This week I will do/have done the following activities
- filled out the online class survey
- listened to podcast for session 10, posted response to blog
- posted responses to blogs of three classmates (Mimi, Angelica, and Barbara)
- posted remaining items to personal webpage for projects 2 and 3
- reviewed projects of classmates
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Session 10 Wrapping Up
Response Question: Summarize the class. What has been interesting, what have you learned? What do you see as your direction as a potential leader in using technology in education.
I found this class to be beneficial to me in a number of ways. I never saw myself as a person who knew enough about technology to assist others on a regular basis, however this class made me realize I am able to do that (and I am fairly good at it!). It definitely boosted my confidence in this area of education and made me take on more of a leadership role within my department in terms of technology integration.
I have to be honest, I initially signed up for this class for two reasons: 1. it was all online and 2. all I needed was additional 3 units to move over on the pay scale. Now that it is finished, I am a bit sad. While it was a great deal of work, it forced me to focus on my weaknesses and develop them to the point I am now at and I am thankful for that. I will definitely take away from this class the idea that technology can be used by anyone to varying degrees and that I am now "responsible" (nominated by my department..) for ensuring that the students in my department have access to the same types of technology as their non-disabled peers and that their teachers know how to effectively use it to enhance their learning. In addition, I created a blog (I had never done that!!) and am now fairly comfortable in doing so. I definitely plan on continuing my work on my class website and assisting others in my department to do the same. Overall, I found this class to be informative and motivational. I am even considering taking more technology classes :) I am glad I was given this opportunity!!
I found this class to be beneficial to me in a number of ways. I never saw myself as a person who knew enough about technology to assist others on a regular basis, however this class made me realize I am able to do that (and I am fairly good at it!). It definitely boosted my confidence in this area of education and made me take on more of a leadership role within my department in terms of technology integration.
I have to be honest, I initially signed up for this class for two reasons: 1. it was all online and 2. all I needed was additional 3 units to move over on the pay scale. Now that it is finished, I am a bit sad. While it was a great deal of work, it forced me to focus on my weaknesses and develop them to the point I am now at and I am thankful for that. I will definitely take away from this class the idea that technology can be used by anyone to varying degrees and that I am now "responsible" (nominated by my department..) for ensuring that the students in my department have access to the same types of technology as their non-disabled peers and that their teachers know how to effectively use it to enhance their learning. In addition, I created a blog (I had never done that!!) and am now fairly comfortable in doing so. I definitely plan on continuing my work on my class website and assisting others in my department to do the same. Overall, I found this class to be informative and motivational. I am even considering taking more technology classes :) I am glad I was given this opportunity!!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Activity Log ~ Session 9
This week was very hectic with the WASC visit and preparation for the CAHSEE. I did not get nearly as much done as I wanted to. Here is what I worked on this week:
- finalized project 2/posted to web page
- listened to podcast/took notes
- responded to blogs of 3 classmates (Angelica, Barbara, and Jesus) and posted for session 9
- listened to podcast for session 10/took notes
- reviewed projects of classmates
- continued to work on project 3
- finalized project 2/posted to web page
- listened to podcast/took notes
- responded to blogs of 3 classmates (Angelica, Barbara, and Jesus) and posted for session 9
- listened to podcast for session 10/took notes
- reviewed projects of classmates
- continued to work on project 3
Session 9 Professional Development
Response Questions: Describe an excellent professional development (pd) experience and describe a poor pd experience. Compare and contrast the two (draw clear comparisons, explain key differences and similarities) and extract characteristics of good trainings.
In my opinion and from experience a good professional development experience has a clear goal that is communicated from the beginning and is relevant to everyone involved. Ideally this training would be grade/content level specific and allow for opportunities to practice what is being discussed. I personally like the idea of short, small group trainings as opposed to several days or hundreds of people crammed into one room listening to someone on a microphone at the front of the room.
Of the many trainings I have attended, two in particular stand out as being very good. One was offered through UCR called the Copernicus Project. While it was lengthy (5 days, 8 to 4 each day- I did the first year only, later they switched it to two weeks..) it was content specific and we had plenty of opportunities to practice what we were doing both at the trainings and in our classrooms. We were offered support throughout the school year (and continuing on..I have kept in contact with the providers for the past 4 years, they are ALWAYS available) and even made visits to our classrooms to ensure all of our questions were answered and support was available. As part of the ongoing training we had to complete a few lesson plans using the technology they GAVE us (laptops, digital cameras, etc) and we subsequently met for follow up trainings a few additional times. We were fed, offered transportation, and even paid for attending. These types of incentives made it very enticing to science teachers around Southern California. Even though the grant that provided this trainings has since run out, the individuals responsible for making it happen are still available to us and still check in on us periodically. Another well designed training I attended was just last week on "Thinking Maps" at my school site. The presenter was upbeat, informative, and made a concerted effort to include ways to integrate all content areas and populations into her training. She gave examples for math, history, English language learners, and even special education. We had time in small groups to create our own "thinking maps" and were given a binder (organized by subject area) of ideas and strategies on how to incorporate these maps into our daily lessons for better comprehension. We were told these trainings will continue throughout the upcoming years and I hope they do!
