Standard+I

EDLD 5370 Assignment 1.5: Reflections on Technology Facilitator Standard I

To be frank, I am aware of the standards and knew that I was to be implementing them in my field-based activities but I did not really sit down to truly understand them. It’s like the TEKS we know they are there but don’t always take the time to analyze for in-depth knowledge. Sitting and reading for this assignment has revealed many ‘aha moments,’ as to why our campus is not fully utilizing technology available nor implementing technology in the curriculum. Our performance standard I: Technology Operations & Concepts as written by ISTE/NET that technology facilitators & leaders possess the fundamental understanding and skills needed to operate specific technologies and understand the concepts associated with technology use.

In reading about Standard I, a statement hit close to home; “EdWeek’s Market Data Retrieval Survey reflects 15% of schools – roughly equaling remain at //beginning levels//” (Williamson & Redish, 2009, p19). How true that rings! About six years ago our district was very instrumental in hiring our District Technology Director. He led us from a small-rural district to a technology-rich rural district that can now reach across the nation through the World Wide Web. As I stated in my bio, our campus is technology enriched with two SmartBoards on every grade level. Now this was not accomplished within a year, it took at least four years to arrive at this level. Yet, not very many people are using their boards, but they don’t want to relinquish their boards to others who would use them effectively. I believe on my campus, I am the only educator that uses it more than once a week; I use it all day throughout my curriculum. I believe that our teachers could be efficient if they were to receive continuous on-going Professional development. We were given a one-day (all day) seminar on the use of the SmartBoard and no follow-up training was available. Just last year we received another one-day (all day) training, again no follow-up training. Like our students we realize that students need constant review of concepts thus the spiraling concept. However, that is never extended to our educators. Why do we assume they know it all, just because they have a degree does not indicate that they are proficient in technology?

Standards like TEKS need to be aware so that educators can implement in preparing our students for the 21st century. “It would seem that 30 hours of sustained, hands-on technology training should have conferred some degree of ‘proficiency,’ which should then have spilled over into actual classroom use. Yet, when asked to survey their individual software application skills, 60% of the teachers reported ‘no’ or ‘low’ levels of proficiency with the applications in question” (Burns, 2002). This really hit home. All our teachers have laptops and at least 4 to 5 computers in their classroom. They receive professional training every Tuesday during our conference time. And, every 3 weeks, the teachers have after-school professional training. Our Computer Instructional Technologist sits in during our grade level meetings to help us embedded technology into our lesson plans. It seems like a perfect school environment, yet our teachers don’t feel comfortable with technology. Though the teachers are skilled in the basic software programs, the complaint is unsure how to implement technology in their lessons. The teachers are using the technology the students are not. Reasons for not implementing technology: takes too much time, not sure how it’s done, don’t know where to look for information. Mr. Jones finds this a weakness with professional development. He states, “But the professional development approach that supported the initiative was driven more by the products than by instructional needs, and as a result, the district did not achieve all the results it wanted for teachers or students” (Jones, 2007, p35). Cutbacks can really hurt a district especially in the area of technology support. In our case the cutbacks eliminated the positions of our technology facilitators who provided the personalized, hands-on support on campus. When there is a breakdown in support, there is no push for educators to continue technology. Our Academic Coach wants to know how I use my SmartBoard for every lesson, yet others to do not. I will be providing mini lessons on how to integrate the SmartBoard into curriculum. In reading standard 1, I realize the importance of not teaching isolated skills, but skill-building approached that are job-embedded. I have been talking to our Science Committee Leader about the importance of having the primary level teachers teach science in the lab. Teachers are afraid to use the lab and not sure. She asked how we could provide training for teachers and students to use the science lab. I suggested that she present a science lab demonstration using video podcasts. When holding our PLC meetings ask the grade-level representatives what they will be learning in the next two weeks and her science committee can organize the lessons to provide such science lab trainings. The video podcast will be available for the teacher to show the students what expectations are and the teacher will also know how to conduct the experiment. Then when teacher & students enter the science lab; then there is no fear of what to do?

Slowly I find myself in the role of leadership. Many times my Academic Coach will come in and visit to pick my brains. My enthusiasm for my Lamar classes and my urging her to pursue her Masters has incited her to start with Lamar in February, when I am finishing up.

** ﻿ ﻿ Reference ** Burns, M. (2002). From compliance to commitment: Technology as a catalyst for communities of learning. //Phi Delta// //Kappan,// 84(4), 295-3003. Jones, E. (2007). Strategies to put instruction ahead of technology. //Principal Leadership//, 7(6), 35-38. Williamson, J. & Redish, T. (2009). //ISTE's Technology Facilitation and Leadership Standards.// Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.