Star Chart Presentation Pp
View more presentations from cgbarker.
Friday, November 27, 2009
STaR Chart: Teaching and Learning
The local data over the last three years is static with a score of 13. How is the STaR Chart data used? Is it communicatetd to the campus? Is the data collected reviewed and goals/ plans made accordingly? How valid is the data?
Each category received a score of 2 except “Content Area Connections” received a score of 3. This data would indicate that in “patterns of classroom use” teachers use technology to direct instruction, improve productivity, and model technology. It also indicates that students use technology to “access, communicate and present information.” My question is, “How often?” What qualifies a teacher to use technology to direct instruction? Under the category of “frequency/design of instructional setting using digital content” we are saying that most teachers have regular weekly access and use of technology, digital resources for curriculum acitivities. The only criteria that separates “devloping tech” from “advanced tech” is mobile technology. This is too vague to be considered a valid rating.
Under “content area connections” we show a rating of a 3. This is surprising to me because I definitely do not see most teachers using technology for support and development of higher-order thinking. Furthermore, when there is collaboration, it is usually not centered around the application of technology. So, there again, the data seems invalid.
The area of “technology applications TEKS implementation” rating of developing technology shows that at least four courses are offered and at least two taught. This is measurable, valid data. Under “student mastery of TA” we show that 26 to 50% of students are receiving integration in core classes and TA courses. This, too, is more measurable than the first three cateogies.
Finallly, in “online learning” we deem ourselves as developing tech because most teachers customize several web-based lessons for TEKS and learning activities. Unfortunately, this is not measurable, reliable data. How many is several? How does “customize” compare to “use”?
The campus statewide summary shows an expected trend. The expected trend would be that “early tech” and “developing tech” should be on the decline and “advanced” and “target” techs should be on the increase if campuses are using and integrating technology. This trend has not been seen on my campus over the last three years.
Recommendations? Collect real data: how many teachers out of the core contents are really fulfilling the “developing tech” rating? If they are, then what are they specifically doing? How can their “doing” influence the rest of their department and/or campus staff in the way of professional development and support? Utilize these teachers to model and support specific campus technology goals. Include teacher and student use as part of PDAS to hold teachers accountable, set specific goals for individual teachers and align their training accordingly.
Each category received a score of 2 except “Content Area Connections” received a score of 3. This data would indicate that in “patterns of classroom use” teachers use technology to direct instruction, improve productivity, and model technology. It also indicates that students use technology to “access, communicate and present information.” My question is, “How often?” What qualifies a teacher to use technology to direct instruction? Under the category of “frequency/design of instructional setting using digital content” we are saying that most teachers have regular weekly access and use of technology, digital resources for curriculum acitivities. The only criteria that separates “devloping tech” from “advanced tech” is mobile technology. This is too vague to be considered a valid rating.
Under “content area connections” we show a rating of a 3. This is surprising to me because I definitely do not see most teachers using technology for support and development of higher-order thinking. Furthermore, when there is collaboration, it is usually not centered around the application of technology. So, there again, the data seems invalid.
The area of “technology applications TEKS implementation” rating of developing technology shows that at least four courses are offered and at least two taught. This is measurable, valid data. Under “student mastery of TA” we show that 26 to 50% of students are receiving integration in core classes and TA courses. This, too, is more measurable than the first three cateogies.
Finallly, in “online learning” we deem ourselves as developing tech because most teachers customize several web-based lessons for TEKS and learning activities. Unfortunately, this is not measurable, reliable data. How many is several? How does “customize” compare to “use”?
The campus statewide summary shows an expected trend. The expected trend would be that “early tech” and “developing tech” should be on the decline and “advanced” and “target” techs should be on the increase if campuses are using and integrating technology. This trend has not been seen on my campus over the last three years.
Recommendations? Collect real data: how many teachers out of the core contents are really fulfilling the “developing tech” rating? If they are, then what are they specifically doing? How can their “doing” influence the rest of their department and/or campus staff in the way of professional development and support? Utilize these teachers to model and support specific campus technology goals. Include teacher and student use as part of PDAS to hold teachers accountable, set specific goals for individual teachers and align their training accordingly.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
How do the TEKS lay the foundation? Spiraling and Scaffolding!
The Pre-K TEKS lay the foundation for student performance in a variety of ways. Students are exposed to an assortment of word processing and spreadsheet software in addition to multimedia applications such as movie makers. They are also called upon to evaluate appropriate tools to accomplish a process or product. These skills provide rich choices to students as they progress through their education. It is unfortunate that students are still encouraged to make posters in high school for a project when they could be applying those foundational technology tools they have used and enjoy creating and presenting.
