EDLD 5352 Reflection
I envisioned this course covering issues of increasing student performance through varying methods designed to increase student engagement. I did not expect the course to cover the use of technology solely. I was interested to find that the state had put so much effort into the Long Range Plan for Technology. I was also interesting to see that the initiative to increase the integration of technology into the curriculum extends to the nation level and legislature. If the goal of the course was to impart the significance of technology integration in instruction and its legal implications, then I those objectives were met.
I found many of the claims of the professors and authors intriguing regarding the use of technology in the high school classroom. I feel that many if not all of the ideas and benefits presented throughout the course for the use of technology had great merit and validity. However, I do feel that some major issues were not discussed. What is a teacher supposed to do with a student in her technology laden class instruction that does not have clearance to have access to the internet while at school? What is a teacher supposed to do when a student has their privileges revoked during the middle of an assignment due to violation of an acceptable use policy? What about students with modifications allowing for extended time that do not have access at home? These practical issues are a few of the stumbling blocks to technology based instruction. I think that before we sell out we need to consider these issues carefully.
The biggest overlooked issue is student motivation. All of the initiatives discussed are wonderful; however, I feel their effectiveness is limited to the top 10% to 20% of the students. These are the students who are highly motivated. My discussions with students in conjunction with this course revealed that students are not motivated to learn just because technology is involved. They do use technology and embrace it. It is no different than getting them to read Shakespeare. I can be like pulling teeth; however, they will put their entire life on hold to read the Twilight series. Students that I spoke to replied that they would have no motivation to read a teachers blog unless it directly affected their grades. If students will not log on to get the answers to the home work problems, why would they log onto a teachers blog unless it was mandatory? If it is made mandatory, what is the teacher to do about those students who do not have access outside of school? Most districts’ filter settings do not allow teachers access to blog sites, let alone the students.
Blogging as a tool for parent communication has a great deal of merit. I feel the reality is that the parent who would be up to date on information are the only ones who would use the service. It is a corollary to many of the same student issues. Many districts already have policy documents on line. It is surprising to me the parents who will tell you during a conference that they have not read them. My district has an on line grade reporting system. The percentage of parents not involved in the program but on line is staggering. The benefits and draw backs of blogging are the same as that for any other method of mass information dissemination. If it is up to the public to retrieve the information there is a great percentage who will simply not participate. They will continue to blame the district and its personnel for what ever trouble has occurred due to their lack of participation.
There were some good ideas put fort during this course. I do feel that many were extremely unrealistic for the high school class room. I feel that the fact that the idea of personal accountability is lost on the majority of students and parents today has been totally overlooked. We are dealing with a generation of students who has been brought up to believe that life is about them. Most believe that if they are not successful or caught in the wrong that it is someone else’s fault. To attempt to monitor a class of advanced junior and senior students using smart phones and open internet access would be a night mare. I would not even want to imagine what it would be like in a class of average and at risk freshmen. Weighing the en loco parentis duty to protect student from the possible outcome of bad acts committed by others and themselves against the possible benefits of to learning, I have to choose protection. Until there is a method to monitor what is occurring on line in real time, many of these proposals will have to wait. I might suggest that some real time spent working in today’s regular classrooms over the course of a semester might bring some of these expectations into a more real light.
I did not have cognitive trouble completing the assignments. I felt that some were pedantic and included a great deal of busy work. I question the use of some of the articles. When new technology hits the store shelves it is already outdated. Reading articles discussing specific technologies that are more than a year old do not convey the most recent information. I feel that writing reflections on articles that are descriptions of document management software is simply busy work. If scholarly articles are assigned then I feel that reflection, quotes, or discussion is appropriate. Reading an article about some product to maintain web links is interesting and helpful, but hardly warrants a students’ time to cite and post discussions. As administrators we do not have to be experts in the most current technology. It would detract from our other duties to attempt such a monumental task. We need to understand technology’s importance and implications to education and not stand in its way on our campuses.
This course has given me a great deal of insight to technology in education. I feel that I am better qualified to lead in its use on my campus as a teacher and administrator. As a result of this course, I have volunteered to serve on our campus technology committee.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Campus Technology Plan
Campus Technology Plan
Our district has a 30 % economically disadvantaged student subpopulation. This subpopulation has a 66% passing rate on the Grade 10 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) for science compared to the state average of 65%. It has a 74% passing rate on the Grade 11 Science TAKS compare to the state average of 81%.
Based on informal interviews with students, administrators, technology specialist and teachers, it is apparent that the majority of technology use on the campus by teachers in the class room is to present teacher directed lessons. The majority of student technology use is to prepare formal papers or visual effects for class presentations. There is currently little or no student centered technology based learning, on-line collaboration with students from schools across the country, or technology driven problem solving critical thinking projects in the nontechnology based classes.
