target Tech level for Administration and Support. The plan details several areas of need, but I'd like to focus on just one: "…transform the learning process to a degree that technology is an inherent part of student achievement." (p.7) The same directive is also present in our Campus Improvement Plan as "Campus Goal #4: Teachers will integrate available technological tools throughout the curriculum to maximize the effectiveness of classroom instruction and increase student mastery of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)." (Campus Improvement Plan, p.23)
2
Rebecca Koch 3/20/2011
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership SP 2 11 EA 1204 Week 4 Assignment
In my week 3 analysis, I noted that we needed to continue to monitor all students' performance. We need to keep one eye cast backward on the AEIS and AYP reports, and one eye forward on our formative assessments through the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), AR's STAR tests and teacher-created benchmarks.
Our professional development plan will utilize some of the structures we already have in place on our campus to accommodate the technology professional development needed. First, we will dedicate one of our Wednesday after school staff meetings each month to ongoing technology training from our Campus Instructional Specialist, hereafter referred to as Mel. Next, we will have Mel visit our classrooms to coach us in the integration of technology into instruction. Third, we will use our monthly PLC time to review our implementation and student improvement.
- Monthly trainings
Our technology department already provides us with just-in-time training for using new hardware and software. Unfortunately, that training is mostly on how we perform administrative tasks like planning and grading. Once a month, Mel will have protected time to demonstrate one way we can incorporate technology into our teaching. By limiting the session to one new technique at a time, and allowing plenty of hands-on interaction, teachers should feel comfortable using that technique with their students.
- Classroom coaching
It will no longer be an option to invite Mel into our classrooms to help; she will have scheduled time with each teacher on campus to coach them on implementation. As noted in my week 3 analysis, she already sits in on our team planning. She then pulls resources and creates folders of activities for us to use. She will not only be a resource to teachers, she will also assist students in using the technology.
- Monthly PLC checkup
We will add technology implementation to our agenda for PLC meetings. Each grade level planning team will have time to discuss with each other and their administrator "sponsor" their experiences with implementation. We will also study the data collected from MAP tests and six-weeks benchmarks to look for patterns and improvement in student achievement.
3
Rebecca Koch 3/20/2011
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership SP 2 11 EA 1204 Week 4 Assignment
- Evaluation
We will evaluate integration of technology into classroom instruction by teacher and student surveys, Mel's coaching reports, administrator notes from PLC meetings and classroom observations. We will also check teachers' lesson plans in Eduphoria to look for use of technology on the check-off list and check teachers' portfolios in their Tech Training folders. We will monitor the students' online accounts for products stored in their portfolio. We also will continue to monitor the Campus STaR Chart for self-reported use of technology by teachers.
We will continue to monitor student achievement through MAP testing, grades, AR Star tests, and benchmarks throughout the year. We will also continue to monitor student achievement yearly on AEIS reports, AYP reports, and TELPAS rating.
(Bridgeport Intermediate Site-Based Decsion Making Committee, 2009)
(Bridgeport Technology Planning Committee, 2009)
4
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Yes, kids, we have to fill out a STaR Chart every year
Check out this SlideShare Presentation: A quick view of the benefits of completing a STaR Chart
Edld 5352 powerpoint
View more presentations from rebeccakkoch.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
National Educational Technology Plan Summary
In March, the U.S. Department of Education published a draft of the national Education Technology Plan. President Obama campaigned on a platform of using technology to improve education in the United States. This plan has five major goals.
Goal 1.0 Learning: Engage and Empower: This goal addresses the need for all learners to participate in learning experiences that will prepare them for their future in a "globally networked society." The DOE recommends that states revise their learning standards to integrate technology into all learning environments.
Goal 2.0 Assessment: Measure What Matters: This goal addresses the need to use technology to formatively and summatively assess students more accurately and in a timely matter.
Goal 3.0 Teaching: Prepare and Connect: This goal addresses the need to support and train teachers in using technology to improve their practices.
