EDLD 5306 Course Reflection

5603 Concepts of Educational Technology “Course Reflection”




When I first knew the title of this first course, and I reflect back on that moment, I have to be honest the outcomes I had for this course few if any, except getting through this course. I see and read the word “Concepts” in the title of a course, I start to reflect on previous undergraduate courses with that word in the title, and I think not another class on theories. In the first week, the course was living up to the pre-conceived notions of a “Concepts” course, with the surveys and assessments completed that week on technology use and personality. This all changed with week 2, when I created a Blog and I choose to read “Blogs, Wikis, and Podcasts and Other Powerful Tools for the Classroom” by Will Richardson for my technology leadership book reading. Then I realized I would gain real actionable knowledge I can take back to classroom today and put to use. The following three weeks did not disappoint me on the content and my whole outlook improved.

I obviously meted and exceeded my outcomes or expectations of this course. Then again, I did not set my expectation very high. In the second week after completing the readings and the Blog activity, I realized I greatly under estimated the knowledge I would gain from taking this course. The course works in weeks 2, 3 and 4 have so much relevance to my work. I am a technology application instructor and I have no excuse for not implementing the Blogs and Wikis in my curriculum. I now understand the students in my classroom better with the knowledge gained about the “Digital Natives” and how they process information in an entirely different manner as me a “Digital Immigrant.”

Upon reflection, I did not set initial high outcomes for myself in this course, and I now know that was a mistake on my part. This all reminds me of the ole saying, “Never Judge a Book by Its Cover” it also applies to a course title. In this course, I compelled to chance my attitudes and outcomes for the course. The first outcome became how can I implement these concepts in my curriculum and second introduce them to my colleagues at work. I have not completed either of these outcomes from the knowledge gained in this course, but they are works in progress. It is going to take time to complete these outcomes. First, I have to fully implement these course concepts of collaborative learning environment with the aides of technology. When students leave my class and attended another they talk about what they do in my classroom. The good word of mouth is the best advertisement, students hear and other teachers hear the good news and want to know what going on in Mr. McClaren’s class.

For the most part, I was successful in completing my assignments. The course assignment where an examples of how I or any other instructor should structure our assignments. The assignments where rigorous and relevant to what I need to know as a future technology leader. The rigor challenges student and if you did not give the assignment the time and effort it would be sub-standard result, the assignments are all completely accomplishable.

I learned from this course my shortcomings when it pertains to education technology. The thing l learned about myself is how little I knew about technology education, and I find myself being embarrassed by that fact. I read the readings and do the activity then reflect that I should already know this, especially when it came to Star Chart, Texas 2020 Plan, and Title II Part D of NCLB. The district has spent time and resources providing state of art computer labs and for the most part students can experience that technology if they enroll in a technology application class or use the library computes, but it is not there in “everyday” use for the student in the core classes. The knowledge gained about my school district technology plan surprised me. The week that I had to research the technology plans was a holiday week, and being no one at administration to give me a copy, I was under the assumption that such a plan would be published on the school district web site. I found out that the school district qualified for E-Rate discount because we are a Title I school district, and the district has not applied with the Universal Service Fund. The facts I have discovered about myself and my school district has inspired me to ask the right question to the powers at be and to move others and myself out of neutral gear on instructional technology in the core classroom.

Week 2 Web Conference

Week 2 Web Conference

My first reflection on the web conference is one plagued with technical issues.  Now, the audio during the web conference performed in bits and spurts, and looking back the only audio I heard was that of Dr. Abernathy.  I could hear a few perceptible words of phases every minute to 40 seconds and then back to silence.  The video portion of the web conference worked better, I could see most everyone who wanted to be seen and I could place a name with a face.  The only aspect of the web conference that worked, as it should was the chat dialog box feature and conversed with fellow classmates.  The conversation and dialog was about how shocked and overwhelmed people where with the workload.  I was able to glean enough information from Dr. Abernathy’s short burst of audible communication that she was encouraging people persevere and providing tips on organizing their time. The overall benefit of this first web conference was becoming familiar with the interface of the Adobe software for web conferencing.

https://sites.google.com/site/curtismcclaren/ 

Wikis in Plain English

Universal Service Fund & The Campus Technology Plan

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

E rate unversal service fund

View more presentations from Sabotbob.

National Educational Technology Plan

The plan has set goals to improve education with technology to better equip American children skills for lifelong learning and economic success.  Technology with respect to teaching, “Recommendation: Revise, create, and adopt standards and learning objectives for all content areas that reflect 21st century expertise and the power of technology to improve learning.”(Page 39) The overall goal for learners is put forth on (page 25)  “Goal: All learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences both in and outside of school that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally networked society.” The key encompassing goal for professional development will be connected learning, and have teacher educators experience that themselves.  My reflection on the National Education Technology Plan is that one has to search through 75% of the material that is of little or no consequence to retrieve the 25% that truly useful information.  This document is 114 pages and in my opinion it could be reduces to 30 pages and convey the ideas and principles that technology will play in the future of public education in American.  We all know the issue when committees meet, egos must be stroked and all parties have to have their say in the final document. I can only wonder just how large this document was before it was revised down to 114 pages.  I conclusion, there is no doubt we need a plan going forward with technology and its key role in education, but make it one that every stakeholder no matter their current education level can understand.

