In taking part in the required web conference for this course I learned both positives and negatives of their use.
Web conferences offer student in asynchronous online courses or in other groups the opportunity to converse with each other. The ability to have both video and audio feed as well as live chat can allow for a more natural flow of conversation and collaboration than in a discussion post, blog or wiki setting. The issues come, though, when the number of participants exceeds the capabilities of the system.
In our web conference we logged in hours early, as we were informed that numbers would be restricted and many people wouldn’t get in. As we are in China we actually had to do our web conference at 1 am local time as the others would have been during our work hours. Even after logging on incredibly early we still almost didn’t get in because after we had been put in the queue we apparently were bumped and had to refresh after the appointed start time in order to get in. Luckily we were able to however it was somewhat of a madhouse. My screen view kept changing over and over again and the facilitator, Dr. Abernathy was quite upset with the participants. Apparently individuals were “pushing buttons” and that was changing the view. Honestly, however, while I wasn’t the one pushing any buttons I could see how there would be no way of knowing if one were doing something right or wrong. Supposedly we were supposed to be able to have audio and video feed but the only audio ever allowed was that if the facilitator. Perhaps others were trying to get their audio to go, and that may be what was causing the issues. There were so many participants t5hat the chat log sped by at tremendous speed. While I tried to take part and did communicate several ideas I know without a doubt that there is a significant amount of discussion that I missed. Many questions asked by participants went unanswered as, quite frankly, there was simply no time for anyone to even read them. We resorted to repeating others questions over in the chat in the hopes of finding answers. While looking at the log of the session is somewhat helpful, I would certainly never use this feature in the future without it being limited to one class and without doing a walkthrough with screen shots for all participants first. While the technology has many applications I do not feel that I got out of it what was intended because there were simply too many participants and I was not able to do anything other than attempt to keep up with the chat log.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Action Plan to Better Support Application and Integration of New Instructional Technologies by Campus Instructional Staff
One of the most significant issues noted in survey data such as STAR Charts, as well as being a significant aspect of both the Texas State Long Range Plan for Technology and National technology standards is the support and education of staff regarding technology use. Seventy-two point four percent of schools in the state of Texas rated Educator Preparation as either in the early or developing stage. (Instructional Materials, 2010) Ross S. Sterling HS itself actually showed a drop in survey rates from 2009 to 2010 in the category of Educator preparation. (Instructional Materials, 2010) The issue continues to present itself because, in many districts across the state and nation, the manner in which technology is introduced to teachers, as well as the lack of follow-up support and assessment, make it nearly impossible for teachers not already familiar and comfortable with technology to integrate it successfully. The Texas Long Range Plan for Technology notes that local education agencies should, “Develop strategies for all educators, including campus administrators and librarians, to
master the Technology Applications Educator Standards I-V as access to technology and professional development becomes available.” (2006) To this end a change must occur in how professional development and teacher education related to technology is conducted. This change must come with not what teachers are being instructed in, in regards to technology, but the manner in which this instruction takes place and the support they receive afterwards, in implementing said technology.
In order to implement the changes that need to occur in the support, implementation, monitoring and assessment of educator preparation for technology, district and campus level staff must work together. The organizational chart below outlines the individuals involved from the level of the chief technology officer to the campus instructional staff. With each position title is a description of what that position entails as well as how that position will relate, in a small way, to the action plan related to an entirely new format for all technology staff developments. Additional explanation of responsibilities for aspects of the plan are included in the explanation of the new model for professional development.
The first chart illustrates the portion of the organizational leadership at the district level for instructional technology. For the purposes of this action plan aspects of the organizational hierarchy related to operations and non-instructional technology related tech staff positions have been largely omitted.
The second chart relates to the organizational positions of implementing educational technology changes at the campus level. While the hierarchy is established by the flowchart be aware that information flows in both directions and feedback and ideas can and should come from all aspects if the chart.