Goal 4.o Infrastructure: Access and Enable: This goal addresses the need to develop the bandwidth, internet connectivity, hardware and software for teachers and students to have anytime, anywhere access to learning.
Goal 5.0 Productivity: Redesign and Transform: This goal addresses the need for schools to develop measures of productivity for technology use. It also suggests a sea-change in the way schools are structured so that students are placed most effectively for maximum performance.
With respect to professional development and training, of course this report feels that technology will be the answer, by connecting teachers into collaborative learning groups.
I have several concerns with this plan. First of all, the call for immediate and almost complete change in the way schools operate is ridiculous. Change takes time, because changing peoples attitudes and abilities takes time. When the draft says that "we must introduce connected teaching into our education system rapidly" (DOE, 2010, p.11) they seem to be calling for the wholesale replacement of existing educators. What will we lose when their years of experience are gone, only to be replaced by newly trained and hopefully more technologically proficient? I hope the technology is good enough to replace those skills.
Another concern I have is about funding. Where will the billions of dollars come from for this radical change? The DOE seems to think that "contributions of organizations in both the private and not-for-profit sectors" (DOE, 2010, p.13) will fund the new plan. Considering that schools are not adequately funded now, even with those contributions, I can't see even more coming from those sources. The only private sector source that might come through are the video game companies that could gain a stronger hold on the students if they were allowed to develop applications that were tied to their product.
Goal 1.0 Learning: Engage and Empower: This goal addresses the need for all learners to participate in learning experiences that will prepare them for their future in a "globally networked society." The DOE recommends that states revise their learning standards to integrate technology into all learning environments.
Goal 2.0 Assessment: Measure What Matters: This goal addresses the need to use technology to formatively and summatively assess students more accurately and in a timely matter.
Goal 3.0 Teaching: Prepare and Connect: This goal addresses the need to support and train teachers in using technology to improve their practices.
Goal 4.o Infrastructure: Access and Enable: This goal addresses the need to develop the bandwidth, internet connectivity, hardware and software for teachers and students to have anytime, anywhere access to learning.
Goal 5.0 Productivity: Redesign and Transform: This goal addresses the need for schools to develop measures of productivity for technology use. It also suggests a sea-change in the way schools are structured so that students are placed most effectively for maximum performance.
With respect to professional development and training, of course this report feels that technology will be the answer, by connecting teachers into collaborative learning groups.
I have several concerns with this plan. First of all, the call for immediate and almost complete change in the way schools operate is ridiculous. Change takes time, because changing peoples attitudes and abilities takes time. When the draft says that "we must introduce connected teaching into our education system rapidly" (DOE, 2010, p.11) they seem to be calling for the wholesale replacement of existing educators. What will we lose when their years of experience are gone, only to be replaced by newly trained and hopefully more technologically proficient? I hope the technology is good enough to replace those skills.
Another concern I have is about funding. Where will the billions of dollars come from for this radical change? The DOE seems to think that "contributions of organizations in both the private and not-for-profit sectors" (DOE, 2010, p.13) will fund the new plan. Considering that schools are not adequately funded now, even with those contributions, I can't see even more coming from those sources. The only private sector source that might come through are the video game companies that could gain a stronger hold on the students if they were allowed to develop applications that were tied to their product.
Summary: 2010 Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020
On the surface, the Texas Education Agency's self-created 2010 Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020 is a self-congratulatory piece of fluff. However, when you dig a little deeper, you discover that there has been real progress made in Texas schools' technology use.
According to the report, "Texas led the nation with the first Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1988-2000." (TEA, 2010, p. 7). It was updated in 1996, while George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, and again in 2006. The plan is the state's driving force behind ensuring that Texas students are equipped to handle an increasingly digital future.
There are two sections to the report. The first section looks at the four key areas of the LRPT, and details progress and programs for each. The second section contains reports from each of the state's Education Service Centers on the programs they offer to help teachers progress through the key areas.
