Denise Chuick
Lamar University – Masters of Education
Educational Leadership
EA 1198
Action Plan for Improvement of Teacher Technology Skills listed under the Teaching and Learning criteria of the STaR chart
Step One – Principal will include increased professional development requirements for teachers in next year’s CIP
· teachers will be expected to attend 10 hours of technology training before the end of the first semester
o the technology training must be done in software or internet skills that will directly impact the use of technology in the classroom and by the students
o the sessions attended must be in software or skills that are new to the teacher
· before October 31, 2011, the teacher will write a 250 word paragraph explaining how he or she will use the new technology training to directly impact the daily lessons of his or her students
o The action plan will include how student data will be collected before the implementation and how it will be measured after the technology lessons are completed
· By April 2012, the teacher will implement the chosen action plan within the classroom and report all results of student achievement
o This process will be included as part of the PDAS evaluation process for 2011-2012
Step Two – Campus instructional leadership will commit to providing 100 hours of technology training for teachers and paraprofessionals “in-house” during the first semester of the school year. Specifically, teachers should be expected to use the knowledge to integrate opportunities for student technology use in the classroom. Students should be using technology to lead their own learning, within classroom lessons. The changed focus of these new lessons should be based on the grade-level TA TEKS and should include hands-on use of technology by the students.
· 50 hours will be offered through established district instructional technology schedules; communication between campus leadership and teachers will be increased to inform teachers of existing opportunities
o Most of these sessions are offered after-school
o Campus leadership will work to host 3 of these sessions at Meyer ES for convenience of their own teachers
· 50 hours will be offered through campus-based programming on scheduled staff inservice days, through the i-Tech campus liaison and/or through skilled teachers that already teach at Meyer ES
o Campus leadership will reach out to near-by campuses to see what teacher needs exist at those campuses, in hopes to share training session responsibilities on scheduled in service days
o Some of the campus-based professional development sessions will be offered before school or after school, as needed to meet campus teacher needs.
Step Three – Teacher’s annual evaluation shall reflect actual attendance, proof of learning and proof of integration of TA TEKS into the classroom learning experience.
· The teacher’s assigned evaluator will collect the teacher’s technology learning plan along with the pre-evaluation paperwork in October 2011
o Teachers who do not complete a technology learning plan or do not sufficiently explain a valid plan pathway will be assessed on a growth plan for that school year.
Step Four – Evaluation of Results of Action Plan
· Using classroom lesson plans, filed electronically, campus leadership will count the number of times teachers state that hands-on use of technology will be integrated into the student learning objectives.
o As long as the students are using the technology to enhance their learning of the TEKS or are meeting a TA TEKS objective, the lesson can count toward the campus total.
· Campus leadership, including Instructional Specialists and counselors, will use the walk-through process to track actual usage of hands-on technology in the classrooms.
o Walk-through evaluators will add “technology goal” as a line item on each district standard walk through rubric.
One point will be awarded for inclusion of technology TEKS in the classroom lesson plans
One point will be awarded for completion of lesson plan as written
One to three points will be awarded for effectiveness of plan on student engagement
· Data gathered (statistics) will be complied each month. Statistics will be displayed in the teachers lounge and will be distributed to team leaders for discussion among team members.
· End of semester data and end of year data will be used to determine whether the action plan will continue.
Monday, March 14, 2011
D Chuick
Lamar University Graduate Student
Masters of Education – Educational Leadership
EA1198
I chose to follow the directions posted via email on February 27, 2011: ”If you missed the recording, you may watch the recording, reflect on that review of the web conference in your blog, and then send me your blog address so I can view your comments in your blog.”
Reflections of Web Cast held on February 27, 2011
The objective behind the requirement for this course was to expose people to this new technology and this new way of communicating. The exposure afforded a graduate student through this assignment requirement is a tremendous step toward changing the education landscape in the near future. If we, as educational leaders, do not understand how to adapt our old ways of communicating into this new world, we will get left behind as “invalid”. Students will ignore our vast wealth of knowledge merely because we don’t know how to speak their language.