The requirement of professional development to support district technology initiatives is a specifically mentioned aspect of the Ross S. Sterling Campus Technology Plan (2010). Yet the key issue being faced by staff is not that they are not receiving professional development, but that this professional development is not effective as there is little to no support after the stand-alone trainings are completed to assist teachers in actually integrating technology into the classroom and evaluating its use therein. These issues are born out in STAR Chart data as well, as Educator Preparation is the lowest scoring category of the survey at both the state level and at Ross S. Sterling HS (2010) Additionally one of the key factors noted as a responsibility of administrators in the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology is that they must “provide opportunities for sustained, relevant and timely staff development in a variety of formats.” (2006) To this end a change needs to occur not in what teachers are being trained in, but in how they are being trained. The issue is the fact that teacher training at Ross S. Sterling High School is not sustained. It is introduced, and then teachers are left to flounder on their own, implementing or not as they are able or desire to do.As such this professional development plan actually focuses on a new standard format for professional development that focuses on changing not what is taught to educators, but how they are supported during and after this instruction. This new plan for professional development should be instituted with any new technology meant to be used in an instructional setting.
The key factors of this professional development strategy will be:
• The use of campus trainers for professional development as opposed to district level trainers. These trainers will be available for in-class modeling and support and evaluation of the integration of the given technology by teachers into their own classrooms.
o Responsible Party: Campus Technology Trainers reporting to the Campus Principal and guided by the Educational technology Trainers at the District Level
o Classroom teachers are responsible for attending a modeled lesson and producing their own lesson within six-weeks of the modeled lesson, which will be observed by the Campus Trainer.
• Support by campus administrators of substitute teachers to cover the classes of trainers when they are observing and supporting teachers in their own classes.
o Responsible Party: Campus Principal and secretarial staff who oversee the assignment of substitute teachers on campus. It is best if the lessons are scheduled so that one substitute can cover for multiple trainers in a given day so as to make the most economic use of substitute funds.
• Surveys conducted of both teachers and students regarding the application of a specific technology in the instructional setting, as well as assessments by the trainers of how teachers are integrating the tech into lessons and ways to improve this.
o Responsible Party: The campus trainers will create surveys for the specified technology for both students and teachers. Data from these surveys ill be gathered by the campus trainers to support discussion and to offer feedback to the campus principal as well as the district level Educational technology staff.
• Monthly data-gathering through both survey’s and the analysis of lesson plans for the application of targeted tech pieces in order to ascertain the usefulness of specific tech strategies.
o Responsible Party: The campus trainers will create surveys related to the success level of the new style of professional development. Department chairs and content specialists will evaluate lesson plans for application of technology and give gathered data to the campus trainers to provide information to the campus principal and the district-level Educational technology staff.
• Surveys and collaborative discussions with minutes taken regarding the support provided by the campus trainers, the modeled lessons and the assessment of teacher in-class application in order to ascertain if this new style of technology professional development is meeting teacher and student needs. This information will then be presented to campus administration and sent to the district level Educational Technology Director and Ed tech trainers and specialists as well. This feedback will be used to guide the choice of new technologies to instruct staff in as well as the further honing of professional development procedures.
o Responsible Party: The campus trainers will create surveys related to the success level of the new style of professional development. Discussions will then be had with campus and district responsible personnel. Feedback will be used to guide future professional developments.
• The campus principal will work the schedule in such a manner that campus trainers have an additional off-period, if several trainers are being used, or a half-day schedule if only one or two trainers are being used. This will offer enough time for the campus trainers to take part in the duties inherited with this new style of professional development.
Evaluation for the action plan is actually embedded in the cyclical professional development. To be more explicit about what it entails the following descriptions may be useful.
During a given professional development, when the classroom modeling by campus trainers and the classroom implementation is being done by instructional staff, technology will be used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The campus trainers will use a pre-made online template for evaluating classroom lessons for the instructional staff in question. This data will be sent to the teacher electronically. Additionally the campus trainers and instructional staff will all be linked on a wiki created for the discussion and collaboration of best practice. Different pages will be assigned to the different technologies being applied in a given campus. Best practice, new ideas seen by the modeled classes as well as the teacher application will be shared on this site.
Regarding overall school improvement in the area of educator preparation, along with the use of online survey sites to create the surveys associated with the professional development, STAR Chart data will continue to be monitored to see if improvements are seen in the educator preparation area.
