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.
Activity Log Session 8
This week I worked on the following things:
- listened, took notes, and responded to session 8 podcast
- responded to blogs of 3 peers (Jeff, Chris M, and McKinley)
- finalized project two and prepared to post it to personal webpage
- continued work on project 3
- listened, took notes, and responded to session 8 podcast
- responded to blogs of 3 peers (Jeff, Chris M, and McKinley)
- finalized project two and prepared to post it to personal webpage
- continued work on project 3
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Activity Log Session 7
This week I did the following activities
2/22 - responded to podcast
2/24 - posted to blogs of Jesus, Bill M, and Barbara G
attempted to fix links for items on personal webpage related to project 1
- Worked on project 2 and 3 - getting materials ready to post to personal webpage
2/22 - responded to podcast
2/24 - posted to blogs of Jesus, Bill M, and Barbara G
attempted to fix links for items on personal webpage related to project 1
- Worked on project 2 and 3 - getting materials ready to post to personal webpage
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Session 7 Ed Norman Syndrome
Response Question : If you were to run into the Ed Norman Syndrome where you work, what would the issues be? What would Ed Norman be doing to try and preserve and protect the infrastructure? As an educational leader how would you resolve the situation?
I believe the Ed Norman Syndrome exists everywhere to some extent. There will always be monitoring and blocking to some extent for safety reasons (security of confidential files/viruses/etc). I feel the biggest issue for teachers would be the unavailability of certain sites that are valuable learning tools when used the right way. For example, at my site, YouTube is blocked (and it probably is a good thing students cannot access it) however there are some really good (standards based of course) video clips I would like to use during various lessons and I am not able to access it at work. We are also prevented from doing an "image search" on any search engine. Most of the teachers work around it by downloading videos from YouTube or adding images to PowerPoint's to show later. I feel Ed Norman would most likely prevent (inadvertently of course) the use of any sort of technology for learning by blocking so many of the Internet resources that teachers would give up and avoid it all together. I feel he would prevent the downloading of media players so that even those who tried to get around it would be unsuccessful. Even though his efforts are made to preserve and protect the technology infrastructure, it would be essentially destroying it for use by those who it was meant to be used by (teachers and students). The educational leader has a conflict of interests in this situation in that Ed is simply trying to protect the technology from hackers and viruses and the like while the teachers and students are trying to teach and learn using technology. I do not feel there is a solution that would make both sides happy in this all to common situation but a compromise could be made. By allowing teachers input on what should be allowed and what shouldn't while explaining to Ed his job is more than just "protecting" the infrastructure - it involves protecting it while still allowing access by those who need it. The key in this situation in my opinion would be clarifying what Ed's job should be and opening a dialogue with teachers so they can express what tools they need to be successful then taking that information to Ed and then following through and making sure it (the compromise) happens.
I believe the Ed Norman Syndrome exists everywhere to some extent. There will always be monitoring and blocking to some extent for safety reasons (security of confidential files/viruses/etc). I feel the biggest issue for teachers would be the unavailability of certain sites that are valuable learning tools when used the right way. For example, at my site, YouTube is blocked (and it probably is a good thing students cannot access it) however there are some really good (standards based of course) video clips I would like to use during various lessons and I am not able to access it at work. We are also prevented from doing an "image search" on any search engine. Most of the teachers work around it by downloading videos from YouTube or adding images to PowerPoint's to show later. I feel Ed Norman would most likely prevent (inadvertently of course) the use of any sort of technology for learning by blocking so many of the Internet resources that teachers would give up and avoid it all together. I feel he would prevent the downloading of media players so that even those who tried to get around it would be unsuccessful. Even though his efforts are made to preserve and protect the technology infrastructure, it would be essentially destroying it for use by those who it was meant to be used by (teachers and students). The educational leader has a conflict of interests in this situation in that Ed is simply trying to protect the technology from hackers and viruses and the like while the teachers and students are trying to teach and learn using technology. I do not feel there is a solution that would make both sides happy in this all to common situation but a compromise could be made. By allowing teachers input on what should be allowed and what shouldn't while explaining to Ed his job is more than just "protecting" the infrastructure - it involves protecting it while still allowing access by those who need it. The key in this situation in my opinion would be clarifying what Ed's job should be and opening a dialogue with teachers so they can express what tools they need to be successful then taking that information to Ed and then following through and making sure it (the compromise) happens.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Activity Log Session 6
This week I did the following activities:
- Listened to podcast, took notes, posted to blog
- Responded to blogs of three classmates (Kenny, Grace, and Chris M)
- figured out how to add all of project 1 to link on blog page to personal webpage (finally figured it out!!!) and added it!
- Listened to podcast for session 7, took notes - decided it was time to sleep! Will post on it Sunday...
- Listened to podcast, took notes, posted to blog
- Responded to blogs of three classmates (Kenny, Grace, and Chris M)
- figured out how to add all of project 1 to link on blog page to personal webpage (finally figured it out!!!) and added it!
- Listened to podcast for session 7, took notes - decided it was time to sleep! Will post on it Sunday...
Monday, February 16, 2009
Session 6 Barriers to Technology Use
Response Questions: What common barriers to technology integration do you hear about or perceive at your school? Which are actual barriers that exist and which are "proxies" or stand ins for something else? For issues that are actual barriers what would you do to try to solve the barrier so that technology can be used more effectively at your site?
The three barriers that Dr Newberry listed in his podcast are the following:
1. Lack of computers and other technology
2. Not enough release time to learn software and develop lesson plans
3. Not enough time in the day to allow students to use computers effectively
I find these are fairly common barriers and feel that for the most part, they are actual barriers as opposed to "stand ins" for other issues for those who truly express a desire to integrate more technology into their daily lessons.
The one issue I hear most frequently at my site as part of my project 3 (and I am paraphrasing here...) is that some teachers just don't want to learn new technology. Time is not the issue, nor is it a lack of appropriate and working computers, or even an issue of not having time to allow students to use them..it is simply their strong desire not to take the time to learn how to use it. For many of the teachers I am referring to it appears to me that they feel there is nothing wrong with how they instruct their students (and there probably isn't..), for them this is how they have always done it, it works (because that is how they were taught ..) and "there is no need to change it if it is not broken". This frustrates me- however, like the saying you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. If a teacher is truly as resistant to learning new technology as some of the teachers I am referring to are- there really is nothing that can be done. For many of them it is an issue of "well, I am done at the end of the year anyway...so they cant make me...and I am not going to get fired because I am retiring.."etc etc If it were up to me I would like to see these teachers be given specific training (that is continuous - not just a one time thing) on how certain technology can be easily integrated into their day. Even if it is just teaching them how to take attendance online or helping them learn how start an online grading program..I would like to think if they saw the value and how much easier it would make their days they might just be willing to move from the adjunct/peripheral use stage of the hierarchy to using it as a teacher tool. In my understanding, even moving from level 1 to level 2 is a start. Of course rewarding them for using it would be ideal; even if it is just a "hey I see that you are keeping up with your online grading system - good work" from an administrator or an email saying something similar. Perhaps if they see the "reward" as positive, they may be more likely to continue using it.