The major reasons cited included: the network filter settings, the amount of computers available for class room use, the time required to log on to computers via the wireless lap top labs, and the scope and sequence pacing requirements of the district curriculum guides.
An action plan to improve these areas would be expected to increase the teachers’ perception of technology use. This should increase teacher use of technology based student directed learning in the classroom. This increase should improve the amount of student engagement by meeting the individualized needs of learners.
The action plan includes:
• A student to computer ratio of at least one computer per every two students in a science class
• Each class room has a set of appropriate Vernier probes for the subject matter taught
• Teachers use at least 40% of class room instruction time for hands on labs using the probe ware system
• A comprehensive teacher professional development program on technology use in the class room, cyber safety and cyber ethics.
• Implementation of technology based problem solving lessons that are student centered
• A softening of the district filtering parameters to allow for teacher and student access to blog sites, video conferencing, and educational games
• The ability for teachers to create podcasts and students to access them while at school
• Implementation of a program to allow supervised access by students to district computers after school and on the weekends
The action plan above in conjunction with the professional development outlined previously will be implemented by the stake holders throughout the district as outlined on the District Organizational Chart for Technology Implementation.
Our district has a 30 % economically disadvantaged student subpopulation. This subpopulation has a 66% passing rate on the Grade 10 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) for science compared to the state average of 65%. It has a 74% passing rate on the Grade 11 Science TAKS compare to the state average of 81%.
Based on informal interviews with students, administrators, technology specialist and teachers, it is apparent that the majority of technology use on the campus by teachers in the class room is to present teacher directed lessons. The majority of student technology use is to prepare formal papers or visual effects for class presentations. There is currently little or no student centered technology based learning, on-line collaboration with students from schools across the country, or technology driven problem solving critical thinking projects in the nontechnology based classes.
The major reasons cited included: the network filter settings, the amount of computers available for class room use, the time required to log on to computers via the wireless lap top labs, and the scope and sequence pacing requirements of the district curriculum guides.
An action plan to improve these areas would be expected to increase the teachers’ perception of technology use. This should increase teacher use of technology based student directed learning in the classroom. This increase should improve the amount of student engagement by meeting the individualized needs of learners.
The action plan includes:
• A student to computer ratio of at least one computer per every two students in a science class
• Each class room has a set of appropriate Vernier probes for the subject matter taught
• Teachers use at least 40% of class room instruction time for hands on labs using the probe ware system
• A comprehensive teacher professional development program on technology use in the class room, cyber safety and cyber ethics.
• Implementation of technology based problem solving lessons that are student centered
• A softening of the district filtering parameters to allow for teacher and student access to blog sites, video conferencing, and educational games
• The ability for teachers to create podcasts and students to access them while at school
• Implementation of a program to allow supervised access by students to district computers after school and on the weekends
The action plan above in conjunction with the professional development outlined previously will be implemented by the stake holders throughout the district as outlined on the District Organizational Chart for Technology Implementation.
Professional Development Planning for Technology Based Student Centered Learning
Professional Development Planning for Technology Based Student Centered Learning
Based upon interviews with students, teachers, technology personnel, and teachers, the primary uses of technology in our classrooms by our teachers are for administrative purposes and the presentation of teacher center lessons. Students report that their primary use of technology across the nontechnology oriented curriculum is for the preparation of reports and class presentations. Our Students report that they are directed to engage in technology based creative problem solving in their nontechnology based class perhaps one a year at the most in any of their classes as a whole.
Our Academic Excellence Indicator Systems (AEIS) data shows that we need to improve the performance of our economically disadvantaged subpopulation Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Science for Grades 10 and 11. We have a 74% passing rate compared to the state average of 81% on the Grade 11 Science TAKS. We have a 66% passing rate compared to the state average 65% on the Grade 10 Science TAKS.
Our ideal situation for technology integration is to ultimately provide computers in every class room available for student use in at least a one computer per two student ratio. The purpose of this is to create a paradigm shift in the instructional use of technology across the curriculum. It is our desire to move from teacher centered instruction using technology as a means of presentation delivery to technology based student centered and discovery style learning. In the science classroom, this can be accomplished using the Vernier probe system that the district already owns, the CBI lab systems, interactive modules already available on the internet for public use, interactive tutors and lab simulations available from the text book publishers, and CD-Rom versions of the text book provided by the publishers.