The data gathered from the surveys after the professional development, the modeled lessons and the teacher implemented lessons as well as the student survey data is just some of the ways in which technology will be used to gather information to guide future decision making. Along with the STAR Chart data as well, information will also be derived regarding the number of staff attaining certification in technology areas through SBEC. Also, feedback from monthly meetings with the campus trainers regarding the positives and negatives of implementation will also be stored digitally and be made available to campus and district level decision makers whenever it becomes available. It is hoped this wealth of information will be used to guide the choosing of new technologies to provide training on as well as decisions regarding funding and staffing.
Instructional Materials and Educational Technology Division. (2010) 2009-2010 Statewide Summary Data. Retrieved from http://starchart.esc12.net/#
Instructional Materials and Educational Technology Division. (2010) 2009-2010 Texas STAR Chart Campus Summary Data. Retrieved from http://starchart2.esc12.net/campusSearchlist.aspx?foryear=20092010&district=goose%20creek&campus=st erling
Ross S. Sterling Technology Committee. (2010) Campus Technology Integration Plan.
Texas Education Agency (2006) Texas Long Range Plan for Technology: A report to the 8oth Texas State Legislature. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/EktronAttach/FinalCombinedLRPT2020.pdf
One of the most significant issues noted in survey data such as STAR Charts, as well as being a significant aspect of both the Texas State Long Range Plan for Technology and National technology standards is the support and education of staff regarding technology use. Seventy-two point four percent of schools in the state of Texas rated Educator Preparation as either in the early or developing stage. (Instructional Materials, 2010) Ross S. Sterling HS itself actually showed a drop in survey rates from 2009 to 2010 in the category of Educator preparation. (Instructional Materials, 2010) The issue continues to present itself because, in many districts across the state and nation, the manner in which technology is introduced to teachers, as well as the lack of follow-up support and assessment, make it nearly impossible for teachers not already familiar and comfortable with technology to integrate it successfully. The Texas Long Range Plan for Technology notes that local education agencies should, “Develop strategies for all educators, including campus administrators and librarians, to
master the Technology Applications Educator Standards I-V as access to technology and professional development becomes available.” (2006) To this end a change must occur in how professional development and teacher education related to technology is conducted. This change must come with not what teachers are being instructed in, in regards to technology, but the manner in which this instruction takes place and the support they receive afterwards, in implementing said technology.
In order to implement the changes that need to occur in the support, implementation, monitoring and assessment of educator preparation for technology, district and campus level staff must work together. The organizational chart below outlines the individuals involved from the level of the chief technology officer to the campus instructional staff. With each position title is a description of what that position entails as well as how that position will relate, in a small way, to the action plan related to an entirely new format for all technology staff developments. Additional explanation of responsibilities for aspects of the plan are included in the explanation of the new model for professional development.
The first chart illustrates the portion of the organizational leadership at the district level for instructional technology. For the purposes of this action plan aspects of the organizational hierarchy related to operations and non-instructional technology related tech staff positions have been largely omitted.
The second chart relates to the organizational positions of implementing educational technology changes at the campus level. While the hierarchy is established by the flowchart be aware that information flows in both directions and feedback and ideas can and should come from all aspects if the chart.
The requirement of professional development to support district technology initiatives is a specifically mentioned aspect of the Ross S. Sterling Campus Technology Plan (2010). Yet the key issue being faced by staff is not that they are not receiving professional development, but that this professional development is not effective as there is little to no support after the stand-alone trainings are completed to assist teachers in actually integrating technology into the classroom and evaluating its use therein. These issues are born out in STAR Chart data as well, as Educator Preparation is the lowest scoring category of the survey at both the state level and at Ross S. Sterling HS (2010) Additionally one of the key factors noted as a responsibility of administrators in the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology is that they must “provide opportunities for sustained, relevant and timely staff development in a variety of formats.” (2006) To this end a change needs to occur not in what teachers are being trained in, but in how they are being trained. The issue is the fact that teacher training at Ross S. Sterling High School is not sustained. It is introduced, and then teachers are left to flounder on their own, implementing or not as they are able or desire to do.As such this professional development plan actually focuses on a new standard format for professional development that focuses on changing not what is taught to educators, but how they are supported during and after this instruction. This new plan for professional development should be instituted with any new technology meant to be used in an instructional setting.