Spiraling or scaffolding curriculum expects the alignment of the foundational skills. In Grades 6-8 students plan, create, and edit documents. In high school, they apply problem-solving strategies such as design specifications or algorithm development. In middle school, students will use word processing and spreadsheets whereas high school students use visual organizers to design solutions such as flowcharts or schematic drawings.
Another example of alignment concerning problem solving is that middle school students are expected to use groupware, collaborative software, and productivity tools to create products. High school students are expected to use navigation of LANs and WANs for research and/or sharing resources.
It is imperative that teachers integrate these technology skills in their contents. I now see so much waste of acquired skills not utilized at the high school level. It does not surprise me that students appear to be bored and unengaged if they have in fact acquired the expected skills in a previous grade. Everyone knows what happens when skills are not practiced; they are lost, they loose their value.
Spiraling or scaffolding curriculum expects the alignment of the foundational skills. In Grades 6-8 students plan, create, and edit documents. In high school, they apply problem-solving strategies such as design specifications or algorithm development. In middle school, students will use word processing and spreadsheets whereas high school students use visual organizers to design solutions such as flowcharts or schematic drawings.
Another example of alignment concerning problem solving is that middle school students are expected to use groupware, collaborative software, and productivity tools to create products. High school students are expected to use navigation of LANs and WANs for research and/or sharing resources.
It is imperative that teachers integrate these technology skills in their contents. I now see so much waste of acquired skills not utilized at the high school level. It does not surprise me that students appear to be bored and unengaged if they have in fact acquired the expected skills in a previous grade. Everyone knows what happens when skills are not practiced; they are lost, they loose their value.
Pre-K Through 12 Technology TEKS
In looking at the Pre-K Technology Applications, I choose to look at grades 6 through 8 because I am involved with grades 9 through 12. I wanted to know what students entering high school should know about technology.
In the area of foundations, students are expected to demonstrate knowledge and appropriate use of hardware components, software programs, and their connections. They should also use data input skills appropriate to a task and comply with the laws and issues concerning the use of technology.
Information acquisition expects middle school students to use a variety of strategies to acquire information from electronic resources, in a variety of formats (such as bitmap, video, storage devices), and evaluate the acquired electronic information. Part of the evaluation process requires the student to resolve information conflict and validate information through accessing, researching, and comparing data. This is a critical skill because anyone can put anything on the internet. Teachers need to be well versed in guiding students to seek reliable, credible information.
The next area addresses problem solving. Students are expected to use appropriate computer-based productivity tools to create and modify solutions to problems using word processing tools as well as spreadsheet data, formulas, and charts. Furthermore, students are expected to use research skills and electronic communication to create new knowledge. Finally, students are expected to use technology applications to facilitate evaluations of the process and product of a task.
Finally, the area of communication expects students to formats digital information for appropriate and effective communication. This includes the creation of slide shows, posters, multimedia presentations, newsletters, etc. The student should also be able to deliver the product electronically in a variety of media. Students also use applications to facilitate evaluation of communication. This would allow students to track trends, use tools such as database managers, design for content delivery, and evaluation relevance.
In the area of foundations, students are expected to demonstrate knowledge and appropriate use of hardware components, software programs, and their connections. They should also use data input skills appropriate to a task and comply with the laws and issues concerning the use of technology.
Information acquisition expects middle school students to use a variety of strategies to acquire information from electronic resources, in a variety of formats (such as bitmap, video, storage devices), and evaluate the acquired electronic information. Part of the evaluation process requires the student to resolve information conflict and validate information through accessing, researching, and comparing data. This is a critical skill because anyone can put anything on the internet. Teachers need to be well versed in guiding students to seek reliable, credible information.
The next area addresses problem solving. Students are expected to use appropriate computer-based productivity tools to create and modify solutions to problems using word processing tools as well as spreadsheet data, formulas, and charts. Furthermore, students are expected to use research skills and electronic communication to create new knowledge. Finally, students are expected to use technology applications to facilitate evaluations of the process and product of a task.
Finally, the area of communication expects students to formats digital information for appropriate and effective communication. This includes the creation of slide shows, posters, multimedia presentations, newsletters, etc. The student should also be able to deliver the product electronically in a variety of media. Students also use applications to facilitate evaluation of communication. This would allow students to track trends, use tools such as database managers, design for content delivery, and evaluation relevance.
So How Bout That Long-Range Plan?
Given the evolving state of global economics, constant and instant communication/information, and increased life expectancy, we are in an urgent situation concerning education. We can no longer afford to teach in the graveyard: aligned desks with quiet, paper and pencil note taking students. Digital students in today’s classroom should be actively engaged in gathering information, exploring new ways to apply that information, and collaborating globally to problem solve.
The Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology is an ambitious attempt to address many challenges in preparing our increasingly diverse population with timely and appropriate technological educational environments. Some of these challenges include accessibility, consistency, and integrating technology applications across all contents and all levels. One goal is for all students to be technologically literate by the end of 8th grade.
