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
No comments:
Post a Comment