EDLD+5370

**Assignment 1.1: Web Conference** Did not attend web conference. I did attempt to join web conference on 10/7/2011 however the meeting never started. The message said "EDLD 5370 Internship for ETL the meeting has not yet started. You will be able to access the meeting once the host arrives. Please wait." I will attend next web conference on Tuesday October 11, 2011 8pm.
 * Week 1 **

** Assignment 1.5: Reflections on Technology Facilitator Standard I ** We must teach the teacher! Many times as technology leaders we fail to prepare educators with adequate technology operations with the assumption that it is common sense or simple enough for anybody to understand. Standard I is a non-negotiable standard that is needed in order for technology immersion to occur in any classroom. I learned several things from reading this chapter. First, I realized that other than a STaR chart assessment, I haven’t exactly taken the time to measure the teachers’ proficiency with technology operations and concepts. Simple tasks such as “identifying the different types of hardware devices available for use or practicing proper care and maintenance procedures for computing devices” may seem fundamentally easy for us technology leaders but may be considered a foreign language for many teachers, especially those who are considered veterans in the educational system (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 18). It seems that we always provide need assessments for our student learning needs however we put adult learning needs in the back burner. Even with just-in-time training for educators, technology is changing so rapidly that it is hard to keep up with the innovations. Take cell phone for example, manufacturers seem to roll out a new phone every couple of months which is a huge concern since cell phone companies lock in customers with two year contracts and force to pay full MSRP for a newer phone if still within contract. In other words, your new phone will be considered digitally old in just a few months. My favorite quote from this chapter was “given the dynamic nature of technology, maintaining technology competency is challenging even for educators with advanced skills” (Williamson, 2009, pg. 19). This is very true because I consider myself very proficient and when I visit conferences such as TCEA, I feel like I have been living under a rock. I think that for the most part teachers are genuinely interested in learning new technology skills however they are overwhelmed with the rapid changes and even the lingo that takes place when we discuss technology. The authors of made it very clear that we train teachers about new technology operations and concepts but it must be meaningful and helpful in improving their pedagogical approaches. I’m not going to lie, throughout the course of this master’s program, I did not read the chapters thoroughly and focused on just the technology standards to complete internship activities. As a result, I missed out on very helpful and valuable information that could of assisted me in creating better activities. On pages 29-31, there are a slew of resources staring me in the face. I’m not sure whether it was because I was lazy or too busy to look at these pages but it’s a real shame I made this discovery so late in this program.

What’s next? First step is to do a campus wide assessment using LoTi Lounge. According to the LoTi connection website, the survey is free to all however there is a fee for the profiler and observer. There is even a quick step-by-step PDF file for new users that can be emailed to teachers. My biggest concern with that is that I wont be able to track the campus results rather I will have to compile results manually and arrive at my own conclusion since I will probably use the free version. I remember using this in EDLD 5306 but it never occurred to me use it with my campus teachers. One of the best computer and Internet tutorials can be found at [|www.anniston.lib.al.us/computerinternettutorial.htm] page. This site even has tutorials how to remove spyware, a very FAQ many teacher are concerned about in both campus and home computers.

My goal to help support this standard even after graduation is have teachers complete an assessment; address targeted needs and continuously provide training on updated technology operations and trends due to the rapid change in technology.

Sources: Computer / Internet Tutorials. (n.d.). //Public Library of Anniston-Calhoun County//. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from []

Welcome to LoTi Lounge! (n.d.). //LoTi Lounge Hearing up Digital-Age Learning//. Retrieved October 6, 2011, from []

Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do//. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

** Assignment 1.6: Reflections on Technology Facilitator Standard II ** I always try to learn by making connections to previous learning experiences. Standard I dealt mostly with helping the teachers master technology operations and concepts. Standard II, as I understood it was taking those concepts, tools, and resources and apply them to classroom content learning. I guess it’s a little more complicated than that though. I actually read this chapter backwards since I knew that the goodies and resources are found in the latter part of the chapter. Indeed, this chapter had numerous resources. Two of my favorites websites in this section included [|educationworld.com/a_tech] and [|internet4classrooms.com/assistive_tech.htm]. I actually used the second resource above in several of my internship activities. It took me forever to find a website that had all the resources. If I had just opened my textbook to chapter 2, I could of looked the resources section and found the site right away. Either way, I’m impressed that I evaluated other websites thoroughly and still ended up using a website that the textbook suggested. It is important to note that this chapter is about how the curriculum influences technology and not the other way around. I took a sneak peak at the next chapter and the proceeding chapter is about technology driving the curriculum. I think at this point, teachers are somewhat proficient at finding resources and using tools to supplement their learning however they are not at the level to design curriculum around technology much less the other way around. So if I had to put my campus on scale, they would be stuck on Chapter 2. What led me to arrive at this conclusion were the tables in this section. For example, Table 2.1 describes the levels of technology implementation (LoTi) framework. After careful deliberation, I think we are on Level 2 Exploration, which states, “Technology-based tools supplement the existing instruction at the knowledge/comprehension level. The electronic technology is employed as extension activities, enrichment exercises, or technology-based tools and generally reinforces lower cognitive skill development relating to content under study” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 35). My hypothesis for this is that many teachers just aren’t aware of the levels of technology implementations and using technology at a low level with immediate success is sufficient for their classroom. The text in this chapter gave us great examples and insight however the most important resources in this chapter were none other than the tables.

What can I do to respond to the challenge of moving my teachers from a low level of technology implementation to what is known as refinement and completely learner based? The authors state that the best way to reach advanced stages is through modeling. “In advanced stages, leaders also develop products and models to assist other educators in designing learning” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 44). The battle has now become much more difficult. One question I asked myself was, is it possible for teachers to be somewhat proficient with technology operations and concepts (Standard I) and still be able to design their own classroom lesson that are rich in technology and learner based (Standard II)? Based on the internship hours I’ve completed, it’s possible for a few teachers to accomplish this with little basis of technology but for most it is highly unlikely that the lesson will work as planned without a strong grasp of technology fundamentals. Even if I design great examples and assist teachers in identifying resources, teachers will struggle without technology operations and concepts foundation. I think Standard II can be summarized in one word, “coaching”. What did I take from this chapter “in helping teachers shift from teacher-centered to student-centered learning, technology facilitators and leaders assume the role of professional learning coaches as they help teachers learn how to integrate technology to support engaging approaches to learning” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 45).