As the webcast began, I began to sense the frustration of both those presenting and those attending. Many of those that were logging into the web chat were unaware of the methodology of the technology. Setting aside the variant span of skills participants held for the practical steps of participation, the most noticeable difficulty appeared in the use of the web chat function.
Web casting skills are quite different than the well-established skills we use during a face-to-face conversation. Evident by the behavior of the participant’s in this webcast, inexperienced people tried to converse quickly, in an informal manner. Many were attempting to participate in discussions as if they were face-to-face. This behavior lead the presenters to show non-verbal signs of frustration and to emphasize through voice inflection those participants should cease.
While I continued to read the chat logs, listen to the participants and watch the non-verbal body language of those on camera, I made a few notes as to the simple rules of web chat.
First, web cast times should be presented to include an established “log-in” period. During this stated “log-in” period, all persons joining the web chat can work to get video, audio and the professors can choose the presenters. Much like staff development has a sign-in period, those attending should respect that there is a deadline for social discussion and a start time for the academic part of the presentation.
Secondly, the rules for conversation during web casting should be made at the beginning. Most people involved in this required assignment use the same conversation skills during all encounters – both oral and written – and may have forgotten how those skills were learned. Placed into a new situation, where their technology skills are taxed, they fail to adapt simple rules like “Don’t interrupt when someone is talking”, “Listen to the conversation for verbal clues to answer your own questions” and “Use correct grammar and polite syntax when requesting information” to this new technology venue. For example, if the 99 people had been a part of a freshman political science lecture or a staff benefits meeting, they would not have continued to write the social conversations past the professor’s start time (5:05). Also, they would have followed the oral conversation and filtered out answers to their own questions.
Lamar University Graduate Student
Masters of Education – Educational Leadership
EA1198
I chose to follow the directions posted via email on February 27, 2011: ”If you missed the recording, you may watch the recording, reflect on that review of the web conference in your blog, and then send me your blog address so I can view your comments in your blog.”
Reflections of Web Cast held on February 27, 2011
The objective behind the requirement for this course was to expose people to this new technology and this new way of communicating. The exposure afforded a graduate student through this assignment requirement is a tremendous step toward changing the education landscape in the near future. If we, as educational leaders, do not understand how to adapt our old ways of communicating into this new world, we will get left behind as “invalid”. Students will ignore our vast wealth of knowledge merely because we don’t know how to speak their language.
As the webcast began, I began to sense the frustration of both those presenting and those attending. Many of those that were logging into the web chat were unaware of the methodology of the technology. Setting aside the variant span of skills participants held for the practical steps of participation, the most noticeable difficulty appeared in the use of the web chat function.
Web casting skills are quite different than the well-established skills we use during a face-to-face conversation. Evident by the behavior of the participant’s in this webcast, inexperienced people tried to converse quickly, in an informal manner. Many were attempting to participate in discussions as if they were face-to-face. This behavior lead the presenters to show non-verbal signs of frustration and to emphasize through voice inflection those participants should cease.
While I continued to read the chat logs, listen to the participants and watch the non-verbal body language of those on camera, I made a few notes as to the simple rules of web chat.
First, web cast times should be presented to include an established “log-in” period. During this stated “log-in” period, all persons joining the web chat can work to get video, audio and the professors can choose the presenters. Much like staff development has a sign-in period, those attending should respect that there is a deadline for social discussion and a start time for the academic part of the presentation.
