About Me

My photo
I Teach and Coach in a small 2a school in Central Texas. I have taught all high school Sciences. At the moment, I teach Physics. I Saty bust with Football, Basketball, and Baseball.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Course Reflections Instructional Leadership: Technology Component

What outcomes had you envisioned for this course? Did you achieve those outcomes? Did the actual course outcomes align with those that you envisioned?

     I really did not know what to expect upon beginning this course.  Once the course started I expected, as a teacher, to gain information on how to implement new technology into my classroom.  Then as the class progressed, as an administrator in training, I wanted the focus to be on how to make professional developments more relevant to technology use in the classroom.  I know as a teacher this is something I want to see in my school.  As an administrator, I want my staff to know that this is the technology training that they are going to receive.  My visions, as I  progressed through the class, were similar to the learning outcomes being achieved.  I would like to have seen more evaluation and determination of effective professional developments.  This is because I find this more interesting than the information of the Long Range Technology Plan or the ethics and legal issues regarding technology.  Overall based on the diversity of the student technology literacy, I found the course objectives to be very well defined and achieved.      

To the extent that you achieved the outcomes, are they still relevant to the work that you do in your school? Why or why not?

     I think the outcomes I achieved during this course are very relevant to the work being performed at my school.  I learned a lot about myself in perusing these learning outcomes.  Learning about yourself, especially your weaknesses, is invaluable.  I can take what I learned and better myself which will intern make me a better teacher in the classroom.  I gained a lot of information about the Long Range Technology Plan and the STaR Chart.  This allows me to better understand technology changes occurring at my school.  This also allows me to better assist in bringing about the changes needed to meet the needs of the 21st century learner.  I found it very interesting how integrating technology in the classroom will assist them in their learning because of how they are "wired".  I am or have been slow to integrate technology into my classroom because I could not see the practical application for my classes.  If presented properly during professional developments as to the practical instructional use, technology does not have to be so difficult to integrate into the everyday classroom activities.

What outcomes did you not achieve? What prevented you from achieving them?

     I feel very confident in my achievement based on the course learning objectives.  The only thing that would have prevented me from achieving these goals would be my own resistance to technology change.  I had help from my fellow co-workers who really made it easy to find the campus based information required for the campus technology infrastructure.  I do however wish that more emphasis would have been put on the professional development in regards to evaluation to determine effectiveness on the basis of implementation of technology.  Although I feel I met this learning outcome, I would have liked to have covered this in more detail.  Not only is it interesting to me, but I feel like this is an important part of an administrators duties.  If an administrator can select appropriate professional developments for their staff, then they will implement it in the classroom which will asset in meeting the needs for the Long Range Technology Plan and STaR chart assessments.  I feel like I accomplished all the learning outcomes adequately.   

Were you successful in carrying out the course assignments? If not, what prevented or discouraged you?

     For the most part, I was very successful in carrying out the course assignments.  The material was fairly straight forward.  I have had some blogging experience so this was a welcome part of the course structure.  I enjoyed the readings and the way the discussion board integrated these readings.  There were a couple of issues I encountered.  The first was with one of the technology assessments at the beginning of the course.  I do not know if I was confused or did not know how to get the survey from the web site.  It kept giving me a survey to print off .  The survey seemed to be one that needed to be answered online and the results would follow based on the responses.  The print off version did not give me a way to evaluate the responses therefore I had to infer what the answers revealed.  The other issue I had was with the web conference.  The scheduled conference I tried to attend did not accept me right away.  About ten minutes after the scheduled start time the web site said I was attempting to access a conference that was finished.  I then tried a few other links and ended up in a web conference with several other students who had the same issue.  This ended up being a good thing.  I spent about 45 minutes talking with students who were in all stages of the program.  They had some great insights into what I could expect during this course.  I rather enjoyed this course and the things I learned not only about technology but about myself.    

What did you learn from this course…about yourself, your technology and leadership skills, and your attitudes?

