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.