For any technology plan to be effective, there is a need for good data that is used to make decisions. In our case one of the assessments used is the Texas STaR Chart which is completed by the teachers, campus and district administrators. The information provided by the STaR chart, along with other data collected, is used to make decisions on training, funding and integration of technology. In reviewing the STaR chart results for our campus there were gains in two areas, “Teaching and Learning” and “Educator Preparation and Development.” In these areas the campus moved from Developing to Advanced Tech. This may be an indication of the change in the teacher demographics. As the more veteran teachers begin to retire, teachers who have been exposed to technology at an early age are replacing them. Because of their level of comfort and expertise, these newer teachers have a better handle on the use of technology and are willing to incorporate it into their lessons.
The surprise was the decrease in the area of “Leadership, Administration and Instructional” support. This may be due to the lack of vision being expressed by our administration team. At one time, technology was a large focus on our campus “for doing old things, in old ways” (Prensky, 2008). As new research was released, the administrators began to understand the need for integrating technology in the curriculum. This change was reflected in our Campus Improvement Plan (CIP). The technology was embedded in the different areas for improvement and was not listed as a separate goal. This change in the CIP did not include professional development for the teachers either in how the technology worked or how the technology integrated into the instruction. Because of this, teachers’ perceptions reflected less administrative support for technology.
With regards to students, there is no assessment of the student’s technology knowledge and skills levels at the high school level. It is perceived that the students have master the required Technology Application objectives and are technologically savvy. With this perception of the students and their needs, teachers who are trying to incorporate technology are often surprised and frustrated that the students do not have the technology skills required for the lesson. In many cases the teachers themselves do not have the skills and therefore, cannot guide the students. This is one area on our campus that needs to address in the CIP.
Though the STaR Chart is a technology assessment being used in our district, it must look at other factors when making decisions. When looking at the improvements or decreases, we have to understand that these are the perceptions of teachers or administrators and how they view themselves and the use of technology on their campuses. Some teachers answered the questions in the way they believed administrators wanted them to answer, even though the only instructions given were to answer the questions truthfully. Some administrators answered with what they wanted the campus to reflect rather than what was truly happening. Since the data collected by the STaR Chart is perception and not fact, there needs to be several areas from which data is pulled to ensure that the decisions being made for the district and campuses is a true assessment of need and not one that is skewed by perceptions.
Prensky, M. (2008). Adopt and adapt: Shaping tech for the classroom. Edutopia: The George Lucas Foundation.
The surprise was the decrease in the area of “Leadership, Administration and Instructional” support. This may be due to the lack of vision being expressed by our administration team. At one time, technology was a large focus on our campus “for doing old things, in old ways” (Prensky, 2008). As new research was released, the administrators began to understand the need for integrating technology in the curriculum. This change was reflected in our Campus Improvement Plan (CIP). The technology was embedded in the different areas for improvement and was not listed as a separate goal. This change in the CIP did not include professional development for the teachers either in how the technology worked or how the technology integrated into the instruction. Because of this, teachers’ perceptions reflected less administrative support for technology.
With regards to students, there is no assessment of the student’s technology knowledge and skills levels at the high school level. It is perceived that the students have master the required Technology Application objectives and are technologically savvy. With this perception of the students and their needs, teachers who are trying to incorporate technology are often surprised and frustrated that the students do not have the technology skills required for the lesson. In many cases the teachers themselves do not have the skills and therefore, cannot guide the students. This is one area on our campus that needs to address in the CIP.
Though the STaR Chart is a technology assessment being used in our district, it must look at other factors when making decisions. When looking at the improvements or decreases, we have to understand that these are the perceptions of teachers or administrators and how they view themselves and the use of technology on their campuses. Some teachers answered the questions in the way they believed administrators wanted them to answer, even though the only instructions given were to answer the questions truthfully. Some administrators answered with what they wanted the campus to reflect rather than what was truly happening. Since the data collected by the STaR Chart is perception and not fact, there needs to be several areas from which data is pulled to ensure that the decisions being made for the district and campuses is a true assessment of need and not one that is skewed by perceptions.
Prensky, M. (2008). Adopt and adapt: Shaping tech for the classroom. Edutopia: The George Lucas Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment