Star Chart
View more presentations from Sheri BOnsal.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Teaching & Learning - STaR Chart and Long Range Plan for Technology
Since Teaching and Learning is one of my campus’s areas in which growth is needed, I will focus my opinion on it. As outlined in the Texas Campus School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart provided by TEA, patterns of classroom use, frequency/design of instructional setting using digital content, content area connections, TEKS implementation, student mastery of TEKS, and outline learning are the areas in which schools are rated. These ratings range from early tech, developing tech, advanced tech, and target tech.
The intent of the Long Range Plan for Technology in this area is that teachers will use technology to engage students in their own learning process. In order to do this, teachers must be more on target with their use of technology. To begin with, more teachers need to create and use on-line web-based lessons with their students. Letting the student navigate through pre-designed web-sites is a way for them to be in control of their learning content. As it is now, most teachers use online materials for themselves and adapt it to use in their classroom. The teacher is the navigator and sole user of technology, which is not the true intent of effective utilization of technology in the classroom.
In regards to the implementation of Technology Application TEKS, I feel that many teachers are not fully aware of what is entailed in them. As my campus’ STaR Chart manager, I had many teachers call me asking what they should mark for that section of the chart. I didn’t reveal any information to them; I just told them to mark their response based on what they personally know and do. Needless to say, my campus ended up with a “2” rating. They claim to be aware of the Technology Applications TEKS, yet they do not consistently use the TEKS in their content area and grade level.
One of many limitations to being a new campus is the lack of technology equipment available for all teachers to use. With this in mind, I can understand how our campus rated as Developing Tech in the category of “Frequency/Design of Instructional Setting Using Digital Content”. There are just too many limitations on the use of technology when the technology is not present. Our teachers do not have regular access to equipment; therefore, they are not able to incorporate it into their daily lessons and activities.
As far as improving this area, I feel that my campus is well on its way. Our campus received approximately $60,000 in the Date Grant (stimulus money). I would estimate that 90% of that is going straight to purchasing technology – both equipment and software – to be used in every classroom on our campus. Because of this, I feel that we will be on target for next year’s STaR Chart in this area.
The intent of the Long Range Plan for Technology in this area is that teachers will use technology to engage students in their own learning process. In order to do this, teachers must be more on target with their use of technology. To begin with, more teachers need to create and use on-line web-based lessons with their students. Letting the student navigate through pre-designed web-sites is a way for them to be in control of their learning content. As it is now, most teachers use online materials for themselves and adapt it to use in their classroom. The teacher is the navigator and sole user of technology, which is not the true intent of effective utilization of technology in the classroom.
In regards to the implementation of Technology Application TEKS, I feel that many teachers are not fully aware of what is entailed in them. As my campus’ STaR Chart manager, I had many teachers call me asking what they should mark for that section of the chart. I didn’t reveal any information to them; I just told them to mark their response based on what they personally know and do. Needless to say, my campus ended up with a “2” rating. They claim to be aware of the Technology Applications TEKS, yet they do not consistently use the TEKS in their content area and grade level.
One of many limitations to being a new campus is the lack of technology equipment available for all teachers to use. With this in mind, I can understand how our campus rated as Developing Tech in the category of “Frequency/Design of Instructional Setting Using Digital Content”. There are just too many limitations on the use of technology when the technology is not present. Our teachers do not have regular access to equipment; therefore, they are not able to incorporate it into their daily lessons and activities.
As far as improving this area, I feel that my campus is well on its way. Our campus received approximately $60,000 in the Date Grant (stimulus money). I would estimate that 90% of that is going straight to purchasing technology – both equipment and software – to be used in every classroom on our campus. Because of this, I feel that we will be on target for next year’s STaR Chart in this area.
Monday, November 23, 2009
PreKindergarten Technology Applications
According to the Texas Prekindergarten Technology Application Guidelines, students are expected to do the following by the end of the school year:
* Open and navigate through software programs
* Use a varitey of input devices
* Operate sound/voice recorders
* Operate touch screens
* Use software to create and express own ideas
* Recognize that information is accessible through technology.
I agree that these skills will set a foundation of learning for future technology use; however, I do not think these skills can realistically be taught. For one, this age group has not mastered their hand/eye coordination skills. They are still trying to figure out how to hold a crayola correctly. To see them struggle with the motion of a mouse on a computer screen and then try to add a single or even double click to the mix, this can only bring frustration on both the student and teacher's part. I know! I teach kindergarten students basic computer skills. We spend the first half of the school year just learning HOW to use a mouse - - learning the correlation of their movements to the movement of the pointer on their screen. Single clicks are mastered rather easily, but when the double click is introduced, you would not believe the number of desktop shortcuts that either get deleted or moved into another application folder on the desktop. Frustrating as it can be for the teacher, it does create some humorous situation when it come time to clean up desktops and try to find these lost files.
I do agree with the examples of instructional strategies given in that they involve a lot of teacher modeling. Just seeing someong use technology sparks an interest - especially with this age level. My kindergarten students are the most eager to learn "computers" when they come to my class. The soak up everything and want to do everything I do on my computers. I do realize that many of the skills these prekindergarten students can be exposed to are not always "computer related". Simple Leap Frog learning programs and equpment will give this age group appropriate technology exposure, and they do meet the objectives stated in the Prekindergarted Technology Application standards.
* Open and navigate through software programs
* Use a varitey of input devices
* Operate sound/voice recorders
* Operate touch screens
* Use software to create and express own ideas
* Recognize that information is accessible through technology.
I agree that these skills will set a foundation of learning for future technology use; however, I do not think these skills can realistically be taught. For one, this age group has not mastered their hand/eye coordination skills. They are still trying to figure out how to hold a crayola correctly. To see them struggle with the motion of a mouse on a computer screen and then try to add a single or even double click to the mix, this can only bring frustration on both the student and teacher's part. I know! I teach kindergarten students basic computer skills. We spend the first half of the school year just learning HOW to use a mouse - - learning the correlation of their movements to the movement of the pointer on their screen. Single clicks are mastered rather easily, but when the double click is introduced, you would not believe the number of desktop shortcuts that either get deleted or moved into another application folder on the desktop. Frustrating as it can be for the teacher, it does create some humorous situation when it come time to clean up desktops and try to find these lost files.
I do agree with the examples of instructional strategies given in that they involve a lot of teacher modeling. Just seeing someong use technology sparks an interest - especially with this age level. My kindergarten students are the most eager to learn "computers" when they come to my class. The soak up everything and want to do everything I do on my computers. I do realize that many of the skills these prekindergarten students can be exposed to are not always "computer related". Simple Leap Frog learning programs and equpment will give this age group appropriate technology exposure, and they do meet the objectives stated in the Prekindergarted Technology Application standards.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Unattainable Technology?
My response to the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020
Call me the proverbial cynic, but I honestly do not see how the state of Texas can possible meet the standards set forth in their long range plan. It would be totally awesome if they could, and I applaud their effort, but as stated throughout the document, technology is changing so rapidly that it there is absolutely no way for Texas educators to stay abreast of all of the changes. Sure, the timeline is by the year 2020, but by the time a school district finally acquires new technology, it will become outdated and even obsolete. Financially, school districts and the state of Texas cannot keep up with the fast progress of change.
It is overwhelming to think about what the children of our future are going to have to be able to d0 - things that we as adults never even dreamed possible. I think of one of those futuristic movies that shows how technology has finally out-done itself, where there is nothing new to develop or create. Technology has become a saturated field, and society is worn out because there are no new developments. I then think about how, when technology fails, society is going to have to revert back to the “old ways” of conducting business. Those are the skills that need to be taught. Technology is just the icing on the cake to make the tasks easier; forgetting the basic of “how to” cannot be ignored.
Now, do not think that I am anti-technology. Quite the contrary. As my campus’s only technology instructor, I constantly strive to get other teachers to use technology in their classroom. I see that students thrive when they have it in their hands; I see them engaged in instruction; I see them learning independently by using technology. As an instructional leader, I am limited by what funding is available. At my current school, a school that is only 3 years old, we have had to start from scratch to build an inventory of a variety of technology equipment. With a budget of $4000 a year and 40 teachers, it will take us many, many years to be able to outfit their classrooms with equipment needed to meet this long range plan. Even with the stimulus fund given to schools during this school year, we are still not even close to being on the same technology-playing field as other elementary schools in our district. While other elementary campuses currently have InFocus projectors, 3-4 student computers, document cameras, Smart boards, etc., in each and every teacher’s classroom, my campus is just now able to purchase enough projectors for each classroom. Next year, we will be able to purchase three or four new document cameras; the following year, maybe three or four more. As you can see, it will take many years for us to have the technology available for teachers to use in their instruction. By the time we get the basics, there will be new and different items to purchase; thus starting the cycle all over again. Unless the state of Texas helps with funding, there is no way for technology to be equally available to all students in Texas schools.
Call me the proverbial cynic, but I honestly do not see how the state of Texas can possible meet the standards set forth in their long range plan. It would be totally awesome if they could, and I applaud their effort, but as stated throughout the document, technology is changing so rapidly that it there is absolutely no way for Texas educators to stay abreast of all of the changes. Sure, the timeline is by the year 2020, but by the time a school district finally acquires new technology, it will become outdated and even obsolete. Financially, school districts and the state of Texas cannot keep up with the fast progress of change.
