Week 4 Assignments:
- Evaluate district plan
- Summarize chapter 4
- Evaluate administrative software
- Article review (Due week 6)
Article Review #4
Ross, E.M., & Ertmer, P.A., & Johnson, T.E. (2001). Technology integration and innovative teaching practices: a staff development model for facilitating change. Atlanta, GA: National Convention of the Association for Educational Communication and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470111) Retrieved October 11, 2007 from ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center database).
This research document looked at the effects of a specific staff development model on staff perceptions and practices. Thirteen teachers participated in a study where they were taught how to participate in the evaluation process, then they were regularly observed by researchers and other teachers. Surveys before and after the study provided the data for analysis. The essential question of the study was: How do reflection, collaboration and modeling in staff development affect a teacher’s attitudes towards and integration of technology in the classroom?
Teachers participated to varying degrees, in training that included group development of lessons, observations of those lessons being taught, and then group evaluation of the lessons. The program lasted one semester.
Surveys completed by the teachers showed that they had increased confidence in using technology and that they increased their student use of technology in their classrooms. Teachers pointed to the peer support and hands-on activities as keys to their increased comfort with technology.
This article was interesting to show that peer collaboration and evaluation in staff development can help them improve their use of technology. This is very useful information for me. I can easily see my teachers working towards this in our staff development. Having a few teachers work together on a lesson can give them a finished product to try in their classrooms. Working together can help them flush out ideas they may not think of individually.
I can see some staff allowing for peer observation and evaluation. The study showed that this helps teachers determine what did and did not work in the lesson, and peer review can help them make adjustments to improve the lesson for future use.
Evaluate District Plan
My district’s technology plan is weak in the area of assessing needs and current status. Student proficiency is measured with an enGuage survey of one student. The explanation of how student proficiency would be measured under the plan was not communicated and not actually put into practice.
The plan called for students to create a portfolio of their work, and take some online assessment to record skill acquisition. None of that has ever been incorporated into the curriculum, so no student work is being collected into a portfolio. No assessment is being performed, except that students take a technology course in grades 5-8, and they should be learning the skills to match the state standards.
The plan also relies on an assessment authored by Nicolet Unified High School. Initially, it was expected 8th grade students at feeder schools and 9th graders at Nicolet would take this assessment. This part of the plan fell apart, as Nicolet had to adjust for scheduling conflicts. The assessment became an optional part of a technology requirement students had to complete by the end of their sophomore year.
As such, the expectation that all 8th grade students would take this assessment has been changed to a handful of students opting to take the test.
Along with the problem of assessing needs, my district’s plan is also weak in the Action and Implementation Plan. Very worthy objectives have been identified, but they were not communicated clearly to those responsible for the activities. Very few of the actions planned for were ever followed through, especially when they involved classroom teachers.
Monitoring the progress of and evaluating the plan also did not happen regularly.
Where my district’s plan is fairly strong is the development of goals and objectives. Solid objectives are planned to be met with actions that, if followed up on, may very well have moved the district closer to meeting the goals it had planned for. Again, these goals needed to be communicated frequently and enthusiastically, so the users would see the need to complete the actions as expected.
Evaluate Administrative Software
McIntire, T. (2004, May 14). Student Information Systems Demystified. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from techLEARNING.com | Technology & Learning - The Resource for Education Technology Leaders Web site: http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.php?articleID=19400338&pgno=1
The above article from techlearning.com looks at six questions to ask when evaluating administrative software. These can be used to create a simple vehicle to evaluate your current tool and to evaluate other possible tools.
Does the system comply with the Schools Interoperability Framework or ODBC standards? Both of these standards allow one administrative tool to share data with another. This makes access to student, or other, data much easier. Updating student information in the library management system would be less of a headache, for example. Of course, this criteria is less important if no other administrative tools in the district use such standards.
What is the preferred system architecture? Do you want a system that is web-based, or requires server-client interaction? Web-based options usually require less management at the end user's computer, since there is no software to install.
Does the system allow the easy communication among the school, teachers, parents and students? The more options the system includes, the greater the level of communication between the affected parties. Access to grades, homework, attendance, teacher contact information, and parent contact information will improve the reach of the system.
How customizable is the system? Is the school stuck with the options provided by the vendor, or can the system be adjusted to meet their individual needs? Are these modifications easy, or do they require the hiring of a third party?
What type of support is provided? Schools need to be sure they will be able to resolve issues with the system easily and quickly. Parent will not always be patient when it comes to accessing their student's information.
The last question is what applications are integrated into the system? The school needs to consider the information it needs to manage. Text book management is a feature on some systems. So is lunchroom management. Some systems include IEP software, report management, calendars, web spaces, and more. The school needs to evaluate if they need these features when evaluating a student management system.
The positives of using this simple questionaire is that many of the main considerations are included. However, it does not really focus the user. It is too easy to ramble about one area, without giving much time to others.
This questionaire does not put much emphasis on usability. Can the system be used by staff from home? How easy is it to get information into or out of the system? Are the basic application functions clear and understandable? Are different elements of the application found by following logical steps? Does a button act like a button, a link like a link, a scrollbar like a scrollbar? These are questions we should have asked when evaluating our current system. While we probably would have made the same choice, we would been better able to compare this system to the others we looked at.
Usability in data management systems like this is often overlooked. But, when considering the varied population that will be expected to use the system, usability should be a big consideration. I have spent a great deal of time working with staff, students and parents on elements of our application that do not really behave the way they should. Clicking a "Back" button should take the user back, not greet them with a warning and then send them to the page they are currently on.
Chapter 4 Summary
Chapter 4 Summary
Chapter 4 reviews administrative uses for computers. The first of three categories looked at is data management in a database. Databases are uses to store and manage data about all aspects of a school. These include student information of all kinds, staff information, curriculum, finances, and even facilities.
The second category of computer use for administrative purposes is spreadsheets. Spreadsheet software allows a school to manipulate and analyze data. Spreadsheets also make it possible to report information.
Spreadsheets and databases work best in tandem. An efficient database and spreadsheet combination allows for access to information from one system to the other. Some spreadsheet software can access the data in a database, allowing the users to review, analyze and present the data to boards, committees and others.
The third category of computer system reviewed was office automation. Initially, this system referred to word processing, but now include several integrated tools. This might be word processing, email, desktop publishing, calendars, address books, and other tools that allow for communication of information.
Chapter four also looks at “specialized administrative applications.” These include informational databases, such as NEXIS. Another of the specialized applications is statistical software. This software is used for advanced statistical analysis of data, rather than the same analysis possible in typical spreadsheet software.
Test scoring equipment and software it the third specialized category. This allows teachers and schools to conduct tests, then score the tests with special scanners. The reports generated by this equipment can make test and test item analysis much more efficient.
The final two specialized categories are automatic telephone systems that make calls and play recorded messages, and energy management systems. Some energy management systems simply report on energy consumption, while others allow for automated control of heating, cooling, and electrical system.
Week 3 Assignments:
- Third Resource Review
- enGuage Review
- Modern Times Video Comparison
Resource Review #3
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: findings from the first student cohort (2007-4005). Washington, D.C.: ED Pubs.
Accessible from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074005/index.asp.
This report to Congress provided statistics and analysis regarding a study of different software titles for reading and mathematics in 1st, 4th, 6th grade, and algebra classrooms. This study on the effectiveness of technology in education was required by NCLB. The Department of Education contracted with SRI and Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. to conduct the study in 2003. Thirty-three school districts encompassing 132 schools took part in the study. This included 439 teachers. Participants were chosen on the basis of not having used similar technology prior to the study. Teachers received initial training by the software vendors.
In what would seem to be a blow to educational technology, the study found that, in each of the 4 studies, the technology resulted in test scores that were "not statistically different from zero." In only one case - the use of reading software in the fourth grade - did time of use seem to impact score results, but this still was not statistically substantial. In the use of reading software at the first and fourth grade levels, the biggest impact was found in the student to teacher ratio. Fewer students for each teacher resulted in better test scores - although not enough to indicate a correlation.
