Starchart Ppt
View more presentations from robynthrower.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
What's in the STaRs?
Just as the galaxy seems to hold an array of confusing, vague, and just plain ambiguous answers for those poor souls who put their faith in horoscopes, Texas' STaR Chart can seem irrelevant, somewhat invalid, but most definitely, puzzling for the average Texas teacher.
Why do you think this is? While there aren't enough spaces to write out the "only God knows how many" reasons, I will address one...okay, you know I love to get on a "soap box..." maybe two.
I truly believe that the major reason for the "attitudes" portrayed when campus/district leaders mention the STaR Chart, or pretty much anything having to do with learning and applying technology, is because WE ARE SCARED OF IT!!! Any why are we scared??? What have we been taught about the origination of most fear???? IGNORANCE. The average teacher is still relatively ignorant, "in the dark," "clueless," or whatever word/phrase you use to describe being WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE when it comes to using and implementing technology for personal & administrative use... somewhat yes, but most definitely as a regular and common support in their "every day" classroom instruction.
It is for this reason that the area of Educator Preparation remains at the lowest level in the STaR Chart rating.
The 2007-08 STaR Chart Summary shows that 74.2% of teachers are still at the "developing tech" level in the area of Educator Preparation. This means that these educators are not confident enough to integrate technology into teaching and learning, but instead, use it mainly for only classroom management and administrative tasks. It also means that less than half (40%) of educators meet the SBEC technology standards. These educators' administrators expect them to use technology, but this is an expectation that is obviously only "on paper" and not really put to the test, hence the low percentage rate of those who meet the standards and the quasi-low budget percentage allocated to professional development in the area of technology.
Good news!!! In looking at the 2006-07 Statewide STaR Chart Summary, the numbers in this area do show improvement. In 2006-07, the Early Tech level was at 8.2%, showing that the improvement gained in 1 year was almost 3 percentage points (5.4% in 2007-08). The Developing Tech level was at 74.0%, which pretty much "stayed put" in 2007-08 where it showed the level to be at 74.2%. The Advanced Tech level in 2006-07 was at only 17.0%. A gain of close to 3 percentage points brought it to 19.9% in 2007-08. Yes, the big goal is to start showing some vast improvement in the Target Tech area, but we'll take the improvements as they come..."baby steps..."
I do believe that school districts and individual campuses have made progress in this area because 1) the human race is, by the nature of things, being inundated with technology. You would almost have to literally stick your head in the sand on the remotest of remote islands to avoid learning and using a decent amount of the technology offered to all of us on a daily basis.
2) because it (technology) is becoming more and more of a "given" in our world, districts and campuses are being forced to train their teachers and staff or risk being left behind and that risk (when it is all boiled down to the "lease common factor") losing FUND-AGE, plain and simple.
The loss of funds puts the existence of schools, jobs, districts, & communities at risk...and who wants that?? Therefore...we work on getting these teachers "up to snuff" in the world of technology.
My recommendations? Well...at my campus, the tech trainers are doing their level best to get everyone comfortable with using technology in the classroom. While there are still "hold-outs" (definition... teachers who refuse to learn and grow because they feel their stubbornness will actually keep the world from changing), most of our faculty has a innate desire to improve themselves so that they can be more efficient and effective as it relates to their students' learning. What I recommend is more pressure from our administrators on the faculty to actually live up to the technology expectations they claim to uphold. These kinds of things are always controversial, but holding people to standards is the only way real and lasting improvement will emerge. Those who can't or, rather, won't fully grasp the "baton" of educational responsibility, as it pertains to self-improvement/growth leading to student progress/success, need to find another career path (good luck finding one that never involves change). While I may sound a bit harsh, it all comes down to a phrase I learned a long time ago and use as a "litmus test" in dealing with myself and with others..."teachable spirit..." You either have it or you don't.
If you are one of those "on the fence" with your attitude about the use of technology in your classroom, my advice is to adopt the "teachable spirit" and grow. Otherwise, please get out!
Why do you think this is? While there aren't enough spaces to write out the "only God knows how many" reasons, I will address one...okay, you know I love to get on a "soap box..." maybe two.
I truly believe that the major reason for the "attitudes" portrayed when campus/district leaders mention the STaR Chart, or pretty much anything having to do with learning and applying technology, is because WE ARE SCARED OF IT!!! Any why are we scared??? What have we been taught about the origination of most fear???? IGNORANCE. The average teacher is still relatively ignorant, "in the dark," "clueless," or whatever word/phrase you use to describe being WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE when it comes to using and implementing technology for personal & administrative use... somewhat yes, but most definitely as a regular and common support in their "every day" classroom instruction.