Secondly, the rules for conversation during web casting should be made at the beginning. Most people involved in this required assignment use the same conversation skills during all encounters – both oral and written – and may have forgotten how those skills were learned. Placed into a new situation, where their technology skills are taxed, they fail to adapt simple rules like “Don’t interrupt when someone is talking”, “Listen to the conversation for verbal clues to answer your own questions” and “Use correct grammar and polite syntax when requesting information” to this new technology venue. For example, if the 99 people had been a part of a freshman political science lecture or a staff benefits meeting, they would not have continued to write the social conversations past the professor’s start time (5:05). Also, they would have followed the oral conversation and filtered out answers to their own questions.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
EDLD 5352 Week Two Powerpoint DChuick EA1198
Posted as part requirement for Week Two Part 4 Assignment
Week Two: Blog #3 Reflection upon reading the National Education Technology Plan
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership: The Technology Link
Denise Chuick
Lamar University
Masters of Education – Educational Leadership
EA 1198
In a broad sense, the goals of the National Education Technology Plan (NETP) in 2004 were to play ‘catch up’ with the rest of the world. The competition of the global economy and the very growth of our own economy require that today’s public school student be a master of emerging technology before graduation, to ensure success in the workplace or in the ever more demanding arena of higher education. Specifically, the NETP report gave seven (7) major action steps for continued, systemic change.
Of the recommended action steps, the report cited a need to relinquish the stronghold on centuries-old methods of reacting to change. “The problem is not necessarily lack of funds, but lack of adequate training and lack of understanding of how computers can be used to enrich the learning experience.” (NETP, 2004). Any technology learning plan should be responsive and focus on these areas: 1) identifying the next-future set of skills that students will need to have, 2) taking inventory of all current, available training resources and 3) acquiring those resources or developing new products to meet the demand of the student-learner.
In his article “Literacy in the New Information Landscape”, David Warlick (2007) states, “Each of these new qualities of information impacts directly on our notions of what it means to be literate, the basic skills required to use information to accomplish goals.” Teachers and their leaders need both financial resources for professional development courses and need access to share what is learned with each other. The rigid structure of formal research needs to give way to the global morphing of action research. Change happens now in today’s electronic society – not over time, as has been entrenched in our genetics over the past 200 years.
I agree with the writer of the Executive Summary who penned, “It is the responsibility of this nation’s educational enterprise-including policymakers-to help secure our economic future by ensuring that our young people are adequately prepared to meet these challenges.” (NETP, 2004) Those needs lie particularly in the areas of math and science and specifically in the application and mastery of the very technology that is being developed. Without a telescopic gaze into the future, I believe that our public education system will fall further and further behind in comparison to those that currently lead the world.
References:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2004). Toward A New Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law and Today’s Students are Revolutionizing Expectations. Washington D.C.: Author.
Warlick, D. (2007). Literacy in the new information landscape. Library Media Connection, 26(1). 20-21.
Denise Chuick
Lamar University
Masters of Education – Educational Leadership
EA 1198
In a broad sense, the goals of the National Education Technology Plan (NETP) in 2004 were to play ‘catch up’ with the rest of the world. The competition of the global economy and the very growth of our own economy require that today’s public school student be a master of emerging technology before graduation, to ensure success in the workplace or in the ever more demanding arena of higher education. Specifically, the NETP report gave seven (7) major action steps for continued, systemic change.
Of the recommended action steps, the report cited a need to relinquish the stronghold on centuries-old methods of reacting to change. “The problem is not necessarily lack of funds, but lack of adequate training and lack of understanding of how computers can be used to enrich the learning experience.” (NETP, 2004). Any technology learning plan should be responsive and focus on these areas: 1) identifying the next-future set of skills that students will need to have, 2) taking inventory of all current, available training resources and 3) acquiring those resources or developing new products to meet the demand of the student-learner.
In his article “Literacy in the New Information Landscape”, David Warlick (2007) states, “Each of these new qualities of information impacts directly on our notions of what it means to be literate, the basic skills required to use information to accomplish goals.” Teachers and their leaders need both financial resources for professional development courses and need access to share what is learned with each other. The rigid structure of formal research needs to give way to the global morphing of action research. Change happens now in today’s electronic society – not over time, as has been entrenched in our genetics over the past 200 years.
I agree with the writer of the Executive Summary who penned, “It is the responsibility of this nation’s educational enterprise-including policymakers-to help secure our economic future by ensuring that our young people are adequately prepared to meet these challenges.” (NETP, 2004) Those needs lie particularly in the areas of math and science and specifically in the application and mastery of the very technology that is being developed. Without a telescopic gaze into the future, I believe that our public education system will fall further and further behind in comparison to those that currently lead the world.
References:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2004). Toward A New Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law and Today’s Students are Revolutionizing Expectations. Washington D.C.: Author.
Warlick, D. (2007). Literacy in the new information landscape. Library Media Connection, 26(1). 20-21.
Week Two: Blog #2 Reflection upon reading the latest update report to the TEA Long-Range Plan for Technology (version 2010)
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership: The Technology Link
Denise Chuick
Lamar University
Masters of Education – Educational Leadership
EA 1198
My initial visual identification was of the thoroughness of the research-backed data. I found the update report to be comprehensive and informative, to the point that I now can identify twelve new sources of technology funding that are available for Texas public school districts. The report has led me to a more in-depth understanding of the many facets to technology education, from earliest years to professional development.
As I skimmed each section of the report for the broad points, questions formed spontaneously. I wondered how the information for the grants and funding were disseminated. How many grants are currently being administered and the data has not yet been presented? What trends will that data show in the next update report? How many teachers are fully aware of the different certifications and programs leading to designations?
This update report has incited a new desire in me to further develop my own technology skills for use within the performance of my current job. As a current mid-level administrator, I find that my use of technology is growing to meet the demands of the campus administrators. They are becoming more versed in the use of the communication technology and wish to be models for their staff. The LRPT update report is now a resource for me to use to understand from where these new skills are originating.
The increased knowledge and skill of our campus administrators is leading to requests of me to utilize webinars, web conferences and shared storage drives to disseminate information, rather than the traditional face-to-face meetings and email distribution.
I am being constantly challenged to stay ahead of the rest of our district leaders and, dare I say, surpass their knowledge.
Denise Chuick
Lamar University
Masters of Education – Educational Leadership
EA 1198
My initial visual identification was of the thoroughness of the research-backed data. I found the update report to be comprehensive and informative, to the point that I now can identify twelve new sources of technology funding that are available for Texas public school districts. The report has led me to a more in-depth understanding of the many facets to technology education, from earliest years to professional development.
As I skimmed each section of the report for the broad points, questions formed spontaneously. I wondered how the information for the grants and funding were disseminated. How many grants are currently being administered and the data has not yet been presented? What trends will that data show in the next update report? How many teachers are fully aware of the different certifications and programs leading to designations?
This update report has incited a new desire in me to further develop my own technology skills for use within the performance of my current job. As a current mid-level administrator, I find that my use of technology is growing to meet the demands of the campus administrators. They are becoming more versed in the use of the communication technology and wish to be models for their staff. The LRPT update report is now a resource for me to use to understand from where these new skills are originating.
The increased knowledge and skill of our campus administrators is leading to requests of me to utilize webinars, web conferences and shared storage drives to disseminate information, rather than the traditional face-to-face meetings and email distribution.
I am being constantly challenged to stay ahead of the rest of our district leaders and, dare I say, surpass their knowledge.
EDLD 5352 Instructional Leadership: The Technology Link
Week Two: Blog #1 The Texas Long Range Plan for Technology
Denise Chuick
Lamar University Masters of Education – Educational Leadership
EA 1198
I have chosen to discuss the third listed area (Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support) for this assignment. This area encompasses most, if not all, of the mid-management functions required between acquisition of the needed equipment and connectivity products (Infrastructure for Technology) and the use of the technology in the classroom (Educator Preparation and Development).