The student to teacher ratio actually provides a statistical problem, because it makes it hard to determine if the test score differences were because of the technology, or the student to teacher ratio.
The software titles used in the study were chosen from a field of 160 that were submitted to the Department of Education in 2003. Submitted titles were rated on effectiveness (as demonstrated by research from the vendors themselves) and whether the vendors could provide training on such a large scale, among other criteria. Sixteen titles were selected. The report notes that 12 of the 16 have been nominated for awards.
Besides the fact that the technology did not seem to impact student learning, it was interesting to learn that the study found teachers using the software spent less time lecturing, and more time helping individual students as they worked on their own. The study also pointed out that the software may be more effective as the teachers gain experience using it in their classes. At the time of the report, a second year of data was being analyzed to see if teacher experience might impact the effectiveness of the software in the classroom.
How can I use this information in my schools? I see that my teachers do not use the math and reading software the way the teachers in this study did. Teachers in my schools tend to put students in front of the computers and then sit at a table or desk to do their own work. If a student raises their hand, the teachers do go to help them, but they may be more effective if they move around the lab to help students sooner. In my district, we have tried to encourage this approach, but we still see some teachers wanting software that does all of the work, with little teacher intervention. If this study shows one thing, it may show that the technology should not take the place of the teacher in providing instruction and support to the students.
Week 2 Assignments:
- ETIPS Assignment
- Second Resource Review
- Summarize Chapter 3
- Post Leadership and K12 thoughts
Resource Review #2
What it takes: 10 capacities for initiating and sustaining school improvement at the elementary level. (2000). Providence, RI: LAB at Brown University.
This guidebook was written as a project of the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, which is a Brown University program. The intent of the book is to provide "practical applications" showing how schools can best begin and maintain change. The print version of What It Takes is no longer available, but it can be downloaded in PDF format from the Brown University Publications Catalog website at http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/metadata/d10183-meta.shtml.
What It Takes avoids looking at the characteristics of schools that are already successful. Instead, the authors focus on what schools do that lead to successful change. In looking at the history of schools and the processed they used, the authors identified ten "capacities" that encourage successful change. They then divided these into three groups: Foundational, Organizational, and Learning and Resource Management.
Each capacity is presented explored through a brief explanation, a case study, and questions that allow the reader to compare their own situation to that of the case study provided. The reader is encouraged to look at the capacities in their sets, rather than individually.
The Foundational capacities focus on finding ways to get staff to work together. The three capacities in this group are enhancing energy flow among staff, creating collective purpose, and strengthening the evolving culture.
The Organizational capacities focus on creating an environment that allows staff to feel empowered and involved. The four capacities here are teaming, creating structures for decentralized decision making, making structural changes, and piloting.
The Learning and Resource Management capacities deal with how open staff are to learning and applying new things, looking to outside experts for support, and how well they choose and use resources. The three capacities are creating and maintaining a learning ethic, brining in information and skills, and orchestrating resources and managing distractions.
The guidebook does a good job of presenting short explanations of the capacities, and uses good examples in the case studies. Each case study gives a reason change was considered, and then what the staff did to meet their needs. The questions at the end of each section also seem like they would be good at sparking discussion in committees charged with giving some direction to the change initiative.
This guidebook would be useful to me as my district looks at our technology plan. To see how other schools considered their needs, then developed a plan that did not immediately disregard non-standard actions is slightly inspiring. The questions asked of readers would also help spark discussion among our committee members. This would especially be helpful when the committee hits a plateau.
Summary of Chapter 3
Chapter 3 further explores the adoption of technology, and the users of technology. In adopting technology, schools need to consider the teachers and their uses for technology. Purchasing technology for the sake of having it can actually be detrimental to schools. To make technology relevant, teachers must be trained to use it, and it must fit within their curriculum. Rather than view technology as "the answer," schools need to view technology as another tool for reaching their goals.