Last, I learned that I NEED this book past the completion of this program. Now that I have read the first two chapters, I will treasure this book and use it as a constant reference in my duties as a technology leader. I guess I could say its now my technology bible!

Sources: Education World: Technology. (n.d.). //Education World: The Educator's Best Friend.// Retrieved October 7, 2011, from []

Exceptional Children Resources at Internet 4 Classrooms. (n.d.). //Internet4Classrooms - Helping Students, Teachers and Parents Use the Internet Effectively.// Retrieved October 7, 2011, from []

Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do//. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

**Week 2**

**Week 2 Assignment, Part 1.1: Web Conference** This web conference was a success due to the active participation by the attendees. There were no problems logging in and this was one of the most productive meetings to date. Majority of meetings for other courses have depended on getting camera and microphone ready which usually results in loss of time. For me, I felt reassurance since many of the questions addressed were concerns I have been having. Majority of the conference was dominated by questions related to Week 1 Introduction and feedback. Dawn, our instructional associate, was present and reassured us that she will post grades by the end of the week. Dr. Kay Abernathy was very diligent and responded to almost all questions and even acknowledged my off topic comment about iOS 5. It's a sense a relief to know that Dr. Abernathy has compassion for us graduate students and is willing to work with us during her time off and any hour of the day. So with my questions answered, I'm off to work on Week 2 assignment and finish up all of my required coursework for graduation.

**Week 2 Assignment, Part 2.3: Reflections on Course-Embedded Assignments for EDLD 5362 Information Systems Management** **Week 2 Assignment, Part 2.4: Reflections on Course-Embedded Assignments for EDLD 5364 Teaching with Technology**

** Week 2 Assignment, Part 2-5: Reflections on Technology Facilitator Standard III: Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum ** Students enjoy using technology in almost all aspects of their lives however when it comes to applying it to their studies they are not adequately trained. The authors point this out several times throughout the chapter. “They are still unprepared to use technology to pursue post secondary studies, daily work in various professional and technical field, lifelong learning, and academic achievement” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 58), “business community members, parents, government officials, and educators are concerned that schools are not preparing students for life, work, and learning after high school” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 60), and “although teens may be able to use technology in their own personal lives, educators may have neglected to teach them how to use technology for learning and work” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 60) are all tied to a central theme. I most certainly agree with all of these statements and acknowledge that we are not making the connection between the technologies and the curriculum. Most educators use either or resulting in the opposite of interdependence. In addition to this dilemma, our educators are even further behind as they lack proper digital media literacy skills and techniques (2011 Horizon Report, p. 5).

As technology leaders, we must model the proper way to introduce the student technology standards (NETS for students) in any classroom to make best use of technology equipment and resources. I had a golden opportunity this summer to do just that. I worked as a technology facilitator during the course of 4 weeks. I was assigned to three elementary reading teachers and each one was to use a specific technology to teach poetry and other literary elements. The educators were issued technology equipment of their choice and more importantly they were allotted 2 hours per day with me. The third grade teacher was given a Mimio (smartboard), 4 iPads, digital camera and 6 classroom computers. The fourth grade teacher was assigned a digital camera, 4 iPads, and 6 classroom computers. Last, the fifth grade teacher was given 6 laptop computers and a digital camera. Daalma Cuevas, the third grade teacher taught poetry to a group of students in 50-minute classes. We took two field trips and utilized the digital camera to take pictures of sea turtles and other wildlife. We returned to the classroom and students created a Prezi (zooming presentation) of their field trips, haiku poems of their own on a haiku creator (web based), and highly interactive game based learning using the Mimio device. Jessica Salinas, the fourth grade teacher, used iPads with the students to create their own poems. Last, Marco Islas, fifth grade teacher allowed students to use the laptops to create their own comics using Pixton.com. Although Mr. Islas’ classroom only used laptops, his classroom experienced the highest rate of success among the three teachers. Ms. Cuevas did an excellent job using all 4 pieces of technology however the best tools were the desktop computers and the Mimio device. Last, Mrs. Salinas did struggle to incorporate the technology she had with her students. Her reliance on the iPads as her primary tool caused her to fall behind. We experienced many issues with the iPads including loss of Wi-Fi signal, Flash enabled websites and lack of options available to iPad users. I am very proud of Mrs. Salinas determination to stick with the iPads through the entire summer. I do believe that there are many positive learning experiences that took place during this pilot program. The best results came from using the laptops and desktop computers. Both Mr. Islas and Ms. Cuevas’ students were successful in teaching the content in a technology rich environment due to proper planning and openness to ideas. I assisted these teachers on a daily basis, provided resources, and modeled the use of these technologies to help teach their content. Although, I am a big fan of iOS devices such as the iPad and iPod, they have a long way to go in comparison to the versatility that laptops and desktops offer. Next summer my plans are help teachers use blogs in the classroom to focus on the particular content. According to Pitler and et al. (2007), blogs can be an excellent tool for students to learn poetry and be given timely and appropriate feedback (p. 53-54). It is an 8-step process however it allows for students to continuously refine their work and master the content at hand. This doesn’t mean I have given up on iPads. Although we had no true success with iPads, I am determined to develop lessons and ideas that revolve on this tablet device just in time for summer use. I plan to have example lessons and activities ready to model to next summer’s group of teachers. My goal is to prove that we can teach an entire unit using just one piece of technology and emit zero waste (paper and other tangible supplies).

