Week+2+Internship

Web-Conference Reflection**:
 * Assignment 2.1

I attended a web-conference last night for the Web Development and Design Class (5-27) and it went very well. There were over 50 attendees and the audio worked well most of the time. There were only a few times it cut out, but that is amazing for the number of people we had attending. Since this was the first web conference for this class, there were a lot of questions about the textbooks we need for the class and the first week assignment over designing a web policy. This was the first web conference I attended where I was not a presenter, which was fine. The conference mainly consisted of Dr. Abshire introducing herself and apologized for the textbook notification not going out. She extended the deadline for the first week assignment, noted that she had made some changes to the existing course which was taught by another professor, but emphasized that the course will still maintain its rigor and relevance to our master's program. The rest of the web-conference was directed like a Q & A session. Dr. Abshire did her best to answer all of our questions, while not dwelling on one particular area. I think it was one of the better web conferences I have attended, as it was not fraught with technical problems and issues.

Vision Paper**
 * Assignment 2.2



Reflections on Course-Embedded Assignments for EDLD 5362 Information Systems Management
 * Assignment 2.3

Assignment:**
 * Analyze district technology after completing interviews with at least two school administrators who are involved with the planning and budgeting of technology. **

In EDLD 5362 Information Systems Management, we analyzed the technology used in our district by interviewing at least two district administrators involved in the planning and budgeting of technology. After interviewing two administrators at the head of our technology department in Leander ISD, I learned so much about the technology our district uses, specifically about the Student Information System (SIS). I was surprised to find out that the cost of the system is not based on a flat fee, but is determined based on the number of students enrolled in the district. This cost encompasses the student and business sides of the system and there are no extra charges such as start-up costs or maintenance fees. I also learned that Region XX manages the system and is responsible for housing the data and backing up all of the information to an offsite location in Colorado. This system is also essential for submitting required reports to the Texas Education Agency.

Many programs feed into iTTCS (the district’s SIS) including attendance, grades, discipline records, registration data, master schedules, testing data, health statistics, and even whether a student is on free and reduced lunch. I always knew we had all these programs and systems, but never knew how they interacted with each other.

As an educator, I use systems that feed into the iTTCS system every day such as Gradespeed, attendance, and Eduphoria. Learning how these systems worked together, how the data is stored, and who can access it helped me understand how Student Information Systems are used and what a powerful tool they can be for a school district.

I felt that this was a worthwhile assignment because very few educators know how or why a district uses an SIS. As a technology facilitator and leader, we need to be taught district technology processes and systems. As a teacher, we may only see the grade book or attendance program, but seeing how they all interact with a bigger system is essential to becoming a technology leader in our district.

Although this was not a “group” project, all the graduate students in Leander ISD conducted the interviews of the administrators as a group and recorded the interviews for students not present to access. We were able to take turns asking questions, hear what questions our colleagues felt were important, and interact together. Everyone was genuinely interested to hearing the responses of the administrators, and they didn’t have to answer the same questions over and over. Also, everyone was expected to contribute and did so. If a certain person was guiding the interview, they would specifically ask someone if they had a question to get them involved and make sure they were not being overlooked in some way.

The overall tone set by the interview and process was that of teacher and student (inquiry and response). The students asked specific questions and the administrators explained the information as thoroughly as possible. The Lamar students were able to clarify the responses by asking more questions and the administrators were patient and forthcoming.

I would like to know more about the process our district has for selecting and implementing in our district. I am curious as to how programs are selected over others and who ultimately decides what will be purchased for our district. I am still puzzled by the fact that  we so not have an SIS that students and parents can access to check discipline records and attendance records as well as grades.

Reflections on Course-Embedded Assignments for EDLD 5364 Teaching with Technology **
 * Assignment 2.4

**Assignment: A. Demonstrate skills to support teachers as they implement curriculum plans to integrate technology to enhance student learning. Candidates will collect and analyze data from teachers related specifically to student learning. **

**B. As campus professional development activity, create a wiki-based study group with 8 teachers leading and support teachers who each create a lesson using Universal Design for Learning at the CAST Lesson Building at http://lessonbuilder.cast.org/, create a sample electronic book to share with your learning team members. Lastly, add a team reflection to your Google site about about the process of creating an electronic book .**

For this assignment in EDLD 5364 Teaching with Technology, we worked collaboratively with fellow students using GoogleDocs to create a unit made up of lessons using the CAST UDL Lesson-Builder. In this assignment, not only did we learn how to work in groups in an online environment, but we also learned how to use the CAST website to create technology-rich, engaging lessons that also implemented modifications for various learning styles and accommodated students with disabilities.

