This evening I attended a web conference with my fellow classmates and found that web conferencing can be extremely useful in attaining information. As students in the Masters of Education program, we discussed resources for using APA citations, where to find more information about our internship portfolios, and clarification about upcoming certification exams.
As a classroom teacher and future administrator, I can see how web conferencing would be extremely beneficial in schools. Web conferencing allows individuals to express questions or concerns in their field while knowledeable individuals offer answers and advice. It's a great resource for finding information, but also to discuss and recognize current trends occurring in the educational society.
While overall, my web conferencing experience was positive, I did find the conversations confusing due to the large number of participants. I think that discussions boards are slightly more beneficial because they allow organization to the "conversations." The only drawback to discussion boards is that participants don't receive instant feedback.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Technology Action Plan
Personnel/Stakeholders Responsible for Integrating Technology | |
Title | Role/Responsibility |
Dr. Bessie Johnson - Principal | Monitors implementation of all technology-based learning, including computer labs, mini-classroom labs; use of visualizers, Quomo tablets, and In Focus machines; use of programs such as ICORE, Reasoning Mind, Edusmart Science Software, Success Maker, Accelerated Reader, Leapfrog, Waterword, Study Island, and Knowledge Box. |
Mrs. Mary Bowden – Asst. Principal | Assist principal in monitoring implementation of all technology-based learning, including computer labs, mini-classroom labs; use of visualizers, Quomo tablets, and In Focus machines; use of programs such as ICORE, Reasoning Mind, Edusmart Science Software, Success Maker, Accelerated Reader, Leapfrog, Waterword, Study Island, and Knowledge Box. |
Classroom Teachers | Integrate technology to target reading, math, language arts, and science skills for kindergarten through fifth grade students. Continue to be part of the Title I reading, math, language arts, and science program for the 2010-2011 school year. |
Mrs. Carolyn Brown – ELA/Reading Supervisor | Ensure technology TEKS are implemented at every grade level for Language Arts/Reading. Continue to add curriculum online links to district website. |
Mrs. Rita Leger – Science Supervisor | Ensure technology TEKS are implemented at every grade level for Science. Continue to add curriculum online links to district website. |
Mrs. Yolanda Getwood Social Studies Supervisor | Ensure technology TEKS are implemented at every grade level Social Studies. Continue to add curriculum online links to district website. |
Dr. Edna Edwards – Math Supervisor | Ensure technology TEKS are implemented at every grade level Math. Continue to add curriculum online links to district website. |
Mrs. Gina Lofton – Travis Tech. Specialist | Implement technology TEKS at every grade level and in all curriculum areas. Provide staff development that aligns technology TEKS with the existing core curricula. Tech. Specialist also provides technology support to assigned campus. |
Mrs. Danielle Vu - Librarian | Hold technology meetings with principals, teachers, and include the community in decisions that are made. Place all Acceptable Use Policies on automated library system. Also place forms in Technology Standards on-lie. |
Professional Development Plan | |
Professional Development Session | Description |
Integration of Technology TEKS with Curriculum
Audience: Classroom Teachers
Reading/Language Arts: March 21, 2011 @ 3:30 – 4:30 in Intermediate Lab.
Science: March 23, 2011 @ 3:30 – 4:30 in Intermediate Lab.
Social Studies: March 28, 2011 @ 3:30 – 4:30 in Intermediate Lab.
Math: March 30, 2011 @ 3:30 – 4:30 in Intermediate Lab.
Presenter: Gina Lofton, Tech. Specialist | Technology specialist will provide teachers with examples of how to include Technology TEKS into the areas of Reading/Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, and Math. List of websites and programs for implementation will be provided. ***This will occur in multiple sessions. Please refer to schedule for your subject area.***
Need: Campus Improvement Plan indicates a need for integration of technology TEKS with curriculum. |
Technology for the Real World
Audience: Classroom Teachers
April 4, 2011 @ 3:30 – 4:30 in Intermediate Lab.
Presenter: Gina Lofton, Tech. Specialist | Teachers will learn how to implement real-world technology knowledge in the classroom, such as browsing/searching the internet for information and research.