The key factors of this professional development strategy will be:
• The use of campus trainers for professional development as opposed to district level trainers. These trainers will be available for in-class modeling and support and evaluation of the integration of the given technology by teachers into their own classrooms.
o Responsible Party: Campus Technology Trainers reporting to the Campus Principal and guided by the Educational technology Trainers at the District Level
o Classroom teachers are responsible for attending a modeled lesson and producing their own lesson within six-weeks of the modeled lesson, which will be observed by the Campus Trainer.
• Support by campus administrators of substitute teachers to cover the classes of trainers when they are observing and supporting teachers in their own classes.
o Responsible Party: Campus Principal and secretarial staff who oversee the assignment of substitute teachers on campus. It is best if the lessons are scheduled so that one substitute can cover for multiple trainers in a given day so as to make the most economic use of substitute funds.
• Surveys conducted of both teachers and students regarding the application of a specific technology in the instructional setting, as well as assessments by the trainers of how teachers are integrating the tech into lessons and ways to improve this.
o Responsible Party: The campus trainers will create surveys for the specified technology for both students and teachers. Data from these surveys ill be gathered by the campus trainers to support discussion and to offer feedback to the campus principal as well as the district level Educational technology staff.
• Monthly data-gathering through both survey’s and the analysis of lesson plans for the application of targeted tech pieces in order to ascertain the usefulness of specific tech strategies.
o Responsible Party: The campus trainers will create surveys related to the success level of the new style of professional development. Department chairs and content specialists will evaluate lesson plans for application of technology and give gathered data to the campus trainers to provide information to the campus principal and the district-level Educational technology staff.
• Surveys and collaborative discussions with minutes taken regarding the support provided by the campus trainers, the modeled lessons and the assessment of teacher in-class application in order to ascertain if this new style of technology professional development is meeting teacher and student needs. This information will then be presented to campus administration and sent to the district level Educational Technology Director and Ed tech trainers and specialists as well. This feedback will be used to guide the choice of new technologies to instruct staff in as well as the further honing of professional development procedures.
o Responsible Party: The campus trainers will create surveys related to the success level of the new style of professional development. Discussions will then be had with campus and district responsible personnel. Feedback will be used to guide future professional developments.
• The campus principal will work the schedule in such a manner that campus trainers have an additional off-period, if several trainers are being used, or a half-day schedule if only one or two trainers are being used. This will offer enough time for the campus trainers to take part in the duties inherited with this new style of professional development.
Evaluation for the action plan is actually embedded in the cyclical professional development. To be more explicit about what it entails the following descriptions may be useful.
During a given professional development, when the classroom modeling by campus trainers and the classroom implementation is being done by instructional staff, technology will be used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The campus trainers will use a pre-made online template for evaluating classroom lessons for the instructional staff in question. This data will be sent to the teacher electronically. Additionally the campus trainers and instructional staff will all be linked on a wiki created for the discussion and collaboration of best practice. Different pages will be assigned to the different technologies being applied in a given campus. Best practice, new ideas seen by the modeled classes as well as the teacher application will be shared on this site.
Regarding overall school improvement in the area of educator preparation, along with the use of online survey sites to create the surveys associated with the professional development, STAR Chart data will continue to be monitored to see if improvements are seen in the educator preparation area.
The data gathered from the surveys after the professional development, the modeled lessons and the teacher implemented lessons as well as the student survey data is just some of the ways in which technology will be used to gather information to guide future decision making. Along with the STAR Chart data as well, information will also be derived regarding the number of staff attaining certification in technology areas through SBEC. Also, feedback from monthly meetings with the campus trainers regarding the positives and negatives of implementation will also be stored digitally and be made available to campus and district level decision makers whenever it becomes available. It is hoped this wealth of information will be used to guide the choosing of new technologies to provide training on as well as decisions regarding funding and staffing.
Instructional Materials and Educational Technology Division. (2010) 2009-2010 Statewide Summary Data. Retrieved from http://starchart.esc12.net/#
Instructional Materials and Educational Technology Division. (2010) 2009-2010 Texas STAR Chart Campus Summary Data. Retrieved from http://starchart2.esc12.net/campusSearchlist.aspx?foryear=20092010&district=goose%20creek&campus=st erling
Ross S. Sterling Technology Committee. (2010) Campus Technology Integration Plan.
Texas Education Agency (2006) Texas Long Range Plan for Technology: A report to the 8oth Texas State Legislature. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/EktronAttach/FinalCombinedLRPT2020.pdf
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
National Educational Technology Plan Executive Summary Draft
Technology is the key to enhancing the learning of the modern student. This is a national priority as the status of the United States' educational system has begun a steady decline compared to other nations. The Obama administration has set two clear goals for the overall educational system in this country.
• [To] raise the proportion of college graduates from where it now stands [39%] so that 60% of [the] population holds a 2-year or 4-year degree.
• [To] close the achievement gap so that all students – regardless of race, income, or neighborhood – graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers.
In order to meet these goals the nationa must embrace a technology-enhanced curriculuar model that supports learning across the curriculum with specific focus on SMET studies, (Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology.)
In order to make these visions a reality the National Plan focuses on multiple areas of advancement. One such area is student learning. The plan notes that, "All learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences both in and outside of school that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally networked society." To achieve this goal work should involve redevelopment of standards to integrate and rely heavily on 21st Century skills, integration of new learning designs to support the latest research in individual learners, use technology to develop right-on-time learner support, and use advances in technology and best practice to support success for all students in STEM courses.
Another area where support and growth will be needed is in professional development for educators and support staff. Areas of development for staff include support in acquiring new assessment technologies and the ability to incorporate them into classes, connect teachers individually and in teams to all data relevant to enhancing their content, instruction and support of individual students, supporting online and lifelong learning communities to offer just-in-time professional development and instruction for all teachers, support pre-service and in-service educators with the latest in educational technology tools to enhance instruction and assessment, and to develop a teaching force skilled in online instruction.
These areas are among the chief priorities for the nation's educational technology plan as the United States moves to incorporate 21st Century skills in a meaningful way. Only through the purposeful application of technology can students in our nations schools be given the opportunities that will drive them to the forefront of the global competitive economy.
The goals in this plan are lofty and meeting them will be beneficial, however the nation must ensure that the focus on SMET courses does not make us weak in other areas such as Language Arts, Social Studies and other Arts, as well as in vocational applications. Any plan that focuses solely on one part of an educational program can come to do damage if the other areas are not supported as well. So long as the focus on SMET courses are in addition to technology support and instruction across the board, the plan is solid and has validity.
• [To] raise the proportion of college graduates from where it now stands [39%] so that 60% of [the] population holds a 2-year or 4-year degree.
• [To] close the achievement gap so that all students – regardless of race, income, or neighborhood – graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers.
In order to meet these goals the nationa must embrace a technology-enhanced curriculuar model that supports learning across the curriculum with specific focus on SMET studies, (Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology.)
In order to make these visions a reality the National Plan focuses on multiple areas of advancement. One such area is student learning. The plan notes that, "All learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences both in and outside of school that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally networked society." To achieve this goal work should involve redevelopment of standards to integrate and rely heavily on 21st Century skills, integration of new learning designs to support the latest research in individual learners, use technology to develop right-on-time learner support, and use advances in technology and best practice to support success for all students in STEM courses.
Another area where support and growth will be needed is in professional development for educators and support staff. Areas of development for staff include support in acquiring new assessment technologies and the ability to incorporate them into classes, connect teachers individually and in teams to all data relevant to enhancing their content, instruction and support of individual students, supporting online and lifelong learning communities to offer just-in-time professional development and instruction for all teachers, support pre-service and in-service educators with the latest in educational technology tools to enhance instruction and assessment, and to develop a teaching force skilled in online instruction.