The first of the key areas is Teaching and Learning. It summarizes how teachers and students are using technology in their classrooms. One of the Progress reports strengths are the sections giving details about the progress shown with STaR Chart data. In the Teaching and Learning section there is a page explaining what each stage looks like as far as teacher and student behaviors while interacting with technology. But, the Progress Report's star is the bar graph showing the progress from last year; the visual aid clearly shows that Texas is making progress.
This section also details how technology applications are separately specified in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and how they meet the national requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation.
The other key areas, Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support; and Infrastructure; each have their own section in the Progress Report. The state lists the programs available in each area to support the progress of schools. There are also bar graphs for each of the areas showing the growth that Texas schools are making.
According to the report, "Texas led the nation with the first Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1988-2000." (TEA, 2010, p. 7). It was updated in 1996, while George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, and again in 2006. The plan is the state's driving force behind ensuring that Texas students are equipped to handle an increasingly digital future.
There are two sections to the report. The first section looks at the four key areas of the LRPT, and details progress and programs for each. The second section contains reports from each of the state's Education Service Centers on the programs they offer to help teachers progress through the key areas.
The first of the key areas is Teaching and Learning. It summarizes how teachers and students are using technology in their classrooms. One of the Progress reports strengths are the sections giving details about the progress shown with STaR Chart data. In the Teaching and Learning section there is a page explaining what each stage looks like as far as teacher and student behaviors while interacting with technology. But, the Progress Report's star is the bar graph showing the progress from last year; the visual aid clearly shows that Texas is making progress.
This section also details how technology applications are separately specified in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and how they meet the national requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation.
The other key areas, Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support; and Infrastructure; each have their own section in the Progress Report. The state lists the programs available in each area to support the progress of schools. There are also bar graphs for each of the areas showing the growth that Texas schools are making.
Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020
Teaching and learning is one of the four areas of the Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology. This area of the Plan focuses on how teachers and students use technology in the curriculum and classroom. The goal for this area, as in all areas of the Plan, is called Target Tech. At this level "the teacher serves as facilitator, mentor, and co-learner. Students have on-demand access to all appropriate digital resources and technologies to complete activities that have been seamlessly integrated into all core content areas, ..." (TEA, 2010 Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020, p.10)
At Bridgeport Intermediate School, we are not quite to the Target Tech level in Teaching and Learning. We are at the level below called Advanced Tech, and have been for the last two years. At this level, the teacher is a facilitator and students work in groups to problem solve. Teachers at Bridgeport have made improvements in this area; moving up from the Developing Tech level we were at for the 2007-2008 school year. We are among the 30.5% of Texas teachers who reported themselves at this level for last year. (TEA, 2010)
In order for us to reach the Target Tech level for Teaching and Learning, we will need to have improvements in the infrastructure at our school. We do not have adequate bandwidth to have all of our students online all the time. We also need more computers if every student is to have on-demand to digital resources. The last improvement we would need is more effective professional development. I think our Technology group does a terrific job in keeping us up and running on the current software and hardware that we have access to as teachers. But, they are far too busy to provide us with the type of in-depth training we need to become comfortable as teachers at the Target Tech level.
At Bridgeport Intermediate School, we are not quite to the Target Tech level in Teaching and Learning. We are at the level below called Advanced Tech, and have been for the last two years. At this level, the teacher is a facilitator and students work in groups to problem solve. Teachers at Bridgeport have made improvements in this area; moving up from the Developing Tech level we were at for the 2007-2008 school year. We are among the 30.5% of Texas teachers who reported themselves at this level for last year. (TEA, 2010)
In order for us to reach the Target Tech level for Teaching and Learning, we will need to have improvements in the infrastructure at our school. We do not have adequate bandwidth to have all of our students online all the time. We also need more computers if every student is to have on-demand to digital resources. The last improvement we would need is more effective professional development. I think our Technology group does a terrific job in keeping us up and running on the current software and hardware that we have access to as teachers. But, they are far too busy to provide us with the type of in-depth training we need to become comfortable as teachers at the Target Tech level.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)