1. 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 had considered myself to be fairly technology progressive. Though I was unaware of Prensky’s term, I was keenly aware of the technology gap between my students and me. I had hoped to close the gap between my digital “Native” students and me. In my pre-course ignorance I had assumed that gap was relatively small. The gaps appear to be wider than I had envisioned.
Further, I had a goal of embracing some new technology. The technology I was willing to embrace was relatively modest. However, I have gained a keener understanding of new outlets, such as wikis and blogs that I had summarily dismissed as lacking much educational merit.
The course did align with my envisioned goals. However, it extended beyond my goals. In fact, it broadened my goals. I would never have considered a class blog prior to the course. Further, I viewed wikis with suspicion, not a vehicle for participation and structure-free expression.
2. 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?
My goals are still valid and relevant but much too narrow. In retrospect my status as a digital immigrant blinded me. I lacked the educated vision to see that my goals were inadequate and woefully short-sighted. I had to reassess my status in the digital world. Yes, I use PPT, I allow my students to do internet projects, and in my classes we take notes on netbooks. However, as suggested by Niederhause my use of technology only “mirrored” my training. I was using technology as only a supplement for note taking and a substitute for library research. There was nothing new in my methods. The only difference between my teaching and the methods used by my instructors was that my students needed an electrical outlet. Now that I am aware of the greater gap, I must reinvent my goals. My new goals include appropriate use of a class blog, using wikis to collaboratively brainstorm answers to essay questions, and a class e-newsletter.
3. What outcomes did you not achieve? What prevented you from achieving them?
I did succeed in broadening my horizons. Further, I am open to new technologies that may facilitate a higher level of engagement among my “digital Natives.” Security issues still concern me. The articles on cyber-bullying and cyber-predators not only validated my fears but actually strengthened them. My greatest obstacle in opening the cyber gate wide is my fear of digital dangers. The opportunities are bountiful for positive, enriching learning experiences in the cyber world. Virtual field trips, online real time interviews with notable figures, video clips, musical clips, digital images of art, blogs and wikis are all amazing tools for my students. However, they all carry risk. I understand that through filters, comprehensive awareness program, prudent teacher and administrator supervision, and strong AUPs these risk can be minimized. I am not convinced that these risks can be eliminated. Until a time arises when the risks are completely blocked I will always view cyber assignments with a sense of apprehension.
4. Were you successful in carrying out the course assignments? If not, what prevented or discouraged you?
I was successful in carrying out my course assignments. Many of the assignments made me aware of gaps in my technology use. The blog was in particular an interesting activity that I had not experienced prior to this class. Further the quote system and posting comments to the discussion board forced me not only to read the articles but formulate opinions on the articles.
I was not prevented from completing my assignments, though I still have lingering doubts as to format of the Week 4 Activity. The wording of the assignment's instructions could be difficult to understand. I wasn’t always completely confident that I understood the required format or desired outcome of the assignment. Further, due to my lack of experience I found it difficult to create my blog page. Posting the Power Point to the blog was also a time consuming and difficult process. That having been said, I am glad that I now know how to do that. I can see great benefits to posting my class Power Points to a blog for my students to use as review study material. I also tried and failed to find a way to post charts to the blog. If there is a way to post a chart that would be most helpful.
5. What did you learn from this course…about yourself, your technology and leadership skills, and your attitudes?
I learned that I am a Digital Immigrant. I have fervent desire to be passable as a Native. I understand the gap that exists and I am determined to close it. In my student interviews, Student B said, “The difference is that you look in a book first and I look on the net first.” I understood her point. Five years ago she would have been correct. However, today this Immigrant would look to the internet first just like my Native student. I love what technology brings to the table. I think I have always been progressive in this area. However, this course opened my eyes to the fact that though I am willing to adapt to new technology uses, I lack two traits. I lack the knowledge and I lack the confidence. I was familiar with wikis and blog but saw no need to use them. I assumed that any value they had could be achieved by other mediums.