In terms of other barriers to technology, I would have to say that having access to appropriate and "usable" software for the computers that we do have is fairly high up on the list. As another student posted, simply having computers in the room does not mean anything if they are not capable of handling the software a teacher wishes to use. An example of this is something that our site went through this year. After 14 years, our site actually got "new computers". Teachers were all excited and anxious to use them, however once we got them, we realized they were not in fact "new" they were "hand me downs" from the D.O who were getting full upgrades. These "new computers" had Windows 2003 and the Microsoft programs that go with it - They were not capable of handling newer versions of software and unable to keep up with the demands that many teachers had in terms of adding programs, running various programs, doing anything that required sound (they have no speakers...). The new math textbooks that came with a software program were not even able to be placed on these computers because they did not have enough memory... etc. While these are certainly an upgrade from the Gateway computers that had Windows 97, they are not what teachers expected and this in turn made teachers resentful of the attempt to integrate more technology into their classrooms. While this scenario represents a barrier to technology integration, I can see how it can also be seen as proxy for teachers who simply are not willing to learn new technology.
For the last question, I would like to see teachers have some input on how money for technology is going to be spent. If the school has a certain budget, why not go to the individual departments and see what types of technology they would benefit from most. Technology for the Science department is certainly not going to be what the ELD department would like to see. Creating a blanket approach to spending this money is counterproductive and appears to create more problems than it attempts to solve. What is the harm in asking for teacher input? After all, they are the ones who will be using the technology not the administrators who purchase it...
The three barriers that Dr Newberry listed in his podcast are the following:
1. Lack of computers and other technology
2. Not enough release time to learn software and develop lesson plans
3. Not enough time in the day to allow students to use computers effectively
I find these are fairly common barriers and feel that for the most part, they are actual barriers as opposed to "stand ins" for other issues for those who truly express a desire to integrate more technology into their daily lessons.
The one issue I hear most frequently at my site as part of my project 3 (and I am paraphrasing here...) is that some teachers just don't want to learn new technology. Time is not the issue, nor is it a lack of appropriate and working computers, or even an issue of not having time to allow students to use them..it is simply their strong desire not to take the time to learn how to use it. For many of the teachers I am referring to it appears to me that they feel there is nothing wrong with how they instruct their students (and there probably isn't..), for them this is how they have always done it, it works (because that is how they were taught ..) and "there is no need to change it if it is not broken". This frustrates me- however, like the saying you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. If a teacher is truly as resistant to learning new technology as some of the teachers I am referring to are- there really is nothing that can be done. For many of them it is an issue of "well, I am done at the end of the year anyway...so they cant make me...and I am not going to get fired because I am retiring.."etc etc If it were up to me I would like to see these teachers be given specific training (that is continuous - not just a one time thing) on how certain technology can be easily integrated into their day. Even if it is just teaching them how to take attendance online or helping them learn how start an online grading program..I would like to think if they saw the value and how much easier it would make their days they might just be willing to move from the adjunct/peripheral use stage of the hierarchy to using it as a teacher tool. In my understanding, even moving from level 1 to level 2 is a start. Of course rewarding them for using it would be ideal; even if it is just a "hey I see that you are keeping up with your online grading system - good work" from an administrator or an email saying something similar. Perhaps if they see the "reward" as positive, they may be more likely to continue using it.
In terms of other barriers to technology, I would have to say that having access to appropriate and "usable" software for the computers that we do have is fairly high up on the list. As another student posted, simply having computers in the room does not mean anything if they are not capable of handling the software a teacher wishes to use. An example of this is something that our site went through this year. After 14 years, our site actually got "new computers". Teachers were all excited and anxious to use them, however once we got them, we realized they were not in fact "new" they were "hand me downs" from the D.O who were getting full upgrades. These "new computers" had Windows 2003 and the Microsoft programs that go with it - They were not capable of handling newer versions of software and unable to keep up with the demands that many teachers had in terms of adding programs, running various programs, doing anything that required sound (they have no speakers...). The new math textbooks that came with a software program were not even able to be placed on these computers because they did not have enough memory... etc. While these are certainly an upgrade from the Gateway computers that had Windows 97, they are not what teachers expected and this in turn made teachers resentful of the attempt to integrate more technology into their classrooms. While this scenario represents a barrier to technology integration, I can see how it can also be seen as proxy for teachers who simply are not willing to learn new technology.
For the last question, I would like to see teachers have some input on how money for technology is going to be spent. If the school has a certain budget, why not go to the individual departments and see what types of technology they would benefit from most. Technology for the Science department is certainly not going to be what the ELD department would like to see. Creating a blanket approach to spending this money is counterproductive and appears to create more problems than it attempts to solve. What is the harm in asking for teacher input? After all, they are the ones who will be using the technology not the administrators who purchase it...
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Session 5 Activity Log
This week I worked on the following items
- Listened to podcast/took notes/posted for session 5/responded to blogs of 3 peers (Jesus, Bill K, and Debra)
- Continued work on ppt for project 1
- Completed APA reference list for project 1 (attempted to post - was unsuccessful...)
- Worked on inservices for teachers for project 2 /attempted to post schedule to blog and evidence (was unsucessful...)
- Continued work on technology survey (attempted to post preliminary data - not successful)
Goal for Monday: figure out how to post items to personal webpage and link to blog!!!
- Listened to podcast/took notes/posted for session 5/responded to blogs of 3 peers (Jesus, Bill K, and Debra)
- Continued work on ppt for project 1
- Completed APA reference list for project 1 (attempted to post - was unsuccessful...)
- Worked on inservices for teachers for project 2 /attempted to post schedule to blog and evidence (was unsucessful...)
- Continued work on technology survey (attempted to post preliminary data - not successful)
Goal for Monday: figure out how to post items to personal webpage and link to blog!!!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Session 5 Blog Post
Response Questions: Identify the technology integration best practices you use. How did you learn about this best practice? Describe what it is, how you accomplish it, and how you found it. Why isn't everyone using it?