It is for this reason that the area of Educator Preparation remains at the lowest level in the STaR Chart rating.
The 2007-08 STaR Chart Summary shows that 74.2% of teachers are still at the "developing tech" level in the area of Educator Preparation. This means that these educators are not confident enough to integrate technology into teaching and learning, but instead, use it mainly for only classroom management and administrative tasks. It also means that less than half (40%) of educators meet the SBEC technology standards. These educators' administrators expect them to use technology, but this is an expectation that is obviously only "on paper" and not really put to the test, hence the low percentage rate of those who meet the standards and the quasi-low budget percentage allocated to professional development in the area of technology.
Good news!!! In looking at the 2006-07 Statewide STaR Chart Summary, the numbers in this area do show improvement. In 2006-07, the Early Tech level was at 8.2%, showing that the improvement gained in 1 year was almost 3 percentage points (5.4% in 2007-08). The Developing Tech level was at 74.0%, which pretty much "stayed put" in 2007-08 where it showed the level to be at 74.2%. The Advanced Tech level in 2006-07 was at only 17.0%. A gain of close to 3 percentage points brought it to 19.9% in 2007-08. Yes, the big goal is to start showing some vast improvement in the Target Tech area, but we'll take the improvements as they come..."baby steps..."
I do believe that school districts and individual campuses have made progress in this area because 1) the human race is, by the nature of things, being inundated with technology. You would almost have to literally stick your head in the sand on the remotest of remote islands to avoid learning and using a decent amount of the technology offered to all of us on a daily basis.
2) because it (technology) is becoming more and more of a "given" in our world, districts and campuses are being forced to train their teachers and staff or risk being left behind and that risk (when it is all boiled down to the "lease common factor") losing FUND-AGE, plain and simple.
The loss of funds puts the existence of schools, jobs, districts, & communities at risk...and who wants that?? Therefore...we work on getting these teachers "up to snuff" in the world of technology.
My recommendations? Well...at my campus, the tech trainers are doing their level best to get everyone comfortable with using technology in the classroom. While there are still "hold-outs" (definition... teachers who refuse to learn and grow because they feel their stubbornness will actually keep the world from changing), most of our faculty has a innate desire to improve themselves so that they can be more efficient and effective as it relates to their students' learning. What I recommend is more pressure from our administrators on the faculty to actually live up to the technology expectations they claim to uphold. These kinds of things are always controversial, but holding people to standards is the only way real and lasting improvement will emerge. Those who can't or, rather, won't fully grasp the "baton" of educational responsibility, as it pertains to self-improvement/growth leading to student progress/success, need to find another career path (good luck finding one that never involves change). While I may sound a bit harsh, it all comes down to a phrase I learned a long time ago and use as a "litmus test" in dealing with myself and with others..."teachable spirit..." You either have it or you don't.
If you are one of those "on the fence" with your attitude about the use of technology in your classroom, my advice is to adopt the "teachable spirit" and grow. Otherwise, please get out!
Sunday, November 22, 2009
How Important Can It Be???
PRE-K Technology Applications TEKS summary:
Technology learning in PRE-K involves intense amounts of exploring and discovering the "nuts & bolts" of technological hardware (computers, TV's, MP3's, digital cameras, etc.) through the use of software designed to teach and assist these little ones in practicing their newly acquired knowledge (both technological & academic). These students will learn technological vocabulary that describes the basic components of hardware and simple (but vital) keyboarding commands through developmentally appropriate methods, such as songs, rhymes, pictures, & other oral language rich techniques.
How do the PRE-K Technology Applications TEKS lay the foundation for student perfomance in future grades:
Learning, as it relates to technology, in PRE-K is vital to a virtually seamless and efficient transition to the more "in-depth" technology learning that happens as one navigates upwards in grade level. This is really no different than any other subject or learning "genre." It ALWAYS works better and is easier when a solid and quality foundation has been laid "early on." Just as one learns how to read easier when he/she has been exposed to a language rich environment from birth, one also picks up the new learning required for technology literacy when he/she has had ample opportunity to handle, explore, and discover the hardware, software, & technological vocabulary that will, most definitely, be a required part of his/her life.
What is a spiraling or scoffolding curriculum?
This is a type of curriculum that is cumulative...each year's learning is vital in that it builds onto and supports the next. It's success is based on the fact that each grade level's curriculum in a specific area has been vertically aligned with the other grade levels and that the learning & skills gained during previous grade levels/years is a "prerequisite," if you will, for the learning gained in current and future grade levels/years.