     When I started this course I thought I was computer literate.  I can do basic computer applications such as word processor, e-mail, web browse, and use networked applications.  I did not realize how the digital world is passing me by.  I learned that I need to be more progressive in using technology as an administrator.  Things can be streamlined with the addition of technology applications.  E-mailed memos can reduce faculty meetings and help with changes in the daily schedule.  Technology use in the classroom is a must to keep up with the 21st century learner.  The problem most teachers have in implementing this new technology lies in professional development.  The key to professional development activities is not what the program can do but how this program is instructionally practical.  I find myself with some form of new technology that I misuse or do not use to the fullest instructional potential.  If I had been trained on how to practically integrate the technology into my lessons, I may have been more effective with my use of the application.  The last thing I learned was my attitude toward technology in the classroom resisted change.  I must force myself to use more technology in the classroom not for my benefit but for the learning enhancements for my students.             



Web Conference Reflection

     I was very happy with the web conference I attended.  Most of the time when I attended a web conference I had an agenda such as a specific question I needed help with concerning a course assignment.  Being forced to attend a web conference when I did not need help put me in a negative attitude at first. This attitude was not conducive to participation.  However, once I got involved in the conference, I really enjoyed being able to talk to fellow students who are further along in their masters degree plan.  They had wonderful insights to help me in my journey.  I also liked being able to talk to students that are at the same point in their masters degree plan.  As we began talking, I found we had several similar concerns and questions.  We were able to bounce ideas and previous knowledge off of each other and alleviate some of these concerns.  I feel this is a great tool for any administrator.  He/She could use a web conference for an open forum to communicate with the community and answer questions or present information.  The only draw back I see is how to keep the conference civil and on topic.  Administrators can also use a web conference to conference with each other.  They can bounce ideas off each other and find solutions to issues at their school without reinventing the wheel.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Technology Action Research Plan




Technology Roles and Responsibilities Organizational Chart:


Superintendent
1.  Responsible for delegating, overview of technology implementation, and budget approval
2.  Responsible for Assessments in the Area of Technology
Campus principal
Technology Director
1.  Responsible for creation \ implementation of technology action plan
2.  Assessment of classroom use
3.  Provide appropriate professional development
4.  Prepare budget and allocating funds for technology and Professional Development
5.  Involved in purchasing technology
1.  Provides Technology Assessments
2.  Provides information on Professional Development for Technology
3.  Works with the principal to budget for technology
4.  In charge of installation, training and maintenance of technology
5.  Involved in purchasing technology
6.  Assesses District Technology use
Site Based Committee
CIP Committee
Teachers
Departments
1.  Determine needs for Technology
2.  Determine needs for Professional Development
3.  Assess Use and Professional Development
4.  Assist in creation \ implementation of technology action plan
1.  Determine needs for Technology
2.  Determine needs for Professional Development
3.  Assess Use and Professional Development
4.  Assess needs based on STaR Chart
5.  Assist in creation \ implementation of technology action plan
1.  Determine Wish List
2.  Attend Professional Developments
3.  Implement in instructional
classroom
4.  Determine Individual Professional Development needs
5.  Assess Use and Professional Development
1.  Determine Wish List
2.  Attend Professional Developments
3.  Implement in instructional
classroom
4.  Determine Individual Professional Development needs




Technology Action Plan for the High School
Objective
To address obtaining new technology for classroom, school and Professional Development needs in the area of Technology based on StaR Chart and the Campus Technology Report.
Background
The High School needs to continue to address the needs of the 21st Century Learner being proactive in it's approach to technology.  The Technology Action Plan is based on the STaR Chart and the Campus Technology Report.  The STaR Chart identified the High School Campus as Developing Tech with specific needs in the area of Teacher Classroom use and Teacher Professional Development opportunities.  Priorities will be based on available resources.  The Campus Administration assisted by the Site Based Committee and the Technology Director will use the following steps to provide the best possible classroom technology and Professional Developments opportunities that the district can supply based on resource allocations.
Task/ Action Steps
Persons Responsible
Approximate Date
Resources
Assessments
Prepare a Needs  List based on assessment for technology at the High School
Site Based Committee,
CIP Committee,
Technology Director
Early April 2011
STaR Chart Data,
District Technology Report,
CIP
STaR Chart,
PDAS,
AEIS,
Teacher Evaluations,
Classroom Practicality
Prepare a teacher / staff Wish List
Teachers,
Staff,
Administration
Early April 2011
Survey given to teachers and staff
Teacher Evaluations,
Classroom Practicality
Combine Needs and Wish List based on resources
Site based Committee,
CIP Committee,
Technology Director
End of April 2011
STaR Chart Data,
District Technology Report,
CIP,
Wish List,
Needs List
STaR Chart,
PDAS,
AEIS,
Teacher Evaluations,
Classroom Practicality
Budget for Technology for the High School
Technology Director,
Campus Administration
May 2011
School budget,
Combined Needs / Wish List
STaR Chart,
PDAS,
AEIS,
Teacher Evaluations,
Classroom Practicality
List technology professional development needs
Site based Committee,
CIP Committee,
Technology Director
May 2011
STaR Chart Data,
District Technology Report,
CIP,
Teacher input
Teacher Evaluations,
Classroom Practicality
Purchase and install classroom and school technology
Technology Director,
Campus Administration

June 2011
School Budgeted Appropriations,
Combined Needs / Wish List
Teacher input,
STaR Chart,
PDAS,
AEIS
Find Appropriate Campus Professional Developments based on needs
Technology Director,
Campus Administration

June 2011
STaR Chart Data,
District Technology Assessment,
List of Professional Development needs,
Region 6 Service Center,
Other Professional Development Providers
Teacher Evaluations,
Classroom Practicality
Offer Technology Professional Developments based on identified needs
Technology Director,
Campus Administration
August work days 2011 (main)
August 2011 - May 2012 (as needed)

Region 6 Service Center,
Other Professional Development Providers,
Teachers and Staff

Teacher Evaluations,
Classroom Practicality
Offer Off Campus Technology Professional Developments based on individual or departmental needs
Individual or Departmental personnel
August 2011- May 2012 (as needed)
Substitutes (as needed),
Region 6 Service Center,
Other Professional Development Providers,
Teachers and Staff

Teacher Evaluations,
Classroom Practicality

Observation and Assessment of Technology use in the classroom and school setting
Technology Director,
Campus Administration
August 2011 - April 2012
Principal walk-through,
Technology Director notes,
Teacher input 
STaR Chart,
PDAS,
AEIS
Report based on Observation and Assessment of Technology use in the classroom and school setting
Site based Committee,
CIP Committee,
Technology Director
April 2012
STaR Chart Data,
District Technology Report,
CIP,
Wish List,
Needs List,
STaR Chart,
PDAS,
AEIS

Evaluations:
The plan has build in yearly evaluations with the principal assesment, observations, and the final report.  The plan will also be evaluated by the STaR Chart, District Technology Report and AEIS.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Blogg # 3 : National Educational Technology Plan: Transforming American Education

The National Educational Technology Plan states that, "Teaching today is practiced mostly in isolation." ( U. S. Dept. of Education 2010)  Teachers are given specific objectives to cover and left to teach the content.  The plan calls for more professional development; specifically covering Connected Teaching.  This model would allow educators to be connected 24\7 to resources, colleagues, and even students.  The model also stresses the need for online classroom environments giving students and teachers more ways to interact with each other, administrators, as well as parents.  The plan goes on to state that, "The best way to prepare teachers for connected teaching is to have them experience it." ( U. S. Dept. of Education 2010)  The plan calls for more professional development not only in formal workshops but also in the act of teaching using these new models.  Using these models teachers can connect with exemplary practices, other professionals, and career-long professionals.  By connecting with exemplary practices and other professionals, teachers can model techniques and strategies that work in other schools and transform them to fit their personalized situation.  The report goes on to make several recommendations.  Number one is to use technology that will inspire new teachers and encourage our best educators to continue teaching.  Number two is to provide professional development to close the gap between teachers and students in terms of fluency.  Number three is creating career-long professional learning networks that would allow for increased professional development as well as hold educator accountable for the success of their students.  Number four is to increase technology in areas where it is least such as rural schools. Number five stresses the importance of creating a teaching force skilled in online instruction.  My concern is that this plan is so focused on the model of Connected Teaching that it does not make a feasible plan for most school districts.

Blogg # 2 : Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020

Based on the 2008 STaR chart progress report on the state of the State for area one, Teaching and Learning, schools are decreasing in Early Tech; 5 % in 2006-07 to 4 % in 2007-08 and Developing Tech; 74 % in 2006-2007 to 70 % in 2007-08.  Schools are increasing in Advanced Tech; 20 % in 2006-7 to 25 % in 2007-08.  There is no change in the Target Tech; which stayed constant at 1 %.  Patterns of classroom use provides an insight to the possible changes.  Teachers used more developing and advanced instructional strategies in the classroom in 2007-08 as compared to 2006-07.  The report goes on to give examples of district and state programs that are aimed at increasing the Advanced and Target populations.