Sources: Horizon Report 2011. (n.d.). //CoSN Home Page//. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from http://www.cosn.org/Default.aspx?TabId=6375

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works//. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do//. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

**Week 2 Assignment, Part 2-6: Reflections on Technology Facilitator Standard IV: Assessment and Evaluation** The main focus for Standard IV as a technology leader during the internship activities dealt with modeling and assisting teaches on how to use and locate various technology tools to assess student learning and improve their learning activities using a technology rich environment. I did provide training on our SIS and DMAC database designed to analyze data and interpret results. I assisted two teachers on how to use SRS systems to quickly and efficiently identify student performance. We used an old IR (infra red) based Turning Point SRS system which was very difficult to program. After programing the devices, we downloaded the most current software to create Powerpoint like games and questions. The students really enjoyed using these devices and the teacher was able to determine or assess student content mastery. With our recent purchase of iPads, we are looking to abandon the Turning Point clickers and use the iPad eClicker App that does exactly the same thing. Teachers can create the questions in their eClicker Host application and send out questions to participating client iPads. We purchased this App for $.99, a fraction of the cost that we paid for Turning Point clickers. The iPad version allowed us to insert high quality photos and graphs into each question for a better user experience. The application can also be used on iPod touch or iPhone devices which makes the App much more versatile. One benefit of using a classroom response system or SRS is that questions can be in multiple-choice format, which is the native format for most standardized tests. According to Pitler and et al.(2007), “when multiple-choice questions are appropriately designed, they can evaluate all levels of skill within Bloom’s taxonomy, from recall through evaluation” (p. 45). With emerging technologies like tablet devices and the ability to do the same thing as clickers and possibly better, what will happen to companies such as TurningPoint and eInstruction? From this experience I learned that is always a better way to do something. Through my exploration of iPad applications, I found a much more effective and innovative way to use the SRS technology.

Another method to assess student-learning needs is through computer based testing. Our school has used several of these computer based testing, none of which have lasted more than a year. We have used MySatori, StudyIsland, Heartbeeps and now we use e2020. StudyIsland was a form of adaptive testing because it changed the level of questions based on student performance. I recently learned that the adaptive portion of the program only worked for struggling students by lowering the level of question and did not tailor to high performing students. Until now, prior CBT programs we used were used merely to assess student levels and needs in correlation to annual standardized tests. I learned that our current CBT, e2020, is actually used for assessing student performance and in conjunction with classroom learning. One teacher commented that e2020 computer program is so thorough; it could even replace a teacher. I think what bothers me is that the computer based programs are not “well integrated into current instructional practices” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 80). One good example of this is the use of Eduphoria to create benchmarks and CBA tests and administering the test in traditional paper format. My question to educational leaders and district leaders is “why do we purchase such expensive software and don’t utilize all the features?” From a financial standpoint, I don’t see a good return on investment. I think that is what gives the CBT programs a bad name. Leaders see that they are not useful and they don’t renew the subscription. As as a technology leader, I will make it a priority to examine all portions of a program or piece of technology to make sure it suits our educational needs and is used to achieve its maximum potential.

My favorite tool for assessment is the use of technology project-based instruction. That means “maximizing the use of digital tools to better reach essential learning goals, expanding classroom boundaries so that students gain real-world experiences and become global thinkers, and creating experiences that satisfy diverse learning styles and learner dispositions” (Boss, 2007, p. 22). Williamson & Redish add that using technology tools can such as word processors, spreadsheets, desktop publishers, blogs, wikis, podcasts and other Web 2.0 tools actually allow for students to create authentic and original products. My favorite quote of this chapter read, “When appropriate criteria for acceptable performances are in place, these students artifacts and reflections can yield insight into learning in different and often deeper ways than multiple choice, true-false, and matching items on traditional tests” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 79). That quote still puzzles and amazes me at the same time. If we know such information and educational leaders talk about levels or rigor, why are we still using multiple-choice questions on standardized tests? It is clear that other artifacts yield a higher level of rigor. I am surprised to see how little teachers use rubrics as an assessment instrument. I currently use Rubristar for my College Readiness course. This week I created a rubric for a public speaking activity. I printed out copies for my students so that they can understand the criterion for grading. In addition, they are to use the rubrics to grade their peers’ public speaking performance in a collaborative manner. Grading is only the start to a collaborative process. Will Richardson (2007) stated that one day “our students will live and work a world where co-creation is the norm, and there is much to teach about that process” (p. 97). The students use technology to research their topic and create a multimedia presentation that enhances or supports their public speaking performance. I agree with the author on how many teachers use rubrics to assess student work however stick to traditional project based work rather than using technology based student projects. One tool that often goes overlooked in Reading and Language Arts courses is the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level Tool found in Microsoft Word and other word processors. Basically “teachers can use this to check the reading level of electronic text, as well as the level of students’ writing” (Duffield & Wahl, 2005, p. 7). I often assign writing prompts in my keyboarding course and make students use this tool not only as an assessment tool but as a rude awakening for their low level writing. Students may not be comfortable hearing about low performance from a teacher but when a computer does such an assessment it puts things into better perspective for them.

The other component of Standard IV is assessing student technology literacy. I think it’s quite disturbing to know that NCLB actually requires students to be technology literate yet many schools do not enforce this portion of NCLB. What can we do? I argue that technology literacy should be a high stakes standardized test along with all the other core academic tests. This is the only way that technology literacy will receive the attention it needs. State leaders, administrators, teachers, authors, publishing companies and other stakeholders would immediately adjust attention and funding to make sure that technology literacy becomes a high priority. Until then, “core academic content areas must and will receive top priority” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 82). On the topic of data management systems, I think companies are dong an excellent job. We have seen a major transformation including the move to web based and mobile access. Our current SIS has the capability to use a SSO (single sign on) to access finance, human resource and student information. Teachers and parents have access to student information anytime and anywhere. Most of the activities during my internship related to our SIS systems have been geared towards new teachers that need immediate training on how to navigate and manipulate the SIS and other databases. I understand that importance of continuous and followup trainings, therefore I am in the process of developing the next training scheduled for mid-November.