These areas are among the chief priorities for the nation's educational technology plan as the United States moves to incorporate 21st Century skills in a meaningful way. Only through the purposeful application of technology can students in our nations schools be given the opportunities that will drive them to the forefront of the global competitive economy.
The goals in this plan are lofty and meeting them will be beneficial, however the nation must ensure that the focus on SMET courses does not make us weak in other areas such as Language Arts, Social Studies and other Arts, as well as in vocational applications. Any plan that focuses solely on one part of an educational program can come to do damage if the other areas are not supported as well. So long as the focus on SMET courses are in addition to technology support and instruction across the board, the plan is solid and has validity.
2010 Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020
The 2010 Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020 by the Texas Education Agency summarizes infrormation regarding to the state's movement along the development continuuum in its four key areas, Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support; and Infrastructure. Additionally the plan goes on to discuss the technology services offered by Texas' 20 regional education service centers. The plan uses STaR Chart data from schools and districts across the state in its Progress Report.
The report focuses on many positive areas such as increases in the use of the Texas Virtual Schools Network (TxVSN) as a means of meeting the individual needs of diverse students in an increasingly difficult economic situation. New course options, new digital sharing systems for professional development and a myriad of other new technology applications are touted in the plan as being beneficial to the overall progress of the schools in the state. There is, however, little to no discussion of areas that may be lagging behind.
Texas STaR Chart data shows that of all four categories, the Educator Preparation and Development key area is lagging behind the other three. It has the highest percentage of schools falling in the developing or early tech zone, with 72.4%. The next closest area of weakness is Teaching and Learning with 61.4% falling in the bottom two levels.(2010) The progress report does not mention reasoning for the Professional Development aspect lagging so far behind the others. While there are certain reasons that would immediately jump to mind such as it being more difficult to gain progress in the broader areas of educator preparation and teaching and learning, it would seem that if these two areas are the least developed, notice should be taken and attention paid as to why there are struggles to begin with. Spending energy and paying attention to why these areas are seeing difficulty seems one of the best ways to get more minds focused on finding solutions. While progress is certainly being made across the state the areas directly related to students and teachers are most in need of work.
Texas Education Agency (2010)2010 Progress Report on the Long Range Plan for
Technology 2006-2020: A Report to the 82nd Texas Legislature.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
Texas Education Agency (2010) STaR Chart Campus Statistics Statewide Summary 2009-2010. http://starchart.esc12.net/statistics.html
The report focuses on many positive areas such as increases in the use of the Texas Virtual Schools Network (TxVSN) as a means of meeting the individual needs of diverse students in an increasingly difficult economic situation. New course options, new digital sharing systems for professional development and a myriad of other new technology applications are touted in the plan as being beneficial to the overall progress of the schools in the state. There is, however, little to no discussion of areas that may be lagging behind.
Texas STaR Chart data shows that of all four categories, the Educator Preparation and Development key area is lagging behind the other three. It has the highest percentage of schools falling in the developing or early tech zone, with 72.4%. The next closest area of weakness is Teaching and Learning with 61.4% falling in the bottom two levels.(2010) The progress report does not mention reasoning for the Professional Development aspect lagging so far behind the others. While there are certain reasons that would immediately jump to mind such as it being more difficult to gain progress in the broader areas of educator preparation and teaching and learning, it would seem that if these two areas are the least developed, notice should be taken and attention paid as to why there are struggles to begin with. Spending energy and paying attention to why these areas are seeing difficulty seems one of the best ways to get more minds focused on finding solutions. While progress is certainly being made across the state the areas directly related to students and teachers are most in need of work.
Texas Education Agency (2010)2010 Progress Report on the Long Range Plan for
Technology 2006-2020: A Report to the 82nd Texas Legislature.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
Texas Education Agency (2010) STaR Chart Campus Statistics Statewide Summary 2009-2010. http://starchart.esc12.net/statistics.html
Educator Preparation and Development in relation to Technology: Basic Transferable Skills are Key
According to the 2010 Progress Report on the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology to the 82nd Texas State Legislature, Educator Preparation and Development in relation to the Plan was described in the following manner:
"Ongoing, sustained, high-quality professional development is essential to prepare teachers to meet the needs of their students by increasing student engagement and learning. Technology plays a major role in providing Texas students with the skills necessary to succeed as 21st Century learners.(Texas Education Agency)"
As described this ongoing, sustained, high-quality professional development is something that districts across the state are striving for. Yet when looking at STAR chart reports for the last three years in the state, the area of Educator Preparation and Development is by far the category lagging the furthest behind. In my own campus the ratings for this category actually decreased from 2009 to 2010. This is an area that seems problematic for schools and districts state-wide, and yet it is also the area that can have the most far reaching impacts.