Negative or poor training experiences are unfortunately more common than the positive ones and we all have experienced them. One in particular I can recall was at a local hotel that had 3 very nice pools and lounge chairs...Unfortunately that is all I can remember about that particular training. In fact several teachers (and a few administrators) ended up pool side sunning themselves by the first break at 9:30 am (not me of course- we bought magazines to occupy the time from the gift shop..). In instances like this one, there was no "mission or goal", expectations were not clearly identified nor was there any sense of "how is this going to help us?" communicated at any point. From what I recall there was nothing about the training that was grade or content level specific and there was no time to "practice" what we were apparently being taught. The speaker was monotone and appeared more fascinated with the fact that someone gave him a microphone than working the audience and attempting the make the best of the bad situation.
Another example regarding technology - I have been in trainings where they literally start by instructing us on where to find the power button on the computer. When a training starts out like that the majority of people tend to shut down (except those who truly need help finding the power button...) this leads to negativity and an unwillingness to participate. I am not sure how one would be able to effectively "place" participants based on their ability or comfort/ability levels with technology but that is one solution that I feel would be beneficial for technology related trainings.
In conclusion, trainings should be content/grade level specific and relevant to the current assignments of the teachers. They should provide an opportunity for practice and should include some type of follow through by the trainers themselves and or the administration who organized the training to begin with. Ideally they would be short and continuous so that as questions or needs arise they can be dealt with in an appropriate and timely manner. The goal should be clearly stated and followed through on; and some type of evaluation should be included.
In my opinion and from experience a good professional development experience has a clear goal that is communicated from the beginning and is relevant to everyone involved. Ideally this training would be grade/content level specific and allow for opportunities to practice what is being discussed. I personally like the idea of short, small group trainings as opposed to several days or hundreds of people crammed into one room listening to someone on a microphone at the front of the room.
Of the many trainings I have attended, two in particular stand out as being very good. One was offered through UCR called the Copernicus Project. While it was lengthy (5 days, 8 to 4 each day- I did the first year only, later they switched it to two weeks..) it was content specific and we had plenty of opportunities to practice what we were doing both at the trainings and in our classrooms. We were offered support throughout the school year (and continuing on..I have kept in contact with the providers for the past 4 years, they are ALWAYS available) and even made visits to our classrooms to ensure all of our questions were answered and support was available. As part of the ongoing training we had to complete a few lesson plans using the technology they GAVE us (laptops, digital cameras, etc) and we subsequently met for follow up trainings a few additional times. We were fed, offered transportation, and even paid for attending. These types of incentives made it very enticing to science teachers around Southern California. Even though the grant that provided this trainings has since run out, the individuals responsible for making it happen are still available to us and still check in on us periodically. Another well designed training I attended was just last week on "Thinking Maps" at my school site. The presenter was upbeat, informative, and made a concerted effort to include ways to integrate all content areas and populations into her training. She gave examples for math, history, English language learners, and even special education. We had time in small groups to create our own "thinking maps" and were given a binder (organized by subject area) of ideas and strategies on how to incorporate these maps into our daily lessons for better comprehension. We were told these trainings will continue throughout the upcoming years and I hope they do!
Negative or poor training experiences are unfortunately more common than the positive ones and we all have experienced them. One in particular I can recall was at a local hotel that had 3 very nice pools and lounge chairs...Unfortunately that is all I can remember about that particular training. In fact several teachers (and a few administrators) ended up pool side sunning themselves by the first break at 9:30 am (not me of course- we bought magazines to occupy the time from the gift shop..). In instances like this one, there was no "mission or goal", expectations were not clearly identified nor was there any sense of "how is this going to help us?" communicated at any point. From what I recall there was nothing about the training that was grade or content level specific and there was no time to "practice" what we were apparently being taught. The speaker was monotone and appeared more fascinated with the fact that someone gave him a microphone than working the audience and attempting the make the best of the bad situation.