Last, I am very fortunate to be the campus technology coordinator. As a CTC and technology leader, I frequently have the opportunity to evaluate new technology. Just last year I was given a new iPad and several hundred dollars in iTunes gift cards to evaluate Apps that could assist teachers and students alike. Not only is it exciting to be able to evaluate technology on a constant basis but important job in order to defend technology against criticism. One of worst criticisms that I read in the textbook read “technology programs drain funds from other worthy causes, such as athletics and the arts” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 86). In my opinion, it is the other way around. Many coaches often argue that technology is a waste of time. I often respond by saying, “how many professional athletes have you produced"? Students are more likely to go to college and get a career that requires technology skills than becoming a professional athlete. So how does technology programs drain funds from other worthy causes when put in that perspective?

I just had an epiphany! I realized that the reflections for Standard III and IV are closely related to Assignment 2.3 and 2.4 reflections on course embedded assignments. Looking back at week 1, I noticed the same pattern. Assuming that the next two weeks will follow the same pattern it is probably wise to do the reflections on the standards before doing the reflections on the course embedded assignments since we would have a better grasp of content in each accompanying standard.

Sources: Boss, S., & Krauss, J. (2007). Real projects in a digital world. //Principal Leadership,// 8(4), 22-26.

Duffield, J., & Wahl, L., (2005). Using flexible technology to meet the needs of diverse learners: What teachers can do.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., Malenoski, K (2007). Providing Feedback. //Using technology with classroom instruction that works// (p. 45). Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Richardson, W. (2007). The seven Cs of learning: A new c-change in education. //District Administration,// 43(3), 97.

Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do//. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education

**Week 3** **Week 3 Assignment 3.1: Web Conference** This web conference helped me several APA style concerns on my comprehensive examination. Other students had similar concerns including whether the title page should be bolded. Dr. Abernathy reassured us that we should follow Ms. Kirkland's advice and make the changes that she suggests. Ultimately, Dr. Abernathy will not take off points when we submit our paper if we follow Ms. Kirkland's lead. We did uncover that many students including myself are falling behind and may next a week's extension after Week 5 to turn in all necessary internship documents. I have emailed Dr. Abernathy to ask her for an extension since I still need to finish up the reflections for the validation report. All in all, this was a very good web conference and reassuring. Again, Dr. Abernathy showed a lot of concern for us trying to get all work done to graduate. I appreciate having her as a professor especially in this extremely rigorous capstone course.

**Week 3 Assignment 3.2: Addition to Comprehensive Examination**


 * Week 3 Assignment 3.3: Reflections on Course Embedded Assignments for EDLD 5345 **


 * Week 3 Assignment 3.4: Reflections on Course Embedded Assgingment for EDLD 5366 **

** Week 3 Assignment 3.5: Reflections for Technology Facilitator Standard V: Productivity and Professional Practice ** Technology is not biased. In most cases you will find that there is some form of technology for any age group. Most digital immigrants may complain that technology takes too long to learn and argue that they have lived their lives comfortably without it. Chapter 5 of this textbook strives to present relevant examples of how facilitators and leaders must train students and teachers alike to embrace technology tools and resources in an effort to become more productive. Learning how to use specific software can dramatically help save time by completing tasks in an efficient manner. My selling point to educators is that technology will save you time, which in turn allots you more time for personal leisure. Ironically students use technology to accomplish tasks to improve learning and save time so that they have more time to use other forms of technology for personal uses such as social networking or computer gaming. In the opening paragraph of this chapter the authors point out “students also benefit indirectly when educators use technology to enhance their own productivity and professional practice” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 101). I truly believe that technology helps teachers accomplish tasks thus allowing for more lesson and activity planning. When educators are given additional time to reflect or rehearse, students are likely to see better teaching experiences.

With so many technology options available, it can be rather overwhelming for educators to decide which is best for them. I think that most educators lack the skill of “envisioning how a technology tools can be use to meet their needs and purposes” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 103). As technology facilitators we must assist educators with adequate training that will help them match technology tools with their specific needs. One way I have “bolstered” of technology is by providing training with specific examples for educators. For example, in September 2010, I assisted two language arts teachers by providing sample works created on Microsoft Publisher to enhance the curriculum. This application is normally used many contexts to create brochures, fliers, business cards and just about anything that requires precise creativity. I created brochure style booklets and other print jobs that can assist in content learning and overall student achievement. Another example was the use of Google Forms to help Mr. Lopez create web-based tests to measure student learning of subject matter and performance. Although Mr. Lopez is fairly proficient with technology, he lacked the vision necessary to generate ideas for the use of Google products. My biggest concern with helping teachers develop ideas on how to use specific technology is the dependence they may have on the technology facilitator for idea generation. My problem is saying no to teachers because I have a tremendous responsibility to help them any way that I can. On the other hand, I am hindering their ability to produce their own ideas because they know they can count on me. That is a dilemma that I do not know to face. The authors introduce a term called contextualization to describe the lack of educational uses general technology tools offer. In my opinion, I don’t think that is the case. I think that there has been an increase of educational support for many tools and resources. For example, many websites now offer various versions of their services for K-12 adaptation. Not all features may be available like the general or corporate version however it is nicely tailored for the educational environment. Another example that disproves the authors point is the tremendous response of vendors and exhibitors that present their products for K-12 sector at conferences such as TCEA Austin every February.