I would have to say that the technology integration best practice I use is a combination of things. In terms of parent communication I would have to say creating the parent email list (for those who have it..) and using it to communicate with the parents on a regular basis (at least twice a week). I have found it is one of the easiest ways to get in touch with parents who work or keep different hours where they are not easily reached during the day. In addition, it is an easy way to keep the lines of communication open between parents and teachers. (On a side note, there are many websites out there that will translate a body of text into any language..so for my Spanish speaking parents a simple click of the mouse will translate my email to Spanish and I can easily translate their response back - it is VERY helpful! My basic knowledge of Spanish allows me to check to make sure that the translation is correct) An example of my using this practice would be when I email the study skills teachers to let them know the assignments for the day, I add the parents to that email as well so they also know what was done in class. I feel one of the reasons that some teachers are cautious about beginning and maintaining regular communication with parents through email is they are worried parents may send numerous emails on a daily basis and they may feel obligated to respond that same day. Another reason is maybe they just do not want to be burdened with additional emails to open, read, and respond to. With everything (it seems) going to the computer and online, it appears to me that communicating via email is faster and easier than playing phone tag for days on end with some of the hard to reach parents.
Another example of a best practice that I have found and I am not sure if this "counts" but for the few parents I just cannot get ahold of by conventional means (phone calls, home visits..), I have found that texting them actually elicits a response in a timely manner (usually within minutes!). For most of my students, that is how they keep in contact with their parents and I thought if that is how they reach their parents, why shouldn't I try it? It was actually a student who suggested I text his mother to find out when she was able to come in for a meeting (I guess he got tired of me asking him everyday...and sending him home with notes...). Within minutes of my text to her, I got a response and every time I need to speak with her now that is how I reach her. While there are some disadvantages (parents having my cell #) I have found the advantages (getting in touch with parents almost immediately) to be worth it. I realize it is unconventional, however for me (and others at my site) it works and is a great technology tool. I have not had a problem with parents having my cell number at all. All of the parents I have contacted this way are happy that a teacher is concerned enough about their student to give out their home number. It makes it easier when discussing difficult situations with parents if they know you care about the success of their student enough to "deal with them" after school hours. When I talk with other teachers about how they contact parents for meetings, etc they are often frustrated because they cannot reach anyone and when I suggest texting (or even emailing) they are always hesitant. Perhaps they are concerned about their number being "out there" and misused; I suppose it all comes down to what type of relationship has been built with a particular student. Obviously I do not text "all" the parents, but for some it is appropriate and works ( and I am all for doing things that work and make my life easier! ) I understand their concerns completely, but sometimes wonder if they are so upset about not being able to contact a parent, why are they unwilling to try other methods? Just a thought...
I would have to say that the technology integration best practice I use is a combination of things. In terms of parent communication I would have to say creating the parent email list (for those who have it..) and using it to communicate with the parents on a regular basis (at least twice a week). I have found it is one of the easiest ways to get in touch with parents who work or keep different hours where they are not easily reached during the day. In addition, it is an easy way to keep the lines of communication open between parents and teachers. (On a side note, there are many websites out there that will translate a body of text into any language..so for my Spanish speaking parents a simple click of the mouse will translate my email to Spanish and I can easily translate their response back - it is VERY helpful! My basic knowledge of Spanish allows me to check to make sure that the translation is correct) An example of my using this practice would be when I email the study skills teachers to let them know the assignments for the day, I add the parents to that email as well so they also know what was done in class. I feel one of the reasons that some teachers are cautious about beginning and maintaining regular communication with parents through email is they are worried parents may send numerous emails on a daily basis and they may feel obligated to respond that same day. Another reason is maybe they just do not want to be burdened with additional emails to open, read, and respond to. With everything (it seems) going to the computer and online, it appears to me that communicating via email is faster and easier than playing phone tag for days on end with some of the hard to reach parents.
Another example of a best practice that I have found and I am not sure if this "counts" but for the few parents I just cannot get ahold of by conventional means (phone calls, home visits..), I have found that texting them actually elicits a response in a timely manner (usually within minutes!). For most of my students, that is how they keep in contact with their parents and I thought if that is how they reach their parents, why shouldn't I try it? It was actually a student who suggested I text his mother to find out when she was able to come in for a meeting (I guess he got tired of me asking him everyday...and sending him home with notes...). Within minutes of my text to her, I got a response and every time I need to speak with her now that is how I reach her. While there are some disadvantages (parents having my cell #) I have found the advantages (getting in touch with parents almost immediately) to be worth it. I realize it is unconventional, however for me (and others at my site) it works and is a great technology tool. I have not had a problem with parents having my cell number at all. All of the parents I have contacted this way are happy that a teacher is concerned enough about their student to give out their home number. It makes it easier when discussing difficult situations with parents if they know you care about the success of their student enough to "deal with them" after school hours. When I talk with other teachers about how they contact parents for meetings, etc they are often frustrated because they cannot reach anyone and when I suggest texting (or even emailing) they are always hesitant. Perhaps they are concerned about their number being "out there" and misused; I suppose it all comes down to what type of relationship has been built with a particular student. Obviously I do not text "all" the parents, but for some it is appropriate and works ( and I am all for doing things that work and make my life easier! ) I understand their concerns completely, but sometimes wonder if they are so upset about not being able to contact a parent, why are they unwilling to try other methods? Just a thought...
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Activity Log Session 4
* I was not feeling well this week and therefore did not get as much done as I would have liked :(
2/1 - Reworked Project Proposals 2 &3
2/4 - Researched Journals for Proposal 1 & started APA list of references
- Listened to podcast, took notes, posted to blogs of 3 classmates
2/5 - Finished reference list, started revision of ppt for proposal 1
2/6 - Continued working on Project 1
2/8 - Worked on trying to make a 2nd page where I could upload files and link to my blog (made one!!), posted activity log, linked project page to blog
2/1 - Reworked Project Proposals 2 &3
2/4 - Researched Journals for Proposal 1 & started APA list of references
- Listened to podcast, took notes, posted to blogs of 3 classmates
2/5 - Finished reference list, started revision of ppt for proposal 1
2/6 - Continued working on Project 1
2/8 - Worked on trying to make a 2nd page where I could upload files and link to my blog (made one!!), posted activity log, linked project page to blog
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Session 4 Diffusion of Innovation
Response Item: Identify yourself in one of five categories and provide examples.