Need: According to Campus Improvement Plan, teachers need continous training on all software for which students will be held accountable to better meet the criteria established in the TEKS to better prepare our students for real-world experiences. |
Using STaR Chart to Create Technology Integration Plan
Audience: Site-Based Decision Making Team
April 6, 2011 @ 3:30 – 4:30 in Intermediate Lab.
Presenter: Gina Lofton, Tech. Specialist, Dr. Bessie Johnson, Principal | Site-Based Team will learn how to access the Texas STaR Chart online to view campus and state results. SBDMT will collaborate with each other to develop an improvement plan for integrating technology into the classroom at higher levels of frequency.
Need: Campus stakeholders need to be aware of campus weaknesses and collaborate to develop a plan for improving those areas. |
Analyzing Student Needs based on the AEIS Report and STaR Chart
Audience: Classroom Teachers
April 11, 2011 @ 3:30 – 4:30 in Intermediate Lab.
Presenter: Gina Lofton, Tech. Specialist, Dr. Bessie Johnson, Principal | Teachers will be instructed on how to access the AEIS Report and STaR Chart report online. Teachers will collaborate with each other, based on the results of each report, to determine how using technology in the classroom could improve weak areas on state-mandated assessments.
Need: Teachers need to learn how to gather and analyze data from multiple sources to develop an improvement plan. |
Evaluation of Action Plan Planning | |
STaR Chart | 2011 STaR Chart results should indicate improvements from "Developing Tech" for the areas of Teaching and Learning and Educator Preparation and Development while continuing to improve in the areas of Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support and Infrastructure for Technology. |
Continuous evaluation of Campus Improvement Goals for Technology | The Site-Based Decision Making Team will continuously evaluate the progress of the CIP to ensure progress in all areas, but focusing particularly on technology for learning. |
Professional Development Sessions | Participants will complete a survey at the end of each session to evaluate the value of the session and to leave comments for strengths and improvements. Each session will also end with a short quiz for teachers to measure knowledge gained from sessions. Teachers and administrators will require 20 hours of professional development per year with at least 10 of those hours being in the area of technology. |
Ongoing Online Surveys | Administrators, teachers, parents, and students will participate in online surveys regarding technology use in the school and home. |
Sunday, March 6, 2011
National Educational Technology Plan: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology
The National Educational Technology Plan: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology draft includes very insightful information in regard to teaching and learning, as well as professional development and training.
In regard to learning, the draft plan states, “The model asks that we focus what and how we teach to match what people need to know, how they learn, where and when they will learn, and who needs to learn. It brings state-of-the art technology into learning to enable, motivate, and inspire all students, regardless of background, languages, or disabilities, to achieve.” In other words, what students learn in the classroom must be directly related to the skills the will need to apply to life beyond high school. In order to do this, individualized instruction is essential. Since the beginning of this course, I have realized that educators are doing a disservice to their students by not incorporating technology within the curriculum to the highest degree possible. This plan will help bridge the gap between traditional learning and modern learning to help our students achieve success to the best of their abilities.
In regard to teaching, the draft also states, “In such a teaching model, teams of connected educators replace solo practitioners and classrooms are fully connected to provide educators with 24/7 access to data and analytic tools as well as to resources that help them act on the insights the data provide.” In the past, teachers were only responsible for what happens within their own classroom. At the same time, if there was a problem in their classroom, they had to figure out how to resolve those problems on their own. Now, we are moving to a much more collaborative working environment in which teachers are encouraged to connect with each other and assist each other in areas of needed improvement. We are also in a data-based era, in which data MUST support our reasonsing.
The NETP calls for teachers to engage in online, collaborative professional learning and training experiences that are ongoing, and provide 27/7 support.I find this type of professional learning to be extremely beneficial and engaging to teachers who often leave in-person professional development workshops feeling as though they a) learned nothing new or b)left the workshop more confused than when they entered. The only concern I have with this type of professional learning is that I forsee a problem with older generations of teachers opening up online and becoming actively engaged in the experiences.
Another area of concern I see with the NETP is that state-mandated testing could be reduced and replaced by teaching and learning being mediated through technology. The plan states, “Data streams captured by an online learning system can provide the information needed to make judgments about students’ competencies. These data-based judgments about individual students could then be aggregated to generate judgments about classes, schools, districts, and states.” While this sounds like a great direction to take, the current levels of technology proficiency that I see from students in the classroom concerns me. For example, many of our students take a STAR Reading and Math assessment to measure their reading and math abilities. This is done online and we often find poor scores, not because the students are low in reading in math, but because they still struggle with working the computer. With that being said, I think that reducing state-mandated testing by gathering data streams by an online learning system will be a positive thing when students are showing higher proficiency levels in technology.
Overall, I believe the NETP draft is headed in a positive direction for our nation. I would like to see these changes come sooner rather than later, but change takes a great deal of time and energy.
In regard to learning, the draft plan states, “The model asks that we focus what and how we teach to match what people need to know, how they learn, where and when they will learn, and who needs to learn. It brings state-of-the art technology into learning to enable, motivate, and inspire all students, regardless of background, languages, or disabilities, to achieve.” In other words, what students learn in the classroom must be directly related to the skills the will need to apply to life beyond high school. In order to do this, individualized instruction is essential. Since the beginning of this course, I have realized that educators are doing a disservice to their students by not incorporating technology within the curriculum to the highest degree possible. This plan will help bridge the gap between traditional learning and modern learning to help our students achieve success to the best of their abilities.
In regard to teaching, the draft also states, “In such a teaching model, teams of connected educators replace solo practitioners and classrooms are fully connected to provide educators with 24/7 access to data and analytic tools as well as to resources that help them act on the insights the data provide.” In the past, teachers were only responsible for what happens within their own classroom. At the same time, if there was a problem in their classroom, they had to figure out how to resolve those problems on their own. Now, we are moving to a much more collaborative working environment in which teachers are encouraged to connect with each other and assist each other in areas of needed improvement. We are also in a data-based era, in which data MUST support our reasonsing.
The NETP calls for teachers to engage in online, collaborative professional learning and training experiences that are ongoing, and provide 27/7 support.I find this type of professional learning to be extremely beneficial and engaging to teachers who often leave in-person professional development workshops feeling as though they a) learned nothing new or b)left the workshop more confused than when they entered. The only concern I have with this type of professional learning is that I forsee a problem with older generations of teachers opening up online and becoming actively engaged in the experiences.
Another area of concern I see with the NETP is that state-mandated testing could be reduced and replaced by teaching and learning being mediated through technology. The plan states, “Data streams captured by an online learning system can provide the information needed to make judgments about students’ competencies. These data-based judgments about individual students could then be aggregated to generate judgments about classes, schools, districts, and states.” While this sounds like a great direction to take, the current levels of technology proficiency that I see from students in the classroom concerns me. For example, many of our students take a STAR Reading and Math assessment to measure their reading and math abilities. This is done online and we often find poor scores, not because the students are low in reading in math, but because they still struggle with working the computer. With that being said, I think that reducing state-mandated testing by gathering data streams by an online learning system will be a positive thing when students are showing higher proficiency levels in technology.
Overall, I believe the NETP draft is headed in a positive direction for our nation. I would like to see these changes come sooner rather than later, but change takes a great deal of time and energy.
Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020
After reviewing the Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020, I can see that Texas will be undergoing many changes in the coming years.
According to the results from the Texas STaR chart, most teachers consider themselves Developing or Advanced Tech in Teaching and Learning. The goal is to increasingly get more teachers to reach their “Target” levels. The reason for this is that technology is now a part of every day life, especially for the students of this generation and generations to come. If we wish to engage students, we must teach to their interests.
As we all know, students must be technology-literate to be successful in today’s world. The purpose of the state’s Technology Applications curriculum is to ensure that students and educators gain and apply critical 21st century digital knowledge across the curriculum. In order to be proficient in technology, the State of Texas has developed expectations for particular grade clusters. At the same time, districts must ensure that teachers have adequate time to teach these applications.