I like how the authors mention how the lack of technology use in schools cause students to “power down in several significant ways” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 105). This is supported by Mark Prensky’s research. “When kids come to school, they leave behind the intellectual light of their everyday lives and walk into the darkness of the old-fashioned classroom” (Prensky, 2008, p. 42). The children power down not only their devices but more importantly their brain (Prensky, 2008, p. 42). Currently schools teach in linear ways, which may be detrimental to student learning. “Linear though processes that dominate educational systems now can actually retard learning for brains developed through game and web-surfing processes on the computer” (Prensky, 2001, p. 4). Given the opportunity to be a computer can help engage students in an amazing way or as research states "power back on". It's no wonder that students always say that I'm their favorite teacher. Honestly, I doubt it's me as a character, I think I'm their "favorite" because the nature of the computer class that allows them feel comfortable. My classroom is a sanctuary or a world they are familiar with. Just this week, our Teen Leadership teacher used the lab with her students to complete research on bullying. This is a direct quote from Ms. Barbosa, “What the hell, every single one of my students did their work here in the lab and in the classroom they don’t even want to write”. I apologize for the mild profanity but I had to quote her directly. This is just one of many comments that teachers make that put a positive spin on computer and technology based learning. You have no idea much that comment made me smile!

In addition to helping teachers find creative ways to use productivity tools, we must also adhere to a professional learning environment through formal and informal methods. Just like student learning, adult professional development must also be learner-centered. One of the key principles for learner centered professional development is “focusing on what the students, in this case educators, are to learn and how to address the different problems students may have in learning the material” (Learner Centered Professional Development, par. 3). One way we can prepare for this is by asking questions and administering a needs assessment. One of the popular needs assessments for technology is the STaR chart. The results can help technology facilitators narrowly focus on what the teachers and students need and want to learn. Every year the results indicate that our campus is in great need for technology professional development yet this type of training is seldom offered. Looking back at this last school year, my activities and trainings probably account for 90% or more of the technology training offered for my campus. Based on that, I can honestly say that I single handedly addressed a very important need. Although the activities I made weren’t exactly derived from the needs assessment, it turns out that most of the activities (based on ISTE standards) were actually very close to what teachers had been seeking in learning. Another way of supporting the professional learning environment is by modeling continuous learning. I have done so this week by subscribing to eSchool news, a website I have found at the resource section of this book while reading this chapter. I have read a couple of short articles that support my education as a technology leader. One of the top articles and has a lot of debate is the “bring your own device” program many districts are implementing to help save costs. I am going to share this article with dean of instruction to include for next week’s team planning session.

Sources: Learner-Centered Professional Development. (n.d.). //Online Texas Teacher Certification Program | Teaching Certificates//. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from http://www.online-distance-learning-education.com/article_info.php?articles_id=91

Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. //Educational Leadership, 65(6)//, 40-45

Prensky, M. (20010. Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 2. //On the Horizon, 9(6)//, 1-9.

Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do//. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

** Week 3 Assignment 3.6: Reflections for Technology Facilitator Standard VI: Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues ** Chapter 6 of this textbook addresses topics of which I have many stories to tell. If you guessed it deals with legal issues, you are correct. The chapter is broken down into 5 major sections; digital equity, privacy and student records, online safety, technology and copyright, and policies, procedures and advocacy. I will discuss a little about each section and discuss how my campus may have violated or is guilty of wrongdoing. The purpose is not to get anybody in trouble rather acknowledge these sometimes-rebellious acts that can eventually have a significant monetary or social impact on our district.

I agree that our district has done an extraordinary job at closing the digital divide gap. Authors Mason and Dodds (2005) predicted that one way many schools were going to accomplish closing the digital divide is the use of tablets and other portable technologies (p. 26). They were right on the money because many students now have access to the world wide web and a number of other tools right on the palm of their hand. It’s not a tablet or laptop, it’s a mobile phone that has capabilities and speeds better than mobile phones from ten years ago. My district is 93% economically disadvantaged however majority of the students are equipped with a cell phone. During the beginning of every semester, each one of my students creates a Gmail account so we can communicate effectively in the classroom. Google account creation sometimes requires student to verify information by sending a text message to a mobile phone. This is the only time I allow my students to have their phones on. I was amazed to see the number of students equipped with the latest smartphone. My campus has a history of not meeting federal and state accountability standards however we are the best equipped campus when it comes to technology. I think it is important to note that we are well equipped because much of our equipment such as computers and iPads were purchased with funds that were allocated to address our struggling school. In other words, not meeting AYP allowed us to get ahead in technology in comparison to the other campuses that consistently meet the accountability standards. I brought this up because it is quite disturbing to know the chain of events that led to this technology blessing. I agree with the authors’ data that states “technology in poverty settings focus on drill, skill, and other lower-ordered cognitive tasks, while students from more affluent areas are using technology to solve problems, create products, and publish on the world wide web” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 126). In my campus’ case, we have all these subscriptions to TAKS aligned drill and kill programs to help with interventions rather than to solve problems or be creative. It does bother me when administrators instruct me and other computer teachers to allow students to use these programs during class time. They assure us that by doing this, we are doing our part to help our students. I disagree; we are only helping them pass a multiple choice test, not become proficient with technology or become problem solvers. In my class, I do a bell ringer that is TAKS aligned during the first five minutes of class. I use TAKS questions from the most recent release of tests and enter them into a bank in LanSchool and push out the daily bell ringer to all student computers. I get immediate feedback on the areas students struggle and then provide this information to math and science teachers. The way our computer teachers assist the core content areas is by assigning projects that relate to Math and Science. For example, one of the assignments that I normally assign during the semester is the creation of a website using Googlesites. Students are assigned a major science topic and they log on the internet to research, collect data, and create their own website that allows other students to learn about their assigned topic. The students enjoy creating their own websites especially because they are empowered to be as creative as possible. I learn along with the students. Through their creativity, I learn new skills and evolve as an educator. As far as putting them on drill and kill programs, I am not complying with that request.

Next topic of great concern is student records and privacy. Our district has some of the best network tools that allow for safe and efficient data transmission. The fault in many cases is the end-user. The authors Williamson and Redish state that “the most common security threat are uniformed or careless users” (p. 128). Although we have not seen any security breaches, there are some areas my campus needs to improve in order to maintain a safe haven in terms of student and teacher data. I’ve walked into countless classrooms where teachers allow their students to use teacher PC to complete tasks. There is nothing wrong with that except that they stay logged into their student information system, teacher email, and other programs that expose a lot of student information. Another common mistake teachers make is when they send a student to my class with a note for me to reset their email password. That’s fine except that they request I write the password on the note that the student is carrying back. Last, I’ve seen administrators and teachers send out emails with detailed student information. This is strictly prohibited by the district and has been addressed time and time again.