I would have to say that I consider myself to be an "early adopter" in regards to most of the technology out there. I am definitely not that teacher who has what appears to be (to those of us not as technologically advanced) some sort of bizare technology set up in the room with cords and speakers and monitors everywhere ( I keep all of that hidden in a closet!). I was one of the first in my department to start using the LCD for powerpoints, eventually hooking it up to the screen and the TVs around the classroom. I was one of the first to start using the parent connect option for our grading program, creating and using a parent email contact list for students in my classes, and even going so far as to create a link to my own class webpage (GASP!). Even though it is nowhere near complete I definitely feel like I am farther along than the early and late majority but not quite an innovator. Another example of why I feel like I am in this category is that for some reason, pretty much everyone comes to me for advice when something goes wrong with their technology. I do not mind this at all, however sometimes I wonder (and laugh..) why in the world would they be coming to me?? I can barely keep my wireless working at home sometimes! Of course I do not share that with them :) I definitely feel that I would not be as comfortable with the technology I use on a daily basis if I had not seen the effectiveness of it in other classrooms first and the overall benefit to the students.
I would have to say that I consider myself to be an "early adopter" in regards to most of the technology out there. I am definitely not that teacher who has what appears to be (to those of us not as technologically advanced) some sort of bizare technology set up in the room with cords and speakers and monitors everywhere ( I keep all of that hidden in a closet!). I was one of the first in my department to start using the LCD for powerpoints, eventually hooking it up to the screen and the TVs around the classroom. I was one of the first to start using the parent connect option for our grading program, creating and using a parent email contact list for students in my classes, and even going so far as to create a link to my own class webpage (GASP!). Even though it is nowhere near complete I definitely feel like I am farther along than the early and late majority but not quite an innovator. Another example of why I feel like I am in this category is that for some reason, pretty much everyone comes to me for advice when something goes wrong with their technology. I do not mind this at all, however sometimes I wonder (and laugh..) why in the world would they be coming to me?? I can barely keep my wireless working at home sometimes! Of course I do not share that with them :) I definitely feel that I would not be as comfortable with the technology I use on a daily basis if I had not seen the effectiveness of it in other classrooms first and the overall benefit to the students.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Project Proposal 2
Name: Angela Benedict
Project Title: Teaching Others How To Use Technology with Special Education Students
Project Focus: Focus 2 ~ Communicating Effective Technology Use
Project Description:
For this project I will create and carry out several teacher inservices over the next few months designed specifically for Special Education Teachers regarding of the integration of technology into their daily lessons. This schedule will be shared with other teachers on site (for example those who participate in team teaching classes, new teachers and open to anyone who would like to attend). As part of the requirement for purchasing advanced technology with school site funds it was noted that I would have to create and carry out (and be available for guidance) several technology related inservices to ensure our teachers are using the technology to the fullest extent possible. I chose this particular project because it meets the requirements of my administration as well as fulfills my desire to assist my fellow teachers in becoming more comfortable with technology. I also chose to do this because there is no comparable opportunities for teachers within my department to have access to quality trainings that relate specifically to the students we serve.
I am hoping this project will increase my comfort level in sharing how to effectively use technology for special needs students with my peers as well as the general student population. In addition, I am hoping that as more technology becomes available to our department (I have been told Smart Boards are on the way!) that these informal inservices can continue and become a real source of help and hope for the few teachers in my department who are still a little leary of technology.
Project Artifacts:
I will post to my blog the list of topics teachers in my department are most concerned about in regards to technology integration.
I will research currently available inservice opportunities that are open to members of district and thoroughly compare and contrast them with the plan I will have set forth in step one.
The detailed meeting plans will be posted on my blog for comments and suggestions from peers.
The success of my inservices will be displayed via the results of the response forms I will ask my teaching peers to fill out at the conclusion of each meeting.
I will write a concise summary of what went well, what needs to be changed, and how I can make these meetings more beneficial to all.
Project Timeline:
I hope to have this project completed by March 8th, 2009
1/31 Started project
2/2 Have rough draft of topics and ideas to be covered
2/5 Meet with teaching peers to hear what issues they have with technology integration and what they would like to see from these meetings. Post self created response forms to blog for peer critique
2/11 Have solid outline of inservices, topics, dates, and materials needed posted to blog. Also post to blog my comparison/contrast of available inservices to what I would like to offer.
2/17 Conduct first technology meeting, summarize the inservice as a whole, review comments and begin adjusting schedule for next meeting.
2/21 Post plan for next meeting and summary of first meeting
2/28 Create final plan for second meeting, post to blog
3/8 Post reflection summary and future plans for teacher inservices regarding the use of technology specifically for special needs students.
3/10 Final deadline (if for any reason I am unable to complete project by my deadline)
Project Title: Teaching Others How To Use Technology with Special Education Students
Project Focus: Focus 2 ~ Communicating Effective Technology Use
Project Description:
For this project I will create and carry out several teacher inservices over the next few months designed specifically for Special Education Teachers regarding of the integration of technology into their daily lessons. This schedule will be shared with other teachers on site (for example those who participate in team teaching classes, new teachers and open to anyone who would like to attend). As part of the requirement for purchasing advanced technology with school site funds it was noted that I would have to create and carry out (and be available for guidance) several technology related inservices to ensure our teachers are using the technology to the fullest extent possible. I chose this particular project because it meets the requirements of my administration as well as fulfills my desire to assist my fellow teachers in becoming more comfortable with technology. I also chose to do this because there is no comparable opportunities for teachers within my department to have access to quality trainings that relate specifically to the students we serve.
I am hoping this project will increase my comfort level in sharing how to effectively use technology for special needs students with my peers as well as the general student population. In addition, I am hoping that as more technology becomes available to our department (I have been told Smart Boards are on the way!) that these informal inservices can continue and become a real source of help and hope for the few teachers in my department who are still a little leary of technology.
Project Artifacts:
I will post to my blog the list of topics teachers in my department are most concerned about in regards to technology integration.
I will research currently available inservice opportunities that are open to members of district and thoroughly compare and contrast them with the plan I will have set forth in step one.
The detailed meeting plans will be posted on my blog for comments and suggestions from peers.
The success of my inservices will be displayed via the results of the response forms I will ask my teaching peers to fill out at the conclusion of each meeting.
I will write a concise summary of what went well, what needs to be changed, and how I can make these meetings more beneficial to all.
Project Timeline:
I hope to have this project completed by March 8th, 2009
1/31 Started project
2/2 Have rough draft of topics and ideas to be covered
2/5 Meet with teaching peers to hear what issues they have with technology integration and what they would like to see from these meetings. Post self created response forms to blog for peer critique
2/11 Have solid outline of inservices, topics, dates, and materials needed posted to blog. Also post to blog my comparison/contrast of available inservices to what I would like to offer.