Our overall goal for student performance in the economically disadvantaged student populations is to improve our performance on both the Grade 10 and Grade 11 Science TAKS by 15% over the next two years. We also want to improve our Average Daily Attendance (ADA) in this subpopulation for Grades 9 through Grade 12. The following goals and professional development activities for the Science Department should assist in reaching those campus goals.
Science Department Goals:
All science classes will engage in labs involving hands on and technology based activities which will begin by encompassing ten percent of the total instruction and increase yearly by ten percent to 40% of the total instruction at the end of four years.
Assessment of this goal will be accomplished by:
• Evaluation of teacher’s lesson plans
• Assessment of documentation of regular administrator classroom walk throughs already being performed
Activity 1:
Teachers will attend a two day professional development session facilitated by a representative from the Vernier Corporation on the use of the probes and their capabilities. During this session, teachers will preview and perform labs that are provided with the lab ware equipment that pertain to their specific subjects. The Vernier Corporation provides this service for free due to the fact that the district has purchased the equipment. This could be accomplished during the summer allowing the teachers who participate to receive the necessary two days summer professional development required by the district.
Activity 2:
Physics and physical science teachers will use the one day professional development session to preview and perform labs that accompany the CBI equipment which the district already owns.
Activity 3:
Teachers will use the one day session to preview the lab simulations and interactive tutors that accompany the adopted text book for their class.
The majority of teacher classroom use of technology across the curriculum is centered on presentation of material in teacher centered lessons. The following goals and professional development activities are to help improve TAKS scores across the curriculum and grade levels, improve ADA, and move our AYP towards the state goal of 100% in the year 2014.
Goal 1:
Instruction in classes across the curriculum and grades will provide ten percent of all instructional time for technology based student centered and directed learning. This will increase by ten percent yearly over the next four years until a 40% of instructional time is used in this manner.
Goal 2:
Classes across the curriculum and grades will assign one technology based student problem solving activity project for a test grade each semester. This will increase to one each nine weeks in the following year.
Assessment of these goals will be accomplished by:
• Evaluation of teacher’s lesson plans
• Assessment of documentation of regular administrator classroom walk throughs already being performed
Activity 1:
Teachers will be provided subs and meet by grade levels and departments one day every nine weeks to create webliographies and rubrics for technology based student directed learning.
Activity 2:
All teachers will receive training in internet safety and cyber ethics. A focus will be placed on this and the curriculum will be presented to the students at the beginning of the year during their home room classes. Teachers will be expected to re-teach these concepts on a regular basis.
Activity 3:
Teachers will receive training in the use of web cams for video messaging. The session will include ideas for collaboration activities with students in schools from other districts across the country.
Activity 4:
Instruct the teachers in ways to effectively use the on line drop box already provided by the district for student journaling and assignment submission.
Based upon interviews with students, teachers, technology personnel, and teachers, the primary uses of technology in our classrooms by our teachers are for administrative purposes and the presentation of teacher center lessons. Students report that their primary use of technology across the nontechnology oriented curriculum is for the preparation of reports and class presentations. Our Students report that they are directed to engage in technology based creative problem solving in their nontechnology based class perhaps one a year at the most in any of their classes as a whole.
Our Academic Excellence Indicator Systems (AEIS) data shows that we need to improve the performance of our economically disadvantaged subpopulation Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Science for Grades 10 and 11. We have a 74% passing rate compared to the state average of 81% on the Grade 11 Science TAKS. We have a 66% passing rate compared to the state average 65% on the Grade 10 Science TAKS.
Our ideal situation for technology integration is to ultimately provide computers in every class room available for student use in at least a one computer per two student ratio. The purpose of this is to create a paradigm shift in the instructional use of technology across the curriculum. It is our desire to move from teacher centered instruction using technology as a means of presentation delivery to technology based student centered and discovery style learning. In the science classroom, this can be accomplished using the Vernier probe system that the district already owns, the CBI lab systems, interactive modules already available on the internet for public use, interactive tutors and lab simulations available from the text book publishers, and CD-Rom versions of the text book provided by the publishers.
Our overall goal for student performance in the economically disadvantaged student populations is to improve our performance on both the Grade 10 and Grade 11 Science TAKS by 15% over the next two years. We also want to improve our Average Daily Attendance (ADA) in this subpopulation for Grades 9 through Grade 12. The following goals and professional development activities for the Science Department should assist in reaching those campus goals.
Science Department Goals:
All science classes will engage in labs involving hands on and technology based activities which will begin by encompassing ten percent of the total instruction and increase yearly by ten percent to 40% of the total instruction at the end of four years.
Assessment of this goal will be accomplished by:
• Evaluation of teacher’s lesson plans
• Assessment of documentation of regular administrator classroom walk throughs already being performed
Activity 1:
Teachers will attend a two day professional development session facilitated by a representative from the Vernier Corporation on the use of the probes and their capabilities. During this session, teachers will preview and perform labs that are provided with the lab ware equipment that pertain to their specific subjects. The Vernier Corporation provides this service for free due to the fact that the district has purchased the equipment. This could be accomplished during the summer allowing the teachers who participate to receive the necessary two days summer professional development required by the district.
Activity 2:
Physics and physical science teachers will use the one day professional development session to preview and perform labs that accompany the CBI equipment which the district already owns.
Activity 3:
Teachers will use the one day session to preview the lab simulations and interactive tutors that accompany the adopted text book for their class.
The majority of teacher classroom use of technology across the curriculum is centered on presentation of material in teacher centered lessons. The following goals and professional development activities are to help improve TAKS scores across the curriculum and grade levels, improve ADA, and move our AYP towards the state goal of 100% in the year 2014.
Goal 1:
Instruction in classes across the curriculum and grades will provide ten percent of all instructional time for technology based student centered and directed learning. This will increase by ten percent yearly over the next four years until a 40% of instructional time is used in this manner.
Goal 2:
Classes across the curriculum and grades will assign one technology based student problem solving activity project for a test grade each semester. This will increase to one each nine weeks in the following year.
Assessment of these goals will be accomplished by:
• Evaluation of teacher’s lesson plans
• Assessment of documentation of regular administrator classroom walk throughs already being performed
Activity 1:
Teachers will be provided subs and meet by grade levels and departments one day every nine weeks to create webliographies and rubrics for technology based student directed learning.
Activity 2:
All teachers will receive training in internet safety and cyber ethics. A focus will be placed on this and the curriculum will be presented to the students at the beginning of the year during their home room classes. Teachers will be expected to re-teach these concepts on a regular basis.
Activity 3:
Teachers will receive training in the use of web cams for video messaging. The session will include ideas for collaboration activities with students in schools from other districts across the country.
Activity 4:
Instruct the teachers in ways to effectively use the on line drop box already provided by the district for student journaling and assignment submission.
District Organizational Flow Chart for Technology Implementation
District Organizational Flow Chart for Technology Implementation
School Board:
It is the responsibility of the School Board to:
• Secure funding to support the annual budget
• Approve as policy the annual budget for technology use
• Approve as policy the official District Acceptable Use Policy
• Approve as policy the long range technology plans for the district
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum:
It is the responsibility of the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum to:
• Propose changes to the annual budget for needed increases in technology spending in response to the most recent Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) data
• Remain up to date with current updates to the State Long Range Plan for Technology and insure that all stake holders are aware of any changes to the plan
• Annually review the district School Technology and Readiness (STaR) chart data
• Annually review the district Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) data
• Annually review the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) data
• Approve recommendations from the District Technology Coordinator for changes and improvements to technology policy implementation based on the STaR chart, AEIS report, and PEIMS data
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Present the District Acceptable Use Policy to the School Board for approval
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
District Technology Coordinator:
It is the responsibility of the District Technology Coordinator to:
• Remain up to date with current updates to the State Long Range Plan for Technology and insure that all stake holders are aware of any changes to the plan
• Annually review district STaR chart data, PEIMS data, and the AEIS report
• Oversee the collection and dissemination of PEIMS data
• Lead in the development of long range technology plans for the district
• Seek to secure federal and state funding for technology spending within the district
• Develop district master technology budget based on needs assessment and state data sources
• Present the district master technology budget to District Superintendent for School Board approval as policy
• Oversee planning and implementation of technology related professional development
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
District Technology Master Technician:
It is the responsibility of the Master Technician to:
• Participate in planning and provide consultation for technology infra structure projects within the district
• Prepare all hardware prior to placement on the campuses
• Install hardware at the campus sites
• Change location of hardware at the campus sites
• Install software on individual units at the campus sites
• Trouble shoot technology hardware and software problems at the individual sites
• Perform needed repairs and regular preventative maintenance on all hardware throughout the district
• Consult with the District Technology Coordinator on needed changes to the district master technology budget for infrastructure, maintenance, and repair
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
District Network Manager:
It is the responsibility of the Network Manager to:
• Maintain the server for the district
• Oversee the network filter settings for the district as defined in the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
• Monitor the appropriate use of the district network for educational and instructional purposes by administrators, faculty, staff, and students according to the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
Building Principal:
It is the responsibility of the Building Principal to:
• Annually review the campus STaR Chart, AEIS data, and PEIMS data
• Insure the proper recording of PEIMS data Remain up to date with current updates on the State Long Range Plan for Technology
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
• Remain up to date with current updates to the State Long Range Plan for Technology
• Actively lead-out in encouraging the use of technology for student centered and driven learning and instruction in all areas of the curriculum
• Find the funding needed within the campus budget to facilitate the effective increases used of technology and learner centered and directed instruction across the curriculum
• Plan and implement appropriate professional development for faculty in the area of technology
• Inspect and monitor the amount of use and method of said use of technology across the curriculum
• Strictly enforce the District Acceptable Use Policy for all faculty, staff, and students
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
Campus Technology Specialist:
It is the responsibility of the Campus Technology Specialist to:
• Assist in the collection of campus data through curriculum benchmark assessments and the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Test
• Troubleshoot hardware and software problems on the campus
• Lead in technology oriented professional development for the campus
• Review hardware, software and web based software for possible implementation in the curriculum
• Remain up to date with current updates to the State Long Range Plan for Technology
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
• Assist in tracking the use of technology and method of said use across the curriculum
• Suggest improvements for the campus technology plan
• Assist in the Strict enforcement of the District Acceptable Use Policy for all faculty, staff, and students Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Assist teachers in demonstrating the use of technology in the class room to students as needed
• Assist the Building Principal in any technology related area
School Board:
It is the responsibility of the School Board to:
• Secure funding to support the annual budget
• Approve as policy the annual budget for technology use
• Approve as policy the official District Acceptable Use Policy
• Approve as policy the long range technology plans for the district
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum:
It is the responsibility of the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum to:
• Propose changes to the annual budget for needed increases in technology spending in response to the most recent Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) data
• Remain up to date with current updates to the State Long Range Plan for Technology and insure that all stake holders are aware of any changes to the plan
• Annually review the district School Technology and Readiness (STaR) chart data
• Annually review the district Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) data
• Annually review the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) data
• Approve recommendations from the District Technology Coordinator for changes and improvements to technology policy implementation based on the STaR chart, AEIS report, and PEIMS data
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Present the District Acceptable Use Policy to the School Board for approval
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
District Technology Coordinator:
It is the responsibility of the District Technology Coordinator to:
• Remain up to date with current updates to the State Long Range Plan for Technology and insure that all stake holders are aware of any changes to the plan
• Annually review district STaR chart data, PEIMS data, and the AEIS report
• Oversee the collection and dissemination of PEIMS data
• Lead in the development of long range technology plans for the district
• Seek to secure federal and state funding for technology spending within the district
• Develop district master technology budget based on needs assessment and state data sources
• Present the district master technology budget to District Superintendent for School Board approval as policy
• Oversee planning and implementation of technology related professional development
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
District Technology Master Technician:
It is the responsibility of the Master Technician to:
• Participate in planning and provide consultation for technology infra structure projects within the district
• Prepare all hardware prior to placement on the campuses
• Install hardware at the campus sites
• Change location of hardware at the campus sites
• Install software on individual units at the campus sites
• Trouble shoot technology hardware and software problems at the individual sites
• Perform needed repairs and regular preventative maintenance on all hardware throughout the district
• Consult with the District Technology Coordinator on needed changes to the district master technology budget for infrastructure, maintenance, and repair
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
District Network Manager:
It is the responsibility of the Network Manager to:
• Maintain the server for the district
• Oversee the network filter settings for the district as defined in the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
• Monitor the appropriate use of the district network for educational and instructional purposes by administrators, faculty, staff, and students according to the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Support and encourage the increased use of technology in all areas of education and instruction
Building Principal:
It is the responsibility of the Building Principal to:
• Annually review the campus STaR Chart, AEIS data, and PEIMS data
• Insure the proper recording of PEIMS data Remain up to date with current updates on the State Long Range Plan for Technology
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
• Remain up to date with current updates to the State Long Range Plan for Technology
• Actively lead-out in encouraging the use of technology for student centered and driven learning and instruction in all areas of the curriculum
• Find the funding needed within the campus budget to facilitate the effective increases used of technology and learner centered and directed instruction across the curriculum
• Plan and implement appropriate professional development for faculty in the area of technology
• Inspect and monitor the amount of use and method of said use of technology across the curriculum
• Strictly enforce the District Acceptable Use Policy for all faculty, staff, and students
• Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
Campus Technology Specialist:
It is the responsibility of the Campus Technology Specialist to:
• Assist in the collection of campus data through curriculum benchmark assessments and the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Test
• Troubleshoot hardware and software problems on the campus
• Lead in technology oriented professional development for the campus
• Review hardware, software and web based software for possible implementation in the curriculum
• Remain up to date with current updates to the State Long Range Plan for Technology
• Provide input into the long range technology plans for the district
• Assist in tracking the use of technology and method of said use across the curriculum
• Suggest improvements for the campus technology plan
• Assist in the Strict enforcement of the District Acceptable Use Policy for all faculty, staff, and students Provide input into the District Acceptable Use Policy
• Assist teachers in demonstrating the use of technology in the class room to students as needed
• Assist the Building Principal in any technology related area
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Instructional Technology Use at Lumberton High School
Instructional Technology Use at Lumberton High School
We use various data collection tools including the Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), Annually Yearly Progress (AYP) report, and the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) report for the district and campus. The AEIS report provides the district with data to compare our district and campus to the state average. We are able to use this data to observe the performance of grade levels and sub-populations over the span of several years. The data allows us to track the money spent on each sub-population and how they performed on state assessments. AYP data shows us how our campus performance compares with guidelines established by the Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law. STaR chart data allows the district to track the progress of each campus according to the State Long Range Plan for Technology. The chart tracks the progress of each campus in four areas: Teaching and Learning, Educator Preparation, Administration and Support, and Infrastructure. The AEIS, AYP, and STaR Chart data are used by the district to track where money is spent and evaluate the effectiveness of the programs for which it is used. The district is currently using this accumulation of data to establish a strategic plan for technology three year plan. We currently have a one year plan and are composing three, five, and ten year plans.
Technology on our campus is used by teachers for instructional enrichment. Teachers use information gained from the internet to supplement lessons. This information includes lecture notes, diagrams, and podcasts. The majority of technology use in the classroom is still to facilitate teacher directed learning. The majority of technology in the classroom is used as a more expensive alternative to the overhead projector. Every class room has a computer and data projector for teacher use in it. We do offer quite a few technology courses including: Business Communication, Web Mastering, Digital Graphics, and Broadcast Journalism. The Pharmacy Technician program at our school is taught using a combination of traditional and on line instruction. We have a distance learning opportunities in conjunction with Lamar University that involve real time video conferencing technology between the professor and the students. Our district is currently experimenting with the use of the Kindle reader from Amazon for students with various reading difficulties. There is a method to down load teacher generated material onto them. Our district uses the Read 180 curriculum and Aims Web Math as part of our Response Towards Intervention (RTI) program. Both of these have a great deal of student technology use incorporated into them.
The administrative arena is perhaps the greatest area of daily classroom technology use. Our district does all attendance, grades, and lesson planning on line. We also have Virtual Student Information (VSI) available. This allows parents on-line access to their students’ grades in real time. We also employ a program that allows for teachers to have access to their students’ standardized assessment data on-line.
Each core subject department has a portable lap top lab and there are one or two extra available in the technology department. Our math classes all have a class set of graphing calculators with the ability for the teacher to project their calculator screen onto a screen for student view. Many of our math classes have smart board technology in them. Our district offers a Productivity Training Seminar. Teachers who complete the initial seminar are issued a lap top computer and have a wider access to the internet via the school filter. Teachers may opt to take additional training to receive additional technology in their classrooms. The additional technology includes: elmos, smart boards, and classroom sets of digital quiz answer buzzers for class review and assessment.
Technology is a large component of our Site Based Decision Making Committee (SBDMC). Much of the technology purchased has been as a result of action taken by the SBDMC. The SBDMC has also set instructional technology use as a focus for professional development on campus. We have begun using a program called “Turn-It In” to combat plagiarism in our classes. Each teacher within our district is expected to maintain a webpage through the district “School Center” program. The district has also instituted the use of “PD-360”, an on-line service delivering professional development to teachers 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our Science Department has a wide range of Vernier sensors that interface with the laptop computers for real time collection of data by the students.
I visited with two groups of students for this assignment as recommended by the professors of the course. I visited with the students from one of our Pharmacy Technology classes and our Health Science Technology II class. There were thirty students in the two groups combined. I asked the students about the amount of time that they use technology in student directed learning during the course of their regular nontechnology based courses. Their response was overwhelmingly unanimous. They report less than twice a year over all. That may only include one course a year. The students report that they primarily use technology for the preparation of reports and projects using word processing and Power Point software. When questioned about how often the students are asked to use the digital drop-box provided for teachers some responded only once during the course of their education. That was for an upper level physics course. If the student did not have that teacher, they had never used it.