Online safety is a very popular topic that is also gaining tread. First, I must address our school filtering system. There is no balance between what is blocked and what should be allowed. This causes a lot of frustration for teachers and students alike. Things that should be blocked are not and sites that are not supposed to be blocked are. In my opinion, my district needs to purchase a better filtering system that gives campus coordinators access to filtering levels. We do have a website block/unblock request form however it just takes too long to get that accomplished. On a positive note, I can proudly say that I am part of the 8% of schools that provide cyber safety training and as a result of EDLD 506. Since last August, I have trained lab teachers and given them resources about teaching online safety. In every one of my semester classes, I make each one of my students watch videos, play games and use the tools found on Netsmartz.org site. Students are to summarize their learning experiences of this website before they can participate in the latter part of the activities such as blogs, Google Sites, and other Web 2.0 tools. This is my way of issuing a “drivers pass” to my students and participate using online communication tools. In addition, I also utilize classroom management software to constantly view student activity. I blacklist certain words, websites and take screenshots of student screens if they are straying away from learning. One research article states that the middle school students are the largest group of Internet users that post to online discussion groups and other social networks (Adelman, 2004, p. 17). The research was very applicable in 2004 however in today’s rapid increase of technology usage by all age groups, we may have a greater dilemma in our hands. As student access to the Internet rises, we must adequately teach online safety as they enter elementary schools not only to protect the school from legal ramifications but also to teach how to become better producers than consumers of online data. During this last summer’s pilot program, I witnessed 3rd graders’ ability to use the Internet effectively to find photos and relevant research data. I was pleasantly surprised to see such productivity at such a young age. On the other hand, these students were constantly supervised and did not have the opportunity to stray away. If left alone, I think those students have the knowledge to purposely find inappropriate content. We have to face the reality that Internet users are getting younger and younger each year and majority of the time they don’t learn the appropriate things first.

I believe that any educator that allows students to use electronic resources needs to make it a priority to teach students about plagiarism. As technology teacher, students often use the lab to complete research. In my observations, I’ve seen students copy and paste literally a whole page and type their name in the heading. I often educate the students in my classroom about this topic however I do not service all the students on campus. Other violation of intellectual property is the unlawful distribution and installation of software on school computers by students and teachers. As a technology coordinator for my campus, I am often asked to make duplicate copies of classroom CD-ROMs or install software using another district’s license, usually the school the teacher worked at last. When I first started working at the campus I am at, I had so many outrageous requests some of which may not be appropriate to write about. Teachers would mention “well our last CTC would do that for us”. These requests have stopped to a certain extent but I think it is because they have found someone else who will do these requests for them. I tend to agree with the following quote “software piracy is the same as stealing, and it can have serious consequences yet most students are unaware that it is wrong” (Kruger, 2003, p. 188). This pertains to both teachers and students. Students utilize the excuse “we don’t have money to purchase games and software” while teachers say, “the school does not want to cough up the money to buy us this software”. According to Hall Davidson's research (2005) “most copyright abuses in education are a sign of weakness in the instructional program, not necessarily an indication of inadequate resources” (p. S2). One way we have cut down on piracy at our school is putting installation restrictions on student computers. Only teachers and staff have been given limited installation rights. That means they may install essential updates and add-ons such as Adobe Flash, Java, and other codecs. Students have been limited to a basic account with absolutely no privileges. This has significantly cut down on viruses and the installation of pirated software. Still, at the end of each year we refresh or image all school computers and find “tons” of pirated music and film on teacher and student PC’s. This is usually brought in using external hard drives or USB flash drives.

Our school district does a poor job of relating technology policies and procedures. The only reference made to acceptable use of technology is in the student and teacher handbook, which I seriously doubt that any teacher, parent, or student has read. I acknowledge the lack of exposure at the district level and have implemented my own AUP for my classroom every semester. The expectations for my students are extremely high and the language used in the AUP is updated every year to consider new and emerging technologies. I have shared my AUP with my fellow colleagues and they have used it in their lab classrooms. One area that I did not consider and have failed to address was the use of laptops in the classroom. Many more teachers are using laptops much more frequently and are not prepared with their own AUP. I will distribute my AUP to all campus teachers in an effort to promote ethical use of campus technology and the ramifications for noncompliance. Our school district is way behind in many of the topics discussed in this chapter however I feel confident that through many of my internship activities, my campus has seen forward progress and will continue to be the leading technology school in the district.

Sources:

Adelman, H. (2004). Teaching online safety. //Voices From the Middle, 11(3),// 17-22.

Davidson, H. (2005). Copyright primer for administrators. //Technology & Learning, 25(11),// S2-S8.

Kruger, R. (2003). Discussing cyber ethics with students is critical. //Social Studies, 94(4),// 188-189.

Mason, C. Y., & Dodds, R. (2005). Bridge the digital divide for educational equity. //The// //Educational Digest//, 70(9), 25-27.

Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do//. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

**Week 4**

I was disappointed knowing that I cant graduate in December but at the same time I am at ease because I know I have a lot more time to complete the reflections for my summary validation. In fact, I have until April 1, 2012. I probably wont take that long and will try to complete everything as soon as possible. I am shooting for early January. I am happy for those graduating in December and wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors. I will graduate with my original cohort 14. At least I know that I've put in the hard work for this course (5370) now and wont have to stress that much in the Spring.
 * Week 4 Assignment 4.1: Web Conference on Sunday 10/30/2011 6:00 pm **


 * Week 4 Assignment 4.2: Addition to Comprehensive Examination **


 * Week 4 Assignment 4.3: Reflections for EDLD 5326 School Community Relations Course Embedded Assignments (substitute for EDLD 5363) **


 * Week 4 Assignment 4.4: Reflections for EDLD 5335 Curriculum Management Course Embedded Assignments (substitute for EDLD 5365) **

Chapter 7 quite possibly sums up my job as a campus technology coordinator with the exception of the procurement duties. I read this chapter more than once because I was able to relate much of the technical information given in this chapter, especially when dealing the infrastructure. Although I am not familiar with the procurement process of providing access to technology, I feel that this chapter gave me a lot of insight and knowledge into the role of technology director.
 * Week 4 Assignment 4.5: Reflections for Technology Facilitator Standard VII **

I have been involved in the planning stages of technology deployment on several occasions. Most notably was the pilot program of the iPads. One of the most important parts of the planning stages is the selecting technologies process. Williamson & Redish (2009) clearly state that technologist should “consult with teachers and involve them in the selection process of the technologies used for standards-based teaching and learning” (p. 150). Our technology director does an excellent job of involving teachers and campus technology coordinators when selecting new technology. Unfortunately there have been cases when our curriculum directors select pieces of technology based on workshops they have been attended. They are notorious for selecting equipment that goes unused and very outdated. For example, this past summer a director ordered 8 Dymo MimioTeach Interactive systems without consulting with our technology director or a technology expert. Apparently, this director was mesmerized with this product by attending a booth at a technology conference. The products work well however the way the campuses set up the media systems does not allow for this device to work well. All 8 of these devices are currently sitting in an office somewhere unused. Total loss for this was $6400. Another costly example was the recent purchase of My Reading Coach program designed to help students with literacy. Again, it is a great program however our director was not informed of the purchase. Turns out, the assistant superintendent purchased a district license at a cost of forty thousand dollars and this program has yet to be used in any of the campuses. Our director refuses to install this program because the content must be pulled from our network and it drastically reduces network speeds for the entire district. So you see, our district doesn’t have problems consulting with teachers about certain technologies rather certain directors, with usually no technology expertise, do not involve technology experts in the decision-making. This decision making process has made it difficult for me to implement some of the activities because the underlying issue in most cases has to do with the infrastructure and permanent fixtures that cannot be easily remedied. If I get hired as a technology integration specialist for the district, I will make mandatory that I become part decision-making process for all technology equipment for the classroom.

I completely agree with the authors on the issue of computer and technology ratios. The old 5-to-1 ratio is not sufficient and there needs to be a push for a 1-to-1 ratio. If we do not strive for this goal, teachers will continue to cite it as the reason for not implementing technology in the classroom. This summer, I had the opportunity to implement technology in three separate classrooms with somewhat limited technology. As I observed the students use iPads, I realized that 5 iPads per classroom was not enough. While students waited for their turn on the device, precious learning time was lost. One can argue that schools are impeding learning when they fail to provide 1-to-1 accesses to technology. Educational experts and school administrators argue that we must provide students with differentiated instruction. In the latest Horizon K-12 Report (2011), one of the critical challenges faced in schools is that “the demand for personalized learning is not adequately supported by current technology or practices” (p. 5). This research further extends the notion that schools must move to a 1-to-1 model. How can educators be expected to provide personalized learning if each student is not provided with their own personal computer?

Another very critical portion of the planning process is the factor of professional development and training. The recommended percentage of the budget that needs to be allocated for professional development is 15-30% (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 157). In my experience, I seen as little as 0% of the budget used for professional development. It’s no wonder many of the technologies in my district go unused. I am currently working with our ACE program after school as a district technology technician. One particular campus spent several thousands of dollars in eInstruction products such as the Mobi Mobile Interactive Whiteboards and RF based student response systems. I am required to install these two separate devices in the classroom and provide one to one training to all the teachers that have received this equipment. All the while, I have never been formally trained in using these technologies. Luckily, I am a very quick learner. I managed to read the manuals and watch the tutorials to become quite knowledgeable on the products and their possible uses. The point is, they should have sent me to proper training so that I could feel more comfortable as the trainer of trainers. A great source that I used to learn more about student response system is the book titled //Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works.// My initial perception of SRS systems was that it mostly for formative assessment and getting simple feedback. However, the authors gave an excellent example of how a teacher can use this technology to “start discussions with students and invite students to defend their answers in a way that elevates the synergy of learning” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007, p. 48-49). Again, I was wrong about a piece of technology and made the mistake of assuming that it had very limited use.

Implementing new technologies and technology monitoring/maintenance has been something that I have been doing even before enrolling in the Lamar educational technology program. One of my proudest accomplishments is the implementation of the iPads at the campus I work for. It has been over a year and half now and the process still continues. I faced so many obstacles from its inception. The first struggle was with the wireless network. After months of documented problems, we installed Merakis (repeaters) that helped solve the problem. Today, you can walk into any part of our campus and have a strong solid signal. Next, I had to convince teachers that the iPad was a useful device despite having limitations. The most common complaint was the inability to print and view flash based websites. I was able to provide teachers a list of applications that I had personally reviewed that could be used in the classroom. Also, I worked very closely with a model teacher, Mrs. Moreno, and used her classroom as an example to other teachers. Finally, just last week, we solved the issue of iPad transportation. Previously we had to haul around, charge and sync each iPad individually, which was very daunting task for both the teachers and myself. We finally received our Bretford iPad cart that allows me to sync and charge iPads simultaneously in one convenient cart. Teachers can feel more comfortable about leaving the iPads in the classroom because the cart comes with a combination lock. Now, as I visit other campuses as the tech for ACE after school, I am encountering many of the same issues we had at our campus including the wireless network and the Apps. Although, I am not in charge of the other campus iTunes spending accounts, I will ask our director to provide me with a special iTunes account that I can use to in all campuses. I plan to buy Apps directed towards the elementary level and study the effects that these Apps have on elementary children.

