The Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020, includes these four areas: Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support; or Infrastructure for Technology. I will discuss my opinion of one area as it relates to my campus. I will explore the trends and what reccommendations I have for improvement in these areas.
I wish to discuss the first Key Area, Teaching and Learning.Our target goal describes a classroom that is a student-centered learning environment where technology is seamlessly integrated to solve real world problems in collaboration with business, industry, and higher education Learning is transformed as our students propose, assess, and implement solutions to problems. Currently, our district is at the Advanced Technology level of implementation. Compared to the state level which is at the Developing Technology stage, we are at a higher stage. Approximately 70% of the state of Texas is currently at the developing level. The recent trend for our high school is showing growth over the last three years. During the 2006-07 school year, we were at the developing level. This remained the same for the 2007-08 school year. However, the 2008-2009 school year indicated that there was growth in the Teaching and Learning key area.
My recommendations for improvement would include a set of SMART goals for the next year. These goals must not be overwhelming for new teachers and not to invasive for veteran teachers. I believe this process should start the first week we return from summer. With fresh ideas and open minds, the staff would most likely accept small changes in the way of instruction if there is data that supports the need for change.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Texas STaR Chart Presentation
McKinney Boyd High School
The following is a presentation to the Boy High School Staff detialing the Results of the STaR Chart Survey.
The following is a presentation to the Boy High School Staff detialing the Results of the STaR Chart Survey.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Pre-K Technology Applications TEKS
The Pre-K Technology Applications TEKS are developed in a manner that starts at the foundation level. The TEKS begin to grow as the students' proficiency grows. This allows for a systemic learning that is dynamic. The students expectations are clear and concise allowing for fluid growth.
The curriculum uses spiraling and scaffolding to slowly build the students strengths for multiple technologies. The Foundations of issues regarding the copyright laws and acquisition of digital information is scaffolded by the methods of citing sources. This smooth flow of TEKS students to have multiple opportunities to master knowledge/skills.
The Solving problems section facilitates evaluation of work, both process and product.
This allows students to track trends, set time lines, and review/evaluate progress for continual improvement in process and product While enhancing the readability and functionality of student products.
The curriculum uses spiraling and scaffolding to slowly build the students strengths for multiple technologies. The Foundations of issues regarding the copyright laws and acquisition of digital information is scaffolded by the methods of citing sources. This smooth flow of TEKS students to have multiple opportunities to master knowledge/skills.
The Solving problems section facilitates evaluation of work, both process and product.
This allows students to track trends, set time lines, and review/evaluate progress for continual improvement in process and product While enhancing the readability and functionality of student products.
Long-Range Plan for Technology
There are three phases to the plan. Phase I details the expectations through 2010. Phase II and III will be developed after analyzing the progress on phase one is complete. Phase I includes aligning curriculum content standards based on current research, and provide equitable access to technology tools for students and teachers. Phase I also details that provide on-going quality professional development for educators and time for teachers to implement new strategies. Technical support issues are also addressed. Phase I also call for an increase the Technology Allotment to at least $50 per student per year and fund from the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund.
We as educational leaders can effectively build a long term campus goal because we have and end in mind. The goals set before us under Phase I will help guide us on this technological journey.
We as educational leaders can effectively build a long term campus goal because we have and end in mind. The goals set before us under Phase I will help guide us on this technological journey.
Technology Advancement
The advances in technology over the last ten years have exponentially increased due to the development of new computer systems, operating systems, and software development. This advancement is also present in the field of education. The technology for personal use has bleed into the classrooms of elementary schools, high schools, and colleges.
At the high school level, I use technology primarily as a way to engage geometry students who would otherwise sit idle or passively take control of their own learning. Other forms of technology are used to enrich the learning of basic concepts and use them on the application level to deepen the understanding of how math can be integrated in society.
Using technology as a learning tool is a strength of mine. However, using technology as a source of enrichment is a weakness. I use the Classroom Performance System, or CPS, to engage students on a daily basis. I feel students would benefit more if they are given the opportunity to develop projects, or even lesson on their own. I also believe that I should do a better job of using technology to reach all types of learning styles. For example, I rarely use videos or geometry software such as Geometry Sketch board.
The three assessments I recently took gave me a better understanding of how my school district uses, or lack thereof, technology not only as an instructional tool, but an evaluation tool as well. I agree with the technology survey results in that I have a fare amount on knowledge, but I lack the integration of it in the classroom. Our school district offers plenty of workshops for teachers to develop the knowledge necessary but we are limited by time because we are such a curriculum driven district.
At the high school level, I use technology primarily as a way to engage geometry students who would otherwise sit idle or passively take control of their own learning. Other forms of technology are used to enrich the learning of basic concepts and use them on the application level to deepen the understanding of how math can be integrated in society.
Using technology as a learning tool is a strength of mine. However, using technology as a source of enrichment is a weakness. I use the Classroom Performance System, or CPS, to engage students on a daily basis. I feel students would benefit more if they are given the opportunity to develop projects, or even lesson on their own. I also believe that I should do a better job of using technology to reach all types of learning styles. For example, I rarely use videos or geometry software such as Geometry Sketch board.
The three assessments I recently took gave me a better understanding of how my school district uses, or lack thereof, technology not only as an instructional tool, but an evaluation tool as well. I agree with the technology survey results in that I have a fare amount on knowledge, but I lack the integration of it in the classroom. Our school district offers plenty of workshops for teachers to develop the knowledge necessary but we are limited by time because we are such a curriculum driven district.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