Finally, I lack the confidence. This problem is really two-fold. I lack the confidence to use new technology in front of my Native students. This could be embarrassing for an old Immigrant such as me. Nothing like crashing and burning in front of your whole class! I also lack the confidence that my students will always be safe. Whether its predators, purposeful misuse of technology by students or that occasional pop up that slips its way past the filter. I know that none of those dangers will surface while using their textbooks or reading packets. I need to have the same level of confidence with cyber assignments.
6. What is the educational value of blogs and blogging to the 21st century learner?
I am still debating this one. This was the most thought provoking topic of the course for me. I had summarily dismissed blogs as having zero academic creditability and zero academic use. However, in light of the compelling arguments presented by the authors and instructors, I have reassessed that previous opinion. I can see the value of a blog as an interactive study forum for my students. I can envision a scenario where a student could finish a group project and never need to meet face to face outside of school. Further, I am an AP teacher. My students tend to be highly motivated stress baskets. The night before a test I turn on my laptop and watch the e-mails roll in. The e-mails look like this: “OMG COACH!! What was the importance of the Constitution of 1791! Please help!!” Ironically, I often answer the same question multiple times. A blog could allow me to answer this question once and it would benefit multiple students. Blogs could also have collaborative value among educators. It might be a wonderful forum for lesson sharing and creative thinking.
7. What are the concerns of blogs and blogging in education?
My district does have blogs in use. Some of my peers use the medium regularly. I have content concerns. My greatest concerns can be summarized in two words: content and security.
In keeping with FISD policy I would be responsible for approving student posts. Inevitably this presents three problems: time, approving or disapproving content and ethical standards. As is the case with all teachers, time is a valuable commodity. Grades are due, four e-mails require immediate response, the faculty meeting is in ten minutes, and the dog is sick. It never ends! Will the blog become yet another obligation screaming for my time. Further, in FISD teachers must approve and then post student comments. If I feel that a blog should not be posted, will conflict arise with parents? For example, if the blog is not blatantly inappropriate yet lacks substance of purpose might a disgruntled parent interpret that as arbitrary censorship? Finally, will students maintain high ethical standards? Will the use appropriate documentation? Will this be another forum where I have to use our plagiarism software to prevent dishonesty and ethics violations?
Again, in keeping with FISD standards, blogs are to have individual student user names and pass codes. This does negate some security concerns. However, an inadvertent slip by a student could facilitate the transfer of that student’s user identification to inappropriate outside sources. That could become a serious issue.
8. How can you use blogging to communicate with school stakeholders?
Blogging could be an effective tool to disseminate information. Under ideal circumstances the blog could serve as an e-newsletter, a FAQs supplement, a student study guide, a tutorial system, and a teacher collaborative tool. The blog could be a replacement or at least a supplement to our campus newsletter. It could provide rapid updates for parents that need information for on-going activities. Blogs could also provide a current FAQ list. Our site does include a FAQ feature but often that material is dated. For instance, if volleyball season is over we don’t need ticket prices for volleyball listed as a frequently asked question. I blog could provide more immediate updates. Prior to tests I monitor my e-mail between 8 pm and 10 pm so that I can answer student questions as they study. I am often asked the same question multiple times by different students. A pre-test blog could allow me to answer a question once that would benefit multiple students. Further, that blog could allow online peer collaboration and tutoring. As a final thought, blogs could facilitate teacher collaboration. In my district we have begun this process. We do have a Social Studies teacher blog. It is in its formative stages but it is a beginning. The forum is replacing some meetings and allows lesson sharing.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
STaR Chart
The Educational Preparation and Devolpment is an area of great concern. This area is a measurement of SBEC criteria for teachers, technology centered education for educators and students, Technolgy TEKS compliance and amount of budget dedicated to technology. To reach the Target rate the following must be achieved: regular and consistent use of technology in the learning process, 100% SBEC compliance, and 30% of the budget must be dedicated to technology.(STaR Chart)