Based on the 2008 STaR chart progress report on the state of the State for area two, Educator Preparation and Development, schools are decreasing in Early Tech; 8 % in 2006-07 to 5 % in 2007-08.  Schools are increasing in Advanced Tech; 17 % in 2006-07 to 20 % in 2007-08.  There is no change in the Developing Tech; which stayed constant at 74 % and Target Tech; which stayed constant at 1 %.  The report shows data that shows that professional development activities had similar changes in content.  The report goes on again to give state and district programs designed to increase the Advanced and Target populations.

Based on the 2008 STaR chart progress report on the state of the State for area three, Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support, schools are decreasing in Early Tech; 3% in 2006-07 to 2% in 2007-08 and Developing Tech; 55 % in 2006-07 to 49 % in 2007-08.  Schools are increasing in Advanced Tech; 39 % in 2006-07 to 45 % in 2007-08 and in Target Tech; 3 % in 2006-07 to 4 % in 2007-08.  The plan goes on to give information on Texas ePlan.  The report also discusses E-Rate and other technology funding possibilities.  

Based on the 2008 STaR chart progress report on the state of the State for area four, Infrastructure, schools are decreasing in Early Tech; 2% in 2006-07 to 1% in 2007-08 and Developing Tech; 39 % in 2006-07 to 35 % in 2007-08.  Schools are increasing in Advanced Tech; 53 % in 2006-07 to 57 % in 2007-08 and in Target Tech; 5 % in 2006-07 to 7 % in 2007-08.  The report then goes on to talk about internet safety, Telecommunications networks, and video conferencing.  Districts that are increasing their infrastructure rating to Target Tech are also summarized.

Blogg # 1 : Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020: Educator Preparation and Development

The second area of the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology is Educator Preparation and Development.  This area focuses on the continuous professional development of all educators in technology.  Teachers must be educated on the uses and practical applications of the increasing technology applications.

Based on SBEC Standards all Educators:
Graduate from an educator preparation program that models current technology
in instructional and administrative practices PreK-12.

Exit educator preparation programs knowing how to use technology
effectively in the teaching-learning process as demonstrated by the SBEC Technology Applications Standards.

Develop new learning environments that utilize technology as a flexible tool where learning is collaborative, interactive and customized for the individual learner.

Ensure full integration of appropriate technology throughout all curriculum and
instruction.
     -TEA Long Range Report for Technology

In 2007-08 the state wide data showed that 5.4 % of schools were defined as Early Tech, 74.2 % were defined as Developing Tech, 19.9 % were defined as Advanced Tech, and .6 % were defined as Target Tech.  In 2008-09 the state wide data showed that 4.5 % of schools were defined as Early Tech, 71.1 % were defined as Developing Tech, 23.8 % were defined as Advanced Tech, and 0.6 % were defined as Target Tech. In 2009-10 the state wide data showed that 3.7 % of schools were defined as Early Tech, 68.7 % were defined as Developing Tech, 26.8 % were defined as Advanced Tech, and 0.7 % were defined as Target Tech.  Locally my campus moved from a rating of 9 to 10 in Educator Preparation and Development.  The state wide trends show a movement away from the Early Tech; 5.4 % in 2007-08 to 3.7% in 2009-2010. The state wide trend is also away from Developing Tech; 74.2 % in 2007-08 to 68.7 % in 2009-2010.  The state wide trend was schools moving to Advanced Tech; 19.9 % in 2007-2008 to 26.8 % in 2009-2010.  The state wide trend was also moving toward the Target Tech but very slightly; 0.6 % in 2007-2008 to 0.7 in 2009-2010. The increase locally can be attributed to increased Access to Professional Developments and Levels of Understanding \ Use.

The key to progressing in the area Educator Preparation and Development is providing professional development that is aimed at the practical use for teachers in the classroom.  As a teacher if I do not see a practical use, it makes it difficult to change from the status quo.  To many times the professional development is focused on the technology instead of the teacher.

Texas STaR Chart

Overview: Introduction the Texas STaR Chart and share campus STaR Chart findings with the faculty