I believe that I did an excellent job with performance indicators 1 and 3. As a CTC, I am constantly “making effective use of the instructional facilities – classrooms, laboratories, and media centers as well as configuring hardware and software to support a variety of proven instructional methodologies” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 163). In addition, many of the activities I completed throughout the course of this program more than exceed the requirements for the indicator. As a CTC, I have been in technology conferences and monthly meetings that have helped me manage school facilities and technology resources. If I was not the CTC for my campus, I may have had a harder time performing many of the activities for this program, especially those related to Technology Facilitation Standard VII.

In order to master standard VII, much needs to be learned about procurement and planning process. As I become more comfortable with implementation and maintenance tasks, I think there will be plenty of opportunities to be involved in other essential duties of standard VII. For now, I must become very proficient with the duties I am assigned to and be proactive about learning what I not familiar with.

Sources:

Horizon Report 2011. (n.d.). //CoSN Home Page//. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from http://www.cosn.org/Default.aspx?TabId=6375

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., Malenoski, K. (2007). //Using technology with classroom instruction that works//. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do//. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education.


 * Week 4 Assignment 4.6: Reflections for Technology Facilitator Standard VIII **

I’m going to be very honest, I don’t have much experience being a leader. I can relate to chapter 7 because I have plenty of experience with management of technology but lack the educational experiences that could consider me a visionary or a leader. Based on the characteristics of a leader from Table 8.1, most of the experiences I’ve had relate to motivating and inspiring teachers to embrace and use technology in their daily lives and classroom instruction (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 178). I can only think of two major activities that have directly dealt with me improving my leadership skills. The first activity was the integration of iPads in the classrooms. This activity was quite a challenge and continues to be work in progress. I developed my own strategies for classroom use of the iPads. Some of the strategies included finding apps that directly correlate to the content and finding creative ways to use general applications to solve problems. For example, I downloaded and modeled the use of several apps for history including HD United States Constitution, Declaration, This Day, Library of Congress Virtual Tour and Early Jamestown. More importantly, I found creative uses for apps like Google Voice Search and Wolfram to find web content, problem solve and do comparative analysis. I also inspired Mrs. Moreno to use these devices on a frequent basis to engage her students and learn history like a 21st century school should. I believe I did a great job at implementing the iPads in the classroom however we are a long way from perfection. Some teachers are still dissatisfied with the limited use of the iPads and the lack of training. I enjoy negative feedback from teachers because it motivates me to work hard at finding effective solutions, especially with equipment that I truly love on a personal level. One of my favorite quotes from this chapter was “leadership and a strong vision are necessary to push technology into less familiar, but promising, constructivist contexts” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 179). This is especially the case with this activity with the iPads. I have had such a struggle to convince educators that this new innovative piece of technology can has the power to “enable new ways of teaching and learning in classrooms” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 179). This is also supported by research in the latest Horizon Report K-12 edition. It seems that it has become a critical challenge for technologists to convince educators that new technology has the potential to “engage students on a deeper level” (Horizon Report, 2011, p. 5). I must continue to evolve as a learner and provide relevant examples for the uses of new technologies in order to have the teachers sold. Without relevant examples and coaching, we will continue to disengage students with traditional educational practices.

The second activity that I completed that helped me with the standard and indicators for this chapter was the Summer ACE Technology Integration Pilot Program. I assisted several elementary teachers use technology including iPads, Mimio interactive white boards, laptops, digital cameras and web 2.0 tools. I was supervised by Dr. Cynthia Galvan and provided me with staff, equipment, and leadership support through this month long program. This summer activity helped me “gain experience in the instructional, technical, and administrative performances associated with being a technology professional in K-12 schools” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p. 187). In fact, it motivated me further to pursue an instructional technology specialist position after my graduation from Lamar University. I enjoyed working alongside other educators and instilling a sense of excitement for teaching and learning with technology. I admit the program was not a complete success rather a learning experience. We ran into infrastructure problems, schedule conflicts, and lack of decision-making skills in my part. For example, one of the classrooms had poor wireless signal, which made it nearly impossible to use the some of the iPads. Later I found out the director was disappointed that I didn’t change the classroom to another part of the building in order to solve this problem. She told me that as a leader I must stop making excuses for the problems we encounter and find effective solutions. Dr. Galvan was absolutely correct, I could of done so much more rather than give up. If I had read this chapter thoroughly before I engaged in many of the activities, I would have been well equipped and confident enough to make my own decision at my discretion and know that it is okay to do so as part of being an effective leader. I know that this summer, if given the opportunity, I will do things a bit different. For example, this time around, I will choose my own classroom setting, choose the technology I feel most appropriate and collaboratively write lessons with the chosen teachers before the start of the program. I now know that technology leaders and teachers must work together in developing lessons in order to match needs and address issues in a timely manner. In the future, there is no doubt that the first step in planning will be collaboration with teachers. We lost too much precious learning time because I failed to act as a leader.

One area I would like to improve on is of long-range strategic planning. The activities I have done have only impacted a single campus, a set of teachers, and other district personnel. The activities and trainings were helpful to the small percentage of educators I assisted; however it is time I provide district level activities to make a larger impact. At this level, I may become much more successful at creating a community-based vision and expand my knowledge base and skills to the entire k-12 system. Our district has set forth a great mission statement that entails how we will use technology in our classroom but does not convey a vision statement that tells our stakeholders where we want to go all this technology. “An organization that fails to develop a vision statement loses the opportunity to present itself favorably to existing and potential stakeholders” (David, 2006, p. 63). I love my district, however, we have failed miserably. We don’t have the right training, staff, and planning to make use of all the technology we have. At this rate, we will never reap the full educational benefits that technology has to offer to student and educators alike.

Sources:

David, F. (2006). //Strategic management: concepts and cases//. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Horizon Report 2011. (n.d.). //CoSN Home Page//. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from http://www.cosn.org/Default.aspx?TabId=6375

Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do//. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

**Week 5** **Comprehensive Examination** updated 11/6/2011