On my local campus and at the state level only modest gains have manifested. My campus has maintained an Advanced Tech rating for three years. We have posted a two point Key Area Total gain. Even more modest gains were recorded at the state level. In 2006-07, 8.2 percent of measured schools were rated as Early Tech. A year later the percent had dropped to 5.4. In actuality, the number of Developing districts regressed over the years. In keeping with the theme of modest gains, according to the Department of Education the regression was negligible at .2%. This area continues to be a challenge. In keeping with that theme modest gains were reported by the US Department of Education in the area of NCLB. According to their 2008 data 70% of schools made Acceptable Yearly Progress and student gains were present. There was significant monetary cost attached to NCLB, $24.4 billion. (ED.gov)
Educational Development and Preparation is so vital. Steps to foster development in this area is critical. Factors that could foster improvement would include: priority in budgeting, up to date technology, and relevant teacher training. Budgets are often tight. The local, state, and national policy makers must embrace the need to fund technological development among educators. Naturally, the twenty to thirty percent discussed in the STaR Chart is an expensive outlay. However, educators must not only have access to technological resources but also the training and know how to use those tools effectively. The impact this will have on today's techno-learners is well worth the cost and the effort. Technology advances at such a rapid pace. Today's cutting edge computer is tomorrow's paper weight. Districts must understand that technological improvement is not a once and done proposition. It is ongoing and is never completed. Educators must be flexible and open to new advancements that will enable greater student success.
On my local campus and at the state level only modest gains have manifested. My campus has maintained an Advanced Tech rating for three years. We have posted a two point Key Area Total gain. Even more modest gains were recorded at the state level. In 2006-07, 8.2 percent of measured schools were rated as Early Tech. A year later the percent had dropped to 5.4. In actuality, the number of Developing districts regressed over the years. In keeping with the theme of modest gains, according to the Department of Education the regression was negligible at .2%. This area continues to be a challenge. In keeping with that theme modest gains were reported by the US Department of Education in the area of NCLB. According to their 2008 data 70% of schools made Acceptable Yearly Progress and student gains were present. There was significant monetary cost attached to NCLB, $24.4 billion. (ED.gov)
Educational Development and Preparation is so vital. Steps to foster development in this area is critical. Factors that could foster improvement would include: priority in budgeting, up to date technology, and relevant teacher training. Budgets are often tight. The local, state, and national policy makers must embrace the need to fund technological development among educators. Naturally, the twenty to thirty percent discussed in the STaR Chart is an expensive outlay. However, educators must not only have access to technological resources but also the training and know how to use those tools effectively. The impact this will have on today's techno-learners is well worth the cost and the effort. Technology advances at such a rapid pace. Today's cutting edge computer is tomorrow's paper weight. Districts must understand that technological improvement is not a once and done proposition. It is ongoing and is never completed. Educators must be flexible and open to new advancements that will enable greater student success.
Sources:
Mapping Americas Progress 2008, Retrieved November 28, 2009, from ED.gov, US Department of Education
starchart.esc12.net
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
PK-K TEKS and Spiraling Curriculum
The TEKS Technology Curriculum is spiraling. An analysis of the Pre K-8th TEKS readily validates that point. Pre-K requires knowledge of basic terminology, multi-media outlets, use of a variety of software, and integration of learning through technology. The requirements clearly prepare students for the secondary level.
From the onset alignment is readily visible. Even before reading and evaluating individual TEKS the four major strands are consistent from kindergarten on. The strands include: Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. These four strands share common verbage and build upon each other. Though the strands are not specifically mentioned in Pre-K their presence is almost implied. The organization of the Pre-K TEKs would comfortably fit into the strands model used beyond Pre-K.
Though alignment is readily visible in all four strands, I focused my attention on Foundations. The phrase "basic terminology" is found in Pre-K, K-2, and 3-5. This provides not only a cohesive alignment but opportunities to reteach. The terminology does imply that new terminology is added. It is not solely a review. Proper use of the keyboard and mouse is discussed in Pre-K, K-2, and 3-5. Though Pre-K focused primarily on the mouse, following levels broaden to the keyboard. As the years progress other computer accessories and adds-on are covered as well. Again, cohesion and reteaching is present. Further all the levels discuss multi-media incorporation. Beyond Pre-K students were to use multi-media inputs and outlets. In Pre-K the primary goal was exposure. Yet again, cohesion, reteaching, and spiraling construction.