The debate over when children should begin using technology revolves around two schools of thought. The first contends that technology is inherently good, and the earlier students learn to use it, the more capable they will be. The second school of thought tries to measure the cognitive and physical readiness of children to use technology. Papert suggests that children benefit most from being exposed to technology early. Physically, young children have proven very capable to handle technology. Proper selection of software, especially taking care to consider reading comprehension, can help eliminate concerns for cognitive abilities.
When considering technology for young children, the most important consideration should be whether it is appropriate for curricular goals and matches the classroom needs.
Technology has already shown itself to be useful in the area of special education. Technology can allow for various modes of interaction by the student, in both input and output. This allows many students to communicate or participate where they might not have been able to previously. Schools considering technology for special education uses must be able to reach out to experts to ensure proper planning, funding, and implementation.
In planning for technology, schools must also be aware of issues concerning gender equity, minority equity, and socioeconomic equity. Planners must be careful to meet the needs of minority students, while not encouraging stereotypes. Teachers must be aware of how many students in their classes actually have access to a computer, and be prepared to adjust their plans for those who do not.
Good Summary - Louis
Week 1 Assignments:
- Summarize Chapters 1 and 2 from our text.
- List the Technology Needs Assessments you find
- Article/resource review on Change
Summary of Chapters 1 and 2
Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the use of technology in education. At a time when businesses and some higher ed institutions were beginning to apply technology to their data managment needs, K-12 schools found themselves addressing social issues. This, along with the very high cost of the technology available and the lack of software appropriate for students, prevented schools from incorporating technology.
As software companies continued to develop and refine business titles for data management and analysis, the cost of technology began to drop. This allowed schools to begin to use technology to manage student information. As more schools began to adopt technology for administrative purposes, software companies began to modify some of their business titles for use in schools. This meant that much of the software available for use by students was not really appropriate for them.
In the early 1980's, as hardware costs continued to drop and more schools invested in technology, educationally appropriate software became more readily available.
In the late 1990's, as schools began to direct more money to technology, it became apparent that many teachers were not prepared to make proper use of the technology available to them. Many schools were obviously purchasing technology for the sake of having it. This prompted a shift towards planning. If schools were going to make good use of their budgets and good use of the technology purchased, they were going to have to do a better job of choosing technology and matching that technology to the needs of the teachers and students.
Chapter 2 introduces the reader to planning concepts. First, it explains that schools are looked at as social systems. That is, they involve the interactions of individuals within the school, individuals with the overall school, and the community outside of the school. Each player - individuals, schools, and community - has needs and expectations that impact on those of the other players.
After establishing how to look at schools, the book asks how to best evaluate schools. Business are easily evaluated by their profits. Schools, on the other hand, have no simple, easily identifiable quality to measure. Student achievement may fill that space, but there are no universal measures to allow for comparing students from one community to another. This is further complicated by the vast differences in funding for education between bodies responsible for providing that funding.
The four main elements of planning are comprehensiveness - accounting for needs of individuals as well as the surrounding organization and community; collaboration - including a variety of actors and perspecitves in the planning process; commitment - dedication from actors and administration to see the plan succeed; and continuity - the ability to adjust the plan to changing needs.
Once developed, the plan and its progress must be evaluated regularly to ensure its success. The evaluation measurements must match the goals of the plan.
In planning for technology, administrative and instructional goals may be different. The users of administrative technology are likely to be different from those using instructional technology. Evaluating the two usually requires different criteria. While the planning for administrative and instructional technology may be parallel, they seldom overlap.
Technology Needs Assessments
I looked at several assessment tools, but settled on three. Most of the assessment tools available surveyed staff and administrators, but few surveyed students or even other members of the education community. I think gathering information from students, board members, and even parents can be helpful in determining needs and getting support from all involved in the change process.
The first tool comes from the State Educational Technology Directors Association and the Metri Group. The website provides information on the formation of the survey questions used and how they were tested and adjusted. Just as important, the survey questions are tied to NCLB. These elements give the administrators of the survey some assurance that the questions will reveal valid information that can help the district identify a range of needs from local to the national level.