2/17 Conduct first technology meeting, summarize the inservice as a whole, review comments and begin adjusting schedule for next meeting.
2/21 Post plan for next meeting and summary of first meeting
2/28 Create final plan for second meeting, post to blog
3/8 Post reflection summary and future plans for teacher inservices regarding the use of technology specifically for special needs students.
3/10 Final deadline (if for any reason I am unable to complete project by my deadline)
Project Proposal 3
Name: Angela Benedict
Project Title: Barriers to Technology Survey
Project Focus: Focus 3 ~ Supporting Technology Use
Project Description:
In preparation for WASC review at my site I have been working closely with the technology department at my site to create a survey regarding teacher’s beliefs on the barriers to (effective) technology use at our site. It is important to me not only because I want to see our school get the accreditation for WASC but also because I believe the lack of appropriate use of technology at our site is negatively impacting the success of our students and their achievement on state, district, and classroom assessments. It also negatively impacts them when they leave our school and become submersed in a more technologically advanced society than many of them are equipped to survive in.
I hope to learn from this survey what is preventing teachers from using the available technology at our site and why they feel they are unable to use it on a daily or even semi-regular basis. Being that technology is the future (whether we are ready for it or not) I strongly feel that we as teachers need to be doing everything we can to support and prepare our students for that. This survey will help me to figure out what can be done at our level to make this happen. I plan on sharing this information at our Instructional Council meetings and hope to open up discussion on this topic with the staff as a whole to further the eventual implementation of technology across the board in all classrooms at our site.
Project Artifacts:
The final survey will be posted to my blog as well as the results of the survey by those who participated.
I will summarize the findings of my survey on my blog and list potential steps we as a site can take to further the use of technology by all staff members.
This survey and dissemination of information gained from it represents the work my colleagues and I have put forth in preparation for WASC over the past two years. I have worked closely with others involved to ensure that our students are getting everything they need (and more) in terms of exposure to technology that will most closely resemble what they may see once they leave us. This survey will demonstrate how far we have come in the past five years (since I first came to this site) and will indicate the amount of work that still needs to be done.
Project Timeline:
1/2 Survey sent to WASC coordinator on site for approval for distribution after being reviewed by the core departments in department meetings. (This was done prior to
class as a requirement for WASC)
1/9 Survey returned to me/ minor grammatical changes were made/ addition of four survey questions / Discussed with WASC coordinator on site how information will be tallied and shared with staff
1/19 All surveys submitted/Scoring and analysis begins
1/26 Participated in round table discussion with colleagues to review results and make suggestions on where we can go in the future in terms of technology integration
2/9 Post survey to blog / Create chart to display results of survey for eventual posting to blog
2/16 Post results and summary to blog
2/23 Post potential future steps we as a staff still need to work on to increase technology integration into all classrooms
3/8 My final deadline (if for any reason I am unable to complete project by my original deadline)
Project Title: Barriers to Technology Survey
Project Focus: Focus 3 ~ Supporting Technology Use
Project Description:
In preparation for WASC review at my site I have been working closely with the technology department at my site to create a survey regarding teacher’s beliefs on the barriers to (effective) technology use at our site. It is important to me not only because I want to see our school get the accreditation for WASC but also because I believe the lack of appropriate use of technology at our site is negatively impacting the success of our students and their achievement on state, district, and classroom assessments. It also negatively impacts them when they leave our school and become submersed in a more technologically advanced society than many of them are equipped to survive in.
I hope to learn from this survey what is preventing teachers from using the available technology at our site and why they feel they are unable to use it on a daily or even semi-regular basis. Being that technology is the future (whether we are ready for it or not) I strongly feel that we as teachers need to be doing everything we can to support and prepare our students for that. This survey will help me to figure out what can be done at our level to make this happen. I plan on sharing this information at our Instructional Council meetings and hope to open up discussion on this topic with the staff as a whole to further the eventual implementation of technology across the board in all classrooms at our site.
Project Artifacts:
The final survey will be posted to my blog as well as the results of the survey by those who participated.
I will summarize the findings of my survey on my blog and list potential steps we as a site can take to further the use of technology by all staff members.
This survey and dissemination of information gained from it represents the work my colleagues and I have put forth in preparation for WASC over the past two years. I have worked closely with others involved to ensure that our students are getting everything they need (and more) in terms of exposure to technology that will most closely resemble what they may see once they leave us. This survey will demonstrate how far we have come in the past five years (since I first came to this site) and will indicate the amount of work that still needs to be done.
Project Timeline:
1/2 Survey sent to WASC coordinator on site for approval for distribution after being reviewed by the core departments in department meetings. (This was done prior to
class as a requirement for WASC)
1/9 Survey returned to me/ minor grammatical changes were made/ addition of four survey questions / Discussed with WASC coordinator on site how information will be tallied and shared with staff
1/19 All surveys submitted/Scoring and analysis begins
1/26 Participated in round table discussion with colleagues to review results and make suggestions on where we can go in the future in terms of technology integration
2/9 Post survey to blog / Create chart to display results of survey for eventual posting to blog
2/16 Post results and summary to blog
2/23 Post potential future steps we as a staff still need to work on to increase technology integration into all classrooms
3/8 My final deadline (if for any reason I am unable to complete project by my original deadline)
Project Proposal 1
Name: Angela Benedict
Project Title: Proposal 1 ~ Using Technology
Project Focus: Using Technology (Research to Practice)
Project Description:
For this project I will modify an existing powerpoint that further integrates the many uses of Power Point (including adding video clips, audio clips, and images) for one of my Earth Science Special Education classes (SDC level – Special Day Class). These powerpoints will be shared with other science teachers at my site and other science/special education teachers in the district. I feel strongly that I need to continue to modify and re-work lessons I have created in the past to better meet the needs of my students based on their ability levels. I chose to do this project because it is most applicable to me in my current teaching assignment as well as a requirement for this course.
I am hoping this project will increase my comfort level in using more than just Power Point presentations to share content area information with my students. In addition I am hoping it can become a shared resource for Earth Science teachers in my district as well as a guideline for how to appropriately select and use technology with special needs students.
Project Artifacts:
I will post the powerpoints I used this year (during the unit on Astronomy) for use with my SDC Earth Science class. I will then update and modify these powerpoints to include more features of powerpoint I have not used much in the past. The updated PowerPoint presentations will include movie and sound clips, images, and animation.
APA reference list of select articles that confirm the success of technology integration in lesson delivery particularly for special needs students.
Lessons that align with the Power Point presentations will be delivered through the use of various technology; primarily the use of Power Point and will include features that are clearly supported by research.