Source: CH 126. Texas Knowledge and Skills for Technology, Retrieved November 25, 2009. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/ch126toc.html
From the onset alignment is readily visible. Even before reading and evaluating individual TEKS the four major strands are consistent from kindergarten on. The strands include: Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. These four strands share common verbage and build upon each other. Though the strands are not specifically mentioned in Pre-K their presence is almost implied. The organization of the Pre-K TEKs would comfortably fit into the strands model used beyond Pre-K.
Though alignment is readily visible in all four strands, I focused my attention on Foundations. The phrase "basic terminology" is found in Pre-K, K-2, and 3-5. This provides not only a cohesive alignment but opportunities to reteach. The terminology does imply that new terminology is added. It is not solely a review. Proper use of the keyboard and mouse is discussed in Pre-K, K-2, and 3-5. Though Pre-K focused primarily on the mouse, following levels broaden to the keyboard. As the years progress other computer accessories and adds-on are covered as well. Again, cohesion and reteaching is present. Further all the levels discuss multi-media incorporation. Beyond Pre-K students were to use multi-media inputs and outlets. In Pre-K the primary goal was exposure. Yet again, cohesion, reteaching, and spiraling construction.
Source: CH 126. Texas Knowledge and Skills for Technology, Retrieved November 25, 2009. http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/ch126toc.html
Long Range Plan
The Long Range Technology Plan offers a vital planning guide for administrators. A summary of its uses might include answers to four pressing questions. What should we do? Who is responsible for implementation? Who will pay for all this? Where can I find help?
What should we do? The answer is multi-faceted. SBEC mastery for all staff must be a priority. Further, TEKS adherence is the law. Leaders must supply current technology to their teachers and students. Finally, at least $50 per student must be allocated to technological needs. Phase I is well defined and helpful. However, Phases II and III leave much to be desired. A proactive district may already have exceeded these goals. They may need new direction.
Who is responsible? That is a very complex question. Obviously, School Boards, Central Office, and Administrators are responsible. Additional TEA, Service Centers, Local Agencies, State Board of Education, Texas Institutions of Higher Learning, and local Parents and Community members all have a vital role.
Who will pay for all this new technology? Answer, all of the agencies and groups listed above. Each entity must contribute to the process. STaR Chart standards maintain that to be a Target campus 30% of the budget should be allocated to technology.(STaR Chart) Further, NCLB outlines funds availability. (ED.gov)
Where can I find help? Answer, all of the agencies and groups listed above. Each agency is responsible for various areas. Local Service centers are to provide service. State Agencies should provide guidance and funding. Local districts and community stakeholders should provide implementation and guidance.
Sources:
NCLB: ED.gov
starchart.esc12.net/
tea.state.tx.us/teachnology/lrpt/lrpt_lrpthtml
What should we do? The answer is multi-faceted. SBEC mastery for all staff must be a priority. Further, TEKS adherence is the law. Leaders must supply current technology to their teachers and students. Finally, at least $50 per student must be allocated to technological needs. Phase I is well defined and helpful. However, Phases II and III leave much to be desired. A proactive district may already have exceeded these goals. They may need new direction.
Who is responsible? That is a very complex question. Obviously, School Boards, Central Office, and Administrators are responsible. Additional TEA, Service Centers, Local Agencies, State Board of Education, Texas Institutions of Higher Learning, and local Parents and Community members all have a vital role.
Who will pay for all this new technology? Answer, all of the agencies and groups listed above. Each entity must contribute to the process. STaR Chart standards maintain that to be a Target campus 30% of the budget should be allocated to technology.(STaR Chart) Further, NCLB outlines funds availability. (ED.gov)
Where can I find help? Answer, all of the agencies and groups listed above. Each agency is responsible for various areas. Local Service centers are to provide service. State Agencies should provide guidance and funding. Local districts and community stakeholders should provide implementation and guidance.