I asked the students how they would respond to a project based student learning activity. I explained that it would give them the topic and the learning objectives and they would be responsible for using the internet to learn the material with instructor facilitation and guidance. The students enrolled in upper level course responded positively, while those in regular level course had mixed response. The biggest concern among the regular level students was that there would be a great number of students who simply relied upon on member of the group to complete the project. A great number of the student expressed an interest in a move away from teacher centered learning scenarios, but expressed that they would be more confident with guidance from the teacher about specifics either through One-Note or a teacher’s web page. When I asked the students haw many would visit a teacher’s blog, the overwhelming response was only if it directly affected their grade. The students were extremely interested in a learning activity that involved collaboration with students in other areas of the country as specified in the State Long Range Plan for Technology. This is currently not a viable option as students do not have access to school email or any messaging systems.
Students reported a wide range of technology use outside of school. All of the students in both groups of students reported having internet access at home. They were all users of cell phones, text messaging, and social networking. Many used the internet for gaming with friends, downloading music and movies, and shopping. Only a few reported using it to seek additional information about school related topics unless directed to do so by a teacher. I asked the students what were the biggest hindrances to technology use at school for learning. They responded that when using the lap tops that connectivity is an issue in many classroom as well as adequate outlets for power. They also responded that it takes too long to get logged on to one. It may take up to five minutes for a student in a class of 21 to get logged on. The biggest obstacle given by the students is the school fire wall. The Pharmacy Technician on-line site has learning games associated with it that cannot be accessed due to the filter identifying them as games. Many on-line news articles are blocked from major news sources due to the filter identifying the coverage as hate speech. This has proven an obstacle for the preparation of our Current Events team. Students overall report a tremendous amount of frustration while attempting on-line research at school due to the filters. The school does have several on-line data bases that it subscribes to, but as for the most recent information, it may be difficult for students and teachers to access.
Teachers’ comments about the obstacles to technology use in the class are similar to those of the students. Teachers express the same frustrations with attempting to access information through the school’s filters. Teachers also express that it is difficult to schedule use of the labs around the demands of the pacing of curriculum scope and sequence. There is also the issue of professional development for some of the technology. Teachers new to the district often must use their own time to learn to use some of the technologies specific to their departments. One of the biggest concerns of teachers regarding technology at school is how it will affect their work load outside of the classroom. Many executives are experiencing the inability to escape their jobs even while on vacation as a result of the technology boom and continuous connectivity. Our students involved in distance learning do not have access to email while at school to communicate with their professors or class cohorts. They must copy their assignments to the site proctors jump drive, and then she submits them via her school email address. The majority of those interviewed agree that the next steps for the improvement of instructional technology use in the classroom are a one to one computer ratio and a lessening of the district filtering restrictions. These are perceived to be the major barriers to effective instructional technology use for student directed learning.
We use various data collection tools including the Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), Annually Yearly Progress (AYP) report, and the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) report for the district and campus. The AEIS report provides the district with data to compare our district and campus to the state average. We are able to use this data to observe the performance of grade levels and sub-populations over the span of several years. The data allows us to track the money spent on each sub-population and how they performed on state assessments. AYP data shows us how our campus performance compares with guidelines established by the Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law. STaR chart data allows the district to track the progress of each campus according to the State Long Range Plan for Technology. The chart tracks the progress of each campus in four areas: Teaching and Learning, Educator Preparation, Administration and Support, and Infrastructure. The AEIS, AYP, and STaR Chart data are used by the district to track where money is spent and evaluate the effectiveness of the programs for which it is used. The district is currently using this accumulation of data to establish a strategic plan for technology three year plan. We currently have a one year plan and are composing three, five, and ten year plans.
Technology on our campus is used by teachers for instructional enrichment. Teachers use information gained from the internet to supplement lessons. This information includes lecture notes, diagrams, and podcasts. The majority of technology use in the classroom is still to facilitate teacher directed learning. The majority of technology in the classroom is used as a more expensive alternative to the overhead projector. Every class room has a computer and data projector for teacher use in it. We do offer quite a few technology courses including: Business Communication, Web Mastering, Digital Graphics, and Broadcast Journalism. The Pharmacy Technician program at our school is taught using a combination of traditional and on line instruction. We have a distance learning opportunities in conjunction with Lamar University that involve real time video conferencing technology between the professor and the students. Our district is currently experimenting with the use of the Kindle reader from Amazon for students with various reading difficulties. There is a method to down load teacher generated material onto them. Our district uses the Read 180 curriculum and Aims Web Math as part of our Response Towards Intervention (RTI) program. Both of these have a great deal of student technology use incorporated into them.
The administrative arena is perhaps the greatest area of daily classroom technology use. Our district does all attendance, grades, and lesson planning on line. We also have Virtual Student Information (VSI) available. This allows parents on-line access to their students’ grades in real time. We also employ a program that allows for teachers to have access to their students’ standardized assessment data on-line.
