Action Research allows educational leaders the opportunity to take charge of their own professional growth and to be at the center of transformation of their profession. In all cases of Action Research, or "Inquiry", the intended outcome is to create effective change that will continue to promote growth via innovative approaches to the educational experience and bring the educational community towards one vision. Action research can be an inquiry devoted solely to that of the role of the educational leader, utilized in an academic setting of higher learning as a classroom strategy, performed as a group of leaders at the district level to create a unified group of learners and is highly effective in providing a framework for action in Professional Learning Communities that can be established on any campus. All of these approaches to inquiry create a direct path for educators to work closely with others while continuing to monitor and shape our educational outcomes. The key difference between that of action research and traditional research is that action research is always a response to real experiences in an educational community, whereas traditional research has historically been devoid of direct contact with a campus community and almost always happens solely at the University level. Rather than believe that one type of research is better than the other, I think it best to believe that these two practices share an equally important and symbiotic relationship in regards to shaping the future of education.
I will continue to use action research as I evolve my own professional practices so that reaching my desired goals will be more efficient and with greater precision. I know that if I can do both of these things, I will also gain the respect of those that I lead and will be a more effective life-long learner in my role as a leader. I will absolutely use the action research model to bring the campus community together to share strengths and vision via a Professional Learning Community.
Elvis says, "Get movin!"
Friday, July 15, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
To Blog? Or not to blog.....
I'd love to argue that blogging is not a relevant tool for sharing information, gathering data or bringing professionals together, but I know better. I am a blogger, plain and simple. I have been blogging since 2007 in regards to Travel. Initially, I started blogging as a creative way to fulfill my grant recipient obligation with Fund For Teachers. http://www.teamartforlife.blogspot.com/ I enjoy writing and this was a fun way for me to share my (mis)adventures with family, friends, colleagues and even Fund For Teachers, while also creating a digital journal of my amazing experience. Naturally, when I decided to take high school students on a trip abroad, I knew from my own personal experience, that a blog would serve the same purpose as my Fund For Teachers blog. Thus, the creation of http://www.mhsarttoparis.blogspot.com/ After utilizing this blog in regards to international travel in situations where I was "in charge" of other people and thus had to streamline information while also reassuring family members at home that we were alive and well and on schedule, I knew that when I started taking adult tours abroad, that this would now be a part of the routine. http://www.seeitaly2010.blogspot.com/ I have recently decided to utilize this very comfortable, easy and FREE resource to assist me with my hobby dog breeding business. http://www.doxieeelicious.blogspot.com/ (still under construction).
What does all of this have to do with utilizing blogs as an educational leader? Easy. Information sharing is no longer acceptable in antiquated forms. Antiquated modes of communication is no longer effective and will cause leaders to lose respect from others, for being technologically dated in a setting in which we have expectations of those we serve to utlize current forms of technology. Of course, electronic sharing of information cannot substitute the necessity for face to face or phone communication, when sharing more personal or small bits of information. But with 1000's of emails being shared per year amongst educators, on one campus alone, the necessity to streamline information is growing rapidly. Utilizing various blogs for differnet initiatives, groups, subgroups, etc. is clearly a smart choice, especially with the ease and capability of technology specialists on campuses to design an easy way to store and share these various blogs. I have shown just a few ways above, how I have used blogs for different personal circumstances. The common goal of each blog is the effort to streamline information so that it is a useful tool and is frequented by others. So in answering the question "To blog? or not to blog...." as an educational leader? Absolutely!
What does all of this have to do with utilizing blogs as an educational leader? Easy. Information sharing is no longer acceptable in antiquated forms. Antiquated modes of communication is no longer effective and will cause leaders to lose respect from others, for being technologically dated in a setting in which we have expectations of those we serve to utlize current forms of technology. Of course, electronic sharing of information cannot substitute the necessity for face to face or phone communication, when sharing more personal or small bits of information. But with 1000's of emails being shared per year amongst educators, on one campus alone, the necessity to streamline information is growing rapidly. Utilizing various blogs for differnet initiatives, groups, subgroups, etc. is clearly a smart choice, especially with the ease and capability of technology specialists on campuses to design an easy way to store and share these various blogs. I have shown just a few ways above, how I have used blogs for different personal circumstances. The common goal of each blog is the effort to streamline information so that it is a useful tool and is frequented by others. So in answering the question "To blog? or not to blog...." as an educational leader? Absolutely!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Technology Professional Development Plan
Per the analysis and lessons learned about the technology needs from the Week 3 report, the single major deficit in our district and campus technology planning and implementation is in regards to using technology in a meaningful way alongside curriculum content. Our district and campuses, using state and national standards, measure their success in terms of making technology available to teachers, but use little time or resources in developing technology rich lessons for students. Further, there is little to no data collection that takes place, at any level, regarding the technology knowledge of teachers, or in how the curriculum is being enhanced with meaningful use of technology. Thus, my professional development planning will cover two topics: meaningful integration of technology and data collection regarding teacher training needs and use of technology in the classroom.