The previous and updated presentations will be posted on my blog as well as links to the supporting web pages. A suggested time line will be added as a suggestion for teachers to follow when implementing these lessons. The updated resources, Power Points, and corresponding links will be evidence of the tasks that were completed in preparation for the unit.
Project Timeline:
I hope to have this project completed by Feb 16th, 2009
1/28 Started project
2/2 Have rough draft of reference list / Begin modifying unit on Solar System
2/7 Post reference list to blog / Continue work on unit plan
2/10 Have 2/3 of unit plan updated and calendar of suggested activities complete
2/14 Complete final adjustments/modifications to unit plan / Post to blog
2/16 Project completed and posted
3/8 Final deadline (if for any reason I am unable to complete project by my deadline)
Project Title: Proposal 1 ~ Using Technology
Project Focus: Using Technology (Research to Practice)
Project Description:
For this project I will modify an existing powerpoint that further integrates the many uses of Power Point (including adding video clips, audio clips, and images) for one of my Earth Science Special Education classes (SDC level – Special Day Class). These powerpoints will be shared with other science teachers at my site and other science/special education teachers in the district. I feel strongly that I need to continue to modify and re-work lessons I have created in the past to better meet the needs of my students based on their ability levels. I chose to do this project because it is most applicable to me in my current teaching assignment as well as a requirement for this course.
I am hoping this project will increase my comfort level in using more than just Power Point presentations to share content area information with my students. In addition I am hoping it can become a shared resource for Earth Science teachers in my district as well as a guideline for how to appropriately select and use technology with special needs students.
Project Artifacts:
I will post the powerpoints I used this year (during the unit on Astronomy) for use with my SDC Earth Science class. I will then update and modify these powerpoints to include more features of powerpoint I have not used much in the past. The updated PowerPoint presentations will include movie and sound clips, images, and animation.
APA reference list of select articles that confirm the success of technology integration in lesson delivery particularly for special needs students.
Lessons that align with the Power Point presentations will be delivered through the use of various technology; primarily the use of Power Point and will include features that are clearly supported by research.
The previous and updated presentations will be posted on my blog as well as links to the supporting web pages. A suggested time line will be added as a suggestion for teachers to follow when implementing these lessons. The updated resources, Power Points, and corresponding links will be evidence of the tasks that were completed in preparation for the unit.
Project Timeline:
I hope to have this project completed by Feb 16th, 2009
1/28 Started project
2/2 Have rough draft of reference list / Begin modifying unit on Solar System
2/7 Post reference list to blog / Continue work on unit plan
2/10 Have 2/3 of unit plan updated and calendar of suggested activities complete
2/14 Complete final adjustments/modifications to unit plan / Post to blog
2/16 Project completed and posted
3/8 Final deadline (if for any reason I am unable to complete project by my deadline)
Activity Log Session 3
1/27/09 - listened to and took notes on podcast for session 3
1/28/09- reviewed blogs of classmates
1/30/09- began working on final outlines of projects
2/1/09 - posted to three blogs of classmates, created session 3 blog post, activity log, posted final project outlines
1/28/09- reviewed blogs of classmates
1/30/09- began working on final outlines of projects
2/1/09 - posted to three blogs of classmates, created session 3 blog post, activity log, posted final project outlines
Session 3 Blog Post
Q: Can technology integration in American classrooms adequately and correctly be expressed as a hierarchy? Why or why not? Bonus: Create your own hierarchy.
In listening to Dr Newberry's podcast regarding his ideas on the hierarchy of technology in schools today I found myself thinking seriously about where I fall in this hierarchy. Before I answer that though I would like to respond to the question for the week. I do feel that the use of technology can be expressed as a hierarchy though I agree with many of my classmates in that the shape of it is changing. It can no longer be expressed as a triangle because the movement among the levels is fairly fluid. By this I mean that while there certainly is still a large number of teachers at the bottom, I feel that teachers can be in more than one level at a time. As Kenny mentioned in his blog there seem to be "mini-levels" between what Dr Newberry has described. I feel that teachers can fall between step 2 ( use as a teacher tool) and step 3 ( non-integrated use as student tool). For example, a teacher at my site primarily uses his computer for management purposes however occasionally it is used for career assessments (by students) in preparation for their IEP meetings. He also uses it to assess their approximate math and reading levels. In that respect it used at a middle level between steps 2 and 3. I also have witnessed teachers bouncing between levels of this hierarchy depending on the make up of their classes. For instance a science teacher at my site uses on online program for dissection of cats with two of his classes and the "real specimens" for hands on dissection with a different two classes. His instruction bounces between levels depending on the topics covered and the make up of his class. I understand his point of view, perhaps some of his classes are more challenging behavior wise and therefore he feels doing dissection virtually is better for them, but what about the students he does "trust"? Should they be denied the virtual experience because they are better behaved? This is a difficult topic for me because I understand the challenge but am not sure I would handle it differently. It is definitely something I need to think about and work on changing as a teacher.
Back to my thoughts during the podcast... I would like to think that I fall somewhere between levels 2,3,4 on Dr Newberry's hierarchy. At times my computer is used primarily as a tool for management, at other times I use it for assessment purposes with students in preparation for their annual IEP meetings. Yet other times I feel technology is deeply integrated into my lessons (level 4) in all the subjects I teach.
Bonus Hierarchy-
Level 1 - zero student use of computers in the classroom/no working student computers
- technology used is outdated (overhead transparencies) and ineffective for today's
learners
Level 2 - basic technology is used for lesson delivery and student use (LCD's/ working student
computers/ smart boards/ powerpoint presentations by students and teachers..)
Level 3 - fully integrated technology use by teachers, students, families - everything in level two
plus things like online interactive textbooks, teacher/student created communication
(blogs like the one set up for this class), interactive online learning sessions, etc
In listening to Dr Newberry's podcast regarding his ideas on the hierarchy of technology in schools today I found myself thinking seriously about where I fall in this hierarchy. Before I answer that though I would like to respond to the question for the week. I do feel that the use of technology can be expressed as a hierarchy though I agree with many of my classmates in that the shape of it is changing. It can no longer be expressed as a triangle because the movement among the levels is fairly fluid. By this I mean that while there certainly is still a large number of teachers at the bottom, I feel that teachers can be in more than one level at a time. As Kenny mentioned in his blog there seem to be "mini-levels" between what Dr Newberry has described. I feel that teachers can fall between step 2 ( use as a teacher tool) and step 3 ( non-integrated use as student tool). For example, a teacher at my site primarily uses his computer for management purposes however occasionally it is used for career assessments (by students) in preparation for their IEP meetings. He also uses it to assess their approximate math and reading levels. In that respect it used at a middle level between steps 2 and 3. I also have witnessed teachers bouncing between levels of this hierarchy depending on the make up of their classes. For instance a science teacher at my site uses on online program for dissection of cats with two of his classes and the "real specimens" for hands on dissection with a different two classes. His instruction bounces between levels depending on the topics covered and the make up of his class. I understand his point of view, perhaps some of his classes are more challenging behavior wise and therefore he feels doing dissection virtually is better for them, but what about the students he does "trust"? Should they be denied the virtual experience because they are better behaved? This is a difficult topic for me because I understand the challenge but am not sure I would handle it differently. It is definitely something I need to think about and work on changing as a teacher.