Each core subject department has a portable lap top lab and there are one or two extra available in the technology department. Our math classes all have a class set of graphing calculators with the ability for the teacher to project their calculator screen onto a screen for student view. Many of our math classes have smart board technology in them. Our district offers a Productivity Training Seminar. Teachers who complete the initial seminar are issued a lap top computer and have a wider access to the internet via the school filter. Teachers may opt to take additional training to receive additional technology in their classrooms. The additional technology includes: elmos, smart boards, and classroom sets of digital quiz answer buzzers for class review and assessment.
Technology is a large component of our Site Based Decision Making Committee (SBDMC). Much of the technology purchased has been as a result of action taken by the SBDMC. The SBDMC has also set instructional technology use as a focus for professional development on campus. We have begun using a program called “Turn-It In” to combat plagiarism in our classes. Each teacher within our district is expected to maintain a webpage through the district “School Center” program. The district has also instituted the use of “PD-360”, an on-line service delivering professional development to teachers 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our Science Department has a wide range of Vernier sensors that interface with the laptop computers for real time collection of data by the students.
I visited with two groups of students for this assignment as recommended by the professors of the course. I visited with the students from one of our Pharmacy Technology classes and our Health Science Technology II class. There were thirty students in the two groups combined. I asked the students about the amount of time that they use technology in student directed learning during the course of their regular nontechnology based courses. Their response was overwhelmingly unanimous. They report less than twice a year over all. That may only include one course a year. The students report that they primarily use technology for the preparation of reports and projects using word processing and Power Point software. When questioned about how often the students are asked to use the digital drop-box provided for teachers some responded only once during the course of their education. That was for an upper level physics course. If the student did not have that teacher, they had never used it.
I asked the students how they would respond to a project based student learning activity. I explained that it would give them the topic and the learning objectives and they would be responsible for using the internet to learn the material with instructor facilitation and guidance. The students enrolled in upper level course responded positively, while those in regular level course had mixed response. The biggest concern among the regular level students was that there would be a great number of students who simply relied upon on member of the group to complete the project. A great number of the student expressed an interest in a move away from teacher centered learning scenarios, but expressed that they would be more confident with guidance from the teacher about specifics either through One-Note or a teacher’s web page. When I asked the students haw many would visit a teacher’s blog, the overwhelming response was only if it directly affected their grade. The students were extremely interested in a learning activity that involved collaboration with students in other areas of the country as specified in the State Long Range Plan for Technology. This is currently not a viable option as students do not have access to school email or any messaging systems.
Students reported a wide range of technology use outside of school. All of the students in both groups of students reported having internet access at home. They were all users of cell phones, text messaging, and social networking. Many used the internet for gaming with friends, downloading music and movies, and shopping. Only a few reported using it to seek additional information about school related topics unless directed to do so by a teacher. I asked the students what were the biggest hindrances to technology use at school for learning. They responded that when using the lap tops that connectivity is an issue in many classroom as well as adequate outlets for power. They also responded that it takes too long to get logged on to one. It may take up to five minutes for a student in a class of 21 to get logged on. The biggest obstacle given by the students is the school fire wall. The Pharmacy Technician on-line site has learning games associated with it that cannot be accessed due to the filter identifying them as games. Many on-line news articles are blocked from major news sources due to the filter identifying the coverage as hate speech. This has proven an obstacle for the preparation of our Current Events team. Students overall report a tremendous amount of frustration while attempting on-line research at school due to the filters. The school does have several on-line data bases that it subscribes to, but as for the most recent information, it may be difficult for students and teachers to access.
Teachers’ comments about the obstacles to technology use in the class are similar to those of the students. Teachers express the same frustrations with attempting to access information through the school’s filters. Teachers also express that it is difficult to schedule use of the labs around the demands of the pacing of curriculum scope and sequence. There is also the issue of professional development for some of the technology. Teachers new to the district often must use their own time to learn to use some of the technologies specific to their departments. One of the biggest concerns of teachers regarding technology at school is how it will affect their work load outside of the classroom. Many executives are experiencing the inability to escape their jobs even while on vacation as a result of the technology boom and continuous connectivity. Our students involved in distance learning do not have access to email while at school to communicate with their professors or class cohorts. They must copy their assignments to the site proctors jump drive, and then she submits them via her school email address. The majority of those interviewed agree that the next steps for the improvement of instructional technology use in the classroom are a one to one computer ratio and a lessening of the district filtering restrictions. These are perceived to be the major barriers to effective instructional technology use for student directed learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)