I found the results of the 2009 Speak Up survey to be very interesting. Students in grades K-5 mostly used technology to play educational games, while grades 6-8 mostly used technology to create multimedia. In another part of the survey, students in grades 6-8 expressed a great interest in learning to develop their own website. There is so much technology has to offer but we, as educators, are not utilizing technology to its fullest for various reasons.
Also, during the 2008 – 2009 comparisons for Texas eighth graders’ average Skill Module Scores showed small improvements for modules assessing Systems and Fundamentals, Social and Ethical Spreadsheets, Multimedia, and Presentations; however, scores for telecommunications, internet, word processing, and databases declined.
We are improving in some areas and making declining in the basic areas. Overall, we are making slight improvements every year.
According to the results from the Texas STaR chart, most teachers consider themselves Developing or Advanced Tech in Teaching and Learning. The goal is to increasingly get more teachers to reach their “Target” levels. The reason for this is that technology is now a part of every day life, especially for the students of this generation and generations to come. If we wish to engage students, we must teach to their interests.
As we all know, students must be technology-literate to be successful in today’s world. The purpose of the state’s Technology Applications curriculum is to ensure that students and educators gain and apply critical 21st century digital knowledge across the curriculum. In order to be proficient in technology, the State of Texas has developed expectations for particular grade clusters. At the same time, districts must ensure that teachers have adequate time to teach these applications.
I found the results of the 2009 Speak Up survey to be very interesting. Students in grades K-5 mostly used technology to play educational games, while grades 6-8 mostly used technology to create multimedia. In another part of the survey, students in grades 6-8 expressed a great interest in learning to develop their own website. There is so much technology has to offer but we, as educators, are not utilizing technology to its fullest for various reasons.
Also, during the 2008 – 2009 comparisons for Texas eighth graders’ average Skill Module Scores showed small improvements for modules assessing Systems and Fundamentals, Social and Ethical Spreadsheets, Multimedia, and Presentations; however, scores for telecommunications, internet, word processing, and databases declined.
We are improving in some areas and making declining in the basic areas. Overall, we are making slight improvements every year.
Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020: Educator Preparation
The great thing about the Texas STaR chart is that it provides schools with data about areas of strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, technology-based surveys are not always accurate. Those who take the survey must truly be honest on the survey or the data is useless. On the other hand, opinions from person to person can greatly differ and that can also sometimes pose a problem. After viewing the STaR Chart reports for the 2007-2008 school year, I realized that Texas is lacking in the area of “Educator Preparation.”
In a perfect school, the following characteristrics would be observed: There are regular technology-supported learner-centered projects, there is vertical alignment of Technology Applications TEKS and anytime, anywhere use of online resources, administrators ensure integration of appropriate technology, 100% of educators meet SBEC standards, and 30% or more of the budget is allocation for professional development.
Unforuntately, my campus has it’s lowest rating in the area of Educator Preparation. Even more unfortunate is that statewide, the lowest rating is in this area. Overall, teachers are not using technology to improve student success. This isn’t the fault of the teachers alone, though. With students having to share computers, they aren’t reaping the benefits that technology has to offer. How can teachers use technology effectively in a classroom that requires at least 4 students to share one computer? Can it be done? In my opinion, the answer is no.
The only way to improve this area is to improve the student:computer ratio. From there, teachers can plan learner-centered projects with confidence that each student will have equal opportunity to utilize the computers for learning. Also, 30% or more of a school’s budget MUST be allocated for professional development to train teachers on how to effectively implement technology in the classroom. Teachers can then truly be held accountable for utilizing technology applications to improve student success.
It is my hope that this area is greatly improved in the years to come. As educators, we are constantly looking for ways to actively engage our students and I truly believe that technology usage is a great start.
In a perfect school, the following characteristrics would be observed: There are regular technology-supported learner-centered projects, there is vertical alignment of Technology Applications TEKS and anytime, anywhere use of online resources, administrators ensure integration of appropriate technology, 100% of educators meet SBEC standards, and 30% or more of the budget is allocation for professional development.
Unforuntately, my campus has it’s lowest rating in the area of Educator Preparation. Even more unfortunate is that statewide, the lowest rating is in this area. Overall, teachers are not using technology to improve student success. This isn’t the fault of the teachers alone, though. With students having to share computers, they aren’t reaping the benefits that technology has to offer. How can teachers use technology effectively in a classroom that requires at least 4 students to share one computer? Can it be done? In my opinion, the answer is no.