Back to my thoughts during the podcast... I would like to think that I fall somewhere between levels 2,3,4 on Dr Newberry's hierarchy. At times my computer is used primarily as a tool for management, at other times I use it for assessment purposes with students in preparation for their annual IEP meetings. Yet other times I feel technology is deeply integrated into my lessons (level 4) in all the subjects I teach.
Bonus Hierarchy-
Level 1 - zero student use of computers in the classroom/no working student computers
- technology used is outdated (overhead transparencies) and ineffective for today's
learners
Level 2 - basic technology is used for lesson delivery and student use (LCD's/ working student
computers/ smart boards/ powerpoint presentations by students and teachers..)
Level 3 - fully integrated technology use by teachers, students, families - everything in level two
plus things like online interactive textbooks, teacher/student created communication
(blogs like the one set up for this class), interactive online learning sessions, etc
Friday, January 23, 2009
Session Two Blog Post
In my research for this blog post I came across a quote that I found to be especially pertinent, I have added it below.
"There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important. To manage means to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct. Leading is influencing, guiding in a direction, course, action, opinion. The distinction is crucial" - Warren Bennis
As many of my classmates have already posted there is to some extent a fine line between managing and leading and in many cases that line can be unclear. In my opinion it is safe to say that each involves the other to some degree. One can not be an effective manager without some basic understanding of leadership just as a good leader must have the ability to manage certain aspects of the job. While there is definitely a difference between managers and leaders I feel that many times that line can be blurred for a number of reasons and change change throughout the day.
In terms of personal experience regarding technology and the difference between leaders and managers I have a few sources to draw from. When I worked in Detroit because of their budget constraints, high rate of theft and destruction of school property, and the "management style" of the administration at that time, technology was not anywhere on the "list" of what was important to the success of the students, school, and district. Their focus was on working metal detectors, campus police, patrolling the hallways and parking lots, and maintaining the building (lights, water fountains, bathrooms, etc). While I understand the hesitation of the administration to make purchases when in their mind they would just be throwing away money, it seems to me that it was a decision based on the need to save money not the needs of the students. The administrator at the time was under pressure to keep costs down and enrollment up, he was very much into maintaining "status quo". Being that this administrator did not fully realize that advancements in technology would likely encourage student attendance and achievement, he was definitely more of a manager than leader in terms of technology. It is my understanding that this particular school has since been closed.
The administrator I work with now is completely opposite in terms of leadership style and views on technology. I consider him to be a leader in most every way; he is visible on campus, the students know and respect him, he is most always available to listen to requests for technology purchases and makes it a point (to the extent possible with our budget situation) to ensure that all students have access to said technology. Most administrators have a focus on the two main subjects (English and math since that is what accounts for their scores), however our prinipal seems to realize that English and math happens in other classes as well. For example I teach biology, earth science, and health - within my special education classes we focus on graphing, statistics, reading, and writing (my biology class just finished an essay) as well as the sciences and health. When I approached him earlier this year with a request for technology he wanted to know who would benefit, how it would be used, and to what extent it would improve my instruction and by December we were able to get LCDs and Elmos for our content area teachers within special education. He has made using and accessing technology a priority for both teachers and students at our site as well as the district level. Even with funding being virtually non-existant he has ensured that the core content area classrooms are equipped with LCDS, interwrite boards, scientific equipment, etc to the extent possible. Under his leadership we have instituted the Apple 24/7 program where select students recieve an Apple laptop for the year to be used in classes and at home to help these students become more interested in technology and learning. I could go on and on about how he has changed our school for the better in terms of technology (and other aspects as well) however, it is clear he is more of a leader than a manager and it shows in everything that has been accomplished in the four short years he has been with us.
"There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important. To manage means to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct. Leading is influencing, guiding in a direction, course, action, opinion. The distinction is crucial" - Warren Bennis
As many of my classmates have already posted there is to some extent a fine line between managing and leading and in many cases that line can be unclear. In my opinion it is safe to say that each involves the other to some degree. One can not be an effective manager without some basic understanding of leadership just as a good leader must have the ability to manage certain aspects of the job. While there is definitely a difference between managers and leaders I feel that many times that line can be blurred for a number of reasons and change change throughout the day.
Managers in my understanding simply do what needs to be done for the sake of getting it done. I think of this in terms of having a "to do list", a manager would likely only do what is on the list, nothing more. Whereas a leader would be more likely to complete the list and then go above and beyond doing things that would make the jobs of others easier. Essentially doing things for the greater good and success of the team.
In terms of personal experience regarding technology and the difference between leaders and managers I have a few sources to draw from. When I worked in Detroit because of their budget constraints, high rate of theft and destruction of school property, and the "management style" of the administration at that time, technology was not anywhere on the "list" of what was important to the success of the students, school, and district. Their focus was on working metal detectors, campus police, patrolling the hallways and parking lots, and maintaining the building (lights, water fountains, bathrooms, etc). While I understand the hesitation of the administration to make purchases when in their mind they would just be throwing away money, it seems to me that it was a decision based on the need to save money not the needs of the students. The administrator at the time was under pressure to keep costs down and enrollment up, he was very much into maintaining "status quo". Being that this administrator did not fully realize that advancements in technology would likely encourage student attendance and achievement, he was definitely more of a manager than leader in terms of technology. It is my understanding that this particular school has since been closed.