At the campus level, I believe it is important to understand and agree that the district and campus plans have some deficits in terms of teacher training, data collection and meaningful implementation. Once this is established, I will take the following actions with the appropriate personnel, in designing professional:
Data Collection:
1. Survey teachers in regards to their knowledge of district technology, such as, groupwise, eduphoria, moodle, teacher websites, Microsoft power point, LCD, document camera and white boards. This survey (survey monkey, etc.) will act as a survey of what equipment and software is in place and also the depth of their knowledge regarding these items.
2. Survey teachers in regards to their use/knowledge of wiki’s, hand held devices, blogs, use of email to turn in documents, on-line assessment, on-line group collaboration sites, internet and data storage.
3. Survey students in every class, with their subject and teacher noted, in regards to how they are allowed and/or asked to use technology in the classroom.
4. Survey students, on one survey, as to what type of technology they would like to use at school each day and what barriers they face repeatedly in using technology.
5. Collect budget and training data in regards to how much money is allocated for technology training and planning each year.
6. Make a chart that shows the intersection of all of this data.
7. Make a list of teachers who scored the highest according to students, in their use of technology in a meaningful and diverse way, in the classroom.
Disaggregate data and decision making team:
Lead by the principal, a professional learning committee will be formed with the following members: Lead principal, campus technology coordinator, one IT specialist, Department Chairs, any curriculum specialists on campus and the top three teachers, per the student survey, who are effectively utilizing technology. After looking at the chart of data collected above, this PLC will begin to make a list of priorities, to redefine campus goals that are specific to curriculum and instruction. This will be done first as a campus plan and then broken down further into curriculum content teams. The campus technology coordinator, IT specialist and lead principal will develop an on-line training and assessment tool for all teachers to meet basic standards.
Whole Campus training:
The entire campus will be shown the results of the data collection and then a plan of action that includes the number of days, hours, and end goals to be achieved will be outlined with the whole campus. Each teacher will have similar measurable goals where basic technologies are concerned. Using the on-line training and assessment tool designed above, each teacher will either show mastery of the basic functions or will have to take an on-line tutorial regarding each topic and then repeat the assessment. Any teacher failing to meet a minimum standard will be noted and professional development will be required during the school year, during conference periods and hosted by the campus technology coordinator. These goals will be met within one school year.
Departmentalized curriculum planning with measurable goals:
Beginning in year two, after the entire campus, including any new personnel, is meeting minimum technology standards, department meetings, lead by the department chair, will become professional learning committees. Within each department, technology goals will be discussed, researched and then decided. These goals will be in line with District and campus goals but more importantly, in line with the goals that were determined per the data collection listed above. After creating these content specific technology goals, each department chair will submit a department specific report back to the Disaggregated data and Decision Making team for discussion. After this PLC looks at all reports and discusses, modifies and approves each department plan, this team will then begin the process for professional development.
Technology Integration Professional Development Action Plan:
Considering all steps above, in sequence, the plan for choosing or developing meaningful professional development will be implemented. The principal will discuss the amount of funding per teacher, with the Disaggregated data and Decision Making team. Each person will discuss which trainings can be provided by department chairs and then create a timeline for these. A budget report will also be provided for each of these, including sub coverage for the department chair, if necessary. With remaining funds, the principal will allocate a training budget to each department chair and then allow them to find meaningful content/curriculum training for their whole department or individual teachers within a department, depending on needs. Working with their supervising assistant principal, a budget report for each training will be submitted for approval before initiating the training. The timeline for these trainings will be one year. The total time from data collection, whole campus training and department specific training will be two years and then will continue to cycle annually from the end of the second year.