This was the first time I had ever used GoogleDocs and learned so much about using it as a tool for collaborative assignments. Everyone in the group could access it from any computer at any time, edit it whenever they wanted to (even be working on it at the same time), and post comments to give feedback to others and their contributions. Also, we didn’t have to worry about saving it to a disk or to our computer because it was saved on the internet—it still is!! Also, the formatting was uniform throughout the document. You didn’t have to worry about what program someone was using or if it was “compatible”. It is most definitely better than emailing a document back and forth among several people. The other tool we learned to use by actually using it was the CAST UDL Lesson-Builder. The Universal Design for Learning model shows teachers how to design lessons addressing individual student differences related to the recognition, strategic, and affective networks involved in learning. We had to integrate technology into our lessons, and make modifications for visually impaired, hearing impaired, and gifted students.

A wiki could have been used for this assignment, as I already had experienced using, but the GoogleDoc is geared specifically towards creating and editing documents, which is what we were creating in the unit. We could still embed images and post videos as well to the document as well and create multiple pages to organize our work. This assignment, as well as setting up a wiki, taught me the most about using a web-based tool to collaborate with colleagues.

This assignment is a great example of how to teach by modeling. We actually learned how to use the tool by USING IT—not reading or listening about how to use it. By actually working with the tools, working in groups, and experiencing the task, we learned how to use the programs. I think these tools are great for both students and teachers. You can give students an assignment involving collaboration using a GoogleDoc, and teachers can use the UDL software to engage their students with technology even more.

Our group was quick to select a leader, who then led us to each identify our strengths. Our group worked very well together because we all contributed and helped each other. One person in our group wasn’t a teacher and needed considerable help designing lessons and such. But, she was able to help us in other areas such as uploading a video. All members contributed equally and worked well together

We selected a leader, who happened to be an elementary technology facilitator. He helped guide us, keep us organized, and keep us on a schedule. There were no issues with conflict or disagreement at all as we all seemed to work very well together. In fact, we were able to help provide strategies for each other to embed into our lessons for a particular type of student when modifying for diverse learners because each of us had a particular strength in this area. All group members were positive, communicated well with each other, took and received feedback, and helped one another. There was no negativity or feeling that others were working harder—it truly was a “collaborative effort”.

In the future, I would like to research and compare other lesson-building technologies to see how they compare with the CAST model. I would also like to know w hy all teachers are not taught and trained more on how to use web 2.0 technologies in their classrooms.

Reflections on Technology Facilitator Standard III: Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum in your textbook **
 * Assignment 2.5

Throughout the course, I have designed lessons that implemented technology into my instruction and shown my fellow colleagues how to use it. I have done activities that are designed to teach students technology skills such as conducting web searches, using a spreadsheet, using a blog, submitting assignments online, using PowerPoint, and Microsoft Word. I have also worked with our district facilitators to learn how to operate the Classroom Performance System to administer tests, get immediate feedback, or do quick Assessments for Learning.

Standard III identified in the ISTE’s Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards (Williamson and Redish, 2009) addresses Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum. While Standard II focuses on facilitators assisting teachers to plan learning experiences, Standard III suggest ways technology facilitators and leaders can influence the curriculum. Giant steps have already been taken towards writing curriculum that addresses the needs of the 21st Century Learners. The K-12 curricula at all levels is already shifting towards “performance standards designed to elicit higher-order thinking, creativity, problem-solving, and deeper understanding of content” (p 61). In addition, the National Educational Technology Standards for Students were updated in 2007 and are now used or referenced in 48 states. In fact, the new NETS•S “focus more on what students must be able to do with technology rather than on the tools themselves—a revision that should facilitate, the integration of student technology standards into core academic areas” (p 61).

I feel I have made great strides as an educator in implementing technology into my classroom over the last two years. I have always used and shown students how to perform operations on the graphing calculator, but have definitely broadened my horizons during the course of this master’s program in using and implementing technology tools into my classroom.

In the wake of an exponential technology boom, students are more “plugged in” to what is happening in the digital world, and schools are lagging far behind in teaching relevant and technology-oriented concepts to prepare students for college and the workplace. Having been and educator for 14 years and seeing very few changes in the existing curriculum, it is evident that the education system must rewrite outdated curriculum to reflect the needs of our changing society to include more instruction using web 2.0 technologies, web-based tools, and online learning environments. Students crave this type of instruction and “need engaging, media-rich learning experiences to maximize their learning potential” (p 59). Further, students prefer school settings which call for “one-to-one, ubiquitous computing environments that are simple, fast, interactive, and wireless” (p 59).