Examples of scaffolded technology skills:
Beginning with PRE-K, students will be introduced to the opportunities and responsibilities of information aquisition via technology, i.e. websites. Each subsequent grade level (1-12) will then give students opportunities to gain more sophisticated knowledge & to practice and build upon those early prerequisite skills (i.e. keyword & Boolean search strategies, navigating & accessing LANs & WANs).
Technology learning in PRE-K involves intense amounts of exploring and discovering the "nuts & bolts" of technological hardware (computers, TV's, MP3's, digital cameras, etc.) through the use of software designed to teach and assist these little ones in practicing their newly acquired knowledge (both technological & academic). These students will learn technological vocabulary that describes the basic components of hardware and simple (but vital) keyboarding commands through developmentally appropriate methods, such as songs, rhymes, pictures, & other oral language rich techniques.
How do the PRE-K Technology Applications TEKS lay the foundation for student perfomance in future grades:
Learning, as it relates to technology, in PRE-K is vital to a virtually seamless and efficient transition to the more "in-depth" technology learning that happens as one navigates upwards in grade level. This is really no different than any other subject or learning "genre." It ALWAYS works better and is easier when a solid and quality foundation has been laid "early on." Just as one learns how to read easier when he/she has been exposed to a language rich environment from birth, one also picks up the new learning required for technology literacy when he/she has had ample opportunity to handle, explore, and discover the hardware, software, & technological vocabulary that will, most definitely, be a required part of his/her life.
What is a spiraling or scoffolding curriculum?
This is a type of curriculum that is cumulative...each year's learning is vital in that it builds onto and supports the next. It's success is based on the fact that each grade level's curriculum in a specific area has been vertically aligned with the other grade levels and that the learning & skills gained during previous grade levels/years is a "prerequisite," if you will, for the learning gained in current and future grade levels/years.
Examples of scaffolded technology skills:
Beginning with PRE-K, students will be introduced to the opportunities and responsibilities of information aquisition via technology, i.e. websites. Each subsequent grade level (1-12) will then give students opportunities to gain more sophisticated knowledge & to practice and build upon those early prerequisite skills (i.e. keyword & Boolean search strategies, navigating & accessing LANs & WANs).
Friday, November 20, 2009
Long-Range Plan reflection
In reading through the long-range plan for technology, I again was forced to realize just how much I need to learn in order to be the most effective and efficient administrator, as it relates to technology. Coming away from the plan, I feel that the largest "nugget of truth" gained through my reading is the urgency to emphasize, more than anything, the vital need for the immense amount of infrastructure required to, not only implement and "usher in" this 21st century goal, but maintain and continually update & upgrade our systems as the industry changes and the never-ending amount of "new & improved" technology "enters the arena."
As a 21st century administrator, you cannot "put your head in the sand" and just expect to stick with the 'status-quo' way of doing things. Delegating your technology tasks to others around you just isn't going to work anymore. The administrator of today's and the future's schools must not only welcome (with open arms) new personal learning in the area of technology, but must continually encourage and expect her staff to do the same. Only then, will we be able to provide our students and communities with the best.
As a 21st century administrator, you cannot "put your head in the sand" and just expect to stick with the 'status-quo' way of doing things. Delegating your technology tasks to others around you just isn't going to work anymore. The administrator of today's and the future's schools must not only welcome (with open arms) new personal learning in the area of technology, but must continually encourage and expect her staff to do the same. Only then, will we be able to provide our students and communities with the best.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Technology Assessments...Boy am I behind the "times!"
I am almost frozen as I begin to write this reflection on my results from the technology assessments I completed. I say this because, through the use of these assessments, I was forced to realize how much I do not know or understand about computer technology, therefore I am at a MAJOR LOSS for words! Actually, it is almost comical. I mean...what do you say when you have virtually NO KNOWLEDGE to be able to say anything at all? Wow! I actually thought I was pretty "computer literate" until I was subjected to these assessments. Obviously, I was quite sadly mistaken.
The first assessment, titled Technology Applications Inventory, asked questions based on four areas: Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. My "scores" in these areas fell into the following mastery level percentage rates: Foundations (50%), Information Acquisition (30%), Solving Problems (28%), and
Communication (33%). Pretty sad, huh? I barely knew what the questions meant, let alone implementing them or even knowing how to implement.