In terms of national trends, one organization attempts to collect data on state technology reports and analyze them for trends over time, SETDA, the State Educational Technology Directors Association, produces trends reports every few years. While SETDA focuses mostly on areas where grant monies are spent by states on of the trends they noted was that, "Enhanced Capacity Building and Professional Learning Opportunities Ready Educators for Effective Technology Integration."(2009) It noted that when professional development was geared towards building the capacity of teachers to integrate technology into lessons and instruction rather than simply tossing new technology hardware and software at educators the integration of technology was far more successful and beneficial. This may, indeed be the issue with technology professional development for states and districts that are struggling.
Educators must be given transferable technology skills as opposed to those that are merely program specific. Educators who are successful at technology integration have not necessarily memorized exactly how every new technology they come in contact with works. They have a set of technology skills and problem-solving abilities that are transferable and therefore applicable in multiple technology situations. It is these skills that build the capacity for educators to successfully integrate other types of technology. It is these basic technology skills and critical thinking that must be given to educators who are unfamiliar with them in professional development that is meaningful and transferable. Then, when new technologies or applications are introduced educators will have the basic technology skills necessary to transfer these technologies successfully into their classroom, without learning each individual application from scratch.
Texas Education Agency (2010)2010 Progress Report on the Long Range Plan for
Technology 2006-2020: A Report to the 82nd Texas Legislature.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
SETDA (2009) National Trends Report: Executive Summary. http://www.setda.org/web/guest/2009nationaltrendsreport
"Ongoing, sustained, high-quality professional development is essential to prepare teachers to meet the needs of their students by increasing student engagement and learning. Technology plays a major role in providing Texas students with the skills necessary to succeed as 21st Century learners.(Texas Education Agency)"
As described this ongoing, sustained, high-quality professional development is something that districts across the state are striving for. Yet when looking at STAR chart reports for the last three years in the state, the area of Educator Preparation and Development is by far the category lagging the furthest behind. In my own campus the ratings for this category actually decreased from 2009 to 2010. This is an area that seems problematic for schools and districts state-wide, and yet it is also the area that can have the most far reaching impacts.
In terms of national trends, one organization attempts to collect data on state technology reports and analyze them for trends over time, SETDA, the State Educational Technology Directors Association, produces trends reports every few years. While SETDA focuses mostly on areas where grant monies are spent by states on of the trends they noted was that, "Enhanced Capacity Building and Professional Learning Opportunities Ready Educators for Effective Technology Integration."(2009) It noted that when professional development was geared towards building the capacity of teachers to integrate technology into lessons and instruction rather than simply tossing new technology hardware and software at educators the integration of technology was far more successful and beneficial. This may, indeed be the issue with technology professional development for states and districts that are struggling.
Educators must be given transferable technology skills as opposed to those that are merely program specific. Educators who are successful at technology integration have not necessarily memorized exactly how every new technology they come in contact with works. They have a set of technology skills and problem-solving abilities that are transferable and therefore applicable in multiple technology situations. It is these skills that build the capacity for educators to successfully integrate other types of technology. It is these basic technology skills and critical thinking that must be given to educators who are unfamiliar with them in professional development that is meaningful and transferable. Then, when new technologies or applications are introduced educators will have the basic technology skills necessary to transfer these technologies successfully into their classroom, without learning each individual application from scratch.
Texas Education Agency (2010)2010 Progress Report on the Long Range Plan for
Technology 2006-2020: A Report to the 82nd Texas Legislature.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665
SETDA (2009) National Trends Report: Executive Summary. http://www.setda.org/web/guest/2009nationaltrendsreport
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)