Although changes are being made, more needs to be done to implement technology effectively into the curricula. Districts must align their curricula to technology standards and use grade-specific benchmarks and assessments. Instructional resources in the form of hardware and software may also be needed as well as professional development and ongoing learning opportunities for educators. Technology facilitators can use strategies such as modeling or providing in-class coaching to help teachers implement the tools needed to reach our digital learners.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I feel that as technology leaders, it is our duty to influence fellow teachers and state curriculum writers to change the curriculum to incorporate more technology. I liked how this chapter made a “call to arms” in a way to make sure the campus technology leaders are doing all they can in this arena.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I would like to know what our campus and district can do to get lawmakers to rewrite the curriculum in order to integrate more technology into the classroom. Also, how can we get fellow teachers to realize the importance of getting technologically literate? One thing that still puzzles me is why some districts not doing all they can to make sure they are meeting the needs of our 21st Century Students.

Citations:

Williamson, J. & Redish, T. (2009). //<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every K-12 leader should know and be able to do //. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Reflections on Technology Facilitator Standard IV: Assessment and Evaluation in your textbook **
 * Assignment 2.6

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">In the last couple of years, I have had experience with all of the performance indicators listed in this standard. The first performance indicator is //Assessing Student Learning//. This year, our school received Classroom Performance Systems (one for every two math teachers) and I have used them quite extensively for formative and summative evaluations, and for general feedback. For example, I have used them for oral surveys to determine student’s effort and study time on a test. It takes a little bit to set it up at the beginning of the year, but once you have your classes set up, the rest is easy. The students are assigned a clicker number and you can see their individual responses without exposing their identity to the rest of the class. A bar graph can even be created directly after a question is asked to show the results to the class. I have also used CPS to administer formative assessments such as tests and final exams. The students don’t even have to get the clicker until he done taking the test. Then, they can just go through and put their answers in. It’s immediately graded!!! No more grading tests by hand or using the Scantron machine. I also learned how to run reports from the software to analyze the data for better information about why certain questions were missed. The students know immediately what their grade is before even leaving the class. Then, when I pass the tests back, we can go over the answers as a class and see what kind of mistakes are being made, which question was missed the most, and discuss possible reasons for why it was missed.

The second performance indicator related to standard IV is //Collecting, Analyzing, and Reporting Data.// Not only have I done this with the clickers (it does all of that for you), but I have also given students a survey after a technology-rich lesson involving laptops, their online textbook and other resources, and working in collaborative groups. I survey students about the lesson (what they liked, didn’t like, what did they learned, etc.), organized and analyzed the data, and presented it back to them. Students love to see their actual responses quoted for all to see and used by the teacher. It’s like.”Hey, my opinion does matter and my teacher really does care about what we think.” To give students a voice in strategies that affect their learning is important to all of us—students and teachers alike.

The third performance indicator under this standard is //Evaluating Technologies for Effective Use.// I feel like I am constantly doing this in my classroom with the document cameras, the clicker systems, or any other technology we try out in class. I have shared with current facilitators the pros and cons of working with different technological tools.

Standard IV from the ISTE’s Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards addresses the areas of assessment and evaluation. Technology facilitators and leaders must be able to design and help implement ways to assess student learning in core areas as well as technology-related skills, through the use of technology. They must also be able to analyze and evaluate various technology used for education and determined its effectiveness in the classroom. Facilitators and leaders must be able to show teachers how to collect, organize, and analyze data using current technology tools in order to maximize the tool’s effectiveness.

I have never used the CPS clicker systems before and have learned that this is a great device to perform both formative and summative assessments, organize and analyze data, and is far superior to a Scantron machine.

Most educators feel that learning a new technology is time-consuming and difficult. If you ask a technology facilitator to come and help you learn a certain program or sign up for an in-service on that program, it doesn’t take as long as some may think. I have learned to just sit down and go through it, and then you will feel comfortable using them with your students.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Assessments and data are key to technology success. Not only should we evaluate programs for effectiveness, but we can also use the program to measure student success. Being able to collect, organize, and analyze data instantly is a valuable resource in this digital age. Students need to be able to see what they are doing wrong and correct it before going home to do their homework. Teachers also need data in order to determine what the students are and are not understanding in order to modify instruction for individual student success.

Assessment and timely feedback is essential to student success. I feel this standard really emphasizes the need for technology facilitators and leaders to implement technologies that promote effective assessment strategies through technology. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> One of the questions I do have about the CPS is how to run a report that just shows a student’s name, the number of the problem, and their answer. To have all of this information on one page would be great. I have looked for the report, but can’t seem to find it. Also, I would like to know how to turn off the clickers without having to end the program first, so that students can power down their clickers as they turn in their assessments.

As I was reading this chapter, one thing did puzzle me about this standard. Interestingly, although the No Child Left Behind act created nearly 10 years ago requires all students to be technology literate by the time they finish the eighth grade, the legislature and educators have still not developed a consistent way to assess this. Several countries have created and implemented a national test for assessing technology literacy in K-12 schools, some even through core academic subjects. So….why haven’t we?

Citations:

Williamson, J. & Redish, T. (2009). //<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every K-12 leader should know and be able to do //. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.