Sources:
NCLB: ED.gov
starchart.esc12.net/
tea.state.tx.us/teachnology/lrpt/lrpt_lrpthtml
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Surveys
Overall technology is an acquired strength for me. When I arrived in my current district, I was certainly technologically deficient. Through a combination of necessity and personal desire I have come a long way in the past ten years. The surveys reflect that improvement.
The first survey addressed Foundations, Information Acquisition, Problem Solving, and Communications. I answered in the affirmative in all the categories more than the negative. My greatest strength was in Problem Solving, sixteen positives and only two negatives. Foundations and Information Acquisition finished second and third respectively. My greatest area of weakness proved to be Communication, six affirmatives and six negative answers. This was a profound shock to me. I had expected to find this was the area of greatest strength for me. With the advent of e-mail as a primary mode of work place communication, I assumed my constant use of e-mail qualified me as technologically savvy. Prior to reading the articles I was largely unaware of the shifting direction of communication. Further, after reading the articles I heard a radio program this week. Much of the radio program's focal topic was dedicated to the death of e-mail use among teenagers and those in their early twenties. E-mail lacks the immediacy of tweeter, IM, and text. Blog also offers the opportunity to communicate in greater depth of dialogue than e-mail.
The SETDA assessment revealed an interesting personal anomaly for me. I both work to acquire understanding of technology and use technology with great frequency. Rarely does a day pass when I don't use technology in class. Even now as I pursue my Master's Degree I have defered to technology rather than face to face instruction. However,the key word from the previous statements is "I." I use technology. I work with technology. I don't often extend that to my students. I am failing to allow my students to use technology with regularity.
Both assessments are extremely beneficial. I agreed with the results. The assessments focus the attention of administrators and teachers on their technological strengths and weaknesses. As a hopeful, future administrator I had not given great thought to the role of a Principal or Assistant Principal in the arena of technology. However, technology is mandated by TEKS. Administrators must understand technology in order to expedite its implementation. Further we must be student centered to be successful. Today's students are predisposed to cyber learning. We must embrace that change or we will fail to reach today's learner.
The first survey addressed Foundations, Information Acquisition, Problem Solving, and Communications. I answered in the affirmative in all the categories more than the negative. My greatest strength was in Problem Solving, sixteen positives and only two negatives. Foundations and Information Acquisition finished second and third respectively. My greatest area of weakness proved to be Communication, six affirmatives and six negative answers. This was a profound shock to me. I had expected to find this was the area of greatest strength for me. With the advent of e-mail as a primary mode of work place communication, I assumed my constant use of e-mail qualified me as technologically savvy. Prior to reading the articles I was largely unaware of the shifting direction of communication. Further, after reading the articles I heard a radio program this week. Much of the radio program's focal topic was dedicated to the death of e-mail use among teenagers and those in their early twenties. E-mail lacks the immediacy of tweeter, IM, and text. Blog also offers the opportunity to communicate in greater depth of dialogue than e-mail.
The SETDA assessment revealed an interesting personal anomaly for me. I both work to acquire understanding of technology and use technology with great frequency. Rarely does a day pass when I don't use technology in class. Even now as I pursue my Master's Degree I have defered to technology rather than face to face instruction. However,the key word from the previous statements is "I." I use technology. I work with technology. I don't often extend that to my students. I am failing to allow my students to use technology with regularity.
Both assessments are extremely beneficial. I agreed with the results. The assessments focus the attention of administrators and teachers on their technological strengths and weaknesses. As a hopeful, future administrator I had not given great thought to the role of a Principal or Assistant Principal in the arena of technology. However, technology is mandated by TEKS. Administrators must understand technology in order to expedite its implementation. Further we must be student centered to be successful. Today's students are predisposed to cyber learning. We must embrace that change or we will fail to reach today's learner.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)