The Best Wordle

          title="Wordle: heather">
          src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/1399476/heather"
          alt="Wordle: heather"
          style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">

© 2009 Jonathan Feinberg

Terms of Use

The Constitution: My First Prezi

What a Difference a Day Makes!

     Tuned in for the second attempt at a web conference, and I am very happy with the experience. I felt respected and valued and I learned a great deal about technology integration, specifically about some new Web 2.0 tools I had not heard about before.

     There were quite a few questions about the LCE, ILD, and TK20, but they were fortunately deflected in favor of topics NOT answered by Dr. Cortez-Rucker. Off topic: I took my LCE back in February and was pleased to meet and chat with Dr. Rucker. It was a very positive experience and I was home by 2 PM (a three hour drive!) 

     Back the conference: Dr. Cummings was very adept at managing the crowd, and maintained an environment of mutual respect. She took control periodically to summarize or clarify, and I now have a better idea how 100 people can interact positively and productively.

     Some things I plan to investigate as a result of the conference: Jing, SuccessMakers, and Prezi. 

  

Technology Integration Professional Development Action Plan

The Texas STaR Chart is the starting point to assess progress and determine goals. Jan Schiff Elementary School opened in 2008 and currently has two years’ worth of data to evaluate. According to both years’ results, the school is strongest in Infrastructure for Technology, which is rated as Advanced Technology.  The remaining three domains were all rated as Developing Technology, and the weakest area is Teaching and Learning.

     While Jan Schiff Elementary has shown outstanding commitment to seamless integration in technology instruction, the growth has been somewhat static in the first domain, Teaching and Learning.  The administration has demonstrated a commitment to securing the necessary funding to provide infrastructure. To this end, the Principal and Assistant Principal have developed a strong, positive relationship with all stakeholders, including PTA, parents, and faculty members.

     While it appears that, to an extent, the static growth in Domain I may be in part due to the relatively new campus environment and forced turnover that occurred when Schiff students and teachers were moved to a newer campus in 2010. It must be addressed, however, that there should have been more growth in this area due to the availability of technology in all grade levels.

     It may be concluded, then, that professional development must be improved and increased in order to strengthen the instructional capacity of the classroom teachers. Teachers must demonstrate awareness of and familiarity with the TEKS for technology in all content areas.

     Teachers need professional development that increases awareness and willingness to seek out and use digital content in all academic areas. Hands-on professional development is needed that will improve student access to teacher-created web-based content. The training should be research-based and address the ever-changing digital equipment to which teachers have access. Professional development must also address the needs of new staff members who were hired after the acquisition and training for any digital equipment.  Appropriate professional development will provide teachers with opportunities and skills in which their students can communicate interactively, experience higher-level thinking, and consult with content experts in a digital setting.

Action	Responsible Parties	Timeline	Resources	Evaluation
Review STaR Chart Data, CIP to identify campus needs	Administration, Campus ITS, Classroom Teachers	April 2011	Data, Computer Lab and screen	Prioritize needs and determine primary focus
Technology Staff Development opportunities are posted on eLearning and in staff workroom	Dana Fish, Campus ITS	April-May 2011	eLearning	Teachers have access to professional development that is relevant to their content areas and accessible
Campus Professional Development Sessions	Dana Fish, Campus ITS; Jill Wolosonovich, Librarian; Corlette Hill, Education Tech Specialist	May-August 2011	eLearning; Atomic Learning; campus computer lab; district computer training center	Classroom teachers earn 6 or more technology hours toward the 14 hour Gold Standard required by the district
Campus Staff Development to familiarize teachers with the LRPT and NCLB requirements	Dana Fish	August 2011	Computer Lab, screen; Texas STaR Chart overview and refresher	Improvement in two or more domains of the STaR Chart rating. Two or more domains will be Advanced Tech and there will be measurable growth in all domains

Web Conference Experience

I attended my first mandatory web conference this evening. I am, in a word, disappointed. I entered the room twenty minutes early because of the large numbers of people participating. I saw that there were 99 people at one point, which is entirely too many for a productive conference. I am beginning to feel that I need to find a Masters' program that has fewer participants. This one has become entirely too unwieldy for quality assurance.

I sat back from my keyboard and watched the screen flash back ad forth from full text to webcam views, and back again. The text flashed by too quickly to really read, but from what I could ascertain, I was being reprimanded for my unprofessional conduct. I typed a few questions, but even that seemed wrong. The conference abruptly ended, and while I feel somewhat guilty for somehow not doing it correctly, I don't feel entirely responsible. I didn't clog up the board with any "Hey girl!" greetings and I didn't "e-play" with any icons. I attended in good faith and wasted some of the last hours of spring break that I should have spent with my children.