Post Assessment:
At the end of year two of this technology integration professional development action plan, all data collection listed above will be repeated and a comparison chart between the first data collection and the second will be made. This data will enable the Disaggregated data and Decision Making team to evaluate what part of the professional development plan has worked and what needs to be changed. The results of this post assessment will be shared campus-wide.
In addition to the post assessment, students and teachers will perform a survey/assessment each semester as part of the final exam process. This technology survey (the successful completion of it) will be a small part of the final exam grade for students and part of the evaluation and end of the year check out process for teachers. This will enable the technology decision making PLC to keep up with mid and end year results to make adjustments as needed.
At the campus level, I believe it is important to understand and agree that the district and campus plans have some deficits in terms of teacher training, data collection and meaningful implementation. Once this is established, I will take the following actions with the appropriate personnel, in designing professional:
Data Collection:
1. Survey teachers in regards to their knowledge of district technology, such as, groupwise, eduphoria, moodle, teacher websites, Microsoft power point, LCD, document camera and white boards. This survey (survey monkey, etc.) will act as a survey of what equipment and software is in place and also the depth of their knowledge regarding these items.
2. Survey teachers in regards to their use/knowledge of wiki’s, hand held devices, blogs, use of email to turn in documents, on-line assessment, on-line group collaboration sites, internet and data storage.
3. Survey students in every class, with their subject and teacher noted, in regards to how they are allowed and/or asked to use technology in the classroom.
4. Survey students, on one survey, as to what type of technology they would like to use at school each day and what barriers they face repeatedly in using technology.
5. Collect budget and training data in regards to how much money is allocated for technology training and planning each year.
6. Make a chart that shows the intersection of all of this data.
7. Make a list of teachers who scored the highest according to students, in their use of technology in a meaningful and diverse way, in the classroom.
Disaggregate data and decision making team:
Lead by the principal, a professional learning committee will be formed with the following members: Lead principal, campus technology coordinator, one IT specialist, Department Chairs, any curriculum specialists on campus and the top three teachers, per the student survey, who are effectively utilizing technology. After looking at the chart of data collected above, this PLC will begin to make a list of priorities, to redefine campus goals that are specific to curriculum and instruction. This will be done first as a campus plan and then broken down further into curriculum content teams. The campus technology coordinator, IT specialist and lead principal will develop an on-line training and assessment tool for all teachers to meet basic standards.
Whole Campus training:
The entire campus will be shown the results of the data collection and then a plan of action that includes the number of days, hours, and end goals to be achieved will be outlined with the whole campus. Each teacher will have similar measurable goals where basic technologies are concerned. Using the on-line training and assessment tool designed above, each teacher will either show mastery of the basic functions or will have to take an on-line tutorial regarding each topic and then repeat the assessment. Any teacher failing to meet a minimum standard will be noted and professional development will be required during the school year, during conference periods and hosted by the campus technology coordinator. These goals will be met within one school year.
Departmentalized curriculum planning with measurable goals:
Beginning in year two, after the entire campus, including any new personnel, is meeting minimum technology standards, department meetings, lead by the department chair, will become professional learning committees. Within each department, technology goals will be discussed, researched and then decided. These goals will be in line with District and campus goals but more importantly, in line with the goals that were determined per the data collection listed above. After creating these content specific technology goals, each department chair will submit a department specific report back to the Disaggregated data and Decision Making team for discussion. After this PLC looks at all reports and discusses, modifies and approves each department plan, this team will then begin the process for professional development.
Technology Integration Professional Development Action Plan:
Considering all steps above, in sequence, the plan for choosing or developing meaningful professional development will be implemented. The principal will discuss the amount of funding per teacher, with the Disaggregated data and Decision Making team. Each person will discuss which trainings can be provided by department chairs and then create a timeline for these. A budget report will also be provided for each of these, including sub coverage for the department chair, if necessary. With remaining funds, the principal will allocate a training budget to each department chair and then allow them to find meaningful content/curriculum training for their whole department or individual teachers within a department, depending on needs. Working with their supervising assistant principal, a budget report for each training will be submitted for approval before initiating the training. The timeline for these trainings will be one year. The total time from data collection, whole campus training and department specific training will be two years and then will continue to cycle annually from the end of the second year.