The administrator I work with now is completely opposite in terms of leadership style and views on technology. I consider him to be a leader in most every way; he is visible on campus, the students know and respect him, he is most always available to listen to requests for technology purchases and makes it a point (to the extent possible with our budget situation) to ensure that all students have access to said technology. Most administrators have a focus on the two main subjects (English and math since that is what accounts for their scores), however our prinipal seems to realize that English and math happens in other classes as well. For example I teach biology, earth science, and health - within my special education classes we focus on graphing, statistics, reading, and writing (my biology class just finished an essay) as well as the sciences and health. When I approached him earlier this year with a request for technology he wanted to know who would benefit, how it would be used, and to what extent it would improve my instruction and by December we were able to get LCDs and Elmos for our content area teachers within special education. He has made using and accessing technology a priority for both teachers and students at our site as well as the district level. Even with funding being virtually non-existant he has ensured that the core content area classrooms are equipped with LCDS, interwrite boards, scientific equipment, etc to the extent possible. Under his leadership we have instituted the Apple 24/7 program where select students recieve an Apple laptop for the year to be used in classes and at home to help these students become more interested in technology and learning. I could go on and on about how he has changed our school for the better in terms of technology (and other aspects as well) however, it is clear he is more of a leader than a manager and it shows in everything that has been accomplished in the four short years he has been with us.
Activity Log Session Two
1/19 Listened to podcast/ took notes, researched online difference between leaders and managers both in and out of education field for contrast, perused blogs of classmates.
1/20 Set up second appt with site technololgy coach - got cancelled - met with head of WASC for our site and reviewed technology plan, also discussed at great detail leaders vs managers in terms of previous principals at our site with her.
1/22 Researched possible ideas of first project, took notes and came up with several possibilities, reviewed blogs of classmates and took notes
1/23 Reviewed pod cast, posted responses to three peers, created my blog posts and activity log
1/20 Set up second appt with site technololgy coach - got cancelled - met with head of WASC for our site and reviewed technology plan, also discussed at great detail leaders vs managers in terms of previous principals at our site with her.
1/22 Researched possible ideas of first project, took notes and came up with several possibilities, reviewed blogs of classmates and took notes
1/23 Reviewed pod cast, posted responses to three peers, created my blog posts and activity log
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Activity Log Session 1
1/13 - Listened to podcast/ took notes, reviewed syllabus, researched possible blog sites.
1/14 - Made initial blog post, looked online for book, thought about and made notes on potential projects
1/15 - Talked with tech coach at my school site regarding tech plan and survey from WASC, continued research on possible projects
1/18 - Added to first blog post, reviewed blogs of classmates/ posted three responses, talked with WASC coordinator on staff
1/14 - Made initial blog post, looked online for book, thought about and made notes on potential projects
1/15 - Talked with tech coach at my school site regarding tech plan and survey from WASC, continued research on possible projects
1/18 - Added to first blog post, reviewed blogs of classmates/ posted three responses, talked with WASC coordinator on staff
Focus Area 1: “Using technology to increase our personal effectiveness in our own role as well as being a model for others to follow”
I believe that by exposing our students to technology and the variety of ways it can help make their lives (and ours!) easier. The majority of my students are low SES and do not have access to technology at home so the only time they are exposed to it is at school. It not only benefits school staff but the community as a whole when our students leave us and are able to enter the workforce already knowing the basics (but hopefully more than that) of technology. I have seen in my students that whenever there is new technology available they want to learn how to use it and that is beneficial for everyone. because it makes us all more effective. I also believe that as teachers we have some influence regarding what other teachers do in their own classrooms. For example, I was one of the first teachers in my department to begin using basic technology within my daily lessons. The students were immediately engaged and came to class most days wanting to know what was next. They would then go to their other teachers and talk about it. Those teachers then came to me asking what I was doing, was it easy to learn, set up, etc. I have found even the smallest steps toward technology benefits everyone!
Focus Area 2: “Communicating to others information about the effective use of technology including training and guiding others to use technology effectively”
I recently approached School Site Council (group in charge of deciding how money will be spent at our site) and asked for money to purchase basic upgrades to technology for our special education students. While I did not get everything I requested I was able to secure LCD's and Elmo's for the core teachers in my department. With the approval from the principal I then organized four small training sessions for our teachers to learn how to use this equipment effectively in their lessons. While I do not consider myself to be technologically advanced, I was able to guide them towards developing more technology based lessons while still focusing on the content and keeping student attention.
Focus Area 3: “Supporting the effective use of technology through planning for technology use, promoting technology use, staff development, infrastructure acquisition and upkeep”
Without a solid plan for technology use, development, and upkeep even the best intentions are of little use. I am hoping that through my projects in this class I can better understand where my district stands on this issue and what is being done to resolve the issues that seem to arise every year.
I believe that by exposing our students to technology and the variety of ways it can help make their lives (and ours!) easier. The majority of my students are low SES and do not have access to technology at home so the only time they are exposed to it is at school. It not only benefits school staff but the community as a whole when our students leave us and are able to enter the workforce already knowing the basics (but hopefully more than that) of technology. I have seen in my students that whenever there is new technology available they want to learn how to use it and that is beneficial for everyone. because it makes us all more effective. I also believe that as teachers we have some influence regarding what other teachers do in their own classrooms. For example, I was one of the first teachers in my department to begin using basic technology within my daily lessons. The students were immediately engaged and came to class most days wanting to know what was next. They would then go to their other teachers and talk about it. Those teachers then came to me asking what I was doing, was it easy to learn, set up, etc. I have found even the smallest steps toward technology benefits everyone!
Focus Area 2: “Communicating to others information about the effective use of technology including training and guiding others to use technology effectively”
I recently approached School Site Council (group in charge of deciding how money will be spent at our site) and asked for money to purchase basic upgrades to technology for our special education students. While I did not get everything I requested I was able to secure LCD's and Elmo's for the core teachers in my department. With the approval from the principal I then organized four small training sessions for our teachers to learn how to use this equipment effectively in their lessons. While I do not consider myself to be technologically advanced, I was able to guide them towards developing more technology based lessons while still focusing on the content and keeping student attention.
Focus Area 3: “Supporting the effective use of technology through planning for technology use, promoting technology use, staff development, infrastructure acquisition and upkeep”
Without a solid plan for technology use, development, and upkeep even the best intentions are of little use. I am hoping that through my projects in this class I can better understand where my district stands on this issue and what is being done to resolve the issues that seem to arise every year.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Session 1 blog post Course Orientation
I am hoping to complete all three required projects for this course. The first project I am considering doing involves research to practice. I have not yet decided what exactly I will do, however it will most likely include researching best practices for using technology with special needs students at the high school level. For the second project, I have a few thoughts though I am strongly leaning towards the idea of the barriers to technology survey. As my school is currently under review for WASC and preparing for their visit in March this is already something I have been working on and would like to incorporate into my work for this course. Being that the third project deals with supporting the use of technology, I am considering continuing to work on the school technology plan and refinement of our school's acceptable use policy if this is acceptable. Being that I am already doing most of these things for WASC, I am hoping I can use what I have already started as a starting point for the requirements of this course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