There are three surveys as part of the toolset. One is for teachers (55 questions), one is for building administrators (76 questions), and one is for district administrators (80 questions). Obviously, the surveys will take some time to complete, which may cause some users to rush through, causing validity concerns. However, if adequate time is provided, intent is communicated, and possibly some incentives are offered, users should be expected to be thorough.
The SEDTA surveys seem to be quality tools based on the research that went into their creation. These questions range from how the user personally uses technology to how students are expected to use technology to training and funding available at the building and district level. This helps the survey data paint a broad picture of technology needs in the district, not just individual needs.
SETDA (2004). The Suite of Tools. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from Profiling Educational Technology Integration (PETI) Web site: http://www.setda-peti.org/tools.html
The second set of tools is from Doug Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the media and technology director for Mankato Public Schools, as well as an author and presenter specializing in technology and libraries in schools. On his website, Mr. Johnson provides a series of what he calls "rubrics " for technology in schools. As with the SEDTA surveys, these rubrics seem to focus on teachers and administrators, and not on students or other community members. Each rubric is short and easily worded. The questions are tied to NETS standards. All of the rubrics can be found in Mr. Johnson's book, The Indispensable Teachers Guide to Computer Skills.
The first rubric is for gathering skills information. Questions focus on topics like word processing, using a spreadsheet, or managing files. The second rubric deals with teacher internet use. Users rate themselves on using email, understanding netiquette, searching, making web pages, and more.
The third rubric focuses on how teachers use technology with students. Topics include modifying learning opportunities, assessing student work, building student skills, and improving communication with parents. The final rubric is for administrators. Administrators are asked to grade their own technology use, as well as their understanding of student and staff technology use. Administrators also grade themselves on data mining, research, and professional development.
The questions asked of users provide a good base for understanding user skills and how technology is used in the educational process. They are fairly brief, which should encourage users to be honest and take their time, increasing the likelihood the results will be valid. There could be more questions regarding staff development opportunities provided by the district, or technology and funding availability within the district. These types of questions could be added to surveys taken by users.
Johnson, D. (2007, June 16). CODE77 Rubrics - Beginning. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from Doug Johnson Web site: http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/code77-rubrics-beginning.html
Johnson, D. (2007, June 16). Rubrics for Teacher Internet Use. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from Doug Johnson Web site: http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/rubrics-for-teacher-internet-use.html
Johnson, D. (2007, June 16). Rubrics for Restructuring. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from Doug Johnson Web site: http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/rubrics-for-restructuring.html
Johnson, D. (2007, June 16). Rubric for Administrative Technology Use. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from Doug Johnson Web site: http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/rubric-for-administrative-technology-use.html
Resource Review #1
The Educational Leadership Toolkit: Change and Technology in America's Schools
The National School Boards Association, under a grant from the National Science Foundation, created a "toolkit" for use by school boards to educate school communities interested in the change process. The site includes sections on planning, developing policies, involving the community, finding funding, professional development, and choosing assessment tools.
Each section of the site has some information about the topic, with links to further definitions and resources, case studies, and research information.
One interesting section, "Why Change," talks about different change "styles." This section talks about change styles for individuals and offers suggestions for "[m]anaging [p]ersonal [c]hange." Later, this section discusses change styles within organizations. Unfortunately, there is not much in the way of information to help nourish change among those who are resistant to it.
The "Why Change?" section does include a page dedicated to "Overcoming Obstacles to Change." Here, the reader learns much of what we learned in our simulation: communication is the key to moving resistors along. One paragraph even recommends that leaders go so far as to "over communicate."
There are many areas covered in this resource. Several of these areas call on the reader to perform self-assessments in communication styles, behavior styles, conflict resolution styles and leadership. These are interesting considerations that many people probably do not review before tackling a process such as continuous change. Having a concept of group dynamics and where each member fits in will very likely help move a project along and avoid personality conflicts.
The Educational Leadership Toolkit is a very thorough resource that is well documented. It provides a good deal of useful information for those looking to initiate the change process in their district.
NSBA (n.d.). Educational Leadership Toolkit. Retrieved September 16, 2007 from National School Boards Association Web site: http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/index.html
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.