The implications for this plan include funding on many levels, ongoing professional development, and curriculum alignment, relevance and application. Each of these requires communities of educators and stakeholders to form an alliance of accountability, responsibility, and commitment to providing the best possible scenario for all Texas students. Educators are to be prepared and supported through state, local, and regional services. Collaboration among educators and stakeholders supplies a foundational support of the infrastructure for technology.
Planning for the future and actually accommodating those plans are daunting tasks. Staying current with technology software seems almost impossible. However, the Long-Range Plan for Technology provides the basic foundational goals to sustain the evolution of the 21st century student.
As an instructional leader, it is overwhelming to digest all the immediate needs. Immediate needs are funding, building and materials, and professional development. The current economic crisis further complicates the implementation of curriculum resources and alignment. The infrastructure is weakened by lack of commitment among stakeholders. These urgent issues create difficult barriers. A successful infrastructure system: creates equitable access to all e-learning technologies; provides timely technical assistance; maintains secure and accurate data; provides data standards to support all users. Data showing student achievement through technology learning environments should afford opportunities for validation.
What can we do now? Education leaders need to serve as technology integration models, provide and support professional development, research ways to overcome the barriers through positive collaborative communities.
The Texas Long-Range Plan for Technology is an ambitious attempt to address many challenges in preparing our increasingly diverse population with timely and appropriate technological educational environments. Some of these challenges include accessibility, consistency, and integrating technology applications across all contents and all levels. One goal is for all students to be technologically literate by the end of 8th grade.
The implications for this plan include funding on many levels, ongoing professional development, and curriculum alignment, relevance and application. Each of these requires communities of educators and stakeholders to form an alliance of accountability, responsibility, and commitment to providing the best possible scenario for all Texas students. Educators are to be prepared and supported through state, local, and regional services. Collaboration among educators and stakeholders supplies a foundational support of the infrastructure for technology.
Planning for the future and actually accommodating those plans are daunting tasks. Staying current with technology software seems almost impossible. However, the Long-Range Plan for Technology provides the basic foundational goals to sustain the evolution of the 21st century student.
As an instructional leader, it is overwhelming to digest all the immediate needs. Immediate needs are funding, building and materials, and professional development. The current economic crisis further complicates the implementation of curriculum resources and alignment. The infrastructure is weakened by lack of commitment among stakeholders. These urgent issues create difficult barriers. A successful infrastructure system: creates equitable access to all e-learning technologies; provides timely technical assistance; maintains secure and accurate data; provides data standards to support all users. Data showing student achievement through technology learning environments should afford opportunities for validation.
What can we do now? Education leaders need to serve as technology integration models, provide and support professional development, research ways to overcome the barriers through positive collaborative communities.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Week 1 Technology Responses and Reflections
Certainly this is ironic, but yesterday I experienced my very first computer virus. The virus looked like a pop up advertisement stating a serious virus was entering my computer. I closed the warning. Bingo. That was just one of the moves that would activate the worm. I did not know really what to do except begin the on demand scan from the software that is loaded on the laptop. It did not help. So, I learned more than I bargined for and I think this happens in the technology world, no matter our profession.
The Technology Applications Inventory might be able to skim the surface of the four strands of Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. However, the speed at which technology evolves can catch anyone in a weak moment of surprise and not knowing exactly what to do. For the foundations category, I ranked myself 17 out of 18. For the other three, I felt 100% proficient in each. However, after my experience, I am not so confident.
For the SETDA survey, I choose the one as the teacher. The questions that impressed me the most were the ones asking about data being collected to determine some facet of technology. As a secondary math curriculum coach, I am data driven daily. One goal is to track the technology being used in the classroom. Another is to evaluate new tools. Then, we face the old problem of out with the old, in with the new. This forces us to continually research appropriate software and then prepare professional development for the teachers. They are not always receptive, which makes our job even more challenging. Without a doubt, however, data does show the students more engaged when technology is available.
The Technology Applications Inventory might be able to skim the surface of the four strands of Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. However, the speed at which technology evolves can catch anyone in a weak moment of surprise and not knowing exactly what to do. For the foundations category, I ranked myself 17 out of 18. For the other three, I felt 100% proficient in each. However, after my experience, I am not so confident.
For the SETDA survey, I choose the one as the teacher. The questions that impressed me the most were the ones asking about data being collected to determine some facet of technology. As a secondary math curriculum coach, I am data driven daily. One goal is to track the technology being used in the classroom. Another is to evaluate new tools. Then, we face the old problem of out with the old, in with the new. This forces us to continually research appropriate software and then prepare professional development for the teachers. They are not always receptive, which makes our job even more challenging. Without a doubt, however, data does show the students more engaged when technology is available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