The only way to improve this area is to improve the student:computer ratio. From there, teachers can plan learner-centered projects with confidence that each student will have equal opportunity to utilize the computers for learning. Also, 30% or more of a school’s budget MUST be allocated for professional development to train teachers on how to effectively implement technology in the classroom. Teachers can then truly be held accountable for utilizing technology applications to improve student success.
It is my hope that this area is greatly improved in the years to come. As educators, we are constantly looking for ways to actively engage our students and I truly believe that technology usage is a great start.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Reflections for Research: EDLD 5301
It would be difficult to reflect on everything I've learned in this course but I do want to point out three topics that were of particular interest to me.
Lectures:
The most useful lectures that I found in this course were the interviews from Week 2. I enjoyed how Dr. Jenkins explained the process of action research and gave examples of purposes for action research. I noticed that he mentioned how easy it is for the researcher to become out of focus and I quickly realized this when planning my action research on how to help ELL students, in English, in the area of reading. During this course, I attended two workshops held by my district that touched on my topic but were mostly about the different models available for the Dual Language Program. I was extremely interested in the Dual Language topic and because the Dual Language Program and ELL students are closely connected, I found myself focusing my action research plan on how Dual Language can help ELL students. Once I realized that I was getting off topic I had to go back and make some significant changes to my plan.
Also, during Week 2 I enjoyed the interview of Johnny Briseno, Principal of Rancho Isabella Elementary in Angleton ISD; because he gave me insight on what a principal might do when conducting action research. Mr. Briseno made me realize is already unofficially conducting action research every day. He also used the phrase, "Why reinvent the wheel?" which helped me realize that the answers I may be looking for may have already been researched by someone else. The only thing needed is to use Google or Ebsco to find the resources that I need.
Assignments and Activities:
The most enjoyable assignment I had in this class was creating the SIP/PIP plan using the template provided to us. By creating this plan, I learned that action research requires a plan for implementation that includes seven important factors: Outcomes, Activities, Resources/Research Tools Needed, Person(s) Responsible for Addressing Activities, Time Line, Benchmarks/Assessment, and Revisions based on monitoring and Assessment.
I really became interested in making my plan after Dr. Garza, the Director for Multilingual and Migrant Education for Port Arthur ISD, provided me with excellent sources for conducting research on best practices for teaching ELL students. I also attended two lectures given by Dr. Howard Smith of UTSA, which gave me more insight on why our Two-Way Immersion Program isn't as effective as we would like it to be, leaving more parents of ELL students to choose the general education classroom rather than a bilingual classroom. By having this knowledge, I was able to focus less on wanting to improve the Two-Way Immersion problem and focus more on improving instruction for ELL students in the general education classroom.
Although I have completed my SIP/PIP plan, I know there will probably need to be changes to it as I conduct my action research plan. I am somewhat nervous about the response I will get from teachers regarding my suggestions for instructional changes/improvements, but I also realize that this is part of the learning process of being an administrator.
Readings:
I thought that our text, Leading with Passion and Knowledge by Nancy Fichtman Dana, was extremely insightful. Throughout the text, examples were given from other action researchers. I especially enjoyed the action research performed by Donna Stoicovy in which she describes her school as being built on twenty-two acres of wooded land. Principal Stoicovy knew that her school setting offered a unique resource for meeting the Pennsylvania Academic Environment and Ecology Standards and that students and teachers could become involved in much more engaging instruction by utilizing their setting rather than using the traditional textbook (Dana, 2009, p.36). This particular research project caught my attention because we, as teachers, are always looking for better ways to engage our students, especially in Science. This principal took a simple idea and made learning fun for the students, and teaching fun for the teachers, simply by creating and planning curriculum around the school yard. Although there was a lot of work put into the action research plan, I learned that action research doesn't have to be boring or complicated.
Overall, I found this Research course to be extremely insightful and I know I will be referring back to the information learned here throughout my coursework and into my professional field as a school leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)