It is overwhelming to think about what the children of our future are going to have to be able to d0 - things that we as adults never even dreamed possible. I think of one of those futuristic movies that shows how technology has finally out-done itself, where there is nothing new to develop or create. Technology has become a saturated field, and society is worn out because there are no new developments. I then think about how, when technology fails, society is going to have to revert back to the “old ways” of conducting business. Those are the skills that need to be taught. Technology is just the icing on the cake to make the tasks easier; forgetting the basic of “how to” cannot be ignored.
Now, do not think that I am anti-technology. Quite the contrary. As my campus’s only technology instructor, I constantly strive to get other teachers to use technology in their classroom. I see that students thrive when they have it in their hands; I see them engaged in instruction; I see them learning independently by using technology. As an instructional leader, I am limited by what funding is available. At my current school, a school that is only 3 years old, we have had to start from scratch to build an inventory of a variety of technology equipment. With a budget of $4000 a year and 40 teachers, it will take us many, many years to be able to outfit their classrooms with equipment needed to meet this long range plan. Even with the stimulus fund given to schools during this school year, we are still not even close to being on the same technology-playing field as other elementary schools in our district. While other elementary campuses currently have InFocus projectors, 3-4 student computers, document cameras, Smart boards, etc., in each and every teacher’s classroom, my campus is just now able to purchase enough projectors for each classroom. Next year, we will be able to purchase three or four new document cameras; the following year, maybe three or four more. As you can see, it will take many years for us to have the technology available for teachers to use in their instruction. By the time we get the basics, there will be new and different items to purchase; thus starting the cycle all over again. Unless the state of Texas helps with funding, there is no way for technology to be equally available to all students in Texas schools.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Technology Applications Inventory & SETDA
I should preface my blog by stating that I am at an advantage in this assignment. My education and teaching experience is heavily weighted in technology. I have taught high school technology applications classes to include the following: BCIS and Digital Graphics and Animation. I am currently the technology applications teacher for all kindergarten through fifth graders at my elementary school. I guess I should add that I am also EC-12 Technology Applications certified. I serve as my campus’ technology facilitator, so I have received extensive training in a wide variety of applications. I am the web designer for my campus’ website, and I also serve as the technology trainer for our faculty and staff. I am also responsible for getting all new teachers to show their “technology proficiencies” as mandated by NCLB. With that being said, the Technology Applications Inventory provided by TEA showed no deficiencies on my part. Out of a total of 58 questions, I was able to answer “yes” to all of them.
My experience as a campus technology facilitator of an elementary campus has opened my eyes to the lack of experience many teachers have in regards to computer foundations. While I have been exposed to the simplest of these items, “understanding the differences between primary memory and secondary storage”, I have many peers who have no idea what is being asked of them when they are told to backup their files onto their own USB or flash drive. In working with teachers to help them to pass their technology proficiencies, I am amazed at how many of them cannot perform simple word processing tasks. To ask them to combine spreadsheet applications with word processing tasks is a monumental task. In the 21st Century, you would think that there would be a better foundation built for our teachers, but that is not always the case. It is easy to see why these teachers shy away from incorporating more technology into their daily lessons.
I felt that the SETDA Teacher Survey was very thorough. Again, I felt that I had a leg up on other teachers in that technology is a built in component of my curriculum. I am not limited as far as computer availability, and for the most part, I do have access to the software that I need. I feel that my limitations are with the grade levels that I teach. I am fortunate to be in a district that values technology. Where surrounding districts have eliminated a technology applications teacher position, my district has worked to keep that position. I feel that this shows evidence that getting technology to our teachers and students is a primary goal.
My experience as a campus technology facilitator of an elementary campus has opened my eyes to the lack of experience many teachers have in regards to computer foundations. While I have been exposed to the simplest of these items, “understanding the differences between primary memory and secondary storage”, I have many peers who have no idea what is being asked of them when they are told to backup their files onto their own USB or flash drive. In working with teachers to help them to pass their technology proficiencies, I am amazed at how many of them cannot perform simple word processing tasks. To ask them to combine spreadsheet applications with word processing tasks is a monumental task. In the 21st Century, you would think that there would be a better foundation built for our teachers, but that is not always the case. It is easy to see why these teachers shy away from incorporating more technology into their daily lessons.
I felt that the SETDA Teacher Survey was very thorough. Again, I felt that I had a leg up on other teachers in that technology is a built in component of my curriculum. I am not limited as far as computer availability, and for the most part, I do have access to the software that I need. I feel that my limitations are with the grade levels that I teach. I am fortunate to be in a district that values technology. Where surrounding districts have eliminated a technology applications teacher position, my district has worked to keep that position. I feel that this shows evidence that getting technology to our teachers and students is a primary goal.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
First Posting
Test! Test! Test!
One! Two! Three!
I'm just checking to see if this shows up in my blog.
One! Two! Three!
I'm just checking to see if this shows up in my blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