In 2006, the Long Range Plan for Technology (LRPT) showed that technology education at the Educational Service Centers was “critical to the success of technology integration in Texas and must be funded and staffed accordingly”. (TEA, 2006) The TEA centered recommendations in this area around the use of the existing professional development venues (Regional Service Centers and TEA) to provide effective and efficient methods for school districts to obtain the necessary training programs for their employees.
In the area of what educators know and what skills educators have, our state has progressed quite a distance since 2006. The most recent update report on the LRTP, published in 2010, the state acknowledged the significant accomplishment of the state agencies and the school districts in implementing technology in the classroom. Over the last four to five years and with the data collected annually through the use of the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) chart, appropriate funding lines have provided Regional Service Centers and school districts with the ability to provide professional development for educators and to promote future thinking in the same group by encouraging attendance at conferences and technology trainings.
This most recent LRTP update also shows that the trend for the state of Texas is toward online learning communities, both for professionals and for the public school students. A Virtual School Network has been established to enlarge the catalog of opportunities for Texas school children from the elementary ages through post-graduate matriculation. STaR chart data indicates a decrease in the number of teachers that self-report a “beginning” level of skill. Through changes in the classroom TEKS, data indicates an increase in the number of teachers requiring students to use technology to solve the classroom assignment problems, instead of merely using the technology to show learning has occurred.
The foremost and primary recommendation I can make in this area is continual funding of both infrastructure and professional development. In order to keep pace with the technology growth globally, the state of Texas will need to fund exploration of what the “21st Century School District” will look like in 2020. How will students learn? How will students be taught? Who will be able to stay ahead of the students? And, most seriously, when will we give up this most antiquated and cumbersome public school structure to join the global learning community?
Reference:
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Long Range Plans for Technology, 2006-2020. Austin, TX: Author.
Denise Chuick
Lamar University Masters of Education – Educational Leadership
EA 1198
I have chosen to discuss the third listed area (Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support) for this assignment. This area encompasses most, if not all, of the mid-management functions required between acquisition of the needed equipment and connectivity products (Infrastructure for Technology) and the use of the technology in the classroom (Educator Preparation and Development).
In 2006, the Long Range Plan for Technology (LRPT) showed that technology education at the Educational Service Centers was “critical to the success of technology integration in Texas and must be funded and staffed accordingly”. (TEA, 2006) The TEA centered recommendations in this area around the use of the existing professional development venues (Regional Service Centers and TEA) to provide effective and efficient methods for school districts to obtain the necessary training programs for their employees.
In the area of what educators know and what skills educators have, our state has progressed quite a distance since 2006. The most recent update report on the LRTP, published in 2010, the state acknowledged the significant accomplishment of the state agencies and the school districts in implementing technology in the classroom. Over the last four to five years and with the data collected annually through the use of the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) chart, appropriate funding lines have provided Regional Service Centers and school districts with the ability to provide professional development for educators and to promote future thinking in the same group by encouraging attendance at conferences and technology trainings.
This most recent LRTP update also shows that the trend for the state of Texas is toward online learning communities, both for professionals and for the public school students. A Virtual School Network has been established to enlarge the catalog of opportunities for Texas school children from the elementary ages through post-graduate matriculation. STaR chart data indicates a decrease in the number of teachers that self-report a “beginning” level of skill. Through changes in the classroom TEKS, data indicates an increase in the number of teachers requiring students to use technology to solve the classroom assignment problems, instead of merely using the technology to show learning has occurred.
The foremost and primary recommendation I can make in this area is continual funding of both infrastructure and professional development. In order to keep pace with the technology growth globally, the state of Texas will need to fund exploration of what the “21st Century School District” will look like in 2020. How will students learn? How will students be taught? Who will be able to stay ahead of the students? And, most seriously, when will we give up this most antiquated and cumbersome public school structure to join the global learning community?
Reference:
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Long Range Plans for Technology, 2006-2020. Austin, TX: Author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)