Week 1 Assignments:

• Summarize Chapters 1 and 2 from our text.

Chapter One

Connections

          Before I sat down to read this chapter, I had put my 5 ½ year old son to bed. I have found that speaking quietly to him about topics that have lists inherent in them, and saying these lists of things, helps relax him. I had just told him how lucky he was to be in school now, how when I was young we learned almost everything from books. I had listed the Internet, computer games, TV, movies, CDs, DVDs, video games, books, and so on, as ways to learn today. Then I began reading the chapter, which touches on this very subject. Children and adults today have the potential to access information and to use technology in a way that allows them to learn multi-dimensionally; one subject can branch off into its many parts and tangents so much more easily with the integration of technology. Not only do we have the potential to learn more, but also we have the potential to be “informationally connected” to one another. So “informationally” isn’t a word…perhaps we can say “intellectually” instead, which has even greater implications. For me, the title of this chapter should have been “Connections,” as that was the word that kept popping up; if not literally spelled out, it was the underlying concept in many of the chapter’s sections, our connectivity on many levels via technology.

          Now, notice that above I stated that we have “the potential to access information;” this does not mean, unfortunately, that technology is available to everyone, nor is it within everyone’s scope of ability to use technology. It is the giant “SHOULD” that needs to become a “must.” We all know we should use technology to enhance learning; now we need to convince others that technology-based learning is seldom impersonal and we must take advantage of the in-depth learning potential that it offers students of all kinds and ages.

          A distinction is made between administrative and instructional technology. As a teacher, I can see where most planning by the district technology manager seems to go toward the administrative end. Beyond that, budgets are allotted to schools and departments. In our English department, applications and software are almost never the first consideration. Instead, as mentioned in this chapter, we tend to ask for equipment first and then figure out what programs to use. This is due, in part, to the way teachers have operated traditionally: this is what I have, now what can I do with it? Another part of that way of doing things is that the people allocating the funds are not classroom teachers, they are administrators and chairpersons, so they are not dealing directly with lesson planning on a daily basis; the means for delivering the objectives might seem to them what needs to be the first consideration. It used to be that teachers and books were the main means of delivering the objectives; now we are directors and guides.

           Overall, reading this chapter helped me to feel that I’m on the right track in my own efforts to integrate technology, and I’m doing it for the right reasons. It also went a step beyond, though, by reassuring me that I do have professional insight to offer my colleagues as a result of participating in this Master’s in Educational Technology program, so that we can “connect” for future instructional technology successes.   

 

 

Chapter Two

           As mentioned in the first chapter, schools, operating within a larger societal system, are social systems themselves which work on the basic system principles of “input, process, and output.” This chapter focuses on the places of social processes and social interactions in educational planning. Many schools have begun managing themselves with a “site-based” model, which can be time-consuming and which is not always going to result in optimal use of resources. Schools’ “management success” is difficult to measure, though, because no standard measure for school success exists.

            In planning for technology, this chapter identifies “the four Cs: Comprehension, Collaboration, Commitment, and Continuity.” Right now, our district is engaged in a comprehension phase, which includes “Classroom Walk-Throughs” to understand the climate and culture and many facets of academics, including technology use, in each building. We are told that this information-gathering phase may take a couple of years. We have also been directly focusing on and building upon our collaboration efforts through the acknowledgement that together we form a large PLC or Professional Learning Community. We have also, at times, engaged in discussions and planning sessions as smaller PLCs. As for the third C, commitment, it has absolutely been my experience that those involved with creating the goals and objectives and developing the courses of action are going to be the most committed. For the past seven years or so, we have also acknowledged that our plans are continuous; they are not going to be achieved or completed, instead they are ongoing and ever-evolving.

            For technology planning, it makes sense that the order of consideration needs to be goals and objectives derived from the educational values; then applications; then hardware, software, staff, facilities, and finances; then evaluation; and “finally” feedback, although feedback is not final as it serves to provide a process for ongoing revision.  

            Another aspect of technology planning is “external environmental scanning,” which takes into account community-wide changing technologies and trends so that school districts can adapt accordingly. It is important, then, to have input not just from administrators, teachers, parents, students and other district personnel but also from other outside experts, like colleges and businesses.  

            Technology planning is like writing a book or painting a masterpiece: none of these is really ever "finished." The novelist and painter may be forced to call their work "finished," but the technology planner's work will never be done!      