Post Assessment:
At the end of year two of this technology integration professional development action plan, all data collection listed above will be repeated and a comparison chart between the first data collection and the second will be made. This data will enable the Disaggregated data and Decision Making team to evaluate what part of the professional development plan has worked and what needs to be changed. The results of this post assessment will be shared campus-wide.
In addition to the post assessment, students and teachers will perform a survey/assessment each semester as part of the final exam process. This technology survey (the successful completion of it) will be a small part of the final exam grade for students and part of the evaluation and end of the year check out process for teachers. This will enable the technology decision making PLC to keep up with mid and end year results to make adjustments as needed.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Star chart
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Star chart
View more presentations from LisaSavage11.
The National Educational Technology Plan: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology.
The National Educational Technology Plan is at the very least, impressive. I found the plan to be well organized, beginning first with outlining what it means to be a 21st Century learner. "The model of 21st century learning requires new and better ways to measure what matters, diagnose strengths and weaknesses in the course of learning when there is still time to improve student performance, and involve multiple stakeholders in the process of designing, conducting, and using assessment. In all these activities, technology-based assessments can provide data to drive decisions on the basis of what is best for each and every student and that in aggregate will lead to continuous improvement across our entire education system." The remainder of the report talks about what it really means to build a technologically rich learning environment for this 21st Century learner that includes assessment, recognizing basic assumptions, allocation of funding and training necessary to have a technology ready work force in the classrooms. The plan sets measureable goals and recommendations for emeting such goals. Again, I am left wondering how these goals are accounted for as our district makes a lot of assumptions that we are meeiting these goals but does very little to ensure that we are meeting them. Outside of hardware/software purchasing and installation, no other attention is given to technology, especially in regards to training and/or working to incorporate it into the curriculum in a meaningful way. The plans spends a lot of time and space asking districts and campuses to discuss, define and have a common definition of critical terminology for the technology needs. This comprehensive plan is only as good as the paper it is written on if educators are not paying any attention to it outside of filling out the STaR chart, as required by the state.
Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for technology in Texas
Reading the progress report on the long-range plan for technology in Texas, for me, was frustrating. Frustrating because clearly there is a well thought out plan for implementing technologies needed for the 21st century learner, but from my vantage point, there is a huge loophole. I believe that the STaR chart, while it is a remarkable tool, is only as good as the people who are supposed to use the data. So while the data exists and the plan is in place, unless districts and campuses are held accountable, the data is useless. Each year, our campus is told that there are thousands of technology dollars that need to be spent. I believe after reading this progress report, that it's money being misspent. I have never once attended a technology training for teachers, nor have I been asked to create a technology component in my curriculum writing. I believe that districts are so overtaxed, which trickles down to administration, then campuses, then teachers that there is no room for improvement. Until there is accountability by the state or a district policy is put into place regarding training and allocation of funds, 90% (if not more) of the focus will simply be on putting hardware and software into place and merely "hoping" that the district trains it's teachers. Until there are more time and resources for training during a contractual year, then there will always be a large deficit where technology pregress, effective use of technology in the classroom, is concerned.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Educator Preparation and Development: Technology Plan
In choosing to write an opinion of one of the four areas of the Texas Long Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020: Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support; or Infrastructure for Technology, I wanted to discuss the one that I feel has the most impact (or the least) on successful integration of technology into the classroom. As described in the long range plan, this area addresses the need for educators to graduate from programs that model current technology and know how to use it effectively in the teaching and learning process. New teachers will know how to develop new learning environments that utilize tech as flex, collaborative, interactive and customized for individual learner. Further, new teachers will ensure the integration of technology throughout all curriculum and instruction. After reading this section twice, I was left shaking my head. I chose this section because I was sure it would address the deficits in training for veteran teachers. Today's preservice teachers are far less likely to be technology immigrants and thus are the people I am the least worried about in this area. Data being generated should be targeting those who have long been teaching, identify their weaknesses where technology is concerned and then develop meaningful inservice. I am baffled at how much wasted type there is in this plan that is clearly a loophole as not one administrator I've worked for since the inception of this document has ever developed any inservice regarding technology, or even utilizing technology for that matter. I think TEA is going to have to develop much stronger, precise, measurable (on more things that just a Star Chart survey) plan of developing teachers and then hold districts and campuses accountable. As it stands, all principals that I have worked for have asked us to take the star and then we never discuss technology afterwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)