School or District Technology Plan

School or District Technology Plan

I find myself struggling to find a formal District Technology Plan, because there is not one published on the school district web site, and two it is a holiday week and there is absolutely no one at the administration offices to retrieve a copy. I had to be a problem solver. I found the published version of District Improvement Plan, what I have done is place it in a table for easy viewing. In the table are all the parts of 2009-2010 District Improvement Plan that pertain to technology, Strategies/Initiative/Actions, Resources, and Implementation. I have taken the simple logic that if the school district would trouble itself to publish this material in the DIC Plan, then it must be part of or in compliance the District Technology Plan. The information in the DIC Plan shows what resource allocated for a strategy and who is responsible for implementation. In my opinion on what I have found is undetermined, I have found insufficient information to form a informed decision about adequate financial and time resources to ensure staff is kept up to date in learning about new technologies.

Strategies/Initiatives/Actions Resources Implementation

Provide expertise and assistance to ensure that the intent and purpose of Title II, Part D are met at the campus and district level. Expenditures will include the following:

• Training for technology- TCEA conference/NECC (NCLB2,4,9,10)
• Dir. of Student 8/09 8/10
• Acceleration Coor. Of Instructional Technology Title II, Part D
• Allocations Campus Supplies $9,633,
• Training Costs $1,500,
• Travel $15,165
• Training schedules
•  Sign-in sheets

Ensure that industry standards are maintained in the computer labs, shops, and classrooms

• - Up-to-date equipment
• Up-to-date software and technology
• Up-to-date textbooks and/or resources Local Funds?
• Carl D. Perkins Grant?
• Tech Prep Grant?
• What are the amounts?
• CTE Coordinator 8/09 6/10
• CTE Staff
• CTE Advisory Board

Assess campus administrators on ISTE technology standards

•  Staff Time
• Coordinator of Instructional Technology 9/09 5/10

Provide on-site staff development for teachers/administrators on the effective use of the HP2140 in the classroom

• Staff Time
• Coordinator of Instructional Technology 9/09 5/10

Provide on-site staff development for teachers/administrators on the effective use of the Promethean Activboards

• Staff Time
• Coordinator of Instructional Technology 9/09 5/10

Upgrade Synergistic labs which reinforce math and science concepts at AJH and MJH.

• New system will be compatible with district upgrade to Windows7 operating system
• Title I, Part A ARRA $27,284
• Title I, Part A $27,284 Coordinator of Instructional Technology 9/09 5/10

As this moment, I have plans to attend the Business & Marketing Teachers Conference. In past years, the district has sent representatives to the Model Schools Conference. This year when I attend the conference I will be selective about which breakout session I will attend. The breakout session I plan to attend will concentrate on technology its uses and application in classroom. One can only hope that there is breakout session on blogs, wikis, and podcasts, but I do not place much hope in that reality. With the lack of a real District Technology Plan it’s hard to analyze it against the five criteria of the set forth in the Universal Service Administration Company for E-rate funding.

Reference:
Alvin ISD, District Improvement Plan for fiscal year 2009-2010

Technology Assessment

It is my opinions that the value in assessing the educator’s technology knowledge and skills is that all the other stakeholders in education receive a adequate return on their investment in the educator.  First, has the other entire stakeholders invested adequately in the educator? Has the school district administrator’s allotted adequate time and money to meet the short-term goals for Texas Long-Range Technology Plan by 2010?  The standard set by TLRTP is that 30% of the districts technology budget be devoted to professional development. That exceeds the standard established by NCLB Title II Part D that 25% technology formula and grant funds are dedicated to professional development. To maximize the states and district’s investments, professional development must be sustainable, ongoing, high quality, and accessible 24/7; therefore, it must be provided for in the Technology Allotment and the local technology budgets. Who is making sure accounting tricks are mot done when accountability comes to the Texas Education Agency or to U.S. Department of Education?  I may have missed that in my reading and hope my esteemed colleagues will politely direct me to the answer. At this point, the only assessment of educator’s technology knowledge and skills is the STaR Chart, which we all know is a self-assessment tool.  The educators in Alvin School District approach the competition of the STaR Chart as another burden with absolutely no understand of the ramifications it will have on funding.

When it comes to assessing the technology knowledge and skills of the student, there is this vague and ambiguous statements made in the TLRTP and NCLB Title II Part D that all students must be technology literate by the end of 8th grade. The Alvin School District, answer to this is issue a netbook to all Junior High students in the 6^th grade, and to best of my knowledge, student receive little if any instruction on ethical use of the netbooks for research purposes. There is a interesting statement in the TLRTP under Accountability, “Require reporting of student Technology Applications proficiencies for appropriate grade levels as required for No Child Left Behind and state accountability.” The question is who is responsible for reporting and I like to see a copy of this report. I fully agree with students needing technology skills and literacy for 21^st century, but how to do assess this knowledge and skills when Information Technology doubles in capability and performance every 18 to 36 months.