Another example regarding technology - I have been in trainings where they literally start by instructing us on where to find the power button on the computer. When a training starts out like that the majority of people tend to shut down (except those who truly need help finding the power button...) this leads to negativity and an unwillingness to participate. I am not sure how one would be able to effectively "place" participants based on their ability or comfort/ability levels with technology but that is one solution that I feel would be beneficial for technology related trainings.
In conclusion, trainings should be content/grade level specific and relevant to the current assignments of the teachers. They should provide an opportunity for practice and should include some type of follow through by the trainers themselves and or the administration who organized the training to begin with. Ideally they would be short and continuous so that as questions or needs arise they can be dealt with in an appropriate and timely manner. The goal should be clearly stated and followed through on; and some type of evaluation should be included.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Session 8 ~ Data Driven Decision Making
Response Question: Think of a way Data Driven Decision Making (DDDM) could be used in your job setting. What would be a positive and negative use of DDDM and how does leadership factor in to the positive and negative use of DDDM?
I have to start out by saying I am soo overwhelmed with data there are times when I think there is not possibly any more data I could collect!! But I know that is not true, because then what would we focus on at our staff meetings? :)
Being that my site is in the midst of our WASC review (and DAIT) we spend more time collecting, analyzing, and recording data than we do anything else. For me, it is beneficial in that when I collaborate with general ed science teachers we have the data from our shared students to analyze. Which we then use to go back and reteach what is necessary based on benchmark scores collected from OARS (data collection and analyzing program). However, from the point of a special education teacher I sometimes wonder what type of data they are looking for from my students in particular. In all reality, most of my students will not ever be at grade level (or even close for that matter...) and as much as we try, all the data analyzing and manipulating in the world will not change that.
So, the positive side of DDDM for me is that yes, the data we get from analyzing test scores in Earth Science and Biology is helpful in designing lesson plans/unit plans, and reteaching certain things to ensure our students know what is expected of them. On the negative side, I do not feel that the extent of data collection we are asked to do is realistic or appropriate for the lower functioning special education students I work with daily. Yet we are still required to enter their scores into OARS and analyze it the same way the AP teachers do. This is where logic and good leadership comes in. In my opinion, a good leader/administrative team would realize that the extent of DDDM we (sped teachers and certain elective teachers) are doing is not appropriate for all subject areas and there are some subjects that might not require it all (examples: Floral Design ?? - nothing against floral design!! really!! /severely handicapped classes/etc ). Ideally this administrative team might be able to come up with other things teachers of these subjects might be able to do that would benefit their students just as much as data collection and analyzing. (Perhaps, they could work with content area teachers to integrate more English or Math into their courses?) Either way, a good administrative team would in my opinion make the best use of their teachers time for the benefit of all students not just those who are doing poorly in English and Math for the sake of making our data look better.
I have to start out by saying I am soo overwhelmed with data there are times when I think there is not possibly any more data I could collect!! But I know that is not true, because then what would we focus on at our staff meetings? :)
Being that my site is in the midst of our WASC review (and DAIT) we spend more time collecting, analyzing, and recording data than we do anything else. For me, it is beneficial in that when I collaborate with general ed science teachers we have the data from our shared students to analyze. Which we then use to go back and reteach what is necessary based on benchmark scores collected from OARS (data collection and analyzing program). However, from the point of a special education teacher I sometimes wonder what type of data they are looking for from my students in particular. In all reality, most of my students will not ever be at grade level (or even close for that matter...) and as much as we try, all the data analyzing and manipulating in the world will not change that.
So, the positive side of DDDM for me is that yes, the data we get from analyzing test scores in Earth Science and Biology is helpful in designing lesson plans/unit plans, and reteaching certain things to ensure our students know what is expected of them. On the negative side, I do not feel that the extent of data collection we are asked to do is realistic or appropriate for the lower functioning special education students I work with daily. Yet we are still required to enter their scores into OARS and analyze it the same way the AP teachers do. This is where logic and good leadership comes in. In my opinion, a good leader/administrative team would realize that the extent of DDDM we (sped teachers and certain elective teachers) are doing is not appropriate for all subject areas and there are some subjects that might not require it all (examples: Floral Design ?? - nothing against floral design!! really!! /severely handicapped classes/etc ). Ideally this administrative team might be able to come up with other things teachers of these subjects might be able to do that would benefit their students just as much as data collection and analyzing. (Perhaps, they could work with content area teachers to integrate more English or Math into their courses?) Either way, a good administrative team would in my opinion make the best use of their teachers time for the benefit of all students not just those who are doing poorly in English and Math for the sake of making our data look better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