I am concerned that a technology course is so plagued with confusion and conflict. I have felt belittled by several of the communiques and am still baffled by some of the directions. Some of my colleagues followed the syllabus directions to the letter and then we all received a generic hand slap for not following directions. If this is a course that is still being designed, I would appreciate more assistance and fewer reprimands. It has never been my intention to annoy anyone, and I am sincerely giving this course 100% of my effort, to the detriment of my position at school and my family.


I sincerely want to meet the objectives of the course, but more than anything I just want it to be over. This is disappointing when so much time and money has gone into it. We have learned a great deal about the culture of a campus, and while this is not necessarily a goal of this particular course, I have learned a great deal about the culture of Lamar University. 

A National Plan?

The Draft National Educational Technology Plan is not quite as long as the Texas Long-Range Plan, but they borrow heavily from one another. The goals set forth in the draft plan are remarkably similar to those of the long range plan for the state of Texas. A major difference is the quantity of statistics in the National Plan draft, some of which are harrowing:

     “Of students who do graduate from high school, one third are unprepared for postsecondary education, forcing community colleges and four-year colleges and universities to devote precious time and resources to remedial work for incoming students.” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).

The draft plan is peppered with edgy new terms such as “collaboratories” –which evokes a scientific (or research-based) opportunity for 21^st learners to collaborate.

     In short, the national plan seeks to close the achievement gap for all learners by raising the number of college graduates from 39% to 60% by 2020.  The report explains relatively the same terms as the Texas plan; teaching, learning, assessment, and infrastructure are the key components.

     Not surprisingly yet conspicuously absent in the draft is clarification on how these lofty goals will be attained, since budget woes have constricted the growth of nearly every district in the state of Texas. If news sources are reliable, these budgetary crises are not limited to the Lone Star State. How then will these goals be funded and by whom? If these goals become mandates, it will be very interesting to see how monies are allocated in order to meet the recommendations of the report. If there are thirty children in my elementary classroom, will I be able to ensure equal access to them all? Will I even be there to lead these 21^st Century learners?

    

    

STAR Chart Report: Week 2 Assignment

Posted in partial fulfillment of requirements of EDLD 5352, Lamar University

S ta r chart report

View more presentations from cmmurat.

Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan

     The Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, available online for anyone with good close-up vision and a few hours to spare, can be found at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5082&menu_id=2147483665. It offers a comprehensive view of the plan for bringing today’s schools into the 21^st century. The plan is an acknowledgement that students possess greater technology skills than their local school infrastructure can support. It is widely believed that improvements in technology have to be systemic and consistent in order to be effective, and the plan describes both the plan and its current status from September 2008 to August 2010. . 

     Written in two major sections, the progress report begins with descriptions of the four key areas of the Long Range Plan: Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support; and Infrastructure, notably the four components of the Texas STaR chart. The second part sums up how the twenty regional service centers are meeting the recommendations of the Long-Range Plan.

     The first component of Teaching and Learning is the Texas STaR Chart, and the progress report details the strides made in this area. Technology grants have provided improvements for classroom teachers through integration of interactive lessons. Initiatives such as the Technology Immersion Project allow students to have access to increased opportunities to integrate technology into their learning.

     The section on Educator Preparation and Development also begins with STaR chart data with graphs. The NCLB legislation provided funding to improve teacher training and access to technology, and the standards of educator preparation are described.  Online training opportunities address the needs of teachers unable to commit to more fixed, traditional models of professional development. Programs such as the Intel® Teach Program and iTunes University are examples of such online offerings.

     Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support and Infrastructure for Technology are the last sections in the report and each addresses STaR chart data. Specific information regarding broadband access and internet safety issues are features of this section.     

     The Progress Report demonstrates how the crucial resources for administrators, teachers, librarians, and students are being provided for Texas’ 21st Century classrooms.

Technology Assessments: Pros and Cons

    
     At the start of each new school year, we get the email from the ITS reminding us to complete the STAR Chart. Periodically we get the odd survey or Survey Monkey link. It seems that we are often being asked to rate ourselves and our proficiency with technology. Some surveys are quite long and tedious. It begs the question, however: to what end do we gather all this data? 

     One must assess one's proficiency in order to determine needs and define goals. If the gathering of the data is simply to rate, though, it is not as likely to have buy-in from those being rated.  Teachers are more motivated to answer accurately and thoroughly when there is even the possibility of follow-through and support post-survey. When professional development or new technology acquisitions indicate that the surveys were analyzed and given credence, not only does morale improve, but there will be a greater sense of ownership. The likelihood that these stakeholders will invest themselves in the changes resulting from the professional development or new technology purchases increases exponentially. “They heard us and did something about it!”

     On the other hand, it is entirely possible to have too much data. Assessing proficiency without also addressing goals can lead to declining morale and teacher apathy towards technology. If teachers are repeatedly asked about their skills and even about their own personal technology goals, but the infrastructure and budget remain static or limited, teachers are less likely to participate effectively. On a campus where such assessments only lead to a rating, without possibility of improvement, it is only data for data’s sake. The information piles up without reason and buy-in is lost.