The second assessment, titled SETDA Teacher Survey, could have resulted in a better "score," except for the fact that I am not a classroom teacher and the reading/dyslexia intervention I provide is quite controlled and prescriptive and does not lend itself to the use of technology. I did feel, however, that I would most definitely offer a wide use of technology supported learning as a classroom teacher if I were in that position. In my opinion, it could add so much to one's instruction and would definitely aid in enriching the entire classroom's learning experiences. Many of the classroom teachers at my campus have welcomed the use of technology to support their instruction. We are quite blessed to have 2 technology representatives on staff and they regularly provide tutorials and staff development sessions to increase our knowledge and use of technology in the classroom.
The third assessment, titled Rubric for Administrative Technology Use, was a bit confusing for me. I realize that I was to complete it as an "administrator," but my knowledge related to whether or not the information presented in the "leveled descriptors/choices" is actually being implemented at my campus is quite limited, so I found myself answering as "what I would do, expect, or implement if I were an administrator." I would have to say that I fell into an average "level 2" range.
My weaknesses lay literally EVERYWHERE, though are most evident in data acquisition and use and using technology tools to solve problems or create products (beyond a word processing product)! I also have 0 knowledge of the actual "workings" of a computer...how much RAM, memory, etc. and/or what all of it actually means to me. I am strongest (although I wouldn't consider myself really strong, using these assessments as the standard) in keyboarding skills and basic word processing, along with accessing and browsing the internet. I am definitely a "self-taught" soul who has learned most everything through "trial and error." The script playing inside of my head during many of my trial and error sessions would go something like this: "Oh! Let's see what this button does. Okay...not doing that again. Let's try this one...WOW! I had no idea you could do that. Now I know!"
I realize that I definitely have so much to learn. The good news is that I WANT to learn more about technology...I just haven't had the opportunity nor have I been in a position that really lent itself to me urgently needing to know more than I do. As a potential administrator, I can most certainly see the necessity and value of becoming technologically proficient, as it will be invaluable in analyzing various data, performing administrative tasks, creating and making presentations, knowledge sharing, and most especially, in modeling its value to staff and in acting as the instructional leader of a campus.
The first assessment, titled Technology Applications Inventory, asked questions based on four areas: Foundations, Information Acquisition, Solving Problems, and Communication. My "scores" in these areas fell into the following mastery level percentage rates: Foundations (50%), Information Acquisition (30%), Solving Problems (28%), and
Communication (33%). Pretty sad, huh? I barely knew what the questions meant, let alone implementing them or even knowing how to implement.
The second assessment, titled SETDA Teacher Survey, could have resulted in a better "score," except for the fact that I am not a classroom teacher and the reading/dyslexia intervention I provide is quite controlled and prescriptive and does not lend itself to the use of technology. I did feel, however, that I would most definitely offer a wide use of technology supported learning as a classroom teacher if I were in that position. In my opinion, it could add so much to one's instruction and would definitely aid in enriching the entire classroom's learning experiences. Many of the classroom teachers at my campus have welcomed the use of technology to support their instruction. We are quite blessed to have 2 technology representatives on staff and they regularly provide tutorials and staff development sessions to increase our knowledge and use of technology in the classroom.
The third assessment, titled Rubric for Administrative Technology Use, was a bit confusing for me. I realize that I was to complete it as an "administrator," but my knowledge related to whether or not the information presented in the "leveled descriptors/choices" is actually being implemented at my campus is quite limited, so I found myself answering as "what I would do, expect, or implement if I were an administrator." I would have to say that I fell into an average "level 2" range.
My weaknesses lay literally EVERYWHERE, though are most evident in data acquisition and use and using technology tools to solve problems or create products (beyond a word processing product)! I also have 0 knowledge of the actual "workings" of a computer...how much RAM, memory, etc. and/or what all of it actually means to me. I am strongest (although I wouldn't consider myself really strong, using these assessments as the standard) in keyboarding skills and basic word processing, along with accessing and browsing the internet. I am definitely a "self-taught" soul who has learned most everything through "trial and error." The script playing inside of my head during many of my trial and error sessions would go something like this: "Oh! Let's see what this button does. Okay...not doing that again. Let's try this one...WOW! I had no idea you could do that. Now I know!"
I realize that I definitely have so much to learn. The good news is that I WANT to learn more about technology...I just haven't had the opportunity nor have I been in a position that really lent itself to me urgently needing to know more than I do. As a potential administrator, I can most certainly see the necessity and value of becoming technologically proficient, as it will be invaluable in analyzing various data, performing administrative tasks, creating and making presentations, knowledge sharing, and most especially, in modeling its value to staff and in acting as the instructional leader of a campus.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