 

• List the Technology Needs Assessments you find

 

For this first needs assessment, the charts did not paste here, but they can be viewed at http:/ /www.ed.gov/pubs/EdTechGuide/appc.html

I liked the assessment because it covered a range of areas, such as Technology Background, Staff Centered Technology, Student Centered Technology, and Staff Development Activities. Within each of these categories, respondents were asked to indicate "yes, frequently," "yes, rarely," "no," or "I don't know" to having used an extensive list of technologies. I liked the second assessment because it was designed according to standards, asking the respondent to indicate levels of teaching ability with regard to each standard.

 

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

An Educator's Guide to Evaluating the Use of Technology in Schools and Classrooms - December 1998

Appendix C - Examples of Technology Surveys

 

U.S. Department of Education, (1998). Evaluating the use of technology:

Appendix C - example of technology surveys. Retrieved

October 8, 2007, from Assessment Tools Web site: http:/ /www.ed.gov/pubs/EdTechGuide/appc.html

 

Please use the pop-up menus to respond to the following questions.

#	Question	Response
1.	What is your age?	Less than 24 25 to 30 31 to 35 36 to 40 41 to 45 46 to 50 51 plus
2.	What is your gender?	Female Male
3.	In which Faculty/Department did you complete your prior degree?	Agriculture, Forestry and Home Econ. Arts Education Engineering Environmental Design Fine Arts General Studies Humanities Kinesiology Law Management/Business Medicine / Oral Health Sciences Native Studies Nursing Pharmacy / Pharmaceutical Sciences Rehabilitation Medicine Science Social Sciences Social Work
4.	What is the highest degree you currently hold?	Bacclaureate Bacclaureate, Honors Masters Doctoral
5.	Do you have access to a computer at home?	No Yes
6.	Can you access the Internet at home?	No Yes
7.	What is your specialization in MT program?	Elementary ECE English Fine Arts French Mathematics Phys Ed Science Social Studies

 

For each of the following computer applications skills, please indicate your level of expertise PRIOR to entry into the Masters of Teaching program.

#	Computer Applications Skill	Level of Expertise?
1.	Word Processing (i.e., format, edit, save, and print documents).	0. None 1. A little 2. Fair 3. Substantial 4. Extensive
2.	Electronic Mail (i.e., compose, edit, send, and receive e-mail).	0. None 1. A little 2. Fair 3. Substantial 4. Extensive
3.	Browsing and Searching on the World Wide Web.	0. None 1. A little 2. Fair 3. Substantial 4. Extensive
4.	Accessing Library resources using the World Wide Web.	0. None 1. A little 2. Fair 3. Substantial 4. Extensive
5.	World Wide Web page creation and editing (i.e., HTML or Web editors).	0. None 1. A little 2. Fair 3. Substantial 4. Extensive
6.	Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint, Persuasion)	0. None 1. A little 2. Fair 3. Substantial 4. Extensive
7.	Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel, Lotus 1-2-3, ClarisWorks)	0. None 1. A little 2. Fair 3. Substantial 4. Extensive
8.	Database creation (e.g., Access, Quatro Pro, FileMaker)	0. None 1. A little 2. Fair 3. Substantial 4. Extensive

 

The following items are a sample of the knowledge/skills to be required of students in Grades 4-9 beginning in Fall, 1999. These are to be integrated into the traditional subject areas--not relegated to separate technology classes. They appear in the document, Information & Communication Technology: Interim Program of Studies Kindergarten to Grade 12 which is available from Alberta Education's web site.

Foundational Operations, Knowledge and Concepts

---

Processes for Productivity

---

Communication, Inquiry, Decision Making, Problem Solving

When you have completed all of the survey items above, please submit your responses by clicking on "Submit Responses" below.

Thank you for participating.

Created by Clark and Jacobsen 1998

 

Alberta Education, (1998). Educational technology needs assessment

survey. Retrieved October 8, 2007, from Faculty of

Education Web site: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs/

mt/tech-survey.html?USERNAME=dmjacobs&Permission+Form=

 

 

 

• Article/resource review on Change

Chapter one of Making Sense of Online Learning: A Guide for Beginners and the Truly Skeptical (Shank and Sitze, 2004) is called “Taking the Leap,” which implies venturing into great unknowns and which necessitates an openness to change. The authors do not attempt to convince people to accept online learning as a viable educational option, yet they address issues of readiness so that the reader can decide for himself or herself whether or not a change in the direction of online learning is feasible.

The organization, the learners, and the teachers all need to be ready in different ways. The organization needs to have people ready with the right skills, a technology infrastructure in place, hardware, software, support, plus a budget and plan for how to purchase additional resources if necessary. Learners need access to the right equipment and software, as well as computer and Internet skills to find and use materials online. They also need to be motivated to learn in a different way. Teachers needs to make learning the highest priority, they need to have the knowledge and skills to implement learning technologies, they need to keep apace of changing educational technologies, and they need to know what instructional strategies to use to optimize learning. Everyone involved needs to be committed to making the changes work, even if a pay-off is not immediately evident.

It is also important for those involved to be realistic about what they don’t know and to get the help they need. Common areas of concern or difficulty are the design and development of online curricula as well as the facilitation of curricula. Online learners should not be treated the same as traditionally-instructed learners, thus requiring short, concise blocks of text. Facilitation occurs in three basic formats: synchronous live events, asynchronous discussions, and coaching learners. Attention must be paid to soliciting real-world examples and to engaging in the social aspects of learning.

Finally, online learning requires knowledge of e-learning standards, learning objects, metadata, XML, and accessibility. Although this sounds like a lot to master, the authors’ advice is to jump in, start somewhere, and be prepared to keep on learning as the fields of educational technology and online learning are constantly changing.

 

 

Shank, P., & Sitze, A. (2004). Making sense of online learning:

           A guide for beginners and the truly skeptical.San

           Francisco: Pfeiffer .

 

 

---

 Week Two

Chapter Three

            The beginning of this chapter was a bit alarming, alluding to teachers becoming obsolete with the spread of technology in education. Teaching and learning are so intertwined, though, that the give-and-take between human teachers and their students will always be necessary. (Some days, teachers learn more from students than vice versa!) The first part of this chapter goes on to discuss the use of integrated learning systems (ILSs), aptly describing the role of the teacher in these systems as managers of instruction. Although ILSs were recommended to others by current users of those systems, data collection about the effectiveness of ILSs and their educational outcomes is too difficult to measure. It was a relief to read on and find out that teachers will still be needed and that technology should be considered a tool for delivering instruction.

            Next, the chapter focused on the question of when computer education should begin. It was not surprising to read that most mid- and upper-level secondary schools have a third more computer equipment than elementary schools have. One reason stated was the necessity to begin developing career skills during secondary level years. Otherwise, certain skills are needed on the part of young users which they might not have in elementary schools, but which are important to develop at a young age, such as cognitive development, finger dexterity, eye-hand coordination, an ability to understand computer instructions, and computer-use integration into subject areas. With the vast majority of elementary schools now having the necessary equipment and Internet access, educators generally believe that young students are cognitively ready to learn via computers. Videogame exposure has helped some children develop the necessary finger dexterity, if not on keyboards at least on the mouse, a joystick, or a trackball. Instructions for young children can be difficult for them to follow, so they need proper evaluation and supervision to minimize frustration. Finally, technology use is not to be used as a babysitter; teachers should be available to help and reassure rather than doing other work themselves while children are on the computer.

            A third section of the chapter discussed the use of assistive technology. Instead of thinking that physically-disabled, learning-disabled, or cognitively-disabled students can not use technology effectively and fully, educators should adopt the thinking that technology may be even more beneficial to these students than to other students; technology allows them greater communication and participation in the general classroom setting.

            Finally, the remainder of the chapter related to equity, namely gender, minority, and socioeconomic issues. The definitions of equity and equality were interesting, with equity relating to a qualitative property and equality relating to a quantitative property. (Linguistically, it seems to me that equality would relate to qualitative…) The two main gender issues deal mostly with performance and attitude differences between males and females. With regard to performance, boys may enroll in more courses using technology, so it may appear that they function better than girls at using technology simply because increased use may lead to increased skill. Research has also shown that boys and girls use the Internet differently; girls use it more productively whereas boys use it more to play around. With regard to attitude, some of the data cited in the chapter may be outdated as it was from 1994 and does not seem to fit today’s population as well as it used to. Ultimately, schools need to step up and be the part of the equation (society + school + family) that dissolves the gender stereotypes surrounding certain courses. Staff need to be educated about discontinuing these stereotypes.

With the issue of minority computer use, having the necessary equipment is not the only problem; the educational environment and context for technology’s use is also very important. Teachers need to be careful to use computers to develop higher level thinking skills for everyone. It should be a given that educators look for ways to have children of all races using technology together in order to have learning experiences in common.

            When it comes to socioeconomic factors, technology planners should gather information about technology access at home in order to best meet the needs of all learners. Schools should consider allowing access at school outside of the regular school days and hours.

            All in all, technology is an educational tool that can benefit everyone if used appropriately and productively.

 

---

 

Week Three

Article 3

 

            This article begins with the premise that educators seek to use computers in every way possible. It goes on to say that computers are used in schools to aid learning and to prepare students for computer use outside of school. The authors do not agree with these kinds of use; they think that the use of the computer itself has a negative cognitive and social effect on children.

            According to the authors, computer use has caused an overall diminished curiosity in the user. We are not required to find out how the computer works before we begin using it. Because most computer users don’t have an understanding of how the computer really works, they lack the ability to apply that understanding to other concepts. We also take for granted how other machines work.

            The authors make the argument that other machines do some kind of physical work of transforming, transporting, or storing matter, whereas computers can only “work” based on the input of ideas, which are not physical. Furthermore, computers work mostly with symbols, which, according to the authors’ belief in the Waldorf method of education, is too abstract a function to be used by anyone under the age of 15.

            The authors propose that educators use the computer in four basic ways: as a developmental or “authoring” tool; for programmed instruction; to simulate experiments;

and to generate productivity tools (such as spreadsheets). The authors argue that creativity and thought are restricted within the confines of the programs used and their languages, therefore not allowing students to think on their own. The Internet is also not thought to be a good source for learning; it is too logical-symbolic, it reduces education to information sharing, and it allows children to be their own decision makers as to the appropriateness of the information they access.

            Students aged 15-17 have the ability to control their use of the computer, according to the authors. (Younger children are fascinated by computers because of their ability to manipulate them, but they are unable to control the compulsion to misuse them.) 

            This article was long and repetitive. It is unnecessary for students to understand the inner workings of the computer in order for them to be able to use it for learning. Wisconsin Technology Education standards do not ask of students that they understand the inner workings of a computer until high school. The points the authors make illustrate the dangers of computers being used to replace teachers, hands-on experimenting, and social interactions. Students are only restricted by certain programs, and they are often guided toward greater creativity and higher-level thinking with the use of certain programs. As for the Internet “reducing” education to information sharing, information sharing is a basis for stimulating thought and formulating new hypotheses and conclusions. Young children need guidance and supervision while they use a computer, but they should not have to wait until they are 15 to learn how to use one.        

 

Monke, Lowell and Valdemar W.Setzer. “An Alternative View on Why, When and How  

            Computers Should Be Used in Education.”  http://www.ime.usp. br/~vwsetzer/

             comp-in-educ.html. July 24, 2003.   

 

 

---

 Week Four

Chapter Four

            This chapter discusses technology applications for educational administrators, the three major categories of which are databases, spreadsheets, and office automation. Additionally, the Internet provides access to many services of concern to administrators, including a wide variety of Web communications and networking, the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), statistical software, automatic phone-calling systems, and energy management, which, combined, lead to data-driven decision making practices.

            School district databases consist of data files and records regarding individual students, staff, classes, financial, and facilities. These are organized within data element dictionaries; the more complex and copious the information, the more complex the data element dictionary. Administrative access to minute data allows for close monitoring of many aspects of a school’s successes and shortcomings; it is also critical for state and local reporting and funding purposes.

            Electronic spreadsheets are commonly used to examine numerical data: for example, budgeting, accounting, enrollment, and test scores. Spreadsheet software has built-in arithmetic capabilities, so that a change in one cell, one part of the gridded document, is automatically calculated and applied to the other related cells. This kind of computation is fast and efficient, as well as being an easy way to plug in hypothetical numbers to make projections in many areas of school district planning.

            Office automation means more than just word processing. Although excellent word processing software is necessary, it is the combination of that with other functions, such as desktop publishing, email, voice mail, spreadsheets, and databases, which makes office communications more effective and efficient, with regard to both financial savings and time savings. Office personnel, and their respective technological systems, are the hub of information and communication; therefore, it is critical that these systems run smoothly.

            Finally, the chapter discusses data-driven decision making. As school personnel examine data relative to their populations, they must still bring to the process their own “experience, expertise, intuition, judgment, and acumen of competent educators” (79). Having been involved in what our administrators called a “data delve,” I have experienced firsthand the power of information. Analysis of data led us to set S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measureable, attainable, realistic, and timely) goals.